Am I the only star trek fan that hated the new star trek movie?

Question

First of all JJ did a fantastic job on the movie, the cast fits (almost) the story line could make since. But I hate the fact they erased everything about star trek. what do you think?

Answer 1

No you're not the only one. It was dreadful. Spock hooking up with Uhura? No way! The decimation of Vulcan? Is nothing sacred?



And all of it was contained within an alternate timeline? It's like they raped my favorite show and pretended it didn't happen.



And I hate movies that begin with childbirth. Gag! God that scene was so overdramatic and lame.



I also hate when they try to make characters more edgy to appeal to ghetto audience members. Look! He said SH!T and B@ST@RD. That makes them cooler--NOT!! In the original series they wouldn't even let Kirk say "Got to Hell" he was made to say "Go to the Devil". The show was classy like that.



I'll take the advice from some ST message board. I'll retreat to my old episodes of TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY and pretend this movie was never released.

Answer 2

I haven't seen the film yet. But i am an old Star Trek fan, so to speak. I discovered ST with TNG series and the movies in the 80s featuring the original cast from the TV series of the 60s, but never saw TOS episodes until just recently. I realize this film is a first in several ways, the first movie with different actors playing the original characters from the series and movies. I also realize they are changing things a bit. The Chevok character was absent from the first season of TOS, and Dr. Mc Coy didn't make his appearance until the first episode, absent from both pilots. And i believe they are changing the story regarding Capt. Pike, how he lost his position as Captain of the Enterprise. I realize the risk they are taking in having different actors playing the original series characters, which may come off as different characters. And the creative team behind the film haven't had anything to do with ST. They threw out the creative team behind the last four films, who inspite of their limited ability in making Trek more palpable to a larger audience, had been working on Trek for something like 20 years, and even they violated Trek history in the Enterprise series.

Answer 3

2009 Star Trek

Answer 4

No, you're not the only one. Star Trek XI is an action packed movie full of thrills, but it isn't written according to Gene Roddenberry's vision. Roddenberry was opposed to gratutious action and sexual scenes. His vision was was one of optimism. With Star Trek: The Original Series he was creating a series of morality plays that were meant to be uplifting and to show how humanity could improve itself for the benefit of all. J.J. Abrams' Star Trek is just meant to rake in the cash.



There are multiple inaccuracies in the plot that can't be explained away by the change created in the timeline by the Romulans. Uhura would never have made advances on Spock on board the Enterprise. It's unlikely that a green Orion slave woman would have attended the academy. Spock could not have supervised Kirk's taking of the Kobayashi Maru test at that time, as he was serving on the Enterprise. Captain Pike was severely disabled when he was the age portrayed in Star Trek XI. But even these inaccuracies are beside the point. J.J. Abrams and his production team have completely misunderstood what Star Trek is all about.

Answer 5

I just saw the movie. No, you are not the only one. It was a good action movie but I am outraged. I consider it a cheap trick to alter the time line and change Star Trek for no discernible good reason other than to create a story using elements of the Star Trek universe. I don't mind being called a Trekkie and now I won't mind being called a disgruntled Trekkie.



Now I understand the SNL skit last weekend with the mad Trekkies when Leonard Nimoy, Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto were in the Weekend Update. I am one of them.

Answer 6

I think J.J Abrams is a dip wad and likes to take movies that OTHER men made great, and then turn them into high action garbage with poor stories. I saw the first new Star Trek movie, and wont bother to see any of the others. To me it is not really Star Trek at all. Why don't people have enough creativity to write brand new characters? Why do they have to violate old, already well written characters?

Answer 7

Mikey - What do you mean they erased everything about star trek? It had all of the elements from the old movies, and elements from the original series. Sure, this movie doen't have much to do with Next Generation or Voyager, etc, but that wasn't the point.



I've been a Star Trek fan since the beginning, and I loved this movie. I actually haven't like star trek since the Undiscovered Country. I just never got into Generation and the otehr newer ones.

Answer 8

I also did not like the new Star Trek movie. The whole time travel storyline is overplayed, the only characters that had any depth to them is young Spock and to some extent Uhura. The other characters were contrived. Overall I thought this to be a "B" movie with "A" special effects.

Answer 9

i felt the same, i saw it at the imax and on the way home i realized that it DID all happen, its just in a different dimension (kinda like the paralles episode of the next generation, or the episode yesterdays enterprise), and plus, there is still a chance they might go back to the orignal reality, they are making a star trek online game that takes place after nemisis

Answer 10

I hated new star trek movie for the same reason.

Answer 11

I feel so betrayed by it. I thought the casting was good, and I enjoyed the fast pace, and I can even tolerate how different the look is from the original series, but the the various inconsistencies in the plot kept getting me madder and madder until I saw the MAJOR plot point, and then I really lost it.



They want to jumpstart the franchise, but if this is the direction they're taking it in, then I want nothing to do with it. I feel like emulating Stan Marsh and his efforts in tracking down Mel Gibson and demanding his money back after watching Passion of the Christ.

Answer 12

I hate star trek but got dragged along by my boyfriend who loves star trek, i must admit that i got sucked into the movie, it was hilarious, it had suspense, it had everything, i loved it and would see it again!!!

Answer 13

I didn't HATE it, BUT I was disappointed, your right the story of the lives of the individual characters were changed a little too much for my taste. It was like they didn't even make an attempt to keep their personal story of there lives in line with the other movies and television series.

Answer 14

Don't worry...the "old" continuity of Star Trek still exists...what you were seeing was a parallel timeline in the new movie.

Answer 15

Yes. You are the only one.



They had to reboot, or they would be stuck with the history of the original serious. "Chekov can't be here, he doesn't get there until next year!" If they go there, McCoy will miss the rendevous with Yanada!



They did away with that problem, and now they can explore new things in new ways. It really was the only sensible approach.

Answer 16

I liked it.



And they changed the past that we did not know about anyway. We have very little information on the past of all the characters. We only got a couple bits and pieces. There are huge gaps in the history.



But they kept all the right stuff. The characterization is perfect. Every looks and every character acts just the way they should. Bones did not suddenly become a blonde chick, for example.

Answer 17

No, you are not the only one to hate the new Star Trek film. I walked out it was so dreadful. It seemed like they took every cliche about Star Trek and threw it together to pitch at Gen Y and cash in.



The Spock / Uhura thing was the last straw for me. Not to mention the class clowns they made out of Scott and Checkov. I fail to understand the rave reviews and it was a shame to see the potential of such a great cast and special effects go to waste.



JJ Abrams has dome some great work on Lost, Alias but I think what he did with Star Trek is irredeemable.



Very disappointing.

Answer 18

I don't think of it that way. I agree JJ did a fantastic job. I think the guy who played Spock actually looks more the part (believable as serious) minus all that make-up, but he needs some effects to pull it off.



*Spoiler* - so don't read on if you haven't seen the movie yet, go see it first to appreciate it.....



As soon as Spock downloads what happened to him with a mind meld on Jim the movie took off in a positive direction for me and I got excited for the rebirth of a possible series. Think of it. If they wanted to do anything more with this you would know the outcome of everyone. Sure they can drag learning everyones origins and background on for a while but that would be it. Even when the movie started, for me it was predictable, I knew that Sulu and Kirk wouldn't die when the sky dived. You know what I mean....So where is the excitement in watching something so safe you already know the outcome to.



So this is why I think it is very clever and I liked it so much. In my opinion you can have it all, why not? What we already watched can't be erased, it was and happened in a time line. But now we have an opportunity for a new generation to enjoy the series all over again. I know they are supposed to be the cast but they are not as they already have changed up a bit in terms of personality, each new actor adding something of their own. It can't be the same no matter how you think of it because the real people are old and it's over. This is a second chance for some more fun. Doesn't take away from the originals, no way, never could for me. It's incredibly brilliant!!

Answer 19

I agree. The newest Star Trek installment is a poor imitation of what a wonderful series used to be. There is very little that was once good that hollywood gets it's hands on that doesn't end up being dumbed-down to the elementary level of the younger generations brainless, uncreative thinking to appeal to an audience with a low intellect and feed the masses.



The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action.Think of what Hollywood did to Battlestar Galactica. Look, I have been a casual fan of the series for 15 years, I have seen almost every episode of every series, I could go on for days, but I am making myself nauseous just thinking about how they take everything intelligent out now and reduce everything to car chases, explosions, and unsophisticated 1-dimensional humor.



As for this Star Trek reboot. Well, the plot/story was stupid and pointless. The dialogue was awful, and Checkov's fake accent alone was enough to justify me getting my money back. And the villains have just gotten successively stupider since Khan. Scary tattoos? Give me a break. For anyone who hasn't had a frontal lobotomy, flashy special effects alone just don't add up to a satisfying movie experience worthy of Gene Rodenberry's beautiful and optimistic vision of what our future as a species could be.



Even the attempts at humor fell flat- Is Simon Pegg's new green friend supposed to be amusing or what? Just awful. They did do a good job on the effects as that is all movie producers seem to be focused on today.



This installment could have been fantastic with better writing but I had a feeling that this movie was going to replace some of the series great story telling with action. Unfortunately that is the only way producers are going to get the audiences attention somehow. Essentially it is more a reflection of the disintegration of modern society than it is of bad movie making.

Answer 20

Nope, you are not the only one. I feel that they have taken everything that has happened before and just totally trashed it, ignoring GR's vision of the series. And when the villain said he was avenging his wife and family, I just groaned at the cliché.

Answer 21

So a new story line could be started and make more movies. This is a new beginning and new lives for all the characters. at this point the old shows never happened.

The movie was very well done. ****************

Answer 22

I agree with you somewhat.



How dare they destroy Gene Roddenberry's vision?



And you are so right. They did erase the time line of Star Trek, which was very disgusting.

Answer 23

damnit and I am going to see it tonight at the IMAX. what is it you didn't like about it? what do u mean erased?



edit: dude I just it at the IMAX and WTH are u thinking?!?!?! this has to be added to my all time fave movie list!!!

Answer 24

i think your an idiot.



Its called time travel and chaning the past.



DUH



only bad thing was the look of the bridge

Answer 25

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film