Star Trek (2009) The Film That Changed The Franchise
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ม.ค. 2024
- CTRL has the best tasting protein rich products I've tried and have helped me on my day to day quest of trying to be healthier. Give them a try using my code DaveCullenShow for a discount! drinkctrl.com/davecullenshow
Support my work on Subscribe Star: www.subscribestar.com/dave-cu...
Follow me on Bitchute: www.bitchute.com/channel/hybM...
KEEP UP ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Gab: gab.ai/DaveCullen
Subscribe on Gab TV: tv.gab.com/channel/DaveCullen
Minds.com: www.minds.com/davecullen
Subscribe on Odysee: odysee.com/@TheDaveCullenShow:7 - บันเทิง
CTRL has the best tasting protein rich products I've tried and have helped me on my day to day quest of trying to be healthier. Give them a try using my code DaveCullenShow for a discount! drinkctrl.com/davecullenshow
Epic speeding up of the advert 😂
Ben Shapiro mode!
Excellent summation of where it all went wrong.
However, no amount of criticism (or logic, or reason) can EVER change the minds of those responsible. They just double-down and keep going the way any other radical fanatic does .... see the Middle East.
This is why LGBTs in the West support reactionary religious madmen who would kill them on sight. after all. Mass Hysteria is a thing.
Great, but can you get a sponsor that is gluten free?
I would say all the rest of the Abrams/Kurtzman bullshit is EXACTLY the same.
One of the aspects of if this film that disliked is how ridiculously they treat rank.
Having someone advance from being a cadet to Captain of a startship, let alone the flagship of the fleet, in no time flat is completely bonkers.
Especially since Kirk from TOS took a decade or so to make Captain and this was considered exceptionally rare. Most Captains are presumably in their late 30s when they attain the rank.
TOS through Enterprise were all fairly realistic based on real world military structure. It would be very unusual to make captain of such an important ship so young, but not utterly implausible, and by making Picard and the rest older we see that it is a rarity in-universe. This movie and all Trek since have shat all over verisimilitude.
Custer became a GENERAL in his twenties
@@gunsharck
Yes, however Custer didn't come out of West Point, and end up as a general in less than a week.
He gained experience on the battlefield, and progressed up the ranks after several promotions. In addition to that, it was during a period of major national conflict, where the army was growing rapidly and suffering from attrition.
Guess what happened to that general rank after the war ened?
Also why assemble The Enterprise on Earth this makes little to no sense?🤔
One bright spot for me was Karl Urban's Mccoy. the guy became Deforest Kelley. Mannerisms and even sounded like him. I guess the portrayal hit Nimoy hard, cuz it was so spot on.
Karl Urban is the bright spot of everything he's attached to.
Yes he was brilliant!
I always have to throw out that caveat every time I talk about this movie.
Everything in this movie sucked. Except Karl Urban. Karl Urban was amazing.
This and Michael Giacchino's soundtrack. Man's a brilliant composer.
He’s literally the only actor who isn’t a second rate version of the original.
Dave, let's not forget that the 2009 Star Trek film had lens flares--lots and lots and lots of lens flares. Classic Trek never had that.
Sooooooooooooooo much lens flare!!! 😩
And lots and lots and lots and lots......
Ahhh my eyes. 😅😅😅
Really? I didn't notice.
When I made the mistake of watching this in the cinema I came away with a migraine that lasted 3 days. I’ve basically stayed away from JJVrrse Bad Reboot movies since and not had another one so bad since.
Love how Nero just sat and waited for like 20 years. I can imagine him sitting in his chair saying, "any minute now," over and over again.
Worse than that, he did so in a Klingon prison.
Lmfao. Everyone is doing their thing and he's just squatting like an emo 13 year old that was grounded for yelling at his brother over some edgy fanfiction.
I’ve been rewatching Star Trek: The Motion Picture recently (the Directors Cut) and when comparing TMP to the Abramsverse, it is depressing to see how far we’ve fallen. I couldn’t make it through TMP in one sitting in my teen years, but now at 54 I really appreciate its grandeur and its portrayal of the Enterprise crew as philosopher-explorers. From Star Trek II forward they were military officers, which did seem to appeal to a larger audience. In the Abramsverse, they are sugared-up children in adult bodies.
Not far off 54 myself, I had the very same initial and current viewing experience of TMP. :D For me it's up there with Undiscovered Country.
Same here. I really enjoy watching the 4K version of STTMP. Despite its flaws it's what Star Trek should be.
TMP Director's Cut is arguably the finale of TOS, and stands well as such. And it's often forgotten that movie made about as much money as the JJ Abrams film. Roddenberry should have gotten Star Trek II. But then we'd never likely have gotten TNG. It is not linear. Peace, and long life.
@@ianmc87 Ian M? Hey trippy, that's also my first name and surname initial. :D No 4K stuff for me yet, still waiting for the right kind of TV, and for upscaling tech to improve so I can retain my older devices (VCR, PS2, N64, etc.)
@@mapesdhs597 Hi Ian. Yes, that's my name too. I have a ultra Blu Ray player connected to a projector which is not 4K but it still looks pretty good.
Like with most things JJ makes, everything happens at mach 300, so you don't have time to process what's actually happening.
That's 'cuz underneath all the lens-flares, there's not much happening...
To be fair, that’s Star Wars Episode IV too.
Jar-Jar took Jeff Goldblum's "Must go faster. Must go faster. Must go faster." from _ID4_ as the defining mantra of his career.
@@TheMasonator777 I don't agree. For if that were the case, viewers would've quickly tired of it by the second viewing, it wouldn't have enjoyed multiple repeat-viewings at first-run theaters for well over a year, it wouldn't have sustained a 4-decade fandom & all the resultant sequels, prequels & spin-offs over those 4 decades. It would've been just another completely-forgettable medium-budget mid-70s sci-fi flick, nothing more.
Nice try, though.
@@MrPGC137 People ride rollercoasters over and over. I’m a fan of Episode IV, but it has the bare minimum of plot to justify the action and one liners. Don’t be willfully blind. It’s a brilliant rollercoaster but that’s what it is. I’ll go further. The names of the characters should be seen as ridiculous to anybody that wasn’t 7 in 1977, like me.
Could not agree more with your assessment. Jar Jar Abrams did nothing short of vandalism.
But he would redeem himself six years later with Star Wars: The Force Awakens. (sarcasm)
@@fantomforcesI suppose at least he’s consistent, he f**ked Star Wars up as well.
@@matthewcorcoran2891 Beat me to it (dammit!). It's like he looks for things to destroy. I thought at first he was taking the easy way out - as does all of h-wood - to make a quick buck. But then you have to look at his track record. This was ego (and, yes, greed). Perhaps we can have a reboot of a reboot and a new Kirk can wake up and say he had a horrible dream about starships being built on Earth instead of space?
@@Chris-ji4iu If it’s a way out of this mess that’s been around since 2009, I’m all for trying!
14:20 - "I also like how Bones got his name. It's a very clever line." - No, it's not. It's daft. Bones got his name because he's the ship's sawbones.
You are not alone with this statement. Nothing in this movie was clever. Nothing. A few things among this mess were just okay, but clever?
Agreed. There was absolutely no need to explain the nickname because we already knew without having to be told.
@@Rippafrattayou want to know what would have been clever? If Nero found himself in the past, to go to the sun that went supernova in his time to use the red matter and save his wife, restoring the timeline and the movie ends after 20mins.
@@DANRYX Agreed. And a screenwriter like Harlan Ellison would have come up with a clever twist why this logical idea of Nero went haywire and we would have still a compelling 90 minute story.
@@Rippafratta it can be difficult to deal with time travel in any form of media. It breaks down to this one having the one linchpin presenting a very simple solution. I would highly recommend the movie Primer, it is so complex, one of the most fascinating explanations as to how time travel is possible and how it works. It also was written in a way where there isn't a simple, glaring solution that is ignored out of ignorance from the writers. So many ST episodes and movies dealt with time travel far better than ST '09 by a long shot.
The reason the brewery was used is because of budget. They spent all the money on the bridge. JJ did not care at all about scale or logic in the sets. Imagine a 12 year old normie's idea of making Star Trek like Star Wars. That's the movie in a nutshell.
Not to mention that fleet of shuttlecraft contained within that incredibly small engineering section.
JJ also reportedly had a meltdown in a meeting because the studio refused to retire all old-branded merchandise. He wanted to make his movie's gear the sole available merchandise for all of Star Trek.
Abrams did say he only did Star Trek to get the Star Wars opportunity...
This. J.J. really does have the mind of a child I mean unironically think if you asked a 5th grader to come up with a movie plot it would be more mature then his works.
@@jimjam51075
Holy fuck, I can't even believe he was that arrogant. To think he could wipe over 50 years of art just to make his bland trash look that more special. I wonder how Shatner felt if he knew that almost happened lol.
JJ "So how much do you want this Star trek thing dumbed down?"
Paramount "Yes"
Let's be fair, it's not like JJ is able to do anything else
I guess it could've been worse, they could've given it to Rian Johnson
@@zxyatiywariii8Even worse, he could've directed Into Darkness and made this one worse. A depressing thought.
@@docsavage8640 I actually kinda liked the idea of 'point defense' weapons intercepting missiles and torpedoes=it's a great idea. What I absolutely disliked is how (take the shoot 'em up' between Enterprise and Vengeance in 'Into Darkness) an enemy ship will loom over it's target and simply fire down onto it.
I do give this movie credit for curing me of being a Trekkie. Before this movie, I caught every single Trek movie in the theater and watched all the shows. Since 2009, I haven’t watched anything Trek-related at all. I’m sure that’s saved me a few bucks I would have spent at the theater. Rise of Skywalker accomplished the same thing.
Get out of my head...Although I was done after The Force Awakens...I went to see The Last Jedi just to see if ...OH NO....that felt like a gut punch..OK..NOW I am out for good.
Before 2009 I missed exactly one movie, and watch almost every episode of various series.
After 2009? I haven't bothered watching anything Star Trek related that wasn't made before 2009.
There was much online praise for Picard season three, but I would say you saved time there too. The only current Trek that does get any accolades has way too many member berries and callbacks to tell a decent story.
Exactly. Also looks like Paramount hasn't listened and will continue with Kurtzman Star Trek. @@bluntguy9532
Same.
I was a projectionist when this film came out, and I’ll give them credit for appealing to a new audience. Of course it came at a cost, but I was always surprised how many mother and daughters were in the audience, and how long this film continued to bring people in outside of the first 2-3 weeks. But fans paid the price for all of this unfortunately.
Yeah I remember seeing this at the theater and I was surprised by how many people I knew, who weren't Star Trek fans, loved it.
To me it never "felt" like Star Trek. . .
Those “new” fans saw the film and then moved on to the next big summer blockbuster. The franchise as a whole payed a price for a few “really big opening weekends” at the box office.
It wasn’t a bad movie in a vacuum. It just wasn’t a good Star Trek movie.
this is what I say about JJ's two entries into established nerdom. The Force Awakens is an OK film, but a terrible Star Wars movie... as for ST2009, it's also OK, but definitely not a good Trek film. Pine is a terrible Kirk. Quinto is not even like Spock at all and his voice is way too high and effeminate lmao. That being said, the ship effects and SFX were incredible and worth the one time watch. The next two movies are completely skippable and oh so dumb.@@joemamma137
I saw a group of girls pining for Chris Pine.
I remember seeing this when I was young with my dad when it came out. I remember being blown away at the action and spectacle and liking the sharp characters, especially Pegg. I remember walking out and asking my dad excitedly if he liked it, knowing he was a huge Star Trek fan when it was first released. He raised me on all the series that came out in the 90s and reruns on TNG. After I asked him, there was a pause and a "well..." He didn't want to upset me. There was deep disappointment in his voice. All these years later, I understand what he felt then.
I had that same feeling, and so did my Dad. And I still have the same feeling rewatching it all these years later. I understand why people don't like it, but I think it's over hated. There's a lot to like there, even if it doesn't hold to the original. The 3rd one was the least appealing to me though. JJ used to be someone you looked up to, but it seemed his quality dwindled the more movies he made.
By changed you mean killed. And by franchise you mean corpse 😂
Enterprise did that. i said it.
@@gregajohnson1985I felt the same when Enterprise first came out. I did a binge a couple of years ago and found it to be rather good in hindsight, especially considering the garbage that has come since this one.
No. Two words. Les Moonves
It's dead Dave , they are dead like what they said on red dwarf
the parasites killed the host. oy vey
I love Star Trek. I HATE this film. I was meh during the first part of it, but then I found myself screaming at my screen, "No captain would ever make a disgraced, expelled, stowaway cadet second-in-command of his ship!" That scene completely destroyed my suspension of disbelief. Haven't watched any of the movies since made. I will agree that the cast did a good job despite the bad script.
That’s what couldn’t fit your suspension of disbelief? Seems more like you’re just picky. I find it hard to believe half the technology in either franchise but I guess “for the sake of the movie” flies over your head.
@@DarkEclipse23 I mean yes having one's suspension of disbelief shattered is a perfectly reasonable reaction to that scene, no doubt about it.
There used to be writing guidelines for would-be TOS writers that emphasized that, despite the fantastical nature of the setting, the enterprise was a military ship and its crew should behave with military professionalism. It was very important that the audience take the crew seriously as the series was not intended to be a B movie. The characters were meant to behave as real people of excellence would if they were placed in those situations.
Now show me Kirk rubbing the explosion of vulcan in spock's face again.
@@DarkEclipse23"For the sake of the movie" is just a weak excuse for poor writing.
after this i hated every JJ movie. i will never watch anything from that jew again. i will actively avoid it
100% I even liked the last Jedi more then the dumb JJ star wars movies... because he set the bar just that low.@@attilahung6929
"The story serves the action, not the action serving the story." SPOT ON. You summed it up so well here. True in the JJ "Star Wars" as well as the Abrams (So-called) "Star Trek" as well.
What's funny is that this movie essentially copies the story of A New Hope too when you look at it. So that's twice now JJ has tried to copy A New Hope.
@@spinlok3943I remember when this movie came out, a TH-camr made a video that set the trailer for Star Trek (2009)'s soundtrack to scenes from Star Wars movies (mostly III & IV).
Since I saw this movie I always tell people it's Star Wars with Star Trek toys.
@@danielcraig9666, yes. This is accurate.
As for the scene where the young James T Kirk drives a car over a cliff into a canyon--Kirk was born and raised in Iowa. Assuming he was still in Iowa in this film, there are no canyons there!
It was no canyon but a quarry. No, I do not want to defend this dumb movie, just saying that this is not a valid point.
Or where the xindi cut a high hole in earth
My dad grew up in Iowa and that was the first thing out of his mouth after watching it.
Your points were right on. My main issue with this movie is that I could never get past how Kirk took command. The original Captain Kirk was a highly-trained and experienced officer. Even when facing outrageous circumstances, like fighting rock creatures, he did so in a way that seemed plausible for someone with an extensive military background. But Kirk in this movie was just a smart and cocky kid. His promotion to captain had no grounding in the real world. I was never able to accept him leading a starship crew because such a person would never lead a seaship crew, or a submarine crew, or probably even a McDonalds crew. That fanciful premise destabilized the whole movie to me, and turned it more toward fantasy than science fiction.
Soon Star Trek will be rebranded as Michael Burnham: Space Queen.
Queen isn't enough, it'll be Space Messiah.
More like "Waste Of Space".
Michael Burnham will build space Wakanda and fight space nazis.
What did Casual Drinker say, Diverse Female Space Jesus?
One thing I'll never understand about the Kelvin timeline, the timeline changes in the first movie because dude went back in time and told them Romulus' sun was going to go Nova, they had a hundred years almost to prepare for it happening but, when Picard picks up in the future, they just weren't prepared for it.
He told no one, just wanted to blow up Federation stuff, for whatever reason.
@@polytropos1.1 Spock from the prime timeline was literally there
Yeah but Picard _claims_ to be set in the Prime timeline, not the Kelvin timeline. Nero's time travel didn't change the past, it created a new timeline. So in Picard the events with Nero never happened.
Which prime timeline? Prime timeline was mentioned for this movie however is different from 1966 to 2005 timeline. You have been duped by JJ Abrams. @@glasswhisperer
None of it is actually canon. It’s ALL alternate universes at best.
When kid Kirk drove a Corvette off a cliff to the Beastie Boys, I knew it was a action movie with Trek aesthetics. That scene is a metaphor for modern remakes lol.
I used to love that song till this movie came out! LOL
I actually hated that "explanation" for the nickname. It was supposed to be short for Sawbones, a word used for surgeons back when cutting off limbs was the only way to stop infections.
The reboot is really 90210 meets sci-fi.
Yes!!! Absolutely
Basically a CW series
Someone once said that the bridge looks like an apple store. Hilarious!😂😂😂
I feel it looks like an operating room, but it's difficult to tell with all the lens flares
Apparently Rick Berman pitched an idea for a new star trek movie that would be about the Earth Romulan war, but Paramount rejected it.
As they should have because they already made Star Trek too much military sci fi with DS9 and Enterprise. But this movie was not a better answer.
That would have really worked. It would make for a flashy pilot movie for a series.
They missed the boat never making a film or show about that. And these current clowns in charge are the last people I would ever want trying to tackle it.
Yeah. Too bad. I miss Rick Berman.
So, after making four TNG movies with the exact same plot (oh, I can elaborate if needed), Berman finally had a new idea?
Rick Berman should have left the movies after First Contact and let Ronald Moore take over.
i called it "Star Trek Babies" after the cartoon "Muppet Babies". i even predicted them referring to "Sabotage" by The Beastie Boys as "classical music" later on in the franchise. it was so predictable. Karl Urban was the only good thing about it, and he was way better as Dredd. which, unfortunately, we'll never get a sequel to.
Karl was amazing as he usually is
The biggest problem with this movie was that J.J. "Lens Flare" Abrams is a hack director with no original vision. He couldn't direct traffic effectively.
The film that PRETENDED to be the franchise.
"Style over substance" - that sums up the Kelvin Timeline.
I totally agree with most of Dave Cullen's take on this "film".
Bones' name came from old American slang. Back in the day doctors were called " Saw Bones" which is a reference from Civil war surgeons sawing off damaged limbs.
Saw Bones/Doc - Doctor or Surgeon
Head Shrinker or Shrink - Psychiatrist
Dame/Broad/Doll - A woman.
Gams - a women's legs
Gum shoe/Dick/Flat foot - Detective or Cop
A fundamental problem I have with the Abramsverse - on top of everything you said - is the idea that time travel is used to destroy Vulcan, the bad guy succeeds in doing this......and the Federation just lets that stand. Kirk lets it stand. Old Spock lets it stand. The Department of Temporal Investigations lets it stand. This doesn't happen in Star Trek. SOMEONE would at least make an attempt to correct the change, particularly something of that magnitude. Old Spock pioneered a method of time travel himself in the events of Star Trek IV and that was to save Earth. Now he sees his own planet obliterated and just accepts it? What the.....
"This isn't your Daddy's Star Trek! We're Edge Lords - we walk between the raindrops."
Excited to see a new Star Trek movie with the original characters, I mentioned to my wife that the worst way they could screw this up was to be unfaithful to what we knew of the characters and the universe before the original series and, well….
Good point on the firing at the ship. Many times in star trek they rescued the bad guys even when the bad guys didn’t want to be saved. They have transporters so Prime Kirk would have teleported all the romunlans onto the enterprise. A trek captain would never destroy a helpless ship that was being destroyed. That’s the equivalent of a fire fighter asking if someone wanted to be saved from the building on fire and when the victim says no, the fireman then throws gas on the building.
I believe the correct response for Spock against Kirk would be a slight flinching of the spine a moment of self reflection and then he would logically agree that he is emotionally compromised.
Kirk’s 5 minute ascension from cadet to captain always bugged me as someone who’s served in the military. In my experience, it be like a West Point cadet visits a division of soldiers that are suddenly mobilized and the cadet is randomly promoted general because the commander knew the cadet’s dad. Makes no sense at all.
Absolutely. The nearest one can come was in the day of sailing ships and prize crews (Trek was supposed to be Horatio Hornblower in space). A Midshipman (back then, an officer in training, but no Academy so they were onboard ships...and were of the gentlemen class) could take command of a prize ship, and could command if the commissioned officers were ashore (see Hornblower series, and the Master & Commander series; also, the US Navy's first admiral, David Farragut, commanded a prize as a MIDN at age 12). But, that'd mean Trek went back to some class-ism in the future. Makes no sense, whatsoever, in the Trek world.
USN Officer & historian
But his dad was friends with the admiral lmao
@@isodoublet it’s who you know, not what you know lol
@@AdamErwin-uk7uj exactly. Can you imagine Picard promoting Wesley Crusher to first officer when he leaves on an away mission? Lmao! Makes me wonder what the second officer was thinking when Pike did that.
Two things- the Enterprise NCC1701 has a dedication plaque, and on that plaque it is quite explicit that she was built at the “San Francisco shipyards”, so I agree it makes no sense to build her on Earth, but at least that part is canonically correct. However, the San Francisco Shipyards are in San Francisco, NOT IOWA where we saw Kirk riding. Second, can anyone explain how the Cadet training works in this universe? I earned my very real commission after five years of college, 3 of which contained ROTC instruction. The Service Academies have four year tracks- no more, no less- to earn a commission. There is a clause in the ROTC cadet contract where the Cadet acknowledges they may be activated and sent to active service, but as far as I know that has never happened. We can only point to one time in history when West Point allowed some of their cadets to commission early- 1944-45- and that for fairly obvious reasons, but they ALL entered service as 2nd Lieutenants- the lowest rank an Army Officer can hold, and advanced from there. Nothing like WW2 is happening in ST2009, so why is the entire class of third year cadets essentially graduated, commissioned at various ranks, and handed the keys to multi-billion dollar starships without proper training or experience?!? At BEST the entire class, aside from Spock and Pike who were commissioned instructors, would all be Ensigns and none of them would be sent straight to Commander. This premise in the film makes absolutely zero sense.
If I remember correctly (haven't seen the movie in a while) Kirk rides his bike to the shipyard to get on the shuttle to join the academy, so this is not necessarily Iowa. It could actually be San Francisco if we ignore the question of why one would have to take a shuttle to get to the academy which is located at San Francisco.
I choose to believe that the sudden appearance of a monsterous Romulan ship when Romulans haven't been heard from in a hundred years threw the Federation into massive panic mode, causing unlimited changes to the timeline as they fought like mad to prepare for another attack by advancing tech beyond what was originally developed, so the change in the Enterprise's construction site could be a result of that domino effect...but I have to agree building it on the surface was senseless and was just for the beauty shot.
The young Kirk scene is there because JJ saw Treasure Planet. The Enterprise riding an explosion out of a black hole & Kirks "I've got your gun" are from the same movie. The Crescentia space station ended up as Yorktown in Beyond.
I never understood why the Vulcan Defense Force didn't just target the drill or swarm the Nerata and destroy it? You're 100% right on your take with the low brow running about and dumbing down things instead of keeping it all logical in a Stark Trek sort of way. It makes me think of episodes from TNG like "The measure of a man" which had no ship battles or action and just had to do with the ethics of being a sentient being. Maybe you could cover certain episodes and talk about those because they are definitely worth going over again. Great vid by the way, keep up the great work!
because apparently Vulcans - the most dominant political and military force in the federation - are simply idiots unless they are attached to a federation starship.
The birth of NuTrek. And the beginning of the end of True Trek.
The characters (and not simply the actors) were very different. Kirk became an entitled brat and whiner. Spock became a bad-ass action hero. Shura became a sassy girl boss. Only McCoy and Scotty were relatively unchanged.
"Lobotomy Trek 2009"🤤
"It never occurred to me to think of space as the thing that was moving. " -- Jar Jar Abrams's Scotty.
Seriously? That doesn't occur to Scotty? I knew that that was how a warp drive was supposed to work when I was twelve.
You can summarize this movie in five words-running, jumping, crashing, exploding, and punching.
Six: FLARING
I can't remember who coined the phrase "rapid fire stupidity" but it definitely applies to this film.
How in the holy mother does JJ Abrams keep getting work?
He's a con man in a industry full of idiots.
To be fair, he has made a lot of successful series.
Which all have the same flaws.
He sets up a good, exciting show with interesting characters and a lot of lingering mysteries.
The problem is that while he is good at setting up a concept, he lacks the... well, let us be brutally honest, it looks like he doesn't even care about giving solutions to the mysteries. Almost all (if not all) of his series have his issue. This big overarching mysteries have no real answer.
The audience expects that the show has been built around these mysteries and that the answers have already been figured out.
Lost is a great example of how far from the truth this really is. They were basically just making it up as they went.
Mysteries are the bait to suck in the viewers, which is all he cares about.
But a TV/Movie company doesn't cares if you crashed and burned in the final seasons, they dance and sing about how many viewers you brought in for the earlier seasons and how much money you made.
So how does he keep getting work? He points to the numbers his old shows got.
And that's all the industry cares about.
The sad question is: How does the public keep falling for it?
I don't think he's done much since Rise of Skywalker in 2019.
I know you're correct because my wife liked it and I've been a Star Trek fan for over 40 years
"Somehow Alex Kurtzman has returned."😮
I'll admit, I quite enjoy this film for what it is, and intended to be. I think the appeal for me is not only action to a degree, but I think mostly so the characters. I enjoy seeing these particular actors portraying these characters. Having rewatched the movie a few times, and asking myself why, that's the biggest reason. But of course I do concede to most of your points. It's pretty hard to argue those when you put a spotlight on them..lol. Id agree it can't be enjoyed on a more meaningful level, and it's got more plot holes than Swiss cheese..lol. But knowing that going in, its a fun ride.
Chris Hemsworth looked more like a young Jim Kirk in his brief appearance as George Kirk. I wonder how that would have worked if they'd cast him in the lead instead.
Dave,
This video was the word-for-word sound track going thru my head as I sat in the dark at one of the first showings of this film.
Constantly saying: “WTF is this?”
I vividly recall watching this movie years ago when it came out. I watched it at a theater with a girl on the date. It was her request. I enjoyed the movie at the time, but I say that as someone who never watched Star Trek (Just never appealed to me. I was a Star Wars kid growing up). I was surprised to hear years later this movie caused a domino affect.
I just took it as it went :/ they made it clear it was a split timeline story and not erasing the original series.
@@DarkEclipse23 but it was still an incredibly stupid movie. And it's existence meant the rights to start trek were being held by a company who couldn't make good start trek and no more good star trek content could ever get made by anyone else.
So f@£# this movie
I liked the actors for each character in the new movie - good job there. Too bad the movie was just a lot of shouting and running in the hallways, it could have been so much more.
Don’t forget crying in hallways. Lots of whimpering and gushing going on. Zero respect for chain of command. Honestly this version of Starfleet couldn’t get out of it’s own way. They wouldn’t make it out of Starfleet Academy, let alone into space.
The actors are good. But they had a terrible script and a bad director. Not much they can do with that.
@surlyunicorn9461 they wouldn't even have been accepted at the Academy based on what we saw when Wesley applied on TNG
@@docsavage8640 True.
Hollywood's problems start at the the producer level (and only get worse from there on up). Some big-name actors and directors can be lumped in as well, but I fully believe 99% of the rest of Hollywood's talent is as good as it ever was - including the casting directors and the actors they select.
Star Trek: Where I Will Go No More.
Nero: "So, Spock, this 'red matter' can allow one to travel through time and would stop the affects of the supernova, saving Romulus and my wife?"
Spock: "Yes."
Nero: "Then I shall use it to destroy your world and the Federation!"
Star Trek 2009 makes my brain hurt. The other Kelvin movies are not much better.
Bones got his name as a nod to the real US Navy where Doctors were known as Saw Bones. The explanation in the film was really jarring.
"Let's throw away 40+ years of canon to appeal to plebs!" How to Kill a Franchise 101.
TWOK: “I shall leave you as you left me… Marooned for all eternity in the center of a dead planet.”
TUC: “ I can see you, Kirk. Can you see me? Cry Havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!”
2009: “SPAAAAAHCK! I WANT SPAAAHCK DED NAOOOOO!”
I've been to Iowa quite a few times and never saw a giant gorge
If it had been real Trek, Spock would have shed a tear. A subtle, soil, but powerful example of his emotional compromise. But nah, let's have him go full Wolverine.
You perfectly summed up my reaction to the film in 2009. I'd read almost universally good reviews of it (this was before film criticism had completely debased itself sucking up to the studios) and I was shocked by how shallow and frenetic and stupid it was. As you say, it's Star Trek for the Fast & Furious and Pirates of the Caribbean audience. I didn't even think that much of the cast, though I've liked them in other films. Up to that point I thought JJ Abrams was a talented guy. I'd enjoyed Alias and Mission Impossible III. Star Trek is trash though and the only good thing I can say about is that the sequels were even worse.
The very last Star Trek I ever watched.... Not seen any since. Prequel movies make me nervous now.
I still have my vhs collection in the loft of ''pre-woke'' classics.
Star Trek continues is worth watching - and is only mildly woke one or twice.
@robertbrown3413 Star Trek Continues is 98% great. The counselor character addition was the main misstep
@@docsavage8640 Yes we could have done without her, but the character didn't appear in every episode anyway.
To your point around 8:30, whether you like the film or not, there's no indication that Nero won't go to Romulus and save them all. He states that he wants to create a universe where Romulus is free from the Federation, and he plans to do that by destroying the key federation worlds. So, that's what he's doing, and he'll still have plenty of time to save Romulus afterwards. He may still be a weak character, but there are plenty of crazy people in the real world.
Stop making excuses for this shite
One has to wonder if this movie actually ushered in the "leave your brain at the door" cinema era.
I think that it might've been Armageddon 10 years earlier. Between that and Transformers, Michael Bay proved that movies don't have to make sense to make a lot of money, and J.J Abrams followed in his footsteps.
8:50 "Somehow, Palpatine returned."
Temporary emergency promotions don't bother me. What bothered me is at the end when they were all arbitrarily given actual promotions to the ranks and positions that should've taken them 15 years to attain. Kirk completely skipped all the ranks. He went from cadet-in-trouble to captain-of-the-flagship in one day, slapping every officer who earned their positions in the face.
Giachinno's soundtrack was one of the few redeeming aspects.
Thank you for this analysis! I gotta tell you in hindsight it was obvious what fate Star Wars will have.
"In the 24th century romulus is destroyed by a supernova"
That's the number one reason neither this movie nor anything that came after could possibly count as canon. The universe was vandalized, simple as. The whole thing has to be scrapped and started over if Star Trek is to ever be respectable again.
Your thoughts here are basically my thoughts when I was sitting through this in the theater in 2009. Very juvenile movie. One of the things that made Star Trek so interesting to me when I was 15 years old (a teenager) was that it was more adult and mature. It’s better to bring pupils and audiences up to your level rather than going down to theirs...or below theirs.
It's funny you mention Transformers, as the duo of Kurtzman and Orci were responsible for the "writing" for lack of a better term, on Revenge of the Fallen. And just like the 2009 Star Trek film forever changed Star Trek, so too did the live-action films alter the perception of that franchise from how it was in the 80's and 90's, and not for the better.
Kirk could have been stargazing, pulled out some fancy future binoculars, amd just randomly caught a view of the Enterprise under construction crossing the Moon in silhouette. That would have been even more "cinematic" than the motorcycle scene.
Kinda surprising they didn't just steal that from Star Wars anyway
Ruined I would say, it ruined Star Trek from a series about hope, doing the right thing no matter how hard, obligation to the truth, and the betterment of humanity to flash in a pan action, being overly emotional, and a debasement of humanity.
At the end of Star Trek 2009, the real Kirk would have still tried to save Nero when his ship was falling into the black hole, there was no point at firing all weapons when his enemy had already lost. It was a debasement of the character lashing out in revenge when they had already won and doing so almost got the Enterprise sucked into the black hole as well, another thing Kirk and crew would never do. It’s a travesty that has continued in all Trek since and hopefully will be excised at some point soon
Exactly, Kirk wouldn't do that, it wrecked his character.
Some suggested he wanted to make sure the Narada didn't go back in time again...but I think the writers just wanted a shot of "Captain" Kirk saying "FIre Phasers!"
One of the things this movie did that annoys me is perpetuate the "green skinned space babe" myth about Kirk. If you actually pay attention to TOS, most of the "girls of the week" are KIrk seducing them for a purpose. He's using them to save his ship and crew. It's a bit like what James Bond does.
However, that's business not his personal life. When we see women he was actually interested in, they were much more tender and long lasting. There's really only a single "one night stand", Helen Noel from Dagger of the Mind. The others were not only relationships, but except for Janice Lester, they all held Kirk in high regard and have great affection for him. They're even willing resume a romance if only for a short time. Also note all of them are educated, professional women with careers of their own. He definitely has a type. There's also something to be said that he purposely goes for women where their careers will take them in different directions because commanding a starship will always be his first love.
On another note, there's some evidence in TOS that Kirk's maverick persona is something he developed over time. He was described as an overly serious academy student in at least two episodes. He followed the book to the letter and reported a close friend's mistake. In my head canon, I like to think the first encounter with the cloud creature and death of Captain Garovick was the catalyst. His guilt led to him always putting himself in danger alongside his crew when a captain really shouldn't. It's also why he began playing fast and loose with rules where his ship and crew were at stake.
This movie made these things KIrk's whole personality and it was the caricature of Kirk we got, not the real deal.
Also "first officer" is not a rank. I don't care what you do, you don't rank up from expelled cadet to Captain in one week.
The Bridge of this 'Kelvin-Reality' Enterprise -1701 looks more advanced than the 1701'D of Next Generation!
Completely destroying any believability.
I agree; they're just too busy and too cluttered with consoles and monitors.
At least it's properly lit unlike Discovery and all the later shows
In the book "A Flag Full of Stars" we get the detail that Kirk had the idea for the saucer to be finished on Earth where the gravity would enable the work crews to finish the details (carpet, furniture, supplies, etc) in normal gravity to allow things to go a little faster. The secondary hull remained in drydock up in orbit while they finished the engineering section.
"Don't Ask Questions, Just Consume Product"
You misspelled "permanently ruined."
I appreciate that you did the ad read at X1.5 speed Dave. Thanks.
Loved it, and accepted that it deviated from the legacy ST that we knew & loved.
Favorite scene was when Pike realized he was right about Kirk all along, that Jimmy was one in a million, and promoted him to first officer.
Second favorite scene was the end of Spock's conflict with his Love for his mom & his Vulcan obsessiveness with Rationality. Spock's dad points out that he loved his wife - something he never admitted before. Spock, admittedly too quickly & conveniently, de-fractures his own psyche.
This is also addressed in the novel. They made one to go along with the movie, and it has infinitely more detail than the flick.
Thank you for the donation Dan, I didn't know this film had been had bee novelised. So often the novels are better than the movies.
True story: On my old raido show, I interviewed someone who was in every Star Trek movie (TOS and NG). Before the 2009 movie, he met with Abrams. In the office there is a statue of of Roddenberry that had a sheet over it. Abrams said it was because if Gene knew what he was going to do to Star Trek he'd roll over in his grave.
Rip apart Into Darkness next, please! :)
Very good video!
I liked the 2009 movie for all of its many flaws. Unlike real Star Trek, which examined a variety of philosophical subjects with actual depth and provoking thought and discussion, the New Trek Movie was just a fun roller coaster ride with no depth and nothing to take away from it.
The cast did very well with their roles. The cast did a very good job portraying alternate versions of the beloved original cast. Too bad the writers didn't have a clue about how things were done on the original show, because apparently they saw two minutes of clips of original movie action scenes and that was enough. Standard Bad Reboot. And Captain Lens Flare goes overboard with his, at the time, favorite narrative detail: blinding the viewers.
The script was complete batcrap, and while that made it superior to the follow up movies, it didn't make it any damn good. But they do their best to give us enough flash and fanfare to cover their ineptness in crafting stories. And it worked for a roller coaster ride, but that's what they were making, not a movie.
I enjoyed the ride once, but I've no desire to watch it again. But I do remember the ride, or much of it. I also saw Into Darkness, and I remember almost none of it because it lacked any kind of substance. When you waste a cast this good, including Benedict Cumberbatch, on the second movie, you deserve to never work in the industry again. However, for some reason, Bad Reboot became major players going forward, and I can't understand why.
But, for what it's worth, the 2009 movie was far superior to anything Star Trek that came after it, possibly excluding Picard season three where, by mistake, Kurtzman accidentally gave control to someone competent.
It appears that mining ship was designed by the same people that built the Death Star weapon in Star Wars. Family Guy did THE BEST parody when they had a conversation between the 2 guys at the console on the ledge complaining that there was no guard rail. "They said that we would lean on it all day! Can you believe that?".
People decades ago had brains with thought out storylines. This is the level of intelligence of people, including the producers, today.
Hi Dave. Prior to the release of this film I had seen many stills and video clips which led me to the conclusion that it would be a load of (expletive). So I never wasted any momey on it. My friend went to see it and enjoyed it, which surprised me since we were both fans of Star Trek from its premier on the BBC back in '69. He believed that I couldn't properly criticise the film without seeing it first. So he then did me the disservice of buying the DVD for me. I subjected myself to the film three times, just to make sure that I was being fair in my criticism. I ended up sending him a 20 point e-mail on what was wrong with the film. Not problems that I was making a point of looking for, just the pure stupidity that kept jumping out at me repeatedly. Spock ejecting Kirk from the Enterprise. Didn't they have a brig on the ship? A shoddy way of getting Kirk and Spock together. Spock saves Kirk from the monster in the cave. Then tells him that there is a Starfleet base nearby, So why was Spock hanging around in the freezing snow when he could have been in the warm base? When they get to the base they just walk in, no security! etc etc etc. From that point on for me Star Trek no longer exists. Anything produced under the Star Trek banner is simply output purporting to be Star Trek. More accurately known as an abomination purporting to be Star Trek. The only good thing to come out of these obscenities is that I developed a better appreciation for Voyager and Enterprise. Although still my least liked of all the incarnations, they now complete my box set collection. Roddenberry era and Berman era Star Trek is all I need.
On top of that the snow moon "delta vega" that Spock can see a huge Vulcan in the skyline, which is an arid class-M planet. Spock confirms in a TOS episode "Vulcan has no moon". As Dave says, it's all style over substance.
One thing I hated was how Engineering looks like a damn grain elevator. Did this Enterprise run on ethanol instead of antimatter? I heard this was done because they thought the Engineering in other Treks might be confusing to new audiences 😆 Yeah a grain elevator the size of 3 Walmarts makes much more sense.
The costumes look close enough to the TOS versions that I don't know why people always bring that up but the frigging corn processing center is never mentioned.
DUDE you *NAILED* that Nero impression. I'm ☠
This may be my favorite of your reviews. I have so many issues with this movie and you managed to reveal a few that i didn't consider. Great job.
One of my frustrations with all of the Star Trek movies, even the good ones, is that they focus more on action than mystery. My favorite episodes of Star Trek are not the ones with epics space battles. Those are fun, but my favorite episodes are the ones where something mysterious is happening on the ship, or some strange phenomenon requires investigating. That is lost in the movies because I suppose the filmmakers feel such stories are too small in scale for the big screen.
I know. I give you City on the Edge of Forever. Thoughtful. No space battles.❤❤❤
Star Trek is far better as a series where they can explore different ideas and build character over many episodes.
@@docsavage8640 Another frustration is that most modern TV shows have overarching storylines, but for Star Trek, the best episodes often have standalone plots. That has been lost in modern Star Trek.
@batman5224 💯 I like how TNG did it. They would sometimes reference prior events, but you had no need to see a prior episode to understand what the current story is
I remember seeing an interview with JJ and he has said he wanted to make Star Trek more like Star Wars . Fast paced all action. Well that's what he did.
Makes me think he never saw Star Wars. Lots of quiet moments on Tatooine, Hoth, Dagobah...
@@docsavage8640Exactly.
@@docsavage8640 yes he definitely went overboard.
Haha I LOVE your criticisms of this. That is exactly how you tell a true Star Trek fan from a Star Trek 2009 fan.
I love how Kurtzman and Abrams had completely different approaches to the things they did here. Kurtzman was making references even if they didn't make sense (like moving Delta Vega several light-years and putting it in visual distance of Vulcan) and Abrams was ignoring opportunities to do something cool that would reference the lore (like if the Narada had been a refit D'deridex warbird with cloak, tractor beams, and disruptors instead of a cthulu ship with useless torpedoes).
I think you misspelled 'destroyed' in the title.
I was a teenager in the '90s, and a pretty big Star Trek fan. This was a time when geek culture wasn't trendy. I went to conventions (non "cons"), and let's just say there weren't hot girls walking around in skimpy cosplay back then. I witnessed what seemed to be the death of Star Trek with "Nemesis" and "Enterprise", and I was one of the fans who bailed around 2002. So when Star Trek (2009) was released, I was open-minded, as I thought it was better than nothing. Truth is, I thought it was a fun movie. I had friends who previously would never be caught dead watching Star Trek suddenly taking their girlfriends to the theater to see a Trek film. I appreciated that it made an effort to explain differences with a timeline split (even though many visual differences preceded the actual split). They got Nimoy involved. Say what you will, but this production cared more than "Discovery", which bulldozed canon with zero care or explanation. I think the worst thing about this film is its sequels, and that it set the stage for Kurtzman.
2009 was the beginning of the end for Star Trek. All we have now is reruns on Pluto TV
Dave Cullen! You're awesome. I'll always miss your older stuff on older channels of yours. But I'm glad you're still making videos. Never stop, I'll find your content one way or another. Your interviews from the covid Era were some of the best out there. I love your movie stuff too. Cheers mate.
I think it was a fair enough, to want to update star trek ie. Effects, visuals and to some degree language etc. To draw in a newer audience.
You can do and show alot more today, than you could in the past.
But at it's heart it should have stayed star trek...
And I just didn't get that vibe.
I don't have the burning hate for Star Trek 09 as much as other old skool Trek fans of my era... I accept it is a remake in an alternate timeline and just turn my brain off for a lot of it... but I cannot accept the Nu-Trek tv iterations that try to say they are in the Prime timeline... no fucking way I will ever accept that, not even Picard season 3.
Yet another great analysis Dave, Thank You. I can remember going to watch this movie when it was released thinking ‘Trek is back’ and literally walked out the cinema saying ‘it isnt really Star Trek is it’ when asked what I thought of it.