I think they abandoned it because even if they created new characters, they'd still have to follow the old history of Star Trek or face the wrath of angry Star Trek fans. This way, they seperated the two universes (the old one still exists with its history, and can be expanded on, but there is now a tagnent universe that allows new ideas to take form without restrictions.) So I think it was a good idea in general.
Some of the science in this movie was off, but it happens in movies.
I don't think you got the purpose of the movie. The show was dying because it suffered from too much same old, same old. If it was exactly what was done back in the series, it wouldn't have saved the franchise as it has. This is exactly what Star Trek needed. Try watching it again without comparing the characters to their old selves. I did, and it is the best movie of the year for it.
I understand the purpose of a reboot is to take a series in a new direction away from where the series currently was. However, they can't simply abandon everything about the original series, or else it would not really be Star Trek, but something completely different. You need to mix the old and the new in order for it to actually work.
The problem was, I felt they abandoned too much of the original series, so at times it didn't really feel like a Star Trek movie.
However, for what it was, I thought it was a great movie (hence why I gave it 4/5 stars, which means "great"). I loved it! I thought it was a lot of fun and a welcome addition to the franchise.
With that said, it's neither the best Star Trek nor the best film of the year. Those go to Wrath of Khan and Watchmen, respectively.
I think they abandoned it because even if they created new characters, they'd still have to follow the old history of Star Trek or face the wrath of angry Star Trek fans. This way, they seperated the two universes (the old one still exists with its history, and can be expanded on, but there is now a tagnent universe that allows new ideas to take form without restrictions.) So I think it was a good idea in general.
Some of the science in this movie was off, but it happens in movies.
Eteric 2 years ago
wow, great review. i can tell you put alot of time into this. good work. to bad it cant get many more viewers.
Dannyn829 2 years ago
Thanks for the compliment and support!
The intro really was the only hard part, but it still took about half a day to make.
cougarram5 2 years ago
I don't think you got the purpose of the movie. The show was dying because it suffered from too much same old, same old. If it was exactly what was done back in the series, it wouldn't have saved the franchise as it has. This is exactly what Star Trek needed. Try watching it again without comparing the characters to their old selves. I did, and it is the best movie of the year for it.
PinataPete 2 years ago
I understand the purpose of a reboot is to take a series in a new direction away from where the series currently was. However, they can't simply abandon everything about the original series, or else it would not really be Star Trek, but something completely different. You need to mix the old and the new in order for it to actually work.
The problem was, I felt they abandoned too much of the original series, so at times it didn't really feel like a Star Trek movie.
cougarram5 2 years ago
However, for what it was, I thought it was a great movie (hence why I gave it 4/5 stars, which means "great"). I loved it! I thought it was a lot of fun and a welcome addition to the franchise.
With that said, it's neither the best Star Trek nor the best film of the year. Those go to Wrath of Khan and Watchmen, respectively.
cougarram5 2 years ago
are you okay
ultrasonic55 2 years ago
Thanks? Do you have any suggestions on how I could improve my reviews? I'm always open for feedback.
cougarram5 2 years ago
pretty insightful, good work dude!
JeremyComan 2 years ago
Thanks, man! Glad you liked it!
cougarram5 2 years ago