A negative take on the film

A thread called "It's not Star Trek" just got closed, so I apologize if my opinion is frowned upon here, however the gist of it is the same as the title of that thread. I post on these boards about once a year I think, but I lurk a lot here and have been a member since 2000 and a longtime fan of Trek. So I'm not a "cadet" drawn out by the new movie to come here mindlessly bashing it for no reason, however I felt like giving my opinion on the film given that it is a monumental turning point I think for the franchise. I realize that the majority of the fanbase is very positive about the film and don't like to hear negative things about it, but I think I have a reasonable argument as to why I don't think this film is good for Star Trek and hope that people here can consider it and not just post "fail" pictures and what not.

Now first of all I'm fine with the "reboot". At first I was dead set against it but I've come around and accepted it. It's not perhaps what I would do with the franchise but that's okay. The alternate timeline-plot actually makes it more acceptable for me, separating the "prime" and "alt" timelines, so I don't have a problem with doing away with the original continuity like some people. Likewise with new actors playing the old characters, that's fine too.

What the problem with this film is however is style and feel. To me this does not feel like Star Trek. It feels like a run of the mill blockbuster action movie with it's frantic pacing and simplistic plot. The fact that it's creators don't understand or appreciate Trek and instead just set out to make a generic space action movie is evident at every turn. It might be a competently executed generic space action movie but that's beside the point (for me).

Now of course I realize the franchise had become stagnant and needed a fresh new look and all that. I would argue that Trek has had two distinct styles during its history (before now), the first one being that of TOS and the second one a re-imagining done for TNG (with the first 6 movies possibly constituting a third). The franchise sort of rode the "TNG style" all the way until 2005 by which time it had become outdated leading to the franchises "death" and need for a reboot. Both these times Trek emerged as something intelligent, unique and different from anything that was around at the time, and that was the source of it's success and iconic status. This time however it does not. To me this effort does not have that creative vision, it is not unique, it's just like any other action movie without much substance. It might be popular for a while but I think say 20 years from now it'll look really dated and meaningless. Abandoning the old way of doing things is fine by me, even necessary, but not if there's nothing of substance to replace it. A lot of people are enthusiastic that this film makes Trek popular and mainstream again. To me that is completely irrelevant really, I'd be happy with Trek remaining in a niche. Mainstream does not seem to me to correspond well with quality, quite the opposite actually.

I understand that I'm in the minority and most people really enjoyed the movie, and while I am somewhat disappointed at that, I respect that majority opinion and wouldn't presume to claim that my opinion is any more valid than theirs. Perhaps my way of seeing things is just archaic and I just don't "get" the new movie, but that is how I honestly see it, to me it's an empty and dumb film, not worthy of the Star Trek name. I'm surprised to find myself on this side of the argument actually, because usually I'm more inclined to see positives in a lot of things that get bashed a lot. Nemesis for example I didn't find anywhere near as bad as it's commonly made out to be. I will see every sequel for sure and see if things change, and even if they don't, well there's always the novels set in the good old prime universe.

 

Now you're not even trying to be a likable fellow.

 

Ihan samaa mieltä, in other words I agree completely...

 

There's such a shortage of negative views around here.

 

Okay.

 

There's a reason for that.

 

Yeah, the mods are locking down all the negative threads. That's why the topic "I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek." manages to stay active and on the front page all the time.



Critics need to be less paranoid. Or maybe it just feels good somehow to pretend that you're speaking your mind under threat of some imagined suppression, or something. I dunno.

 

I'm looking at this film with an "apples and oranges" attitude. After all, it is over 40 years after TOS, and not only are producers, writers and actors different - the audience is different. Of course the film isn't the Trek we grew up with.

And while I didn't care for the pace or feel of the film, I still enjoyed seeing the characters "re-envisioned." The actors did a great job.

I'll go see the next movie - if they make one. But I won't expect the "mini-morality plays" of the Roddenberry days.

 

There's a huge thread about not liking the movie:
http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=92334

 

I was actually being sarcastic.

 

My guess would be that he liked "Scanners" better than the new movie also, Squiggster...

 

Your opinion is welcome here, Mjuice, since you state your reasons instead of insult everyone by calling them mindless pop culture drones. It is much appreciated. Now, I love the movie, but I can understand why you seem not to enjoy it. There's no reason why we can't have a civil discussion on the matter.

The poll for the Star Trek movie (as of this posting) is:

Average or Better: 687 people
Below Average or Poor: 63 people.

Less than 10% of the people polled do not like this movie, so it is within reason to figure there are very few negative reviews of the movie.


J.

 

Nemesis is commonly (e.g. on TrekBBS) made out to be the second coming of Satan, dragging the entire franchise down to hell and murdering it for all eternity in fire and brimstone where the worm dieth not. In other words, fans tend to accentuate the negative and use a bit of hyperbole while doing it.

Nemesis does fall apart on the "minutia," as Nimoy would put it. It's dumb on the science, and dumb on the Prime Directive, and arguably dumb on Cadet Picard's hairline. But it does have nice little meditations on nature vs. nurture, oppressed people overturning their government and using the machinery of state for terrorism, and the SF idea of personality uploading. It raises questions that are relevant in the Star Trek universe and may soon be relevant in ours.

Does Star Trek do any of that? Will I walk out of the theater thinking weighty questions about identity, or rogue state-sponsored terrorism, or the impossibility of free will when I am nothing more than the sum of my experiences?

 

N B 4 D L0K

 

Such "meditations" don't make a movie - not even a derivative and trite one based on familiar and trite observations, much less a good one. That's why almost no one takes such trivia into account on "Nemesis's" behalf.

 

I just found my new avatar.

 

You are welcome.

 

Well whatever, I was just going to post in the aforementioned thread but then it was closed so I made a new one instead. I don't really care about "suppression" one way or the other. If the people on this board want to censor negative reviews that's their prerogative. I certainly don't think I'm under any threat or see myself as some "one man against the world" figure fighting for the truth here