How can you praise this movie and bash VOY, ENT and Nemesis?

[donners22]

Star Trek is constantly praised, introducing new fans to the franchise, and breaking ALL previous Trek box office records.

Does it really? Or does it merely bring them in for a new film series? That's a big difference.

I hardly think this film is going to introduce many people to become fans of a 40-year-old show or the recent incarnations which are apparently so terrible (having watched them all, I don't subscribe to that point of view, but some apparently do).

 

[theFirebottle]

So you stay in your same sweaty clothes after your shift? You walk around stinking of sweat all day? Come on the "Oh Noes Uhura was Half-Naked" thing is getting old. SHE WAS IN HER ROOM.. I strip down to my undies (Or even farther) When I'm in my room so really what is the problem in the way they handled the Uhura scene.. I'm sorry the outrage to the scene is rediculous and needs to be gotten over. It's not like you saw anything. Hell it was tamer than a victoria's secret ad.

You know what's hilarious... I just got back from a dinner-and-Babylon-5 marathon with my friends, stripped down to my underwear, and sat down to read this post.

And it's the same thing I do every day after work and going out, because running the aircon is too expensive but New Orleans is hot in the summer!

It's really too bad the "feminist review" thread got locked, because all of these points about Uhura have already been discussed into the ground. I think the sane people in that thread (myself included, I hope) concluded that yes, Uhura is a fuckawesome character who, even when she may be being exploited by the filmmakers for an underwear shot, is still just as fuckawesome as when she's doing her duty and being Super Linguist In Space!

 

[suarezguy]

Kirk did grow as a character. At the beginning, he couldn't stand Spock or what he stood for, yet by the end he was adopting Spock's personal philosophy of logic and saw that their different styles and personalities worked better when used in a complimentary way rather than against each other.

Kirk offered rescue to the man who killed his father, many of his friends, destroyed Vulcan, and threatened Earth. How that can not be described as character growth from the arrogant punk at the start of the film is beyond me.

I didn't see much appreciation for Spock's beliefs; his offer to Nero seemed like the one area where he was willing, even eager, to follow the usual policy/procedure, it seemed pretty out of character to how this Kirk thought and acted and only worked to marginalize Nero's evil more (although I thought that, and its impact to Kirk, had already been pretty forgotten by that point).

Emotional impact. In Nemesis.... Wait. What's the emotional impact in this movie? Why do we give a shit what's going on and happening to these characters? Does anything happen to them over the course of this movie? Sure, Data "dies" at the end (which is gimped by B4's "hints of Data") but there's no other emotional "hook" to reel in the audience. Nothing happens!!! We go from one pointless "action scene" to the next but nothing really happens in between.

It's been a while since I saw it, but what of Picard meeting a dark side version of himself and considering what that says about what he could have become, how worthy he is (especially given that he realizes how long he's been at the Enterprise with others leaving) and Troi dealing with Shinzon's assault on her?

Kirk's and Starfleet's attitude/organization (speaking so proudly and directly, having to be right) was too much like Enterprise in my view, and I disliked those attributes in both instances (also the simple-sounding Drill and how black-and-white the view of the villain was). The Jellyfish flying around and causing an explosion seemed like a lackluster TPM (which initially felt to me like lackluster DS9).

 

[Amaris]

How can you praise this movie and bash VOY, ENT and Nemesis?

Oh, that's easy. Watch:

"I love the new Star Trek movie. I like it better than Voyager, Enterprise and Nemesis."

J.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I hardly think this film is going to introduce many people to become fans of a 40-year-old show or the recent incarnations which are apparently so terrible (having watched them all, I don't subscribe to that point of view, but some apparently do).

ST IV definitely brought brand new fans into the ST franchise, and many of them stayed for TNG. I ran a ST fan club at the time which jumped from 250 members (ten years to get that high) to 1000 by the end of TNG.

I think you'll find a lot of fresh people who watch the new movie will check out some DVD boxed sets. And the novelization is already on the New York Times Bestseller List, the first ST book to do that in a long, long time. This movie is the first ST product, in well over a decade, aimed at young audiences, too. The last few series have been buried in obscure timeslots, certainly Down Under.

The "recent incarnations which are apparently so terrible" aren't so terrible, of course, but they weren't necessarily on the radar of the general public. Everything's out in affordable boxed sets now, so it will be interesting to see what people get hooked by.

 

[Vigilance]

Does it really? Or does it merely bring them in for a new film series? That's a big difference.

I hardly think this film is going to introduce many people to become fans of a 40-year-old show or the recent incarnations which are apparently so terrible (having watched them all, I don't subscribe to that point of view, but some apparently do).

It will definitely bring in some fans.

And of course, your attempts at "clever" internet humor notwithstanding, none of the ST series have been out and out terrible.

I would especially think TOS Remastered, the TOS movies and TNG good candidates for people introduced to Trek through this movie.

Will everyone who saw this movie become a "super fan", buying boxed sets, novels, comics and toys?

No. But then, that's ALWAYS been true of a very small % of Trek fans.

Believe it or not, there are those of us who just watch the stuff. I own a few of the movies, a few seasons of DS9 and a few novels (mostly Peter David's New Frontier).

And among my circle of friends, I'm the biggest trek fan (I wouldn't call myself a "super fan" either).

 

[Amaris]

I hardly think this film is going to introduce many people to become fans of a 40-year-old show or the recent incarnations which are apparently so terrible (having watched them all, I don't subscribe to that point of view, but some apparently do).

ST IV definitely brought brand new fans into the ST franchise, and many of them stayed for TNG. I ran a ST fan club at the time which jumped from 250 members (ten years to get that high) to 1000 by the end of TNG.

I think you'll find a lot of fresh people who watch the new movie will check out some DVD boxed sets. And the novelization is already on the New York Times Bestseller List, the first ST book to do that in a long, long time. This movie is the first ST product, in well over a decade, aimed at young audiences, too. The last few series have been buried in obscure timeslots, certainly Down Under.

The "recent incarnations which are apparently so terrible" aren't so terrible, of course, but they weren't necessarily on the radar of the general public. Everything's out in affordable boxed sets now, so it will be interesting to see what people get hooked by.

Agreed. People will love the box sets. I own most of them myself, and since they all follow a central theme, I get a great taste of Star Trek from each series if I were new to it all.

J.

 

[GalaxyX]

So much good stuff has been said already.

While I enjoyed Voyager somewhat, my biggest gripe with it was all the horrible technobabble. I think the writers misinterpreted why TNG was popular. They thought that since TNG had some semblance of science in it, that it was the technobabble that people liked.

So what do they do? Amplify it x10, where every other phrase muttered on the show is some non sensical technobabbly thing.

Enterprise was just boring. Those characters had nothing interesting to say or do. The dog was the most likeable character in that show, and that's pretty sad.

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

People complained that FG was just a plot device yet Nero is just as much of one.

Nero had a name, a personality, a motive, and a plan.

B&B have stated publicly that they had no idea, whatsoever, who Future Guy was, what his plan was, or what his motives were. They would "figure that out later" .. which, by the way, they never did. The fact that the writers didn't even know who this guy was should tell you right away that Future Guy and Nero are not comparable. Future Guy was worse than the text book definition of a plot device. He was little more than a prop - a slight step above a tricorder. The Reman Viceroy in Nemesis had more substance than Future Guy. Hell -- B4 had more substance.

People complained that B&B resorted to appealing to the hornboys with Seven & T'Pol in a catsuit yet I hear nothing of Uhura's superfluous striptease.

As has been said before, the Uhura/Orion Girl/Kirk scene and the Trip/T'Pol scene (EDIT: which is what people complained about on Enterprise regarding T'Pol) were totally, 200% different.

(As an aside, obviously, the Orion girl was there for the express purpose of Kirk bedding a green broad. Like it or not, Kirk getting the green chick is mandatory if we are to revisit the TOS crew in a movie that takes place during the TOS "era").

Uhura undressing (after work in her apartment, for less than 5 seconds), and Kirk checking her out from under the bed was to highlight Kirk's personality at that point in his life. It wasn't the VIEWER that was checking out Uhura as she "undressed" --- we were seeing this from Kirk's point of view under the bed, this was a scene about Kirk and what was on his mind and how his mind worked at that point in his life -- and it lasted less than 5 seconds before Uhura found him out and put him in his place.

The "Decon" scene in Enterprise was strictly about seeing erotic contact between T'Pol and Trip, for the explicit purpose of turning the viewer on sexually. Pay attention to how the scene was shot and how it was edited.

To say these two scenes are comparable is insanity.

EDIT:
Just to clarify, I liked the Trip/T'Pol scene --- because I liked it for what it was --- a reason to see "Decon" gel get spread on T'Pol's half-naked body. I don't remember a single line of dialog from that scene, though I'm sure there was some.

 

[donners22]

And of course, your attempts at "clever" internet humor notwithstanding, none of the ST series have been out and out terrible.

Not written as humour at all. I find it quite sad that some readily - and in some cases, gleefully - dismiss entire shows which may have some flaws, but also produced some wonderful moments.

Who knows, perhaps some fans will be brought in who are not nearly as parochial. That would certainly be welcome.

 

[GalaxyX]

(As an aside, obviously, the Orion girl was there for the express purpose of Kirk bedding a green broad. Like it or not, Kirk getting the green chick is mandatory if we are to revisit the TOS crew in a movie that takes place during the TOS "era").

LOL this is sig worthy material man. May I have permission to use it?

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

(As an aside, obviously, the Orion girl was there for the express purpose of Kirk bedding a green broad. Like it or not, Kirk getting the green chick is mandatory if we are to revisit the TOS crew in a movie that takes place during the TOS "era").

LOL this is sig worthy material man. May I have permission to use it?

LOL. Sure

 

[Braxton]

The biggest problem this movie has is the destruction of Vulcan the reaction to it. It should have been a bigger deal than it was.

 

[theFirebottle]

The biggest problem this movie has is the destruction of Vulcan the reaction to it. It should have been a bigger deal than it was.

If it isn't in the sequel, I promise to you I will be pissed. But if they had tried to cram in a proper reaction from everyone on this movie, it would have tacked on a huge amount of length to an already pretty-long movie. Star Trek can't get away with three and a half hour movies like Lord of the Rings can.


(My theory is that the destruction of Vulcan will leave the Federation in perpetual crisis for the next decade or longer and severely erode its credibility as a humanitarian protective alliance, further altering the balance of power in the galaxy.)

Anecdotally, I've already heard a dozen or more accounts of people who didn't like Star Trek seeing the movie and becoming instant fans. At least three of those are known to have gone back and started watching TOS on the internet.

 

[neozeks]

If it isn't in the sequel, I promise to you I will be pissed. But if they had tried to cram in a proper reaction from everyone on this movie, it would have tacked on a huge amount of length to an already pretty-long movie. Star Trek can't get away with three and a half hour movies like Lord of the Rings can.

Yeah, well, cut out the Cloverfield monster, Scotty beaming to a tube, add, say, 15 minutes to the movie if you really need it, and it's plenty enough time. And, anyway, the reaction should be pretty much immediate. I'm not from the US, but I'm sure people there were reacting to 9/11 instantly and stayed shell-shocked for days. In fact, it's not really about time, it's about atmosphere. The distruction of Vulcan is pretty much a 9/11 in the Trekverse only WAY more massive. Imagine a movie that had 9/11 in it and was as lighthearted as this one.

Anecdotally, I've already heard a dozen or more accounts of people who didn't like Star Trek seeing the movie and becoming instant fans. At least three of those are known to have gone back and started watching TOS on the internet.

Hell, yeah, that's great! I have no problem with the good marketing and drawing in aspects of the movie. I just fear most people coming from the movie to the series won't find what they expect...

 

[Cyke101]

Frankly, I've seen people who like Voyager and Nemesis who also praised the film. I've seen DS9 lovers and haters praise the film. I've read posts where Enterprise fans jizz their pants when the film's writers said the show was the thing that united both timelines (also, Archer's mention).

The OP is wayyy too general to make a point.

 

[theFirebottle]

Yeah, well, cut out the Cloverfield monster, Scotty beaming to a tube, add, say, 15 minutes to the movie if you really need it, and it's plenty enough time. And, anyway, the reaction should be pretty much immediate. I'm not from the US, but I'm sure people there were reacting to 9/11 instantly and stayed shell-shocked for days. In fact, it's not really about time, it's about atmosphere. The distruction of Vulcan is pretty much a 9/11 in the Trekverse only WAY more massive. Imagine a movie that had 9/11 in it and was as lighthearted as this one.

I can easily imagine a movie that had 9/11 in it and would be positively comedic. Like Shaun of the Dead. It'll never get made, of course... Anyhow, most of the really lighthearted stuff happened long before Vulcan was destroyed -- afterwards, it was a tense race to save earth with little time to think about what happened (and yet we did anyway).

I don't think the destruction of Vulcan is like 9/11 at all. Sapient beings cannot cognitively comprehend numbers in the billions like we can numbers in the thousands. There's a cutoff of large numbers at which we tend to just interpret them as "a lot". The murder of six billion people is such an enormous thing, so incomprehensible, that it may take a long time for people to truly grasp what it is. It's like trying to jam a cloud into your mind. Even if you understand it, there's some part of you that's going to deflect understanding because understanding would be a figurative world of suffering.

The destruction of the WTC and the death of 3,000 was something we could grasp and understand pretty much as soon as we knew about it.

 

[Cyke101]

We have comedies about Pearl Harbor and the Vietnam War, and we recently had a dark comedy about the first Gulf War. Given time, humor can heal all wounds.

 

[pookha]

Star Trek is constantly praised, introducing new fans to the franchise, and breaking ALL previous Trek box office records.

Does it really? Or does it merely bring them in for a new film series? That's a big difference.

I hardly think this film is going to introduce many people to become fans of a 40-year-old show or the recent incarnations which are apparently so terrible (having watched them all, I don't subscribe to that point of view, but some apparently do).

well i already had a couple of people ask me about star trek series and one want to borrow my episodes.

i have heard from others that family or friends who never showed interest in the series now are curious because they want to know more about what the characters were like in the show.

as far as the reaction to the destruction of vulcan the audience had spock to empathize with.
both young and prime,.
plus orci has hinted they are going to look at how the desctruction of vulcan has affected things.

but look solar systems were destroyed in tos without reflection on what happened.

 

[neozeks]

Yeah, well, cut out the Cloverfield monster, Scotty beaming to a tube, add, say, 15 minutes to the movie if you really need it, and it's plenty enough time. And, anyway, the reaction should be pretty much immediate. I'm not from the US, but I'm sure people there were reacting to 9/11 instantly and stayed shell-shocked for days. In fact, it's not really about time, it's about atmosphere. The distruction of Vulcan is pretty much a 9/11 in the Trekverse only WAY more massive. Imagine a movie that had 9/11 in it and was as lighthearted as this one.

I can easily imagine a movie that had 9/11 in it and would be positively comedic. Like Shaun of the Dead. It'll never get made, of course... Anyhow, most of the really lighthearted stuff happened long before Vulcan was destroyed -- afterwards, it was a tense race to save earth with little time to think about what happened (and yet we did anyway).

I don't think the destruction of Vulcan is like 9/11 at all. Sapient beings cannot cognitively comprehend numbers in the billions like we can numbers in the thousands. There's a cutoff of large numbers at which we tend to just interpret them as "a lot". The murder of six billion people is such an enormous thing, so incomprehensible, that it may take a long time for people to truly grasp what it is. It's like trying to jam a cloud into your mind. Even if you understand it, there's some part of you that's going to deflect understanding because understanding would be a figurative world of suffering.

The destruction of the WTC and the death of 3,000 was something we could grasp and understand pretty much as soon as we knew about it.

Um, i haven't seen Shaun of the Dead but from reading it's synopsis you're comparing a movie about a zombie invasion with a hypotethical movie about 9/11? And why do you think it'll never get made?

Cloverfield monster and Scotty in the Willy Wonka factory were after (actually all of the lighthearted stuff with Scotty was after).

Okay, no they couldn't grasp the FULL enormity of the disaster just yet. But like you say it's still 'a lot' of people dead. If a meteor strike wiped the continental US you don't think it would cause a instant reaction in hawaii for example, despite the utter incomprehensibility of it's scale? And, you're saying if Nero killed only 3000 people we would get a stronger and more immediate response?

P.S. How isn't it like the 9/11, except in scale? A sudden unthinkable attack destroys something that fundamentally represents the nation (Federation) in question, killing a large number of inocent people.