Review of Star Trek (2009) by Erin W — 20 Mar 2015
One question: why? You want a younger captain than Patrick Stewart? Fine, create a character on his rookie command! You want another Vulcan science officer? Fine, cast Zachary Quinto as a Vulcan repressing his sadistic side! But why? Why? Why would you go back and rape the original for source material? They even gave Kirk a different origin! Why not just call it Star Trek: Third Generation? Better yet, take some of the more offbeat races and worlds from Next Generation and throw them together in feature length situations.
The only reason I can think of for doing this is so they could have Khan in Into Darkness, but even that falls apart when he looks and acts nothing like Khan! Overall, Abrams is tanking the franchise by trying too hard to bridge the gap between baby boomer fans and millennial fans.
Why not make everyone happy and set the third installment on earth of the 1980s where Kirk and crew get asbestos poisoning from being locked in a development meeting on the Universal lot after they decided to buy an already profitable franchise and bury it under time travel nonsense and sexual subplots between emotionally closed off Vulcans and supermodel-hot humans?
This review of Star Trek (2009) was written by Erin W on 20 Mar 2015.
Star Trek has generally received very positive reviews.
Was this review helpful?
