Warped9, I like the idea of this thread. It's nice to have a place where critics of the film can express their disappointments without immediately being put on the defensive. It's a shame that in the last few pages so many boosters of the film have dropped in to do exactly that, turning it into more of a yes-it-is/no-it-isn't tennis match... which doesn't make for stimulating discussion.
Personally, I'd really hoped to to like the film, although the trailers made me wary... and rightfully so, as it turned out. I was hugely disappointed by the film. The more so because, while there have (occasionally) been past movies or episodes that were arguably this bad, none of them raked in huge profits and became the
de facto template for all future Trek.
My full-length review is
at my blog. In a nutshell, though, there wasn't any
single reason I disliked this film so much... rather, it was the combination of so
many shortcomings, all piled atop one another. Granted, it had some virtues: notably some decent acting, and strong special effects. But those were overwhelmingly outweighed by... everything else.
It was chock-full of plot holes and absurd contrivances, of course... and we're not talking about nitpicky details here, we're talking about major elements on which the whole story hangs. The dialogue was full of
non sequiturs. Characters routinely behaved in inexplicable and unmotivated ways. The treatment of science was, frankly, illiterate. It offered none of the substance, thematically, politically, and philosophically, that made original Trek more than just a disposable action-adventure show. It turned Jim Kirk into a distressingly unlikable person. It degraded the very Trekverse the story claimed a connection to by playing up its most clichéd, two-dimensional aspects, while getting major elements of continuity wrong. The set design and cinematography was unattractive and uninspired. And I could go on.
But instead, let's play catch-up with this thread...
...It would have been nice if the aesthetics in this travesty would have at least born a passing resemblance to TOS in some way other than the uniforms. I'm not going to go into how fugly the Abramsprise is or how silly the brewery looks or how horrible the iBridge and all its spotlights are. The look of this new universe is totally different from anything we've ever seen in the history of Star Trek.
And you know what really drives home that particular disappointment? The first few minutes, featuring the
Kelvin,
really do capture the original Trek design aesthetic much more effectively than the rest of the film, enhanced by up-to-date effects technology. This obviously puts the lie to the oft-heard claims that using that aesthetic wouldn't have worked for modern audiences... the filmmakers could have used it very successfully, and simply
chose not to.
JJA must be a HUGE Star Wars fan. ... Personally, I don't want Star Wars in my Star Trek. It messes up the "flavor". The two are like oil and water, never meant to be mixed. But JJA mixed 'em, didn't he? And now we have to live with it.
Indeed, regrettably so.
The two universes used to have very different sensibilities (for which I was always thankful); now that distinction has been subsumed.
...Going by the storytelling standards established by TOS, there's nothing that can be objected to in terms of the plotting or characterizations in this movie. If anything, the pretty careful attention paid to TOS by the writers is a reminder of how silly, arbitrary and sometimes illogical Star Trek - like all popular fiction - sometimes was.
I enjoyed the movie and treat it like watching a Superhero movie like Superman, Batman and Spiderman.
... Everything else is fodder because it is fiction, but there should be something that comes close to being recognizable.
Dennis is right about something, but not what he thinks: it's not that nothing can be objected to in this film. Rather, it's that the film certainly
does remind us of the depths of silliness to which popular entertainment sometimes sinks. Note, though: sometimes, not always. Trek, at least, used to aspire to more. To say this movie is no worse than the worst of what's come before is hardly praise.
As for other franchises... well, the fact that they're "franchises" isn't really an advantage, it's something storytellers have to work to overcome. "Close to being recognizable" really isn't the standard to shoot for if you actually want to tell a decent story; it may sell tickets to people superficially familiar with your character/concept, but that in itself doesn't justify the exercise. A Batman movie may be just a new variation of something already familiar from past incarnations, for instance, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't leverage the best aspects of the concept, and treat them with respect, and be internally consistent within its own little corner of the franchise.
Batman Begins did all that, and it's a good movie;
Batman & Robin didn't, and it's a terrible movie.
And Star Trek is different in another way. It may have been a "franchise" in the sense of having a long life in a serial format, complete with spin-offs... but (until now) it wasn't something that existed in multiple independent incarnations, unlike Batman. There's really ever only been
one Star Trek universe (just like there's one Star Wars universe). This film isn't really a part of that, though; instead it's an
adaptation of it. Thus the only thing we can compare it to is the original... and by that standard, IMHO, "close to recognizable" isn't enough to measure up very well.
As far as this incarnation is concerned then, yes, they've burned the bridge behind them. They did so the instant they settled on an alternate continuity.
This is a fine line that I have to keep reminding myself. ST09 isn't TOS. These nu-characters are not the ones we're already familiar with. This isn't the same universe, the same timeline, the same continuity. It's not the same starship Enterprise.
Although I don't like how they've reinterpreted so many familiar aspects of Star Trek I could still have stomached much of it IF they had actually made a decent film with more credibility in worldbuilding and story elements. IF it had been more like Star Trek and less like Star Wars.
Indeed... given what I bad movie it turned out to be, I have to take some comfort where I can, and part of that comes down to reminding myself "It's not the same Trek I cared about. It's an 'alternate reality.' It's an adaptation."
Unfortunately, it's still the only version we're liable to see on-screen for quite a few years to come. (At least I can still find the real thing in the novels.)
That said, I don't think I would have minded a complete from-scratch reboot, if it had at least been a
good film in its own right... something that lived up to (A) intelligent standards of plot, theme, and characterization, and (B) the ambitious
spirit of original Trek, if not the details. Sadly, it did neither.
You people keep getting it wrong. STXI was not made specifically for YOU. It was made everybody... Because Paramount is the business to make money first, and then to entertain second.
Yes, Star Trek is a little like Star Wars, because Star Wars works. Even when the Prequel whiners went to see multiple showings of Star Wars. They Prequel whiners also bought the expensive tech manuals, the card games, the tie-in novels, the video games, toys, and new spin off cartoons. If you are a successful business person, you look and emulate successful plans.
so here is the big question you TOS whiners, can you write and make a movie that would satisfy the old fans and bring in the new fans. When I say new fans... Oh yes, assume that the new fan is dumb as a rock.
I don't understand your abrasive attitude here. Honestly, defending commerce at the expense of art isn't a position anyone (except studio execs) should be comfortable making, much less making with an attitude that dismisses anyone with loftier standards as "whiners."
I don't know who you think you're talking about when you insist that people went multiple times to the Star Wars prequels, but I can assure that I, for one, after seeing
Phantom Menace (during which I practically dozed off), resolved not to waste the price of a ticket on any future installments in that franchise. And I didn't. Nor will I with Trek, so long as these writers and this director are in charge of it.
And as far as writing something better... yes, I can comfortably say that I could, given the same budget and studio support. (So could dozens of other actual Hollywood screenwriters; it's not as if Paramount was forced to work with these guys.) Of course, part of doing so would involve understanding that you can connect with viewers more effectively (both fans and non-) if you
don't assume they're dumb as rocks—since most people aren't—and instead try to respect their intelligence. Original Trek did that from the beginning. (Granted, it too often forgot in the Berman/Braga days... but not as aggressively as this movie did.)
It was made primarily for people who only have a passing familiarity with Star Trek and TOS in particular. It's evident all over the screen as they pander to one overtired cliche after another.
Well put. It's "close to recognizable." It's a palimpsest. But it sure isn't the real thing.
Warped9 said:
What bothers the film's supporters is that it isn't universally embraced and that some of us clearly see the fatal flaws that the rest are comfortable overlooking, or supposedly comfortable overlooking.
These are the same kinda folks who screamed at us because we wouldn't accept ENT. Well, I accept ENT...as a credible prehistory to ST09. Because it sure ain't a credible prehistory to TOS.
I don't understand, and never will, why some people take pride in being satisfied by mediocrity... or even more, why they get so angry at the very notion that other people may disagree with them. (Right-wing Republicans spring to mind. But I digress...)
To digress a bit differently... although I gave up on ENT early in season two, I've recently been catching up on season four via DVD, and I have to admit that it really is
that much better, just as I'd heard. It's amazing what a change in writing staff can do. No, I still don't really see it as a backdrop for TOS... but allowing that the timeline was changed by the events of
ST:FC, I can see it (at least that final season) as a worthwhile thing in its own right.
Warped9 said:
I cannot enjoy a bad movie, not even if it bears a passing resemblance to TOS. It remains bad no matter what you label it.
And I don't want Star Trek "a little bit Star Wars" particularly when I care nothing for Star Wars.
Again, very succinctly put. I completely agree.
If you mean made for everybody, well, wouldn't the same thing be said about every other Star Trek series? It's not like they made the original Star Trek with the hopes of getting only a small select audience. Anyone and everyone can watch/read any form of Star Trek that's out there...
Another excellent point. It's not as if original Trek
failed to reach a mass audience, despite not being dumbed down for the rock-headed. If it had, there would have been no "franchise" for this film to revive. It did lose some popularity in recent years, under B&B — and deservedly so, because they didn't really get Trek and just weren't very good. But handing it over to
other people who don't really get Trek and aren't very good seems like a rather quixotic solution to that problem.
Jeyl said:
You see, it's not that Star Trek isn't being made for us that bothers me. It's that it's being made for people who don't care anything about Star Trek and will continue to not care about anything related to Star Trek after this. What most people will like in this movie is not in any previous depiction of Star Trek.
Indeed. This movie certainly did capture the attention of "casual audiences," there's no gainsaying that. I'm often mystified at how the caretakers of franchises with fan-followings seem so preoccupied with capturing those casual audiences, though, and so disdainful of the actual fans that gave the franchise staying power in the first place. Sure, Trek is "hip and trendy" again for a little while, and that's good for making a fast buck... but "hip and trendy" isn't usually what makes for a long-term following.
(Perhaps it's just the Hollywood version of Wall Street's recent shortcomings? Boost this quarter's bottom line by any machinations necessary, and never mind reliable long-term investments?)
^^ You're right that the term "real fan" is overstating things. What is a "real fan?" To be a real fan do you have to like Trek in all its incarnations? If so then that leaves a lot of people out. I know of several people who like only certain series or films and still liked Abrams' film.
And candidly I don't know anyone that likes Trek in all its incarnations.
Well, sure, of course not. Personally, to start with, I adore TOS; certainly it didn't get a hit every time up to the place, but they still outnumbered the misses, and it laid the conceptual foundation for all that followed in what, in retrospect, is a really amazing and groundbreaking burst of creativity. (I honestly don't understand how anyone who talks down TOS can claim to be a fan of anything that came later.)
I also like TAS (cheap animation notwithstanding), and enjoyed movies 1-4 and 6. With slightly more subdued enthusiasm, I also like the later seasons of TNG and most of DS9. I think that essentially all of VOY, the TNG films (especially the final two), and the first three seasons of ENT are entirely forgettable.
But this isn't just an arbitrary list of likes and dislikes. It's not random, unfounded opinion. I think I've applied a fairly consistent and defensible set of critical standards to the various eras of Trek (as to most other entertainment I enjoy), and judged the material accordingly. And by those standards, this movie ranks near the very bottom of the barrel.
Here's an honest question for you (and your crew); was this movie actually worse in your opinion than some of the TNG films like Insurrection and Nemesis? If you honestly thought so can you tell me what about it was worse because wrack my brain as I might I can't come up with anything that was worse in the new movie that didn't have an equal in the previous two... except maybe the villain. I can't say enough about how much I didn't care for Nero.
Yes. Honestly. It was. (And no, I didn't much enjoy either of those. To me, the Romulans having for some reason grown a clone of Jean-Luc Picard was the giant, gaping plot hole at the center of
Nemesis. Still and all, neither film was so aggressive about
piling up offputting qualities as this one, as I itemized earlier in this post. (Plus, Patrick Stewart's acting always elevates any material at least a little.)
Of course I do. Insurrection and Nemesis were good ideas executed poorly, but they were ideas I could get behind.
Enterprise E and her crew fighting for the lives of 600 people being
moved while the biggest war in Galactic history was underway? Yes
The origins of a brand new James Kirk in a universe where
anything is possible? No.
I would argue, of course, that we didn't
need a "brand new James Kirk." If we were to get one, though, he should at least have shared some of the same admirable qualities that characterized the original. I have nothing against Chris Pine, but the character written for him didn't resemble any version of Jim Kirk I could recognize.
It was stupid, sometimes boring action movie with dislikable characters that failed to entertain me. Next.
Nice and concise. Honestly, if not for the
Star Trek branding, nothing I'd seen or heard about this film would have inclined me to buy a ticket. I'll not make that mistake again.
I think what pisses me off so much is just what high hopes I had for this movie.
I thought it'd be fun, new takes on characters, sci-fi action drama and humor of my favorite characters.
Instead I got writing which would feel right at home with the Star Wars prequels and the Transformers movies.
Hear, hear.
Trek can and should represent something better, something more challenging. It's certainly done so in the past. I just wish Paramount and J.J. Abrams agreed.
No offense, of course, I'm just being funny.
