This bad Star Trek film is so over-hype and the mind-less zombies are in their "It's Amazing" mode (Yet, by the time This film goes to DVD, the mind-less zombies will be in their "It Sucks" mode).
but In this Dark time, I found on websites, some truth and it is growing each day:
Posted by: Moon on May 8, 2009 at 03:03:27
Very Disappointing, the movie was definitely overhyped.
It is not Star Trek. Canon is what MAKES it Star Trek. They put a Beastie Boys song in there for crying out loud. Imagine if they did that to LOTR? It was just absurd.
The Time travel was unwarranted. The Destruction of Vulcan unwarranted. Killing Spocks Mom, Uhuru and Spock in a relationship. 10,000 Vulcans to preserve their ways? Their Heritage? Yet, Old SPock and Spock's Dad basically tell young spock to go with his feelings?
There is so much more, but to me, this is not Star Trek, they destroyed it to make a few quick millions, they could have made a SMART and ACTION packed movie, but no. They wanted dumb-downed, and rewrite over 40 years of Star Trek staple.
Looks like a alot of paramount plants here. I went to two showings, one with my wife and one with my best friend, both showings had about 70% people. Doesn't look like the core fans showed up. Sadly, I did. Twice.
The movie is not epic in anyway. It is loud, crude, and very off kilter. It does not feel or look like Star Trek.
To me, the guy who played Kirks Father looks more like Kirk than Pine does.
It was just overly hyped. I am mad, because I was STOKED for this movie. I was defending like crazy and I was sure it would rock. This is not what Trek needs, this is bad. Horrible.
What is intriguing to me is that everyone who thinks this movie is "epic" and "fantastic" and "up there with TDK" have never really WATCHED STAR TREK!!!!! The CORE audience is Star Trek fans. Not the "general" public.
So sick of hearing how you were never a fan or never liked Star Trek, but somehow, in some magical way, this mediocre movie changed your mind. Yep One movie changed your mind. You are now a fan. The 11 previous movies didn't do it, the The previous SIX TV shows didn't do it, nope, what changed your mind, was this one movie. Why do people get sucked into hype so much?
You do Exaggerate. You are a plant. People know this movie sucks...and word of mouth will kill it. REAL word of mouth, not Internet ord of Mouth.
------------------------
Posted by: Brother Enki on May 8, 2009 at 03:34:59
Didn't like it a bit. I wished i would have waited for the dvd as i orginally planned. Other than the actors playing kirk and spock none of them sounded or even looked close to the orginal characters. All the movie was bunch of lound high-octane fx strung together by mediocre cast of star trek 90210 with a plot that was pretty much a cross between nemesis and wrath of khan with time-travel thrown in to spice things.. in other words nothing orginal.
--------------------------------
48. Galaxy Quest 2 - May 7, 2009
I just saw it.
Evokes Star Trek the way the Lost in Space movie resembled the original.
Too much CGI.
Too much reliance on gags and devices.
Drilling rig. Yawn.
Romulan villans are worse than “Nemesis” bad.
Story= weak.
Actors=impersonators
140 million?Where?
Yuck.Hated it.
-----------------------------
42. EisenMerc - May 7, 2009
Worst Movie Ever. This was a big middle finger to all true fans of Star Trek. By going back and changing everything, they destroyed all the other series and movies. They never happened!
It was an ok stand alone movie, but if you liked anything that ever came before, then your pretty much s.o.l
---------------------------
331. Holger - May 8, 2009
I am amazed how many people think that the effects were so great in the movie. In my eye the digital effects looked, well… totally digital. And the factory locations which are supposed to be the interior of a starship (Time Lord technology? Bigger on the inside?) gave a cheap low-budget appearance to the movie. I think the visual aesthetic of the movie sucks. Were did they put all that money? Catering?
This was a big surprise to me. I had expected a movie which is very well made visually (DFX etc.) but with a ridiculous cheesy storyline. The opposite was the case - I actually liked the storyline but the movie *looks* cheap and carelessly produced.
And where the heck was the final frontier, the optimistic future, the sense of wonder? JJ made many promises that despite all the changes he is committed to Gene Roddenberry’s vision of Star Trek. I saw none of it. Seems it got lost in the chaos, explosions and metal fragments whirling around in space.
Unless a potential sequel receives a total visual overhaul, count me out on it. And a better director would not hurt as well.
My rating: Better than NEM but still considerably worse than STV.
--------------------------------
Too many “little” problems such as:
THEY DESTROYED VULCAN AND ROMULUS!!!! ARE CRAZY!!!
The writers just wanted to change history so next movies will be OK with canon - they just erased it.
Transporter at warp from site(planet) to site(ship at warp)?
How many warp cores did the enterprise had?
The Ice planet was stupid. How did Spock knew to wait for kirk? Why did he waited in the cave and not in the base. too odd….and the scene with animal on the planet is stupid….
---------------------------------
359. classic_fan - May 8, 2009
I don’t know about the rest of you people but, I really missed the classic crew and for the love of God why can’t Paramount stay with the Trek history! I don’t have a problem really with them getting new actors to play the cast but cmon, stop changing the history and DONT change the hardware. They could’ve told the same story with the classic ship and gadets.
-----------------------------------
180. Josh - May 7, 2009
175 - I find it odd how some people are reporting sell outs and others are reporting near empty theaters. I don’t know if this is normal or what is causing this discrepancy. It’s kind of like whole swaths of geography just didn’t know it opened to day or are just not interested in Star Trek or something. *shrugs*
----------------------------------
185. Michael Hall - May 7, 2009
*Sigh* Just returned from seeing it here in San Marcos.
After three years of guarded anticipation for this film, and logging onto this site on an almost daily basis to get the latest updates on it, this had to be one of the most disappointing experiences of my life. I really don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade–and, trust me, I could use much stronger language than this to convey what an empty, frivolous experience Star Trek 2009 ultimately turned out to be. For my money, it’s not even a particularly effective action movie, let alone good Star Trek, science fiction, or drama.
I need a drink.
-------------------------------------
149. Timncc1701 - May 7, 2009
Star Trek: The Action Motion Picture
On the positive side, Pine was not bad as Kirk. That was my biggest fear. My problem with the movie is that it is an ACTION movie, and not really science fiction. I found myself not giving a damn about the characters. You never really got to know them because they were too busy running around. It was like TMP in the sense that you never really got to care about the characters. It did not FEEL like Star Trek. There were no philosophical ideas. Khan quoted Milton. This movie quoted original Star Trek. There were a lot of Khan parallels, but only on a superficial level.
My theater audience did not applaud. I don’t think this movie will have legs. On a scale of 1-5, I would rate it a 2.
Disappointing.
------------------------------------
177. finnegan - May 7, 2009
I didn’t like the science. The movie made the universe feel small. Transporting from Saturn and Delta Vega? Why bother with a starship if transporters are so awesome? I agree with Roger Ebert’s criticisms. Why did the Narada travel through time during the first black hole go ’round, but get destroyed the second time? The same goes for Vulcan.
Not thrilled with the plot. The concept was good, execution was so so, it needed more exposition, less action. The pace was too fast. It had the opposite problem of TMP. Also, I wish shaky cam were not in the vogue.
-----------------------------------
205. Rockerfest - May 7, 2009
So umm….
1.Red Matter….how pathetically generic can you be.
2. I do not want to see Spock in a sex scene in the sequel.
3.SLOW DOWN and explain the time travel stuff a bit better.
4. Nero should’ve been the only one with the tatoos. People I was with had a hard time telling which one he was. He didn’t stand out from his crew.
5. plot was a mess.
OMG vulcan is gone. Now the Vulcans feel like elves from middle earth.
---------------------------------
229. Curry Taylor - May 7, 2009
I also forgot to comment on all the retcons (ahem… “re-inventions via reboot”) which pervade the movie.
Vulcan being destroyed, Amanda dying very early, Uhura falling in love with Spock (and Spock not shunning her), Pike being crippled fighting Nero… I could go on, but it’s just a bit much to take. I’ll accept it all I guess, but how much of this really contributes to a new, creative Trek universe, and how much of it was just done to mess with us? Shock value isn’t really good storytelling.
And as for Spock’s emotions — Doesn’t it somehow seem that the most emotionless characters in the Trek universe (namely, Spock, Data, and Tuvak) are always the ones who have to parade their emotions to the audience? Why can’t we just let them be emotionless for a while and leave it at that?
Argh. Wish I could write a Trek movie.
-------------------------------
238. Commodore Lurker - May 7, 2009
Decloaking . . .
Well, I’ve kept my mouth shut for a while; just got back from the flick.
I entered the theater ready to be blown away; I wasn’t.
The special effects were astonishing. Of course when that’s the best thing about a film, you’re in trouble.
The 10:00 show on opening night for prior Trek films has always been packed, in my experience. Tonight there were only about 30 people there with little audience reaction.
I give this film a solid C, at the top of the lower echelon of Trek films.
It was everything I’ve feared a Trek film would become: just a big action piece with little substance. The story was paper thin.
I don’t think I’ll ever believe anyone ever again when they say: “It’s a great script,” because it wasn’t.
I was most disappointed by the gratuitous use of Leonard Nimoy. He should have been the fulcrum around which the story was built, and honestly he really wasn’t.
In fact, the film didn’t have a pivot point. It seemed like an endless barrage of rapid fire imagery and action. Like MI: III, too much action. The film lacked quiet moments in which to breathe.
Quinto I found utterly unconvincing, just Skyler with pointed ears.
To me, the best performance was given by Bruce Greenwood, and again not used enough.
I found the lack of development on the Nero character disturbing and Eric Bana deserved more screen time.
Karl Urban was great as McCoy, and I liked how he got named Bones.
I was bugged by the repeated Trek film habit of unnecessarily killing off characters: Kahn, Spock, David Marcus, Kirk, Data, and now Amanda Grayson. I think keeping good characters alive makes a lot more sense in the development of sequels.
The one thing I really hated was the lame ass excuse of Kirk’s solution of the Kobeashi Maru problem. I got the apple eating Easter egg, fine. But, that was the best they could do for a solution by one of the greatest tactical geniuses in Star Fleet history. COME ON!??!
------------------
104. George P. Wansor - May 8, 2009
The Movie is a FAILURE for Star Trek- It is nothing more than a Parody of a true work of Science Fiction.
Star Trek Fans accepting the TOTAL LOST of all Past Stories are not True Star Trek Fans. You have just disgraced the creators, characters, actors, and technicians that spent decades giving you Roddenberry’s Vision.
If you have not noticed -There now is no Original Series, Next-Gen, Mirror Universe, or even a Wrath of Khan - They never happened. This New Movie Series will never show you those stories.
In order to create and steal for this development they took what once was created, and made it just go away. True Star Trek Fans will not fall for the lost of their History. In our minds it is that History that will exist in that Universe.
Paramount could have easily done a picture without destroying the stories that we gave them money for. But they went ahead and re-wrote time; our time by removing what we grew up with as if it never happened.
Believe what you want. There will be no next-generation of viewers if the old generation past does not exist.
Well – Live Long and Prosper – Oops can’t say that no more – for there is no Living Long when you can just Erase…..
SEMPER FI to the Original Vision.
------------------------
My honest feeling about the film is that Paramount is looking for a whole new audience to view and appreciate STAR TREK. Unfortunately, this may come at the expense of the ESTABLISHED & LOYAL STAR TREK fan. In a way this movie taints the mythos in which STAR TREK has become.
-----------------------
389. ensign joe - May 8, 2009
**** Spoilers alpenty ****
OK what the heck.. Am I the only one who didn’t like this movie? I mean come on.. Spock gets marooned on a “baron waste-heap”.. which just happens to have some starfleet peeps on it.. one of which just happens to be Scotty? And when Mr. Scott gets on the Enterprise he just goes right to head of Engineering?!?!?! WTF!!
Since when did black holes create a time rift?
Putting a creature into the body to control the mind.. its been done = HACK
You know.. kiling of the red-shirts isn’t cannon.. its just silly.. and they went out of the way to tell us it was going to happen (oh look on the viewer we’ve gone ahead and color codded it for you so everyone can see this dude is about to eat it..)
What’s up with spock hinting that he wouldn’t mind killing all the romulans on nero’s ship.. very un spock-ish.. not to mention the making out on the transporter pad.. yuck.. does everybody just leave their post whenever they want to? My god checkov should get all the credit in that movie.. he was the one in charge most of the time and the only one who seemed to know what the hell he was doing..
whats up with with kirk’s horrible horrible take on the kobayashi maru? If he’s going to cheat it has to look like he beat the program fair and square.. Definitely not sitting there eating an apple looking like an ass.. my god they turned Kirks great koybashi maru test into a prank.. now in TWOK when he talks to saavik it just sounds pompous..
when did they have time to repair the drill? who repaired it? why is a mining vessel stock full of cluster bombs? oh wait I think I remember somebody referring to them as missiles.. ugh.. wait all they had to do was cut the cord on the drill? a shuttle couldn’t do that? I mean.. its not a warship its a mining ship.. try putting a current day mining ship against a fleet of WWI attack ships (in their prime) and see who wins..
Besides the OBVIOUS spock flaws the characters were good..
What’s up with the timeline not being SEVERELY altered.. how in the hell does Kirk end up with the Enterprise if his dad was a major player… oh wait you’re gonna tell me that these things have a way of working themselves out in a fate-like fashion.. tell that to the vulcans on vulcan because it worked out so well for them..
you know at the end I found myself feeling sorry for nero.. his end was sort of a metaphor for the end of the early trekkers.. his universe destroyed… his timeline betrayed.. killed off by a flippant kirk and vengeful spock..
I thought mccoy was good though..
---------------------------
384. Bobo - May 8, 2009
The new movie sucked. Period.
It was a generic action movie that they slapped a “Star Trek” label on. I’m not buying it.
--------------------
639. numb - May 8, 2009
You just lost me for the next movie, anthony. I watched you delete quite a few comments here that said nothing out of line, just what they found was copied from another film or just very observant against it. granted, lots of posts here were not deleted, but for some reason, you discriminate. I have just told other people not to see it based on how you handle your site, though i didnt mention your site. and now, include me out for the sequel. you are VERY UNPROFESSIONAL, ANthony Pasquale. VERY ANTI-TREK ideal,. just a cog in the payroll, you are. you sell out others and sell your soul. I will never return to this site.
----------------------
Frankly? It was awful. I couldn't tell what was going on half the time because they were always moving the camera so fast...none of the actors seemed to be able to act worth a damn except for the one who played Captain Pike...I counted enormous numbers of canon violations that weren't explainable by the changes wrought in the timeline by Nero...
And worst of all?
It didn't feel like Star Trek. It felt like just another pointless action movie.
Star Trek is officially dead.
----------------
No offense to JJ Abrams, Orci, and fans of his movie but I don't like it. Not just as a cannonite, (hell I hate Shatner ore then anyone and I also like Lost) but also as a Trek fan in general. One of the strengths of the Star Trek universe was the fact it was about the characters primarily and we have that long, culturaly and eventfuly rich history in which to immerse ourselves and write about.
Some people would argue that all Trek did was advance technology in the real world, (Communicator= Mobile Phone) and for a short time increased interest in NASA and space and it did. But also think about this:
1. Eugenics Wars, and Bashir highlighted genetic engineering and t's morality.
2. TOS famously tackled socail problems of the era, DS9 gave us that a reminder of inequality in America, past and present, and the direction humanity is heading in as we are, (DS9: Past Tense Parts 1 & 2), TNG gave showed us the reality of the aftermath of a nucleur war in it's first two episodes.
As I watched Trek 11 all I saw was action and adventure, no real depth in the characters or situations. the plot too was over dramatic, destroying both Romulus and Vulcan? That is just over kill to me. They had a great opporunity to focus on Autism and it's socail stigma but they didn't.
A Romulan Scimitar class warbird, (Class D) erasing all life on Vulcan via orbital convential bombarment in more realistic, (the Tharalon radiation technology was publicly destroyed by the Romulans in an amendment to the Treaty of Alegron).
Both the TOS Enterprise and the Dor'idex class (Class B) warbird are cultural icons outside of Trek and liked. Why use any other designs? the only links to established Trek canon are little more then easter eggs, (eg:Saurian brandy bottle, off hand comment about Kirk being a great man in another life, Maru cadet test, timetraveling Spock).
-------------------
You know, I was actually hoping this movie would prove me wrong. As I stepped into the theater Thursday night, ticket in hand, I found myself hoping that the re-casted characters would grow on me, that the plot would show some imagination, and that the overall emotional and visceral impact of J.J. Abrams' reboot of my beloved Star Trek might distract me from the changes on the surface, and win me over. And I REALLY didn't want to have to come onto this forum and be a wet blanket amidst the celebrations.
It didn't happen. Here at home, writing this review, I don't just feel disappointed...I feel misunderstood. I feel like the 17-year-old kid who asks his dad for a car for his birthday, spends months and months eagerly waiting and hoping, only to receive on his birthday - a bike. The brightest, flashiest, fastest bike ever made, bought by a doting, eager-to-please Dad who's assumed that his son just wants to look cool and stop getting picked on. I know this may be hard to understand, Dad, because you obviously don't understand me, but I actually had PLANS for that bike. I want to go somewhere, do something with it, take people places. I'm not a kid anymore!
Where do I begin. From the Beastie Boys chase scene that looked like something off the CW, to
Spoiler (highlight to view):
Vulcan children stooping to the very human habit of bullying (so much for an enlightened, logical race)
, to the bar fights and the Uhura love triangle (which, despite all the glowing reviews, felt underdeveloped and pointless), to the paper-thin villain, to the complete sacrifice of any ideas or imagination on the altar of breathlessly paced action, to the relentless sweeping camera shots, rapid-fire cuts and blinding lens-flaring that disoriented and annoyed me (just stop and let me LOOK at something for a minute!), to the stock story that actually manages to include countless Trek-issue plot cliches. The pace and tone are all completely different, causing the movie to feel and look even more separated from its predecessors. At the gut level, this just feels like a totally different animal, with the Trek minutiae superimposed - grafted - onto it.
And guess what? I haven't even mentioned the recasting, the altered aesthetic, the scientific absurdities (the ignorance displayed by the movie's treatment of black holes trumps even that of Voyager), or the total erasure of canon. Because those are not my biggest concerns. Yes, you heard me right. Believe it or not, one can be a die-hard Trekkie and still be okay with a new cast, new look, new canon. Regardless of Leonard Nimoy's opinion, not all fans are basement-dwelling minutiae-obsessed nerds. Some of us simply want a creative plot, an imaginative story, and a sense of awe and possibility available from few places besides outer space. Give me that, and I'd have forgiven the rest (because the new timeline DID make some bold choices). We simply wanted to be challenged to think and theorize, ask "what-if" about a brand-new universe. Instead, we got Star Wars The Way It Was Meant To Be - the new sounds, warp-speed visual effect, even the music had Star Wars undertones. And of course, as Abrams himself said, this was the main goal all along.
I suppose it was too much to ask for Abrams and Co. to actually understand Star Trek before they made the movie. The film plays like a veiled admission on their part that they found much of Trek boring, as most critics now feel safe to admit for themselves. If you recall, EVERY Trek series, including the original series and the movies, did in fact consist of large stretches of time in which people sat in a room and just...talked about stuff. Put aside the whole "Trek means different things to different people" argument for a moment and look at the franchise. The chitchat was there, from "The Cage" to "These Are The Voyages...", from V'Ger to Shinzon. It was a platform for ideas and discussion, for which reason it stood out from the rest and was meant to. That's the sort of huge detail that one misses when he "finds himself saying yes" to rebooting a franchise he knows nothing about. The characters were a delightful element and a crucial part of making the show popular, but they were the glue, not the structure that the glue held together.
My gut-level impression of the movie proved this for me. It was a pure character vehicle, and thus simply a big dab of glue - fluffy, insubstantial, compared even to Nemesis. The movie I just watched had no point to it, no purpose, except merely to exist. As far as the changes to the visual ethos and the technological dynamics, I wouldn't have minded so much (because I am NOT that superficial) except that the changes were so wholesale that the movie looked and felt nothing like I've ever seen. Nothing like it at all. No familiarity. The only scene that even came close to resonating with me as Star Trek was the moment on the bridge where Kirk and Spock started discussing the alternate timeline. That's right - when they started talking. And no sooner did I feel my first (and last) twinge of comforting familiarity than Kirk started punching people again and Spock ejected him from the ship for no other reason than to arrange his rendezvous with Spock Prime and Scotty. Yes, Star Trek's plot contrivances are still alive and well.
What did the movie do right? Plenty of things. Technically it was great, which Trek deserves. Same with its scale. Everyone was certainly casted right, even if James T. Kirk was written as a stock action hero rather than the level-headed student of humanity that he used to be. Simon Pegg was merely Simon Pegg, not Scotty. Everyone else was fine. And I appreciate Abrams' attempt to show us a bigger slice of the universe in which Star Trek existed, taking pains to make it seem bigger than an unrelated collection of sets. I also LOVED Karl Urban's McCoy; the actor nails DeForest Kelley, yet it doesn't feel like slavish impersonation - mostly because of the way that the familiar catchphrases and dialogue was well-fused with the action, with McCoyisms like "Dammit, Jim" and "I'm a doctor, not a physicist" being organic and natural to the moment, not thrown in there simply to remind everyone that they were in fact watching a Star Trek movie. It's the writing, not just the acting, that counts.
I didn't hate the movie, I just couldn't stop rolling my eyes all night. I just couldn't enjoy it, couldn't get into it, not as a fan. It's not that I don't like action and adventure, of course I do - just not at the expense of a good story and some imagination and depth. That's when I feel like I'm being pandered to. All the dermatologists and acupuncture specialists in the world can't really animate a body that doesn't have a brain. My own brain wasn't even needed in coming to these conclusions - they were all gut-level reactions, borne from years of watching the show, which is more than I can say about half of the new Supreme Court. If only Obama had the power to replace some of those guys.
No doubt purists like myself will be persecuted and dismissed as the virginal dorks that we're not, and exiled with our DVD collections to the back seats with the fans of the old 1970's Battlestar Galactica. Because THAT series was another great cultural phenomenon too, that just got old and needed a reboot, right? Perfect parallel there. But hey, if the fans want nothing more than a standard sci-fi actioner, ok. Just don't throw the high RottenTomatoMeter score at me. I've read those reviews. Most of them join Nimoy in dismissing Trekkies as virginal dorks, and many of them didn't get Trek any more than Abrams did. A few of the more honest critics admit that there is little depth and no message to this movie. Roger Ebert, one of the few mainstream critics who truly understands science fiction as a genre, had pretty much the same thing to say as I did, except he acknowledged that the movie was fun to watch (and on its own terms, it was). All I ask is that the word "purist" be given its due respect and proper definition: someone who wants to preserve, not the endless technical minutiae, but the smartness and literacy and vision of Trek.
Abrams had the wrong idea all along. Trek didn't need a reboot. It's still a cultural phenomenon, and there are still millions of loyal fans. The franchise didn't swerve perilously close to the black hole of total irrelevancy because it got boring, or because it failed to keep up with the evolving SFX standards of the industry. It failed because it started repeating its own ideas, casted badly, failed to capitalize upon the themes of its own series, over-produced - countless other factors. It did need a re-envisioning, but not this kind. Abrams should have inhabited Roddenberry's world, not paid homage. All that Paramount needed to do was wait a few years, let the saturation drain out, and then hire a visionary (not a geek) and some good writers with fresh ideas to save the day.
Instead, the complexity and maturity of the series have been diluted, its ideals dumbed down into a primitive, juvenile sound bite for the ADD crowd (present company excluded, I should emphasize). I'm pretty sure that
Spoiler (highlight to view):
I glimpsed the dignity of the franchise being swept away down the Enterprise's water pipes, right behind Scotty.
Umm...gee thanks Dad. It's uh...great. I'll try not to drive it into a canyon.
----------------------
Sorry, not interested. I prefer big ideas and human commentary in my Trek, not noisy special effects and adventure-mugging. That Kirk's dialogue has gone from idealistic speeches to "DO IT DO IT DO IT!!!" is beyond disappointing and embarrassing. The new movie is simply Star Trek stripped of its dignity, social relevance, and storytelling sophistication - kinda like a turtle without its shell.
---------------------
Posted by: Mark Devlin on May 8, 2009 at 09:54:54
This movie is a slap in the face to anyone who loves Star Trek. Spock would never allow what happens in this movie to happen. He would not accept the destruction of Romulus. His first thought would be start calculations for slingshot around the sun. Timewarp would be simple for him with any ship at that time. He did it in a Klingon Bucket. His logic would dictate that if his plan would be successfull now it would be successful after timewarping back a month or two. If he got sent back in the past after that he would just live out his days quietly somewhere. I hope whatever planet JJ Abrams lives on get destroyed so he knows what it feels like.
--------------------------