The latest Roger Ebert's "Answer Man" -- all Star Trek questions

[Amaris]

I certainly agree that Nero was a fairly unremarkable villain, but poor Bana was up against a line of scene-stealers like Malcolm McDowell, Christopher Plummer and Christopher Lloyd. The character's motivations were rather veiled - aside from pure revenge, his justifications didn't make much sense.

I do disagree with the suggestion that the destruction of Vulcan and, particularly, the death of Amanda lacked an emotional impact. The former I can understand more, as the sudden loss of 6 billion people was not really explored. However, the line about being a member of an endangered species was particularly poignant, and I think Nimoy's Spock really did sell it when he said that he was emotionally compromised.

Perhaps, though, that is looking at it like a fan. A casual viewer may not care much about a race whose depiction in the film seemed to be little more than bullies and racists. They have to read into the impact it has on the Spocks to understand how devastating it was to good people. If time had been spent building up Vulcan as a place for new viewers to care about, it would have been a very different film. They rely on fans to care and new viewers to at least accept it as a major event.

As for Amanda, I think that had an emotional impact. Her last look, Spock staring at the empty pad in a rare moment of silence, Chekov's despair - I think that really hit hard. Then, I nearly cried at Data's demise in Nemesis, so perhaps I'm just a softie...

I suppose Ebert is not alone in finding fault with the introduction of Nimoy's Spock - an Australian reviewer made quite a point of that in his negative review - but I still enjoyed having him as part of the film. His inclusion and use was far from logical in some senses, but so was much of the film. Ebert has given good reviews to far sillier films.

I'm just bothered by his complete lack of understanding about the movie. It's almost like he wants to pan it but just can't go all the way. Even at 2 1/2 stars he seems to find the movie contemptible.

J.

 

[donners22]

I just noticed that in his last answer, he refers to the film taking place in the 25th century. I'm not sure if that's sarcasm or a genuine misunderstanding...

I was a bit surprised at this line.

What did 2 1/2 stars mean? They meant I couldn't recommend it but it was funny, anyway. "Knowing" was a much better, more stimulating, more intriguing movie. The science in both films is preposterous.

His review is really quite unclear on what is actually wrong with it, aside from science. I think most here would accept that there are issues with the science, but if that's not his sole reason for disliking the film, it's hard to tell what the other reasons are.

The only other criticism he seems to make is that the franchise is "much of a muchness". He said during Nemesis, "I've been looking at these stories for half a lifetime, and, let's face it, they're out of gas.", so I think there's sme carry-over from that.

He also said for First Contact, which he did like, "Star Trek' movies are not so much about action and effects as they are about ideas and dialogue."

With this film having a greater emphasis on action and effects (though FC certainly did go that way), perhaps that was another issue he has.


Still, he did appear on the almighty Early Edition, so I can forgive much when it comes to Ebert...

 

[James Bond]

Roger Ebert's "Answer Man"

Six questions, all on Star Trek which Ebert rated ** 1/2. Was this a TrekBBS rally?

And on a side note, in Ebert's review of Generations, he called Captain Harriman a young Picard.

One question from Answer Man:

Q. I would like to inform you what parts of your "Star Trek" review makes it lesser than anyone else's and just seems to be dribble that stings the eyes when read. You write, "Anyone with the slightest notion of what a black hole is, or how it behaves, will find the black holes in 'Star Trek' hilarious." Damn it, man, you're a film critic, not an astrophysicist!

"The logic is also a little puzzling when they can beam people into another ship in outer space, but they have to physically parachute to land on a platform in the air from which the Romulans are drilling a hole to the Earth's core." Your logic is puzzling. When the drill is active, all communications and transporter capabilities are disabled. Thirdly, they didn't parachute to land on the platform when it was drilling the Earth's core, that was on Vulcan.
Joel Gainey, New Orleans

A. Thanks for your corrections. I got carried away with the Grand Canyon, which, after checking with Google Earth, I find is not located in Iowa. Regarding the astrophysics: I have never seen a black hole and am not sure if one can be seen, since even light cannot escape from it. But if I could see one, I doubt it would be on such a scale that it and the Enterprise could fit into the same frame.

Even Ebert's not-so witty comeback at the beginning of his "Answer" is flawed. The canyon is a man made quarry, not a natural "Grand Canyon."

 

[Amaris]

^ Exactly. It's like he's not even trying. I expect better from a man who is so usually open minded and engaging like Roger Ebert.


J.

 

[Trekker4747]

Wow, he really got hung up on the wrong details of this movie.

You can't see a blackhole? No, no you can't. But you can see the shit being sucked into it! And even if you couldn't, who gives a crap?

Stuff doesn't get "sucked" into a blackhole.

A blackhole is nothing more than gravity.

Hold your arm out. Feel that gentle tug?

Gravity.

It's weak.

Things only get PULLED toward a blackhole if they're in the event horizon.

Anyway. Ebert is notorious for getting details wrong about movies. He's done this in nearly every review of his I've ever read. He either doesn't pay attention, takes shitty notes, or has the memory and attention span of a 3 year old.

In this very article, he ackowledges in one question he was wrong that it was Vulcan where the parachute drop took place and then in the last question of the article he says, again, the parachute drop takes place over Earth!

Yes, he did. Why he chose to focus on such things is beyond me when there were plenty of other issues to criticize--the paper thin villian, the way Vulcan's destruction and Amanda's death were treated, the forced and unsatisfying way Prime Spock was placed into the film in what could very well be his last appearance ever in Trek, the writers' trying to do far too many things resulting in a lot of abbreviated ideas, a lack of emotional resonance etc etc.

Ebert focusing on stupid details, rather than reviewing the movie itself, is something else he is notoruous for. Nearly his entire review of "Nemesis" is him ranting on how electricity should work in a starship.

 

[Devon]

Stuff doesn't get "sucked" into a blackhole.

A blackhole is nothing more than gravity.

Hold your arm out. Feel that gentle tug?

Gravity.

It's weak.

Things only get PULLED toward a blackhole if they're in the event horizon.

I believe if the gravity is strong enough you will still get "pulled" toward it even before hitting the event horizon. Once you hit the EH, you're done. The Enterprise was getting pulled into it, but had not hit the event horizon.

 

[Franklin]

If I remember Mr. Ebert's review of TWOK correctly, he thought Project Geneis was one of those "big ideas" that helped define Trek and make it unique in its genre. In other words, he liked it. Yet the Genesis device is the most problematic thing Trek science ever introduced. It stretches scientific credulity to the point of breaking. If you can believe something like that could exist (and only 200 years from now), you can believe anything.
Comparatively, having problems with the treatment of black holes in ST09 is just silly.

I think Ebert's main problem was that the movie was too shallow for him (at least what he would expect in Trek). I take his criticism that the movie lacked any big idea or overall theme far more seriously than his criticism of the science. The most poignant thing he said in his review was his hope that in the next movie we really see these characters and what they stand for put to a test.

 

[TrekGuide.com]

You thought Nero was a compelling adversary with great depth?

Compared with V'ger, the whale probe, the lame "Insurrection" aliens and Picard's clone in "Nemesis," I thought Nero was comparatively interesting and properly motivated to want revenge against Earth. Seriously, did you think the whale probe was a compelling antagonist?

You thought Vulcan's destruction wasn't treated casually and with as much care as any anonymous world would have been treated?

To the contrary, they had to establish that, by destroying a well known and important Federation planet, that when the same weapon was used against Earth, then there was a real possibility that it, too, could be destroyed.

This is exactly the same plot point Abrams used in "Mission: Impossible III." After showing that the villain used an explosive charge implanted inside Keri Russell's head to kill her, he did the same thing later in the film to Tom Cruise, demonstrating that he was in real danger since the same weapon had already been used earlier in the film.

If Nero had just threatened Earth with destruction, we would just expect the heroes to stop him. But showing him successfully use the weapon earlier in the movie raises the stakes from mere idle threats.

You didn't find the fact that Amanda's death was devoid of emotional resonance to be an issue and you thought the way the writers brought Old Spock into the story was clever and that if this is the last time we see him that this is an appropriate curtain call.

To the contrary, the death of Amanda deeply affected Spock and his father, and directly led to Spock resigning and letting Kirk take command. It was a major and important event in the movie.

And the filmmakers had every opportunity to kill off Ambassador Spock, but they didn't. There's no reason to believe this is his final appearance. But even if it is, it's a better ending for his character than when he simply faded out of relevance at the end of "Unification, Part II." Here he is making a real difference in the Galaxy and plays an important role in the story. Shatner would be lucky to have such a good role in the next film.

 

[indranee]

He's even wrong in some of his answers. That's sloppy, Roger. You're better than that.


J.

I noticed that, too. I don't think he was even paying attention to the movie.

It makes me rather disappointed, too. I'm a big fan of Roger Ebert, and his 2 1/2 stars were acceptable by me, as I know his rating scale is different, but now he's just being careless, and when your job is to understand the plot and detail of a movie and relate it to the potential audience, that's a serious problem that needs resolved quickly.

J.

his attitude (not only in the review but in the Q&A) makes me think he doesn't want to bother. with Star Trek, that is.

which is well and good. but in that case, he should not be reviewing it.

he mistook STGEN for TNG. a forgivable error, but it adds to my point.

 

[Middle Earther]

We have to keep in mind that Ebert is looking at Star Trek as a movie, and when there isn't much to go on, then you have to write about something. Being the well read person that he is, he is not a victim of trendy summer blockbuster worship like some seem to be. The Grand Canyon comment reminds me of in his review of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen when he was hung up on them driving a car around Venice - which has no streets, it has canals. Or the time in Jurassic Park when the two guys are eating on a beach and it says: "San Jose, Costa Rica" when San Jose is in the center of the country. It's simple mistakes like this huge canyon that take thoughtful viewers out of the movie and remind them it's a movie. That is a huge error on the part of the filmakers. nuTrek is a fun popcorn movie with little depth and that's about it.

 

[cmdrbolly]

We have to keep in mind that Ebert is looking at Star Trek as a movie, and when there isn't much to go on, then you have to write about something. Being the well read person that he is, he is not a victim of trendy summer blockbuster worship like some seem to be. The Grand Canyon comment reminds me of in his review of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen when he was hung up on them driving a car around Venice - which has no streets, it has canals. Or the time in Jurassic Park when the two guys are eating on a beach and it says: "San Jose, Costa Rica" when San Jose is in the center of the country. It's simple mistakes like this huge canyon that take thoughtful viewers out of the movie and remind them it's a movie. That is a huge error on the part of the filmakers. nuTrek is a fun popcorn movie with little depth and that's about it.

Roger is just yer typical hack barking at the heels of people who actually do stuff. He gave 'Spawn' three and a half stars fer chrissakes.

And when given the opportunity to write a screenplay, what o what did this august judge of all things filmic come up with - Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.

Enjoy his writing, sure - but he's hardly a reliable arbiter of what's good, and certainly not to be dragged into a discussion as some sort of witness - neither for the defense nor the prosecution.

 

[scottydog]

Ebert began losing credibility with me years ago. He used to be right on target with most movies, but the past 5 to 10 years have not been kind to him in more ways than one.

 

[Amaris]

We have to keep in mind that Ebert is looking at Star Trek as a movie, and when there isn't much to go on, then you have to write about something. Being the well read person that he is, he is not a victim of trendy summer blockbuster worship like some seem to be. The Grand Canyon comment reminds me of in his review of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen when he was hung up on them driving a car around Venice - which has no streets, it has canals. Or the time in Jurassic Park when the two guys are eating on a beach and it says: "San Jose, Costa Rica" when San Jose is in the center of the country. It's simple mistakes like this huge canyon that take thoughtful viewers out of the movie and remind them it's a movie. That is a huge error on the part of the filmakers. nuTrek is a fun popcorn movie with little depth and that's about it.

Yet he was wrong. It wasn't a canyon, it was a quarry, and there are quarries in Iowa.

J.

 

[Mr. B]

Yet he was wrong. It wasn't a canyon, it was a quarry, and there are quarries in Iowa.

J.

Did it not occur to anyone that said remark was sarcasm?

 

[Jeri]

Sarcasm should normally be applied to make a point; unfortunately, his does not.

 

[Mr. B]

Sarcasm should normally be applied to make a point; unfortunately, his does not.

Chris Pine, as James Tiberius Kirk, appears first as a hot-rodding rebel who has found a Corvette in the 23rd century and drives it into the Grand Canyon. A few years after he’s put on suspension by the Academy and smuggled on board the Enterprise by Bones McCoy (Karl Urban), he becomes the ship’s captain. There are times when the command deck looks like Bring Your Child to School Day, with the kid sitting in daddy’s chair.

I'd say he's illustrating absurdity quite nicely.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Some time ago, there was a showing here in Philadelphia of "Citizen Kane", with a follow-up discussion on the movie with Ebert.

At the time, it would have been something close to a dream for me, as that is my all-time favorite movie. And, to discuss it with someone who is a student of classic film would have been simply amazing.

But lately, I'm kind of glad I missed it. Ebert just seems to be losing it a bit lately. Not just because of his Trek review, but just overall, he seems to be losing a bit of his yardstick for measuring a movie.

He used to be really good at evaluating a movie in its complete form, and how it all came together cinematically.

Now, he just focuses on one thing and never lets it go, instead of moving on.

 

[Zeppster]

Wow, he really got hung up on the wrong details of this movie.

You can't see a blackhole? No, no you can't. But you can see the shit being sucked into it! And even if you couldn't, who gives a crap?

I'm pretty sure a black hole was discovered because someone looked saw a star being sucked into one if I'm not mistaken. I could be wrong on the details.

 

[Cakes488]

He's even wrong in some of his answers. That's sloppy, Roger. You're better than that.


J.

I noticed that, too. I don't think he was even paying attention to the movie.

Sarcasm should normally be applied to make a point; unfortunately, his does not.

Chris Pine, as James Tiberius Kirk, appears first as a hot-rodding rebel who has found a Corvette in the 23rd century and drives it into the Grand Canyon. A few years after he’s put on suspension by the Academy and smuggled on board the Enterprise by Bones McCoy (Karl Urban), he becomes the ship’s captain. There are times when the command deck looks like Bring Your Child to School Day, with the kid sitting in daddy’s chair.

I'd say he's illustrating absurdity quite nicely.

Ebert makes a few vaild points...a few..... but really most of them are just shit. Trek is a thumbs down on this website....but yet he has this to say about Angels & Demons....and he's hypocrite...he can let go of these implausabilities when he chooses:


"Since very few plot details in the film are remotely plausible, including its desperate chase across Rome, the history lesson is excusable. Having been told about the long war between the church and the Illuminati, and religion and science, we are grateful for the briefing, even if the cardinals already know most of the history. This kind of film requires us to be very forgiving, and if we are, it promises to entertain. "Angels & Demons" succeeds."

Was this movie any good? I read the book and I loved it...but yeah there's a lot going on in the movie and it hasn't gotten the best reviews...

 

[Jeri]

I think he has lost something; his health has been very challenging.