The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

[Ovation]

Yes. So what makes Star Trek better than those other two movies other than featuring characters that we "know" much better? I suggest to you there is little to no difference. And that's too bad.

The character development in Star Trek is much better than in either of the other two. Star Trek's plot is its weakest element, but that's hardly a new development for Trek movies (not an excuse, merely an observation). I enjoyed ID4 as a summer popcorn movie (much like I enjoyed Star Trek) but I found Star Trek a superior film (though certainly not perfect). As for Armageddon, I did not connect with any of the characters, so, consequently, I did not enjoy it all that much. I'd rewatch ID4 but it's unlikely I'd revisit Armageddon.

I suggest to you that there was not any more character development in Star Trek than the other movies I mentioned. I suggest to you that you only think there was because the many, many hours of development that came before this movie, but don't really count because that was an alternative universe.

You can suggest all you want, but you would be wrong. I am not assessing the new movie's character development based on prior incarnations of Star Trek (films are more than a source of entertainment for me, they are a research interest and an ongoing element of my profession--I don't focus on genre films, except as cultural artefacts, but I have analyzed hundreds of films, including making note of character development. I feel quite confident about my statements regarding each of the three films in question here.).

 

[dkehler]

The character development in Star Trek is much better than in either of the other two. Star Trek's plot is its weakest element, but that's hardly a new development for Trek movies (not an excuse, merely an observation). I enjoyed ID4 as a summer popcorn movie (much like I enjoyed Star Trek) but I found Star Trek a superior film (though certainly not perfect). As for Armageddon, I did not connect with any of the characters, so, consequently, I did not enjoy it all that much. I'd rewatch ID4 but it's unlikely I'd revisit Armageddon.

I suggest to you that there was not any more character development in Star Trek than the other movies I mentioned. I suggest to you that you only think there was because the many, many hours of development that came before this movie, but don't really count because that was an alternative universe.

You can suggest all you want, but you would be wrong. I am not assessing the new movie's character development based on prior incarnations of Star Trek (films are more than a source of entertainment for me, they are a research interest and an ongoing element of my profession--I don't focus on genre films, except as cultural artefacts, but I have analyzed hundreds of films, including making note of character development. I feel quite confident about my statements regarding each of the three films in question here.).

Really? Care to provide a comparative analysis?

 

[Feofilakt]

huh?

We are going in circles.

You stated the qualities (read, attributes) of the original series was a more philosophical nature, yes?

I agreed. Trek has a philosophical tone to it, it possesses that attribute.

How is the attribute "Trek has a philosophical tone" now in debate when taken into concert? I am not following.

oh okay. I'm eating, watching MSNBC/TNG/the WH Congressional stuff/talking on the phone and posting. figures I got confused.

yes, Trek is philosophical. yes, we agree.

my point is that you can't hold this movie to the standards of the best Trek eps just as you cannot hold the worst trek eps responsible for bringing down the overall quality of Trek. the fact that Trek brings a certain aura of undeniable depth cannot stipulate that ALL Trek be that way. just as Spock's Brain was part of All-Trek (and a guilty pleasure in itself, at least for me), so is this movie.

the best part of this movie is the fact that it promises newer Trek of quality that we BOTH want. and, hopefully, now that this movie has been deemed a general success, we shall get that which we both want.

Ok, I understand now.

whew.

Yeah, I do hope the next Trek movie has some depth to it, but I remain pessimistic. JJ Abrams' track record is not stellar in this regard, and we must all remain aware that he is neither an intellectual or an artist. He is, above all else, a businessman and possesses a certain cunning as a result, but the things he produces/directs/writes will always be surfacey and appeal to the lowest common denominator. I have less respect for this guy than I do blokes like Spielburg, who at least put some soul into their films.

Let's just hope the next movie is appealing visually -and- has more substance

 

[Ovation]

I suggest to you that there was not any more character development in Star Trek than the other movies I mentioned. I suggest to you that you only think there was because the many, many hours of development that came before this movie, but don't really count because that was an alternative universe.

You can suggest all you want, but you would be wrong. I am not assessing the new movie's character development based on prior incarnations of Star Trek (films are more than a source of entertainment for me, they are a research interest and an ongoing element of my profession--I don't focus on genre films, except as cultural artefacts, but I have analyzed hundreds of films, including making note of character development. I feel quite confident about my statements regarding each of the three films in question here.).

Really? Care to provide a comparative analysis?

Not at this late hour (I'm procrastinating from my marking) but if you're willing to wait a few days while I finish up my administrative drudge work for this term, I'll gladly revisit the subject. If you don't wish to wait, then all I can say is that my shelf full of film theory and criticism books (worn with cracked spines), my graduate work on film and history and my ongoing use of film as a teaching tool make me more qualified than most (not all, but most) people I encounter with regards to judging various elements of films. For the moment, though, it's back to marking essays.

 

[pookha]

to you it dosnt have those qualities..
some of us though do see them in this movie.
why some cant let it at that i dont know.
instead those of us who did find meaning in the move are insulted.
what ever...

perhaps it should be put in trek terms..

some of the trek themes in the movie..
to do justice to the full potential of every individual of the Body

Without freedom of choice, there is no creativity. Without creativity, there is no life.

 

[indranee]

We are going in circles.

You stated the qualities (read, attributes) of the original series was a more philosophical nature, yes?

I agreed. Trek has a philosophical tone to it, it possesses that attribute.

How is the attribute "Trek has a philosophical tone" now in debate when taken into concert? I am not following.

oh okay. I'm eating, watching MSNBC/TNG/the WH Congressional stuff/talking on the phone and posting. figures I got confused.

yes, Trek is philosophical. yes, we agree.

my point is that you can't hold this movie to the standards of the best Trek eps just as you cannot hold the worst trek eps responsible for bringing down the overall quality of Trek. the fact that Trek brings a certain aura of undeniable depth cannot stipulate that ALL Trek be that way. just as Spock's Brain was part of All-Trek (and a guilty pleasure in itself, at least for me), so is this movie.

the best part of this movie is the fact that it promises newer Trek of quality that we BOTH want. and, hopefully, now that this movie has been deemed a general success, we shall get that which we both want.

Ok, I understand now.

whew.

Yeah, I do hope the next Trek movie has some depth to it, but I remain pessimistic. JJ Abrams' track record is not stellar in this regard, and we must all remain aware that he is neither an intellectual or an artist. He is, above all else, a businessman and possesses a certain cunning as a result, but the things he produces/directs/writes will always be surfacey and appeal to the lowest common denominator. I have less respect for this guy than I do blokes like Spielburg, who at least put some soul into their films.

Let's just hope the next movie is appealing visually -and- has more substance

I'm not sure you do get my point.

my point is that you cannot judge THIS movie via Trek that has gone before. it's a new incarnation and deserves to be judged on its own merits. the fact is that JJ -- artist or not -- has infused this particular incarnation of Trek with a verve and style that begs to be recognized (and much to my delight -- it has, at that). whether that fits with these "times" just as TOS fit with ITS times is possibly the main determinant in its longevity.

art is subjective (and so are artists). you may think Spielberg is a notch above, I may not (speaking in generalities).

my point is all of you who are judging this movie based on your idea of what Trek should or should not be should take a deep breath and contemplate each and every one of those 79 episodes and the movies. Trek is by no means the yardstick of excellence.

but it is, to most of us, precious. let's not ignore that. none of are objective where Trek is concerned.

 

[tauzo]

Hi! ... lurker here.

Just saw it a second time (I just had to check out the tribble!).

I gotta say... I still thought it was good (i voted excellent), but it lost a little of the shiny for me. First time through, I was so absorbed by the spectacle and charmed by the humor that I definitely overlooked some of the weaknesses. I'd maybe take it down to a 7 (from 8) [caveat: impossible to get a 10 from me, and 9s are super rare, so really 7 is more of a B+ than a C. I know, my grading system sucks.]

Still ... I'm very excited about the ensemble and the possibilities for the new universe. I was happy with pretty much everyone, except, sadly, Spock Prime. His dentures really bothered me. Does that make me a bad person?

I really hope they keep Pike. Great actor and great character.

And I hope they won't be shy about adding some more female characters to the 'new' NCC-1701 crew. (BTW - Is there any consensus on what are we calling this reality? Nu? New? II? Now? Beta? AK (After Kelvin) ... 'alternate' doesn't seem right since it's the new 'true' reality ... or something ... er, I digress)

'Nuther little TOS ref I hadn't noticed the 1st time: Mr. red suit 'expendable' ... that made me laugh. I'm sure there's a ton more that I missed. I'll have to mine the thread a little more .

Also - Did anyone else notice someone who looked remarkably like a Wesley Crusher at the con in one of the opening Enterprise scenes??

 

[tauzo]

(BTW - Is there any consensus on what are we calling this reality? Nu? New? II? Now? Beta? AK (After Kelvin) ... 'alternate' doesn't seem right since it's the new 'true' reality ... or something ... er, I digress)

Nevermind ... I found the [ Name that Alternate Universe ] thread.

 

[jealousblues]

Wow this was great. Obviously not as good as TOS but nothing could be.

Fantastic movie.


I expected it to be soooo horrible

 

[CAPTAIN ELBOW]

This movie is a blessing for all loyal Star Trek fans. I took several people who hate
anything to do with Star Trek, and when it was over they were the ones praising
the movie and selling it to others. So don't be so analytical or negative, it's a
wonderful blow for the good guys. This movie has expanded the Star Trek fan base,
"I have fought a good fight, I have survived the course, I have kept the faith"
remember those biblical words spoken by the late Brock Peters in DS9.
Brock Peters (2 July 1927 – 23 August 2005; age 78) was an accomplished veteran actor of stage, film, and television. He played Admiral Cartwright in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, and later portrayed Captain Benjamin Sisko's father, Joseph, a restaurateur in New Orleans, on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
In addition to his canon Star Trek roles, Peters voiced the role of General Mi'Qogh in the video game Star Trek: Starfleet Command III. His voice-over clips from this game were re-purposed for the fan video Borg War.

"Remember" as Spock would convey during a mind meld.
Oh by the way the 2009 Star Trek movie kicked major @#$&$@....

 

[CAPTAIN ELBOW]

I'm just like Kirk, you can call me cadet, but at heart I'm the Captain!!!!

 

[Alexis]

So, I've seen the new movie last week and after thinking about it for a few days I think I finally have an idea of what I think about it.

And to be honest, it's not a bad movie. In fact, it's a great roller-coaster ride of an action flick which I enjoyed enormously. It has Star Trek written all over and in many, many ways it is Star Trek, but at the same time it really isn't on some level. At least, for me it isn't.

I don't care much about whether the 1701 was built in space or in Iowa or whether Kirk can drive a Corvette or not, those are minor canon-nitpicks that just get in the way of good and solid story telling. I must admit I was a bit bothered with the Uhura-Spock relationship, but I think I can live with that. I was bothered with the destruction of Vulcan, but since it's all a new and altered Trek-universe, I think I can live with that. All in all, excellent reboot.

What I find really hard to swallow is the sort of cheesy time-travel/altered universe solution in order to keep it all in canon. I would've much preferred it if Abrams and his men would just have had the balls to throw old Trek out the cargo hold and do things completely anew. In the end we would probably have had two Treks happily co-existing at the same time in various media-formats. But messing up "canon-future" with the destruction of Romulus, sending Spock Prime back into this altered universe for good, those are the things that bother me; the fact that they had to go and mess up old Trek as well. Then again, maybe I'm being conservative here and still not quite ready to let go of "my" Star Trek and watch a new version of it, without Vulcan, with Kirk being a thrill-seeker instead of a risk-taker.

I don't know and that bothers me, because this is a great movie with a great many fan-moments, winks and nods to the stuff we grew up with and finally brings Trek to the big screen again, where it (partly) belongs. It just didn't have to be dumbed down or altered in the end. Telling the story of the young TOS crew could have been done terrifically without killing off George Kirk, Amanda or blowing up Vulcan.

In the end, I voted "above average" for what's really an excellent summer-popcorn-movie.

 

[Jim Steele]

"inert reactant"

"Inert Reactant"

"INERT REACTANT"

...

 

[ALF]

On the topic of Trekkies hating this movie and regular people loving it, I think that's great. Sometimes Trekkies are an annoying lot, quibbling over minutiae and canon in the face of an engaging and fresh film. The level of entitlement projected by some fans... who lay claim Star Trek as if it was their own is at the very least, bewildering. That reaction I'm seeing (though prevalent moreso in 1999's Phantom Menace release a la George Lucas Raped my Childhood) will keep me away from this board for constructive conversation until the initial reaction dies down. Due to the success in the planning, marketing and execution of JJ-Trek it's Joe Six Pack ensuring our DVD shelves are lined with new Trek titles for the years to come.

 

[Pindar]

You didn't perchance fire up to Cineworld on saturday only to discover that the whole complex was closed due to "technical issues"? What the hell was that about?

"Cineworld has decided to close for fear of possible fanboy backlash"

I was out at an all day stag, which covered going to see the film.

Then I drank, ate curry and was very ill.

 

[Jim Steele]

Ah, good night/day then

We went to the Blue Blazer after the flick and must have looked like a group of very sad, troubled men.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

One little continuity thing that held up: Cardassia!

 

[ITL]

"inert reactant"

"Inert Reactant"

"INERT REACTANT"

...

You wouldn't want a nert reactant, would you? Might blow up, or something...

 

[Amaris]

"inert reactant"

"Inert Reactant"

"INERT REACTANT"

...

You wouldn't want a nert reactant, would you? Might blow up, or something...

I think he's saying he nerts reactant. Wow.
I guess it takes all kinds!

J.

 

[Nimthim]

Just catching up on all the discussion from last night.............

Why do some insist on not seeing the real story in this movie - the real philosophical thrust is the coming-of-age journey. These characters are digging down to their toes looking for who they are and what they want to become. Each situation is helping at least one of this pretty much untested group define another part of who they are. Along the way they also discover that they like the people around them - these will be their truest, closest friends in life.
Trying to insist that this is not Star Trek, or is really bad Trek, because you can't see some huge overlying morality tale beyond that, is actually giving more credit to some of what before rather than just accepting this movie on its own terms. And they are good terms, and a good origin story.
And I really don't understand comparing this movie to ID4 or Armegeddon. This movie is more like compressing Ep.1-3 of Star Wars into one movie, and Star Trek is far superior to that.
Maybe I'll find some time to also go on a rant about Nero - I think he is very credible villain.