Star Trek Reboot was amazing. I don't understand the hate!

[RedShirtNoob]

The story structure is that of How James Kirk Became Captain of the Enterprise. The emotional structure is Spock's story through and through. This mismatch was very awkward.

How did you reach this conclusion? I'm honestly asking because I don't feel it was at all about James becoming Captain. It happens yes, but at no point is the conflict of the story centered around Kirk's ass landing in that chair. Star Trek 2009, for me, falls into (though not evenly) the "Event" mold of Orson Scott Card's MICE quotient.

"In the Event story, something is wrong in the fabric of the universe; the world is out of order. In the ancient tradition of the Romance (as opposed to the modern publishing category), this can include the appearance of a monster (as in Beowulf), the unnatural murder of a king by his brother (as in Hamlet), or the reappearance of a powerful ancient adversary who was thought to be dead (as in The Lord of the Rings). In all cases, the "golden age" has been disrupted, and the world is in a state of flux."

The "something" that's wrong in Trek 2009 is the appearance of Nero. He is literally what's wrong in the fabric of the universe. He has traveled through a hole in it and kills Kirk's father immediately after. This is the conflict that demands resolution, not Kirk's lack of rank. The succeeding scenes are driven by the danger Nero poses to Federation Space (He destroys Vulcan, threatens Earth) and, again, not by Kirk's rise to the rank of Captain.

"The Event story ends at the point where a new order is established, or the old order is restored."

Order is restored when Nero is driven back into the [black] hole he crawled out of and the crew of the Enterprise find themselves where they should have been had he never appeared. Or, more specifically, the negative effects of Nero's appearance on Kirk's upbringing subside as he and Spock find a harmony within their conflicting ideologies.

For the "emotional structure" of the story I must again refer to Mr. Card and ask: "Who hurts the most?" For you, obviously, the answer is Spock. However, for others (myself) the answer is also Kirk. It is true that the destruction of Vulcan was a heavy blow and a painful one for Spock to endure, but Kirk lost something long before Nero lowered that drill into Vulcan's atmosphere. Too few scenes deal with this, but there are those few that do. The scene between Kirk and Pike in the bar does this. Kirk harbors contempt for the absence of his father and those that revere him. This makes him a bit less approachable than TOS Kirk and rightfully so, but calling him a dick is a bit much. His disdain for his father's self sacrifice is evident in the trial just after Kirk states "I don't believe in no-win scenarios." This contempt, however, does not prevent him from giving Pike and others the respect they deserve. And as we all know, you have to give respect to receive it.
So, for me, this depicts Kirk as both sympathetic and respectful which invalidates:

He engenders no emotional identification, no respect

As far as Kirk's "arbitrary" promotion is concerned, it's not the most unheard of thing in the history Star Trek. Many Captains were lost in the attack on Vulcan and field promotions don't have to conform to time/grade requirements, nor involve committees or promotion boards. The Captain is an anchor (as Diane Carey describes the position in "Best Destiny") and besides Spock (Which was his first choice), Pike didn't have very many "Anchors" to choose from. He did the best with what he had and it just so happened that it was the correct choice. One that saved his life and billions more.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Here's my problems with it - all from a storytelling perspective:

[snip]

Wow, you almost make me feel ashamed for liking this movie.

Meh, all I got from it was my eyes glazing over due to the fact that I stoped caring what that side of the fandom bitched about two years ago seeing as its all the same stuff over and over again.

I'm also wondering when Star Trek became the holy gospel of St. Gene of Roddenberry.

 

[M'Sharak]

Here's my problems with it - all from a storytelling perspective:

[snip]

Wow, you almost make me feel ashamed for liking this movie.

Meh, all I got from it was my eyes glazing over due to the fact that I stoped caring what that side of the fandom bitched about two years ago seeing as its all the same stuff over and over again.

I'm also wondering when Star Trek became the holy gospel of St. Gene of Roddenberry.

While we've certainly had those whose take on the film is defined by how well (in their view) it all fits or does not fit within the frame of Gene Roddenberry's Vision™, I wouldn't put Lapis in that category at all. Her expectations of fiction generally and of Star Trek specifically may not always be the same as mine, but I find her posts thoughtful, well-reasoned, substantial and nearly always worth taking the time to read.

 

[Kanenas]

I rewatched it recently, in hindsight the acting was not holding up over time. The new and old spock scene just highlighted the acting quality disparity. Also the Uhura romance continues to be not credible. Perhaps we need a who would you want to replace actor/actress [insert charater here]? Since the time line and continuity no longer matters the producers can keep switching actors and actresses until they get it right.

 

[Irishman]

Oh, and see if I care about the lens flare.

​

Just what this thread needed! More cowbell and more lens flare!

 

[Trekkie2]

Just a note: Kirk was an insubordinate, bad boy genius with an attitude problem, a penchant for fighting and stealing cars, and a lothario, before the timeline was altered. Joining Starfleet did not change him much, either. In fact, his attitude was pretty much the same up until the incident with the Cloud Creature that killed half the crew of the Farragut.

So you're saying Gary Mitchell was lying?

TOS Kirk was a nerdy, dorky bookworm, often on the receiving end of Finley's jokes and pranks. Kirk, in that episode, even said he was rather 'grim' in the academy, and from the description in 'Where No Man Has Gone Before', he seems to have spent most of his time studying, later on teaching some type of class, and probably only spending his leisure time playing some chess, and doing some stuff in the gym, learning to fight, and stuff like that.

JJ Kirk, feels more like a young Picard, who admitted he was a jerk in his youth, and his attitude adjuster being a rather nasty looking knife to the back. I feel, had it not been for luck, JJ Kirk would have been more like Picard....and providing he would not get himself killed, he'd end up like what Picard might have become had he not taken that knife to the back.

I'm under the impression Kirk was an instructor and Mitchell was a first year cadet when they met. Yes, Mitchell stated Kirk was a bookworm always carrying an armload of books wherever he went, and always serious, and this was after the Farragut, where he learned to play chess.

I don't like the 1st issue comic book. It implied that Kirk needed Mitchell's help getting through quite a few of his classes, when in TOS it was Gary Mitchell who needed help getting through his classes.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

LENSFLARELENSFLARELENSFLARE YAY!

Wow, I can't believe people still fall for the "OMG LENZFLAREZROCKSCREWYOUZ" ruse.

Oh, and lens flare is awesome and futuristic! Screw you JJ for taking it away from me!

Are we having a serious discussion here? Because I want to talk about this, dammit!

 

[M.A.C.O.]

LENSFLARELENSFLARELENSFLARE YAY!

Wow, I can't believe people still fall for the "OMG LENZFLAREZROCKSCREWYOUZ" ruse.

Oh, and lens flare is awesome and futuristic! Screw you JJ for taking it away from me!

Are we having a serious discussion here? Because I want to talk about this, dammit!

Oh sure. We have a thread about lens flares already on this board.
I posted these images there.

Plus this new one.

 

[Anji]

JJ will sicken of the lensflare thing, just wait for it.

It's not that us old timers hate the new Star Trek it's that we hate everything being re-done. C'mon, don't tell me that doesn't irritate you too??? Can't Hollywood spend some money on a NEW idea??? It seems cowardly that they don't want to take a chance on something new. That's what bugs me, that's why I don't support (I didn't say I didn't like) the new Star Trek movies.

All the actors in the film gave 110 percent to make it work. No question. Abrams looks like he was on Red Bull when he edited that movie. No question. The script, a little bumpy, but was otherwise solid and very true to cannon. I can't criticize that.

A valent effort for all involved. No question!!!

But dudes, it ain't Star Trek. Star Trek will forever be with Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley and the others. It's not something you can explain, I think you just have to get older to understand.

P.S. JJ, mix up those shots will you? Too many in too tight. Pacing, dude, is too consistant. You need to have some pauses in the action. Movies are like music, they have to have a rhythm, not one consistant thumping beat. Otherwise, I think you've got a bright future ahead of you.

 

[M'Sharak]

JJ will sicken of the lensflare thing, just wait for it.

It's not that us old timers hate the new Star Trek it's that we hate everything being re-done. C'mon, don't tell me that doesn't irritate you too??? Can't Hollywood spend some money on a NEW idea??? It seems cowardly that they don't want to take a chance on something new. That's what bugs me, that's why I don't support (I didn't say I didn't like) the new Star Trek movies.

All the actors in the film gave 110 percent to make it work. No question. Abrams looks like he was on Red Bull when he edited that movie. No question. The script, a little bumpy, but was otherwise solid and very true to cannon. I can't criticize that.

A valent effort for all involved. No question!!!

But dudes, it ain't Star Trek. Star Trek will forever be with Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley and the others. It's not something you can explain, I think you just have to get older to understand.

I want to understand. How old would I need to be?

 

[JRoss]

If you feel that was you should watch Star Trek Of Gods and Men, made by Tim Russ. It was filmed in 2006. In it he has Vulcan destroyed. Alot of Star Trek 09 is borrowed ideas from successfull or previous Star Trek media

Yes. JJ Abrams ripped off Tuvok's fan film. That's what happened.

 

[Frontier]

I feel towards nuTrek as I do towards Enterprise and Nemesis: "Ugh, no, FAIL!" -- but I'm not going to constantly bash it and try to put it down and pretend it doesn't exist.

Also, I've seen a plethora of new trekkies take nuTrek as a starting point to going and watching TOS, TNG, DS9, so on and so forth. And that? That has me happy. Because if even 10% of the people who see nuTrek do that? Well, then it's worth it. Because it opens the door for people to find the true heart of things.

It's not the Trek I like or even want; but I'm not going to hold it against people or constantly berate it or those who do like such. Not as long as it's a stepping-off point for them to find true trek, and likewise a means to make trek merchandise more financially viable.

Example? They stopped doing desktop day calendars for Trek in the middle of the last decade. Next year? We get one again finally. Tiny silly example, but an apt one. An expanding fan-base means fresh dollars to the bean counters which means good stuff for all.

 

[UFO]

...
But dudes, it ain't Star Trek. Star Trek will forever be with Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley and the others. It's not something you can explain, I think you just have to get older to understand.

I want to understand. How old would I need to be?

My guess is the extact age is a very personal thing.

If you feel that was you should watch Star Trek Of Gods and Men, made by Tim Russ. It was filmed in 2006. In it he has Vulcan destroyed. Alot of Star Trek 09 is borrowed ideas from successfull or previous Star Trek media

Yes. JJ Abrams ripped off Tuvok's fan film. That's what happened.

Hmmmm. By the way, did you see that sequence in Of Gods and Men where the saucer section separates and the rest of the ship is blown up in order to drive it into the baddie ship?

 

[M'Sharak]

...
But dudes, it ain't Star Trek. Star Trek will forever be with Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley and the others. It's not something you can explain, I think you just have to get older to understand.

I want to understand. How old would I need to be?

My guess is the extact age is a very personal thing.

Very well - I'll rephrase: exactly how old do you need to be, personally, to be able to understand?

Anji: same question.

 

[UFO]

Very well - I'll rephrase: exactly how old do you need to be, personally, to be able to understand?

That's kind of hard to work out. I can only suggest that since I first saw TOS when I was perhaps 8 or 9 it would have to be sometime after that but before 2009. I like to think I was a "early bloomer" (er, so to speak)?

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I wonder how many reboots it will take before I'm also yelling to get off of Nimoy's lawn. I hope I'm dead before I reach that stage of life.

 

[Franklin]

A valent effort for all involved. No question!!!

But dudes, it ain't Star Trek. Star Trek will forever be with Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley and the others. It's not something you can explain, I think you just have to get older to understand.

I think I get it. And if I don't agree in principle, I will say the sentiment is valid. You only have one first love.
To me, anyway, Abrams was far truer to Trek and respected the characters and what the characters mean to the core fans than he had to. No, it's not the same, but it's not fair to expect it to be.
As far as it being "Star Trek" goes, my personal sentiments about ST09 can be summed up by what Sulu said at the end of TUC, "Nice to see you in action one more time, Captain Kirk."

 

[Captain Mike]

Here's my problems with it - all from a storytelling perspective:

[snip]

Wow, you almost make me feel ashamed for liking this movie. Great analysis though.

I didn't mind most of the plot holes. I thought the movie was fun and exciting. The only thing that really griped me was the portrayal of Spock. He seemed very out of character to me. Being mean-spirited and vengeful.

Just watch, next film he's going to be wearing black and cutting himself.

Let alone, from the pics that were "leaked", both Spock and Uhura (????) are going to be prominent big action heroes in the next film....

A valent effort for all involved. No question!!!

But dudes, it ain't Star Trek. Star Trek will forever be with Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley and the others. It's not something you can explain, I think you just have to get older to understand.

I think I get it. And if I don't agree in principle, I will say the sentiment is valid. You only have one first love.
To me, anyway, Abrams was far truer to Trek and respected the characters and what the characters mean to the core fans than he had to. No, it's not the same, but it's not fair to expect it to be.
As far as it being "Star Trek" goes, my personal sentiments about ST09 can be summed up by what Sulu said at the end of TUC, "Nice to see you in action one more time, Captain Kirk."

Not to me. I agree with Lapis Exilis on her interpretation on NuKirk.
I didn't like the portrayal or characterization of him in 2009, He was not the Kirk we have seen in action before where he used his brain (yes he did that on occasion, even without Spock).

 

[JamesRKirk]

Trek 09 was a different sort of Trek than we've had before because it's the first time we've gotten a first look at a crew in a movie setting rather than a TV series. As such, you need shorthand to get the characters introduced and the story told because you don't net 22 weeks to spell things out in a season. As such, Kirk is portrayed as a troublemaker, a womanizer and someone who never follows orders. If you saw this portrayal and then watched TOS you'd probably be surprised at how different the two Kirk's are. The broad strokes are there but they're not the same.

The portrayal of Spock was a little odd too, presenting him as sympathetic in his early appearances (being taunted by the other children and then with the Science Academy and his mother) and when we next see him he's a stuck up prig who let's his girlfriend influence his command decisions.

Hopefully, in the next instillment, now that we've got the introductions out of the way, the characterizations can get a little deeper and we can get a little suability out of them. And Scotty can dial back the humour from 11.

That being said, I have trouble imagining new Kirk delivering this line to McCoy at the beginning of TMP: "I need you. Damn it, Bones, I need you. Badly!" I don't think that this Kirk needs anyone at this point. I'd like to see him realize that he can;t do it all himself, that without the crew he's just the same little boy that wrecked a car. He didn't even need Spock at the end of the movie as he was planning on beaming over by himself. Spock offered to join him just like he did at the very end when he became first officer. Kirk needs to learn that a Captain needs a crew as much as a crew needs a leader.

 

[Franklin]

A valent effort for all involved. No question!!!

But dudes, it ain't Star Trek. Star Trek will forever be with Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley and the others. It's not something you can explain, I think you just have to get older to understand.

I think I get it. And if I don't agree in principle, I will say the sentiment is valid. You only have one first love.
To me, anyway, Abrams was far truer to Trek and respected the characters and what the characters mean to the core fans than he had to. No, it's not the same, but it's not fair to expect it to be.
As far as it being "Star Trek" goes, my personal sentiments about ST09 can be summed up by what Sulu said at the end of TUC, "Nice to see you in action one more time, Captain Kirk."

Not to me. I agree with Lapis Exilis on her interpretation on NuKirk.
I didn't like the portrayal or characterization of him in 2009, He was not the Kirk we have seen in action before where he used his brain (yes he did that on occasion, even without Spock).

Was he unrecognizable? Was he that out of Kirk's character? I didn't like how Kirk acted in TMP, but I didn't see it as out of character. I could see Kirk doing it. I just didn't like it.
Kirk and Kirk Prime had also experienced two different lives. Differences would be expected. To that point in his life Kirk probably lived more on impulse and instinct than Kirk Prime did. He'll come around. It seemed Spock Prime had every faith in him, anyway.

It's also a bit of an unfair comparison because we didn't meet Kirk Prime for the first time until he was in his early 30s and he had captained the Enterprise for a while. Give nuKirk eight more years of experience and we'll compare him at 33 to Kirk Prime at 33. That's the fair comparison.