Is the 2009 movie a nostalgia film?

[Noname Given]

I respectfully disagree, it's a special effects film with loads of 'splosions and a few references thrown in to please the old fans. I can't imagine people still watching Trek 09 in over 30 years time like TMP and TWoK.

Why not - it's certainly more entertaining than ST:TMP ever was - plus it's not a $40 million dollar remake of the TOS second season script - "The Changeling". I've been watching Star Trek first run since 1969 (I was 6) - and am a HUGE (as it it's still #1) TOS fan - and I'd watch any of the 3 Abrams Star Trek films over ST:TMP, STV: TFF, STVI:TUC and any of the TNG feature films; period.

(Yes, even ovver ST:FC which is pretty much the only barely watchable TNG era feature film, IMO.)

 

[fireproof78]

I wish I could say the same thing for the JJ films.

I can say it for 09, for the most part. There are a couple of moments, but it stands on its own as a film without any Trek knowledge.

Why not - it's certainly more entertaining than ST:TMP ever was - plus it's not a $40 million dollar remake of the TOS second season script - "The Changeling". I've been watching Star Trek first run since 1969 (I was 6) - and am a HUGE (as it it's still #1) TOS fan - and I'd watch any of the 3 Abrams Star Trek films over ST:TMP, STV: TFF, STVI:TUC and any of the TNG feature films; period.

(Yes, even ovver ST:FC which is pretty much the only barely watchable TNG era feature film, IMO.)

Same here. I think Abrams' films strike closer to TOS than the TOS films did. Certainly more than TNG films ever did.

 

[Lance Warren Baylis]

I can say it for 09, for the most part. There are a couple of moments, but it stands on its own as a film without any Trek knowledge.

Same here. I think Abrams' films strike closer to TOS than the TOS films did. Certainly more than TNG films ever did.

Agreed.

On the thread topic, I'll relate my story of the first time I seen the 2009 movie... I'd kind of gone off Trek for the first time in my life (I'd given up watching Enterprise long before it finished), and I'd missed out on the movie in theatres... but on a flight from NZ to USA it was on the in-flight entertainment so I figured, why not... and I loved it! I thought it hit just the right kind of note, feeling enough like TOS (the series) that it made me feel very nostalgic for that show and it's characters, so much that when I got home one of the first things I did was rewatch the original from start to finish for the first time in a decade... and from that my love of Star Trek was rekindled (I even ended up giving Enterprise another chance).

So for this life-long Trekker? It absolutely was nostalgic.

 

[Rahul]

ST09 has a bit of a "best-of"-vibe.
As if it were, say, Star Trek: the ride.
It doesn't so much has a connective plot, but instead is a collection of all the highlights previous Trek had before, hypercharged, and in one movie condensed: Ship evacuating, big evil starships, Kirk bedding green women, Kubayashi Maru, Arrival at the Wolf359-fleet, space-jump, away mission, Vulcan nerve pinch, wormholes, time-travel, revenge story, Ceti eels, destroyed planets, a sky-beam raining down San Francisco, warp core ejection, riding the shockwave, ....

Really, EVERYTHING in this movie has been seen in Trek before. It's basically a "best-of" highlights-reel. Which is IMO also the main reason Into Darkness failed: They already HAD shown all the highlights, now they were left with nothing exciting to copy anymore, and instead started to rehash emotional beats like Spocks death scene.

It's a shame, and IMO the main reason for the failure of the Kelvin timeline movies: They were on the right track. Fast paced action, humor, a bit of heart. They were SO. DAMN. CLOSE. But they were simply unable to the point even if their life depended upon it to add something NEW to the franchise, to have a cohesive plot that stands on it's own. It was just recreation of what had worked before - much like J.J. Abrams Star Wars: The Force Awakens later on... It's not so much a "nostalgia film", as simply a rehash.

 

[Lance Warren Baylis]

ST09 has a bit of a "best-of"-vibe.
As if it were, say, Star Trek: the ride.
It doesn't so much has a connective plot, but instead is a collection of all the highlights previous Trek had before, hypercharged, and in one movie condensed: Ship evacuating, big evil starships, Kirk bedding green women, Kubayashi Maru, Arrival at the Wolf359-fleet, space-jump, away mission, Vulcan nerve pinch, wormholes, time-travel, revenge story, Ceti eels, destroyed planets, a sky-beam raining down San Francisco, warp core ejection, riding the shockwave, ....

Really, EVERYTHING in this movie has been seen in Trek before. It's basically a "best-of" highlights-reel. Which is IMO also the main reason Into Darkness failed: They already HAD shown all the highlights, now they were left with nothing exciting to copy anymore, and instead started to rehash emotional beats like Spocks death scene.

It's a shame, and IMO the main reason for the failure of the Kelvin timeline movies: They were on the right track. Fast paced action, humor, a bit of heart. They were SO. DAMN. CLOSE. But they were simply unable to the point even if their life depended upon it to add something NEW to the franchise, to have a cohesive plot that stands on it's own. It was just recreation of what had worked before - much like J.J. Abrams Star Wars: The Force Awakens later on... It's not so much a "nostalgia film", as simply a rehash.

Can't really disagree with this actually. On a similar note, I think one of the issues that stymies the movie is that constant need to hark back, connect it to Prime, "pass the torch", it feels like a lot of potential is wasted when all the audience wants is a good story well told (a similar problem blights that other torch passing Trek movie, Generations). And this is compounded by, after movie 1 has already done that, not simply following it with a fresh story but instead giving us Space Seed/TWOK redux. Again. Maybe if 2009 had been followed by Beyond...

But I digress (and increasingly off-topic )

 

[Rahul]

Can't really disagree with this actually. On a similar note, I think one of the issues that stymies the movie is that constant need to hark back, connect it to Prime, "pass the torch", it feels like a lot of potential is wasted when all the audience wants is a good story well told (a similar problem blights that other torch passing Trek movie, Generations). And this is compounded by, after movie 1 has already done that, not simply following it with a fresh story but instead giving us Space Seed/TWOK redux. Again. Maybe if 2009 had been followed by Beyond...

But I digress (and increasingly off-topic )

Oh yeah, 'Generations' was the MOTHER of Trek nostalgia films. So it's not as if those mistakes weren't made before
I see the Kelvin-timeline as Star Trek's attempt at being Marvel movies: Those are also oftentimes a 'best-of' of what had happened previously in the comics, filled to the brim with audience winks and easter eggs. I think where the Marvel movies were a liitle more successfull was in having their movies stand on their own feet, and, while having tons of references to older material, never actually being nostalgic about them.
Also: A lot faster production pace. No one needed to wait 4 years to see the same characters you just were introduced to again...

 

[fireproof78]

ST09 has a bit of a "best-of"-vibe.
As if it were, say, Star Trek: the ride.
It doesn't so much has a connective plot, but instead is a collection of all the highlights previous Trek had before, hypercharged, and in one movie condensed: Ship evacuating, big evil starships, Kirk bedding green women, Kubayashi Maru, Arrival at the Wolf359-fleet, space-jump, away mission, Vulcan nerve pinch, wormholes, time-travel, revenge story, Ceti eels, destroyed planets, a sky-beam raining down San Francisco, warp core ejection, riding the shockwave, ....

Really, EVERYTHING in this movie has been seen in Trek before. It's basically a "best-of" highlights-reel. Which is IMO also the main reason Into Darkness failed: They already HAD shown all the highlights, now they were left with nothing exciting to copy anymore, and instead started to rehash emotional beats like Spocks death scene.

It's a shame, and IMO the main reason for the failure of the Kelvin timeline movies: They were on the right track. Fast paced action, humor, a bit of heart. They were SO. DAMN. CLOSE. But they were simply unable to the point even if their life depended upon it to add something NEW to the franchise, to have a cohesive plot that stands on it's own. It was just recreation of what had worked before - much like J.J. Abrams Star Wars: The Force Awakens later on... It's not so much a "nostalgia film", as simply a rehash.

Yes, it isn't like they explored the character of Kirk in a totally different way, or a social commentary highly relevant about how great leaders develop...oh wait.

"Best of?" I'll not understand this critique. Watching 09 is not a nostalgic drive for me. It is a highly emotional (so I'll admit my bias) impactful film that drives on about how Kir becomes a leader at all.

I don't think they were close-I think they hit the nail on the head.

 

[Rahul]

...or a social commentary highly relevant...

What?
Social commentary.... in Star Trek (2009)?
That's, like, appreciating Marvel movies for the intellectual intercourse

 

[WraithDukat]

Why not - it's certainly more entertaining than ST:TMP ever was - plus it's not a $40 million dollar remake of the TOS second season script - "The Changeling". I've been watching Star Trek first run since 1969 (I was 6) - and am a HUGE (as it it's still #1) TOS fan - and I'd watch any of the 3 Abrams Star Trek films over ST:TMP, STV: TFF, STVI:TUC and any of the TNG feature films; period.

(Yes, even ovver ST:FC which is pretty much the only barely watchable TNG era feature film, IMO.)

It just sat really badly with me, it was far to Star Warsy, for example:

1. The Warp Effect looked like the Millennium Falcon would be more at home in it than the Enterprise (they fixed this in Beyond thankfully).

2. Their solution to everything was to shoot it.

3. Spocks Jelly Fish ship looked remarkably like the Umo Bongo or whatever it's called from EP: 1.

Then there's other stuff.

1. Again their solution to everything was to shoot it. (I've put this twice as it really sits wrong with me).

2. Uhura being a whiny little bitch.

3. Uhura becoming a sex object in 2009 while she was a strong black woman in the 60's (WTF?).

4. The Uhura/Spock romance.

5. Spock kicking Kirk off the ship into a dangerous area (Surely a breach of protocol) instead of just putting him in the Brig.

Sorry but I have to actually try to enjoy 09, which is never a good sign. But it does get a lot of praise from others.

 

[Noname Given]

It just sat really badly with me, it was far to Star Warsy, for example:

1. The Warp Effect looked like the Millennium Falcon would be more at home in it than the Enterprise (they fixed this in Beyond thankfully).

2. Their solution to everything was to shoot it.

Go watch TOS - nothing strange here.(You want TNG? Sorry this ain't it.

3. Spocks Jelly Fish ship looked remarkably like the Umo Bongo or whatever it's called from EP: 1.

Then there's other stuff.

1. Again their solution to everything was to shoot it. (I've put this twice as it really sits wrong with me).

And again go rewatch TOS.

2. Uhura being a whiny little bitch.
She whined (and was even a scream queen) in a few TOS episodes again nothing non-TOS here.

3. Uhura becoming a sex object in 2009 while she was a strong black woman in the 60's (WTF?).

She was smart AND a sex object in TOS (I recommend you go re-watch TOS - "Mirror, Mirror". IDK where some people, get the idea that a woman can't be smart, good-looking and sexy at the same time. Also, point of fact that in 1966 BOTH Nichelle Nichols and Grace Lee Whitney FOUGHT to get the TOS female mini-skirt uniform on the screen. They had it and didn't mind flaunting it.)

4. The Uhura/Spock romance.

Extrapolated from a couple of scenes in TOS where they flirted on screen. Remember this is a different universe

5. Spock kicking Kirk off the ship into a dangerous area (Surely a breach of protocol) instead of just putting him in the Brig.

You mean a Half-Human Vulcan (having troubling dealing with the destruction of his Homeworld and the death of his mother) made a rash emotional decision? How shocking!

Sorry but I have to actually try to enjoy 09, which is never a good sign. But it does get a lot of praise from others.

That's okay - as someone who's been watching TOS first run since 1969 (at age 6); and who honestly disliked the TNG retcon of everything Star Trek in 1987 (but continued to watch and accepted it for what it was - although as time goes on, unlike TOS; TNG hasn't aged very well for me and there are less and less episodes from it I find re-watchable); I can understand how having a version of Star Trek you don't feel is your 'Star Trek' can be annoying.

 

[Rahul]

Go watch TOS - nothing strange here.(You want TNG? Sorry this ain't it.

And again go rewatch TOS.

Uhm, what?
I don't necessary agree with @ArcherNX01's criticism. But when exactly on TOS was the solution to a problem "shoot it"? In fact, they made a pretty big deal out of it often being NOT to shoot it! (See: Arena, Corbomite maneover, ...)
The only instance I can think of was probably "Balance of Terror". And that was basically an entire commentary about how useless and senseless "shooting it" is as a way to solve problems...
Really, you seem to have confused TOS' higher action quota (specifically Kirk punching things - there is not a single real phaser battle during the entirety of TOS) with it's implicit message - which is DISTINCTIVELY anti-violence, and thus actually the direct opposite of what you claim!

 

[Noname Given]

Uhm, what?
I don't necessary agree with @ArcherNX01's criticism. But when exactly on TOS was the solution to a problem "shoot it"? In fact, they made a pretty big deal out of it often being NOT to shoot it! (See: Arena, Corbomite maneover, ...)
The only instance I can think of was probably "Balance of Terror". And that was basically an entire commentary about how useless and senseless "shooting it" is as a way to solve problems...
Really, you seem to have confused TOS' higher action quota (specifically Kirk punching things - there is not a single real phaser battle during the entirety of TOS) with it's implicit message - which is DISTINCTIVELY anti-violence, and thus actually the direct opposite of what you claim!

Are you kidding? The issue of Kirk first stating "We come in peace"; and then after no response telling Mr. Sulu to "Arm Phasers" was so prevalent in a song talking about all the various Star Trek tropes:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

There's the line:
"We come in peace....shoot to kill...shoot to kill...shoot to kill..."

 

[fireproof78]

What?
Social commentary.... in Star Trek (2009)?
That's, like, appreciating Marvel movies for the intellectual intercourse

Did I stutter? I meant what I said.

Glad you found it so amusing.

 

[Rahul]

Are you kidding? The issue of Kirk first stating "We come in peace"; and then after no response telling Mr. Sulu to "Arm Phasers" was so prevalent in a song talking about all the various Star Trek tropes:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

There's the line:
"We come in peace....shoot to kill...shoot to kill...shoot to kill..."

Do you.... do you... do you actually not know what PARODY is?
I mean, I get it... this song is kinda' popular. But it has nothing to do with the series itself. It never happens. Like the famous phrase "beam me up, Scotty". That's never uttered on screen on TOS either. Jesus.

 

[Rahul]

Did I stutter? I meant what I said.

Glad you found it so amusing.

Indeed I did. What social commentary was in ST09?

 

[fireproof78]

Indeed I did. What social commentary was in ST09?

Since I don't think you will regard it much seriousness, and since it has been hashed out for nearly ten years now, I'll just leave it as I saw social commentary in there regarding fathers and the development of leaders.

YMMV and obviously does.

 

[Rahul]

Since I don't think you will regard it much seriousness, and since it has been hashed out for nearly ten years now, I'll just leave it as I saw social commentary in there regarding fathers and the development of leaders.

YMMV and obviously does.

Indeed. I have never seen "daddy issues" as social commentary, not even in Star Wars. For me that falls in the category "interpersonal drama" - which is also important and quite entertaining, but not the same - for me social commentary is about larger socioeconomic contexts.

But I can totally see why you would see that differently and accept that. It just honestly never came to my mind to entertain this as "social commentary"!

 

[Noname Given]

Do you.... do you... do you actually not know what PARODY is?
I mean, I get it... this song is kinda' popular. But it has nothing to do with the series itself. It never happens. Like the famous phrase "beam me up, Scotty". That's never uttered on screen on TOS either. Jesus.

From TOS - "Arena":

SPOCK: You mean to destroy the alien ship, Captain?

KIRK: Of course.

SPOCK: I thought perhaps the hot pursuit alone might be sufficient. Destruction might be unnecessary.

KIRK: Colony Cestus Three has been obliterated, Mister Spock.

SPOCK: The destruction of the alien vessel will not help that colony, Jim.

KIRK: If the aliens go unpunished, they'll be back, attacking other Federation installations.

SPOCK: I merely suggested that a regard for sentient life

KIRK: There's no time for that. It's a matter of policy. Out here, we're the only policemen around. And a crime has been committed. Do I make myself clear?

SPOCK: Very clear, Captain.

From TOS - "A Taste of Armageddon":

SCOTT: If they're alive, and if we can find them. That's a big planet.

MCCOY: Not too big for the Enterprise to handle if it has to.

SCOTT: We can't fire full phasers with our screens up, and We can't lower our screens with their disruptors on us. Of course I could treat them to a few dozen photon torpedoes.

KIRK: Scotty, General Order Twenty Four. Two hours! In two hours!
.
.
.
[Bridge]

SCOTT: Open a channel, Lieutenant. This is the commander of the USS Enterprise.

[Council Room]

SCOTT [OC]: All cities and installations on Eminiar Seven have been located, identified, and fed into our fire-control system. In one hour and forty five minutes

[Bridge]

SCOTT: The entire inhabited surface of your planet will be destroyed.

[Council Room]

SCOTT: You have that long to surrender your hostages.

Frpm TOS - "Errand of Mercy":

KIRK: You do quite well. Set your phaser on stun. We're after the top dog, not the members of the pack.

SPOCK: Very good.

KIRK: But if the situation calls for it, we kill, is that clear?

SPOCK: Clear, Captain.

Again you HAVE WATCHED TOS, right?

 

[Rahul]

From TOS - "Arena":

From TOS - "A Taste of Armageddon":

Frpm TOS - "Errand of Mercy":

Again you HAVE WATCHED TOS, right?

Errrm...
You didn't actually, by any chance... watch those episodes until the end?
Like - how the entire point about 'Arena' was Kirk breaking the cycle of violence?
Apart from that: Nice work proving my point: "Phasers on stun" as long as possible... -> compare that with shooting the badguy as standard operating procedure on the Kelvin movies... I think the point is clear.
Nobody is saying the Enterprise crew as to be pacifist up to bringing themselves in danger - they sure as hell protected themselves (an who can blame them?) But that always the point was about violence NOT being the final solution, even when they meet an "obvious" enemy.

 

[Noname Given]

Errrm...
You didn't actually, by any chance... watch those episodes until the end?
Like - how the entire point about 'Arena' was Kirk breaking the cycle of violence?
Apart from that: Nice work proving my point: "Phasers on stun" as long as possible... -> compare that with shooting the badguy as standard operating procedure on the Kelvin movies... I think the point is clear.
Nobody is saying the Enterprise crew as to be pacifist up to bringing themselves in danger - they sure as hell protected themselves (an who can blame them?) But that always the point was about violence NOT being the final solution, even when they meet an "obvious" enemy.

I DID watch those episodes until the end; but in the context of what's being discussed, if you wathed ST:2009 to the end; you had Kirk offering to beam Nero's crew aboard (IE save them) as well. It was Nero who refused - and Kirk was fine with that (and there's been similar situations in the TOS TV series as well.)

So yeah, the argument that ST2009 is somehow fundamentally different from the TOS TV series FALLS FLAT.
^^^
And that's the subject that was being discussed.