Star Trek 2009

Scanlas The 2nd

Worst Star Trek movie since 1990.

Can't believe they mutilated the Star Trek universe. While pleasing on the eye and an enjoyable action movie in it's own right, it would have to go down as the worst Star Trek movie of 90's and 00's for wrecklessly destroying Vulcan and Romulus.

Skinfull

Well I'm gonna fly right by your delayed reaction to this great flick, and land directly on...
serioulsy, you have to be joking, or retarded if you thought this was worse than Trek 5, the final frontier!

I loved this new trek, Bones was brilliant, and in your own words it was a damn good action flick. one of my favourite treks actually.

lynski

I loved it too, thought it was a great action flick and they made excellent cast choices for the young versions. We watched it again recently with our nearly 4yr old and we all loved it.
I am so looking forward to another one.

Scanlas The 2nd

It wasn't very original though. Star Trek should be more than just an action movie. The same old story lines. Spock struggling with his emotions and humanity etc. It's been done. Move on to new ideas.

There should be new interesting species we haven't seen before. Also, Scotty was ridiculous, he came across as a clown, not someone who should be operating on a state of the art star ship. He was just thrown in as a cheap laugh for the masses. That shows a lack of integrity which it needs to be a really classy movie.

grimm2005

Never been a star trek fan myself but I really enjoyed this. Unfortunately JJ Abrams has not signed on to direct the sequel but only produce atm

jaykhunter

There has got to be a massive Star Trek thread that this could've gone in instead if making a new thread with a three-line finger-palm!

I'm not a big fan of Star Trek but I enjoyed the film a lot, despite the horrific lens flare and overuse of the fluid-camera move. Would recommend to everyone to give it a try.

Here's what i have to say to JJ Abrams : (fast forward to 1:38)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9ytDCZS9oM

faceman

For the OP...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRNHpX5_Ek8

Goldstein

If you discard the star trek tag and think of it more as "Space Action Movie" in the fantasy genre, then it's a pretty entertaining and good looking action movie.

Just sit back with some popcorn, switch off and enjoy the spectacle. Don't concentrate on the plot - nothing makes any sense there, nothing. Just accept that fact and have fun watching it from a non star trek oriented viewpoint.

Not science fiction by any stretch of the imagination but that's ok, it's not supposed to be.

The lens flare is incredibly annoying alright though, it's in every scene all the time, absolutely head-wrecking.

indough

it does make sense and it is science fiction. you could argue that the time travel philosophy of it is incorrect but theres no point because there arent any real rules to a fictional phenomenon

a lot of the trekkies are getting upset about it just because it now appeals to the masses and its not their baby anymore. they need to get over it

jaykhunter

Goldstein wrote: »

If you discard the star trek tag and think of it more as "Space Action Movie" in the fantasy genre, then it's a pretty entertaining and good looking action movie.

I assume you're talking about this :



:pac:

indough wrote: »

it does make sense and it is science fiction. you could argue that the time travel philosophy of it is incorrect but theres no point because there arent any real rules to a fictional phenomenon

a lot of the trekkies are getting upset about it just because it now appeals to the masses and its not their baby anymore. they need to get over it

Couldn't agree more. It does suffer from extreme plot convenience though. (like when Kirk lands on Hoth to see Spock, and they walk to a base to find Scotty who can hook them up with getting off the moon) I wouldn't have changed it tho, that nit-picking would just slow down the movie :pac:

Goldstein

indough wrote: »

it does make sense and it is science fiction

The entire plot does not make one iota of sense. There is just so much wrong logically that it'll take me a couple of days to put a proper response together.

It's no more science fiction that Lost in Space is. It's science fantasy - as in the science isn't logical nor the plot cerebral. All the principal tenets of speculative fiction are absent. You just accept it and enjoy the show.

indough wrote: »

theres no point because there arent any real rules to a fictional phenomenon

C'mon, that's such a cop out. That old excuse could be employed to excuse all sloppy writing.
If you're going to cash in on a franchise, you have to accept the decades old universe established by that franchise. You obviously have some writing lee-way and room for new ideas but don't get lazy about it. If they wanted dictatorial control of the universe and weren't up to writing within its confines then they should have called it "Space Adventure Movie" and stopped fooling themselves.

indough wrote: »

a lot of the trekkies are getting upset about it just because it now appeals to the masses and its not their baby anymore. they need to get over it

Haha, not so fast.

It's all too easy to brand any and all criticism of the movie, however warranted or backed up, as originating from some die-hard oldschool geek trekkie in his Mum's basement stereotype.

Don't get me wrong Star Trek lost its way many years ago and I'm not offended by this new interpretation in the slightest - it needed a new direction years ago but this movie is what it is. It was made to make money from people who've never seen Star Trek and don't want to think too much about it, no crime in that but realise that fact.

Star Trek aside, Loud noises, explosions, quick tempo, and pretty people in space does not alone constitute Science Fiction.

Ridley

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Can't believe they mutilated the Star Trek universe.

I keep Star Trek at a distance (I appreciate time travel stories and that's about it) but I can't see how you can mutilate a universe that's

clearly set up as an alternate one

in the film.

indough

Definition of SCIENCE FICTION
: fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component

Examples of SCIENCE FICTION

1. Time travel exists only in the realm of science fiction.

the movie is definitely science fiction, dont get why youre attempting to dispute the fact

a film can be both an action movie and a sci-fi, total recall for example

Riamfada

Better than making a movie out of the DS9, Voyager, Enterprise crap and certainly better than flogging the dead TNG series especially the movies since First Contact.

Goldstein

indough wrote: »

Definition of SCIENCE FICTION
: fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component

Examples of SCIENCE FICTION

1. Time travel exists only in the realm of science fiction.

the movie is definitely science fiction, dont get why youre attempting to dispute the fact

a film can be both an action movie and a sci-fi, total recall for example

I'll let Plinkett explain:
(Part 2. From around the 17 minute mark if you don't want to watch the whole thing)
http://www.redlettermedia.com/plinkett.html

If you don't see the difference after that then I give up.

indough

sorry but you are simply incorrect! you can argue with the dictionary if you wish but to be honest i doubt youll have much success. and i dont need to watch a video to know what science fiction is, because it clearly just isnt exclusively high brow stories like 2001. even stuff like terminator salvation is science fiction. any plot involving time travel and space travel is about as science fiction as science fiction gets to be honest. theres no need to invent ridiculous sub genres to satisfy urges of snobbery.

Goldstein

indough wrote: »

sorry but you are simply incorrect! you can argue with the dictionary if you wish but to be honest i doubt youll have much success. and i dont need to watch a video to know what science fiction is, because it clearly just isnt exclusively high brow stories like 2001. even stuff like terminator salvation is science fiction. any plot involving time travel and space travel is about as science fiction as science fiction gets to be honest. theres no need to invent ridiculous sub genres to satisfy urges of snobbery.

Seriously, watch the video - he spells out the difference in very clear terms.

If you really insist upon throwing this into science fiction in the star trek universe, I'll be back with a retort in a few days.

And with respect, I don't need a dictionary (Or a googled one liner) to define what 64 years of Hugo, 45 years of Nebula & 39 years of Loci award winning novels have imparted.

indough

no youre right. clearly not science fiction. i mean what was i thinking. a story about various alien races travelling through space and time, in space ships, in the future. thats never science fiction. but i suppose even the dictionary doesnt know what science fiction is these days. sometimes i forget that the responsibility for defining terms rests solely on boards.ie users and movie critics. i suppose the fact that science fantasy is just a branch of science fiction would also be lost on you but this argument is tired. it was open and shut to begin with.

indough

and as a matter of fact i believe it even involves alternate realities also, but clearly its still not science fiction. because a guy in a video said so

Goldstein

indough wrote: »

and as a matter of fact i believe it even involves alternate realities also, but clearly its still not science fiction. because a guy in a video said so

heh-heh, calm down, I'm only being semi-serious.

And he's not just any guy. He's pretty famous as far as sci-fi reviews go, I would have expected you would have heard of him before now

I will be back though with some comeuppance for Abrams.

TheUsual

Right, I really enjoyed this movie and have watched it a lot more times than I would have thought before I bought it. I gave it 9 out of 10.

Ok a few plot slip ups like all the happy comedy moments after a whole race of Vulcans has been sucked into a black hole. Ho Ho ho !
And Old-Spock being on a random moon that Kirk is banished to.

Other than that - class film. Lots of action, effects, chicks, tension, storyline

(new timeline)

.
The old Picard crap has been done to death, although Nemesis was a good film. But not as good as this one. I hope they go into new science fiction areas now that the old story means nothing. Like anything they do now is new to us, and the trekkie nerds cannot help except bring up page 5,896 of some trek manual for how the next movie should be, and how Scottie was in Episode 9 of the 3rd Series. Pain in my hole with all that stuff. For some reason in that nerd-world, the more you compain about something new, the more you wish people think you know your stuff. Sad really.

More of this new original movie making please, can we drop the Spiderman, Batman, Superman remakes. I'm sick to death of poxy remakes, it's time for some original thinking.

indough

to be honest i only check in here every now and again, and when i do i never look at old threads, so coming back here in a week with some half baked attempt to argue with the dictionary and common sense isnt going to be much good to me. i dont care what however many internet videos say as its already case closed.

Goldstein

indough wrote: »

to be honest i only check in here every now and again, and when i do i never look at old threads, so coming back here in a week with some half baked attempt to argue with the dictionary and common sense isnt going to be much good to me. i dont care what however many internet videos say as its already case closed.

You're the one who brought up the dictionary.

It's not case closed, it's barely even case opened, and there's no running for the hills now.

I respect your viewpoint but, as you persisted so vehemently at least see through your convictions.

I intend to present clear, cohesive, logical arguments within the confines you suggested and I will do so without resorting to name calling.

Skinfull

Ridley wrote: »

I keep Star Trek at a distance (I appreciate time travel stories and that's about it) but I can't see how you can mutilate a universe that's clearly set up as an alternate one in the film.

Why are you using spoiler tags on a flick that's been out for yonks in a thread reviewing said movie!? *Removed tags!

New movie, new cast, new director, new trek, new 'verse. Loved it.

humanji

indough wrote: »

to be honest i only check in here every now and again, and when i do i never look at old threads, so coming back here in a week with some half baked attempt to argue with the dictionary and common sense isnt going to be much good to me. i dont care what however many internet videos say as its already case closed.

Goldstein wrote: »

You're the one who brought up the dictionary.

It's not case closed, it's barely even case opened, and there's no running for the hills now.

I respect your viewpoint but, as you persisted so vehemently at least see through your convictions.

I intend to present clear, cohesive, logical arguments within the confines you suggested and I will do so without resorting to name calling.

Geez, get a room you two.


I loved the new film. Star Trek had died a long time ago and this opened it up to a whole new audience and made it actually entertaining. The main problem, and it's a problem that I found in Southland Tales too, is that they released a comic at the same time that explained the plot and the film only really touches on it. That's a bit fo a sh*tty thing to to, to be honest.

But it was a brilliant reimagining of the Star Trek universe and tied everything together pretty well. They took enough of the original series and slotted it into this to good effect. Casting was fantastic (although, I'd agree that Scotty was a little too "comic relief", but I still think Pegg was good in the role), and the storyline was thrilling and emotional.

It's good fun and that's all it was trying to be.

johnny_ultimate

I love this film, it's one of the few big budget blockbusters of the last few years that entertains from exciting beginning (the prologue is masterful) to epic end. It's a combination of talented director - who is continually proving himself as one of the premiere entertainers of the moment - vibrant cast, inventive action, playful storytelling (it's good silly as opposed to bad silly) and a stunning score which, like all the best scores, adds tonnes of energy and excitement to proceedings.

I'm far from a Trekkie, I haven't seen any of the original crew Star Trek films, for example, and am only ho-hum about TNG ones. For me, a film that imaginatively pressed the reset button to tell a new story is admirable. Perhaps it pissed off fans, but this is IMO the best 'stupid' blockbuster in some time. It's not about picking plotholes, it's one of those rare films you're just able to sit down and enjoy.

jaykhunter

If it's a reboot (even if it draws on races and iconic character names & traits) shouldn't it be treated in it's "own universe" because it's not even attempting to be canon? Like it's a completely separate beast to the rest of Star Trek films and TV?

(I don't mean alternate realities in the star trek verse; but more like i dunno, if a fanmade Star Wars Episode 7 film was screened; sure it's in the realms of star wars but it's not part of the other film/tv stuff)

or have i opened up a can of space worms?

johnny_ultimate

jaykhunter wrote: »

or have i opened up a can of space worms?

A can of Trekkies is worse

Scanlas The 2nd

I don't see this star trek lasting very long, I predict the revenue of the next one to drop significantly and it will die out.

What they should have done was a movie afer the events of nemesis. There's so much oppurtunity for interesting new stories. Leave the past behind where it belongs. Bring in something new and refreshing. That's what the franchise needs. Not more Kirk and Spock rubbish.

What would people think if in the next James Bond he quit as a secret agent and became a baker and it followed his life as a baker. It could be a great movie, but you can't do that to James Bond.

humanji

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I don't see this star trek lasting very long, I predict the revenue of the next one to drop significantly and it will die out.

What they should have done was a movie afer the events of nemesis. There's so much oppurtunity for interesting new stories. Leave the past behind where it belongs. Bring in something new and refreshing. That's what the franchise needs. Not more Kirk and Spock rubbish.

What would people think if in the next James Bond he quit as a secret agent and became a baker and it followed his life as a baker. It could be a great movie, but you can't do that to James Bond.

I don't get this at all.

This Star Trek relates fairly well to James Bond, actually. They showed how an established character started out and gave him a new adventure. I don't really see anything wrong with that.

If you keep things the same, then they go stale and people lose interest.

Scanlas The 2nd

humanji wrote: »

I don't get this at all.

This Star Trek relates fairly well to James Bond, actually. They showed how an established character started out and gave him a new adventure. I don't really see anything wrong with that.

If you keep things the same, then they go stale and people lose interest.

That's what they are doing with this Star Trek, keeping it the same old Kirk and Spock storylines that have been done before.

On top of that they decide to destroy two planets thus mutilating the star trek universe.

Not much thought went into this movie.

There are certain parameters you should stay within in a Franchise. This movie blatantly crossed over them.

jaykhunter

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

...they decide to destroy two planets thus mutilating the star trek universe. Not much thought went into this movie. There are certain parameters you should stay within in a Franchise. This movie blatantly crossed over them.

Jaysus mate, this movie was made for the general moviegoing audience, not Star Trek die-hards. Most everyone --by that i mean people in general, not Star Trek fans-- stopped giving a crap (if they ever did) about Star Trek after TNG and Generations. This reboot is not aimed at you, it's aimed at people with my general nonchalent outlook on Trek. It's an extremely accessible and entertaining character-driven space movie; labelled "Star Trek".

This movie should be taken as non-canon; separate to every other Star Trek film and TV show, except for the general outline of the Original Series. Take it for what it is, a separate entity, and not how it slots into the Trek multiverse and your head might not actually explode with fits of rage!!!

I'd really urge you to check out the Plinkett review of 2009 Star Trek, he does a great job of explaining both points of view and enjoying it for what it is. The normally acid-tongued reviewer makes a ton of great points.

I think u might be looking for similar die-hard Trek fans with this line of conversation, but I don't think you'll find many here. We're kinda the general audience that this movie was aimed at, and loved it.

Penn

They destroyed Romulus in the future though, but in the present, it should still exist so theoretically it could still be used in future films. As for Vulcan, some Vulcans survived, so I think the future storylines from that could be quite interesting.

Why reboot the series if they're just going to keep going over the same things? Changing it up leads to new characters and situations. Surely that's for the best

maggy_thatcher

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

That's what they are doing with this Star Trek, keeping it the same old Kirk and Spock storylines that have been done before.

It opens the way for completely different Kirk/Spock storylines, not the existing ones. The whole dynamic between the two central characters is completely different. The Vulcan race will develop very differently given that there are now only a few of them left.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

On top of that they decide to destroy two planets thus mutilating the star trek universe.

They only destroyed one (Vulcan). Romulus won't be destroyed for another two hundred years or so, and now that they have more notice of it, they may manage to avoid it. Of course, the presence of a black hole in the solar system would make for an interesting life for Earth, but I'm sure they'll forget about that in future films (maybe being a "special" black hole, it won't emit lots of Hawking radiation, and will disappear quickly).

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Not much thought went into this movie.

There are certain parameters you should stay within in a Franchise. This movie blatantly crossed over them.

It's a new view on an old franchise. I look at it with an open view, and will see how they intend to develop the storyline.

Scanlas The 2nd

Does no one else see how ridiculous Simon Peg was in this movie?

Kashkai

TNG was brilliant and a "logical" progression from the original series. Picard appeared to be a very nerdy Captain after Kirk's character and it seemed like Ryker should have been the new kirk but fair play to Patrick Stewart, we all soon acknowledged him as the Captain of the Enterprise.

DS9 took itself far too seriously - tried to be too highbrow (no offence to Klingons btw ) at first until it started to lose fans which is when it went to the Dominion wars to bring back some excitement into it. Sisko was a pain in the butt though.

Voyager was so fcuking tedious, it made me stop watching it for fear I'd lose the will to live. Janeway was a bigger pain in the butt than Sisko - thats saying something.

Star Trek was dead after Enterprise mauled it.

So what had we left?

Return to TNG? First Contact was a great film, Nemesis wasn't too bad either but Generations and Insurrection were awful. So take a chance on Picard and crew again knowing that another turkey would kll off Star Trek once and for all or try a totally new crew knowing Enterprise didn't go down well?

Well that just left one option - The original characters. However, slotting new actors into existing roles wouldn't have worked as Shatner is Kirk, Nimoy is Spock and Bones and Scottie (Kelley and Doohan) are dead. Starting afresh to young actors taking over young characters was a brilliant stroke. Every actor assumed their role brilliantly and seemlessly AND brought a new side to the character. Chris Pine had Shatner's cockiness down pat, Zachary Quinto was brilliant as Spock (even better than the original?) while Karl Urban was outstanding as Bones. Ok so Scottie (Pegg) was a lot more light hearted than Doohan's interpretation but so what. He might mature into that more serious character in time. They are supposed to be only starting out at this point in time.

The film itself was very enjoyable. Great mix of action, suspense and comedy with well woven characters/storyline. It was great seeing how the original crew all came together. Ok so there were a few plot holes, convienient occurences (Spock senior in the right place at the right time) but so what. Its a popcorn movie to be enjoyed not used as someones college disertation.

aidan_walsh

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Does no one else see how ridiculous Simon Peg was in this movie?

I'm honestly surprised that nobody on the internet has parodied his scene in Spaced where he is burning all his Star Wars memorabilia in protest.

mikhail

aidan_walsh wrote: »

I'm honestly surprised that nobody on the internet has parodied his scene in Spaced where he is burning all his Star Wars memorabilia in protest.

Say what you like, but Jar-Jar Binks made Pegg's Scotty look like ****ing Shaft.

DrumSteve

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

TNG was brilliant and a "logical" progression from the original series. Picard appeared to be a very nerdy Captain after Kirk's character and it seemed like Ryker should have been the new kirk but fair play to Patrick Stewart, we all soon acknowledged him as the Captain of the Enterprise.

DS9 took itself far too seriously - tried to be too highbrow (no offence to Klingons btw ) at first until it started to lose fans which is when it went to the Dominion wars to bring back some excitement into it. Sisko was a pain in the butt though.

Voyager was so fcuking tedious, it made me stop watching it for fear I'd lose the will to live. Janeway was a bigger pain in the butt than Sisko - thats saying something.

Star Trek was dead after Enterprise mauled it.

So what had we left?

Return to TNG? First Contact was a great film, Nemesis wasn't too bad either but Generations and Insurrection were awful. So take a chance on Picard and crew again knowing that another turkey would kll off Star Trek once and for all or try a totally new crew knowing Enterprise didn't go down well?

Well that just left one option - The original characters. However, slotting new actors into existing roles wouldn't have worked as Shatner is Kirk, Nimoy is Spock and Bones and Scottie (Kelley and Doohan) are dead. Starting afresh to young actors taking over young characters was a brilliant stroke. Every actor assumed their role brilliantly and seemlessly AND brought a new side to the character. Chris Pine had Shatner's cockiness down pat, Zachary Quinto was brilliant as Spock (even better than the original?) while Karl Urban was outstanding as Bones. Ok so Scottie (Pegg) was a lot more light hearted than Doohan's interpretation but so what. He might mature into that more serious character in time. They are supposed to be only starting out at this point in time.

The film itself was very enjoyable. Great mix of action, suspense and comedy with well woven characters/storyline. It was great seeing how the original crew all came together. Ok so there were a few plot holes, convienient occurences (Spock senior in the right place at the right time) but so what. Its a popcorn movie to be enjoyed not used as someones college disertation.

****ing finally!

Tom Hardy was excellent in that.

maggy_thatcher

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

Nemesis wasn't too bad either

This Nemesis?

mikhail

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

This Nemesis?

And this Nemesis?

Honestly, I have a sneaking anyone who thought Nemesis was good must be a fanboy. And I say that as someone who's seen more or less everything the Star Trek franchise has ever produced (except for most of Enterprise; which seems a bit unfair given how many chances I gave Voyager, but there you go).

maggy_thatcher

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Loads of plot holes, i.e

so Vulcan was blown up

at that stage the Vulcans had a large number of planets and systems colonised so it wouldnt be as if they were extinct, their would still be billions of them in the galaxy.

They weren't extinct, just an endangered species. Maybe it operated on the Titan A.E. idea whereby a race without a home planet is doomed?

mikhail

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I doubt it as the Vulcans were in space when humans were still mastering flying and had colonised many other systems. Ignored decades of Star Trek history and wasnt even a decent sci-fi film.

/nerd rage

Based on what? I can't think of a single episode or film set on a Vulcan colony. First Contact indicates that the Vulcans were in space before humans. That's it. This sort of "it has to be so because I read it in my Star Trek encyclopaedia which I memorised when I was 12" attitude is what turned writers and cinema-goers off the franchise in the first place.

DrumSteve

mikhail wrote: »

And this Nemesis?

Honestly, I have a sneaking anyone who thought Nemesis was good must be a fanboy. And I say that as someone who's seen more or less everything the Star Trek franchise has ever produced (except for most of Enterprise; which seems a bit unfair given how many chances I gave Voyager, but there you go).

I enjoyed it and I'm not a fanboy.

TheUsual

The only Star Trek movies I own are Nemesis and the new Star Trek ... Star Trek 10 or X or whatever.
Anyway the new one is a great movie (as in original and stunning) - check out the score on www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/

The old dead end stuff was boring and stale. This movie and the next ones are a clean slate and any enemies beaten before have a whole new start in the series now.
I hope they kill off old-Spock in the next movie and they they can start without all the baggage and scary obsessive fans getting into their trek bibles. Go learn some Klingon you freaks !!

Branoic

On the contrary, instead of killing off Spock Prime it's likely they'll find a way to bring back the old Kirk too for a little reunion.

Skerries

bring back Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!

Scanlas The 2nd

For me, a movie needs to make sense for me to enjoy it. Star Trek 2009 may as well have had the camera man walking around in the scenes. It's just not believable. It's a movie for 5 year olds. I mean Kirk joins star fleet and 5 minutes later he is the captain of a star ship.

Scanlas The 2nd

It was quite selfish of JJ really to use and abuse the Star Trek franchise.

Penn

With regards to the Vulcans, Spock says that he estimates around 10,000 survived.

Jim

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It was quite selfish of JJ really to use and abuse the Star Trek franchise.

Wasn't selfish of him. Selfish of Paramount? Maybe. He was just brought in to do a job. Make Paramount as much money as possible from the Star Trek franchise. Which he did very very well and certainly would not be able to do if he made a film in the style of old Trek.

As Plinkett said "It's important to realise that they were remaking Star Trek, not making another Star Trek".

The Star Trek that we knew is gone, you'll never see another film or tv show. Any new films will be like Star Trek 2009 because that's what makes money, so get over it. If you don't like it, fine, don't go to see them. I really enjoyed Star Trek 2009 and I'm a massive Trek fan but don't relate it to the Star Trek that we knew and I would watch the new film and the old Trek for very very different reasons.