Ebert.. "Star Trek" 2 and one half stars

[intrinsical]

Having finally watched the movie, I tend to agree with Ebert. JJ's movie has bits and pieces of Star Trek placed all over, but dare I say that the movie lacks the soul of Star Trek. Most Star Trek stories, especially the movies have a parable that speaks about us, Humanity in some way.

If there's a point to ponder in this latest movie, I cannot even perceive it. Ebert's right that this movie is a whole lot more space opera and than science fiction.

True. But Trek can be (and has been) used to simply tell an entertaining story. What the hell was the message in "The Trouble with Tribbles" or "Shore Leave"?
I don't want Trek to become totally mindless entertainment, but the idea that it always needs to be full of pathos or relevancy to be any good is an overstatement of its first purpose -- entertain.

And, I also think Nero is yet another victim of Khan, who is still the epitome of the Trek villain. If Nero had been stronger, it may have helped give the movie the depth Ebert apparently wanted.

I wouldn't mind an aimless movie if the future of Star Trek as we knew it wasn't at stake. I am very sure this movie will be a financial success and JJ will be producing at least another Trek movie, and possibly even another Trek television series. If future Trek productions are going to be modeled on this "successful" movie, I am fearful that the soul of Star Trek would be forever corrupted. Lets pray I am wrong.

 

[Amaris]

Having finally watched the movie, I tend to agree with Ebert. JJ's movie has bits and pieces of Star Trek placed all over, but dare I say that the movie lacks the soul of Star Trek. Most Star Trek stories, especially the movies have a parable that speaks about us, Humanity in some way.

If there's a point to ponder in this latest movie, I cannot even perceive it. Ebert's right that this movie is a whole lot more space opera and than science fiction.

True. But Trek can be (and has been) used to simply tell an entertaining story. What the hell was the message in "The Trouble with Tribbles" or "Shore Leave"?
I don't want Trek to become totally mindless entertainment, but the idea that it always needs to be full of pathos or relevancy to be any good is an overstatement of its first purpose -- entertain.

And, I also think Nero is yet another victim of Khan, who is still the epitome of the Trek villain. If Nero had been stronger, it may have helped give the movie the depth Ebert apparently wanted.

I wouldn't mind an aimless movie if the future of Star Trek as we knew it wasn't at stake. I am very sure this movie will be a financial success and JJ will be producing at least another Trek movie, and possibly even another Trek television series. If future Trek productions are going to be modeled on this "successful" movie, I am fearful that the soul of Star Trek would be forever corrupted. Lets pray I am wrong.

You mean it's going to alter the timelines on your DVDs?
J.J. must have incredible powers! Let's not warp through the hyperbole nebula.

J.

 

[intrinsical]

JJ's movie has bits and pieces of Star Trek placed all over, but dare I say that the movie lacks the soul of Star Trek.

I personally think that the philosophical part of Star Trek should be in the TV series only and to a much lesser extent in the movies. The movies have to focus on the action and the mainstream or else no one in the general public would be interested in seeing it. Look what happened to Insurrection. That movie favoured morality over action and it failed compared to First Contact which got the more mainstream audience because it was more action oriented and thus more mainstream.

Just about every past Trek movie had a parable - Facing the unknown, Facing death, Friendship, Saving Mother Earth, Religion and God, Peace with the enemy, etc...

And First Contact was successful because it had a good mix of both action AND Trek style "parable" of overcoming one's own fear. Picard started the movie having an irrational fear of the Borg, to the point where he was going to sacrifice almost everything to stop the Borg. It took quite a bit of persuasation by Lily to get Picard straightened out.

 

[The Habs Fan]

Having finally watched the movie, I tend to agree with Ebert. JJ's movie has bits and pieces of Star Trek placed all over, but dare I say that the movie lacks the soul of Star Trek. Most Star Trek stories, especially the movies have a parable that speaks about us, Humanity in some way.

If there's a point to ponder in this latest movie, I cannot even perceive it. Ebert's right that this movie is a whole lot more space opera and than science fiction.

True. But Trek can be (and has been) used to simply tell an entertaining story. What the hell was the message in "The Trouble with Tribbles" or "Shore Leave"?
I don't want Trek to become totally mindless entertainment, but the idea that it always needs to be full of pathos or relevancy to be any good is an overstatement of its first purpose -- entertain.

And, I also think Nero is yet another victim of Khan, who is still the epitome of the Trek villain. If Nero had been stronger, it may have helped give the movie the depth Ebert apparently wanted.

I wouldn't mind an aimless movie if the future of Star Trek as we knew it wasn't at stake. I am very sure this movie will be a financial success and JJ will be producing at least another Trek movie, and possibly even another Trek television series. If future Trek productions are going to be modeled on this "successful" movie, I am fearful that the soul of Star Trek would be forever corrupted. Lets pray I am wrong.

Oh noes! The future of Star Trek is at stake!

Would you have rather Star Trek stayed dead?

 

[intrinsical]

Oh noes! The future of Star Trek is at stake!

Would you have rather Star Trek stayed dead?

Yup, I want my cake not only looking good, but tastes great too :P

A tall order? Mebbe

 

[Sky]

Oh noes! The future of Star Trek is at stake!

Would you have rather Star Trek stayed dead?

Since when are the only two possible options a) Dead Trek or b) this Abrams Trek?

Personally, I'm hoping that this film does well and there will be new ones. But I am also hoping that the new ones are better. Nothing wrong with action films, per se, it's just that I'm usually expecting more from Trek.

 

[Franklin]

True. But Trek can be (and has been) used to simply tell an entertaining story. What the hell was the message in "The Trouble with Tribbles" or "Shore Leave"?
I don't want Trek to become totally mindless entertainment, but the idea that it always needs to be full of pathos or relevancy to be any good is an overstatement of its first purpose -- entertain.

And, I also think Nero is yet another victim of Khan, who is still the epitome of the Trek villain. If Nero had been stronger, it may have helped give the movie the depth Ebert apparently wanted.

I wouldn't mind an aimless movie if the future of Star Trek as we knew it wasn't at stake. I am very sure this movie will be a financial success and JJ will be producing at least another Trek movie, and possibly even another Trek television series. If future Trek productions are going to be modeled on this "successful" movie, I am fearful that the soul of Star Trek would be forever corrupted. Lets pray I am wrong.

Oh noes! The future of Star Trek is at stake!

Would you have rather Star Trek stayed dead?

Now, that's not entirely fair. The point being made is Trek has a reputation of dealing with broad themes. Sometimes it's done well, sometimes it's ham-fisted, sometimes it's not there, but it's Trek's reputation nonetheless. And Ebert is right, it's not wrong to expect something like that in Trek. "Roddenberry's vision" and all that.

And, like I said above, I think this movie does deal with how destinies unfold and the role of fate in shaping a character. Apparently, in any timeline, to paraphrase Spock, captaining a starship is Kirk's one best destiny (anything else being a waste of material). He can't avoid it. Just as Edith Keeler noticed that Spock always belonged by Kirk's side. It's just meant to be. No evil, no perturbing of timelines can stop it.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Ebert's (and Siskel's) opinion used to matter to me, long ago.

Now? Not so much.

Meh, their opinions never mattered to me. Self important blowhards, like pretty much all "professional critics."

 

[The Habs Fan]

I wouldn't mind an aimless movie if the future of Star Trek as we knew it wasn't at stake. I am very sure this movie will be a financial success and JJ will be producing at least another Trek movie, and possibly even another Trek television series. If future Trek productions are going to be modeled on this "successful" movie, I am fearful that the soul of Star Trek would be forever corrupted. Lets pray I am wrong.

Oh noes! The future of Star Trek is at stake!

Would you have rather Star Trek stayed dead?

Now, that's not entirely fair. The point being made is Trek has a reputation of dealing with broad themes. Sometimes it's done well, sometimes it's ham-fisted, sometimes it's not there, but it's Trek's reputation nonetheless. And Ebert is right, it's not wrong to expect something like that in Trek. "Roddenberry's vision" and all that.

And, like I said above, I think this movie does deal with how destinies unfold and the role of fate in shaping a character. Apparently, in any timeline, to paraphrase Spock, captaining a starship is Kirk's one best destiny (anything else being a waste of material). He can't avoid it. Just as Edith Keeler noticed that Spock always belonged by Kirk's side. It's just meant to be. No evil, no perturbing of timelines can stop it.

I agree that Star Trek has always been about morality and philosophical issues, but that's not how you make a successful movie for the general public. Remember, Star Trek was dead and the only way it could return is if it appealed to the masses and that's what this movie does. If this movie does it's job of creating loads of new Trek fans, future movies/TV series will probably return to the more philosophical issues of old Trek. Think of how expensive it'd be to have huge starship battles and action storylines 24 episodes a year.

 

[waynehead]

I agree with most of what Mr. Ebert said.

This "either/or" mentality is off base IMO.

Either we accept the well polished turd that is the new Star Trek or we languish as a forgotten sub-genre. Bologna.

Trek can change without violating its core principles. It can appeal to a wider audience without selling out. It doesn't have to become Die Hard in Space.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

...oooh, can someone close the window? I feel a troll in here...

 

[Ptrope]

What happened in TNG has nothing to do with how I feel about this movie. I'm saying the movie is missing the science fiction element that makes Star Trek different from Star Wars.

I haven't seen the film but if you mean the techno babble explanations of why and how things work then thank god for that too.

Why would anyone mean the technobabble? That's not science fiction, and those who do know what science fiction is know that. There's a lot more to science fiction than just the vocabulary, and he (and Ebert) have a completely valid point: Trek, despite its ups and downs, is generally more science fiction than Star Wars, which is unashamedly fantasy in space - it just has sci-fi trappings. It's ancient mythology writ in space. Arguably, Trek09 is sci-fi at the very least because it postulates an alternate history, although the reasoning for the alternate history is purely a trope for explaining why the new one has so little in common with the original, rather than a dramatic exploration of the ramifications of a changed timeline; "so we can tell our story" isn't the same thing as "so we can examine our characters from a different perspective" - in this way, "Mirror, Mirror" is a great deal more science fiction than Trek09 (or "In a Mirror Darkly," for that matter, which really exists for the former explanation).

You could tell the entire story with no technobabble whatsoever and still stand firmly in the bounds of science fiction.

 

[ThereAre4Lights]

Seriously, how can you not love THIS guy?


J.

Hmm. Isn't Ebert one of the critics who had an annoying character modelled after him in Godzilla because Emmerich and Devlin didn't like the way he reviewed their other movies? Don't get me wrong: his review is good and I mostly agree with it, but I can't help thinking how awesome would it bee to see an Ebert-like character in the planned sequel.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

^ in a red shirt!

 

[Cakes488]

QUOTE]

Yup, I want my cake not only looking good, but tastes great too :P

Yes darling...I'm right here....

 

[USS Gettysburg]

Oh noes! The future of Star Trek is at stake!

Would you have rather Star Trek stayed dead?

Since when are the only two possible options a) Dead Trek or b) this Abrams Trek?

Personally, I'm hoping that this film does well and there will be new ones. But I am also hoping that the new ones are better. Nothing wrong with action films, per se, it's just that I'm usually expecting more from Trek.

Here's hoping for the future forum: "Abram's Trekkers" to go along with "Abram's Star Trek." Can't we all just get along?

 

[Aragorn]

"Oh, now, be honest, Captain... fanboy to fanboy... you do prefer it this way, don't you? As it was meant to be. No peace in our time. Once more unto the breach... dear friends."

 

[USS Triumphant]

Siskel and Ebert gave Weird Al's UHF two thumbs down, back in the day - but said they liked it and laughed their butts off.

I think the style of critique they use is based on some sort of artistic standards that are fine for art school but not so much for telling me whether I'm going to regret or be glad that I shelled out $50 (wife, kids, concessions) to see a movie.

 

[Tom Servo]

Its funny cause on Metacritic Eberts review is green, meaning positive.

 

[Gepard]

rek, despite its ups and downs, is generally more science fiction than Star Wars, which is unashamedly fantasy in space - it just has sci-fi trappings.

I continue to boggle at the number of people here who take Star trek seriously as any kind of legitimate science fiction, especially when it comes to comparing it with Star Wars for the purpose of pretending that one is so much more serious about science than the other. It makes me wonder if anyone ever noticed that one of TOS's main characters was an alien-human hybrid. Conceived through sex. With an extraterrestrial. And who came out viable.