JulioBiason.Net

IMDB Plot:

A chronicle of the early days of James T. Kirk and his fellow USS Enterprise crew members.

Spoiler-ish review follow.

In all honesty, I was expecting the movie to blow. I saw the trailers and they looked pretty shit. So I was pretty surprised that the movie was better than I expected. Unfortunately, it wasn’t as good as I wished.

First thing, special effects (it’s sci-fi, it’s supposed to make a difference.) They are good, in a sense that they kept it out of the plot. As in the series (all series), technology is part of the universe, but it’s not the changing factor. Same goes here.

The Enterprise is redesigned with more fluffy stuff. No more black consoles everywhere and weird, non-sensical flashing lights everywhere. You have transparent consoles and the general look is more whiter than the original. It makes sense, if you consider the leap the actual technology took in those years since the original series.

The plot is also ok-ish, but… there is something missing there. I mean, it’s not bad, there are no holes but it doesn’t totally feel like Star Trek. You have a guy looking for revenge purely for the revenge itself. In all the series, everyone is doing something based on their cultures: Humans like to explore, as do Vulcans (in their reclusive way), Klingons seek honor above everything else, Cardassians and Romulans want to expand their respective empires, Ferengis would do anything for profit and things like that. The main villain is a Romulan, but he doesn’t seem to be acting “for the Empire” although he cites that as one of his motives.

Another plot thing that feels wrong is that the Enterprise, the new flagship of the Federation, is assigned a full crew of cadets instead of a veteran crew. I mean, you have the best ship you could ever build, you have at least 12 other ships around with a crew with more experience and… would you assign some not-yet-out-of-training cadets to it? That doesn’t make any sense.

Acting/characters development is also ok-ish. In a sense, I was expecting Zachary Quinto to, at some point, “do a Sylar” and cut someone’s forehead with his finger. But, for some reason, you never expect him to do such thing in the movie, which seems he did a good job portraiting something that it’s not Sylar. And, honestly, at some point, he did seemed to be Leonard Nimoy and the original Spock. Also, the idea of explore more deeply the human side of Spock seemed pretty good for the movie. I mean, the original Spock was a Vulcan above everything else, even if he had a bit of make fun of himself — and that’s as far as he went in the original series. The new Spock is way more dimensional than the older counterpart, which is incredible good to show how he have a human nature after all.

Chris Pike, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to be Kirk. At all. I can’t blame the actor himself, but I guess the script, although focusing in the first years of those, doesn’t pay the proper respect to Kirk. In the original series, Kirk was the damn bastard you’d follow without hesitation. In this movie, he’s just a damn bastard. At some scene, when he’s running away from a big monster, I really wished he wouldn’t escape and that would be his end. “Please, remove that guy from the movie.” But, alas, he survive.

Also, it seems that new version of Kirk have some miraculous healing factor. He hurts his hand while fighting in a platform, only to take the bandages off a few hours later when he is thrown out of the Enterprise. And a couple of bruises around his left eye (after getting into some fights) slowly heals themselves in also a couple of hours.

Simon Pegg, playing the bit of Montgomery Scott, is… bleh. I didn’t like it, mostly ’cause I know the history of James Doohan. And, honestly, making Scott as a comedy relief (in the “pie in your face” sense) it’s just plain wrong. I mean, someone who personally took someone out of a suicide and fought in wars should at least have a most respectful representation of their most famous character.

McCoy is also bleh. DeForest Kelley’s McCoy was the guy that know morals above everything, even if that meant breaking laws. He was the bastion of “what is right” against “what is in the books” (which is exactly the opposite of Spock.) But, right in the middle of the movie, he does what is immoral and wrong at the same time. And, in the end, his character never get enough time to get a proper development. He’s just the guy in the background with a well known name which says a couple of lines and then vanishes.

I guess a lot of people would say “the appearance of Nero fucks up with the old timeline, so things are completely different now, including people.” Well, ok, but, for an old time trekkie, it still feels that those things really annoyed me, ’cause they were not the problem with the series. It was, actually, one of the best baselines for any series.

But not everything is “screw the old series” in this. There are several “echoes” from the original series: A “red shirt” (not shirt in this case) dying seconds after jumping into a mission, Christopher Pike (the original Enterprise captain, not the actor) in a wheelchair and even Orion girls appear in the movie.

Overall, I’d say it’s a good movie, although I would expect something more.

Yahoo! released a list of 100 movies you should see before you die. So I decided to check how many I need to watch:

• 12 Angry Men (1957)
  
  Watched it. Both versions (original and the new one.) Absolutely amazing. I know that the list is in alphabetical order, but it surely deserves, in my opinion, to be on the top of the list.
• 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
  
  Yup, I did. I still don’t understand the ending, no matter how many times I watch it.
• The 400 Blows (1959)
• 8 ½ (1963)
• A Hard Day’s Night (1964)
  
  A very vague “maybe’ here. I saw a lot of Beatles movies (I blame my mum), but I can’t be sure if I watched it or not. I surely remember Yellow Submarine, but this one…
• The African Queen (1952)
• Alien (1979)
  
  Watched it, but I don’t think it’s that impressive. Sure, it opened the doors for sci-fi horror genre (or, at least, put it on a visible place) but… I don’t know, maybe anything horror related is not my type.
• All About Eve (1950)
• Annie Hall (1977)
• Apocalypse Now (1979)
  
  Yup. It’s weird, but not as close as 2001. Maybe I should watch it again.
• The Battle of Algiers (1967)
• The Bicycle Thief (1948)
• Blade Runner (1982)
  
  Watched it. Also watched the 3D photo in it. I still didn’t watch the director’s cut (which apparently have a complete different ending.)
• Blazing Saddles (1974)
  
  I look at the pictures on IMDB and I have that feeling that “Hey, I think I remember that”, but I really can’t say if I watched it fully or not. Counting as “no”.
• Blow Up (1966)
• Blue Velvet (1986)
  
  Again, a vague “maybe”. I’m counting as “no”.
• Bonnie and Clyde (1967)
  
  I kinda remember Warren Beatty on this, but every time I try to remember him acting, I come with “Dick Tracy”. Counting as “no”.
• Breathless (1960)
• The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
  
  I fucking know the main theme, and all the plot and I suspect I can pull some scenes from my mind, but I can’t really say that I watched it all.
• Bringing Up Baby (1938)
• Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
  
  Again, vague “maybe”. Again, counting as “no”.
• Casablanca (1942)
  
  Some scenes, I don’t know which song Sam have to play all the time, so “no”.
• Chinatown (1974)
• Citizen Kane (1941)
  
  That’s one movie that it is on my list for a long time and I never watched.
• Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)
  
  Yes. And no, I didn’t think it was silly that people could walk up or stand still on bamboos.
• Die Hard (1988)
  
  Yippie Kai Yay.
• Do the Right Thing (1989)
  
  I remember that there was a big announcement about this movie and it made the name “Spike Lee” appear everywhere at the time, but I haven’t watched it.
• Double Indemnity (1944)
• Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
• Duck Soup (1933)
• E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
  
  Yup. And, at the end, I was scared that I would cross E.T. everywhere (hey, I was just a kid at the time and I saw on the cinema.)
• Enter the Dragon (1973)
  
  Again, scenes, most of the story but I don’t think I saw the whole thing. I’m making a “no”, although it’s a probable “yes”.
• The Exorcist (1973)
• Fast Times At Ridgemont High (1982)
• The French Connection (1971)
  
  Michael Caine, right? [Checks IMDB] No, Gene Hackman. It’s a “no”. (Hey, what’s the name of that movie where they steal bars of gold and run in small cars and, in the end, their truck is about to fall in a cliff?)
• The Godfather (1972)
• The Godfather, Part II (1974)
• Goldfinger (1964)
  
  All 007 movies. When I found the first one in the movie rental shop, I started renting one of the series every week (I couldn’t watch movies on the VHS on weekdays.)
• The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1968)
  
  Also in my list, but due everyone mentioning the name. Still haven’t watched it.
• Goodfellas (1990)
• The Graduate (1967)
• Grand Illusion (1938)
• Groundhog Day (1993)
  
  Yup. More than once. Bill Murray was absolutely fantastic.
• In the Mood For Love (2001)
• It Happened One Night (1934)
• It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)
  
  This move is my list since forever. I saw one of the last scenes (when the guy gets in the house and around his family) but I haven’t watched it yet.
• Jaws (1975)
  
  Pieces there and there, but not the whole thing. No.
• King Kong (1933)
  
  Pieces there and there, but not the whole thing. And yes, I know it’s the original one and I’m not kidding.
• The Lady Eve (1941)
• Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
• The Lord of the Rings (2001, 2002, 2003)
  
  Guiltyyyyyyyyyyyyy.
• M (1931)
• M*A*S*H (1970)
  
  I saw some episodes of the series, but never the movie.
• The Maltese Falcon (1941)
• The Matrix (1999)
  
  Yup.
• Modern Times (1936)
  
  Scenes there and there, but not the whole thing.
• Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
  
  I did, but it’s only a model.
• National Lampoon’s Animal House (1978)
• Network (1976)
• Nosferatu (1922)
• On the Waterfront (1954)
• One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975)
• Paths of Glory (1958)
• Princess Mononoke (1999)
• Psycho (1960)
• Pulp Fiction (1994)

Sure. English motherfucker, do you speak it?

• Raging Bull (1980)
• Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
  
  Yes and I never actually found out why asps? Why there always have to be asps?
• Raise the Red Lantern (1992)
• Rashomon (1951)
• Rear Window (1954)
• Rebel Without a Cause (1955)
• Rocky (1976)
  
  Yup. Me and AAADRIAAAAANNNNNNN!!!
• Roman Holiday (1953)
• Saving Private Ryan (1998)
  
  Yup, and I made it worth it.
• Schindler’s List (1993)
  
  Yes. (no funny quote this time.)
• The Searchers (1956)
• Seven Samurai (1954)
• The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
  
  Yes.
• The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
  
  Yes, dear Clarice.
• Singin’ in the Rain (1952)
  
  Believe it or not, yes. And he sings and dances just ONCE in the whole movie.
• Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
  
  Yes.
• Some Like It Hot (1959)
  
  Parts there and there, but not the whole thing. Also, the pieces I watched were enough to convince me that Marilyn Monroe was not an actress.
• The Sound of Music (1965)
  
  Yes, and I still sing the “Good night” song from time to time.
• Star Wars (1977)
  
  Yes.
• Sunset Blvd. (1950)
• Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
  
  Yes.
• The Third Man (1949)
• This is Spinal Tap (1984)
• Titanic (1997)
  
  Yes. Boring.
• To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
• Toy Story (1995)
  
  Watched it to infinity and beyond!
• The Usual Suspects (1995)
• Vertigo (1958)
• When Harry Met Sally… (1989)
  
  Yes. And the last scene, when Harry tells how he feels to Sally is truly one of the things I wish I could have the guts and the memory to tell someone. That and the scene in “L.A. Story”, when Steve Martin tells how he would change a lot of stuff to not let the girl go away.
• Wild Strawberries (1957)
• Wings of Desire (1988)
• The Wizard of Oz (1939)
  
  Yes, but it was the re-colorized version (whatever they call it.)
• Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown (1988)
  
  Vague “maybe” again…
• The World of Apu (1959)

Yup, lot’s to watch. I can’t die yet.

IMDB plot:

All Lodge wants is for his gaming group to finish their adventure. Unfortunately, they’re more interested in seducing barmaids, mooning their enemies, and setting random villagers on fire. Desperate to rein in his players, Lodge injects two newbies into the distrust: a non-player character controlled by Lodge, who the power gamers immediately distrust, and the rarest gamer of all — a girl. Can the group overcome their bickering to save the kingdom, or will the evil necromancer Mort Kemnon triumph unopposed? A parody of fantasy films and the adventure gaming community, The Gamers: Dorkness Rising is a hilarious romp through the world of sword and sorcery — in this case, a world of exploding peasants, giant house cats, and undead roast turkeys.

First thing you’ll notice is the really cheap special effects. The second thing is the poor acting. Then you’ll notice the warrior with 17 charisma.

Now, if you didn’t understand the last bit, then probably the first two points would take you away from the the movie. If you at least thought “A warrior with charisma?”, then you should watch this.

The first minutes are probably drive you away from the movie. The special effects and the “wood plank” acting looks pretty bad. Then you realize it’s a game and, although the visuals don’t improve (even with the special effects going away), the acting kinda makes sense. But, as you keep watching the movie, the RPG jokes keep flowing in and the thing really “grows” on you.

I never thought nonsense and RPG jokes would work together, but they do. Most of the time is like “I don’t believe someone would do that in a game” and, amazingly, it works pretty fine. The contrast between the munchkins and the real RPG player just makes everything funnier.

A movie for everyone that enjoys RPGing, for sure. May require some understanding of Dungeons & Dragons, though.

IMDB plot:

A guy challenges himself to say “yes” to everything for an entire year.

Let’s start this by the disclaimers: I’m a Jim Carey fan. Every movie he does, I feel must watch. So, obviously, I had to watch his latest movie, Yes Man.

Now, I know that he doesn’t make “haha-funny” movies anymore. Since “The Truman Show“, he seems to be going more into “thinkful/comedy” style. So don’t expect big laughs all the time like in Ace Ventura.

So, the whole story goes around Jim Carey’s character, who refuses to do a lot stuff with his friends, till he have a dream of nobody giving a damn about his death. He goes to a “Yes” convention, where the presenter, played by Terence Stamp, puts a covenant on him: If he says no, bad things will happen. And, by doing that, he ends giving a lift to a homeless guy, give him all his money, end without gas in car and finding a crazy chick.

Acting is… ok, I guess. Brad Cooper, as Carl (Jim Carey) best friend is moot, only to show some life in the last part. Zooey Deschanel pushes the air-headed crazy chick so far you can’t even imagine how Carl (or someone like him) would fall for her if he wasn’t in the “I’M CURSED!” mood all the time.

All in all, a good movie for a lazy Saturday afternoon.

IMDB plot:

After being kidnapped and imprisoned for 15 years, Oh Dae-Su is released, only to find that he must find his captor in 5 days.

You know, I have a thing about Asian movies. To me, Asian thrillers are less brutal but a lot more scarier, racing chases seem to be more interesting and action movies seem to be more deep and more packed than the American counterparts.

And “Oldboy” is one of movies that fall in the last category. A drunk man is suddenly kidnapped and kept and a small room for 15 years. In all this time, the question in his head is always “Why?”. His only companion is a TV. And so, he tries to learn whatever he can and his desire for revenge grows. When he finally manages to “escape” (a full tunnel, but the people who kept him there decided to free him when the tunnel is done), he goes after the person who kept him there for all this long. In the way, he’s confronted by his desire of revenge and the question of the “Why?”.

It is a weird movie, although good. The “plot twist” you expect in the end actually happen in the middle of the movie, being quickly replaced by another plot twist soon and so on. And that mix of lots of plot twists make the movie interesting till the end. But that doesn’t mean that you end up with a bunch of unfinished sub-plots: Everything is tied in the end, no questions and everything wrapped nicely.

Honestly, it’s a good action movie, although a little bit tense sometimes.

IMDB plot:

A behind-the-scenes look at the annual Penguin World Surfing Championship, and its newest participant, up-and-comer Cody Maverick.

They have Penguins and surf! What could go wrong?

Yes, another “Hey kids! Follow your dreams, even when people say you don’t” movie. The interesting bit on this one, though, is the fact that it’s shown more as a documentary than a movie. Also, if penguins were a little bit more rubbery, they probably would do what they do in the movie (in other words, the movements of the penguins seems a lot real-like.) Another thing that impressed me was the water: It really looks good and I’m pretty sure it’s one of the hardest things to render (looking at the movie from the technical perspective.)

About the movie itself, as I said, the fact that it’s build as being a documentary and not a movie (although they jump between a “narrative” movie and a documentary all the time) makes it really interesting to watch. You are there, watching they do something and then, out of nowhere, a voice ask one of the characters something or some old movie is shown.

There was a joke running around about Shia LaBeouf being the “nononono” guy (you can see this video for more information) and, fun fact, he says the same thing two or three times in the movie. Old habits, right?

IMDB plot:

In the distant future, a small waste collecting robot inadvertently embarks on a space journey that will ultimately decide the fate of mankind.

Hey, a Pixar movie! Let’s watch it!

So, looks like WALL-E is the darkest Pixar movie so far. Why? ‘Cause it shows a completely barren, empty Earth where the only inhabitants are the cleaning robot of the title and a cockroach. Still is a kids movie ’cause the cockroach is cute and the robot have big eyes to make it look like a kid.

One of the things that impressed me was how much emotion Pixar manage to put in the robots, using just eyes. Later, when I saw the extras, the director mentioned that they were specifically playing with a binocular and that was used to build WALL-E. All magic broken ’cause you think “Hey, that’s one interesting thing they did by accident” and then they say it was on purpose. Oh well…

Also, this is probably one of the Pixar movies with less lines of all. Most of the action happens between WALL-E and EVE, and they basically don’t talk. They can say each other names, a few words and that’s it. Most beeps and computer generated sounds, some directly from the OS X voice-to-speech synthesizer. Well, since Steve Jobs owns most of Disney, Pixar and Apple, there are a lot of references to OS X/Mac products in the movie.

People mentioned that there is a strong political message in it. In a way, yes: The Earth is dead, the human population is now living in a spaceship with robots doing all the hard work so they don’t do any kind of exercise (not even walking) and so attached to communication devices they don’t see that the person they are talking is sitting just right next to them or look at the stars.

Such laziness is just broken when a small robot that doesn’t belong there start doing things they don’t expect. Then, suddenly, they realize their ways.

Although there is a message there, I think it fails to deliver it. Call the medium for it, but… it just don’t work. There is no transition state: They are lazy, then they are not. It’s weird, it lacks the “getting a conscience” part of the experience.

IMDB plot:

Po the Panda is the laziest of all the animals in the Valley of Peace, but unwittingly becomes the chosen one when enemies threaten their way of life.

Ok, now be aware that I may spoil things, as usual.

In an old China, a Panda, son of a noodle maker, dreams of becoming a grand master of Kung Fu. The village where he lives is also the place where The Furious Five, five masters of kung fu, live, fueling his dreams.

The part that I liked more is the very first scenes. Not because they have anything interesting, but because it looks like a cartoon, much like Samurai Jack, which was, in most of the episodes, more mature than anything going in the TV (ok, it also had some very childish episodes, but I think the mature outnumber the childish.) It made me believe it would be more mature than most “CG for kids” we see these days and, honestly, it was slightly above that. But just slightly.

One of the things that made me think “Why?” was the cast. I mean, wow, Angelina Joile, Lucy Liu, Jackie Chan? Amazing. Except that they gave Angelina about 10 lines, Jackie got 2 and Lucy just one. Jack Black lines are mostly fun, yes, but after a while you start getting tired of his voice. It’s like the whole movie is just a “Here people: Come hear Jack Black for 2 hours!” And some of the things he says really don’t fit a kung fu movie, even if it is for kids.

But that doesn’t mean it’s a bad movie. It’s another of those “believe in you” movies for kids. The CG is pretty good (well, most of the CG movies these days are good and Kung Fu Panda is no exception), the movements don’t look too weird, although some scenes go for the child-cartoon-appearance and look really silly, specially when compared with the rest of the movie, where movement and more fluid and real-like.

Overall, it’s a good movie and fun to watch.

For a while, I’ve been ranting about the new “Star Trek” movie by J.J.Abrams and written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. This morning I finally realized why it bothers me and why the line “OMG, boobies in Star Trek?” makes me giggle.

First, let’s take a look at the list of main Star Trek characters in the series:

• The Original Series: James T. Kirk, Spock, Dr Leonard “Bones” McCoy, Montgomery Scott, Hikaru Sulu, Pavel Checkov, Uhura (and let’s throw Christopher Pike just for the sake of it.)
• The Next Generation: Jean-Luc Picard, William Riker, Geordi La Forge, Worf, Beverly Crusher, Wesley Crusher, Deanna Troi, Data.
• Deep Space Nine: Benjamin Sisko, Kira Nerys, Odo, Julian Bashir, Jadzia Dax, Quark, Miles O’Brien, Jake Sisko, Worf (yes, again), Ezi Dax.
• Voyager: Kathryn Janeway, Chakotay, Tuvok, B’Elanna Torres, Tom Paris, Harry Kim, The Doctor, Neelix, Kes, Seven of Nine
• Enterprise: Jonathan Archer, T’Pol, Charles Tucker III, Malcolm Reed, Hoshi Sato, Travis Mayweather, Phlox.

  Go on. Go clicky-clicky and try to find the two that doesn’t fit. I’ll wait.

  Did you spot the two?

  Ok, the answer is: Wesley Crusher and Jake Sisko (although I made it hard for you to noticed why Jake doesn’t belong there.) They are the only teenagers in the whole list of series that were main characters (there we some kids in “Voyager”, but they would appear in only one or two episodes.) All the others look like they are in the late twentys or early thirties (with a few exceptions that look more like they are getting into their fourtys.) And that also includes non-human, ageless forms, like Odo, Data and the Doctor, and the ones with longer lifes, like the Vulcans. Even the youngest crew of all series, the Voyager (they were going into final training before going officially into service when they were transported to the Delta Quadrant) looks like they were in the later twentys.

  And that’s why the new Star Trek bothers me. All the actors (with the exception of McCoy) look like they are in their early twentys and in full operational status already. Even in the original series, when the Enterprise goes into its official mission of “explore strange, new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations”, Kirk looks like he’s in the late thirties. And now you have a Kirk that looks like he just out of puberty.

  Yes, there were boobs in the TOS. But they belonged to mature females, not some out of puberty, hormone full chick.

  To me, it looks like the tone of Star Trek changed from “When you get out of your studies and do some real life training, you may be a member of the most important ship of the human race” to “jump into the most important ship of the human race! All you need to do is be able to talk!”. Sign of the times, maybe, when you’re supposed to finish college and be a full experienced whatever-they-call-you-in-the-field. But, still, Star Trek looks a little bit tainted with an “easy way to get there” view.

  But, then again, I’m an old trekkie (although I never remember if the proper way is trekker or trekkie…)

As I was expecting, a lot of geek hate on Slashdot article about the new Star Trek trailer. Basically, it’s the same thing I’m saying since the very first real thing. But here, let me show you some of the best or the worst of Slashdot:

#25794021:

As both franchise got similarly raped by dubious quality prequels

I had some hopes for this movie, because I like JJ Abrams. Now that I’ve seen the trailer, I can’t help but agree with you. Holy crap, what is so hard about making good star trek movies? They have so much background to choose from, finding the right story should be easy.

Actually, I know what the problem is. They see the fanbase as a bonus, not as the target demographic. We have these people who are going to see the movie no matter what, so might as well aim for a completely different demographic. This way we get the other people AND the trek nerds!!!

#25795543:

Hmmmmm, Scotty, Kirk, McCoy, Spock, Uhuru, Sulu and Checkov all at the academy at the same time despite the differences in age. Yeah, this is gonna’ suck.

Yup, it’s becoming more and more apparent that Abrams has no regard whatsoever for the history of the series. McCoy was older than both Kirk and Spock (so was Scotty, but not by much), and Sulu, Uhura, and especially Chekov were all younger than Kirk… Chekov was a freakin’ ensign, and didn’t even join the series until year two. Now Abrams has them all at the academy at the same time?

This isn’t Star Trek. It’s Starfleet 90210.

#25794117:

I noticed something wrong too: if you watch the trailer closely, you’ll notice that it looks like this movie is shit.

#25794091:

As has already been mentioned this looks more like a Summer Blockbluster then anything else. I was expecting to see Will Smith strut into a scene with a cigar splutting a corney one-liner.

ST is old. We have had 18 YEARS of non-stop Trek (TNG aired in 1987, Enterprise ended in 2005) and reusing the same script for many of those shows. We were/are tired of seeing the same thing over and over again. You know what we are not tired of?

Hope, charisma, and a calm assurance of success.

TOS had this in spades, and we responded with resounding joy. The others all took a piece of that formula, but none had it the same.

This movie looks like it has nothing to offer but flash and CGI. The original Kirk could have just as easily been a pirate-ship captain; he was cunning, daring, full of guile, and a swashbuckler. This new Kirk looks like Prep-School prankster.

This reboot looks like it has lost the original intent. That is why it will fail.

#25794811:

My favorite of the TOS movies was 6 because the enemy overestimated Kirk’s racism and underestimated his intelligence and dedication to duty. The turning point was when, instead of starting the war he was expected to start, he said “signal our surrender.” In TOS, Kirk was never a warmonger or really prone to violence at all. Not a hothead. Maybe these people watched the old series and noticed all the fights and shit without noticing that Kirk didn’t start hardly any of it. And when he did start a fight, it was more to prove a point or to keep someone else from having to fight. Kirk doesn’t like losing. Anything. That’s the fundamental truth of Kirk.

I don’t expect this movie to show an old, wise, thoughtful Kirk, but let’s not turn him into a stereotypic cocky youth.