Well one would only have to look at the post made by GodBend just a couple post above to see that a discussion is taking place.
Is Star Trek 2009 overhyped by desesperate Trek fans?
- Thread starter Cdr MacDuff
- Start date
Well one would only have to look at the post made by GodBend just a couple post above to see that a discussion is taking place.
These were not themes, they were ideas which were never developed into themes. A theme isn't something which only shows up in one scene, a theme is something which is developed throughout the movie and which reaches a conclusion somewhere near the end. This movie had no themes, it had some good ideas which ultimately did not mean anything once the movie was over. At least that is my view, your mileage may vary.
Uh, sorry?
Kirk's ambition ran at the heart of most of the plot. He started out with presumably none, got dared by Captain Pike to have even a little, took that dare and ran with it, and then spent most of the film parading his cocky, up-to-eleven attitude all over the place. Captain Pike had no idea what he was getting himself into when he made that dare -- he unleashed a veritable force of nature. Spock got in on the ambition act: his was to prove to his species that there was nothing bloody wrong with being half-human even if he didn't quite believe it himself. Uhura was ambitious as hell, too. She wanted a position on the Enterprise and she knew she had the skillset and talent to take it -- and she did, without letting her superior officer give her a silly runaround.
The movie was pretty much about loss and reactions to it. Kirk lost his father, who was originally going to be his inspiration for joining Starfleet, who was going to be so proud of him when he became captain, but despite that loss he ended up with the same destiny. Nero lost his planet and his family and ended up having the worst possible reaction to it: complete, unthinking madness. His loss drove him crazy and the firepower he gained gave him the ability to lash out in an insensible and ultimately pointless way. Spock lost his planet and his mother and tried to keep up a facade until it almost split him apart with rage and grief, which he took out on another.
These aren't themes? These aren't key elements of the plot that crop up repeatedly?
^And how did those themes develop? Did they pay off in any way in the end? Did they mean anything beyond happening to happen at several points throughout the film? I say no.
Obviously, I agree the film is overhyped. But Trek-starved masses have nothing to do with it; else we wouldn't be seeing the massive praise from mainstream critics--unless one wants to try to argue that they're all, across the board, closet Trekkies.
Obviously, I agree the film is overhyped. But Trek-starved masses have nothing to do with it; else we wouldn't be seeing the massive praise from mainstream critics--unless one wants to try to argue that they're all, across the board, closet Trekkies.
Kirk's ambition paid off in spades. Without him being bold and arrogant enough to do pretty much everything he did, the whole cast would have been dead several times over.
Spock's ambition paid off in that his father opened up to him far earlier than in the old universe and he gained some inkling of peace with his dueling heritages.
Uhura's ambition paid off in that her knowledge contributed to saving the Enterprise. If she'd gone to the Farragut like a good little cadet, preserving Spock's image of avoiding favoritism, she'd be dead and the Enterprise would have been destroyed with the fleet and Nero would have continued his rampage.
The payoff of every character's loss is written all over the screen. The entire plot revolves around the consequences of Nero's loss. Kirk averts the possible consequences of his loss by being Kirk and snatching his destiny by the balls despite it. Spock's loss... why am I even bothering? If you can't see what's in front of you, explaining it isn't going to help.
Oh, so the themes that pay off are are ambition now? You said the movie was "practically about loss and grief."
I'm not following how being ambitious in a climb-the-cooperate-ladder way is a payoff for loss, grief, yadda, yadda, yadda. Unless these characters are using their talents to ascend to positions of power--and take the lives of others' into their hands--in order to plug the wounds left by their pain, which, frankly, would lessen my respect for them considerably. But I'd hope to watch people who are better than using captaincy of a starship as a spiritual band-aid, which is the only way I can see the two elements being connected as you say they are.
In the post you responded to, I outlined two of the themes (ambition and loss) separately. Then I tried to explain how these paid off, separately, but got fed up and gave up. Because if you can't see it, then...
I think these examples just goes to show that the film really didn't have deep characterizations. The problem is the film is shallow. It treats its most serious moments with such superficial acknowledgment. It only gives the most shallow attention to Spock's loss. Abrams says the film is all about the Kirk/Spock relationship but it too is treated in the most simple-minded way that it feels cartoonish in its presentation. That's all really too bad given that I loved all the actors(except Pegg) and would have loved more character focus and interaction.
This feels to me like you are really stretching to make this a valid point in favor of the film.
Yes, but unfortunately I have no investment in his loss.
That could be a quote from Orci & Kurtzman. Because I felt that it seemed like they were only going through the motions in dealing with the consequences of his loss via the scenes with Sarek and Uhura. They failed to resonate and just barely scratched the surface.
I think you need a servant by your side on your parade.
"All glory is fleeting"
Seriously, though, that's not particularly pluralistic and even downright autocratic for you to say. They deserve the ability to post here just as much as you do, outnumbered or not. Would you prefer a wholly one sided interpretation of the film? That sure would get boring fast, wouldn't it?
"I really like the film!"
"Yeah, J.J Abrams did a good job..."
"Yeah"
"Wanna talk about facts regarding certain characters?"
"Uhm... we already did that"
"Oh"
"..."
"..."
Pretty lame, huh?
They deserve as much voice as anyone else, but they shouldn't let their post volume create an echo chamber to the point where it gives them the idea that they're some kind of groundswell of resistance to a brainwashed majority. They're even tinier of a minority than people who still think Bush II was a good president.
I wish I could say I had better things to do than argue at brick walls, but my job doesn't give me homework or overtime, all of my IRL friends have gone home for the summer, I'm stuck on two separate boss battles in two video games, and my other internet hangout is having flamewars about swine flu. If I could afford the supplies, I'd take up knitting.
They're even tinier of a minority than people who still think Bush II was a good president.I wish I could say I had better things to do than argue at brick walls, but my job doesn't give me homework or overtime, all of my IRL friends have gone home for the summer, I'm stuck on two separate boss battles in two video games, and my other internet hangout is having flamewars about swine flu. If I could afford the supplies, I'd take up knitting.
Last edited:
I definitely disagree with this statement, but Trek-fans are a diverse crowd
. I thought "Insurrection" was excellent, while reviews would have me believe I should have been puking out of the theater.The new movie was was good but it lacked substance. I enjoyed it and I'm excited for the sequel, but I am pleasantly shocked at the overwhelmingly positive reviews for an okay movie. Keep it going! No more time travel
Which is a lengthy way of saying "It's a Star Trek movie."
Sorry, really "long-time Trek fan" here and I've yet to see a Trek movie that's an intellectually stimulating experience. I guess if one sets one's sights low enough, there's some kind of Sunday School lesson to be had from some of them - but you can even manage that trick with "Porky's."
The new movie is so different from any previous Star Trek movie that it's not even fair to do comparisons.
If I remember correctly from the initial wave of dismay when they announced the concept of the movie, waaaaay back when... most people were horrified at the prospect of having their favorite characters turned into young rock stars with pretty faces and thought that there was no way in hell they could get the characterization right. I myself was mostly doubtful up until the release, especially of Karl Urban's McCoy, because of some of the still shots that, in retrospect, conveyed none of the actual acting/characterization.
Now that we've seen the characterization, and found that it was not only good but excellent, the diehards of dismay are revising their expectations ex post facto. Instead, they wanted "meat". What is "meat" anyways? Is "substance" like the ham-handed environmentalist message of Voyage Home? Or the extended excuse to bring Spock back from the dead in III? How about the mushy Moby Dick allusion of First Contact? Don't get me wrong, those are three of my favorite Trek movies. I love 'em to death and rewatch 'em every year - because they entertain me with characters I know and love. Not because they're paragons of sophisticated storytelling.
Now that we've seen the characterization, and found that it was not only good but excellent, the diehards of dismay are revising their expectations ex post facto. Instead, they wanted "meat". What is "meat" anyways? Is "substance" like the ham-handed environmentalist message of Voyage Home? Or the extended excuse to bring Spock back from the dead in III? How about the mushy Moby Dick allusion of First Contact? Don't get me wrong, those are three of my favorite Trek movies. I love 'em to death and rewatch 'em every year - because they entertain me with characters I know and love. Not because they're paragons of sophisticated storytelling.
Last edited:
In the sense that this one is much better made than most Trek films, yeah - it's unfair to Treks 1-10.
In terms of substance, it's about the same as the rest - please don't insist that "is this all that I am?" or "in space, all warriors are Cold Warriors" or "the needs of the many" constitute intellectual or moral nourishment of some kind.
If I'm looking for "meat" I don't go to Trek movies or summer blockbusters - it's like going to McDonalds for haute cuisine.
I may be playing the devil's advocate here. But I got the feeling that a lot of Trek fans, including me, at some point, are overhyping the movie in desperation.
A lot of us, thought or at least worried, that Star Trek as a TV/Movie franchise was now death for a couple of years. Enterprise didn't have the same commercial success than preceding series, while the recent movies didn't either. Star Trek have been around almost every year since 1987, its incredible in television history. It felt realistic to expect tptb (executives) to put Star Trek to rest for a couple of years. Maybe even something like 10, 15 or 20 years.
Now here come the big surprise. They announce a new Star Trek movie, headed by a director on the rise (JJ Abrams). Already at that point its beyond our wildest dreams. Its not about the quality of the product anymore, its about the survival of our beloved franchise. We don't mind if Star Trek have become only a brainless action blockbuster movie anymore. Average Trek is better than no Trek. Sure the movie have many faults, but we dont care. Star Trek is alive and its a commercial success!
Is it the right signal to send? Thats is Average Trek is better than no Trek.
I must admit that somehow I feel the same way. The franchise needed a commercial success at that point. But I got another signal to send. Now that the introduction of the rebooted characters is over. I wish the next Trek movie will have a stronger storyline.
oh yeah we went out and bribed all those film critics..
Quite so. All opinions are welcome, though I'd much rather an open-minded discussion than a declared war with opinions hurled like missiles. Say what you think, with the understanding that others are not required to agree with you.
I think you need a servant by your side on your parade.
"All glory is fleeting"
Seriously, though, that's not particularly pluralistic and even downright autocratic for you to say. They deserve the ability to post here just as much as you do, outnumbered or not. ...
There will always be the true believers. They get to say things, too, and no one is compelled to agree, or even to answer.They deserve as much voice as anyone else, but they shouldn't let their post volume create an echo chamber to the point where it gives them the idea that they're some kind of groundswell of resistance to a brainwashed majority.
I'll ask, however, that the politics be checked at the door. We're talking about the movie here, and it's been demonstrated many times over that the other stuff just gets in the way, particularly for those who are not Americans.
That's how we feel? I must have missed the meeting.
Okay, I must admit, I am very excited to see a Star Trek film achieving true major box office success. That hasn't happened in a very long time and it's nice to know that the Star Trek brand hasn't been so beaten into the ground by the sub-par crap we've gotten in the last few outings, both on the big and small screens, that it can't recover.
Having said that, though, does not mean that I will be satisfied with anything Paramount or CBS put out as long as it has the name 'Star Trek' on it.
I wouldn't go so far as to categorize the current film as 'brainless,' but I think we can all agree that it is definitely designed as a blockbuster action 'popcorn flick.' Fair enough. And I think that there's room for that in the Trek universe. Trek has certainly done its share of high octane action over the years, and it has most definitely had its fair share of stories that were brainless.
However, I will be very disappointed if this becomes the template on which all future Trek is built and we can never deviate from that formula. Trek has always been a mixture of story types and I hope to see that continue. In short, I'm willing to accept that a 'Star Trek' can be a viable part of the franchise, but I'd like it to also be accepted that a 'The Motion Picture' can too.
