The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
I think these are really good points, and I agree completely. People are now in the "if you didn't like it you're a canon nazi and didn't get it" mode, which I think is unfair. My quibble with the movie can really be distilled into the above points. I do get it, it's just hard to feel the same connection to an alternate universe Trek as opposed to the original Trek universe. I think this is a valid reaction to the film.
Having said that, I completely understand why they really had to do the movie this way. They couldn't do it any other way and expect to continue to bring new, fresh stories to the screen. And, in a way, it's brilliant because it still maintains the hierarchy Trek fans love so much between themselves and non-Trekkies. Trek fans will now have a whole reservoir of "well, in the original Trek universe, it didn't happen that way..." knowledge to throw around.
I do look forward to seeing where they take this, I just am still very sad that Trek has reached the point where it's now moved completely outside of its original storylines, and we won't be seeing anything to do with those anymore. And that now Kirk doesn't have a dad, Spock doesn't have a mom, and Chekov has to live with inadvertantly killing Spock's mom.
Now, one thing that is NOT related to alternate universe stuff that is a legitimate complaint: weren't there any more senior officers on this ship? All these cadets suddenly take over the flagship of the fleet, including one guy not even assigned to the ship and one guy who just hitched a ride (also uninvited) from a local outpost. If I were a lieutenant on this ship, I'd be like, "hey, wait a minute....!"
And still the kissy-bear Spock stuff. Seriously. Still bothers me on reflection. Vulcans are usually either completely devoid of or completely consumed by emotions, so Spock gaining a fairly normal emotional middle-ground while he is this young is too out-of-character for me, even if he did just lose his Mom and planet (which I would think would make him an emotional mess rather than allow him the fairly tempered emotional outbursts and reactions he showed).
SO, to sum up, right now, leaning toward an Above Average rating, but will certainly see the movie again before voting, this time in a theater that isn't absolutely roasting and crammed full of people.
Hey, way to disagree there—start out with a cheap shot.
I can enjoy a well-told slam-bang hyperkinetic action story. (Not that this was one—well-told, that is.) Bourne Identity, to name just one off the top of my head. However, that's not what I look for from Star Trek, nor ever have. Trek has grander ambitions.
Not by itself, per se—just one in a set of characteristics establishing the kind of audience the movie was made for and marketed to. I take it you consider yourself part of that audience. Myself, I enjoy good effects, but they don't make or break a film.
Yes. An "artistic choice" that draws attention to itself, and that most filmmakers try to avoid, but that Abrams embraced. You may like it; I didn't so much.
There are close-ups, and CLOSE-UPS. I really don't need to see actors' pores. But honestly, the cinematography was among the least of my complaints.
More personal shots? Really?
I understand perfectly well what movie music is supposed to do. Jerry Goldsmith's score did it in past Trek films. LOTR did it. Last of the Mohicans did it beautifully. John Williams has done it all over the place (although he got to repeating himself over time.) This film? Didn't do it.
Perhaps you could elaborate a bit. Are you saying this story actually had character introspection? If so, where? Or are you saying you don't see it as necessary—despite it being intrinsic to Trek ever since the original pilot? If so, why not?[introspection]
No, of course it doesn't
Quite the contrary. TOS at its best developed some fascinatingly complex characterization. (Though, admittedly, mostly just for the main three.)
You thought it dealt with those? I thought it used them as excuses for big action setpieces, and otherwise swept them under the rug.
Yes, "oh" indeed. I described quite a few examples in my post.
No, that would be Robert April.
(But even if you don't "count" TAS, it seems a pretty dramatic change that Pike's tenure in the center chair has been reduced from 11+ years down to a single mission.)
Now, I've indulged you, even though you responded to a carefully argued post with a selection of quick one-liners. Obviously you disagree with me about the movie. Care to set the personal stuff and the sarcasm aside, and offer something more thoughtful?
This I can understand. I think the "knee jerk defense" reaction has come from months of "It violates canon!" and "They've wiped out everything we ever loved!" posts. Clearly neither of these are true (and your post reflects that), but since we've been so saturated with that, it's easy to just suddenly react without really carefully reading the posts. Not defending, just observing.
You have to take this as its own entity and if you do, it's a very enjoyable movie. I like some of the things the little things they did. Controls based on the airliner model, danger warnings on the screen like on a HUD, landing gear on shuttles, shuttles designed to parachute drops, shuttles turned sideways to maximize space (without atmosphere they're not going to need as much room to maneuver), the impulse engines shutting down right before going to hypsp.. I mean warp, and Starfleet having both working and service uniforms. Though the admirals looked a bit out of place and like the had been called back from a Cinco de Mayo part.
However, they did get somethings wrong too. The galaxy destroying supernova (trying to save the Romulan system because of the shared heritage would do), the seemingly complete lack of understanding of Military procedure (No clear chain of command, promoting everyone to their late TOS ranks right away, the use of "resign" instead of relieve), no announcement that the Enterprise was being sent out with mostly a cadet crew or a clear explanation as to why it built so much later, etc. All of those could have been easily corrected. I would have also preferred Pike make the announcement instead of Chekov.
As for the Characters, I think they were all in character or at least a version with understandable differences. Sulu and Uhura were fresh cadets and not the seasoned officers of 2265 TOS. Spock may have been relatively "space green" as well as the Enterprise has not existed yet for him to serve on. McCoy was dead on has story had not changed. Scotty was pretty understandable for basically being marooned. Lastly, Kirk had lived a very different life, but much was the same.
In closing, honestly there would have been a few things I would have done differently. I would have launched the Enterprise as planned in 2245 with the academy stint being between five years missions and the Enterprise undergoing major yardwork at Riverside. The Spock-Uhura romance I could have done without (not very logical). I also would have not destroyed Vulcan as its just too radical change. That being said, Nero's carnage does leave a lot of issues for the sequel. Nero won in the aspect that the Federation and the Klingons are severely weakened leaving a door open for Romulans of this time period. I think this may be the first piece of a three-part story.
However, they did get somethings wrong too. The galaxy destroying supernova (trying to save the Romulan system because of the shared heritage would do), the seemingly complete lack of understanding of Military procedure (No clear chain of command, promoting everyone to their late TOS ranks right away, the use of "resign" instead of relieve), no announcement that the Enterprise was being sent out with mostly a cadet crew or a clear explanation as to why it built so much later, etc. All of those could have been easily corrected. I would have also preferred Pike make the announcement instead of Chekov.
As for the Characters, I think they were all in character or at least a version with understandable differences. Sulu and Uhura were fresh cadets and not the seasoned officers of 2265 TOS. Spock may have been relatively "space green" as well as the Enterprise has not existed yet for him to serve on. McCoy was dead on has story had not changed. Scotty was pretty understandable for basically being marooned. Lastly, Kirk had lived a very different life, but much was the same.
In closing, honestly there would have been a few things I would have done differently. I would have launched the Enterprise as planned in 2245 with the academy stint being between five years missions and the Enterprise undergoing major yardwork at Riverside. The Spock-Uhura romance I could have done without (not very logical). I also would have not destroyed Vulcan as its just too radical change. That being said, Nero's carnage does leave a lot of issues for the sequel. Nero won in the aspect that the Federation and the Klingons are severely weakened leaving a door open for Romulans of this time period. I think this may be the first piece of a three-part story.
Also, we could see most of the 79 episodes stories still happening, although some may be slightly different. Khan is still out there waiting for this crew to find him.
-Chris
How about you stop being so bitter? Just because people do not agree with you, doesn't make them muppets.
-Chris
Hey I just saw the movie last night and absolutely loved it....
My one big concern however was the fact that they literally went from being cadets to officers especially with Kirk being a cadet to become captain instantly...its a little hard to believe and I dont know if anyone knows why they would do that. Besides that I would easily give it a 9/10 maybe a 10
My one big concern however was the fact that they literally went from being cadets to officers especially with Kirk being a cadet to become captain instantly...its a little hard to believe and I dont know if anyone knows why they would do that. Besides that I would easily give it a 9/10 maybe a 10
'Traitors' hahaha, wow you have got problems you really need to have addressed, man. How do you reconcile your embrace for TOS with the fact Leonard Nimoy starred in and loved this movie?
Aww, don't get our hopes up.
They just lost a good few ships and staff in that Vulcan , I didn't really have much of an issue with it - though I thought I would months ago.
Pike had faith in Kirk and gave him a nudge, the others possibly began to earn rankings through their work in Starfleet and because this ship was a big deal, they'd put their best on it.
The story carried me away with it... the rationalising came later
James.
Traitor to the cause.
It's interesting that as the actual rankings are coming in the percentages are breaking down a lot the way most of our previous polls have - combining everything less than "C" or average gives less than but close to ten percent.
It is not just the previous months, many are still saying the same thing "It violates canon!, they have killed old star trek!" even in this thread. Most of the criticism I have seen in this thread is talking about canon/its ties to star trek universe
muppets and traitors...I think this is the only time that the two has been used together
You will be back.
I haven't read the first 500 pages of this thread, but even in the last 100, I have read more comments along the lines of, "If you're a real Trekkie, you'll only watch this once, if at all" or, "Real Star Trek fans should hate this!" or ,"If you're a fan of this, you're a traitor!" than I ever really want to. These comments are just as bad and rediculous as the Canon Nazi comments that come from the other side. Makers of both comments need to get over themselves.
I am a Trekkie. I have watched and loved Star Trek for literally as long as I can remember. And I enjoyed this movie. Deal with it.
I am a Trekkie. I have watched and loved Star Trek for literally as long as I can remember. And I enjoyed this movie. Deal with it.
As a kid, I grew up watching TOS first run, and have been a fan, a hard core fan, for these nearly 43 years and...I liked this movie, it was exciting...sorry, but what was also exciting was that my 13 year old who had NEVER been a trek fan at all went with me and enjoyed it and the fact that he was asking questions afterward shows that this Trek will resonate with those outside the franchise while in my opinion it remains true to the essential core of the characters and themes us old timers love, woven into a new canvas that is accessible to all in 2009.
One thing that struck me as I was sitting in the theater looking at all the iPods and iPhones, was just how hard it must have been to update the look of this and still keep the spirit of the old alive, argue all you want, and I love the old designs as much as anyone, but this HAD to be visually relevant for todays audience, it HAD to look like our future, not 1966's...
One thing that struck me as I was sitting in the theater looking at all the iPods and iPhones, was just how hard it must have been to update the look of this and still keep the spirit of the old alive, argue all you want, and I love the old designs as much as anyone, but this HAD to be visually relevant for todays audience, it HAD to look like our future, not 1966's...
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
- Poll
