View Single Post
Old May 9 2009, 08:38 AM   #906
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

john titor wrote: View Post
Before we get started I would appreciate it if we keep this civil and intelligent, ie no tantrums over opinions just because you disagree with them.
Hear, hear!

...And the promotions starfleet on crack?! Kirk, a cadet, randomly gets assigned as first officer, then becomes captain. Wtf!!!!

...The pacing of the film feels like someone yelling at you really fast for 2 hours. Hmmm. Its all crash bang wallop. There's no time for reflection and the end message, that acting on feelings rather than rational decisions is so dumb because at the end of the day I will trust anyone who makes a rationally thought out choice rather than someone who does what they feel is right... you can justify any action based on feeling.
I couldn't agree more. The thing is, these problems in the film aren't exactly cleverly hidden, and you're not the first nor the last to point them out (although you do so with great pith). So what mystifies me is how so many people posting seem not to notice them, or at least not to be bothered by them.

Rii wrote: View Post
Frankly, there's too much fanwank, too much time was spent catering to the existing fanbase at the expense of the film. Elder Spock's expository monologue is the product of the burdens placed upon the film by the studio's desire to placate the fanbase. Ditch the time travel bullshit.
I don't think that aspect was a studio mandate, but either way, I don't really follow you here. Far from being burdensome or excessive, Spock's meld with Kirk was just about the most cursory exposition you could ask for. It was incredibly pared down. Take even that away, and you'd have a big insane genocidal villain flying around with no explanation at all. (Unless you're proposing that that villain should have been ditched as well. Which isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it would mean rewriting the whole story from square one.)

Tim M wrote: View Post
For me, the near-complete absence of Trek's core values (social commentary and a generally hopeful view of the future) is what disappointed me. It was essentially a Terminator-clone sci-fi action movie, but with characters and ships with which we are familiar.
Absolutely. (I'd say more Star Wars than Terminator, but that's by no means an improvement.)

teacake wrote: View Post
Well I enjoyed that absence [of social commentary]. I think for Trek fans the values speak for themselves. The core connection of friendship spanning 139 years or whatever between Kirk and Spock. The brave sacrifice of George Kirk at what should have been a moment of joy and personal fulfillment...
Emotionally speaking, the Kelvin scenes may well have been the high point of the film. But seriously, celebrating love or friendship is not exactly an insightful social commentary. And if you don't like social commentary, what on earth drew you to Trek in the first place? It's at the heart and soul of the concept.

Natural wrote: View Post
...I know if you examine the plot, the frequent coincidences, and the random guy villain, you could probably come up with a whole list of reasons as to why this movie isn't perfect. But at this point who cares. The movie was entertaining and kept a smile on both of our faces throughout.
Hmm. I come at this from the opposite angle. It doesn't seem worth the effort to come up with a whole list of excuses for the film's flaws, just to convince myself it's enjoyable.

RobertScorpio wrote: View Post
...If you're someone who doesn't like this movie then you are so out of touch with reality it wont matter what anyone says..

But for you normal fans, the ones who are not wrapped in continuity, or some silly reasons others comment on, this movie is for YOU, and more importantly, the young crowd, which I saw this movie with, totally found it enjoyable...

...based on what normal people want in a movie (meaning not trek fans) this is the better movie...
Hey, way to express an opinion by insulting vast numbers of strangers. With skills like that, you should be a talk radio host.

But seriously... there's a lot more to aspire to in this world than being "normal."

And BTW, why is the "young crowd" (wherever you may draw that line) more important, pray tell?...

bismarck_1892 wrote: View Post
I never thought of myself as a "crazy" fan. But I am, today, done with the franchise. They should never permit a non-Trek fan to make a Trek movie. Abrams has destroyed, figuratively and literally, the Trek Universe...

Crazy you say. Yes I am. I've said my peace. I don't see how true fans can enjoy this remaking or reboot or crap or whatever else one may call this .... ...Let me put a cadet in charge of the starship, and remake the movie into a pointless action flick for the average consumer... the fans.
No, you're not crazy. It is "a pointless action flick fo rthe average consumer." (And some folks actually seem to take pride in being that "average consumer," given the post quoted just above.)

And I'm in the camp that thinks a reboot was totally unnecessary; I'd have preferred a genuine prequel. But if it was to be a reboot, at least it could have been a smart one. This? Wasn't.

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
bismarck_1892 wrote: View Post
I'm actually suprised that more people don't feel the same way.
You're surprised that some people care more about the story than they do some geeky fictional timeline?...

Now if you have criticisms of the story, that's another thing. But you can't enjoy a movie because it does fit with the fictional timeline that exists nowhere except in your head? That's nonsense.
Well, in point of fact, he does have criticisms of the story, as do a lot of us, so it's odd that you started off by arguing with a straw man.

But FWIW, the fictional timeline and related backstory isn't just "in someone's head." It's the cumulative result of all the interesting, relevant details from past stories—it's what defines the shape of the mythos itself (or the "franchise," if you prefer corporate lingo). Geeky or not, it is what it is, and it's perfectly legitimate to say it's worth preserving.

Brent wrote: View Post
Did anyone else just LOVE seeing the old TOS communicator when Kirk's mom was using it? That was perfect, I'm glad it made it in the movie.
Hmm. Didn't actually notice that. Kind of a nice touch, if so... although for strict accuracy's sake she should have been carrying a "Cage"-era communicator, right?

scottydog wrote: View Post
Holy crap, this movie was FAN-FREAKING-TASTIC! I'm thrilled to see that the Star Trek franchise is alive and well and in good hands. Thank you, J. J. Abrams, for making star trek fun and intelligent again!
Please, explain where you saw the "intelligent" part come in.

I'm not trying to be snarky. But honestly, the absence of that element is one of my key problems with the film.
Blogging on pop culture and politics at SmartRemarks
lawman is offline   Reply With Quote