It’s been a difficult road to travel to commit to this opinion; after all, there’s been so much fun and anticipation over the last two years on this board--SHOUTING SPOCK, Blue Warp Nacelles, the sombreros, Badass Robau and, of course, the Generic Parody Thread which was the reason I registered after lurking for years. And I’ve really had a wonderful time looking forward to the premier with everyone on this forum. But I’ll just say it.
Star Trek is not good. I watched it twice, and, after careful consideration, I don’t like it.
There's nothing wrong with a thoughtful critique, and what a boring group we'd be if we were uniform in our opinions.
I considered titling this “Thread for People of Conflicted Opinion,” because that’s also how I feel right now. Sitting in the theater, surrounded by lots of other people, watching the movie was very enjoyable. I laughed when we were expected to laugh, I cried at Kirk’s birth and over Spock and Sarek’s conversation on the transporter pad. I loved seeing Nimoy again. All the new actors had their characters spot-on. I dug the references to all the past Trek productions. And yet, somehow, a malaise set in over the course of the film and as it entered the third act I felt unfulfilled as a viewer. After my friends and I left the theater opening night, having enjoyed ourselves immensely, I got to wondering why it seemed like I hadn’t had as good a time as I thought I had. When I get right down to it, I asked myself “Was this a good movie?”
And my gut reaction was: “no.”
Sure, it was fun, funny, moving, energetic, shiny, charming, charismatic, and all the things that should make for a great film, but somehow they didn’t gel, and I can’t escape the impression of the movie as a fast-talking car salesman who keeps the patter going so you feel good and don’t notice that you’re being fleeced.
Excellent analogy. The issue is that the film has problems as a story. it works as a popcorn flick, for which people willingly suspend their critical faculties for the sake of mindless entertainment. I can do that occasionally, but mostly flash and FX is kinda annoying, ala War of the Worlds, Transformers and Armageddon. These films are Abrams' Star Trek's brothers.
It’s difficult to articulate why; I’m one of those people who often finds that others can articulate how I feel about things better than I can, and so I often look to other posters to find a better version of what I wish I could post. But in this case, the majority opinion is that ST is very, very good. And I’m happy for them; it’s the reaction we’d all been hoping for, and that I’d been wishing to experience myself. And while there is a dissenting minority, it seems to consist of whiny unhappy fanboys whose primary concern is keeping things in line with a stilted checklist of minutiae from past productions; these two viewpoints find themselves at odds in every thread of this forum and stifle productive discussion about the merits and failings of the movie and how things could have or should have been improved. Hell, the one thread here where some of that seemed to be happening got shut down as a result of actions by two of the film’s supporters. I think there are grounds for serious critiques of what Abrams and company have created, yet it can’t seem to find a voice around here thanks to a polarization of the forum that had its groundwork laid years ago.
So I’m left to wonder: where is the constructive criticism? The input from people who don’t think this movie is all that but still want to see it, or some variation of it, succeed? Are constructive criticisms or grey-area opinions even possible? Because I’m not against the concept of a reboot, or rejuvenation, or remake, or whatever you want to call it; quite the contrary. The promise of JJTrek was more than we’d seen in years, and on some level I’m upset that I don’t feel the way about the movie that I’d hoped I would. But the whole production was so glib, so willing to crack the joke or take the teeth out of the drama by pulling some silly-but-entertaining stunt that it was all too often impossible to invest emotionally in what was happening. It seems to be failing of a lot of Hollywood films these days, to use character drama to set up a final, third-act fight, which, once underway, makes characterization extraneous and that reduces the finale to a string of meaningless punches and explosions. That’s not where I wanted to see these characters or this world go, and I don’t know that there’s a place here any more for this kind of discussion, at least not as a way to score a cheap shot against the other side.
So...what say you, denizens of the Trek XI forum? Am I alone on this?
Here's my critique of the movie simply as a movie.
The opening sequence was moving and suspenseful. It was obvious and trite, but it worked, the way things like ET work. I cared that a child was being born and his father was dying. It was, sadly, the emotional high point of the movie.
The First Act was relatively okay. The corvette sequence was contrived and thin, especially as compared with the more substantial development given to Spock's childhood, which again made me care and set up the character clearly and concisely.
The bar scene largely succeeded on charisma - Saldana's, Pine's and Greenwood's. Again, Kirk's development feels contrived to fit a wanna-be-sexy-to-teenyboppers-kewl-rebel-without-a-cause mold which fundamentally misconstrues the character, though I'll grant that they tried to (minimally) establish throughout that there was a reason for him being an annoying, obnoxious, reckless thrill-seeker - the loss of his father. However, because this was established in all of two lines shoehorned in purely for the purpose of trying to establish some emotional reasoning for his behavior, it didn't really fly.
Karl Urban stole the show in his few sequences, but particularly in his introductory scene. In the one and only moment of originality in the movie, a great line establishes where the nickname Bones comes from.
The Kobayashi Maru sequence was cringe-worthy and where I really started to dislike this version of Kirk. Kirk, in previous incarnations and supposedly in this one, is too smart to telegraph so obnoxiously that he'd reprogrammed the sequence. Playing this scene for broad laughs also robbed the initial Kirk-Spock conflict of real emotional resonance. Think what could have been done with a more subtle performance by Kirk where he appeared to beat the simulation fairly and only Spock realizes that he must have reprogrammed it in order to win. Now that would have established real animosity on Spock's part.
Again, going for humor undermined the development of Kirk's character when McCoy sneaks him onto the Enterprise. That whole ridiculous sequence was unnecessary had the KM sequence been better done. Kirk impresses the hell out of Academy faculty (except Spock) and gets on the ship, ratcheting up the tension between the two heroes. Instead we get sight gags and a lot of silly running through corridors in an attempt to create tension.
From here these same problems continue to plague the movie. Improbable moves by characters
as established in this movie and breaches of internal logic (what effect did the icky creature have on Pike after he was forced to swallow it?) and paper thin plot motivations (Nero marooning old Spock) pile up, even while corny humor still manages to draw a laugh here and there.
I did not care for Nimoy's performance, and I thought his scene of exposition was some of the clumsiest writing I've ever seen, totally breaking the pacing of the movie and bringing all that frenetic motion to a screeching halt. The one good effect it had was to set up the next highest emotional point, which was Spock being provoked into attack on the bridge. Quinto did a lovely job, and in general young Spock's arc was the strongest thing in the movie.
Unfortunately Kirk's story was the weakest. I can't even call it an arc because his character did not significantly develop at all. What did he learn through these experiences? What leadership qualities did he discover other than the recklessness he'd already displayed at the age of eleven? Since the movie was constructed around Kirk's rise to leadership, the lack of a significant arc for that character left a huge hole at the center of the movie. That's why it didn't gel.
I can't say I hated the movie, but it was mediocre at best. Luckily I wasn't expecting much, given how clear Paramount has made it that they have no concept of what Star Trek is, or at least no idea how to make what it is compelling ever again. Not really any skin off my nose seeing as how I gave up on Trek after two episodes of ENT. It was interesting to take a look at this effort and it had its moments, which is an improvement I suppose. But seems to me Trek is still deep in its coma. It opened its eyes for a second with this movie, but that was just an autonomic response that is unlikely to have lasting effects.
