As Hollywood movies got infested with and are now replete with shallow plots, feminism and lewd dialogue, I was hoping that the Star Trek series would escape from the same demise. Star Trek: Nemesis was actually the foreboding film that this last bastion protecting normal television was being reconnoitered for a full-scale assault by greedy executives. Nemesis was an experiment for this movie. Hollywood believed that if Nemesis got a good reception it would pave the way for a new Star Trek. Nemesis didn't get a good reception from anyone liking the original Star Trek but it got great reviews from 15 year olds who like seeing big explosions on the screen.
"Star Trek (2009)" is not Star Trek. It is a passable action movie and that is all. In fact, most of the battle scenes are overdone and make the viewer think he's watching a crate of fireworks that has gone off. This alone means the movie cannot co-exist in a man's mind juxtaposed with the idea of Star Trek. Nor can it be considered a new type of Star Trek because that would require radically altering the original's definition.
Like "The Dark Knight", this movie seeks to replace vital elements which were present in every title before it. "The Dark Knight" was a misrepresentation of Batman and this movie is no different. Commonalities which are inherent to Star Trek and which are expected by the viewer so he can concentrate on the plot, are gone. The most conspicuous of these changes is in the characters.
James T. Kirk, a great strategist, is shown as an undisciplined law-breaking stuntman with nary a thought to his tactical skills being honed. There is one hackneyed scene with him looking at a mountain as if that is enough to make him into a great captain. 27 year old Spock is shown as a warrior Vulcan and far more aggressive than someone who would really understand logic, as expected to by his age. The others don't fare much better. Chekov acts a bumbling fool whose sole purpose is to provide comic relief for the tension between Kirk and Spock. Scotty and Ahura seem immature for their ages. Again, it must be emphasised that if these weren't supposed to be established Star Trek characters there would be no issues, other than the big one of sending a very bad message to schoolchildren.
There are two other major problems: The special effects and fights. Within the first 5 minutes there is a doomsday encounter between a starship and a Romulan warbird. The special effects for this sequence make the viewer feel as if he's watching a video game. The ships look drawn by hand and then water-colourised. Perhaps to portend this, "Bad Robot", the team responsible for much the computer imagery, had a distinctly shabby logo in the opening credits. The battle itself resembles the birthday party of an inebriated mob of psychotics. It's as if the director wanted to maximise the amount of action shown with little regard to plot. Here was a veritable fest of badly-lit destruction, the first of many. Phasers fire everywhere without seeming to acquire targets. Panels from the starship are blown off repeatedly by enemy fire. The ship is also shown very close up while all this is happening. It leads to the viewer feeling nauseous and numb. Rather than enriching the movie as carefully crafted battle scenes do, like in Star Trek II and Star Trek III, it makes a normal audience sensitised to further violence.
I shan't countenance the ruin of a great franchise. This film suffers from serious defects and it is a disgrace to have the Star Trek name associated with it.
"Star Trek (2009)" is not Star Trek. It is a passable action movie and that is all. In fact, most of the battle scenes are overdone and make the viewer think he's watching a crate of fireworks that has gone off. This alone means the movie cannot co-exist in a man's mind juxtaposed with the idea of Star Trek. Nor can it be considered a new type of Star Trek because that would require radically altering the original's definition.
Like "The Dark Knight", this movie seeks to replace vital elements which were present in every title before it. "The Dark Knight" was a misrepresentation of Batman and this movie is no different. Commonalities which are inherent to Star Trek and which are expected by the viewer so he can concentrate on the plot, are gone. The most conspicuous of these changes is in the characters.
James T. Kirk, a great strategist, is shown as an undisciplined law-breaking stuntman with nary a thought to his tactical skills being honed. There is one hackneyed scene with him looking at a mountain as if that is enough to make him into a great captain. 27 year old Spock is shown as a warrior Vulcan and far more aggressive than someone who would really understand logic, as expected to by his age. The others don't fare much better. Chekov acts a bumbling fool whose sole purpose is to provide comic relief for the tension between Kirk and Spock. Scotty and Ahura seem immature for their ages. Again, it must be emphasised that if these weren't supposed to be established Star Trek characters there would be no issues, other than the big one of sending a very bad message to schoolchildren.
There are two other major problems: The special effects and fights. Within the first 5 minutes there is a doomsday encounter between a starship and a Romulan warbird. The special effects for this sequence make the viewer feel as if he's watching a video game. The ships look drawn by hand and then water-colourised. Perhaps to portend this, "Bad Robot", the team responsible for much the computer imagery, had a distinctly shabby logo in the opening credits. The battle itself resembles the birthday party of an inebriated mob of psychotics. It's as if the director wanted to maximise the amount of action shown with little regard to plot. Here was a veritable fest of badly-lit destruction, the first of many. Phasers fire everywhere without seeming to acquire targets. Panels from the starship are blown off repeatedly by enemy fire. The ship is also shown very close up while all this is happening. It leads to the viewer feeling nauseous and numb. Rather than enriching the movie as carefully crafted battle scenes do, like in Star Trek II and Star Trek III, it makes a normal audience sensitised to further violence.
I shan't countenance the ruin of a great franchise. This film suffers from serious defects and it is a disgrace to have the Star Trek name associated with it.