As a Standalone: Was Trek XI a Good Movie?

[Jeri]

...the story is constructed as Kirk's rise to leadership, yet the character arc of the movie is Spock's. Kirk doesn't change throughout...

This is the dynamic in TOS. Kirk doesn't develop; Spock does.

I love Kirk; but he rises from the mist fully formed and stays that way. Spock is always the one with the mirror to humanity, being the outsider.

 

[RandyS]

Since this movie makes it clear that the timeline has been changed, if it was Star Trek's debut, they could have an endless number of sequels showing us what the old timeline was like, and we could have still gotten the Star Trek we always had, just with this cast.

Yes, it was a good movie.

 

[BenRoethig]

Stand alone, it was a great movie.

 

[Overgeeked]

Without the years of pre-existing Star Trek to fall back on?

About the same as Starship Troopers. At least that film had less plot holes.

 

[Rii]

As a standalone film the plot is even more laughable. It's still a fun ride, though. The two non-Trekkies I've seen the film with have both enjoyed it, moreso than I did even.

 

[EnsignRicky]

I'm sure there are plenty of people around here who would like to find out.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

As a standalone, this movie is kind of big, dumb fun. But it falls short of being a great movie because the story is constructed as Kirk's rise to leadership, yet the character arc of the movie is Spock's. Kirk doesn't change throughout, consistently displaying the same rebel-without-a-clue recklessness he showed at the age of 11. He doesn't seem to learn any lessons, yet he is rewarded with tremendous responsibility. Spock, who did actually learn a thing or two about himself and moved forward as a character, is relegated to asking him for a position as second in command, which feels very bizarre. Kirk's story, and thus the backbone of the overall story, lacks any sort of emotional resonance for the audience because he achieves a position of power without having earned it. This seriously weakens the tale. Too bad too - it wouldn't have taken much to make this a really good film.

I don't think the average movie watcher is going to care! As it stands it's pretty good as a stand alone.

The question wasn't about whether the average movie goer (who is an average movie goer by the way?) would forgive its flaws - the question was whether or not it was a good movie on its own without Trek lore. By that standard, it was mediocre at best.

I've brought this problem up in several threads and not one person who proclaims this movie great has even tried to refute the argument. At best I get a big shrug. Which is fine - I'm not asking anyone to change their opinion of the movie, but I honestly expected a little more of an interesting critical discussion from a bunch of self-proclaimed movie aficionados.

 

[RobertScorpio]

As a standalone, this movie is kind of big, dumb fun. But it falls short of being a great movie because the story is constructed as Kirk's rise to leadership, yet the character arc of the movie is Spock's. Kirk doesn't change throughout, consistently displaying the same rebel-without-a-clue recklessness he showed at the age of 11. He doesn't seem to learn any lessons, yet he is rewarded with tremendous responsibility. Spock, who did actually learn a thing or two about himself and moved forward as a character, is relegated to asking him for a position as second in command, which feels very bizarre. Kirk's story, and thus the backbone of the overall story, lacks any sort of emotional resonance for the audience because he achieves a position of power without having earned it. This seriously weakens the tale. Too bad too - it wouldn't have taken much to make this a really good film.

(shaking my head)

What makes you such an expert? Nothing of what you said makes any sense at all....you're like some Republican spinning Obama's win as some kind of real win for Repulicans....reality has to set in at some point with the likes of you. THE MOVIE was good..the response was even better...facts are facts.

Rob

 

[Hyperspace05]

As a standalone film the plot is even more laughable. It's still a fun ride, though. The two non-Trekkies I've seen the film with have both enjoyed it, moreso than I did even.

Well that pretty much contradicts your opinion, now, doesn't it?

My answer - BY DEFINITION this is a question us Trek fans cannot answer. Because we cannot detach ourselves from our fandom experience and expectations.

But given its huge box office and overwhelmingly positive reviews from newcomers (my *impression* from reviews I have seen all over the web), I would say that is has been successful in that regard. I've read many user reviews from Star Wars fans that think the film is better than any SW prequel film.

And as many say - it almost seems to be more enjoyed on average by non-trek fans.

And really, look at the big blockbusters of recent times... Star Trek '09 may have giant plot holes, but they seem minor compares to problems with other movies. And unlike many other films, I think this film as a lot of fun energy to it that people seem to enjoy.

 

[Rii]

As a standalone film the plot is even more laughable. It's still a fun ride, though. The two non-Trekkies I've seen the film with have both enjoyed it, moreso than I did even.

Well that pretty much contradicts your opinion, now, doesn't it?

No, not really, it merely suggests that I was more sensitive to those elements of the film than those I saw it with.

The irony is that the deficiencies in the plot don't exist because they were aiming for a new audience, but because they weren't. The time travel bullshit exists because they wanted to give the fans a handjob, folks unfamiliar with Trek don't need old Spock or alternate universes or any of the other shit that required Kirk and Spock to fall back on the kind of expository dialogue that I'd hoped the film would discard. Compounding the problem, in an attempt to minimise said dialogue they had Spock come across less as Sherlock Holmes than as Data's initial impersonation of him. I think it took him a good two seconds to deduce that Vulcan's attackers were from the future.

It's a good flick in most respects, certainly more entertaining than Trek has been in a long while, but it succeeds in spite of its plot, not because of it. It could've been a better film if they'd simply wiped the slate clean instead of trying to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Kirk1980]

Well, that all depends what a 'good film' means to you.

Is a good film a big moneymaker?

or

Is a good film one which makes you admire the skill with which the story was told and filmed?

How often is it that a film is both a moneymaker and a story well told and constructed?

 

[RobertScorpio]

RII...The time travel bullshit exists because they wanted to give the fans a handjob, folks unfamiliar with Trek don't need old Spock or alternate universes or any of the other shit that required Kirk and Spock to fall back on the kind of expository dialogue that I'd hoped the film would discard.

I can't believe you can sit there and insult fans, like me, who didn't know they were getting a handjob. Next time warn us so I can bring some paper towels...you make me laugh with this kind of dribble.

Rob

 

[Silent_Bob]

As a standalone, my opinion would probably have been a lot more negative. The films plot doesnt stand up to scrutiny, and the camera work and direction were abysmal. I certainly wouldnt watch it again nor buy it on dvd.
As a Star Trek film i'll probably buy it when the price drops to a few quid, if only because i would watch it again prior to viewing a sequel.

 

[RobertScorpio]

As a standalone, my opinion would probably have been a lot more negative. The films plot doesnt stand up to scrutiny, and the camera work and direction were abysmal. I certainly wouldnt watch it again nor buy it on dvd.
As a Star Trek film i'll probably buy it when the price drops to a few quid, if only because i would watch it again prior to viewing a sequel.

The camera work and direction were second only to Khan and maybe TMP. Be interested to see what STAR TREK movies you think did have great direction and camera work...Because unless you state that upfront, your opinions have absolutely no worth....which are an example of bad word use and keyboard direction...Bob...

Rob

 

[Islander]

Well, that all depends what a 'good film' means to you.

Is a good film a big moneymaker?

or

Is a good film one which makes you admire the skill with which the story was told and filmed?

Or is it just an amazing store YOU enjoy watching over and over again?

 

[Silent_Bob]

As a standalone, my opinion would probably have been a lot more negative. The films plot doesnt stand up to scrutiny, and the camera work and direction were abysmal. I certainly wouldnt watch it again nor buy it on dvd.
As a Star Trek film i'll probably buy it when the price drops to a few quid, if only because i would watch it again prior to viewing a sequel.

The camera work and direction were second only to Khan and maybe TMP. Be interested to see what STAR TREK movies you think did have great direction and camera work...Because unless you state that upfront, your opinions have absolutely no worth....which are an example of bad word use and keyboard direction...Bob...

Rob

The question was whether i would buy it as a standalone. I wouldnt. But i forgot, J.J Abrams is the second coming of Jesus.

 

[RobertScorpio]

As a standalone, my opinion would probably have been a lot more negative. The films plot doesnt stand up to scrutiny, and the camera work and direction were abysmal. I certainly wouldnt watch it again nor buy it on dvd.
As a Star Trek film i'll probably buy it when the price drops to a few quid, if only because i would watch it again prior to viewing a sequel.

The camera work and direction were second only to Khan and maybe TMP. Be interested to see what STAR TREK movies you think did have great direction and camera work...Because unless you state that upfront, your opinions have absolutely no worth....which are an example of bad word use and keyboard direction...Bob...

Rob

The question was whether i would buy it as a standalone. I wouldnt. But i forgot, J.J Abrams is the second coming of Jesus.

You must wear a clothes pin over your nose after shoveling that stuff. This movie, on face value, is a stand alone movie. Incase you didn't know, TREK hasn't been hip, and the last two movies sucked. In fact, most of the teenageres I know, and I know a lot thanks to the fact I have teenager kids, have no idea who captain "Shatner" Kirk is....now they do.

This movie was intended as a reboot AND as a stand alone. you didn't have to know anything about STAR TREK to enjoy the movie and thats why its doing so good....

But oh well...as I said earlier. people who state opinions like "THIS MOVIE SUCKS BECAUSE" and don't qualify it with an example of what doesn't suck have no merit in their words...Bob

Rob

 

[Silent_Bob]

The camera work and direction were second only to Khan and maybe TMP. Be interested to see what STAR TREK movies you think did have great direction and camera work...Because unless you state that upfront, your opinions have absolutely no worth....which are an example of bad word use and keyboard direction...Bob...

Rob

The question was whether i would buy it as a standalone. I wouldnt. But i forgot, J.J Abrams is the second coming of Jesus.

You must wear a clothes pin over your nose after shoveling that stuff. This movie, on face value, is a stand alone movie. Incase you didn't know, TREK hasn't been hip, and the last two movies sucked. In fact, most of the teenageres I know, and I know a lot thanks to the fact I have teenager kids, have no idea who captain "Shatner" Kirk is....now they do.

This movie was intended as a reboot AND as a stand alone. you didn't have to know anything about STAR TREK to enjoy the movie and thats why its doing so good....

But oh well...as I said earlier. people who state opinions like "THIS MOVIE SUCKS BECAUSE" and don't qualify it with an example of what doesn't suck have no merit in their words...Bob

Rob

Ok here you go. The direction in this film sucks because it resorts to cheap techniques such as shaky cameras and lens flares to try to convey tension and realism. As opposed to films such as Hitchcocks Psycho, which creates far more tension through clever use of camera angles and lighting, instead of just shaking the camera around. That would be my example of a standalone film that is well made.

And for the record, the opinions of someone who will accept anything they are handed as long as it has Star Trek in the title are equally worthless to me...Rob.

 

[cmdrbolly]

The question was whether i would buy it as a standalone. I wouldnt. But i forgot, J.J Abrams is the second coming of Jesus.

Actually, Jesus was merely rolling the carpet out for JJ.

And I believe RobertScorpio was asking for your examples drawn from Trek films. I'm sorta curious to hear myself. Citing Hitchcock is kinda unfair..heheh.

 

[Silent_Bob]

The question was whether i would buy it as a standalone. I wouldnt. But i forgot, J.J Abrams is the second coming of Jesus.

Actually, Jesus was merely rolling the carpet out for JJ.

I may have to sig that