Can someone fucking tell me what the point of this movie was or why it was even made?

Can someone fucking tell me what the point of this movie was or why it was even made?

Star Trek 2009
>crazy plot involving time travel, as well as devastating repercussions to both the prime universe as well as the movie universe
>actual threat to the universe with the only romulan involved plot line to ever have any meaningful results
>movie did the impossible by being faithful to fans while rebooting the franchise for normies

Into Darkness
>nostalgia plot involving one of the most notorious villains in Star Trek history
>devastating repurcussions as Section 31 attempts to assassinate Kirk for knowing too much about them using Khan to build massive super weapons
>foreshadows a potential future massive conflict between the Federation and the Klingons
>wasn't the greatest movie ever but it was good and Khan was a pimp.

Beyond
>plot devolves down to "abloobloo federation never found us fuck them"
>plot is best summarized by their captain being terrible at his job and not being able to keep his crew alive on an m class planet
>couldn't fix his ship even though some fucking random girl unfamiliar with federation technology was able to do it
>somehow amasses an entire fucking army out of nowhere??????????
>movie did not use 50 years worth of heritage or themes, really speak to star trek as a whole, and at the end of the day could have been the plot of an average episode in a random season of star trek

Why in the FUCK was this movie so bad?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=drarLbzqdAA
youtube.com/watch?v=i-c17FTfMDE
youtu.be/tRmRMnVULs8?t=509
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I enjoyed it. I've also only seen the reboot films.

youtube.com/watch?v=drarLbzqdAA

it really did suck didn't it?
Feels like the worst TOS episode, and no not so bad it's good but just plain boring

>captain being terrible at his job

To celebrate the 50th anniversary of Star Trek and to make a profit for paramount.

...

Quips. It literally only existed for quips.

Really this movie could have been a good mid season 2 parter or something in a season of Star Trek, but fuck if the movie feels forced. Everyone is getting bored of their jobs, and only this life and death scenario can rekindle everyone's passion for exploration? Why show us you are destroying the ship in the trailer? Why destroy the ship if you are going to give them an almost identical ship at the end? Even Generations made losing the Enterprise as a huge, significant moment in Star Trek history, and it marked the end of an era and the official closure of the TNG TV era - and they got a sweet new ship for the next 3 movies

Why does this fucking movie exist?

No idea; personally, all three of the new movies do not represent Trek well at all and on top of that they are just stupid action flicks at this point.

Also, seeing with the Comic-Con panel for the new Star Trek: Discovery in what Bryan Fuller was playing it out to be, is probably going to be riddled with SJW crap.

Trek is dead.

i think you mean search for spock, but yea that was a huge moment in a much better movie.
not even the best of TNG films but it seems like a damn masterpiece in comparison.
I think it has to exist for 50th anniversary bs, everything else was either SJW crap or laziness

Star Trek has always been the SJW of its time kneegrowmancer

True, but at least compared to modern day standards, it was pretty subtle. It was not "injected" as much into our face as it probably will be in this new show.

And at least back then, there were some good. simple, points that were fair, and not over-demanding of ridiculous crap compared to the SJW's of today.

Kirk literally fought his polar opposite and wasnt even the main character anymore. The whole crew had a more equal use of screentime and plot involment.

Just watched that video, they guy is right. It many aspects it was bad.

I give it a 7/10 as the effects were holding a lot of the movie up. The plot was gone for me though essentially as I got half way through the movie.

Can we agree that this is the most retardest movie ever

>Kirk's character arc is that he is bored of peace and by the end of the film learns that the only time he feels alive is when the lives of millions are in peril and he can feel like a hero
>Bad guy's motivations are that he fought people in the military and he can't fight people in star fleet so he decides to use a superweapon that genocides people instead of just fighting them
>Pegg exploits Leonard Nemoy's death to use as a plot point and character development for Spock but it leads absolutely nowhere
>The crew is immediately separated as soon as they arrive so there is absolutely no time for them to grow and develop as characters by interacting with each other so they spend most of the film dicking around
>The Enterprise travels through the dangerous nebula with very little effort and in apparently no time at all
>At the end of the film drone fighter ships apparently have warp drives since they too seem to be able to bypass the dangrous nebula very quickly
>Bad guy is against unity yet his entire army is composed of drones
>Good guys argue that unity is good but the drone army's unity is the very thing that defeats them in the end
>An alien elf girl and a scotsman are able to repair a several hundred year old space ship by the time it takes the plot to move forward even though at the end of the film a time lapse shows an entire crew building a new enterprise
>the Franklin has to be dropped off a cliff to go to the atmosphere for some reason
>they ripped off Mars Attacks to beat the bad guys

>not even the best of TNG films but it seems like a damn masterpiece in comparison.

The TNG films had practically no budget, by movie standards. A 35 million dollar budget for a IP based heavily in SciFi is just tiny. In the end, they really felt like they just upped the budget of the TV show, instead of making a full on movie.

But even then, Generations you got the death of Kirk and the death of the Enterprise - and both of those stuck. Hearing Shatner whine about how he wasn't going to be in 2009 Star Trek was hilarious, cause it's like "fuck off you are already dead"

>No idea; personally, all three of the new movies do not represent Trek well at all and on top of that they are just stupid action flicks at this point.
>riffled with SJW crap

Okay first off Star Trek has always been SJW heaven, it's just that what was SJW 20 years ago while TNG and Voyager were on have just become our modern day values.

Second, Star Trek has always had action, and 2009 pleased the VAST MAJORITY of Trek fans and was true to the source material. Into Darkness was a bit more actiony without substance, but it still had key themes true to the Star Trek universe.

You want a 200 million dollar budget exploration film where the Enterprise gets stuck in a black hole so they have to reverse the phase polarity and channel a graviton beam through the deflector dish to get out? Is that what you fucking want? 2 hours of them on the Bridge and in Engineering talking technobabble about a solution while someone says how if they don't get out in the next hour the ships is going to get destroyed?

>Kirk somehow thinks that a desk job as a rear-Admiral is more fulfilling than traveling around in a space-ship
>bad guy with a crew of 2 for some reason is able to take over planet full of mining operation drones who somehow have life rejuvenating powers that turn you into an alien for some reason
>The bad guy drone ships don't detect the Franklin's energy signatures when it takes off during the middle of them all leaving to attack the Yorktown even though the Franklin only had a visual cloak
>Alien elf girl's revenge subplot with the subcommander is never resolved
>Alien elf girl does not use clever tricks to beat alien subcommander like it was established earlier and instead just punches him
>Large chunks of boring action scenes and nothing happened in the movie so when the film remembered that it had to wrap up some character arcs it did it all in the last 2 minutes.

Seriously, you have to suffer from some sort of mental retardation to think this movie is good

>>Bad guy's motivations are that he fought people in the military and he can't fight people in star fleet so he decides to use a superweapon that genocides people instead of just fighting them

SPOILERS, obviously

His motive is that him and his crew went MIA somehow, and StarFleet never found them. He takes this to mean they just abandoned him for no fucking reason, so he wants revenge.

This also ignored how he is on a perfectly habitable M class planet with vegetation and animal life, and somehow results in his crew getting killed off entirely even though the ship is functioning enough to at the very least provide shelter.

Meanwhile he can't get his crew to repair his ship but some fuckweasle cunt was able to do it BY HERSELF, the fuck?

In the end, he is a BAD CAPTAIN and had a piss poor crew that was unable to either get a distress beacon out, send a probe out, use any of that technology or ships they discovered to contact star fleet (even though he had the technology to monitor all of star fleets coms from INSIDE THE NEBULA / ON THE FUCKING PLANET)

It's such a bad plot once you think about it, it basically gives the main character no motives except being a terrorist... But a straight up terrorist is a more compelling plot, like what we saw with Harrison at the beginning of Into Darkness.

>Okay first off Star Trek has always been SJW heaven, it's just that what was SJW 20 years ago while TNG and Voyager were on have just become our modern day values.

>Second, Star Trek has always had action, and 2009 pleased the VAST MAJORITY of Trek fans and was true to the source material. Into Darkness was a bit more actiony without substance, but it still had key themes true to the Star Trek universe.

I don't see how at all it stays with the source material when it essentially is in the JJ verse instead of the Prime universe. It rapes the Enterprise by making it this unrealistically huge and awful looking ship. It adds a crew that plays to the pandering and ever so growing modern audience with its wise-crack and shitty jokes. It destroys Vulcan for no good reason besides "muh Romulus", the new Spock is a joke. It was essentially Star Wars, but calling itself Star Trek.

It was pathetically bad and not at all really Trek.


>You want a 200 million dollar budget exploration film where the Enterprise gets stuck in a black hole so they have to reverse the phase polarity and channel a graviton beam through the deflector dish to get out? Is that what you fucking want? 2 hours of them on the Bridge and in Engineering talking technobabble about a solution while someone says how if they don't get out in the next hour the ships is going to get destroyed?

Yes

the fuck is this guy doing with his mouth? Is he fucking chewing gum? And why does he keep pausing in the middle of sentences to breathe in (and through his mouth no less).

In future, please only post videos made by people who are not developmentally challenged

>'09
>did the impossible by being faithful to fans

>Into Darkness
>it was good and Khan was a pimp

I almost took this seriously.
Here, have an answer to your initial question as serious as this post: youtube.com/watch?v=i-c17FTfMDE

>dat link to your other post

They literally don't shove SJW shit down your throats in the movies. And they aren't as bad as some of the ethical dilemmas you see on shit like Voyager where Janeway has to constantly fuck her crew over to uphold the Prime Directive.

>JJ Verse
Except the Prime Universe lost Romulus and Spock is dead because of the movie. The events outlined in 2009 had massive implications for the Prime Universe.

>New spock is a Joke
New Spock is also young as fuck. Tuvok also made spock look like the worst Vulcan in the history of Vulcans.

>It was pathetically bad and not at all really Trek
It was critically acclaimed and successfully revived a franchise that was killed by "authentic" Star Trek television (Enterprise). A vast majority of Trek fans found the film faithful, and only autistic BD's who don't like change regarded the film as trash.

>Yes
Please wait until your fucking Netflix TV show comes out. We are all waiting for it, and we all genuinely want the technobabble back, but not for 15 dollars and a 9 dollar bag of popcorn.

This.

Actually, very few of the Trek movies were about Trek. Most of them were just about villains, with some nice Trek stuff littered in between. Star Trek was only really good as a TV show.

I think the only Star Trek movie that was truly Trek while having that blockbuster action was Insurrection. It stayed true to the exploration theme / cultural respect of Trek while still having plenty of nail biting action (by yesterdays standards)

But the Abrams ones were particularly bad as they didn't even feel like Trek. He shit on most of the Trek tropes, as though he wished he were making a star wars movie instead. Then he actually got to do Star Wars and did a much better job there. Should have kept that asshole as far away from Trek as possible.

>didn't even feel like Trek

Sorry to say but you are the only one who feels this way man.

Seriously, nobody should be allowed to do both Star Trek and Star Wars. They are completely different! Conflict of interest.

Nah, he's not.

Nor are you the only dude who feels like they need to reference a fictional, universal agreement with your side of an argument in order to feel justified.

no

>Metacritic
Critic: 82
Audience: 8/10

>IMDB
8 out of 10, across over half a million votes

Don't know what to tell you my man

I think it was like an epic Trailer.

More Trailer for subsequent trailers and money making then a movie

> Why destroy a ship and replace with almost exact duplicate?

This is exactly what happened in Star Trek 4. Exactly same ship, and not even with all the bugs ironed out.

> Losing the ship at the beginning of the movie..

Several reasons in my mind. First, it demonstrates the effectiveness of the enemy. If it can't handle the Enterprise, it isn't really going to do much to the space station, is it? Second, it forces ground action on a more significant scale. Third, it forces the use of old technology to overcome the drones rather than the newest and best.

You can attack the movie for having plot holes, but don't pretend it didn't just recycle the same problems EVERY STAR TREK SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME has had.

Star Trek 1 is actually one of the best examples of a good "Trek" movie because of the lack of a real villian. The big bad ended up being just misunderstood in the end. If that movie were tightened up a bit, it could be really great.

Also, Star Trek 6 had a nice theme about facing the obsolescence of one's views in the face of a changing world, and learning to not fear and embrace that change, with a much more believable political plot that integrates well with and advances the trek universe. Klingons and the Feds become friends! That was some feel good stuff there.

So much teenage angst in this thread.
You people need to get out more.

>High Average rating = Universal, unquestionable acclaim and quality

I'm going to be honest here.
Me? I think Star Trek 2009 is pretty damn great as it's own thing, and overall, I'd probably give it a decent rating though.
That doesn't mean I don't hate it, and infact I'm disgusted by the concept of not only destroying the concept of an entire franchise, but artificially taking a project that could've stood on its own, and tacking a pre-existing IP on it just because it will be more profitable, even though it has nothing to do with it at its core.

The only real Star Trek movies are the Voyage Home and the Motion Picture. Everything else isn't true to the spirit of the show, even though the rest of the movies are at least watchable except Final Frontier.

i didnt understand the body transformation

how did idris alba become that and how was he changing back

also, the use of sabotage was cringy
i wish they used something from the time TOS air on television

>You can attack the movie for having plot holes, but don't pretend it didn't just recycle the same problems EVERY STAR TREK SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME has had.

That says nothing about the fan reception. I don't care if 8 out of every 10 of the moon faced public liked it, or some ignorant critics thought it was a decent space and laser movie.

Why do they always lose the ship?

They should all have been demoted by now.

>I'm disgusted by the concept of not only destroying the concept of an entire franchise

This is what Star Trek Enterprise did. The franchise was objectively

>but artificially taking a project that could've stood on its own

Explain to me how the gravity of time travel resulting in the Prime Universe's destruction of Romulus and the Death of Spock, and AltUni's destruction of Vulcan and the entire Federation fleet, would have any sense of gravity or bearing on anyone as a new IP.

Who the fuck would care about an alternate timeline nobody knows about for a brand new property no one has seen before?

was objectively dead cause of that dumpster fire***

>did the impossible
>faithful to its fans
It failed and it shit on the fans.

Fuck you retards for allowing this reboot to keep churning out shit tier sequels. Worse than fucking Marvel fans.

If I have learned anything since I became a fan of Star Trek 30 years ago, it is that Star Trek's core fanbase cannot be made happy.

Do you know how many Star Trek fans have told me how much "Enterprise" sucked, and when I grill them on it I find out they didn't even watch the whole series?

Do you know how many times I have heard a "fan" tell me about all the plot holes in any of the JJ movies, and when I apply each and every point they use to any of the old movies (except lensflare) they break down and cry or won't talk to me any more?

Do you know how many times I have heard Trek "fans" say the new movies are action filled Michael Bay tier shit, but I am able to point out the same person complaining about how boring the old Trek movies were?


Star Trek fans are worse than women. They will always find something new to complain about, and any time you address a complaint the solution you have found will be too much in the opposite extreme for them. The only really bad decision coming out of Paramount Trek related is hobbling the fan films so much. This removes my ability to at least say "If you don't like it, make your own fucking movie."

By the way, just got back from the film, and I liked it much less than 2009, but a little more than Into Darkness.

I think you're confusing Intellectual Property (IP) with canon.

I couldn't care less what the canon of Star Trek is, to be honest.
If they literally had Q accidentally unravel the entirety of existence with the exception of a single Federation ship that is now stuck in the new universe which proceeds to be the only universe because the old one was completely obliterated? Fine. I don't care. I hope the story turns out good.

What I mean by IP, is what you think of when you think of Star Trek. What the tone, objective, essence of the franchise is.

Hell, you can go out right now, and buy a disc called "Inside Star Trek" (I think it's included with DVD movie sets) and listen to multiple speeches from Gene Roddenberry, including an interview with Isaac Asimov (who helped make the original series a reality), where they both give a rather clear cut definition of what Star Trek is about. What the purpose of Star Trek is.
Funny part? They pretty much describe Star Trek 2009 3 decades in advance, while talking about what Star Trek isn't, and what Star Trek can be proud of not being.

And yes, you can say that they're just people. Gene shouldn't be the final arbiter of all things science fiction, nor should be Isaac Asimov.
But they are an authority on what the purpose of a franchise is. On what it means to be a part of that franchise, which is theirs.

If you call something a part of it, but do not adhere to its rules, you slowly destroy its meaning, and it goes the way of the entire Science Fiction genre, where you'd be hard-pressed to find anything that follows the creed of old school science fiction, because the word lost all its meaning.
Same is true to the clusterfuck that is the Star Wars franchise with all its many "Expanded Universe"/"Legends" series. It lost all relevance to itself. There could be real gems in there, but you'll never find it, because you've no idea what you're even looking for anymore, or what you'll find.


>It was dead
Shouldve left it

>Yes
fat fucking chance, asshole. you're better off making yourself a billionaire so you can personally fund such a movie. or you can just stop being mad about hollywood not making movies for turbo-nerds.

Zero?

Here is the reality of the situation

>a 2 hour movie has to have a fuck ton of action or things to do
>star trek has always been about finding things to do in some way
>star trek is a very turbulent universe that is perpetually on the brink of war or utter destruction
>star treks plots, on the TV show, are limited by budget restraints in the form of having a total budget for 20+ episodes that is still a fraction of what the the 2 hour movie costs to produce

Star Trek is "talky" because that was the only way to make it affordable back in the day. People wanted black holes and sensor telemetry just as much as they wanted Cardassian war PTSD and Klingon Blood Feuds.

The reality is the movies exist to focus on the things we couldn't get in the TV Show. The COMPLAINT here is that Star Trek Beyond literally has nothing even really related to Star Trek in it - it's actual narrative is very character driven and develops the interpersonal relationships, but the overall plot driving the movie sucks all the major dick. We were told the last movie the Klingons are on the brink of declaring outright war with the Federation - and yet we get the worst villain in a Star Trek movie to date (yes, worse than Insurrection)

But the necessary evil of the Star Trek universe is that these movies needed to exist, so we could get a whole new TV Show. They revived the franchise and rekindled a want for exploration. Without the movies, you wouldn't have your new property, and Star Trek would remain dead.

>Explain to me how the gravity of time travel resulting in the Prime Universe's destruction of Romulus and the Death of Spock, and AltUni's destruction of Vulcan and the entire Federation fleet, would have any sense of gravity or bearing on anyone as a new IP.
So I re-read it, and gotta admit I misunderstood your question the first time. (Bit tired, sorry man.)

As an actual answer:
It doesn't need to be Romulus, or the Death of Spock.
Do you think all the people who watched it and liked it knew or cared about Romulus? And Spock's death didn't even come up until this movie just now, by which point whatever character would've replaced him, could've gotten as much of an attachment as most new fans had to begin with, who only knew who Spock was by cultural osmosis.

Fact of the matter is, you don't really have to care about Romulus, for Star Trek 2009 to work to the extent it does. Plenty of stories throughout history, both good (Terminator) and (arguably) bad (Titan A.E.) had examples of the story setting off from a huge loss of life that ultimately the audience can't really relate to beyond "wow, that's a tough break, I wonder what the characters will do about that"? As much as it's a comedy, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy does explain in one of its first chapters why it really doesn't matter narratively that there was such a massive cataclysmic event. It's just impossible to process. It's just a plot point on the bulletin board that sets everything in motion.

There doesn't need to be any long term canon reciprocations that come from decades of history, for it to work narratively.

Vulcan's destruction works, not because it's Vulcan, but because it's Spock's home, and because we saw all the emotional baggage tied to that place with Spock's upbringing etcetera, and yet we see how shattered he is inspite of everything we saw.

I could also mention Alderaan, but it's somewhat of a worse example.

>But the necessary evil of the Star Trek universe is that these movies needed to exist, so we could get a whole new TV Show.

Ignoring the (I think) overly optimistic expectation you seem to have towards the new show turning out to be some return to form, here's my issue:

We didn't need a new Show.
We didn't need a new Movie, to finance the new Show.
Star Trek was fine the way it was. There were dents in it here and there, a couple of rough spots, but they were going to stay that way until the end of time.
They could've just left it at that and be done with it. Maybe make a compeltely different show in the same spirit with a low budget on Netflix, or some TV channel. There really was no reason to bring Star Trek specifically back, beyond cruising off its past popularity.

If they could've done it in a financially reasonable way, where they try to stay true to what made it Star Trek, that would've been great, but I understand how that wasn't possible.
But they did it anyway. That's my issue.

>exploration
the new series is a non-episodic drama with season-long plotlines like all the other shit we've been getting

You are literally arguing nobody needs to make new versions of anything at this point. Everything has to be completely stagnant or it's just not "true."

Deep Space 9 is the furthest shit from TOS, TNG and Voyager themes, tone and plots, and yet some people regard it as the best Star Trek series. Not all, not most, but some.

The point is some people clearly like shit that you don't like, and you need to get over it. If people didn't like the movies or thought they weren't "Star Trek" - there wouldn't be people going out to see the third movie in the series.

Get over it and get a life man. There are bigger fish to fry than someone desecrating your nerdtomb and exhuming a property people actually want to see more off.

What is wrong with Season long Plotlines? They can still explore shit. Stargate Universe is a very bad example given how it was bad, but they had season long plot lines mixed in with a lot of exploration / episode of the day type stuff.

>Deep Space 9 is the furthest shit from TOS, TNG and Voyager themes, tone and plots, and yet some people regard it as the best Star Trek series.
It's not as far as you'd think.
Again, I would recommend you check out that "Inside Star Trek" disc. DS9 completely agrees with the statements by Gene and Asimov there, about what makes Star Trek.

The "tone" of Star Trek is less a question of "optimistic" vs "pessimistic" or "pacifistic" vs "militaristic".
The tone, is rather patient and measured. It's more of a question of how characters react to a problem, what kind of people they are beneath any formal creed.
It's about as difficult to define as what makes (old school) Science Fiction what it is, but I think if you give it some thought you understand what I'm saying.

As for the rest:
Again, could've made it under a different name. Would've been equally good or bad in any aspect.
And sure, "who gives a shit?", fine.
But if you honestly can't yet see what it's like, when all worthwhile discussion stops, because the topic no longer has a definition? It will hit you eventually. And it will hit hard.

>plot devolves down to "abloobloo federation never found us fuck them"

Krall's motivation is much more about the state of the Federation and their non-confrontational exploration. Their lack of edge or a legitimate military force absolutely contradicts his personality and way of life. He has a better, more solid motivation than any of the other Abramsverse villains.

>plot is best summarized by their captain being terrible at his job and not being able to keep his crew alive on an m class planet

See above. Only a handful of crewmates survived the marooning and Krall ultimately was not concerned with their well being, but his vengeance.

>couldn't fix his ship even though some fucking random girl unfamiliar with federation technology was able to do it

With the help of the extremely adept Enterprise crew, widely known for getting out of impossible jams. Also, see above. Krall was not interested in leaving the planet until he had lured the Federation to it.

>somehow amasses an entire fucking army out of nowhere??????????

What do you think he was doing with all those prisoners?

This

>faithful to fans
Said no fan ever

Why do fazers shoot like blasters? Is there a stun option?

>A 35 million dollar budget for a IP based heavily in SciFi is just tiny.

No. It's well into mid-to-high budget category with 35 million dollars. It was before Hollywood went full retard with budgets. The most expensive movies around that time had budgets around 100 million, around 50 million was pretty much the point where movie became considered very high budget back then.

>In the end, they really felt like they just upped the budget of the TV show, instead of making a full on movie.

It was due to script, not due to budget, probably because producers and pretty much everyone involved were TV folks. All TNG movies except First Contact feel like episodes with higher effects budget. First Contact is only one that has right balance between Trek and action in it.

>Okay first off Star Trek has always been SJW heaven, it's just that what was SJW 20 years ago while TNG and Voyager were on have just become our modern day values.

It's true that Trek has always been progressive, but do not make mistake of mixing modern day SJW's with legitimate civil rights or human rights activists. In past there were actual grievances, now SJW's are whining about non-issues that [trigger] them, probably best example from [current year] is some concerned BLM-affiliated arts students whining about book tittled Nigger in some reading list and in university library... book is autobiography of actual 50's and 60's civil rights activist.

>Second, Star Trek has always had action

True.

>and 2009 pleased the VAST MAJORITY of Trek fans and was true to the source material.

No. 50/50 split on people that liked it after seeing it first time and loathed it after watching it another time. Other half loathed it after seeing it once. It butchers it's source material. It looks like Trek, but it's only supeficial stuff like ships, uniforms and Vulcan ears.

Proof that OG Trek is best Trek
>Dat 60's space hottie
>Dat alpha bad-ass Kirk
>Dat kek worthy-reaction from Spock

>50/50 split on people that liked it after seeing it first time and loathed it after watching it another time. Other half loathed it after seeing it once.

>literally 100% of people hate Star Trek

Do you want me to explain to you how you are objectively wrong?

it saved the franchise though. 2 was so awful

Explaining it won't help. He is just like the Marvel/DC fags who won't enjoy their opposite because they believe they owe some sort of loyalty to the universe they enjoy more.

People on Sup Forums are some of the worst. They won't accept that you can like something without it harming something else you like more. I love classic Trek and JJ Trek. Nothing wrong with liking both.

This guy you are responding to should clearly kill himself. He has shit up this whole thread and lives in a fantasy world where everyone must be exactly like him.

>Do you want me to explain to you how you are objectively wrong?

Out of my IRL buddies all who can be described as Star Trek fans not a single one considers it to be good movie or even remotely faithful to Trek in any way. Couple buddies who aren't Trek fans or even generally scifi fans considered it to be too good on a movie night involving heavy drinking where it was between a Steven Seagal movie and a shitty zombie flick.

>LOL MY FRIENDS THOUGHT IT'S BAD SO IT MUST BE

k.

> My sample is my fat friend who hates life, my imaginary friend that sucks dick, my real friend that sucks my dick, and the resident nerd who found 40 continuity errors in Trek 2009 but failed to realize each and every one applies to pretty much every Trek ever made.

> I only own one Star Trek movie I claim to hate, and a collection of Steven Seagal movies and zombie flicks because my fantasy world is filled with zombies I kill instantly with a karate chop to the head.

Really man, just kill yourself.

The movie had no beeewbs or Trekfus or a womanizing Kirk banging aliens

>finding endless reasons to hate things
>not just liking things

I bet you are real fun to hang out with.

I can write a better Star Trek movie then simon pegged.
Spock is hangin of a cliff
Kirk is trying to rationalize killing Saving then Enterprise over saving her crew
Scotty getting fingered by the Warp Core before the Antagonist blows the ship up
Suddenly TOPICAL CONTENT Ghost of Harambe shows up
Uses his Transwarp Memeing to stop teh enemy
Gives a 30 minute speech where he subtly reprimands humanity for his death
When asked to Join the Enterprises Crew, he says simply that he has to go now, his people need him
He flies off into space while 'Killing in the Name of' plays in the background as the screen fades to black
I'll take my Academy Award for best Screenplay to go.

9.420/10
Would replace very last bit with everything after 8:30 here: youtu.be/tRmRMnVULs8?t=509

I consider it far worse movie than most of my buddies.

It's literally generic action movie wrapped in visual appearance of Trek. Basically cargo cult movie at it's finest.

Using my IRL buddies as sample... it has issues with sample size.

>Really man, just kill yourself.

Doesn't change the fact that 2009 Trek is at best 2 star generic action movie.

Personally I consider is to be in right company with 80's Italian exploitation movies like post acpocalyptic stuff following Mad Max 2 and barbarian flicks following Conan and stuff Steven Seagal has done since mid-90's.

Star Trek (2009) > Beyond >>>>>>>>>>> Into Shitfest

It's also better than most of the uneven numbered old Trek movies. Which admittedly isn't hard.

>Everyone is getting bored of their jobs, and only this life and death scenario can rekindle everyone's passion for exploration?

Seriously? Does Pegg actually understand exploration and the excitement of the Five Year missions? Strange new worlds, new life and new civilisations, and to boldly go where no man has gone before.

>could have been the plot of an average episode in a random season of star trek
It was my favorite star trek movie ever.
Please God let them make more star trek movies that are just star trek episodes.

It just looks like Star Wars now. Their weapons even go pew pew pew.

I'm such a nerd xD

The unresolved alien elf girl plot really pissed me off. She was the best part of the movie by a wide margin, she was cool and competent without venturing too far into Mary Sue territory and had charisma for days, but they just stuck her on a shelf for the entire third act.

They're following the TNG movies blueprint:
>first movie uses time travel and guest actor to introduce new cast
>second movie features classic foe
>third movie is small scale planet-based adventure
>fourth movie has main character unexpectedly encounter someone with personal link to them

>fourth movie has main character unexpectedly encounter someone with personal link to them

>It is revealed, that when Nero destroyed the Kelvin he stuck around long enough to scour the wreckage for any clue as to when he is
>Finds Kirk's father, barely alive in the wreck
>Throws him into storage, freezing him down as a little idea on the backburner, about how he might be able to use him as leverage if and when he runs into the concurrent Spock who is likely to be with Kirk
>When he was sucked into a blackhole a second time, it took him even further into the past, but in this universe for no reason because god damn it that wouldn't even come close to being the stupidest inconsistency about his character
>Since his special snowflake ass used Borg Technology to spice up his mining vessel, the Borg instantly spot him in the distant past, and pick him and his ship apart, gaining thousands of years advance from their own technology
>Movie four is about the Enterprise encountering the Borg, which is now led by Locutus: Kirk's assimilated father.

HOW LOW CAN YOU GO?!

Still would be better than Beyond.

That actually sounds like something they would pump out / I'd watch

>find a way to make a FIRST CONTACT cameo with Pat Stew for maximum lulz/time travel fuckary

It was a good film and much better than Into Darkness

Quit being a contrarian faggot

Beyond was epic you twat! Better than darkness! Had more kino scenes a god tier cutie

I dont know what you expected other than more shooting and explosions

just gonna say
watching ds9 for the first time, only half way through season 1 so far

this shit is comfy

Thanks for posting multiple times friend.

>they are just stupid action flicks at this point.
as a fan of the orginal next generation and ds9 i have to agree

That said the tv series next year might not be shit but the last 3 after TNG where pretty average if i am honest especially the 2009 reboot movie

> Admits to getting blown by fat friend.

Your taste in movies is on par with your sexual preference. Of course, taste is subjective, but you are definitely in the minority with a preference of cum-gargling.

There is already developed continuity in Star Trek Online (Paramount game which is acknowledged canon) where the Kelvin timeline has the sphere builders from the Enterprise series manipulating the Klingons to help them establish a habitable region in the galaxy.

It is revealed already that the sphere builders have attempted to form their fluidic type space in numerous universes, often extinguishing life in the entire galaxy in the process.

This fourth film in the Kelvin universe will involve material from their version of the temporal war, which will involve any events involving time travel including the destruction of the Kelvin.

Kirk will have an opportunity to work with his father to address a related problem, but his struggle will be to NOT save his father in order to maintain the timeline he exists in.

Confirmed already in the Kelvin universe the sphere builders avoid the Borg because in almost every iteration of failed attempts the Borg will choose to ally with Dominion/Federation/Any Empire rather than lose completely to sphere space.

Your little theory about the borg is already disproven.

Pic related. It's you.

>second movie in a row where the revenging villain is immortal
>third movie in a row where the revenging villain is a man out of his time
Wew.

I think this movie set Star trek into a new and better direction than the two movies before.
2009 is a good movie imo but lacked the star trek feeling for the most part and felt a bit like star wars. Setting up the characters was done pretty well and there is already some chemistry between them.
Into Darkness was ok too, but felt short on 2009. Especially spock who just bitches around constantly.

Beyond was extremely comfy until the attack on the enterprise and made me feel nostalgic with all the scenes of the crew, docking in the space station and so on.
On the planet the movie was more of a high budget episode from the series and putting the characters into small teams of 2 or 3 helped to flesh their building friendship out. The last part with all the crazy action and the beastie boys was cheesy as fuck.
Overall 8/10, i really like the crew right now and are looking forward to another movie.

you really are a retard

oh look, it's another jokey reference about x's relationship with z.

pegg, your writing is shit

>being faithful to fans
Fans of what?

Wow, rude. Who hurt you?

>Movies opening scene was literally Galaxy Quest tier

It was fucking awesome. Why didn't we get more of that?

trek fans , movie fans , just want a movie with a plot/ideas that we have not seen before , I have not even seen this movie , but it looks like a summer blockbuster by the number's.made for 10 year olds. watched by manchildren.

star trek 13 kek
should anyone over the age of 27 even watch this flick ?
.

In January 2015, after Orci's departure, Simon Pegg and Doug Jung were hired to rewrite the screenplay,[23] with Pegg saying on the previous draft, Paramount "had a script for Star Trek that wasn't really working for them. I think the studio was worried that it might have been a little bit too Star Trek-y." Pegg had been asked to make the new film "more inclusive", stating that the solution was to "make a western or a thriller or a heist movie, then populate that with Star Trek characters so it's more inclusive to an audience that might be a little bit reticent."


tl;dr studios fucked it up like they usually do (see The Thing 2011)

>True, but at least compared to modern day standards, it was pretty subtle.
No it wasn't it just feels subtle to you because all the shit in TOS is considered normal and accepted today, it was pretty much hitting people over the head with its progressive message at the time and was held back from being even more in your face by the censors.

Censors were the problem back then. Creators are the problem now.

60s
>Rodenberry: Imma make Sulu weild a katana
>Takei: Bad idea. Sulu is american and it's kind of cliché to make him use a japanese sword. How about a foil instead?
>Rodenberry: Good idea!

2016
>Pegg: Let's make Sulu gay. You okay with that, Takei.
>Takei: Not really, I think it would be better to create a new
>Pegg: SHUT THE FUCK UP GAYLORD, I WANT MY LGBTQ BROWNIE POINTS! I DON'T WANT TO BE PROGRESSIVE FOR REAL!