Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Agent Richard07, Apr 18, 2013.
According to the display during the space jump over Vulcan, Kirk was already a lieutenant.
FX is currently showing a butchered version of Star Trek 2009.
And that fits with some aspects of his muddled PrimeVerse backstory as well:
Well after seeing the film yesterday, i felt it was as weak as the Final Frontier, Yeah the special effects were great but the film lacked the heart and soul that Wrath of Khan had, the death and resurrection of Kirk was as hallow and emotionally empty a scene i've seen in a film for a while. Spock's death in the WOK had far more impact, emotion and feeling attached
Simon Pegg as Scotty just doesn't do the character justice for me, nor does the guy playing Chekov
Star Trek 09 was a far better film than this one and left me buzzing about trek again when i left the cinema, This film didn't feel like a Star Trek film and the TOS episode Space Seed and Movie Wrath of Khan it pays homage to are far better a watch than this film.
JJ go do take a breaks and if you come back do something original, i know Hollywood is all out of ideas at present with all the remakes, and prequels its throwing out, But rather than try to remake a classic film with a different take and make a total hash of it. You created an alt timeline ripe for new stories and new adventures so stick with it.
Despite the criticism Insurrection and Nemesis gets i enjoyed those films better than this one, Might be because instead of big effects it focused more on the characters which makes you care whether they live or die. Star Trek into the Darkness didn't make me care about the characters.
It may be one of those films that you warm to after seeing it a few times but i certainly didn't warm to it 1st time
The edits on FX are brutal.
They created a new timeline so that they could use whatever they want from Star Trek history without being beholden to that tired continuity and style. And that is exactly what they're doing.
So far, so good.
At some time during INS(maybe while he was playing in the haystack) I wished Data would die and in NEM I wished he had lived
I loved STID but I also wished they had a few more character scenes. You know like Spock and Kirk playing chess, Someone complaining about the replicators, McCoy having a drink with Kirk, Kirk ringing his Mum saying he'd lost the Enterprise. Just 5 minutes of movie time.
The movie had too hectic a pace I suppose to include these moments but maybe in the next movie?
Who the fuck judges a movie on the basis of goddamned Chekov, anyway?
I'm usually the last to say anything positive about B&B, but I'll say this for them: they ever resorted to re-making an existing story.
This isn't Star Trek, not even close, and no amount of box office success will change that.
I just hope that someday we will see real Star Trek again.
Yes, they ever resorted to doing so indeed!
Fine with all that, but you didn't answer the question this board NEEDS to know ... badly!
What did you think was wrong with Chekov and why did it matter?
The Russian accent was vey off.
Yeah, they made a bunch of movies that - bar one - are widely panned by critics and fans alike. I mean Trek fans are pretty hardcore, but I'm pretty sure most of us gave up with Nemesis, the only TNG film I didn't see.
I never said anything about Chekov, but in my opinion, he and Simon Pegg/Scotty are the two worst "recreations". My favorite by far is Karl Urban/McCoy, unfortunately, he is being pushed aside by Uhura.
I think it's fascinating that the majority of the people in the "F" category show their location as the United States. Funny ain't it?
It's true, the TNG films weren't the franchise's best run, but FC is really good, and Generations is underrated, remember, Kirk's death was mandated by the studio, it wasn't really a creative decision. However, I'm not going to discount TNG, DS9, and the occasionally good Voyager or Enterprise episode.
I don't think it's a coincidence that Ron Moore was involved with both scripts, he always seemed to balance out any bad elements brought forth by Braga.
Once again, if our barometer for success is going to be box office results and "mainstream critics", then J.J.'s "Star Trek: Transformers" will always be out ahead.
However, as long as the franchise is on this path, we'll never see another "Measure of a Man" or "Inner Light" or "Far Beyond the Stars" again. For that matter, even something like "Time's Arrow" is probably beyond J.J.'s capabilities...
And when it comes to getting "mainstream" popularity - make good stories and that will come - you need to look no further than 1994, when TNG was one of the most popular shows on television, had already spun-off DS9, and was about to spin-off Voyager, and would be in the theaters in the fall with Generations.
TNG didn't need lens flares and explosions, and to me, their successes went far beyond J.J.'s movies.
J.J.'s movies will be lucky to get 4 made, probably 3. TNG's movie franchise, for being a "failure" made 4, and that was after spending 7 years as a critically acclaimed series that spawned an additional 18 years of episodes after it's conclusion.
I'm reminded of what Picard said about the Stargazer in "Relics": "The first vessel that I served on as captain was called Stargazer. It was an overworked, underpowered vessel, always on the verge of flying apart at the seams. In every measurable sense, my Enterprise is far superior. But there are times when I would give almost anything... to command the Stargazer again."
Sure sounds like he's describing "Prime" Star Trek there, doesn't it? The only difference is that J.J. Trek is only better in one measurable sense: box office results.
What is the 'real' Star Trek?
You can see all the Star Trek series showing in most places in the world on TV and cable (except maybe TAS).
Is this Generations that was so bad that Nimoy didn't want anything to do with it? If STID had half the plot holes that Generations had then this thread would be unbearable.
Separate names with a comma.