The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum (http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/index.php)
-   Star Trek XI: The Movie (http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Why NuTrek sucks... so far (http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10006)

MrQ1701 11-09-2009 09:56 AM

Why NuTrek sucks... so far
 
Everyone already knows by now that I have very little "love" for NuTrek. I think it was a fun and fast paced space action adventure flick, but poor Trek. I understand it was supposed to introduce non-Trek-fans to the world of Trek and therefore could not get too preachy or waste it's time with a "brainy" story. I get that. I actually like action and adventure. What I don't like is the lame attempt to attach this film to the trek universe through the use of the multi-verse theory and time travel, then the obvious trashing of 40 years of TV and movies.

So many things changed simply for the sake of change. If a non-fan can't tell the difference, why completely throw out what came before? Do sets, effects, and sounds really make or break a movie? WTF is with a $150 film not being able to maintain scale? That's a stupid mistake that many seem to not be bothered by, yet mention a four wheeled vehicle driven by Picard and everyone thinks THAT is stupid!

So... Nutrek sucks because it is Trek only because it is named Trek. It lacks the "soul" of Trek. It lacks the "brain" of Trek. And it lacks everything else that makes fans (like me) feel as if they are in a familar place. Some may say that familiarity is what doomed Trek, but I disagree. Good stories and great plots make or break a movie, not the little things like a thrumming warp core or beam type phasers.

Zardoz 11-09-2009 09:58 AM

I wouldn't go that far. It was not designed to be a rehash of TOS.

I don't agree with everything that was done, but they tried to make a new series out of it.

MrQ1701 11-09-2009 09:59 AM

Yes... yes. I know "soul" and "brain" can be debated till we are blue in the face, but you get my point

edit: Not directed at anyone or any post. I just realized the words I used will be attacked and the definitions argued. Everyone has a different reason for liking Trek. I get it.

Zardoz 11-09-2009 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrQ1701 (Post 278687)
Yes... yes. I know "soul" and "brain" can be debated till we are blue in the face, but you get my point

edit: Not directed at anyone or any post. I just realized the words I used will be attacked and the definitions argued. Everyone has a different reason for liking Trek. I get it.

You gotta admit it was at least better than Star Trek V!:lol:

horatio 11-09-2009 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrQ1701 (Post 278683)
Everyone already knows by now that I have very little "love" for NuTrek. I think it was a fun and fast paced space action adventure flick, but poor Trek. I understand it was supposed to introduce non-Trek-fans to the world of Trek and therefore could not get too preachy or waste it's time with a "brainy" story. I get that. I actually like action and adventure. What I don't like is the lame attempt to attach this film to the trek universe through the use of the multi-verse theory and time travel, then the obvious trashing of 40 years of TV and movies.

So many things changed simply for the sake of change. If a non-fan can't tell the difference, why completely throw out what came before? Do sets, effects, and sounds really make or break a movie? WTF is with a $150 film not being able to maintain scale? That's a stupid mistake that many seem to not be bothered by, yet mention a four wheeled vehicle driven by Picard and everyone thinks THAT is stupid!

So... Nutrek sucks because it is Trek only because it is named Trek. It lacks the "soul" of Trek. It lacks the "brain" of Trek. And it lacks everything else that makes fans (like me) feel as if they are in a familar place. Some may say that familiarity is what doomed Trek, but I disagree. Good stories and great plots make or break a movie, not the little things like a thrumming warp core or beam type phasers.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with change per se, the Meyer movies changed a lot of things and IMO TWOK,TVH and TUC are still the best TOS movies.
I agree that NuTrek is pop and not sci-fi, too much fluffy stuff and not enough substance and I also believe that this will not change in future movies made by this very production team. Like you I also miss the Trek spirit, nothing from Roddenberry's vision is left in this flick, Kirk, Bones and Spock rather seem to want to get away from their troubles on Earth/Vulcan and not explore the universe because it is "their first best destiny".
Yet I like the characters and the movie had quite an emotional impact.

MrQ1701 11-09-2009 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zardoz (Post 278686)
I wouldn't go that far. It was not designed to be a rehash of TOS.

I don't agree with everything that was done, but they tried to make a new series out of it.

I was glad it was NOT a rehash of TOS, but the Trek universe has evolved over the last 40 years. I figured this movie would at least take some aspects (design) from ENT and build on them. Why change phasers? Why make them a "pew, pew, pew" handgun? Was it simply to satisfy the action pop-corn movie goer? Is pew, pew, pew somehow "cooler" than beam type phasers? When I watched NuTrek, I got the feeling JJ wanted to make this movie less "nerdy" and very simple minded. He figured he had to get rid of EVERYTHING that made Trek familiar.

kevin 11-09-2009 10:08 AM

Everyone does indeed have different reasons for liking Star Trek - and I don't recall anyone saying they stopped liking Prime Trek just because they also happen to like Abrams Trek as well.

There really should be room enough for it all, whatever one particularly wants from it. Goodness knows Prime Universe Trek produced enough crap on it's own over the years anyway.

Zardoz 11-09-2009 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrQ1701 (Post 278694)
I was glad it was NOT a rehash of TOS, but the Trek universe has evolved over the last 40 years. I figured this movie would at least take some aspects (design) from ENT and build on them. Why change phasers? Why make them a "pew, pew, pew" handgun? Was it simply to satisfy the action pop-corn movie goer? Is pew, pew, pew somehow "cooler" than beam type phasers? When I watched NuTrek, I got the feeling JJ wanted to make this movie less "nerdy" and very simple minded. He figured he had to get rid of EVERYTHING that made Trek familiar.

I will lay you odds most of this was done because some focus group liked it.:D

MrQ1701 11-09-2009 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horatio (Post 278692)
I don't think that there is anything wrong with change per se, the Meyer movies changed a lot of things and IMO TWOK,TVH and TUC are still the best TOS movies.
I agree that NuTrek is pop and not sci-fi, too much fluffy stuff and not enough substance and I also believe that this will not change in future movies made by this very production team.
Yet I like the characters and the movie had quite an emotional impact.

If the next Trek flick has no substance (like this one!) then I will not only mourn the death of Trek, but I will bitterly despise these new Trek creations as the walking dead.

kevin 11-09-2009 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horatio (Post 278692)
Yet I like the characters and the movie had quite an emotional impact.

Which was a large part of TOS as well - so there are plenty of elements which they got right.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.