Hated it

[Greg Cox]

Bingo.

Although the original stories and continuity have not been destroyed. They've just been shunted off to another universe, so the new movies can make their own continuity. . .

To use another weird analogy, the new GODZILLA remake did not "destroy" the original Japanese movies . . .

IOW, not bingo. That's not the point of a reboot.

...and the nuTrek movies aren't actually a reboot. So here we are.

There's a time-travel fig leaf, but, in the real world, it was intended to effectively reboot the franchise, shake off the old continuity, and effectively reinvent STAR TREK for the 21st century. Kind of like CASINO ROYALE did for the Bond films.

Maybe we can split the difference and call it a "backdoor reboot."

 

[eyeresist]

It's a reboot with continuity nods for the old fans, which is about the best we could have expected.

Even accounting for the latter, one would expect Roddenberry to have a titch more name-recognition than D.C. Fontana.

Wasn't DC Fontana a joint enterprise of DC Comics and Fontana Books?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Isn't that the point of a reboot ?

Bingo.

Although the original stories and continuity have not been destroyed. They've just been shunted off to another universe, so the new movies can make their own continuity. . .

To use another weird analogy, the new GODZILLA remake did not "destroy" the original Japanese movies . . .

IOW, not bingo. That's not the point of a reboot.

Still Bingo. The old movies exist (on tape, film, disc ect) but are off the board in regards to continuity.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

Kind of like CASINO ROYALE did for the Bond films.

Funny you should mention that, considering that Judi Dench showed up as M there too.

 

[Timewalker]

It's a reboot with continuity nods for the old fans, which is about the best we could have expected.

Even accounting for the latter, one would expect Roddenberry to have a titch more name-recognition than D.C. Fontana.

Wasn't DC Fontana a joint enterprise of DC Comics and Fontana Books?

That would be news to Dorothy C. Fontana.

 

[wulfio]

it made watch mojos list of top origins films.

msn 100 greatest films of all time

sfx top sci fi film of the decade

95% fresh on rt

83/100 on metacrtitic

These are personal opinion lists. It's no different than me making a blog and saying "this is my list of top 100 films". Why does anybody care what watchmojo or msn has to say?

RT's scoring system is also a thumbs up or thumbs down system. It's not as if the critics are saying the movie is a 93/100. It's that 93 out of 100 critics enjoyed the film.

I don't know what metacritic is.

However the whole premise of your post is silly. Film is subjective. There is no authority, or absolute value to scoring them. it's all personal opinion and taste. Hundreds of millions of people like eating mcdonalds. That must mean it's good for you.

 

[fireproof78]

it made watch mojos list of top origins films.

msn 100 greatest films of all time

sfx top sci fi film of the decade

95% fresh on rt

83/100 on metacrtitic

These are personal opinion lists. It's no different than me making a blog and saying "this is my list of top 100 films". Why does anybody care what watchmojo or msn has to say?

RT's scoring system is also a thumbs up or thumbs down system. It's not as if the critics are saying the movie is a 93/100. It's that 93 out of 100 critics enjoyed the film.

I don't know what metacritic is.

However the whole premise of your post is silly. Film is subjective. There is no authority, or absolute value to scoring them. it's all personal opinion and taste. Hundreds of millions of people like eating mcdonalds. That must mean it's good for you.

Why did anyone care what Siskel and Ebert said? Why did anyone care what Ebert and Roper said?

http://www.metacritic.com/ is a compilation of scores from all critics for movies, TV and music.

As for McDonalds, well they must be doing some thing right

 

[Maurice]

'Fraid I'm going to have to ask you to back that statement up.

Holy shit, you mean that a ton of critics and pleased moviegoers are wrong... ?

I could be mistaken, but I suspect that the "wid[e]ly considered... one of the best origins stor[ies] of all time" bit is the claim about which Maurice is most skeptical.

Yyyyyup!

Is there some poll of "best original stories of all time" which in which a vast number of critics have voted? An AFI survey? And, considering that "origin story" usually means superhero or scifi genre, that's a pretty small library of properties to be voting on anyway.

 

[wulfio]

Why did anyone care what Siskel and Ebert said? Why did anyone care what Ebert and Roper said?

I didn't. They are both journalists. They have absolutely no film back ground. Why would you care? Movie reviewers serve one function by the way. And that is to relay their impression of the movie. As the audience, it is up to us to decide if we are in tune with the tastes of the reviewer or not.

For example, if reviewer A hates everything about star wars, and he reviews a movie, and completely dislikes it for the same reasons as he dislikes star wars, then the review did its job, because I know that I will likely enjoy that movie.

A movie critic is no different than you or I. Except they get paid to do it and they have a press pass.

A movie review serves to review a movie based on their personal opinion. It's up to the audience to decide if their tastes are in tune with the critic or not. And based on that analysis, will inform us on whether or not we may enjoy the movie.

To suggest that a movie critics opinion is any greater than you or I is a very silly notion. Again I say, there is no authority on film quality, and there is no absolute scoring system. Film is completely subjective, and is of a different quality for every single viewer. It can also be of different quality for viewers upon different viewings. That's why some people LOVE twilight, it's one of the best and deepest stories to them. And some people hate Mel Brooks movies. That's the beauty of film, it means something different to different people.

Putting any weight on a movie critics opinion just implies that those people have a hard time forming an opinion of their own. You might as well say "my buddy tells me movie x is one of the top 10 movies of all time, so this is one of the top 10 movies of all time!".

P.S A lot of those critics that you look up to and idolize, they do not have film school back grounds, and even more of them did nothing with their film school education. Thus they became bloggers and journalists, grew a reputation, and were invited to Rotten Tomatoes. Your other metacritic site is the same.

 

[fireproof78]

Why did anyone care what Siskel and Ebert said? Why did anyone care what Ebert and Roper said?

I didn't. Movie reviewers serve one function by the way. And that is to relay their impression of the movie. As the audience, it is up to us to decide if we are in tune with the tastes of the reviewer or not.

For example, if reviewer A hates everything about star wars, and he reviews a movie, and completely dislikes it for the same reasons as he dislikes star wars, then the review did its job, because I know that I will likely enjoy that movie.

A movie critic is no different than you or I. Except they get paid to do it and they have a press pass.

A movie review serves to review a movie based on their personal opinion. It's up to the audience to decide if their tastes are in tune with the critic or not. And based on that analysis, will inform us on whether or not we may enjoy the movie.

To suggest that a movie critics opinion is any greater than you or I is a very silly notion. Again I say, there is no authority on film quality, and there is no absolute scoring system. Film is completely subjective, and is of a different quality for every single viewer. It can also be of different quality for viewers upon different viewings.

Putting any weight on a movie critics opinion, just implies that those people have a hard tim forming an opinion of their own.

I'm not. I'm just amused by the suggestion that no weight can be given to film critics who actually study film and how it functions in society. I'm not saying they are not opinion based works but it can a different perspective, which I am always appreciative off for my own edification and education. More information helps me make an informed opinion.

I agree that film is subjective, as I tend to like films that others pass on or don't like or not like very popular films. But, that does not mean that there is not structure and form to films that can be objectively analyzed and understood. There may be no authority of film quality, but that does not mean a reviewer cannot shed light on to why I liked a film.

 

[M'Sharak]

star trek 2009 is widly considered by critics and audience as one of the best origins story of all time. i just can believe how they messed up so badliy in the sequel.

'Fraid I'm going to have to ask you to back that statement up.

it made watch mojos list of top origins films.

msn 100 greatest films of all time

sfx top sci fi film of the decade

95% fresh on rt

83/100 on metacrtitic

created a new generation of fans who never watched tos

overall the film was very well recivied and that is what makes it one of the best origins films of all time.

Well, no.

Only the first item seems to be specifically about "origins" films, but I can't seem to find the actual list anywhere, so I can't be sure. Regardless, WatchMojo is a blog and thus does not in any way represent broad critical consensus.

None of the other things you've cited support your "best origins story of all time" claim, either.

Do you see how this works now?

 

[BillJ]

RT's scoring system is also a thumbs up or thumbs down system. It's not as if the critics are saying the movie is a 93/100. It's that 93 out of 100 critics enjoyed the film.

Critic reviews are on a ten-point scale and user reviews use five:



I think it is safe to say that people generally have enjoyed the Abrams films so far. Whether MetaCritic, Rotten Tomatoes, Netflix or even here, the films generally rate well.

 

[wulfio]

I think it is safe to say that people generally have enjoyed the Abrams films so far. Whether MetaCritic, Rotten Tomatoes, Netflix or even here, the films generally rate well.

Tomatoemeter bud.

I am not talking about nuTrek btw, I'm talking about critics. You can stand at ease there soldier.

I'm not. I'm just amused by the suggestion that no weight can be given to film critics who actually study film and how it functions in society. I'm not saying they are not opinion based works but it can a different perspective, which I am always appreciative off for my own edification and education. More information helps me make an informed opinion.

I agree that film is subjective, as I tend to like films that others pass on or don't like or not like very popular films. But, that does not mean that there is not structure and form to films that can be objectively analyzed and understood. There may be no authority of film quality, but that does not mean a reviewer cannot shed light on to why I liked a film.

They don't study film any more than you or I. Most of these guys do not have film back grounds. They are journalists, and just use trendy words. Furthermore, an education in film does very little to improve the quality of a review, and does nothing to increase the value of their review. At the end of the day, it's an opinion. You can be as well schooled as you like. It won't affect a persons opinion. You too can be on rotten tomatoes. All you need to do is start a blog or video blog. Get a few thousand subscribers, and bam, you're on Rotten Tomatoes. If they're predestined to like Michael Bay movies, they're going to like them whether they're knowledgeable about film or not.

And by the way, any good critic will tell you that their word isn't gospel. It's about opinions. And that you should look at reviews the same way I'm telling you to right now. You find a reviewers sensibilities you like, and go off of that. So that it can INFORM your movie going DECISIONS. Not inform your movie quality assessment.

 

[BillJ]

Tomatoemeter bud.

Doesn't make any difference as the actual user ratings are right there with it.

 

[Belz...]

In TOS episodes, City on the Edge of Forever, Tomorrow is Yesterday, Yesteryear, Assignment Earth and maybe even TVH and FC had any changes made in the past affecting one reality - not creating new universes.

Although I'd say it's simply an indication of what happens when several different writers handle a series over several decades, I'll instead answer your statement above with the following: how would you know ?

 

[Belz...]

I find the whole "Cowboy Kirk" concept pushed forth in Voyager to be an alteration of the character we saw in TOS.

Wholeheartedly agree. He's surprisingly diplomatic, even when compared to Picard.

You do surprise me. Surely you've heard of the "grandfather paradox" and are aware of why its a problem?

Yes, only under certain time travel rules. You get to make the rules of your own fictional universe. Star Trek has never settled on any.

It had more to do with fact that Star Trek, at its height of popularity, was back on television for the first time, and everybody wanted it back. It could have had the lousiest actors, the dumbest producers, the most inane storylines, or the shittiest special effects <snip>

...and after the pilot, it seemed like it was.

Gene Coon was the unsung hero of TOS, maybe as responsible for its success as Roddenberry, himself.

Hear, hear.

It would have likely been a better show if Roddenberry of '66 was involved.

Hmmm.... let's not forget that his original idea was "too cerebral". The fun TOS stuff was probably him being forced to follow CBS guidelines. Look at TMP and early TNG. Not the most entertaining stuff for most people. I eat it up, of course.

They don't study film any more than you or I. Most of these guys do not have film back grounds. They are journalists, and just use trendy words. Furthermore, an education in film does very little to improve the quality of a review, and does nothing to increase the value of their review. At the end of the day, it's an opinion.

I tend to agree with this. Knowing how to do cinematography allows you to tell if a movie is doing what you learned to do. It doesn't help you know if you like the movie's cinematography.

 

[Set Harth]

It's a reboot with continuity nods for the old fans, which is about the best we could have expected.

It's a sequel, not a reboot. It just takes place in one of the alternate universes not unlike the MU.

 

[BillJ]

It would have likely been a better show if Roddenberry of '66 was involved.

Hmmm.... let's not forget that his original idea was "too cerebral". The fun TOS stuff was probably him being forced to follow CBS guidelines. Look at TMP and early TNG. Not the most entertaining stuff for most people. I eat it up, of course.

Still had a fight, a big ass laser blasting a mountain, Pike being tortured, Pike threatening to twist off the Talosians head and Number One threatening to blow them all up. I don't think TOS was that far removed from "The Cage".

I like The Motion Picture and early TNG, but something changed in Roddenberry between the end of TOS and TMP. It's like he forgot that the stuff he made needed to be entertaining first and thought-provoking second. YMMV.

 

[UFO]

You do surprise me. Surely you've heard of the "grandfather paradox" and are aware of why its a problem?

Yes, only under certain time travel rules. You get to make the rules of your own fictional universe. Star Trek has never settled on any.

1) You're overlooking the reason for my response, namely fireproof78’s claim that they were “unsure of what the traditional ‘time travel rules’ are”. I believe single universe time travel is by far the most traditional.
2) While I don’t suppose anyone ever said: Star Trek has to operate by time travel method X, its pretty clear Star Trek used the single universe system. Not the “Back to the Future” version I grant you. I mean, I can’t recall any examples where it was obvious a new universe was created when time travel happened (including the last two movies!). But I would guess many time travel outings in ST wouldn't work if branching occurred. I'm not sure about the "Enterprise" Mirror universe stories. Was that just the time being out of sync?

It's a reboot with continuity nods for the old fans, which is about the best we could have expected.

It's a sequel, not a reboot. It just takes place in one of the alternate universes not unlike the MU.

Yes, a sequel certainly. For the same reason, plus the the fact that these characters aren't the originals, but copies of them, its not an "origin movie" either, I would argue.

 

[nightwind1]

It's a reboot with continuity nods for the old fans, which is about the best we could have expected.

Even accounting for the latter, one would expect Roddenberry to have a titch more name-recognition than D.C. Fontana.

Wasn't DC Fontana a joint enterprise of DC Comics and Fontana Books?

That would be news to Dorothy C. Fontana.

You do realize that was a joke, right?