Reboots of movies or TV shows are generally not a good idea. One example is "Battlestar Galactica" from about 15 years ago. It started off well, but, after its second season, the plot turned silly and the series became a parody of itself.
"Star Trek" is another. The viewer is required to abandon all previous knowledge of the original series and the movies based on it, but the result is no improvement.
For example, the plot suffers from lazy writing. Rather than maintaining all the details from the original series, many of them are either ignored or written out all together. Conveniently, the planet Vulcan is destroyed and the writers no longer have to worry about the relationship between Spock and his parents. (This was similar to the destruction of Gallifrey in the current version of "Doctor Who". Why worry about the conflict between the Doctor and the other Time Lords when their home is no longer part of the plot?)
And, when all else fails, bring in a future version of a certain character as a plot device. Leonard Nimoy's Spock, unfortunately, was completely out of place.
The main characters are poorly written as well. The young Kirk is little more than an ill-disciplined, brawling hooligan who doesn't know how to obey orders, possessing an inflated self-worth. The original Uhura was from southern Africa and had a dignified manner, making one wonder if she didn't have a royal ancestry. The Uhura in this movie was completely undignified and of dubious virtue. As for Spock, the less said the better. Emotionally conflicted? How about simply lacking in self-discipline and self-restraint?
The original Chekov first appeared during the second season of the series and was introduced because of Beatlemania. He became a pivotal character in a number of episodes as well as the movies. The one in "Star Trek" is little more than a high school boy who would be more at home playing video games than serving on board a starship. The Sulu in this movie isn't much better. There's no indication that he had an interest in botany or that he had the potential for a future command.
As much as I liked Bruce Greenwood's portrayal of American President John F. Kennedy in "Thirteen Days", his Captain Pike falls short of Jeffrey Hunter's from the original pilot episode "The Cage". Speaking of which, in that show, the Enterprise had a tough-as-nails First Officer (played by Majel Barrett and simply referred to as "Number One"). Were the writers of "Star Trek" worried about having a strong female character of high rank on the bridge?
I've never served in the military, but from what I know of it, many of those same characters would be subject for courts-martial because of their conduct, or would that no longer apply in the 23rd century?
If I didn't know any better, I would swear that "Star Trek" was intended to be a spoof, but I have to keep reminding myself that this was intended to be a serious movie. To be honest, I found the "Star Wreck" send-ups to be more entertaining.
Avoid this rubbish like the plague.
"Star Trek" is another. The viewer is required to abandon all previous knowledge of the original series and the movies based on it, but the result is no improvement.
For example, the plot suffers from lazy writing. Rather than maintaining all the details from the original series, many of them are either ignored or written out all together. Conveniently, the planet Vulcan is destroyed and the writers no longer have to worry about the relationship between Spock and his parents. (This was similar to the destruction of Gallifrey in the current version of "Doctor Who". Why worry about the conflict between the Doctor and the other Time Lords when their home is no longer part of the plot?)
And, when all else fails, bring in a future version of a certain character as a plot device. Leonard Nimoy's Spock, unfortunately, was completely out of place.
The main characters are poorly written as well. The young Kirk is little more than an ill-disciplined, brawling hooligan who doesn't know how to obey orders, possessing an inflated self-worth. The original Uhura was from southern Africa and had a dignified manner, making one wonder if she didn't have a royal ancestry. The Uhura in this movie was completely undignified and of dubious virtue. As for Spock, the less said the better. Emotionally conflicted? How about simply lacking in self-discipline and self-restraint?
The original Chekov first appeared during the second season of the series and was introduced because of Beatlemania. He became a pivotal character in a number of episodes as well as the movies. The one in "Star Trek" is little more than a high school boy who would be more at home playing video games than serving on board a starship. The Sulu in this movie isn't much better. There's no indication that he had an interest in botany or that he had the potential for a future command.
As much as I liked Bruce Greenwood's portrayal of American President John F. Kennedy in "Thirteen Days", his Captain Pike falls short of Jeffrey Hunter's from the original pilot episode "The Cage". Speaking of which, in that show, the Enterprise had a tough-as-nails First Officer (played by Majel Barrett and simply referred to as "Number One"). Were the writers of "Star Trek" worried about having a strong female character of high rank on the bridge?
I've never served in the military, but from what I know of it, many of those same characters would be subject for courts-martial because of their conduct, or would that no longer apply in the 23rd century?
If I didn't know any better, I would swear that "Star Trek" was intended to be a spoof, but I have to keep reminding myself that this was intended to be a serious movie. To be honest, I found the "Star Wreck" send-ups to be more entertaining.
Avoid this rubbish like the plague.