Star Trek 09 Ten Year Anniversary. Does It Hold Up?

[TRON JA307020]

I was just watching it in the television and realized it's been 10 years. I started to think how some hardcore trekkers such as myself didn't like it and how some did. But then I started to think how it was touted as a rebirth of trek. How even Leonard Nimoy wanted to be a part of Treks resurrection for the 21st century. It seems everyone thought at the time that Trek would continue in this new universe and that the prime universe was done. Some questions I have been ruminating.
Does the movie hold up today? Is it still just as exciting to people who loved it and just as bad to people that hated it or have some people changed their minds? Now that it looks like the Kelvin universe movies are dead for Kirk and crew is the Kelvin universe done? Will they do a next gen version or something else? Did the movies change any future trek.

For me I really haven't changed my mind. I still don't like the movies very much and just watching the first movie I think it hasn't held up in the last 10 years. The needless return to the past and a reboot as a alternate universe was unnecessary and convoluted in my opinion. The bridge touted as a homage to what apple stores looked like now just looks gaudy as a bridge of a military vessel. I'm not a big fan of STD but their Enterprise bridge was much better. The story itself leaned heavily on letting us know that it was a alternate universe to the original and it was just distracting because all the way through you're realizing that the original series had many better stories. In would have preferred a straight reboot. I think the Kelvin universe movies and or any TV shows are dead for now especially with the new Picard shown being definitely set in the prime universe. I will say that the movies themselves have dictated what discovery is so far but now that it's moving hundreds of years in the future it doesn't matter because everything will change. Those are my thoughts. What do you all think?

 

[Ovation]

I think...pretty much the opposite of what you wrote. I just did a 10th anniversary re-watch a couple of weeks ago and was just as entertained as I was the first time around. The two Abrams-directed movies are my favourite of all the movies (ID first, '09 second) and watching '09 at the cinema 10 years ago made me feel the same degree of excitement about Trek I felt when I first started watching it in 1973.

 

[Phoenix219]

Still not interested in revisiting the first two movies, although my interest in finally watching the third has gone up.

 

[TRON JA307020]

Still not interested in revisiting the first two movies, although my interest in finally watching the third has gone up.

The third is the worst in my opinion.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

I think...pretty much the opposite of what you wrote. I just did a 10th anniversary re-watch a couple of weeks ago and was just as entertained as I was the first time around. The two Abrams-directed movies are my favourite of all the movies (ID first, '09 second) and watching '09 at the cinema 10 years ago made me feel the same degree of excitement about Trek I felt when I first started watching it in 1973.

Same. I love '09. It's a really fun movie that I still enjoy watching over and over. However, I like Into Darkness (in my opinion an unfairly maligned movie) more.

 

[Tosk]

I don't think my opinion on the first movie has shifted much over the years. I still really enjoy the strengths and am annoyed by the weaknesses. It continues to amuse me that it gets some character moments so right, and yet the overall scripting is so terrible in places. A willingness to abandon sense for style is one of my main complaints. But the first movie remains generally positive for me, whereas Into Darkness is buried in negatives to the point where I often forget any positives. (And thankfully you can pretty much have movies 1 and 3 as a pair without any need to keep or remember the second.) Beyond is my preferred film of the three, even though it still suffers from trying to maintain the JJ mold too much for my taste.

 

[M'Sharak]

The bridge touted as a homage to what apple stores looked like ...

Touted?

When was that, and touted as such by whom?

 

[Phoenix219]

I don't think my opinion on the first movie has shifted much over the years. I still really enjoy the strengths and am annoyed by the weaknesses. It continues to amuse me that it gets some character moments so right, and yet the overall scripting is so terrible in places. A willingness to abandon sense for style is one of my main complaints. But the first movie remains generally positive for me, whereas Into Darkness is buried in negatives to the point where I often forget any positives. (And thankfully you can pretty much have movies 1 and 3 as a pair without any need to keep or remember the second.) Beyond is my preferred film of the three, even though it still suffers from trying to maintain the JJ mold too much for my taste.

I bet someone could fan-edit that into a quite watchable pair of movies - a montage of some sort to illustrate a passage of time and some editing around the "cadet to captain" travesty, and it just might work.

 

[Dryson]

One of the best parts in the Trek reboot was when Kirk and McCoy see the Enterprise for the first time.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It's still the best Star Trek movie.

 

[Smellmet]

I think it holds up very well still. The visuals and overall production design remain absolutely first rate. It's not the perfect movie by any stretch but it's a lot of fun, has some genuinely fantastic moments (especially THAT opening) and I'm of the opposite opinion of the OP in that the story and premise were very cleverly done - to the point where other franchises started following it's model (x men, terminator). To all those people who say it wasn't trek, for me time travel and alternative universes doesn't get more trek. It was fresh and exciting in ways the previous films could only dream of. It's a great movie, and so were both sequels.

 

[Jayson1]

I love all the Abramsverse movies. The third is my least favorite but still fun. I enjoyed the new actors versions of the characters and they are great at what they are going for. Fun big budget action adventure storytelling. In fact as far as reboots or reimagings go it's way better than most reboots. They are much better than the more touted Disney "Star Wars" films, even. Including the good one in "The Force Awakens."


Jason

 

[Khan 2.0]

I think it holds up very well still. The visuals and overall production design remain absolutely first rate. It's not the perfect movie by any stretch but it's a lot of fun, has some genuinely fantastic moments (especially THAT opening) and I'm of the opposite opinion of the OP in that the story and premise were very cleverly done - to the point where other franchises started following it's model (x men, terminator). To all those people who say it wasn't trek, for me time travel and alternative universes doesn't get more trek. It was fresh and exciting in ways the previous films could only dream of. It's a great movie, and so were both sequels.

Yes that true.. while ST09 took its reboot cue from Batman and Bond.. other series like XMen, Terminator took note of ST09 as a way to clean up/rejuvenate a chaotic chronology as it was done so well/successfully.. Even SW seemed influenced (without the time travel of course).. whereas now (thanks to Halloween) the current trend is ignoring previous sequels/reboots and bringing back previously deceased characters.

Regarding OP's complaints on ST09.. it certainly does hold up (especially FX wise). But as Beyond was abit too much of a non event in the current age of MCU and SW despite costing pretty much the same (also seems to have happened/happening to varying degrees with XMen, Transformers, Pirates, Turtles, ID4, Apes, Alien, Terminator, Predator etc) Paramount just seems to have accepted defeat (unless QT is going to bring it back in a big ST09 way)

 

[TRON JA307020]

Touted?

When was that, and touted as such by whom?

When the movie was being promoted. They wanted the bridge to evoke Apple stores.

 

[M'Sharak]

When the movie was being promoted. They wanted the bridge to evoke Apple stores.

To reiterate: touted as such by whom?

Who is the "they"?

While filming was still in progress (so early-mid 2008-ish) I have a recollection of someone directly involved with the production being quoted as saying that the design of the casings for actual computers was part of what inspired the bridge design, but the "Apple Store" business didn't come along until much later, and then only from people not in any way connected to the production (i.e., not part of the promotion. )

If you've got a link to something documenting it, though, I'm willing to have a look.

 

[fireproof78]

Those are my thoughts. What do you all think?

That I think many hardcore fans who didn't like the movie (whomever they might be) missed out on a fun film that was designed to emulate TOS in terms of structure, while increasing the pacing for a modern audience.

I do not see any references made to an "Apple bridge" in my recent readings of Abrams' BTS interviews. I think the reboot was not necessary, but they made it work in a way that I did not believe possible, as well as accessible to non-genre fans.

I find these films augment my enjoyment of TOS, even more so than even DSC (though that is a close second) because these are character movies. They are all around Kirk and his growth and development. becoming a great starship captain and a great man, and living outside his father's shadow. I think that Spock's journey is just as interesting and as insightful as it was when I first watched it.

Finally, I think that the comparison game is doing a major disservice to all. These films did not aim to replace TOS, or retell those stories. They chose to take an alternate timeline while paying respect to what had come before. You know, that thing that Abrams gets constantly lampooned for missing!? I think they had it, I think that is how they got Nimoy back, and I think that the film gets much maligned for no reason.

 

[plynch]

not my cup of tea then
not my cup of tea now
so it held up

"Sacrificing sense for style" someone wrote above. I grew up reading the nitpicky memos in The Making of Star Trek. Logic/plothole issues really bothered those creators, while also trying to make marketable TV. JJ is more into going after the kewl/spectacular; "sense" be damned, imho.

I was sure - sure! - at the end somehow Kirk was going to pull a TOS-Kirk way to not kill Nero. When it was happening in the theater, I was like, "Yup, HERE is the Star Trek moment. . ."

Nope.

Yeah, I know he offered, and Nero persisted. Still, I could write you five ways for Kirk to somehow not kill him.

Also --

I just don't like big 'splosions and pew-pew.

Like what you like.

Peace and love to you and yours.

 

[ED-209]

It just never sat right with me. I liked the sequels (especially Beyond) much more.

 

[Timo]

When a character is "rebooted", whatever this is supposed to mean, what it in practice means is that he has to be developed anew. The first movie delivered the new character of Kirk; it took two others to explore that character, and the second one didn't even try (apart from a "he got suckered but bounced back" change-and-reset). But the third one, with the "I joined on a dare" thing, was pure fun. Even if it had the highest body count since Picard failed to save the Veridianiteians...

The new character of Spock was ill treated in ST:ID, too, but at least he had scenes and development. And once again ended up saving everybody and getting none of the glory; this is where I think 2009 grated on me a bit, as Kirk never did anything of significance despite all the nonstop action. Action is fine, but Kirk previously was all about pulling the rug from under the feet of the villain with clever tricks and out-of-the-box thinking. In 2009 this got relegated to the two Spocks entirely. (Okay, save for the "I got your gun" bit!)

I can stomach the new visual and storytelling style just fine. Hollowness of plots doesn't feel any different today than it did ten years ago, though. But plot-heavy movies can be flops, too - ST:INS isn't a fan favorite. I'm chiefly happy with the 2009 movie for giving me the new visual style and its culmination in ST:BEY. That, and the Roboadmiral/Cumberkhan Sheer Evilness Olympics in ST:ID, probably the most complicated and cinematic bit of villainy in all of Star Trek. And none of that would ever have happened without the 2009 romp.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[pst]

holds up like gangbusters. one of the best reviewed science fiction movies of all time for a reason.