View Single Post
Old May 9 2009, 02:08 AM   #769
lawman
Commander
 
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

jim hadar wrote: View Post
...what was also exciting was that my 13 year old who had NEVER been a trek fan at all went with me and enjoyed it and the fact that he was asking questions afterward shows that this Trek will resonate with those outside the franchise while in my opinion it remains true to the essential core of the characters and themes us old timers love, woven into a new canvas that is accessible to all in 2009.
Glad you and your son liked it, but in all honesty I'd be more encouraged if he'd been drawn in by some real SF rather than a Big Dumb Action Movie. I just don't see it being true to that thematic core the way you do. Is there anything specific that brought that aspect across to you?

Chess Piece Face wrote: View Post
cbspock wrote: View Post
Captain Matthews wrote: View Post
My one big concern however was the fact that they literally went from being cadets to officers especially with Kirk being a cadet to become captain instantly...its a little hard to believe and I dont know if anyone knows why they would do that. Besides that I would easily give it a 9/10 maybe a 10
However Kirk was already a 3rd year cadet. He was also Pike's "golden boy". So he had some heavy weight sponsorship in Starfleet, plus his dad was a Starfleet hero.
-Chris
Plus, you know, they all saved the planet Earth. Heh.

Also, it is implied that the natural order of Destiny is to have him be the captain and spock the XO, by old Spock.

Finally - it's a movie.
"Destiny" is not an acceptable reason for a story development, especially in a story so explicitly concerned with making a "fresh start."

Nor is "it's a movie." In fact, any scene that forces me out of a story enough to think "oh, well, it's just fiction" is by definition failing its mission to engage the audience. And this movie was full of scenes like that.

Mr. B wrote: View Post
lawman wrote: View Post
...
Long story short: I really wanted to like it, but I wound up deeply disappointed. This was not only not good Star Trek, it just wasn't a good movie, period.
...
I think your review nailed it. This film is just as bad judged as regular cinema fare as it is judged as part of the Star Trek franchise. I know most people seem to disagree and find that this two hours of loosely strung together one-liners and explosions ranks among the best of Star Trek. I'm sure Paramount and Nokia couldn't be happier.
Thank you. Obviously I'm in the minority here, but I'm glad to know I'm not alone. I'm honestly surprised about how many people liked it, though, and curious about the reasons why. Ideally a discussion this this (minor flamewars aside) can shed a little light by drawing out what exactly it is that different people like about Trek in the first place. For me, it's never really been about big flashy battles and action scenes. Lots of movies do that stuff; not so many do thoughtful, character- and concept-driven SF. Obviously some folks have very different expectations.

galleywest wrote: View Post
I didn't see or read ANY spoilers for this film. Not one. So for me, it was a LOT to take in all at once. I didn't have the benefit of several months or weeks to digest the new direction the movie was going to take. I understand the frustration of having to hear these comments for months before the film even opened and can see why the "deal with it, already" crowd is so strong here. Having not been prepped on the alternate universe thing, however...I'm still reeling! Give me time.
Yeah. I get the impression that a lot of people went into the theater with their minds made up whether or not they were going to like it, and that became a self-fulfilling prophecy, either way. I really tried to avoid that, and approach it on its own terms as much as possible. I came out disappointed.

thumbtack wrote: View Post
Reading through this thread, I am confused. It's the spin-off fans and not the TOS fans who've got their panties in a bunch. I am at a loss to explain this. Is it because the comfortable sameness of the four spin-offs is not present in this movie? Is it because "their" trek is gone now? Do they now feel that they have memorized the Star Trek Encyclopedia all for nothing? Is this movie just too different for them? It's quite strange, when you think about it.
I haven't really noticed that phenomenon. Or, at least, I can't relate to it. I'm a TOS fan first and foremost; some of the later series are fun, but TOS is the template from which they're all drawn. And it's largely because of my affection for the original characters and concepts that I'm so disappointed by what this film did with them.

middyseafort wrote: View Post
Saw the movie last night. Don't have the time to go in depth, right now. But I will say that I've finally, at long last, seen a Star Trek movie. This was a cinematic event. A motion picture with a kinetic energy that I've felt was long missing from Trek...

The boring, pretentious and forced character moments were gone. In their place, genuine characterization and emotion. The characters felt real, more real than they've been since the first season of TOS. They felt. They acted. They didn't pontificate on the wonders of 23rd/24th century humanity. They were human, even Spock, who, even in the original, has always been the most human of them all. His inner conflict allowed to boil to over 200 degrees and bubble over the pot into the flames below.

...The ship had a grandeur not seen since TMP. I felt I was on board both the Kelvin and the Enterprise not some studio set as I did with TSFS-NEM.
Interesting how different our reactions are, and it may go to what I just wrote about expectations. I never thought of "kinetic energy" as a prime component of what Trek was about. To me, Kirk sitting on the bridge thinking his way through a crisis can be just as dramatic (actually more so) than Kirk space-diving out of a shuttle.

The characters' emotions didn't feel real to me; they seemed too blunt and broad. They were written like caricatures of the characters we saw develop over time, just collections of some familiar "bits." And Spock, in particular, I've always thought was at his worst when writers forced him to emote openly (which this film did in spades); what makes him interesting is what's below the surface, the careful internal balance and control.

The ship's interiors? Didn't feel half as "real" to me as any previous version. Every deck other than the bridge, especially, seemed to have a design aesthetic that could charitably described as "chaotic."

thesadpanda wrote: View Post
Dennis wrote: View Post
The cadet-to-Captain thing is unsalvagable. It's not the first time, going back forty-three years, that I've looked the other way at Trek's disinterest in the realities of military structure and the chain of command, and I'm sure it won't be the last.
Starfleet isn't the military. It has a military heirarchy, sure, 'cause it runs smoother that way but these people aren't soldiers. They're scientists and swashbucklers banding together as an "instrument of civilization," as Kirk once said. Where the military breaks its members down to little more than machines following an authoritarian command structure, Starfleet's strength comes from its attempt to cultivate and maximize the strengths of each individual. That's why Starfleet is so much more forgiving of insubordination and familiarity in the ranks. It wasn't until DS9, Voyager and Enterprise that it was reinterpretted to be a military organization.

Kirk proved his talent by saving every single Federation world from Nero when a dozen experienced starship commanders had failed to do it. He was rewarded with a place in Starfleet where he could fully actualize himself, to the benefit of the entire organization. The fact that something like that would never happen in today's military is an indictment of today's military, not of Starfleet.
You know, I have to admit... this is easily the best and most persuasive defense of that story bit I've come across. I really like it. I'm not convinced the filmmakers thought it through that way, because IMHO none of this comes across in the movie—you're bringing it in from past familiarity with what Starfleet's about, whereas the filmmakers were just trying to move the pieces into their assigned places—but it does make it at least a little easier to swallow.
__________________
Blogging on pop culture and politics at SmartRemarks
lawman is offline   Reply With Quote