Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Char Aznable, Sep 1, 2010.
LOL! Spot on and funny as shigitty!
I disagree that discussing First Contact in this thread is off topic. The issue was:
1. RLM went easy on STXI (You can disagree with this assertion, but this is the argument being made by myself and others)
2. RLM Rarely goes easy on the movies he chooses to review, with the exception of "Avatar" as mentioned above
3. RLM Savaged First Contact in his review of that film, for in part being (paraphrasing) "a big dumb action movie," a criticism that if you think is fair or not, would probably apply EVEN MORE SO to Trek XI.
4. So the question is why did RLM lay off Trek XI? Even if you loved TREK XI, but were being fair, I think you'd agree that there was material there that could have been used in a funny criticism of the movie.
I'm disappointed in two respects:
Yes I wanted RLM to be more consistent and also to address some flaws of Trek XI, but more to the point, as I mentioned before:
I just think he was off his game. I wanted a funnier review, along the lines of his SW prequel reviews, like I mentioned before, and I think his holding back was what made this review less funny.
He did point out what he felt were flaws.
People seem to now have this expectation that this guy will just tear everything apart.
I think that, in some ways, this is one of his best reviews, because he does defend his position very well.
In fact the only spot where he goes wrong is in shortchanging the exposition scene where Checkov explained what was happening to the crew. If you listen to that carefully, you will find that that the black holes and the seismic activity are separate events.
It's appropriate that he tones his act down, otherwise it would get old. I'm sure the hooker character will return for the Episode 3 review.
I think any Trek fan will appreciate and agree with many of the individual points in this review.
I think it's much easier for RLM to do a funny review if Plinkett hates the movie he's reviewing. Clearly, he liked this one and attempted more of a real review rather than getting distracted by the hooker in his basement.
Yes, obviously he mentioned flaws in Trek XI. What I meant of course, was that there were many he could have addressed and didn't. RLM isn't a straight-forward movie reviewer, he's a comedic reviewer. So even movies that he may have liked should be picked apart for funny material. Yes he does that to an EXTENT here of course, but it is definitely toned down. Seriously, look back at his reviews of Trek VII-X, AND SW episodes I and II, and compare them to this one.
Now even if you say Trek XI is significantly better than any of those six films, there's no reason to lay off as much as he did.
Look, the reviews are mostly for fun anyway, interspersed with good points, so we're overanalyzing of course. I was just disappointed that it was less funny and less critical than his previous Star Trek/Star Wars reviews.
He mentioned almost EVERY flaw that everyone here and around the internet has come up with since the movie came out. . . it's obvious that the people behind this review had their fingers on the pulse of fandom. . . (hell, they could be lurking in these boards and others for all we know), but he also acknowledged that ST09 had a specific job to do as a film, make Star Trek relevant to a wider 21st Century audience given the state of film making these days, and it did its job almost flawlessly, so he was not going to nitpick it to death. The job of the TNG films were to be, as Gaith said earlier, "a serious continuation of the TNG story" and they didn't live up to that, so even if they were good films, and only "First Contact" was, RLM was going to point out all the flaws that detracted from their stated purpose. . .
He was not dishonest about his review, he says up front that as long as the flaws didn't derail the story and purpose of the movie, that they don't matter for ST09. . . did you miss that part waiting for him to tear down the film?
He showed what he felt were flaws, and that's it. It is after all his review.
What you or I think about the movie is irrelevant.
Given that he did that for like 6 or 7 movies, you might understand why people would have such expectations. And part of that is what made him popular.
Spock had a "creepy Oedipus complex?"
In all my viewings, this I missed.
Yeah, I find it funny that people complain that Winona Ryder looked too young to be Sock's mom. So they're experts on 23rd-century Federation anti-winkle cream, are they?
Nah, she didn't look like a woman old enough to have a 20-something son. Trek's been... "fair" with how old people are verses how old they look all things considered but Winona did look too young to be Spock's mom even with the, mild, aging they gave her even further considering she's living on a planet with much harsher solar radiation than her species is used to. (i.e. She's a human living on Vulcan.)
As for an Oedipus Complex? I could... "see" it, but I also not like I could blame Spock. But I doubt any Oedpedial-ness was intended.
JJ Trek is shaking lots of stuff up... no reason it can't shake up anti-wrinkle cream efficiency while they're at it. And if the environment is so harsh, all the more reason for her to slather it on!
the Oedipus complex reference might have been a joke. After all Ryder is an attractive woman.
And they did try to age her as much as possible considering she's only like 6 or 7 years older than Zachary Quinto.
They failed. Lea Thompson is the same age as Michael J. Fox but they managed to use makeup to age her to appear to be 20 years older in the Back to the Future movies. Even the overly plastic-surgeried Lorraine in 1985-A.
Why didn’t they just give the role to an age-appropriate actress?
There's a deleted scene of young [pregnant] Amanda and young Sarek during Spock's birth, to sort of coincide with the birth of Kirk. They used Winona for both old and young Amanda, obviously, for continuity reasons. Now they did put some old-age makeup on Winona, you can tell, but it doesn't seem extreme enough which, yeah, I guess we can chalk up to aging just not being as drastic in the 23rdC.
So find two actresses that look like the same person at different ages. For example, Leelee Sobieski and Helen Hunt.
Even in 2010, aging makeup seems to be something Hollywood hasn’t quite got a handle on. Every now and then they do a good job — F. Murray Abraham looks very believable as an old man in Amadeus — but usually they come off looking like young people in old makeup, especially if they’re trying to age the character by ~30 years.
The didn't have money for a decent engineering set; you really think they were going to pay 2 actresses to play the same part -- she also had a scene at Spock's school with Sarek after the bullying scene -- when they could get one actress and just put make-up on her? Ryder's makeup wasn't bad, and most people didn't recognize her until the credits. . .
Separate names with a comma.