ST09 critics, why don't you like it?

[Captain Robert April]

I keep going back to a complaint Harlan Ellison had about TOS, that fits like a freakin' glove to this movie.

Not only was it mediocre, it was deliberately intended to be mediocre.

They didn't strive to make something great and fail (that's the saving grace of some of the worst episodes, at least they tried something different and it didn't work). They targeted this film to hit that lowest common denominator and get the biggest bang for the buck. From the ubiquitous lens flares to the shaky cam to the MTV rapid edits to the pandering to every Star Trek stereotype in the book, both real and imagined, this film was plotted and made solely to suck in as many people as possible and separate them from their money (nothing wrong with that, in and of itself), and (here's the real crime) BE AS UTTERLY NONCHALLENGING AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE!

And for Star Trek, any incarnation of Star Trek, that is completely unforgivable. Star Trek is supposed to make you think. That this film not only doesn't make you think, but actually requires you to not think, lest the whole house of cards falls apart, is far worse than just another bad installment in the franchise, but a fundamental betrayal of the very idea behind Star Trek that Roddenberry tried to instill in the production and the writing, summed up by his favorite saying on the subject, "There is an intelligent life form on the other side of that television tube!" Eye candy is not enough, you have to appeal to the mind, to the intelligence of the viewer. Short change that, and you sell out the whole thing and reduce Star Trek to "just a fucking movie."

Understand why I'm so angry over this thing now?

 

[Warped9]

^^ Yeah! What he said!

(-:

 

[muzzleflash]

And the crappy thing is that Abrams led us along, claiming that very same thing - although the finished product (when finally revealed) was horrendous.

It's not like Abrams was trying to trick you into believing that the look and feel would be reminiscent of TOS, which you seem to be implying here. It's simply that your taste in aesthetics differs from his.

Good points from everybody most of which I agree with. However, despite these valid arguments I find I still enjoy the movie. Anyone else feel this way? I.e. you recognize the glaring flaws but you like it regardless?

 

[Jeyl]

I.e. you recognize the glaring flaws but you like it regardless?

It's not so much that this movie has flaws, the characters were jerks and the story flat out lazy, but what this film represents is what I dread the most.

1. A Step Back for the ladies
Star Trek 09 is by far the biggest step back in the entire franchise, and I mean that in a serious way. You see, I love TOS, but there are a lot, and I mean a LOT of elements that went 'bye-bye' when future series/movies came into play that I was forever thankful for. Uniforms after TMP looked more professional, women were given much broader and commanding roles. With Trek 09, it feels like they really went back to the days of 'men in charge, women in the background serving as the men's love interest' routine complete with mini-skirts. While I understand short skirts is a nod to the original series style, it doesn't really reflect 'equality' between genders' that the late Star Trek series really did well. In Star Trek 09, there's nothing. I'd talk about Uhura, but I'm saving that for my continuation. Let's just say that while I respect everyone's opinion in whether or not they liked or didn't like the film, I will forever fight the delusional belief that NuUhura is a much better character here than her original incarnation. That couldn't be further from the truth and I'm going to talk about why I belief it is.

2. No Quality OR Quantity
Everyone is saying Star Trek is back, but until the next movie comes out, which is like more than 2 years from now, we won't be getting much of anything new in the Trek field. Remember those four books that were supposed to take place in the NuUniverse? I was actually looking forward to reading those since books are tell a story at a much slower pace than movies, and compared to Trek09, that would be a welcome change. But no. They decide to pull the books because they want JJ to continue the story. Geez, is everyone so detached in the Trek department that two areas of development can't work together to create a singular universe that both mediums can coexist in? It's not like JJ is creating an entire new series from scratch that we must wait for the sequel in order to see how things tun out. This is Star Trek.

3. Target = PG-13
I hate the PG-13 rating. My heart kind of died when I saw that First Contact was rated PG-13, because it meant that Star Trek was now meant for a more limited audience. Thankfully the end result justified 'some' of the higher ratings, I still feel that Star Trek worked best when anyone could go see it without being told upfront to be cautious. I'm not saying we should make Star Trek tame for the sake of bringing in more people. No. It's just that Star Trek 09 felt like they went for the PG-13 rating just for the sake of being PG-13. Thanks to that we now have a Star Trek with more profanity, more violence, more pointless sexuality, more death and more bad behavior from our leading characters than in any other Trek I've seen in one sitting. It kills me to no end that the writers thought that Kirk groping Uhura by accident and giving off a face that he actually enjoyed it was a good idea. So you see, I'm not saying we should make Star Trek PG so it can be soft, but to prevent it from pulling stupid crap like this.

 

[Set Harth]

BE AS UTTERLY NONCHALLENGING AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE!

...except when challenging and summarily discarding the prevailing late-20th-century pop culture beliefs regarding time travel.

 

[Neopeius]

You know that scene at the end, when they're being sucked into the black hole? And Kirk is telling Scotty he has to get them out of there? And they keep cutting from Kirk looking serious to Scotty sort of flailing his arms and wandering around? And then somehow all that armflailing and wandering translates into ESCAPE BLACK HOLE? When he doesn't actually push a button or tell anyone to do anything, but something happens anyway?

Yeah. That scene sucked. Like the whole damned movie.

 

[TOS Purist]

[You see, I love TOS, but there are a lot, and I mean a LOT of elements that went 'bye-bye' when future series/movies came into play that I was forever thankful for. Uniforms after TMP looked more professional, women were given much broader and commanding roles. With Trek 09, it feels like they really went back to the days of 'men in charge, women in the background serving as the men's love interest' routine complete with mini-skirts.

Well, TOS was actually really progressive in it's portrayal of women; remember that Roddenberry originally intended women to wear pants (check out the pilot episodes), and it was the studio execs who forced a change. Still, TOS featured matriarchs, priestesses, and professional woman in a professional environment. When 1960's astronaut Captain Christopher sees a female crewwoman on the Enterprise (in "Tomorrow is Yesterday,") he remarks "A woman!" while Kirk corrects with, "A crewman."

Sure, TOS women were outright about their femininity, but that didn't get in the way of their professionalism. That's actually more progressive than saying that the only way women can be professional is by dressing like men.

But yes, NuUhura was NOT better than Real Uhura. I've heard people say that the only thing Real Uhura did was "answer the space phone," but they just need to watch episodes like "Mirror, Mirror," "Gamesters of Triskelion," "The Trouble with Tribbles," "The Tholian Web," or even "The Man Trap" to see otherwise.

And I definately agree that ST09 WAS a step backwards for women. The short-sleeved uniforms (only worn by women) are especially retarded, because the short sleeves don't display any rank stripes, effectively "de-ranking" the woman wearing it.

And they keep cutting from Kirk looking serious to Scotty sort of flailing his arms and wandering around?

And don't forget - he was wandering around in a brewery. Since I'm assuming that the Enterprise doesn't have an onboard brewery, I can only assume that Scotty was back on Earth...in the 20th century. So I don't know how that helps them!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Dont we have a million threads covering this ( and the other side) with punches not pulled? Whats to be accomplished here? (and there?)

It's an invitation to circle the wagons.

There's been nothing the least bit "challenging" about any of the Trek movies - they've simply failed to interest most of the potential audience. Abrams fixed that by making a better movie.

So, what do you figure the next one will be about? Khan? God knows, as successful and widely admired as this movie is they've pretty much got carte blanche from the public to do as they like.

 

[Kirk1980]

Dennis, I say this politely:

You are in no way a ST09 critic.

Why are you posting here then? Surely there's other threads that could benefit from your viewpoint.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Excuse me, I was addressing another of the previous posters.

When we have private topics in this forum, I'm sure that a real mod will let us know.

 

[Kirk1980]

Then why don't you address it in PM to the other poster?

Again, you're not a critic of the film. This is a thread as stated by the OP that is to be for those who are critics.

Italicize as much as you like, it doesn't change that you're posting in a thread not directed at you in a manner contrary to the intent of the thread.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Apparently, Dennis missed this on the way in.

Also, will the film's fans please let the dissenters have their say and not argue. Allow the dissenters to speak freely.

 

[M'Sharak]

Apparently, Dennis missed this on the way in.

Also, will the film's fans please let the dissenters have their say and not argue. Allow the dissenters to speak freely.

Dennis is correct in stating that there are no private topics on this forum, and neither does anything in Warped9's opening post suggest that he thought that this thread ought to be such. Dennis has in no way interfered with anyone's ability to speak freely. I suppose, however, that one sentence of his first post in this thread could, at a stretch, be construed as an oblique sort of argument, so stop that arguing at once, Dennis!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I suppose, however, that one sentence of his first post in this thread could, at a stretch, be construed as an oblique sort of argument, so stop that arguing at once, Dennis!

Arguing on a Star Trek board? Quelle horror! So, uh, Kirk or Picard?

 

[Kirk1980]

Perhaps.

Previous dealings with his brand of 'arguing', though, have definitely jaded my perceptions of him.

 

[number6]

But that was never five minutes just now.

 

[Jeyl]

Arguing on a Star Trek board? Quelle horror! So, uh, Kirk or Picard?

Don't feed the troll.

 

[TOS Purist]

Shall we get back to the topic at hand?

They could have at least given NuKirk brown contact lenses to wear. Or they could have hired someone how had a PASSING resemblance to Shatner instead of just picking the typical lantern-jawed Abercrombie-and-Fitch-looking punk. Heck, the guy who played Jim Kirk's dad would have made a better JTK. (Or Matt Damon).

 

[Shazam!]

One complaint (I'm only offering up one at this point) is that I felt it was something of a half-hearted reboot. If they had really gone whole hog and side-stepped the whole alternate timeline shtick with a "Spock Prime" and just did a reinterpreted Trek that was roughly analogous to the TOS era then I might have been inclined to be somewhat more forgiving.

Yeah, it always seemed like the weirdest decision they could possibly make. I've seen various mirror universe episodes of Star Trek and alternate universe episodes of Star Trek and whilst they're by and large an intriguing oddity never once did I give a shit when Mirror-Sisko or Parallel-Universe-Riker died or whatever - our heroes are all still alive and well in the 'Prime Universe'. So why should I suddenly care about the adventures of yet more alternate universe counterparts? Because they're on the big screen? Because they've been given a budget? Why should I care if we are told in the movie that we're watching an alternate timeline play out?

Also, Spock Prime, TOS uniforms, TOS music etc are nice little nods but why is this okay in Star Trek but not say.. Batman? It's like if Batman Begins had been about Adam West going back in time and meeting Christian Bale to stop Frank Gorshin's Riddler and at the end of the film, the "DANANANANANANANA BATMAN!" music plays. Why didn't that happen? Because it's fucking retarded. It has nothing to do with genre, it's a just a terrible idea.

You can't use the bits that you consider the least embarrassing and then call your film 'respectful'.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

After having seen Avatar, I'm more critical of Abrams for staying so close to TOS than I was before. I understand that they felt the need to tread carefully, but eventually a real reboot is going to be necessary in order for Trek to remain at all relevant as anything other than a comic book representation of "teh Future!" and this would have been an opportunity to do that.

Interestingly, several of the same designers were employed on Trek as on Avatar, but Cameron encouraged them to think more plausibly about all the details of the environment they were creating whereas the mandate on Trek appears to have had a large "still to the original templates" component to it.