View Single Post
Old May 9 2009, 08:34 AM   #921
lawman
Commander
 
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

siskokid888 wrote: View Post
OK, here we go. I want to look at the film on 2 fronts - as a movie, and as Trek.
Very sensible approach, since the standards are not the same. I have to disagree with your conclusions, though: I thought it failed on both fronts.

You could follow the story, even if you weren't a fan.
And if you were willing to throw your sense of logic and plausibility out the window.

As Trek - I was sure that it wouldn't be "good" Trek, and I was willing to sacrifice that to have life breathed back into the franchise. JJ fooled me, and pulled it off - it's a good movie AND good Trek.
I literally can't comprehend this: why would you have been willing, even hypothetically, to sacrifice what makes Trek good in order to get more of it? Having done so, why would you want more?

...maybe Trek was not ment to be too deep, maybe more Star Wars than 2001.
Eep! No, no, a thousand times no! Anyone who thinks Trek should be more like Star Wars simply misconceives what Trek was all about from the start. (Unfortunately, that "anyone" apparently includes J.J. Abrams.)

Borgminister wrote: View Post
THEY will establish continuity and canon now, which is as it should be.
"As it should be" in the sense that the current writers should have creative discretion over the story they tell? Yes.

But in the sense that these particular writers have anything worthwhile to offer, judging by this film? Sadly, no. It didn't actually add anything of value to Trek continuity—it just mined it for familiar trappings and a few character "bits," and discarded all the rest.

Magickthise wrote: View Post
...in many ways, all of Trek heretofore was the background for the epic tale we are about to see unfold over this and the next two films.
I feel exactly the opposite. Even as disappointing as VOY and ENT were, we knew that at worst they were just superfluous extra floors built onto an already sturdy house with a strong foundation. By way of contrast, Abrams and crew have torn the whole thing down to the bedrock in order to rebuild. To switch metaphors, they threw the baby out with the bathwater.
None of Trek heretofore is background for this. Everything all the way back to the original pilot is now superfluous. "Forget everything you know," indeed.

dkehler wrote: View Post
Saw it last night. I don't know if it's because of my own overly high expectations because of the incredibly positive buzz or whether I'm just an old, sad fanboy, but the only word that comes to mind is: DISAPPOINTMENT.

...the plot, no matter how much I try not to nitpick, is an absolute disaster.
Yep.

Where to begin?

1. Nero and his crew sat around for 25 years? Really? (And yes, I know of the Klingon prison planet subplot that got cut, but that's not in the movie, so it doesn't count, but even if it was, it opens up another can of worms such as: How did he get his ship back? Etc.)
Yep.

3. "Delta Vega" must be awfully close to Vulcan. At least they could have called it something else.
Yep.

4. If Scotty can beam someone millions of miles away, it certainly makes starship travel a lot less necessary. A lot faster as well.
Yep.

5. Kirk becomes the captain after just one mission for the Enterprise? So much for the years that Capt. Pike had her, yet all of the Kirk era crewmembers are already in place even though he's taking command of the ship many years earlier in this timeline.
Yep.

In short, it's like the writers brainstorm for hours on what cool set piece we can dream up, but five minutes on the stuff in between.
Yep. All that and more.

I agree with everything you've written, except this:
I give it a very generous 7/10.
That's way too generous. I'd say maybe a three.

Valley Forge wrote: View Post
...It was NOT the second coming of Star Trek.

First the good:

Casting choices were reasonably good. Most of the performances were very well done.

The special effects, and certain production elements were done VERY well.
Yep.

Next, the not so good:

The interior sets of the ships looked like those old 80's flicks that were filmed inside an old industrial complex.
Yep.

(I feel like I'm repeating myself here. But it's nice to see a few more critical responses finally weighing in on the thread...)

...it was as if someone, who didn't really understand Trek, simply plucked random elements out of the shows/movies and threw them in the movie, without even stopping to consider the context.
Yep.

Finally, the Horrible.

THE STORY! ACKPTH!...

Destroyed the continuity. CRA's arguments are well founded, and I agree with most of them.

The battle scenes were absolutely horrible. Abrupt, loud and incoherent. Makes nuBSG's shakeycam battles look like ballet.

Ridiculous plot elements. Kirk's 3rd attempt at the KM test...I mean, you at least have to LOOK like you're trying, even if you're cheating.

The destruction of Vulcan...totally rewrites the history of the Federation. You might not agree, but it was totally unecessiary from a plot perspective.

Cadet to Captain...over officers that were already graduated and serving on the E and other ships. GMAFB. That absurd plot device ruined the movie for me.
Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, and yep.

J. Allen wrote: View Post
Valley Forge wrote: View Post
Hi all,
It was NOT the second coming of Star Trek.
You are free to speak your mind, and form your own opinions, but in reference to whether this Trek is not the Second Coming of Trek:
I strongly disagree, and I think the Box Office will too.
You're talking apples and oranges here. Whether it succeeds commercially (a very strong likelihood) has essentially nothing to do with whether it succeeded creatively.

(You doubt this? Exhibit A: Transformers, last summer. Same writers, BTW... )

teacake wrote: View Post
I have something else to say to anyone lamenting the death of the old Trek (as opposed to someone who just thought the movie was sub par). One thing inescapable on this BBS is that very few folks are Trek-omnivores. Many have some series they despise or consider not-Trek. If you're lamenting the loss of the old Trekiverse how about revisiting one of these? Go and watch VOY all the way through...
That's a peculiar thing to suggest. I wasn't a fan of VOY or ENT mainly because the writing was too frequently subpar. That's essentially the same complaint I have about this movie, although the details of how it's subpar are different. IOW, I'm both lamenting the death of original Trek and saying the movie was bad—and the two statements are related.

Admiral James Kirk wrote: View Post
Star Trek is no longer a checklist. It's like it was in the 60s. Pristine. Virgin. Willing to go batshit crazy and toss out established facts if it got in the way of telling one hell of a good story.
I'm glad to see Trek refocused on its original core characters, and I can't gainsay your obviously sincere enthusiasm for the movie. But honestly, I can't say that being "batshit crazy" was a characteristic I ever associated with original Trek, much less praised it for. I think perhaps you overstate your case. Original Trek did, in fact, build up a complex and fairly consistent backstory (notwithstanding a few hiccups), and that's a large part of what many of us love about it.

That's why this movie works! Because it felt spontaneous. Immediate. Fresh! It bubbled over with excitement just the way I am now!
Tomato, tom-ah-to, I guess. To me, it bubbled over with action-movie clichés and predictable story beats.
__________________
Blogging on pop culture and politics at SmartRemarks
lawman is offline   Reply With Quote