MovieChat Forums > Trekkers Only! > Does anyone actually think JJ's Trek is ...

Does anyone actually think JJ's Trek is real Trek?

posted 7 years ago by thecritic (191)
8 replies | jump to latest

I don't. Totally missed the point. 90% action/explosions 10% dialogue and I'm being generous with the dialogue....

Where as TOS was 5% action and 95% dialogue. So much so that the original pilot "The Cage" was deemed too cerebral for viewers LOL

The action in TOS is basically to set up the ep. That's it. The 'why are we here, and what is humanity about', etc.... The rebooted movies are all just explosions and no discussion.

Even worse was Into darkness a RIP OFF, that managed to be more sexist then the 60's TV show with the half naked scene of that women in her skives....that was SHOWN in the trailer itself LOL

Where in "The Cage" second in command was a woman.....

How sad we are going backwards.....women as physical objects/damsels in distress again....

[–] Keelai (31755) 7 years ago

It's difficult to compare a movie to a TV show because a movie is expected to have more action - especially today. The only Trek TV shows I liked were the original and Next Generation. The others were too dark and not a part of Roddenberry's utopian vision.

I liked the JJ Abram movies even though they lacked creativity. I agree they could've been deeper, for instance, Voyage Home was about saving an endangered species. But, it still felt like Star Trek to me and I like how he altered certain things - Spock being close to his father and dating Uhura.

I hated Star Trek Beyond because it was action that made little sense and filmed so dark I couldn't see what was happening.

The positive is that a new Trek TV show is coming out so it should have more dialogue and character development with good plots. I'm looking forward to watching it.

[–] Mahrez99 (236) 7 years ago

I liked the first of the new Star Trek movies. Very different than the now very old TOS of course, with much more action for example, but felt like Star Trek still. 8/10

The second was more contrived and was generally less enjoyable, but still ok - and still felt like Star Trek. 6/10

The last though. Phew! Hate it, and it feels so far from a Star Trek movie as one get. Very disappointing! For sure the director in this one don't understand that Star Trek is not first and foremost about action (even with access to nice CGI - which this one didn't even have). 2/10

[–] kenburke (2278) 7 years ago

Trek is Trek!

What the heck!

[–] TexasJack (12515) 7 years ago

No. The 2009 Trek was entertaining but didn't feel like the franchise to me, especially the "new" super-emotional Spock. Into Darkness = total ripoff, as you said. Beyond was beyond awful.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

No, and a big part of it is the casting. Chris Pine is a 30-something Kirk who acts like a teenager and the new Spock has none of Leonard Nimoy's coolness. He feels more like some kind of nerdy hall monitor than anything else.

[–] specterkev (115) 6 years ago

it's not how a trek movie should be,..but alas, it's still canon

[–] McQualude (4231) 6 years ago

No, and the sad part is they are bad movies. If they were a different vision but good it would be something but they aren't. Sure they have big budgets, big stars, nice cgi, but underlying that are crap scripts, awful protagonists, misfired humor, and the main characters are inappropriate.

[–] Bergstein77 (3) 5 years ago

I agree...too much of this new-age Hollywood/Marvel Comics vibe in all of these new incarnations of my favorite Sci-fi shows and movies. Gene Roddenberry's vision was one of exploration, of humanity and other discoveries (within our selves and other races). These new films are so laden with eye candy and spectacular action/effects that the message gets lost in the translation. I much prefer sitting down to ST:TNG or TOS than any of the new movies any day!
And I really agree on the misfired humor! It's almost embarrassing some of the jokes/gags that make it into the final cut of the films.