Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Agent Richard07, Apr 30, 2009.
What about "The Trouble With Tribbles" made you think?
Can't Trek at times just be, well, fun?
For me, and I can only answer for myself:
* The interpersonal conflict between Kirk & Spock, whether it would become what we know as their close friendship in the original universe.
* How events, big and small, in our lives change the direction for the better or even for the worse, and the experiences we have along the way.
* It is possible to win in a no win scenario, and cheating isn't a required part of it.
* What we know, and what we think we know, are two completely separate entities. We as knowledgeable creatures find every day that we are once again schooled by the universe in the level of ignorance we display toward it.
* How lives can be so intertwined, it opens up the idea of fate or destiny, that what happens is meant to be.
Just a couple of thoughts I've had in regard to the movie. There are plenty more.
Spot on. Though there was much for me to think about, the emotional impact of this movie is staggering. I loved it, and like you, it was an experience I'll never forget. Yes, when Sarek told Spock that he loved his mother, when George Kirk tells Winona right before the Kelvin hits the Narada, that he loves her, when Spock's mother dies and Spock reaches out to grab her and when he materializes he is holding empty space, when Vulcan was destroyed the entire theater was absolutely silent, there was this collective awe from the audience, myself included. This movie was just magnificent and I want to experience it again and again.
In fairness, this was more of an "entertaining" take than a "thinking man's" take. But that is not to say it was devoid of intelligence. It was not. But it did choose to put the emphasis elsewhere.
That said: a dead franchise which produces no movies will not be able to make either intelligent or entertaining Star Trek.
A movie which is entertaining and popular enough to allow Trek to live on, moving forward now has the chance to do both.
Simple math, really.
I pulled this quote from another forum that had only a single thread on Star Trek.
This is why we have a winner, people that have never seen Star Trek in there lives, wanting to see it multiple times.
I agree with mysticpain saying "It is an average typical Hollywood flick at best".
Why would you want to change the formula? So it appeals to the masses? One of the greatest attributes of Trek is its current community and die hard fans. Rope in new fans? I doubt it ... I don't want some guy in the office telling me how great the movie is knowing that I am a trekkie ... then want a quick lesson in the 40+ years of it all.
I am rambling but I see nothing gained by a bunch of "normies" liking this movie and then not understanding anything else. Who benefits? oh yeah Hollywood ... so what.
Hmmmm I think you have a point with the Inner Light but its not all emotion, it also showed how somebody can live a lifetime (in a concepual sense) in a short time, and how people are only really dead if you forget them. Yes I also think your right that the movie wa semotional in the ways you pointed out but this was manipulaton with every cheap trick in the book and I personally thought that the acting was sub-par. Really what part did Winona Ryder really have to boot?
I just got back from seeing it.
Excellent. It was really good. Chris Pine was fantastic, Quinto did a good job, though a little different than the Spock I remembered. All the bit players were great, with McCoy being a standout.
Actually I thought the weakest part of the movie was the stuff used to "preserve canon", stuff like old Spock, and time travel and all this hoop-jumping to come up with an instory reason for the changes. That's the sort of shit I expect from incomprehensible Marvel comics not a movie that's supposed to 'reboot' the property. It didn't help that there was only the barest exposition about all that gobbledygook with no real depth given.
It's funny that we've actually seen a ton of stories like this in Trek, but this is one of the few, if only, times we see the story from the POV of the people in that time period.
Everything else was pretty awesome. The new Enterprise grew on me. I particularly like Scotty and Pike. Vulcan biting the dust was pretty awe inspiring. Very funny, and the pacing was just rip roaring.
It was just well done, and I'm so glad to be rid of the "keep everything as generic as possible, we can't damage the brand!!!" style of the Rick Berman years. Why is it that the later series or later movies can't bring a director's visual style, or have a cool different looking bridge or creative directorial touches? Seriously stuff like Insurrection and Enterprise and Voyager just feels like amateur hour compared to the energy and spirit of this movie.
Thumbs up. Way up. I can't wait to see it again.
Dude, this is the marketing that should be done to the Mom contingent for her special day. The chick flick aspect of the movie. Bring the kleenex.
Excellent observations. Honestly I can't say your first point bothered me (in terms of camera work, the super-close-ups were more distracting, IMHO), but the other four points are spot-on. Number four, in particular—you might think when handing out promotions that Starfleet would have noticed that its new flagship wouldn't have had to jettison its warp cores(?) if the "acting captain" hadn't stuck around to shoot fish in the proverbial barrel.
Riiight. You do realize that an "I got the feeling," a "could be," and a "for whatever reason" aren't exactly rock-solid defenses of holes in the storytelling?
I do distinctly recall wondering what that long room full of red-shirted crewmen (including Uhura) was that Kirk ran through to get to the bridge—it looked almost like an old-style telephone exchange, but with big tanks of some kind behind the workstations. Really, did the designers put any kind of logical thought to how this ship's form and function related to one another? (And if so, why didn't they communicate any of it to the viewers?)
I'm inclined to agree. As I've been saying for many pages, it gives some fascinating insight into the apparently very different things different segments of the audience want and expect from Star Trek. Obviously different people do have different tastes, but it does perplex and sometimes disappoint me when people like something I like (in this case, Trek), yet obviously don't value the things I value in it.
You make something for the broadest possible mass audience, and it's no surprise that a lot of people will like it. But no, I don't think this lowest-common-denominator version of Trek has what it takes to stay relevant as part of popular culture for another 40 years, or even another 20.
You know, you can disagree with CRA without trying to psychoanalyze him. I'm aware he's been a bit overzealous on these boards from time to time, but his critique and subsequent remarks in this thread have actually been quite reasonable. (At least, until folks like "Tom Servo" and "James Bond" started ganging up on him in ways that were far more insulting even than your post here. I once got a a warning around here just for having consecutive posts... yet the mods allow those kinds of direct personal insults?)
And "change" is a neutral term. Sometimes change is positive and constructive (this country's new political direction, for instance), sometimes change is negative and destructive. Saying someone "hates change" is just an end-run around addressing the specific criticisms he may have of the actual change under discussion. I don't have to agree with everything CRA says (I know I differ with him on politics, for instance) to respect his right to express an independent opinion.
This is a downright bizarre response. Nobody's talking about ownership or financial transactions. Take a step out of that "business" mindframe. This is about the implicit contract betwen storytellers and their audience, something that applies to any entertainment property, including Trek. "You want me to enjoy your work? I want you to give me something both emotionally authentic and intellectually challenging. You want my continued attention and loyalty? Here's what you have to do to achieve that." Such expectations are always there. Otherwise, by what right would any critic ever review anything?
And, seriously, do you have a problem with someone expecting Star Trek to "maintain a certain level of intelligence in the storytelling"?
Saw it and thought it was great. Have some nitpicks, but overall I'm very happy with it.
The cast did a great job, but I will not simply dismiss the original actors (as some have done) now that a new group has taken over.
By the way, did anyone wish Spock had said "Where no MAN has gone before..." at the end instead of "Where no ONE..."
I dunno, I just was hoping they had kept the Original Trek version of it...
Just trying to be PC, I guess.
(As if I'm the only one who knows "man" doesn't mean male, but huMAN.)
Neither will I.
Yeah, I did. Would've made the retro credits complete.
Don't you know there are men and womyn?
Actually, that was my mom's Mother's Day gift. I took her on opening night. She LOVED the movie, and she likes the Uhura/Spock pairing. She also thinks Chris Pine's a cutie and "that Eric Bana is a sexy man."
Not so much, but I would have preferred "new life" to "new life-forms."
Saw in iMax 3D, going again tongiht in DLP. Then in 35mm
IMAX 3D?!? No WAY. Really?
No, but it's a problem when someone thinks that if someone enjoyed a film for other reasons, or that that maybe the point of the film was not to be intelligent trek, but a fun ass movie, that they are somehow inferior and "drinking the koolade". I respond to April with venom because he presents his views with a condescending tone, and bitches just to bitch. It's not like he is just the poor innocent guy trying to defend his viewpoint. Anytime someone mentions something about this film he has to come in and put it down because is its not HIS version of Trek.
I love this though. The fact that people are destroying this film because it was not intelligent enough for them. What was so intelligent about TWOK? Or TVH? Or FC? Those three films are the most successful of the bunch, but they are also the most fun, just like this film.
I've been trying to browse this (monstrous) thread a bit, and I'm surprised to see that some had problems with them having Nimoy in the movie and attempting to preserve canon.
They could have just made a complete remake/start-over of the franchise, and I'm glad they did not. I'd rather see an altered timeline version of Trek than have them completely wipe the slate clean and dismiss 40 plus years of Trek.
They started over, but did so in a way that preserves everything that came before.
Works for me...
Galaxy Quest, oops, I mean Star Trek 11
Just saw the movie yesterday here in the UK.
Here's my little review if anyone's interested....
[9/may/2009] Score: 7/10
One of the things I dreaded about this before watching was that the producers would do a "Star Trek High" style of movie, bringing all the characters together as teenagers to save the universe. They, just, about, thankfully avoided that temptation, but it's a very close miss, and I'm still not quite sure why the Federation would give a crew of semi-experienced teenagers and young adults control of a flagship of their fleet, but I guess there was less time in the final script to develop the characters through a few more years of maturity, bringing them together more realistically.
There are two reasons why I downgraded Star Trek from what is a good thrill-ride, and both owe their origins to "Galaxy Quest", so if you know that wonderful satire of the whole SF cult community you'll have a clue to what I mean.
The first of these is the "big mysterious alien super-technology device" which appears here as "Red Matter" a weird material with special properties; and the second is the "why the hell to they have THIS on the ship!?" scene in which we see the intrepid crew of Galaxy Quest, oops, I mean the Enterprise, have to confront an apparently useless but challenging part of the ship to make their escape, in this case the plumbing system.
From a writer's point of view they are both useless and unimaginative devices, which appear to say the screenwriters of Star Trek lack originality and/or are paying an over-enthusiastic humorous tribute to Galaxy Quest, and all that came before it. And that made me sad to think about what was otherwise a good piece of entertainment.
Star Trek will also surprise the viewer in introducing the whole genre anew. In the same way Casino Royale rewrote and restarted the James Bond movies, so Star Treks starts afresh, proposing a new parallel universe with a new history to-come, when they use time travel to unravel everything we've come to know about the characters and their universe, for example the origins of James T. Kirk, the fate of Vulcan, and so on.
This, in a way, is the good part, as it will offer future writers the opportunity, if they can restrain themselves, of developing a new plot for the whole, new Star Trek universe, but will upset the expectations of many existing fans.
Verdict: Go, carefully.
Separate names with a comma.