Maybe I've been watching too many movies that are over 50 years old lately, movies that were actually filmed on a sound stage with things like scenes and dialog. The original Star Trek television series was like that since computer graphics and advanced special effects didn't exist yet. And while there were special effects in place for the 6 movie Star Trek series that began in 1979, varied drastically when it came to quality.
The 2009 Star Trek reboot with an all new cast (except the return of Leonard Nimoy) is a different kind of Star Trek altogether. It is a special effects geek fest, digitally charged, rapidly cut and edited, and meant to inflect new life into a deteriorating franchise heading to towards being irrelevant for a modern audience. I saw the 2013 Star Trek: Into Darkness when it came out earlier this summer. When that movie came to video, some bright guy thought of bundling Into Darkness with its predecessor in a single package for one low price (about 25 bucks). I actually thought I had seen the 09 Star Trek film but apparently not when I plopped in the blu-ray player today to watch with my father-in-law earlier today. The confusing time bending story that more blasted on the screen rather than play had him bailing out about an hour into the film to take a nap. I stuck it out to the end and generally thought that it was good film that told the origins of Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the major Star Trek characters but could have done a few of the plot points much better than what came out in the finished product.
But director J.J. Abrams gave the franchise what it needed and brought it up to date to what the current movie viewer wants from a space movie - special effects, special effects, and more special effects that tell an interesting story without being laughably silly. If you like that kind of thing, Star Trek 09 fits the bill - wish it was about 20 minutes shorter though.
