Shitty movie


Awful, awful movie this Trek '09 is. It's certainly not Star Trek, it's too "actiony", too stupid (engine room looking like a brewery) and too nonsensical.

F you, Abrams! And Kurtzman, too!

reply

So, you don't like the movie because you hate Abrams and Kurtzman.

reply

Yes, basically.

reply

Yes, you're right I shouldn't have written that.

reply

It's terrible. I watched it the other day and even the scenes I remembered fondly are shot and edited so fast and chaotic, you can't actually enjoy them. Still i'm actually kind of excited for JJ to be working on superhero movies. It think his terrible filmmaking style will be actually be a good fit for that genre. Even the better MCU films are often a bit dull and static in places. You certainly won't get that in a JJ picture.

reply

Well I thought it was brilliant, I loved it and loved Into Darkness even more!

reply

Rewatched this tonight after nearly 9 years. It's not as good as I remembered, and even back then I was unimpressed compared to the 4 TNG Movies and even all 6 TOS movies.

Too much lens flares and motion blur make it an annoying special effects spectacle. I do believe JJ toned down the lens flares for its two sequels, if memory serves, they are next on my viewing order. However, the damage is done.

A bit too much comic relief. That's fine in a few segments, as it heralds true to the TOS, but overdone is where a villain like Nero can't be taken seriously and the destruction of Vulcan turns into a big laugh.

The movie subtitles the words 'Iowa' then 'Vulcan' but then hilariously labels 'Iowa' immediately after. Why label it twice and then not label anything else in the movie again? So dumb.

Speaking of, what is with the 1701 Enterprise being built in Iowa, on the surface of Earth? That makes no sense. The Enterprise was assembled in spacedock above the Earth and is not fit, nor designed for planetary takeoff or landing.

They don't do a good job at all explaining Ambassador Spock's origins. In the movie it is just implied that he is from the future, but he is not just from the year 2387, he is from a completely different alternate reality--yet he doesn't mention that at all, no one ever brings it up, and we have to rely on the now de-canonized (thanks to PICARD series) 'Star Trek Countdown' to know more.

The Jellyfish, designed by Lt Cmdr Geordi La Forge, doesn't even resemble anything La Forge would have ever designed or worked on, and there is no indication of 24th Century Prime Universe Star Trek technology on the ship, not even the computer system, or LCARS control panels present in TNG/DS9/VOY. Red Matter is never discussed in the Prime Universe.

Narada does not resemble anything we've seen in TNG/DS9/VOY, however if I had to pick something, a Borg vessel. It's a huge ship, which makes even the Reman Warbird Scimitar and USS Enterprise-E as tiny.

reply

AS I HAVE ONLY A PASSIN G INTEREST IN THE TV SHOW...I LOVED THE NEW FLICKS...I THINK I MIGHT BE IN THE MINORITY THAT THE ONE WITH SABOTAGE AND THE WHITE WHITE CHICK IS MY FAVORITE.

reply

Don't like to think too much, huh?

reply

I ENJOY ALL THE TREK FILMS...SHATNER AND HIS CREW ARE MY FAVORITE...I JUST DONT HAVE THE TIME AND INTEREST TO CATCH ALL THE SERIES EPISODES,AND I ENJOY A QUALITY FILM,OF WHICH THE NEW ONES ARE.

reply

The series episodes (all spin-offs, too) are the core of Star Trek. I'd say even the Shatner movies are more mindless action than the series are.

reply

A GOOD MOVIE IS A GOOD MOVIE....I HAVE SEEN EVERY SINGLE EPISODE OF NEXT GENERATION...TWICE...MY MOM'S FAVORITE SHOW WHEN I WAS A KID.

reply

Deep Space Nine is better, and Voyager is like TNG-lite.

reply