The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

[urbandk]

Re: Scathing review of the movie

I just happened to stumble across the following review.

I have to admit that he does make a few good points about problems with the script, specifically how easily Kirk and Scotty were promoted to their positions ...

"Kirk somehow manages to gain command of the starship literally within a few hours of story time despite behavior that should inspire a court martial instead. Many of the characters have been transformed into dishonest shadows of their former selves. Engineer Scotty (Simon Pegg) gains his post through fraud -- one minute he is being reprimanded on an outpost planet, and the next he is the chief engineer of the Enterprise -- entirely because Future Spock finished an important math equation for him that he couldn't actually complete himself."

http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/yb/130668300

Actually there's a lot wrong with that review. I could go through it point by point, but probably 85% it wrong and I'm not really going to takethe time to bother with it.

RAMA

Yes. Why is it that every time someone writes a jeremiad about the film and gets 90% of it wrong that it's incumbent on everyone else to correct him? And if the rest of the Star Trek world has better things to do than rebut yet another irate jilted lover review then we're accused of being naive cheerleaders?

 

[barnaclelapse]

Re: Scathing review of the movie

I don't agree with the review, but they're certainly entitled to their opinion.

Honestly, negative reviews don't bother me a bit. The important thing is that the movie got a strong reaction out of him. I think it would have been a lot worse if he had just gone "Meh" in response to it.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Re: Scathing review of the movie

Negative reviews don't bother me because they don't take away from the film's success.

People trying to convince other people that their opinion is wrong, though, can get a little annoying.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Re: Scathing review of the movie

"Regardless, I do believe that some consideration needs to be given a film's source material -- the belief that the filmmakers are better than the ideas they are borrowing infects far too many movies these days."

EXACTLY!

(And I liked the movie.)

This isn't Starsky & Hutch or The Land of the Lost, this is Star Trek. And Star Trek isn't Galaxy Quest. As much as I enjoyed the movie, I wish it had tried to respect and accomplish what TOS was all about, esp. in its first season: solidly intelligent space opera with believable grown-ups in the lead. (TOS's idea of a kid was a 22-year-old ensign.) That's not quite what this movie was.

 

[VulcanJedi]

Re: Scathing review of the movie

The little things that bother people. I don't get it.

I'm sorry, but anyone who disobeys orders, talks back to their superior officer, bad talks the captain in order to provoke him in front of the entire crew and ASSAULTS two security officers forfeits everything in his position, first officer or not.

Kirk showed all the signs of being emotionally compromised for command and he didn't even get provoked into that situation.

Imagine a C student, frat boy type wielding the helm of power? That would never happen, right? Oh, it would happen--but people don't like it. That's been the problem with recent, smug Trek. It's portrayal of humanity was more alien and unreal than the putty-headed extraterrestrial lifeforms it had on screen.

I used to think everyone played by the rules, but as I get older I see life doesn't always play by the rules. Stranger things have happened. The military has a history of the leadership sometimes being the former cadets with the most demerits. Remember how Patton's career ended? And sometimes, leadership is made up of crooks and liars and phonies. I just watched "enemy within" last night where we meet Kirk's "evil side" and Spock surmised Kirk's evil side is part of what made the captain a strong leader. I read Abram's watched all the old episodes in prep for the movie--it showed. He might have exaggerated Kirk's badside---but a modern world can relate.

 

[Warped9]

Re: Scathing review of the movie

I just happened to stumble across the following review.

I have to admit that he does make a few good points about problems with the script, specifically how easily Kirk and Scotty were promoted to their positions ...

"Kirk somehow manages to gain command of the starship literally within a few hours of story time despite behavior that should inspire a court martial instead. Many of the characters have been transformed into dishonest shadows of their former selves. Engineer Scotty (Simon Pegg) gains his post through fraud -- one minute he is being reprimanded on an outpost planet, and the next he is the chief engineer of the Enterprise -- entirely because Future Spock finished an important math equation for him that he couldn't actually complete himself."

http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/yb/130668300

Absolutely bang-on!

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Re: Scathing review of the movie

Imagine a C student, frat boy type wielding the helm of power? That would never happen, right? Oh, it would happen--but people don't like it.

And we see how that turned out.

I love The Sopranos. Indeed, it is by far my favorite tv show of all time--Star Trek handed over the pinball crown some time ago. (Indeed, Star Trek is beaten by The Wire, as well.) And The Sopranos (and The Wire) gives us just the the kind of real-world stuff you're taliking about seeing in this film but it does not celebrate it. This movie does, however--there's a strong stink of exceptionalism and entitlemenet in this movie that a couple of throw-away lines about Kirk being a "genius" (so smart, apparently, that he commonly uses "studying" as code for "fucking") cannot dissipate.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Re: Scathing review of the movie

I just happened to stumble across the following review.

I have to admit that he does make a few good points about problems with the script, specifically how easily Kirk and Scotty were promoted to their positions ...

"Kirk somehow manages to gain command of the starship literally within a few hours of story time despite behavior that should inspire a court martial instead. Many of the characters have been transformed into dishonest shadows of their former selves. Engineer Scotty (Simon Pegg) gains his post through fraud -- one minute he is being reprimanded on an outpost planet, and the next he is the chief engineer of the Enterprise -- entirely because Future Spock finished an important math equation for him that he couldn't actually complete himself."

http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/yb/130668300

Absolutely bang-on!

You post the link in your thread over in TOS. I really dug the movie and I find the review dead-on.

 

[Peter the Younger]

Re: Scathing review of the movie

Wow, what a surprise! Another day, another new member appears out of nowhere with new "evidence" to support the tiny, insignificant minority who don't like the film.

We've rebutted every compliant found here elsewhere, numerous times, pointing out the dozens of times when the very same things they are complaining about appeared in previous incarnations of Trek. Yet they continue to shout and scream and wail like so many right-wing talk show hosts, as it that's going to win anyone over to their side.

Give it up. Star Trek is now one of the popular kids, and you resent the hell out of it. We get it. But bitching about how this film does what Trek has always done is simply idiotic. It's a waste of your time, and ours.

 

[Ryan S]

Re: Scathing review of the movie

The rebooting of a franchise, though, is more a business endeavor than a creative one, and it shows in the actual film. In its day, "Star Trek" had contributions from some of the best science fiction writers around, all trying to create a good, speculative adventure show that mixed action and romance with solid ideas and a political and social philosophy.

For the new incarnation, much of this was dropped in the name of attitude.

I can't belive how close this is to my original review. I've said it from day one, Paramount sold us out! They took our brain food and replaced with processed junk, supersized. I don't understand why so many "long time" fans can't see this.

 

[Borgminister]

Re: Scathing review of the movie

I don't see why so many "long time" fans ....

Oh, never mind.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Re: Scathing review of the movie

Different people are gonna "see" different things. I'm that rarity, the guy who sees everything the naysayers do (though the bit about Scotty getting his position by cheating is a stretch) but who liked the movie and will probably pony up to see it once more before it leaves the theatres.

 

[pookha]

Re: Scathing review of the movie

I disagree with a lot of what the reviewer has to say.

One such instance is his assertion that Uhura is only on Enterprise because she was sleeping with Spock. My impression was that the only reson why she wasn't initially assigned to Enterprise was her relationship with Spock. The conversation only corrected Spock's attempt to show no favortism.

yep it is made pretty clear that she earned her berth on the ship.

i suspect spock and kirk both made a case for scotty staying as chief engineer for the other things he did once he was on board.
despite the ship before only managing warp three due to the damage done by the narada scotty was able to get her up to warp four.
he also managed to beam two different sets of people from two different vast locations into the same beaming platform at the same time.
plus saving the ship from the singularity at the end.

and from what some of the stuff scotty was saying he was probably near the end of his being on delta vega anyway.


kirk got promoted because he first saved the enterprise from the initial narada attack because other wise her shields wouldnt have been raised.
he then saved earth then the rest of the federation.

i sometimes think some reviewers go in hating an assignment so much they dont really pay attention to the movie.

because he evidently missed a lot.

 

[startrekwatcher]

Re: Scathing review of the movie

I agree with the review since I've pointed out the same things. But I don't see why the original poster describes it as "scathing" because it isn't.

It is actually one of the better written reviews that provides specific details about what the reviewer liked/disliked as opposed to most reviews I've read that are nothing more than a plot synopsis.
I agree with the following:

Regardless, I do believe that some consideration needs to be given a film's source material -- the belief that the filmmakers are better than the ideas they are borrowing infects far too many movies these days. "Star Trek" succumbs to that too easily, going so far as to use its source as window dressing for a work that thematically and dramatically has nothing at all to do with the franchise it claims to be part of.

The rebooting of a franchise, though, is more a business endeavor than a creative one, and it shows in the actual film. In its day, "Star Trek" had contributions from some of the best science fiction writers around, all trying to create a good, speculative adventure show that mixed action and romance with solid ideas and a political and social philosophy. For the new incarnation, much of this was dropped in the name of attitude.

Action science fiction doesn't have to be dumb, but it too often is -- especially in this movie. The actors and director perform their duties adequately, but the writing ruins their best efforts.

By relying on catch phrases and gags to fill out the characters, and by providing too many situations that make little dramatic sense other than to dazzle your eyes with action sequences so your brain doesn't immediately notice that they don't make much sense, the script is exactly like the mysterious red substance featured in the film that causes planets to implode into themselves.

Far from being in the spirit of the original "Star Trek," the new film is more in line with "The Terminator," in which drama and character are really only contrivances set up to get action sequences in motion.

Yes, the emotional core that was needed to anchor the show was MIA.
I disagree with the following though:

To accomplish this requires a series of impromptu military promotions and maneuvers that stretch disbelief -- Kirk somehow manages to gain command of the starship literally within a few hours of story time despite behavior that should inspire a court martial instead. Many of the characters have been transformed into dishonest shadows of their former selves. Engineer Scotty (Simon Pegg) gains his post through fraud -- one minute he is being reprimanded on an outpost planet, and the next he is the chief engineer of the Enterprise -- entirely because Future Spock finished an important math equation for him that he couldn't actually complete himself.

Other women in the film don't fair much better -- Kirk's mother (Jennifer Morrison) is portrayed basically as a delivery receptacle for a baby who then abandons her son. Spock's mom (Winona Ryder) is killed off a fast as they can manage it.

Yeah Amanda was treated no better than a glorified extra.

"Star Trek" falls into a loose narrative that never quite makes any sense. The script grabs elements from the "Star Trek" franchise when it feels the need for an instantly recognizable backstory, but stripped of these affectations, the film is just any of the mindless roller-coaster ride action flicks that the series was primarily thought of as the antidote to for all these years.

Agreed.

Somehow, this shoddy film has ended up being given a free pass by the world of film critics who would otherwise be jumping all over it with venom if were actually a "Transformers" movie instead of just acting like one.

Agreed. I'd also add that the same fans would be breaking out their pitchforks if B&B had penned this film.

 

[Ryan S]

Re: Scathing review of the movie

I don't see why so many "long time" fans ....

Oh, never mind.

Edited.

 

[USS Mariner]

Re: Scathing review of the movie

Different people are gonna "see" different things. I'm that rarity, the guy who sees everything the naysayers do (though the bit about Scotty getting his position by cheating is a stretch) but who liked the movie and will probably pony up to see it once more before it leaves the theatres.

Well, it's either that, seeing Christian Bale with a mustache, or watching a mute Deadpool with blades taped to his arms fighting Wolverine.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Re: Scathing review of the movie

Or I could watch my DVD of The Man Who Fell to Earth. When it comes to SF movies, I've become a real pretentious fuck of late and that's just how I like it!

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Re: Scathing review of the movie

I disagree with a lot of what the reviewer has to say.

One such instance is his assertion that Uhura is only on Enterprise because she was sleeping with Spock. My impression was that the only reson why she wasn't initially assigned to Enterprise was her relationship with Spock. The conversation only corrected Spock's attempt to show no favortism.

Yeah, that's one of the most glaring errors in the review. The guy obviously wasn't paying much attention if he missed that. Spock knew he was wrong not to assign her to the Enterprise - why else would he back down and "change his mind" so fast?

 

[FalTorPan]

Re: Scathing review of the movie

Any scathing review of this movie reveals more about the reviewer than about the movie. IMHO.

A person whose opinion of something differs from yours is a troubled person? Fascinating.

 

[Devon]

Re: Scathing review of the movie

That reviewer is completely right. I just wish more people realized it.

No, you just wish more people agreed with you.