RLM finally did it / Plinkett reviews Star Trek

Right, that's what I found odd about this review. RLM was MUCH harsher on ST: First Contact, largely regarded as the best of the TNG movies. And yet in the Trek09 review, even the criticisms seem almost.... half-hearted, like he was tiptoeing around being negative about it.

Is it because it's common knowledge that the film was wildly popular among fans and critics, and he feared it would look dumb to be more critical of it?

Again, it just seemed RLM was a little off his game here.

 

You're new, I'll cut you some slack. TOS has been heavily er...rewritten...by certain elements of the community to be very gay. Most definitely with Kirk/Spock but also with Spock/McCoy and ad nauseum. That's why RLM 'picked up on' the establishment of the 'NotGay' stuff.

 

Wishful thinking. A cigar is just a cigar.

 

That was fucking amazing.

 

But that doesn't say much considering the TNG movies. In fact, most of the movies are flawed in many ways because they were trying to take something made for TV and make it work on the silver screen.

If that were the case, he might not have ripped into First Contact.

I think he gave ST09 a pass because it reminded him more of Star Wars and because the team who put it together created a visually appealing movie. He even said the plot is fluff, but that he didn't care. And that's kind of what the Onion got at with their headline article. The movie is a fun popcorn flick, not deep science fiction. The latter should have sadly never been expected, even though on occasion Star Trek had given that more in the past on TV.

For this movie, he probably had no expectations so he couldn't really be disappointed.

 

Er, then what does that make TOS and Trek 09 then? TOS = TV and Trek 09 = silver screen. I kinda don't see the distinction you're drawing here...

 

Kirk1980 beat me to your first point-that of course, TOS was a television show that successfully made the transition to films, so why couldn't TNG have?

Well, I for one think it did. I think the first two(I know "Generations" isn't too popular, but oh well) are good films. And though the latter two in my opinion aren't, that's more due to the story and script than some inherent problem of the TNG franchise.




As to why RLM didn't go easy on ST: FC, well, I don't know, but even if it was the most popular of the NG movies, it didn't come CLOSE to the mainstream appeal of TREK09. (Perhaps only TVH did).

Also, since the Next Gen film series eventually ended in fairly big failure, it's easier to criticize the films in retrospect.

 

RedLetterMedia's panning of First Contact but giving Star Trek XI comparative leniency is a primary reason why I don't put stock in him as a reviewer (plus I heard a rumour going around that he gave a fair-ish review to please Simon Pegg, a supposed fan of his, which sounds laughable if true).

Overall TNG's movie series had little of the charm of TOS's movie series, with such crap like Insurrection and Nemesis looking bad in comparison to The Phantom Menace and The Revenge of the Sith. Three out of four of TNG movies were underwhelming successors to TNG proper, with Deep Space Nine and even Voyager brimming with more inventive stories and interesting characters.

However I've still got a soft spot for First Contact, certainly not perfect but less derivative than Star Trek (09) and it had the best overseas box office performance until XI.

 

Does less derivative mean less faithful? That's how it felt (the movie I mean).

 

Dude, we discussed this fairly recently on this very thread. Just because FC is a good movie doesn't mean it's a good continuation of the TNG characters' stories. But RLM's position is that, in the context of an alternate, pre-TOS story, XI is a successful re-invigoration of a franchise that was previously comatose. His positions are only contradictory if you don't listen to his review, because he addresses and explains his different rubrics right off the bat.

 

Yeah, I feel same way. I can't ever completely back his perspective after he called my favourite Star Trek movie (and one of my overall favourite movies of all time) one of the worst movies ever and nitpicked it to a ridiculous degree.

I can understand some criticisms of it even if nothing about it bothers me, but he went way overboard. As for the Simon Pegg thing, I know Pegg enjoyed the Phantom Menace pan and linked to it from his website, but I doubt that influenced the review of "Star Trek" 2009.

 

I thought RLM was fair to First Contact (he points out what he likes about it) and fair to Star Trek 09 (he does point out, correctly, that it's a mindless action film with little relation to Star Trek, the show), on their merits and their flaws.

But the bottom line is that reviewing was entertaining, funny, and drew on an encyclopedic obsession to detail that should amuse and delight all Trek fans- it's stunningly well put together and I loved every second of it.

 

It's more of my own personal opinion rather than the opinions of the majority. I feel like all the movies are lacking or flawed in some way in comparison to the format of the TV shows. In the adaptation to movies, they try and pander more to those who like action rather than substance. The latest movie really seems to exemplify that. Of course, there are always exceptions.

Maybe not all of the characters, but Data and Picard had good continuation. It's unfortunate that the rest of the movies focused so much on these two though.

 

Thanks for that, I'm obviously just an idiot. But seriously, I don't know what it means that FC wasn't a good continuation of TNG characters' stories. That movie, despite being an action film, probably has the best character moments of the TNG films. (Picard's character arc, Data's character arc, Picard-Lilly, and for non-regulars, Cochrane's character arc)


FC was much LESS of a "fluff" movie than Trek XI, and yet as others have pointed out, it got ripped to shreds by RLM.

Just because Trek XI was technically a "reboot" doesn't mean it should have been held to lower standards, but he was obviously grading on a curve.

And just because I came to different conclusions doesn't mean I didn't watch the review.

 

Still more wishful thinking. All this comes down to is "He didn't share my opinion." That's all. None of the "He's holding it lower standards," stuff applies. It's simply his review, he didn't have as harsh of an opinion as some of you wanted him to.

 

Eh? He forgets everything he learned in "I, Borg" and subsequent Borg episodes, gets angry for a bit but then is brought to his senses by a Moby-Dick reference. That's not a very significant arc.

Huh? He's tempted with some skin and... well, skin, but decides to not f*** over his friends and crewmates. That's an arc?

Some nice moments, but it's time we could have spent on the movie-marginalized non-Picard/Data TNG cast. Sure, they get cooler cameos in this movie than the others, but they still get no arcs at all. At least Insurrection and Nemesis moved the Riker/Troi thing along.

Not lower, but different standards. FC acted like it was a serious continuation of the TNG story, not a nonsensical Borg story that shreds the concept of the Collective by giving it a Queen featuring a Rambo-ized Picard. XI didn't pretend to be anything other than a wild, sometimes goofy ride. Different syles, different tones, different goals --> different standards.

 

But isn't it risible that the people who claim Star Trek was a mindless action movie are the very same people who claim First Contact was not.

 

They are?

 

Every one of his previous reviews was harsh with maybe the exception of Avatar. That's his style. When all of a sudden he lets up on a movie, people become suspicious because that's not his style.

The only thing Picard learned in "I, Borg" was that Borg had the potential to become individuals rather than automatons. His hatred for the Borg never really went away. And the subsequent Borg episodes had Nechayev ordering Picard to not do what he did in that episode.

The Borg in First Contact were not separated from the collective and didn't show any signs of individuality on top of being an enemy that was attacking them. I'd say he had every right to be angry with them. But Lily did have a point about him not even trying to save them. Picard is having the realization that regardless of the Borg attacking him and not showing any signs of being individuals that they should still be helped.

As an aside, he also lost his family in Generations, which was there to help him during his recovery from the Borg attack. Without his family, his grief may have returned him to feelings of bitterness toward the Borg.

Data's arc was always about becoming human. Generations jump started it in the movies so that Data would deal with the consequences of his new found emotions. They could have really picked any perceived emotional flaw and that would have been character growth for him. In Generations it was fear and coping with emotions of sadness. In FC, it was about trying to tame his emotions even to the point of being turned off, but realizing that some situations he couldn't even resist. They resorted to temptation of humanity though, which had sort of been done before in "Descent".

 

Sorry to play mod, but this is going way off-topic. There are many, many threads for debating the pros and cons of "Star Trek: First Contact". This one is supposed to be about RLM's reviewing, not simply the merits of the movies themselves. I find it interesting that discussions of his reviews seem to inevitably lead to debate on whether or not he was fair to "Star Trek: First Contact".

That may be the most controversial review he's done and I think this says something about the quality of the movie. With most of his reviews, people tend to enjoy him ripping things, because they are almost universally reviled, but the eighth Star Trek movie is an exception. Personally, I'm pretty neutral about the Star Wars movies (didn't really like or hate any of them, except "Revenge of the Sith", which I despised), so I thoroughly enjoyed his evisceration of "The Phantom Menace".