Allpar Forums banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!
Joined
·
8,808 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I didn't much care for the 2009 JJ Abrams Star Trek universe reboot, but I figured that they could possibly maybe salvage it. In all other Trek whenever timetravel was a plot component, the story line concluded by restoring the timeline to its original state and returning us to the universe that we knew.

So, I'm amused by negative reviews of the Abrams franchise. Time Magazine's entertainment section had one that for me, is probably better than the movie itself.

Star Trek Into Darkness: The Young and the Reckless

I very much agree with what the reviewer had to say, and I'll add that generally those the manage to succeed with something structured that they pursue do so because of the kinds of risks they take and the kinds that they avoid, and that the organizational structures within which they operate only allow for a certain degree of risk, of which Hollywood frequently will ignore. In the case of these Abrams movies, the recklessness of the characters would ensure that they were not in a position to ever do anything within Starfleet ever again. Starfleet wouldn't accept that level of recklessness regardless of the results, and especially when there are no results like the review describes.

Anyway, I probably enjoyed the review more than I'll enjoy the movie, if I ever see it.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
31,982 Posts
Nothing can match the original TV series and "The Next Generation". All else just looks like plimok soup to me.
 

·
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!
Joined
·
8,808 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Yeah. That's part of what incensed me. Abrams' universe effectively means that TOS, TNG, and everything else after Enterprise never actually happened. Combine that with the juvenile nature of the characters and the nonsensical nature of the tech and science of the universe, even compared to previous Star Trek, and it's just not something that I care for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
699 Posts
Hollywood movies of this genre are nothing but a stupid overdose of computer animated special effects, and the rest of the time they get preachy. They are aimed at the mentality of 15 year olds. I have not seen a movie in a theater for the last 15 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,120 Posts
People are missing the point. Its not that the JJA characters are juvenile (they may be), or that the time line is all goofy (which it is). I can handle all of that. No big deal. I could care less what he did with the canon, and the universe, and all that. What I don't like, is that these new JJA movies are SUMMER releases. Star Trek is not a SUMMER release movie. It is not a popcorn movie. The JJA Star Treks, are low intent. Stat Trek has always been high intent.

The JJA Star Trek's are just a bunch of Star Trek people going out and doing some stuff, then the the movie ends. Star Trek is not Star Trek unless there is POINT to it. Star Trek is not a summer popcorn blockbuster action movie. An essential part of Star Trek is its social conscience. Always has been, always should be. It may be CALLED Start Trek, and all of characters may have the same names, and everything is all familiar feeling, and they may even be good movies, but they are NOT Star Trek, unless they try to move the ball.

What was the best Trek movie? 4? It also had the highest intent. It was the most "Trek" of all of them. Go back and look at TOS and TNG. Every episode had something to say.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,074 Posts
My daughter saw it last night and although she is not a Trekker per se, she did enjoy the heck out of the movie. The fact the storylines connect a lot of the original episodes now equates to seeing the first Star Wars movies to answer a lot of the questions posed and exposed in the last four movies, which is a nice twist in the Star Trek movies. I rather enjoyed the first JJ movie, and hope the second one just ads to the enjoyment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,120 Posts
OK, saw it.

As an avowed movie buff, and a lifetime fan of Star Trek, this is not just a good movie, but it is a GOOD Star Trek movie.

I cannot say anything about it, without also revealing everything about it it.

It's good, it is well written, well acted, the directing is very good, the cinematography is excellent. iIt is a bit more violent than I prefer in a Trek film, but it is not inappropriate for this subject. Chris Pine, and Zach Quinto really start to live up to their characters. Uhura is good, but a tad weak. Scotty is excellent, Bones is a bit too angry, but otherwise excellent. Chekov is Chekov. Sulu is surprisingly good. Pine is perhaps the best.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top