Saving our own skins...
- Immunity Syndrome
- The Doomsday Machine
You're fulla shit just on the very first couple. Spock is totally committed to the eventuality of losing his life to get them the info they need in the former (as is McCoy), as is Kirk in the latter.
Sorta like Spock trying to ram the Narada with futurespock's yellyship, eh? Or Pike turning himself over to Nero knowing exactly what happened to the LAST Captain who met him in person but in any case needing an excuse to drop Kirk and Sulu and Redshirt without Nero realizing it.
And in both these instances, you're also talking about a force that is going to be killing alot more and pretty damn soon as well.
True. I mean, it's not like the Narada is an immensely powerful alien space craft, equipped with a device that could destroy entire planets, on a mission to systemically obliterate every world in the Federation.
Look the sarcastic tone isn't helping the conversation here... nor is the "yeah, you tell him" cheering. This is SUPPOSED to be a discussion, not a "team versus team brawl." And Newtype, we're often on the same side of issues, and from what I've seen, Trevanian and you tend to be on the same side of issues as well as often as not. So, can we please tone down the snideness, the "attack mode" stuff... and most of all the "yeah, you tell the @#$*, cause we hate him" bullshit? (That's not just targeted at you, obviously, that's all-around.)
What we're discussing here is a movie. It's not "just" a movie, because it's part of a work of fiction which has grown into an entire fictional "universe" over time, and it's one which has had a major impact on the real world... and, to one extent or another, on all of our lives.
Some folks love the new flick. Good for them. Some hate it. Good for them, too.
For someone to criticize the movie... only means that they don't like the movie, or some aspect of the movie. Not that they're attacking anyone who does like the movie. Criticizing the movie isn't PERSONAL. But responding to that sort of criticism by attacking those who are leveling that criticism is pretty low, no better than attacking those who may like it might be.
So let's get this straight. I, and most others, who have leveled any form of criticism at this movie have every right to do so, and nobody has any right to personally attack us for doing so. Other people, who really loved everything about the movie and say so gladly, have every right to do so, and nobody has any right to personally attack them for saying that, either.
Was this a terrible movie? Of course not. Was it a fantastic, flawless, perfect movie? Of course not. It has good points, and it has bad points. It is, ultimately, a "popcorn movie" on the same level as, say, Armageddon (the parallels are actually pretty significant, if you really compare the two). Enjoyable, but not "serious" entertainment, and with enough plot holes and characterization holes to drive a fleet of trucks through.
It's not PERFECT. Saying it's not perfect is not an "attack." Calling people who say it's not perfect names IS an "attack." (And similarly, calling people who love every aspect of it names would also be an attack, but I have yet to see that, personally.)
*******************
Okay, back to the topic.
I am critical of this movie. It fails on a number of levels for me.
One of those is in terms of art direction. Fortunately, most of the most egregious problems with art direction in this flick were barely noticeable past the "shakey-cam" work and quick-cutting (which is another problem... seeing this on IMax will undoubtedly cause people with weak stomachs some problems!)
Another area where it fails is the lack of any coherent attempt to "make it real" by applying real science and engineering principles (making it almost the exact opposite of TMP in this regard). Instead, "making it real" was accomplished by gratuitous set-dressing using real-world, contemporary products (see: barcode scanners, hospital beds, forklifts, brewery-as-engineering, etc). The "reality" of the design is both unbelievable on its face, and also ONLY on the face... "skin-deep" so to speak."
There are a few examples where this is not the case, of course... several "key" effects sequences (Vulcan's end, the female crewer on Kelvin who gets sucked outside, notably) which are examples of "good science" (I would have hated seeing another "planar explosion" ala Praxis or the "re-CGI'ed Death Star", and the "silence of space" was terrific). I attribute that to individual effects guys coming up with great sequences and executing them well, and selling their ideas to production folks who mainly wanted to see "kewl stuff." Could I be wrong? Maybe... but if it was the guys on top driving that, the other, egregiously wrong stuff wouldn't make any sense.
But all that can be forgiven, if there's a fantastic story behind it. The effects, the production design... as I've said many times, that's "set dressing."
My biggest complaint about this movie is that it was largely self-centered in nature.
Yes, Pike knew he was likely going to his death, but it's not like, had he refused, he would have been any less likely to die, is it? NuSpock, preparing to ram the Narada... is there any indication that he wasn't expecting to be rescued? Sure, there was a CHANCE he could be killed, but just a chance... and he had a PERSONAL justification for doing so ("Earth is my only home now.")
The only real "sacrifice was George Kirk. He could have ordered someone else to stay aboard. Of course, you'd think that the computer system would have a bit of redundancy (by the time you can't set a course and have it tracked, would you even be able to steer the ship???) But yeah, he actually gave his life, when he could have saved it. He was the ONLY "selfless" character in the movie.
But even given that... that's NOT related to what my original complaint was. My complaint was that I'm sick... sick and tired... of "Mustache-twirling villain with ultimate weapon tries to destroy the universe... and our heroes kill him."
That is TIRED... HACKNEYED... BORING.
Is there anyone who didn't think that Nero was gonna get his come-uppance at the end of this flick? Seriously?
Is there anyone who, not having read the comic "prequel" or having heard about the massive amount of deleted scenes, saw in Nero anything but the "mustache-twirling villain?" He was "the bad guy." Showing a picture of his wife wasn't enough to stir up anyone's sympathy for a genocidal mass murdering psychopath. Hell, he was even more one-dimensional than Shinzon was, as far as what made it on-screen is concerned.
I know, Newtype, that you really tried to counter my point with examples from TOS, but you really failed to do so. Because not one of those examples was one of "mustache-twirling villain with ultimate weapon tries to destroy the universe and our heroes kill him to save the day."
Not one. You drew PARTIAL parallels in a few cases, but those were only partial... straining to make them in a number of cases, too.
Trek wasn't about "kill the baddie of the week." It was BETTER THAN THAT. It strove to be better than that. Episodes like "Arena" or "Errand of Mercy" played with that idea, but turned it entirely around... and that was what made Star Trek so great.
My complaint about this movie, ultimately, comes down to that. This movie may have some of the trapping of Star Trek, some even being quite close to the original (Urban's McCoy, for example). Some of the trappings vary quite a bit, but that would be OK too... if the CENTRAL CORE of Trek was maintained.
The problem is that it hasn't been. That was the core of my argument... the one that you decided you had to try to discredit (though you really did fail to do so), and for which Dennis and ST-One "high-fived" you for "showing me what for" over.
This movie lacks the intelligent, philosophical core that made the best Star Trek episodes great. It is, ultimately, just another visually-pretty "popcorn movie."
If it had that, all the other stuff... even that god-awful Enterprise redesign... I could have accepted. But they lost the "soul" of Star Trek.
As I said before... a true, classic, philosophically-bent Trek ending would have showed our crew making the ultimate sacrifice, not just to save their own skin, or their own home, but to give up everything that they know, and maybe even their very existence, in order to save (1) yes, Earth, (2) Vulcan, (3) Romulus, and (4) anyone else who might've fallen victim to Nero's predations.
Have the Enterprise, under Kirk, engage Nero just long enough for "Spock Prime" to drop the "red matter bomb" into the Hobus star... preventing the future destruction of Romulus, and thus Nero ever having traveled back in time in the first place.
Cut to Earth. Starfleet Command. Kirk receives his promotion from Commander to Captain... it's unclear what is different... until his father pins his new rank on his uniform. Also in attendance is Christopher Pike, newly promoted to Fleet Captain, fit and robust (in the movie proper, I'd have had him killed or permanently disabled), meeting Jim Kirk for the first time.
Then cut forward to the 24th century, where Spock finally finds success in his efforts towards reunification, in large part due to his protege, a former miner and now newly elected "reformer" politician named Nero.
Honestly... c'mon now, guys, don't play the "we don't like you so we'll try to destroy any argument you make" game... do you REALLY think that the audience wouldn't have been affected (positively) by seeing Pike and George Kirk restored? That this would have somehow "confused" them?
That seeing the "mustache-twirling villain" not "defeated" but REDEEMED? Can you truly say that you think the audience would have found that disappointing?
That saving billions and billions of lives, on at least two worlds, wouldn't be worth the sacrifice?
I don't. I found the movie disappointing because it took the cheap and easy way out, every time. No challenging philosophical questions, no moral issues, just "kill the bad guy, save the universe."
