Director: J.J. Abrams (Mission Impossible III, “LOST”, “ALIAS”)
Writers: Roberto Orci , Alex Kurtzman (The Island, MI:III, Transformers)
Producers: J.J. Abrams, Damon Lindelof
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Eric Bana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, Zoe Saldana, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Bruce Greenwood
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Running time: 126 min
The first time every single one of the RowThree staff managed to get out and see the same movie and have the time to write about it? That alone might say something about the press and anticipation this film has been getting from fans, bloggers and critics alike. Yes, these things come in threes and this is the apprehensive third piece of a trifecta of beloved franchise returns. Does it mostly fail like the others (Star Wars, Indy); or does it breathe new life into a franchise that has been dying a slow death in audience interest for years.
Synopsis:
JJ Abrams directs this “reboot” of the classic Star Trek series in which audiences are treated to the discovery of how the crew of the USS Enterprise first meet and the circumstances to the lead up of how they eventually become crew mates. While Earth is threatened by evil Romulans, the story focuses mainly on the blossoming friendship of Kirk and Spock and how their extreme cultural differences are put aside to form a tag team that is unmatched in the galaxy.
read all of our reviews below…
Andrew:
Pop quiz: James T. Kirk, Spock, Lt. Sulu and a character known only as “Olson” have to free jump thousands of meters from outer space onto a steel platform dangling a few hundred feet from the planet’s surface. Guess which character won’t be returning to The Enterprise alive (or at all)? Yes, this “reboot” of the Star Trek franchise may be revamped with more of a cool factor to get the folks back in the seats, but plenty of the usual quips and contrivances from the original series and films are still here to please the fans. What’s that Scotty? “I’m givin ya all she’s gawt captain!”
So yeah, it’s fun. It looks pretty neat and rediscovering our old friends in new ways was an interesting trip down amnesiac lane. Much of the running time of the film is spent introducing us to characters we already know, but done in fresh, fun ways that would almost be inside jokes except that we can see them coming from a mile away; like everything else in the film.
Yes the movie has some great effects shots; almost to a fault. It’s almost as if the movie is there just for the sake of ships, explosions and lens flares. But really, is there really much in here technically to make it that much better than anything in Star Trek: First Contact? Oh, and you thought Cloverfield hurt your eyes? I wasn’t entirely sure I would make it through the screening after the first ten minutes of some of the most chaotic and lightning quick editing you’re likely to see this year (until Transformers rolls out of course).
Beyond the great effects (which in this day in age should be a given anyway), the good news here is of course the cast, who do deliver pretty well; particularly Eric Bana, Zachary Quinto as Spock and a shamefully underused Simon Pegg (who was hilarious).
But c’mon, has there ever been a Star Trek film that is this shallow? There is a lot of heart in this new Star Trek; enough heart for me to assign a passing grade. But the heart can’t beat without the soul and this one is on life support. The only thing keeping it from fading to black is a shitload of defibrillator jolts. This is something the old Star Trek didn’t need. Picard, old Kirk, et al. made things work interestingly because of the challenges they faced that took some jogging of the mind on the part of the audience. Sure they try here with some time travel/grandfather paradox stuff, but for the most part we’re lulled into complacency with the old trick of simple sensory overload. We’re being tricked into thinking this is good stuff by distracting us with pretty lights and killer sound effects. Is there really anything to talk about on the way home?
I hate being the cynical one. I do. It’s just that I’m used to my Star Trek movies having a bit more substance to them, mixed along with the showy effects. I guess it really comes down to frankly being a little bit surprised at the massive critical and audience acclaim here. Nearly unanimously hailed as the best film of the year so far, it’s getting better praise than The Dark Knight – really!? To me that is just saddening that professional critics really seem to be in agreement that this is the “best Star Trek film” period. Puh-lease.
But did anyone else notice the LOST font? Nice.
Jandy:
I came at J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek from the position (enviable or not, I haven’t yet decided) of having seen only one of the previous films – 1979′s original Star Trek: The Motion Picture, about which I remember nothing – plus a bunch of The Original Series and some of Deep Space 9. In short, I’ve enjoyed entries in the Trek universe, but I’m far from an avid fan. Heck, it took me half the movie to realize that the Romulan villains of the film weren’t actually the Klingons. That background, or lack of it, kept me blissfully unaware of any continuity errors, kept me from trying to hard to look for clues and references to things that would happen later, gave me little to use for comparison, and allowed me to enjoy Abrams’ film for itself.
Which was probably good, because this Star Trek really isn’t your father’s Star Trek in one way – it’s basically a standard action film with lots of explosions, last-minute rescues, and confusingly-edited fight scenes. Like most of today’s sci-fi movies, it’s only sci-fi in trappings – the presence of aliens (though most of the non-Romulan or Vulcan aliens seem dropped in for little purpose other than to say, hey, here’s an alien), spaceships, and warp speed. There’s no actual science on display here, and virtually none of the ethical and political questions that concerned the earlier Star Trek series (or what I’ve seen of them). I would’ve liked to have seen a bit more of that side of the universe. Yet, as an action film, it works well, and it more than kept my attention.
But the real reason the film worked well for me is the casting and character work. All the explosions and fight scenes in the world get deadly dull without interesting characters in the middle of them. And I don’t necessarily mean the film garnered a lot of empathy or fear for the characters while they’re in danger – we already know which of them survive. But in between the fights, the interactions between Kirk and Bones or Kirk and Spock feel so RIGHT. Everyone’s a little brasher, a little cockier, a little edgier than they are in TOS, but that’s to be expected both due to the film’s earlier setting and later production date. Yet when Bones says “I’m a doctor, not a physicist,” Karl Urban’s delivery is both his own and brings a sharp reminder of DeForest Kelley’s original inflection – it’s difficult to play a character someone else owns, and basically all of the actors have done a great job of invoking their predecessors without imitating them. (As a side note on this point – while seeing the promos, I had a hard time thinking of Zachary Quinto as anyone other than Heroes‘ Sylar. But watching the film, it never crossed my mind that he was anyone other than Spock – because he simply WAS Spock.)
The other difficulty in bringing back the characters from TOS is that TOS is almost inherently campy at this point – do you play that up and make what today comes across as farce, or remove it completely and take away much of what we now find enjoyable about TOS? I’m not sure Abrams has the tone right all the time (I pretty much hated the sequence with Kirk as a young boy driving his stepfather’s car – though hearing Greg Grunberg’s voice on the phone was a thrill of a different fangirl nature), but he came close. Is it a great film for diehard Trek fans? I have no idea, I’m not one. Is it a great film for someone who’s never seen any Trek? Probably not – much of the enjoyment came from seeing how the characters were treated. But it worked out pretty well for me and my middle-of-the-road knowledge of the universe.
Jonathan:
Never was I much of a fan of Star Trek growing up. All that I needed to quench my thirst for space and aliens came from Jedis and Wookies and wisecracking smugglers that can make the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs. Still, my pops would watch Star Trek and I’d always watch it with him, enough that I’ve always been familiar with the characters and all of the movies and some of the television show storylines, but they just never captured me the way that Star Wars did (and everybody knows that as a child you have to choose either the side of the Trekkies or the force – it is an unforgivable sin to pledge allegiance to both).
Needless to say, my reaction when hearing the creator of Lost (a show I’ve never been on board with) was making a Star Trek prequel with an all new cast was that of a simple eye roll. Anytime news of the project came up, I didn’t even give it as much as a glance. It just didn’t interest me. Even when I saw the trailer, I felt little more than indifference. Yet, maybe it was an opening of my mind or maybe it was the great reviews or maybe the hype-train word of mouth, but I found myself oddly excited going into my screening of Star Trek yesterday.
You know what? As a summer sci-fi blockbuster, it sure as hell delivered. Maybe it’s because of the sci-fi drought that Hollywood has been going through that will make me eat up anything sci-fi, but I’m not sure (after all, Serenity didn’t do it for me). The more I reflect on this, the more I liked it. I’m not going to go into an analysis of it nor am I going to be very insightful, because it’s a Star Trek movie after all, but for me, it was pure escapism and as an unabashed sci-fi geek during my childhood, it did its job.
It didn’t leave as much of a sense of wonder as I would have hoped, but the shots of the massive buildings, the interesting aliens (albeit not enough of them), and the space travel were enjoyable to watch. It had solid action sequences, it had great special effects, it had funny moments, an interesting story, and it surprisingly had some solid acting from the young and somewhat inexperienced cast (not to mention veterans Bruce Greenwood and Leonard Nimoy). I particularly enjoyed Chris Pine’s more Han Solo inspired take on Kirk and Zachary Quinto’s impressive take on Spock.
So, folks, if you are a sci-fi nerd at heart, turn off your mind a bit, put down your nose, and go enjoy yourself. That’s all I have to say about that.
Kurt:
**Warning: There are some minor spoilers below**
As the James Bond series rebooted itself in the stylistic model of Jason Bourne, so goes the new Star Trek rebooting itself visually in the form of Firefly and Battlestar Galactica (complete with ‘hand-held’ outer-space photography) and narratively in the form of modern dopey action FX blockbusters along the lines of Steven Sommers and Brett Ratner. Star Trek has always been a bit on the obvious side with its preachy or issue oriented stories. This is something you grow to enjoy, actually, it being science fiction an all, there is ripe allegory awaiting. Balance with its Wagons West frontier mentality was what made the appeal of the original series, despite its low production value and over-acting. By the time Next Generation cast came into its own, with several more seasons of TV and its own set of films, the writing got progressively worse as original ideas thinned out. There was ever more reliance on time travel tropes that I suggest we rebrand the famous 5 year mission as follows: “To boldly go when no man has gone before.” Either way, this new film is more about the meet-cutes of the principle characters, and establishing the tone of the new direction of the films. Yet would this film succeed to a general audience if these character were not already much developed previously? Their introductions and iconic one-liners are delivered in such an inorganic way that suspension of disbelief around all these oh-so-convenient coincidences is stretched to the breaking point. J.J Abrams continues is MI:3 practice of advancing the plot so fast, jumping around like an ADHD 5 year old, so that the galaxy-sized plot holes are hopefully lost in the shuffle. As a summer blockbuster (none of the other Trek films ever were, nearly all of them opening in November and usually progressing with more talking and adhering somewhat to the chain of command than action hero saves all!), it does the job in the fashion of the 21st century; but there is not much to chew on besides your popcorn.
But kudos to the game cast here. Zachary Quinto makes a compelling Spock, competent, quick and dare I say it, edgy. Chris Pine is a little more blunt as James T. Kirk, but certainly gives his own spin on the character, and there is no -pause- attempt -pause- to -deliver- the dialogue in the William Shatner fashion. Bruce Greenwood is fabulous as the mentor Captain Pike as is Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy, but the film does not give either of them as much do to beyond bestowing convenient promotions to our young Will Hunting and the occasional platitude. Eric Bana is such a stock Star Trek villain, he is painful to watch. This is a million miles from his intense serial killer in Chopper or his level-headed leader in Troy. Most of these issues point back to the screenplay by the same writers of Transformers and The Island. Yea, the pretty much says it all. These guys write to connect set pieces and pithy one-lines (which mainly more often than not ring out as simple platitudes). Judging by the bafflingly high Rotten Tomatoes scores, this must work.
A more level headed look at this is the new Star Trek resembling the goofy-youth skewed Starship Troopers, only missing the scathing satire of Paul Verhoeven’s military sci-fi piece. Yet the film rushes from one crisis to the next with the cast coming up with convenient answers and solutions on the fly, and they work every single time. Hows that for lack of tension? Watching Sulu whip out a katana to participate in the exact same fight at the end of Serenity or Star Trek Generations or Kirk and Spock get all John Woo with their phasers in the enemy mothership (why does a mining ship have torpedoes by the way?) makes it clear that the cast are now officially Rambo style superheros. Despite the snazzy ‘parallel universe’ reboot concept that handily sidesteps the shackles of Trek continuity, it is clear that nothing is going to harm our heroes, no matter how big or loud the ‘splosion or villain bluster. Further taking a page from the Star Wars playbook, furry beasties on an Ice Planet (don’t get me started on how Kirk happens to land about a kilometer from Spock’s ice cave), and the ‘millions of voices crying out before suddenly silenced on a particularly well known homeworld. Add enough of these similarities together and the whole enterprise seems as hollow as Ivan Reitman’s Evolution was to his own Ghostbusters.
And good science has never been Star Trek’s forte but here it is positively insulting. From ‘Red Matter’ (and apparent left-over from Abrams’ Alias) to a transporter gag involving Scottie that is almost as silly as the one Spaceballs. Watching Kirk follow Mr. Scott along a water pipe in a water filtration contraption this side of the ‘cruncher pistons’ from Galaxy Quest makes Star Trek parodies officially obsolete; the real thing is content to carry that mantle. And while Leonard Nimoy shows up to bring some much needed gravity and breathing space to the film, well that brings us back to Time-Fucking-Travel. I’m outta here.
Marina:
As the music started to play indicating the closing moments of Star Trek I had a feeling that I’d just seen the new age of a beloved world and that for the first time in years, a movie or series based in that universe didn’t suck. It was exciting, flashy and pretty but right along with those feelings there was something else; a moment of doubt that what had been presented was missing something. It dawned on me after the lights came up that there was something missing: a story.
They weren’t kidding when one of the advertisements had the tagline “this is not your father’s Star Trek”. That’s probably a good thing since dad’s Trek didn’t bring in new fans but J.J. Abrams’ vision is also missing what made Trek such a groundbreaking show: balls. There is no button pushing, no deep exploration of anything; it’s simply a glossy, action filled introduction to the universe. That’s not necessarily a bad thing but it’s also not what I went in hoping for.
Some will (rightly) argue that Star Trek hasn’t “said” anything of importance in decades but I had hoped that Abrams and his writing team would take the opportunity of rebooting the franchise to take it in a new direction, even if they were re-introducing a reboot of characters from the original, but that’s not what we’ve got here. Heck, they opted to include time travel in the film which in my books, is just as much of a cop out as the introduction of the Borg but all of that said, I couldn’t help but fall into the glossy trappings of Abrams’ Star Trek and all thanks to the actors.
I’m still undecided on Chris Pine as Kirk (though he has some of the mannerism down packed) or Zachary Quinto as Spock but the rest of this cast made me joyous with glee. I’m not thrilled that we’re going down the imitation route but there are some fun performances here and I’m not sure who I love best: Karl Urban’s Bones (finally, a role I can get behind!), Simon Pegg’s Scotty, Anton Yelchin’s awesome Chekov or John Cho’s Sulu. I can’t say much for Uhura since they’ve pretty much relegated her to the love interest (though they get a few points for going out of their way to point out that she’s brilliant and for putting her at the centre of the action by having her uncover the transmission that essentially saves the Enterprise).
Abrams does have some great ideas about space (I love his “quiet space” approach) but I got the sense that maybe Abrams is a fan of Serenity because a handful of scenes looked like they were inspired by Whedon’s spaceverse (at least he’s borrowing from greatness). That said, what’s with the constant light flares? The first time it happened I thought it was cool but they’re peppered throughout the film and they become seriously distracting but this is only a quibble. The film’s major problem is the lack of story and though it has lots of plot there’s nothing to keep it all together and at times, it feels like sequences had to happen (often to introduce characters) regardless (read: at the peril) of the overall story.
Yes, it’s an entertaining film and I’ll happily shell over money for a sequel but Abrams and his crew have some serious work to do. They may have a great cast capable of revitalizing the entire universe but they’re going to need more than just funny moments and good looks to make it happen. This is going to require a story and the first film is lacking that all important element. Here’s hoping they hire some storytellers for part two.
Mike:
This review is written in haste to make a deadline and serve as a contrary opinion to those among us that cannot fully appreciate that Start Trek is an exceptional Summer Blockbuster. I accept the schlock approach that is taken for the most part in this reboot of what was originally a schlocky television program before the veneer of self-importance built up in later incarnations. The constant nods to the original, line drops and at times humorous imitations, these too I can accept and enjoy even as a non-Trekker. More important to me than how the film honored its lineage was that at no point in this film did I ever feel bored and that to me is a mark of a very good blockbuster. Yes there were superficially the kind of CGI flourishes that would drain me of the will to live, but they were here integrated into the story in a way that made them feel more than ornamental, and in the spaceship battles there was an architectonic logic to some of these indulgences.
While I suspect the rainbow camera flares used in this film may annoy some, I found it added to this rather new aesthetic approach to a bright and shiny vision of the future, it seems quite clear on the surface just how much of an Apple worshipper Abrams is by this fetishizing of white sleek interiors. Abram’s vision of Star Trek is equal mix Apple and retro action-figures glinting beneath their unopened cases, together these influences create a unique and admittedly fetishistic aesthetic to the universe depicted. Everything is shiny and new and the kid in me wants to play with these toys.
The cast is so eerily note perfect despite early hesitations by some, including myself, at the original stills of the film which sold the project as the Abercrombie and Fitch version of Star Trek. Such is the difference between still images and moving, as each of these actors embodies the iconic roles set before them. All the griping about the casting choice of Zachary Quinto as Spock must now be put to an end, he doesn’t just nail the character but seems to channel Leonard Nimoy in the process. Christopher Pine as Captain Kirk is a natural fit and there are moments when he is at the helm giving orders that the cadence of Shatner’s line delivery is played upon. Still, William Shatner, much like John Wayne, is a very a difficult actor to replace, more than swagger and delivery, Shatner possesses an undeniable aura of presence that Christopher Pine can only pantomime.
Without getting into spoilers about plot I will just say that the decisions made to ensure a new trajectory for the future of this reboot were done satisfyingly. Beat by beat, this film bounced along and is held together by the characters and the original art design and breaks free of the unimaginative into a realm not quite Star Trek, not quite Star Wars, but some new beast altogether. Its usually a good sign that when the film is done I am already looking forward to the sequel, which can then dispense with obligatory setting up of characters, and go head on into a new adventure. Which speaking of, this has to be one of the most successful first films in its establishing of characters, which are usually expositional deadweight, but here somehow character introductions and dynamics are slipped in without any obstruction to the flow of the story.
Not since The Dark Knight have I enjoyed a summer blockbuster this thoroughly.
Consensus:
Average score:
Eureka, it’s a bright colourful blockbuster that is sure to be a crowd pleaser, even if it is light on ideas or the corny original Trek and stuffy Next Generation pacing and structure. This is a Star Trek movie for the post-Star Wars prequel age: More action, less ethical dilemmas. The acting and characters are strong where the story is weak. This is unlikely to be a problem for much of the summery audience while sipping soda and munching popcorn. And the freshly rebooted franchise is well on its way to a dynamite sequel. This time with 100% more lens Flare.
Relevant Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site
Facebook profile
Flixster Profile
For the first 100 comments or so on J.J. Abram’s Trek Reboot. Check here: http://www.rowthree.com/2009/05/06/cinecast-episode-121-my-happy-place/comment-page-3/#comment-29363
And while the debate flies fast and furious, take a moment to remember these wise words: Both in 2009 and 1986 – http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/05/snl-star-trek-video-.html
@Jandy: “But it worked out pretty well for me and my middle-of-the-road knowledge of the universe.”
This is exactly how I felt about the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy movie.
All of these criticisms of the film neglect to appreciate the rules of the universe Abrams has created. This is not supposed to be realistic, this is not Generation, this is schlock Star Trek before it got serious, and the levity of the piece, the way it bounces from action sequence to comedy to buddy sequence, that is by design. You can dislike it, but to say it in anyway deviates from its intentions I find absurd… rarely has a film been so honest in its intentions.
To bitch about how Kirk lands where he did on the planet is to watch the tv show and bitch about why the red shirt always gets killed… thats futility in the making.
I have been told time and time again about the value of mindless entertainment, and I can honestly say this is an example I can stand behind. Abrams imposes an aesthetic and energy that works in this film, where something like iron Man is dead by its dependence on the formulaic done to death structure of the superhero movie, hitting the beats in sequence. There is enough going on in the visuals and interactions among characters in this film to obscure the formula, its there yes, but Abrams doesn’t linger on it, his camera is always moving towards something new, and there are new worlds, old friends, time travel, so many nicely laid detonations to successfully pull it off. there is a reason Star Trek has lasted this long, and Abrams takes the best parts of it and makes something new of it that work perfectly.
Kurt, I didn’t like Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (the movie) at all, and I’ve only read the first book of that. Except I liked the Zooey Deschanel parts, and I liked the Bill Nighy parts. The rest just bored me.
I’m glad you noted how much the film bridged the gap between Star Trek and Star Wars. I was thinking the same thing while watching it – I think that’s a loss for the universe overall, but I’m curious to see if the next film continues toward pure adventure or pulls back toward more toward Trek-ish concerns now that everything’s introduced and set up. I’m guessing the former, though, based on the grosses.
for the record, I do star ratings according to the depth of effect on me, and I have a bias towards films that emotionally challenge me. This kind of film cannot ever get beyond a 4/5 by this reasoning, but if I were to say on the level of pure mindless entertainment, this is 5/5 easy.
@Rot – OK, this is a revelation actually. But considering the Whedon-esque nature of things that is probably right. I do dig Firefly.
I’ll come clean and say that I really don’t like taking Star Trek in this direction. But if the goal was to make substanceless, storyless action, well, I guess the did it like Gangbusters, and fulfilled their intentions.
I hope they get new intentions for the inevitable sequel, but I doubt it ‘case they kept the same bad writers. Hello punchy-pace and spectacle, bye-bye wonder and amazement.
There are enough heady sci-fi films coming down the pipe, I am happy with Star Trek being more Buck Rogers as a counterbalance.
@ROT – “Abrams doesn’t linger on it, his camera is always moving towards something new”
To which I say, for the love of god SLOW DOWN a little you are going to crash into the G.I. Joe or Transformers production crews which are also going willy nilly into something new all the time. A story is about crests and valleys, you can’t be at “11″ all the time. Star Trek occasionally slows down for a millisecond, but we are only one step away from THE MUMMY RETURNS…
” I am happy with Star Trek being more Buck Rogers as a counterbalance.”
There is no counterbalance, the seesaw fell off the fulcrum years ago. There are like 1000s of StarGate/IndependanceDay/I-Robot/Transformers for each and every THE FOUNTAIN, SUNSHINE and PRIMER.
Clearly the fate of the Cinecast hangs on to what position I take on the film. Will I bravely go where no man has gone before, or fall victim to the power of the dark side?
Well Matt – Evil will always Triumph, because good is DUMB!
I can’t believe I am the defender of mindless entertainment in this thread but I do think you are reducing it to being without substance when its substance is distinct from the heady cerebral fare as something worthwhile in its own regard. Let’s not forget this is an origin story, the hardest of things to do… before you start you are bogged down with chunks of exposition needed… so even with this handicap I think the Abrams crew pulled it off nicely.
I am not sure what alternative introduction to Kirk Rusty was looking for, his character is a gut instinct react first kind of guy, is the stealing of a car really that lazy? this is not Dark Knight, nuance is not required, and neither is that a bad thing. Also the bar scene I thought was well done, loved the alien in between.
I think Star Trek has as much nuance as The Dark Knight, and a score of equal quality (horrid).
I like The Mummy Returns more than Star Trek. Star Trek is a bit more serious, and it’s visual effects are not as extravagant, I think they tried to pull off believeable visual effects in Star Trek, they didn’t in The Mummy Returns. TMR is fucking ridiculous, and I love it for it.
It would have been nice if Star Trek had been a good movie. It’s not. But I can’t help but feel like I should defend it, I think it’s because it has NCC-1701 and Spock. I can relate to people feeling violated by stuff like Star Wars, if I were 10 years younger (or a fair bit dumber), I might be going nuts.
I will say the first battle scene was a moment where I thought there was no breathing room and could have used it, but no the rest of the film, the camera is moving all the time but there are spaces to breathe, and the pacing worked perfectly.
Say what you will about the film, you have to admit it has its own aesthetic. Outside of Punchdrunk Love no other film I know of has used the rainbow flares, and the film has such a sharp sheen to everything, it is Apple in space, designed to perfection right down to the cool phasers. the art design is awesome.
To compare it to Mummy Returns (which I have not seen though) I find odd, because that seems to be a churning out of CGI staples without an aesthetic vision to it. Star Trek is the higher variety of mindless entertainment.
If you want mindless entertainment with an aesthetic vision, I recommend Tim Burton – and specifically his first Batman. There you can talk about vision. JJ Abrams’ is just bland to me, seemingly taking what is in style (BSG, Apple, Rap music) and trying to re-invent the wheel with swirling camera movements that work nowhere.
I must have been blind but I didn’t see anything like BSG in Star Trek, I mean this zooming effect in space, it happened?
All I remember is fluid motions of the camera.
I can see we are not going to get far Henrik, because I actually hate Tim Burton. He is an example of all style and no substance, with the exception of Ed Wood (which I assume, to be consistent, you hate).
I was more impressed with the sound design than anything visually. “Apple in space” is not my cup of tea. It just felt artificial to me. I realize it’s a new ship and everything works so it’s going to look as though it was polished with a toothbrush, but I prefer a little more style (TNG).
In fact, now that I think about it, I would’ve liked to have seen more of the ship. What do we see? The bridge, the transporter and a brief, brief look at engineering (which oddly enough looked like the bowels of the Titanic more than Enterprise).
Yeah, Ed Wood is boring. Sure he is all style and no substance, his movies are mindless entertainment! We are precisely discussing films, that are all style and no substance. In terms of Star Trek, aesthetically it fails for me. I see no personality in the direction. JJ Abrams was talking to me, and he was saying nothing. He spent 150 million US dollars, speaking to the world, and he said nothing. Tim Burton says nothing either, but he has amazing rhetorical skills. I may be going too far with the analogy.
“it is Apple in space” – That’s pretty good and you’re right (though they couldn’t have come up with a better communicator for Uhura? It’s a smaller version of her in-ear thingy from the series).
I thought this was much more Firefly than BSG as far as the space battles are concerned. When the Romulan ship is partially out of the anomaly in the opening fight sequence…that was very reminiscent of the Alliance/Reever fights in Serenity. And then there’s the zooming camera in space which I first saw in Firefly. Again, I say Abrams is a Whedon fan.
@Andrew if you want to see more of the ship, I recommend delving into the trekkie underworld. I’m sure some guy has rendered the enterprise and plans/images are online.
no I mean Burton owes his substance entirely to style, its like the style comes first and everything is pigeon-holed into the art. Star Trek is not so reversed, and we will disagree on this point, but the style is icing here to a story that while not substantial with respects to emotionally affecting me, is not as devoid of narrative purpose as Burton films tend to be.
The way Abrams directs this film it keeps me on the edge of wonder throughout, and unlike what I am hearing from some here, I was never once bored… and boredom usually comes from me anticipating the formula and what happens next. Iron Man never had any wonder in its style to occupy my mind while the formula was unfolding, it was glued to it, whereas Star Trek is always moving, the lens flares, and the music and the plethora of characters and worlds, and mythologies and I never felt completely on stable ground so as to then be able to anticipate the formula and therefore get bored. That to me is the difference and why this is a better film than most in its category of mindless popcorn fun.
I suspect Mummy Returns is beat by beat getting to bigger and bigger CGI action sequences without subterfuge or diverging character threads, and so I would be bored. Star Trek weaves its story and places it within a spectacle that the top never topples, it just keeps going forward.
And I think it was Henrik who mentioned the awful music. Seriously? It’s definitely bombastic but I think that fits the action of the film nicely. I thought it was a great score (and I haven’t been a fan of Giacchino’s other work – the Speed Racer score is mediocre at best and often his “Lost” score is way over the top) and I’ll happily admit that I got goosebumps when the first bit of music kicks in and we see the Enterprise.
I am way more interested in the whodunit of Sleepy Hollow than in what is going to happen in Star Trek. I cared more for Sweeney Todd than these guys, and was more entertained by him.
Mummy Returns stars with the biggest action scene, and then gets bigger all the time. It is like the lord of the rings, except it knows how ridiculous and stupid it is.
“Mummy Returns stars with the biggest action scene, and then gets bigger all the time. It is like the lord of the rings, except it knows how ridiculous and stupid it is.”
I must watch this.
@Andrew
If we were shown the whole of the Enterprise, and walked through it, and with every spaceship and set-piece it is lovingly lingered upon, while the story is going on, then I would probably get bored because the mind can reorient and follow the story more closely and get to a point of recognizing the familiar, and for me, that is a killer. I like that you are always getting glimpses of things and never the full picture, one of the great advantages of this film is its acceleration, its knowing of its effect. The first scene goes too far but afterwards the film hits that sweet spot for me, pushing further than the mind can reorient so as to allow the story to coast for a formula saturated and savvy audience.
Probably should have written this in my review but here goes:
Abram’s vision of Star Trek is equal mix Apple and retro action-figures glinting beneath their unopened cases, together these influences create a unique and admittedly fetishistic aesthetic to the universe depicted. Everything is shiny and new and the kid in me wants to play with these toys.
No Marina, you shouldn’t. Its an abomination.
“No Marina, you shouldn’t. Its an abomination.”
And when has that ever stopped me? I did watch “Solarbabies” this weekend. At the moment, anything is better than that disaster.
@ “Apple and retro action-figures “
The iBridge or iDeck. Spot on. But I did really dig the new look of the bridge and the clean stylings. Tres Chic.
Kurt,
I think what you fail to grasp in your criticism of this film is the power of the public conscious that is part of this film’s formula. When you compare it to other films that have the same character and plot holes like The Mummy you are creating an unfair comparison because The Mummy has zero public conscious. Star Trek, for better or worse, has left residue in everyone’s minds; everyone at least knows some thing about the myth. Therefore, Star Trek plays by a different set of rules then other films.
Now, for something really insightful…
Hottest women on the planet:
1) Freida Pinto
2) Zoe Saldana
Jonathan, from the moment I saw Zoe in “The Terminal” I was in love. Pinto wins though. You got it right.
Don’t tell Penny I said that.
@Rus. I think you are right. Funny that is in part why I had issues with the movie. If this was J.J. Abrams Space Adventure then I’d have less issue and just treat it like another THE MUMMY.
***MILD SPOILERS***
Of course, Transformers had a similar wave of popularity before everyone woke up and discovered that it is a big dumb action movie. I’m not implying that Star Trek is as gawd-awful as Transformers, I’m just saying I’d rather it not edge any closer in empty bombast. I’m hoping the sequel finds a better balance between the action and the sci-fi brain. As rot said, the origin is out of the way, now the crew can go on a 5 year mission. And with continuity of Trek out of the way due to alternate timeline, we are good to go where no one has gone before….Hopefully they’ll leave the time bullshit alone now they they’ve broken the shackles of continuity.
The film really does not look that much like BSG guys. Yeah the camera work is “hectic” but that’s become common across all genres in TV and movies. Plus BSG uses hand held cameras, maybe I’m wrong but ST felt more like stedicam work.
Not to mention that the sets are bright and colorful as opposed to drab dreary BSG.
I think the disappointing thing about the BSG vs. Star Trek comparison is it is another example how movies are losing, or already have lost, the place of good cutting edge drama to television. How did we get to point were people have to bend over backwards to get something different and edgy green lit for a film, but second tier cable will do all kinds of these shows and win!
I think both Rus and Rusty are right and I didn’t hate ST but I was disappointed that the reboot didn’t have more guts. Pretty, flashy and good fun but I wanted more.
Rus – you mentioned earlier in this thread that ST plays by different rules because even folks that aren’t hardcore fans have thoughts on the show and are somewhat familiar with the characters. That reason alone is enough to encourage this film to move beyond simple character introductions and get off into actual story right out of the gate. That’s not to say that this film was boring but it does lack an overall interesting story.
You would hope, but Abrams seem mostly wating to tap in to “teen lust” with younger versions of iconic characters. i drank the kool aid and had fun. I’m usually really hard on scripts, but for some reasons this pathatic script got a pass from me. And that was because of the fact it was Star Trek – I wanted what I got. Popcorn, Abercrombie & Fitch Star Trek.
Rus, are you an objectivist?
I don’t get the apologizing for liking this film, I really really don’t. I don’t see what is so offensive about the script either, the script works, it tells a story, expands the mythology, pits Spock and Kirk into an alliance, introduces the characters and all without feeling bogged down by exposition. and any of the weaknesses of script our glossed over by Abrams pacing and aesthetic, the film hums along and is the popcorn spectacle it should be, and it was promised to be.
you guys are longing for a film that was never intended to exist.
“you guys are longing for a film that was never intended to exist.”
I don’t buy that for a second. Abrams is too smart for that (I hope). I was longing to see the first one kick right into gear and it simply didn’t. I wanted MORE and though the “Popcorn, Abercrombie & Fitch Star Trek” was more than enough for me, it wasn’t what I really wanted. No apologizing here – I thoroughly enjoyed it. I’m much more likely to see this again than TDK.
Actually, I’ll BUY this on DVD to rewatch. I felt no need to do that with TDK.
@ I don’t see what is so offensive about the script either, the script works
For all their weaknesses, an over reliance on coincidence to move the plot along, falling back on cliches, Transformers. Orci and Kurtzman are at the top of their game in a lot of ways. At the very least they work very well with JJ Abrams.
Two points I want to highlight from the script. The opening scene. Obviously it was dramatic and suspensful but throwing in Kirk’s birth was a stroke of genius. With two scenes and barely any dialogue they introduce the protagonist, develop an emotional core for characters who’ve had three minutes of screen time, establish the importance of the scene within the context of the movie, establish the importance of the scene within the context of the series and create the inciting incident of the movie.
Second, the fight on that platform. Why do they have to sky dive? Why do they need to go to the platform at all?
One line of exposition, on the move, in the midst of a larger action scene, sets it all up. Sky dive, land, swordfight, free fall, transport, planet blows, mom dies.
The whole first half of the movie cooks. The pacing is impecable.
Look at how many balls the keep up in the air. Chekhov’s boy genius moment, Sulu’s sword fighting prowess, Ohura’s good bye, Pike’s bravery, Spoke’s loss, Kirk’s gigantism (which is NOT comic relief by the way. Comic relief is a flawed concept. It’s time for comic relief, we certaintly don’t want all this suspense continuing unabated).
And they’re masters of the McGuffin. If you’re calling attention to your McGuffin then you don’t know what you are doing and should immeadiately stop. See the misguidedly praised Ronin.
Now look at MI3. There’s some vial of something. Who cares. When they need a reason to fight, it’s there. When it’s not on screen I forget about it. McGuffin’s are fine as you’re not boring me with them. A lot of screen writers don’t seem to understand how it works.
That’s because TDK is a pile of crap. Anyone whining about plot holes in Star Trek better be humming the same tune for TDK.
Plot holes, such as…?
I havent really noticed any holds in TDK, and maybe its because so much happens in the movie that its easier to look past them.
Look, I’m going to go back to what I said on FJ – when you’re having fun, its easier to look past the bullshit. If it hasnt won you over, then you can start poking at all the details… and maybe that makes you look smarter to some people, and just more like an old crank to others.
I can pick away at the last half hour or so of Dark Knight, but overall theres too much I liked it in to deny it as a whole. For Star Trek, I thought at best it started out very good, and from not much further it just flatlined, fun-wise, and its only after the fact that you have to examine perhaps why you didnt connect.
All I can say is that even with a movie as so-so as Wolverine, theres a lot of things in that I found memorable and fun. Ditto stuff like Rundown, the Condemned. With this, the stuff for me that was most memorable were the things I didn’t like, and everything else just simply happened, and I was apathetic to it.
So what do you do in a situation like this?
For movies in almost any genre, theres a battle of gut vs. brain about what you would ‘rate’ it, emotional pull vs. technical evaluation of plot and storytelling, etc. . When it comes to this movie its very very easy for me, I didnt get any visceral pull from it, and I can pick apart at it too.
Dark Knight – brain says no to some parts, but overwhelmingly gut says “See this a few more times in the theater” – and thats what I did. If we’re looking for some unified field theory of what makes a popcorn movie acceptable, its not gonna happen. All I can ruminate on for now is what the hell is it about this movie that made people get excited and look past the flaws? I dont get it, I just dont, and I didnt get Transformers or Wanted either. I just dont get what it is about this movie, whether its humor or visuals or action or whatever, that makes them eat this up, and makes them reject the Star Wars prequels.
Why is this a hit, and why was Speed Racer a dud?
And I don’t understand where all these expectation you’re all citing are coming from. I’m a pretty big Star Trek fan and I went in with an open mind. Almost to a fault. I couldn’t make heads or tails out of any of those trailers. I knew they were putting a lot of effort into convincing everyone that it’s Star Trek… but not like all those other Star Treks that are just for nerds.
An effort I both understand and wasn’t particularly interested in. Certaintly anything would be better than Nemesis but “we’re gonna make it more like Star Wars” did not fill me with confidence in their vision.
There is no one thing that Star Trek is. Compare ST: The Motion Picture and ST: Wrath of Khan. City at the Edge of Tomorrow and Best of Both Worlds.
Seriously, did you watch Dark Knight and complain that Adam West wasn’t in it? Where’s all the humor and wacky sound effects?
I have no idea where these comparisons to Solaris and The Fountain are coming from. And if you want to believe that Terminator is much more thematically rich or smart… well good luck with that but in a debate I don’t think the evidence would bear you out.
Maybe I understand this better because I’m an avid comic book reader. In comics, the creative team switches out every few years and the new team is allowed to take the title in their own direction. They make it their own for a while. That’s all I was expecting. Something different but recognizable.
I have no idea how any of you could be surprised that a big expensive may sci-fi flick would be adventure oriented. I didn’t follow this production at all, it was barely on my radar and I thought it was just a given that this would be an action summer movie.
@ That’s because TDK is a pile of crap.
Oh fer crying out loud. Can we just have a normal conversation for once. Matt Gamble, no more of your stunts.
Anyone who complains to me how some great film has “plot holes” immeadiately get filed in my “ignore this about everything” drawer. Hitchcock contemptuously refered to people like that as “plausibles” and they absolutely deserve every bit of derision.
@ when you’re having fun, its easier to look past the bullshit. If it hasnt won you over, then you can start poking at all the details
I agree 1000%. This is why I was taking you and Kurt to task before. Films do not live or die by versimilitude. In fact, it’s a very minor thing in the grand scheme of things.
People who complain about plot holes may have a legitimate grevience but they’re failing to articulate what the problem is. Plot holes are just an easy substitute.
Granted it is subjective to some extent. Every film, ever story requires suspension of disbelieve and that’s a tricky concept and every person has a different threshold.
Their are certaintly films for which I unable to suspend disbelief. For instance if a character (especially a protagonist) abrupty and inexplicably changes motivation 180 degrees in the middle of the film. Then I quit.
Another unforgivable mistake. I’ll overlook illogical elements but not if the film keeps running head first into them again and again.
Fore example, if the conciet of the film is that mass murderers are celebrated and beloved. But also the characters who love them are scared of them and keep running away so they won’t be killed, well then I’m not to sit there and pretend that doesn’t have a fundemental problem. I’m out.
Of course, neither of those examples are rhetorical. I’m talking about Behind The Mask. A film with versimilitude problems Star Trek couldn’t dream of.
I’m lost, so Rusty you are championing Star Trek? Maybe I read it wrong in the other thread but I thought you were on the side of Kurt bitching about it?
Why is Star Trek better than Speed Racer, easy: pacing. SR got spectacle alright but it forgot the importance of pacing and threading it out so that each spectacle is properly given its due rather than becoming a cacophony without end.
In my opinion, Star Trek crests this wave so that the formulaic of the story is never given time to digest fully because Abrams has the movie coasting forward enough in the right spots and has enough mythology playing out in between character relationships, all juggling around so the snob in me cannot fix on the familiar in the film. I equate it with the crest of a wave because it is a very difficult balance to achieve, and I find for the most part popcorn films are either too spastic (i.e. transformers, speed racer) or too precious, lingering on their set-pieces and letting the bones of the formula show through (i.e. Iron Man, Indy 4). This is why I think the script is actually good because even if it has formulaic elements to it, it is paced well, and certainly when Abrams layers on the aesthetic (which what else are those lens flares for but to keep you in a constant state of spectacle during exposition moments?) the combination makes for a perfect cresting wave that leads me to the end without having to anticipate what happens next.
Iron Man dies because within ten minutes I know every beat to follow and its pace never lets me forget it. Some people don’t mind that, but being a snob the only way I can enjoy these films is if I am partially screened from the events.
I think Speed racer has one part right, the aesthetics of spectacle were 100% there but it was the dosage that killed it for me.
@ ’m lost, so Rusty you are championing Star Trek… Maybe I read it wrong in the other thread but I thought you were on the side of Kurt bitching about it
You must’ve very selectively read my comments. I did call the car theft scene cliche. But most of my comments were defending the film and telling Kurt an Goon they’re wrong.
@Marina,
I genuinely do not know what the better film is supposed to look like, and from what Kurt keeps stressing it seems to have no relation to what Abrams was promoting and saying he was going to make, so that is why I say it is pining for a film that was never intended… I might as well bitch about King Kong not having enough courtroom intrigue.
but seriously, describe for me what the better film is? Should it be more like Lost? Its kind of nice not to have a headache and have things a bit more straightforward I think. If you are making a film about the original show you are going to have to have the original characters, and the bulk of the show is getting these characters into their respective positions and showing what they have to offer the team. The most fascinating aspect of the original Star Trek is the dichotomy of Spock/Kirk, and of all the films, the only memorable scene I remember is Spock dying, and this strong sense of friendship being the backbone to the show. Well this two hour introduction film sets that up, and sets it up as plausibly as it could considering the constraints. There is a stock villain to fight, and that makes sense, just as Batman Begins started with Scarecrow because it knew it had enough to chew on with the origins of Batman, so this film knows the villain is background to the rise of the Enterprise.
I will say with the whizzing around the film does, there is not as much world-making as I would perhaps like, but I guess as part of a new series that is something to leave for a sequel.
“Seriously, did you watch Dark Knight and complain that Adam West wasn’t in it? Where’s all the humor and wacky sound effects?”
Who are you talking to? Me? If so, you’re strawmanning. I didnt go into Star Trek expecting anything other than to be entertained. The extend of my Star Trek TOS knowledge is Star Trek II and IV. I watched most of TNG, and some of DS9 and Voyager from time to time. Of the other Star Trek movies I’ve seen First Contact and Nemesis. I prefer everything I had seen before over this movie, and its not out of some principle about what Star Trek is, I just found them more entertaining. Yes, even Nemesis, if only for the fact that I love everything that comes out of Patrick Stewart’s mouth.
After the fact when we started nitpicking, I said I missed the moralizing. This isnt even a statement of requirement from me, its more of a statement that even a sermon or for it to have benen about something would have made it more palatable.
I think to when LOTR:FOTR came out. Oh man, I hated it, I was bored to death by that thing, and I didnt get it at all. I couldnt get attached to the characters and thus I didnt give a shit about anything they did. The extended edition and watching it with a LOTR fanboy to answer my questions changed all that, and I never looked back afterwards. I dont hate Star Trek nearly as much as I initially hated FOTR, but I am walking in without much affinity to these characters, and they didnt do anything for me to make me care.
So I guess it makes sense that people attached to Kirk and Spock may be in love with these or see things they know shining through. I don’t. So I’m not going to understand unless I invest time watching TOS or the rest of those earlier Star Trek movies. And that may never happen.
What I’d rather have is for an extended edition that gives me more time learning about these characters, so I can care when they’re skydiving and having swordfights. When I can care about Kirk and Spock, maybe I can look past all the nitpicking…
…even though I think some of those nitpickings will always be justified. Particularly how much Spock blabbed about peoples alternate lives. That’s probably the only one that really took me out of the film immediately as it was happening. Over and over, I paused and was “WTF Spock, jeez. Spoiler Alert”
“but it forgot the importance of pacing and threading it out so that each spectacle is properly given its due rather than becoming a cacophony without end.”
Speed Racer is constantly moving, but so is Star Trek. Most reviewers have noted that the kinetic nature of ST has probably kept people from focusing too long on how many things dont make much sense. Speed Racer has a number of downtime family moments too. I dont see a significant difference.
@ Who are you talking to? Me?
Did you cite disappointed expectations? Did you compare it The Fountain or Solaris?
When I search Solaris (and for that matter “expecations”) on this thread, I only see it in your posts. Kurt mentioned Fountain at some point.
And?
Since you seem to like that word
Its verisimilitude
@ And?
so then I wasn’t talking to you.
@ When I search Solaris (and for that matter “expecations”) on this thread, I only see it in your posts
yeah Kurt mentioned Fountain and the other one wasn’t Solaris it was Sunshine. And then also Primer. I think Marina said something along those lines as well.
@ Since you seem to like that word
Its verisimilitude
I bet you feel like a really big man.
Kurt mentions Solaris and even 2001 in the other thread. Terminator too.
“I bet you feel like a really big man.”
Well since you feel like making every argument into a judgment about the other person instead of keeping it about the actual movie, I might as well play ball. It’s getting pretty obnoxious man, look through a lot of your recent posts. Its a lot of telling other people what they think, a number of self congratulations for how you understand things, and in this thread you added an out of hand dismissal of the views of anyone who thinks X.
“Bird sure know how to bring it out in people, don’t he?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOhcBPtYR1I
None of your opinions fucking matter.
That last comment is from just outside Saskatoon. Hmmmm.
Well done Dave! That scene from Tee Wire does indeed rock. There is extreme foul language, warmth, total police violation and also rolling over (well as much as Omar rolls over) as well. There is so much going on in those 5 minutes I want to go back and watch all 5 seasons again!
Andrew, this a local mystery or can you share with the group?
DAVE – “Andrew, this a local mystery or can you share with the group?”
One of our writers is from Saskatoon. And I will email you about the other thing when I get some time in the next day or two.
Just to be clear, I liked Star Trek, but it has some rookie screenwriting mistakes that could have been solved that would have made it so much better! That’s o.k. because like Altman said, “you learn more from the mistakes that filmmakers do then you do the hits” Basically all of my problems go back to screenwriting 101, action equals character.
Example 1: the ice planet – Kirk should have made active and unique choices that display something about his character instead of simply running away and having Spock show up out of nowhere to save his ass. Abrams wasted this scene and it could have been fixed so easily. Example Solution: On his way to the outpost have Kirk come in contact with the beastie pursuing a human that turns out to be Spock and Kirk saves him through some creative actions. It does the same thing as whats in the film but uses the scene to give the audience more insight in to Kirk’s mind and problem solving; this will help them buy him as the natural leader of the Enterprise later.
Example 2: Spock’s interaction with his younger version at the end of the film. Old Spock, unlike old mystical Obi-Wan Kenobi, does more damage in this film then good. Obi-Wan give advice not formulas and solutions. Here Spock is constantly stealing thunder from the new stars Abrams is trying to establish. There is no reason in the last scene between the two Spocks that the younger Spock shouldn’t be able to realize that Kirk and himself can do great things together. They just did some amazing stuff, why does old Spock have to steal his thunder by vocalizing it. Have a good scene between the young Kirk and Spock and put old Spock off to the side. By having the older Spock telling him what to think Abrams again pulls the rug out from under one of his main characters.
That is two examples of were Abrams and the screenwriters didn’t maxmize every scene. I’m to tired to give more but you get my point.
Oh one more point, the BEAUTY of The Dark Knight is it maximizes every scene to full potential – many scenes show the character of multiple people in the scene, AT THE SAME TIME. There is NO comparison between the two films in my opinion.
I didn’t feel bad giving my $6.75 to the theatre for this one. I even had a chance to get my picture taken with a member of the Star Trek Fan Club Raleigh branch, but I forgot my camera.
In the words of Clark Griswald:
Thank you Rus
@Rus
****and Star Trek spoilers ahead****
I genuinely do not see those as flaws in the script. Kirk proves his mettle throughout the show, and the reveal of Spock makes more sense the way it is done, rather than see an old guy running across the tundra. As for the end scene with Spock, you need that in order to qualify the logic of time travel, because what Old Spock said originally didn’t make sense, if this is an alternate reality how can he affect young Spock off course by his presence… the universe is now off course.
“Kirk proves his mettle throughout the show” That is your opinion but I’m just reacting to a lot of the negative comments people had about the film and offering examples how the filmmakers could of fixed it and made a much more powerful film. I said the film worked for me, but no film is perfect.
The Spock deal at the end is overkill; at that point Spock has already altered reality through all of the other stuff he has done. By giving Old Spock all of the action (yes, displaying wisdom and insight is an action in writing circles) Abrams is only making the Old Spock look better?! Why not make the young Spock look better. I now know why; in this Chicago Tribune interview Nimoy talks about how that last scene was conceived as a “handoff”, I just think it could have been handled better:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-tc-mov-nimoy-0511-0512may12,0,3313645.story
Yes but if there was no closing scene and we were left with the ‘logic’ Old Spock gave to Kirk on the planet that would upset a lot of people because it doesn’t make any sense. There had to have been a return of Old Spock to explain that he was bullshitting, or write out the lie in the first place.
Young Spock one would expect, has things to learn from Old Spock so I don’t see that as a flaw. I am a bit fuzzy on what entirely is said in that exchange, isn’t it just reinforcing the idea that friendship is important? Don’t elder characters often serve that role? isn’t Pike another example of a character setting a youngin’ straight? I don’t know, to me it made perfect sense.
Young Kirk and Spock are starting out, they accomplish things on their own but they are still early in their career, so we should see them wobbling through and in need of guidance. This is like Young Luke before he becomes a Jedi.
dude you act like the script is etched in gold, all I’m saying is it could have been HANDLED better and a lot of criticism would have not been there. even if I agree with you that the last scene intent is necessary it obviously wasn’t handled as well as it should have been. are you trying to convince me I’m wrong in my opinion of the script, or, that you believe the script is perfect as is? on both counts I’m not going to agree with you. you loved it, I liked it
It amuses me that we all like the movie but can’t get on the same page as to why.
@Mike – I can’t tell you what a better movie looks like because they didn’t make it. Hopefully the second one will be better.
@Matt – so I’m not alone in my TDK indifference. Nice.
@rus
there would be no conversation if you just agreed with me. The point is to expand upon each of our positions to see what they arrive at. I never doubted your position, but it seems fair game to look at the script and volley over what improvements can be made, the examples you gave, to me, were not improvements, and I thought my reasons were pretty clear why. Its not that I think the script is golden, its that it works, its serviceable, and my experience of the film was relatively seamless.
Elements that could have been improved upon:
there were one too many beam me up escapes.
I could do without the monsters on the planet
a secondary Romulan character that could play off of Nero and build him up a little more
thats about it, I really thought it was well put together and hit the beats and did exactly what it needed to do.
agreed, you have your problem scenes I have mine – the reasons they are my problem scenes are my own so I don’t need any justification. basically at this point the film is not tight enough to be one I purchase on Blue Ray. I’ll probably rent through netflix and see how I feel after that viewing. IF the filmmakers would have worked out some of problems everyone has talked about I would buy this film.
Oh I am definitely owning this.
Kurt, I loved your “To boldly go when no man has gone before” line in your review. I’ve never heard that one used before.
Strangely, this is the only Star Trek film in which I don’t have an overwhelming desire to watch again.
Cheers Reed. The Time travel has always been an issue with me in the Trek universe. There should be a “Time Directive” to go along with the “Prime Directive” as to not fuck with the past. Spock should know better.
Leave the time paradoxes to the Terminator Franchise please!
I totally don’t get this, I love time travel and think it is a perfect device to use in Star Trek.
This is pretty funny. The use of the Beasty Boys’ “Sabotage” in ST may be attributed to this:
Oh, Kurt. Star Trek actually has a Temporal Prime Directive. It was mentioned in TNG and DS9, and was referred to in several VOY episodes.
They do have the Prime Directive but I simply assumed that this early on, it hasn’t been developed yet.
I would assume the Prime Directive applies to time travel. * N E R D A L E R T*
Haha. nice. Check it:
you know what, it looks better.
Well as I have been reading some of the letters and blogs, and as any of you that have seen my letters on so many web sights know I did not like this film. As I’ve been called I have to admit there is some proof to the fact that I’m an old die hard STICK IN THE MUD fan of Star Trek. The biggest problem I’ve got with the film is that it completely goes against Star Trek canon. As some people agree with me, some do not. So I think we both can come up with a solution that will appease both new fans of this film and us die hard STICK IN THE MUDS. We die hards cant do it alone so we need you new fans help and the best part about it is any of you that don’t know anything about Star Trek shouldn’t notice a thing anyway.
I purpose introducing characters that are not considered canon but are still known to us old STICK IN THE MUDS. As well as some we didn’t get to know real well and for those of you that don’t know what I mean here some names to help you out.
ROBERT APRIL he was suppose to be the Enterprises first Captain before Pike and was the only character ever played by Gene Rodenberry himself
AREX he was a navigator in the animated Star Trek and had six limbs. With new C.G.I. he could be created vary easily
WILL DECKER he was killed in the first movie but was suppose to be in the second T.V. show witch never happened.
ILIA also killed in the first movie
M’RESS also from the animated Star Trek she was of a cat like race easy to create now
I feel a letter writing campaign would help with this and then maybe you new fan and us old STICK IN THE MUDS can both enjoy the ride the next film takes us on
a rewatch has pushed me into the positive camp, like a 3.5/5 or so feels right. I still carry a lot of the same complaints, but knowing what I was getting, being more familiar with TOS characters, and just plain being wrong about Chris Pine, make such a shift possible.
Rotten Tomatoes:
Star Trek = 95% (8.1/10)
The Dark Knight = 94% (8.5/10)