Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Agent Richard07, Apr 30, 2009.
I saw this one more as a nice play with the Trek-typical reset-button.
No, no, the Star Trek theme at the end is perfectly logical: Kirk is now the Enterprise Captain, and that's where the ST saga begin (as we knew it in the first TV series ). It's a genius idea to introduce the ST theme at the end.
You have to consider the impact of the opening scene. He lost his father before he ever knew him. Many classic time travel tales spoke of the huge impact you could make on history if you did the smallest thing. In this case, we have a futuristic space ship from a long forgotten race (connected to Spock) who kills the father of a future hero of the federation. In the first few days of this timeline, Spock loses his mother and his home.
I think you could explain a more rebellious Kirk and a more emotional Spock based on these events.
Did no one found difficult to believe the two Spock in the same scene at the end? I mean, don't we break the time paradox rules, there? Or did i missed a logic explanation in the movie?
I didn't really mind the two Spocks.. when you accept time travel, you accept all kinds of wackiness. Of course it was a bit weird but whatever.
This board makes for a fascinating sociological study of the fanbase.
Many of us still demand that Star Trek at least try and maintain a certain level of intelligence in the storytelling.
Others are willing to forgive even the most egregious boners so long as the result is an exciting movie.
Then we have still others who could be treated to a two-hour presentation of Leonard Nimoy's last colonoscopy and shout from the rooftops that it was the greatest Star Trek ever.
This last group is in full-throated ecstasy in this thread, and quite frankly, they scare me, because they're gonna take an arguably moribund franchise and take it right off the cliff Thelma & Louise style in their exuberance over this loud, flashy, and lobotomized Star Trek doppleganger.
So, I say again, Kool-Aid drinkers, enjoy the ride, 'cause it ain't gonna last. Your version doesn't have the integrity to hold up over time.
Gee, whiz ... you mean all we sheep got taken again? Wow! How do they keep doing that? Darn. I thought I had a great time, but it turns out I was deceived. Thanks so much for setting all of us straight.
Who's minding the underside of the bridge, by the way? The Three Billy Goats Gruff are headed its way.
You can see an example of that at your local cinema; just buy a ticket for Star Trek and enjoy a great two hours of movie-magic.
'... but where is the heavy handed massage.'
'Honestly, if I wanted to see sexy people doing exiting stuff I'd watch sports.'
presumably Vulcan 2.0 will already be established and the cycle will start all over.
it was such a great movie it makes me want to see it again
Having higher standards in entertainment makes us sheep. Ba-a-a-ah!
Yes. Yes it does.
I mean there are too many lining up to be sheep.
For the love of God, if Roddenberry wanted nothing else, he wanted us all to THINK!! This movie is the antithesis of everything he tried to do with Star Trek, and (sorry, Majel) not only would he not have approved of this stripmining of his brainchild, he would've done everything in his power to keep this thing from seeing the light of day (or, barring that, he'd have done like he did many times before, leak the script to undercut the thing).
Naw, only his son said that he would have loved it. But hey, why listen to him when we can listen to you?! Cause we all know you and Gene were all buddy buddy.
All hail CRA!
No he wanted to make a western in space. He did want some key ideals in the future, such as racial equality. I wouldn't say sexist equality because most of the women were really used as idols for Kirk or another to take advantage of. I'm sorry but he allowed TOS, TAS, TNG, and all the other movies to see the light of day and many of them don't really allow us to think.
Have you seen TOS?
Brain and brain, what is brain!
Well, yeah, actually it does. The episodes that don't are the ones we tend to refer to as "bad ones."
I honestly don't think I've been nitpicking it to death. It's a question of balance. "APOTA" is somewhat implausible, yes, but if you swallow the initial conceit then on the whole the rest is internally consistent. This movie, OTOH, kept bombarding me with one thing after another that just obviously didn't make sense, even by the story's own internal terms. I can suspend my disbelief enough to swallow a little of that, but eventually it reaches a point of critical mass. I'm not sure quite when that was for me... it may have been when Spock expelled Kirk onto an ice planet rather than just locking him up, it may have been when Scotty beamed them back onto a ship in warp... but the impression was definitely overwhelming by the time we saw that Earth was totally undefended against attack.
Yeah, it really does. I can overlook small stuff like "hey, isn't Delta Vega somewhere else?", but to overlook the big stuff I'd have to turn my brain off entirely. (I had much the same problem with STV: TFF.)
I know exaclty what you mean. I wouldn't say "the first time ever"—there were moments when VOY and ENT gave me that same sour feeling, enough so that I eventually gave up on both—but at least they weren't asking me to accept them as the conceptual template for all of Trek.
I can agree with this. Visually, it was an impressive movie.
I wasna't even bothered by the recasting as much as you were. Like I've said, it's not that the film completely lacks redeeming qualities. It's just that they're dwarfed by its shortcomings.
I agree 100%. Filming Engineering in a brewery is not a good idea if when you see it on screen you can't avoid thinking, "hey, that looks like a brewery!"
Absolutely. People seem to forget that a big part of what made Khan work in STII (when having a megalomaniacal villain attacking was not yet a stock element of Trek films) was that he had history with Kirk... and just as importantly, we were given screen time to see how that history had affected him and his people emotionally. Here, Nero was just a thug with a crew of thugs, and a big ship.
Yeah. Doing a "setup" story is one thing; doing it in a way that takes obviously implausible shortcuts is just creatively lazy.
Interesting point. I'm not sure I'd phrase it quite like that, but I see what you're getting at.
Hear, hear! Absolutely!
And I agree with you that while this new approach may be a recipe for a couple of big money-making films, it is not a recipe for long-term success.
You know, I actually agree with you about these points. It did have "verve," and the characters were "warmer." Again, though: slight consolation for all that was wrong with it.
See, that's a sense I don't get out of this.
Absolutely agree. Except for the word "superlative."
You could practically see how the writers broke down the story in those scenes. "If we're going to destroy Vulcan, we have to do something to convey its impact on a personal level. But Spock is the only Vulcan really in the story, so he has to be involved. Let's get him on the surface by saying he has to rescue his family. Sure, we'll have to technobabble a reason why, and he'll have to leave the bridge in a crisis to do it, but it'll have a big emotional impact. Especially if we kill his mother!" (Of course, they then skipped straight from that emotional impact to the next big action sequence anyway.)
b) It didn't.
That's how I saw it. When I first saw what was going on I thought "oh please don't hit the reset button", and they didn't. That was a new feeling!
I am a hardcore Star Trek fan, have been since I was four years old, and I've always loved the original series the most (as well as some serious love for DS9). I went into this movie with an open mind and a willingness to see what J.J. had done. I knew better than to expect the exact same treatment Trek movies have been receiving the past 30 odd years. The result? I had a very enjoyable experience, and gladly say that this movie was a lot of fun, stayed very reverent and respectful to Star Trek as a whole, and is deserving of it's current standing. I am positive that good things will come of this new leap forward.
You show fear and bitter angst. You show uncertainty, hatred of what you don't understand, rage against a Star Trek you don't know, and more importantly, don't want to know. Your sense of boldness, of spirit, is limited to what you know, which makes it all the more sad. If you didn't like the movie on it's merits, that is one thing, but you don't like the movie simply because it exists, and that is truly a terrible thing, because you've let it control and shape your life these past 3 years. You must have it to hate, and you must have it to be in control, and that is very sad. You are a sad, embittered man who can't let go of the fact that things change, that people and culture move forward, that everything grows and develops.
Good luck in clinging to your past. It's all you have left, and you revile those who see there may be something more ahead.
How sad for you.
I know and understand this attempted Star Trek perfectly. It's Paramount's final slaughtering of the golden goose, dumbed down to lowest common denominator to get the biggest bang and finally suck in that elusive mass audience that doesn't want to actually think about what they just saw, just go for a roller coaster ride and enjoy the buzz from the adrenaline rush, which was precisely what Roddenberry most feared would happen once he was gone.
So how in the hell people can claim that he would approve of his worst nightmare is beyond me.
Separate names with a comma.