Anyone who is impressed by colorful visuals does not have a good taste in movies. People these days are so fucking dumb they'll buy anything that's good eye candy. Modern society has gone to shit.
Um, they did know the supernova was coming; as much as it is possible to know when exactly a supernova is coming. The star Betelgeuse could implode tomorrow, or in a million years time. And this is fiction.
Alright people, i will be blunt on my opinion on Star Trek 12. Like list as follows= better than Nemesis, Leonard Nimoy, great redesign of the Enterprise, great Cinematography, gave Star Trek a another chance, great pace, and spawning a sequel. Hate List as follows= Piece of shit CGI Quality, Horrible Enterprise interior design, horrible costumes, shoot em up storyline, no Shatner, new Star Trek timeline that will have to follow from now on, not so great actors, and it didnt feel like Trek
so did you take anything good from the film? How about the connection between characters for e.g when spock loses his home and feels so much pain and kirk also feels this pain through a mind meld with old spock thus connecting the 2 characters for life. The next one is out in 2012 hopefully and i for one can't wait. I bet you will still go and see it.
The storyline was cliche and unoriginal... Travel through time to save the solar system from destruction from some hell bent antagonist.. Really? Its like theyre desperate for fans. Having a relatively small fan base can be a GOOD indicator. When something is not appreciated by everyone means that it tackles subjects beyond the common(vulgar) scope of entertainment. Star trek should be about analyzing the different angles of humanity, physc, the mind, and bright outlooks for the future;
The storyline was cliche and unoriginal... Travel through time to save the solar system from destruction from some hell bent antagonist.. Really? Its like theyre desperate for fans. Having a relatively small fan base can be a GOOD indicator. When something is not appreciated by everyone means that it tackles subjects beyond the common(vulgar) scope of entertainment. Star trek should be about analyzing the different angles of humanity, physc, the mind, and bright outlooks for the future;
The storyline was cliche and unoriginal... Travel through time to save the solar system from destruction from some hell bent antagonist.. Really? Its like theyre desperate for fans. Having a relatively small fan base can be a GOOD indicator. When something is not appreciated by everyone means that it tackles subjects beyond the common(vulgar) scope of entertainment. Star trek should be about analyzing the different angles of humanity, physc, the mind, and bright outlooks for the future;
I like your comment about Abrams not taking the time to introduce characters to us. A CGI-fest of a reboot that leans on the old series to engender positive feelings towards the cast is ultimately hollow in and of itself - it'd be like needing to read Lord of the Rings to watch Peter Jackson's trilogy and understand what was going on. Ebert's quote sums it up; JJ's Trek is incapable of the social parable that Trek at its best can and does achieve. Harve Bennett is probably suicidal right now.
LOL!! Sorry I meant they grossed around $400MILLION (not $4M)... Worldwide.
Perhaps they will get back to the basis of the original series which was way too heady for people in the 60's. Sorry to say that it's probably too heady for people in 2010 - 40 years later!
Why do you think radio plays the same 15 songs over and over?
It's all about brainwashing - er... marketing...(sad to say)
People are just not that bright and EVERYTHING is marketing.
abrams wrote star trek like he admited, like he had never seen an episode of star trek. i havent seen one good abrams movie (unlike horrid micheal bay who i hate more but at least has the movie the rock and con air) lol.i think abrams just got lucky with lost.hated the ending for lost as well if abrams had any brains he would have cliffhangered that and gone into lost movies.star trek used to be like twilight zone and had socialy relevant writing, turning it into action trek is why its sucking
The movie was sort of a big, loud, dumb action flick, but I can understand how it got good reviews. People weren't judging it on it's own merits, they were comparing it to Voyager and Enterprise and Nemesis.
It's like eating nothing but cockroaches for weeks and then being offered a McDonalds. That Big Mac's going to taste damn good under those conditions.
@Taranatar9 lol star trek started sucking when they dropped the star trek 2 music with 5, tng show had that music in its them and laughably dropped the music in thier movies. first contact was the only tng movie i liked (loved the show and classic trek). the micheal baying of star trek has begun. watching 2009 fans is like watching vegas elvis impersonator fans remark how great thier favorite impersonator is lol.reboot fanboys are rediculous. star trek used to be socialy relevant, now its not.
I completely agree. Hated, hated, hated it. It took me two sittings (and a pot of coffee in between) just to get through the first 40 minutes, and by that time I couldn't stomach any more. The charismatic Captain Kirk replaced with a cookie cutter male model....I'm sorry. I could talk for hours about my hatred for this movie. I just wanted to tell you that your points in this video were compelling, and it's nice to see someone speak the truth about this shitty movie.
I get great pride in knowing that I don't think like the naysayers, who sound bitter and take great pride in knowing that a few other people think like them so that way they don't feel so insecure in their opinions.
I'm glad that others share my opinion on this film. It was Star Wars candy with a Star Trek wrapper, as far as I'm concerned. I was laughing on and on throughout the duration of the movie at the bad science and the even more deplorable storytelling.
I didn't like it either. The plot points were so bizarre. Captain Pike promotes Kirk to first officer on a whim. Spock dumps Kirk on the planet Vega.
The Kirk character was just a generic bad-boy... I never felt like he could be the captain of a starship...
I have no problems with revamping Star Trek. But give us something new. There was nothing new here. This was a generic big budget action film that has been done countless times before.
@RandomCastaa He's just making the argument for the "Ooh! Shiny!" audiences. This movie was terrible on so many levels:
- Pegg's jokes about food - no doubt referencing Doohan's weight gain.
- Saldana's portrayal of Uhura as a ..I hate to use this, sex toy for Spock. The 'oral sensitivity' reference couldn't be any clearer than if she were kneeling in front of him.
- Not to mention all of the *OUTRAGEOUS* coincidences.
No, the best Trek films were about man overcoming obstacles and his own frailties in order to excel and advance in this galaxy and to peacefully reach out to others.
You have to understand that Star Trek TOS inspired so many to go into science, medicine or communications or engineering because of these diverse characters on screen..
Sure it was fictional but it was truly inspirational in a segregated time in America.
Truly ground-breaking. This film doesn't inspire nor challenge.
@crazycoolone Ignore the trolls. More likely then not some of the biggest idiots, er, I mean defenders of that piece of sh*t of a movie actually work for Paramount. You don't think they would risk hundreds of millions of dollars to chance do you? No those pukes at paramount only care about money. Which, ironically is the very antithesis of everything Gene Roddenberry stood for. That putrid movie was nothing short of a slap in the face to Gene. That's why the 2 movie will not do anywhere near...
@sallyjosie as good as the first one. Now that all of the real fans have gotten over the shock of that abomination, I think they are ready to fight for Gene's vision of Star Trek was suppose to be. I predict at least 30 to 40% fewer people will watch the second puke of a movie. And what's really insulting is that puke Abrams wasn't even a Star Trek fan. That creep was a star wars fan. I do like Star Wars BUT they do not have the same styles. I wish I had the power to fire every puke at Paramount
I loved the new movie and also was a fan of TOS. I think it was more of a fun diversion than the earlier moralistic/preachy style of some of the original episodes. Movies are just entertainment, not philosophy. If you can't enjoy something for what it is you might be taking things a little too seriously.
i cannot believe you are a fan of the original series. i have a few questions
1: would you recognize this film as star trek even it changed everything except the plot, in other words would you be able to see that this was star trek solely on the plot?
2: how did you feel about the nokia and budweiser advert, i mean how did you feel it fit into a society that gene roddenberry created as being the perfect socialist utopia where capitalism and corporations and brands are extinct
@nanoradio TOS, like every tv show, was just a vehicle to sell advertisement spots, even though it had managed to show some creativity. Advertising funds these types of projects, otherwise they would never get made. It is a business after all.
Star Trek isn't a religion to me like it is to some others. I liked Kirk and Spock in this movie. I enjoyed getting away from the kids, bills, and pressures for a while. I was entertained...that's the only measure I care about now in my movies.
i can understand and sympathize with that. but understand one of the staples of star trek was that it was stimulating, intelligent and made with an abysmal budget. the new film they has turned this around to being unstimulating, unintelligent with a massive budget.
my reason for being upset is that with over 90% of all hollywood films being consumer media i.e zero substance, i had hopes that the new film with its background could not only manage to entertain but also get you stimulated.
and yes they had to make money, but so did the twilight zone, and yet they not only managed to make money but they also wrote some of the best stories made for tv, to the point where almost everything made today can be traced back to the twilight zone.
there is a line to be drawn when seeking entertainment i suppose, whether you are looking for a diversion or an experience. i was looking for the latter, i am always looking for the latter it is the only way to find some good entertaiment
I Loved the TZ too, but your'e comparing apples and oranges.
The 2009 Star Trek film made almost $400M gross worldwide.
This is a financial windfall for Abrams and the writers.
The TZ film (1983) made less than $30M gross and hasn't been re-launched since. Rod Serling, the creative mind behind that & the writer, is no longer here just like Roddenberry.
Hollywood is ALL ABOUT THE RETURN. It's a business and this film was
3: this is not so much a question than a baffled statement, how can you defend the very idea of stupid films? not to be rude but if something is bright, shiny and colourful and makes a bunch of swish and swoosh sounds really enough for you, is that enough to wow you?
i cannot be content with that i am well over the age to be simply awed by a bunch of flashing lights with no substance, they might as well just give laser lit rattles to the audience and let them play with it for 2 hours
I agree with this guy completely. I guess the one positive thing about the new Star Trek was it made me revisit the old movies. And, yes, they all are quite good... well, all but The Final Frontier.
What's ironic about the reviews is that this movie was written by the exact same people who wrote "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," one of the worst reviewed movies of the year. And I don't think it's the case that one movie was genuinely good and the other was genuinely bad. They were both TERRIBLE films as far as I'm concerned. I can't stand Roberto Orci and Alexander Kurtzman's writing style and J.J. Abrams is a protege of Michael Bay (he was one of several writers on "Armageddon").
In the original Trek, philosophy, morality, responsibility, equity, friendship and tolerance have played very important roles in the mission, while in the JJ Trek, there is, actually nothing there, even not with a credible story. And definitely nothing to savor later on.
Well, if JJ got anything right in the movie, it would be this line:"James T. Kirk was considered to be a great man, but that was another life" Sadly spot on.
oh, I love you guys here! Exactly what I've been trying to tell people.
It seems that simplification has become a trend in the movie industry recently, stories with no subtext but a lot of noise and gun fight.
The JJ Trek has a tenuous plotline, numerous mistakes of physics science and overnight career success (of a rebellious, bar-fighting cadet). Sorry, kids, life is nothing like that at all. Hard working and self-discipline are the keys(not guarantees) to success and it takes time!
He's just using a tried and true formula of weak story covered up by loads of rather empty special effects sequences. That's what makes money now. Frankly no one cares about much else.
So vote with your ticket buying dollars is what I say.
The story to this film I just found silly. I mean Spock uses something (we never find out what it is) called red matter and ends up being sucked back in time to the time of the original series. Bad writing
Ya, at the core, it was really a bad lowbrow, by Star Trek standards, script. And people, especially younger people, loved it. The movie franchise is now pretty much ruined for at least a decade.
not to mention the way " I have been and always shall be your friend" was used in that cheezy meaningless manner. It was o meaningful and poingant before.
I hated that they, YET AGAIN, used time travel to total change the back-story of the Start Trek universe. I had the same problem with the Enterprise TV series. I was expecting to see the ORIGINAL story of how Kirk went through the academy and made captain. Not this pulled out of the ass time travel changed crap.
To me, Star Trek XI is nothing more than an elaborate fireworks show.
Lots of flashing colors and sound, but nothing else. Sure it looks great, but when you get past the booming sound and special effects, what's left is a jumbled mess that doesn't make sense.
No way, I loved it. It was fun and I felt it was worth my money. Also I thought the beginning was actually brilliant, with the change in time nobody could complain about any inconsistencies with the original series
It makes me think of the movie idiocracy. the way things are going soon we really will have a film just called "ass" in the theater with just as much sophistication as in idiocracy and people will love it. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone or invasion of the body snatchers. something is eating the brains of the American public and it needs to be stopped.
@Castaa Why are you shocked? The producers of these pathetic big budget movies have more then enough money to bribe those little trolls who review these movies. Not to mention the studios backing them wouldn't allow them access to their little "stars" if they didn't give crappy movies like the star dreck movie glowing reviews.
Your logic, makes sense. But leave it to Hollywood to do anything to make a quick buck.
I have also made a review on this movie. Called: "Pixel Super Show: Star Trek review," on the "groundonevideo" Channel. It was fun to blast new trek, since there's so much nonsense. :)
I agree with everything you said in this video, including the fact that I don't understand why so many people consider the movie such a masterpiece. But this is by far not the only highly popular movie I've hated. Stuff like this always reminds me that I just don't understand people.
One more thing! Can you believe that it is rated at number 90 on IMDB? That's three up from Full Metal Jacket, one down from 2001: A Space Odyssey and five down from The Elephant Man. Seriously, people?
I'm not surprised. I saw the previews and got the sense that that's what they did.
I like the way you put it: the Jurassic Park Syndrome. I didn't realize it at the time (I think I was 10 or 11), but Jurassic Park did push the industry towards what it is today.
agreed!
nufto 3 months ago
Anyone who is impressed by colorful visuals does not have a good taste in movies. People these days are so fucking dumb they'll buy anything that's good eye candy. Modern society has gone to shit.
VitalSigns1 3 months ago
You are correct in all your assessments.
axilmar 5 months ago
And, I'm sorry but if the Federation (ie. Kirk) really forgot to check on Khan's people on Ceti Alpha Six, then the man had a legitimate gripe!
Just sayin'.
gerry4ta 7 months ago
What exactly is "red matter" anyway?
gerry4ta 7 months ago
Your 1st review was better, this was more of a rant than the other.
nenabunena 9 months ago
Um, they did know the supernova was coming; as much as it is possible to know when exactly a supernova is coming. The star Betelgeuse could implode tomorrow, or in a million years time. And this is fiction.
Nitpicking is the new shitkicking.
mrgarymakin 10 months ago
Alright people, i will be blunt on my opinion on Star Trek 12. Like list as follows= better than Nemesis, Leonard Nimoy, great redesign of the Enterprise, great Cinematography, gave Star Trek a another chance, great pace, and spawning a sequel. Hate List as follows= Piece of shit CGI Quality, Horrible Enterprise interior design, horrible costumes, shoot em up storyline, no Shatner, new Star Trek timeline that will have to follow from now on, not so great actors, and it didnt feel like Trek
wesleytaylorviadomus 10 months ago
this movie is sh*t poor porthose :(
MissShello 11 months ago
so did you take anything good from the film? How about the connection between characters for e.g when spock loses his home and feels so much pain and kirk also feels this pain through a mind meld with old spock thus connecting the 2 characters for life. The next one is out in 2012 hopefully and i for one can't wait. I bet you will still go and see it.
elsewho 11 months ago
critics give good reviews otherwise they are black listed from studio events that's how they bribe them
godscuttingyoudown 1 year ago
@godscuttingyoudown That they do. That they indeed do.
sallyjosie 1 year ago
abrams should have been arrested for this.
playadominical 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The storyline was cliche and unoriginal... Travel through time to save the solar system from destruction from some hell bent antagonist.. Really? Its like theyre desperate for fans. Having a relatively small fan base can be a GOOD indicator. When something is not appreciated by everyone means that it tackles subjects beyond the common(vulgar) scope of entertainment. Star trek should be about analyzing the different angles of humanity, physc, the mind, and bright outlooks for the future;
MeissnerFlux 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The storyline was cliche and unoriginal... Travel through time to save the solar system from destruction from some hell bent antagonist.. Really? Its like theyre desperate for fans. Having a relatively small fan base can be a GOOD indicator. When something is not appreciated by everyone means that it tackles subjects beyond the common(vulgar) scope of entertainment. Star trek should be about analyzing the different angles of humanity, physc, the mind, and bright outlooks for the future;
MeissnerFlux 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The storyline was cliche and unoriginal... Travel through time to save the solar system from destruction from some hell bent antagonist.. Really? Its like theyre desperate for fans. Having a relatively small fan base can be a GOOD indicator. When something is not appreciated by everyone means that it tackles subjects beyond the common(vulgar) scope of entertainment. Star trek should be about analyzing the different angles of humanity, physc, the mind, and bright outlooks for the future;
MeissnerFlux 1 year ago
I like your comment about Abrams not taking the time to introduce characters to us. A CGI-fest of a reboot that leans on the old series to engender positive feelings towards the cast is ultimately hollow in and of itself - it'd be like needing to read Lord of the Rings to watch Peter Jackson's trilogy and understand what was going on. Ebert's quote sums it up; JJ's Trek is incapable of the social parable that Trek at its best can and does achieve. Harve Bennett is probably suicidal right now.
TsumiESM 1 year ago
Plus the timeline on this one made no sense. Checkov didn't show up until season 2 and he was about 14 years younger than Kirk.
It was not a STAR TREK film. You didn't like it because it was a good Action movie. I know the film world.
They HAVE TO make another film like this with even more action and even less thought..why? Because it grossed almost $4M Worldwide!
Hollywood LIVES from remakes and BOX OFFICE TICKET SALES!!!
Nothing else matters to them.... NOTHING.
crazycoolone 1 year ago
@crazycoolone They won't be getting my money for the next one, that's for sure.
Castaa 1 year ago
@Castaa
LOL!! Sorry I meant they grossed around $400MILLION (not $4M)... Worldwide.
Perhaps they will get back to the basis of the original series which was way too heady for people in the 60's. Sorry to say that it's probably too heady for people in 2010 - 40 years later!
Why do you think radio plays the same 15 songs over and over?
It's all about brainwashing - er... marketing...(sad to say)
People are just not that bright and EVERYTHING is marketing.
crazycoolone 1 year ago
abrams wrote star trek like he admited, like he had never seen an episode of star trek. i havent seen one good abrams movie (unlike horrid micheal bay who i hate more but at least has the movie the rock and con air) lol.i think abrams just got lucky with lost.hated the ending for lost as well if abrams had any brains he would have cliffhangered that and gone into lost movies.star trek used to be like twilight zone and had socialy relevant writing, turning it into action trek is why its sucking
alanfunkle 1 year ago
The movie was sort of a big, loud, dumb action flick, but I can understand how it got good reviews. People weren't judging it on it's own merits, they were comparing it to Voyager and Enterprise and Nemesis.
It's like eating nothing but cockroaches for weeks and then being offered a McDonalds. That Big Mac's going to taste damn good under those conditions.
Taranatar9 1 year ago 2
@Taranatar9 lol star trek started sucking when they dropped the star trek 2 music with 5, tng show had that music in its them and laughably dropped the music in thier movies. first contact was the only tng movie i liked (loved the show and classic trek). the micheal baying of star trek has begun. watching 2009 fans is like watching vegas elvis impersonator fans remark how great thier favorite impersonator is lol.reboot fanboys are rediculous. star trek used to be socialy relevant, now its not.
alanfunkle 1 year ago
I completely agree. Hated, hated, hated it. It took me two sittings (and a pot of coffee in between) just to get through the first 40 minutes, and by that time I couldn't stomach any more. The charismatic Captain Kirk replaced with a cookie cutter male model....I'm sorry. I could talk for hours about my hatred for this movie. I just wanted to tell you that your points in this video were compelling, and it's nice to see someone speak the truth about this shitty movie.
DailyDoseOfNeegro 1 year ago
I get great pride in knowing that I don't think like the naysayers, who sound bitter and take great pride in knowing that a few other people think like them so that way they don't feel so insecure in their opinions.
Zenutheduck 1 year ago
I'm glad that others share my opinion on this film. It was Star Wars candy with a Star Trek wrapper, as far as I'm concerned. I was laughing on and on throughout the duration of the movie at the bad science and the even more deplorable storytelling.
I know where I won't be in June 2012.
vulcanluver 1 year ago 8
I didn't like it either. The plot points were so bizarre. Captain Pike promotes Kirk to first officer on a whim. Spock dumps Kirk on the planet Vega.
The Kirk character was just a generic bad-boy... I never felt like he could be the captain of a starship...
I have no problems with revamping Star Trek. But give us something new. There was nothing new here. This was a generic big budget action film that has been done countless times before.
otakurocklee 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hey asshole the movie was made for regular people not trekkies
dantechioru 2 years ago
No need for pointless name calling.
RandomCastaa 2 years ago
@RandomCastaa He's just making the argument for the "Ooh! Shiny!" audiences. This movie was terrible on so many levels:
- Pegg's jokes about food - no doubt referencing Doohan's weight gain.
- Saldana's portrayal of Uhura as a ..I hate to use this, sex toy for Spock. The 'oral sensitivity' reference couldn't be any clearer than if she were kneeling in front of him.
- Not to mention all of the *OUTRAGEOUS* coincidences.
So, agree with you 100%.
TheRevJonnyNemo 7 months ago
@RandomCastaa
Remember "chain of command"? Now that two part episode was an adrenaline rush!
THERE... ARE... FOUR... LIGHTS... FOREVA!!!!!!!!
pacsouljah00 4 months ago
the new star trek really did suck
tron565 2 years ago 23
Yes but Star Trek for pure entertainment, but without depth, is not what the best Trek films were about.
Jack1981ish 2 years ago
@Jack1981ish
No, the best Trek films were about man overcoming obstacles and his own frailties in order to excel and advance in this galaxy and to peacefully reach out to others.
You have to understand that Star Trek TOS inspired so many to go into science, medicine or communications or engineering because of these diverse characters on screen..
Sure it was fictional but it was truly inspirational in a segregated time in America.
Truly ground-breaking. This film doesn't inspire nor challenge.
crazycoolone 1 year ago
@crazycoolone Ignore the trolls. More likely then not some of the biggest idiots, er, I mean defenders of that piece of sh*t of a movie actually work for Paramount. You don't think they would risk hundreds of millions of dollars to chance do you? No those pukes at paramount only care about money. Which, ironically is the very antithesis of everything Gene Roddenberry stood for. That putrid movie was nothing short of a slap in the face to Gene. That's why the 2 movie will not do anywhere near...
sallyjosie 1 year ago
@sallyjosie as good as the first one. Now that all of the real fans have gotten over the shock of that abomination, I think they are ready to fight for Gene's vision of Star Trek was suppose to be. I predict at least 30 to 40% fewer people will watch the second puke of a movie. And what's really insulting is that puke Abrams wasn't even a Star Trek fan. That creep was a star wars fan. I do like Star Wars BUT they do not have the same styles. I wish I had the power to fire every puke at Paramount
sallyjosie 1 year ago
@sallyjosie who had anything to do with that movie.
sallyjosie 1 year ago
I loved the new movie and also was a fan of TOS. I think it was more of a fun diversion than the earlier moralistic/preachy style of some of the original episodes. Movies are just entertainment, not philosophy. If you can't enjoy something for what it is you might be taking things a little too seriously.
FluffyFeralMarmot 2 years ago
Rationalize it all you want. It was shallow. Shallow entertainment.
Castaa 2 years ago
i cannot believe you are a fan of the original series. i have a few questions
1: would you recognize this film as star trek even it changed everything except the plot, in other words would you be able to see that this was star trek solely on the plot?
2: how did you feel about the nokia and budweiser advert, i mean how did you feel it fit into a society that gene roddenberry created as being the perfect socialist utopia where capitalism and corporations and brands are extinct
nanoradio 2 years ago
@nanoradio TOS, like every tv show, was just a vehicle to sell advertisement spots, even though it had managed to show some creativity. Advertising funds these types of projects, otherwise they would never get made. It is a business after all.
Star Trek isn't a religion to me like it is to some others. I liked Kirk and Spock in this movie. I enjoyed getting away from the kids, bills, and pressures for a while. I was entertained...that's the only measure I care about now in my movies.
FluffyFeralMarmot 2 years ago
i can understand and sympathize with that. but understand one of the staples of star trek was that it was stimulating, intelligent and made with an abysmal budget. the new film they has turned this around to being unstimulating, unintelligent with a massive budget.
my reason for being upset is that with over 90% of all hollywood films being consumer media i.e zero substance, i had hopes that the new film with its background could not only manage to entertain but also get you stimulated.
nanoradio 2 years ago
and yes they had to make money, but so did the twilight zone, and yet they not only managed to make money but they also wrote some of the best stories made for tv, to the point where almost everything made today can be traced back to the twilight zone.
there is a line to be drawn when seeking entertainment i suppose, whether you are looking for a diversion or an experience. i was looking for the latter, i am always looking for the latter it is the only way to find some good entertaiment
nanoradio 2 years ago
@nanoradio
I Loved the TZ too, but your'e comparing apples and oranges.
The 2009 Star Trek film made almost $400M gross worldwide.
This is a financial windfall for Abrams and the writers.
The TZ film (1983) made less than $30M gross and hasn't been re-launched since. Rod Serling, the creative mind behind that & the writer, is no longer here just like Roddenberry.
Hollywood is ALL ABOUT THE RETURN. It's a business and this film was
money in the bank for them.
Understand that.
crazycoolone 1 year ago
3: this is not so much a question than a baffled statement, how can you defend the very idea of stupid films? not to be rude but if something is bright, shiny and colourful and makes a bunch of swish and swoosh sounds really enough for you, is that enough to wow you?
i cannot be content with that i am well over the age to be simply awed by a bunch of flashing lights with no substance, they might as well just give laser lit rattles to the audience and let them play with it for 2 hours
nanoradio 2 years ago
Comment removed
nanoradio 2 years ago
Unfortunatly JJ has the green light to make a sequel.
BondFreek 2 years ago
I agree with this guy completely. I guess the one positive thing about the new Star Trek was it made me revisit the old movies. And, yes, they all are quite good... well, all but The Final Frontier.
skonicki28 2 years ago
JJ Abrams is an egomaniacal little hack who has no business directing theatricral films!
"Star Trek XI" is a senseless peice of shit!
Actionguy1 2 years ago 28
OVERRATED
Anything signed "JJ. Abrams" &/or "Bad Robot" redefine the very sense of this word.
Think about it. What if ST2009 was made by Uwe Boll, do you think this movie would recieve so many ecstatic reviews & reactions?
Jeez. Even Boll could do something better than this with the name Star Trek.
Densaku 2 years ago
What's ironic about the reviews is that this movie was written by the exact same people who wrote "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," one of the worst reviewed movies of the year. And I don't think it's the case that one movie was genuinely good and the other was genuinely bad. They were both TERRIBLE films as far as I'm concerned. I can't stand Roberto Orci and Alexander Kurtzman's writing style and J.J. Abrams is a protege of Michael Bay (he was one of several writers on "Armageddon").
Ndirsc2 2 years ago 5
In the original Trek, philosophy, morality, responsibility, equity, friendship and tolerance have played very important roles in the mission, while in the JJ Trek, there is, actually nothing there, even not with a credible story. And definitely nothing to savor later on.
Well, if JJ got anything right in the movie, it would be this line:"James T. Kirk was considered to be a great man, but that was another life" Sadly spot on.
MsOliviaGarden 2 years ago 4
oh, I love you guys here! Exactly what I've been trying to tell people.
It seems that simplification has become a trend in the movie industry recently, stories with no subtext but a lot of noise and gun fight.
The JJ Trek has a tenuous plotline, numerous mistakes of physics science and overnight career success (of a rebellious, bar-fighting cadet). Sorry, kids, life is nothing like that at all. Hard working and self-discipline are the keys(not guarantees) to success and it takes time!
MsOliviaGarden 2 years ago 4
There was very little to like as a movie fan in this film, let alone as a Star Trek fan.
Castaa 2 years ago 2
JJ Abrams actually said prior to making the film that he didnt liek star trek. This comes out so strongly in the movie.
joness105639 2 years ago 4
He's just using a tried and true formula of weak story covered up by loads of rather empty special effects sequences. That's what makes money now. Frankly no one cares about much else.
So vote with your ticket buying dollars is what I say.
Castaa 2 years ago
I did.
joness105639 2 years ago
The story to this film I just found silly. I mean Spock uses something (we never find out what it is) called red matter and ends up being sucked back in time to the time of the original series. Bad writing
Jack1981ish 2 years ago 3
Ya, at the core, it was really a bad lowbrow, by Star Trek standards, script. And people, especially younger people, loved it. The movie franchise is now pretty much ruined for at least a decade.
Castaa 2 years ago 3
not to mention the way " I have been and always shall be your friend" was used in that cheezy meaningless manner. It was o meaningful and poingant before.
joness105639 2 years ago 3
I hated that they, YET AGAIN, used time travel to total change the back-story of the Start Trek universe. I had the same problem with the Enterprise TV series. I was expecting to see the ORIGINAL story of how Kirk went through the academy and made captain. Not this pulled out of the ass time travel changed crap.
ndyt 2 years ago 2
To me, Star Trek XI is nothing more than an elaborate fireworks show.
Lots of flashing colors and sound, but nothing else. Sure it looks great, but when you get past the booming sound and special effects, what's left is a jumbled mess that doesn't make sense.
blueskunk12 2 years ago 3
as long as you liked jurassic park, you're o.k. in my book.
GlamNatalie 2 years ago
When I first saw Jurassic Park, my jaw was on the floor of the theater.
RandomCastaa 2 years ago
No way, I loved it. It was fun and I felt it was worth my money. Also I thought the beginning was actually brilliant, with the change in time nobody could complain about any inconsistencies with the original series
biblegirl 2 years ago
thank you i couldn't have said it better myself including the part about hoping they never make another one of these again.
ess1898 2 years ago
Sadly so. What shocks me is how positive the reviews were. Usually enough reviewers look down this somewhat thoughtless style of film making.
Castaa 2 years ago
It makes me think of the movie idiocracy. the way things are going soon we really will have a film just called "ass" in the theater with just as much sophistication as in idiocracy and people will love it. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone or invasion of the body snatchers. something is eating the brains of the American public and it needs to be stopped.
ess1898 2 years ago
@Castaa Why are you shocked? The producers of these pathetic big budget movies have more then enough money to bribe those little trolls who review these movies. Not to mention the studios backing them wouldn't allow them access to their little "stars" if they didn't give crappy movies like the star dreck movie glowing reviews.
sallyjosie 1 year ago
Your logic, makes sense. But leave it to Hollywood to do anything to make a quick buck.
I have also made a review on this movie. Called: "Pixel Super Show: Star Trek review," on the "groundonevideo" Channel. It was fun to blast new trek, since there's so much nonsense. :)
Lastnerdonearth 2 years ago
I completely agree. Gene Roddenberry is turning in his grave
u2atomicbomb 2 years ago 3
Youu forgot to talk about Kirk's nostrils, those things where so huge and they would flare too
Oceananswer 2 years ago
I agree, but I don't think the first JP is more then a joyride frenzy. Maybe 2 and 3.
silenceofthehills 2 years ago
I liked the first review. Good job.
andrewucc 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
5 stars excellent!
rocketshipstud 2 years ago
5 stars excellent!
rocketshipstud 2 years ago
I agree with everything you said in this video, including the fact that I don't understand why so many people consider the movie such a masterpiece. But this is by far not the only highly popular movie I've hated. Stuff like this always reminds me that I just don't understand people.
Deathinmusic 2 years ago
Well, short but to the point.
You could have left out the M.F. at the very end, though.
Thanks,
F
fmscribs 2 years ago
One more thing! Can you believe that it is rated at number 90 on IMDB? That's three up from Full Metal Jacket, one down from 2001: A Space Odyssey and five down from The Elephant Man. Seriously, people?
GwydionMapDon 2 years ago
Yeah I agree that that is WAY too much early hype. I just watched FMJ yesterday and there is no way Star Trek is better.
ArranoGris 2 years ago
Whoa, did you know that today is Zachary Quinto's birthday? He's the guy that played Spock. Weird.
GwydionMapDon 2 years ago
I'll wait for some one to post it on you tube. lol
rednecktrucker1969 2 years ago
I'm not surprised. I saw the previews and got the sense that that's what they did.
I like the way you put it: the Jurassic Park Syndrome. I didn't realize it at the time (I think I was 10 or 11), but Jurassic Park did push the industry towards what it is today.
GwydionMapDon 2 years ago