That is correct, but if you add that movie to the older kirk movies you wonder why there is less action from him (like jumping from that platform for a sample).
If, by awesome, you mean the new Star Trek was a piece of shit with a cop-out reason for going against canon, the destruction of great characters, an incredibly weak villain, a non-sensical plot (red matter?!?), gigantic plot holes, and so on - you're definitely right!
I'm a huge fan of Star Trek... BUT only from TNG onwards. I was never all that keen on Camp Trek: The Sexual Conquests of Kirk. Give me Janeway, Picard, Archer and Sisko any day. I thoroughly enjoyed the reboot from J.J Abrams, which is why the canon isn't as important as it was made as a reboot, with nods to the originals.
Just please, for the love of god and my eye-sight, let's have less lens flare for the sequel
Camp Trek needs to be observed in context. It's abysmal by the standards of today, but it was directly responsible for many new concepts both in science fiction and television in general. It also meant a LOT in the fight against racism.
Most of what's great in Star Trek (overall) - was born with TOS. Without it and Gene Roddenberry - we'd have nothing like it. At least, I don't see from where.
TNG and DS9 were great shows.
Voyager was a complete travesty, but that's just my opinion.
Guess I'm just spoiled by the TNG, my favourite TV show of all time and amazing characters in it. This new Star Trek move was decent action flick but it's nowhere close to what Star Trek really is about. And it's definetely not about crazy action sequences and all this over the top crap.
It's not about being realistic - but about caring about your story.
Tolkien isn't realistic - but he clearly cared about his characters and their motivations, and he tried to make it relevant to real life.
The best Star Trek is exactly like that.
The new Star Trek movie is exactly opposite to that. But by all means, keep supporting that sort of movie if you think it's the way they should be made.
I think that the new Star Trek movie was a "blockbuster meh", it had little to nothing in common with Star Trek, yes the effects were great, but the story was to fucking crap, it had no real place in Star Trek universe, and Red Matter ? Really ? What we will have next, a Purple Matter ?
I think that the new Star Trek movie was a "blockbuster meh", it had little to nothing in common with Star Trek, yes the effects were great, but the story was to fucking crap, it had no real place in Star Trek universe, and Red Matter ? Really ? What we will have next, a Purple Matter ?
The "old" Star Trek was about dreams. It was started in times where people didn't have computers, fancy smartphones and shit like that. And it was times that people wasn't stuffed up their asses with consumptionism but rather recovering from war and later living in fear of cold war becoming WW3. And Star Trek showed that there were somekind of bright political correct hippi future. I remember as being little brat I wanted to venture into space while watching TNG.
But nowadays this concepts are boring. People have games, movies have much better visual quality and those old stories are just boring.
So we got pew pew stories with explosions and little meaning.
I liked the Abrams movie but as a mindless guilty pleasure and not as proper Star Trek movie.
If you don't like Star Trek then you're a massive faggot. This is a proven fact!
What's great about Star Trek, is what's great about all good sci-fi. It's giving us an extroverted view upon ourself socially, or as a species if you will. South Park does the same thing although with a lot more satire and maybe with more social critique. We often judge many of the civilizations, races or social mechanics we experience in sci-fi harsly, without realizing we're just as backwater and prone to the same problems here on earth. Ethnicity, class, religion, peculiar customs, sexuality, respect for life not seen as intelligent as ourself and so on. Star Wars is just entertainment. Star Trek is good sci-fi.
I'm a little disappointed with Dr Tyson, that he state such as a thing as "if Red Matter can create a black hole in the centre of a planet, it can create one on the surface" -- the canon and logic behind Red Matter is that it requires the intense heat and gravitational pressure that can only be found in the core of a planet or a star*
*or in the case of the Narada, a warp core explosion.
True, but that's just it with movies.. you only get a very limited amount of time to present the plot. The previous ST movies worked so well because everything and everyone was already well established due to their respective series'. This new reboot was just that; new and rebooted. The only nod to the original saga being the names and the alternate universe plot basis.
Is it Star Trek? Is it Next Gen or DS9, Voyager or even Enterprise? Naw, but I think it was still damned enjoyable and served as the basis for a Star Trek revival, since Enterprise - sadly - bombed so spectacularly
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
(like jumping from that platform for a sample).
