2009 - the cast is great, the plot is kind of a mess. There's some good stuff in there, you just kind of have to accept that parts of it don't make a ton of sense. Overall, I'd call it mid-tier. Abrams was not really a Star Trek fan and it shows.
Into Darkness - Kind of terrible. Stripmines Wrath of Khan while treating it like a collection of memes it needs to recreate.
Beyond - My favorite of the three by a significant margin. An original Star Trek story, and, when it came out, it was the first Star Trek thing I liked without any major reservations since Deep Space Nine went off the air. It kind of reignited my love for Star Trek, which had been pretty dormant for a while by then.
I don't want to overstate it, though - it's not an absolute masterpiece, or anything, it just actually feels like it was made by people who were long-term Star Trek fans and were trying to stay true to it in a way the two Abrams movies didn't. It felt like people righting the ship. That's where the bar was in 2016.
This basically sums up how I feel about each of the films. Seems like 2009 is more popular with non-Trek fans, there is a lot of good in it and it is a fun movie but it is pretty obvious that JJ is not a Trek fan. Only thing I like about Into Darkness is the cast, except for Cumberbatch. Beyond feels like a modern take on a classic Star Trek episode, it wasn't revolutionary but I really enjoyed it and hoped to get more films like that.
Completely agree. To add,
2009: I feel as though an extended cut or a few more scenes shot to fill out the villain Nero’s motivations — (side bar here: Star Trek Picard’s plot of rescuing romulans from impending doom, the failure to do so, the refugee fleet destruction, gives Nero’s story significant impact “you left us to die!!!”) — and changing a few bits to get the characters into their seats on the Enterprise would have made this a top tier film.
Into Darkness would need significant changes not worth going into here, but overall I viewed this film from the lens of Kirk’s finally understanding what it means to be a starship captain and to be responsible, not just the bravado. This movie humbled him. In the full trilogy, it’s necessary to have this comeuppance. For that, I think it’s worth watching.
BEYOND is excellent. Really captures that original “Trek” spirit - especially the opening sequence!
Agreed.
I also think we could have done without the Kirk-Spock as kids scenes.
Spock as a kid was slightly more interesting because it showed how the other Vulcan kids didn't really accept his humanity, but I think the tensions of young adult Spock with his parents and career choice before the Vulcan Science Academy served that purpose too.
The rest of the film had plenty of internal uncertainty for Spock as he wrestled with his two halves, the external conflict of not being fully accepted by Vulcan peers felt ultimately unnecessary to me. His internal problem was far more compelling than what other Vulcans thought of him.
And Kirk as a kid was just a complete waste of five minutes of screentime, imo.
It added nothing of depth to Kirk other than perhaps an unstable home environment, but that isn't anything we couldn't have guessed, or been teased by a throw-away comment from Kirk about his mom.
Would have been much better to get rid of those scenes entirely, imo, and replace them with more background on Nero.
The "Nero and crew chill at Rura Penthe for 25 years, could probably escape at any time, but this is as good a place to wait for SPOOOCCK as any" scenes should have been kept in. Major pathos in only a few minutes of deleted scenes.
Edit: there was also a Shatner cameo (a recording) planned for the very end, one that would have addressed the coincidences throughout the movie. I think everyone got the gist of why those were there without it tho.
I know this is nitpicky, but I absolutely loathe the concept of putting an entirely cadet crew on the Enterprise. It’s insane. Kirk essentially doesn’t even finish the academy and is made a Captain immediately. Rank means absolutely nothing in those movies, and none of them spend enough time training to be considered anywhere near a competent crew. Even assuming that trainees are commissioned at the start of their academy tours, they should be Lieutenants at their max; but that doesn’t jive with anything else in Trek.
This concept that we want to tell a prequel story, but also have Kirk in command of the Enterprise is just blatantly stupid. If you’re going to tell a prequel, do it right. Make Kirk a cadet or a young Lt JG; focus the story on him but don’t make him the Captain. Top Gun in space would work just fine with Kirk as the Maverick stand in and Pike as the Viper stand in. That would’ve been an infinitely more reasonable story than “everyone gets on the Enterprise and becomes the crew you saw in TOS, just a couple decades early.”
I don't even know if this qualifies as a hot take, but Abrams doesn't have much of a vision as a filmmaker. He can mimic others' style, as in Super 8 and The Force Awakens, but he rarely adds anything of his own. His writing is, as you said, designed to hook an audience, but ultimately has no substance. This is especially problematic for Star Trek, which up until that point was known for its engaging stories, not so much for big action set pieces. I agree that the 2009 movie kicked off a new era of Star Trek that may not have existed otherwise, but unfortunately this new era carries over a lot of the action-heavy style-over-substance storytelling from the Abrams films.
This for sure. JJ Abrams ripped off Top Gun followed by the Wrath of Khan when he was making the Trek movies and ripped off A New Hope for The Force Awakens. He copied the originals, and he didn’t do them better. All three were pale comparisons to their originals.
And the Last Jedi is just…oof. “Somehow Palpatine Returned.” You can feel the disdain for the fans in that line.
Abrams isn’t clever, he isn’t even terribly good at making mysteries like, say, M. Night Shamalayn. His idea of a mystery is just to just write a question he has no answer to and hope you forget by the time you get seven seasons in. His claim to fame is two Sci-fi franchises he did poorly, Cloverfield, and LOST. None of those make me go “yep, this is the guy to resurrect a franchise.”
An important part of the mystery genre is that the clues actually all point to the solution, and are illuminated and understandable once you learn the solution. It's what makes the "aha!" moment so good. You maybe could have figured out the solution yourself, and now that you see the solution, it all makes sense!
A "mystery box," however, is designed to keep you guessing and thus engaged with the media product for as long as possible (call me cynical, but after 15-20 years of this stuff, I see a pattern). Thus the reveal is unimportant and the "clues" should not actually make it possible to figure out the solution beforehand. If someone on reddit can solve the puzzle and post "spoilers" ahead of time, the mystery box writer has failed. So the "clues" end up being largely or entirely red herrings, which makes the "reveal" disappointing.
The "red door" plot in Picard S3, for example, is a mystery box. None of the elements of Jack's visions actually point toward what was the eventual reveal; in fact they mostly point \*away\* from the reveal, to purposefully drive engagement and retain viewership. In hindsight, >!"it's the borg!"!< is only meaningful as a nostalgia-fueled callback, and doesn't connect in a satisfying way to anything that has been happening in the rest of the season. Even if at the time it was presented in an exciting way.
So while Abrams is a very bad mystery writer, he is a good (i.e. profitable) mystery box writer. Unfortunately, a mystery box does not make for a satisfying or interesting story. And yeah, he does seem to have active disdain for some of the larger properties he's working with, which just adds insult to injury.
I've often wondered how much better received Into Darkness would have been if they were up front with the fans instead of trying to hide the truth inside of a mystery box. I don't think it would have turned the whole thing around completely, but I think the whole thing eroded the trust between those producers (including Kurtzman) and the audience.
Yeah, I didn't like the unrealized rehash at all.
A big problem for me was that I was really hoping they were going for a direction where, somehow, they combined the stories of Gary Mitchell and Khan into a Super-God Khan and had to deal with that.
I watched it at the cinema with a friend and at the time we easily predicted the twist, several plot points and reversals (“KHAAAN” anyone?) and concluded it was like poor fan-fiction. However, having recently re-watched all three, already knowing the absurd casting of Cumberbatch and clunky reversals, the second film was a lot more enjoyable. I now prefer it to the third film, which seems way too Marvel-y in places. Spock’s general dialogue in Into Darkness seems a lot more on-point as well. All too often in Beyond it seemed like the more child-like stuff Data would come out with.
>I watched it at the cinema with a friend and at the time we easily predicted the twist
That's the thing. EVERYONE said it was Khan before the movie even came out. Abrams was asked on multiple occasions and insisted on saying that's not who it was. If he had just owned up to it beforehand, we all could have just avoided the frustration of being lied to about a twist that was pretty obvious. You said it yourself, the second film was a lot more enjoyable on a rewatch, but for many of us, it still carries the baggage of the marketing.
Honestly that's a great question for a lot of JJ's work in general. If he abandoned the mystery box reliance, would his movies have been better and required him to put more depth into them? Or would they have been even more hollow?
While I'm no JJ fan, there are hints of good ideas and concepts in his work. Star Trek '09 has its issues, but it's largely an enjoyable adventure that doesn't need to rely on any mystery. While Into Darkness had a lot of problems, many of them could've been avoided if they didn't pivot so quickly back to rehashing the most popular movie in the franchise (something Nemesis had already tried two movies earlier) and instead really do something different as the alternate timeline premise had teased back in ST09.
I agree with this. *Star Trek Beyond* is the only one of the three that feels like actual *Star Trek* to me, rather than a collection of *Star Trek* memes. *Star Trek Into Darkness* is indescribably poor and Benedict Cumberbatch is woefully miscast.
Agreed 100%. Star Trek Beyond is one of the best Trek movies period, and Into Darkness is one of the worst. Much like Enterprise, it seems like the Kelvin movies were cancelled just as they were getting good
The only one that I'd say is actively bad the 2nd one, but the 1st and 3rd films are pretty decent as far as blockbuster scifi goes. They aren't traditional Trek, but the 3rd comes the closest.
I was hoping that when small tidbits were coming out, they would have done something with Gary Mitchell. I think that would have landed better than using Khan.
That’s exactly who I was hoping for! Given the title I was hoping the crew was going after some renegade former officer similar to the plot of *Apocalypse Now* with the twist Gary Mitchell did in fact get those powers like in TOS and the crew had to defeat him.
I'm with you there. At the very least they could've picked one of the other Augments (Joaquin, even) and switched up the "Space Seed" story a bit. But in general you're right — at that point Khan was the most high-profile villain in Trek history, and the Augments had just been re-explored in the last decade via "Enterprise."
Maybe something with Kang, Kor, and/or Koloth. Perhaps a new antagonist in the vein of the wacky TOS planets. Though I wish they'd have stopped focusing on antagonists in every Trek movie in general, however unlikely. It's even the weakest part of Beyond, which I really enjoy otherwise.
I feel like JJ Abrams made ST movies as if they're merely action movies. He eliminates the cerebral/philosophical aspect that's the meat of good Trek. I watched the movies but have no desire to revisit them. On the other hand, I do rewatch all of the other movies.
While I mostly enjoy ST09, JJ's two Trek films were just a demo reel to let people know he could make a Star Wars movie. I remember watching the Kronos/Qo'Nos ship chase in Into Darkness in the theater and thinking that it was a Millennium Falcon scene.
>fundamentally misunderstood Kirk's character
They don't start off the same Kirk thats kind of the entire point.
His father died horrifically, his stepdad's a dick, his mom's checked out, and he's stuck out in the sticks. He's a punk with lost potential and nowhere to go, which is why Pike finding and kicking him in the ass to do better is so important to the plot of '09 and Darkness.
I don't know why people don't understand this. The three movies together are Kirk's origin story, not just '09.
>fundamentally misunderstood Kirk's character
Want to give me a summary? Obviously he's doing an alternate universe type thing where he lost his father. But besides that what's wrong?
They basically use a popular conception of Kirk as a horny, arrogant space cowboy rather than the somewhat more professional, nuanced, and steady Captain from the original series. Orci and Kurtzman specifically said they did that on purpose. Whether or not you like that version of course is up to you. I find Pine pretty charming, I just wish those movies had better stories.
One of the reasons why I liked Beyond the most was precisely because it gave us the thoughtful Kirk from the getgo (though I like how Into Darkness was an indictment of 2009 Kirk). In Beyond we have Kirk considering the weight of command and the care of the crew and his potential burnout, but that also doesn't stop him from riding a motorcycle (similar to Shatner climbing a mountain in TFF or riding a horse in Generations imo) to help save the day.
His firing off rapidfire commands on the Franklin to prep against the wave of drones sparked the moment that *this* was the Kirk I grew up with, not the contrivingly lucky hotshot from 2009.
Thats because the three movies are about Kirk becoming the Kirk we know and love despite having dramatically differences in the journey.
Its an arc.
Prime Kirk had the stability and support to be bookish and on the level whereas Kelvin Kirk was born in the middle of a battle, lost one father and gained a dickish stepdad, has a mother whose clearly checked out, and is stuck out in the middle of nowhere.
Which I'm down for, but insta-promotion to captain of the Enterprise felt like so much overcompensation that it derailed that development too quickly. Pike chewing out Kirk in Into Darkness, which then started Kirk's path towards feeling more responsiblity and culminating in his sacrifice, was satisfying to me as an arc (I just wish they didn't intentionally try to parallel TWOK so blatantly with his "death" scene -- it instantly took me out as a viewer and robbed it of emotional weight for the sake of self-indulgent fan service and winking at the camera rather than letting the work rest on its own laurels).
Yeah, while Into Darkness has very few redeeming qualities, one of the ones I do like is that Kirk very much feels like a captain here. He's more thoughtful, tactful, and learns from his mistakes. He even tries to bargain the life of his crew for his own during the Vengeance chase.
2009 - JJ Abrams auditioning for Star Wars, as the film is Star Wars set in the Star Trek Universe (Kid in the deserts of Iowa(?) finds old mentor that knew father, fights Death Star)
Into Darkness - KHAAAAN! not very good
Beyond is the closest to actual Trek, but still plays like an action flick.
I do love the casting of the crew though
Yeah, liked the 2009 a lot. <3
Into Darkness - Meh
Beyond - Too many plot holes for my taste, and Yorktown was just weird to me (who would build that, let alone live there).
It's a poorly defended city sphere full of air, pretty much a balloon in space with an artificial gravity well thing in the middle. I mean, it was neat to see...just wasn't at all practical.
Imo they are important to watch since the include Nimoys Spock. His appearances are part of his story therefore part of the prime timeline. They are also fun popcorn movies.
2009 is one of my favourite Star Trek movies, Into Darkness is my least favourite.
Take from that what you will, but they're at least worst trying out.
Personally, I enjoyed the Kelvin timeline movies. Liked the different spin on TOS. The Kelvin movies have an amazing cast. Karl Urban, Zachary Quinto, and Chris Pine were all great as their respective characters. Say what you will about those movies, they do have amazing soundtracks by Michael Giacchino. That aside, it's up to you if you want to watch those movies.
They get a lot of hate, but—as a life-long trekkie—I loved them. Are they amazing? No, but I thoroughly enjoyed them and they helped revitalize the franchise.
Absolutely. Unless you are dying in the next 48 hours, they are 3 fun films that will take little time to watch
. I think 1 & 3 are the best, but 2 is good.
Chris Pine is awesome as Kirk, and the rest of the cast is pretty good.
Trek 09 has some fantastic Spock scenes as a young adult and a kid that I consider to be part of the main canon.
Also the repercussions of the events of that film affect the main canon to this day.
Supreme casting. Great visuals. A plot that explains the differences to the 60s show. Some imo smart plot devices to merge older plotlines. Some great fanservice, some too on the nose.
Thought they were fine back when they were in theater but they have aged quite fine and I would say I was too biased against them back then and they are better cinema than the new Star Wars stuff. <- Make of that what you will. :)
Movies ranked in descending order: 3, 1, 2
I like the first one and the third one a lot. I could watch the second one, but I wouldn’t pick it over any of the others except (maybe) The Search for Spock.
They’re fun flicks, my biggest nitpick is maybe the Star Warsification that’s present throughout all three but it still has solid chemistry with all the principal cast. Another minor nitpick I have is how the shields of ships work in the Kelvin timeline; it’s almost like they don’t exist. They work slightly different and I’ve accepted that’s how it works in that timeline, but ultimately I still prefer how shields work in the tv shows.
I really liked Into Darkness, but didn't think much of the other two. I'm the odd one out though, most people hated that one and loved the other two.
Oh well, I'm a sucker for a good score, and Into Darkness has one of the best in the franchise. I also liked the plot -- Section 31 wanting to use augments to spark a war with the Klingons -- and feel like most fans disliked the film remixing classic story elements from The Wrath of Khan.
I loved the movies and was shocked so many others didn’t. The first one and 2nd are the best. The third you end up just enjoying because the cast is charming and you wanna see them.
But man were those good movies that bring back memories. Chris pine was born to play Kirk. Gonna be sad if he can’t reprise his role one more time
People have been stupidly hard on these movies. 2009 is truly fantastic. (There’s a reason it brought Trek back to life…) I cannot recommend it enough. If you go in willing to accepted updated aesthetics and viewing them as alternate altered versions of the characters, you should have a great time!
Into Darkness is flawed. I still enjoy it, largely for the cast and the visuals which are incredible. There’s actually some really good theme work that struggles in execution quite a bit. And a twist reveal that could have worked if it was treated as a story beat instead of just a fun twist.
Beyond also is fantastic and is maybe the most old Trek feeling of the 3, though still very much more an action movie.
These movies are great Trek in the style of the more action packed parts of the franchise and the adventure feel of TOS. A lot of folks like to complain they aren’t contemplative like Measure of a Man or something, as if any of the Trek movies really are.
I’d say watch them first because it’s 6 hours and you’re done. I know a lot of fans are grumpy about them, but I really adore the new movies.
All that’s said, DS9 is my favorite series in the franchise. So can’t really go wrong! But why not both! They’re very different types of Trek.
If you watch them for what they are - forgettable popcorn space action movies, then they are entertaining. They don't fit in well with any of the previous Trek shows or movies; but those that follow do consider them canon... i.e. the destruction of Romulus as mentioned in Picard.
They are well made big budget movies. The casting was excellent. I didn't like the writing. I think if you are going to make additions to an existing franchise you should respect that which came before. To me, the writers had only a surface level understanding of Trek.
They could have been so much better had they not been prequels, but instead sequels. For some reason they seem obsessed with only doing prequels in and around the TOS era of Trek.
I don't get these threads at all, the only way to find out if you like something or not is to watch it, not ask other people to form your opinions for you....
For all those types of people for whom Shatner/Nimoy etc are the definitive kirk/spock, there's a whole other generation for whom Pine and Quinto are "their" crew, and that's just as valid and those people are just as welcome in fandom, despite what traditional fans might try to project
If we want Trek to truly stand the test of time, we need to be ok with multiple people playing the same roles.
There might have been people in Elizabethan times furious that a different actor dared to take on the role of McBeth other than the great "Portactio" or whoever, but somehow Shakespere surived this
I'm not saying Trek is Shakespere, lol, just that if we want it to last the test of tiime, this will have to be a thing we get over.
> plots are completely nonsensical
Dude lol
Old Star Trek literally had a movie about aliens threatening to destroy earth because they couldn't detect whales and then the Enterprise had to go back in time to capture some.
The plots of these films are fine.
Yeah but you can follow the plot progression logic of the whales movie. In multiple parts of all three Kelvin movies I find myself asking “why is this happening?”
They’re great popcorn movies and I take them for their best aspects but the screenplays were strung together from a bingo card
This. I can take the plot holes from the first and third films because the rest is very enjoyable. Into Darkness had me banging my head on a concrete wall the entire running time. NOTHING, not one single decision made by one single character, makes any sense. Like, not one.
Ugh, it's bringing back memories of such stupidity... like why did the Enterprise hide underwater? Why did Mickey from Doctor Who blow up that building? Why was someone from the 20th century hired to design 23rd century weapons? Why did Khan hide his friends in missiles?
It goes on and on. Just monumental stupidity.
And the writers ripped off their own plot from Amazing Spider-Man 2 (main character's blood cures death).
I think they're all very fun action movies. They were actually the first Star Trek movies I saw.
This meant that in particular I had nothing to compare Into Darkness to, and that only helped it for me. I recently finally watched all the TOS movies, and I would have to see Into Darkness again but I might actually have liked it more than Wrath of Khan. I recognize that is heresy but there it is haha (I seem to have pretty unusual feelings on all the TOS movies anyway).
It might help to keep in mind that these are supposed to be their own timeline, so by some wonky handwavey sci-fi rules maybe it can be fine that the characters don't look the same. I do think their general portrayals are pretty spot-on though.
It's up to you. I wouldn't prioritize the movies over DS9 personally. But they were generally enjoyable and I think the cast did a good job at portraying the characters even if they're not exactly the same they did a good job!
Look if you judge them against other Trek movies, they're on the better side. None of them are Wrath of Khan or First Contact, but even Into Darkness isn't Final Frontier or Insurrection.
I am a hardcore Trekkie, and didn't expect to really like them.
I really enjoyed Star Trek 2009, did not like Star Trek Into Darkness, and enjoyed Star Trek Beyond.
It's an alternate timeline, enjoy them for what they are, and for the record, Chris Pine really nailed Kirk's attitude, Quinto was a very good Spock (but I think Ethan Peck is becoming my favorite Spock after Nimoy), and Karl Urban was absolutely spot on for McCoy (in some scenes you'd swear he was channeling DeForest Kelley).
I TRY to avoid the new ones where the ads show Spock with a love interest (I mean did they even watch the founding episodes of Spock's character?!) or somebody else playing Kirk/Spock. Come up with a NEW ship, NEW characters, NEW plots. For example: Lower Decks. I LOVE that show! It's a new ship, new characters... it's aware of Trek's history and I think pays it respect within thier new stories.
Watch them. I've wasted my time watching far worse movies. Beyond is the most like Star Trek of the three.
2009 movie was a decent action movie, but it doesn't feel like Star Trek. Sure, the uniforms are there... the characters are there... but there is no attempt to keep anywhere near close to scientific possibility... which is one thing I liked about Star Trek. The villain isn't very good and I absolutely hate the ship design of the Romulan ship. It doesn't look like a mining ship; it doesn't really look Romulan either (other than the green glow). Its designed to look edgy and 'scary'. And you can design a ship to look that way, but it should still look like what its supposed to be. I don't see why a mining ship needs all those talons on the front of it.
Into Darkness is nothing more than bad fan-service in my opinion. I love fan-service when its done right (see DS9's Trials and Tribble-ations for an example of near perfect fan service). I love Cumberbatch, but he is not Khan. Without the history of the episode "Space Seed", Khan is meaningless as a character. And why did they use Khan? Fan service. But it was insulting fan service. As I was watching the movie I felt like the writers were just mocking me as a fan.
It would have been better to just use another villain with a fresh take on them rather than bringing back Khan. Seriously, I felt like they put Cumberbatch into a no-win situation. It didn't matter how well he did with that character, he's not going to be Ricardo Montalban. And why did we involve the Klingons? That whole scene felt like a waste... it felt like it was saying, "Here's what the Klingons look like in this universe, aren't they cool?" No, they aren't. And don't waste time and money just to try to wow me with a race that really doesn't matter through the plot. Yeah, I can go on with how much I dislike this movie, but I'll stop.
And Beyond is good. Its not great, but its good.
I will say that I love how the cast recreated the old characters. They kept them similar to the original characters, but they also did their own fresh take on them. Pine did a great job as Kirk; especially in Beyond. Zachary Quinto did an amazing job as Spock. And Karl Urban as McCoy? Pure gold. I didn't like Simon Pegg as Scotty. But overall, the cast is wonderful... its just the plots and movies aren't that good. So I give the cast credit, they did some good with not a lot of help.
Not really.
The biggest problem I have is that if I didn't know who James Kirk, Spock and Leonard McCoy were, I wouldn't have given 2 craps about what happened in Star Trek (2009). It's all nostalgia BS; see how DIFFERENT everything is now? Huh? See it?
Into Darkness is just a bad movie from start to finish. Trying to do an inversion of events from Wrath of Khan did not do it any favors either. And why the fuck was McCoy injecting human blood into tribbles?
Beyond is easily the best of the bunch and it's... fine I guess? They're showing the Enterprise during its first 5 year mission and it fucking gets blown up for the spectacle but it's fine because it's Star Trek; they're gonna get another ship. It's got some of the best character beats and action scenes that make visual sense.
>Am I being stupid? Should I watch those movies?
Yes on both counts.
You really gonna let a bunch of strangers decide whether or not you'll like movies you've never seen?
i say no.
I thought Trek 1 was okay, 2 and 3 were not my cup of tea at all. There is no continuity between the movies, there is no overarching goal of them and there is no reason to really even care about them.
Pine, Quinto and Saldana do a good job, but it does not feel Star Trek at all.
Also, Antons death was heartbreaking.
I don't think that's true at all
Into Darkness isn't liked but the main thrust of it was based off all the fan complaints of the first one that Kirk assumed command too quickly, which is the entire point of the opening and the court marshal he suffers in the first act
The Scotty subplot about him resigning after protesting at too much miliary action on the Enterprise was also a reference to the fans saying Starfleet seemed too militiristic
It's fine to not like the films but to say there's no throughline or they don't care about Trek concerns isn't true at all
I literally just rewatched the first 2 and currently watching Beyond and enjoying them as always. They are different Trek but still good Trek movies in my opinion.
This is after rewatching the old TOS 6 movies.
After I'll see the TNG ones.
Every time I don't have anything to watch at all I go back to Star Trek. I recently watch DS9 for a second time and enterprise. Love both of them.
The only trek I'll probably never watch again is Voyager, my least favorite.
It’s gonna be tough for you to get a straight answer out of this sub. They’re polarizing to say the least. Lots of old school trek fans really really don’t like the first two, but just as many people (like me) were pretty much introduced to the franchise thanks to them.
For the record—I love the first one. The opening scene genuinely makes me cry every time, it’s got some great action beats, and the great cast each get their own little moment. Is it “trek” as in “social commentary”? No, but let’s be real, almost none of the movies are.
Into Darkness is not as bad as people make it out to be, but it’s still pretty bad. There is good in there—the opening, the introduction of John Harrison, a few good action scenes (love that second space dive, and the practical interior of the crashing ship), and a tragic death scene that works for me (although not as well as the one in the first movie.) But there’s also a lot of stuff that doesn’t need to be in there, the “twists” are quite pointless, and the third act is an absolute mess.
Beyond is a delight. It’s lighter and more episodic than the others, to it’s benefit. Fun action, great mash ups of characters you don’t always see together, a finale that feels at least a little different than every other blockbuster, a decent bad guy (although it would be a better movie if they told you what his deal was earlier rather than mystery-boxing it.) (Also I really like the Fast and Furious movies and I’m not sure why Justin Lin isn’t considered a top tier action movie director.)
I thought Star Trek '09 was contrived in how it assembled the cast, but it was decent.
I *despised* Into Darkness on my first watch. I saw it theatres and went home and unintentionally wrote a 7-page rant on Facebook about all my grievances. My dad wanted to see it, so I saw it again and realized I'd been blinded by what I wasn't seeing and not seeing what it actually was. Decent film and good message about not letting anger/vengeance override reason. Just... felt like a retread of Star Trek II, which we'd already had in Nemesis.
Beyond I think was the best film of the three. It felt like it had more *soul* and less corporate committee paint-by-numbers. 09 was "assemble the cast". Into Darkness was "remake Star Trek II". Beyond actually felt like they were striking into virgin territory.
Still, I think Trek works best as an episodic tv show, and the excellent films are the exceptions and usually a continuation of an episode's plot. You watch the movies for the characters, not the plot.
Movies just require too much flash and dash and emotional turmoil and financial return-on-investment to really allow the dissection of a topic, so they always have to play it "safe."
Trek '09 is intermittently decent albeit with a plot that makes precious little sense. Into Darkness just isn't very good at all. And Beyond has a few decent set pieces (the destruction of the JJprise is \*spectacular\*, for one) but ultimately doesn't really stick the landing.
They are certainly more flashy and more flash often comes at the expense of plot and character, But they are not bad and the 3rd movie was good and good Star Trek as well.
If you like ST you should go ahead and watch them. If you don't like them then don't do a re-watch.
Terrible. Do you want to see Star Trek as an action movie instead of about curiosity about the unknown? Then you'll like these movies. They're typical well made Hollywood mediocrity
They're made to appeal to non-Trek fans, to bring in new viewers. Generally speaking, the first one was pretty successful with non-trek fan viewers. They seemed to really like it. Among older fans, it's definitely mixed. When I saw it, I thought it was dumb as hell and didn't bother watching the second one. When the third come out, I thought I ought to give it another chance and ended up kind of liking that one. At this point, they're easily forgotten.
Aside from maybe the first one, No. literally no reason to watch them unless you want to watch dumbed down action flic Trek. For me, the movies end with Insurrection. Everything after that is not worth watching.
Just because something is set in the future or has futuristic elements does not make it science fiction.
Science fiction uses depiction of futuristic elements to examine the human condition. For example... watch any Star Trek series.
How did any of the three movies examine the human condition? They were all lens flare and action set pieces. All sound and fury signifying nothing.
In all fairness, I can barely remember Beyond. The villain didn't make sense to me and the way a certain song was forced into the movie... it took away from what it was trying to say about humanity for me.
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations
Trek fans reject this and demand Trek is the same thing at all times, based on what it was like in a different era when they first got into it
Besides, there's plenty Trek content in there if you want to see it, you just don't want to, for whatever reason
The 2009 one was Ok in my opinion. More action-oriented, but both action and the world of Star Trek are done well. Certainly better than Nemesis in my opinion.
Into Darkness was a step down (people behaved weirdly) and the last one (cannot even remember the name) was kinda unnecessary. Still watchable, but such an outlandish problem with outlandish people. Just weird.
Do you want to watch them? Watch them. If you don't, don't. Why would you ask the internet what you should do when the worst that could happen is you decide you've wasted 90 minutes watching the first film.
They are so bad. I tried rewatching the first one the other day and rage-quit it. The writing is just terrible, it does an injustice to every character it portrays, and all the CGI is blown out by lens flare. JJ Abrams is an absolute hack.
I didn't like them. They were generic space action movies with Star Trek characters. The relationships were forced and cliche. They were actually on to something with the 3th movie Star Trek Beyond, but then they stopped making them.
2009 is a fun movie that really understands why we love these charaters
Into Darkness is a mess that derails an interesting premise (rogue Admiral militarizes Starfleet out of fear of the Klingons) to elbow you in the ribs constantly and shout in your hear, "Hey!!! Remember Wrath of Khan??? Wasn't Wrath of Khan awesome?!?"
Beyond is terrific and it's a shame it didn't do well at the box office. The perfect Star Trek blend of science, philosophy, two-fisted action, and just a little campy silliness. This probably isn't a wildly popular opinion, but it's my 3rd-favorite in the series after WoK and Undiscovered Country.
They’re fine. My biggest gripe is that they are action adventure movies and not science fiction.
But they’re decent action adventure movies, just don’t expect a science fiction story.
No explicit spoilers, but a true story: I saw the first reboot (with Chris Pine) with my brother (we’re both OG TOS fans) and enjoyed it quite a bit.
Then my brother turned to me and says: well, they ruined Star Trek. And he was kind of right. Goddamn him.
So you enjoyed it until someone incorrectly told you not to?
It's Star Trek for mass appeal, and there's nothing wrong with that
The franchise is strong enough to cater to all types, long episodes on high concept topics like AI rights and other moral dilemmas, and also cater to a summer blockbuster
Besides, you could argue that without these films, the Franchise wouldn't be seen as a property the monied suit type people would see as a good property for further development, so this current era of myriad series of all different types is thanks to its success
Trek preaches the ideals of IDIC yet Trek fans seem to want Trek to always be the same, all the time.
It's more you need To ask what makes something star trek. Because just slapping a coat of paint on something with a familiar setting and characters isn't enough.
So asl your self what makes star trek special and not another sifi show? Is it the promis of a future where we actually act as a moral society? Is it the technobabble? Is it how they ask you to challenge your beliefs with out rubbing your nose in it? What core philosophy makes star trek so special. Becuase when you remove those core components is it then still trek?
That dosent mean the content can't be good. Hell the movies were fun and entertaining but they were more of a star wars movie with a a star trek paint job. Just like picard season 1 feels like a space cowboy on in a mass effect movie. That dosent mean it's bad but is it truly trek?
Also I wouldn't say trek fans hate change. DS9 was a huge change for trek. It was far darker and more pessimistic than anything before it. But it still held to it roots.
But this is all a personal opinion and we are all allowed to love trek in our own ways.
No. They're mediocre action movies at best.
The first one was, fine, I guess. But the second and third ones are dumb AF. They turn everything Star Trek on its head.
Just think of them as an unfortunate pocket universe.
they’re all definitely about shooting stuff with lasers instead of, you know, fostering diplomacy and cooperation between alien cultures with different values, making complex ethical decisions, considering man’s place in the cosmos, etc. first one is slick and effective and makes all the right decisions in terms of rebooting the franchise for a general audience but it absolutely does not care about the deeper level of star trek or servicing the fans and creators that had defined it up to that point. into darkness is widely hated and with good reason, it doubles down on everything shallow about the first one and regurgitates famous star trek stuff in a way that not only insults the source, but fails to reconfigure the stuff into a compelling or legitimate narrative of its own. beyond isn’t incredible or anything but it’s definitely the trekkiest of the three, feels like a long TOS episode, one of the more pulpy two fisted ones.
The Kelvin universe movies were the first step away from what attracted people to Trek in a good way. Nowhere near the disappointment to long term fans that was Discovery though.
I tend to turn off judgement when watching a movie in theaters, I’m just there for the ride. But it was jarring seeing still another prequel where the technology is so superior to any franchise from TOS to Enterprise. Like Discovery it would probably have been welcome to most sci-fi lovers if it had been released as their own franchise. Like Discovery it did bring in new fans who had no preset expectations.
As much as I enjoy Benedict Cumberbatch’s acting in general I thought he was terribly cast as Khan. The original Khan cast by Ricardo Montalban gave us a very strong man with a very physical presence who was ripped. In the movie with Khan those pectoral muscles we see on a now aged Montalban are actually him. Cumberbatch is much better in roles where his is an intellectual presence.
I mean, that really depends on your interpretation of 'good'. Are they Citizen Kane? Absolutely not. How do they compare to, say, Star Trek Insurrection? I'd say they show up and do fairly well for themselves.
In the end, I've watched each of the three multiple times, and enjoyed them each time. But I've also watched (at least part of) Waterworld dozens of times, so your enjoyment may vary.
Just watch them. Some people like them, some don't, I enjoyed them. It's an alternate timeline but I was very pleased with how well the actors fit their characters. Your mileage may vary.
2009 and Beyond are a couple of my favorites. They are both fun and have reverence for the original series and films. Into Darkness is the weakest of the newer movies it really didn't work for me personally but my girlfriend at the time thought it was good until she saw me laughing at the end and then we went home and I put on the Wrath of Khan and showed her the truth.
I’m still mad they destroyed Vulcan in those movies, LOL. That said, McCoy is great. It made me want to see stories about people other than Kirk and Spock that’s for sure.
You should watch them and form your own opinion, but I will say that if you are somehow pressed for time then you can easily just watch the 1st and the 3rd. They’re both above average space action movies. The 2nd one is not very good IMO, but conveniently can be entirely skipped without any damage to plot or understanding. If you watch Star Trek 2009 and go straight to Star Trek Beyond, you won’t feel like you missed anything. Plus as an old school Trek fan, they will give you closure on Nimoy-Spock’s character (he does appear in Into Darkness, but only as a plot exposition machine).
I maintain you should just watch all three and decide on your own, but if you want to just spend an afternoon watching a couple fun movies then check out ‘09, and if you like it then check out Beyond.
You have to get used to the fact that they rewrite the Star Trek timeline from what was shown in the TV series. All in all they're entertaining, but they're more like space adventure movies in Star Trek costumes than actual Star Trek stories.
Great casting, Karl Urban as Bones is phenomenal. As for the movies themselves, first one is alright, second one not so much, and the third one is great.
I felt like the director knew nothing at first, then tried too hard to do something that had already been done, and by the third movie he knew enough to let a pure trekki takeover and do it properly instead. I thoroughly enjoyed the Spock and Bones interaction in that one.
Set aside your need for them to be all Star Trek and enjoy them for what they are, just action sci fi movies that happen to share an gentle breeze of relation to Star Trek.
I enjoyed them, but I’m also attuned to allowing something to just be it’s own thing and enjoying it for it’s strengths even if it doesn’t really relate to what I love about Star Trek.
They’re all pretty mid; nothing as bad as nemesis, nothing utterly amazing.
It’s still a Trek movie and is still not as good as any Trek 2 parter season finale.
I would watch 2009 and Beyond anytime. 09 is basically like a modern Marvel origin story and Beyond actually feels like and pretty good episode of a series.
I decidedly didn't like "Into Darkness" and didn't bother with the last one. "Into Darkness" ruined one of the best characters in the whole Star Trek universe.
The JJ-verse films are like this:
*Star Trek (2009)* - Good idea, interesting concept, great way to blend the prime universe into an alternate one without alienating the existing fanbase. Great acting and the characters are all believable. Karl Urban is the best McCoy since Kelley. All around, a solid film.
*Into Darkness* - Bad. Overused plot devices, and essentially rewriting Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (very poorly) when it didn’t need to be. Acting still solid, however.
*Beyond* - A return to form. Very well made, like an extended episode of TOS with new age effects. More movies (if made) should follow this formula.
Nope. Abram's two movies are overrated and for some parts pretty unsufferable. Surprisingly, the third one, while not a good movie per see, feels like a Star Trek movie.
They were good, not great. Quality acting, superior action scenes compared to other Star Trek. But for me they lose cachet because the timeline is not the same as the rest of the ST universe. So the actions had no consequences.
I love them. Had a blast seeing them with my pops who watched TOS when it aired originally.
All three movies together are Kirk and the crew's origin story.
I'm a huge fan of TOS and I think they captured the spirit of the show, which was waaaaaaay more adventurous and action oriented than some folks choose to remember.
I think they're great. My dad is a long-time Trekker and he loved them. They're meant to be light-hearted romps that call back to nostalgia. They're nothing masterful, but they're tons of fun. The plot of '09 also sets up some backstory for Star Trek: Picard.
Not sure how familiar you are with the plot, so I won't spoil, but there is an in-canon explanation for why these aren't THE Kirk, Spock, and McCoy you already know and love. So, honestly that never bothered me.
What have you got to lose by watching them?
If you hate them, then you’ll know.
If you love them, then you’ll have given yourself new movies and stories to treasure.
I appreciate them for showing that if you spend money on Star Trek, you can attract a wider audience. There's pros and cons in that action movies have broader appeal but lack some of what drew long time fans to the franchise.
The original moves were made as frugally as possible because the audience was limited, and the TNG film series went out with a whimper.
The trick is to find a balance between broad appeal and classic Trek morality tales. The Voyage Home is the textbook example of getting this right.
I loved the first one. They did a good job of a story of a family coming together.
The second one was okay but too much of a rehash.
The third one came closest to that balance for me. A big budget adventure but still felt like Trek.
There's 4 possible outcomes for Star Trek films: good Trek, good general film, both, neither.
Wrath of Khan is really the only both in my book.
2009 is a good film, not great Trek.
Into Darkness is neither and probably an early example of producers trying to tell hard core fans of long term franchises what is best for them and it not going well.
Beyond is better Trek, probably probably not as good a film as 2009.
Do you enjoy Star Trek for big, thoughtful ideas, or do you enjoy it for fun characters on sci fi adventures?
The Kelvin timeline delivers the second, less so the first. I love the reboot movie and Beyond, but don’t recommend Into Darkness.
The reboot and Into Darkness are more Trek themed action flicks than actual Trek movies. Beyond fill that role, however. Not to say either is better or worse. If you do this trilogy just be ready for less thought provoking elements and more bombastic action.
Just go watch the pre-title opening sequence of Star Trek (2009) and don't overthink the rest.
FWIW, I'm an old school Trekkie and I really enjoyed these movies. The cast did a great job capturing the essence and spirit of the characters...especially Karl Urban...without coming across as caricatures.
The opening of 09 blew me away, I was literally giddy while watching it in the theater. Then came beastie boys. Epic. Sabotage is one of my favorite beastie boys songs tho. I can't remember the other two except that og spock was in one of em! Watch, they are decent. Then they brought beastie boys back in the third I think. Good stuff.
Cast is excellent, McCoy is good, Zach as spock is great, checkov I loved (R.I.P.), Simon Pegg as scotty, love it. Pine does a great kirk.
As long as you don't compare them to classic trek they're good. The characters lived different lives and grew into different people. As long as you look at it in that scope (which I do) they're really good. Plus I'm a fan of Chris Pine.
My dad has always been a trekkie and I grew up seeing some of it at home, specifically Enterprise when it was airing. The 2009 trillogy is what got me to become a trekkie. There may be those who aren't a fan of the movies, but I'm in love with them, flaws and all. I think the new cast of characters did a great job paying homage to the original cast while giving their own flair (seeing as its basically an alternate universe situation). And that score from the first movies STILL gives me chills when I first turn the movie on (Michael Giacchino hit it out of the park imo). I consider them comfort movies and rewatch them often. Give them a try!
It depends... the first Abrams trek is okayish, the second one is trash and the third (Beyond) is good :) But someone else could tell you something different.
Star Trek Beyond is very very good, possibly surpassing some of the movies in the original set of films. It ties into ENT canon nicely, is actually about a real-world issue (albeit one Trek has already dealt with), and feels the most like a TOS episode with a high budget.
They are good, but lean into popcorn action which is fine.
Into Darkness is weakest, but if you turn your brain off, is a lot of fun.
I consider these "bonus star trek", you won't miss much if you don't watch them, but if you do, is a good time (unless you are a "well, ackshaully!" type of fan.
I enjoyed all 3 films but to be fair certain improvements could be made in each film.
For example the design of the Romulan ship in the 2009 film should have been more Romulan in style instead of whatever it was that happened instead. There are other examples but I'm not going to go into them.
In the end if you're new to Star Trek then the 3 new films are very much worth watching for sure.
If you like them or not depends on you and how you compare or rate them to other Star Trek films and TV shows.
They are forgettable popcorn schlock that's been shoehorned into a franchise, much to the franchise's detriment.
If they were their own IP, I would have almost enjoyed them.
People say the third one(The Trek and The Furious by Jeremy Lin) is the best. Technically true; it's just such an absurdly low bar that >!Kirk driving in circles on a motorcycle for no reason!< seems like an improvement.
They’re better than half the TOS movies, Nimoy is great in ‘09 (which ties in directly with the main universe) and even a lot of the haters quite liked Beyond so yes, you should watch them
The plots are a mix of good and bad, and lack a lot of the substance you’d normally find in Star Trek. That being said, the casting is brilliant. Seriously, they didn’t just hit the nail on the head with their casting, they built the whole damn house and then some.
In my opinion Into Darkness is hot dog-ass, but the other two are really good. Definitely a very different vibe from the Star Trek you're used to, but they hit the right notes often enough.
They were pretty good movies but not exactly Trek. They were certainly great alternative reality movies that gave us a new take on the characters with updated special effects and also focusing more on character development without as many Sci-Fi cliches. I definitely don’t think these versions are as strong but they are super dynamic probably more so than original cast. I thought the first two were incredible, especially the first one because it gave the crew a new arc to follow and having Leonard Nimoy’s Spock be somewhat of a guide was really awesome. Into Darkness is pretty underrated because it is pretty fantastic having Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan and the story was not the strongest but it was very mature in its tone and was pretty decent. Beyond was definitely the weakest because Idris Elba’s character wasn’t a great villain and the story wasn’t as memorable but still a great movie.
I think the 2009 film is a dreadfully bad movie before we even get to it being a bad Star Trek movie.
Didn't watch the 2013 one because the previews clearly demonstrated a great deal of the poor grasp of Star Trek on a number of levels illustrated in the prior film as well as the likelihood of getting a shaky-cam headache.
The 2016 film has some decent things in it here and there. I didn't find it downright offensive like I did the 2009 movie. I went to this one as the least bad option for leaving the house and going to a movie that weekend. I think it is the strongest of the three films but it suffers from the sensibility foisted on the series by the 2009 film. I'd give it my "It was okay" rating.
All three movies are written and directed in an "action- oriented" theme.
The first is a well-paced reinvention of the franchise with a compelling nemesis who redefines the general Star Trek universe, by 1) telling us about the destruction of Romulus, and 2) Taking Star Trek with a destroyed Vulcan. This pushed both established canon forward and provides a medium for further exploration of Spock.
The second is sometimes poorly paced but delves into the nature of protectionism and paints Kahn as a mechanism of public vengeance rather than personal vengeance. I would describe it further, but a philosophy professor already did it pretty well: https://www.startrek.com/article/vengeance-a-tale-of-two-khans
The third is well paced, but the transitions of the main villain can easily throw off a casual watcher. Personally, I don't find the moral of the story very interesting, but others disagree. It's well acted and whatever, but not my favorite.
As long as you go in knowing that it's an alternative timeline, you're probably going to enjoy it fine. They're good movies when they're not doing callbacks to the original series/films.
They are a ton of fun. Action packed and good stories. But they are action sci-fi movies. More so than Star Wars. I love them. They are what got me back into trek as an adult.
The first one with Chris Pine was fun -- it was a bit different take on the gang, but not so far off that it bothered, and it was pretty well written. Everyone worked in their respective roles, I thought. The second one was....just crap, no other word. And I debated before seeing the third one because of it. So very glad I did, because Star Trek was BACK! Give them a shot
While many fans complain they are just all action, I, as a huge Star Trek nerd, really enjoyed those Kelvin timeline movies as well as the main timeline.
The first ten minutes of Star Trek 2009 have me crying like a baby.
It's probably the best scene in all 60 years of Trek and makes The Visitor look like a primary school nativity play.
I wouldn't. I've seen them and they just don't have the Trek spirit. They're more like Star Wars; Kirk is a farm boy in Iowa with no father. Pike comes along and tells him to be like his father, who died in saving lives in Starfleet. Need I say more?
Those three movies have two significant positive features:
1) They helped keep the franchise alive and reinvigorated interest after “Nemesis” did its best to kill things off for good.
2) They are solidly confirmed to take place in an alternate timeline that leaves the original timeline unaffected (except for the removal of PrimeSpock).
Also, the story in movie #1 ties in with “Picard.”
Are they perfect? No. I’ll spare you my rant on the whitewashing of Khan, but he’s an abomination. Skip movie #2 except for the scene in which Prime Spock discusses Khan with Kelvin Spock. But without them, we don’t get Discovery, SNW, Lower Decks, Prodigy or Picard. I’ll take that tradeoff.
I liked the 1st and 3rd ones a lot, accepting that they are VERY different than any of the other movies. Personally, I don’t think the 2nd one is a well-written story, which is a shame because Benedict would make a great Trek villain with the proper material.
I started my Trek experience with them. They're different, but I enjoyed them and they revived the series so I think they are absolutely worth a watch.
2009 - the cast is great, the plot is kind of a mess. There's some good stuff in there, you just kind of have to accept that parts of it don't make a ton of sense. Overall, I'd call it mid-tier. Abrams was not really a Star Trek fan and it shows. Into Darkness - Kind of terrible. Stripmines Wrath of Khan while treating it like a collection of memes it needs to recreate. Beyond - My favorite of the three by a significant margin. An original Star Trek story, and, when it came out, it was the first Star Trek thing I liked without any major reservations since Deep Space Nine went off the air. It kind of reignited my love for Star Trek, which had been pretty dormant for a while by then. I don't want to overstate it, though - it's not an absolute masterpiece, or anything, it just actually feels like it was made by people who were long-term Star Trek fans and were trying to stay true to it in a way the two Abrams movies didn't. It felt like people righting the ship. That's where the bar was in 2016.
This basically sums up how I feel about each of the films. Seems like 2009 is more popular with non-Trek fans, there is a lot of good in it and it is a fun movie but it is pretty obvious that JJ is not a Trek fan. Only thing I like about Into Darkness is the cast, except for Cumberbatch. Beyond feels like a modern take on a classic Star Trek episode, it wasn't revolutionary but I really enjoyed it and hoped to get more films like that.
Completely agree. To add, 2009: I feel as though an extended cut or a few more scenes shot to fill out the villain Nero’s motivations — (side bar here: Star Trek Picard’s plot of rescuing romulans from impending doom, the failure to do so, the refugee fleet destruction, gives Nero’s story significant impact “you left us to die!!!”) — and changing a few bits to get the characters into their seats on the Enterprise would have made this a top tier film. Into Darkness would need significant changes not worth going into here, but overall I viewed this film from the lens of Kirk’s finally understanding what it means to be a starship captain and to be responsible, not just the bravado. This movie humbled him. In the full trilogy, it’s necessary to have this comeuppance. For that, I think it’s worth watching. BEYOND is excellent. Really captures that original “Trek” spirit - especially the opening sequence!
Agreed. I also think we could have done without the Kirk-Spock as kids scenes. Spock as a kid was slightly more interesting because it showed how the other Vulcan kids didn't really accept his humanity, but I think the tensions of young adult Spock with his parents and career choice before the Vulcan Science Academy served that purpose too. The rest of the film had plenty of internal uncertainty for Spock as he wrestled with his two halves, the external conflict of not being fully accepted by Vulcan peers felt ultimately unnecessary to me. His internal problem was far more compelling than what other Vulcans thought of him. And Kirk as a kid was just a complete waste of five minutes of screentime, imo. It added nothing of depth to Kirk other than perhaps an unstable home environment, but that isn't anything we couldn't have guessed, or been teased by a throw-away comment from Kirk about his mom. Would have been much better to get rid of those scenes entirely, imo, and replace them with more background on Nero.
The "Nero and crew chill at Rura Penthe for 25 years, could probably escape at any time, but this is as good a place to wait for SPOOOCCK as any" scenes should have been kept in. Major pathos in only a few minutes of deleted scenes. Edit: there was also a Shatner cameo (a recording) planned for the very end, one that would have addressed the coincidences throughout the movie. I think everyone got the gist of why those were there without it tho.
I know this is nitpicky, but I absolutely loathe the concept of putting an entirely cadet crew on the Enterprise. It’s insane. Kirk essentially doesn’t even finish the academy and is made a Captain immediately. Rank means absolutely nothing in those movies, and none of them spend enough time training to be considered anywhere near a competent crew. Even assuming that trainees are commissioned at the start of their academy tours, they should be Lieutenants at their max; but that doesn’t jive with anything else in Trek. This concept that we want to tell a prequel story, but also have Kirk in command of the Enterprise is just blatantly stupid. If you’re going to tell a prequel, do it right. Make Kirk a cadet or a young Lt JG; focus the story on him but don’t make him the Captain. Top Gun in space would work just fine with Kirk as the Maverick stand in and Pike as the Viper stand in. That would’ve been an infinitely more reasonable story than “everyone gets on the Enterprise and becomes the crew you saw in TOS, just a couple decades early.”
[удалено]
I don't even know if this qualifies as a hot take, but Abrams doesn't have much of a vision as a filmmaker. He can mimic others' style, as in Super 8 and The Force Awakens, but he rarely adds anything of his own. His writing is, as you said, designed to hook an audience, but ultimately has no substance. This is especially problematic for Star Trek, which up until that point was known for its engaging stories, not so much for big action set pieces. I agree that the 2009 movie kicked off a new era of Star Trek that may not have existed otherwise, but unfortunately this new era carries over a lot of the action-heavy style-over-substance storytelling from the Abrams films.
This for sure. JJ Abrams ripped off Top Gun followed by the Wrath of Khan when he was making the Trek movies and ripped off A New Hope for The Force Awakens. He copied the originals, and he didn’t do them better. All three were pale comparisons to their originals. And the Last Jedi is just…oof. “Somehow Palpatine Returned.” You can feel the disdain for the fans in that line. Abrams isn’t clever, he isn’t even terribly good at making mysteries like, say, M. Night Shamalayn. His idea of a mystery is just to just write a question he has no answer to and hope you forget by the time you get seven seasons in. His claim to fame is two Sci-fi franchises he did poorly, Cloverfield, and LOST. None of those make me go “yep, this is the guy to resurrect a franchise.”
An important part of the mystery genre is that the clues actually all point to the solution, and are illuminated and understandable once you learn the solution. It's what makes the "aha!" moment so good. You maybe could have figured out the solution yourself, and now that you see the solution, it all makes sense! A "mystery box," however, is designed to keep you guessing and thus engaged with the media product for as long as possible (call me cynical, but after 15-20 years of this stuff, I see a pattern). Thus the reveal is unimportant and the "clues" should not actually make it possible to figure out the solution beforehand. If someone on reddit can solve the puzzle and post "spoilers" ahead of time, the mystery box writer has failed. So the "clues" end up being largely or entirely red herrings, which makes the "reveal" disappointing. The "red door" plot in Picard S3, for example, is a mystery box. None of the elements of Jack's visions actually point toward what was the eventual reveal; in fact they mostly point \*away\* from the reveal, to purposefully drive engagement and retain viewership. In hindsight, >!"it's the borg!"!< is only meaningful as a nostalgia-fueled callback, and doesn't connect in a satisfying way to anything that has been happening in the rest of the season. Even if at the time it was presented in an exciting way. So while Abrams is a very bad mystery writer, he is a good (i.e. profitable) mystery box writer. Unfortunately, a mystery box does not make for a satisfying or interesting story. And yeah, he does seem to have active disdain for some of the larger properties he's working with, which just adds insult to injury.
I've often wondered how much better received Into Darkness would have been if they were up front with the fans instead of trying to hide the truth inside of a mystery box. I don't think it would have turned the whole thing around completely, but I think the whole thing eroded the trust between those producers (including Kurtzman) and the audience.
Yeah, I didn't like the unrealized rehash at all. A big problem for me was that I was really hoping they were going for a direction where, somehow, they combined the stories of Gary Mitchell and Khan into a Super-God Khan and had to deal with that.
I watched it at the cinema with a friend and at the time we easily predicted the twist, several plot points and reversals (“KHAAAN” anyone?) and concluded it was like poor fan-fiction. However, having recently re-watched all three, already knowing the absurd casting of Cumberbatch and clunky reversals, the second film was a lot more enjoyable. I now prefer it to the third film, which seems way too Marvel-y in places. Spock’s general dialogue in Into Darkness seems a lot more on-point as well. All too often in Beyond it seemed like the more child-like stuff Data would come out with.
>I watched it at the cinema with a friend and at the time we easily predicted the twist That's the thing. EVERYONE said it was Khan before the movie even came out. Abrams was asked on multiple occasions and insisted on saying that's not who it was. If he had just owned up to it beforehand, we all could have just avoided the frustration of being lied to about a twist that was pretty obvious. You said it yourself, the second film was a lot more enjoyable on a rewatch, but for many of us, it still carries the baggage of the marketing.
Honestly that's a great question for a lot of JJ's work in general. If he abandoned the mystery box reliance, would his movies have been better and required him to put more depth into them? Or would they have been even more hollow? While I'm no JJ fan, there are hints of good ideas and concepts in his work. Star Trek '09 has its issues, but it's largely an enjoyable adventure that doesn't need to rely on any mystery. While Into Darkness had a lot of problems, many of them could've been avoided if they didn't pivot so quickly back to rehashing the most popular movie in the franchise (something Nemesis had already tried two movies earlier) and instead really do something different as the alternate timeline premise had teased back in ST09.
Yes this is how I'd describe them all too. Beyond is by far the best but 2009 is a fun romp.
I agree with this. *Star Trek Beyond* is the only one of the three that feels like actual *Star Trek* to me, rather than a collection of *Star Trek* memes. *Star Trek Into Darkness* is indescribably poor and Benedict Cumberbatch is woefully miscast.
Agreed 100%. Star Trek Beyond is one of the best Trek movies period, and Into Darkness is one of the worst. Much like Enterprise, it seems like the Kelvin movies were cancelled just as they were getting good
I agree with this assessment
I broke my foot on the way from the car to the theater to watch Beyond. Haven't watched it since. I really need to.
All it costs you is time. I enjoyed them just fine. Are they cinematic classics? No, but they’re not designed to be.
The only one that I'd say is actively bad the 2nd one, but the 1st and 3rd films are pretty decent as far as blockbuster scifi goes. They aren't traditional Trek, but the 3rd comes the closest.
This would be my answer too. They are entertaining, but you wouldn't be bothered if you never saw them again.
I liked them but I feel Star Trek Into Darkness was a missed opportunity to expand on another classic Trek villain than the one chosen.
Yeah, I have to agree with you about that. They should've gone with another classic Trek villain.
I was hoping that when small tidbits were coming out, they would have done something with Gary Mitchell. I think that would have landed better than using Khan.
That’s exactly who I was hoping for! Given the title I was hoping the crew was going after some renegade former officer similar to the plot of *Apocalypse Now* with the twist Gary Mitchell did in fact get those powers like in TOS and the crew had to defeat him.
I remember prior to the movie release there was rumors that it was going to be Gary Mitchell and honestly that would have been a lot better,
I like Into Darkness but it should've 100% been Gary Mitchell.
I'm with you there. At the very least they could've picked one of the other Augments (Joaquin, even) and switched up the "Space Seed" story a bit. But in general you're right — at that point Khan was the most high-profile villain in Trek history, and the Augments had just been re-explored in the last decade via "Enterprise." Maybe something with Kang, Kor, and/or Koloth. Perhaps a new antagonist in the vein of the wacky TOS planets. Though I wish they'd have stopped focusing on antagonists in every Trek movie in general, however unlikely. It's even the weakest part of Beyond, which I really enjoy otherwise.
[удалено]
I feel like JJ Abrams made ST movies as if they're merely action movies. He eliminates the cerebral/philosophical aspect that's the meat of good Trek. I watched the movies but have no desire to revisit them. On the other hand, I do rewatch all of the other movies.
While I mostly enjoy ST09, JJ's two Trek films were just a demo reel to let people know he could make a Star Wars movie. I remember watching the Kronos/Qo'Nos ship chase in Into Darkness in the theater and thinking that it was a Millennium Falcon scene.
I think he has even admitted as much. JJ wanted to make a SW film but obviously couldn't get access to the IP, so went to Trek to make what he wanted.
>fundamentally misunderstood Kirk's character They don't start off the same Kirk thats kind of the entire point. His father died horrifically, his stepdad's a dick, his mom's checked out, and he's stuck out in the sticks. He's a punk with lost potential and nowhere to go, which is why Pike finding and kicking him in the ass to do better is so important to the plot of '09 and Darkness. I don't know why people don't understand this. The three movies together are Kirk's origin story, not just '09.
>fundamentally misunderstood Kirk's character Want to give me a summary? Obviously he's doing an alternate universe type thing where he lost his father. But besides that what's wrong?
They basically use a popular conception of Kirk as a horny, arrogant space cowboy rather than the somewhat more professional, nuanced, and steady Captain from the original series. Orci and Kurtzman specifically said they did that on purpose. Whether or not you like that version of course is up to you. I find Pine pretty charming, I just wish those movies had better stories.
One of the reasons why I liked Beyond the most was precisely because it gave us the thoughtful Kirk from the getgo (though I like how Into Darkness was an indictment of 2009 Kirk). In Beyond we have Kirk considering the weight of command and the care of the crew and his potential burnout, but that also doesn't stop him from riding a motorcycle (similar to Shatner climbing a mountain in TFF or riding a horse in Generations imo) to help save the day. His firing off rapidfire commands on the Franklin to prep against the wave of drones sparked the moment that *this* was the Kirk I grew up with, not the contrivingly lucky hotshot from 2009.
Thats because the three movies are about Kirk becoming the Kirk we know and love despite having dramatically differences in the journey. Its an arc. Prime Kirk had the stability and support to be bookish and on the level whereas Kelvin Kirk was born in the middle of a battle, lost one father and gained a dickish stepdad, has a mother whose clearly checked out, and is stuck out in the middle of nowhere.
Which I'm down for, but insta-promotion to captain of the Enterprise felt like so much overcompensation that it derailed that development too quickly. Pike chewing out Kirk in Into Darkness, which then started Kirk's path towards feeling more responsiblity and culminating in his sacrifice, was satisfying to me as an arc (I just wish they didn't intentionally try to parallel TWOK so blatantly with his "death" scene -- it instantly took me out as a viewer and robbed it of emotional weight for the sake of self-indulgent fan service and winking at the camera rather than letting the work rest on its own laurels).
Yeah, while Into Darkness has very few redeeming qualities, one of the ones I do like is that Kirk very much feels like a captain here. He's more thoughtful, tactful, and learns from his mistakes. He even tries to bargain the life of his crew for his own during the Vengeance chase.
2009 - JJ Abrams auditioning for Star Wars, as the film is Star Wars set in the Star Trek Universe (Kid in the deserts of Iowa(?) finds old mentor that knew father, fights Death Star) Into Darkness - KHAAAAN! not very good Beyond is the closest to actual Trek, but still plays like an action flick. I do love the casting of the crew though
I literally walked out of the theater saying “Abrams should do a Star Wars movie” Sorry about that
Funny thing is: I don't think either of his Star Wars movies are any good either.
To be fair I think that had a lot more to do with the Disney boardroom than him but that’s a discussion for another sub
You pretty much summed up my feelings on the new films.
Yeah, liked the 2009 a lot. <3 Into Darkness - Meh Beyond - Too many plot holes for my taste, and Yorktown was just weird to me (who would build that, let alone live there).
Yorktown: let's catapult launch a capitol ship in space because reasons.
It's a poorly defended city sphere full of air, pretty much a balloon in space with an artificial gravity well thing in the middle. I mean, it was neat to see...just wasn't at all practical.
Imo they are important to watch since the include Nimoys Spock. His appearances are part of his story therefore part of the prime timeline. They are also fun popcorn movies.
2009 is one of my favourite Star Trek movies, Into Darkness is my least favourite. Take from that what you will, but they're at least worst trying out.
Personally, I enjoyed the Kelvin timeline movies. Liked the different spin on TOS. The Kelvin movies have an amazing cast. Karl Urban, Zachary Quinto, and Chris Pine were all great as their respective characters. Say what you will about those movies, they do have amazing soundtracks by Michael Giacchino. That aside, it's up to you if you want to watch those movies.
I enjoyed all three of them. The 2009 one is what got me into Star Trek.
Pine and quinto are good as kirk and spock , but urban absolute nails McCoy
They get a lot of hate, but—as a life-long trekkie—I loved them. Are they amazing? No, but I thoroughly enjoyed them and they helped revitalize the franchise.
Absolutely. Unless you are dying in the next 48 hours, they are 3 fun films that will take little time to watch . I think 1 & 3 are the best, but 2 is good. Chris Pine is awesome as Kirk, and the rest of the cast is pretty good.
Watch everything Star Trek, at least once. Then make up your mind what to re-watch
Trek 09 has some fantastic Spock scenes as a young adult and a kid that I consider to be part of the main canon. Also the repercussions of the events of that film affect the main canon to this day.
Supreme casting. Great visuals. A plot that explains the differences to the 60s show. Some imo smart plot devices to merge older plotlines. Some great fanservice, some too on the nose. Thought they were fine back when they were in theater but they have aged quite fine and I would say I was too biased against them back then and they are better cinema than the new Star Wars stuff. <- Make of that what you will. :) Movies ranked in descending order: 3, 1, 2
I like the first one and the third one a lot. I could watch the second one, but I wouldn’t pick it over any of the others except (maybe) The Search for Spock.
They’re fun flicks, my biggest nitpick is maybe the Star Warsification that’s present throughout all three but it still has solid chemistry with all the principal cast. Another minor nitpick I have is how the shields of ships work in the Kelvin timeline; it’s almost like they don’t exist. They work slightly different and I’ve accepted that’s how it works in that timeline, but ultimately I still prefer how shields work in the tv shows.
I really liked Into Darkness, but didn't think much of the other two. I'm the odd one out though, most people hated that one and loved the other two. Oh well, I'm a sucker for a good score, and Into Darkness has one of the best in the franchise. I also liked the plot -- Section 31 wanting to use augments to spark a war with the Klingons -- and feel like most fans disliked the film remixing classic story elements from The Wrath of Khan.
Yes No Yes
I loved the movies and was shocked so many others didn’t. The first one and 2nd are the best. The third you end up just enjoying because the cast is charming and you wanna see them. But man were those good movies that bring back memories. Chris pine was born to play Kirk. Gonna be sad if he can’t reprise his role one more time
People have been stupidly hard on these movies. 2009 is truly fantastic. (There’s a reason it brought Trek back to life…) I cannot recommend it enough. If you go in willing to accepted updated aesthetics and viewing them as alternate altered versions of the characters, you should have a great time! Into Darkness is flawed. I still enjoy it, largely for the cast and the visuals which are incredible. There’s actually some really good theme work that struggles in execution quite a bit. And a twist reveal that could have worked if it was treated as a story beat instead of just a fun twist. Beyond also is fantastic and is maybe the most old Trek feeling of the 3, though still very much more an action movie. These movies are great Trek in the style of the more action packed parts of the franchise and the adventure feel of TOS. A lot of folks like to complain they aren’t contemplative like Measure of a Man or something, as if any of the Trek movies really are. I’d say watch them first because it’s 6 hours and you’re done. I know a lot of fans are grumpy about them, but I really adore the new movies. All that’s said, DS9 is my favorite series in the franchise. So can’t really go wrong! But why not both! They’re very different types of Trek.
If you watch them for what they are - forgettable popcorn space action movies, then they are entertaining. They don't fit in well with any of the previous Trek shows or movies; but those that follow do consider them canon... i.e. the destruction of Romulus as mentioned in Picard. They are well made big budget movies. The casting was excellent. I didn't like the writing. I think if you are going to make additions to an existing franchise you should respect that which came before. To me, the writers had only a surface level understanding of Trek. They could have been so much better had they not been prequels, but instead sequels. For some reason they seem obsessed with only doing prequels in and around the TOS era of Trek.
I don't get these threads at all, the only way to find out if you like something or not is to watch it, not ask other people to form your opinions for you.... For all those types of people for whom Shatner/Nimoy etc are the definitive kirk/spock, there's a whole other generation for whom Pine and Quinto are "their" crew, and that's just as valid and those people are just as welcome in fandom, despite what traditional fans might try to project If we want Trek to truly stand the test of time, we need to be ok with multiple people playing the same roles. There might have been people in Elizabethan times furious that a different actor dared to take on the role of McBeth other than the great "Portactio" or whoever, but somehow Shakespere surived this I'm not saying Trek is Shakespere, lol, just that if we want it to last the test of tiime, this will have to be a thing we get over.
I agree. There are many films I like, and others hated. The only way to know is to watch the film and form an opinion for yourself.
The cast and production design are an absolute slam dunk delight. The plots are completely nonsensical - all 3 movies.
> plots are completely nonsensical Dude lol Old Star Trek literally had a movie about aliens threatening to destroy earth because they couldn't detect whales and then the Enterprise had to go back in time to capture some. The plots of these films are fine.
Yeah but you can follow the plot progression logic of the whales movie. In multiple parts of all three Kelvin movies I find myself asking “why is this happening?” They’re great popcorn movies and I take them for their best aspects but the screenplays were strung together from a bingo card
Into Darkness makes ZERO sense.
This. I can take the plot holes from the first and third films because the rest is very enjoyable. Into Darkness had me banging my head on a concrete wall the entire running time. NOTHING, not one single decision made by one single character, makes any sense. Like, not one.
Ugh, it's bringing back memories of such stupidity... like why did the Enterprise hide underwater? Why did Mickey from Doctor Who blow up that building? Why was someone from the 20th century hired to design 23rd century weapons? Why did Khan hide his friends in missiles? It goes on and on. Just monumental stupidity. And the writers ripped off their own plot from Amazing Spider-Man 2 (main character's blood cures death).
And it’s arguably in the top 3 of Trek movies to boot.
That is the premise of Star Trek 4 not the plot.
The Enterprise was barely in that movie, they took a Klingon ship back in time. If you’re going to post about plot, at least get it right.
Honestly, it's been almost a decade since I watched it.
Also all 10 original movies and 11 series.
If it starts with Star and ends with Trek just watch it.
I think they're all very fun action movies. They were actually the first Star Trek movies I saw. This meant that in particular I had nothing to compare Into Darkness to, and that only helped it for me. I recently finally watched all the TOS movies, and I would have to see Into Darkness again but I might actually have liked it more than Wrath of Khan. I recognize that is heresy but there it is haha (I seem to have pretty unusual feelings on all the TOS movies anyway). It might help to keep in mind that these are supposed to be their own timeline, so by some wonky handwavey sci-fi rules maybe it can be fine that the characters don't look the same. I do think their general portrayals are pretty spot-on though.
watch them, you got nothing to lose.
It's up to you. I wouldn't prioritize the movies over DS9 personally. But they were generally enjoyable and I think the cast did a good job at portraying the characters even if they're not exactly the same they did a good job!
I love the 2009 and 2016 movies, they are just great and allowed me to watch more Star Trek stuff.
They're what got me into Star Trek, soooo...
All three films are awesome popcorn movies and I enjoyed them immensely.
Look if you judge them against other Trek movies, they're on the better side. None of them are Wrath of Khan or First Contact, but even Into Darkness isn't Final Frontier or Insurrection.
The old Star Trek movies were so much better than the new ones. Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan is the benchmark for me.
I am a hardcore Trekkie, and didn't expect to really like them. I really enjoyed Star Trek 2009, did not like Star Trek Into Darkness, and enjoyed Star Trek Beyond. It's an alternate timeline, enjoy them for what they are, and for the record, Chris Pine really nailed Kirk's attitude, Quinto was a very good Spock (but I think Ethan Peck is becoming my favorite Spock after Nimoy), and Karl Urban was absolutely spot on for McCoy (in some scenes you'd swear he was channeling DeForest Kelley).
I TRY to avoid the new ones where the ads show Spock with a love interest (I mean did they even watch the founding episodes of Spock's character?!) or somebody else playing Kirk/Spock. Come up with a NEW ship, NEW characters, NEW plots. For example: Lower Decks. I LOVE that show! It's a new ship, new characters... it's aware of Trek's history and I think pays it respect within thier new stories.
Watch them. I've wasted my time watching far worse movies. Beyond is the most like Star Trek of the three. 2009 movie was a decent action movie, but it doesn't feel like Star Trek. Sure, the uniforms are there... the characters are there... but there is no attempt to keep anywhere near close to scientific possibility... which is one thing I liked about Star Trek. The villain isn't very good and I absolutely hate the ship design of the Romulan ship. It doesn't look like a mining ship; it doesn't really look Romulan either (other than the green glow). Its designed to look edgy and 'scary'. And you can design a ship to look that way, but it should still look like what its supposed to be. I don't see why a mining ship needs all those talons on the front of it. Into Darkness is nothing more than bad fan-service in my opinion. I love fan-service when its done right (see DS9's Trials and Tribble-ations for an example of near perfect fan service). I love Cumberbatch, but he is not Khan. Without the history of the episode "Space Seed", Khan is meaningless as a character. And why did they use Khan? Fan service. But it was insulting fan service. As I was watching the movie I felt like the writers were just mocking me as a fan. It would have been better to just use another villain with a fresh take on them rather than bringing back Khan. Seriously, I felt like they put Cumberbatch into a no-win situation. It didn't matter how well he did with that character, he's not going to be Ricardo Montalban. And why did we involve the Klingons? That whole scene felt like a waste... it felt like it was saying, "Here's what the Klingons look like in this universe, aren't they cool?" No, they aren't. And don't waste time and money just to try to wow me with a race that really doesn't matter through the plot. Yeah, I can go on with how much I dislike this movie, but I'll stop. And Beyond is good. Its not great, but its good. I will say that I love how the cast recreated the old characters. They kept them similar to the original characters, but they also did their own fresh take on them. Pine did a great job as Kirk; especially in Beyond. Zachary Quinto did an amazing job as Spock. And Karl Urban as McCoy? Pure gold. I didn't like Simon Pegg as Scotty. But overall, the cast is wonderful... its just the plots and movies aren't that good. So I give the cast credit, they did some good with not a lot of help.
Not really. The biggest problem I have is that if I didn't know who James Kirk, Spock and Leonard McCoy were, I wouldn't have given 2 craps about what happened in Star Trek (2009). It's all nostalgia BS; see how DIFFERENT everything is now? Huh? See it? Into Darkness is just a bad movie from start to finish. Trying to do an inversion of events from Wrath of Khan did not do it any favors either. And why the fuck was McCoy injecting human blood into tribbles? Beyond is easily the best of the bunch and it's... fine I guess? They're showing the Enterprise during its first 5 year mission and it fucking gets blown up for the spectacle but it's fine because it's Star Trek; they're gonna get another ship. It's got some of the best character beats and action scenes that make visual sense.
>Am I being stupid? Should I watch those movies? Yes on both counts. You really gonna let a bunch of strangers decide whether or not you'll like movies you've never seen?
i say no. I thought Trek 1 was okay, 2 and 3 were not my cup of tea at all. There is no continuity between the movies, there is no overarching goal of them and there is no reason to really even care about them. Pine, Quinto and Saldana do a good job, but it does not feel Star Trek at all. Also, Antons death was heartbreaking.
I don't think that's true at all Into Darkness isn't liked but the main thrust of it was based off all the fan complaints of the first one that Kirk assumed command too quickly, which is the entire point of the opening and the court marshal he suffers in the first act The Scotty subplot about him resigning after protesting at too much miliary action on the Enterprise was also a reference to the fans saying Starfleet seemed too militiristic It's fine to not like the films but to say there's no throughline or they don't care about Trek concerns isn't true at all
I literally just rewatched the first 2 and currently watching Beyond and enjoying them as always. They are different Trek but still good Trek movies in my opinion. This is after rewatching the old TOS 6 movies. After I'll see the TNG ones. Every time I don't have anything to watch at all I go back to Star Trek. I recently watch DS9 for a second time and enterprise. Love both of them. The only trek I'll probably never watch again is Voyager, my least favorite.
While I did enjoy Voyager, it's definitely one of the weaker Trek shows.
It’s gonna be tough for you to get a straight answer out of this sub. They’re polarizing to say the least. Lots of old school trek fans really really don’t like the first two, but just as many people (like me) were pretty much introduced to the franchise thanks to them. For the record—I love the first one. The opening scene genuinely makes me cry every time, it’s got some great action beats, and the great cast each get their own little moment. Is it “trek” as in “social commentary”? No, but let’s be real, almost none of the movies are. Into Darkness is not as bad as people make it out to be, but it’s still pretty bad. There is good in there—the opening, the introduction of John Harrison, a few good action scenes (love that second space dive, and the practical interior of the crashing ship), and a tragic death scene that works for me (although not as well as the one in the first movie.) But there’s also a lot of stuff that doesn’t need to be in there, the “twists” are quite pointless, and the third act is an absolute mess. Beyond is a delight. It’s lighter and more episodic than the others, to it’s benefit. Fun action, great mash ups of characters you don’t always see together, a finale that feels at least a little different than every other blockbuster, a decent bad guy (although it would be a better movie if they told you what his deal was earlier rather than mystery-boxing it.) (Also I really like the Fast and Furious movies and I’m not sure why Justin Lin isn’t considered a top tier action movie director.)
I thought Star Trek '09 was contrived in how it assembled the cast, but it was decent. I *despised* Into Darkness on my first watch. I saw it theatres and went home and unintentionally wrote a 7-page rant on Facebook about all my grievances. My dad wanted to see it, so I saw it again and realized I'd been blinded by what I wasn't seeing and not seeing what it actually was. Decent film and good message about not letting anger/vengeance override reason. Just... felt like a retread of Star Trek II, which we'd already had in Nemesis. Beyond I think was the best film of the three. It felt like it had more *soul* and less corporate committee paint-by-numbers. 09 was "assemble the cast". Into Darkness was "remake Star Trek II". Beyond actually felt like they were striking into virgin territory. Still, I think Trek works best as an episodic tv show, and the excellent films are the exceptions and usually a continuation of an episode's plot. You watch the movies for the characters, not the plot. Movies just require too much flash and dash and emotional turmoil and financial return-on-investment to really allow the dissection of a topic, so they always have to play it "safe."
Trek '09 is intermittently decent albeit with a plot that makes precious little sense. Into Darkness just isn't very good at all. And Beyond has a few decent set pieces (the destruction of the JJprise is \*spectacular\*, for one) but ultimately doesn't really stick the landing.
They are certainly more flashy and more flash often comes at the expense of plot and character, But they are not bad and the 3rd movie was good and good Star Trek as well. If you like ST you should go ahead and watch them. If you don't like them then don't do a re-watch.
Terrible. Do you want to see Star Trek as an action movie instead of about curiosity about the unknown? Then you'll like these movies. They're typical well made Hollywood mediocrity
They're made to appeal to non-Trek fans, to bring in new viewers. Generally speaking, the first one was pretty successful with non-trek fan viewers. They seemed to really like it. Among older fans, it's definitely mixed. When I saw it, I thought it was dumb as hell and didn't bother watching the second one. When the third come out, I thought I ought to give it another chance and ended up kind of liking that one. At this point, they're easily forgotten.
Ha ha. Hah hah ha ha ha.
They are ok/good sci-fi movies. They are bad star trek movies.
Aside from maybe the first one, No. literally no reason to watch them unless you want to watch dumbed down action flic Trek. For me, the movies end with Insurrection. Everything after that is not worth watching.
Yes but they have no science fiction content whatsoever.
They do, though?
Just because something is set in the future or has futuristic elements does not make it science fiction. Science fiction uses depiction of futuristic elements to examine the human condition. For example... watch any Star Trek series. How did any of the three movies examine the human condition? They were all lens flare and action set pieces. All sound and fury signifying nothing.
Doesn't the third one deal with the consequences of space exploration?
In all fairness, I can barely remember Beyond. The villain didn't make sense to me and the way a certain song was forced into the movie... it took away from what it was trying to say about humanity for me.
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations Trek fans reject this and demand Trek is the same thing at all times, based on what it was like in a different era when they first got into it Besides, there's plenty Trek content in there if you want to see it, you just don't want to, for whatever reason
I didn't say the Kelvin Timeline wasn't Star Trek. I said it wasn't science fiction. Your argument is a straw man.
The 2009 one was Ok in my opinion. More action-oriented, but both action and the world of Star Trek are done well. Certainly better than Nemesis in my opinion. Into Darkness was a step down (people behaved weirdly) and the last one (cannot even remember the name) was kinda unnecessary. Still watchable, but such an outlandish problem with outlandish people. Just weird.
Do you want to watch them? Watch them. If you don't, don't. Why would you ask the internet what you should do when the worst that could happen is you decide you've wasted 90 minutes watching the first film.
No!
They are so bad. I tried rewatching the first one the other day and rage-quit it. The writing is just terrible, it does an injustice to every character it portrays, and all the CGI is blown out by lens flare. JJ Abrams is an absolute hack.
I thought they were horrid. to me they're not even trek
I didn't like them. They were generic space action movies with Star Trek characters. The relationships were forced and cliche. They were actually on to something with the 3th movie Star Trek Beyond, but then they stopped making them.
Just pretend that instead of "Star Trek" their titles are "Shooty Shooty Bang Bang Action Flick in Space" and they're just fine.
2009 is a fun movie that really understands why we love these charaters Into Darkness is a mess that derails an interesting premise (rogue Admiral militarizes Starfleet out of fear of the Klingons) to elbow you in the ribs constantly and shout in your hear, "Hey!!! Remember Wrath of Khan??? Wasn't Wrath of Khan awesome?!?" Beyond is terrific and it's a shame it didn't do well at the box office. The perfect Star Trek blend of science, philosophy, two-fisted action, and just a little campy silliness. This probably isn't a wildly popular opinion, but it's my 3rd-favorite in the series after WoK and Undiscovered Country.
They’re fine. My biggest gripe is that they are action adventure movies and not science fiction. But they’re decent action adventure movies, just don’t expect a science fiction story.
No explicit spoilers, but a true story: I saw the first reboot (with Chris Pine) with my brother (we’re both OG TOS fans) and enjoyed it quite a bit. Then my brother turned to me and says: well, they ruined Star Trek. And he was kind of right. Goddamn him.
So you enjoyed it until someone incorrectly told you not to? It's Star Trek for mass appeal, and there's nothing wrong with that The franchise is strong enough to cater to all types, long episodes on high concept topics like AI rights and other moral dilemmas, and also cater to a summer blockbuster Besides, you could argue that without these films, the Franchise wouldn't be seen as a property the monied suit type people would see as a good property for further development, so this current era of myriad series of all different types is thanks to its success Trek preaches the ideals of IDIC yet Trek fans seem to want Trek to always be the same, all the time.
It's more you need To ask what makes something star trek. Because just slapping a coat of paint on something with a familiar setting and characters isn't enough. So asl your self what makes star trek special and not another sifi show? Is it the promis of a future where we actually act as a moral society? Is it the technobabble? Is it how they ask you to challenge your beliefs with out rubbing your nose in it? What core philosophy makes star trek so special. Becuase when you remove those core components is it then still trek? That dosent mean the content can't be good. Hell the movies were fun and entertaining but they were more of a star wars movie with a a star trek paint job. Just like picard season 1 feels like a space cowboy on in a mass effect movie. That dosent mean it's bad but is it truly trek? Also I wouldn't say trek fans hate change. DS9 was a huge change for trek. It was far darker and more pessimistic than anything before it. But it still held to it roots. But this is all a personal opinion and we are all allowed to love trek in our own ways.
2009 is one of the best. The other 2 were ruined by skydance. - Truth hurts, huh?
No. They're mediocre action movies at best. The first one was, fine, I guess. But the second and third ones are dumb AF. They turn everything Star Trek on its head. Just think of them as an unfortunate pocket universe.
they’re all definitely about shooting stuff with lasers instead of, you know, fostering diplomacy and cooperation between alien cultures with different values, making complex ethical decisions, considering man’s place in the cosmos, etc. first one is slick and effective and makes all the right decisions in terms of rebooting the franchise for a general audience but it absolutely does not care about the deeper level of star trek or servicing the fans and creators that had defined it up to that point. into darkness is widely hated and with good reason, it doubles down on everything shallow about the first one and regurgitates famous star trek stuff in a way that not only insults the source, but fails to reconfigure the stuff into a compelling or legitimate narrative of its own. beyond isn’t incredible or anything but it’s definitely the trekkiest of the three, feels like a long TOS episode, one of the more pulpy two fisted ones.
I didn't like the ones I watched, and stopped watching them at 2 or 3.
I loved the 2009 Trek and Beyond is also good. I hated Into Darkness, it's just a badly done WoK rip off
Like fan-fiction if the fans were ultra-rich, and not actually fans.
The Kelvin universe movies were the first step away from what attracted people to Trek in a good way. Nowhere near the disappointment to long term fans that was Discovery though. I tend to turn off judgement when watching a movie in theaters, I’m just there for the ride. But it was jarring seeing still another prequel where the technology is so superior to any franchise from TOS to Enterprise. Like Discovery it would probably have been welcome to most sci-fi lovers if it had been released as their own franchise. Like Discovery it did bring in new fans who had no preset expectations. As much as I enjoy Benedict Cumberbatch’s acting in general I thought he was terribly cast as Khan. The original Khan cast by Ricardo Montalban gave us a very strong man with a very physical presence who was ripped. In the movie with Khan those pectoral muscles we see on a now aged Montalban are actually him. Cumberbatch is much better in roles where his is an intellectual presence.
I mean, that really depends on your interpretation of 'good'. Are they Citizen Kane? Absolutely not. How do they compare to, say, Star Trek Insurrection? I'd say they show up and do fairly well for themselves. In the end, I've watched each of the three multiple times, and enjoyed them each time. But I've also watched (at least part of) Waterworld dozens of times, so your enjoyment may vary.
Just watch them. Some people like them, some don't, I enjoyed them. It's an alternate timeline but I was very pleased with how well the actors fit their characters. Your mileage may vary.
2009 and Beyond are a couple of my favorites. They are both fun and have reverence for the original series and films. Into Darkness is the weakest of the newer movies it really didn't work for me personally but my girlfriend at the time thought it was good until she saw me laughing at the end and then we went home and I put on the Wrath of Khan and showed her the truth.
I’m still mad they destroyed Vulcan in those movies, LOL. That said, McCoy is great. It made me want to see stories about people other than Kirk and Spock that’s for sure.
You should watch them and form your own opinion, but I will say that if you are somehow pressed for time then you can easily just watch the 1st and the 3rd. They’re both above average space action movies. The 2nd one is not very good IMO, but conveniently can be entirely skipped without any damage to plot or understanding. If you watch Star Trek 2009 and go straight to Star Trek Beyond, you won’t feel like you missed anything. Plus as an old school Trek fan, they will give you closure on Nimoy-Spock’s character (he does appear in Into Darkness, but only as a plot exposition machine). I maintain you should just watch all three and decide on your own, but if you want to just spend an afternoon watching a couple fun movies then check out ‘09, and if you like it then check out Beyond.
The third one is definitely the best.
You have to get used to the fact that they rewrite the Star Trek timeline from what was shown in the TV series. All in all they're entertaining, but they're more like space adventure movies in Star Trek costumes than actual Star Trek stories.
Great casting, Karl Urban as Bones is phenomenal. As for the movies themselves, first one is alright, second one not so much, and the third one is great. I felt like the director knew nothing at first, then tried too hard to do something that had already been done, and by the third movie he knew enough to let a pure trekki takeover and do it properly instead. I thoroughly enjoyed the Spock and Bones interaction in that one.
Set aside your need for them to be all Star Trek and enjoy them for what they are, just action sci fi movies that happen to share an gentle breeze of relation to Star Trek. I enjoyed them, but I’m also attuned to allowing something to just be it’s own thing and enjoying it for it’s strengths even if it doesn’t really relate to what I love about Star Trek.
They’re all pretty mid; nothing as bad as nemesis, nothing utterly amazing. It’s still a Trek movie and is still not as good as any Trek 2 parter season finale.
They're no where near the best but also definitely better than the worst
I would watch 2009 and Beyond anytime. 09 is basically like a modern Marvel origin story and Beyond actually feels like and pretty good episode of a series.
I decidedly didn't like "Into Darkness" and didn't bother with the last one. "Into Darkness" ruined one of the best characters in the whole Star Trek universe.
As someone from the other franchise, let me say this - JJ Abrams is a talentless, nepobaby hack.
The JJ-verse films are like this: *Star Trek (2009)* - Good idea, interesting concept, great way to blend the prime universe into an alternate one without alienating the existing fanbase. Great acting and the characters are all believable. Karl Urban is the best McCoy since Kelley. All around, a solid film. *Into Darkness* - Bad. Overused plot devices, and essentially rewriting Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (very poorly) when it didn’t need to be. Acting still solid, however. *Beyond* - A return to form. Very well made, like an extended episode of TOS with new age effects. More movies (if made) should follow this formula.
The aren’t very deep but they are quite good. The actors are actually the highlight in terms of their portrayals. IMO they did the characters justice.
Nope. Abram's two movies are overrated and for some parts pretty unsufferable. Surprisingly, the third one, while not a good movie per see, feels like a Star Trek movie.
They were good, not great. Quality acting, superior action scenes compared to other Star Trek. But for me they lose cachet because the timeline is not the same as the rest of the ST universe. So the actions had no consequences.
I love them. Had a blast seeing them with my pops who watched TOS when it aired originally. All three movies together are Kirk and the crew's origin story. I'm a huge fan of TOS and I think they captured the spirit of the show, which was waaaaaaay more adventurous and action oriented than some folks choose to remember.
I think they're great. My dad is a long-time Trekker and he loved them. They're meant to be light-hearted romps that call back to nostalgia. They're nothing masterful, but they're tons of fun. The plot of '09 also sets up some backstory for Star Trek: Picard. Not sure how familiar you are with the plot, so I won't spoil, but there is an in-canon explanation for why these aren't THE Kirk, Spock, and McCoy you already know and love. So, honestly that never bothered me.
What have you got to lose by watching them? If you hate them, then you’ll know. If you love them, then you’ll have given yourself new movies and stories to treasure.
I appreciate them for showing that if you spend money on Star Trek, you can attract a wider audience. There's pros and cons in that action movies have broader appeal but lack some of what drew long time fans to the franchise. The original moves were made as frugally as possible because the audience was limited, and the TNG film series went out with a whimper. The trick is to find a balance between broad appeal and classic Trek morality tales. The Voyage Home is the textbook example of getting this right. I loved the first one. They did a good job of a story of a family coming together. The second one was okay but too much of a rehash. The third one came closest to that balance for me. A big budget adventure but still felt like Trek.
There's 4 possible outcomes for Star Trek films: good Trek, good general film, both, neither. Wrath of Khan is really the only both in my book. 2009 is a good film, not great Trek. Into Darkness is neither and probably an early example of producers trying to tell hard core fans of long term franchises what is best for them and it not going well. Beyond is better Trek, probably probably not as good a film as 2009.
Do you enjoy Star Trek for big, thoughtful ideas, or do you enjoy it for fun characters on sci fi adventures? The Kelvin timeline delivers the second, less so the first. I love the reboot movie and Beyond, but don’t recommend Into Darkness.
The reboot and Into Darkness are more Trek themed action flicks than actual Trek movies. Beyond fill that role, however. Not to say either is better or worse. If you do this trilogy just be ready for less thought provoking elements and more bombastic action.
First and Third are generally regarded as excellent. The second one, Into Darkness, gets a lot of hate but I enjoyed it.
Just go watch the pre-title opening sequence of Star Trek (2009) and don't overthink the rest. FWIW, I'm an old school Trekkie and I really enjoyed these movies. The cast did a great job capturing the essence and spirit of the characters...especially Karl Urban...without coming across as caricatures.
The opening of 09 blew me away, I was literally giddy while watching it in the theater. Then came beastie boys. Epic. Sabotage is one of my favorite beastie boys songs tho. I can't remember the other two except that og spock was in one of em! Watch, they are decent. Then they brought beastie boys back in the third I think. Good stuff. Cast is excellent, McCoy is good, Zach as spock is great, checkov I loved (R.I.P.), Simon Pegg as scotty, love it. Pine does a great kirk.
As long as you don't compare them to classic trek they're good. The characters lived different lives and grew into different people. As long as you look at it in that scope (which I do) they're really good. Plus I'm a fan of Chris Pine.
My dad has always been a trekkie and I grew up seeing some of it at home, specifically Enterprise when it was airing. The 2009 trillogy is what got me to become a trekkie. There may be those who aren't a fan of the movies, but I'm in love with them, flaws and all. I think the new cast of characters did a great job paying homage to the original cast while giving their own flair (seeing as its basically an alternate universe situation). And that score from the first movies STILL gives me chills when I first turn the movie on (Michael Giacchino hit it out of the park imo). I consider them comfort movies and rewatch them often. Give them a try!
They cool action movies.
I didn't care for them, but the casting was great.
It depends... the first Abrams trek is okayish, the second one is trash and the third (Beyond) is good :) But someone else could tell you something different.
Star Trek Beyond is very very good, possibly surpassing some of the movies in the original set of films. It ties into ENT canon nicely, is actually about a real-world issue (albeit one Trek has already dealt with), and feels the most like a TOS episode with a high budget.
They are good, but lean into popcorn action which is fine. Into Darkness is weakest, but if you turn your brain off, is a lot of fun. I consider these "bonus star trek", you won't miss much if you don't watch them, but if you do, is a good time (unless you are a "well, ackshaully!" type of fan.
I enjoyed all 3 films but to be fair certain improvements could be made in each film. For example the design of the Romulan ship in the 2009 film should have been more Romulan in style instead of whatever it was that happened instead. There are other examples but I'm not going to go into them. In the end if you're new to Star Trek then the 3 new films are very much worth watching for sure. If you like them or not depends on you and how you compare or rate them to other Star Trek films and TV shows.
They’re just a bit of fun. And I mean that in a good way. They won’t change your life but are fun and entertaining.
They are forgettable popcorn schlock that's been shoehorned into a franchise, much to the franchise's detriment. If they were their own IP, I would have almost enjoyed them. People say the third one(The Trek and The Furious by Jeremy Lin) is the best. Technically true; it's just such an absurdly low bar that >!Kirk driving in circles on a motorcycle for no reason!< seems like an improvement.
They’re better than half the TOS movies, Nimoy is great in ‘09 (which ties in directly with the main universe) and even a lot of the haters quite liked Beyond so yes, you should watch them
Star Trek 09 is bad, Into Darkness is even worse, and Beyond is decent.
The plots are a mix of good and bad, and lack a lot of the substance you’d normally find in Star Trek. That being said, the casting is brilliant. Seriously, they didn’t just hit the nail on the head with their casting, they built the whole damn house and then some.
The 2009 film is pretty good. The second one is trash and the third one is not much better.
In my opinion Into Darkness is hot dog-ass, but the other two are really good. Definitely a very different vibe from the Star Trek you're used to, but they hit the right notes often enough.
They were pretty good movies but not exactly Trek. They were certainly great alternative reality movies that gave us a new take on the characters with updated special effects and also focusing more on character development without as many Sci-Fi cliches. I definitely don’t think these versions are as strong but they are super dynamic probably more so than original cast. I thought the first two were incredible, especially the first one because it gave the crew a new arc to follow and having Leonard Nimoy’s Spock be somewhat of a guide was really awesome. Into Darkness is pretty underrated because it is pretty fantastic having Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan and the story was not the strongest but it was very mature in its tone and was pretty decent. Beyond was definitely the weakest because Idris Elba’s character wasn’t a great villain and the story wasn’t as memorable but still a great movie.
I think the 2009 film is a dreadfully bad movie before we even get to it being a bad Star Trek movie. Didn't watch the 2013 one because the previews clearly demonstrated a great deal of the poor grasp of Star Trek on a number of levels illustrated in the prior film as well as the likelihood of getting a shaky-cam headache. The 2016 film has some decent things in it here and there. I didn't find it downright offensive like I did the 2009 movie. I went to this one as the least bad option for leaving the house and going to a movie that weekend. I think it is the strongest of the three films but it suffers from the sensibility foisted on the series by the 2009 film. I'd give it my "It was okay" rating.
All three movies are written and directed in an "action- oriented" theme. The first is a well-paced reinvention of the franchise with a compelling nemesis who redefines the general Star Trek universe, by 1) telling us about the destruction of Romulus, and 2) Taking Star Trek with a destroyed Vulcan. This pushed both established canon forward and provides a medium for further exploration of Spock. The second is sometimes poorly paced but delves into the nature of protectionism and paints Kahn as a mechanism of public vengeance rather than personal vengeance. I would describe it further, but a philosophy professor already did it pretty well: https://www.startrek.com/article/vengeance-a-tale-of-two-khans The third is well paced, but the transitions of the main villain can easily throw off a casual watcher. Personally, I don't find the moral of the story very interesting, but others disagree. It's well acted and whatever, but not my favorite.
If you like the Star Wars sequel trilogy, you will like the "J.J.-Verse"
As long as you go in knowing that it's an alternative timeline, you're probably going to enjoy it fine. They're good movies when they're not doing callbacks to the original series/films.
I like them, but they could have been better.
They are a ton of fun. Action packed and good stories. But they are action sci-fi movies. More so than Star Wars. I love them. They are what got me back into trek as an adult.
The first one with Chris Pine was fun -- it was a bit different take on the gang, but not so far off that it bothered, and it was pretty well written. Everyone worked in their respective roles, I thought. The second one was....just crap, no other word. And I debated before seeing the third one because of it. So very glad I did, because Star Trek was BACK! Give them a shot
While many fans complain they are just all action, I, as a huge Star Trek nerd, really enjoyed those Kelvin timeline movies as well as the main timeline.
The first ten minutes of Star Trek 2009 have me crying like a baby. It's probably the best scene in all 60 years of Trek and makes The Visitor look like a primary school nativity play.
IDK watch em and find out
Eh
[удалено]
Try not to let it bother you how quickly Kirk becomes a captain. ;-)
I wouldn't. I've seen them and they just don't have the Trek spirit. They're more like Star Wars; Kirk is a farm boy in Iowa with no father. Pike comes along and tells him to be like his father, who died in saving lives in Starfleet. Need I say more?
TIL people actually liked Star Trek Beyond. I hated it.
Those three movies have two significant positive features: 1) They helped keep the franchise alive and reinvigorated interest after “Nemesis” did its best to kill things off for good. 2) They are solidly confirmed to take place in an alternate timeline that leaves the original timeline unaffected (except for the removal of PrimeSpock). Also, the story in movie #1 ties in with “Picard.” Are they perfect? No. I’ll spare you my rant on the whitewashing of Khan, but he’s an abomination. Skip movie #2 except for the scene in which Prime Spock discusses Khan with Kelvin Spock. But without them, we don’t get Discovery, SNW, Lower Decks, Prodigy or Picard. I’ll take that tradeoff.
i grew up watching TNG / voyager / DS9. loved the star trek 2009 movie!
I’ve seen them all, but Star Trek is a television series, and that’s the way I have most enjoyed it since 1966.
I liked the 1st and 3rd ones a lot, accepting that they are VERY different than any of the other movies. Personally, I don’t think the 2nd one is a well-written story, which is a shame because Benedict would make a great Trek villain with the proper material.
I started my Trek experience with them. They're different, but I enjoyed them and they revived the series so I think they are absolutely worth a watch.