Second viewing thoughts

[El Chupacabra]

In my original review I was quite harsh in what I didn't like about the new movie. One of my biggest problems with that is didn't feel like Star Trek.

Well, I gave it a week and went back with the missus and family yesterday afternoon. I have to say that I came out of the movie with different feelings. I think because I had a week to digest the fact that my Star Trek is dead I was better able to enjoy the movie as a piece by itself, partly because I knew what to expect. For me the first time around it was painful for me to watch my beloved Kirk Spock & McCoy played by different actors. I also hated the fact that the 43 year history was basically rubbished.

However, I put my sadness aside and went into the movie with an acceptance that my Star Trek was dead. This was the best I was going to get. I could either sit back and enjoy the film as a new Star Trek product, or I could just treat the Franchise as finished. Well I love Star Trek and always will so I chose the former. I will forever have mixed feelings about this film and whether or not a reboot was the right way to go, but as I re-absorbed the film I found myself thankful that the reboot wasn't nearly as extreme as it could have been. Fact is that the alternate reality timeline meant that there were only so many changes that one could make before it became unrecognisable - and therefore inconceivable as an alternate reality. For that I am greatful as at the very least I can watch this movie with the nostalgia I retain for Shatner TOS.....something I couldn't do with shows like Voyager.

I accept now that all we were ever going to get after the steaming piles of shit that were the franchise killing Voyager and the first three seasons of Enterprise was a reboot of TOS. It was obvious. When I take off my emotion hat and put on my lawyer hat I can see the onbvious logic behind it.

My end complaint in the original review remains - namely that there is no morality play in JJ Trek. I am seriously concerned that the Orci & Kurtzman team don't have what it takes to write a truly "Star Trek-ian" cerebral script...and that the sequel will just be about bad guys and space battles. If I want more space battles I'll but in Return of the Jedi. I need the cerebral quality back to Trek and that can easily be done alaongside the blockbuster qualities.

Anyhow, I have increased my appreciation of the film now as after thinking about it for a week and taking in a re-viewing, I do accept that it could have ended up being a lot farther from my Star Trek than actually it, in the cold light of day, was.

 

[Bobatiel]

I am seriously concerned that the Orci & Kurtzman team don't have what it takes to write a truly "Star Trek-ian" cerebral script...and that the sequel will just be about bad guys and space battles.

This movie was not about bad guys and space battles.

It is Star Trek, pure and simple. It's about Kirk and Spock and their journey with themselves and each other. Did you not notice what they had to go through on such personal levels? ( and what they still have to go through?)

I've always thought that Star Trek was not about morality plays an such, but rather it is an internal examination; one of the human condition. A term that is not being used enough around here IMO. Wasn't that GR's whole point?

 

[El Chupacabra]

Just came across this, from another reviewer, that sums up perfectly my continuing feeling:-

Yet, for all the amusement Star Trek provides, it's hard to shake the sense that something has been lost in translation. Abrams's film is in some ways a throwback not to the original series, but further still to the pulpy exploits of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, in which sneering villains were forever threatening to blow up the heroes' home planets. Gene Roddenberry's original "Trek" aimed higher than such space opera, toward the moral, political, and technological sophistication of Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke. It didn't always succeed--and, when it did, it wasn't always terribly exciting--but it was something new, and important, in the pop-cultural universe. For his rookie outing at least, Abrams has focused on simpler cinematic diversions. There's no question that his Star Trek radically revitalizes the franchise; but it does so in part by setting aside what distinguished the show in the first place.

This definately hits the nail on the head.

 

[Feofilakt]

Just came across this, from another reviewer, that sums up perfectly my continuing feeling:-

Yet, for all the amusement Star Trek provides, it's hard to shake the sense that something has been lost in translation. Abrams's film is in some ways a throwback not to the original series, but further still to the pulpy exploits of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, in which sneering villains were forever threatening to blow up the heroes' home planets. Gene Roddenberry's original "Trek" aimed higher than such space opera, toward the moral, political, and technological sophistication of Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke. It didn't always succeed--and, when it did, it wasn't always terribly exciting--but it was something new, and important, in the pop-cultural universe. For his rookie outing at least, Abrams has focused on simpler cinematic diversions. There's no question that his Star Trek radically revitalizes the franchise; but it does so in part by setting aside what distinguished the show in the first place.

This definately hits the nail on the head.

Ohhh, Cristopher Orr's review. That was quite good, actually.

 

[Bobatiel]

For his rookie outing at least, Abrams has focused on simpler cinematic diversions.

Diversions indeed!

Methinks some viewers were focused on the diversions, pretty colours and all.

 

[El Chupacabra]

It is Star Trek, pure and simple. It's about Kirk and Spock and their journey with themselves and each other. Did you not notice what they had to go through on such personal levels? ( and what they still have to go through?)

I've always thought that Star Trek was not about morality plays an such, but rather it is an internal examination; one of the human condition. A term that is not being used enough around here IMO. Wasn't that GR's whole point?

I don't think it was all that Roddenberry was into, there was more to it than that. Part of the human condition does involve personal struggles, but the human condition also deals with how we function in society and how we know right from wrong.

To be honest I am tired of listening to the gushers trying to pass of a couple of "Spock gets angry" and "Kirk is wayward after daddy's death" as an exploration of the human condition. It is clearly not and any tin pot writer could have easily come up with this as the obviously origins for the Kirk and Spock characters. Hell, their job was made even more easy by the fact that the 43 year canon alluded to how the characters were in youth on multiple occasions. Sorry, but its just not that hard to do.

No, I want to see some proper challenges facing the crew of the Enterprise. I want to see moral choices that affect the lives of his crew, or an alien race and so forth. I want to see how those choices impact on him as a person. That sort of thing is the exploration of the human condition and that's what I want to see when the sequel appears.

 

[Feofilakt]

For his rookie outing at least, Abrams has focused on simpler cinematic diversions.

Diversions indeed!

Methinks some viewers were focused on the diversions, pretty colours and all.

I think most viewers were focused on the diversions and pace, not content. My faith in the collective critical thinking skills of humanity has taken a severe blow since this movie has been released.

 

[scottydog]

Give this new trek reboot some time to become cerebral. The main purpose of Star Trek XI was to illustrate how all these great characters came to know each other. Only so much could be stuffed into 2 hours, and so I'm glad the writers kept the plot simple. This time. Next time, we should expect something more thought provoking.

 

[El Chupacabra]

Give this new trek reboot some time to become cerebral. The main purpose of Star Trek XI was to illustrate how all these great characters came to know each other. Only so much could be stuffed into 2 hours, and so I'm glad the writers kept the plot simple. This time. Next time, we should expect something more thought provoking.

Indeed, which is why I shall be prepared to pay the admission price to the sequel in great hope of said cerebral elements.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Roddenberry also just wanted a serious sci-fi show with quality and intelligence, something more enjoyable to people who didn't like the simplistic, child-aimed SF that was the norm. If he dropped in some social commentary along the way, all the better. But he, being a writer, wanted to tell good stories in a genre he loved. And he wanted to make a lot of money doing it.

Let's not deify the man all over again. He wasn't all consumed with the desire to "examine the human condition." Many episodes were just simple, straightforward adventure pieces. Others were heavy SF, while others were about something going on in the world. While a character might be created to comment on humanity, this was not the be-all and end-all of the character or the series. I can list a number of episodes that were just good fun, without a message. Those aren't any less Star Trek. Examination of humanity was a revitied subject, but all quality sci-fi series do that at some point.

Star Trek (the series, not the movies) wasn't about the friendship of Kirk, Spock and McCoy. That was just a prime ingredient that became more important and gave the characters solidity. Star Trek was what it was: you got out of it what you wanted. We all did.

As for the second showing of the film, I saw it again yesterday. Some of the sheen was dulled the second time around. Usually, I enjoy a Trek film as much of not more on repeat viewing as the first. This time, I was a little less enthusiastic, a little less thrilled. And, since Trek III (when I was old enough to pay for my own tickets), I've seen each Trek film no less than 5 times in the theater. Tellingly, I'm done at 2 for this one. I'm content to wait for the Blu-Ray.

Some plot holes really stand out now. And a buddy of mine, who realizes this is a new timeline so events are different, asked me something about Spock. We are to assume, I suppose, that Vulcan mental contact hasn't changed since it shouldn't.

He asked me: "Hey, wasn't there a episode where Spock was dizzy and sick over hearing the mental death screams of a bunch of Vulcans?"

"Yeah, when the USS Intrepid was destroyed, he felt the deaths of 400 Vulcans."

"Right, yeah, 400 Vulcans. I guess he was too upset over his mom to feel the death screams of 6 billion of them..."

Thanks for that Carl. :-)

 

[maryh]

Give this new trek reboot some time to become cerebral. The main purpose of Star Trek XI was to illustrate how all these great characters came to know each other. Only so much could be stuffed into 2 hours, and so I'm glad the writers kept the plot simple. This time. Next time, we should expect something more thought provoking.

Because they decided to do a reboot and altered timeline, they were somewhat locked into the story that had to take place. They had to pack so much into a 2 hour movie that cerebral, moral and emotional things that create great drama had to take a backseat to the action required for the reboot. I'm hoping that with the next movie, they can get back to the drama, exploration, character development, tough moral decisions, adventure etc that made TOS so great that they could not do yet in this movie.

I always wanted and supported a reboot, so I tolerate this movie so that it could be accomplished.

 

[Jeri]

I always wanted and supported a reboot, so I tolerate this movie so that it could be accomplished.

I think this attitude is a recipe for heartbreak. Just like it or not on its own merits, would be my unsolicited and free advice.

 

[El Chupacabra]

Roddenberry also just wanted a serious sci-fi show with quality and intelligence, something more enjoyable to people who didn't like the simplistic, child-aimed SF that was the norm. If he dropped in some social commentary along the way, all the better. But he, being a writer, wanted to tell good stories in a genre he loved. And he wanted to make a lot of money doing it.

Well, that's the issue though. I don't consider JJTrek to be anything more than simplistic stuff. Its space ships, cool explosions, fancy effects and pretty people with someone else's characters thrown in. Its basic stuff and I really don't feel that there was any intelligence or greater sophistication to it than Star Wars or any other summer movie.

Star Trek was what it was: you got out of it what you wanted. We all did.

Indeed, but I think it says something about the quality of the orginal product if so many people got some many different things out of it.

Some plot holes really stand out now. And a buddy of mine, who realizes this is a new timeline so events are different, asked me something about Spock. We are to assume, I suppose, that Vulcan mental contact hasn't changed since it shouldn't.

He asked me: "Hey, wasn't there a episode where Spock was dizzy and sick over hearing the mental death screams of a bunch of Vulcans?"

"Yeah, when the USS Intrepid was destroyed, he felt the deaths of 400 Vulcans."

"Right, yeah, 400 Vulcans. I guess he was too upset over his mom to feel the death screams of 6 billion of them..."

Thanks for that Carl. :-)

Good point, I never considered that.

 

[siskokid888]

I had my second viewing this weekend, as I took my Dad, whom I watched TOS with in its original run, to see it. I didn't know how he would like it, as he likes his Trek with Shatner, Nimoy and company. I figured, after the nitpicker brigade and the "ginormous plotholes" pointed out for me here, I wouldn't enjoy it as much. (BTW, the theater was sold out, as was the show before it that we originally wanted to attend. Pretty good, I thought, for a Sunday afternoon during the second weekend). Anyway, I actually enjoyed the film MORE this time around. The frenetic pace, maybe because I knew what was coming, seemed to flow better in the second viewing. The plotholes, that I was well aware of (and some are legitimate) did NOT distract my attention from the story and, for me, were not as "big" as some here have claimed. True, Nero was not fleshed out as a villain, but Bana did more with a look, line or facial expression then the kid in Nemesis did with a more "fleshed out" villian that had a lot more screen time. Hell, the final shot of him before he buys it actually had me feeling sorry for the bastard. After the movie, my Dad's comment was "my Star Trek is back". I look forward to my future viewings.

 

[Jeri]

... After the movie, my Dad's comment was "my Star Trek is back". I look forward to my future viewings.

Hey, that's great to hear. I loved it the first time; but it gets even better with subsequent viewings when you know what to expect. There's a lot to see and do. We've been five times.

 

[cmdrbolly]

Star Trek was what it was: you got out of it what you wanted. We all did.

Indeed, but I think it says something about the quality of the orginal product if so many people got some many different things out of it.

"Right, yeah, 400 Vulcans. I guess he was too upset over his mom to feel the death screams of 6 billion of them..."

Thanks for that Carl. :-)

Good point, I never considered that.

Doesn't say much about the quality of the original product or of STXI - there's a wide variance on this message board alone regarding what each person took away from the latest film. It says more about people.

Besides, you had 40 odd years of accreted bullshit - enough to appeal to practically every niche constituency except people who never gave a shit in the first place.

 

[indranee]

... After the movie, my Dad's comment was "my Star Trek is back". I look forward to my future viewings.

Hey, that's great to hear. I loved it the first time; but it gets even better with subsequent viewings when you know what to expect. There's a lot to see and do. We've been five times.

me too (five times)

oh, and my dad had the same reaction.

 

[CordrazineOD]

Roddenberry also just wanted a serious sci-fi show with quality and intelligence, something more enjoyable to people who didn't like the simplistic, child-aimed SF that was the norm. If he dropped in some social commentary along the way, all the better. But he, being a writer, wanted to tell good stories in a genre he loved. And he wanted to make a lot of money doing it.

Let's not deify the man all over again. He wasn't all consumed with the desire to "examine the human condition." Many episodes were just simple, straightforward adventure pieces. Others were heavy SF, while others were about something going on in the world. While a character might be created to comment on humanity, this was not the be-all and end-all of the character or the series. I can list a number of episodes that were just good fun, without a message. Those aren't any less Star Trek. Examination of humanity was a revitied subject, but all quality sci-fi series do that at some point.

Star Trek (the series, not the movies) wasn't about the friendship of Kirk, Spock and McCoy. That was just a prime ingredient that became more important and gave the characters solidity. Star Trek was what it was: you got out of it what you wanted. We all did.

As for the second showing of the film, I saw it again yesterday. Some of the sheen was dulled the second time around. Usually, I enjoy a Trek film as much of not more on repeat viewing as the first. This time, I was a little less enthusiastic, a little less thrilled. And, since Trek III (when I was old enough to pay for my own tickets), I've seen each Trek film no less than 5 times in the theater. Tellingly, I'm done at 2 for this one. I'm content to wait for the Blu-Ray.

Some plot holes really stand out now. And a buddy of mine, who realizes this is a new timeline so events are different, asked me something about Spock. We are to assume, I suppose, that Vulcan mental contact hasn't changed since it shouldn't.

He asked me: "Hey, wasn't there a episode where Spock was dizzy and sick over hearing the mental death screams of a bunch of Vulcans?"

"Yeah, when the USS Intrepid was destroyed, he felt the deaths of 400 Vulcans."

"Right, yeah, 400 Vulcans. I guess he was too upset over his mom to feel the death screams of 6 billion of them..."

Thanks for that Carl. :-)

#1: How close was Enterprise to Intrepid while in route at the time Spock sensed the deaths? Closer or further than Vulcan was to Delta Vega? (OK, he could sense V'Ger from presumably VERY far away, but who knows what kind of amplifier V'Ger had on it's telepathic antenna?)

#2: How do you know he DIDN'T "feel their pain" when Vulcan was destroyed? Because he didn't physically convulse in agony in the flashback scene?

#3: Immunity Syndrome Spock was pre-Kolinar, and while TNG-era Spock Prime may never have technically completed the discipline (TMP), it is fair to assume that at his age he knows how to handle mental duress better, or is more Zen-like, if you will.

I could knitpick at knitpicks like these all day.

 

[Borgminister]

After the movie, my Dad's comment was "my Star Trek is back".

Then this is your Father's Trek, after all...

 

[Ovation]

For his rookie outing at least, Abrams has focused on simpler cinematic diversions.

Diversions indeed!

Methinks some viewers were focused on the diversions, pretty colours and all.

I think most viewers were focused on the diversions and pace, not content. My faith in the collective critical thinking skills of humanity has taken a severe blow since this movie has been released.

Well forgive us for not living up to your exacting standards.

You know what, I'll match my "critical thinking skills" with you, or anyone else on this board, any day of the week and twice on Sundays. I don't consider myself the most intelligent poster at this BBS (I've been fortunate to interact with several posters who are, indeed, a fair bit smarter than I am), but I in no way feel remotely inferior to you. Ordinarily, I wouldn't even bring this up but as you've repeatedly made it a topic of discussion (either directly or indirectly stating that those who enjoy this film lack "critical thinking skills") and I have a bit of time to kill, I thought I'd call you on it.

Frankly, the lack of "critical thinking" is largely yours. Trek has NEVER been anything more than "light fare"--it (very) occasionally strayed into the territory of the mildly more intelligent than other pop culture entertainment, but not nearly enough to actually consider it as a defining characteristic. To think otherwise is indulging in a far more distorted form of nostalgia than that of fans (new or long-standing) who view this film as another fun romp in the Trek playground (as, incidentally, Orr views it in his far from scathing review).

The repeated attempts by a (thankfully) few people who have not liked the film to suggest that those who do like it are "idiots", "lack critical thinking skills", "are not true fans", "don't have a working brain", and so on, are pathetic and absurd. Feel free to dislike, even hate, the film. Do not feel free to presume that those who do not share your view are somehow, automatically, less intelligent than you (both you specifically and the collective "you" who've expressed like-minded assertions). Such a view is a surer display of missing "critical thinking skills" than professing to enjoy this new movie.