I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.

[VulcanJedi]

I'm just wondering what to compare it to.

I rather wonder if they compare it to the actual movie, or compare it to their own, colored and nostalgic views about that movie.

I am nostalgic about Trek IV; the whales movie. I enjoy the "trilogy of 2, 3 and 4" and feel warm fuzzies. But, none of this takes away from my honest opinion that "STAR TREK" is the best film to date.

Does anyone disagree it would be your best bet in converting a new fan?

Seriously--if you wanted to CONVERT a new fan to TREK....would you show them Kahn? Nope. Too old, too much baggage and backstory.

Abrams can work in the highminded lesson in the next movie or even a later one.

 

[TheGodBen]

Does anyone disagree it would be your best bet in converting a new fan?

Seriously--if you wanted to CONVERT a new fan to TREK....would you show them Kahn? Nope. Too old, too much baggage and backstory.

It depends upon who you are trying to convert, there are many people I know who dismiss Trek as space/action rubbish, and I would certainly not recommend this movie to them. They would be better off trying one of Trek's meatier episodes, such as Duet.

 

[trampledamage]

It's a pretty well-written movie, which is one of the big reasons that it's a success.

What you mean is that the plot is a bit convenient and coincidence-driven, which is also true. True of "Casablanca" as well.

The question is less "is this film free of coincidences" and more "is the film written well enough that we don't care?"

I'm sure you can guess which side of the isle I come down on on that issue.

This really is the crux of it. And for me the answer is yes. And I hope that with Star Trek XII the answer will be yes for you as well Gep Malakai

 

[Gepard]

And for me the answer is yes. And I hope that with Star Trek XII the answer will be yes for you as well Gep Malakai

Thank you. I hope so, too.

 

[Jeri]

Coincidentally, this article discussing some new, young fans appeared today:

http://www.usmagazine.com/news/brad-pitt-takes-boys-to-see-star-trek-2009195

Brad Pitt Takes Boys to See Star Trek
Tuesday May 19, 2009
Paul Adao/INFphoto.com

Before heading to Cannes, Brad Pitt took his boys to see Star Trek over the weekend.

Pitt, 45, Maddox, 7, and Pax, 5, went to morning showing of the sci-fi flick on Saturday in Huntington, Long Island -- near the home the family has been staying while Angelina Jolie films thriller Salt in NYC and Washington, D.C.

"Brad drove the boys to the cinema complex and spent two hours watching the show with his boys," a witness tells Us. "They arrived around 10:30 a.m. and walking in with all the other moms and dads with their children.

"No one seemed to notice them. Then one lady spotted Brad, and words soon got around they were inside the theater," the witness adds.

"The boys had popcorn and sodas," the onlooker continues. "And when they left at the end, both Maddox and Pax seemed really excited and clearly enjoyed the movie very much."

INFDaily.com reports the brothers were re-enacting scenes from the movie in the parking lot...

 

[trampledamage]

INFDaily.com reports the brothers were re-enacting scenes from the movie in the parking lot...

Aww... Hopefully not the under the Orion's bed scene though!

 

[Overgeeked]

I can't speak for the others, but my point is that the plot holes and other contrivances are not a deal breaker for me.

Fair enough. But they are a deal breaker for a fair number of people here.

Moreover, there are other films, revered by many as classics, that have a serious number of plot holes and contrivances too. (the number of films without any is exceedingly small) Bringing up Casablanca is not intended (by me anyway) to equate the new Trek movie with it--I would not argue that in the least. But it has more than just 2-3 convenient coincidences (I don't feel like listing them now, I have children to attend to). The point of bringing it up is that even classics like Casablanca, if closely examined, have a number of flaws.

You're absolutely right about plot holes in classic movies, contrivances, and coincidences. It's not a zero-sum game. They exist it all movies as far as I'm concerned. That's not what is at issue here. All films have some plot holes, contrivances, and coincidences.

It's a matter of scale. They exist. There's nothing we can do about that, they're there on screen. But, there is a point at which the sheer number of these stack up and it is seen as a poorly written (as far as plot is concerned) film.

As you say, classics have 0-5 plot holes. Sure. Where from there, though? How many plot holes before something goes from spectacular to wonderful? 5-10? Then from wonderful to great? 10-15? Then from great to good? 15-20? At what point does it become a bad movie? Where's the line? How many plot holes, contrivances, and coincidences have to stack up before it's admitted that a film is badly written (in regards to plot)? 20-30? How about horrible? 30+? Guess what, there's 32 in that quick list I made upthread.

The effects were great. Some of the dialog was great (mostly the lines cribbed from earlier eps / movies). Some of the acting was great. I though Spock and McCoy were perfectly acted (save when Spock marooned Kirk).

To expect to be closer to perfection with a Trek movie (not that you specifically do, but some certainly do) is unrealistic and naive.

There's a lot about this film I like. Some of it I really like. That doesn't change that the plot holes are there. And I for one refuse to be blinded because it's Trek. This movie is still badly written (plot).

Certainly the film is not beyond criticism, but I find much of the heaviest criticism to be borne of unreasonable expectations in the face of the goals of the filmmakers.

Wanting a movie that is more free of plot holes than this is not an unreasonable expectation. Yes, some Trek fans will hate this movie no matter what. I'm not one of them. Again, there's a lot to like here, but the plot holes aren't one of them.

INFDaily.com reports the brothers were re-enacting scenes from the movie in the parking lot...

Aww... Hopefully not the under the Orion's bed scene though!

Which is exactly why I haven't taken my 5-year-old to the movie. I wanted to check it first (it is PG-13 after all).

 

[Jeri]

INFDaily.com reports the brothers were re-enacting scenes from the movie in the parking lot...

Aww... Hopefully not the under the Orion's bed scene though!

More'n likely they were reliving jabbing that trident or quadrent or whatever into Cap'n Robau, despite his badassness.

 

[Ovation]

I can't speak for the others, but my point is that the plot holes and other contrivances are not a deal breaker for me.

Fair enough. But they are a deal breaker for a fair number of people here.

I have nothing against that--everyone gets to decide that for themselves.

Moreover, there are other films, revered by many as classics, that have a serious number of plot holes and contrivances too. (the number of films without any is exceedingly small) Bringing up Casablanca is not intended (by me anyway) to equate the new Trek movie with it--I would not argue that in the least. But it has more than just 2-3 convenient coincidences (I don't feel like listing them now, I have children to attend to). The point of bringing it up is that even classics like Casablanca, if closely examined, have a number of flaws.

You're absolutely right about plot holes in classic movies, contrivances, and coincidences. It's not a zero-sum game. They exist it all movies as far as I'm concerned. That's not what is at issue here. All films have some plot holes, contrivances, and coincidences.

It's a matter of scale. They exist. There's nothing we can do about that, they're there on screen. But, there is a point at which the sheer number of these stack up and it is seen as a poorly written (as far as plot is concerned) film.

As you say, classics have 0-5 plot holes. Sure. Where from there, though? How many plot holes before something goes from spectacular to wonderful? 5-10? Then from wonderful to great? 10-15? Then from great to good? 15-20? At what point does it become a bad movie? Where's the line? How many plot holes, contrivances, and coincidences have to stack up before it's admitted that a film is badly written (in regards to plot)? 20-30? How about horrible? 30+? Guess what, there's 32 in that quick list I made upthread.

To me, it's not a question of numbers, it's a question of the whole film. I might find a film with only 3 plot holes to be a "bad movie" and I might find a movie with 50 of them to be a "good movie". Again, that's my personal way of assessing a film. I watch it, I react to it as a complete piece (good or bad to varying degrees) and then I try--if I feel the need--to identify the individual elements that made me fall where I did on the spectrum of "perfect" to "inexcusable garbage".

The effects were great. Some of the dialog was great (mostly the lines cribbed from earlier eps / movies). Some of the acting was great. I though Spock and McCoy were perfectly acted (save when Spock marooned Kirk).



There's a lot about this film I like. Some of it I really like. That doesn't change that the plot holes are there. And I for one refuse to be blinded because it's Trek. This movie is still badly written (plot).

I disagree about the marooning. Agree with the rest (though I'm more forgiving, obviously, of the holes). Again, a matter of personal preferences.

Wanting a movie that is more free of plot holes than this is not an unreasonable expectation. Yes, some Trek fans will hate this movie no matter what. I'm not one of them. Again, there's a lot to like here, but the plot holes aren't one of them.

I'd rather there be fewer plot holes and it is not unreasonable to expect fewer of them (it would have been an even better movie that way). But I've run across vitriolic hyperbole that refers to "high cinema" as a realistic measuring stick, that flat out declares that anyone who likes the movie has no critical thinking skills or is an idiot and so on. They are the ones with unrealistic expectations. Sorry if you felt I was aiming at you.

INFDaily.com reports the brothers were re-enacting scenes from the movie in the parking lot...

Aww... Hopefully not the under the Orion's bed scene though!

Which is exactly why I haven't taken my 5-year-old to the movie. I wanted to check it first (it is PG-13 after all).

With my kids (7 and 3--not that I would take them to see this at the cinema anyway) I'd be far more worried about the constant beatings Kirk takes than a rather tame (even very tame) "sex scene". But that's me.

 

[Overgeeked]

To me, it's not a question of numbers, it's a question of the whole film. I might find a film with only 3 plot holes to be a "bad movie" and I might find a movie with 50 of them to be a "good movie". Again, that's my personal way of assessing a film. I watch it, I react to it as a complete piece (good or bad to varying degrees) and then I try--if I feel the need--to identify the individual elements that made me fall where I did on the spectrum of "perfect" to "inexcusable garbage".

So it's an emotional reaction. If you like it already, you'll forgive all the plot holes. And if you don't like it, you'll not forgive them. I see.

Are there objective criteria by which you judge a film on the spectrum of "perfect to inexcusable garbage," or is it just an emotional "knee-jerk" response?

You learned to type on a typewriter.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek.

As you say, classics have 0-5 plot holes. Sure. Where from there, though? How many plot holes before something goes from spectacular to wonderful? 5-10?

Irrelevant, since the premise - that "classic" status is somehow predicated on the number of "plot holes" that people profess to find in a film - is errant nonsense.

 

[trampledamage]

Aww... Hopefully not the under the Orion's bed scene though!

Which is exactly why I haven't taken my 5-year-old to the movie. I wanted to check it first (it is PG-13 after all).

With my kids (7 and 3--not that I would take them to see this at the cinema anyway) I'd be far more worried about the constant beatings Kirk takes than a rather tame (even very tame) "sex scene". But that's me.

I was just joking at the idea of them re-enacting that in the car park.

 

[Ovation]

To me, it's not a question of numbers, it's a question of the whole film. I might find a film with only 3 plot holes to be a "bad movie" and I might find a movie with 50 of them to be a "good movie". Again, that's my personal way of assessing a film. I watch it, I react to it as a complete piece (good or bad to varying degrees) and then I try--if I feel the need--to identify the individual elements that made me fall where I did on the spectrum of "perfect" to "inexcusable garbage".

So it's an emotional reaction. If you like it already, you'll forgive all the plot holes. And if you don't like it, you'll not forgive them. I see.

Are there objective criteria by which you judge a film on the spectrum of "perfect to inexcusable garbage," or is it just an emotional "knee-jerk" response?

It depends. There are a few "film sets" for which I willingly turn my "critical eye" way down in sensitivity--Bond movies and Trek (movies and TV) are two (I have my internal rankings of each, but I don't hold them to the same "critical eye" I do other things). I came to each of them before the age of 10 and there is a strong nostalgia factor involved. I've stated it before about each and I make no attempt to deny it. If pressed in a reasonable fashion (like you--unlike a poster in the "second viewing" thread whose name escapes me), I can certainly turn a critical eye to either "film set" if the conversation goes in that direction. I could do so here, but I'd rather address the broader question you've posed.

Generally, I approach movies by allowing for the goal of the filmmakers. I do not judge a comedy the same way I judge a drama or a thriller or so on. I usually have a pretty strong idea of what the filmmaker is aiming at before I see a film and I judge accordingly. Sometimes, I'm pleasantly surprised at getting something more than I expected (A Midnight Clear--wonderful little WWII film--surprised me that way). Sometimes I'm disappointed at what I get, even after making allowances for the goal of the filmmakers (Ecks vs Sever was such a disappointment. I had no great expectations and it managed to not meet any).

I use historical feature films as a teaching tool (did my graduate research on it and published a small paper in an obscure journal on the subject) and I have specific criteria for those types of films. "Perfection" is not one of them, however. Sometimes, the more "imperfect" the film (to a point), the more useful a teaching tool. However, in order to assess the quality of an historical feature film on its own, before deciding to use it in the classroom, I examine it based on several reasonably objective criteria (some of which are listed here):

1. Dialogue--do the characters speak in a manner reflecting the time in which they live?
2. Action--do the characters behave in a manner consistent with the era in which they live?
3. Set decoration--is it a reasonable approximation of the historical period (making allowances for incomplete records)
4. Does the narrative flow remain coherent throughout the film? (some films are deliberately incoherent to make a point--though that is rarely successful in historical feature films except in small doses)

For other films (not being considered for classroom use), my tolerance varies. I have higher expectations of a Luis Bunuel film than a Tony Scott film--but I've enjoyed some of both. I have different expectations of Spielberg's historical features than I do of his sci-fi/fantasy blockbusters (thus I was disappointed with Amistad and really enjoyed Jurassic Park, though the latter had more plot holes than the former by quite a margin).

As for Star Trek, I suspect my enjoyment of it, beyond the mere nostalgia factor, came from my relatively low demands of Trek in general in the grand scheme of my entertainment. I don't look for much more than "fun playing in the Trek playground" and I got that from the movie--plot holes and all. Those looking for something deeper are likely bound to be disappointed (either a little or a lot). For a small subset of those looking for something deeper, disappointment was inevitable owing to a different kind of nostalgia than mine--the nostalgia for something that was never really there in the first place, at least not to the degree that familiarity and comfort have led some to believe. Trying to be "objective" about something with which one has had years, if not decades (35 years and counting for me), is not impossible, but it seems, to me at any rate, like too much work. Either I enjoy it, or I don't. And I did enjoy it.

You learned to type on a typewriter.

As opposed to a computer keyboard? I did (as one can infer from my age) but I do not understand the relevance of this statement.

 

[Overgeeked]

As you say, classics have 0-5 plot holes. Sure. Where from there, though? How many plot holes before something goes from spectacular to wonderful? 5-10?

Irrelevant, since the premise - that "classic" status is somehow predicated on the number of "plot holes" that people profess to find in a film - is errant nonsense.

First, the verb "profess" here is wrong. I understand that you're using it to imply, but you are mistaken. These plot holes actually do exist in the film, and must be explained away, or ignored. They are real objects existing on film, that I presume you have seen.

And for your edification, I will quote what a plot hole is:

A plot hole is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot. These include such things as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.

Irrelevant, since the premise - that "classic" status is somehow predicated on the number of "plot holes" that people profess to find in a film - is errant nonsense.

Incorrect.

There are many areas by which to judge a film. Acting, dialog, writing (here simply meaning plot), pace, special effects. For a film to be considered good it should be well done in several of these areas. A classic may indeed contain deficiencies in one area, but, the other areas of consideration should have more merit to compensate for the lack.

For the acting to be considered good, it must have good timing, delivery, sufficient drama, etc.

For the dialog to be considered good, it must have consistency. Characters should be distinguishable from each other by their words alone (not the actor's voice), etc.

For the writing to be considered good, it must be relatively free of plot holes, contrivances, and coincidences, etc.

Etc...

A classic can have many plot holes, but, it would need to be free of blemishes in other areas to compensate.

 

[tfarr]

You know... as I read through this (very long) thread, I saw a lot of people defending the film state something along these lines to the people that have gripes about the movie:

"Relax and just enjoy it. Stop over thinking it."

Maybe this has been commented on, as I haven't read every single reply in this monster, but I have a few thoughts on a comment like this.

Star Trek has never been and was never intended to be mindless entertainment. I believe Gene Roddenberry strove to engage your mind while entertaining you at the same time.

Now, I'm about to generalize... and this is not meant as an attack on the people who have made comments similar to the aforementioned one, but I really believe this is becoming a serious flaw in American culture (and yes, I'm an American... born and raised in the midwest actually. I even lived in Iowa for a bit. Never saw a canyon in Iowa like the one in the film, btw).

A large portion of our entertainment has de-evolved to the point where you HAVE to shut off your brain to enjoy it.

Not every movie or video game needs to engage our brains, but shouldn't some of them? If we have a solid diet of cake, and never eat any vegetables... will we not become fat and slow?

Given that Star Trek, at it's very soul was a show designed to make you think... if you take that aspect away to appeal to the masses, is it really still Star Trek?

 

[Ovation]

Given that Star Trek, at it's very soul was a show designed to make you think... if you take that aspect away to appeal to the masses, is it really still Star Trek?

No. Star Trek was (and remains) pop culture entertainment that occasionally managed to "make you think". "At its very soul", it was intended to make money and entertain viewers in a modestly original fashion.

It was NEVER as "intellectually deep" or "complex" as you are trying to suggest. It is this kind of misplaced nostalgia for something that never was that is interfering with some people's enjoyment of the new film (before someone jumps down my throat, this does not mean the new film is flawless and beyond reproach--it does mean that criticizing the new film because of something that was never a part of Trek to the degree suggested here is a largely unfounded criticism. Plot holes are one thing, this is another.)

 

[Overgeeked]

It depends. There are a few "film sets" for which I willingly turn my "critical eye" way down in sensitivity--Bond movies and Trek (movies and TV) are two (I have my internal rankings of each, but I don't hold them to the same "critical eye" I do other things)...

So you admit to being un-critical and pre-disposed to liking this film, rather than being objective.

( )

Generally, I approach movies by allowing for the goal of the filmmakers. I do not judge a comedy the same way I judge a drama or a thriller or so on. I usually have a pretty strong idea of what the filmmaker is aiming at before I see a film and I judge accordingly...

This is something that I'm curious about, short of reading every interview or article on the film prior to watching, digging through their trash for correspondence, hacking their email for same, or telepathy, how can you possibly know what the "goal of the filmmakers" are? Other than, as you mentioned, their "desire to make money."

I use historical feature films as a teaching tool (did my graduate research on it and published a small paper in an obscure journal on the subject) and I have specific criteria for those types of films...

Nice. My first graduate degree is in writing. I've written feature films, television episodes, novels, short stories, and comics. When it comes to bad writing, I'm a nit-picker.

"Perfection" is not one of them, however.

Your choice of words. I was quoting you. Nothing is perfect, ever.

As for Star Trek, I suspect my enjoyment of it, beyond the mere nostalgia factor, came from my relatively low demands of Trek in general in the grand scheme of my entertainment. I don't look for much more than "fun playing in the Trek playground" and I got that from the movie--plot holes and all. Those looking for something deeper are likely bound to be disappointed (either a little or a lot)...

Again, this is a fun movie. It's still poorly written.

For a small subset of those looking for something deeper, disappointment was inevitable owing to a different kind of nostalgia than mine--the nostalgia for something that was never really there in the first place, at least not to the degree that familiarity and comfort have led some to believe. Trying to be "objective" about something with which one has had years, if not decades (35 years and counting for me), is not impossible, but it seems, to me at any rate, like too much work. Either I enjoy it, or I don't. And I did enjoy it.

I disagree with your premise that there was never anything "deeper" in Star Trek. I also disagree with your premise that this perception is based on nostalgia. A simple viewing of many TOS episodes can easily show that there were morality plays involved, and therefore lessons that were hoped to be learned. There were episodes wherein the moral was wielded like a sledgehammer, others wherein it was a whisper, and others still without a moral.

I reject your attempt to call into question objectivity by placing it in scare quotes. Yes, nostalgia clouds our perceptions. However, you are professing your nostalgia and gushing over the movie, while I am simply pointing out the plot holes that exist. I too am nostalgic, but certainly not about plot holes. Never did I claim that prior iterations of Trek were free of these signs of bad writing.

The more familiar we are a thing, the more vigilant we must be to retain our objectivity.

You learned to type on a typewriter.

As opposed to a computer keyboard? I did (as one can infer from my age) but I do not understand the relevance of this statement.

I have no idea what your age is. That you have children does help somewhat, but you could have had your first quite early in life, I don't know. It was a simple observation from the extra spaces you include in your posts. Thankfully the board filters for that. I notice because I'm also an editor and book designer.

It was NEVER as "intellectually deep" or "complex" as you are trying to suggest. It is this kind of misplaced nostalgia for something that never was...

While the whole was not always that deep or complex, there certainly are instances of it from every series. That there are past episodes that were quite thought-provoking for their time as far back as TOS proves you wrong. Some deep and complex episodes do exist. That is not nostalgia but fact.

 

[Rusty0918]

Well, I liked the movie, but not as wild as some of the other critics have been regarding it. I gave it a 7 out of 10.

I don't mind a simplistic plot, but something that requires you NOT THINKING about what's happening in order for it to work, now there's a problem. There was a lot of flaws in this movie. ANyone who is saying it's perfect in any way are being way too hyperbolic and generous.

The true success of this movie will of course be with its sequels. Now that the introduction crud is out of the way, I'd like to see how they go.

 

[tfarr]

Given that Star Trek, at it's very soul was a show designed to make you think... if you take that aspect away to appeal to the masses, is it really still Star Trek?

No. Star Trek was (and remains) pop culture entertainment that occasionally managed to "make you think". "At its very soul", it was intended to make money and entertain viewers in a modestly original fashion.

If Gene had created Star Trek solely to make money and to entertain, I don't think he would have made a science fiction show. He would have tried to make something that would maximize one of those two goals. Unless he just wasn't very good at the whole capitalism thing.

The pilot episode was even rejected for being too intellectual!

It was NEVER as "intellectually deep" or "complex" as you are trying to suggest. It is this kind of misplaced nostalgia for something that never was that is interfering with some people's enjoyment of the new film (before someone jumps down my throat, this does not mean the new film is flawless and beyond reproach--it does mean that criticizing the new film because of something that was never a part of Trek to the degree suggested here is a largely unfounded criticism. Plot holes are one thing, this is another.)

Ahh I see. I have criticized the new movie and in doing so I am some how interfering with other people's enjoyment of it? If someone doesn't want their opinion of this film challenged, why would they be reading a thread titled "I’ll just go ahead and say it: I don’t like Star Trek."?

Fantastic argument. Your defense is to accuse me of having misplaced nostalgia? That's like just saying "No, you remember it wrong." Instead of telling me what or how I remember Star Trek as being, why don't you prove to me that Star Trek didn't try to make people think as one of it's very core aspects?

I would argue that engaging people's minds was in fact one of the core design principles behind Star Trek. Just look at the multi-racial cast. Was having a Russian, Japanese, and African American woman on the bridge done just on a whim? I don't think anyone would argue that the reason for it was to make people think and consider that race and color don't matter and that we can accomplish amazing things if we work together.

Having Uhura kiss Captain Kirk could have gotten the show cancelled and could have (and probably did) offend the rather racially unenlightened white culture at the time. That's awfully contradictory to the goal of just trying to make a buck and entertain!

 

[DFScott]

Are you alone, Gep Malakai? Absolutely not. I'd have to say I was disappointed by the film, maybe I don't completely dislike it. I did launch an "alternative alternative universe" thread of sorts with the prospect of engaging some folks in telling essentially the same story better than the movie did, but I think the reason it's not getting a lot of play right now is because it's caught in the heavy "topic churn" of this site at the moment. Probably not a conspiracy.

But I've been told a few times, and I've encountered others who've been told, that we really shouldn't complaining and that we should just shut our minds off and be entertained. If I want mindless entertainment, I'll watch "Iron Chef." Star Trek is supposed to be about good storytelling, which despite some of the other interesting and even cool things about this movie, was a missing element that I'm sorry was lacking.

DF "Am I The Only One Who Thought Old Spock's Mindmeld with Kirk Lacked Newsreel Titles?" Scott