Moments that really made you cringe or disliked

Great post Sci!

To clarify one statement:

You're right, insofar as what is in the theatrical release. But I believe someone mentioned that in the deleted scenes (and in the novelization, based off an earlier script), the scene prior to James stealing the car is James washing the car. It is at that point at which we are informed that the car was originally his father's car, and in fact James is cleaning it because his step-dad intends to sell it.

And to just throw in my opinion on another point:

Like the majority of posters, I too agree that this was purely a conceit for us to have the "reward" at the end of the movie of seeing Kirk in his gold command uniform as Captain, and it could have been done other ways that would have made more sense.

However, if we accept (and I do) that Kirk, like the other pre-graduate cadets, was a lieutenant, he was only promoted a couple of ranks, not across the entire rank structure. Also, I'm going to guess (just my hunch) that not every officer cadet takes the Kobiashi Maru test, that it is specifically taken by cadets aiming to become captains of starships. These two details already suggest that Kirk is a lieutenant cadet who leadership understands (and perhaps is even grooming) to be on the path to Captain.

Add to this the fact that Pike is not simply an Admiral now, but one who had been in charge of recruiting, had probably overseen Kirk's career, had a massive soft spot for him, and of course owes him his life. It is not much of a stretch to imagine that Pike could have pushed very hard for Kirk to relieve Pike, using both his rank, his familiarity with Kirk and desire for more "leap before you look" Captains, and perhaps even playing the "sympathy card" of his injury to pull favors.

None of this is to suggest that it would have been likely or smart to promote a rather reckless Lieutenant with limited command experience, even if he did save earth and rescue an officer from imminent death. But there are enough threads of why it might have happened that I can enjoy it as it was.

 

^ very VERY well thought out and put. I'm with you! It's a stretch that i can live with. AND i know that if i walked out of the theater and he hadn't made Captain of the Enterprise by the end of the film i would have felt cheated.

 

I remember some people after Episodes II and III of STAR WARS thinking Darth Vader was too young when he turned to the Dark Side and was maimed and burnt. Some expected Anakin to be closer to 30 or so when he became a Sith in part because the original actor to play unmasked Anakin---Sebastian Shaw---was aging and looked old when he donned the scarred, scabby makeup for the end of the original JEDI in 1983. But then people tend to forget that Obi-Wan himself in A NEW HOPE described Vader as "a young Jedi" and his pupil. Which meant Anakin wasn't going to be some middle-aged dude when we finally saw him put into the Vader armor.

 

What I didn't like was that it all felt dumbed down somewhat.
For example, why did they redo the stardates thing? "Stardate 2256" is just stupid imo. Why have stardates at all, then?

Also the Brewery. The first scene in engineering with Uhura it looked really bad imo.
They didn't even try to add any futuristic or fancy-looking things, they were just great tanks with taps. What were they thinking?
I mean Sci-Fi has done such things before-but here it seems the makers thought we viewers were so dumb we wouldn't get they used beer tanks if they didn't look exactly like ordinary beer tanks and nothing else.

I liked the monsters though. They looked cool.
There have been too few alien monsters in Trek. And TOS had the coolest ones.

 

Not really. He/she was negligent and decided to quote an older post of mine; one I had already revisited and revised. As such, they don't get a response from me.

Now, THAT is a very intriguing observation. I'm inclined to agree. It does soften the extremely hurried and contrived nature of the film slightly. Not anywhere near enough, though...

I understand your position. Unfortunately, there really are one too many contrivances in this film, for me. Here is a further question (one I've never seen asked before): what are all those cadets doing clapping Kirk at the ceremony? Weren't the other ships destroyed? Weren't the majority of the cadets from the earlier hearing scene on those ships? Are those ghosts? Is it some solipsistic dream of Kirk's where he gets promoted to captain and earns the admiration of everyone, even dead people? I can't work it out.

Yeah, that's exactly what I've asked myself. Fidelity to source material, let alone complexity, seems completely gone in STXI.

Well, I'm sure commercial concerns dictated the look and feel of this movie, much more overtly than in any previous Star Trek feature. It's just possible that the Anheuser-Busch Inc. company gave a few million to the filmmakers, if they would be so kind as to film at its Budweiser Brewery in Van Nuys, Los Angeles, which they did, and if they'd be so kind as to drop a direct reference to one of its products in the dialogue, which they also did. This doesn't include what the filmmakers may or may not have been paid for obvious references and tributes to Nokia, Jack Daniel's and Apple.

In addition to crudely emulating a similar scene in "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace", the scene featuring the creatures on Delta Vega, among other stylings, like the bombastic music for Nero and the Narada, may have been a themed throwback to the era of Ray Harryhausen and Errol Flynn; that more romantic period of cinema that, traditionally, has been the domain of Star Wars, not Star Trek. It's an obvious era to pipe for time-honoured thrills and spills, but I'm not sure about its association with Star Trek, or whether these are the kind of atavistic embellishments Star Trek in the 21st Century needs or should be given.

 

"He," thank you very much. I put the gender sign on my profile for a reason. And it was not negligence, but instead a deliberate choice to quote and refute complaints from your older posts that I found most unreasonable amongst several other posts as well.

 

You are right of course.
But that monster scene had one undeniable quality, rare in XI-
one could esily see what's going on!

To make this magic happen, they needed two monsters (and copying TPM wasn't the worst way to go here). With one monster it would probably just have been a hectic series of closeups.

 

how about all the water on the romulan ship

 

Condensation!

 

The film has a "thing" for water. In addition to Main Engineering on the Enterprise, water also has an unwarranted presence on the floor of the shuttle hangar from where the cadets embark for the rescue mission. WTF is up with that?

 

I agree with all this except the Sulu part.
The point of Sulu not being able to start the warp engines was that it was the only thing keeping the enterprise from being destroyed along with the other ships.
And you're supposed to cringe, you have to feel embarrassed for the new guy.

 

and the water tubes that Scotty was beamed into was a bit much like was the film going to be turned into a theme park ride wtf

 

Maybe that's going to be an attraction in the next ST Experience.

 

Yes, its really lazy "film"making. Where did all the money go on this film? NO engineering set needs to be built and the budget is still monstrous. That brewery was an utter embarrassment, if as a fan you have any interest whatsoever in the "technical" side of Trek ... which lots of fans do.

I swear I thought I was watching a 3 Stooges movie when Scotty beamed into a beer (errr, excuse me, "water") tank and then was hystericaly shot through conveniently-clear tubes so that we could see him the whole time. Seriously, can you imagine anything even remotely like this happening to the crew as depicted in Star Trek The Motion Picture? It's more like the later films when Shatner had Scotty hitting his head on a beam ... slapstick that you can't swallow in a believable universe.

 

But given your example, that would be like restoring the 1930 Bugatti today, and putting in a 1980s tape deck. Doesn't make much sense.

 

People do what they want when restoring things. To whit:

In 1987, while we were in high school, my best friend restored a 1940 Chevy Truck. The real deal—three gears, wood bed, etc. But you know what? He installed a CD player. Why? Because he wanted to listen to CDs.

If my friend could make that decision in real life, I see no reason why George Kirk couldn't make a similar decision in the movie, and put a 1990s stereo system in a 1960s car.

 

Maybe the production designer and/or JJ/production team actually liked the look? That doesn't mean you have to like it, but it may not have been an oversight.

In STVI, when the Enterprise officers are being briefed that they're going to escort Gorkon to the peace conference, the room that they are in consists of a table, a podium, and nothing else. Like a theater stage, everything out of view is simply black. The reason is that they filmed it in an open space in a church, and didn't put up any more set than the table and podium.

Did people complain about that? (maybe they did, I wasn't participating in Trek conversations in those days). I mean, that wasn't even a "bad" design, that was really an example of no design. It may have partially been a budget issue, but ultimately it was an artistic decision, that the set would be undefined other than the props necessary for the scene. Did people argue that this was lazy or bad film making, that the room didn't look like an "official" meeting room, that nobody in "real life" would use such stark mood lighting in a daytime meeting that the entire room would be completely blacked out other than the meeting table?

To me, personally, the point is that I don't care. The point of the scene in STVI was the emotional dynamic of the actors in the scene, not if the set or lighting was unrealistic.

That is how I viewed the Communications/Engineering brewery in STXI. The "theatrical lighting on a blank stage" didn't bug me, and in fact I wouldn't honestly have noticed if the walls were 23rd century walls with futuristic windows and art and panels and the link. I was focused on the actors.

Is it "realistic" to have brewing tanks on the Enterprise? Well, if it were Battlestar Galactica, where everyone has their own private distillery, maybe. But for the USS Enterprise, of course it's not. And the questions if it was budgetary or an oversight is moot—it made it into the final movie, so at that point it becomes an artistic choice.

And for me I focused on only the actors and actions; as long as the props (tables, chairs) were accurate enough to not pull me out of the space, that's what matters to me. JJ could have done what Meyers did in STVI and simply used stark lighting to black out everything but the consoles and chairs and I would have been fine with it, even if that lighting wasn't "realistic." To be honest, when I first saw the movie, I didn't even notice the set at all. I had to read the complaints and then look for it. My natural inclination is to tightly focus on the actors, and in my opinion the actors did a wonderful job of "selling" the scene, regardless of the setting.

Anyway, none of this is to deny you your right to an opinion, and if the brewing tanks pulled you out of the movie, I am certainly not suggesting that you are somehow wrong or that they shouldn't have. But keep in mind that the choice to not add "futuristic doo-dads" is not necessarily an objective flaw, and the choice to leave them out doesn't necessarily negatively influence the enjoyment of all viewers. A movie is not a theater play, and the same rules do not apply. But ultimately, the point is the action and the actors, and if someone is drawn in by the events and the performances, the set becomes peripheral. But I readily acknowledge the opposite is also true—if you are not drawn in by the events and performances, every minor inconsistence can become even more grating.

 

Ummm ... you misquoted me. That wasn't my quote. But anywho ...

It was a brewery. It was barely disguised at all. The clear tubes and the whole Scotty-takes-a-water-ride were silly. The design of a set in a franchise that has almost always at least made an effort at giving us something well-thought-out IS important.

Actors are important. Story is important. Set design in a science fiction film is important.

Abrams failed in at least one out of three in that scene.

 

I'm wondering would Matt Jefferies agree with that engine room "design" for a 23rd century starship.

Can you cite a source? On my DVD, there's clearly Starfleet-style gray walls surrounding the whole briefing room. It's dark, but it's there.

That's nonsense. It IS design. Someone, highly probable the director of photography in cooperation with the director and production designer, decided on how to set up this room, and how to light it up. That is design.

And also in the other two, in my opinion.