Star Trek

Normally I would rate this a three-star, but since the reviews are outrageously positive, I will give it a two-star to stress the negative part. I won’t give it a one-star, because it’s not terrible. First off, I don’t like all the western elements. That makes it kind of cheesy. I also don’t like the actors. They are more slender, more lightly built, and have smaller, narrower faces and higher-pitched voices. Why did they choose Zachary Quinto for Spock? Leonard Nimoy was MUCH better, but he’s old and deceased, so they could have done an actor with a comparably deep voice.. Why wouldn’t they choose an actor with a profound bass voice for Spock? Chris Pine wasn’t as bad a choice for James T. Kirk. They could have chosen a better actor than Simon Pegg for Spock. Simon Pegg has a high-pitched countertenor voice. James Doohan had a deeper voice and a larger face. They should have chosen an actor with a somewhat larger face and not such a high-pitched voice. It should have been tenor voice for Scotty, baritone voice for James T. Kirk, a bass voice for Spock, and a tenor voice for Chekov. Also, the graphics seem like a lot of matte painting. The nebulae look handpainting-like. The graphics are not very sharp. I don’t know how to describe them.

Before any of you 2000s-and-beyond kids say, "You fans of the OG don't get the picture," you may want to dig a little deeper yourselves. Take it from a viewer who respects STAR TREK: the Original Series as much as the three follow-ups (Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager). And who DOES see the big picture in this, STAR TREK XI. My mind to your mind. My thoughts to your thoughts. I am taking us through a contrast between the genuine article and the 2009 cinematic reboot. On the interpersonal front, the classic series shows Enterprise crew with a seamless chemistry, even though action and dialogue could have used a wee touch of improvement. Call-and-response exists between James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock as polar opposites--brawn vs brain, outgoing vs solitary--complimenting each other. The same going between turned-off Dr. McCoy and unfazed Spock. Then there is Montgomery (Scotty) Scott treating the Enterprise, a character in itself, like his baby and his lady faire. Pavel Chekov and Hikaru Sulu may not utter the best/most lines nor make the most moves; yet they too move the story along as other consequential crew members citing and riding out what's going on. Oh, and Lt. Uhura's tendency to think outside the scientific box did not go unnoticed by her peers, certainly not by McCoy, Kirk, or Spock. The 2009 reboot displays blunt indiviaualism as opposed to the former collectivism. The social aura of the crew is scattered, leaving little to no sense of comradery between the principal unit. Showing Spock (Zachary Quinto) as a stoic depressant; Kirk (Chris Pine) as a manic rebel with no aim; McCoy (Karl Urban) as a subtly nervous wreck; Scotty (Simon Pegg) as an out-of-place unappreciated mechanic; and Uhura (Zoe Saldana) as a sharp-toned, smart-alec, unimaginative space diva. Not to mention, Romulan rogue Nero (Eric Bana) being reduced to the very species his people sneer at: Klingons. Summarily, everybody acts and speaks AROUND each other instead TO one another. In terms of vibe, as aided by pacing and musical score, the Original Series shows a stimulating sense of overall adventure. It also accurately implies when the going gets rough and there is little time to think. It is either attack or fall back. And the overall mission: TO EXPLORE STRANGE NEW WORLDS. TO SEEK OUT NEW LIFE AND NEW CIVILIZATIONS. TO BOLDLY GO WHERE NO ONE HAS GONE BEFORE. While the pacing and score of the 2009 re-telling implies extreme distress worthy of slow-motion and echoes, even during the calmest of moments. An atmosphere of dysfunction and disarray. An emphasis on saving the homeworld rather than exploring foreign ones. Understandable yes, due to mad Nero 'avenging' burning Rome--I mean, Romulus. But still... And the Enterprise...is just some rounded-out, warp-drive yacht. Then there is GENE RODDENBERRY versus JEFFREY (J.J.) ABRAMS. Roddenberry's STAR TREK is a notably seperate entity from STAR WARS--and from the later LOST. Abrams tries to combine the three, giving, yes, a unique flare to the piece, but also straying away from Roddenberry's bottom line. His overall seeking out of comradery between distinct parties AND making interstellar travel and exploration a more candid adventure. Summarily, Abrams focuses more on the surface of the thing, plot-driven; whereas Roddenberry emphasizes the subtext of the mission, character-driven. One redeeming quality, by both projects: the presence of the one and only TRUE Spock. LEONARD NIMOY. THE MELD IS BROKEN. You may choose what telling you will. Both charter the same course, though on differing social and emotional terrain. YET. Yet it is ONLY LOGICAL to remember and honor the very first. Without which there is no next.

Really wish they made a fourth. It’s a shame about Anton. This movie is great. The series is great. Wouldn’t be the same without Anton.

One must like it.

Also iTunes needs to bring the Spanish sub of this movie. It’s been way too long.

Awesome!

How does this movie not have Spanish subtitles? Every other language is available. Ridiculous.

This turned out to be so much cooler than I expected!

Worst Star Trek. Ever. Show complete lack of imagination. The creators had to take a wonderful idea & story & “improve it” with superficial plot & over done cinematography. The story has no attraction or entertainment value, it is a shame, the Star Trek universe is dead. I feel bad for the actors, they might get two movies more but after that....

excellent