I disliked about 70% of the film.
Were we what was wrong with the movie?
- Thread starter perigee
- Start date
I disliked about 70% of the film.
I disliked about 20% of the movie...which means 80%
...Hoever, this number may be tweaked a bit after the DVD purchase...but I can't imagine my dislike would rise about 30%.
That is not what I was asking for although I did get some interesting responses.
The highlight of the movie was Spock Prime voiceover and the Alexander Courage theme (or something resembling it).
The highlight of the movie was Spock Prime voiceover and the Alexander Courage theme (or something resembling it).
There was nothing "wrong" with the movie. It is what it is. You either like it or you don't, but one shouldn't present one's opinions as though they are fact.
This movie made millions of filmgoers very happy and made a ton of money for the studio; that is a fact. Therefore it did exactly what it set out to do.
This movie made millions of filmgoers very happy and made a ton of money for the studio; that is a fact. Therefore it did exactly what it set out to do.
Hello. I am new to this site. I wanted to check out this site after having read this short editorial by Randy Landers, editor of Orion Press:
http://fastcopyinc.com/orionpress/editorial.htm
In that editorial he mentions the ongoing arguments between fans who loved the new Abrams film and those who did not. Randy also wrote what for me is the best review of the film from a veteran (and TOS) fan's perspective:
http://www.fastcopyinc.com/orionpress/reviews/star_trek_2009.htm
I'm one of those old TOS fans who started watching the show when it was still airing on NBC, I was about 7 yrs old. I was pretty active in fandom throughout the 70s and into the 80s, returning for a little while in the late 90s. I've been away from Trek for years and the new movie renewed my interest in my old Trek again -- in a perverse way because I did not care for the film. I've been looking into some of the Trek discussion groups online to see if I'm not alone in the way I've reacted to the film. Everyone, it seems, loves the film without question. I've liked reading Warped's posts as he seems to express many of my own thoughts.
I've scanned some of the discussions on this site and was struck by this particular thread.
"Abrams did a lot of things his own way, but he bent over backwards not to completely alienate the old fans. Thus we ended up with time-travel, old Spock, Nero, speeches pointing out alternate universe instead of a replacement of Holy Canon, the begging of manlove for Kirk/Spock, the sidetrips into exploring TOS incidents, and on and on."
No disrespect intended but this is an example of how far apart my response to the film has been to others. I cannot in any way agree with the interpretation you posit. I didn't view any of those examples you cite as harkening back to TOS, as not alienating old fans. To the contrary, the moment I heard that Abrams had never cared for Star Trek and was instead a Star Wars fan, I knew what to expect -- Star Trek turned into Star Wars. I even found this hilarious video about it:
[FONT=Arial]http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
And it didn't even offer the grandeur and charm of the first 3 SWars films -- rather, more like the dreadful 2nd trilogy. Scotty even has his (bizarre and inexplicable) version of R2D2 while Kirk has his own monster-chasing experience on "Hoth." That scene alone told me this was George Lucas kiddie material -- so much time wasted on a silly monster chase rather than plot and character development. I won't even go into the ridiculous villain and the laughable portrayal of Starfleet.
And then to hear that the film's writers were going to be the same guys responsible for stuff like the Transformers -- ugh. I knew what I was going to get: a film divided into incomprehensible set pieces of explosions/monsters/etc., dominated by bloated CGI effects, separated by a second or two of shallow character development, high school sex jokes, more glib jokes and slapstick, and no attention to the actual spirit of Star Trek. What exists of Roddenberry's Trek in the new film was strained, caricatured, superficial.
Kirk, for example, has nothing at all to do with TOS' Kirk. James Kirk never had to be convinced to join Starfleet. In "Shore Leave" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before" we learn that Kirk was "positively grim" as a cadet, that he was a "stack of books on legs" -- hardly a brawler and a womanizer. The guy Pine plays is ok, he's just not James Kirk.
The killer for me was the final scene in which Kirk makes token reference to the humanitarian values of Trek when he offers Nero mercy. The message in that scene is clear: it's a joke, mercy is to be ridiculed, the old Trek ideals are to be laughed at, it's more fun to explode stuff and kill. It's a chance for a cheap joke at the expense of Trek's ideals. For me, that scene told me that Abrams consciously sent a signal that he was throwing away all that "nonsense" about the Prime Directive, tolerance and understanding of other species, etc. and that this new Trek was going to be about the real tough stuff: explosions, locker room sex jokes and killing the bad guys. So for me this film has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Roddenberry' Star Trek.
It's not that I didn't find things to enjoy in the film. I can see how the casual viewer can see it as mildly diverting and entertaining -- I too laughed at certain moments and found some scenes well done. I thought the cast did a good job for the most part. And George Kirk's death was surprisingly moving, which set me up for disappointment as the film went on (because I at first thought this was going to a more substantive film than I expected).
But I don't believe Abrams "bent over backward" to mollify old fans at all, I think he consciously chose to make this film for a casual, younger audience wholly uninterested in what is viewed as the duller aspects of Star Trek. His references to classic Trek are token, shallow and contrived.
Anyway, how can fans be the problem when, without the fans, there would be no Trek movies in the first place?
Sincere apologies for the long post.
http://fastcopyinc.com/orionpress/editorial.htm
In that editorial he mentions the ongoing arguments between fans who loved the new Abrams film and those who did not. Randy also wrote what for me is the best review of the film from a veteran (and TOS) fan's perspective:
http://www.fastcopyinc.com/orionpress/reviews/star_trek_2009.htm
I'm one of those old TOS fans who started watching the show when it was still airing on NBC, I was about 7 yrs old. I was pretty active in fandom throughout the 70s and into the 80s, returning for a little while in the late 90s. I've been away from Trek for years and the new movie renewed my interest in my old Trek again -- in a perverse way because I did not care for the film. I've been looking into some of the Trek discussion groups online to see if I'm not alone in the way I've reacted to the film. Everyone, it seems, loves the film without question. I've liked reading Warped's posts as he seems to express many of my own thoughts.
I've scanned some of the discussions on this site and was struck by this particular thread.
"Abrams did a lot of things his own way, but he bent over backwards not to completely alienate the old fans. Thus we ended up with time-travel, old Spock, Nero, speeches pointing out alternate universe instead of a replacement of Holy Canon, the begging of manlove for Kirk/Spock, the sidetrips into exploring TOS incidents, and on and on."
No disrespect intended but this is an example of how far apart my response to the film has been to others. I cannot in any way agree with the interpretation you posit. I didn't view any of those examples you cite as harkening back to TOS, as not alienating old fans. To the contrary, the moment I heard that Abrams had never cared for Star Trek and was instead a Star Wars fan, I knew what to expect -- Star Trek turned into Star Wars. I even found this hilarious video about it:
[FONT=Arial]http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial] [/FONT]
And it didn't even offer the grandeur and charm of the first 3 SWars films -- rather, more like the dreadful 2nd trilogy. Scotty even has his (bizarre and inexplicable) version of R2D2 while Kirk has his own monster-chasing experience on "Hoth." That scene alone told me this was George Lucas kiddie material -- so much time wasted on a silly monster chase rather than plot and character development. I won't even go into the ridiculous villain and the laughable portrayal of Starfleet.
And then to hear that the film's writers were going to be the same guys responsible for stuff like the Transformers -- ugh. I knew what I was going to get: a film divided into incomprehensible set pieces of explosions/monsters/etc., dominated by bloated CGI effects, separated by a second or two of shallow character development, high school sex jokes, more glib jokes and slapstick, and no attention to the actual spirit of Star Trek. What exists of Roddenberry's Trek in the new film was strained, caricatured, superficial.
Kirk, for example, has nothing at all to do with TOS' Kirk. James Kirk never had to be convinced to join Starfleet. In "Shore Leave" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before" we learn that Kirk was "positively grim" as a cadet, that he was a "stack of books on legs" -- hardly a brawler and a womanizer. The guy Pine plays is ok, he's just not James Kirk.
The killer for me was the final scene in which Kirk makes token reference to the humanitarian values of Trek when he offers Nero mercy. The message in that scene is clear: it's a joke, mercy is to be ridiculed, the old Trek ideals are to be laughed at, it's more fun to explode stuff and kill. It's a chance for a cheap joke at the expense of Trek's ideals. For me, that scene told me that Abrams consciously sent a signal that he was throwing away all that "nonsense" about the Prime Directive, tolerance and understanding of other species, etc. and that this new Trek was going to be about the real tough stuff: explosions, locker room sex jokes and killing the bad guys. So for me this film has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Roddenberry' Star Trek.
It's not that I didn't find things to enjoy in the film. I can see how the casual viewer can see it as mildly diverting and entertaining -- I too laughed at certain moments and found some scenes well done. I thought the cast did a good job for the most part. And George Kirk's death was surprisingly moving, which set me up for disappointment as the film went on (because I at first thought this was going to a more substantive film than I expected).
But I don't believe Abrams "bent over backward" to mollify old fans at all, I think he consciously chose to make this film for a casual, younger audience wholly uninterested in what is viewed as the duller aspects of Star Trek. His references to classic Trek are token, shallow and contrived.
Anyway, how can fans be the problem when, without the fans, there would be no Trek movies in the first place?
Sincere apologies for the long post.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Welcome, H-S. (I was gonna say welcome to 'planet earth' but I guess that'd be laying it on a bit thick.)
You'll find yours is a minority view here ... but it makes plenty good sense to me (then again, I still haven't seen the movie.)
Thanks for the link to Randy's review, haven't heard from him in ages. Looking forward to more posts from you.
You'll find yours is a minority view here ... but it makes plenty good sense to me (then again, I still haven't seen the movie.)
Thanks for the link to Randy's review, haven't heard from him in ages. Looking forward to more posts from you.
Heyya, H-S!
No disrespect taken; for my part, I have been on the record since my first post here as being horribly pragmatic about the film. Specifically, "My" Trek - "Our" Trek, if I may - ended as the signatures rolled on "The Undiscovered Country."
My opinion of this film began exactly where I wanted it to be - I have a ten year old son. The tyke was subjected to the last three SW films, and that was, to the best of his knowledge, the apex of space adventure. He had no interest - nor should he have - in 40-year-old rubber gorns and cardboard sets. His sensibilities were as different from mine as mine at his age was from my fathers, who grew up watching Buster Crabbe as "Flash Gordon" - a time differential that slightly favors Flash from generation to generation.
I wanted to get that lightsaber out of his hand, and replace it with a phaser. The movie did that, in spades.
I was not expecting - nor do I Ever expect - we will see a grand return to Old Trek sensibilities. What else did you watch as a kinder? "Adam-12?" Nowadays, we have "CSI," with graphic corpses we didn't even see in movies in the eighties. "The Dick Van Dyke Show?" I can't even think of a modern show that approaches that kind of harmonious, gentle family comedy sensibility. Our time - if that was our time - is past. I knew this "Trek" was going to be different.
Much different.
And, for what it was, I love it - it is an updating for the new kids, and as a kid at heart, I attached to it, at that level, rather than the shreds of canon the old Trekkie in me wished I could have. This is not my Trek, indeed - but it is my son's, and I like his Trek Too.
I'm allowed. "Star Trek" is a TV show - not a jealous harridan. The Shat isn't going to pitch a hissy because I'm not watching him all the time as the Only Kirk, and if he did, tough nuggets to him. I'm not married to him. I can cat around on my entertainment.
Now, from THAT perspective, yes - JJ did bend over backwards. My kid wouldn't know a Kobayashi Maru if it crawled up and bit him on the leg; and he would have been absolutely fine and dandy without some old guy coming out of the past who was supposed to be this Spock of the past/future, so he could tell this Kirk about some other Kirk he could care less about, and what big buddies the two were in some other thing he never cared about.
If this was a nice, honest "Transformers" film, we wouldn't waste time bringing the animated Optimus Prime back to tell the new Optimus Prime about the way the old Starscream related to him between McDonalds commercials twenty years ago.
How those overtures were taken by the old Trekkies is immaterial - what matters is that Abrams did include them, and did so for no other reason then to beg buy-in from the older fans. He sure didn't do it for my kid.
Yup - Star Trek has turned into Star Wars. Did you expect differently? You and I read books, fanzines as kids... the current generation plays video games that look better than the best SF TV SPX from the eighties. You're lucky if you can get them to read a book, period. So, this is what you get, right here, right now, for the culture we live in, and the kids are on our grass.
And, completely within expectation, we're yelling at 'em to get off it. It's OUR grass.
Of course, to kids, grass is just something you play on.
I LOVE this phrase and will use it shamelessly from now on.
I will attempt to give you credit, perigee.
He didn't bend over backwards. He tossed in the surface level claptrap which the mythos of Trek has existed in the public's eye as for decades. Womanizing Kirk, accented Chekov, sexy Uhura and so on...
Bending over backwards would have been hiring real sci-fi writers to work with to write the script instead of Orci and Kurtzman who don't even have the gravitas to make Transformers seem anything less than silly.
Bending over backwards would have been hiring real sci-fi writers to work with to write the script instead of Orci and Kurtzman who don't even have the gravitas to make Transformers seem anything less than silly.
Well we have a good idea from the poll on this board. About 6% really did not like it. 80% loved it, the rest in between. This seems to reflect what I have seen elsewhere. Non-fans tend to like it even more.
Number6 said:
Does "They" refer to all of fandom, or just to the noisy 6%?
Yet another statement that can describe my feelings. Not that I didn't think a lot of it was bad, just not as bad as I was afraid.
True, but success with the great unwashed masses does not always indicate quality. I'm sure there are plenty of popular, successful films that you thought were crap.
See, now this is pretty much what I'm talking about, right here. Almost the textbook-perfect example. (No offense, Kirk1980)
There was no way Abrams movie was ever going to make this guy happy. Because, when you get right down to it, yes - it was supposed to be a Transformers movie: mass appeal, CGI, pitoooie! pitoooie! zap guns, Keenser, actionfest. That's what Abrams wanted. That's what Abrams sold. That's what Abrams made, and continuously warned people about:
This... is not.... your fathers.... Star Trek...
It was never, ever, ever going to be written by Isaac Asimov, and none of the sequels will ever, ever be written by Phil Dick, Harlan Ellison, or what have you. (And yes, I know two of those three are dead.) "The Running Man" was never meant to be "Slumdog Millionaire."
So there you go - Abrams was tossing olive branches at some folks who were simply not going to mollified. People who had trademarked in their own mind the word 'grass,' and now, no matter whose lawn it was planted on, it was still theirs. In doing so, he spent a lot of screen time that could have otherwise been used in polishing his new versions of these characters.
Had he simply gone his own way entirely, I wonder if he could have improved the overall story quality of his version of the franchise, bettered his characters rather than litter the story with shout-outs that fell on ears that were not interested in hearing them.
True and true. But I don't "think a movie is crap". I either like it or I don't. Anyone else's opinion is not important, because it's my $8.00. I've had plenty of people tell me "You must go and see "Such-and-such!" and when I do I'm disappointed, and they think there's something wrong with me. Be that as it may...there are still people out there who think Police Academy IV is the greatest film ever made. And that's okay.
Star Trek is a polarizing movie, that much we can all agree on. But this is the way it is, this is the shape of things to come, and we can either accept it or not. Not accepting it is easy, because it requires no commitment from the viewer.
The movie was a great financial success so we can expect more of the same. And lest we forget, movie-making is, at its core, a primarily financial industry, not an artistic one. Art movies are rarely popular (none of the "true" arts are) at the time of their release. Usually many years have to pass before an art film finds its place. This won't be the case with Star Trek, but as it was mentioned earlier, Star Trek: The Motion Picture seems to be gaining wider acceptance now, thirty years after its release.
Yeah, I guess I should have worded that better. "Don't like" is less pejorative than "think is crap."
I'm not entirely sure that's okay!
I'd hope Trek won't have to descend to those depths to remain popular. I'd rather date the cerebral chicks that I can have a conversation with, than the "popular" girls that the whole football team has had at. (I've got a friend who's been trying to get me to see ational Lampoon's Xmas Vacation for ages. It's just... not on my list, ya know?)
Wholly dependent on whether or not you believe the film was sabotaged. I don't believe it was. If you didn't get what you wanted, that's unfortunate. I did.
Find me one.
Similar threads
