Star Trek (2009)

[Beorning]

Anyone seen this? Stupid question...  ;)

Well, I happened to watch it yesterday. I was impressed how... watchable this was (I admit that I don't have a high opinion about Star Trek movies). Very nice effects and cool scenes.

On the other hand, it just didn't feel like Trek anymore... Especially the Romulans. Romulans are now bald, tattooed and flying spidery ships? Weird.

What's your opinion, people?

(and damn... as I said before, I'd really love to play an extra in a movie like that. The uniforms of Star Fleet cadets were neat. I really need to get this military thing out of my system... Military RP, anyone?)

[Kolya]

I liked it. I preferred it to the second one as well.

Don't burn me at the stake for this but I've never watched Star Trek (properly). None of them. :-[

So I had a pretty open mind going into it and it was a lot of fun.

Granted I've seen some of Trek before, y'know, bits and pieces but not enough to truly understand it.

[The Dark Raven]

I grew up a rabid Trek fan.  I saw Final Frontier at the theater kind of rabid Trek fan.

That being said, I refused to watch Nemesis or Insurrection.

These new two are rather good for a reboot, even if Into Darkness became so very predictable as soon as you know who the villain actually is.  No I will not spoil it for those who haven't seen it.  It will be a surprise if you haven't seen the original cast movies, but down to the beat if you have.

And, yes, I cried.  Even though I knew it was coming.  I honestly think with Into Darkness, J. J. was going out making an homage film.  And as critical as I knew I would be, he still got me.

[Cyrano Johnson]

My opinion of NuTrek is basically that while it's all very sleek and photogenic and they've got a great cast who are really doing their best... Abrams should just go and do Star Wars already. His heart isn't in this material, he really doesn't "get" it, and it shows.

For more detail (if you should want it), I reviewed both films under a different 'nym at another site:

"Star Trek"

When this movie first came out, and I saw it in theatres, I felt like I was living in Bizarro World. When I came out of the theatre, I felt like I had just watched a loud, brainless, barely-plotted SF equivalent to a Fast and Furious or Charlie's Angels movie. But apparently, nine of ten people around me had just seen a timeless, golden classic of SF cinema that had brilliantly restored their faith in Star Trek, film, humanity and indeed the existence of all life.

This discontinuity has troubled me ever since; while there's no accounting for taste, it's rare for my taste in movies to clash this badly with those of almost every film critic and film fanatic in existence. I'm no Trekkie (nor a Trekker for that matter), I don't go to conventions or speak Klingon or reckon my birthday by Stardates or decorate my home with show memorabilia, but a disturbing possibility began to occur to me: had I nevertheless become enough of a Trek geek to be obsessed with fidelity to the original to the point where I was overreacting to Abrams' "reboot"? I decided I should give it some time and try watching it again, later and after the hype had died down, with an open mind.

Well, I've done that. And it still sucks the sweat off a dead Klingon's balls, and I'm more convinced than ever that this will be film history's more sober assessment of it as the movie's initial shock-wave of hypotronic particles gradually decays. But I also, I think, have a better understanding of how the hype and praise got to be so overheated in the first place.

First, it has to be said that despite being handed an absolute dog of a script full of cringe-inducing attempts to allude to the original show ("All I've got left is my Bones," get it? get it?) the cast they assembled was for the most part strong and talented and acted the heck out of what they had to work with. Okay, Anton Yelchin's Chekov is painful for every second he's on screen and Simon Pegg mostly seems to play Simon Pegg (though he rips into his first Assigned Scotty Cliché, "I'm given' 'er all she's got, Cap'n!" with the verve of a true fan boy), but the rest of the cast do bring their A-game, and such entertainment as the film offers comes chiefly from watching Karl Urban sink his teeth into the grand old Kelley-isms, or Chris Pine replicate the signature Shatnerian swagger, or Zach Quinto doing the eyebrow thing. It's a purely nostalgic pleasure and I'm not sure how you build on it, but it's there.

Second, fans had watched Star Trek painting dully inside the lines of its established style for so long that it must have seemed like a revelation to see a Star Trek movie that actually tried to be thrilling. The space-jumping scene, complete with the instant death of its assigned red-shirt and Sulu's ridiculous-but-fun sword battle with a Romulan pirate, is genuinely pretty good action cinema. And while watching Chris Pine hang from the edges of things gets old, they at least try to keep up that kind of momentum for the rest of the film. The cinematography (despite the annoying preponderance of lens flares) is calculated to be awe-inspiring in ways that the prior Trek movie franchise seemed to have forgotten about. Sure, it is really only at the visual level of a well-funded but brainless SF actioner, but that at least was a departure from a film franchise that had simply stopped trying.

Third, there was the germ, somewhere in the script, of a praiseworthy attempt to up the stakes and tell a truly grand story. The full emotional weight of this is mostly lost in the frenetic action, and the destruction of Vulcan is an almost absurdly tossed-off event, but it still lends some heft to Quinto's performance -- and to the poignancy of his romance with Uhura, one of the film's best character beats.

That's the good.

The bad? Really the most fundamental problem is that nothing -- nothing -- about the story makes any sense. At all. The time-travel story line has all the usual weaknesses (like, why wouldn't Nero just warn Romulus instead of going on a mad quest to off all the Federation planets?) plus more besides (what exactly do Nero and his crew spend twenty-five years doing while they're waiting for Spock?). Nothing about how Starfleet behaves makes any sense, and even by the pulpiest of science fantasy and Treknobabble standards, the story's premise doesn't make a lick of sense either. The script is riddled with coincidences and fudges -- and one especially glaring deus ex machina, "transwarp beaming" -- that are probably meant to imply Destiny asserting its power or some such thing, but that simply smack of really bad writing (including the Muppet Babies Syndrome that requires absolutely every member of the original cast to be present and accounted for by movie's end, with Kirk near-magically promoted to captain from cadet). The story isn't just bad. It's really just barely there at all.

This is a big problem, since without a halfway-believable story underpinning it -- as many a brainless actioner has proved -- action becomes relatively meaningless. The final set-piece is neck-deep in writer fudges by the time it happens, with Nero's dying snarls practically coming off as comedy and Scotty's second Assigned Cliché Moment (the Last-Minute Miracle Fix) having preordained a safe escape for the heroes. What little suspense the action had managed to build is long gone.

"Into Darkness"

Viacom/Paramount made a calculated gamble in giving the Trek franchise to J.J. Abrams. The gamble was that his being an intellectually unsophisticated director known best for empty cleverness and slick visuals -- and who additionally didn't give a sh*t about the original Trek material -- could work in their favor. With a slick enough coat of paint, he could make it look like he was "reviving" the franchise instead of hollowing it out into a witless, mediocre version of its former self.

With the first movie, the gamble worked: even many a dedicated fanboy poured drool over that plotless and mostly-insulting mess because they were thrilled about how new it all looked. I'm heartened to see that at least some of these have started to get wise to the empty trickery that's being offered up to them under the wrapping of the Trek franchise.

Ironically, this has the effect of creating a harsher reaction to what is actually much the better of the two Abrams films. Abrams' Trek is still ridiculous, mind you: its technology and universe inhabiting rubber rules that break suspension of disbelief routinely, its Starfleet still cartoonish and laughable, its cocktail of references to the old films and series serving as reminders of how little its creators "get" any of that material (and that's before we get to "Khan"). It is mostly still Trek for people who never gave a shit about Trek -- it's no accident that half of those raving about it usually preface it with "I never really was into Trek, but" -- and just as with the first installment has decided to sacrifice the franchise's unique aspects to make it a contender in the brainless-actioner market. Apparently not understanding that the "I never really was into Trek" audience won't have any more loyalty to this series of brainless actioners than any other.

Having said that: at least "Into Darkness" had a plot. Its pieces fit together logically in a way that just can't be managed with its predecessor. Granted, much of that plot was cadged from the far better film The Wrath of Khan -- but there was at least fleeting entertainment to be had in watching them reverse the old "beautiful death scene" from that film, and I actually quite enjoyed Quinto's call- out to the old "KHHAAAN!" yell. Of course all the action could have come from any other action franchise (like the "Millennium Falcon" chase on the surface of Kronos) and the wearily-inevitable Leonard Nimoy cameo can go die in a fire along with Scotty's rock-monster sidekick, and the action is unfocused and frenetic and poorly-paced and fades even a performance as good as Cumberbatch's into the background... but what was anyone expecting? We know by now that the Abrams version of the franchise is the Fast and the Furious in Space.

The really great strength of the Abrams films has been not the effects, but the cast. Everyone -- even Yelchin, this time -- does their absolute best with their screen time and with the uninspiring material they're given to work with. These people can act, and clearly love their roles and clearly try to make some emotional impact; it's not their fault that the scripting and pacing is so mediocre. One keeps seeing flashes of what could have been in the hands of a better directing and writing team: like the power Cumberbatch could have brought to his own villain role instead of being forced to serve up a retreading of Khan in minimal screen time.

Oh yeah: the effects are great, and the action set-pieces are visually spectacular. But we know it takes more than either of those things to make a movie, right?

[susiesparkle]

I've gotta agree.

The casting department did the hell out of its job. These folks can act. At least when JJ inevitably walks away from it (as he probably will for Star Wars, where he'll in all likelihood do a better job). The first one worked okay though the plot was a bit weak. The second had plot, but I feel like they let the action scenes (though impressive), overtake the story. I actually hope they continue this saga beyond the three films, but without JJ at the helm. I'd really love to see what someone more passionate about the franchise could do with these actors.

[Thera Regina]

Anyone seen this? Stupid question...  ;)

Well, I happened to watch it yesterday. I was impressed how... watchable this was (I admit that I don't have a high opinion about Star Trek movies). Very nice effects and cool scenes.

On the other hand, it just didn't feel like Trek anymore... Especially the Romulans. Romulans are now bald, tattooed and flying spidery ships? Weird.

What's your opinion, people?

(and damn... as I said before, I'd really love to play an extra in a movie like that. The uniforms of Star Fleet cadets were neat. I really need to get this military thing out of my system... Military RP, anyone?)

Not so much military, but I do have a Star Trek RP idea up.

[GloomCookie]

My opinion of NuTrek is basically that while it's all very sleek and photogenic and they've got a great cast who are really doing their best... Abrams should just go and do Star Wars already. His heart isn't in this material, he really doesn't "get" it, and it shows.

For more detail (if you should want it), I reviewed both films under a different 'nym at another site:

"Star Trek"

When this movie first came out, and I saw it in theatres, I felt like I was living in Bizarro World. When I came out of the theatre, I felt like I had just watched a loud, brainless, barely-plotted SF equivalent to a Fast and Furious or Charlie's Angels movie. But apparently, nine of ten people around me had just seen a timeless, golden classic of SF cinema that had brilliantly restored their faith in Star Trek, film, humanity and indeed the existence of all life.

This discontinuity has troubled me ever since; while there's no accounting for taste, it's rare for my taste in movies to clash this badly with those of almost every film critic and film fanatic in existence. I'm no Trekkie (nor a Trekker for that matter), I don't go to conventions or speak Klingon or reckon my birthday by Stardates or decorate my home with show memorabilia, but a disturbing possibility began to occur to me: had I nevertheless become enough of a Trek geek to be obsessed with fidelity to the original to the point where I was overreacting to Abrams' "reboot"? I decided I should give it some time and try watching it again, later and after the hype had died down, with an open mind.

Well, I've done that. And it still sucks the sweat off a dead Klingon's balls, and I'm more convinced than ever that this will be film history's more sober assessment of it as the movie's initial shock-wave of hypotronic particles gradually decays. But I also, I think, have a better understanding of how the hype and praise got to be so overheated in the first place.

First, it has to be said that despite being handed an absolute dog of a script full of cringe-inducing attempts to allude to the original show ("All I've got left is my Bones," get it? get it?) the cast they assembled was for the most part strong and talented and acted the heck out of what they had to work with. Okay, Anton Yelchin's Chekov is painful for every second he's on screen and Simon Pegg mostly seems to play Simon Pegg (though he rips into his first Assigned Scotty Cliché, "I'm given' 'er all she's got, Cap'n!" with the verve of a true fan boy), but the rest of the cast do bring their A-game, and such entertainment as the film offers comes chiefly from watching Karl Urban sink his teeth into the grand old Kelley-isms, or Chris Pine replicate the signature Shatnerian swagger, or Zach Quinto doing the eyebrow thing. It's a purely nostalgic pleasure and I'm not sure how you build on it, but it's there.

Second, fans had watched Star Trek painting dully inside the lines of its established style for so long that it must have seemed like a revelation to see a Star Trek movie that actually tried to be thrilling. The space-jumping scene, complete with the instant death of its assigned red-shirt and Sulu's ridiculous-but-fun sword battle with a Romulan pirate, is genuinely pretty good action cinema. And while watching Chris Pine hang from the edges of things gets old, they at least try to keep up that kind of momentum for the rest of the film. The cinematography (despite the annoying preponderance of lens flares) is calculated to be awe-inspiring in ways that the prior Trek movie franchise seemed to have forgotten about. Sure, it is really only at the visual level of a well-funded but brainless SF actioner, but that at least was a departure from a film franchise that had simply stopped trying.

Third, there was the germ, somewhere in the script, of a praiseworthy attempt to up the stakes and tell a truly grand story. The full emotional weight of this is mostly lost in the frenetic action, and the destruction of Vulcan is an almost absurdly tossed-off event, but it still lends some heft to Quinto's performance -- and to the poignancy of his romance with Uhura, one of the film's best character beats.

That's the good.

The bad? Really the most fundamental problem is that nothing -- nothing -- about the story makes any sense. At all. The time-travel story line has all the usual weaknesses (like, why wouldn't Nero just warn Romulus instead of going on a mad quest to off all the Federation planets?) plus more besides (what exactly do Nero and his crew spend twenty-five years doing while they're waiting for Spock?). Nothing about how Starfleet behaves makes any sense, and even by the pulpiest of science fantasy and Treknobabble standards, the story's premise doesn't make a lick of sense either. The script is riddled with coincidences and fudges -- and one especially glaring deus ex machina, "transwarp beaming" -- that are probably meant to imply Destiny asserting its power or some such thing, but that simply smack of really bad writing (including the Muppet Babies Syndrome that requires absolutely every member of the original cast to be present and accounted for by movie's end, with Kirk near-magically promoted to captain from cadet). The story isn't just bad. It's really just barely there at all.

This is a big problem, since without a halfway-believable story underpinning it -- as many a brainless actioner has proved -- action becomes relatively meaningless. The final set-piece is neck-deep in writer fudges by the time it happens, with Nero's dying snarls practically coming off as comedy and Scotty's second Assigned Cliché Moment (the Last-Minute Miracle Fix) having preordained a safe escape for the heroes. What little suspense the action had managed to build is long gone.

"Into Darkness"

Viacom/Paramount made a calculated gamble in giving the Trek franchise to J.J. Abrams. The gamble was that his being an intellectually unsophisticated director known best for empty cleverness and slick visuals -- and who additionally didn't give a sh*t about the original Trek material -- could work in their favor. With a slick enough coat of paint, he could make it look like he was "reviving" the franchise instead of hollowing it out into a witless, mediocre version of its former self.

With the first movie, the gamble worked: even many a dedicated fanboy poured drool over that plotless and mostly-insulting mess because they were thrilled about how new it all looked. I'm heartened to see that at least some of these have started to get wise to the empty trickery that's being offered up to them under the wrapping of the Trek franchise.

Ironically, this has the effect of creating a harsher reaction to what is actually much the better of the two Abrams films. Abrams' Trek is still ridiculous, mind you: its technology and universe inhabiting rubber rules that break suspension of disbelief routinely, its Starfleet still cartoonish and laughable, its cocktail of references to the old films and series serving as reminders of how little its creators "get" any of that material (and that's before we get to "Khan"). It is mostly still Trek for people who never gave a shit about Trek -- it's no accident that half of those raving about it usually preface it with "I never really was into Trek, but" -- and just as with the first installment has decided to sacrifice the franchise's unique aspects to make it a contender in the brainless-actioner market. Apparently not understanding that the "I never really was into Trek" audience won't have any more loyalty to this series of brainless actioners than any other.

Having said that: at least "Into Darkness" had a plot. Its pieces fit together logically in a way that just can't be managed with its predecessor. Granted, much of that plot was cadged from the far better film The Wrath of Khan -- but there was at least fleeting entertainment to be had in watching them reverse the old "beautiful death scene" from that film, and I actually quite enjoyed Quinto's call- out to the old "KHHAAAN!" yell. Of course all the action could have come from any other action franchise (like the "Millennium Falcon" chase on the surface of Kronos) and the wearily-inevitable Leonard Nimoy cameo can go die in a fire along with Scotty's rock-monster sidekick, and the action is unfocused and frenetic and poorly-paced and fades even a performance as good as Cumberbatch's into the background... but what was anyone expecting? We know by now that the Abrams version of the franchise is the Fast and the Furious in Space.

The really great strength of the Abrams films has been not the effects, but the cast. Everyone -- even Yelchin, this time -- does their absolute best with their screen time and with the uninspiring material they're given to work with. These people can act, and clearly love their roles and clearly try to make some emotional impact; it's not their fault that the scripting and pacing is so mediocre. One keeps seeing flashes of what could have been in the hands of a better directing and writing team: like the power Cumberbatch could have brought to his own villain role instead of being forced to serve up a retreading of Khan in minimal screen time.

Oh yeah: the effects are great, and the action set-pieces are visually spectacular. But we know it takes more than either of those things to make a movie, right?

Hehehe just the "Abrams should just do Star Wars already" has really, really aged well ;)

Anyway. Since I do a LOT of writing about Trek over on Quora, I'll share my thoughts here about NuTrek, mainly about Star Trek 2009 but about the other movies as well.

Star Trek (2009) or, Lens Flares the Movie
I liked Star Trek (2009), mainly because it's a movie that is wonderful if you can lose yourself in a pretty simple story and don't question too much, or you'll find plotholes the size of the blackhole that swallowed the Narada. I think the introduction of George Kirk was amazing, because it set a standard for James Kirk that I feel was outstanding. This man, knowing the shuttles would be ripped to shreds if left to their own devices, made the ultimate call and sacrificed himself for his wife and newborn son. But... well, then we run into James Kirk according to JJ Abrams. Rash, impulsive, and barely two brain cells to rub together. Seriously, you go into a bar frequented by military types and are surprised to run into Joe Schmuckatelli and his buddies? And that you get your ass handed to you? DUMBASS!

But we get to meet Captain Pike, and I think Bruce Greenwood absolutely set the tone of this absolute chad. Seriously, this guy basically tells James Kirk "Quit being a bitch just because you have daddy issues. Pull yourself together and I dare you to impress me after what your dad did." And yes, Kirk does seem to pull his head out of his ass for a bit, but unfortunately Alex Kurtzman seems to only pick up on the Trek memes, not the actual meat and potatoes of what makes up Trek, because Kirk is a womanizer and a cocky little shit. He doesn't get his Wrath of Khan chance to explain to anyone that he doesn't believe in a no-win scenario because the plot conveniently remembers Nero and the Narada exist and summon them to interrupt the proceedings. Kirk sneaks aboard because Karl Urban needs another paycheck and he can't collect if there's no Kirk. Then it just so happens Chekov (played by the adorable and deeply missed Anton Yelchin) mentions a "Lightning Storm in Space"^TM, which Kirk just happens to wake up in time to hear. Woo! Let's run around the brewery ship and finally end up on the bridge to deliver one of the clunkiest lines of dialog I've ever fucking heard. "That same anomaly, that lightning storm in space we saw today also occurred on the day of my birth." Cringe dude. But enough of a rehash, really the scene that absolutely floored me was the Enterprise rising from the clouds of Titan around Saturn, just an absolute beautiful shot, and I admit it was nice seeing Leonard Nemoy on screen as Spock.

So what did Star Trek 2009 do for the franchise? Well, I feel it gave Trek a major shot in the arm of needed interest. While Into Darkness and Beyond would slowly lose steam, I think 2009 did a lot to get people once more talking about Star Trek. It was flashy, it was new, and it put asses in seats. Those asses told CBS there was interest in Trek, and they decided to use Trek to launch CBS All Access. Say what you will about it, it definitely is paying dividends since enough people are interested that it spawned both Discovery and Picard and Lower Decks and Prodigy and... I think you get the idea. Trek is flourishing in new and incredibly awesome ways, and that success came from 2009. Yay!

Into Darkness or How can we rip off pay homage to Wrath of Khan?
Into Darkness I feel was the weak link in the trilogy, at least as far as story goes. The plot centered entirely around Cumberbatch as Khan, and sidelined Pine as a result. It also painted the Federation as less than morally upright that Gene Roddenberry wanted, willing to use supersoldiers as hostages, building super advanced warships, using Kirk and the Enterprise as pawns to start a war with the Klingons... it all just screams "Let's make this shit dark!" I know you put dark in the name but, come on!

Trek has done dark before to much, much better effect. One of my favorite episodes of Deep Space Nine is "In the Pale Moonlight", when Benjamin Sisko uses the Cardassian spy Garak to plant evidence that draws the Romulan Star Empire into the Dominion War. The entire episode takes place with Sisko recounting the events into his log, as if at a confessional to recant his sins. He recalls how he killed a criminal and a Romulan senator and did so to draw more people into a war that had already cost millions of lives. Yet at the end, he is ok with his decisions. Not comfortable, just ok. He erases the log entry and carries on, because he knows what he did was the right thing, even if he did it the wrong way.

Into Darkness lacks that subtlety. Khan is cartoonishly evil, and lacks the subtlety and brilliance that Ricardo Montalban brought to the role in both Space Seed and Wrath of Khan. While Khan can somewhat be forgiven for wanting to free his people, the fact he seems on the verge of randomly attacking anyone he doesn't have a use for shows how far off the mark Kurtzman was in his writing. And the on again/off again relationship between Spock and Uhura just feels like they needed pointless drama. These don't feel like professional military officers, it feels like an entire bus full of high school drama queens.

Beyond or How to lose money by not advertising your film
Beyond held some real potential, though I feel like it just wasn't utilized properly. You have Kirk in the prime of his life already tired of flying around the Enterprise similar to how he felt in Wrath of Khan, even contemplating taking up an admiralty position to get off the ship, while Spock is thinking of running off to the nearest Vulcan colony to start making as many Vulcan babies as he can. Guys, you are young and I get that, but holy fucking hell can you not have a mid-life crisis until you're at least in your 40's?

The entire plot around a bitter and jaded Starfleet Captain turned psychopath has been kinda done to death, but I did like how they strung it along for a while to build up this mystery. I just wish that the bad guy didn't have his secret base full of drones right next door to M.C. Escher's snowglobe. Seriously, you invested a ton of time and resources to build this giant surrealist wet dream and you didn't bother to check if the giant cloud of bad mojo next door was safe? Who the hell is running Starfleet? Seriously, take Shohreh Aghdashloo, have her play the iron fisted woman she did in The Expanse, and she'll straighten Starfleet out in a few days. You don't fuck with this woman.

But anyway, the movie does seem like a bit of a romp in a number of ways, even if they did decide "Fuck the Enterprise" and just tore it to shreds. Seriously, I know they blew up the original in 3 (Search for Spock) but that doesn't mean you need to do it again! For fuck's sake, it was probably still under warranty! Ugh. It was neat though that Kirk and crew managed to get an old abandoned starship up and running again and to use it to surf a bunch of drones. I don't know about you guys, but watching them do that I was going "This is bullshit but damn if it ain't cool." I'm not the biggest fan of the Beastie Boys but it was still cool, though I personally would have preferred Rage against the Machine myself, that would have been deliciously appropriate.

Conclusion or Please Cookie shut the fuck up already
In the end, Star Trek 2009 did its job of earning money and getting people interested in Star Trek again. How well you personally received it, that depends on you personally. Me? I liked the film for what it was, but I still prefer everything pre-2009 for the more serious and less fantastic tone. I won't go into my thoughts on Picard because I don't like spewing that much vitriol at one time, and Discovery... eh. Season 3's entire plot line just seems like the writers pissing all over Trek and laughing about it. So much stupid in one place...

Anyway, I'll leave ye be now. Have a good night.

[Humble Scribe]

I quite enjoyed the 2009 reboot, but it didn't feel like Star Trek to me. I passed on the subseqent movies - the universe and the characters just didn't really grab me, and JJ Abrams directs empty spectacle with no internal consistency as far as I'm concerned.

I don't like to say that I don't like Star Trek, because I've always enjoyed the heck out of the original series, but ever since that it's felt like squeezing diminishing returns from an increasingly tired franchise. Next Gen had its moments of brilliance as well as some real stinkers. Deep Space Nine was mostly good but not earth shattering. Voyager was tedious, and after that I just sighed at series after series that tried to cash in on the same universe telling the same stories in the same way and drifted away. I quite like Picard, but the Deus Ex Machina ending ruined it (Star Trek does love a Deus Ex Machina, though).

I suspect Star Wars will go the same way, if it hasn't already. I understand the commercial imperative to present something familiar and known to be popular to draw people back, but lets have some new stuff FFS. There's some great sci fi out there like The Expanse, do we have to keep doing Klingons and Romulans?

[RperSeeker69]

So better late to the party than not at all. 2009 seems like such a far off place now given we are in 2024 and yet even so here we are talking about it. J.J. took a stab at Star Trek before he took a stab at Star Wars with this title. Star Trek Nemesis was the last Star Trek movie to be in theaters and also the swan song to the Next Gen cast. Star Trek Enterprise was the last and to this day it is still the last Star Trek to air on television. 

A fresh new take to breathe life into the Star Trek franchise was about to begin. It was a lot to ask for anyone invested in Star Trek to play make believe in another sandlot and the movie did moderately well to spawn two sequels. It was fast paced and looking to make a name for itself with a younger cast and phasers were on full spread firing faster than production limits were in the 60's. The phasers themselves were faster and sleeker and they killed off Spock's mom and Vulan in one go. I can't say I am against the film as I have seen it more than once and they had Nimoy involved so it had to amount to something. 

Into Darkness I believe someone above mentioned it being a knockoff of Space Seed or rather Wrath of Khan. I wasn't a fan of how they handled Carol Marcus undressing with Kirk watching, J.J. screwed up there. It had an interesting twist given that instead of Spock sacrificing himself it is now Kirk. Khan was done well but he is no Ricardo Montablan. It was the last of J.J. as a director as Justin Lin would take that honor in the third film that also was written by Scotty himself. Into Darkness had its flaws and such but again it did well enough to be greenlit for a third feature film.

Beyond was the finale and served as the final film before Anton Yelchin passed away in that freak accident. There was talks of a 4th film bringing Kirk's father back but Chris Hemsworth and CHris Pine, the money Chris brothers wanted more so the film was shelved. Beyond felt too much like an episode as reviewed by many though I enjoyed how it really showed the crew living on the ship that the original series could've done more with and showed a closeknit bond. Beyond didn't have the numbers to cheer about and even now there is talks of a 4th film just without Anton in the film, hard to say what that will entail.

In the end the 2009 reboot exists and while many don't consider it 'The Star Trek' it managed to open the door to future Trek projects and Star Trek Discovery would be the true return to Trek while also showing an edgier version to the new age.