I may be one of the few who honestly believe the reboot was genius and by far the best two films to come out of the Star Trek universe. Before you attack me, notice I said "films". Personally, I enjoy the TV series more then the films. Now, I shall defend myself!
The largest argument is that the new films have lost too much of their Trek identity. They are violent (militaristic), lost many of the moments that define Trek characters and overall the universe seems to be less... intellectual. I'm not blind to it... I can see exactly what everyone is talking about.
Let's start with the violence in the reboot of Star Trek. These two films do appear much more violent then their predecessors. But are they really? Let's take First Contact; arguably one of the best Star Trek films ever created. 1996 was the year the film was released, the same year Independence Day was released as well. Both films are action packed and contain plenty of death and sacrifice. But neither film seemed violent. Aside from aliens and the take over of Earth... the only other thing these two films have in common is production style. What goes into making the movie, the thought process behind everything.
With that said, Star Trek First Contact and every movie in existence is limited to production style and consumer tastes. The consumer taste of that time were not all to different from what they are today, but the production style was behind that of what the consumer truly wanted. But yet, consumers were happy with what was being produced and learned to deal with it because the industry was maxed out at what it could give...as displayed in these two movies.. they were top of the line for 96'. Both budgets were under $100 million as well.
Now dig deeper into First Contact... you have the Borg wiping out the entire ship, firing weapons onto earth (killing countless people), the crew being forced to kill other now-Borg crew members, a drunk Cochrane acting a fool and being violent, the destruction of multiple vessels in the fight to destroy the Borg Cube...etc etc.
Now dig deeper into Star Trek Into Darkness... you have a terrorist act performed by a member within Star Fleet (killing countless people), a conference room getting shot up by Khan (killing Admiral pike and a few others), multiple Klingons getting killed at the hands of Khan, members of the Enterprise crew getting killed by the Dreadnought class, Admiral Marcus getting killed by the hands of Khan and an unknown amount of civilians and small crew killed by the dreadnought being crashed into earth...also at the hands of Khan.
If you were to counter in Star Trek 2009, of course the death count would be much higher. An entire planet was wiped out. But my point, violence has always existed in Star Trek... don't get me started on the Wraith of Khan. It's the way the violence is presented that has changed. If you ask someone who was in their teens to mid 20's when the Original motion picture came out or the original TV series, they would tell you that First Contact is much more violent then what "Star Trek" use to be. Same with those of us who grew up with Wraith of Khan or even First Contact, we will look at the reboot as violent compared to what "Star Trek" use to be. That's not the case, the ability to express violence has changed greatly within the last decade alone...expediently over the past four to five decades! Same with the ability to express how the Enterprise looks or how the starts and planets look. I don't see people complaining about how much better the planets look. On another side note: A utopia will only last so long before it is challenged. We have seen this many times throughout the Star Trek universe...it's just more dramatic and drawn out now then ever before.
Next, the characters. I will agree flat out that the character development in the last two movies was lacking. This is not entirely a bad thing though. After watching both 2009 and Into Darkness we have learned enough about the main characters to say we know them enough... their attitudes, habits, personality. Unlike other Trek movies, the character development was not heavily harped on film by film...yet extended throughout films as seen in the reboot. The exception to this would be TNG films. As there was almost no character development what so ever. I think the producers were hoping that viewers would have learned enough about the characters in the TV series, yet many viewers of the movies did not see The Next Generation TV series. That's personally why I feel that out of the TNG movies, First Contact... and only first contact was successful.
In Star Trek 2009, we got a glimpse of the characters. Kirk, a rebel. Spock in constant battle with himself, Sulu... the new guy with a lot of potential. Uhura, independent and extremely intelligent. McCoy, there when you (Kirk) need him, stills says a lot of ridiculous things
. Scotty, go to guy...funny. Chekov, young and naive but has something to offer.
Their development only continued in Into Darkness. We came to found out that Kirk, though a rebel, was willing to sacrifice his life for his crew. Spock does have a human side and he is a bit of a rebel as well. Uhura shows her lack of fear and her emotion for Spock. Scotty clearly shows that he sticks by his values...even after kicking kicked off of the Enterprise. McCoy stepped up for Kirk as a support. Chekov became an assist to the crew as he was put into a command position and even risking his life to save the Captain and Scotty. Sulu showed his potential for being a future captain... earning even the respect of Bones.
So when I hear there is no charter development... I laugh. It's once again, the style in which development is introduced. And honestly, this keeps me exited for the next movie...wondering what each character will do next.
Last, the intellect of the Trek universe..they don't seem too smart in the latest movies do they? I'd have to agree and will not defend it per say. But I will add that it is the right move. They slowly took away this intellect factor in the films as time passed. Because it was corny and honestly just does not fit in a two hour movie. I'd rather see the smarts come out in a TV series as would their larger pool of viewers... yes, we do not account for the majority of viewers in the last two movies.
End Rant - Proceed with attacks!
The largest argument is that the new films have lost too much of their Trek identity. They are violent (militaristic), lost many of the moments that define Trek characters and overall the universe seems to be less... intellectual. I'm not blind to it... I can see exactly what everyone is talking about.
Let's start with the violence in the reboot of Star Trek. These two films do appear much more violent then their predecessors. But are they really? Let's take First Contact; arguably one of the best Star Trek films ever created. 1996 was the year the film was released, the same year Independence Day was released as well. Both films are action packed and contain plenty of death and sacrifice. But neither film seemed violent. Aside from aliens and the take over of Earth... the only other thing these two films have in common is production style. What goes into making the movie, the thought process behind everything.
With that said, Star Trek First Contact and every movie in existence is limited to production style and consumer tastes. The consumer taste of that time were not all to different from what they are today, but the production style was behind that of what the consumer truly wanted. But yet, consumers were happy with what was being produced and learned to deal with it because the industry was maxed out at what it could give...as displayed in these two movies.. they were top of the line for 96'. Both budgets were under $100 million as well.
Now dig deeper into First Contact... you have the Borg wiping out the entire ship, firing weapons onto earth (killing countless people), the crew being forced to kill other now-Borg crew members, a drunk Cochrane acting a fool and being violent, the destruction of multiple vessels in the fight to destroy the Borg Cube...etc etc.
Now dig deeper into Star Trek Into Darkness... you have a terrorist act performed by a member within Star Fleet (killing countless people), a conference room getting shot up by Khan (killing Admiral pike and a few others), multiple Klingons getting killed at the hands of Khan, members of the Enterprise crew getting killed by the Dreadnought class, Admiral Marcus getting killed by the hands of Khan and an unknown amount of civilians and small crew killed by the dreadnought being crashed into earth...also at the hands of Khan.
If you were to counter in Star Trek 2009, of course the death count would be much higher. An entire planet was wiped out. But my point, violence has always existed in Star Trek... don't get me started on the Wraith of Khan. It's the way the violence is presented that has changed. If you ask someone who was in their teens to mid 20's when the Original motion picture came out or the original TV series, they would tell you that First Contact is much more violent then what "Star Trek" use to be. Same with those of us who grew up with Wraith of Khan or even First Contact, we will look at the reboot as violent compared to what "Star Trek" use to be. That's not the case, the ability to express violence has changed greatly within the last decade alone...expediently over the past four to five decades! Same with the ability to express how the Enterprise looks or how the starts and planets look. I don't see people complaining about how much better the planets look. On another side note: A utopia will only last so long before it is challenged. We have seen this many times throughout the Star Trek universe...it's just more dramatic and drawn out now then ever before.
Next, the characters. I will agree flat out that the character development in the last two movies was lacking. This is not entirely a bad thing though. After watching both 2009 and Into Darkness we have learned enough about the main characters to say we know them enough... their attitudes, habits, personality. Unlike other Trek movies, the character development was not heavily harped on film by film...yet extended throughout films as seen in the reboot. The exception to this would be TNG films. As there was almost no character development what so ever. I think the producers were hoping that viewers would have learned enough about the characters in the TV series, yet many viewers of the movies did not see The Next Generation TV series. That's personally why I feel that out of the TNG movies, First Contact... and only first contact was successful.
In Star Trek 2009, we got a glimpse of the characters. Kirk, a rebel. Spock in constant battle with himself, Sulu... the new guy with a lot of potential. Uhura, independent and extremely intelligent. McCoy, there when you (Kirk) need him, stills says a lot of ridiculous things
. Scotty, go to guy...funny. Chekov, young and naive but has something to offer.Their development only continued in Into Darkness. We came to found out that Kirk, though a rebel, was willing to sacrifice his life for his crew. Spock does have a human side and he is a bit of a rebel as well. Uhura shows her lack of fear and her emotion for Spock. Scotty clearly shows that he sticks by his values...even after kicking kicked off of the Enterprise. McCoy stepped up for Kirk as a support. Chekov became an assist to the crew as he was put into a command position and even risking his life to save the Captain and Scotty. Sulu showed his potential for being a future captain... earning even the respect of Bones.
So when I hear there is no charter development... I laugh. It's once again, the style in which development is introduced. And honestly, this keeps me exited for the next movie...wondering what each character will do next.
Last, the intellect of the Trek universe..they don't seem too smart in the latest movies do they? I'd have to agree and will not defend it per say. But I will add that it is the right move. They slowly took away this intellect factor in the films as time passed. Because it was corny and honestly just does not fit in a two hour movie. I'd rather see the smarts come out in a TV series as would their larger pool of viewers... yes, we do not account for the majority of viewers in the last two movies.
End Rant - Proceed with attacks!
As for the community, I know it's not as one sided as I may make it sound. This post is directed at the side of the community that has a strong hatred for J.J. Abram's work. I would have choose not to give examples and a reasonable defense if I was looking for an argument. Though I would not mind to hear some more views from the other side of the fence. There are a lot of things I don't like about the new movies... most of which debating has brought to light for me.
