Mr. A
Super Moderator +
Right. But that hasn't happened in the current timeline yet, and won't for another 150 years, so other than Vulcan, nothing has changed.
Why the Star Trek (2009) movie sucked worse than SGU
- Thread starter Terran77
- Start date
Terran77
Captain Tightpants
Remember, it's Abrams' fault.This is why we can't have nice things here at GateFans. They always get destroyed.
YoshiKart64
Well Known GateFan
Disagree with your assessment on many many levels. For one you seem to confuse what JJ Abrams actually made - he was only involved in the pilot of Lost, didn't make Transformers or The Island and only co-wrote the script for Armageddon.
and honestly:
Lost had great writing and direction as well as great character development. That's why viewers stayed with the show despite the confusing plot; there was actually an easy to follow, well written journey involving these characters being told as well. The ending too had a big emotional payoff and was considered great by many of the fans, including myself. The mythology was a confusing aspect of the show for sure, but it was also not at its core (even though I thoroughly enjoyed finding out what was going on, Twin Peaks style).
And as for Trek - this movie was about the cast coming together, the villain needed the least screentime/development of anyone on screen. Plus we were obviously watching different movies if you thought it was dark and gritty, there were so much white things, not to mention humour and colours, everywhere.
The canon - sure it messed with it and i can understand how a fan might not like it. I also get why Abrams did it. Since I'm not the biggest fan of Trek I can't really comment but I did ask some of the bigger ones on here and they seemed cool with it. If they did that to Stargate though I'd be pretty annoyed; in saying that Trek went on far longer and possibly made making another canon edition far harder.
EDIT: Just so we're all clear I have nothing against you when I disagree here
. I've in the minority for my SGU views in this community so I'm cool if you don't agree.
and honestly:
Lost had great writing and direction as well as great character development. That's why viewers stayed with the show despite the confusing plot; there was actually an easy to follow, well written journey involving these characters being told as well. The ending too had a big emotional payoff and was considered great by many of the fans, including myself. The mythology was a confusing aspect of the show for sure, but it was also not at its core (even though I thoroughly enjoyed finding out what was going on, Twin Peaks style).
And as for Trek - this movie was about the cast coming together, the villain needed the least screentime/development of anyone on screen. Plus we were obviously watching different movies if you thought it was dark and gritty, there were so much white things, not to mention humour and colours, everywhere.
The canon - sure it messed with it and i can understand how a fan might not like it. I also get why Abrams did it. Since I'm not the biggest fan of Trek I can't really comment but I did ask some of the bigger ones on here and they seemed cool with it. If they did that to Stargate though I'd be pretty annoyed; in saying that Trek went on far longer and possibly made making another canon edition far harder.
EDIT: Just so we're all clear I have nothing against you when I disagree here
. I've in the minority for my SGU views in this community so I'm cool if you don't agree.
Terran77
Captain Tightpants
I had a thing about R. Orci that I deleted out... that's why Transformers and the Island is in there; I should put that back in. But Abrams not only co-created Lost and wrote the first scripts, he was the exec producer that ran the whole shebang.
Lost was bad, with a terrible ending. Sorry we disagree, but it was awful and tons of Losties actually were horribly angry with the ending and the writers-producers.
It's fine to disagree.And as for Trek - this movie was about the cast coming together, the villain needed the least screentime/development of anyone on screen. Plus we were obviously watching different movies if you thought it was dark and gritty, there were so much white things, not to mention humour and colours, everywhere.
The canon - sure it messed with it and i can understand how a fan might not like it. I also get why Abrams did it. Since I'm not the biggest fan of Trek I can't really comment but I did ask some of the bigger ones on here and they seemed cool with it. If they did that to Stargate though I'd be pretty annoyed; in saying that Trek went on far longer and possibly made making another canon edition far harder.
EDIT: Just so we're all clear I have nothing against you when I disagree here
EDIT: fixed the deletion I had re: R. Orci.
YoshiKart64
Well Known GateFan
Fair enough, I did think maybe you were including a few other people. But Abrams really wasn't involved in Lost past the first episodes, he retained the executive producer title though. Damon Lindeloff and Carlton Cuse ran the show and in their podcasts they mention how Abrams hasn't been around since the pilot. I think its the same with Fringe too, he helps launch the shows and then moves on. Lindeloff was involved in the writing of Trek however.
Terran77
Captain Tightpants
Abrams may not have "been around" in the sense that he was commenting on small script details, but his was the guiding hand for how the show would run. The overall feel and his use of McGuffins was the defining framework for Lindeloff and Cuse. Think of it as "here's my boat, you two keep it sailing in direction A" and that's Abrams' stamp. It was also why the ending was so poor, IMO.
And exactly the same thing happened with SGU. You have Wright and Mallozzi with their "visionless vision" for the show, and it colors everything.
Terran77
Captain Tightpants
nevahhhh!!!!
G
Graybrew1
Guest
I guess I will start off saying, that I am a Scifi fan because of Star Trek....I would never even seen a SG1,A, or U if it weren't for it. I adore Star Trek. So, we are Buds, but I will take the gloves off but try to keep the claws in.
I guess I am confused as to how you call yourself "not that much of a ST fan" and then pick apart the movie that the majority of all ST fans loved. It seems more to me like you are a disgrunteld customer of Pepsi and looking for reasons to complain about Coke. It feels like you went out of your way to find things about the movie that you did not like. All your words sounded very pretty and very persuasive, because of your writing talent. That does not make them correct. You have very subjective opinions about most apsects of the movie.
The whole point of the Alt Timeline is to be able to go in a different direction. Of Course, the characters are not the same as the original, they have lived different lives. It would be far worse if they were too similiar. I guess, because you don't really like ST I can understand your not liking Quinto's portrayal of Spock, but the masses did, And you know who else did?
Leonard Nimoy. He did a great job adding a new edge to Spock because of the Alt timeline.
You are picking at the way the alien spaceship looks in the fictional space movie because it had spikes on it? That is really a personal opinion, of no consequence to the merits of the movie. Maybe the captain like sharp pointey things, maybe their home base had jagged edges where it landed? Does it matter?
The Alien creature added a little tounge in cheek old school ST to the movie for me. I had no issue with it.
Finally there is the problem you had with the canon issue. I completely disagree with this being a bad thing. I love the way we now have for multitudes more of ST. You are overthinking the complications of the Alt timelines, maybe you would enjoy the movie more if you would just sit back and enjoy the ride instead of trying to correct it for them.
I guess I am confused as to how you call yourself "not that much of a ST fan" and then pick apart the movie that the majority of all ST fans loved. It seems more to me like you are a disgrunteld customer of Pepsi and looking for reasons to complain about Coke. It feels like you went out of your way to find things about the movie that you did not like. All your words sounded very pretty and very persuasive, because of your writing talent. That does not make them correct. You have very subjective opinions about most apsects of the movie.
The whole point of the Alt Timeline is to be able to go in a different direction. Of Course, the characters are not the same as the original, they have lived different lives. It would be far worse if they were too similiar. I guess, because you don't really like ST I can understand your not liking Quinto's portrayal of Spock, but the masses did, And you know who else did?
Leonard Nimoy. He did a great job adding a new edge to Spock because of the Alt timeline.
You are picking at the way the alien spaceship looks in the fictional space movie because it had spikes on it? That is really a personal opinion, of no consequence to the merits of the movie. Maybe the captain like sharp pointey things, maybe their home base had jagged edges where it landed? Does it matter?
The Alien creature added a little tounge in cheek old school ST to the movie for me. I had no issue with it.
Finally there is the problem you had with the canon issue. I completely disagree with this being a bad thing. I love the way we now have for multitudes more of ST. You are overthinking the complications of the Alt timelines, maybe you would enjoy the movie more if you would just sit back and enjoy the ride instead of trying to correct it for them.
Mr. A
Super Moderator +
Terran77
Captain Tightpants
Different opinions are fine, but I do think most of the Abrams-Trek fans were hoodwinked.
Actually, I was pointing out that I don't hold any version, any of the series of Star Trek, is some kind of golden standard in writing. That said, I loved the original Trek with all its flaws and warts. I liked TNG, I loved Voyager, I liked DS9 in the beginning, and I really didn't like Enterprise. So Star Trek as a whole is something of a mixed bag for me. But I'd still call myself a Trekker.
As for your implication that the majority of ST fans loved Abrams' Trek, please show me where this is the case. As with SGU, the Trek fandom is highly divided on Abrams' Trek. Some think it's really good, others think it's awful.
Actually, I'm correct about the massive use of lens flares, shaky cam, and closeups, not to mention other things. As to "subjective opinions" please point those out and we can argue about their subjectivity.
Meh. Actors are never objective about the movies in which they themselves appear. As to the "masses" loving Quinto... well, they went in loving him from Heroes. This version of Spock was more emotional and focused on sex than a "logical, emotion-controlled Vulcan" should be... don't you think? Quinto's Spock was the opposite of Nimoy's decades-long portrayal.
Yes, it matters when it's so distracting that it doesn't make sense for the movie.
It didn't look real or scary, it was just bad SFX imo.
Actually, I didn't have to think very far to see that they didn't pay any attention at all to canon, even the pre-TOS canon. Enjoying the ride, at least for me, means that a movie needs to make some sense. This was just flashy, noisy, and distracting on many levels.
Although I didn't do this, let's compare it to, let's say... Wrath of Khan. That's a terrific movie. It has some cheese, but it's thoroughly enjoyable and feels like Star Trek to the core. It had passion, character development, a rich story, and pretty good SFX. Heck, let's compare it to the 2-parter in Enterprise where they do the Mirror Universe thing. That was also really good in comparison to this movie.
heisenberg
Earl Grey
Comparison = fail
I am sorry but comparing a tv show against a movie is utterly ridiculous.Two completely different ways of telling a story.
I am sorry but comparing a tv show against a movie is utterly ridiculous.Two completely different ways of telling a story.
Terran77
Captain Tightpants
Don't be silly. I didn't compare it to the TV show, I didn't even compare it to the other Trek movies. I reviewed it on its own merits as a movie.
heisenberg
Earl Grey
The Title of this thread says otherwise
ChromeToasterX
GateFans Noob
I'm pretty much in the same boat as GB myself. Here's my opinion on this review:
STXI is in no way "dark 'n' gritty." It has its darker elements, but there is an undercurrent of optimism and hope throughout the film that culminates in the crew uniting at the end to go off on their mission together. At no point do we see characters succumb to defeat and the dreary angst that filled a good portion of SGU and to a lesser extent BSG; instead Kirk and Spock try to overcome the issue at hand (Nero going around and destroying planets) and there we see them attempting to be heroic in their own conflicting ways before coming together and becoming the heroes we know them to be.
There are flaws in the writing- as much as I love this movie, I hate the Kobayashi Maru scene and the subsequent trial, along with the sequence of events that lead up to Kirk meeting Old Spock in the cave. I personally would've loved to see a bit more devoted to Nero that was a bit more well thought out than the silly "Klingons have him in prison with his ship in orbit" subplot they originally had planned, but I could forgive the relative lack of screentime for the villain when they had so many characters to bring into the story. The primary focus was on Kirk and Spock and the screenwriters managed to give them some fairly good arcs that managed to develop the characters effectively (although Kirk's did suffer for losing the scene before the car crash that explains that the car was his father's and was going to be sold).
As for the effects, I never found them to be dark or confusing. I loved the scene in the opening battle where the woman gets sucked out into space because it seamlessly blended the cinematic convention of sound in space with the stark reality that there really is no sound there. At no time during the battles or fights did I ever find myself going "Huh?" like I did at the ending of Transformers, where Megatron has a hole blasted in his chest by F22s in a scene that's practically imperceptible.
"Losing" the canon never bothered me because Star Trek has accumulated so much stuff that can solve practically any problem an author can think of, forcing writers to just ignore it in order to be able to tell any stories at all. It also allows Trek to regain the sense of adventure that has been lacking in the modern productions, by taking the franchise back to being the "Hornblower in Space" people initially fell in love with back in the 1960s and only stayed alive in the films thanks to Harve Bennet and Nicholas Meyers. I personally don't think Roddenberry's take on humanity that prevailed in TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise was a good thing- I adore DS9 for subverting the "prefect humans" that Roddenberry created and Rick Berman maintained, which drained a bit of the humanity out of the cast. However, I think the people behind this film have a firm handle on the optimism for the future that Trek has always had and know how to balance it so that the characters retain their humanity. I think the lack of thematic and story depth is a consequence of having to do so much in the film, not the writers' inability to understand the themes of Trek and a lack of competence on their part.
STXI is in no way "dark 'n' gritty." It has its darker elements, but there is an undercurrent of optimism and hope throughout the film that culminates in the crew uniting at the end to go off on their mission together. At no point do we see characters succumb to defeat and the dreary angst that filled a good portion of SGU and to a lesser extent BSG; instead Kirk and Spock try to overcome the issue at hand (Nero going around and destroying planets) and there we see them attempting to be heroic in their own conflicting ways before coming together and becoming the heroes we know them to be.
There are flaws in the writing- as much as I love this movie, I hate the Kobayashi Maru scene and the subsequent trial, along with the sequence of events that lead up to Kirk meeting Old Spock in the cave. I personally would've loved to see a bit more devoted to Nero that was a bit more well thought out than the silly "Klingons have him in prison with his ship in orbit" subplot they originally had planned, but I could forgive the relative lack of screentime for the villain when they had so many characters to bring into the story. The primary focus was on Kirk and Spock and the screenwriters managed to give them some fairly good arcs that managed to develop the characters effectively (although Kirk's did suffer for losing the scene before the car crash that explains that the car was his father's and was going to be sold).
As for the effects, I never found them to be dark or confusing. I loved the scene in the opening battle where the woman gets sucked out into space because it seamlessly blended the cinematic convention of sound in space with the stark reality that there really is no sound there. At no time during the battles or fights did I ever find myself going "Huh?" like I did at the ending of Transformers, where Megatron has a hole blasted in his chest by F22s in a scene that's practically imperceptible.
"Losing" the canon never bothered me because Star Trek has accumulated so much stuff that can solve practically any problem an author can think of, forcing writers to just ignore it in order to be able to tell any stories at all. It also allows Trek to regain the sense of adventure that has been lacking in the modern productions, by taking the franchise back to being the "Hornblower in Space" people initially fell in love with back in the 1960s and only stayed alive in the films thanks to Harve Bennet and Nicholas Meyers. I personally don't think Roddenberry's take on humanity that prevailed in TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise was a good thing- I adore DS9 for subverting the "prefect humans" that Roddenberry created and Rick Berman maintained, which drained a bit of the humanity out of the cast. However, I think the people behind this film have a firm handle on the optimism for the future that Trek has always had and know how to balance it so that the characters retain their humanity. I think the lack of thematic and story depth is a consequence of having to do so much in the film, not the writers' inability to understand the themes of Trek and a lack of competence on their part.
G
Graybrew1
Guest
Different opinions are fine, but I do think most of the Abrams-Trek fans were hoodwinked.
I disagree and find it a little insulting to our intelligence.
Actually, I was pointing out that I don't hold any version, any of the series ofStar Trek, is some kind of golden standard in writing. That said, I loved the original Trek with all its flaws and warts. I liked TNG, I loved Voyager, I liked DS9 in the beginning, and I really didn't like Enterprise. So Star Trek as a whole is something of a mixed bag for me. But I'd still call myself a Trekker.
Okay, I can give you that, If your a Trekkie, your just a plain old disgruntled customer.
As for your implication that the majority of ST fans loved Abrams' Trek, please show me where this is the case. As with SGU, the Trek fandom is highly divided on Abrams' Trek. Some think it's really good, others think it's awful.
Take a look at this board for one. What do they say about forums being a representation of a percentage of the public opinion. Majority here likes the movie. And if that is not good enough take a look at this link to Rotten Tomatoes that shows both critical and audience ratings of over 90%.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/
Actually, I'm correct about the massive use of lens flares, shaky cam, and closeups, not to mention other things. As to "subjective opinions" please point those out and we can argue about their subjectivity.
The specific effects did not bother me, I am not as technical about it as you are.
Your subjective opinions came from the fact that you dedicated two paragraphs to your extreme dislike of "Abrams" and almost everything he has ever done and the way he does them.
Meh. Actors are never objective about the movies in which they themselves appear. As to the "masses" loving Quinto... well, they went in loving him fromHeroes. This version of Spock was more emotional and focused on sex than a "logical, emotion-controlled Vulcan" should be... don't you think? Quinto's Spock was the opposite of Nimoy's decades-long portrayal.
The audience is not as stupid as you seem to give them credit for. There has been several actors that excelled in one role only to fail miserably in another. Nicholas Cage,Jeff Goldblum,Robin Williams and Al Pacino to name a few. If he had been bad in the role, the fans would have said so. I also respect Leonard Nimoy because he created the portrayal of Spock. And Quinto's take had to be different once again because he was supposed to have been brought up in a totally different timeline.
Yes, it matters when it's so distracting that it doesn't make sense for the movie.
You have to admit that is just a personal peeve.
It didn't look real or scary, it was just bad SFX imo.
Hence the old school ST TOS tongue in cheek feel.
Actually, I didn't have to think very far to see that they didn't pay any attention at all to canon, even the pre-TOS canon. Enjoying the ride, at least for me, means that a movie needs to make some sense. This was just flashy, noisy, and distracting on many levels.
Although I didn't do this, let's compare it to, let's say... Wrath of Khan. That's a terrific movie. It has some cheese, but it's thoroughly enjoyable and feels like Star Trek to the core. It had passion, character development, a rich story, and pretty good SFX. Heck, let's compare it to the 2-parter in Enterprise where they do the Mirror Universe thing. That was also really good in comparison to this movie.
In order to reboot the franchise they needed to alter the canon. Maybe you a Purist when it comes to these things. But as I stated before....someday the temporal cops could be brought back and restore canon before the real end. Time Travel in real life is impossible, it has been used in almost every Scifi Show at some point or another. Trying to have it actually make sense is impossible. Making it plausible is, IMO they did. And they did a darn good job of it. They can't make another Khan and they can't make another Mirror Universe they had to make something completely new and different.
This was.
Most roller coasters have lots of belll's and whistles to them nowadays, years ago they did not. Perhaps you are the kind that prefers the old fashioned wooden board up and down kind. Most people today prefer the ones with all the bells and whistles....distractions and all.
I disagree and find it a little insulting to our intelligence.
Actually, I was pointing out that I don't hold any version, any of the series ofStar Trek, is some kind of golden standard in writing. That said, I loved the original Trek with all its flaws and warts. I liked TNG, I loved Voyager, I liked DS9 in the beginning, and I really didn't like Enterprise. So Star Trek as a whole is something of a mixed bag for me. But I'd still call myself a Trekker.
Okay, I can give you that, If your a Trekkie, your just a plain old disgruntled customer.
As for your implication that the majority of ST fans loved Abrams' Trek, please show me where this is the case. As with SGU, the Trek fandom is highly divided on Abrams' Trek. Some think it's really good, others think it's awful.
Take a look at this board for one. What do they say about forums being a representation of a percentage of the public opinion. Majority here likes the movie. And if that is not good enough take a look at this link to Rotten Tomatoes that shows both critical and audience ratings of over 90%.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/
Actually, I'm correct about the massive use of lens flares, shaky cam, and closeups, not to mention other things. As to "subjective opinions" please point those out and we can argue about their subjectivity.
The specific effects did not bother me, I am not as technical about it as you are.
Your subjective opinions came from the fact that you dedicated two paragraphs to your extreme dislike of "Abrams" and almost everything he has ever done and the way he does them.
Meh. Actors are never objective about the movies in which they themselves appear. As to the "masses" loving Quinto... well, they went in loving him fromHeroes. This version of Spock was more emotional and focused on sex than a "logical, emotion-controlled Vulcan" should be... don't you think? Quinto's Spock was the opposite of Nimoy's decades-long portrayal.
The audience is not as stupid as you seem to give them credit for. There has been several actors that excelled in one role only to fail miserably in another. Nicholas Cage,Jeff Goldblum,Robin Williams and Al Pacino to name a few. If he had been bad in the role, the fans would have said so. I also respect Leonard Nimoy because he created the portrayal of Spock. And Quinto's take had to be different once again because he was supposed to have been brought up in a totally different timeline.
Yes, it matters when it's so distracting that it doesn't make sense for the movie.
You have to admit that is just a personal peeve.
It didn't look real or scary, it was just bad SFX imo.
Hence the old school ST TOS tongue in cheek feel.
Actually, I didn't have to think very far to see that they didn't pay any attention at all to canon, even the pre-TOS canon. Enjoying the ride, at least for me, means that a movie needs to make some sense. This was just flashy, noisy, and distracting on many levels.
Although I didn't do this, let's compare it to, let's say... Wrath of Khan. That's a terrific movie. It has some cheese, but it's thoroughly enjoyable and feels like Star Trek to the core. It had passion, character development, a rich story, and pretty good SFX. Heck, let's compare it to the 2-parter in Enterprise where they do the Mirror Universe thing. That was also really good in comparison to this movie.
In order to reboot the franchise they needed to alter the canon. Maybe you a Purist when it comes to these things. But as I stated before....someday the temporal cops could be brought back and restore canon before the real end. Time Travel in real life is impossible, it has been used in almost every Scifi Show at some point or another. Trying to have it actually make sense is impossible. Making it plausible is, IMO they did. And they did a darn good job of it. They can't make another Khan and they can't make another Mirror Universe they had to make something completely new and different.
This was.
Most roller coasters have lots of belll's and whistles to them nowadays, years ago they did not. Perhaps you are the kind that prefers the old fashioned wooden board up and down kind. Most people today prefer the ones with all the bells and whistles....distractions and all.
Terran77
Captain Tightpants
Well, perhaps read the review and not just the title and you'll see that the comparison to SGU is more complex than simply doing a 1:1 comparison of SGU against Trek'09.The Title of this thread says otherwise
That said, if it's bothersome enough to put people off reading the review, I can change the review title.