The latest Roger Ebert's "Answer Man" -- all Star Trek questions

[Aragorn]

Roger Ebert's "Answer Man"

Six questions, all on Star Trek which Ebert rated ** 1/2. Was this a TrekBBS rally?

And on a side note, in Ebert's review of Generations, he called Captain Harriman a young Picard.

One question from Answer Man:

Q. I would like to inform you what parts of your "Star Trek" review makes it lesser than anyone else's and just seems to be dribble that stings the eyes when read. You write, "Anyone with the slightest notion of what a black hole is, or how it behaves, will find the black holes in 'Star Trek' hilarious." Damn it, man, you're a film critic, not an astrophysicist!

"The logic is also a little puzzling when they can beam people into another ship in outer space, but they have to physically parachute to land on a platform in the air from which the Romulans are drilling a hole to the Earth's core." Your logic is puzzling. When the drill is active, all communications and transporter capabilities are disabled. Thirdly, they didn't parachute to land on the platform when it was drilling the Earth's core, that was on Vulcan.
Joel Gainey, New Orleans

A. Thanks for your corrections. I got carried away with the Grand Canyon, which, after checking with Google Earth, I find is not located in Iowa. Regarding the astrophysics: I have never seen a black hole and am not sure if one can be seen, since even light cannot escape from it. But if I could see one, I doubt it would be on such a scale that it and the Enterprise could fit into the same frame.

 

[Corran Horn]

Any lazy person thinking it's the Grand Canyon. Come on now.

 

[RoJoHen]

Wow, he really got hung up on the wrong details of this movie.

You can't see a blackhole? No, no you can't. But you can see the shit being sucked into it! And even if you couldn't, who gives a crap?

 

[Amaris]

He's even wrong in some of his answers. That's sloppy, Roger. You're better than that.


J.

 

[RoJoHen]

He's even wrong in some of his answers. That's sloppy, Roger. You're better than that.


J.

I noticed that, too. I don't think he was even paying attention to the movie.

 

[clint g]

Just curious but arent there some theories that say black holes aren't actually huge, but rather tiny?

 

[RoJoHen]

Just curious but arent there some theories that say black holes aren't actually huge, but rather tiny?

They are singularities, meaning they occupy only a single point in space. They may, however, appear larger because the light around them can't be seen.

 

[Amaris]

He's even wrong in some of his answers. That's sloppy, Roger. You're better than that.


J.

I noticed that, too. I don't think he was even paying attention to the movie.

It makes me rather disappointed, too. I'm a big fan of Roger Ebert, and his 2 1/2 stars were acceptable by me, as I know his rating scale is different, but now he's just being careless, and when your job is to understand the plot and detail of a movie and relate it to the potential audience, that's a serious problem that needs resolved quickly.

J.

 

[clint g]

Just curious but arent there some theories that say black holes aren't actually huge, but rather tiny?

They are singularities, meaning they occupy only a single point in space. They may, however, appear larger because the light around them can't be seen.

This stuff blows my mind

BTW: Thanks for the info on singularities. i knew they were black hole related, but didn't know they were named such because they offupy a singular point in space

 

[startrekwatcher]

Wow, he really got hung up on the wrong details of this movie.

Yes, he did. Why he chose to focus on such things is beyond me when there were plenty of other issues to criticize--the paper thin villian, the way Vulcan's destruction and Amanda's death were treated, the forced and unsatisfying way Prime Spock was placed into the film in what could very well be his last appearance ever in Trek, the writers' trying to do far too many things resulting in a lot of abbreviated ideas, a lack of emotional resonance etc etc.

 

[Ghel]

Yep. That would be Steven Hawking who contends that there could be really small black holes in the universe. Someone who knows more can correct me (since it's been a decade since I read his book) but he postulates that while real particles cannot escape a black hole, UNreal particles can. Hence, eventually a black hole can lose mass and dissipate completely.

 

[RoJoHen]

Wow, he really got hung up on the wrong details of this movie.

Yes, he did. Why he chose to focus on such things is beyond me when there were plenty of other issues to criticize--the paper thin villian, the way Vulcan's destruction and Amanda's death were treated, the forced and unsatisfying way Prime Spock was placed into the film in what could very well be his last appearance ever in Trek, the writers' trying to do far too many things resulting in a lot of abbreviated ideas etc etc.

While I disagree with your opinion here, at least your opinion focuses on ideas that are worth criticizing. You know, thing like the characters and story...not the science of skydiving.

 

[Rii]

Ebert's earned the right to be a grouchy old bastard, but I was surprised at how inane some of his criticisms were. It read like he was cribbing from some of the folks in the TOS forum. I usually enjoy Ebert's reviews even when I disagree with them, this time not so much.

 

[Amaris]

Wow, he really got hung up on the wrong details of this movie.

Yes, he did. Why he chose to focus on such things is beyond me when there were plenty of other issues to criticize--the paper thin villian, the way Vulcan's destruction and Amanda's death were treated, the forced and unsatisfying way Prime Spock was placed into the film in what could very well be his last appearance ever in Trek, the writers' trying to do far too many things resulting in a lot of abbreviated ideas etc etc.

While I disagree with your opinion here, at least your opinion focuses on ideas that are worth criticizing. You know, thing like the characters and story...not the science of skydiving.

Which he got wrong as well. Olsen didn't miss. He chose to be a daredevil and recklessly tried to get in closer before pulling his chute.

J.

 

[startrekwatcher]

Wow, he really got hung up on the wrong details of this movie.

Yes, he did. Why he chose to focus on such things is beyond me when there were plenty of other issues to criticize--the paper thin villian, the way Vulcan's destruction and Amanda's death were treated, the forced and unsatisfying way Prime Spock was placed into the film in what could very well be his last appearance ever in Trek, the writers' trying to do far too many things resulting in a lot of abbreviated ideas etc etc.

While I disagree with your opinion here

You thought Nero was a compelling adversary with great depth? You thought Vulcan's destruction wasn't treated casually and with as much care as any anonymous world would have been treated? You didn't find the fact that Amanda's death was devoid of emotional resonance to be an issue and you thought the way the writers brought Old Spock into the story was clever and that if this is the last time we see him that this is an appropriate curtain call. And you didn't think the writers tackled too much? Okay...

 

[Rii]

You thought Nero was a compelling adversary with great depth?

No. Nero was easily the weakest character of the film.

You thought Vulcan's destruction wasn't treated casually and with as much care as any anonymous world would have been treated?

I had no issues with this, it's not a real planet. Nor do I necessarily agree that it was treated casually, I think its destruction was given as much weight as a film as generally lighthearted as this one could afford it.

Now destroying Earth, that would've been ballsy...

You didn't find the fact that Amanda's death was devoid of emotional resonance to be an issue

It wasn't devoid of emotional resonance. It was, in fact, the trigger by which Spock was undone. A touching, if not particularly subtle, thread of consistency in Spock from childhood to adulthood.

and you thought the way the writers brought Old Spock into the story was clever

Nope, the whole time travel/alternate timeline plot was nonsense. The less said about it the better.

and that if this is the last time we see him that this is an appropriate curtain call.

I don't consider it to be of any significance whatsoever. So it's Nimoy's last appearance, who cares?

 

[RoJoHen]

Wow, way to completely miss the point of what I said.

 

[Amaris]

Yes, he did. Why he chose to focus on such things is beyond me when there were plenty of other issues to criticize--the paper thin villian, the way Vulcan's destruction and Amanda's death were treated, the forced and unsatisfying way Prime Spock was placed into the film in what could very well be his last appearance ever in Trek, the writers' trying to do far too many things resulting in a lot of abbreviated ideas etc etc.

While I disagree with your opinion here

You thought Nero was a compelling adversary with great depth? You thought Vulcan's destruction wasn't treated casually and with as much care as any anonymous world would have been treated? You didn't find the fact that Amanda's death was devoid of emotional resonance to be an issue and you thought the way the writers brought Old Spock into the story was clever and that if this is the last time we see him that this is an appropriate curtain call. And you didn't think the writers tackled too much? Okay...

I hope you don't mind if I address these as well:

* I think Nero had more nuance and depth than he is given credit. When he's on screen, I can't help but watch him, every detail and listen to his every word.

* Vulcan's destruction had a HUGE impact on me. I love Vulcan. Favorite planet in the Star Trek universe, so this did impact me greatly. I think they did quite well considering the pacing of the movie and the need to move forward.

* I didn't find Amanda's death to be devoid of emotional resonance. In fact, shock and sadness were primary reactions to her death.

* I love the way they got Old Spock into this movie, and I loved seeing him on the big screen as I had never seen him on it before. I also think this a fitting way to end his run if he so desires, yes.

* I think the writers took on a lot, which is good because it clears the way for the next movie to completely kick ass.


J.

 

[startrekwatcher]

You thought Vulcan's destruction wasn't treated casually and with as much care as any anonymous world would have been treated?

I had no issues with this, it's not a real planet. Nor do I necessarily agree that it was treated casually, I think its destruction was given as much weight as a film as generally lighthearted as this one could afford it.

That's my point. It was just a plot point. Boom! it's gone and that's it. I just thought it should have generated more of a reaction. One reason I would assume it was done, besides removing all doubt that this is a new timeline, is to leave the audience reeling. It just doesn't work.

It wasn't devoid of emotional resonance. It was, in fact, the trigger by which Spock was undone. A touching, if not particularly subtle, thread of consistency in Spock from childhood to adulthood.

I'm not saying that the writers avoided addressing its impact on Spock but I found the way they did it to be very shallow and flat.

and that if this is the last time we see him that this is an appropriate curtain call.

I don't consider it to be of any significance whatsoever. So it's Nimoy's last appearance, who cares?

I do. If you are going to go to all the trouble to bring such a significant and beloved figure back I would hope that it would be done thoughtfully and that his character would be given a worthy sendoff otherwise I would have just preferred to remember Spock in the near perfect final scene of TUC.

 

[donners22]

I certainly agree that Nero was a fairly unremarkable villain, but poor Bana was up against a line of scene-stealers like Malcolm McDowell, Christopher Plummer and Christopher Lloyd. The character's motivations were rather veiled - aside from pure revenge, his justifications didn't make much sense.

I do disagree with the suggestion that the destruction of Vulcan and, particularly, the death of Amanda lacked an emotional impact. The former I can understand more, as the sudden loss of 6 billion people was not really explored. However, the line about being a member of an endangered species was particularly poignant, and I think Nimoy's Spock really did sell it when he said that he was emotionally compromised.

Perhaps, though, that is looking at it like a fan. A casual viewer may not care much about a race whose depiction in the film seemed to be little more than bullies and racists. They have to read into the impact it has on the Spocks to understand how devastating it was to good people. If time had been spent building up Vulcan as a place for new viewers to care about, it would have been a very different film. They rely on fans to care and new viewers to at least accept it as a major event.

As for Amanda, I think that had an emotional impact. Her last look, Spock staring at the empty pad in a rare moment of silence, Chekov's despair - I think that really hit hard. Then, I nearly cried at Data's demise in Nemesis, so perhaps I'm just a softie...

I suppose Ebert is not alone in finding fault with the introduction of Nimoy's Spock - an Australian reviewer made quite a point of that in his negative review - but I still enjoyed having him as part of the film. His inclusion and use was far from logical in some senses, but so was much of the film. Ebert has given good reviews to far sillier films.