5 ms·

What did you dislike about the reboot films? I really liked them, I thought they were cast well, and were over-all pretty good. edit: others in the comments ha

What did you dislike about the reboot films? I really liked them, I thought they were cast well, and were over-all pretty good. edit: others in the comments have noted that the reboots are basically just action sequences with none of the underlying social themes that made Star Trek significant in the first place.

untog 11y ago
They're fine movies (and I think people sometimes forget that Trek movies are, on average, not great), but they're not particularly "trek"-y, aside from reusing the broad strokes of some historical characters. And personally, I have zero interest in seeing Captain Kirk again. I feel like it was a backwards step to take a broad universe and refocus on the original iconic characters. There are a lot of stories to be told, the Borg are still one of the most fascinating sci-fi creations in years, etc. etc. Basically my objection is that they don't really "boldly go" anywhere, they just retread.
savanaly 11y ago
They were fine action films, but they totally lacked the heart and soul of the tv series, particularly the tv series' focus on exploration and diplomacy and resolving conflicts without violence. Granted, this has often been the case with Star Trek films (First Contact was sort of an action movie for example).
- Someone1234 11y ago
  > Granted, this has often been the case with Star Trek films (First Contact was sort of an action movie for example). This is a point Trek fans rarely acknowledge. Star Trek the TV show is often more thoughtful and deals with social commentary well. However Star Trek movies rarely are. Let's look at the classic Star Trek movies: Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, and The Undiscovered Country are all action films. The Voyage Home is a comedy. Which leaves just two: The Motion Picture and The Final Frontier which both reviewers and audience alike pan for being some of the worst classic Trek films. Next Gen isn't much better: Generations, First Contact, and Nemesis are all action films and Insurrection is extremely borderline. So when people say "JJ Abrams ruins Star Trek by producing an action-adventure" they're really ignoring the history of Star Trek films which are full of only that.
  - ConceptJunkie 11y ago
    I thought "First Contact" was not a very good Trek movie. It always struck me as a movie that was made from a non-Star Trek script that was retroactively made into a Star Trek script. I also thought Captain Picard's behavior was wildly inconsistent with how he was portrayed in the show... not where he went all "Goodfellas" on the Borg in the holodeck, that was a fine character moment, but when he "mercy killed" one of his crew. This was something the TV Picard would never have done. He would have risked his life and the whole ship to save that one crewman and not just given up so early one... after all, he was dragged off and assimilated himself, but he was rescued and recovered. "First Contact" also played fast and loose with established canon a lot more than any other movie had done. I didn't care for the portrayal of Cochrane as a drunk loser (although this has no bearing on James Cromwell's performance... he is always great). There's nothing wrong with action in Trek... it's built into the concept, but the action was always less important than the Big Ideas... at least until some of the movies, and especially the vapid JJTrek reboots came along.
- serge2k 11y ago
  First contact was a story people wanted to see and was well done. Into darkness was a shallow action movie that tries to bludgeon the audience with its themes about the military then devolves into a shitty ripoff of a classic moment from a different movie. I don't actually hate into darkness, but tossing it and first contact into the same bucket as action movies is ridiculous.
pavel_lishin 11y ago
Don't forget that they literally added an Ewok.
beat 11y ago
As action films, they were mediocre. But taking the surfaces of the characters without the depth of the characters - it was the worst sort of hipster irony. That scene in Into Darkness where they role-reversed Spock's death from Wrath of Khan? I wanted to beat JJ Abrams to death with a rock for that. It was awful. It completely ditched the concept of Spock's sacrifice and Kirk's love for his best friend. It was like a Halloween costume version of one of the greatest scenes in Star Trek history. And just in general, it failed to move with any heart. Now, I'm broadly critical of JJ Abrams in general - I don't think he ever thinks through the consequences of his writing decisions, which is why his tv shows always jumped the shark in season 2. But Star Trek is just more proof that he doesn't get it, as a writer or as a fan.

untog 11y ago

They're fine movies (and I think people sometimes forget that Trek movies are, on average, not great), but they're not particularly "trek"-y, aside from reusing the broad strokes of some historical characters. And personally, I have zero interest in seeing Captain Kirk again. I feel like it was a backwards step to take a broad universe and refocus on the original iconic characters. There are a lot of stories to be told, the Borg are still one of the most fascinating sci-fi creations in years, etc. etc. Basically my objection is that they don't really "boldly go" anywhere, they just retread.

savanaly 11y ago

They were fine action films, but they totally lacked the heart and soul of the tv series, particularly the tv series' focus on exploration and diplomacy and resolving conflicts without violence. Granted, this has often been the case with Star Trek films (First Contact was sort of an action movie for example).

Someone1234 11y ago
> Granted, this has often been the case with Star Trek films (First Contact was sort of an action movie for example). This is a point Trek fans rarely acknowledge. Star Trek the TV show is often more thoughtful and deals with social commentary well. However Star Trek movies rarely are. Let's look at the classic Star Trek movies: Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock, and The Undiscovered Country are all action films. The Voyage Home is a comedy. Which leaves just two: The Motion Picture and The Final Frontier which both reviewers and audience alike pan for being some of the worst classic Trek films. Next Gen isn't much better: Generations, First Contact, and Nemesis are all action films and Insurrection is extremely borderline. So when people say "JJ Abrams ruins Star Trek by producing an action-adventure" they're really ignoring the history of Star Trek films which are full of only that.
- ConceptJunkie 11y ago
  I thought "First Contact" was not a very good Trek movie. It always struck me as a movie that was made from a non-Star Trek script that was retroactively made into a Star Trek script. I also thought Captain Picard's behavior was wildly inconsistent with how he was portrayed in the show... not where he went all "Goodfellas" on the Borg in the holodeck, that was a fine character moment, but when he "mercy killed" one of his crew. This was something the TV Picard would never have done. He would have risked his life and the whole ship to save that one crewman and not just given up so early one... after all, he was dragged off and assimilated himself, but he was rescued and recovered. "First Contact" also played fast and loose with established canon a lot more than any other movie had done. I didn't care for the portrayal of Cochrane as a drunk loser (although this has no bearing on James Cromwell's performance... he is always great). There's nothing wrong with action in Trek... it's built into the concept, but the action was always less important than the Big Ideas... at least until some of the movies, and especially the vapid JJTrek reboots came along.
serge2k 11y ago
First contact was a story people wanted to see and was well done. Into darkness was a shallow action movie that tries to bludgeon the audience with its themes about the military then devolves into a shitty ripoff of a classic moment from a different movie. I don't actually hate into darkness, but tossing it and first contact into the same bucket as action movies is ridiculous.

pavel_lishin 11y ago

Don't forget that they literally added an Ewok.

beat 11y ago

As action films, they were mediocre. But taking the surfaces of the characters without the depth of the characters - it was the worst sort of hipster irony. That scene in Into Darkness where they role-reversed Spock's death from Wrath of Khan? I wanted to beat JJ Abrams to death with a rock for that. It was awful. It completely ditched the concept of Spock's sacrifice and Kirk's love for his best friend. It was like a Halloween costume version of one of the greatest scenes in Star Trek history. And just in general, it failed to move with any heart. Now, I'm broadly critical of JJ Abrams in general - I don't think he ever thinks through the consequences of his writing decisions, which is why his tv shows always jumped the shark in season 2. But Star Trek is just more proof that he doesn't get it, as a writer or as a fan.