Levar Burton aka Geordi La Forge criticizes Star Trek 2009

I thought it was well-made and DDL's performance was excellent as typical. But it felt like the movie had too great a sense of its own worthiness. And the reveal at the end - you know what I mean - felt like a reveal gag at the end of some sitcom episode. I half expected laughter and whoops from a studio audience. And didn't the film get one set of state's delegates' votes wrong, showing them voting against the amendment when they voted for it? Oops! /derail

 

Eh, I agree and disagree. While I don't look to Hollywood movies for intellectual stimulation, it is very much appreciated when I do find it. On the other hand, there are times when I have actually been surprised at the depths of stupidity mainstream movies will plunge just to bring in every dollar they can.

There are movies that I have loved on so many levels. For example, I love Lost in Translation. For some reason, that movie affects me deeply. I think part of it is the feeling of isolation and loneliness in a city bustling with millions of people all around you, but no one to connect with. Silly, maybe, but it remains one of my favorite movies. That and Broken Flowers. I loved the message in that one, too.

The Man From Earth is another movie that is very low on action, high on dialogue, but is something I love to watch. It just feels like I'm learning something important, even if it's only a part of the storyline and nothing more.

In that same vein, I love a good action romp with a nice message underneath, and that's one of the reasons I love ST09. It's not a masterpiece, but it's fun, lively, has some great characters, and calls back to my memories as a young Trekkie. Are there better Trek films? That's debatable, since each person is different in their tastes, but I would say so. Still, it ranks #1 in my list of top favorite Trek movies, and I still find it enjoyable to watch to this day.

I think if I enjoy it, and it means something to me, then that's all the justification I need. The same applies to others and their film choices. To each their own, you know?

 

What does that mean? Honestly, because the movie is supposed to not only be dramatic, but a piece of art. Art is important to those that take it seriously. And the movie is dealing with big subject matters. Slavery and the worth of a human being. The politics of getting a bill passed and building consensus among people who differing views. This is a big moment in human history, why wouldn't that be important?

 

I think he means it's aware of it's importance, and applies that importance to itself, regardless of the quality of material contained within. That's just a guess, though.

 

It's not that it wasn't an important moment in history; that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the movie has a sense of its own importance as a movie, not of the importance of the events it's depicting. The characters at times feel more like anthropomorphised ideas than like actual human beings. I still enjoyed, though I'm not in a big hurry to watch it again.

 

And to circle it back to the topic of this thread, Levar Burton should look back at some very shitty TNG episodes before he critizes the commercially successful new Trek.

Angel One - wanna talk about laughable sexism.

Sub Rosa - Dr. Crusher meets a ghost.

The Child - Troi gets knocked up.

Justice - Don't walk on the grass Wesley and everyone walks around in skin tight clothing and is about 25

Skin of Evil - the oil slick come a killing.

Where in any of the above - and I could name more - is the supposed 'high minded,' old Trek?

 

^^Hey, hey! Don't be dissing Skin of Evil. Armus is a complex villain and compelling character. He oozes with personality and charisma.

Well, you can't deny he oozes anyway.

 

People hate him because he's black.

 

It shocks and saddens me that we live in a world where people can't overlook the colour of Armus to see his redeeming character traits.

 

True. The man was deep.

 

He was more slick than having any real conviction.

 

Really doesn't matter about the timelines. Starting a new timeline was a decent idea.

Main problem is the massive pile of shite Abrams presented as his "movie". More the execution than the content. Which makes it ironic that Burton felt the need to lick Abrams' arse but quibble about the fact he sought to bring a little originality to the proceedings.

I so desperately wan to be able to simply sit down, watch and enjoy ID without being plagued by this horrible overriding sense of the supreme shitness of the film. I'm willing to make allowances. Just please, if he can't do characterisation, is it too much to ask that he not try? Or if he is incapable of cobbling together a coherent plot, can he not just forego any attempt and make a bog standard action bonanza about people being shot with phasors?

It seems there's hope, at least.

 

I thought the characterization was spot on and the plot very coherent.

 

Characterization was pretty bad. Kirk is more like the exaggerated impression of him presented in pop culture and is very little like Shatner's take, Scotty is more of a buffoon that James Doohan was, Chekov's V/W reversal is way too overdone, and Sulu as a space samurai? Seriously?

Spock and Bones turned out pretty good, though they could have dialed Bones bieng a hypochondriac on the shuttle in his first scene and Uhura is an improvement over TOS.

 

That's not "characterization was pretty bad", that's "oh my god they changed the recipe of my favorite ice cream"!

 

Kirk was cocky and inclined to bend the rules. That's part of who Kirk was in TOS and the movies Shatner was in. No we didn't see every aspect of Kirk in ST09, but it didn't have 79 hours to explore those. Same for Scotty.

Asian guy whips out a sword and he's automatically a Samurai?

 

Excellent analogy.

IMO the characters were all very good, modern re-interpretations of the originals. They made the parts their own rather than doing the godawful attempts at copying mannerisms and speech patterns seen in Trek fanfilms.

 

It's a folding sword similar to what Samurai used, and his armour seemed to be a bit Samurai inspired. To me anyway. Or maybe I'm seeing what I want to to support my argument, I am a Trek fan on the internet.

Also, did Prime Sulu have any actual fencing training? My understanding was The Naked Now made him act like the adventurer he always fantasized about being, not that he actually was trained in fencing or sword skills at all.

 

^The Naked Time.

And it was never actually established as I recall. Just the sword.

Sulu did have an affinity for "ancient" weapons, as shown in the episode "Shore Leave".

 

Damn it, I'm constantly mixing those episodes up!

Besides, in Shore Leave his affinity for ancient weapons was a flintlock. So therefore, while he might like swords enough to have a few few in his ancient weapons collection, there was no indication he had any training and he certainly never went on a mission with a sword.

What's Abrams trying to say when the Japanese guy brings a sword to a laser gun fight?