Were we what was wrong with the movie?

[Gotham Central]

I'm in my early 30s, grew up with TNG (but have some recall of a world before it) and I can say with certainty that I really did not like this film.

It actually took me awhile to come to that conclusion. I was conflicted and concerned about my reaction. I was actually worried, when I found that I didn't like the film, that I was becoming a rigid fan that could not adapt to change. However after a second viewing, I realized that it had nothing to do with it being bad Trek, and everything to do with it being a poor quality film in general. I could see a lot of potential in the elements on screen...its just that it had a bad story. It did not help that I found that far too much of the dialogue was lifted, almost verbatim, from other films.

I think that had they gone with a pure reboot, and found a more coherent script the movie would have been better.

 

[Warped9]

This film should have been adressed on two fronts.

1. Decide how you're going to reboot or reinterpret the original elements and then set that aside.

2. Develop a worthy story, something that is really engaging. And it has to be about much more than getting the characters together.

I see a lot wrong with this film, but the two biggest things that grate are making such a big deal of origins and focusing far too much on the characters, and then the presumption that you can treat it all as stupid. They were far too concerned with cramming as many references in there as possible. Basically this wasn't a story that needed to be told.

My approach would have been to firstly forget that it's a Trek story. Find an interesting story idea first and then figure out how to tell it in a Trek universe.

On another note I recently caught a rerun of TNG's "Tapestry" on TV. What really struck me was how they depicted Picard as a brash young Ensign. It was exactly the portrayal they gave Chris Pine's portrayal of Kirk in Trek XI.

 

[Captain Robert April]

That's the difference between Kirk and Picard.

Kirk was the serious, driven kid who went through a living hell on Tarsus IV, entered the Academy at the age of seventeen, rose up quickly through the ranks, and eventually learned to loosen up.

Picard was the brash young hotshot who wound up getting impaled in a bar fight and learned a major lesson in humility. And then rose quickly through the ranks, and then learned to loosen back up many years later.

Pine's Kirk, by contrast, is a brash young hotshot who hasn't learned a damned thing and is rewarded for his reckless behavior.

 

[Sharkey]

Now that we've all pretty much settled into the film - either positive or negative -, I wonder if it's time to look at whether we sabotaged the film with our Trekkie-ness.

Here's what I mean.

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.

Had he not done so - had he completely done his own take on the show - we may have ended up with a very different film. No overpowered supership (perhaps), no old Spock pimping Kirk/Spock, no time wasted going through the whole Nero backstory and long-winded explanations about how this was not the original timeline (which was amusing, when you think about it - nobody seemed particularly put-out by the realization that they were essentially alternate versions of themselves.), no stranding Kirk and Scott on planet snowball, and, with no Nero, no special need to kick over Vulcan. No need to play Kobayashi Maru.

That leaves a lot of options open, a lot of time reclaimed for independent character development (more and more, the thing that pisses me off about the film is the way old Spock essentially replaced the need for Kirk and Spock to find their own peace with each other: "We're best buddies? Oh. OK..."), and all the plot points would have to have been sewn up by the new crew.

I placed this here, instead of in the film thread because this really is about us; whether or not our obsession with TOS and Abrams' desire to placate us made this a lesser film than it could have been. Even, in retrospect, in our own eyes.

I am fairly new to Trek BBS, though not to Trek fandom. I saw the title of this thread and jumped in to see if it is what I think it is. Later I will wade through the (to date) five pages of comments. For now, I am arrogant enough to think I know what all the other answers will be (pro and con) so I will simply say that (while "sabotage" is too strong a word in that it implies intent) I absolutely agree that the bitchy spoiled entitled fans (me included) need to bear some responsibility for the end result.

Except...

I had a chance to speak with Alex Krutzman and I asked him how much of a fan he is. He laughed and told me a story which I'm sure he has repeated elsewhere by now. Since they knew they were in a no-win scenario with the "fans" no matter what they did, he (Kurtzman), Orczi, Abrams, Lindelof and I believe one or two other producer types gathered around a table like giggling children, brainstorming which parts of Star Trek were their favorites and therefore must be included in the film. Evidently they each wrote ten things, and the plan was to pick the ones that were in common on every list. They were very surprised when each of them had the very same ten items. (As to what exactly those ten were was lost to the time limit of our conversation.) But he said the most exciting part was that they then put the list aside and started writing an action-adventure sci-fi origin story ... and along the way the ten things appeared naturally in the narrative.

Perhaps they did not "bend over backwards" in the lubricant-required way some might have preferred, but they knew what was coming and took it with their eyes open.

 

[Ward Fowler]

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 disagree with a lot of what you've said but I agree with this. You seem like a helluva guy

 

[Hartzilla2007]

On another note I recently caught a rerun of TNG's "Tapestry" on TV. What really struck me was how they depicted Picard as a brash young Ensign. It was exactly the portrayal they gave Chris Pine's portrayal of Kirk in Trek XI.

This is the reason I'm pretty sure Chris Pine's Kirk will turn out all right, becuase Picard did didn't he.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

That's the difference between Kirk and Picard.

Kirk was the serious, driven kid who went through a living hell on Tarsus IV, entered the Academy at the age of seventeen, rose up quickly through the ranks, and eventually learned to loosen up.

Picard was the brash young hotshot who wound up getting impaled in a bar fight and learned a major lesson in humility. And then rose quickly through the ranks, and then learned to loosen back up many years later.

Pine's Kirk, by contrast, is a brash young hotshot who hasn't learned a damned thing and is rewarded for his reckless behavior.

Yeah and if Picard hadn't been brash to start out with and eventually growing up a little he'd still be a Lieutenant.

 

[Vonstadt]

My approach would have been to firstly forget that it's a Trek story. Find an interesting story idea first and then figure out how to tell it in a Trek universe.

This and this alone should be every future writer of Star Trek's mantra, motto, creed and code. This is what makes it a great story be it TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT or any Trek movie to follow.

Virtually every classic, memorable and solid episode has sprung from this font of wisdom, it is what makes the story stand out.

What is sad is how often it is overlooked.

Vons

 

[Kirk1980]

Quite right, Vonstadt.

That's why TOS succeeded in capturing as much attention as it did. There was no Trek universe to work in, really, just what well-read sci-fi authors thought would make good stories.

Which is why I wish Hollywood writers would never be involved in a Trek film ever again. Get great sci-fi authors to write for it and you might end up with a more thought-provoking Trek film.

 

[BillJ]

Quite right, Vonstadt.

That's why TOS succeeded in capturing as much attention as it did. There was no Trek universe to work in, really, just what well-read sci-fi authors thought would make good stories.

Which is why I wish Hollywood writers would never be involved in a Trek film ever again. Get great sci-fi authors to write for it and you might end up with a more thought-provoking Trek film.

But it would make far less money, unfortunately.

Great avatar!

 

[Neopeius]

That's the difference between Kirk and Picard.

Kirk was the serious, driven kid who went through a living hell on Tarsus IV, entered the Academy at the age of seventeen, rose up quickly through the ranks, and eventually learned to loosen up.

Picard was the brash young hotshot who wound up getting impaled in a bar fight and learned a major lesson in humility. And then rose quickly through the ranks, and then learned to loosen back up many years later.

Pine's Kirk, by contrast, is a brash young hotshot who hasn't learned a damned thing and is rewarded for his reckless behavior.

Best post of the week.

 

[Forbin]

Nothing can be the post of the week without a picture of a hot babe in it.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

No. He put in familiar references. He did not recapture any of the flavour of the original. He threw away any semblance of substance and nuance in favour of mindless caracitures and cliches.

Gotta agree with this. I didn't loathe the film the way you did, Warped, but this is definitely a point I agree with.

A lot of us feel the same way.

It's clear that the movie did what it was supposed to do.. put "popcorn movie" butts in the seats. And that's a good thing, from the standpoint of the vast majority of the moviegoing population and from the standpoint of the studio (short-term, at least).

It also... largely for the same reason that it seems some folks 'round here seem to take an inordinate amount of glee in mocking other fans... appealed to the "trek-hating press." Those who see Trek fans as being inordinate nerds... who, for all practical purposes, hate Trek fandom and by association the Trek that these fans like... love this movie at least as much because they think it'll piss off the "geek-boy fan base" as for any other reason. It's almost like the glee some little boys take from running over cats with a lawn mower... an undeniably PERVERSE form of pleasure they feel from knowing someone else is gonna be hurt.

Had this movie not had the name "Star Trek" associated with it... if the names of the characters weren't the same names we already know... or if there had never been any prior Trek... how would people be treating this film?

Think about it.

Was this film REALLY all that great? Not so much. The ONLY impact of "destroying Vulcan" was to shock the fans. People who've never heard of Star Trek would just say "cool special effect" and go back to munching on their jujy-fruits.

The characters weren't well-developed... not really. The villain was particularly 2-dimensional, but only Spock got ANY actual character-development. Everyone else got "moments." Just like with all the prior Trek movies, where everyone gets a "moment in the spotlight." Granted, an "Uhura Fan Dance" in this movie might've been somewhat more enjoyable than the last time we got one, but still, the character was (from a pure storytelling standpoint) TOTALLY USELESS. As were Chekov, Sulu, and McCoy.

That Urban actually wanted to play McCoy right makes HIM good. It doesn't make the character, as written, worth the screen time.

Fact is, this entire movie would have been better without ANY of the "leads" except Kirk, Spock, and Pike. None of the others were there for any reason except as a "ticket punch." Supposely (in the thread of the OP's original point) as a "sop to the fans," because "we expect them all to be there."

But... here's the thing... WE DIDN'T CARE IF THEY WERE THERE. Not really. Did we? Would we, the fans, have been happier if instead of giving every "second banana" their moment in the sun, more time had been spent giving us more depth of character for the leads?

As far as "the ship" is concerned... if Abrams really thought that he was giving the fans what they wanted... "he don't know us vewwy well, do he?" He didn't give Classic Trek fans what they wanted, and "non-classic" Trek fans didn't care all that much either way. And the "general audience" wouldn't have cared. The ONLY people that the "new ship design" influences in any way are the "hardcore fans," and most of us don't care for the changes much. It didn't help the movie in any way.

No, what was done wasn't "for us." Even those who really loved this movie with a burning passion would have loved it every bit as much had the ship looked like the classic ship, I suspect, or if the uniforms, sets, props, etc, had been left essentially indistinguishable from the original concepts (if executed with a bit more flair and money). Those changes were done "because we can."

All the set-dressing changes weren't done for us. And they weren't done for the general audience, either. They were done for the production team.

But if the story had been compelling, deep, meaningful, all that... we would be able to forgive that. The problem is... the story was remarkably AVERAGE, POINTLESS, "ROLLER COASTER THRILL RIDE" fare, with a few "shock moments" thrown in for prurient interest and some "do this because we think that's what the fans expect" sops.

The movie made about as much money as we were expecting. And the studio will, as a result, greenlight future Trek projects (not just any potential Abrams-Trek movie sequels, but other TV-based projects as well) since they now know that the "franchise fatigue" they'd been led to believe was behind recent failures was pure myth.

But the movie wasn't a GREAT movie, or even a particularly good movie. As a pure, stand-alone movie, it's pretty average fare. On a similar level as, for instance, "The Fifth Element," I'd say. Take away the "sops to casual fans" and the "glee in watching the look on geeky fanboy faces when they see Vulcan blow up real good" and most of the reason for the super-positive reviews sorta fades, I think.

WE weren't "what was wrong with this movie." The problem isn't that, at all. The movie was pretty much what it was intended to be. It's just not Star Trek. It's something else, something entirely new, which "fakes it" by pretending to be Star Trek. Take away that veneer, and you've got a remarkably average cheesy adventure flick.

 

[Neopeius]

Nothing can be the post of the week without a picture of a hot babe in it.

My wife was in the room. That was enough

 

[JuanBolio]

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.

I think you totally and completely missed the point of that scene. Kirk was sincere when he offered mercy - and Nero threw it back in his face. Kirk Prime would have done the same thing, and DID, not least of all when confronting the Klingon who ordered his own son killed.

Pine's Kirk, by contrast, is a brash young hotshot who hasn't learned a damned thing and is rewarded for his reckless behavior.

What've you been watching? Kirk constantly acted impulsively and recklessly, and was always rewarded when it worked out in a positive way... which was always.

 

[trevanian]

Kirk constantly acted impulsively and recklessly, and was always rewarded when it worked out in a positive way... which was always.

Yeah, like lt. Kirk impulsively phasering the cloud creature when he was on FARRAGUT. What, he DIDN'T shoot right away? Hmmm, not impulsive enough yet. No reward yet, either.


I haven't seen the movie, but the 'mercy' being discussed from trek 11 sounds like an attempt to lift the kirk/romcmdr dialog from BALANCE, which is between two seasoned professional commanders , not between a neophyte and a crazed miner, as is the case in this new thing. Context, folks.


Oh, and great post, Cary. As usual.

 

[Desert Kris]

I have to say, sometimes the things I find myself liking come from an inner defiance. Alien 3 catches a lot of flak, and I found myself loving it more. When Daniel Craig was cast as James Bond and ridiculed by fans and the press I became a champion for giving him a chance. That occasion paid off. Willow fans trounce the trilogy of novels that continue that story, and I'm a loyal fan all the way.

Now, I can be objective about what I consider good. I can like a thing, yet recognize that it's not the best. And if you think you might know where I'm going with this, then you'll probably be disappointed.

I felt heartbreak at TOS fans snapping up spoilers for a movie that was yet to be released, and decrying it as a travesty. Naturally, the inner rebel inside me was awakened. Some of the particulars that were targeted for criticism became elements I resolved to embrace.

My favorite is all the stuff about canonicity. I've seen my fair share of it on Doctor Who forums. Somebody posted on the novel forums there a topic declaring "The Books are not canon!" It's fine, I'll go my own way, because I've read those books, so they're more real to me than they are to a fan who doesn't want to venture too far in a direction that challenges what stories he can accept that universe being able to contain. So when the word canon started popping up here, I really started to hate it. A topic showed up here about the books and all the continuity issues that have cropped up in those.

As a fan, I've gone through my phase of wanting to have an idea of how the history of the Star Trek universe unfolds. I've seen chronologies I've liked, and some I didn't think much of. Same with Doctor Who, and Star Wars as well. Now, I have an idea of how the better constructed interpretations of their histories go. But I occasionally have a renewal of understanding that once I've got it cracked, new writers are going to come in, and their stories come with a different interpretation that conflicts with what's been "established."

It's fun to argue the particulars for a while, but when it gets hostile, I jump ship. I jump ship, and climb onto the deck of the other ship that's going the wrong way. I don't care if others are on that bad ship with me, or half the crew of the first ship.

I don't do this for spite towards other fans, except maybe as a game within myself: against the fan boy in my own head who cries "blasphemy!" There's a bit of a tolerance threshold in me too, I like the "back to basics" approach. I wanted to see a Star Trek story that didn't require me to know too much newer stuff.

I think I'm losing the direction of where I was going with this.

Spoiler: ST XI

I was going to comment on the Spock and Uhura thing. The moment I started seeing something going on there, my inner fan started yelling, "Whoa, what, no, stop!" And another aspect of my brain stirred at this reaction, coldly smiled, and said, "Yes, it's so far from the way I think things should be, it's right!" and overrode any objections. My wife reacted the same way I did, and vocalized that as we left the theater. I pointed out to her that it was the ultimate interracial relationship the writers could have conjured up from the characters of the original crew. That development took Uhura, who was once upon a time the focus of a breakthrough in interracial social norms, to the next level. She's doing one better than that first step on television this time around. My wife liked that, it's something we can relate to.

I also want to comment on how the fandom of Star Wars and Star Trek relate to their new movies. I have to say, for all the brainlessness that ST fans complain about, it seems like the ST franchise got off fairly safely, it could have been much worse. I'm a bigger Star Wars fan than I am of ST, but wow, I have to say that ST reintroduction to the masses, well, I'm at a loss for words. There weren't shark jumping moments on par with Jar Jar, or little boy Anakin, and surely the dialogue of Star Trek is at least not objectionable bad, often and frequently, the way it is with SW.

Regarding the idea of pandering to fans making the movie less than it could have been, well, maybe I could see that. They could have told the story with things happening to Kirk's family and the planet Vulcan that are obviously not how things originally went, and not provide a justification by way of Nero's temporal incursion. I think that's how they did it in the old days. Did the late 1970's Buck Rogers try and justify why things were different from the original? Did Kevin Costner's merry band of outlaws feel the need to speculate that their version of the Robin Hood legend had some curious differences? That's not how it used to be done, is it? So, I could see that it might make the movie a little less than what it could have been. But the writers gave a nod, perhaps more than was deserved given the trouncing they receive critically from some fans. I'm going to take it and run, and be grateful. I'm not going to try and suggest other fans need to conform that perspective. But I like the idea of putting things into perspective. Arthur C. Clarke said in his introductions to some of his Space Odyssey books that they were variants on the theme, they wouldn't be a perfect match to previous books, continuity wise.

I have to say, Orci and Kurtzman have instincts for world building that I respect. Some dialogue and set pieces may not be to individuals tastes, but I get a kick out of the components they take from a franchise, and rework it into a new starting point that points toward rich potential for stories. Star Trek really opens up possibilities, and I look forward to seeing what they come up with next.

I have to say though, I don't mean to be offensive about what I say. But I guess, in some ways, fans (including my inner fan) piss me off into liking and championing things that they denounce as travesty. It's not meant to be disrespectful; I know there are fans who feel the new movie is disrespectful. It's just the way we are!

 

[JuanBolio]

Yeah, like lt. Kirk impulsively phasering the cloud creature when he was on FARRAGUT. What, he DIDN'T shoot right away? Hmmm, not impulsive enough yet. No reward yet, either.

I'd hardly call phasering or not phasering an unknown cloud creature indicative of overall character. Hesitating when facing the unknown is a very typical human trait.

 

[trevanian]

I'd hardly call phasering or not phasering an unknown cloud creature indicative of overall character. Hesitating when facing the unknown is a very typical human trait.

But we're talking about Kirk here. If he were typical of the 23rd Century humans, then the galaxy would have been tamed and corraled long before Picard began his ascendancy.

There is plenty of impulsiveness in the guy during TOS, but it isn't always the case, and it trivializes the character to dismiss him that way. You can think things over before making a wrong call, just like you can make a wrong call impulsively, and Kirk has been guilty on both counts before. But more importantly, he has been right more often in more instances ... and NOT always when acting impulsively. Look how long it took him to realize the only answer to Neural was to just beam away.

 

[Forbin]

Nothing can be the post of the week without a picture of a hot babe in it.

My wife was in the room. That was enough

Ooh, brownie points with the missus! Good move.