Did JJ Abrams ruin Star Trek?

Post Reply New Topic

Would somebody please explain to me what was good about this movie? I'm in a state of absolute shock here that it is a critical and popular success. It was flat, immature, gimmicky, and geeky. The characters were under characterized, the plot was nonsensical, the science was so bad we're approaching the Dr. Who end of the spectrum. It was intellectually, dramatically completely inane. What gets my goat is i like the cast and I <3 the effects and art, but the movie was executed so ineptly it makes Transformers look like high science fiction.

It's like the only one with half a head for science fiction out there at this point is Ebert.

I think I'm starting to understand the movie. It's a parallel universe between Roddenbery's trekverse and Abram's trekverse. Both are running concurrently and will unfold in their own way, but they won't have an impact on each other's timeline. I think this is brilliant.

Maybe Abrams' reality is the basis for the "Alternate Reality" Trek fans already know of? Maybe future movies in the series will see Quinto's Spock grow a goatee.

Voyager to me sounds like the Star Trek version of Lost in Space, so I lost interest after a season. I haven't seen this movie yet, but The Voyage Home is my favorite movie.

Deep Space Nine is the best series. I think First Contact is probably my favorite Star Trek movie.

The old alternate reality thing made perfect sense to me. It happens in Doctor Who all the time.

In fact, in Doctor Who, future stories which delve into the past affect the past doctor who stories which delved into the future. For example; in the sixties, all of the dalek stories in the future were centered around the dalek emperor. Then during the seventies in Genesis of the Daleks, Davros learned about the "future-history" of the daleks and found himself to not be a part of it. Presumably that was when he developed some "protection" for himself against his creations which enabled his revival in "destiny". Since then, he's figured in much of the future history of the daleks - some of which occurs chronologically earlier than in the doctor's earlier selves' adventures. (given that Patrick Troughton had a story right near the end of the dalek empire). Occasionally though the Tardis jumps into the other parallel universe where Davros didn't survive.

But this is a Star Trek thread....

It's a given that they could quite easily find a future where Kirk still exists and didn't die in Generations. There was also a good episode in Generations where the girl who died (forgot her name) came back and then went into the past.

At first I went to the new ST movie thinking it would be just crap. I have watched all of the Star Treks, grew up with it. My mom was the one that got me started and now I am the one that started it with my kids, who are 19 and 23. There are some Trek series I like better than others and def. some Trek movies as well. But after the newest Trek show on the T>V, Enterprise, I was just sick. I like Scott Bakula, but the show really sucked and I stopped watching it.

So I am happy to say I was pleased with the movie, of course there is some cheese, that's part of it. I think it will be more developed in the next movie (you know there'll be one).

Even though I've seen this new movie with my son(we went on the first day), my daughter and mom have not seen it, so we are planning to go altogether.
Pretty neat, I think.

I loved the film. I was worried it was going to be a generic action film with the words star trek in it. In my opinion the re-write/ alteration of the time line was a clever way to introduce the characters to new audiences while not stepping on the toes of the people who are familiar with the original time line. I went with my dad who grew up watching the TOS and he liked what they did with it as well. I liked the casting choices and in particular Spock.