There is zero evidence of this. Stop it.
Star Trek 2009-11 years later
- Thread starter fireproof78
- Start date
- Status
That post was from nearly three months ago and did not need to be exhumed. There's no good reason for shining new light on drivel which never merited anyone's attention in the first place.
sure, but it’s already two different sources saying it.
So, what, now we're closing topics after 3 months?
Not one I've run across before. Only thing I find that seems to fit is an abbreviation used on some fanfic sites:
Star Trek: Alternate Original Series - Fanlore
And we've got a forum for that.
Pros - the actors are generally well cast, though Scotty is fairly annoying and not as funny as he thinks he is.
It looks good overall, though the Enterprise bridge is too 'busy' and cluttered.
It's entertaining in a dumb way.
Leonard Nimoy
Er, that's it.
Cons - Nero is an idiot villain. He has the ability to time travel, to save his wife and child, to go back and save Romulus. But he clearly doesn't care that much about them as he's so obsessed with destroying Spock/ Vulcan.
The stupid way people get unearned mega-promotions especially Kirk's and Scotty, which is almost even worse as he just turns up and gets made chief engineer. It's as if there's been some huge war and all the experienced adults who should be working in Starfleet are dead and they're now desperately recruiting kids and making them boy generals etc.
The plot makes zero sense and is yet another 'revenge on a main character' plot Wrath of Khan rip-off.
The utter lack of believable character throughlines - e.g. after Spock dumps Kirk on that ice planet, potentially killing him, surely Kirk would never want to be friends with him ever.
McCoy's casual racism against Spock. A mindless regurgitation of the original without the long earned affection behind the original McCoy's words.
The lack of proper world building around Starfleet/ the Federation. Based on this film alone, the former appears to be some form of space police force.
The Spock/ Uhura romance is out of character gor them and is only there to add 'sex appeal'.
There are many other problems with this film, in common with Abrams Star Wars films. A bad if entertaining film that is completely superficial and lacks any of the cerebral sci-fi of TOS at its best.
Ironic that this is the film titled only 'Star Trek', something which it clearly has no understanding or interest in being, beyond paying lip service to superficial tropes which are rendered meaningless in this new context.
It looks good overall, though the Enterprise bridge is too 'busy' and cluttered.
It's entertaining in a dumb way.
Leonard Nimoy
Er, that's it.
Cons - Nero is an idiot villain. He has the ability to time travel, to save his wife and child, to go back and save Romulus. But he clearly doesn't care that much about them as he's so obsessed with destroying Spock/ Vulcan.
The stupid way people get unearned mega-promotions especially Kirk's and Scotty, which is almost even worse as he just turns up and gets made chief engineer. It's as if there's been some huge war and all the experienced adults who should be working in Starfleet are dead and they're now desperately recruiting kids and making them boy generals etc.
The plot makes zero sense and is yet another 'revenge on a main character' plot Wrath of Khan rip-off.
The utter lack of believable character throughlines - e.g. after Spock dumps Kirk on that ice planet, potentially killing him, surely Kirk would never want to be friends with him ever.
McCoy's casual racism against Spock. A mindless regurgitation of the original without the long earned affection behind the original McCoy's words.
The lack of proper world building around Starfleet/ the Federation. Based on this film alone, the former appears to be some form of space police force.
The Spock/ Uhura romance is out of character gor them and is only there to add 'sex appeal'.
There are many other problems with this film, in common with Abrams Star Wars films. A bad if entertaining film that is completely superficial and lacks any of the cerebral sci-fi of TOS at its best.
Ironic that this is the film titled only 'Star Trek', something which it clearly has no understanding or interest in being, beyond paying lip service to superficial tropes which are rendered meaningless in this new context.
No, it's actually one of the better Star Trek movies.
Just one nitpick:
Nero has time-traveled... not by design or by intent, but completely by accident. He fell into a hole and wound up in a time and place from which he does not know how to return.
Even if he somehow were able to come to understand the mechanism -- and his calculation of the time and coordinates for oldSpock's arrival suggest he has done this on some level -- he does not have the knowledge or technical capacity to control it.
It's not that he doesn't care, it's that he knows just enough to be aware that does not have the ability to achieve all of those things. He saw the destruction happen and does not know how to undo it, which may have had an effect on his mental state as depicted in the film. But Spock is within his reach.
I'll leave the rest of your points for others to address.
Yes, it's called having a psychotic break. It's almost like his emotions run deeply in his race, even more so than humans, and that drove him mad. When Spock says "He is a very troubled Romulan" that is a deliberate understatement. Nero didn't know how to time travel; only that he did so. Then he ended up in Klingon custody.
Kirk is a lieutenant and put in to the chain of command. Scotty is a Starfleet officer and able to coordinate with the current leadership. Stafleet lost 6 vessels to Nero's attack, as well as how every many casualties to the Enterprise. Of course they will take experienced officers.
Having had friends who were once enemies I can say that absolutely be friends with someone like that.
Which is kind of what it is.
Nope. Watch TOS and their flirting is there.
Except, Star Trek isn't only cerebral scifi. It's an action/adventure platform designed for multiple storytelling types.
No, not really.
Well, it's all just individual opinions in the end and I'm glad that others find real enjoyment in this film 
.
I really liked it at first, but repeated viewings and other opinions make me now view it as a cynical cash grab movie riding on the Trek name and iconography and a disappointing use of some well cast actors.
Also, the similar approach Abrams used towards the Star Wars sequel trilogy (which his Trek movies in my opinion act almost as showreels for), reinforce my opinion that he is a highly superficial filmmaker who should not be allowed near properties he either doesn't understand or doesn't care to understand.
Maybe if he was strictly the director of these films with no story/script involvement, they might have turned out better. Visuals are his strength, lens flare notwithstanding
.
. I really liked it at first, but repeated viewings and other opinions make me now view it as a cynical cash grab movie riding on the Trek name and iconography and a disappointing use of some well cast actors.
Also, the similar approach Abrams used towards the Star Wars sequel trilogy (which his Trek movies in my opinion act almost as showreels for), reinforce my opinion that he is a highly superficial filmmaker who should not be allowed near properties he either doesn't understand or doesn't care to understand.
Maybe if he was strictly the director of these films with no story/script involvement, they might have turned out better. Visuals are his strength, lens flare notwithstanding
.
Which is funny you say that because he does care about Star Wars, yet gets lampooned often for his efforts. He also stated that while he did not initially care for Star Trek he came to love and appreciate it more through his work on 09.
Abrams’s greatest strength AND weakness is is obsession with the the mystery box: he is great at building them up but has no idea on how to open them.
Well, it's all just individual opinions in the end and I'm glad that others find real enjoyment in this film
I really liked it at first, but repeated viewings and other opinions make me now view it as a cynical cash grab movie riding on the Trek name and iconography and a disappointing use of some well cast actors.
Also, the similar approach Abrams used towards the Star Wars sequel trilogy (which his Trek movies in my opinion act almost as showreels for), reinforce my opinion that he is a highly superficial filmmaker who should not be allowed near properties he either doesn't understand or doesn't care to understand.
Maybe if he was strictly the director of these films with no story/script involvement, they might have turned out better. Visuals are his strength, lens flare notwithstanding
It has it's problems, which you do address. However, the contrived nature of some of the things that happen are no different to what's appeared in the franchise previously - fast and loose use of time travel (TVH, FC), technobabble to explain away even the most preposterous things (resurrecting Spock in TSFS, all of TNG and VOY).
This film was designed to appeal to a wider audience than before and entertain. And on those fronts it delivers in spades.
I rewatched Bad Robot Star Trek because the wincing makes me feel alive. This picture is ever more dated and cringe, especially in the first half -- Kirk honking Uhura's breasts, banter about bestiality, nifty word choices like "humanitarian armada," the obnoxious apple-munching and finger pistols, contrived academy assembly scene with Tyler Perry seemingly reading a teleprompter, hilarious high jinx with numb tongue and puffy hands etc. etc.
How about slamming your finger in a car door? More alive, or about the same?
I'd ask what this means, but I have a feeling I already know what it is.
Wrong forum for that.
- Status
Similar threads
