This Quote From the Star Trek Video game Review

[Dave Scarpa]

which is supposed to be terrible btw, from Gamespot sums it up pretty good about JJ Abrams Take on the Trek Franchise, better than anything else I heard

"The thing about Star Trek is that it has never really been about the action. Character drama and a continuing quest for knowledge have always been the show's raison d'etre over phaser blasts and exploding spaceships. Well, at least they were until J.J. Abrams got his hands on the property. And it's Abrams' action-packed, lens-flare-infused take on the Star Trek universe that forms the basis of Star Trek The Video Game, a homogeneous and vapid third-person shooter that reduces the inimitable Kirk and Spock to the role of gun-toting foot soldiers. Frankly, they deserve better. "

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Whatever. Someone's opinions of a game have no bearing on the merits of this movie.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Yaaawn....

 

[SeerSGB]

I'm beginning to wonder if people who write stuff like that have actually watched TOS or if they're just repeating the pop-culture ideal of what it was? Cause Kirk never had a problem pulling a phaser in the original series. The same series that has Kirk threatening to nuke a planet from orbit to save his ship, over throw local religions/governments in favor of Federation morality.

 

[Franklin]

Anyone who starts a piece out with, "The thing about Star Trek is that it has never really been about the action," has lost all credibility in that first sentence.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, the writer's probably not a TWOK fan.

 

[SeerSGB]

Well, the writer's probably not a TWOK fan.

Or STIII, STV, STVI. All action movies in one way or another.

Not saying TOS didn't do some good, intelligent episodes--even the action ones were better than the bulk of the garbage on TV these days and it what made in the 60s. But come on, let's be honest here: Trek was a product of it's time and it shows. To many people buy into what pop-culture tells us TOS was, not what it actually was or they confuse TNG and beyond utopianism with TOS and think the franchise has always been that way.

 

[anh165]

He clearly did not see The Shat perform the 'wall of destruction' on his Andorian foe, nor did he witness The Shat improvise a reverse flip kick against Kruge in STIII.

Point is in ST, sometimes they try to resolve conflicts with outrageous fighting moves.

If Into darkness does not have Kirk performing anything of the above calibre, it is not Star Trek imo.

 

[Kruezerman]

Whatever. The game is fun, I honestly don't care what these people say anymore.

And the Spirit(TM) is just fine thank you very much.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Once I started to read that quote, I knew this was another in the group of folks who have an axe to grind against the Abrams movies, because it doesn't fit in with the TNG-colored hindisght of what they think TOS was. I guess a video game of the senior officers speaking in the briefing room the whole time would have been better?

One of the things from TOS I think of is the opening of "A Private Little War". The Villagers are getting ready to ambush the Tyree and the Hill People. What's the first thing Kirk does? It sure as hell wasn't run over to talk to the Villagers. He drew his phaser, skippy.

 

[BillJ]

I wonder if the writer has the same complaints about Bridge Commander or the Elite Force games?

Is the game perfect? No, but it's fun. Are the Abrams movies perfect? No, but they're fun.

 

[F. King Daniel]

which is supposed to be terrible btw, from Gamespot sums it up pretty good about JJ Abrams Take on the Trek Franchise, better than anything else I heard

"The thing about Star Trek is that it has never really been about the action. Character drama and a continuing quest for knowledge have always been the show's raison d'etre over phaser blasts and exploding spaceships. Well, at least they were until J.J. Abrams got his hands on the property. And it's Abrams' action-packed, lens-flare-infused take on the Star Trek universe that forms the basis of Star Trek The Video Game, a homogeneous and vapid third-person shooter that reduces the inimitable Kirk and Spock to the role of gun-toting foot soldiers. Frankly, they deserve better. "

JJ's first Trek movie had more character drama in the first ten minutes than the franchise had in the preceeding four decades.

Reviewer is one of those flakes who thinks Trek is what the post-TOS hype said, not what it ever actually was. Kirk didn't fight the parasites in "Operation: Annihilate" as part of a quest for knowledge. Nor was he seeking truth when he fought Khan in STII. He wasn't doing anything but fighting for the lives of himself and his crew when he killed Gary Mitchell.


As for the videogame, they've been making Trek into a shooter since the late 80's. It's nothing new.

 

[SeerSGB]

which is supposed to be terrible btw, from Gamespot sums it up pretty good about JJ Abrams Take on the Trek Franchise, better than anything else I heard

"The thing about Star Trek is that it has never really been about the action. Character drama and a continuing quest for knowledge have always been the show's raison d'etre over phaser blasts and exploding spaceships. Well, at least they were until J.J. Abrams got his hands on the property. And it's Abrams' action-packed, lens-flare-infused take on the Star Trek universe that forms the basis of Star Trek The Video Game, a homogeneous and vapid third-person shooter that reduces the inimitable Kirk and Spock to the role of gun-toting foot soldiers. Frankly, they deserve better. "

JJ's first Trek movie had more character drama in the first ten minutes than the franchise had in the preceeding four decades.

Reviewer is one of those flakes who thinks Trek is what the post-TOS hype said, not what it ever actually was. Kirk didn't fight the parasites in "Operation: Annihilate" as part of a quest for knowledge. Nor was he seeking truth when he fought Khan in STII. He wasn't doing anything but fighting for the lives of himself and his crew when he killed Gary Mitchell.


As for the videogame, they've been making Trek into a shooter since the late 80's. It's nothing new.

Hell fucking STO is 90% "Warp to this star system, destroy "X" amount of enemy ships" or "Warp to this star system, beam down and defeat "X" amount of enemy characters".

 

[Opus]

Some people can't wait to hate this movie. Sheesh...

 

[Flake]

Action has been centre stage on Star Trek from Day 1 and anyone who says otherwise hasn't watched it. I am not suggesting every single episode features action but a good proportion did and I would suspect there would have been more if the budget allowed for it.

Star Trek is: Action and Adventure and Science-Fiction with strong characters.

 

[M'Sharak]

which is supposed to be terrible btw, from Gamespot sums it up pretty good about JJ Abrams Take on the Trek Franchise, better than anything else I heard

"The thing about Star Trek is that it has never really been about the action. Character drama and a continuing quest for knowledge have always been the show's raison d'etre over phaser blasts and exploding spaceships. Well, at least they were until J.J. Abrams got his hands on the property. And it's Abrams' action-packed, lens-flare-infused take on the Star Trek universe that forms the basis of Star Trek The Video Game, a homogeneous and vapid third-person shooter that reduces the inimitable Kirk and Spock to the role of gun-toting foot soldiers. Frankly, they deserve better. "

It's customary to provide a link to the material being cited, so here that is. As video reviews go, it's not bad, but that bar's not set very high - most consist of angry, barely-articulate spewing which goes on far too long. So anyway, this is better than those, but it's still no more than a review of a game - one which does feature voices of several of the cast but with which Abrams and Company have minimal involvement. As a comment on the movie, I'm afraid it's not worth much.

Also: "markypants"?

 

[-Brett-]

If that's a professional reviewer, I'm not impressed. He's supposed to be reviewing the game, not ranting about AbramsTrek. If he just has to rant about AbramsTrek, I'd expect better from a professional than the same nonsense I can find on this forum.

 

[controlfreak]

Anyone who starts a piece out with, "The thing about Star Trek is that it has never really been about the action," has lost all credibility in that first sentence.

Pretty much sums it up nicely.

 

[Tosk]

The review doesn't claim that Classic Trek didn't do action, it said that it wasn't about the action. And I agree.