The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

[BurntSynapse]

It's irritating, given the plot holes big enough to drive a planet killer through.

You havent seen the film yet, so how do you know there are massive plot holes?

And if you are talking about the continuity changes, those are not plot holes, but part of the plot itself.

The entire plot hinges on a plot hole the size of Vulcan itself, namely Spock, who's no stranger to time travel, doesn't take his little squidship into another time warp or two and stop Nero before he goes on his rampage! For that matter, he could even go back and prevent the accident that destroyed Romulus in the first place, so I can say with utmost confidence that this is a typical case of dumbed-down-for-the-masses popcorn action movie that uses the flashiest effects they can get their hands on to disguise the fact that we've already seen this story a hundred times before! And probably done better.

The rest is details.

Factor in that they've turned Kirk into a reckless smartass, who any responsible military organization wouldn't trust with a potato gun, being given command of Starfleet's biggest and flashiest ship, and you're talking scripting by cliche by writers whose closest thing to military experience is apparently having played with G.I. Joe's as kids (the little 3 3/4 ones, not the old 12" classics).

Oh, and I've read lots of spoilers, both here on TrekBBS and elsewhere. I don't need to see the movie to know what happens, I've seen point-by-point breakdowns of the entire plot.

I would tend to disagree that one needs to see the evidence before making very confident statements about it.

Now, having said that....BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO!

Perfect: "scripting by cliche"!

 

[jamestyler]

You havent seen the film yet, so how do you know there are massive plot holes?

And if you are talking about the continuity changes, those are not plot holes, but part of the plot itself.

The entire plot hinges on a plot hole the size of Vulcan itself, namely Spock, who's no stranger to time travel, doesn't take his little squidship into another time warp or two and stop Nero before he goes on his rampage! For that matter, he could even go back and prevent the accident that destroyed Romulus in the first place, so I can say with utmost confidence that this is a typical case of dumbed-down-for-the-masses popcorn action movie that uses the flashiest effects they can get their hands on to disguise the fact that we've already seen this story a hundred times before! And probably done better.

The rest is details.

Factor in that they've turned Kirk into a reckless smartass, who any responsible military organization wouldn't trust with a potato gun, being given command of Starfleet's biggest and flashiest ship, and you're talking scripting by cliche by writers whose closest thing to military experience is apparently having played with G.I. Joe's as kids (the little 3 3/4 ones, not the old 12" classics).

Oh, and I've read lots of spoilers, both here on TrekBBS and elsewhere. I don't need to see the movie to know what happens, I've seen point-by-point breakdowns of the entire plot.

I would tend to disagree that one needs to see the evidence before making very confident statements about it.

Now, having said that....BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO!

Perfect: "scripting by cliche"!

I'd assume that bravo-ing was sarcasm considering that timewarp to stop Nero point is canceled out by the plot of the events of the movie.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Jeff Bond's review of the movie is up now at www.trekmovie.com. One remark of his in particular captures much of what is true, and different, about this Trek movie:

Star Trek films have been hit and miss, but even as I’ve enjoyed some of them there’s an acknowledgment that I have never gotten what I’ve wanted from these movies—because what I’ve wanted is to re-experience the thrill I got out of watching the wonderful character moments in episodes like “Journey to Babel” and “Amok Time”—while seeing the Trek characters in a MOVIE with the kind of scope, action and drama I was used to seeing from the post-Star Wars era. And as heretical as it is to say this, that was never possible while watching the original cast do their Trek movies. As much as I loved those people, as good as they still were at what they did, it required a frustrating act of faith to watch old men and women trying their best to fit into the uniforms and chairs they inhabited decades earlier. The movie series had to jump through hoops to keep poor Sulu sitting at the helm as an old man while Spock—a Vulcan with a lifespan of hundreds of years—looked 20 years older than everyone around him, his father included. Gallivanting around the universe is a game for the young, and what I wanted was to see those heroes again in their prime. That’s what struck me when I was watching this movie—that I was finally seeing what I wanted a Star Trek movie to be.

This seems to capture more of what the author "felt" than anything factual about the film, and although TrekMovie must be unfailingly positive to keep their corporate support, this does not mean that their articles and other writing is always deceptively enthusiastic. Some truth can be almost certainly be found there.

For me, the Kelvin sequence was perfectly executed...

Seriously, what standards of perfection are you using? This Kelvin scene failed mine by a light year!

I want to know whether the nonsensical dialog is of concern? What about blinding viewscreen images from stuff "out of visual range"? Bridge command and crew ignoring StarFleet's primary exploration mission? George Kirk's magical phaser powers to hit torpedoes from the future with a ship that's exploding? His useless suicide after all controls are offline? The Narada being unwilling to do ANYTHING to stop a collision with a ship moving at pitiful, *impulse* speeds while George rambles on the com to his wife? A chief engineer who has "never seen anything like" a warp drive that is "knocked out"? C'mon.

 

[BurntSynapse]

I don't really care what plot holes are in the movie I love Star Trek including this movie

Is there no Star Trek film, show, or merchandise you consider bad?

 

[Wynterhawk]

I wondered, after re-watching it last night, with all the mistakes and whatnot, why was Kirk *just* promoted to Captain. Why not to a higher rank, if they considered what he did so fabulous that it deserved a promotion over other seasoned officers. Why wasn't Spock given the captaincy (let's say) and Kirk, First Officer, considering Spock did a lot of the grunt work. He risked his life to rescue the remaining Vulcans elders, piloted the Jellyfish, destroyed the drill, lost his *planet*. Wasn't that worth a medal, a clap on the back and a round of applause. Did they completely forget that Kirk wasn't supposed to be on the Enterprise anyway? Or were all of his infractions overlooked by this one heroic act.
Eh, I'm not digging that deeply into the plot, but this was just something that crossed my mind.

 

[startrekrcks]

No are you thinking I should pick out bad things about the movie when it is obvious I like the whole film.

 

[Wynterhawk]

No are you thinking I should pick out bad things about the movie when it is obvious I like the whole film.

No, it means critically thinking about a movie. If you want to blindly swallow the movie as is that's your prerogative.

 

[BurntSynapse]

I'm not digging that deeply into the plot, but this was just something that crossed my mind.

This is something that has bothered lots of viewers, but is typical of the film: nonsensical, sometimes miraculous actions followed by suicidal stupidity, insane actions, and dialog with no relation to the character's situation.

Go to StructuredDream for details.

 

[BurntSynapse]

No, it means critically thinking about a movie. If you want to blindly swallow the movie as is that's your prerogative.

I don't think people who are sufficiently emotionally invested in the film (meaning the lack a basic moral commitment critical thinking) should be urged to apply logic in situations like this. They nearly always resent such attempts, attack the suggester, and become even more hostile to rationality and those who follow such worldviews generally.

Good thinking is a process of growth, step by step, and objective, reasonable people should acknowledge this applies to themselves and others - which is really difficult with zealots. Nevertheless, we are obligated to a higher standard than those who have not had our educational/experiential advantages. Yes?

 

[Itisnotlogical]

It was a really great movie, definitely one of my favorite flicks of all time. But to me, the character's just didn't match up with their now elderly counterparts from the movies and TV show. NuSpock is now young and angsty instead of quiet, dignified and intelligent; NuKirk is an idiot who spends most of his time getting his ass kicked and being saved by his superiors (Pike in the bar, Sarek on the Enterprise bridge, etc); NuUhura has finally removed Angelina Jolie from the very top of my personal "Ugliest Actors" list; you get the point. All in all, a good movie, just not a good Star Trek movie.

 

[archeryguy1701]

No, it means critically thinking about a movie. If you want to blindly swallow the movie as is that's your prerogative.

I don't think people who are sufficiently emotionally invested in the film (meaning the lack a basic moral commitment critical thinking) should be urged to apply logic in situations like this. They nearly always resent such attempts, attack the suggester, and become even more hostile to rationality and those who follow such worldviews generally.

Good thinking is a process of growth, step by step, and objective, reasonable people should acknowledge this applies to themselves and others - which is really difficult with zealots. Nevertheless, we are obligated to a higher standard than those who have not had our educational/experiential advantages. Yes?

Was that really needed? OK, there are things about the new movie that bothers you. No big deal. But does the fact that it doesn't bother some other people mean that they are unable to think critically, are zealots, or are educationally/experientially disadvantaged? Does the movie have issues? Sure. Find me a movie that doesn't. But as long as I continue to be entertained and those issues don't pull me out of the movie, I'm not going to get my skivvies in a twist over it. I suppose if that's the sign of an uneducated zealot, I'm just going to have to live with that.

 

[M'Sharak]

No, it means critically thinking about a movie. If you want to blindly swallow the movie as is that's your prerogative.

I don't think people who are sufficiently emotionally invested in the film (meaning the lack a basic moral commitment critical thinking) should be urged to apply logic in situations like this. They nearly always resent such attempts, attack the suggester, and become even more hostile to rationality and those who follow such worldviews generally.

Good thinking is a process of growth, step by step, and objective, reasonable people should acknowledge this applies to themselves and others - which is really difficult with zealots. Nevertheless, we are obligated to a higher standard than those who have not had our educational/experiential advantages. Yes?

Was that really needed? OK, there are things about the new movie that bothers you. No big deal. But does the fact that it doesn't bother some other people mean that they are unable to think critically, are zealots, or are educationally/experientially disadvantaged?

No, it does not, and BurntSynapse, allow me to suggest that, while critiquing the film is well and good--it's why we're here, after all--critiquing other posters is something you'll want to steer clear of.

I don't think people who are sufficiently emotionally invested in the film (meaning the lack a basic moral commitment critical thinking) should be urged to apply logic in situations like this. They nearly always resent such attempts, attack the suggester, and become even more hostile to rationality and those who follow such worldviews generally.

The above paragraph in particular would have been better left unsaid. (I'm not even sure the first sentence really makes sense, in fact -- some words appear to be missing or misspelled, rendering the meaning unclear, but it's not very complimentary, is it?) The second paragraph wasn't much of an improvement. If you feel you must condescend, perhaps another venue would be more appropriate -- your blog, for example.

While we're on the topic of things left unsaid:

No are you thinking I should pick out bad things about the movie when it is obvious I like the whole film.

startrekrcks, sometimes the best response is to say nothing at all. Do try to work a little harder on that.

 

[BurntSynapse]

Was that really needed?

The answer to this question is always "no". Even if the entire universe ceased to exist without the X in "Is X really needed?", one could still argue saving the universe is not really needed.

Since it is a "begging the question fallacy" and doesn't contribute anything, I try to stop myself from asking it since it feels like it would be intellectually dishonest, and unless I were also using it regarding things I liked.

I feel obligated to answer what I see as sincere questions, but is answering a sincere question really necessary? It is respectful of productive dialog - yes, but not really necessary.

Does the fact that it doesn't bother some other people mean that they are unable to think critically, are zealots, or are educationally/experientially disadvantaged?

Again obviously not, but it does mean the "unbothered" are inappropriate for engagement in rational analysis of apparent problems because such work takes effort and motivation. It is like trying to rationally discuss foundational problems of a religious doctrine with its faithful - they typically have an astounding inability to participate.

But as long as I continue to be entertained and those issues don't pull me out of the movie, I'm not going to get my skivvies in a twist over it.

Of course not. What interests me is the difference in standards. I'm really curious about how one could be pulled out of ANY movie if not this one. startrekrcks presents a solid, ethical standard for enjoyment: If it is Star Trek then startrekrcks loves it . While this rule does not strike me as a sophisticated standard, it certainly is a defensible personal position that does not make any objective claims about this film's performance as measured by generally accepted standards of storytelling.

You mention being "in the film", which is vital for enjoying fiction. When I was in the film as soon as the Kelvin came onscreen and reporting the looks of the lightning storm, then the bridge is being blinded by it, (looking completely different from the external view), and then they report it is "out of visual range", I have to jump out of the film and ask, "What the hell did I just miss?" This was in like the first 10 seconds of the film with 3 things that don't fit, which was then followed by 2 hours of similar, almost non-stop ridiculous self-contradiction! I just can't get a clear grip on claims of "greatness" for the film, which I think are different than claims of personal enjoyment, even though they overlap.

 

[BurntSynapse]

No, it does not, and BurntSynapse, allow me to suggest that, while critiquing the film is well and good--it's why we're here, after all--critiquing other posters is something you'll want to steer clear of.

Of course. Please let me know if you believe anything I said applies to any posters, and I will gladly clarify.

The above paragraph in particular would have been better left unsaid. (I'm not even sure the first sentence really makes sense, in fact -- some words appear to be missing or misspelled, rendering the meaning unclear, but it's not very complimentary, is it?) The second paragraph wasn't much of an improvement.

The wording & spelling appear accurate to my meaning, but neither the observation itself nor its tone should be taken as complimentary/derogatory, unless the reader finds it helpful. I'm sorry the language seems unclear.

Personal note: I prefer to gain a reasonable understanding of an idea before declaring it's worth.

 

[startrekrcks]

I think it is Star Trek with a different style what's wrong with loving the movie

 

[Aragorn]

I think almost every scene has problems, but let's test my theory: If someone would like to pick a scene, I'll check it for problems to which a reasonably alert viewer might have objections.

So you're going to test your theory by using your opinion to poke holes in a scene because you're the "reasonably alert viewer" who needs to say he's better than someone who liked the movie?

Looking at your secondary location and based on your Captain Robert April love, you're either him or know him.

 

[M'Sharak]

Looking at your secondary location and based on your Captain Robert April love, you're either him or know him.

Knock it off. You know better than that.

 

[Clawhammer]

Despite being 100% skeptical before, I voted excellent. I really liked the movie, being a CGI guy I ofcourse was paying extra attention to the effects. I loved the way the ships moved to warp, the battle scenes, and that kind of 70's sunlight. (I still think the flares are a bit distracting, but I must admit I use them more then I did before because of this movie... )

The only thing that still bothers me is the design and size of the Enterprise and the engineering section. It would have been better to go all the way "new". (Instead of "melting" the TMP refit.)

Overall, I'm pretty confident that this was a very succesfull and perhaps well needed "restart" of the franchise. I hope Paramount/CBS is smart enough to translate it into a new "TNG era" series in this new timeline, after the last movie.

 

[Set Harth]

For that matter, he could even go back and prevent the accident that destroyed Romulus in the first place

Don’t you mean go forward, since that event is 129 years after the events in the film?

 

[Warped9]

As a movie: average
As a Star Trek movie: poor

Overall experience watching it: aggravating as hell.