Yeah, thats' one of the faults of the movie. The one dimensional villain. But I could live with that as he wasn't that important, character wise, to the personal developments of Kirk and Spock.
One of the best reviews I have seen so far
- Thread starter Feofilakt
- Start date
Yeah, thats' one of the faults of the movie. The one dimensional villain. But I could live with that as he wasn't that important, character wise, to the personal developments of Kirk and Spock.
Perfectly put. If anything, this film raises the bar for Star Trek in general and these writers in particular. I think they're up to the task. We shall see.
I agree with a lot of this, but I'm not as critical.
I consider this movie a stimulus package for the Star Trek franchise. It's a bright, colorful surge of energy to violently take a stagnant series off life-support and thrust it back into the mainstream. It was effective, but yes, somewhat shallow and I think we can all agree that Nero is the least interesting nemesis to ever grace the world of Trek.
Having said that, I actually really enjoyed the movie and most of it quirks. How I ultimately feel about the reboot will depend on where Abrams and company take the next movie... if it's as shallow as this one, I can guarantee that we'll see Trek, once again, fade into obscurity.
Agreed. I enjoyed the movie for what it was. Like a nice piece of candy.
Except the stimulus was more like a sugar rush. The problem with a sugar rush is when you come down from it, there's that empty feeling. It doesn't deeply satisfy.
Still, dessert is the favorite course of a meal for many people, so starting the meal with dessert isn't such a bed attention getter. But now that everyone's at the table, here's hoping the next course is a little more substantial.
No -- what he did was miss the point of the movie.
Yes -- the film is "about" Kirk and Spock (and the others, but less so) and their journey towards friendship. It doesn't need to be about anything else.
This film is about the TOS characters, plain and simple. So, yeah -- as the reviewer said: it's about getting the band together. What's wrong with that?
And that's what Star Trek is.
For the movie to not be about Kirk and Spock would have been a huge boo boo.
It was supposed to be. He wanted everyone to know that he altered it, it couldn't have been more blatant. The entire point was that he disagreed with the purpose of the test. His performance was a protest, a stunt, from the very beginning.
Ethnocentric, eh? Yes, I'm sure all the space aliens watching ST09 are so offended.
McGuffin - yes. Deus ex machina - not in the slightest. I think you don't know what that term means.
Here at least I agree.
Wow - I loved the review and finally got a chance to read Orr's insightful comments. Yes, the review was full of sarcasm - so what? It's a blog and that's the wonderful thing about blogs - you can let go.
I really liked this part of Orr's review:
I think this movie is doing so well because it is just another summer blockbuster - not because it is Star Trek. People love it because it's a fun popcorn flick that doesn't really get serious about anything. The effect of the destruction of Vulcan (and Romulus) is treated as shallowly as Alderaan on Star Wars. Wait, Ben Kenobi sensed it and treated it as a tragedy. Spock just kissed Uhura and that made it all better. (Whoops, sorry I used sarcasm and we're not supposed to do that here..)
I really liked this part of Orr's review:
I think this movie is doing so well because it is just another summer blockbuster - not because it is Star Trek. People love it because it's a fun popcorn flick that doesn't really get serious about anything. The effect of the destruction of Vulcan (and Romulus) is treated as shallowly as Alderaan on Star Wars. Wait, Ben Kenobi sensed it and treated it as a tragedy. Spock just kissed Uhura and that made it all better. (Whoops, sorry I used sarcasm and we're not supposed to do that here..)
You must have missed the whole "emotionally comprimised" thing and Spock giving up command after he loses it.
I know I felt at least a little emotional over the loss of Vulcan. Perhaps this film just pushed different buttons in me than it did in you.
I don't think there is a need to overtly show a bunch of people on screen lamenting the loss of the planet to give that loss an emotional punch. I thought a lot of the understated silence that accompanied the aftermath of the destruction of Vulcan was powerful enough -- I didn't need someone on screen demonstrating how badly I should feel about it.
Funny how these bits of Orr's review get ignored:
and
(Ryder as Amanda would have seemed less peculiar, I think, if the scenes with the infant Spock had not been cut)
Orr raises some valid criticisms (though I think he's also suffering from the nostalgic "Star Trek was more cerebral than..." a little bit). But he also doesn't argue that anyone who likes it is "lacking critical thinking skills" or is "an idiot". Certainly not the most persuasive of supplemental evidence that the movie is not worth watching.
and
source
(Ryder as Amanda would have seemed less peculiar, I think, if the scenes with the infant Spock had not been cut)
Orr raises some valid criticisms (though I think he's also suffering from the nostalgic "Star Trek was more cerebral than..." a little bit). But he also doesn't argue that anyone who likes it is "lacking critical thinking skills" or is "an idiot". Certainly not the most persuasive of supplemental evidence that the movie is not worth watching.
I liked Star Trek. It's a fun summer flick BUT deeply flawed, espeically in terms of plot and story. The screenplay is a mess. And Nero and his ship are horrible villains.
Mere placeholders, really.
Mere placeholders, really.
I agree completely with the review - not only its criticisms, but also its observation that, despite its flaws, it's very watchable. It's a fun, action-packed piece of popcorn cinema, and if it's not Star Trek as a result, well, there are a lot of fun popcorn movies that aren't. Personally, I was hoping for a smart film, in addition to an action film, and even though I agree that it was a really stupid script about nothing real - sorry, but "it's about the fundamental relationships of Kirk and Spock, as well as the rest of the crew" still doesn't make it about anything at all - it's still mostly watchable. Its biggest hindrance wasn't even the utter lack of a story - it was the utter lack of restraint in the cinematography! It's physically difficult to watch, even more than it is intellectually.
The lens flare and "shaky-cam" thing? I guess I can understand how it could be bothersome (but I've seen far worse examples of the latter--the former didn't really register all that much, except that I noticed it was there) but I had no issues with it (was refreshing after watching a very statically shot film--Becket--the night before).
It was difficult fo me to try to focus on details when the camera was either moving frantically or the angle kept switching.
That said, was it just me, or did the amount or severity of the camera movement seem to decrease as the movie progressed? Or maybe I was getting used to it. But I think it's the former, really.
As it stands now, I'd have to say somewhere in between the depth of the story, the pacing, and the cinematography of TMP and those same aspects of ST09 lies the perfect Star Trek movie.
I don't understand what makes a film a "Star Trek Film" to some people. This film had characters who were very recognizable as their TOS counterparts, it certainly had the feeling of adventure and hope that accompanied most good Star Trek films, and -- most importantly -- was a vehicle that allowed those recognizable characters to interact in a witty manner.
I believe that character interaction is in fact what makes a film a "Star Trek Film".
You may say it wasn't "smart enough", but two of the best-liked Star Trek films (TWoK and FC) weren't any smarter. Those were also full of plot holes, questionable science, not-too-original plotlines, and a little bad dialog -- but they were "fun" films that allowed the characters to interact in enjoyable ways, just like this film.
Last edited:
Actually, I'm referring to the fact that the "emotionally compromised" thing is dismissed completely by that unVulcan like kiss. Another poster somewhere talked about how the destruction of a Vulcan ship elsewhere in the series so disturbed the telepathic Spock that he showed it as visibly. In the movie, Spock is just human and is treated that way. There is little trace of "Vulcan" in him.
I absolutely agree with your assessment about Orr's review which is spot on, giving words to my sentiments about the movie, and with especially your comments about the cinematography.
I watched it today for the second time - the first time on a big screen, today on a smaller screen... and still, I couldn't really watch the beginning and the scene on that drilling machine (and the flying down to get there) on Vulcan without getting dizzy.
I think, too, that it did decrease a bit after the Vulcan scene. From then on out I had no problems any longer. Well, but there were no such intense scenes in the rest of the movie, so perhaps it's a bit of both, a decrease and me getting used to it.
Strangest thing though, a friend of mine complained of dizziness right at the end during the "hommage" to the TOS credits when the camera moved quickly between the planets, and she didn't have problems at all during the movie - I didn't feel dizzy at the end credits at all...