ST09 critics, why don't you like it?

[TOS Purist]

[...]whereas the mandate on Trek 2009 appears to have had a large "still to the original templates" component to it.

I really don't think they stuck with the "original templates" - they took the original templates out into the back alley, stole all its valuables, beat it to within an inch of its life, stabbed it, and then performed unspeakable acts to its corpse. I WISH they had stuck to the "original templates" - I might not have hated the movie so much in that case.

Going back to Shazam's post, it reminds me that one of the excuses Abrams gave for putting the film in an alternate timeline was, "That way we don't know what's going to happen next. Any of the characters could die - we don't have a guarantee that they're going to live through it."

Seriously, when you entered the theatre to see this movie, did ANYBODY think "Oh wow, Kirk might die in this one! He'd better be careful in the action scenes!"

Of course not.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

I really don't think they stuck with the "original templates" - they took the original templates out into the back alley, stole all its valuables, beat it to within an inch of its life, stabbed it, and then performed unspeakable acts to its corpse. I WISH they had stuck to the "original templates" - I might not have hated the movie so much in that case.

ROFL!!!

 

[BillJ]

Because it fails in comparison to two specific episodes:

The Cage
Where No Man Has Gone Before

These two show that you can hit the ground running with Trek and in that regard Abrams and Company failed.

 

[TOS Purist]

BillJ, I love your signature! The fans of this movie are part of what makes me dislike it; they defend it so strongly, and for no reason. Remember the first glimpse of the Enterprise in the "construction" trailer, which showed cartoonishly oversized nacelles that were placed too close together? Some fans complained about those, and they were slammed by the ST09 fans who went to great lengths to try to convince them that the nacelles weren't any different from the TOS ones.

Ha!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I really don't think they stuck with the "original templates" - they took the original templates out into the back alley, stole all its valuables...etc, etc.

Well, you're wrong about that. Makes a funny image but it has no merit as an observation.

To the extent that these characters were adapted for the new movie most of them were improved - particularly in the performance. I would more gladly pay money any day to see Saldana and Pegg play Uhura and Scotty far more enthusiastically than I would tolerate another turn by the more limited original actors even if such a thing were possible. McCoy, Sulu and Chekov - well, call that a wash; the latter two were never much to talk about as characters, and while Urban does a fine job with McCoy his performance veers closer to mimicry than most of the other actors.

Arguably Kirk is changed more than any other character - which is, of course, in large part the point of the story - but again Pine's performance is more accessible, likeable and far less mannered than Shatner. Popular though Shatner may be playing certain kinds of characters on television he's simply not the kind of actor that anyone would choose to carry a major film intended to appeal to people who are not already converts - his approach is too stagebound and histrionic.

Some of what Pine is asked to do in the movie may not represent Kirk at what long-time fans consider his best, but that's true of many of the TOS-derived films that featured Shatner as well. In those cases, Shatner's personna is a kind of security blanket which made ridiculous storytelling a little more palatable to the faithful - but that's long since outlived its usefulness.

 

[3D Master]

Well, let's see:

Plot holes, plot holes, plot holes, plot idiocies, more idiocies, ad nauseum.

Lens flares.

Bad set dressing: brick walls in starships, visible valve for beer vats, and barely disguised vats that can be easily seen.

Kirk is an asshole, from beginning to end of the movie, never having learned a damn thing.

Warp drive? Nah, Star Wars hyper drive!

Everyone is stupid, even the animals. (Frozen world, caught prey... toss it away, leaving it alive.)

More plotholes, plotholes, and idicoies.

No FTL sensors... except on rinky dink, neglected, very old research stations.

Shields blocking transporters? Well, let's keep 'em down.

Bad science, horrifically bad sciences.

More plotholes, plotholes and idiocies.

Or in depth, read my review: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=96577

^And that's not even close to all the problems. This movie is unholy abomination of unprecedented proportions. The Asylum movies aren't this bad.

 

[Kirk1980]

Blargh.

It was just playing on stereotypes, really.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Star Trek? Sure - Scotty and Chekov were stereotypes from day one their introductions on TOS...

 

[Jeyl]

Star Trek? Sure - Scotty and Chekov were stereotypes from day one their introductions on TOS...

It's not so much that they're stereotyped, it's that they're also labeled. Scotty is literally labeled as a "Comic Relief" character by everyone involved in this film. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all of the original Star Trek characters have about as much comic relief time that Scotty had? Even he had dramatic moments that were awesome without even the slightest hint of comic mischief (A Taste of Armageddon, The Doomsday Machine, Tholian Web). In this film, everything, and I mean everything he says and does is meant to get a laugh from the audience.

As for Chekov? Nothing about him makes any sense. He's 17, which is the year he should be writing his essay on why he wants to join Starfleet, not be at the freaking helm. He also knows how to do everyone's job better than anyone else. Navigation: √. Communications: √. Transporter Chief: √ Science Officer: √. This is Chekov, not Tony Stark.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Star Trek? Sure - Scotty and Chekov were stereotypes from day one their introductions on TOS...

It's not so much that they're stereotyped, it's that they're also labeled. Scotty is literally labeled as a "Comic Relief" character by everyone involved in this film.

And Pegg is wonderful at it of course. It's amazing how much life he and some of the others managed to bring to characters who were never more than functional and the occasional butts of ethnic jokes. Yet another reason to admire this film for bringing some life back to the Franchise.

 

[Neopeius]

Star Trek? Sure - Scotty and Chekov were stereotypes from day one their introductions on TOS...

It's not so much that they're stereotyped, it's that they're also labeled. Scotty is literally labeled as a "Comic Relief" character by everyone involved in this film.

And Pegg is wonderful at it of course. It's amazing how much life he and some of the others managed to bring to characters who were never more than functional and the occasional butts of ethnic jokes. Yet another reason to admire this film for bringing some life back to the Franchise.

Just because you say it don't make it so.

Jimmy Doohan did some weird, unidentifiable accent. Was it Scottish? Not really, but would Scottish sound like Scottish in 2/300 years? At least it was consistent.

Simon Pegg, much as I adore him, sounded like a guy doing a fair Scottish accent.

*Doing* an accent.

As in phoney.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Jimmy Doohan did some weird, unidentifiable accent. Was it Scottish? Not really, but would Scottish sound like Scottish in 2/300 years?

Interesting analytic approach there, positing that what doesn't work can be excused by making assumptions about the far future - maybe if we assume that mediocre acting will be considered award calibre in 2/300 years then we can credibly argue that the original supporting cast is better than the Abrams cast.

 

[thumbtack]

Not enough lesbians.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The Special Extended Edition for Spike TV will correct that.

 

[TOS Purist]

I could be wrong, but I THINK this thread is only for slamming the movie and saying why we DIDN'T like it...not why we DID like it. Maybe I'm wrong, though...

*checks title of thread*

Oops, nope, looks like I'm right after all.

 

[Withers]

Since I get lambasted anytime I post any praise for this film (in this specific area) I'll share one thing I really didn't like that hasn't been covered specifically just yet.

Delta. Vega. Set aside the idea of nuKirk landing there and coincidentally meeting up with Spock Prime and Scotty... That's annoying too and felt rushed. Like "How will we get these three together? Who cares. Just put them together." Yeah, that was lazy at best.

My real problem with the Delta Vega scene isn't that though. It's that it directly lifts the idea of "there's always a bigger fish" straight from the worst installment of Star Wars (Episode I) where essentially the same thing happens, just under water, and a few more times. Not only that but the big red monster thing looked wholly unrealistic when one considers its environment. Giant reptilian things don't strike me as being native to frigid climates. When it's so obvious (as evidenced by the rest of the amazing special effects in this film) that they could have easily done a better job I find it a little annoying that, in this case, they didn't. It was also kind of a beating over the head as it were as I was like "Can we have a few minutes in this movie where Kirk isn't introduced to a new form of peril please?"


So, yeah, there it is. Is that good or do I need to say it meaner?

-Withers-​

 

[TOS Purist]

So, yeah, there it is. Is that good or do I need to say it meaner?

Nope, we've all been pretty civil (so far) in this thread, so your post was perfect.

The Delta Vega thing really WAS retarded, especially considering that to be close enough to Vulcan for Spock to see it from Vega's surface, it would practically have to be a moon of Vulcan. Which Vulcan doesn't have. They really didn't put any actual thought into this movie...they just randomly stuck a lot of crap together and expected us to eat it up and accept it.

[As for Chekov? Nothing about him makes any sense. He's 17, which is the year he should be writing his essay on why he wants to join Starfleet, not be at the freaking helm.

Not to mention the fact that in 2258 (which is the year the movie is supposed to take place), he should be 13, NOT 17. In "Who Mourns for Adonais," which takes place in 2267, he gives his age as 22, meaning his birthyear would be 2245. Now, I know that the lame "alternate timeline" excuse is supposed to cover a lot of f*ck-ups, but I don't see how Nero's incursion would affect when Chekov was born.

 

[thumbtack]

Which Vulcan doesn't have

In the old universe.

he should be 13

In the old universe.


.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

The scene where Spock sees Vulcan from NuDelta Vega's surface was "explained" by one of the writers, Orci or Kurtzman, I can't remember which, in an interview. They said that we were not meant to take that scene literally. It was supposed to be artistic interpretation or some crap like that. Spock didn't really see Vulcan from the surface of NuDelta Vega, he used some type of telescope or viewer of some kind. But since this was a mind meld, it was artistically interpreted as him actually standing on the surface of NuDelta Vega watching his home world being sucked into a black hole. I'd love to believe this, but when I watched the movie, I sure didn't see him looking through any kind of optical imaging device. I saw him standing in the snow, looking up into the sky, watching Vulcan go bye-bye. And don't even get me started on the whole NuDelta Vega/Hoth argument. Not to mention the fact that Delta Vega is supposed to be on the outer edge of the galaxy and nowhere near Vulcan. But that's a whole 'nuther discussion.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Yeah. I know. In the old universe.

Blah. Blah.

I call it the Prime, or the True Star Trek Universe. It was the first and the best. Star Trek of the past 44 years is irreplaceable. NuTrek is a pale imitation of the original. Kind of like Sam's Choice Mountain Lightning compared to the original Mountain Dew. Sam's version bears a passing resemblance to the original, but doesn't even begin to compare.