What I think is wrong with XI compared to the others.
- Thread starter Bones2
- Start date
Yeah, maybe I was unfair to TMP. But it's only on repeated viewings that these messages really come across, and to be honest, I don't really want to view it repeatedly.
Still, obscure though it may be, at least it has those meanings and ideas in there. XI has nothing below the surface.
Still, obscure though it may be, at least it has those meanings and ideas in there. XI has nothing below the surface.
Respectfully disagree- it was about being responsible for yourself as an entity, that meaning is something we CREATE for ourselves, not some outer thing we "find." That we are as complete as we are willing to MAKE ourselves.
That was a BIG message to me when I saw it the first time at age 19!
Carbon-unit double post
Last edited:
I generally abstain from ST11 debates (they tend to be less civil), but may I suggest that some of the angst you cite isn't caused by the literal destruction of Vulcan, so much as the fact that Vulcan wasn't sacrificed for some great gain, but for a 15 second special effects shot. It wasn't necessary to the plot to blow the whole thing up. It was ultimately gratuitous. It could also be taken as JJ Abrams metaphorically imploding all previous Trek, replaced by his own "great vision." Either/or, both interpretations will angry up a Trek fan's blood.
Regardless, to be impacted by imploding Vulcan, one has to be attached to the Vulcan from classic Trek. Average Joe wasn't a Trek fan, so he wasn't vested in Vulcan. Therfore, Average Joe only thought "Wow, that must suck for Spock" and moved on with out any emotional connection himself. Then again, if you're going for emotional impact, the last thing you do is blow up a whole planet. That is a horror so beyond human experience, a tragedy on such a scale, that there is no way a human can grasp it. Everything and everyone you EVER met or anything you EVER SAW is GONE. Not just your home and family. Not just your hometown, or even your country. Your whole planet. Your race, which was fine this morning, is almost extinct now. You have no idea how the hell that would make you feel. You can guess, but you have no basis for your estimate. Hell, you might not even get over the shock.
Last edited:
trevanian
Rear Admiral
The thing is, if the makers knew AND were into TREK, they'd have known your point in advance. Look at IMMUNITY SYNDROME ... a whole starship 'dies' and Spock chastises the humans because they can't seem to think beyond the death of one (never heard whether Meyer or Bennett talked about that ep, but I gotta figure Bennett at least saw it.)
But even having dismissed or ignored that bit of TOS ... I think the Vulcan Holocaust is there due to Nimoy, who is a huge Jewish history/rights guy, and he wanted (or they thought he might want) something relating to the Holocaust in Trek for 'relevancy.' Whether it was a sop to Nimoy like the horses were to Shatner in GEN, or his own input, it seriously overpowers the rest of the lameass movie in concept, but fails even more miserably than most of the rest in execution, for exactly the points you make above.
This is the only post I've read in this thread, so I'm going to go back and read the earlier ones. Sorry if this covers something somebody else already said.
Could you please cite a source claiming that it was the intent of TPTB to blow up Vulcan for a cheap FX gag rather than for a "great gain"? I really feel that needs some substantiation, especially as there were Trek fans involved with the creation of the film.
Might I ask what you would have recommended as an alternative to the destruction of Vulcan that would have constituted a more meaningful event? I imagine the destruction of Earth would qualify, but I can understand TPTB not wanting to engage in that level of universe reconstruction.
Obviously the Vulcan-destruction was a metaphor to drive home that this wasn't the Trek you grew up with, but to read some sort of "great vision" or similarly arrogant sentiment into it is to do Abrams a disservice unless he's come out and said such for himself. I feel they needed to make it clear that things were going to proceed differently in this universe, and the Kelvin incident all by itself would have been insufficient.
Given that I think even Joe Normal Person knows that in the Star Trek mythos Vulcan is a pretty important place, I'm sure they could recognize that blowing it up is a pretty significant action, even if they aren't as emotionally invested in it as Jane I Was a Trekker in the Womb.
I'm very wary of people ascribing motives to TPTB without providing sources to back up their claims, and similarly I guess I like to give the average non-Trekker a bit more credit for having a baseline level of interest in Trek...or maybe I just think the film manages to prove more emotionally investing than others. (shrug)
I really wonder if we watched the same movie. The messages are stated outright in the dialogue of the movie. Kind of hard to miss, realy.
True.. its so slow paced. Not like the action filled ADHD targeted movies of today. I can see why some might have trouble sitting still for it.
My good friend, I don't care what the intent was. I'm examining result. Nor do I care if there were Star Trek, Star Wars or Golden Girls fans involved with the movie. Bad work is bad work.
Also, I used the word 'gratuitous.' The last thing that FX sequence was is 'cheap'.
My point was the ONLY result of blowing up a whole planet is gratuity. There is no real emotional connection there. None at all. They blow up the planet, dwell on it for two minutes, then warp off to the next action set piece. A holocaust of billions was reduced to a special effects shot and a couple of "Wow Spock, I'm sorry everyone you ever knew is dead" lines. If it wasn't fiction, it would be offensive, but it was fiction so it was just (say it with me) gratuitous.
Arrogant? Maybe, but I stopped caring about stuff like that. However, the work speaks for itself (as it should). If you have to take 4 minutes out of a movie to make a special effects holocaust to "drive your message home " you, frankly, suck as a storyteller.
Look, this isn't the worst 120 minutes of Star Trek in the world. ST:Voyager gave me infinitely more groans. ST Nemesis made me angrier. JJ Abrams isn't the first director (in fact, he's the second in a row) that has wanted to reinvent Star Trek in his image. JJA is just more hamfisted than his immediate predecessors. Not entirely his fault, he's still new at this Hollywood movie thing. This is his ST Generations. Just as the TNG crew had a much better outing in First Contact (and the original staff in TWOK), I am equally hopeful ST12 will be a more polished ride. It certainly has history on its side.
number6
Vice Admiral
This..
I thought the film did a lot to introduce the new cast in a very short amount of time. The next film does have the promise of going deeper with the message and also to explore some of the things established in this film and its repercussions.
I am a lifelong TOS fan and found the film to be very enjoyable and the characters seemed true to the core of their TOS counterparts. Now the question is where to take it from here.
I think this franchise is in capable hands..
As far as blowing up Vulcan..Yeah this was a shocking disappontment, but how are they going to deal with it.
It would only be an insult to ignore it and move on. I think this will provide another side to Spock's psyche and how he deals with his human side, which will set Quinto's Spock apart from Nimoy's.
Blowing up Vulcan had two effects - to force young Spock to deal with emotions (poorly at first), and of course to tell the movie audience EARTH is really really in danger.
Had they really had the nerve to change everything they would have blown up Earth. That's not your father's Trek.
Blowing up the Earth's #1 ally, source of much of the science and folklore...was as risky as they could get, i guess.
They didn't spend time on "the horror of it all" but as Spock said, if you think it would help crew morale for him to be seen weeping in the halls...
A scene with the Vulcan elders essentially saying "we're f*****... what do we do now" and setting up revenge on Romulus for the next movie could have been tremendous, but that was another life.
Older Spock said - he was "emotionally impaired".
Had they really had the nerve to change everything they would have blown up Earth. That's not your father's Trek.
Blowing up the Earth's #1 ally, source of much of the science and folklore...was as risky as they could get, i guess.
They didn't spend time on "the horror of it all" but as Spock said, if you think it would help crew morale for him to be seen weeping in the halls...
A scene with the Vulcan elders essentially saying "we're f*****... what do we do now" and setting up revenge on Romulus for the next movie could have been tremendous, but that was another life.
Older Spock said - he was "emotionally impaired".
I'd also point out, again, that given how things were progressing they really didn't have time to dwell on Vulcan's destruction...at least not without making the movie run longer, and I can see how even if such scenes were added they could have ended up ultimately being cut for pacing.
But that is kind of the problem, isn't it. The pacing was too fast to leave any room for emotional impact. Scenes which could have been devastating just kind of whizzed by and off we were in another battle / chase. There was no time to feel for Vulcan, or for Amanda.
This, precisely. It would have been nothing sort of devastating for the Siskos, and even confined to its Trek appearance New Orleans is something we, the audience, care about in ways we may not for the somewhat boring planet that showed up for an inconsequential Ferengi caper episode.
Even the destruction of the Golden Gate bridge seemed not too much - honestly, at the time I felt it was a rather forced attempt to build up the Breen as a fresh, new, ultra-super menace, but then I have a lot of problems with the Breen generally.
Yes. You either save the other ship, or yourself. You either have a dramatic emotional movie, or be Michael Bay. If you choose dramatic/emotional, again, blowing up a planet is a poor choice. It's just too extreme to connect with people unless you're going to spend the whole movie dealing with the aftermath.
Stepping back a bit, all movies must make these kinds of tradeoffs. You must choose 1 or 2 things to emphasize and stick to them. ST11 focus was on introducing all (ALL) of the characters and action set pieces. They tried to shove more into it (character development, for one, villain moments for another) and failed because they don't have enough time in a 2 hour movie to do all that well. If I had a chance to reshoot parts of the movie, but was forced to stick to the overall plotline, I would have pretty much (in bullet point form)
*Erase the ice planet sequence entirely. It's the worst part of the movie. It's a pointless action piece, followed by two scenes (Spock meld, Scotty) that really kill the pacing. As a substitute, I have Scotty on board the ship from the beginning. Spock would have somehow escaped Nero, but still lose his ship in the process. I could even make it a chase scene, but that would probably not solve the problems I'm looking to fix.
*Develop Nero. Make Nero explain how Spock betrayed him and his people during his scene with Pike, rather than doing it through the mind meld. Use this to explain Nero's relationship with Spock, and why he wants to kill him. Make Spock Classic is the chairman of a Unified Romulan/Vulcan science ministry. While in charge Spock Classic's Vulcan logic dismissed the Supernova of Romulus' star. Nero argued otherwise. I probably wouldn't keep him as a miner, but I still like the idea of him being a blue-collar Romulan. Note: Spock job doesn't really matter. What matters is that Spock has to be in a position to actually be rationally blamed for the loss of Romulus. This 1) makes Nero's actions make sense. 2) Makes him identifiable, a tragic character. 3) Contrasts the PU, where Romulus and Vulcan are allies, with the AU where they're now enemies. Keeps the Roddenberry vision that peace can still (someday) be achieved.
* Only blow up a part of Vulcan. Again, not because I particularly care about it, but because destroying the whole thing doesn't work as anything other than gratuity. Blow up a city, Spock's hometown, and still kill Spock's mom. Have Spock walking through the ruins of his neighborhood, his childhood home. He falls to his knees, you see the pain in his eyes. You understand what he lost. You can't have that kind of reaction with a asteroid field.
* Tone down Kirk's cockiness. Lose the apple. Since we can't really develop him much, don't create as much of a gap between the beginning and the end.
I'd probably do more, but I haven't seen the movie since it came out. Also note, that this is NOT what I'd create if I was given a blank slate to do my own ST11. Just if I was given a largely complete ST11 and I could only redo 10-20 minutes of it.
Meh. I've always hated New Orleans. While I don't wish the loss of anyone's home or livelihood in real life (and I volunteered for rebuilding work after Katrina), by all means blow that bowl to pieces on TV.
Last edited:
Given that none of the pilots of the Star Trek series have been considered the strongest of episodes (with the possible exceptions of The Cage/WNMHGB...but then, there were still two pilots needed)...I'm willing to give them at least one more movie to establish more depth before judging them.
DonIago, you do raise an interesting point. I do believe the real test of this reboot is going to be sequel. Now that they got everyone's attention, what direction will they go? Will we get a "Dark Knight?" A "Quantum of Solace?" Or a "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen?" That's going to be the question.
I agree, Kirk was a bit too much of a smart alleck in this movie. They HAVE to tone it down for the next one.
I also thought they ripped way too much from "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan." In that movie, the Kobyashi Maru actually had far more of a meaning than it did here. And the whole revenge plot.
As a popcorn flick, Trek XI is a wonderful movie, but Trek is more than just mindless action.
I agree, Kirk was a bit too much of a smart alleck in this movie. They HAVE to tone it down for the next one.
I also thought they ripped way too much from "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan." In that movie, the Kobyashi Maru actually had far more of a meaning than it did here. And the whole revenge plot.
As a popcorn flick, Trek XI is a wonderful movie, but Trek is more than just mindless action.
Trek XI certainly isn't a perfect film, and most of the criticisms the thread raises are legitimate. But to say that there is *no* depth or message is incorrect. In fact, the film states its message explicitly by way of Sarek,
“You are fully capable of deciding your own destiny. The question you face is: Which path will you choose. This is something only you can decide.”
That is a powerful message and the statement holds true for both Spock and Kirk and to a lesser extent, the rest of the crew (McCoy deciding to join Starfleet in the wake of a divorce, for example). Now, certainly, one can debate the effectiveness of the message, or the depths to which the movie goes to explore that message. I tend to agree that this film isn't as deep as the best that Trek has had to offer. But that's different than outright denying that such a message exists in the first place.
Similar threads
