New Star Trek Movie: Opinions?

[Caretaker]

As a traditionalist, I thought it absolutely sucked. I thought the movie started out great, but then turned awful. Leonard Nimoy's appearance steadied the film, and then it went stupid again.Positives: -Leonard Nimoy was terrific (until the scene at the end which was stupid)-the person who played Spock (new) was excellent-the person who played Scotty was excellent-Uhura was beautiful to look at, and had some "in your face" pizzazNegatives: (this might take awhile): -I did not need 10 fight scenes to get the point that Kirk is immature-I did not need gratuitous (removed) scenes to get the point that Kirk is a womanizer-I did not need Spock to have a relationship with Uhura to prove that he was going to be exploring his human side. Their love affair makes no sense-I did not need 15 forces lines from Bones McCoy. It was funny the first 3 times....move on-Dinosaurs???? Give me a break!!!-I did not need JJ Abrams to introduce a Star Wars character (fuzzy creature with Scotty). We all know he loves Star Wars and doesn't give a poop about Star Trek. Why he made this film is a mystery to me. I hope we never see him again. He forces everything, and like his other work, he drags scenes on way too long.-I did not need the camera shaking every five seconds to make it look like an action film. The cinematography was lame.-I find it rediculous that a crew of newbies is suddenly in charge of Star Fleet's flagship.-Abrams should have kept Pike more involved. I hope he recovers to take control of the ship again (for a while). Having the stupid story line go from Kirk is immature for 1 hour and 45 minutes, to Kirk is now in the big chair and all grown up and ready to assume command was ludicrous.-Puting Pike in a wheelchair.....are you joking? This story line had nothing to do with the accident which rendered him a man in a box. Abrahms did that for a feel good measure which only made it worse for me.I could go on, but I'll leave you with some final thoughts for the next movie:1. dump JJ Abrams. I'm sure glad Majel Barrett did not live to see this garbage2. get the baby thing over with. Spock can figure a way to go back in time (like he did once) and save Vulcan. The consequence however, will be that his lovechild with Uhura (and their relationship hopefully) will never have happened.3. JJ: if I want a mind numbing experience, I'll watch one of your TV shows. Take your $100 million and retire.

[ajflan]

I thought it was great. I have always been a fan of Star Trek, and I think this was the fresh start that the series needed. If the movie was made to please people like you, then it wouldn't make any money, and the franchise would be dead.

[18stars]

I thought the movie was wonderful. Its the best thing to happen to Star Trek in ages. JJ Abrams is a genius.

[ColonelPanic]

I'm not about to nitpick the film since I know very little about Star Trek. I've watched plenty of the original series and TNG but don't remember much about any of it.Admittedly, I'm not the biggest fan of the franchise -- but I thought the movie was excellent from a non-trekkie perspective. My boss really likes it, he's been to see it 8 times now. I love this: http://www.theonion.com/conten..._film

[Caretaker]

rofl. That was hysterical Panic. I sure can't wait to see the next great thing Abrams has to offer us Trek fans. It will probably leave a long and lasting legacy equal to, ummmm, let's say Britany Spears!

[Herb]

I have many of the same criticisms you mentioned.It seems that JJ Abrams threw in a few bones in an attempt to placate the classic continuity fans, but in my opinion it blew up as soon as he rebooted the continuity. This invalidates the entire Star Trek history to date, a message I don't think classic fans would appreciate.I would have rathered he ignored the original continuity and started from scratch ala Battlestar Galactica, or Batman Begins

[tribalman]

i actually loved it. i like how they explained why the story is different (see most of caretaker's complaints) and it makes logical sense, unlike with x-men. to me it felt like the inclusion of simon pegg as scotty was just another PR stunt of simon, but i did feel he did a good job. same with John Cho, but he did a good job too. "-Puting Pike in a wheelchair.....are you joking? This story line had nothing to do with the accident which rendered him a man in a box. Abrahms did that for a feel good measure which only made it worse for me." um... yeah..... seeing as how time has been altered (George Kirk being killed before Kirk makes captain) why not change the fate of Pike? if you notice he did have something mess with his brain stem. that would cause repercussions regardless if the director wants to have a "feel good" fate for him. did you expect this to be a remake? don't you have a problem with George being killed? or how about Mr. Scot (he's not called scotty once in the new movie) transported multiple people at a time from multiple destinations? or how about how the transporting to/from ships at warp shouldn't be discovered until he was an adult. please show consistency with your cannon and arguments.

[harryyiii]

I disagree with your overall premise. I watched every episode in the seventies when it first became a cult classic. No one watched the originals, that is why it barely was made three years. I never went to a Star Trek convention and don't know the episodes by number, but have watched the various incarnations for over 30 years. Talk about suck, the first star trek movie sucked, really boring, impressed with itself. The rest got better, but Star Trek 5 sucked also. Only one of the second generation movies was real good (with the Borg) , the rest was just adequate. My opinion of this movie was that it was fantastic. Apparently the other 500 people in the sold out theater agreed, as there was spontaneous applause at the end.

[Herb]

Quote, originally posted by harryyiii »My opinion of this movie was that it was fantastic. Apparently the other 500 people in the sold out theater agreed, as there was spontaneous applause at the end. I would have had more respect if the project didn't tie into the original continuity and use Leonard Nimoy as a spokes person to try to sell it to the fans of the original show.Paramount should have grown some balls and do a reboot completely from scratch.

[jimincalif]

I actually watched the original series when it first aired in the 60s. Loved the original series, never got into the subsequent TV series. The ST2-4 movies were good.I actually like the new movie quite a bit. Was not sure how I'd feel with other actors playing the original characters, but it works. Some of the things you note are not as I would have preferred them, but they didn't bother me. One of the few times I've actually spend money to see a first run movie, and it seemed like it was over before I knew it.Two thumbs up from an original series ST fan.

[ClunkClunk]

I really enjoyed this one a lot. My girlfriend and I are fairly serious Trek fans -- we wore our TOS era uniforms to the opening night at the local IMAX. I had some minor complaints, but they were dwarfed by how many things they got right with the movie. It didn't disappoint, and they injected Trek with the best shot of fresh DNA since TNG debuted.I can't really agree on many of your points, Caretaker, but this one you're 100% correct on (except for the spelling):Quote »-I find it rediculous that a crew of newbies is suddenly in charge of Star Fleet's flagship.

[bull77]

Quote, originally posted by Caretaker »Negatives: (this might take awhile): -I did not need 10 fight scenes to get the point that Kirk is immature-I did not need gratuitous (removed) scenes to get the point that Kirk is a womanizer-I did not need Spock to have a relationship with Uhura to prove that he was going to be exploring his human side. Their love affair makes no sense-I did not need 15 forces lines from Bones McCoy. It was funny the first 3 times....move on-Dinosaurs???? Give me a break!!!-I did not need JJ Abrams to introduce a Star Wars character (fuzzy creature with Scotty). We all know he loves Star Wars and doesn't give a poop about Star Trek. Why he made this film is a mystery to me. I hope we never see him again. He forces everything, and like his other work, he drags scenes on way too long.-I did not need the camera shaking every five seconds to make it look like an action film. The cinematography was lame.-I find it rediculous that a crew of newbies is suddenly in charge of Star Fleet's flagship.i'm not a star trek fan and never watched any of the shows or moives, but based on your negative comments -- I'm going to check it out...lol btw -- the actor playing Spock also plays Sylar in Hereos..http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0704270

[Herb]

Quote, originally posted by bull77 »btw -- the actor playing Spock also plays Sylar in Hereos..Yeah, I keep expecting him to point his finger at Kirk's forehead to cut open his skull. At least he has a couple new powers, Vulcan mind meld and nerve pinch!

[jimincalif]

There was one point where I felt they'd missed with a character. Kirk was just too flippant during the Kobayashi Maru simulation. The original Kirk would have put on a better act about taking it seriously.

[Whelan]

I loved the movie from scene 1 act 1 to close. It was just awesome. As an FYI they are signed on for two more ST movies. Frigin yeah!!My father was questioning the whole Spok thing (won't be the spoiler). I had to explain to him that this was not Back to the Future. lol.