Mark must have been sarcastic or pissed at Ryan Johnson when he said that because in lots of other interviews you see Mark upset about the way thing went in Ep7 & 8.
Mark Hamill is exactly right. Then, there is there is the other effect: Short Term Thinking. Studio executives just want to find a director to do some formulaic bull manure and get huge returns, with no conception of the real potential for profit. Did the producers even bother to check where ST royalties come from? What type of idiot producer would have checked off on the JJ-prise, when AMT still invests in updating the molds for their model kits, based on the 1979 movie? Did they even think of the strategic games that did well in the 20th Century? I'll give them one thing, the uniforms looked OK. If people who were into ST enough to buy a uniform were to actually like these films, then there would be potential for sales, but other than that, the investors really missed the boat. The producers of ST are not making the money that they could have with a half-way descent film.
"Enterprise being a character" Janeway does a whole monologue about that in an episode of Voyager I just watched. "Years of hell II" Started chewing Tuvoc out over calling Voyager "just a ship"
muznick Didn’t the original franchise take several movies before they blew up the enterprise in first contact. And even then they made major deal about it with Picard loosing his shit over the decision. Hell the entire movie practically set up as a changing of the guard like generations. Haven’t seen any of the new movies, but I can see where a studio would think casually destroying the ship in each movie would appeal to a new audience while old fans would be severely disappointed.
They blew it up in Star Trek III but that was it for TOS, including the whole TV run. Never watched TNG movies because didn't really like it , except for Picard.
William Truong not nearly as annoying as repeated use of the death star. Spend a shit load of money and resources on a moon sized doom lazer, if that fails, build an even bigger one, and when that fails build a planet sized death star shot gun. And don't even get me started on the EU super weapons. It would have been far more efficient to implement a droid for every home program. The masses are happy with the empire, because who wouldn't want a free droid Meanwhile the emperor has spies everywhere so if someone starts making trouble he can take out quietly, and if an entire colony has to be wiped out, he can initiate the skynet protocol, then claim it was just an unfortunate malfunction thats totally gonna be fixed in the next software patch. seriously the Alliance from firefly made far more sinister space tyrants because they convinced people to willingly give up their freedom, and din't have to rely on overwhelming force, or ships so large you have to wonder if the emperor isn't compensating for something.
Admit it, we like to see the Enterprise as a character, but also we like to see that character as not being static. The use of the shuttlecraft, phasers and photon torpedoes brings it to life. The combat scenes in STII are arguably what make it to be considered the best of the Original's movies. In the Original series episodes the Doomsday Machine, the Ultimate Computer and the Tholian Web, wasn't it exciting to see other Constellation Class starships badly damaged? It reinforced the notion that space exploration is dangerous. All of the Original movies had a starship or vessel being destroyed or damaged.
My biggest complaint about that JJ films is that they make Kirk a buffoon. It was fine in the first movie to show Kirk as young and inexperienced, but by the 2nd movie, he should have been the Kirk we were familiar with.
Gregory Floriolli I don’t mind that actually. The first movie it made sense like you say. The second movie was about Kirk adapting to the captain’s role. In the third movie he basically becomes the Kirk we know. It’s not exactly the Kirk we know but it’s close enough for an alternate reality. That’s just me anyway.
Star trek 2009 actually got me into the star trek tv shows and im thankful for that but after seeing the shows star trek 2009 felt far from what star trek actually is
Wel at least some good came from that (i do enjoy the movies for what they are) hopefully if they reboot tng they will give more attention to detail with story and characterization
@@danield.8233 Nah, "Into Darkness" was the best; more story than the 1st, implies that some things are destined to happen in one way or another regardless of timeline damage...…...yeah, it had glaring faults, like Kirk being BROUGHT BACK FROM THE FUCKING DEAD (!!), and Cumberbatch used to play Ricardo Montalban's character (!!!!), and that cheesy action film climactic chase sequence, but, it had more heart than the 3rd film and more story than the 1st film.
I like your take on this and I would like to add that Abrams' version of Spock humanized him too much. Part of the delight of Spock is his alien behavior and idealized outlook on life.
Spock is literally half human. Early in his life, he struggled with containing the emotions that he inherited from his human mother. Not defending JJ here, since he's too stupid to realize this, but it's definitely part of his character.
interstellar transporters don't make starships useless because you can't beam to a place you can't see. You don't know where you will emerge unless you have ultra high resolution scanners that can perfectly analyse a planet over interstellar distances. While those transporters will make cargo and passenger ships redundant, exploratory vessels will still be in wide use charting unknown systems in order to expand the transwarp beaming network. Still, I would have preferred this technology be properly explored in a narrative sense post Star Trek: Nemesis, where the technology could feasibly exist. It makes no sense having it in the TOS era.
In reference to your comments about Spock in the newer films, despite knowing that Spock is half human and has a much harder fight to control his emotional responses than his fellow Vulcans, for which he was teased and bullied growing up, his character arc gave him the strength to overcome this "flaw" and become a stronger Vulcan than his contemporaries. Mr. Nemoy was an ideal actor to carry this roll, depicting that extended strength without saying a word. His poise, dignity and stiff upper lip stood as his war banner, and the few times we were privileged to see his banner fall, every one on that field noticed, no matter how quickly Spock lofted his colors again. This new "Spock" doesn't have the physical or mental skills Spock would have learned or taught himself by the end of his first decade on Vulcan. As much as I respected and admired the original Spock, this "Spock" isn't even a caricature of his predecessor.
Amen, Bro. I hate to say it, but Star Trek is deceased. It died pretty much with the close of DS9, although I have something of a fondness for Enterprise as a series. Voyager is ST blaspheme, but not so bad as Discovery and the Abrams "boot".
@@ajmittendorf DS9 is the peak of the franchise. Voyager never went all the way with it's premise which hurts the series. Enterprise was the End of Star Trek imo. Now it's just a rotten corpse.
@@christopherbarker1048 Well, I'd prefer to say it's a "rotting" corpse than a "rotten" one. To be honest, I'm hoping---not confidently, but still hoping---for a resurrection in Star Trek: Picard. I won't hold my breath, but I think that I shall keep my fingers crossed. :)
Discovery had one of the Bad Robot goons, Alex Kurtzman, as a producer. It has nothing in that that made Stat Trek so popular. It has a central character who is an obnoxious badass and good at everything, the crew bicker with each other constantly, it is concertually dumb (mushroom drive) and has ruined the Klingons to make a stupid political point. Unwatchable trash.
The Voyage Home is by far my favorite. The interaction and authenticity of emotions between the crew was just uncanny. It really felt like watching real people. The rest of the story didn't even matter in that film.
I remember reading some technical manual years ago that the TOS Enterprise was build on earth but it was at the Alameda Shipyard in San Francisco not Iowa.
Actually they do both - Utopia Planetia had surface facilities (shown on TNG) and orbital docks shown on Voyager both. You can see complete Galaxy Class Hulls on the Surface of mars in one shot for example. The 23rd Century USS Defiant was actually built on the Moon (according to her plaque - which mentions the sea of Tranquility base). That said Iowa is an odd place to build them - they'd usually make them in San Francisco Fleetyards. Before TNG was a thing they used to say the Saucers were assembled on the ground and flown up into orbit with the assistance of tractor tugs where the hull pieces were assembled - this is done for safety reasons so warp cores are not on a planets surface needlessly. Though they could be assembled on a surface and then fuelled and tested in space. By Janeways time large cargo Transporters or industrial Tractorbeams were used to haul things into space from the surface. MARS & Luna was suited to construction due to the lower gravity. But yeah building the whole thing in Iowa - is a little well "odd" to say the least.
its was never a big criticism. its only criticised by brainless kirk and spock fan girls who think spock and kirk are gay and should be a couple. spock and unura relationship was don well for a Vulcan human relationship, the only movie the relationship sucked was in star trek into darkness.
@@1twifail1 no what would've made more sense is Kirk with Uhura especially due to the iconic interracial kiss back in TOS. Putting Spock with her was most illogical.
@@kendallrivers1119 the tos kiss was meant for spock/uhura. also she and kitk in this timeline will have made no sense. her personality fits better with spock. she is more compatable with spock than kirk
Yep, totally destroyed what an engine room should look like, for all the millions wasted, they couldn't knock together an engine room set?! I'm a dab hand at building stuff I'll throw one together in a fortnight for the next film, give me a couple of grand and a day in one of your hardware and radioshack stores. (Radioshack.... is that still a thing over there or has it gone the way of our Maplin electronics?) Ok E-bay then.
It reminded me of those cartoons where the character gets trapped inside a giant machine and is pushed and bent through tubes this way and that. But cartoon makers know to end the bit before it becomes tedious.
I didn't even watch the last film. I barely remember the first two. I can remember far more detail in the original movies, and I haven't seen any of them in over a decade. It's like they aren't even trying. It's sad, I realized the other day that the stories and quality of BioWare's Star Wars games were better than the current movies. There are a lot of people in Hollywood that just need to go do something else. I almost don't care anymore. I'll eventually watch the last ST film. I'll just do so with no expectations.
"I can remember far more detail in the original movies, and I haven't seen any of them in over a decade. " Isn't that the case with most modern movies? I can't recall a single scene of Guardians of the Galaxy 2 apart from the intro... The transformer movies I just do not recall. TLA I choose NOT to recall. I did not even deign to see TLJ..... officially.
Beyond was actually pretty good and felt much closer to Trek than the previous two films. I think that had a lot to do with Jar Jar Abrams having minimal involvement. lol.
I disagree that there's no explanation for Kirk's self-doubt in ST: Beyond. McCoy outright says it's because this Kirk grew up in his father's shadow, and now he's wondering if he can be his own man. This portrayal of Kirk grew up in different circumstances than Original Timeline Kirk, so there would naturally be a difference between the two portrayals. Now, whether or not this explanation is a good one, and whether or not it is to the benefit or detriment of the film, is where the debate truly resides. Saying there's no explanation provided at all, though, is inaccurate. At least, that's how I see it.
You made the same point as me but better. It does make sense that he doesn't behave the same way - but that doesn't mean the film handles it well or is justified in it's choices. Basically: Star Trek 2009 - Great sci-fi action movie with a fun cast. Treats it's Trek roots with respect on the outside but ultimately is hollow on the inside. Into Darkness - Simply the worst thing that has every had the Star Trek name associated with. Beyond - Not as bad as Into Darkness but not that far ahead.
I think this would cascade over to how Spock then reacts. If Kirk isn't the take charge alpha captain, confident in his leadership but instead reckless & inconsistent, then Spock would develop differently in reaction to that, especially with the destruction of his home planet, the death of his beloved mother and the unique situation of having a future alternative of yourself.
Omni. Exactly - Original Timeline Kirk grew up with good fatherly support from a professionally competent but unextraordinary man, this Kirk grew up without a father as he'd famously died in a massive deed of self-sacrificing heroism. Like you I thought they made it very plain.
Something else that needs to be taken into consideration is they're all a lot younger in the Abrams verse. Dave keeps comparing them to the originals. But TOS Kirk and Spock were old veterans. They'd spent decades doing this. Abrams Kirk and Spock were greenhorns, they'd spent at best a couple years doing it. Everyone was young, everyone knows they were different when they were younger. Kirk experiences self-doubt due to the lack of a father figure and his general young age. Keep in mind Kirk in the Abrams verse gets control of the enterprise years earlier than prime Kirk did. Prime Kirk served aboard other starships prior to getting command, Abrams kirk went straight from academy to captain. So a lot of the complaints that Dave levels against the Abrams verse can really just be summed up as them being much younger.
If you watch all 3 movie's he is still the alpha male the leader when things need his complete attention he is exactly like the William Shatner version as fighter and take command how ever he does show he thinks about his father often because he never met him nor did he have a good father figure ever as you can see in the 2009 film
Spock was always a badass, but in his own way. In the original series, he was a badass because he was always calm and collected in the face of danger. Hardcore action was never what made Spock a badass. He just was a badass in his own, non-traditional way.
StarTrek:Beyond 1) Kirk wants to give up command of the Enterprise? 2) Spock cries out in pain when wounded? 3) Spock cries about his girlfriend? God no just no.
Spock has cried multiple times in TOS: 1.) "The Naked TIme", he cries over his mother under the PSI 2000 virus influence. 2.) "The Galileo Seven", Spock cries out in pain when a boulder pins him down. 3.) "The Devil in the Dark", he cries out in pain when he first contacts the Horta with a mindmeld and then sobs in anguish during the remainder. There's other examples of Spock showing emotion, like "The Cage"/"The Menagerie" when he grins at the discovery of the resonating plant. He also yells out in shock when only Number One and Yeoman Colt are transported. Also, Kirk gave up command in the Prime TImeline, such as between the 5 year mission and TMP and he again gives it up sometime between then and TWoK.
The SJW's would have loved it if that were the case and I'd be sick to my stomach before going postal in the cinema. That would be the final insult to a Trek fan.
What a perfect analogy off the JJ films. Everything you said is spot on. The SJW's that have took over Hollywood is ruining everything not just for movie goersbut on TV as well.
It's not so much about SJWs. I think that the bigger problem is that the quality of script writing as deteriorated terribly over the years. Navel gazing is now the same as being thoughtful, being complex means that you have to be angry a lot. Our biggest problem is that the current batch of scriptwriters and directors really don't know how to do their job in any way that is more than just superficial.
Kevin Korenke no its pretty much common knowledge that the most of the Hollywood elite is heavily leftest leaning. The new progressive democrats that cling to sociallist views. I would say t hat makes tje SJW's.
Well in my opinion both of you are right. The writers in today's Hollywood lack any creativity and in order to mask that fact they throw in tons of Political Correct bull shit to score points with SJW idiots who believe that seeing their political view in the movie some how makes their point of view correct or will make others who see the movie even care. about their view. All the creative writers that don't sell out to this SJW non sense won't be successful in today's world.
Beyond is the only one that tried to be recapture that Trek feel. As for the Vulcans, they were always a violent race until they started following Surak's teachings, as seen on Enterprise.
@@ryanhuang5990 I've been been watching Star Trek since about '93 and I didn't like Beyond. Mostly because the villains sucked to my opinion. The vast majority of Star Trek fans don't even like the new Trek films at all. Beyond had good parts to it but it wasn't a good movie
@@ryanhuang5990 In a way yes, but i.e. 2009 has a decent star trek feel, only with more money and a slightly over-flamboyant ship. The old formula just doesn't work (or make money) anymore. I prefer these JJ movies over Discovery for example. The tempo is better, it isn't depressing either and the acting choices are fine. And the special effects (except for those horrible torpedoes) are fine as well, but even the torpedoes came straight out of TOS, so that's on 'real trek'. haha
Kirk in the Prime Timeline plenty of moments of self-doubt, though he usually came through it before the end of each episode it was featured, because, you know, TOS was highly serialized and the first six movies are are largely self-contained as well. Some examples: 1. Kirk expresses his doubts to McCoy in a wonderful private moment in "Balance of Terror" over the decisions he's making in the battle with the Romulan raider. 2. In "The Ultimate Computer", Kirk expresses self-doubt, again to McCoy over the initially highly successful M5 computer and how Kirk will be replaced by it. 3. "The Motion Picture", Kirk again is filled with issues as he uses the V'Ger crisis to ram getting the Enterprise back and later again, McCoy has to talk him down after Decker rightly calls Kirk out following the debacle of the first attempt at going to warp. 4. "Wrath of Khan", Kirk is feeling his age and expresses his self-doubts first to McCoy and then to Carol Marcus over his age and what he should really be doing in his life at this point. Kirk in the Kelvin Timeline is living in his father's shadow and as was made clear by Spock Prime, it is the lack of a strong father figure for this Kirk that lead to Kelvin Kirk leading a reckless life and then later this Kirk must live up to his father's legacy rather than make his own. Star Trek Beyond is about Kelvin Kirk finally putting his demons to rest and becoming more like his Prime counterpart.
They are decent movies for a relaxing night, brain off and a lot of drinks and chips. The same can be said for pretty much ANYTHING, though. As Star Trek movies they're an absolute train wre- well, starship wreckage, that's it.
Jim Knight, Well yes and to be honest I wouldn’t really mind a starship troopers in Starfleet uniforms episode if it was set during the Dominion war with the story being told from the perspective of Starfleet marines on the front lines that would be a fitting place for this level of action it would be a stark contrast to the other series and would show a side of the war not really touched upon.
10:20 - "The only person who doesn't see it coming is Mr. Super-Genius Khan" - Yeah, I thought that in the original though. When Spock said, 'if we do things 'by the book', hours could seem like days. We will see you in two days, by the book!" And I remember thinking the first time I saw that film that it was so obvious what that message meant, but the super genius Khan couldn't figure it out, apparently. And also couldn't figure out that spaceships can move in three dimensions, of course.
IIRC, there was a comic released just before ST2009, that filled in some of the backstory: When it became clear that the supernova was going to annihilate Romulus, Spock and Nero begged the Vulcans for help, but Vulcan refused to give them red matter or the tech to make it, so when Romulus was destroyed, yes in his grief and rage Nero blamed Spock for not keeping his word and failing to stop it in time, but he also understandably blamed Vulcan for withholding the technology, and the Federation in general for not doing enough to help (and also he had convinced himself that they let Romulus die in order to take their territory). I have no idea why this didn't make it into the movie.
I'm pretty sure Chris Pine has said in the past that if a Star Trek 4 (or 14) were to happen, he'd want to do one with a more intelligent story and less action stuff. This is what i'd want to see from these films going forward, i'd happily watch another instalment if it was announced, I liked Beyond, 2009 and parts of into Darkness. I enjoy the cast they're some of the best bits of the films, not better than Shatner's Kirk or Nemoy's Spock but still pretty good. Side Note: I doubt Discovery will get a film, its not as popular as other star trek series (considering that its only watchable if you pay for it in the US), not sure but a ST:14 might be a better call.
The cast in Abrams Trek are absolutely awesome. Kirk is a little too young but that's not a bad thing as he will age well into the role. I'm a real advocate of action scenes in the movies but I enjoy cerebral Trek, especially TNG. I would absolutely love to see a traditional cerebral Star Trek series with this cast. That would truly be outstanding.
@@bluebull399 The Abrams cast are fine but they do not and never will replace or erase the legacy and iconic statures of the original series cast. I highly doubt they'll ever make the world forget William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, James Doohan etc. because they owned those roles completely for which the new cast is just imitating.
At the expense of Star Trek’s soul, same thing that putting me off from Star Wars. Its very sad. It’s good that we are getting smaller series that are giving is the fans a small fix. I completely agree with the character murder, but remember anything that would portray a man in a good way, it’s “toxic masculinity”.
I actually liked beyond the best. I think it was making some movements back towards the center, and I really liked the mccoy/spock relationship in the movie.
"Wreck it Abrams" has wrecked everything he gets his greedy little hands on..."Lost".."Star Trek"..."Star Wars"...And will probably RUIN "Mission Impossible" Franchise more and more before he's done
I will admit I can't believe they've already made the leap to the 1701-A. I keep telling myself it's still not too late for them to turn in a quality Trek film. Even Discovery seems to have finally acquiesced to the fans somewhat by basically turning the season finale into a soft reboot, more in the vain of classic Star Trek. The filmmakers need to basically do a focus group and see what the fans would like to see in a future film. Honestly, some of the best story ideas have come from the fans.
I yes I'm afraid I havce to agree. It's awful looking compared to the original. The original Enterprise looks absolutely beautiful but the Abrams version looks horrible.
I don't understand all the hatred people harbour for the Ryan Church Enterprise, you literally only have to reduce the size of the nacelles and all the proportioning problems go away. Everything else looks and feels like what a Star Trek ship would, just a little less dated. I think it's more of an issue with people associating the reboot Enterprise with all the negative qualities of the films that are projected onto the ship.
I will praise them once. In the film, Into Darkness, when the Enterprise appears to escape to warp and the trans-warp ship catches them, I was awestruck. I had heard and fantasized about trans-warp for many years and to first hear the monstrous sound (I saw it in IMAX), then have the ship show up, was amazing.
They tried to make a version of "Star Trek" for normies, so they made a generic space shoot-em-up special effects movie with Star Trek names slapped on, which turned out to be pointless because normies don't care about Star Trek in the first place.
The number 1 criticism for me is that at the end of the day it's not Star Trek it's your regular random sci-fi popcorn action movie with lens flare that calls itself Star Trek. Nothing really all that bad about the movies if they were their own thing, the 2009 one was decent for what it was but calling it Star Trek without the chemistry and cerebral nature isn't Star Trek. And then trying to replace Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley, Doohan, Takei, Nichols, Koeing etc. is just ludicrous.
All these points are spot on ... the JJ reboot is complete shite. I have seen them all but have managed to block it all out because I was bored to death.
I gave up on the Jar-Jar Abrams films after the first. It was an OK movie, but it was not Star Trek. Come on, a cadet getting thrown out of the Academy being made Captain and given command? Starfleet having so few trained personnel they fill starships with cadets to go fight? Enterprise built on the ground in Iowa? They started bad and only got worse.
I watched some of the behind the scenes features on the first new Star Trek. They said that this is the largest Enterprise ever made, and to highlight that, they made it break frame, ie it extends beyond two screen edges. I think that was fine when they first show it, but there needed to be some later shots of it to show off the ship.
Newsflash, Dave. All characters in all modern movies, and TV, are more emotional. Emotion is used as a substitute for character. specifically as a substitute for principled characters expressing ideas they care about.
I'm a life-long Star Trek fan. I now completely and utterly loathe the JJ Abram's Trek. To me it is NOT canon. The Star Trek Continues films are my canon. After CBS/Paramount came out with their draconian fan film "guidelines", I took great joy in tossing my Blu Rays of the first two films and I haven't seen the third film, nor will I ever. To me, Star Trek is a beloved memory, destroyed by clueless, money worshipping marketroids.
IMO the TOS movie era Star Trek ships were the best looking. Sci Fi has become really over designed and flashy in the last 20 or so years, but in the 80's designs were kept a bit more grounded, probably because they were limited by budget and the need to build physical models.
Brett Cooper, I thought that for years and years, and still do, sort of. But the original design has kind of reemerged for me. I've seen a number of websites where they've taken the original Matt Jeffries design and just very subtly updated it -- not changing any of the dimensions or major elements at all, just with more surface detail, better running lights, a little more detail to the engine nacelles, etc. And MAN it really looks fantastic. Easily as good at the movie refit Constitution, IMHO, or even better. (You can see just one example of the kind of work I mean here: deg3d.biz)
One note about Kirk's doubts. This is explored in the original TV series. Kirk's greatest fear is losing command of the Enterprise and doubts his abilities. This is explored in at least 2 episodes that I watched recently. But, yes the movies do dwell on this a bit too long. We also have to keep in mind that these movies take place in a parallel universe, so some characteristics may be different than Roddenberry's universe. I haven't seen the 3rd film yet though, so it could be as bad as I've heard.
Another thing of note, the Star Trek Beyond poster is a rip off of the one used for Star Trek Six: the Undiscovered Country. When Beyond first came out and i saw the trailer, it immediately put me off. I did a vid on it once where i called it Fast And Furious in Space.
You missed: Stolen Concept + Mystery Box + Subverted Expectations = JarJar's entire repertoire. I didn't recognize it in 2009, but once you see it, you can't miss it.
The Black Fleet Trilogy, by Joshua Dalzelle. Warship, Call to Arms, and Counterstrike. If you want a wonderful realistic-scifi read, I highly recommend it. The way it's written, the warship itself is practically a character as well as her crew, much like the older Star Treks. Like I said, Anyone who likes sci-fi should read it! The audio book versions are on TH-cam as well.
*HERE'S THE REAL TWO REASONS WHY BAD ROBOT FILMS FAILED??* *#2)* It was produced, written, acted by people who knew nothing about the Star Trek Legacy. They ripped the most important aspects what made Star Trek *"Star Trek".* It's heart. You can spend all the money can. Do all the camera tricks you can. It wouldn't matter. Perfect example of this was in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. For all purposes. A movie that would of killed many franchises. But it did not cause how flawed ST 5 was. It ended keeping it's heart intact. Spock, Bones & Kirk singing Row Row Your Boat by a campfire. *#1)* Toys Toys Toys Toys & greed. There was two camps who owned the right's of Star Trek. Viacom owned the TV series (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT) rights. Paramount owned the film (all 10 films) rights. Also owns the still profitable luxurious toy figurine rights. Viacom wanted to restart the Star Trek franchise first with films. Then a TV series to go with their CBS All Access streaming service. Paramount didn't want to do any films. Viacom paid Paramount for the rights to use TOS names for their film. With one stipulation. Viacom must make their Star Trek characters 25% different then TOS characters are. Viacom agreed since they saw $🤩$ for toys. Viacom, either after the first Abrams film or second.. We learned the real reason of this Kelvin timeline. *TOYS!* Aftermath - Both Viacom & Paramount merged into Paramount Global. CBS ALL ACCESS became Paramount+. Movie franchise is basically done. No fourth film (2023) has been green lit. Bad Robot / Secret Hideout still producing Trek nobody wants. With the *TOYS* not selling at all. *TOYS KILLED THE STAR TREK FRANCHISE.*
There will be. This time it will be produced by JJ Abrams and directed by Quentin Tarantino and will be rated R. With the screenwriter of The Revenant doing the script.
Hey now. While the Kirk era Kelvin Timeline does look like it ran its course, there is speculation that the Next Generation era will get the KT treatment. And yes. I know this is a year old comment I'm responding to.
Remember that Spock is half human. He is probably trying to act more Vulcan than Vulcans in order to prove himself worthy of the name. That's why Spock in TOS is always overdoing it on the logic and emotionless front, until something, like chemicals, or being sent back to a time before logic ruled Vulcan, that those things he is suppressing come out. As you said, however, the JJ version is nothing like Leonard Nimoy's thoughtful portrayal.
Now the Writer of Star trek Discovery claims that The Enperor's titles contains a reference to Hoshi. HOWEVER ; he also said until someone says that on screen that is just his stated intention and not "Canon" one could argue the same about Sulu - we don't know if that Was Damura or not and we don't know if that was another relative looking after her or his "Husband" as the reference was not overt. Heck it could be taken that he was Bi and that he took up with some guy after he was divorced or widowed - we simply don't know - heck he could have adopted her - or she could be his ward or niece we just don't know. as we didn't here someone say "Oh look Daddy's here - we've missed you honey" or something like that stating that this was Sulu's Daughter and intimate friend as he didn't refer to him as a relative but as a lover. They didn't do that - so they can say he's gay as much as they like it's not on screen now is it. it's implied not stated. So if they ever wanted to tweak that it allows it to be reinterpreted - heck I don't think most people gave it a second though if they'd not been following the twitter storm about it.
Spock isn't gay either, but Quinto is. Are there seriously people who think Sulu is gay because Takei is? There are straight actors who play gay characters and gay actors who play straight actors. Its called acting. Duh!
The entire thing is done to hook a new generation which causes it to veer wildly off Star Trek cannon. I would have enjoyed it more as a stand alone franchise instead of using the Star Trek name to sell tickets.
To some degree, I do think it makes sense that the Reboot version of Kirk is not as self-confident and strongly devoted as TOS Kirk, given that there is a significant difference between the two versions of the character: in the rebooted timeline, Kirk's father died moments after his birth, something which it's implied would not have happened without Nero's messing with history. Lacking a father would significantly change who James Kirk is, so it's excusable that this version of him wouldn't be as confident or as sure-footed. That said, there are plenty of other things that compound from this issue, as Kirk's upbringing is implied to be more that of a ruffian in this continuity, which creates a bit of a problem for how he's portrayed. See, if we are to agree that Kirk's insecurities and lack of confidence here stems from an unstable past, he would be most apprehensive about his responsibilities at present and not about his ability to fulfill the mission. If anything, a promotion ought to be a frightening proposition to him-higher position means more responsibility and getting pulled into an environment where he just doesn't belong. What I'm getting at is that it's entirely reasonable for this version of Kirk to have significant insecurities that he didn't have back in TOS, but also that the insecurities he's been given don't make any sense.
So I analysed your video and I think you were completely wrong about the characters, the villains or the story. Here is my table of contents: nero spock, kirk,krall (there's also about the story and philosophy) . 1. Nero in the 09 movie was a perfect mirror of spock, but first let's look at his backstory starting with the supernova. The supernova was there for months. When it started, ambassador spock was actually on vulcan. He convinced the vulcans by the supernova- threat. After he did it, he convinced the romulans that he would save them. He refitted his ship and then the unthinkable happened. The supernova destroyed romulus. Nero saw the destruction of his planet and he was now the last surviving romulan. Weeks were gone by and spock stopped the supernova. The romulans thought the federation would save them but the federation failed. Neros plan when he was in the past was to create a romulus which exists free of the federation. A romulus without the 'looser-federation' might be able to prevent the disaster. Also, the supernova happens 154 years in the future! He has more than plenty of time to warn them! And Nero isn't the picture of a perfect healthy romulan NO. After the kelvin rammed into neros ship the Shields of neros ship were down and because he was at the border to the klingon empire some klingon warbirds arrived and Nero was captured. He spent those 25 years in klingon prison. The klingons used neros ship as a source for new technology. This is why the federation was suddenly so militaristic in into darkness because earth was pretty much defenseless after the o9 movie. In the o9 movie we were set up for logic vs emotion sort of theme. Young Spock and Nero both lost their home world and a loved one. But nero as a romulan reacted emotionally, and spock reacted logically. Both of them had an anger in them. Nero chose destruction and death and spock chose friendship. The lesson of this movie is that we should balance out our logic and emotion. St o9 explored how emotion harms us, and into darkness explored how logic can be bad (more to that later) so now to kirk and spock. In into darkness at the beginning spock tries to sacrifice himself for his crew. So the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few right? If someone sacrifices himself for the many, then the many are sad about that death and they will not be so happy. This shows how stupid cold logic can be. When kirk sacrifices himself for his crew, spock now understands why kirk saved him in that vulcano and he is able to feel those emotions he tried to hide in the first film. - Kirk : the kirk in the new movies never had a father which showed him how to solve problems, instead he got a father which he never liked. In into darkness, (after the scene on niburu) it is clearly stated that kirk really isn't ready for the captains chair because he lacks the crucial lesson he never learned on the kobayashi maru test. When the uss vengeance wants to fire at the enterprise we see that kirk now got the lesson from the kobayashi maru test. He now does everything for his crew making him believe in no-win scenarios. Then he knew how he's gonna really fix this situation is by giving his own live for his crew just like his father. In star trek beyond definitely see that the crew of the enterprise definitely grew over the years like kirk. Kirk is now much more like his original version same with spock. He's now one year older than his father and he asks to find meaning to the work he's doing. -krall: krall was born in a world with terror and a constant threat of destruction. He sees humanity as safest, strongest and most abt to survive. It must have been hard for him to see his biggest enemy unite with humanity. He thinks that bad stuff brings the better good. In the cold war massive technological advancements were made by the soviets and the United States during the cold war and they achieved it by competition. The philosophical question star trek beyond asks is: are we relying on those who might let us go down? You guys should note: the hate of the fans made star trek beyond a flop and after that star trek discovery was created. The perfect anti- trek shitshow nobody cares about. To the visuals: at least jj admitted that he put too many lens flares in. And nobody a can forgive him. Star trek beyond showed us that the new films can go better. It learned from previous mistakes and even the lens flares and the shaky camera calmed down which gives us a feeling that the crew of the enterprise is now much more sure of themselves. To the nonsensical stuff: it's explainable and the explanations to those problems can give us some great details. Those details can help me astablish my own personal head canon. These were my words about the new films.😐 the only thing I got in this video was just hate.
Great video totally agree! First movie, Red Matter, really? Nero turning evil was as believable as Anakin killing younglings. Second movie, Admiral Marcus being so f'd up in a benevolent future? At least Vger was original. Now every time Star Trek needs a villain it's some ex or rogue Starfleet officer. Very weak storytelling indeed. This may be a stretch, but it's almost as if there is an engineered effort to destroy the franchises of Star Trek and Star Wars purposely.
The trend today is that everything in the Star Trek universe needs to be traced to humanity. S.T.D fans wanted an origin story for the Borg centered around section 31 and the control A.I. A Short Trek established that a Federation scientist was responsible for Tribbles. Basically the S.J.Ws want to place blame for all the evil in the world at the feet of humanity, and it all started with global warming.
Star Trek into Darkness started out as "the best" trek movie to date, but then... things went off the rails and crashed and burned. It's a shame, it could've and should've been great.
YESSSS! The "Dutch Angles"...…..in the old James Bond movies, Ken Adams always wanted establishing shots of his fantastic sets so that the audience could truly appreciate them as well as have a sense of place in the close-ups. I'm still not sure how that bridge set on these Trek films is actually laid out, but, not well; it appears to have been designed to be shot at Dutch angles, hence, has an illogical, chaotic layout. The original bridge set from TOS was actually copied by the CIA as a perfect control center, while the bridge from these movies seems like they would create an undercurrent of unease among the people who are forced to work in that environment, with people walking behind them, random transparent walls, needless harsh lighting that exist only to create lens flares, sitting in the middle of a controlled riot......
This was a good analysis, I like them as entertaining science fiction action films however they fail at evoking the philosophy and mythology of original Trek. I also feel that the dialogue is very childishly written and delivered, there is no sense of respect among the characters which is one of the things I loved about original Trek too
Totally agree with you 100%! I'm a lifelong Trekkie, and I've been saying for years that these new films are NOT true Trek. THANK YOU for clearly and concisely echoing my exact feelings! It's almost like you read my mind. And especially considering that your social media reach is far greater than my own, I'm eager to share this video with everyone! Cheers.
Those movies were a mess from start to finish. There was nothing "Trek" about them at all. It's hard to overstate how tonally wrong they are. They're the equivalent of remaking "Die Hard" as a musical courtroom drama.
Here’s the thing about Vulcans: they were violent and emotional before they embraced logic through the teachings of Surak. However, Spock wouldn’t have flown off the handle that quickly in the original series. The only times he did were when he was under alien influences, like spores or polywater intoxication. Other than that, Spock was a restrained character. However, just because he was logical, didn’t mean he was immune to sarcasm or snark. He frequently had snark-offs with McCoy. But, yeah, logical does not equal psychopathy
Re Spock/the Vulcans aren't "hiding some evil, emotional dark side." It was stated in TOS that in their past Vulcans were extremely war-like with passionate emotions, and hence via Surak, the suppression of emotions philosophy was adopted. Note: I am NOT defending the Abrams' portrayal of Spock; you made many excellent points about the inaccuracies in his character in the films.
This Kirk and TOS Kirk are different people. TOS Kirk had a good home life, and his father was an inspirational figure that lived to see him take command of the Enterprise. Abram's Kirk had a troubled childhood, with no strong male role models. The difference in character is reasonable.
I'd never seen Star Trek Beyond but based of what you've described is a subversion of Spock and McCoy advising Kirk not to accept promotion to Rear Admiral as Spock would point out in the Wrath of Khan: If I may be so bold it was mistake for you to accept promotion. Commanding a starship is your first best destiny anything else would be a waste of material.
It’s to bad that the reboot concept was wasted on the JJ Abrams films, i would have loved to have scene a captain Pike and young Spock tv series instead.
Of course what your past self didn't know is that the fourth JJ-verse Star Trek movie was cancelled in late 2018, apparently the "audience dressed as chairs" for "Star Trek: Beyond" was bad enough that it wasn't seen as a profitable venture.
JJ Abrams missed his true purpose: Directing/producing music videos. He could through as many visual effects as he wants at the screen and does not need to bother with story to connect them. You have to admit, all the new Star Trek/Wars movies would be a lot better as music videos. Hell, Star Trek: Beyond almost is a music video. It has a scene with the Enterprise NX (well, the same model) surfing a space wave made of explosions while the Beastie Boys are playing.
Not seeing the redesigned Enterprise clearly isn't a bad thong for me as I think it's hideously ugly. All the random bulges and unnecessary curves make it look like a partially deflated Macy's parade balloon version of the real Enterprise as drawn by a 5 year old.
I was really looking forward to a new Star Trek film when the first one was released. It was fun. Not really Star Trek, but fun. The second film just made me not want to watch the third. Same thing happened with the TV series. Watched the first episode with anticipation, mostly cringed during the second, and didn't watch any more.
I just recently watched Beyond and it felt like something intentionally written to be political - to me the message sounded like "Diversity is our strength" over and over - but maybe I read too much into it
The reason the Kirk scene in the beginning of Beyond had no meaning for the film was that it was actually written for and performed by a different character in the beginning of Star Trek pilot The Cage. Doctor coming with a drink and the Captain talking about his self-doubt about his place etc it's almost exactly the same scene.
"Remember, kids: It's not important if it is of high quality, only if it makes money"
- Mark Hamill
Mark must have been sarcastic or pissed at Ryan Johnson when he said that because in lots of other interviews you see Mark upset about the way thing went in Ep7 & 8.
no he isnt....wait what exactly do "you" mean by bender lol
Mark Hamill is exactly right. Then, there is there is the other effect: Short Term Thinking. Studio executives just want to find a director to do some formulaic bull manure and get huge returns, with no conception of the real potential for profit. Did the producers even bother to check where ST royalties come from? What type of idiot producer would have checked off on the JJ-prise, when AMT still invests in updating the molds for their model kits, based on the 1979 movie? Did they even think of the strategic games that did well in the 20th Century? I'll give them one thing, the uniforms looked OK. If people who were into ST enough to buy a uniform were to actually like these films, then there would be potential for sales, but other than that, the investors really missed the boat. The producers of ST are not making the money that they could have with a half-way descent film.
So true.
I love it when he said that. Mark Hamill says it how it is.
Carl urban nailed McCoy. That man is a chameleon!
I agree!.Urban was the best thing of those movies..Even down to the mannerisms..Gifted Actor!.
He was also in the Lord of the Rings movies as Eomer…I thought he was amazing in those too!!
LeVar Burton has echoed the same sentiment and been very vocal when asked about it. But he's stopped short of talking trash. He's a class act.
If Burton had directed Nemesis TNG could have gone out on a much higher note
That wouldn't have fixed the shocking script.
Yeah sure, class act that has turned into a self-victimizing wokey.
"Enterprise being a character" Janeway does a whole monologue about that in an episode of Voyager I just watched. "Years of hell II" Started chewing Tuvoc out over calling Voyager "just a ship"
The repeated destruction of the Enterprise really annoyed me.
muznick
Didn’t the original franchise take several movies before they blew up the enterprise in first contact. And even then they made major deal about it with Picard loosing his shit over the decision. Hell the entire movie practically set up as a changing of the guard like generations.
Haven’t seen any of the new movies, but I can see where a studio would think casually destroying the ship in each movie would appeal to a new audience while old fans would be severely disappointed.
They blew it up in Star Trek III but that was it for TOS, including the whole TV run. Never watched TNG movies because didn't really like it , except for Picard.
Repeated destruction of the Death Star also annoys me (perhaps more bored than annoyed).
William Truong
not nearly as annoying as repeated use of the death star. Spend a shit load of money and resources on a moon sized doom lazer, if that fails, build an even bigger one, and when that fails build a planet sized death star shot gun. And don't even get me started on the EU super weapons.
It would have been far more efficient to implement a droid for every home program. The masses are happy with the empire, because who wouldn't want a free droid Meanwhile the emperor has spies everywhere so if someone starts making trouble he can take out quietly, and if an entire colony has to be wiped out, he can initiate the skynet protocol, then claim it was just an unfortunate malfunction thats totally gonna be fixed in the next software patch.
seriously the Alliance from firefly made far more sinister space tyrants because they convinced people to willingly give up their freedom, and din't have to rely on overwhelming force, or ships so large you have to wonder if the emperor isn't compensating for something.
Admit it, we like to see the Enterprise as a character, but also we like to see that character as not being static. The use of the shuttlecraft, phasers and photon torpedoes brings it to life. The combat scenes in STII are arguably what make it to be considered the best of the Original's movies. In the Original series episodes the Doomsday Machine, the Ultimate Computer and the Tholian Web, wasn't it exciting to see other Constellation Class starships badly damaged? It reinforced the notion that space exploration is dangerous. All of the Original movies had a starship or vessel being destroyed or damaged.
JJ Abrams makes visually stunning sci-fi movies that lack everything including science and decent fiction.
My biggest complaint about that JJ films is that they make Kirk a buffoon. It was fine in the first movie to show Kirk as young and inexperienced, but by the 2nd movie, he should have been the Kirk we were familiar with.
The whole hand blowing up like a balloon scene went nowhere.
Gregory Floriolli ...He should have been like Shatner in the 2nd and 3rd movie
Gregory Floriolli I don’t mind that actually. The first movie it made sense like you say. The second movie was about Kirk adapting to the captain’s role. In the third movie he basically becomes the Kirk we know. It’s not exactly the Kirk we know but it’s close enough for an alternate reality. That’s just me anyway.
Instead we got the Kirk that Jane Jane is familiar with.
I think Beyond did a lot to make Kelvin Kirk feel more like Prime Timeline Kirk. He felt like a mature, competent leader by that movie.
I'm convinced JJ Abrams is the antichrist of scifi cinema.
😂that’s cold
Fully agreeing.
Star trek 2009 actually got me into the star trek tv shows and im thankful for that but after seeing the shows star trek 2009 felt far from what star trek actually is
AND that is with ST 2009 being the BEST of the three films! Very sad indeed.
@@laz7354 Star Trek Beyond was the best imo. It felt the most like Classic Trek.
@@danield.8233 I need to rewatch Beyond. It was also good and perhaps I was too hasty in putting it on the "Star Trek Discovery" side of things.
Wel at least some good came from that (i do enjoy the movies for what they are) hopefully if they reboot tng they will give more attention to detail with story and characterization
@@danield.8233 Nah, "Into Darkness" was the best; more story than the 1st, implies that some things are destined to happen in one way or another regardless of timeline damage...…...yeah, it had glaring faults, like Kirk being BROUGHT BACK FROM THE FUCKING DEAD (!!), and Cumberbatch used to play Ricardo Montalban's character (!!!!), and that cheesy action film climactic chase sequence, but, it had more heart than the 3rd film and more story than the 1st film.
I like your take on this and I would like to add that Abrams' version of Spock humanized him too much. Part of the delight of Spock is his alien behavior and idealized outlook on life.
Spock is literally half human. Early in his life, he struggled with containing the emotions that he inherited from his human mother. Not defending JJ here, since he's too stupid to realize this, but it's definitely part of his character.
So kann man es auch nennen...It didn't "humanize" him too much, it made him a complete psychopathic moron.
You left out the interstellar transporters, making Starships mostly redundant.
Jonathan Burns yeah, I hated that part two, and I love these movies.
interstellar transporters don't make starships useless because you can't beam to a place you can't see. You don't know where you will emerge unless you have ultra high resolution scanners that can perfectly analyse a planet over interstellar distances. While those transporters will make cargo and passenger ships redundant, exploratory vessels will still be in wide use charting unknown systems in order to expand the transwarp beaming network.
Still, I would have preferred this technology be properly explored in a narrative sense post Star Trek: Nemesis, where the technology could feasibly exist. It makes no sense having it in the TOS era.
TurkeySandvichs I know, and I think that’s why I don’t really like them. They don’t belong in this era.
TurkeySandvichs
I did say "mostly redundant".
Jonathan Burns Interstellar transporters would give Starfleet technology better than the Iconians ever had.
In reference to your comments about Spock in the newer films, despite knowing that Spock is half human and has a much harder fight to control his emotional responses than his fellow Vulcans, for which he was teased and bullied growing up, his character arc gave him the strength to overcome this "flaw" and become a stronger Vulcan than his contemporaries. Mr. Nemoy was an ideal actor to carry this roll, depicting that extended strength without saying a word. His poise, dignity and stiff upper lip stood as his war banner, and the few times we were privileged to see his banner fall, every one on that field noticed, no matter how quickly Spock lofted his colors again. This new "Spock" doesn't have the physical or mental skills Spock would have learned or taught himself by the end of his first decade on Vulcan.
As much as I respected and admired the original Spock, this "Spock" isn't even a caricature of his predecessor.
I call it Souless Trek.
That includes Discovery too.
Amen, Bro. I hate to say it, but Star Trek is deceased. It died pretty much with the close of DS9, although I have something of a fondness for Enterprise as a series. Voyager is ST blaspheme, but not so bad as Discovery and the Abrams "boot".
@@ajmittendorf DS9 is the peak of the franchise. Voyager never went all the way with it's premise which hurts the series. Enterprise was the End of Star Trek imo. Now it's just a rotten corpse.
@@christopherbarker1048 Well, I'd prefer to say it's a "rotting" corpse than a "rotten" one. To be honest, I'm hoping---not confidently, but still hoping---for a resurrection in Star Trek: Picard. I won't hold my breath, but I think that I shall keep my fingers crossed. :)
@@ajmittendorf Same.
Discovery had one of the Bad Robot goons, Alex Kurtzman, as a producer. It has nothing in that that made Stat Trek so popular. It has a central character who is an obnoxious badass and good at everything, the crew bicker with each other constantly, it is concertually dumb (mushroom drive) and has ruined the Klingons to make a stupid political point. Unwatchable trash.
The Voyage Home is by far my favorite. The interaction and authenticity of emotions between the crew was just uncanny. It really felt like watching real people. The rest of the story didn't even matter in that film.
That, and The Undiscovered Country. TOS era Trek at its finest!
Also, starships are not assembled on the surface of a planet. They are built in space.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! You are the only other fan I have heard acknowledge that fact.
I remember reading some technical manual years ago that the TOS Enterprise was build on earth but it was at the Alameda Shipyard in San Francisco not Iowa.
Well when the original enterprise was made it was made on earth in two different ship yards then they assembled in space
Lol. You all know the timeline was changed and you're going on about "it's supposed to be..."
Actually they do both - Utopia Planetia had surface facilities (shown on TNG) and orbital docks shown on Voyager both.
You can see complete Galaxy Class Hulls on the Surface of mars in one shot for example.
The 23rd Century USS Defiant was actually built on the Moon (according to her plaque - which mentions the sea of Tranquility base).
That said Iowa is an odd place to build them - they'd usually make them in San Francisco Fleetyards.
Before TNG was a thing they used to say the Saucers were assembled on the ground and flown up into orbit with the assistance of tractor tugs where the hull pieces were assembled - this is done for safety reasons so warp cores are not on a planets surface needlessly.
Though they could be assembled on a surface and then fuelled and tested in space. By Janeways time large cargo Transporters or industrial Tractorbeams were used to haul things into space from the surface. MARS & Luna was suited to construction due to the lower gravity.
But yeah building the whole thing in Iowa - is a little well "odd" to say the least.
I’m shocked you didn’t bring up the Spock and Uhura relationship
its was never a big criticism. its only criticised by brainless kirk and spock fan girls who think spock and kirk are gay and should be a couple.
spock and unura relationship was don well for a Vulcan human relationship, the only movie the relationship sucked was in star trek into darkness.
@@1twifail1 no what would've made more sense is Kirk with Uhura especially due to the iconic interracial kiss back in TOS. Putting Spock with her was most illogical.
@@kendallrivers1119 the tos kiss was meant for spock/uhura. also she and kitk in this timeline will have made no sense. her personality fits better with spock. she is more compatable with spock than kirk
6. SETS: The Enterprise engine room looks like it was shot in a brewery, because IT WAS SHOT IN A BREWERY!!!
The corridors look like the food court at the mall
Yep, totally destroyed what an engine room should look like, for all the millions wasted, they couldn't knock together an engine room set?!
I'm a dab hand at building stuff I'll throw one together in a fortnight for the next film, give me a couple of grand and a day in one of your hardware and radioshack stores. (Radioshack.... is that still a thing over there or has it gone the way of our Maplin electronics?)
Ok E-bay then.
Yeah, that look was HORRIFIC!
It reminded me of those cartoons where the character gets trapped inside a giant machine and is pushed and bent through tubes this way and that. But cartoon makers know to end the bit before it becomes tedious.
The brewery at least looks better than what S.T.D. is trying to pass off as Enterprises engine room.
You forgot that Abrams treats the Enterprise itself like a glorified red-shirt. That just takes a lot of quality away from the entire business.
I didn't even watch the last film. I barely remember the first two. I can remember far more detail in the original movies, and I haven't seen any of them in over a decade. It's like they aren't even trying. It's sad, I realized the other day that the stories and quality of BioWare's Star Wars games were better than the current movies. There are a lot of people in Hollywood that just need to go do something else. I almost don't care anymore. I'll eventually watch the last ST film. I'll just do so with no expectations.
"I can remember far more detail in the original movies, and I haven't seen any of them in over a decade. "
Isn't that the case with most modern movies?
I can't recall a single scene of Guardians of the Galaxy 2 apart from the intro...
The transformer movies I just do not recall.
TLA I choose NOT to recall. I did not even deign to see TLJ..... officially.
Beyond was actually pretty good and felt much closer to Trek than the previous two films. I think that had a lot to do with Jar Jar Abrams having minimal involvement. lol.
They also basically made Spock/ Kirk into superheros. Star Trek characters are Not superheros, they are Skilled, Thinking, PROFESSIONALS first!
I disagree that there's no explanation for Kirk's self-doubt in ST: Beyond. McCoy outright says it's because this Kirk grew up in his father's shadow, and now he's wondering if he can be his own man. This portrayal of Kirk grew up in different circumstances than Original Timeline Kirk, so there would naturally be a difference between the two portrayals.
Now, whether or not this explanation is a good one, and whether or not it is to the benefit or detriment of the film, is where the debate truly resides. Saying there's no explanation provided at all, though, is inaccurate. At least, that's how I see it.
You made the same point as me but better. It does make sense that he doesn't behave the same way - but that doesn't mean the film handles it well or is justified in it's choices.
Basically:
Star Trek 2009 - Great sci-fi action movie with a fun cast. Treats it's Trek roots with respect on the outside but ultimately is hollow on the inside.
Into Darkness - Simply the worst thing that has every had the Star Trek name associated with.
Beyond - Not as bad as Into Darkness but not that far ahead.
I think this would cascade over to how Spock then reacts. If Kirk isn't the take charge alpha captain, confident in his leadership but instead reckless & inconsistent, then Spock would develop differently in reaction to that, especially with the destruction of his home planet, the death of his beloved mother and the unique situation of having a future alternative of yourself.
Omni. Exactly - Original Timeline Kirk grew up with good fatherly support from a professionally competent but unextraordinary man, this Kirk grew up without a father as he'd famously died in a massive deed of self-sacrificing heroism. Like you I thought they made it very plain.
Something else that needs to be taken into consideration is they're all a lot younger in the Abrams verse. Dave keeps comparing them to the originals. But TOS Kirk and Spock were old veterans. They'd spent decades doing this. Abrams Kirk and Spock were greenhorns, they'd spent at best a couple years doing it.
Everyone was young, everyone knows they were different when they were younger. Kirk experiences self-doubt due to the lack of a father figure and his general young age. Keep in mind Kirk in the Abrams verse gets control of the enterprise years earlier than prime Kirk did. Prime Kirk served aboard other starships prior to getting command, Abrams kirk went straight from academy to captain.
So a lot of the complaints that Dave levels against the Abrams verse can really just be summed up as them being much younger.
If you watch all 3 movie's he is still the alpha male the leader when things need his complete attention he is exactly like the William Shatner version as fighter and take command how ever he does show he thinks about his father often because he never met him nor did he have a good father figure ever as you can see in the 2009 film
Spock was always a badass, but in his own way. In the original series, he was a badass because he was always calm and collected in the face of danger. Hardcore action was never what made Spock a badass. He just was a badass in his own, non-traditional way.
StarTrek:Beyond
1) Kirk wants to give up command of the Enterprise?
2) Spock cries out in pain when wounded?
3) Spock cries about his girlfriend?
God no just no.
Spock has cried multiple times in TOS:
1.) "The Naked TIme", he cries over his mother under the PSI 2000 virus influence.
2.) "The Galileo Seven", Spock cries out in pain when a boulder pins him down.
3.) "The Devil in the Dark", he cries out in pain when he first contacts the Horta with a mindmeld and then sobs in anguish during the remainder.
There's other examples of Spock showing emotion, like "The Cage"/"The Menagerie" when he grins at the discovery of the resonating plant. He also yells out in shock when only Number One and Yeoman Colt are transported.
Also, Kirk gave up command in the Prime TImeline, such as between the 5 year mission and TMP and he again gives it up sometime between then and TWoK.
Nowhereman10 oh yeah don't forget about the time Spock chopped up two whole onions for his famous mind meld stew!
The SJW's would have loved it if that were the case and I'd be sick to my stomach before going postal in the cinema. That would be the final insult to a Trek fan.
And Goku dies again, in the middle of the Enterprise being torn apart...cause he was entrusted to be one of the key engineers...
Lin Yen Chin red uniform= kiss o' death
What a perfect analogy off the JJ films. Everything you said is spot on. The SJW's that have took over Hollywood is ruining everything not just for movie goersbut on TV as well.
It's not so much about SJWs. I think that the bigger problem is that the quality of script writing as deteriorated terribly over the years. Navel gazing is now the same as being thoughtful, being complex means that you have to be angry a lot. Our biggest problem is that the current batch of scriptwriters and directors really don't know how to do their job in any way that is more than just superficial.
Kevin Korenke no its pretty much common knowledge that the most of the Hollywood elite is heavily leftest leaning. The new progressive democrats that cling to sociallist views. I would say t hat makes tje SJW's.
Well in my opinion both of you are right. The writers in today's Hollywood lack any creativity and in order to mask that fact they throw in tons of Political Correct bull shit to score points with SJW idiots who believe that seeing their political view in the movie some how makes their point of view correct or will make others who see the movie even care. about their view. All the creative writers that don't sell out to this SJW non sense won't be successful in today's world.
Ken Jett Nothing in the review was about SJW's in this particular case. This was about fake Star Trek movies. I agree with you too, though.
Ken Jett, I don’t think that SJWs are the issue. Star Trek was made by SJWs.
savage but absolutely on point
"This is not Spock"
Oh, THANK you for saying that.
Beyond is the only one that tried to be recapture that Trek feel.
As for the Vulcans, they were always a violent race until they started following Surak's teachings, as seen on Enterprise.
How so? Beyond was trash to my opinion
@@scinnyc if you've watched real trek then you would understand that beyond is the closest thing to it
@@ryanhuang5990 I've been been watching Star Trek since about '93 and I didn't like Beyond. Mostly because the villains sucked to my opinion. The vast majority of Star Trek fans don't even like the new Trek films at all. Beyond had good parts to it but it wasn't a good movie
@@scinnyc It WAS trash.
@@ryanhuang5990 In a way yes, but i.e. 2009 has a decent star trek feel, only with more money and a slightly over-flamboyant ship. The old formula just doesn't work (or make money) anymore. I prefer these JJ movies over Discovery for example. The tempo is better, it isn't depressing either and the acting choices are fine.
And the special effects (except for those horrible torpedoes) are fine as well, but even the torpedoes came straight out of TOS, so that's on 'real trek'. haha
Kirk in the Prime Timeline plenty of moments of self-doubt, though he usually came through it before the end of each episode it was featured, because, you know, TOS was highly serialized and the first six movies are are largely self-contained as well.
Some examples:
1. Kirk expresses his doubts to McCoy in a wonderful private moment in "Balance of Terror" over the decisions he's making in the battle with the Romulan raider.
2. In "The Ultimate Computer", Kirk expresses self-doubt, again to McCoy over the initially highly successful M5 computer and how Kirk will be replaced by it.
3. "The Motion Picture", Kirk again is filled with issues as he uses the V'Ger crisis to ram getting the Enterprise back and later again, McCoy has to talk him down after Decker rightly calls Kirk out following the debacle of the first attempt at going to warp.
4. "Wrath of Khan", Kirk is feeling his age and expresses his self-doubts first to McCoy and then to Carol Marcus over his age and what he should really be doing in his life at this point.
Kirk in the Kelvin Timeline is living in his father's shadow and as was made clear by Spock Prime, it is the lack of a strong father figure for this Kirk that lead to Kelvin Kirk leading a reckless life and then later this Kirk must live up to his father's legacy rather than make his own.
Star Trek Beyond is about Kelvin Kirk finally putting his demons to rest and becoming more like his Prime counterpart.
So, cool, Kirk with Daddy issues. How intriguing.
They are decent movies for a relaxing night, brain off and a lot of drinks and chips. The same can be said for pretty much ANYTHING, though.
As Star Trek movies they're an absolute train wre- well, starship wreckage, that's it.
Aurex
The only issue with that is as a Trekkie the voice in your mind telling you that this is not star trek.
Jim Knight, Well yes and to be honest I wouldn’t really mind a starship troopers in Starfleet uniforms episode if it was set during the Dominion war with the story being told from the perspective of Starfleet marines on the front lines that would be a fitting place for this level of action it would be a stark contrast to the other series and would show a side of the war not really touched upon.
I always thought it was Abrams playing Star Wars with Star Trek toys.
But he doesn't even know how to play w/ his Star Wars toys.
He was one of those kids that smashed his toys together until they broke.
Sound familiar? Abrams did the same thing to Star Wars.
And he will do the same thing to every franchise they give to him. Jar Jar Abrams is shite
10:20 - "The only person who doesn't see it coming is Mr. Super-Genius Khan" - Yeah, I thought that in the original though. When Spock said, 'if we do things 'by the book', hours could seem like days. We will see you in two days, by the book!" And I remember thinking the first time I saw that film that it was so obvious what that message meant, but the super genius Khan couldn't figure it out, apparently. And also couldn't figure out that spaceships can move in three dimensions, of course.
IIRC, there was a comic released just before ST2009, that filled in some of the backstory:
When it became clear that the supernova was going to annihilate Romulus, Spock and Nero begged the Vulcans for help, but Vulcan refused to give them red matter or the tech to make it, so when Romulus was destroyed, yes in his grief and rage Nero blamed Spock for not keeping his word and failing to stop it in time, but he also understandably blamed Vulcan for withholding the technology, and the Federation in general for not doing enough to help (and also he had convinced himself that they let Romulus die in order to take their territory).
I have no idea why this didn't make it into the movie.
That makes more sense. You're right, that should have been in the movie.
I'm pretty sure Chris Pine has said in the past that if a Star Trek 4 (or 14) were to happen, he'd want to do one with a more intelligent story and less action stuff. This is what i'd want to see from these films going forward, i'd happily watch another instalment if it was announced, I liked Beyond, 2009 and parts of into Darkness. I enjoy the cast they're some of the best bits of the films, not better than Shatner's Kirk or Nemoy's Spock but still pretty good.
Side Note: I doubt Discovery will get a film, its not as popular as other star trek series (considering that its only watchable if you pay for it in the US), not sure but a ST:14 might be a better call.
The cast in Abrams Trek are absolutely awesome. Kirk is a little too young but that's not a bad thing as he will age well into the role. I'm a real advocate of action scenes in the movies but I enjoy cerebral Trek, especially TNG. I would absolutely love to see a traditional cerebral Star Trek series with this cast. That would truly be outstanding.
They just officially announced a Star Trek 4.
Disco wont get a movie cause only paramount has the movie rights of trek.
@@bluebull399 The Abrams cast are fine but they do not and never will replace or erase the legacy and iconic statures of the original series cast. I highly doubt they'll ever make the world forget William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, James Doohan etc. because they owned those roles completely for which the new cast is just imitating.
@@kendallrivers1119 he said nothing like that he just said the Abraham cast was awesome.
I can't imagine Shatner (or a character he portrays) lacking in confidence, ever.
At the expense of Star Trek’s soul, same thing that putting me off from Star Wars. Its very sad. It’s good that we are getting smaller series that are giving is the fans a small fix. I completely agree with the character murder, but remember anything that would portray a man in a good way, it’s “toxic masculinity”.
I actually liked beyond the best. I think it was making some movements back towards the center, and I really liked the mccoy/spock relationship in the movie.
The changed humans in Beyond remind me of the Klingons in Discovery.
Except better. The new Klingon women look like human potatoes.
"Wreck it Abrams" has wrecked everything he gets his greedy little hands on..."Lost".."Star Trek"..."Star Wars"...And will probably RUIN "Mission Impossible" Franchise more and more before he's done
They had one of the best looking Enterprises designed with great potential for beauty shots, and we barely got to see any of it.
And they blow it the fuck up everytime they get the chance to!
I will admit I can't believe they've already made the leap to the 1701-A. I keep telling myself it's still not too late for them to turn in a quality Trek film. Even Discovery seems to have finally acquiesced to the fans somewhat by basically turning the season finale into a soft reboot, more in the vain of classic Star Trek. The filmmakers need to basically do a focus group and see what the fans would like to see in a future film. Honestly, some of the best story ideas have come from the fans.
Uh, the Enterprise of these JJ Trek films is the ugliest bastardization of the original version ever to be conceived. Just awful looking.
I
yes I'm afraid I havce to agree. It's awful looking compared to the original. The original Enterprise looks absolutely beautiful but the Abrams version looks horrible.
I don't understand all the hatred people harbour for the Ryan Church Enterprise, you literally only have to reduce the size of the nacelles and all the proportioning problems go away. Everything else looks and feels like what a Star Trek ship would, just a little less dated. I think it's more of an issue with people associating the reboot Enterprise with all the negative qualities of the films that are projected onto the ship.
It's always bothered me that the Enterprise looked much more high-tech in these movies than in TOS even though they're supposed to be prequels.
yeah Space Bees vs Beastie boys (ugh)
"Style over substance", a perfect description of Abrams' Star Wars films.
I will praise them once. In the film, Into Darkness, when the Enterprise appears to escape to warp and the trans-warp ship catches them, I was awestruck. I had heard and fantasized about trans-warp for many years and to first hear the monstrous sound (I saw it in IMAX), then have the ship show up, was amazing.
This is what makes the movies special, and is the sole reason why TV series like Star Trek are made as action films in the movies.
They tried to make a version of "Star Trek" for normies, so they made a generic space shoot-em-up special effects movie with Star Trek names slapped on, which turned out to be pointless because normies don't care about Star Trek in the first place.
Perfectly stated.
This crap is not Star-Trek.
The number 1 criticism for me is that at the end of the day it's not Star Trek it's your regular random sci-fi popcorn action movie with lens flare that calls itself Star Trek. Nothing really all that bad about the movies if they were their own thing, the 2009 one was decent for what it was but calling it Star Trek without the chemistry and cerebral nature isn't Star Trek. And then trying to replace Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley, Doohan, Takei, Nichols, Koeing etc. is just ludicrous.
All these points are spot on ... the JJ reboot is complete shite. I have seen them all but have managed to block it all out because I was bored to death.
I gave up on the Jar-Jar Abrams films after the first. It was an OK movie, but it was not Star Trek.
Come on, a cadet getting thrown out of the Academy being made Captain and given command? Starfleet having so few trained personnel they fill starships with cadets to go fight?
Enterprise built on the ground in Iowa?
They started bad and only got worse.
Hang on, what about red squad? They were out fighting battles still wet behind the ears. And DS9 is probably the best Trek ever made.
I watched some of the behind the scenes features on the first new Star Trek. They said that this is the largest Enterprise ever made, and to highlight that, they made it break frame, ie it extends beyond two screen edges. I think that was fine when they first show it, but there needed to be some later shots of it to show off the ship.
Boba Fett Yeah they made it almost 3 times the size of the original Connie. About the same as the galaxy class.
Newsflash, Dave. All characters in all modern movies, and TV, are more emotional. Emotion is used as a substitute for character. specifically as a substitute for principled characters expressing ideas they care about.
I'm a life-long Star Trek fan. I now completely and utterly loathe the JJ Abram's Trek. To me it is NOT canon. The Star Trek Continues films are my canon. After CBS/Paramount came out with their draconian fan film "guidelines", I took great joy in tossing my Blu Rays of the first two films and I haven't seen the third film, nor will I ever. To me, Star Trek is a beloved memory, destroyed by clueless, money worshipping marketroids.
Well it isn't supposed to be canon any more than Worf Being Married to Troi was.
"Lens flares will look dated in the future" GOT THAT STRAIGHT!
It doesn't get more beautiful of a ship than the refit film Connie.
IMO the TOS movie era Star Trek ships were the best looking. Sci Fi has become really over designed and flashy in the last 20 or so years, but in the 80's designs were kept a bit more grounded, probably because they were limited by budget and the need to build physical models.
Brett Cooper, I thought that for years and years, and still do, sort of. But the original design has kind of reemerged for me. I've seen a number of websites where they've taken the original Matt Jeffries design and just very subtly updated it -- not changing any of the dimensions or major elements at all, just with more surface detail, better running lights, a little more detail to the engine nacelles, etc. And MAN it really looks fantastic. Easily as good at the movie refit Constitution, IMHO, or even better. (You can see just one example of the kind of work I mean here: deg3d.biz)
One note about Kirk's doubts. This is explored in the original TV series. Kirk's greatest fear is losing command of the Enterprise and doubts his abilities. This is explored in at least 2 episodes that I watched recently. But, yes the movies do dwell on this a bit too long. We also have to keep in mind that these movies take place in a parallel universe, so some characteristics may be different than Roddenberry's universe. I haven't seen the 3rd film yet though, so it could be as bad as I've heard.
Water pipes in a starship Engine Room?!? Pure caca.
coolal19 yeah and I swear it looked like those pipes had asbestos insulation on them
Yep there is also a concrete floor and a Brick wall off to one side of a control console too.
coolal19 they actually do have water pipes but they're hidden behind panels.
Not sure about all of you, but it totally looked like a brewery to me, not a starship engineering section
iirc I once heard in another youtube vid that the pipes highlighted were they shot the engine room for the ship in. Which was a brewery
Another thing of note, the Star Trek Beyond poster is a rip off of the one used for Star Trek Six: the Undiscovered Country.
When Beyond first came out and i saw the trailer, it immediately put me off. I did a vid on it once where i called it Fast And Furious in Space.
Good looking generic action films nothing more.
JJ verse + Discovery, kind of hard to still want to keep on watching ... Same thing for SW, Rogue One aside.
Are you sure you're not talking about Discovery?
You missed: Stolen Concept + Mystery Box + Subverted Expectations = JarJar's entire repertoire.
I didn't recognize it in 2009, but once you see it, you can't miss it.
The Black Fleet Trilogy, by Joshua Dalzelle. Warship, Call to Arms, and Counterstrike. If you want a wonderful realistic-scifi read, I highly recommend it. The way it's written, the warship itself is practically a character as well as her crew, much like the older Star Treks. Like I said, Anyone who likes sci-fi should read it! The audio book versions are on TH-cam as well.
*HERE'S THE REAL TWO REASONS WHY BAD ROBOT FILMS FAILED??*
*#2)* It was produced, written, acted by people who knew nothing about the Star Trek Legacy. They ripped the most important aspects what made Star Trek *"Star Trek".* It's heart. You can spend all the money can. Do all the camera tricks you can. It wouldn't matter. Perfect example of this was in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. For all purposes. A movie that would of killed many franchises. But it did not cause how flawed ST 5 was. It ended keeping it's heart intact. Spock, Bones & Kirk singing Row Row Your Boat by a campfire.
*#1)* Toys Toys Toys Toys & greed. There was two camps who owned the right's of Star Trek.
Viacom owned the TV series (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT) rights. Paramount owned the film (all 10 films) rights. Also owns the still profitable luxurious toy figurine rights. Viacom wanted to restart the Star Trek franchise first with films. Then a TV series to go with their CBS All Access streaming service. Paramount didn't want to do any films. Viacom paid Paramount for the rights to use TOS names for their film. With one stipulation. Viacom must make their Star Trek characters 25% different then TOS characters are. Viacom agreed since they saw $🤩$ for toys. Viacom, either after the first Abrams film or second.. We learned the real reason of this Kelvin timeline. *TOYS!*
Aftermath - Both Viacom & Paramount merged into Paramount Global. CBS ALL ACCESS became Paramount+. Movie franchise is basically done. No fourth film (2023) has been green lit. Bad Robot / Secret Hideout still producing Trek nobody wants. With the *TOYS* not selling at all.
*TOYS KILLED THE STAR TREK FRANCHISE.*
There won't be a fourth film. This JJ Abrams trash has run its course.
Sure there will, it'll just be based after STD's cancellation.
There will be. This time it will be produced by JJ Abrams and directed by Quentin Tarantino and will be rated R. With the screenwriter of The Revenant doing the script.
Sounds like a joke comment, except I know it's true, I bet it's bloody awful.
Hey now. While the Kirk era Kelvin Timeline does look like it ran its course, there is speculation that the Next Generation era will get the KT treatment. And yes. I know this is a year old comment I'm responding to.
@@ninjalite7882 Oh good god, please no.
Remember that Spock is half human. He is probably trying to act more Vulcan than Vulcans in order to prove himself worthy of the name. That's why Spock in TOS is always overdoing it on the logic and emotionless front, until something, like chemicals, or being sent back to a time before logic ruled Vulcan, that those things he is suppressing come out. As you said, however, the JJ version is nothing like Leonard Nimoy's thoughtful portrayal.
1. SULU ISN'T GAY
And that is according to the very gay man who played him.
He was meeting his brother and niece on the station. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Now the Writer of Star trek Discovery claims that The Enperor's titles contains a reference to Hoshi.
HOWEVER ; he also said until someone says that on screen that is just his stated intention and not "Canon" one could argue the same about Sulu - we don't know if that Was Damura or not and we don't know if that was another relative looking after her or his "Husband" as the reference was not overt.
Heck it could be taken that he was Bi and that he took up with some guy after he was divorced or widowed - we simply don't know - heck he could have adopted her - or she could be his ward or niece we just don't know. as we didn't here someone say "Oh look Daddy's here - we've missed you honey" or something like that stating that this was Sulu's Daughter and intimate friend as he didn't refer to him as a relative but as a lover.
They didn't do that - so they can say he's gay as much as they like it's not on screen now is it. it's implied not stated.
So if they ever wanted to tweak that it allows it to be reinterpreted - heck I don't think most people gave it a second though if they'd not been following the twitter storm about it.
Spock isn't gay either, but Quinto is. Are there seriously people who think Sulu is gay because Takei is? There are straight actors who play gay characters and gay actors who play straight actors. Its called acting. Duh!
As evidence I present Sulu's daughter who piloted the USS Enterprise B in Star Trek Generations.
That's why I like to call him "Jar Jar Abrams!
The entire thing is done to hook a new generation which causes it to veer wildly off Star Trek cannon. I would have enjoyed it more as a stand alone franchise instead of using the Star Trek name to sell tickets.
"Space action films with the veneer of Star Trek." You can stop watching the video right there. That pretty much sums it up completely.
To some degree, I do think it makes sense that the Reboot version of Kirk is not as self-confident and strongly devoted as TOS Kirk, given that there is a significant difference between the two versions of the character: in the rebooted timeline, Kirk's father died moments after his birth, something which it's implied would not have happened without Nero's messing with history. Lacking a father would significantly change who James Kirk is, so it's excusable that this version of him wouldn't be as confident or as sure-footed.
That said, there are plenty of other things that compound from this issue, as Kirk's upbringing is implied to be more that of a ruffian in this continuity, which creates a bit of a problem for how he's portrayed. See, if we are to agree that Kirk's insecurities and lack of confidence here stems from an unstable past, he would be most apprehensive about his responsibilities at present and not about his ability to fulfill the mission. If anything, a promotion ought to be a frightening proposition to him-higher position means more responsibility and getting pulled into an environment where he just doesn't belong.
What I'm getting at is that it's entirely reasonable for this version of Kirk to have significant insecurities that he didn't have back in TOS, but also that the insecurities he's been given don't make any sense.
I fully agree with all your points on this topic, especially the part on Spock.
I enjoy most of the old Treks even though I've never really considered myself a "fan", but man even I could see what a joke the reboots were...
So I analysed your video and I think you were completely wrong about the characters, the villains or the story. Here is my table of contents: nero spock, kirk,krall (there's also about the story and philosophy) . 1. Nero in the 09 movie was a perfect mirror of spock, but first let's look at his backstory starting with the supernova. The supernova was there for months. When it started, ambassador spock was actually on vulcan. He convinced the vulcans by the supernova- threat. After he did it, he convinced the romulans that he would save them. He refitted his ship and then the unthinkable happened. The supernova destroyed romulus. Nero saw the destruction of his planet and he was now the last surviving romulan. Weeks were gone by and spock stopped the supernova. The romulans thought the federation would save them but the federation failed. Neros plan when he was in the past was to create a romulus which exists free of the federation. A romulus without the 'looser-federation' might be able to prevent the disaster. Also, the supernova happens 154 years in the future! He has more than plenty of time to warn them! And Nero isn't the picture of a perfect healthy romulan NO. After the kelvin rammed into neros ship the Shields of neros ship were down and because he was at the border to the klingon empire some klingon warbirds arrived and Nero was captured. He spent those 25 years in klingon prison. The klingons used neros ship as a source for new technology. This is why the federation was suddenly so militaristic in into darkness because earth was pretty much defenseless after the o9 movie. In the o9 movie we were set up for logic vs emotion sort of theme. Young Spock and Nero both lost their home world and a loved one. But nero as a romulan reacted emotionally, and spock reacted logically. Both of them had an anger in them. Nero chose destruction and death and spock chose friendship. The lesson of this movie is that we should balance out our logic and emotion. St o9 explored how emotion harms us, and into darkness explored how logic can be bad (more to that later) so now to kirk and spock. In into darkness at the beginning spock tries to sacrifice himself for his crew. So the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few right? If someone sacrifices himself for the many, then the many are sad about that death and they will not be so happy. This shows how stupid cold logic can be. When kirk sacrifices himself for his crew, spock now understands why kirk saved him in that vulcano and he is able to feel those emotions he tried to hide in the first film. - Kirk : the kirk in the new movies never had a father which showed him how to solve problems, instead he got a father which he never liked. In into darkness, (after the scene on niburu) it is clearly stated that kirk really isn't ready for the captains chair because he lacks the crucial lesson he never learned on the kobayashi maru test. When the uss vengeance wants to fire at the enterprise we see that kirk now got the lesson from the kobayashi maru test. He now does everything for his crew making him believe in no-win scenarios. Then he knew how he's gonna really fix this situation is by giving his own live for his crew just like his father. In star trek beyond definitely see that the crew of the enterprise definitely grew over the years like kirk. Kirk is now much more like his original version same with spock. He's now one year older than his father and he asks to find meaning to the work he's doing. -krall: krall was born in a world with terror and a constant threat of destruction. He sees humanity as safest, strongest and most abt to survive. It must have been hard for him to see his biggest enemy unite with humanity. He thinks that bad stuff brings the better good. In the cold war massive technological advancements were made by the soviets and the United States during the cold war and they achieved it by competition. The philosophical question star trek beyond asks is: are we relying on those who might let us go down? You guys should note: the hate of the fans made star trek beyond a flop and after that star trek discovery was created. The perfect anti- trek shitshow nobody cares about. To the visuals: at least jj admitted that he put too many lens flares in. And nobody a can forgive him.
Star trek beyond showed us that the new films can go better. It learned from previous mistakes and even the lens flares and the shaky camera calmed down which gives us a feeling that the crew of the enterprise is now much more sure of themselves. To the nonsensical stuff: it's explainable and the explanations to those problems can give us some great details. Those details can help me astablish my own personal head canon. These were my words about the new films.😐 the only thing I got in this video was just hate.
Great video totally agree! First movie, Red Matter, really? Nero turning evil was as believable as Anakin killing younglings. Second movie, Admiral Marcus being so f'd up in a benevolent future? At least Vger was original. Now every time Star Trek needs a villain it's some ex or rogue Starfleet officer. Very weak storytelling indeed. This may be a stretch, but it's almost as if there is an engineered effort to destroy the franchises of Star Trek and Star Wars purposely.
The trend today is that everything in the Star Trek universe needs to be traced to humanity. S.T.D fans wanted an origin story for the Borg centered around section 31 and the control A.I.
A Short Trek established that a Federation scientist was responsible for Tribbles. Basically the S.J.Ws want to place blame for all the evil in the world at the feet of humanity, and it all started with global warming.
Star Trek into Darkness started out as "the best" trek movie to date, but then... things went off the rails and crashed and burned. It's a shame, it could've and should've been great.
Can I at least say I did like Urban's portrayal of Bones and will miss his work on those films.
Yes, you may. I concur. Karl Urban's McCoy was pretty much spot on.
YESSSS! The "Dutch Angles"...…..in the old James Bond movies, Ken Adams always wanted establishing shots of his fantastic sets so that the audience could truly appreciate them as well as have a sense of place in the close-ups. I'm still not sure how that bridge set on these Trek films is actually laid out, but, not well; it appears to have been designed to be shot at Dutch angles, hence, has an illogical, chaotic layout. The original bridge set from TOS was actually copied by the CIA as a perfect control center, while the bridge from these movies seems like they would create an undercurrent of unease among the people who are forced to work in that environment, with people walking behind them, random transparent walls, needless harsh lighting that exist only to create lens flares, sitting in the middle of a controlled riot......
im sure tarantino will make the thematically deepest movie of the four^^
This was a good analysis, I like them as entertaining science fiction action films however they fail at evoking the philosophy and mythology of original Trek. I also feel that the dialogue is very childishly written and delivered, there is no sense of respect among the characters which is one of the things I loved about original Trek too
I wish that every star trek movie following First Contact had the same quality, that was the best one imo
Totally agree with you 100%! I'm a lifelong Trekkie, and I've been saying for years that these new films are NOT true Trek. THANK YOU for clearly and concisely echoing my exact feelings! It's almost like you read my mind. And especially considering that your social media reach is far greater than my own, I'm eager to share this video with everyone! Cheers.
Those movies were a mess from start to finish. There was nothing "Trek" about them at all. It's hard to overstate how tonally wrong they are. They're the equivalent of remaking "Die Hard" as a musical courtroom drama.
Here’s the thing about Vulcans: they were violent and emotional before they embraced logic through the teachings of Surak. However, Spock wouldn’t have flown off the handle that quickly in the original series. The only times he did were when he was under alien influences, like spores or polywater intoxication. Other than that, Spock was a restrained character. However, just because he was logical, didn’t mean he was immune to sarcasm or snark. He frequently had snark-offs with McCoy. But, yeah, logical does not equal psychopathy
Love to see you review or even react to each episode of Star Trek Continues.
Yes, PLEASE
Re Spock/the Vulcans aren't "hiding some evil, emotional dark side." It was stated in TOS that in their past Vulcans were extremely war-like with passionate emotions, and hence via Surak, the suppression of emotions philosophy was adopted. Note: I am NOT defending the Abrams' portrayal of Spock; you made many excellent points about the inaccuracies in his character in the films.
Thank you Dave. You have hit it on the head!
Your definition of JJ's Kirk? -Spot on. Thank you.
This Kirk and TOS Kirk are different people. TOS Kirk had a good home life, and his father was an inspirational figure that lived to see him take command of the Enterprise. Abram's Kirk had a troubled childhood, with no strong male role models. The difference in character is reasonable.
I'd never seen Star Trek Beyond but based of what you've described is a subversion of Spock and McCoy advising Kirk not to accept promotion to Rear Admiral as Spock would point out in the Wrath of Khan: If I may be so bold it was mistake for you to accept promotion. Commanding a starship is your first best destiny anything else would be a waste of material.
Once again a beautiful review of all that is wrong with the JJ movies! Thank you - from Trekies everywhere!
For some reason...
... half of the Abrams Enterprise looks like a fucking hair dryer and its bridge resembles a bathroom of a classy nightclub.
It’s to bad that the reboot concept was wasted on the JJ Abrams films, i would have loved to have scene a captain Pike and young Spock tv series instead.
Of course what your past self didn't know is that the fourth JJ-verse Star Trek movie was cancelled in late 2018, apparently the "audience dressed as chairs" for "Star Trek: Beyond" was bad enough that it wasn't seen as a profitable venture.
JJ Abrams missed his true purpose: Directing/producing music videos. He could through as many visual effects as he wants at the screen and does not need to bother with story to connect them.
You have to admit, all the new Star Trek/Wars movies would be a lot better as music videos. Hell, Star Trek: Beyond almost is a music video. It has a scene with the Enterprise NX (well, the same model) surfing a space wave made of explosions while the Beastie Boys are playing.
Not seeing the redesigned Enterprise clearly isn't a bad thong for me as I think it's hideously ugly. All the random bulges and unnecessary curves make it look like a partially deflated Macy's parade balloon version of the real Enterprise as drawn by a 5 year old.
I was really looking forward to a new Star Trek film when the first one was released. It was fun. Not really Star Trek, but fun. The second film just made me not want to watch the third. Same thing happened with the TV series. Watched the first episode with anticipation, mostly cringed during the second, and didn't watch any more.
my biggest complaint is JJ can't write an ending and his magic box ted talk is so true.
I just recently watched Beyond and it felt like something intentionally written to be political - to me the message sounded like "Diversity is our strength" over and over - but maybe I read too much into it
Since its been almost four years that the 4th one has been announced, let's hope it doesn't happen.
Wasn't there magic space beaming over vast distances in new trek 2, rendering space travel obsolete
The reason the Kirk scene in the beginning of Beyond had no meaning for the film was that it was actually written for and performed by a different character in the beginning of Star Trek pilot The Cage. Doctor coming with a drink and the Captain talking about his self-doubt about his place etc it's almost exactly the same scene.