20 most Cringeworthy Scenes in the New Trek films???

[xavier]

The forced jokes are actually funny and not terrible like in some of the older movies, especially TNG films. I only hope they have Kirk act more like a responsible commander in the next one. As much as I like the original movies, it has been almost 50 years since we have seen a Kirk who is more serious than he is quirky.

The only thing that completely irritated me was the overall story of Into Darkness. There wasn't a single moment that was outright terrible. I don't understand why, after successfully rebooting the series so well, they went over old ground. The last time they copied Khan was Nemesis, and it seems to be the lowest regarded of all the movies (and the only TNG movie I hated).

I agree as well, although I always said i was disappointed with the overall story, i would not say it irritated me. regardless , I do not know why the hell they went overboard with Khan and the plot even to the point of re acting an entire scene from wrath of khan. What now makes it even sad is that, all trek fans by default will say how much superior wrath of khan is because it came out first and it has stood the test of time.

Into darkness is a film that has already been forgotten. I am just so happy that this new great cast that I love so much still has star trek 2009 to fall back on.

star trek 2009 was a great success and is even deemed as a sci fi classic now. the new timeline and star trek as a series will always have the legacy of trek 2009.

I wish Orci the best for trek 2016 but the truth is that a part of me is scared. Orci has a shady record. in fact i do not think any of his films have been critically well received without JJ Abrams as the director. based on Orci's record, trek 2016 may put the franchise on life support again like star trek nemesis.

I pray this fear of mine does not come to pass.

 

[Hypaspist]

I don't know that much about Orci and I never knew much about Abrams either. The way I look at it is this: Studio Executives have no idea what they are doing and they never have. Whoever the creative lead is should be willing to take ideas from a variety of sources and play to their strengths. Ever notice that the technology in DS9 was about 100 years more primitive than TOS? It's because the story demanded it, for one, but also because Trek was in the hands of its dedicated writers and had gotten away from using established Sci Fi writers to help out (like in TOS). In a lot of the non Ronald D Moore episodes that focus on the military aspect of Star Fleet, all of the military types act like morons and savages. Why? They weren't using someone with that area of expertise. They had Coon in TOS and RD Moore in TNG era.

There are three things I think they need to do to make the next film better than Into Darkness:
Avoid big hollywood tropes. I'm not talking about lens flares. That is a minor detail and it isn't a legit complaint. It's like whining about all of the crazy warp speed effects in the original movie series. No what I'm talking about is basically that they should make the film a little more subdued with its jokes and stuff. The 2009 movie had a lot of yucks in it but I'm afraid that they will force in more because they think that's what brings in normal people. Anyway, I'm not interested in seeing nonstop wackiness or moral messages.

Play to the writer's strengths. Again this is what I was talking about earlier. Don't try to tell a story about a Klingon war with a writer who relies on magic bee bees or personal drama. Don't try to make a cerebral movie with someone who does stock Hollywood action.
I think they can have a mix of things, but they need to figure out what the threat is going to be and stick with it. The threat doesn't always have to be classic villain races either. I honestly think Into Darkness would have been a lot better if they somehow tied shape shifters or even the Doomsday Machine into the story instead of falling back on the Evil Admiral and Khan to take over the plot. After all, Starfleet is only a military organization when it has to be. V'Ger, the Kelvens, demigods, and even the Borg had to be defeated with something other than brute force. There's plenty of room for war stories, but they should at least focus it in a way that makes sense...and evil admirals almost never make sense.

Go balls out with the new timeline. Vulcan no longer exists, right? That is one of the main pillars of strength of the Federation. Honestly in every series there should have been tons of Vulcans in Starfleet. So whatever the story is about, the Federation should be crippled compared to what it was.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I loved the humour in the the new movies. TOS and the classic movies (with the exception of TMP) had their tongue ever so slightly in cheek. It's an essential element, IMO. When people in pyjamas flying through space start taking themselves deathly seriously you get TMP or TNG - not TOS.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The way I look at it is this: Studio Executives have no idea what they are doing and they never have.

That's why every movie that's ever been made has totally sucked, and there's not a damn film that anybody likes!

 

[Hypaspist]

Yeah because writers, actors, and directors don't exist. I will say that Movie Executives understand what makes movies more than a product is about on par with your wit.

I loved the humour in the the new movies. TOS and the classic movies (with the exception of TMP) had their tongue ever so slightly in cheek. It's an essential element, IMO. When people in pyjamas flying through space start taking themselves deathly seriously you get TMP or TNG - not TOS.

There's nothing wrong with humor at all. I didn't find any jokes in the new movies to be totally out of place (like 'funny' Data in the TNG movies). What I don't like is that they are making Kirk into some kind of irresponsible renegade clown. That isn't the way he acts in TOS. It's almost as if they paid more attention to memes or .gifs of him yelling, stripped them of their context, and decided that was their Kirk.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Because human males who are mature adults in their thirties are never irresponsible and rebellious in their twenties.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Yeah because writers, actors, and directors don't exist. I will say that Movie Executives understand what makes movies more than a product is about on par with your wit.

Refrain from making personal remarks, please.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeah because writers, actors, and directors don't exist.

They generally finance movies all by themselves, too, right? Studio executives never choose to finance the right team making the right film....

 

[Hypaspist]

Because human males who are mature adults in their thirties are never irresponsible and rebellious in their twenties.

That was the whole point of Kirk, originally. He was the youngest Captain in the fleet (at 29) but he wasn't a renegade. An indiscretion here and there is one thing, but they're taking it to the point where he's out of character.

The part that makes it silly is that you can't keep breaking the rules. It was a big deal when he defied orders in ST3 and got demoted from a Flag rank. It was only his great accomplishments up to that point which kept him from getting thrown out entirely.

 

[Sector 7]

Because human males who are mature adults in their thirties are never irresponsible and rebellious in their twenties.

That was the whole point of Kirk, originally. He was the youngest Captain in the fleet (at 29) but he wasn't a renegade. An indiscretion here and there is one thing, but they're taking it to the point where he's out of character.

The part that makes it silly is that you can't keep breaking the rules. It was a big deal when he defied orders in ST3 and got demoted from a Flag rank. It was only his great accomplishments up to that point which kept him from getting thrown out entirely.

Wasn't that the point of STiD? Kirk loses his command BECAUSE "you can't keep breaking the rules". He is properly punished by StarFleet Command. Kirk did NOT get away with it.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Go balls out with the new timeline. Vulcan no longer exists, right? That is one of the main pillars of strength of the Federation. Honestly in every series there should have been tons of Vulcans in Starfleet. So whatever the story is about, the Federation should be crippled compared to what it was.

This they definitely should've been doing all along. It's a whole new timeline. It's different. They destroyed one of the core Federation worlds in 09 just to make the point Star Trek is going to be different from what it used to be. And then they launched straight into a standard Section 31 story guest starring a classic evil admiral and Khan. And it did start out sort of differently (even though outside of Spock's personal character growth there were apparently zero consequences from the destruction of an entire planet), yet, miraculously, it winds up in exactly the same place as TWOK, right down to the lines. But wait - it's ok, because we cleverly juxtaposed Spock and Kirk! That's an homage, so it must be great writing!

If they had changed just one thing, they really could've saved this entire movie for me (well, except for the dumb fakeout at the beginning): let Kirk die. This is a whole new Federation - it should have whole new consequences. If the entire planet of Vulcan is expendable, then Captain Kirk could be as well, and that could've really driven things into an actually interesting new direction.

Although honestly, the consequences should've started even earlier - ST09 could've avoided all the bizarre plot issues involved in giving a cadet sole control of the flagship by letting Kirk play first officer to Captain Spock (who, despite his bad instincts earlier in the movie, actually was the person who saved Earth). That would've shown a real determination to shake things up and really examine these characters in a new light, rather than just wanting to make the same stuff over again with better fx.

Because human males who are mature adults in their thirties are never irresponsible and rebellious in their twenties.

That was the whole point of Kirk, originally. He was the youngest Captain in the fleet (at 29) but he wasn't a renegade. An indiscretion here and there is one thing, but they're taking it to the point where he's out of character.

The part that makes it silly is that you can't keep breaking the rules. It was a big deal when he defied orders in ST3 and got demoted from a Flag rank. It was only his great accomplishments up to that point which kept him from getting thrown out entirely.

Wasn't that the point of STiD? Kirk loses his command BECAUSE "you can't keep breaking the rules". He is properly punished by StarFleet Command. Kirk did NOT get away with it.

You mean his punishment that lasted for like a few hours? That punishment? That entire plotline was a ridiculous fakeout that had almost no real consequences in the entire movie. They'd've done better not to even include it at all.

 

[Hypaspist]

Wasn't that the point of STiD? Kirk loses his command BECAUSE "you can't keep breaking the rules". He is properly punished by StarFleet Command. Kirk did NOT get away with it.

I don't think that was the point. He gets temporarily relieved, yes, but my point is that he is completely out of character. The one defining trait about Kirk has never been that he was a playboy or a renegade, but that he was a good leader. Kirk in the new movies isn't someone I'd want to follow.

This they definitely should've been doing all along. It's a whole new timeline. It's different. They destroyed one of the core Federation worlds in 09 just to make the point Star Trek is going to be different from what it used to be. And then they launched straight into a standard Section 31 story guest starring a classic evil admiral and Khan. And it did start out sort of differently (even though outside of Spock's personal character growth there were apparently zero consequences from the destruction of an entire planet), yet, miraculously, it winds up in exactly the same place as TWOK, right down to the lines. But wait - it's ok, because we cleverly juxtaposed Spock and Kirk! That's an homage, so it must be great writing!

That's pretty much exactly how I feel about it. Another inconsistency is that they wouldn't recognize Khan right away. His character was totally different and his in-universe importance is ignored. The only thing that carried over was that he was a genetic freak who was super strong and smart, but it still made no sense for them to use him to help make a warship. Was Starfleet really that desperate and unsure of themselves? Hey lets unfreeze this guy who is frozen in space in a sub-light ship. He probably knows a lot about 20th century land warfare so we'll ask him what to do against the Klingons. I don't even know how it was supposed to make sense.

 

[Vezner]

I found both Nu Trek films to be cringe worthy in pretty much every way. Ok, I admit that I'm a long-time Trekkie. I watched TOS reruns as a kid, loved the movies, and watched TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterrpise from their pilots to their finales. Yeah, I'm a pretty avid fan. IMO the new movies are a slap in the face of the previous shows and, in my head anyway, Trek died with Nemesis.

 

[BillJ]

I don't think that was the point. He gets temporarily relieved, yes, but my point is that he is completely out of character. The one defining trait about Kirk has never been that he was a playboy or a renegade, but that he was a good leader. Kirk in the new movies isn't someone I'd want to follow.

It isn't like Kirk never pushed the letter of the law in TOS.

I found both Nu Trek films to be cringe worthy in pretty much every way. Ok, I admit that I'm a long-time Trekkie. I watched TOS reruns as a kid, loved the movies, and watched TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterrpise from their pilots to their finales. Yeah, I'm a pretty avid fan. IMO the new movies are a slap in the face of the previous shows and, in my head anyway, Trek died with Nemesis.

Not everything works for everyone. But a slap in the face? I think that goes overboard.

I started watching in 1975 with TOS reruns and have watched every bit of Trek produced since and find the Abrams films the closest thing to TOS since TOS itself. The Abrams movies are fun in a way Star Trek hasn't been fun in very long time.

 

[austen_pierce]

I don't think that was the point. He gets temporarily relieved, yes, but my point is that he is completely out of character. The one defining trait about Kirk has never been that he was a playboy or a renegade, but that he was a good leader. Kirk in the new movies isn't someone I'd want to follow.

It isn't like Kirk never pushed the letter of the law in TOS.

I found both Nu Trek films to be cringe worthy in pretty much every way. Ok, I admit that I'm a long-time Trekkie. I watched TOS reruns as a kid, loved the movies, and watched TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterrpise from their pilots to their finales. Yeah, I'm a pretty avid fan. IMO the new movies are a slap in the face of the previous shows and, in my head anyway, Trek died with Nemesis.

Not everything works for everyone. But a slap in the face? I think that goes overboard.

I started watching in 1975 with TOS reruns and have watched every bit of Trek produced since and find the Abrams films the closest thing to TOS since TOS itself. The Abrams movies are fun in a way Star Trek hasn't been fun in very long time.

Ditto. I do hear you a bit on the 'Trek died with Nemesis' sentiment. NuTrek is very different (duh), but in my opinion, we're in a better place now.

 

[Hober Mallow]

...Trek died with Nemesis.

My interest in Star Trek nearly died with VOY, ENT, and all the TNG films.

 

[Hypaspist]

The best thing about going back to TOS era is that it forces them to re-explore the established planets and peoples of Star Trek and to stop trying to shove new ones in there because there's nothing else they can think of.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't think that was the point. He gets temporarily relieved, yes, but my point is that he is completely out of character. The one defining trait about Kirk has never been that he was a playboy or a renegade, but that he was a good leader. Kirk in the new movies isn't someone I'd want to follow.

It isn't like Kirk never pushed the letter of the law in TOS.

Yep. he took the ship to Vulcan in direct opposition to his orders in "Amok Time".

KOMACK [on monitor]: Captain, you're making a most unusual request.
KIRK: I'm aware of that, sir, but it's of the utmost importance. You must give me permission to divert to Vulcan.
KOMACK [on monitor]: But you refuse to explain why it is so important.
KIRK: I can't, sir, but believe me, I wouldn't make such a request
KOMACK [on monitor]: Altair Six is no ordinary matter. That area is just putting itself together after a long interplanetary conflict. This inauguration will stabilise the entire Altair system. Our appearance there is a demonstration of friendship and strength which will cause ripples clear to the Klingon Empire.
KIRK: Sir, the delay would be, at most, a day. I can hardly believe that
KOMACK [on monitor]: You will proceed to Altair Six as ordered. You have your orders. Starfleet out.
MCCOY: Well, that's that.
KIRK: No, it's not. I know the Altair situation. We would be one of three starships. Very impressive, very diplomatic, but it's simply not that vital.
MCCOY: You can't go off to Vulcan against Starfleet orders. You'll be busted
KIRK: I can't let Spock die, can I, Bones? And he will if we go to Altair. I owe him my life a dozen times over. Isn't that worth a career? He's my friend. Bridge. Navigation.

[Bridge]

CHEKOV: Bridge. Navigation.

[Sickbay]

KIRK: Mister Chekov, lay in a course for Vulcan. Tell Engineering I want warp eight or better. Push her for all she'll take.

He also often butted heads with various Federation officials.

 

[Commishsleer]

Because human males who are mature adults in their thirties are never irresponsible and rebellious in their twenties.

In TOS Kirk referred to himself as "the book with legs', he reported Ben Finney for a mistake he had made, he had regrets over his actions on the Farragut. All indications that he took his job very seriously even in his youth.

 

[BigJake]

TOS Kirk's backstory, thin and improvised as it was, is actually a lot more interesting as an arc for the character than a lot of what was subsequently invented for him.