Star Trek... directed by Quentin Tarantino and rated R?!?

[Lord Starfish]

So for a newbie like me would I watch the first movie and like it?

If anything you would be more likely to enjoy it as a total newbie... Because while the movie is enjoyable enough, it's... not very Star Trek-y. And I say this as someone who's only a casual fan of the franchise at best. (Meaning, I have seen most of the movies with Kirk's crew, skipping 1 and 5 because I heard they kinda blow, and I've also seen some of TNG, and while I've liked what I've seen of it well enough, I wouldn't consider myself a hardcore Trekkie or anything.)

As for the trailer... Yeah this looks just as non-Star Trek-y as the previous one was, if not more so. Still probably gonna go see it though... Though I imagine I'll have a hard time seeing the bad guy as anything other than "Evil Sherlock Holmes".

[Robby]

Was it cool because it had explosions? Because the characters were all wrong? Because of the awful comedy? Or because the plot was incredibly stupid and made no sense?

[Khamolen]

Being nothing like Star Trek is what made the first movie so great.

[Taggerung]

omg there are only like 3 good star trek movies anyway and the reboot was better than the majority of trek films so i don't see what the complaint is.

i love that video though

[Robby]

Yes, because an Onion article makes up for the new movie being terrible.

omg there are only like 3 good star trek movies anyway and the reboot was better than the majority of trek films so i don't see what the complaint is.

...AND was it also better than all 700 episodes of the various tv series over the last 50 years? It was not better than most Trek. At all.

The characters were awful, and the plot was stupid, that was the problem. All flash, no substance. (But I do give credit, some of the casting did a pretty good job of matching the old actors)

Yes, it was fine if you turned off your brain. I enjoyed the G.I. Joe movie when I saw it for free, but that doesn't make it good, since I would have been upset had I paid money for it.

[Taggerung]

I said trek films. You can't compare one movie to the entire series and and then complain when it doesn't live up to whatever expectations you had. Time travel plots are always weird and ask you to turn your brain off but it was a necessary device so they could free themselves from the continuity of the rest of the series. The characters were more or less the same as their original versions which are almost cartoon characters of real people. Aside from the time travel crap the plot was a fine introduction. The pacing was perfect. The action was entertaining. Compared to other Star Trek films it was good. Easily better than III and V and it was WAY better than ALL the TNG movie.

Was it as deep as it could have been? No. Are there plot holes? Yes. Are either of these things distracting enough to override the thrill and adventure of the film? Imo, no. Clearly this movie beat and raped your childhood or something because a trek film it was fine and as a movie overall it fine. It's appeal to such a large group of people paved the way for a sequel and hopefully it will allow them to take more risk with the plot instead of lots of running and gunning but I don't really think people have patience for those types of movies anymore but a lot of people are excited to see what they're going to do next.

Im sorry you won't get your slow paced trek film about weighty moral decisions and intergalactic politics or whatever is your side of the fanbase considers deeply offensive about this reboot.

[Robby]

I said trek films. You can't compare one movie to the entire series

Yes you can. The old films were. And they held up against them. The last Next Gen flik wasn't very good, but the ones before weren't awful.

And shouldn't you always strive for the VERY BEST the franchise has to offer? Shouldn't you want to match and exceed the high bar as much as possible?

Time travel plots are always weird and ask you to turn your brain off

Terminator
Doctor Who
A Christmas Carol
Back to the Future
The Time Machine
Futurama
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Planet of the Apes (1, 2 and 3!)
Superman
Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure
Army of Darkness
Groundhog Day
12 Monkeys
At least 2 of the previous Star Trek films and a bunch of episodes
Donnie Darko
Austin Powers 2 and 3
Primer
The Girl Who Leapt Through Time
Men in Black 3
Looper

Being a timetravel plot does not for even half a second mean you have to be stupid and "turn off your brain". Comedy or serious, timetravel isn't an excuse to just go "oh well, whatever!"

The timetravel isn't even the issue, there's no problem with that whatsoever.

but it was a necessary device so they could free themselves from the continuity of the rest of the series.

That's fine. The needing a blank slate angle is perfectly acceptable, and given trek's history, there's no problem at all with using time travel to reset things and shake it all up. That was NEVER an issue.

The execution however, is.

The characters were more or less the same as their original versions which are almost cartoon characters of real people.

Bullshit.

The characters get PARODIED a fair amount because they're ingrained into pop culture, but they were all extremely developed and had a lot of depth. Especially with decades of revising to hone and draw upon. The new film gets to pick and choose the very best characterization, cherry pick all the best and enduring interesting parts from all the source material that came before for its new slate.

Aside from the time travel crap the plot was a fine introduction.

So Spock gets pissed off at Kirk and abandons him on an uninhabited planet to die... where it just so happens ancient Spock was hiding out? Kirk goes from rebellious academy drop out to Captain in 2 hours? Giant hands to bypass security? Magic red matter stuff thats never really explained? Gratuitous red shirt death just because thats the gag? Nero didn't just... warn his planet 130 years in advance about the impending Supernova? And I'm sure a whole bunch of other stuff I don't remember from 4 years ago that probably bothered me at the time.

The pacing was perfect. The action was entertaining.

If you say so.

Compared to other Star Trek films it was good. Easily better than III and V and it was WAY better than ALL the TNG movie.

3 wasn't bad it just fell between the two best ones. 5 had some of the best moments in the franchise despite the main idea of the plot being weak (its mocked to the point of being "the one you should just forget... but its NOT that bad.) 7 was passable as a bridging movie, everyone liked the Borg Next Gen movie at the time, and movie 9 wasn't bad in any way, it was just merely a long episode rather than a movie. The 10th one was the only truly bad one, mostly because it tried too hard to be Khan.

Was it as deep as it could have been? No. Are there plot holes? Yes. Are either of these things distracting enough to override the thrill and adventure of the film?

Yes.

Also, the characters were idiots, was the big thing.

Clearly this movie beat and raped your childhood

Yes, because I disliked a movie that means it must have raped me.

It's appeal to such a large group of people

Appealing to a wider base doesn't mean shit. Avatar made 2 billion dollars, the Transformers movies are making untold ammounts of money, Cars makes a billion dollars in merchandising, Jerry Springer ran for twenty years, and the Kardashians is one of the biggest things on tv. Dumbing down a franchise to have more explosions and more sex doesn't make it better. Hell, the Enterprise series did that and NOBODY liked it. (And original Trek had PLENTY of sex already)

Im sorry you won't get your slow paced trek film about weighty moral decisions and intergalactic politics or whatever is your side of the fanbase considers deeply offensive about this reboot.

Characterization. Being human and examining the human condition. Smart scripts. And YES, moral decisions! Less horrible speeches and cheezy dialogue and character choices that make no sense. And NO sex with farm animals jokes.

[Kaboom]

I've been literally raised on all things Star Trek and I say the new movie was great. I think they've struck a good balance between fun and action and being smart, all the while focusing on the characters. Diffr'nt strokes, I guess. Wish I hadn't been beaten to posting that Onion video.

I'm even more hyped for Into Darkness. Now that the token "origin story" is taken care of, they can focus on telling a new and deeper story.

[TLC]

As someone who's only experience with Trek is Wrath of Khan (and everything that has been engrained into the popcultural subconcious), I think I can say more as an objective outsider than most that new Trek blows. Even as a non-Trekkie it feels wrong to me. Just taking it as popcorn fluff, it blows. I never liked J.J. Abrams and what he's brought to the media. I hate Lost (though to be fair, that shows suckitude can be attributed to Damon Lindelof), did not like Fringe (couldn't even get past two seasons), did not enjoy Super 8 and certainly did not like new Trek (only things I like by him are anything to do with Mission Impossible). There's something about his movies that feels so style over substance, they feel so flashy and stylized but lacking any heart. It REALLY showed in New Trek.

I could go on a huge rant on the poor characterization, nonsensical plot, the whole generic feel the movie permeates, how it's a movie that's designed to pander to its demographics of generic white stupid American that wants everything simple because thinking hurts their brain (note, I'm not insulting anyone here, only stating what the film makers were clearly going for, go watch the RLM review to see how much effort went into that), you know, the kind that eats shit like Avatar and Transformers up but I think I can summarize all that with one point.

Their idea of a villain was to shave a guy bald, put a big tattoo on his face and have him yell a lot. That's all he was. Yeah there was some generic sob story about his wife dying that I didn't give a shit about because he was such a poor character but that's the problem with the movie right there, rather than properly develop and explore characters, they just make them easily identifiable to the audience based on cliched stereotypes and do the minimum effort in giving them character. Nero is the bad guy because he's scary and yells a lot, Kirk is the good guy because he's young and cool and he's a rebel, Spock is the sidekick because he's snarky and complains a lot. The only one I felt that brought any heart into the character is Scotty and that's because Simon Pegg is awesome.

When you compare to Khan, same exact motive (no wonder since New Trek was a giant rip off of Wrath of Khan), the difference is astounding because there was heart and anguish to that performance and the character was properly developed so you actually gave a shit about him. Instead of doing that, this movie wasted time assuring the audience that none of the characters had any of the gays by forcing awkward, contrived love relationships on the characters.

[Apprentice]

Oh thousand lion chan you

Spoiler:

[Katzztar]

Sherlock you smooth ass mofo.

Is it me or the blonde in there reminds anyone of Christine Chapel? In the first trailer I watched she did but then her being in her undies in front of Kirk (2:18) made me think it may be someone else, since Christine was gaga over Spock (of course movies could change that, esp a movie based in the earlier days)

[Kaboom]

It's been confirmed that's Carol Marcus.

[Katzztar]

It's been confirmed that's Carol Marcus.

Thanks... hmmm Carol doesn't ring a bell but Marcus sounds familiar... can't remember though

[Kaboom]

We only actually saw her in Wrath of Khan. She's Kirk's eventual baby-mama, at least in the original universe. Guess we'll see just how much she falls into that eventual role in the nuTrek universe.

[Katzztar]

We only actually saw her in Wrath of Khan. She's Kirk's eventual baby-mama, at least in the original universe. Guess we'll see just how much she falls into that eventual role in the nuTrek universe.

That brings up a vague - verrry vague- memory, one I thought was from the books and non canon... was Kirk a widower? For some reason I am thinking somewhere it was barely mentioned in passing that he had a wife that was murdered sometime before the timeline of TOS. I had dismissed this as I thought it was non-canon. was it?

[Kaboom]

No, but I think Dr. McCoy had a back story something like that, though.

[Barkworm]

While this is probably not a good Star Trek film, it was an amazingly entertaining action film. It had a pretty good pace (which I thought the last one did not), it had great character interaction, it was funny, exciting and just overall well made.

This is coming from someone who is NOT into Star Trek (although I loved films 2-4 and 6), so I can see how actual Trek fans would feel alienated by it but the film is just a ton of fun.

EDIT: Reading through the thread, I noticed that I also disliked many things about the reboot that Robby Bevard mentioned but I still enjoyed it as a, sometimes silly, action flick. The new one is much better in my opinion. Even though the lens flare here is comepletely ridiculous.

[CosmicDebris]

This commercial is awesome

[Barkworm]

Seeing those two in the video, one thing that did bother me about Into Darkness

Spoiler:

was that they once again had to rely on Spock Prime to get stuff done, albeit not as much as in the last one.

[Apprentice]

This commercial is awesome

I can't think of a commercial in recent memory that confused me more