The Weird Legacy of Star Trek (2009)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лип 2021
- This video is sponsored by CuriosityStream. Get both Nebula and CuriosityStream here: curiositystream.com/captainmi... for less than $15 a YEAR.
J.J. Abrams' Star Trek came out in 2009 and kicked off a new era for Kirk, Spock and the gang. Gone were the long conversations about ethics and morality, it was time to see Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto in a full on action movie. In this video, I talk about how the way I feel about the film has changed a bit over time, even if I still thoroughly enjoy this adventure from the starship Enterprise.
MERCH: standard.tv/collections/capta...
Music by Epidemic Sound (www.epidemicsound.com)
Follow me on Twitter: / midnightcap
Follow me on Facebook: / midnightcap
Special thanks to Andrew Elliott (Stalli111: / stalli111 ) for editing this video!
What's your favorite Star Trek movie?
Get both Nebula and CuriosityStream here: curiositystream.com/captainmidnight for less than $15 a YEAR.
It's soild remembering but I prefer Star Wars.
Fights and splosions are exciting but sci-fi is like a comfortable shoe to fit intellectual discussions and moral debates perfectly. Example: "I Am Mother" (2019) contemplates can an an AI raise a human. "Moon" (2009) What are the implications of cloning a human only to be made as a perpetual slave.
I have a soft spot for Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Robert Wise wasn't the best choice of director, the plot was a bit seen-it-all-before, the focus on two non TV characters was understandable but a mistake, the pace was bum numbingly boring but the fim was really classy
Wrath of Kahn. It's the easy choice, I know, but I still rewatch it.
You remember exactly were you where when Riker ordered an attack?? Like... In front of the TV you idiot?.
I'm not gonna lie- the 2009 Star Trek actually got me into Star Trek.
I'm a big Chris Pine fan and when I found out he was in this movie I asked my dad- a big Trekkie- to help me get into the fandom, I'm in the process of watching the tv shows but so far I'm glad I got into it.
Have you given Star Trek: TNG a chance? The first season is admittedly slow. But it has a lot of great episodes, plots, and characters.
TNG is a little easier to get into. It doesn't truly get into swing until season 3, IMHO, but you should watch it from the start.
@@TiberiusX i’ll definitely try it out, right now I’m just watching some of TOS but I really should start TNG
I think the 2009 movie got me into trek too. I knew it existed before this, but I really enjoyed the movie (just as a movie) and it made me want to discover more
this movie turned me off of Chris Pine for years lmao
My biggest problem with Star Trek 2009 is the way they rushed Kirk to the captain's chair to the point that defies reason and realism more than any of the sci-fi elements.
A similar peeve/annoyance: the way the whole cast is basically the same age, like they were ALL in the same class at the Academy.
There was a 3 year time skip. Assuming he’s a prodigy, it’s easily possible he’d reach captain leave in that time
As someone with experience in the military, I wholeheartedly agree
I hate that it was Nimoy Spock's idea to illicit an emotional response from Quinto Spock, and not Kirk's own idea.
I hate the dynamic between Spock and Kirk in this movie too, and by that I mean they are perfect strangers set up to hate each other. Spock's test is broken and his girlfriend hates this JT Kirk person. Kirk has no reason to like Spock except the mind meld. Letting it be Kirk's idea to provoke Spock would help with the agency... and maybe pick an angle that's less offensive than attacking Amanda. Spock was a momma's boy in TOS, no way any meld with Nimoy's Spock made that seem like a good idea. Far better to drop some knowledge that gains trust among the rest of the crew, like saying the telepathic field around Vulcan shattered when 6 billion telepaths died, so any true Vulcan (digging into Spock's insecurities) would need to meditate to deal with that. Or, to keep it simple for audiences that don't know how Vulcans work, that any true Vulcan should be in medical getting treated for psychic backlash.
That let's Kirk sound like the reasonable person in the conversation. There's even a chance Spock just dips out gracefully and gives Sulu command - and then as soon as he's off the bridge Sulu says Pike put Kirk as second officer because Sulu thinks he'd be better off at his proper station at the helm and that embarrassing parking break moment certainly shook his confidence.
As someone who was only 10 years old when this film came out and had no prior exposure to Star Trek in any way, it was a great experience and I ended up rewatching it several times over the following years. Does it live up to the legacy of the TV show? Maybe not. However, as someone entering the franchise for the first time, this movie was a fun and exciting introduction.
As someone who has been a Trek Fan for nearly 40+ years I will say this about the 2009 film. It was the first Trek film that felt like a Hollywood blockbuster. Most of the films were more subdued and by today’s standards feel like a extension of the shows. I hope you’ve gone back and explored the rich legacy of Star Trek. 🖖🗽
I am in total agreement.
Exactly. For better or worse, kids don't typically want to or can't enjoy a show that's forty years old and looks static and cheap by the standards they're used to. Hell, even I as an adult have trouble looking past the set decoration for the story. Sci-fi ages especially hard in this regard. Something like this can introduce the characters, world, and themes, and then they can explore the rest of Trek media, or just walk away from these films having enjoyed them.
I saw this in theaters when I was 11. It was one of the first PG-13 action movies I got to watch in theaters and i loved every second of it. I knew nothing about Star Trek going in as well but it ended up being one of my favorite film-going experiences. I don’t really know if the movie holds up for me as much but still a fond memory
Oh dude same!!! To me as a kid Kirk was a charismatic badass
Although I loved this movie when it came out, and still do, I think this was the beginning of Star Trek losing it’s mostly optimistic vision of the future. Everything since this movie has been so dark and gritty that it’s kind of lost one of the most charming elements of the Trek that came before it.
Wow, i had never been able to put my finger on this but this is spot on.
I wanted to like it, but Kirk going from a Cadet to Captain wasn't something I could get past. It would have been so easy to add something to expand the time frame to make it plausible.
What do u mean they literally had a 3 years later time skip.
@@glazed_waffle5629 but it didnt _feel_ like 3 years. it felt like three consecutive days.
Also, the starships are not built on Earth's surface!
That NG episode with Picard and the flute was worth every Trek film made since 1997.
the follow up episode where he falls in love (Lessons) was also amazing.
Like you, I was raised on Trek, and saw this in theaters around the same age, and I was blown away, and I would love to live a Trek world like this. Then it turns out that most of my other Trek friend fans were not a fan if it, which I get, but still love this movie. Now jump ahead to now, Into Darkness... Exist, Beyond was a blend old and new, but didn't succeed in the box office, and the film franchise is in limbo, while the TV side is... Ummm doing what the movies did, but bigger and louder. Well, at least I have The Orville, which is something I never thought I'd say, but Seth MacFarlane made a Star Trek series I'm constantly hyped for.
same! i adored this film when i saw it, star trek bolder and brighter than i had ever seen before. i mean this film is the reason i even got into old star trek and started watching.
The TV side also made things much, much dumber. Hence why The Orville is a great alternative for most old-school Trek fans.
@@Latinkon any idea when season 3 is coming out?
I really like the new shows, but I also love The Orville. There is room in my heart for both universes.
@@prathapkutty7407 None yet at the moment.
"I was 16 in 2009..." Oh dear God!
?
I know he's ancient D:
@@5Detective it was supposed to be a joke about how young he is. I was almost twice his age in 2009.
@@DenisRyan yeah i was born in 77… I was exactly double his age. :-(
In 2009, I was 6.
JJ doesn't seem to understand what people actually liked about both trek and wars. A pity...
I mean, I think he probably does understand these franchises, but there's just sooooo much incentive to "thread the needle" of fan service as Captain said. I feel like an example of a creator truly not understanding what people like about a piece of media is Shyamalan and what he did with The Last Airbender.. I mean, what he probably would have done.. that movie doesn't exist
@Tom Ffrench
Reminds me of a line someone said, that 'Star Wars fans hate everything about Star Wars...but they love the *idea*."
(Though I don't think that's 100% true, as there seems to be 'Star Wars' media that is generally well regarded - KOTOR, The Clone Wars, etc.).
He's great at casting and action set pieces. Wrapping up franchises? Not so much.
@Tom Ffrench A lot of people seem to forget what a breath of fresh air the Force Awakens was. They look at it through the lens of the following films. I still enjoy it for what it was. Perhaps if he stuck around for the whole trilogy, it would've been a little more coherent.
People just liked the Force Awakens because it superficially looked more like the original Star Wars films than the prequels. In the back of my mind the entire time I was watching it I thought "this is just a ham acted parody of Star Wars the same as his Star trek movies". You rewatch it a few times and you start to realize its actually way more corny and disrespectful of the source material than the prequels were.
Star Trek (2009) and Star Wars: The Force Awakens are a showcase as to why J.J. Abrams is pretty great at setting the foundation of a movie series. Entertaining throughout, the right amount of nostalgia, memorable characters and great acting.
Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker are why J.J. isn’t great at continuing stories.
Well not sure about Into Darkness but TROS had a huge amount of studio intervention as well, we know for a fact that he didn't get to use his actual cut of the movie so it can't be put on him a huge amount.
TFA was a nothing more then a bland ripoff of a New Hope, And sadly it was a masterpiece compared to what followed
@Tom Ffrench There's having a formula, then there's blatantly trying to pass off a reboot of the original movie as a sequel. We can criticize the derivative nature of the plot and criticize all the "real" problem as well.
He is good at creating shiny empty shells of a recognizable topic.
Rise of skywalker is an invalid example because of the last jedi being a mess
The _legacy_ of Star Trek 2009, beyond just the two movies that followed it, is a complete reorientation of Star Trek as a franchise. Both Discovery and Picard, although technically in the original continuity (I think), are very obviously sequels to Abrams Trek specifically. Not least because Alex Kurtzman is in charge to make sure of that.
They are Prime timeline shows, there's no "think" to it, they are.
@@CaptainPikeachu actually they aren't. they are not original IP. when CBS and paramount split the rights to Trek got split with them. since the approval of 09 trek the actual Prime timeline is not touched. Both Discovery and Picard are under the IP Bad Robot has not the CBS one
@@Revkor Discovery and Picard are owned by CBS, not by Bad Robot, and are both set in the prime timeline. When the split happened, Paramount got everything from the movies and CBS got the TV shows, which is why they created the Kelvin Timeline and why they redesigned the Klingons (the familiar design came from TMP). So Discovery and Picard couldn't legally be set in the Kelvin Timeline even if they wanted them to.
@@joseaguilar3323 yes CBS owns them but they are only usign the lisence bad Robot is allowed to use. the OP lisence cannot be touched right now
@@Revkor CBS owns the OP LIcense, when Discovery started, they legally couldn't touch the Kelvin Timeline because Paramount owned it, not Bad Robot. Bad Robot is just a hired contractor, they own nothing. Besides CBS and Paramount reunited so even if you were correct, you would still be wrong since now both entities own both the Prime Timeline and the Kelvin Timeline
As someone who watched both Abrams' Star Trek and Star Wars movies, I can say that I enjoyed Star Trek more. While Beyond was a bit underwhelming, throughout the three movies I was consistently invested with all the characters including minor roles and what was happening around them, whereas in Star Wars I felt more and more disconnected as the story progresses because of how such a mess it was.
"New films won't be as goofy as 2009" Ight imma stop you right there, you can't tell me the Beastie Boys in Beyond isn't goofy as hell. (Yet so good)
Ever
It's weird to constantly hear that these versions of kirk and spock are even mildly comparable to the original characters, or that they are younger versions of the same characters. They aren't. Anyone who watched TOS and TAS should be aware of that.
J.J. Abrams: Audiences don’t care about good characters or writing, they want nostalgia…and things blowing up/people hitting each other/lens flare.
Trek and Wars both prove he thinks that
I don't mind the lens flare, my eyes are not that sensitive anyways for a flashing light aesthetic to cause a pain. Besides. It makes the whole thing feel from the future and actually show alittle sense of "you are there with them." or "you are the camera man."
Well, he didn't deliver much in the way of ST nostalgia. It's a fun movie, but aside from the characters there's little of the original ST there, right from the beginning.
You're speaking to my soul brother and also the mention Star Trek and Star Wars are almost the exact same movie jj-abrams aCinematic f****** hack bring mediocrity everywhere he goes.
@@damoncurrie7103 Abrams's main problem is a lack of follow-through. He starts out with great enthusiasm and then immediately gets bored and wanders off.
If we're talking best openings for a blockbuster I'm torn between Nightcrawler attacking the Whitehouse in x2 or the insanity of Tom Cruise hanging off the side of a plane in Mission impossible Rogue nation.
Yes! I love the Nightcrawler scene in the beginning of X2, it blew me away the first time I saw it - it was so gripping I think I held my breath for the whole scene. My other favorite blockbuster opening was for The Dark Knight: the bank robbery where the Joker first reveals himself. Something about the pacing and the way it’s filmed is so masterful, it really set the tone for one of the greatest comic book movies ever
Honestly after watching the Star Wars sequels. I think I realized why I never liked Star Trek (09) and into Darkness.
JJ Abrams is a very plot oriented writer who cannot make up his mind between the old and new. Much like Rey, Kirk is dragged from plot point to plot point and setpiece to setpiece no matter how contrived or nonsensical the plot becomes. What matters is getting the character from point A to point B, even if it turns them into tools in the process.
Also I wish JJ would just commit to one vision, instead of awkwardly trying to eat and have his cake too. You wanna make a fresh bold new take on Star Trek, fine go ahead. You wanna make a nostalgic rehash of the old franchise, fine go ahead. But don’t do both at the same time, commit to one idea and give it 100%.
And lastly there’s his obsession with mystery boxes. Everyone has already talked about this, but he just doesn’t understand the appeal of mysteries. Mysteries are puzzles, solvable puzzles with a solution but with all the pieces scattered across the story waiting for you to put together. That’s how mysteries work, they are not an empty box waiting for JJ to shove whatever square peg he can into a round hole.
As a result his films largely come across as empty spectacle with shallow pathos since its all held together by string and glue sticks. Now don’t get me wrong, if you can turn off your brain and strap into this roller coaster, you’ll have a good time. But man does JJ not make it easy to do that and it has only gotten worse since he made Star Trek (09).
Eh, I think its possible to do a balance between nostalgia and reimagining. I'd argue that's what many of the best reboots do. They honor and respect their roots and occasionally tip their hats to the past while still doing their own thing. With that in mind, I was fine with Abrams Star Trek. I also think your assessment of Kirk is a little unfair, as I would argue he does show agency and initiative throughout the films. In fact, its his being so reckless, independent, and devil-may-care that gets him into trouble throughout the first two movies.
I am however, sympathetic to your exasperation with Abram's love of Mystery Box.
To be fair to JJ, Rian really fucked up any consistency the Star Wars sequels were ever going to have... then he just had to come in and try to clean up
@@Lucrei. JJ tried to remake A New Hope, Rian tried to destroy the franchise, then JJ tried to piece it back together with 'memberberry glue.
"Not your dad's ___" is just PR speak for "In name only."
I mean it tasted like lemonade though
It's PR speak for "the dumbed down action movie version for the braindead popcorn munching masses"
@@Reggie1408 Nothing screams "we have no idea what we're doing" like changing everything about a successful, beloved, long running franchise in the hopeless attempt to appeal to the masses.
That was a phrase that kept popping in my mind when I was watching BvS
@@JustKrin Same here. I don't understand why people think that traditionally hopeful heroes like Batman and Superman need to be turned into cruel, pessimistic assholes to be considered "relevant" to modern society.
We need beacons of optimism now, more than ever.
You know who should direct the next movie?
BRAD BIRD
That would be great! I hope this crew gets one last film at least.
@@captainmidnight especially because Bird worked both with JJ Abrams and Paramount in "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol"
I think Brad would be a great choice for an MCU movie like maybe Avengers
@A Catalan Liam Iron Giant, Incredibles, the unmade Spirit animated movie and the decently received Poltergeist reboot? Yeah bro. Brad Bird's overall a good director. Even Spielberg's got his 1941 and Kubrick has his EyesWideShut. Good directors sometimes make bad movies.
@@nickwalker7850 TF?
EWS was great
I think this type of Star Trek reboot was inevitable with the advent of franchise engines in Hollywood.
It doesn't mean I don't miss the morality questions and slow pacing of the shows.
Yeah I agree, they lost a lot when they made it a G.I. Joe movie
They let a Star Wars fan do Star Trek movies, nuff said
I will never say Beyond is amazing, but it's the one I enjoy watching the most.
I feel out of the 3 recent movies, it really felt like a throwback to the original series but on the big screen. I really liked it.
please make more star trek videos!
Wasn't expecting you here
I remember really liking Star Trek 09 when it came out and wondered why my die-hard Trekkie Brother _hated it._ I honestly didn't get why he disliked it. However, as the years have gone by and certain things have happened, I've started to look a bit differently at the film.
I can guarantee that this film was made for a more general audience, which is why I liked it more. Even though I grew up in a house watching Star Trek, I clearly didn't like it as much as my brother did. I didn't get what the show was trying to accomplish when I was a kid and largely found it to be slow with very little action happening. It didn't occur to me until later that when Star Trek got philosophical and ethical, it really struck a lot of chords; it really was ahead of its time in some regards. (But then a few goofy episodes still got made.)
The Next Generation had an episode that demonstrated that Star Trek had a different approach to dealing with conflict; the show in question features Picard being beamed down to a planet with an Alien Captain from a Race that can only speak in Metaphors. The episode is about interpreting and establishing communication; creating a better understanding rather than fighting.
I appreciate Star Trek more as an adult, but I think not having much fondness for it as a kid is what led me to enjoy these movies a bit more. I didn't truly realize the double-standard I was practicing until Linkara pointed out that he - as a Star Trek fan - didn't like the 09 movie or its sequels, but while confessing to _not being_ a Star Wars fan, liked the Last Jedi and the Sequel Trilogy. It made me realize that the people who didn't like the movie actually had knowledge that the general audiences didn't.
So now that I look back on these movies, I can't help but feel like they are by and large, Star Trek fanfiction. It was like JJ Abrams was tasked of using these characters and was given freedom to do whatever he wanted to do with them. And worse, I get that feeling the _Most_ from Into Darkness - which for a time, was my favorite of these new movies. I feel guilty by saying it but, I actually liked that movie's interpretation of Khan far more than the original character from Space Seed and the 2nd Star Trek movie; it's what I imagined that a fully unleashed Khan would actually be capable of doing - genetically and intellectually superior, a fast-learner able to understand the Enterprise after merely an hour of reviewing the schematics, and a volatile - nearly psychotic temper. I was interested to see what lengths Khan would go to if given a modern day movie.
But the problem is...it's simply far too detached from Ricardo Mantelban's depiction of the character that it might as well be someone else. It made me realize that I couldn't judge a character by what I wanted them to be and should instead judge by what the movie actually shows them as being. If that made the original Khan _underwhelming_ to me, then that is on me.
"I was 16 in 2009"
Me: turns to dust
I'm a big trek fan and I loved the 2009 movie hated Into Darkness and actually liked Beyond. The chemistry between the characters, particularly Pine/Quinto/Urban really worked for me.
Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home, and First Contact are my three favorites.
I was just getting into Star Trek this week and I just got this in my recommend, cool.
Star Trek is like chess. It’s thoughtful, intellectual, and sometimes silly. You can make a huge bombastic movie about medieval warriors named after chess pieces fighting each other in a epic clash. But that’s not really what chess is. Star Trek has never been an action franchise. By making it into that you loose some of the series soul.
Agree with all your points that's why the motion picture is my favorite. I would have been completely fine if jj-abrams called this film generic sci-fi Adventures but the problem is when you labeled at Star Trek what is clearly not
I think you could, but the action absolutely has to be hidden behind a character-driven story. Maybe the next one should borrow and adapt a Ray Bradbury story?
Rick and Morty is thoughtful, intellectual, definitely silly, yet also very kinetic. Dull sci-fi or really any genre ignores what it means to be part of humanity. The Olympics is a worldwide phenomenon that shows we're not all that far from our biological imperatives.
I never had a connection with star trek, the first time I really dove into the franchise was the 2009 star treck movie and into darkness. I enjoyed sci-fi/science fiction stuff but I was left feeling like it was just alright, it didn't really stick. Later I met a friend who was really into star treck and he showed me voyager, I can't describe how fast it just hooked me. The side stories were all fun and left you with a good sense of everyone on the ship, great character development, and the main over-arching plot was good too.
@@thelegendofrosetyler voyager, deep space 9, the next generation, and the original series are all epic. The new movies are ok, but they don't come close to the richness of the old shows. That's why I think trek is better as though providing shows instead of action movies.
I enjoy all the JJ movies, and I appreciate that they went out of their way to set things in an alternate timeline so it didn't mess with the canon of the other trek shows. I'm fine having action focus stuff for the movies, but I do wish the TV shows could more successfully capture more of what made the 80s and 90s trek shows good and not be so plot focused and fast paced
Yes!
I don't care how many times I watch it, the opening of Star Trek 2009 always gives me a lump in my throat. Such a powerful few minutes.
Was this a comedy Spoc,k had a girlfriend?.
You can say all ya want about this film but you gotta agree the visuals/scale/cgi is amazing
Definitely!
Especially the sound of Enterprise, the travelling/incoming torpedo, and the phaser fires.
Though I think it didn't hold up in terms of what it set up and in terms of its legacy and what came before it. Young me when it came out fell in love with it. I think Abrams isn't great when he's going off massive preexisting properties like Star Wars and Star Trek. They're solid at best, but nothing more. Just fun watches but Star Trek 2009 was a bright spot
Shout out to first contact 🙌🏽
It's funny. Right when the video ended I was gonna request you make a video on Ang Lee's Hulk. Then, I see you mention one! I'll have to check that out! Great video today though! I love when you cover your perspectives on past movies and franchises. Keep up the great work!
I do feel like the younger you were when this movie came out the more you would enjoy a story that had Kirk being jettisoned out onto some random planet, being chased by some random space dinosaur, and then stumbling into a random cave that has in it the one person in the entire galaxy that can tell him the entire plot of this movie. I didn't like that...but if you were young I can see why you would like that
Glad you chose star trek as an essay subject🙌🙌🙌
"I grew up on reruns of Next Generation..."
Oh, God I'm old. I grew up on reruns of CLASSIC Trek and watched Next Gen when it came out.
I seen first contact in theaters and I loved it. I still remember seeing if with my mom as a little kid.
"I was 16 in 2009. I grew up on RERUNS of STTNG...." Jeez, I'm so old!
I grew up watching TOS re-runs....
Although I'm not a Big Star Trek Fan I did enjoyed the reboot film series (2009-2016) that starred Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Zoe Zaldana. Speaking of Zoe, this film and Avatar were my first introductions to Zoe Saldana's work, even the film _Star Trek :Into Darkness_ was my introduction to Benedict Cumberbatch.
Cumberbatch was kinda wasted in "Into Darkness". If you really want to see him act, check him out as "Sherlock" on the BBC.
The mega quack Jar Jar Abrams managed to destroy not 1 but 2 iconic franchises
& he ain't done yet..next up superman 🦸♂️😢
Not really Star Wars is fine it just look at the mando.
Force Awakens was a great movie
@@matthewlee4834 Uh No it was basically a ripoff of A New Hope
@@DMS-pq8 for someone who is arguing that The Force Awakens is unoriginal, your comment is pretty unoriginal. Plus, your argument has been refuted hundreds of times online. Try branching out and hearing other opinions sometime
When I first watched the reboot, I kinda managed to endure it until the contrivances were piled so high at one point that I couldn't suspend any semblance of disbelief: Spock decides to drop Kirk off on a random planet. Which just happens to be the same planet Old Spock is on. And drops him off in walking distance of Old Spock's cave. And then Kirk stumbles upon it in the middle of a snowstorm. Oh, but they're stuck on this planet now, right? No, because it just so happens that Scotty has a lab on that very same planet. In walking distance. And he just happens to be working on super-advanced teleportation tech. I pretty much clocked out at this point.
I think it was actually one of Vulcan's moons not a planet (but then Abrams' Star Trek and Star Wars movies all play very fast and loose with distance in space so it could very well be a planet or even a neighboring solar system). There are a lot of contrivances to the movie, though it was only at reaching the super-advanced teleportation tech that I started to be bothered by them.
@@jcohasset23 Oh, the fact that contrivances exist isn't a problem. Many good films have them. However, this was such a massive concentration of them that it made it impossible for me to feel any suspense thereafter.
Star Trek 09 was out during my peak Trek hype as a kid. I remember loving the movie, getting a bunch of merch for the film that year for Halloween and Christmas (including a command-yellow jersey that Kirk wears in the film as a mail-order item on a cereal box), etc. I loved a lot of the episodes of the Next Generation, Voyager, and Deep Space Nine-despite never catching too many episodes of the Original Series for some reason. I also remembered really liking the film; for as simple as the concept and treatment were, the film really delivers on the emotional beats that mattered. It’s no wonder that Star Trek made Abrams the number one choice for big budget reboots and blockbusters in general. The best part was that the way he did it didn’t really impact the prime timeline save for the destruction of Romulus and Spock’s disappearance. It meant he was really able to do things with the story that would push it in a different direction. Unfortunately, Abrams would later on fall into the nostalgia-heavy crap with Into Darkness, introducing Khan in the biggest _wink, wink_ way possible and role-swapping Kirk and Spock with what’s supposed to be *the* most emotional moment with the original series’ cast. Star Trek Beyond-though not the most exciting film-really feels like a fun episode of Trek with a seasoned and more matured version of the “new” crew.
I’m kinda glad we haven’t gotten another JJ-verse movie since. The various new shows that have built on the “prime” timeline are a completely different debate, and I can’t say I’ve cared enough to watch any of them. Deep Space Nine and later seasons of Next Generation are where the franchise really hit peak substance for me, with episodes like “Chain of Command” (TNG) and “In the Pale Moonlight” (DS9) absolutely nailing the questionable ethics of spacefaring civilizations willing to do anything behind the scenes to manipulate intragalactic politics. Their character pieces also peaked with the First Contact film, which heavily delivers on Picard’s long-standing emotional baggage with the Borg in a more action-oriented flick. It’s a shame that Nemesis was the last film we really got to seem them all in together. Jonathan Frakes really should have taken that one on.
I think you have First Contact backwards. Those moments are story through action, and reward those who have seen the show by taking the concepts to their ideological extremes in a close to home environment. And since that movie did that incredibly well, all the shows today would use it as an excuse to do what they are doing...if I could believe for two seconds that any writer on modern Trek watched it.
Great review about Star Trek! I was just thinking about this film not long ago and although I enjoyed it, I couldn't quite put my finger on what my problem was with it and I think you nailed it here. Thanks for sharing!💯 Btw, my favorite Star Trek films are II, IV, & VI...
I was today yes old when unlearned that Chris pine's father was Chris Hemsworth. He look oddly familiar, I just never put two and two together, due to my chronic dumb bitch-itis
@@JustHazzo he means their characters obviously
By Odins Son, your slow
You’re not dumb at all, I didn’t put it together till after Thor, Chris looks very different in both films due to longer hair and muscle build
Lol when I saw it in theatres I remember thinking, damn Kirk’s dad is hot. Then I saw Thor and I was like wait… that’s Kirk’s dad!
@@catthehufflepuff no, he is an actor
There's nothing wrong with the new movies, they just shouldn't be called Star Trek. Rename them to Space Voyage or Star Journey and everything's gonna be fine.
The best thing I ever read about Trek 2009 was by Salon editor and critic Andrew O’Hehir, who pointed out that the story didn’t just take place in an alternate universe, but played like it was actually *filmed* in one, where the source material was a comic book franchise instead of a low-budget Sixties TV space opera that somehow managed to be both goofy and inspiring. And while the new universe was presented as an endless frontier rife with new possibilities for these rebooted characters, I suspected from the get-go that it was in fact a windy cul-de-sac that would lead to nowhere. Viacom bartered the soul of its most famous property in return for some quick cash, and pretty much got what it deserved.
Broseph, they used all the same characters, and raped universe. It's a bit hard to separate from that.
Star Trek (2009) was my entry into Star Trek ( I was 26 when It came out) and I loved it. I still like it and Into The Darkness but hated Beyond.
For those who enjoy tng star trek you might want to check out "the Terran fleet saga" books. It has the feelings of enterprise battles.
Also great video as always.
I think I’m just tired of Hollywood’s attempt of making Star Trek mainstream while also appealing to the fans. In my eyes, it’ll never work and we should just separate the two.
Definitely agree, my brother is watching DS9 now for the first time and it really made me realise how much I miss the regular intimate character moments. Like, the best parts of older trek are the likes of Garek and Quark discussing the Federation using the metaphor of Root Beer.
If it weren’t for this movie I wouldn’t have binged every single ST series afterwards to fill in the small blanks the movie left and therefore become a fan
Excellent. I already adore this channel
I remember thinking, when it was announced they were making a movie with younger versions of the TOS characters, that I did not envy whoever they would end up casting to play Kirk. How can you play Kirk, I wondered, without just doing a Shatner impression? And who wants to spend a whole movie doing that? Turns out, Chris Pine's solution was to not even try. I'm not saying he did a bad job as a hot-headed young Starfleet officer; he did great at that. But the character never really felt like James T. Kirk to me.
Did he after the trilogy was over for you?
Wonder what your take on the CBS shows are... I find Beyond the most watchable as the characters are a bit closer to the ones we had in the show. It's a good compromise in that way with the action set pieces and stupid villain. I really like the space station and the battle there as well. It was nice to have a captain Kirk that actually was in command of a ship and not running around doing everything. 2009's Trek was Top Gun. Kirk was Maverick. The Kobayashi scene could have played out straight and more serious as Kirk could have "beat" the no win scenario making him look like a tactical genius. The alert goes out and Kirk is on the ship and serving when Pike gets taken, most of command gets killed and people start to look at the guy that beat the no-win scenario. NOW Kirk has to really step forward and take command and pull it out. But, nope... more running around.
“Sit down and have at least two of these go down smooth as butter” Mmmm, butter. My favourite movie treat
The Trek 2009 is one my top 3 best Trek movies aside from First Contact and Voyage Home, and all of them happens to include time travel or some sort
Old Trek was a 4X strategy game, New Trek was a fighting game, Current Trek is a Match 3 phone app.
I remember being 9 and seeing a TV spot for it, and I thought it looked so cool. J.J.‘s films got me into Trek and for that I’m grateful
Wonderfully edited
That opening was amazing. I think I’m going to rewatch this right now.
I was ready to say 'enough already' a LONG time ago. I am perfectly happy with the 3 ORIGINAL Seasons of "Star Trek," the 6 films of the ORIGINAL ST, the 7 seasons of "Star Trek Next Generation," and the 4 films of "Star Trek Next Generation."
I'm not gonna lie, I absolutely love the three newer Star Trek films. I wish they would've made more.
I’d argue that most of the Trek movies stray pretty far from the tone of the TV shows, either leaning too heavily on action or (in the case of TMP) introspection. That said, I think they mostly retain the essence of Trek. I think making 2009 and its sequels an alternate timeline was a good move, as I can enjoy them without feeling like they completely trashed the prior continuity.
Thank You! Idk how fans dont get this. Definitely not fair to compare these new films to the old episodic TV shows while disregarding the old films and the gripes about those.
I love the new trilogy of movies for what they are - bug budget movies. Only problem I have is the tone they seemed to have set for the new shows…most of which I find unwatchable.
I love your videos; thanks for making them! I'd love to see a general video on how the desire for profit damages the artistry of film, since it seems to be a theme that comes up a lot in your analyses (as it does in our society in general).
You described near-perfectly how I felt about the rebooted films. I had only seen some of the second, but you mention it in the way I figure the rest of it is like. My personal favorite is the third one, which seems the most like older trek, even if it does seem like it's channeling one of the more ordinary of old trek episodes.
Stark trek belongs on the small screen
Case closed
Your video here makes this Trekkie wish that you made more videos about Star Trek.
The view count on this video make me wish I could afford to!
Omg a video about star trek 2009 by both Dan Murrell and captian midnight in the same week, I feel so lucky lol. I'll have to give it a rewatch for sure now.
I'm going to watch this on nebula though
"Over ten years later"? Haha outch.
I was raised on Classic Trek but I still had fun with this movie. It was visually pleasing and made good use of the found family trope. Yes everything felt urgent, and everyone was stressed during the entire movie, but the characters are not yet the secure team that trusts each other. They all showed aspects of their later (original) characters and I could believe that they would grow into these people. So yeah, I liked it, and I know it brought a lot of younger people into the fandom so that's a double win for me :)
Wow, this review is totally spot on! I LOVE this movie, maybe partially out of nostalgia for my young teenage years, but I still think it stands up to today. Unfortunately, your take on its follow ups is also very true. But for all the other viewers, I want to recommend that people go look up the sound track to this movie by itself and take a listen. In my opinion, it is one of the finest soundtracks ever, a under appreciated masterpiece by Michael Giacchino.
First Dan Murrell yesterday, and now you today, have videos on Star Trek (2009). It's my all-time favorite movie, so I'm not complaining at all 😁
That was my exact thought as well 😆. I would love to see more Star Trek videos!
This came out when I was 8 and got me to rewatch all the old movies. I still enjoy these movies but they're not like the ogs
I hope you make more Star Trek content in the future
Personally, I love all three, but Into Darkness is the weakest (like, hollow bones weak). Beyond is by far the most Trek, due to the dialogue that the main cast has in their interactions with each other.
Anyways, excellent video!
Loved this on Nebula!
Yeah compared to the original series Trek 09 is shallow and joyless. But on its own, and as an easy to digest introduction to the general idea of Star Trek's universe, it's not bad at all.
Now the effect it's had on Star Trek as a franchise? That's bad. Really, really bad.
Great video! Like you I liked some things about the movie but I didn't feel like it was real Star Trek.
My hope at the time was that the movie would be a big success and revive interest in a Star Trek show which would be more thoughtful and intellectual.
That... hasn't happened quite yet though I do feel that each new show and season is getting a little bit closer to doing that.
Also can I just say that it is truly impressive that JJ Abrams managed to mishandle two of the biggest franchises of the late 20th century and early 21st? It's not all his fault but even so it's kind of impressive in a way.
In an ideal world, I figured the movies would handle big bombastic action scenes and set pieces, and the quieter/thoughtful/wackier stuff would go to the TV series.
When Pike comes out at the end in the wheelchair thing, this woman behind me in the cinema gasped audibly in recognition of the reference.
I didn't grow up watching/loving the franchise so I loved this movie when it came out. The two sequels to it were forgettable to me, although I do need to give Beyond a fair shot because I was too distracted the one time I did watch it.
However I'm a massive fan of Discovery's first 2 seasons, and I really enjoyed The Lower Decks too. For people like me the new direction has a lot of promise but people like me also find the older stuff harder to watch, so it's a situation where half the audience automatically loses
I agree. Trek 2009 was supposed to be the new hope and we would get an Empire strikes back or at least a return of the Jedi after it. But it never happened. After his treatment of Star Wars I have lost hope in him as a director. Who takes on the worlds biggest franchises without an actual plan?
The story of the '09 reboot is basically the same story as The Wrath of Khan. Think about it: a lead officer of the Enterprise pisses off a charismatic bad guy (including making him blame the officer for the death of his wife). After many years, the bad guy gets the chance to get back at the officer with the use of a Big Science McGuffin, which he uses to destroy a whole planet, thus baiting the Enterprise into a huge confrontation which he then loses with great arrogance, guaranteeing his own death. I never understood why they even bothered trying to bring Khan back when they'd ALREADY done that movie. (Also, I was enraged by the casting of The Whitest Guy In Movies as Khan, when Abrams already had a brilliant South Asian actor in his stable who would have been utterly perfect as Khan: Naveen Andrews. Seriously, think about how kick-ass he would have been in that role. I'll never forgive Abrams for that nonsensical decision.)
God I forgot about the lense flairs...
I wish I could!
Star Trek has to be allowed to be "smart", which is something Abrams clearly wasn't interested in. The ironic thing about Star Trek 2009 is that it really made me feel that Abram's was the perfect director for a Star Wars film, which is what he made Trek feel like.
Then when he actually does a Star Wars film, it turns out to be the most unoriginal, by the numbers movie I could imagine.
Star Trek can’t merely be smart. It has to take a serious position on some kind of analogous social topic. That works for a TV show, because there are several episodes - that is, several plots. A movie has one plot and in a big blockbuster wants to avoid offending or alienating anyone and everyone it can, so that not to impact the numbers of people that pay to go see it. That is why movie Trek could ever really be action-adventure without a lot of cerebral content (unless your director is Chris Nolan).
The reboot didn't do it for me.. I saw the first one and I was like.. MeH... Nothing is better than the original Star Trek
As a life long Trek fan (I was 14 in 2009) I had watched all of TOS, TNG, Voyager, Enterprise, and all of the movies by the time 2009 came out, and I loved it. I was like, "Finally, a Trek I can show my friends and make them into Trek fans!" but as time went on... man. Into Darkness came out and I was like, "Oh no." Beyond came out and was far better and I was ready for something resembling older Trek... then the Alex Kurtzman Trek shows happened and I don't watch anything besides old shows and fan films now. Unfortunately where Trek is now began in 2009, the spirit just isn't there as much as I enjoy The Future Begins and Beyond.
Fun fact: '09 is called "Star Trek: The Future Begins" internationally... WAY better title.
I was a big Star Trek fun when I was a kid, I didn't see any of it for years until this movie came out and it's one of the best movies, I'm a fan of it then and I'm still a fan of it now
One thing I absolutely loved about Star Trek 2009 is the score. God damn it gets you hyped.
Haven't ever revisited this film, only saw it in theaters. My only complaint I can recall in 2009 was the absence of the iconic Star Trek theme at the beginning. I sat in my seat ready and excited for the music to 'flood' the theater. Kept waiting.. and waiting... by the time the film came to a close just shy of the credits it played and I felt disappointed..
Never been a huge Trek fan however I least my parents exposed me to the series so I know going in what the characters were like etc. 2009 is an alright film, I'd like to rewatch it to give another shot. Did remember being excited to see Nimoy on screen. R.I.P.
You put my gripes with these movies in a way Mr Plinkett never could. I am truly impressed. I too wonder what could have been with this cast Bc they were cast properly but I wanted to see them exploring the galaxy... that’s impossible for a movie it’d be too disjointed. Still, those movies are all better than Picard/Discovery
Shout out to DS9 fans. I'll be seeing you.
I grew up with the TOS Movies (from III onward) and then TNG. It was always that nerdy series that made you think--and I loved it for that reason. The action (when done right) was for a purpose. TWOK the action was an expression of character; their intelligence or hatred, ect.
All this comes to 2009 where it's action schlock. And told through the lens of Young Kirk. Problem for me was how much I hated the character. He had virtually no redeeming qualities I could find. He used the Orion girl to cheat the Kobayashi Maru for example. I mean he was a D-Word (pick any; they all apply). I couldn't stand that character.
2009 Spock and McCoy are far better, even if I don't think Spock should be that emotional and McCoy was underused.
I think 2009 would work for me a lot better if it was Star Trek: Beyond Kirk who was far closer to what I think of for Kirk. He shouldn't be making me mad or ask why he's using people for personal gain.
I really hope you do more star trek stuff in the future, I'll love to hear your take on discovery and picard
Ok yeah Chris Hemsworth plays Kirk's dad, but watching the clips here, is that Jennifer Morrison playing Kirk's mum? Never in a million years would I have expected someone from House to pop up in a Star Trek anything.
Yeah it is. Damn that scene gets me every time.
Can't unsee
Does that make Kirk the grandson of Snow White?
More Trek please! I would love to hear your take in the sequels and Voyager.
@captainmidnight - I just watched this on Nebula and the sound had a lot of tinny distortion in it. It sounded like something was "tinkling" in the background, between the commentary and the music track.
_Star Trek_ (2009) is a good intro for non-Trekkies into the ST universe, but never let JJ "Lens Flare-arama" Abrams near a sequel. There's a reason why Tom Cruise only allowed him to direct one _Mission: Impossible_ film and never let him near any of the sequels, meanwhile Christopher McQuarrie is on his third M:I sequel.
The thing for me about this film and the trilogy (which I love) is it was my first proper introduction to Star Trek. I’d watched some of the films and had seen bits of enterprise when I was much younger but I was 10 when this came out and I loved it. After I watched into darkness I went back and watch all of the tv shows. If these films never came out I might never have fallen in love Star Trek and I think a lot of older fans don’t recognise how much of an impact these films have had on the younger fanbase. They might not be the most “star trekkie” films but they are a great entry point into a fantastic universe.
Star Trek ‘09 is a remake of Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope.
I REALLY like this movie. More than the recent Star Wars movies. It has a lot of great moments and all of the actors do a fantastic job in their roles. The two sequels to this movie didn’t quite reach the same level of entertaining for me, which is a shame. There was a lot of potential.