Star Trek [2009]

[Karha of Honor]

My head canon is that Discovery is actually based in this reboot universe because everyone is an asshole in that movie as well, so it fits with the show

I doubt there mare assholes than there were in DS 9.

[Meushell]

I really enjoyed the first movie. Everyone had a small chance to shine at least once.

The second movie was a big disappointment. I enjoy it better by pretending it’s not Kahn, but an augmented Kahn groupie. It’s still a largely skippable movie though.

The third movie was good, and with the way it’s handled, it actually helps to make the second one skippable.

I look forward to the forth one, but I don’t expect much since it’s an even number in this new Trek.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

The first one best captures that "popcorn flick" feel that's so appealing to a lot of movie-goers. It's the same appeal that came with Independence Day in the 90s, Iron Man and subsequently a bunch of Marvel movies; Abrams brought something similar to The Force Awakens, although with more respect for the history of that franchise.

Of course, it could go without saying that a lot of Trek fans don't like that direction and would prefer something more meaningful. For myself, I can see the excitement and "fun", but I still don't like the amount of sheer stupidity and recklessness on display, especially from Kirk. I have always preferred the even-keeled, smart, compassionate Kirk, with some rule-breaking tendencies simmering underneath the surface.

The second movie has a bunch of dumb action movie stuff, but is a lot less fun. I'm looking forward to Chuck's review on that one, because I feel like it's a movie that's already aged pretty poorly.

The third movie is easily the most Trek-like of the new line of movies. I don't think it's brilliant, but it goes to a lot more effort to capture some of the classic Star Trek beats. I don't know if it's actually better than Trek '09, but it's my favorite of the three.

[bronnt]

The second movie has a bunch of dumb action movie stuff, but is a lot less fun. I'm looking forward to Chuck's review on that one, because I feel like it's a movie that's already aged pretty poorly.

Without getting into it too much, since it's off-topic, it's a film that doesn't hold up to second viewings because, when you know where the story is going, the actions of almost every character make no sense. Like, Khan knew Marcus was planning to start a war with the Klingons, and he wanted to foil Marcus' plan...so why would actually go to Qo'nos with the transwarp teleporter thing when he could have gone literally anywhere else? That's just one of the Kenneth Braga-esque headscratchers of forcing people to do bizarre things just to get the plot where it's going.

[CharlesPhipps]

Without getting into it too much, since it's off-topic, it's a film that doesn't hold up to second viewings because, when you know where the story is going, the actions of almost every character make no sense. Like, Khan knew Marcus was planning to start a war with the Klingons, and he wanted to foil Marcus' plan...so why would actually go to Qo'nos with the transwarp teleporter thing when he could have gone literally anywhere else? That's just one of the Kenneth Braga-esque headscratchers of forcing people to do bizarre things just to get the plot where it's going.

Weird, I had the opposite reaction. I think it works remarkably well as a movie and it's the only one of the three films which has ANY sort of message, even if it's "warmongering is bad." As for Khan, why NOT hide in the place the Federation is most unlikely to go? I also don't think he cares about preventing the war, he just wants his people back.

He might have also been planning to lure Marcus' out by getting onboard the Enterprise and explaining his story.

[Enterprising]

I really enjoyed the first movie. Everyone had a small chance to shine at least once.

The second movie was a big disappointment. I enjoy it better by pretending it’s not Kahn, but an augmented Kahn groupie. It’s still a largely skippable movie though.

The third movie was good, and with the way it’s handled, it actually helps to make the second one skippable.

I look forward to the forth one, but I don’t expect much since it’s an even number in this new Trek.

With how the third movie performed in the box office (or didn't as the case is) there may not be a fourth movie, and I'm sorry to say I might actually be okay with that.

I was able to tolerate the first movie as a sort of jump-starter, to get some serious success behind it first and then do it's own thing. Unfortunately, they felt the need to go back to the well in the 2nd movie and it lost me from there. What perhaps frustrated me the most was what they DIDN'T put in the films. Chuck covered the big one for the first movie in his review on Nero's backstory, that was vital stuff to give him some depth and background, but it was all relegated to a comic. With the movie being just over 90 minutes long, there wasn't any reason they couldn't have included at least some of it. As Chuck also covered, we as the audience aren't interested if answers to our questions/criticisms about your movie is "covered in the book/comic" - too bad, what matters is what you actually put on screen!

Do you know why Khan is how he looks in the 2nd movie? He was surgically altered to change his voice & appearance so he couldn't be potentially recognised, great idea! Just a shame that little tidbit of vital information was in material OUTSIDE of the movie. They seriously couldn't do a 10 second shot to a computer screen showing us Khan's file with his TOS appearance, with a flashing warning that he'd undergone cosmetic surgery and will look different?

It's an ever increasing trope to do stuff like this for movies/games and it's really ticking me off. It's present in the new Star Wars films as well, so I don't know if that's a thing JJ also likes or just a coincidence. Folk chastised the whole Resistance/First Order thing as just being Rebels/Empire in a different name, and I don't blame them at all. Yet when you read the promotional material NOT in the movie, then things make a lot more sense and the difference becomes apparent, but it means naff-all when you don't put in in the actual movie.

Just as a final thing to say now that I've got that all off my chest. Isn't it ironic that no matter the changes or the re-booting done, it's Enterprise that actually get's all the continuity love? You'd think they would stay well away from the series that essentially put Star Trek on ice for 5 years.

[Admiral X]

Funny thing is, back when everyone was trying to defend the reboot because it meant the franchise had a "clean slate," I knew that the people making the movies wouldn't use it. After all, a big part of why reboots are popular with studios is because you can essentially tell the same story over again with just some slight differences. Plus, a lot of fans were practically drooling over the thought of a rebooted version of TWOK themselves, so I knew it was going to be a case of "boldly rehashing what we've already done before."

[SabreMau]

With how the third movie performed in the box office (or didn't as the case is) there may not be a fourth movie, and I'm sorry to say I might actually be okay with that.

There's also the minor fact that any potential fourth movie would have to address the Chekov issue, and that's its own level of awkwardness. Yeah, they handled Leonard Nimoy's departure in-story, but he was more of a cameo role and not a main cast member.