Bolded = the common elements that ALL successful science fiction movies and series since have used as a formula for success, hence the BILLIONS of dollars made upon series and movies based on that exact formula. What is it about any of those elements that makes it "an absolutely terrible movie"? Its Trek, so its success is basically insured. Take too much of the ham/technobabble/camp out of it and its no longer Trek....
It's always interesting getting to see the lenses that people put on when evaluating others' reviews. How did you get that I said ham, technobabble and camp were "horrible" or even improper for Trek? I said these things
were part of Trek. However, ham, technobabble and camp all must have the proper timing and delivery, otherwise they tend to suck badly. Additionally, you completely glossed over the fact that I said important things were missing from Abrams' Trek: the positive outlook for humanity, the wonder of space exploration, and fun stories that were often uplifting morality plays, those elements are utterly absent in this movie.
Abrams gave us Trek, pure and simple.
I disagree, completely.
I have been a fan of Star Trek since it was a show still airing for the first time in 1966. THAT Trek is the quintessential Trek...the Trek upon which all of Trek is based. The next Trek series and movies updated the tone and look of the show a bit, making it more politically and socially correct.
I agree, although it's unworthy of you to suggest that not seeing TOS live makes one somehow a poorer judge of the series or the franchise.
That said, if that close of an identification is required by you for some sort of "credit" as a reviewer, then I assure you that not only did I grow up seeing every single episode on television, I also happen to understand it fully within the social context of the late 60s and early 70s. I am a Trekker, not a Trekkie, and not a NextGenner.
Just NO!
The original Trek had the SAME elements as this one does. You never saw the young and sexy Uhura or the fit and trim Scotty. You didnt feel the shock and awe of the show when it was aired in the 1960s...miniskirts, tight pants, skimpy outfits on incredibly sexy women...Kirk was the Playboy Captain...the only one, until Chris Pine's Kirk which is arguably better than the original IMO. Have you ever seen The Menagerie? It was the pilot for Trek, and it will tell you a lot about what the core of Trek is. What I see in this post is somebody who doesnt really know Trek intimately, and therefore does not like what makes Trek what it is. The camp and ham and science and sex is SUPPOSED to be there.
As incredibly frakking insulting as your insinuations are, I'll respond point by point. I
did grow up watching TOS on television. I have seen all episodes of every Trek, not just the original. I collected the original figures, I had the walkie-talkie communicator set. I'm a Trekker. So thanks
very much for your "you are somehow a better judge" insinuations, but I understand Trek very well. Perhaps you are viewing Trek'09 through the rosy glasses of nostalgia and wishful thinking, have you considered that?
What you see with my review is my honest experience of the Abrams film. Yes, camp, ham and science are all very much a part of TOS. But in Trek'09 they are not the same as in TOS. I felt that the timing and presentation of those elements were wrong on many levels, and many other important elements were missing. It's fine if you want to disagree, but don't cross the line of making personal assumptions about me.
Im glad that awful Romulan mining ship is gone as well as Nero and that stupid looking Vulcan science ship with the rotating thingie on it. They also introduced several bad elements, like the stupid looking and illogical swirly effect for the transporters, the asinine Jetsons sounds used in the film, the overdone and illogically designed bridge, the oil derrick interior look of Enterprise, the swoopy and illogical lines of the design of the new Enterprise...but those things can be fixed.
Fixed how? The movie is out, it's there and there's no changing it. Those awful elements are part and parcel of the crapfest that Abrams delivered.
And Im re-reading that last paragraph to find the problem with any of that you discussed. You have never seen Kirk or Scotty or Sulu or Uhura or Dr McCoy gloat over the death of some baddie? I have, many times.
Gloat? Not really, no. Express satisfaction in saving his ship from an enemy? Yes. Not the same thing as gloating.
Kirk always trusted Spock to be his conscience, so taking the advice of the future Spock who already knew him to the core was a no-brainer. Not really a problem at all IMO.
Except that in this story, young Kirk does not have the years-long relationship with Spock. This trust in future Spock, given his actual experience with his contemporary version, did not work for me. I think you're allowing your nostalgia to override the poorly developed characterizations in this movie.
Which is EXACTLY what James T. Kirk was, but you left out the PLAYBOY element. Kirk was the quintessential ladies man, and he was a brilliant (but mischevious) cadet at Starfleet Academy. I mean, how could he be friends with a guy like Finnegan if he wasnt? (reference to TOS).
Again with the assumption that I don't understand TOS... yeesh. Here's the thing. In
this movie, we see NONE of Kirk's charm or intellect from TOS. Those things are also inexorably part of the Kirk character. Pine's Kirk was just not Kirk, because all you see in this movie is the reckless bravado, the cheater, and the action man. If you are seeing brilliance or charm in Pine's Kirk, you are allowing those nostalgic lenses to color your view of this story.
You have this all wrong! Quinto's Spock was the most accurate portrayal of raw undisciplined Vulcans ever seen in Trek. Vulcans are, by nature, highly emotional and violent. The discipline of Logic was developed into the Vulcan culture because of it.
No, I have it right. In TOS, Spock had moments of raw and uncontrolled emotion ONLY when he was diseased, compromised by aliens, or had massive biochemical events going on in his brain (e.g. Pon Farr). No Vulcan, even Spock with his half-human ancestry, would have demonstrated the rapid bipolar shifts seen in Abrams' Trek... Kirk goaded him about not loving his mother, for God's sake, and this Spock loses it and tries to kill Kirk. Seriously, WTF is that?
Saldana's Uhura was AWESOME, and as sexy as the original, but I agree with the relationship part. It spoils things for me on several levels. Spock should not be receptive to her like he was in the movie, but Spock was always a babe magnet. He attracted more women than Kirk, but never gave in.
Considering how you've tried to berate me for apparently "not knowing TOS" is this an appropriate place to point out that Spock was promised to T'Pring and this Uhura relationship was totally inappropriate for anyone who understood the Spock character? Yes, Spock was a babe magnet. He would never have been in a relationship with Uhura.
I have to laugh at this.
Kirk IS a bad boy, a cheat and a simple action man. He is highly intelligent, but he thinks with his little head most of the time.
Not when it came to the safety of his ship in combat. Kirk of TOS was a strategist, beyond simply being a "dawg" with alien women. This Kirk in Abrams' movie is not the same Kirk in
Balance of Terror,
Doomsday Machine, or the
Enterprise Incident. He just isn't, and shows no traces of a hint of being such in the future.
...How complex is a half-human Vulcan studying and living on Vulcan amongst pure-blood Vulcans? The tender yet frustrating relationship between his mother, his father, and the discipline and culture of Vulcan Logic? Id say that makes him very very complex.
Are you speaking of the characters as shown in this movie, or the characters you nostalgically remember from TOS?
...But I admire the fact that you took the time to write this. I dont agree with most of it, but I respect it as being another seat in the theater with a different vantage point. I have seen this movie about 8 times (and counting
). I cant wait for the next one!
I thought it was total drek, for all the reasons I listed. And I refuse to be hoodwinked into paying for a second viewing, much less pay for the next Abrams Trek. Sorry we disagree so much, but them's the breaks.
PS: like you, my writing tone may feel a little confrontational. I am passionate about my Trek, though. And with such a negative review I
was the first one to BRING IT, put it on the table and open it, so to speak. Everyone, anyone who reads this review, please do not take my style or my comments personally, ok? We all like or love Trek, in our own way. Otherwise we wouldn't be passionate about it, or call ourselves fans.
At the end of the day, if you loved Trek and I didn't that's just life. It's fine. It's not my place to say your experience was wrong, any more than it's anyone's place to tell me my experience was wrong. I'm okay with people liking this movie even if I hated it. It's just a movie. (A horrible, horrible movie!)
But if you liked SGU... well, there's no hope for you.
KIDDING! Sorta... haha!
Having said that, Abrams delivered a Star Trek movie worthy of canon as well as the love of the original fanbase as well as the newer ones IMO.
. How complex is a half-human Vulcan studying and living on Vulcan amongst pure-blood Vulcans? The tender yet frustrating relationship between his mother, his father, and the discipline and culture of Vulcan Logic? Id say that makes him very very complex. 
