Review of Star Trek (2009) by Edward M — 12 Aug 2013

This film is utter garbage, complete filth and should never have been allowed to have been produced in the first place. The acting is terrible and because most people are familiar with characters such as Captain Kirk, Dr. Mccoy, Spock, Scotty, etc, the portrayals of those characters seem more like cheesy Saturday Night Live caricatures rather than actual characters that I as a Star Trek fan can really appreciate.

Paramount royally screwed up when they allowed this to be made because Star Trek had been off the air for quite some time. And lets be honest here, Star Trek is best as a television series and the beauty of that is the television series in past ST incarnations blended well with the films because the TV series set the tone for the formula for how Star Trek works. In addition there are continuity issues in which for example the writers of Star Trek The Next Generation made sure to keep the storytelling style of the original 1960's series and continued the timeline 80 years after the original time of Kirk and Spock, but instead of changing the Star Trek Universe, TNG gave us new characters to care about while being consistent with the original series. That's why as a Star Trek fan I can honestly say that I enjoyed every Star Trek film starting with Star Trek The Motion Picture because TOS set the tone for each of the characters as well as the direction of how Star Trek is as a science fiction franchise. Star Trek The Next Generation continued this storytelling style of the original series, along with Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and even Enterprise. The films that were released in later years with the cast from The Next Generation also worked because of the consistency with the television series because each series indirectly connected with each other and followed the same formula which attracted Star Trek fans.

Speaking of Star Trek fans, I think that what Star Trek 2009 did was attempt to make Star Trek for the masses, which I think is a mistake because products are made for a certain audience. Star Trek for example, was written for a science fiction audience who cared about action, but also cared more about the message within the story. The same goes for Star Wars and other science fiction genres. While products such as Star Trek and Star Wars are both science fiction, fans of these great franchise clearly understand what makes Star Trek and Star Wars exciting franchises that have staying power in the hearts and minds of fans.

Meaning that yes, Star Wars for example tradditional follows a more action oriented approach while Star Trek has action, follows a more Shakespear/Sherlock Holmes approach the story.

This is not the case with Star Trek 2009 because you basically have a director who is sending the message to all Star Trek fans that Gene Roddenberry didn't get it right the first time and that he is going to shove down our throats his Star Wars lite version of what he thinks Star Trek should be. I think that this is truly a mistake because it guts the core of what Star Trek is out of the film and as a fan, I am completely appalled.

I think that is what ticks me off the most about this movie as well as STND.

This is a foolish attempt to "reboot" a franchise for the Jersey Shore ADHD generation and the sad thing is, here on RT we have a good deal of people, mostly non Star Trek fans who like this garbage.

The bottom line is that if you are a true Star Trek fan, this film is going to disappoint you because what you really want is a continuation of the real Star Trek Universe. Hopefully JJ Abrams and crew will stay far, far away from Star Trek so that the franchise can go back to the real Star Trek Universe and leave the reboot cast/crew to work on the next MTV reality show. Otherwise, true Star Trek fans can consider this not Star Trek but rather "star trek" Apocrypha as envisioned by cast of writers who do nothing to continue the vision of Gene Roddenberry's future.