Current Events > JAKAS Presents Good Movie or Bad Movie - Star Trek 2009

(+) Yeah! (+)

INTRO

Welcome to my series of topics! I'm asking the question of if a movie is "Good" or "Bad". Feel free to caveat in the topic, since there are definitely movies that are objectively terrible that someone can like. Also, I'm gonna go alphabetically usually so if you have a movie you want tossed in here, go for it and give me a recommendation.

NOTE : It is unlikely I will put in universally beloved films since I mean, the jury is kinda already out on that. No reason to really ask if Jurassic Park is a good or bad movie. I might break this now and then with my own personal favorites or universally beloved movies that I personally don't like since you know, it's my series of topics.

NOTE 2 : Why is there no "Meh" option? Cause that would dominate the topic every single time. I'm usually not picking universally loved or hated movies, so forcing you to pick whether it's good or bad, that dichotomy? It's kinda the point. If you can't hedge and you just gotta say it's a good movie or not... what is your answer.

FILM DISCUSSION *SPOILERS*

The idea for a "prequel film" to the original Star Trek series was explored by Roddenberry himself as early as 1969, though it never really got off the ground. After the whole Viacom/CBS split in 2005, there was a bunch of different rules and whatnot regarding the rights to many IP's, including Star Trek. At that time the president of Paramount convinced CBS to allow them 18 months to draft up a proposed Star Trek film that would be acceptable to all parties. Had it not been accepted, the rights would be lost to CBS and Paramount would not be allowed to do anything with the IP again. Paramount ended up getting JJ Abrams and the writers of Mission Impossible 3 on the project, as the writers were Trekkies in their own rights. Abrams was not a huge fan of the Star Trek series on the whole, but loved the relationship between Kirk and Spock and the rest of the crew in the original series. He went on to say that in his eyes, that crew was the only true Star Trek and the rest of the series were just "other space stories" that used the name Star Trek. He agreed to not only produce but to direct as well, getting more excited as the writers showed him what they were cooking up.

The whole "time travel" element was present in the original draft for the story, as the Abrams and the writers literally decided if they couldn't get Nimoy on board with what they were doing, it wasn't going to be good enough for fans anyways. They were very conscious of the fact that time travel CAN potentially be a wishy-washy deus-ex-machina to explain away any problems and so they wanted to use it only as a means to connect it to the original Star Trek and have a "science" way of explaining why things were different, like the film being about an encounter with Romulans rather than Klingons. They were worried that casting the Klingons in a negative light after everything that had transpired already would just not make for good storytelling.

The other major concern that everyone had was basically that Star Trek had kinda run out of gas, particularly in the foreign markets. The last film (Nemesis) did poorly, Star Trek Enterprise had been cancelled, and really with the return of Star Wars to the forefront it kinda felt like Star Trek was being left behind. Paramount was so conscious of this that they purposefully marketed the film as a "Star Trek for everyone". JJ Abrams would go around the WORLD talking about how this wasn't "your parent's Star Trek" and that it was meant to make new fans and be a whole new experience. It was also written purposefully to move away from more of the technical science aspects of Star Trek and focus more on character dynamics and action. It was just as much a desire of the studio as it was JJ and the writers to try and make a more modern general audience type interpretation of Star Trek.

It honestly worked too, as it went on to make 385 million dollars at the box office. The budget was around 120 mil, if you think P/A was around the same the movie probably cost at least 200 million to make, but ultimately it was a financial success. It also reviewed exceptionally well, having over 90 on Rotten Tomatoes and a Metacritic around 8.1/10. Seems like going for the general audience worked for the vast majority of the... well, general audience, even if it was and continues to be lambasted quite a bit by those who love the Roddenberry Star Trek projects. This might be one of the first examples in this series of topics where time has been less kind to the film than when it first released, thus inspiring me to make it the latest subject of discussion.

Are you a fan of the JJ Abrams Star Trek? Were you a fan when it released but looking back at it now you're less enthusiastic? Are you happy it just kinda ensured more Star Trek content moving forward? Is it a good movie or a bad movie?

https://youtu.be/pKFUZ10Wmbw?si=XPn6GN-sivKev-gN

PREVIOUS POLL RESULTS

Angels in the Outfield (94) - 22 Good, 5 bad, 3 not seen
Brave - 20 good, 16 bad, 11 not seen
Couples Retreat - 4 good, 9 bad, 4 not seen
Demolition Man - 57 good, 4 bad, 1 not seen
Enemy of the State - 19 good, 3 bad, 6 not seen
Frozen - 20 good, 8 bad, 9 not seen
Ghostbusters 2016 - 12 good, 33 bad, 11 not seen
How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days - 7 good, 7 bad, 9 not seen
I Am Legend - 12 good, 13 bad, 7 not seen
Jurassic Park 3 - 7 good, 19 bad, 0 not seen
Kindergarten Cop - 45 good, 12 bad, 6 not seen
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - 11 good, 21 bad, 6 not seen
Matrix Reloaded - 30 good, 19 bad, 0 not seen
National Treasure - 31 good, 6 bad, 7 not seen
Oz The Great and Powerful - 4 good, 6 bad, 9 not seen
Patch Adams - 12 Good, 7 bad, 10 not seen
Quiz Show - 6 good, 0 bad, 9 not seen
Role Models - 15 good, 5 bad, 4 not seen
Superman Returns - 8 good, 14 bad, 9 not seen
Titan AE - 11 good, 3 bad, 7 not seen
Uncharted - 2 good, 9 bad, 8 not seen
Van Wilder - 21 good, 7 bad, 3 not seen
Where The Wild Things Are - 11 good, 9 bad, 10 not seen
X-Men 3 The Last Stand - 13 good, 20 bad, 5 not seen
You've Got Mail - 5 good, 6 bad, 4 not seen
Zathura - 9 good, 2 bad, 9 not seen
Star Wars Last Jedi - 29 good, 45 bad, 4 not seen
Aladdin and the King of Thieves - 16 good, 6 bad, 11 not seen
Batman Forever - 13 good, 16 bad, 4 not seen
Clue - 39 good, 0 bad, 14 haven't seen
Donnie Darko - 44 good, 13 bad, 10 haven't seen
Event Horizon - 25 good, 8 bad, 6 not seen
Forgetting Sarah Marshall - 25 good, 6 bad, 5 not seen
Golden Compass - 8 good, 3 bad, 14 haven't seen
Hollow Man (2000) - 14 good, 12 bad, 6 haven't seen
I, Robot - 20 good, 13 bad, 3 not seen
Judge Dredd (1995) - 20 good, 21 bad, 7 not seen
Karate Kid (2010) - 15 good, 18 bad, 7 not seen
Lion King (2019) - 4 good, 22 bad, 12 not seen
Mortal Kombat (1995) - 46 good, 10 bad, 7 not seen
Now You See Me - 7 good, 11 bad, 4 not seen
Ocean's 8 - 6 good, 7 bad, 14 not seen
Police Academy - 30 good, 3 bad, 7 not seen
Quantum of Solace - 4 good, 14 bad, 7 not seen
Rush Hour - 48 good, 2 bad, 3 not seen

Saturday night bump!

I liked it *shrug*

I haven't seen any of the prior Star Trek movies though, I should probably do that

Bump

I really enjoyed it.

I thought it was pretty lousy. The sequel was better, but I just haven't enjoyed any of the new Trek films.

Unwatchable lens flare garbage. The writing for the new Star Trek movies was atrocious.

Lots of people liking it but definitely some strong hate as well.

I liked it personally but I do see it as a very different sort of experience to Roddenberry's work.

Never seen

Great movie and perfectly cast.

Pretty good. Can't say the same for the sequels though.

I really enjoyed it, but I'd also never been a fan of ST up to that point, so I had no expectations going into it.

CyrusV posted...

Pretty good. Can't say the same for the sequels though.

I liked the second one as well, but don't think I would rewatch the third.

Terrible Star Trek movie but good sci-fi movie

Technically it's a good movie, but it's absolutely catastrophic for what it did to Star Trek afterwards.

I enjoy it, but it's pretty low on the list for overall Star Trek media IMO.

Also you should do Water World for one of these topics.

JKwaffle posted...

I enjoy it, but it's pretty low on the list for overall Star Trek media IMO.

Also you should do Water World for one of these topics.

Adding it to the list. I wonder what the general vibes are on it now in 2024. LOL

Too much lens flare. 721 times in the 127 minute movie (average of 5.68 times a minute)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


To be fair though, Star Trek might not even be being made right now if not for the success of this film. I think some people would rather it that way sure, but I'm glad it was successful to keep the concept of Star Trek and inspired works (like Orville) going.

I liked it, I liked it a lot.

Any T recommendations?

Its a good movie but you cannot tell me that Karl Urbans performance isnt dogshit

I honestly believe the man cant act.

Jeff_AKA_Snoopy posted...

Any T recommendations?

Maybe Terminator 3, or any that came after?

SwayM posted...

Its a good movie but you cannot tell me that Karl Urbans performance isnt dogshit

I honestly believe the man cant act.

Time to get sent to the isocubes for this opinion.

Jeff_AKA_Snoopy posted...

Any T recommendations?

Tenet, the OG Top Gun, Twelve Monkeys

Terminator 2
Tron
Time Cop