Friday, May 08, 2009

Star Trek Sucked

Everyone else is going to love the new Star Trek movie, but not me. It's got great visuals, great casting, great acting, great editing, and just about everything you'd want in a Hollyword blockbuster movie. It's got all the appropriate "in" jokes that left the Trekkies in the audience giggling throughout the movie. For me, though, it's not what I want from a Star Trek movie.

First of all, I hate time travel. It's a form of "deus ex machina". If you allow time travel in your universe, then the universe has no rules because people can go back and change what happened. Everything becomes a loose end. If the bad guys blow up a planet, just go back in time and kill their grandfather. It means no story truly exists, because someone can come back from the future and change the story. It's the second worst plot device in sci-fi (the worst is where at the end you realize it was all a dream). Time travel is the last refuge of incompetent writers; if they can't figure out how to fit a prequel into the Star Trek universe, they simple go back in time and change the universe.

Second, the movie isn't sci-fi enough. What makes sci-fi different than other genres is that the "setting" is as interesting as "plot" and "character". Blade Runner would have been a good movie, but what made it a great movie was the distopic, cyberpunk vision of the future. In the new Star Trek, the setting is more of an update to the latest fashion rather than the latest technology. It sure is pretty, but it's not interesting.

Lastly, and most importantly, is that the movie is the opposite of Rodenberry's original vision. Rodenberry showed us future not just where technology had improved, but where people had improved as well. Spock's logic wasn't something to look down upon, it was something to look up to. Things like the "Prime Directive" showed the importance of ethics. In this new Star Trek, the opposite is true. Kirk acts like a small minded jerk, demonstrates no moral fiber or great character, and yet is mysteriously promoted above those who do show character. I suppose this is what Hollywood has to do in order to sell movies. Everyone wants more money. However, if you are producing a movie, you don't make one that glorifies hard work, risk taking, education, or saving. Instead, you show movies where rich people steal money and act like greedy bastards, so the audience can feel better about themselves for their lack of industry, risk taking, education, or savings.

It was Rodenberry's belief in mankind that made the original Star Trek series a commercial flop, but cult favorite. I guess you can have one, or the other, but not both.

72 comments:

KiltBear said...

Harrumph. I'll probably enjoy it, but like you, I'll probably be terribly disappointed in "the message."

It's one of the reasons I have always hated Kirk, and loved Picard. Kirk was the yahoo, Picard was all over the prime directive.

KiltBear said...

Oh, yeah... time travel story lines suck bigtime... the only one I ever enjoyed is when they pushed Tasha back through time.

Anonymous said...

/agree about time travel in general, but there are several different flavors.

1. changing the past will change the future (optional whether you can be eliminated by your own actions in the past). How "long" it takes for your actions to ripple uptime is also variable. This is the star trak universe, as well as many others. This is the worst of all types for reasons that you outline as well as others.

2. changing the past creates a new future branch. Optional you can travel between the branches. This usually translates to a multiverse where there are infinite branches where everything that could happen has happened. Boring.

3. you can go back, but nothing that you do will change anything. Usually boring. Option that it is difficult but not impossible to make a lasting change, but then it collapses to type 1.

Andre Gironda said...

There are a few definitions of "sci-fi". Yours is clearly oriented towards one direction. The dream/time-travel version of "sci-fi" is on the other. Both are probably right.

In any case, the movie is going to do extremely well, and many children/young-adults are going to live brighter and happier lives because this type of sci-fi enhances and encourages their imagination, albeit in a cheap and lame Hollywood way. Compared to everything else out there, this is a serious boon to our society.

Achilles said...

agreed. good review. Writing was terrible and in many cases fell flat.

I also didn't get into the villian at all, again attribute it to bad writing.

Clay said...

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film as 'Fun, Watchable'

Anonymous said...

http://startrekxisucks.blogspot.com/

Slick_richie said...

it sucked big time cause of the plot!!

how in hell do you go back in time through a black hole!?!?!?

the ships looked too far fetched to how they were originally, sure they could be updated a little but how the enterprise was modeled looked a bit too fat and roomy outside when when you see it inside, it was too crowded!! (like the hanger bay)

also if the future has been changed then spock from the future would not exist and come back in time and romulus would be destoyed regardless and captain nemo or whatever the hell his name is, wouldnt come back for revenge.

there is more but i dont have time to say it now

Sean S. Photography said...

I am glad to see that I'm not the only Trekkie to feel that this movie sucked. I think they got the minute details right but totally missed the spirit of Star Trek. I do not see a problem with making Star Trek into something with broad appeal but I certainly don't think you should substitute a character-drive story with actual substance for flashy sets, poor injections humor and CG eye candy. Should the tongue-in-cheek campy style of the original been emulated through and through? No. But for love of God, make a movie that an audience with half a brain can enjoy too.

After Star Trek: Nemesis, I really disconnected from Star Trek and hide myself away in "old" episodes of Deep Space 9 and TNG. This film really put the nail in the coffin for me. I am utterly embarrassed but that won't really matter because "everyone" else is completely enamored by this film. At least Paramount will have a broader base to sell re-mastered DVDs and Bluray discs to.

Bottom line: this movie is like suffer a transporter accident right after the indigestion of someone force feeding you dilithium crystals sets in.

SweetDobbsy said...

I just got back from watching Star Trek. I was horribly disappointed, when asked why, I replied that after watching ST:TOS, or ST:TNG, or the old movies I always walked away with a distinct since of pride to belong to the human race. After that there was nothing but disdain for the people who gutted the moral fiber out of a lifelong friend and mentor and replaced morality and honor with explosions and graphics.

RM said...

The one great thing about this version of the Star Trek Universe is that Wesley Crusher may NEVER EXIST!!! WOOHOO!! That alone justifies the change.

Anonymous said...

What was with the well armed cargo ship???? And why is it a cargo ship of doom? Come on!

Why did the cargo ship look like that? Shouldn't they have been reMan and not Romulian?

This story sucked. No Vulcan doesn't even exist. wtf?

Matty Brown said...

I'm not a Trekkie in the least. I'm just a 26 year old guy who casually enjoyed the classic Star Trek series, the original movie series and some of Next Generation as a kid. I really had my hopes high for this movie especially since I thought I liked the works of J.J. Abrams. I was hoping this movie could bring back some sort of childhood feeling about the Star Trek universe and maybe even make Star Trek as a whole a little "cooler".

THIS MOVIE F*CKING SUCKED MY F*CKING ASS. What a BORING, RIDICULOUS piece of SH*T. Poor Leonard Nimoy. He is a smart man who himself directed Star Trek IV in the original movie series. I cannot imagine for one second that he saw this finished product and wasn't embarrassed to be part of such a SHALLOW, FORMULAIC, BY-THE-BOOKS SUMMER BLOCKBUSTER.

Who the F*CK is paying all these critics to give this movie outstanding reviews? I was contemplating walking out at around the half hour mark but I stuck it out trying to figure out why it could possibly have a 97% Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I think this is going to be a case where people say they like this movie as some sort of "mass hysteria" where people feel like they are supposed to like it. But they don't, they couldn't possibly.

IT SUCKED!!!

-Matty Brown
eternitycomplex@yahoo.com

gfb said...

Been a Star Trek fan since the late 80's and this movie is a piece of shit.

The common response from serious trekkies is that as a stand alone film it was well produced and a good cast, however, the writing was a total piece of garbage.

J.J. Abrams thinks that his lack of knowledge on Star Trek is something that has helped the Star Trek franchise, but it has NOT.

If he had any idea what it was about he would have wiped his asshole with that script.

Here's the HUGE plot holes I've read and discovered thus far:

1. Story line is destroyed

2. Simple mining vessels are not usually heavily armed, especially with retarded shattering missiles.

3. It is not possible to traverse space via a blackhole let alone time. Wormholes sure.

4. Considering only a droplet of this never before seen "Red Matter", lame name by the way, is needed to collapse a star, an ignition of the entire supply of that stuff which seemed like alot would have produced a super massive blackhole the size of which would have engulfed the Earth's entire solar system even after being at warp for several seconds. :)

5. Physics Violation, Supernovas happen all the time in every galaxy and are far to small to threaten the entire galaxy!

Also, supernovas dissipate after awhile in reality, but even if this magically super fueled supernova had continued to expand and destroy shit it's diameter would have grown to such a size that the blackhole Spock created would have only absorbed a small portion of it.

It is more likely that the detonation of the entire red matter supply would had a far better chance of destroying an entire galaxy than the supernova itself.

6. Regardless of what race in the Star Trek universe, space bearing ships are not usually constructed with floating platforms over deadly pitfalls that allow for dramatic leap scenes, well except for the Borg but even they had the good sense to add hand rails.

7. Temporal Mechanics Violation.

8. Ships with spinning circular rings are not cool.

I'm sure there are many more, but I don't care.

I was depressed when I left the theaters.
Throughout the movie I kept waiting for Spock to telekenetically saw through Nemo's skull and mind meld out his ability for idiotic reasoning.

How the hell would someone want revenge for trying to stop a catastrophic supernova??
Because he was expected somehow to both stop the event and at the same time save Romulus? Impossible.

I reject this reimagined shithole, and file it under alternate reality nonsense as I am sure many true fans have already as well.

Anonymous said...

I'm with Matty -- I really really did not like this movie, and all the time I was watching it, I kept thinking "It HAS to get better! This is STAR TREK for heaven's sake!" But it didn't. I think even if I hadn't had such high expectations, it still would have been a less than satisfactory experience. I'm no physicist, but I'm pretty sure I learned in 3rd grade science class that you don't "travel" through a black hole. Sigh.

ChazMaz said...

Biggest issue is it was not the story of Kirk or of the Enterprise crew. IT was the story of a parallel Kirk and crew. So the Enterprise that we have known all these years still needs to be told. Did not like to be lead on.

ChazMaz said...

Also, why did spock dso the "space final forntier" speach. Should not of Kirk done it? The young Kirk? It couild have been a GREAT movie.

ChazMaz said...

Biggest issue is it was not the story of Kirk or of the Enterprise crew. IT was the story of a parallel Kirk and crew. So the Enterprise that we have known all these years still needs to be told. Did not like to be lead on.

Anonymous said...

Incredibly on point.

Anonymous said...

Someone please, please please . . .

Please find me a black hole so I can go back and time to make JJ Abrams mother and father wear a condom.

The new ST movie was pathetic. Bad acting, and as the original blogger mentioned, use of time machines to fill voids left by lazy writing.

This would get a C in a HS script writing class.

Totally lacking was any sort of character dep, but then we wouldn't know that Eric Bana was playing a real bad guy unless he was always bad.

Anonymous said...

Nokia in my Star Trek?
Not bloody likely!

Anonymous said...

I feel like we have all been slapped, punched, and stabbed in the face! Thanks Abrams! You made the whole history of Star Trek a big joke on us! I wonder what Tuvok would say... OH WAIT, he never existed!

Anonymous said...

I didn't like this movie either. The time travel creating this new timeline SUCKS! Ok so everything I've ever known about Star Trek from TOS onward is not supposed to exist? That means only the Enterprise series was "real" That's a bunch of bullarky!! As someone else mentioned the only time travel story I liked was with Tasha Yar, and her daughter.

Skammy said...

STAR TREK FOR THE TRANSFORMERS CROWD

**** SPOILERS ******

Very poorly written, it's sad to see this happen to star trek. Hopefully J.J. Abrams will get the hell away from this. (has he ever done anything that intelligent people can stomach ?) Please get Brian Singer. Maybe he can save it.

uggggh
- useless car scene at beginning
- ridiculous monster chase Kirk scene.(not to mention Spock kicking someone of the ship....come on....necessary for the plot type thing they sorta wrote a bit)
- Spock is captain, Spock breaks down, Kirk is captain Spock comes back Kirk is still captain ( you wanna drive for a while ? na go ahead maybe next time we pull over I'll drive)
- etc etc

but what REALLY annoys me is.......
I kinda like it, it had great effects, and the casting was great Kirk was kinda of at first but had some more Kirkisms later. Spock was great too, and i dont have a problem with him struggling with his human side a bit more than TOS.
McCoy was friggin great and he stole every scene he was in for me, I like that guy in every movie hes been in. He nailed it.

After all is said and done, if I was to re edit it, I would just add a scene at the end, where Bill wakes up , and it was all a dream.

skammy said...

Side note
VGER is still coming back. Maybe this time everybody dies.

ChazMaz said...

This is the biggest confusion. When Voyager came along they came across the " temporal police". They were from the future, and their job was to sneak into the past and correct the time line that gets damaged when someone decides to do the time travel thing. With that said, they should have corrected that time line issue and all should have ended up nicy nice. My twist on the movie is at the end, when they were trying to escape the "black hole" they should have been sucked in. Then we should have seen a 30 second rewind of the movie. Starting with a close up of Kirk's mother holding her child. The audience thinking we were back to the death of Kirk's father as she is wisked away in the shuttle craft. .We zoom out to revile the father reaching out to touch his child and to comfort his wife. Time line fixed.

Anonymous said...

Incredibly, we'll probably see better science in Will Ferrel's Land of the Lost than we will in Star Trek.

Lila Maldicion said...

Star Trek: Nemesis was an amazing movie compared to this 2009 embarrassment.

I cannot stand how so many people think this was a good movie! Get me off this planet.

detfrost1 said...

This movie destroyed the possibility of Voyager ever happening; by destroying Vulcan therefore destroying the potential for Tuvvok.

HATE.


(If I hadn't realized that, midway through the movie, I would have enjoyed it).


On the other hand the new kirk had a huge package and that was kinda hot.

Anonymous said...

this is heartbreaking. i don't know why it is getting good reviews. this reminds me of indiana jones and the crystal skull. i wonder if south park will do an episode where cartman imagines that j.j. abrams has raped mr. spock.

why do the time travel shit?!?!?! i was into it until they destoyed vulcan and the entire star trek timeline. it's like killing off 5 series at the same time. or, at the very least, making it "just a dream."

i'm nauseous. damn you to hell,you traitor, j.j. abrams !!! (and i really like Lost!!!!)

Anonymous said...

this is heartbreaking. i don't know why it is getting good reviews. this reminds me of indiana jones and the crystal skull. i wonder if south park will do an episode where cartman imagines that j.j. abrams has raped mr. spock.

why do the time travel shit?!?!?! i was into it until they destoyed vulcan and the entire star trek timeline. it's like killing off 5 series at the same time. or, at the very least, making it "just a dream."

i'm nauseous. damn you to hell,you traitor, j.j. abrams !!! (and i really like Lost!!!!)

Beyond Belief said...

Yep I too thought it sucked all the way around for most of the reasons well noted in your post and the following comments.

And all of my friends just loved it. What Kool-Aid were they serving at the theater that I failed to sip?

Thanks for your post. Really I was beginning to think I was just being a hardass not that there's anything wrong with that.

Man Overboard said...

Did anyone else notice that Nero's ship was completely stolen from the Shadow Scout Ship in babylon 5. Or that the scene were Kirk arrives at the Enterprise Contructions site (in Iowa?) was stolen from Top Gun? Pipes on the Enterprise? Come on!

Agreed - this was garbage. When will they learn - DO NOT MAKE PREQUELS!

Howie said...

This was a "no thinking" movie. It was an attempt to get money from people that are starving for a good space sci fi movie. They used the Star Trek concept to get us into paying but frankly they won't get me again. They should have left ST alone at this point and let us just have the good memories. Now.. well..

Ryan Graziano said...

I appreciated the opening sequence and knew immediately that this would result in an alternate universe but i had hoped that they would set things right at the end after spock explained how different things were supposed to be. As a star trek fan for my whole life and as someone who appreciates a good time travel story (enterprise had a few that i enjoyed and I liked that season 4 tied up many loose ends but that is neither here nor there) this movie left me feeling hopeless for the franchise.

Major gripes: Gene Roddenberry created this universe and this movie is the ultimate slap in the face. There is no part of his vision in this film.

The engineering section was just a regular industrial set from every other movie with a factory in it. The bowels of the ship looked like a brewery rather than a highly advanced starship.

The destruction of romulus and vulcan must be undone plain and simple.

And finally you can transport on to a ship moving at warp but you cant save spock's mom because she slipped? Despite seconds ago saving two guys who were falling at a few hundred feet per second?

I have many more gripes with this film but those are the major ones.

rws5068 said...

I think most people including a lot of Trekkies misinterpret about the idea of the "Prime Directive" is that is has nothing to do with your own civilization, thus it wouldn't have anything to do with Kirk getting captain. The "Prime Directive" just states that you don't mess with other civilizations.

Anonymous said...

I think the difference between the majority of you here and those who actually enjoyed the movie (like myself) is the fact that you're all prior Star Trek fans while the larger majority who saw the movie were not.

I thought the movie was fantastic. If you were really looking for a literary masterpiece going into this movie you were setting yourself up for disappointment.

I suspect that a number of you posting here (including the author) would not know a good movie if it hit you because you're looking for reasons to not like it.

Relax...enjoy life. It was a decent movie. If anything it was entertaining.

I submit to the rest of you who are very critical...how would you have written the storyline differently?

Had they not implemented the concept of time travel, the movie would've been boring as you already know what happens to every single character involved. With time travel implemented, you're now guessing and uncertain.

I'm sure your beloved Star Trek story line will be true to form in the sequel.

ChazMaz said...

You missed the point. The movie was good and entertaining. But it was called "Star Trek". We expect a connection with the series. Part of the allure and fun of it. If the movies was called it something else. Then as a stand alone Sci-Fi space adventure. All these comments except for "spok's" mother not being able to be transported would not be an issue. If I take you for Pizza and I serve you a tuna sandwich. I guess don't complain. It is still food.

ChazMaz said...

You missed the point. The movie was good and entertaining. But it was called "Star Trek". We expect a connection with the series. Part of the allure and fun of it. If the movies was called it something else. Then as a stand alone Sci-Fi space adventure. All these comments except for "spok's" mother not being able to be transported would not be an issue. If I take you for Pizza and I serve you a tuna sandwich. I guess don't complain. It is still food.

JackalMage said...

All these comments except for "spok's" mother not being able to be transported would not be an issue.That's not an issue. It was *extremely* difficult to transport Kirk and Sulu while they were falling, and they had quite a bit of time to do it in because of the height of the fall. Spock's mother fell from a *much* lesser height. She was likely smashed on the rocks a few seconds later.

other issuesThe time-travel was perfectly acceptable. It was nothing more than a justification of a *reset*. All the big comic-book movies of recent years have been resets, either subtly playing with or outright scrapping old canon in favor of a more modern story. I suppose comic-book readers are a little more accepting of this, seeing as almost every major comic superhero has been reset at least once within comic books already.

Star Trek has a long and somewhat goofy history. Kirk is basically a joke to the average person due to William Shatner's acting (he's turned that into a lucrative commercial career though - good for him!); that's assuming that the average person even knows who Kirk *is* - they may just know that Shatner was "that Star Trek guy" and nothing more. By resetting the franchise, they can escape much of that history and move on with fresh stories that appeal to the modern person.

Plus, everyone likes an origin story. A new story set in an existing universe can be interesting, but not nearly as much when you're not personally invested in that universe. A reset allows you to retell the origin story, bringing a new audience into the fold 'from the beginning', which is a very nice interest hook.


That all said, Nemo was a pretty crappy villain, it doesn't make sense that his mining ship is armed to the goddam gills, and supernovas don't work like that. A strong supernova can be deadly over a radius of tens to hundreds of lightyears, but planetary disintegration wouldn't happen unless it was *in* the star system. Frex, if Alpha Centauri blew up right now, Earth would be completely sterilized and probably have all of its atmosphere stripped away due to the hard radiation. The surface might even melt. But it won't disintegrate. And that's only 4 lightyears of distance.

Black holes as wormholes is a relatively standard scifi trope, especially from the old days. I wish there had been some sort of explanation of where Red Matter came from, though.

Star Trek EEE said...

Where do I begin? I just saw this so called "Star Trek" movie. Will the real Trekkies (Like myself) stand up and protest this abomination?! Not knocking the effects and cast; All Ok. The story line is so "Been there--done that--". How long are you gonna play this "going back in time" idea. It was done in Star Trek 4( Voyage Home) and done again in Star Trek "First Contact". They should have relabeled the title "Star Trek-- WE RAN OUT OF IDEAS AND MONEY SO WE THOUGHT YOU'D LIKE THIS". There are so many inconsistencies I lost track. When did Uhura have a relationship with Spock? Did I miss that original episode? Star Trek gave people a sense of inspiration and hope for the future. This movie said to me after it thankfully ended--"Ha--we used the Star Trek name to bring you in and take your money. Watch Transformers and GI JOE so that we can kick you in the balls again?! This movie took Gene Roddenberry's storyline and %$^*#$ all over it!!! They can't even get the theme music right. Oh yeah, they finally play the original theme music after everyone is getting up and leaving the movie theater...DISGUSTING and DISAPPOINTING!! And what is up with Leonard Nemoy's Cameo? Is this suppose to be an apology to the real Trekkies in the theater to tell them--"Hey we're sorry we made a bad movie, but here's someone that you know to make it all better..." Hollywood strikes again---Recreating and reinventing something that needs none of either. Lots of potential to make a really good movie.

Hannah said...

You're the first Google result of 671 for "Star Trek sucked". My blog post on the subject is the second result. Yay for being the vocal minority?

I was never particularly invested in the original series, but the same elements that rang false for you are the ones I picked up on while watching the movie. The old, time traveling Spock that's supposed to be the same Spock from the original series actually broke the Prime Directive--and we're just supposed to accept that, along with everything else that makes absolutely no sense but is explained away by time travel and alternate universes. It's cheap, it's bad writing, and most of all it's not Star Trek.

Anonymous said...

Star Trek was horrible. They wiped out everything that was important. What the heck was up with Chekov? He was the only one able to work the transporter? How is Scotty suddenly Chief Engineer? This movie was a mess. Leonard Nimoy was obviously desperate to be in one last Star Trek movie.

JackalMage said...

They should have relabeled the title "Star Trek-- WE RAN OUT OF IDEAS AND MONEY SO WE THOUGHT YOU'D LIKE THIS".Well, they didn't run out of money - all those CG effects are expensive, you know. ^_^

It's a franchise reset. It's been done multiple times over the last decade to multiple franchises, and it's always worked well. It brings new blood into the fanfold, and allows the writers to 'forget' some of the more embarrassing details enshrined in past canon.

There are so many inconsistencies I lost track. When did Uhura have a relationship with Spock? Did I miss that original episode?Maybe you missed the part where time-travel makes things different. It wasn't *just* a plot gimmick to introduce the bad guy. Kirk wasn't the first captain of the Enterprise in this world. Scotty was stuck on a base in the ass-end of nowhere. Spock and Uhura were lovers. Yup, things changed.

And what is up with Leonard Nemoy's Cameo? Is this suppose to be an apology to the real Trekkies in the theater to tell them--"Hey we're sorry we made a bad movie, but here's someone that you know to make it all better..."You mean his 'cameo' as Spock? That's not a cameo, it's a role.

That said, everyone likes Nimoy. He's awesome! Why not find a way to get him in there? Even had this story not involved time-travel, I'd support some way of working Nimoy into a cameo.

The old, time traveling Spock that's supposed to be the same Spock from the original series actually broke the Prime Directive--and we're just supposed to accept that, along with everything else that makes absolutely no sense but is explained away by time travel and alternate universes.I'm curious as to just how this happened. I don't believe there was *any* contact with pre-warp civilizations in this movie, so it would have been a little difficult for Old Spock to violate the PD with them.

The new-timeline Federation isn't a pre-warp civilization.

What the heck was up with Chekov? He was the only one able to work the transporter?The only one able to wield enough skill to grab two guys falling through atmosphere at terminal velocity, yes.

I'd be willing to believe that that's not part of your standard Starfleet transporter training. Chekov's just apparently got the skillz.

Anonymous said...

In regards to the comment about resetting the franchise, I understand why they would do that, to spark new interest in the Star Trek franchise.

However, an integral part of Star Trek has always been REAL science.
This Star Trek film did not have that.

This was the determining factor between Star Trek and other sci-fi series.
No matter what the story is, rewritten or otherwise it should still have real science since that is the foundation of Star Trek amongst other things I wont even mention since they were not in the film as well.

This movie reminded me of star wars more than trek simply because it had no real science.

Also, Ive been a fan of the next generation and voyager more so than the original series and it bothers me that they would rewrite star trek to makes those series nonexistent.

Anonymous said...

Thank the heavens that someone other that myself is ranting about this travesty. Leaving this as a tribute to the Roddenberrys is... well, it's a freakin' joke. Gene would have been horrified. WTF was going through th writers' minds? "Hey, wouldn't it be cool to have Spock macking on Uhura? Wow! What a twist!" Yeah... forget the fact that Spock is Vulcan and... well, I needn't continue. The film sucked ass. Period.

Sorry, but I did not see "great acting". Pine's Kirk was one-dimensional. Sure, he 'tried' to sit in the captain's chair, but it never felt like Kirk. He was literally lost on the bridge. Pine blended into the crew (along with a WTHF? blonde Chekov with plenty of emphasis on his ridiculous accent) as if he wasn't even there. No 'larger than life' captain in this group. Sure, let's make Uhura ultra-hot. Fine. but leave some semblance of mental adventure in-tact. And, for god's sake, lay off the Michael Bay-like phrenic direction.

"Different time line" my ass.

Kudos JJ -- you turned the last remaining philosophical, trend-setting sci-fi show into yet another "Lost In Space" piece of crap.

Anonymous said...

I just saw ST and I wish I hadn't. How the hell is Vulcan destroyed and Amanda killed? Vulcan destroyed and old Spock haging out with young Spock? As prior posters have said, this was just a summer blockbuster, not real Trek. Spock and Uhura hooking up in public on the transporter, that's just gross. I wish I could time travel back three hours ago and decide to go staight home from work in stead of seeing this film.

It could have at least looked more like the "Enterprise" sets.

Buck Fulkerson : Jack of all Trades said...

The "alternate universe" crap was a total cop out. The plot holes were ENORMOUS, and the whole film was crap!
J.J. Abrams needs to stick to TV and leave film making to the BIG BOYS!
I've been a "Star Trek" fan since September 8th, 1966, but this steaming pile of poop has totally alienated me from the franchise.

vijayan said...

I just had to type "Star Trek sucked" into Google because apparently no one else wants to hear it!

Thanks for the measured, right-on post!

/v

Anonymous said...

Yes this movie was really bad. They destroyed the future time period of the Star Trek series. The Voyage home never happened because Vulcan is not there, there are a million things in history it changes like in DS9, Voyager etc.

Kirk and the rest of the cadets get promoted and that usually takes years, thats not right, it seems the cast did not earn it though hard work.

The transporter technology has no range and can go anywhere, so technically no ships are needed including cargo ships. Voyager might not even happen because the future was altered but if it does they can just transport home. In DS9 the wormhole will be meaningless because they can already transport accross the universe.

And the most important part.....

People think this is an alternate reality or some other universe but......

When they went in the black hole it was considered time travel. If it were a parallel reality or other deminsion then nero would not have hunted down Spock or destroyed Valcun in this new parallel reality because the origional reality would not be altered or changed. Why would he waste his time accomplishing nothing?

If it were a parallel reality Nero would have spent his time trying to get back to the origional reality because then he could actually do something that would matter.

Spock just meant that the time line has changed and now their reality is the true reality. This means all Star Trek has been erased and staring new.

Anonymous said...

Yes time travel is what people do when they can't come up with any ideas that are good.

Because of this movie i'm not longer a star trek fan sold all movies i'm out.

Anonymous said...

This movie is not good, it has no story line, just special effects and loud noise. Special effects and loud noise don't make a great movie, a great story line makes it.

Anyone who likes this movie is easily impressed and does not know anything about Star Trek. If they like this movie but don't like Star Trek enough to watch the older movies and understand the history and facts which make Star Trek amazing then why start watching now.

I'm throwing my Star Trek DVD's in the garbage and will never have anything to do with Star Trek again.

Anonymous said...

There are so many inconsistencies I lost track. When did Uhura have a relationship with Spock? Did I miss that original episode? Maybe you missed the part where time-travel makes things different. It wasn't *just* a plot gimmick to introduce the bad guy. Kirk wasn't the first captain of the Enterprise in this world. Scotty was stuck on a base in the ass-end of nowhere. Spock and Uhura were lovers. Yup, things changed.
Pike was the first Captain in the origional series and Spock was his first officer.... just like in this movie.
Time travel makes things different up to a point. Bones joined as a cadet around the same time he did in the origional series proof of this is where he gives the speech about bones, his nick name he has nothing left now so he joined Star Fleet. Kirk joined the same time. Kirk went though the star ship test that spock made and altered it like in the origional. If I recall correctly Pike was the first Captain. Uhura and Spock fell in love because sexy things make movies sell. Spock's character is supposed to show almost no emotions, even in the origional Star Trek he resists the advances of the nurse in sick bay even though he likes her alot. Yet in this movie he's ga ga over Uhura. The time line did not change that much to make Spock into a human, he still had ears shaped like a Vulcan.

What the heck was up with Chekov? He was the only one able to work the transporter? The only one able to wield enough skill to grab two guys falling through atmosphere at terminal velocity, yes.
I'd be willing to believe that that's not part of your standard Starfleet transporter training. Chekov's just apparently got the skillz.

When you look at the screen he was manually trying to line up boxes with the people like an arcade game. This was done for some drama. It's only computer Tracking technology that is needed as the people were on the screen and detected just not locked on to. Technology to lock onto a variable (all 1's and 0's) exists today and even in the 1980's on the Atari 2600. It's used all the time. A pocket calculator could probley do it. They just wanted to make it seem full of action and was aimed at people who don't think.

Even if they built an automated system star ship and forgot to add 2 lines of code for tracking in a transporter, it's safe to assume that there was at least a class or lecture on moving targets and practice in simulators as it's bound to happen, after all it happened constantly in this movie. The ship holds a few hundred people all very intelligent including transporter chief's who are trained above and beyond normal people, it's their trade. Which raises the question, why would a cadet who has limited experience on systems out perform senior officers who have worked on those types of systems for years.

Anonymous said...

P/S It's spelt Roddenberry...

SelArom said...

I was relieved to discover I'm not the only one who was disappointed by the new Star Trek movie! I'm not a Trekkie, but I still enjoyed the franchise immensely. But now all those stories and characters for which we spent years growing appreciation have been wiped clean.

What a slap in the face that true fans of the original Stark Trek universe and time line were completely abandoned for this "new generation" in a universe that flies in the face that everything Roddenberry envisioned...

Anonymous said...

It was really cool to see Kirk get his butt handed to him multiple times. Less cool to see Spock get more lady action than Kirk. And really lame to see the entire Star Trek universe changed from the stardate of Kirk onward.

"Lame!"

Anonymous said...

How about we put together a class action suit for everybody who felt ripped off? Even if we lose, Hollywood would think twice about messing with us this way again. To me, this was out and out fraud. They called it Star Trek for the sole purpose of duping us out of our money - they freaking lied through their teeth. Instead of Star Trek (ST) they should have called it Star Hole in Time (I leave the Acronym to the reader).

I disagree mildly with some previous posters on one point: The time travel thing wasn't about fixing plot errors. No. It was about creating a license to do whatever the hell they felt like. Abrams probably wanted complete liberty so that no script could be wrong - he wanted to "comic-book" the TOS series. He wanted Kirk to be a dark character because dark characters sell. BUT, unlike Batman, Spiderman, The Incredible Hulk, or Iron Man, STAR TREK WAS NOT ORIGINALLY DEFINED A F-ing COMIC BOOK! IT WAS DEFINED, EXCLUSIVELY AND EXPLICITLY, BY THE TV SERIES. NO SUCH LICENSE TO MESS WITH IT CAN EXIST IN THE SAME WAY.

Abrams could get away with reinventions of other fictional universes so long as he was somewhat faithful to the comic book. But here, even if he did read some ST comics, he still wasn't at all faithful to the the characters.

On the one hand, they avoided character development because we were already supposed to know these guys - they capitalized on the names Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scott, Uhura, Checkov, Sulu, Pike, etc. But on the other hand, they put us on notice (only after the movie is about a quarter over) that "no, don't presume to know these characters - they are totally different now." It's like saying, yes, this is James T Kirk, but not the James T Kirk you know, nor does he exist now because we erased him from the timeline.

WTF???
WTF???
WTF???


So, if it's not the Kirk that I know, then why would I want to see the movie? If they had clued me in with reasonable notice, I WOULDN'T have seen the movie.

So basically, an implied warranty existed that the movie, as a prequel, would develop young characters into characters with which we have already become familiar, or at least move them in that direction. They knew full well that we would go to see the movie based solely on that representation, and nothing else. They lied. They played it very close to the chest that Kirk would not be Kirk, Spock would not be Spock (even the old Spock played by Nemoy was not Spock - WTF???). They also went out of their way to foil our effort to exercise diligence before being duped.

If 1000 fans demand their money back, and issue press releases... This will get some attention for sure. Maybe we can scare those arrogant b*****ds into never trying a stunt like this again. As another poster put it, it's like it was all a dream... the last time someone tried that, it killed a TV series.

I say sue. All we have to lose are the filing fees. If 1000 of us pitch in, that will work out to about 25 cents each.


-- Almost non-trekkie who STILL knows enough to know that this was crap, and we have not only been disappointed, we have been RIPPED OFF. Cursed be those who call themselves Star Trek, and are not.

godofmusic17 said...

I agree fully that this movie sucked big time. I thought it couldn't get any worse after Nemisis, but hey, my expectations were clearly too high.
I think whatever else sucked about the movie, your point about Roddenberry's philosophy about humanity and the future and how this movie ignored or countered it is what makes this such an insulting film. Star Trek VIII was the fullest fruition of this vision in a film, and while ST IX was really just a long expensive episode, still held true to the moral ideal. ST X was ammoral, this was immoral.

Patricia said...

I have a lot to say, but this says it all for me. :)

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film

Patricia said...

ok the last post I wrote might have been a little means. :)
someone compared this to the recent series of comics book reboots and that put it all into perspective.
Why?
I hate all the comics reboots except batman (begins and the dark knight) and spider-man was "watchable". And I realized the reason I hate those reboots may be the same reason you hate this star trek movie.
Because I know the series and I already have an idea of what it "should" be, and then them movies didn't live up to that I was thoroughly disappointed.
The biggest one to me had to be the X-men series. The first one was true enough to the series of the comics book but they went so far as to change the ages of certain characters for the sake of plot.
For those of you saw the movie did you know what rogue is actually the same age and Gene, Scott, and wolverine? Why is she a teenager in the film?
This pissed me off but for someone who never heard of X-men I'm sure this didn't phase them one bit and my complaining about rogue being changed to such a degree would be seen as nitpicking to those people.
So, with this new perspective I say, you have every right not to like this film.
But please respect the fact that I (and bunch of other people) do. Stop insulting us. Thank you.

martsxxx said...

i liked the new star trek movie, reviving a dwindling franchise can only be a good thing, i have been a star trek fan all my life and i find it refreshing that they have re-worked it so that it can go on for years to come, i do think that they have detracted from its values somewhat but nothing stays the same forever, i think it is a good move to take it in a new direction, maybe to alleiviate your worries we can call the original format "timeline 1" and the new film "timeline 2" then we haven't lost anything, we just have two versions, great star trek fun for all! just because they have done something new doesn't mean they can't go back. also, the holes in the plot theories, doesn't the fact that a ship is travelling faster than light tell you something, black holes dont let you travel through time so what, "its a story" you cant accept one thing and moan about another its not all about "you". dont get me wrong, i love the old trek but this opens up a lot more possibility for the story i love, hear's to star trek!

Anonymous said...

Like so many have said... even with the new timeline angle, there was enough unaltered timeline material that remained, and STILL didn't correspond to unaltered timeline canon, or even simple logic. (The fat guy on the Space channel is a moron, this movie was the opposite of Star Trek canon).

Genetics: Kirk has blue eyes now? Chekov is blond? Sulu is now not Japanese? Ohura's genetics are from what part of Africa now? and so on, and so on... *sigh*

Military hierachy: Give me a break... a cadet given command of the flagship in any fleet, based on herioc actions? Based on a field commission?? Based on being a genious??? How can anyone with any brain cells accept that as a possibility given the entire nature of all human based command structures? Did I say "give me a break" sheesh... there are a lot of people out there that exist in la la land.

Gene's Dream: Ideas and concepts beyond the comprehension and acceptance of most late 1960's human minds. Then ~10 years later people start seeing the dream, how far ahead it was, and embraced it, and held on to it for ~40 years. Now we are back to farmville, where evidently the majority of human minds are in a pre-1970's state, enamoured with flashing lights to the point that their brains don't work correctly."Star Trek"... a Dream dead...a vision destroyed, Gene probably turning in his grave, and people are absolutely raving about this POS movie. There was better acting in Zoolander, and reading the positive reviews about this movie makes me "feel like I'm taking crazy pills". R.I.P. - Star Trek the vision of a better future.

Anonymous said...

The rip off: I was expecting to learn more about how the original crew came to be. Glimpses of depth into how each trained and earned a position, rank, and station on a FLAGSHIP, in the context of a contemporary storyline. That WAS the selling angle that they baited us with. Yay for them, they fooled us and got our money.

People new to Star Trek: If you liked this film, good for you. It wasn't Star Trek though. You all remind me of intellectually challenged, roid raged, visually addicted persons who are trying to tell old veterans of war what war is all about, yet you've never even been to war. One word... OBLIVIOUS.

I feel sad: Gene's vision. A precious thing, STILL beyond the comprehension of the masses, and evidently EVEN MORESO. Star Trek in the form of television, movies, comics, and cartoons; these were only mediums for Gene's VISION. The mediums are what they are, but the vision has been mostly intact, until now. Again, Gene's vision... R.I.P.

The director: Passionate yes... as a fly trying to get outside by continually bumping into a window. He's clueless in every sense of the word when it come's to understanding "the vision" that Gene had. The director understands the nature of Gene's vision about as much as a fly understands the nature of glass.

Physics: Subjectively speaking, there was more alignment to known physics in the original series than there was in this latest POS "Star trek". Just the falls, inertia, impacts of the bodies, and so on. "Kirk's" jumps and subsequent impacts on the "drill" and inside the "mining vessel" would have likely killed any human being alive, if not instantly, then soon afterwards by internal bleeding, or any number of other causes associated with blunt force traumas of that nature. I guess he's Superman in addition to the greatest genious of all time. And! he can change his gentics at will (remember those beautiful blue eyes) lol

In summary: Star Trek was an extension of Gene's mind and vision. His vision was well beyond its time. THIS is what true Star Trek fans embrace. Traces of his insights can be seen anew in re-watching the original series over and over, IF yu have the mind to see it. Sadly, it would seem that contemporary human minds lack the ability to see his vision. We live in a world of stupidville, and we are vastly outnumbered. It seems as though there are only a few who understand what Gene was trying to do. At least there is some hope, as his vision, in as much as we can see it, still resides in those of us who actually got the point of what he was trying to do. Simply put: If you liked this movie you:

a) understand Gene's vision, decided to ignore it, and let yourself enjoy the visuals.

b) don't understood Gene's vision and don't really care about it.

c)have little to no grasp of science (particularly physics) as we currently know it, and are willing to accept concepts and ideas that go far beyond science fiction, and into the realm of sheer idiocy.

d) just enjoy seeing interesting looking things move about without any rhyme or reason.

e)insert your own ideas here (lol)

Anonymous said...

ps. sorry for the typos, I was busy throwing away the movie and looking at it in the garbage as I wrote. I was thinking of the money I wasted too.

Above all else, I feel bad for Gene. The director should have just gone and pissed on Gene's grave if he had that much of a beef with Gene's vision.

And, what a sad thing it must be for the family of Gene to have to watch... his creation and his prodigal vision, turned 180 degrees into this abomination.

Reisen Inaba said...

Are you serious? The new Star Trek was awesome. I agree, the whole time travel thing had a few holes but it was easy enough for anyone to understand. People really shouldn't be questioning Star Trek's theory of time travel too much it because it's a sci-fi movie. Also Chris Pine was great as Kirk, it was really cool to a badass Kirk who was funny and who got his ass kicked in several scenes in the movie because it was something very different and unexpected. The fact that the movie had a much faster paste allowed a much wider audience to get into the movie. Also the special effects were really great and the sounds of the enterprise were classic. Star Trek was an exciting, entertaining and amazing film and I loved it. Btw all you Trekkies have to stop picking on it because it has a very little amount small "unrealistic" details because the whole Star Trek series itself is very unrealistic.

BlauPanda said...

Didn't see this movie when it came out, but just rented the bluray the other night... I didn't like it for all the reasons i've read in these blogs... and you know, it just didn't FEEL like Star Trek... with the whole star trek universe available to draw on for ideas and stories, there was literally endless possiblities for a 'new' star trek movie... but the shittiest film of the whole fanchise was created instead...
:(

Robbie 001 said...

What a suck ass turd of a movie! Abrahms is a douche, he should direct Star Wars Movies that's all this crapfest was. Let's see both movies feature a trouble farm boy with an older mentor that knew their father before he died. The evil guy fly's around in a ship capable of destroying entire planets. Hell, they even have a Mos Eisley Cantina scene. All they needed was Figrin D'an and the Modal Nodes playing in the background. I was expecting “old” Spock to be sleeping in a Tauntaun when Captn’ Jerk just happened to find his ice cave after almost becoming “Wampa” poo. (Spoiler alert) Sulu will be using a lightsaber in the next movie.

By the way why did Spock hide in a cave when he knew a Federation outpost was only a few miles away? While he couldn't have saved Vulcan I'm sure the Federation would have liked the back story of Vulcan's demise.

Anonymous said...

Star Trek XI - the "Ow! My Balls!" of Star Trek.

Joel said...

I don't get why so many people say the time travel plot sucked (besides every show getting killed and all). As long as the story is lineal and establishes the new timeline at the beggining, there's nothing "deus ex machina" about it. "Spock's logic wasn't something to look down upon, it was something to look up to." there was nothing particularly logical about Spock after all that happened. "Kirk acts like a small minded jerk." True, but that's the point of an origin story, to develop him. Kirk is the most human Enterprise captain there is, but in the end, he's willing to spare Nero for peace. True, this film wasn't as morally eventful as 'The Dark Knight', but there's nothing antagonistic about it either. I suspect a lot of these people are just mad that the film was merely good rather than making them wet their pants in joy and endow them with more philosophical enlightenment than an hour of Picard's logbook. If this aired in the sixties next to an episode where Kirk investigates a green glow that makes people talk backwards, I think it would have been accepted.

Anonymous said...

Late comment I know, but here goes:

1) Product placement. Nokia and Budweiser, shame on you.

2) "Hip" crew. They should have called each other "homies", that would have been even "cooler". NOT.

3) Plot. What plot?

4) Mining ship OF DOOM !!! Ok, the romulans are a martial society, but hello? When I saw that ship, I expected some insectoid invaders to be crewing it.

5) Red Matter. Omega 13, except that was a COMEDY. Nuff said.

6) Spock is a moron. Why not blow up the Romulans using the red matter the first time around? No, instead, he lets himself be captured and hands them the most dangerous weapon known. Would the Spock we've know for years do that? Nope.

7) "But there was lots of action and Uhura was HOT". Sure. There are other movies with action and hot girls. I wanted to see Start Trek, not masturbate.

The fact that so many people liked it, along with such catastrophes as Transformers, Avatar and the god-awful ending of BSG really does not bode well for the future of the genre.

KH said...

I would also like to say, they would never make a junior officer Captain of a star ship just because he did something heroic. Do you seen any navy officers suddenly in command of an aircraft carrier after only 3 or 4 years of service. UH NOOO! I don't care what he did.

Anonymous said...

How on Earth did the Kardassions get involved !? And just what sort of weapons do they have? Furthermore, I thought they would have been more concerned with their own reality show.