Star Trek Into Darkness - Movie Forum

ouch!

Sep 15 - 08:42 AM

Doug Craig

Nice to see the crew dramatized in the aura of the original. Great visuals too. For God's sake what a screwy plot. Every story has holes if you look hard enough, sure, STIG has em larger than a WW2 German city. Khan WTF, and kick the core to jump start it? Give me a break. The plot was not written for purists or even casual types like myself who watched the original on TV in the sixties.

Sep 15 - 07:49 AM

Corbin Mills

He was kicking the core to realign the bottom piece with the top one. To move it, not in some random attempt to restart via beating.

Oct 5 - 09:24 PM

"This is purely visual fluff for the modern day retarded young audiences."
More and more it is confirming that JJ Abrams is totally over rated. As long as he can shove special effects at you, that's all you need to be amused. It's getting very passe now

Sep 12 - 07:32 AM

Michael Sailor

I just saw it for the first time on DVD, and really enjoyed it. Not as much as the first, and I think it was pretty arrogant for Abrams to bring Khan into the mix, but I did believe Cumberbatch made a good villain. For all those citing plot holes in both the first movie and this, what the hell are you talking about? I think it's filler fodder so you don't have to actually think before posting "I didn't like it, I want Shatner and Nimoy back." So, examples, please?

Sep 12 - 06:21 AM

Good Looking RoHiT

Shut up asshole.

Sep 12 - 02:45 AM

Declan Connor

To be honest I don't care what you think. I am entitled to my opinion and that opinion is how much I love this movie. you say how it cant compete with the older star treks. well I cant watch them because the graphics are a little cheesy, or is that just because im retarded.

Sep 9 - 02:00 AM

Yes, I come up with the same...............you are "retarded".

Sep 12 - 07:33 AM

Migs Rodriguez

It's sad that you think your opinion matters to people that like this movie....FAIL

Sep 8 - 11:10 AM

Pat ChalupaBatman

Yes you do like dick sandwiches, indeed.

Sep 8 - 02:39 AM

wow...so intelligent and mature.

Sep 13 - 10:38 PM

Ben Liptrott

At the end of the day, why would anybody care what this pretentious fool has to say? "Oh, look at me Mr Pretentious with my Napolean Dynamite picture! I'm way too cool to enjoy any kind of mainstream modern day cinema so I'll just pick faults with it and show the rest of you minions how 'different and edgy' I am!" As a matter of fact, you sir...are a gimp! Grow up and stop being a boring, old goat!

Aug 31 - 12:11 PM

Ben how much time does your Mom allow you on the computer? You've out done your time little idiot.

Sep 8 - 02:16 PM

Bob Saget

So sad that you exist.

Aug 21 - 09:48 PM

Brendan Sullivan

toll, obvious troll. Or extremely idiotic

Jul 11 - 07:26 PM

Don Hillenbrand

This is the film equivalent of jangling keys in front of a baby ? 'look at all the pretty, shiny things!" The plot made no sense, AT ALL, and our hero is evidently so incompetent that thousands die because he can't keep a guy locked up. I don't want them to copy old Trek. I just want a new one that isn't stupid.

Jul 10 - 12:47 PM

You are giving me serious doubts on this film. I was hoping to go by the high percentage this film has received. Since it is a cheap rental I might watch it from boredom. But I think you are probably spot on, Don.

Sep 8 - 02:20 PM

Just saw it last night and you are 100% correct Don. This was no blockbuster!

Sep 12 - 07:36 AM

Zach McIntyre

Sure it's no original, but you are way too harsh. You shouldn't have to take past performances very heavily into account when looking at these films. The chemistry between the actors is great. The story is very clever, taking place in an alternate timeline. It's like they kept it canon without anyone even having to recognize it if they didn't want to. They created a Star Trek universe where they can do whatever they want without screwing with the series. I've seen everything Trek related and these are great installments to the franchise. Don't let your nostalgia ruin these for you and make you ignorant. From here on out anything new is going to deter you from the Star Trek franchise whether it be film or television because it's all in control of the next generation.

Jul 6 - 10:20 AM

Zach................you really say some pretty stupid remarks. There is no reason why viewers can't HOPE that there continues to be GOOD ACTORS to hold up what had been established in earlier films. If that's not the case, then the studio should be so embarrassed to just send it to DVD. Some one should ALWAYS strive to make a successful franchise "shine" otherwise they shouldn't be directing.
This will probably be another example of JJ Abrams being over rated...........AGAIN.

Sep 8 - 02:26 PM

Yup..........VERY OVERRATED

Sep 12 - 07:37 AM

Tom Theobald

Mesa...good actors? You cannot name one good actor from STOS because there wasn't one. And we loved them. These newer younger actors cast the aura of STOS and do it pretty well. Also, please watch a dozen or so STOS episodes and apply your same standard of "plot hole" theory. I loved the first JJA Star Trek immensely and I am a STOS purist.

Oct 2 - 06:38 PM

Randy Keller

ST Into Darkness is a couple of hours of great entertainment. Pine has spent a lot of time studying Shatner's mannerisms and body English and (I think) nails the character. I don't think they needed to re-introduce Kahn -- Montalban owns that character. A slight twist in the narrative would have solved that problem --- just introduce the Cumberbatch character as a new uber villain --- which he is. Net, a pretty good movie.

Jul 4 - 09:44 PM

Ian Woods

Waahhh, this movie isn't a clone of a TV show produced 50 years ago.

God, you people are the most insufferable leeches around. You like the original Star Trek because... wait for it... YOU SAW IT WHEN YOU WERE YOUNG! Gasp! All things seem better when you look back on them. As someone not suffering from 'rose-red glasses' syndrome, I've seen the original series, and it's pretty damn hacky. You can like it all you want, but it's so absurd and curmudgeonly to write off a film (which of the time of this comment, wasn't released yet) because it fails to meet the nostalgia standard.

In short, grow the fuck up, and stop your empty bitching.

Jun 28 - 09:40 PM

Bob Saget

Eternal respect.

Jun 28 - 10:13 PM

J D

I'm with you. I've watched nearly every thing there is for the Star Trek universe and I care deeply about it. And that's exactly WHY I think this new movies is so fantastic. It's a great addition to the franchise and a very faithful (but MAJORLY improved) reboot to TOS.

Jul 2 - 03:13 AM

hear, hear...well said sir.

Sep 13 - 10:40 PM

Sebastian Acha

Respect

Sep 14 - 11:54 PM

Tom Theobald

Ian. I am an adherant to STOS...never watched an episode of any of the new series because of it. And I agree with every word you just said. JJA is perfect for the job of reinventing while adhering to the STOS spirit.

Oct 2 - 06:40 PM

Eric Castagnoli

Your right when you say they will never be the original actors because they are a million times better then the originals, sorry dbag.

Jun 28 - 09:48 AM

Irving Sohn

. . . well said! You saved me from expressing my review. I am in complete agreement with your review of this failed "attempt" to emulate "Star Trek."

Jun 25 - 12:36 PM

fucking retard

Jun 26 - 01:08 PM

Rossy Bee

this movie was boring.

Jun 24 - 09:22 AM

Laura Koepke

Amen! I guess I am not a trekkie. My husband is and he even fell asleep. I don't know if it is a good or a bad movie because I am not aware of the back story but it felt long and I spent most of the time napping.

Jul 3 - 05:27 PM

Ash J. Gilmore

How the hell did you fall asleep? There is a shit ton of badass action and amazingly cool dialogue. I wasn't bored for a second.

Jul 5 - 04:56 AM

Marc "Cerone" Chaudry

Badass action, cool dialogue? Not so much, well, towards the third act dialogue got a little corny.

Aug 18 - 10:45 AM

Rex DeKatt

He probably fell asleep being you are such boring company, or, it's the only time he can get a rest from your constant inane chattering. Familiarize yourself with the genre before open your mouth next time.

Jul 6 - 07:08 PM

Reema Dickens

This, though a bit harsh, is hilarious. I don't know who Laura Koepke is and she is probably not boring company but this was funny.

Aug 15 - 01:42 AM

How exactly do you perform as "company" during a film? Don't you normally just sit there in the dark, watching the film? Maybe the guy didn't get enough sleep the night before or maybe this film really is boring. PS: Mom says your pizza rolls are ready.

Sep 15 - 08:46 AM

Wes Long

They may not be the original actors but their performances come pretty damn close. I thought they had great chemistry and that all the main characters were portrayed well enough to reenergize the Star Trek franchise for our generation. The new actors made these last two films not only watchable but GREAT. Into Darkness was the best movie I have seen this year and the actors are one of the biggest reasons I am saying that

Jun 23 - 05:26 PM

Katharine Baskin

I'm going to have to agree with the OP here, at least on the whole. I did like the movie but it just doesn't do justice to Star Trek - instead it takes the best villain out of the best movie, remakes that movie with a great budget and a few twists, and expects it to be at least good. Well it is at least good. Of course it's good. But if I'm a chef and you give me lobster, I hope I'll give you something a lot better than a happy meal. Star Trek is brave, Star Trek is bold, and Star Trek boldly goes where no man has gone before, being innovative and original in every incarnation. That's what I judge this film by, and that's why it fails.

Jun 18 - 07:03 PM

Debbie Aloshen

Trekkies dabble....I'm a trekker and I'm serious...and I loved this movie. It was great fun and that is exactly what I wanted and expected! I have been in love with the Trek Universe since the first show debuted, so all you "kids" out there screaming artistic integrity of the frachise, go away!! This was supposed to be entertainment and that is what it was. Abrams has brought this franchise back to life and may make it popular for another 40 years! Long Live Trek!!

Jun 14 - 06:33 PM

Mike Miclette

I've been a Trekkie my whole life, and I think Abrams has made this franchise better! I can enjoy all the incarnations that came before it and yet love these Abrams movies to death, it's just another great chapter in an awesome franchise. Is it a crime for me to view it that way?

A lot of you fanboys fail to see that these past 2 films are the movies that Star Trek deserved, AND the movies it needed. So you'll hate them, because Abrams can take it, because he's not a hero. He's a masterful director, a franchise revitalizer... The Trek Knight.

Jun 12 - 10:03 AM

Thank you. I'm not really a Star Trek fan (of the tv show or the new movies), but it seems like certain people aren't satisfied until J.J. Abrams is able to recreate Star Trek EXACTLY like it was back in the 60s.

Jun 13 - 12:04 AM

OMG....that is so cheesy...yet extremely cool at the same time :)

Sep 13 - 11:11 PM

Danny Rose

you my friend are a turd

Jun 12 - 06:31 AM

Brian Hamilton

This sounds purely like someone who is just angry a franchise they love is getting an update. I'm sorry to say this but you're in the minority pal--They are actually solid pop corn fun. I guess you will fail to see that given a stubborn mindset.

Jun 11 - 06:18 PM

Dylan Morgan

I see.

This is just like the OS Battlestar Galactica vs modern Battlestar Galactica - some minds are already made up.

If you don't like it, then good for you - you can express an opinion. Myself and others? We enjoy it, although perhaps for different reasons.

I myself could never really tolerate most of the stilted dialogue, wooden acting, poor pacing, and hammy writing of the OS. Later incarnations I found to be far superior, surviving off of a dead franchise that happened to be resurrected by the space adventure craze that took off in the 1970's with Star Wars.

I enjoy the new installments because they're paced well, the acting is solid, the dialogue pops, and the films just remember to be fun entertainment with some heart, and nothing with the intention of robbing the enjoyment of a summer popcorn flick.

So, rather than insult everyone else who does enjoy this (and put into question the validity of the review, given the future tense of your second-to-last paragraph), just accept that you don't enjoy it and don't watch it.

I don't particularly enjoy Coronation Street, but I also don't watch it after establishing that just so I can continue to insult everyone who does.

Jun 11 - 03:06 PM

Damon Butler

Stilted dialog: see Into Darkness. Poor pacing: see Into Darkness. Hammy writing: see Into Darkness.

You keep assuming I am defending the Original Series, or am trying to compare them.

I am not.

I am simply saying -- as others who have leveled criticisms at this film -- that THIS FILM does not stand on its own merits.

Glad you enjoy it. Stop being offended when people find problems with the film. It's YOU who are insulted by criticism, not me.

Jun 12 - 09:18 AM

Ian Woods

The problems people find with the film is that it wasn't shot in 1966 and doesn't star William Shatner. Fucking hyper-nerds want everything drenched in the camp of 1960's television.

Dialogue and writing are subjective, but poor pacing? You've got to be kidding me. Every 3-5 minutes there was plot advancement. You have a poor grasp of what makes a screenplay if you think Into Darkness had 'poor pacing'.

Jun 28 - 09:45 PM

Zach McIntyre

He can be offended when people have problems with the film when there are insults thrown around about those who do. Criticism is fine, blatant insults is another thing. He was not insulted by criticism.

Jul 6 - 10:27 AM

Ethan Blum

The fact of the matter is that people forget that this is not a remake of the original one. If it was a remake, they would name it Wrath of Khan, not Into Darkness. The fact of the matter is that Roddenberry's Star Trek, though thought provoking and philosophical, would not fly in this day and age. Although I do remember quite a few bar fight scenes from the original. The fact is that this is a completely new generation that J.J Abrams is trying to appeal. While Trekkies may not like this because it is not like the original, I find it to be more realistic. Do not forget that this is not a remake, but an alternate telling. By the way, I found the acting to be very well done.

Jun 10 - 05:51 PM

Damon Butler

You're missing the point of the criticism. The main criticism is that the movie is just plain bad. Poorly written. So poorly written that it's easy to pick it apart. It's not internally consistent. The deep friendship between Spock and Kirk has never yet been established, we're just told that this is the case.

Into Darkness is exactly the same film as Trek '09, only not as well written. We're told that Kirk has great potential, and everybody believes in him, but all he does is break the rules because he's a maverick! Spock is an emotionless prick who has to learn to be emotional at the right time. Uhura is supposed to be in love with Spock, but we don't ever see it. We're just told that this is true. And she kisses him a couple times. McCoy stands around spouting cliched metaphors but is otherwise hardly there.

Nothing new under the sun.

And then you get outright insults from the movie when we're expected to feel for Kirk's death when YOU KNOW they're just gonna inject him with Khan super-blood to bring him back to life. At least Wrath of Khan had the decency to show that actions had consequences. ID has no courage and flinches, writing itself a cheap Get Out of Jail Free card. (And why couldn't McCoy have used any of the other 72 ubermensches' blood that they had in their possession? Oh never mind...)

The links I pointed to were reviews by non-Trekkies, by the way. It's not just Trekkies that find the film underwhelming.

Jun 11 - 07:30 AM

Jesse Leon Rodgers Jr

What this guy said.

Sep 15 - 01:37 AM

I enjoy the show & movies for sometimes thought provoking, sometimes predictable entertainment. I think you're on the right track. All this self-righteous indignation is silly. Sorry teenagers, maybe this movie does suck a bit.

Sep 15 - 08:50 AM

Damon Butler

There are a million gabillion reasons to dislike Into Darkness. Frankly, it's just not that good a movie. At best, it's passable eye candy. But to enjoy it on that level, you have to turn your brain off. Some people are good at this ... I am not.

You hater-haters wanna know why the movie sucks? Here's why.

http://io9.com/star-trek-into-darkness-the-spoiler-faq-508927844

How about a review from people who aren't Trekkies? They don't much like the film, either.

http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-star-trek-into-darkness/

Like they say: at best, it's halfway entertaining. HALFway.

Jun 10 - 11:54 AM

If I linked you to two positive reviews of the movie, would that be enough to convince you the movie was good? Of course not. So I don't know why you somehow concluded we'd see your two links and think "oh, well I guess I misinterpreted my own opinion. I guess I do hate this movie after all"

Jun 12 - 03:47 PM

Lawrence Townsend

I don't understand how this was liked so highly. Star Trek was a vision of what it would be like to explore space and address the philosophies in life. Not some hot-headed young captain would put his crew in such great danger, how does this compare to the captains of the US Navy. Why is the battleship just a bigger version, US warships look different according to their purpose. The white house knows better to convene in an exposed area. The war counsel federation should have been multitude of generals; what was a first officer doing on the table. How did Scottie enter undetected to the secret base. Their fighting style should be leaps and bounds ahead of UFC fighters. Star Trek was all about what ifs not just another action movie with special effects. For those who are new to Star Trek great, but for those who are fans too bad.

Jun 10 - 01:33 AM

Alexander Gill

agreed, this movie was a let down. Just another action movie promising to be something more. It should have been something better and should have built upon the positives from the first film. Instead, it chose leaping and jumping and explosions and screaming.

Jun 10 - 08:19 AM

You just described all the Transformer movies too!

Sep 15 - 08:51 AM

"I don't understand how this was liked so highly."

Because it's an awesome action sci-fi movie with good performances and witty humor?

Jun 12 - 03:50 PM

Larry Mills

No, it's not. It's like the rough first draft missed the editing and vetting process and made it to actual filming.

Jun 13 - 07:03 AM

your opinion

Jun 15 - 09:26 AM

Ed McCann

just another attention seeking home-body with no life who will probably go see anyways if he hasnt already. great movie.

Jun 7 - 12:00 AM

Yes Ed, if anybody ever disagrees with you, the GENIUS, then they are certainly idiots. How does it feel to never be wrong?

Sep 15 - 08:52 AM

I thought you were on to something until I read the part where you call the original Star Trek crap good.

Jun 5 - 11:58 PM

Diego Hard With an Anus

Fight me.

Jun 6 - 09:16 PM

Mike Calzia

Thoroughly enjoyed this film! I hope this film brings a new generation of fans to ST TOS. :) Well done!

Jun 5 - 04:11 PM

Kevin Baird

You are such a stupid asshole.

Jun 5 - 01:36 PM

Hayden Koch

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/550/803/628.jpg

Jun 5 - 02:20 PM

Even if we accept this ludicrous premise that the movies aren't as well put together as the original show (the one that supposedly has no bad acting, bad chemistry, absurd plot holes, obvious plot devices) why does that make it "sad" that we like it?

Jun 5 - 12:39 PM

Liam Neeson Trollfighter

"from the best Star Trek movie ever made"
Are you fucking kidding me... Wrath of Khan was fucking gay.

Jun 4 - 10:11 PM

Fuck you. Wrath of Khan was awesome.

Jun 6 - 01:20 PM

Stanley Gilstrap

You sir are an idiot.

Jun 15 - 07:22 PM

Bill Kleinsturn

Loser Troll. There, fixed your name for you.

Jul 4 - 01:51 PM

wow...i'm pretty sure that you are probably the only person in the known universe who hated WoK

Sep 13 - 11:14 PM

Mike Bryant

Have to admit that I was a little baffled to see Khan portrayed as he was. Other than that, I did enjoy the movie almost to the point of considering a second viewing.

Jun 4 - 08:15 PM

Liam Neeson Trollfighter

Eric Hutchison just wishes he was Josh Hutcherson lol

May 31 - 07:44 PM

Every word Eric wrote represents the utter no-brain stupidity of this dumb fuck.

May 31 - 06:01 PM

Billy's Kingdom

yup

Jun 1 - 11:53 PM

Yes, the original Star Trek never had obvious plots or "plot devices", bad acting, silly costumes, Kirk never moralized or pontificated, Ricardo Montalban was one of the greatest actors who ever lived, (Shatner and Nimoy were, too), the original series was "all about exploration" not battles (those phasers and torpedoes were just for show--they never used them), the show and everything about it was perfect just as all the movies were. I think I've covered all the criticisms below. The truth is, the show and its characters (and actors) are beloved, not necessarily brilliant, and some will continue to love the Star Trek world as it evolves and changes. Others will hate it, but these lists of flaws can be as easily applied to the original episodes as to this movie.

May 31 - 01:10 AM

Oh yes, and the original series was certainly NOT targeted to 12 year-old boys, but rather to 50-year old scientists with advanced degrees.

May 31 - 01:28 AM

I thought it was targeted at all the women Roddenberry wanted to sleep with.

Jun 6 - 12:00 AM

James Wilson

So sad you started a troll thread, BACK UNDER THE BRIDGE WITH YE!!

May 30 - 10:44 PM

Vince Almaraz

That's what Abrams is. He's one of those lazy film makers who's target audience is 12 year old boys. He uses the standard formula that most low talent directors use. Lots of explosions, special effects and some sexual content to distract from the weak story line and poor character development. Why? Because it's easier. The problem with it is that any movie can produce good effects and it doesn't take any brains at all to make good action scenes.

May 30 - 08:41 AM

Christopher Aull

OK, J.J. Abrams may not be a perfect director and he's no Stanley Kubrick, but at least he KNOWS how to direct. He's not a hack like Michael Bay and Paul W.S. Anderson who are mostly just all flashy effects and action but lacking in plot and character development. Transformers 1 & 3 were mildly entertaining thanks to their action scenes, but The Rock and The Island were Bay's only truly good movies. His other movies are just all flash and little of everything else. J.J. Abrams at least has the dignity to hire actors who can actually act instead of models and those with little to no acting talent (or wasting talents). And he chose ones that really well suited their respective roles. They won't be as beloved as Shatner, Nimoy, and DeForest Kelley, but they did good for Abrams version. Abrams Star Trek movies aren't perfect, but they are far from bad and I look forward to seeing what he'll do with Star Wars.

May 31 - 09:53 AM

In what way do these films feature character development? If you didn't know who these characters already were, you would know nothing about them.

Jun 6 - 12:01 AM

Garet Cahoon

Don't let the character development bite you in the face. If you want to see a solid lack of character development, see 'Now You See Me' and even 'The Avengers' to a certain extent.

Jun 10 - 01:33 AM

Dylan Morgan

Exactly how does an original film fail to establish characters?

These films are targeted at a new audience and have made the content of the original series accessible, albeit not the original series.

Let's not forget that the OS is a 1960's television series with social commentary on the decade of which holds no interest to anyone not studying sociology or history. For a modern audience, this will be their Star Trek - and presented in the summer film category where the films are not meant to be oscar winners, but simply fun and enjoyable, and encourage a sense of adventure.

I, for one, never experienced the OS (the true OS) until after the 2009 Star Trek film. I knew what I did through pop culture references in the likes of The Simpsons.

Suffice to say, nostalgia does a lot to that franchise. I can understand why it was cancelled to begin with, and that has nothing to do with age.

Jun 11 - 03:15 PM

Dylan Morgan

**origin film

Jun 11 - 03:16 PM

Lawrence Townsend

Abrams doesn't have to reinvent the wheel when it comes to directing. He could just borrow the ideas from George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson and he would end up making a great film.

Jun 10 - 01:40 AM

Vince Almaraz

Actually, I do agree with you. Abrams is not as bad as that mega hack Micheal Bay. I have liked some of Abrams films.

Sep 26 - 12:02 PM

I am the master of movies and i say you should SHUT UP!!!

May 23 - 09:47 PM

Seth Metil

Horrible movie. Completely relied on special effects and big noises and a lot of jumping. No character development at all. I hated the hats.

May 23 - 01:46 AM

There was character developement,idiot...it was right in your bloody face!

May 23 - 09:48 PM

Your points are elegant and your arguments very persuasive.

Sep 15 - 02:11 PM

Tom Wootton

Retard and Plebean I may be. Young I am not. One of the joys of retarded plebeanhood is that we get a lot more fun out of life than the folks mired down in Patricianly elevated taste. Eric strikes me as a Passepartout, Voltaire's supremely superior man of taste. So superior that he enjoyed nothing. But Passepartout was at least patient, dignified and serene. He did not care very much what the Plebeians thought. He would not have been too much annoyed even if he did care. Today's internet culture, however, has no use for serenity or patience. Reflection is forbidden. Civility is a liability. Shoot-from-the-hip and facile derision is compulsory. Expression is nothing unless enshelled with puerile contempt. Frothy posters begin with inchoate absolutes. As soon as they are crossed, however, Eric and his comrades wither up, degenerate, and default instantly to personal attack. I suppose I can handle the death of coherent discourse on the internet, but at least I'll have the pleasure of a crackling good entry into the Star Trek franchise. I was fourteen when I got hooked in 1966. I remain perfectly content to stay hooked. I think I'll just get my bucket of popcorn and have a jolly good time anyway. Live Long and Prosper.

May 22 - 08:32 AM

Such a sane reply hardly belongs on the internet, Tom. I enjoyed the movie immensely, just as I did the first one, and just as I have enjoyed all of Star Trek since 1966 (like you, I watched it in prime time). What is especially funny about the initial post here is the calling of the original actors "great". Not something they are usually called, but we love them because, well, we just do.

May 30 - 11:25 PM

If only net culture had the same serenity and patience as all the dorks who get excited by movies like this.

Jun 6 - 12:04 AM

Debbie Aloshen

Amen, Tom!

Jun 14 - 06:37 PM

Jim Sellers

How right you are Eric. It entertainment for plebs, the monster truck and wet tshirt contest equivalent of the scifi world.

The people who liked this garbage should be ashamed of themselves and should seriously consider autosterilization for the sake of the species.

May 21 - 10:21 PM

It's funny how you are responding like a pretentious douche to a troll thread. Good going.

May 21 - 10:24 PM

Jim Sellers

i'm surprised you know the meaning of the word pretentious. go crack open another 'bud light' you simpleton.

May 21 - 10:34 PM

At least I know how to properly capitalize words. I'd think you'd do so, so you can claim to be mightier than a simpleton like myself. Wouldn't want to type like a simpleton, Jim-O.

May 21 - 10:37 PM

Capitalization! Wow, you sure showed him. Very elegant and effective argument man. You win this round....

Sep 15 - 02:13 PM

1. You have horrendous taste
2. You're not smart, you just think you are so you can look down people
3. The small yellow bus is waiting for you

May 22 - 04:06 PM

Daniel Plainview

You here that, Mr. Sellers? That's the sound of inevitability, that's the sound your death. Goodbye, Mr. Sellers.

May 23 - 05:52 PM

Mr.Jim Sellers....please leave i'm fed up of you people!!1

May 23 - 09:48 PM

Daniel Plainview

You are the problem with audiences today. You take things way to seriously. I found myself saying last weekend that I am proud to be a Trekkie but now I'm afraid to be in the same league as people like you. You're just complaining for the sake of complaining like these so called "modern day young audiences." First off, Pine and Quinto were never trying to impersonate Shatner or Nimoy at all as their performances were completely different. It's pretty obvious this is an alternate universe from the originals, so maybe it's a world that has all of this stuff falling into place because a lot of it shouldn't have happened because old Spock and Nero mess with time and both Spock's talk together. Maybe the ways of time in this universe work like that. For a universe that isn't the same as the originals, Cumberbatch works just fine and his motives are clear and he is a well thought out villain.
In other words, stop bitching about stuff you're obviously not thinking about and stop nitpicking every little detail. If you don't like the way Abrams is taking the series, DON'T FUCKING WATCH IT.

May 21 - 06:13 PM

Yes! The problem with audiences today is that they take things way too seriously! I personally am tired of seeing all this pretentious snooty crap in theaters like The Hangover Part 10 and Fast and Furious Part 50 and Star Trek Part 2 Version 2! Give me old fashioned mindless entertainment for a change.

Jun 6 - 12:08 AM

Don't for the Dukes of Hazzard pre-quel!

Sep 15 - 02:15 PM

Brett Courtenay

Eric The Troll(er) 2013 PG-What happens when a man yearning attention trolls a site full of old and new Trekkies looking to create emotional mayhem? Not much...Eric is not very interesting nor says anything of merit, we all have better things to say, share and experience. "A Clumsy, Cumbersome, Clunker...1 out of 10"

May 21 - 06:27 AM

David Abrams

ill tell you what i think of you eric i live to see you eat your bullshit. BUT I HOPE YOU LEAVE HAVE ENOUGH ROOM FOR MY FIST BECAUSE IM GOING TO RAM IT INTO YOUR STOMACH AND BREAK YOUR GODDAMN SPINEEEE AAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

May 19 - 03:34 PM

Leave some parts for me to punch!

May 23 - 09:49 PM

Tre Oates

What does Schwarzenegger have to do with anything? lol

May 24 - 09:40 AM

David Gee

David Abrams, you misspelled "EEEYYYAAAHHHGGGHHH".

May 28 - 12:46 PM

Fuck you. I loved ST 09 and STID.

May 19 - 01:35 PM

Mr.Eric likes shit movies like movie 43 and shitty movie 5.

May 23 - 09:49 PM

I didn't like Movie 43, but I didn't think it was outrageously bad.

May 24 - 08:57 AM

I hated it...

May 28 - 08:54 PM

Rami Nawfal

Movie 43 was a colossal pile of elephant shit.

Sep 9 - 11:49 PM

Michael Capobianco

...and yes, I also thought JJ Abrams was doing a rehash of previous episodes and storylines,. Then I realized what it really was...paying respect to the characters, plotlines, and stories that made us all enjoy Star Trek for what it is...Interesting Entertainment....nothing more, nothing less

May 19 - 01:03 PM

Michael Capobianco

I am a Star Trek fan. I enjoy the premise, the characters (no matter what series or medium) I like the fact that there is so much material to draw on and link/string. I have no problem with the changing Star Trek Cannon. ST: TNG, Voyager, Enterprise, DS9, all played with it. Lets just enjoy that fact that we have another Star Trek to have fun with.

May 19 - 12:59 PM

Ron Myers

As if Shatner was a "great actor"? You probably didn't enjoy the reimagined Battlestar Galactica either. Olmos wasn't exactly Lorne Greene either. Thank God.

May 18 - 03:37 PM

Greg Price

There was nothing wrong with Lorne Greene as Adama. He wouldn't have worked in Ron Moore's version, but he was perfect in the Larson original.

Jun 1 - 01:53 PM

Perfect relative to the crappiness of the enterprise.

Jun 6 - 12:10 AM

jeff greenberg

i loved the original series and given the challenges of living up to that with a new cast i think these two films have been excellent, and like the original, a lot of fun. There's humor, action, exploring of difficult moral issues, somewhat clever strategies. let's hope the third film rises to the level of the best episodes or at least wrath of khan. but these are solid entries and a great effort to continue star trek with a new young cast.

May 18 - 03:15 PM

Scott Wolfe

Jerk!! That's a very close-minded attitude! Pine and Quinto were never trying to emulate their predecessors, that's boring. Because it's an alternate reality they purposely made their performances unique. By the way, the plot holes weren't that big a deal. A plot hole is Khan recognizing Chekov (Wrath of Khan), whom he never met in the show! Just because somebody likes what you hate doesn't mean they're retarded you ass!!

May 17 - 10:16 PM

Kahn recognizing Chekov bothered me, too, till I realized that Chekov was promoted from within the ship, so I just assume that with Kahn's memory for faces, he saw him somewhere in a scene we didn't. (See? It all makes sense if you try hard enough!)

May 30 - 11:30 PM

Or if you need it to enough.

Jun 6 - 12:10 AM

Sleepy Sheep

I agree as I didn't like the first movie either, but I quite enjoyed the second. Sorry, I never saw any old Star Trek movies/shows. But I thought it was fun and a better plot than the first. The biggest downside for me was every time I saw Benedict Cumberbatch, I couldn't get his image from BBCs Sherlock out of my mind.

May 17 - 10:02 PM

Mike Morello

All I got to say is Michael Fassbender as Magneto
Tom Huddleston as Loki
Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan
Heath Ledger as Joker
if you or anyone else didnt enjoy the performances from "this" generations films you can seriously go eat shit because no one can touch a finger from anyone of these guys and how they played their roles. So thats why I keep watching and millions more are ready to sit in your seat if you plan on standing up and getting out and make sure the door doesnt hit you in the ass on the way out

May 17 - 09:51 PM

Greg Price

I'll give you 3 of those 4, but Ledger sucked. Too little Clown Prince of Crime and too much Charles Manson/Hannibal Lectre.

Jun 1 - 01:55 PM

Ledger sucked? By God, I hate you.

Jun 6 - 01:21 PM

I guess the common theme to all this arguing is that people have different tastes and opinions and all of this whining doesn't accomplish anything. Mike is right though, "eat shit", no actually...."eat MY shit after a night of tequila and lamb curry".

Sep 15 - 02:18 PM

Mike Morello

yeah it wasnt as intelligent as the original but thats about where it ends. Throughly enjoyable movies with very good acting from the main leads minus Zoe Saldana utterly useless. Just got to remember they are selling it to an entirely new generation they have to hook these kids for the next 20-30 years like they hooked you for that long. The explosions have to be bigger and louder and villians darker and more evil thats how it works deal with it or go live in the past

May 17 - 09:45 PM

Tony Eddard Stark

My dad is in his mid 50s. He is a true Trek fan. Not a pseudo-fan TROLL such as yourself. Guess what? He has 2009 on Blueray and he just watched it tonight. He liked it even more than I did and I thought it was awesome. Matter of fact, he saw STiD a second time with me because he liked it so much. As part of the Retarded Young Audience (unless you mean the wee lil teenlings, then I am not part of it), I have three words for you. 1: Go 2: Fuck 3: Yourself!

May 17 - 09:01 PM

YES! The opinion of one "mid 50s" man settles this question for all time. Eat my shit.

Sep 15 - 02:30 PM

Colin T. Coyote

But on the other hand, fuck you.

May 17 - 08:58 PM

Ja Ral

Just saw the movie. Good visuals, but very, VERY dumb plot.
Isn't this writer the same guy that wrote Prometheus?
Well, there you go. That explains the dumb plot.

May 17 - 08:07 PM

Michael Rubinstein

Some people prefer the original flavor of Star Trek. Others prefer the new JJ Abrams version. Some, like myself, enjoy both, as independent entities with their both individual merits. And then some don't like any of this Trek stuff. And you know what? None of this is "sad". It's a matter of taste, that's all.

Personally, the biggest thing I feel missing so far in this new version is the whole "exploration" motif, the sense of wonder and discovery. However the ending of this new film seems to indicate self-awareness of that lack on the part of the filmmakers, and leaves me hopeful that the next sequel actually will explore strange new worlds, rather than be wholly occupied with confronting yet another badass supervillain bent on destroying Earth.

May 17 - 07:57 PM

John Strandwitz

JJ Abrams has let me down again! It was like a terrible remake of Star Trek 2! I went into this with my expectations low but somehow JJ still disappointed me. The references to Star Trek 2 are as ham-fisted as a retarded boxer and half as entertaining. The muddled, kahnvoluted plot tries in vane to interest the viewer with twists and turns that make no sense. Moments that are supposed to fill you with awe and wonder inspire groans and sighs. I somewhat enjoyed the banter between the characters although the dialog is more of a "tip of the hat" to the old series and movies rather than new conversations between beloved characters. The actors play their parts well enough, but good performances don't mean a thing if the story is weak. The special effects are amazing although JJ stills seems to be deeply in love with lens flare. And let me say this: Into Darkness doesn't just reference seens and dialog from Star Trek 2, it outright reenacts them! It's so forced you will actually lol. I was hoping for a cerebral storyline but was served the same plate of stupid that average Joe dumb**** eats with both hands. 2 out of 5 stars.

May 17 - 12:19 PM

Tyler Tiberius McQuarrie

Star Trek are srs bizniz.

May 28 - 04:43 PM

Chris Dias

My issues w/ the 2009 edition can be explained w/ the excellently written TNG episode "Tapestry". And the reboot tried (badly) to imply that you could pull a bunch of threads in a tapestry and STILL get the same result. Uh. NO! This installment lacks the Melville quotes and charm of the best Shatner Trek films. Bottom line: All action and no Sci-Fi. That's not Star Trek.

May 17 - 03:06 AM

JC Martel

I agree 100% but get used to it dude, that's all they're making nowadays: mindless, disposable crap for the ADD cellphone twitter generation.

May 16 - 09:15 PM

Sketcher Jack

Oh and in denial as well. I guess the fat, ugly ass bald old man is still living in the past. So jealous that Benedict Cumberbatch is all ready a mega star and your precious Montalban's only notable film after Khan was a "throw-away" role in Spy Kids. So pathetic.

May 16 - 08:52 PM

Sketcher Jack

Dude you look so ugly!

May 16 - 08:47 PM

Stephen Sprouse

Yes, but Cumberbatch pulls it off without the chest prosthetic, 80's haircut, and Xanadu costuming so there is that.

May 16 - 08:10 PM

Greg Price

There was not chest prosthetic.

Jun 1 - 01:57 PM

Sherri Yarbrough

As much as I loved the original Star Trek, methinks someone might be getting a bit carried away with how "great" the acting and plot lines were when speaking of the original. Heck, by the time they started making Star Trek movies, half the cast seemed perfectly happy doing "impersonations" of themselves. If not for the Khan movie, the franchise would have died out completely soon after that first boring movie. So no, there is absolutely nothing for "young audiences" to apologize for in terms of this reboot. Nothing at all.

May 16 - 07:59 PM

sebastian montesinos

Fuck you.

May 16 - 07:41 PM

Diego Hard With an Anus

Giggity.

May 16 - 07:06 PM

Tony Eddard Stark

Name like that is sure to bring out the flag spam bombers.

May 16 - 07:09 PM

Andrew Kafoury

I agree Eric, this was a lousy film.

May 16 - 05:35 AM

Ash J. Gilmore

He's talking about Star Trek 09.

May 16 - 05:27 PM

Lousy film....it was awesome!

May 28 - 08:54 PM

Ash J. Gilmore

Fuck yeah!

May 28 - 08:59 PM

Bloode Murder

I'm downs with that.

May 16 - 03:46 AM

Jay Catler

Well, you're not "other people" are you

May 16 - 03:03 AM

Gregory Smith

I just got back from a midnight showing of this, and I think you should give it a chance. I'm an original series fan, and I had a lot of problems with Star Trek (2009) as well, though not all the same ones you have, but this one was quite a bit better. The plot is straightforward, one might say "obvious", but that's far preferable to the convoluted mess from the last one. And yes some of the action scenes are a bit over the top, as is the case with all movies these days, but they work well with the story and nothing really seems forced. Personally I thought the casting was the one thing they got right in the last one, and I feel the same here, though they do get a TAD heavy-handed with "homages" to the originals towards the end. Anyway give it a watch before dismissing it out of hand as you've done here. Overall I found it quite enjoyable, and a worthy enough addition to the franchise.

May 16 - 01:12 AM

David Gee

Eric Hutchison, you are entitled to your opinion, but here's some advice: if you want people to respect your opinion, don't write like some spiteful dweeb whose life has featured too many ass-kickings and not enough pussy.

May 15 - 01:18 PM

Yeah, don't expect us to think you have a brain when you're not even getting pussy like David is. That would be dumb.

Jun 6 - 12:11 AM

Says the down-syndrome looking motherfucker

May 15 - 12:56 PM

You stole my insult!

May 15 - 03:53 PM

No, I didn't see it at first. He just looks like he has downs

May 15 - 07:37 PM

Yes...yes he does. But I suspect that isn't really a pic of him. He's just using it so people like us can make fun of it.

May 15 - 07:49 PM

Luke Harrison

that's your opinion and if you didn't like it then that's fair enough.but I,most critics and several hundreds of people disagree with you

May 15 - 12:53 PM

Joshua Houck

You realize the original Star Trek had only 3 seasons before being cancelled, the only movie from the original series that was received as a success was "Wrath of Kahn" and the original actors were what some call as "not great" regardless of how iconic the characters are that they played. Get off your fan boy high horse. Sounds like you're just upset because someone re-wrote the book on your favorite series and actually did a good job.

May 15 - 11:58 AM

Christopher Aull

That is totally inaccurate about Wrath of Khan being the only successful movie. Most were generally pleased with The Search for Spock, The Voyage Home and The Undiscovered Country. The Motion Picture has most divided while The Final Frontier is often regarded as the worst Star Trek movie. But while Wrath of Khan was the best of the older movies, it wasn't the ONLY one that was successful.

May 15 - 12:58 PM

No, but it was the only one that was really great. It stood on its own, which can't be said for the other movies. I love The Voyage Home, though, because it's funny. "Where are the nuclear wessels?" never gets old.

May 30 - 11:35 PM

dethburger hates Flixster

Never?

Jun 6 - 12:12 AM

Sorry Josh but ST4 was a bigger hit than Wrath was.

May 16 - 06:50 PM

Marco Chaudry

Actually have to agree about the first film, this is why I'm seeing The Iceman instead.

May 15 - 11:56 AM

Krispy Kreme Sloppy Joe

What the hell?

May 15 - 10:24 AM

ballermat 982

Vegeta: SAD FOR YOU!

May 15 - 09:14 AM

Phil Payton

You must be ill in the head there's no world where William shatner is a good actor he's horrendous, laughably so. Must have been embarrassing for Leonard Nimoy to act with him.

The last sentence just confirms you're a mornoic cry baby fan of the old series who can't expected its changed and moved on mong

May 15 - 07:24 AM

zinc alloy

you're my hero Ferris Bueller...regardless of what the critics say...........

May 15 - 07:09 AM

Josiah Coulter

You mean J.J. Abrams and his cast of incredibly talented actors SAVED Star Trek and actually made it epic and awesome. Seriously, Pine, Quinto, and Cumberbatch are all SOOO much better than the originals. So much better.

May 15 - 02:05 AM

Saved it from what? Like Paramount said, "Right boys, we're only going to give this franchise ONE MORE SHOT, and if it doesn't work, we won't let the next new president of the company drag it back out to prove to our shareholders that he can get the stock price up!"

Jun 6 - 12:14 AM

Roman Lembersky

Saved it from being another historic pop-icon with no future and no progress...Or unless you want that series to be dictated by the atrocious MMO.

Jun 10 - 04:43 PM

By the way, nice trolling dude. Are you some sort of spawn of Matthew Preston or maybe Jim Starling?

8/10

May 15 - 02:02 AM

The Dude

Just because he didn't like Star Trek '09 doesn't mean he's a troll, man.

May 15 - 04:27 AM

Well, he went and made a similar thread on Great Gatsby. I could be wrong.

May 15 - 11:07 AM

The Dude

I could be wrong too.

May 16 - 09:03 AM

M Cryderman

Please, this is nothing short of a long taunt to anyone who did like the films.

May 15 - 12:12 PM

James Heywood

I don't think they're trying to remake it, and try to live up to it. They're just doing their own thing. Cumberbatch was a very different Khan, and he did a damn good job acting that part. If you wanted the same film, with the same actors, watch the original? I dunno man, I didn't think this film was amazing but I think you're butthurt is misplaced.

May 15 - 01:35 AM

San Kim

Yes, they should do their own thing, so why are they using Wrath of Khan. That's NOT doing their own thing.

May 15 - 11:52 AM

Thaddeus Venture

Other than Khan being the villain this was nothing like Wrath of Khan. That's like saying The Dark Knight shouldn't get any credit since they used the Joker again.

May 15 - 11:56 AM

San Kim

Yeah, that's true

May 15 - 12:11 PM

Glenn Forsyth

Well, if he's going to bring back Khan...how about Trelane in the next movie now that they are on their 5 year mission?

May 15 - 12:49 AM

Todd Tripp

This, but Trelane would also need a "big ship" roughly eleventy times the size of the Enterprise cause that's how these writers roll.

May 15 - 10:16 AM

Who cares how big it is? Just so long as it is painted blue and orange, like the rest of the movie.

Jun 6 - 12:16 AM

Jacob Adank

Ok this is my last reply as having an argument on the internet is a really bad idea, because no one can get a point across because everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I understand everyone's gripe about the old series being different, because it had an awesome cast and had some good stories, but this is a different timeline. Its a fresh start for the franchise and hopefully it will bring new fans to the series and I hope it will help a new series start on t.v.

I loved the series Enterprise for the record as I thought it kind of felt like the old series a little bit. I know this comment is gonna get flamed, but that is how it felt to me. As for the action aspect of the new movies. I absolutely relished the times they would get into star-ship battles and to me that was super entertaining. It came down to thinking "Who is gonna win?" and "I want to see them kick some butt". I know the new movies are more action packed, but it is sad but true that that is what people want to see.

I really love the new cast and their new mission. I want to see this franchise get popular again. I want it to have its time in the sun again. I am sure all the trek fans will rejoice once we get a new series back on the small screen. These movies are pumping steroids back into the franchise and giving it some momentum to make a come back.

May 15 - 12:05 AM

Kenton Potila

Agreed!

May 16 - 05:01 AM

Lisbeth Solis

Seeing the crew of the Enterprise holding guns made me realize that their mission is one of retaliation now. And I could accept that but Khan? Really? And to think I kept reassuring my friends, telling them the producers would come up with something original. Ha! I saw the first because LN was in it, but that only made the experience more painful, so I'm not making that mistake again.

May 14 - 06:42 PM

Chris Cook

Stopped reading at "terrible chemistry between these young actors". As for the other comments about the older movies, well, the '79 Trek's lifetime gross outdid Nemesis. A movie that came out 23 years before Nemesis made more than it. If that doesn't tell you how low the brand had fallen with people then nothing will.

May 14 - 06:37 PM

Diego Hard With an Anus

You are the stupidest human being that has ever lived. Everybody on this FORUM is now dumber just from reading your post. You have the intellectual capability of a fried eggplant. By the way, "retarded young audiences?" I assume that by this tacitly worded comment, you mean my age group. Has the thought that someone can love both the fantastic original Trek movies and the incredible reboots ever entered your thick skull?

I award you no points... and may God have mercy on your soul.

May 14 - 05:48 PM

Chum Chum

Stop crying, get over it

May 14 - 05:29 PM

hollis mills

ummmmm...ok pal, whatever you say...

May 14 - 04:49 PM

President Pedro

Honestly, Star Trek had tremendous chemistry and great new versions of the characters. Also, the plot made sense, if you know, actually watched the film and could comprehend what was going on. Plus, at this point how do you know the new villain will be bad if you haven't seen the film? JJ does visuals very well instead of putting them before story. Man get your shit together

May 14 - 03:52 PM

Porcupine Glenn

It's garbage, I agree. Nothing compares to the old ones. "Star Trek" reboot had some novelty, but fell off the rails an hour into it.

May 14 - 03:49 PM

Then go watch the old ones and ignore the new ones, and spare us your bitching and moaning.

May 14 - 04:21 PM

Jeff Walken

Words of wisdom.

May 14 - 05:27 PM

Lisbeth Solis

Better yet, start your own cheerleading forum.

May 14 - 06:45 PM

JC Martel

Words of wisdom.

May 17 - 09:20 AM

dethburger hates Flixster

Better yet, don't.

Jun 6 - 12:18 AM

Christian Kneier

lol another hippster complaining...JJ made star trek finally entertaining,in his star trek movies shit actually happens and its not just bla bla bla all the time...

May 14 - 01:26 PM

Kenneth Elliott

^ What do you mean by "bla bla bla all the time..." ? Are you referring to the original tv show's intriguing dialogue and philosophical/scientific references? They actually needed more of this "bla bla bla" in the new films.
The new Trek strayed too much into action-packed Star Wars territory (which is actually good news for fans of the upcoming VII.)

May 15 - 08:12 PM

CP-Four Satonaka

Sadly the 'bla bla bla' aspect of the original(s) would NOT sell to today's audience. There is some merit in making a 'old school' trek story today but regardless of how many original fans would be pleased, it wouldn't be enough to consider it a 'hit' and sadly, hits are what Hollywood is aiming for.

The new trek is good, it's 'new' its 'vibrant' it's 'fresh.' and looking at the numbers, it 'sells.'

May 17 - 12:13 AM

Thaddeus Venture

lol, so pathetic. XD

May 14 - 01:08 PM

Jay Catler

Like you

May 14 - 01:09 PM

Thaddeus Venture

Don't be mad that Into Darkness is a far better film than Gatsby. It makes you look like a butthurt child.

May 15 - 11:57 AM

Jay Catler

Don't be mad that I've been famous since the 30s

May 15 - 04:21 PM

So is Hitler Jay.

May 16 - 06:53 PM

Honey badger don't give a fuck about Hitler.

Jun 6 - 12:19 AM

Bob Saget

Who gives a fuck what some asshole on the internet says? Don't let this guy get to you.

May 14 - 01:01 PM

Yeah...I'm just pissed off.

May 28 - 08:55 PM

Retards? Says the mongoloid downs-lookn' motherfucker.

May 14 - 10:58 AM

Krispy Kreme Sloppy Joe

That's a Hell of a thing to say. Too funny.

May 14 - 12:26 PM

Jacob Adank

Please tell us of the plot holes in the 2009 movie? As I am not aware of what you are talking about. Also I don't think these characters are trying to be the original cast. Its a different timeline and its more of a re-imagining than a remake. Its more of a what if this happened rather than a hey look at us we are making a Star Trek movie. These movies are trying to get the series going again on TV. Its trying to make the series a valid thing. I am a huge fan of the series (all of them as a matter a fact) and as a Star Trek fan I can tell you I was skeptical if this was going to be good or not.

However, I was still very excited. If you are a true Star Trek fan you say you are you would give this movie the reception it deserves instead of crapping all over it. Its not a work of perfection but it still is a pretty good re-imagining of a series that seems to have died off for no good reason. True its still alive in reruns but I want there to be a new series, so my kids can enjoy it as I did. Also Karl Urban does a great bones and Zachary Quinto does a great Spock.

Oh and another thing its so nice that we can have some people make some intelligable posts in this topic like "Fuck Space Trek" and "Yea, I hate star Treck". Your attempt to troll has fallen flat on its face.

May 14 - 10:50 AM

Christopher Aull

The reason why Eric and plenty of the old time Star Trek fans are not happy with J.J. Abrams Star Trek is because they are more action-oriented. The original Star Trek had themes in them and plenty of them also had good moral lessons as well as talking about the nature of humanity. It was true sci-fi. I've only seen the original series so far (61 episodes into it). I really liked the 2009 Star Trek initially. But watching most of the original series, while still a good movie, the problems that the fans had are starting to become more apparent.

But despite this, I still think that the 2009 movie was still good. It may not be an intelligent sci-fi movie like Moon or 2001, but it's not completely brainless like the Resident Evil and Transformers movies. Unlike Paul W.S. Anderson and Michael Bay, Abrams actually cares about how the characters turn out. He isn't a hack. Eric is very true about the cast never being able to match the original actors. After over 40s of being around, there's no way that Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto will be as good as Shatner and Nimoy. But for the alternate timeline, they were good choices to play the characters. At least Abrams has the dignity to hire actors who can at least do decent performances instead of models and those who had little to no acting talent.

I'm fine with the fans' objections with the new series given their growing up with Star Trek and respect their opinions. But despite its flaws, I still liked the 2009 film and will see the new one when it will come out.

May 14 - 03:22 PM

Chris Cook

People troll because they have nothing worthy to say. Just angry Trek nerds that the franchise actually has a budget now to back up its big ideas.

May 14 - 06:39 PM

David Gee

Jacob, the plot holes revolved mainly around the time-travel issue, the biggest one being why didn't Old Spock just go back in time to before Nero annihilated Vulcan and prevent it from happening? Or use time travel to save Romulus? He knows how to do it because he did it in Star Trek 4: Those Silly Whales, and this was with his elevator not quite going to the top floor.

I still really enjoyed the Star Trek reboot and hope to enjoy this one, but those were HUGE plot holes.

May 15 - 01:15 PM

Here's a plot hole. A bunch of 20-year-old midshipmen get put in charge of a brand new starship.

Jun 6 - 12:21 AM

OUCH! Reality hurts sometimes. Thank you Zach.

Sep 15 - 02:32 PM

This comment has been removed.

STAR Trek, fuckface. SPACE Trek is nonexistent.

May 19 - 01:34 PM