View Single Post
Old May 8 2009, 02:55 PM   #605
lawman
Commander
 
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

ST-One wrote: View Post
lawman wrote: View Post
...This may be far more expensive than any version of Trek on screen before, but in every way that really matters it’s playing to the cheap seats. It’s big, flashy, and frenetically paced.
This is bad... because?
You can't keep up with it?
Hey, way to disagree there—start out with a cheap shot.

I can enjoy a well-told slam-bang hyperkinetic action story. (Not that this was one—well-told, that is.) Bourne Identity, to name just one off the top of my head. However, that's not what I look for from Star Trek, nor ever have. Trek has grander ambitions.

lawman wrote: View Post
It has top-flight digital effects.
Is this a criticism?
Not by itself, per se—just one in a set of characteristics establishing the kind of audience the movie was made for and marketed to. I take it you consider yourself part of that audience. Myself, I enjoy good effects, but they don't make or break a film.

[Lens flare]
An artistic choice and a by-product of shoting with anamorphic lenses.
Yes. An "artistic choice" that draws attention to itself, and that most filmmakers try to avoid, but that Abrams embraced. You may like it; I didn't so much.

'cause no-one ever uses close-ups?
There are close-ups, and CLOSE-UPS. I really don't need to see actors' pores. But honestly, the cinematography was among the least of my complaints.

Clearly you don't understand what movie-music is supposed to do.
More personal shots? Really?

I understand perfectly well what movie music is supposed to do. Jerry Goldsmith's score did it in past Trek films. LOTR did it. Last of the Mohicans did it beautifully. John Williams has done it all over the place (although he got to repeating himself over time.) This film? Didn't do it.

[introspection]
No, of course it doesn't
Perhaps you could elaborate a bit. Are you saying this story actually had character introspection? If so, where? Or are you saying you don't see it as necessary—despite it being intrinsic to Trek ever since the original pilot? If so, why not?

[broad-stroke characterization]
No different than during TOS then.
Quite the contrary. TOS at its best developed some fascinatingly complex characterization. (Though, admittedly, mostly just for the main three.)

[No themes]
Other than loss, the dealing with that loss and finding one's place in the universe.
You thought it dealt with those? I thought it used them as excuses for big action setpieces, and otherwise swept them under the rug.

lawman wrote: View Post
and its plot logic doesn’t stand up to thirty seconds of examination.
Oh?
Yes, "oh" indeed. I described quite a few examples in my post.

lawman wrote: View Post
and Christopher Pike is now its first captain rather than its second.
Pike was and always will be her first captain.
No, that would be Robert April.

(But even if you don't "count" TAS, it seems a pretty dramatic change that Pike's tenure in the center chair has been reduced from 11+ years down to a single mission.)

Now, I've indulged you, even though you responded to a carefully argued post with a selection of quick one-liners. Obviously you disagree with me about the movie. Care to set the personal stuff and the sarcasm aside, and offer something more thoughtful?
__________________
Blogging on pop culture and politics at SmartRemarks
lawman is offline   Reply With Quote