Still an awful awful film.
Frat Boys in space.
Frat Boys in space.
Has Anyone Changed Their Mind About The Movie?
- Thread starter Aike
- Start date
Still a really fun movie. It has its problems, but it really knew how to cut loose and have some fun. I think I may just toss it in tonight and watch it before bed.
If you haven't seen the Plinkett review of it, it's well worth a watch. He does it in an odd character voice (and the review is over an hour long), but he's got some great insights into filmmaking:
http://www.redlettermedia.com/star_trek_09.html
If you haven't seen the Plinkett review of it, it's well worth a watch. He does it in an odd character voice (and the review is over an hour long), but he's got some great insights into filmmaking:
http://www.redlettermedia.com/star_trek_09.html
Where the logic breaks down is that a third year cadet was the best option for first officer out of a crew of 1,100 in a crisis situation.
I haven't changed my mind, but I'm still wondering how...on a ship of 400 people did Kirk decide he was going to take command.
...
I told this same thing to a friend, and he said something to the effect; "I look at it as something that was meant to be."
Maybe...
As mentioned its more that he is manoeuvred into it by others (Pike and SpockP mainly).
I don't think you are trying hard enough(there are plenty of mid level problems with it even if you discount moral issues). Re that situation however, my concern is HOW Kirk took command rather than the fact that he ended up there (though obviously, given his experence, he shouldn't have kept it!).
I doubt that's ever been as blatantly and repetitively "true" as it was in STXI.
Spock's reply to Pike about "human pranks" says it all!
Damn, three people had go and correct me one after the other...
That's okay. I stand corrected.
I think it would have been cool to have him 'grow' into the role of Captain. (The fact that Kirk was somewhat unstable, Pike--as cool as he was--should have known better).
Now, the sequel will have to make him more mature than the first film...
(Note: I'm watching the Red Letter Media review of this film. Hilarious).
Last edited:
And that's not a bad idea. In fact, I hope that's exactly what the writers need to do. I'm rooting for Pike in the second movie to show more of a mentor relationship that's only been hinted at in dialogue in TOS. Kirk's character must mature in the next movie for it to even be credible imo.
Yeah. Jim Kirk is the 'spoiled rich kid' of the Abramsverse.
There were absolutely no hints in TOS that Kirk and Pike had a mentor relationship. As mentioned in "The Menagerie", they only ever met in passing, when Kirk took command of the Enterprise. It's more likely that teacher/pupil relationship occurred between Pike and Spock, as they served together for at least two five year missions.
Trek literature places Kirk having other role models like father George Kirk (and possibly by career connection his Dad's commanding officier, Robert April). Meanwhile if it's onscreen backstory we're talking about, then it's Captain Garrovick during the Academy and on his first deep space mission aboard the Farragut - see "Obsession". He would also have been inspired by the exploits of historic Starfleet figures like Garth according to "Whom God's Destroy". A bunch of other role models presumably updated to include NX-01 Captain Archer in an extended Prime universe.
Not that any of this matters to the Abramsverse of course... Interestingly his motivation to join Starfleet over there is also his Dad - but this time as a deceased hero figure he's living under the shadow of, and who he never got the chance to know. That and being in the right place, at the right time to fill Pike's recruiting quota for the month!
Chris,
standing on the outside looking in
Last edited:
It's pretty sad that every guest character from TOS will end up having a deep personal relationship right from the cradle with Kirk. Not only has Pike become his mentor, he also knew his father. Mostly everyone we saw serving aboard the Enterprise in TOS has either been with him in the same Academy class, or he met them on the very first mission. And newly introduced crewmembers from the new movie had bar fights with him years before they again met on the Enterprise on the very first mission.
How is that sad? This is a movie series, not a TV one. The definition of origin story is getting everyone together in the space of the movie.
Not sure why being a movie series is relevant?
But STXI isn't an "origin story" so again how does this answer JarodRussell's concerns which I am guessing might have something to do with a kind of "incestuous" implausibility where normal diverse associations have been hog-tied in order to cram as many Easter Eggs into one basket as possible?
Normally I wouldn't worry about that too much myself, but the carpentry of STXI is so blatantly close to the surface throughout it becomes irritating in its own right.
Accepting clarification of "Trek aspects"
that sounds like a very balanced assessment.
STXI was how the Star Trek crew got together. It may be under different circumstances than "last time", but it's an origin story nonetheless, in the same way that Batman Begins was.
It being a move series is an relevent because you have two hours to tell a story in a movie. In a TV series, you have almost 20 hours per season. Less time to tell the story, thus it all happens faster. Unless most of the crew met at once (at or around SFA), there wouldn't be any time for the film itself aside from the various character introductions.
It being a move series is an relevent because you have two hours to tell a story in a movie. In a TV series, you have almost 20 hours per season. Less time to tell the story, thus it all happens faster. Unless most of the crew met at once (at or around SFA), there wouldn't be any time for the film itself aside from the various character introductions.
I don’t believe so, it’s how "a" Star Trek crew got together. It seems to me in order for a film to be an "origin story" there has to be something for it to be the origin of and clearly here there isn’t yet. As people point out, that’s why they did it this way. I know it weird, but ironically STXI is actually just the first in a series, the way I see it. Unless someone knows of a name for what happened?
I would say that unless Batman Begins leads on to an existing series of movies in the same "universe", it wasn’t an "origin story" either, it was a reboot. Of course if current usage is at variance with my view, well I guess I will have no option but to simply ignore it!
Unless the introductions happened "organically" as the plot is played out perhaps? I think Scotty was the only real example of that and the circumstances were a bit dodgy. You could, at a pinch, include Chekov and Sulu, I suppose. Granted, the Young Ones angle was always going to make things difficult. Anyway most movies have such problems surely.
I think JarodRussell is worried that "recycled" characters from TOS who used to have "lives of their own", will become pawns in NuTrek's all consuming over engineered plot(s). But maybe such things won't be a problem in the future.
And the reason for that? Pressure to appease the Trek nerds who would surely cry havoc if they hadn't tried to tie everything together.
If anything, this movie tried too hard to pander to the message board/fanboy/supernerd crowd. Consider yourself partly responsible.
Last edited by a moderator:
And the reason for that? Pressure to appease the Trek nerds who would surely cry havoc if they hadn't tried to tie everything together.
If anything, this movie tried too hard to pander to the message board/fanboy/supernerd crowd. Consider yourself partly responsible.
Ops, something when wrong. The passage you quoted is of course mine not KingDaniel's as I adjusted above. [Fixed. - M']
Anyway, not trying to squirm out of the responsibility here, but I only joined after STXI. I figured if anyone would appreciate what "real Trek" is supposed to be about, it would be "Trekkies" right? Turns out most seem no different to "ordinary people" as far as I can tell. I have never been so disappointed in my life!
Last edited by a moderator:
And the reason for that? Pressure to appease the Trek nerds who would surely cry havoc if they hadn't tried to tie everything together.
If anything, this movie tried too hard to pander to the message board/fanboy/supernerd crowd. Consider yourself partly responsible.
You are mistaken. View most of the trailers that stae..."This is NOT your fathers Star Trek". Where do you get the assumption that that it was pandering to that crowd???
I've been here for years and, I agree with you! Some posters actually name episodes (TOS, TNG and the rest) wrong as well as certain plots and mixing them up and actually posted that way!....Oops, something went wrong. The passage you quoted is of course mine not KingDaniel's as I adjusted above.
Anyway, not trying to squirm out of the responsibility here, but I only joined after STXI. I figured if anyone would appreciate what "real Trek" is supposed to be about, it would be "Trekkies" right? Turns out most seem no different to "ordinary people" as far as I can tell. I have never been so disappointed in my life!
Similar threads
