Star Trek

VanHelsing
Assistant
Posts: 745
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:24 am
Contact:

Post by VanHelsing »

Another overrated film IMO. Yes, it was good (especially thanks to Sylar) but it was certainly not all that like what the critics make it out to be. Currently, it can relish in the fact that it's the most successful summer film till the Transformers sequel hits the screens.
With a Southern accent...
"Don't you dare lie to me!" and...
"You threaten my congeniality, you threaten me!"

-------

"You shouldn't be doing what you're doing. The truth is enough!"
"Are you and Perry?" ... "Please, Nelle."
Zahveed
Associate
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: In Your Head
Contact:

Post by Zahveed »

That video is great.
"It's the least most of us can do, but less of us will do more."
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Sonic Youth wrote:I didn't mind Penelope's shaky cam or the inconsistent styles so much as the glare, the glare, the glare! What was going on with that? J.J. either loved to shoot directly into white light or leave so many of those phantoms of reflective light that can only be caught by a camera. Isn't post-production technology supposed to take care of that by now, or was that kept in because it made everything look more real or something?
A hilarious take on what old episodes of Star Trek might look like with Abrams behind the camera. Thought you guys might appreciate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAaX8Aq6smQ
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

I never got the Star Trek phenomenon either. I was in the Service when the original series ran and never saw a single episode, even in re-runs. I did see the movies, though - some good, some bad, but never felt a real connection. I've been planning on seeing the new movie since it came out two weeks ago but things keep getting in the way. Maybe Monday.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

It's a statement about the modern movie business that I saw the movie on its 15th day in theatres and feel like it's already old news.

I have little emotional attachment to the whole Trek phenomenon. I'm one of the few here old enough to have seen it during its original, thought-unsuccessful TV run in the 60s. I watched it maybe 2-3 times, not enough to register any of the characters aside from the guy with the pointy ears. The show reached its now-cult-status when I was in college -- alot of people (the same folk who lived/breathed Tolkien) watched every rerun multiple times and became encyclopedic lore experts; I was off doing other things. I did get roped into seeing the first two movies, and thought, like most, that the second was at least entertaining, as compared to the enervated first. But I was still utterly distant from the franchise; I was probably one of ten Americans who didn't get the "Can't they just beam him up?" joke in E.T. And I've never seen any other TV or film episode.

So, I guess by Oscar Guy's theory, that puts me in prime position to like this movie -- which I did. Certainly what Sonic says is true...that competent professionalism ought to be the baseline of summer movies, not cause for celebration. But since we know the opposite is true -- that unadulterated crud routinely does $200 million at the box-office -- we don't want to dismiss this film too lightly. It's got a bouncy spirit, lickety-split pacing, and engaging plotting characterizations. Based on this and Lost, Abrams has a bit too much of a thing for time travel and parent fixations, but he also has a decent respect for the role of characters even in action-dominated films. As I've said, I'm not remotely an expert on Star Trek, but I've acquired (by osmosis) enough awareness of the major roles that I was able to appreciate the way Abrams and his writers played with the established personas, made them fresh and likable without crossing the line into overt revisionism.

And may I especially cite the film's design? I long ago became weary of the look of space travel movies; even by the 1979 Star Trek movie, a friend of mine wondered how many times we'd have to watch big steel hulks move through blue gook. The Enterprise of course had to conform, outwardly, to a classic look, but I was impressed by the interiors of the ship and the various other settings (maybe excluding the ice-planet). This is one of the few sci-fi movies I've seen in recent decades where an art direction nomination wouldn't bother me.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

I didn't mind Penelope's shaky cam or the inconsistent styles so much as the glare, the glare, the glare! What was going on with that? J.J. either loved to shoot directly into white light or leave so many of those phantoms of reflective light that can only be caught by a camera. Isn't post-production technology supposed to take care of that by now, or was that kept in because it made everything look more real or something?

These are post-flares. Some of them at least. The problem is that the lens flare has been fetishized by Tony Scott and so many others that they are a sign of credibility, that you are THERE. It's no longer a mistake, it's a signature. And ye gods! There were a lot of them. Some of them were intentionally caused by shining a flashlight on the edge of the screen and the rest were added in post. This is a movie that for all its cost and effects work looks very much like a TV set with a few notable exceptions of course. But yeah. Those are intentional and created.

I largely agree with what you're saying Sonic. My thinking isn't that movies in general are so bad, but that the wrong people are making the biggest movies. Star Trek is a huge movie made by the right person so it's a fairly glorious achievement to go into the film and leave the film having just a good time. That's all I wanted and I got it, excited for more. There is a lot of development yet to be had with these characters and I view it as largely pleasurable set-up, but I'm gravy with that.

SPOILER!!!
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...the scene between Uhura and Spock is by far my favorite scene as well because their relationship has its own arch. It's no mere random throwaway. When they first kiss in the elevator, you're not entirely certain what to make of it. He mentions earlier that she was not instated onto the Enterprise because he did not want to display favoritism, but we do not know if this is a flirtation or what. Then they kiss and we're not sure if this is the first time it has happened. Because Spock is seen as such a repressed, sexless character in pop culture, it's a shock to see. And then when they kiss on the teleportation platform, we realize that this is a relationship that has been developing for months if not years. It's a story of beautiful notes, all hit perfectly. I could care less how many Trekkies are disappointed. It's beautiful in how it reinvigorates the series.

If anything, their relationship only strengthens the series' strongest character, Spock. From what I've watched, Star Trek (show, movie) derives most of its strength from the duality of Spock's lineage. He is half Vulcan, half human, always on the outskirts, desperate to prove himself, yet his very being is a contradiction. Quinto plays Spock like a schizophrenic at times. You can see him being full of rage and emotion, and then shifting to alien observer of the human anger condition first-hand. Billy Crudup got a lot of acclaim for his work as Dr. Manhattan, and rightly so, but Quinto is even better.
"How's the despair?"
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

Battlestar Galactica is so much better.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

I'll have to address your points later, Sonic, if I can find the time...but, suffice it to say that Uhura was my favorite character TOS, so I'm especially sensitive to changes that I think devalue her as a character.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

"What the hell?"
Win Butler
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

Is it because movies in general are so bad that people are hosannah-ing this to the heavens? This? I mean, this perfectly solid, competent-plus bit of entertainment should represent the mean average of the product Hollywood churns out, not the high value mark. I enjoyed it while watching - although less and less as it went on - but to me it felt less like an invigorating reworking than a generous accomodation of contemporary tastes in space operas, even if it was done with great affection. This is not always a bad thing. Sometimes there's great pleasure to see a cultural milestone from a different generation manage to thrive in today's mainstream, whenever that might be. But when it spends so much time falling back on telling jokes that feel so early 21st-century, it just ain't right. I mean, a sequence devoted to Dr. McCoy chasing Kirk around with various antidote vials feels lifted from the inevitable Simpsons episode where they parody 'Star Trek'. And Kirk himself was callow in the way young leading men are in today's action films before enough traumatic experiences force them to grow up. The problem here, though, is that I didn't see much growing up with Kirk. Chris Pine is a callow twit when we meet him, and comes off callow when we leave him, IMO.

I didn't mind Penelope's shaky cam or the inconsistent styles so much as the glare, the glare, the glare! What was going on with that? J.J. either loved to shoot directly into white light or leave so many of those phantoms of reflective light that can only be caught by a camera. Isn't post-production technology supposed to take care of that by now, or was that kept in because it made everything look more real or something?

But there were a lot of things to like here and that's mostly due to the cast. I must say, I'm astonished at Oscar Guy's diminishing of Uhuru by first calling her "Trophy Girl", then "a smart sexpot" (which is a contradiction, since trophies aren't supposed to be smart, or at least are not acknowledged as such). This Uhuru was smart, tough, not easily won over, a nice sense of autonomy in her demeanor (if not always in her actions, but I'll blame circumstances for that), and the most humane and empathetic of all the characters. I thought her spontaneous love affair with Mr. Spock was the loveliest thing in the movie, and the kissing was staged as if these were two actual adults kissing, with very few words passing between them, a rare achievement in summer movies. Maybe she's not much different from the usual contemporary female co-star who communicates liberated frankness and determination. But she's no purring sex-pot and certainly no trophy. I do think she's sexy, but that's not the same thing.

And I don't think you give the rest of the supporting cast enough credit. They may not have been as vital to main story as the principals were, but they played a role in the mission's success with their own individual abilities. Whatever mileage the film got out of Chekov's accent, he still came across as a sweet, eager kid. Plus, it does make sense that his accent would be thicker this early in Enterprise history. And the film refuses to condescend to any of the characters. They're all smart, enthusiastic team members with their own unique skills. (I could have done without Simon Pegg, though.) And while I know in the series they all had moments where they were brought out to the forefront, but I remember most of the eppys to be Kirk-Spock-McCoy showcases, and in that case they were pretty much peripheral characters anyway.

And I'll give a shout-out to Quinto, who's my MVP. As Spock, I thought he was simply terrific, pulling off something I don't see too many young actors doing these days. His wise, emotionless demeanor doesn't come off as an eccentric affectation or a robotic tabula rasa, but considered and thoughtful, seemingly finding tiny nuances in each individual word he utters, not emotionless by nature but rather due to carrying for years the weight of the world - whichever world that may be. I don't know if I've ever seen him before, but he acts like a veteran.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Zahveed
Associate
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: In Your Head
Contact:

Post by Zahveed »

OG, it looks like he made a purist mad. You should have stayed home... Just saying.

Insert winking smiley icon
"It's the least most of us can do, but less of us will do more."
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

OscarGuy wrote:These are well established characters and situations and they have entirely sodomized the history so they could make tons of profit.
You say "sodomized" like it is a bad thing. :(

It can be quite enjoyable when you use the right lubricant. :)
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Penelope
Site Admin
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 11:47 am
Location: Tampa, FL, USA

Post by Penelope »

And, heck, since it's now an alternate reality, maybe we can see Chekov and some hot-but-doomed red shirt guy getting it on before that fateful mission--where red shirt guy dies in Chekov's arms.... :;):
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston

"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
kaytodd
Assistant
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 10:16 pm
Location: New Orleans

Post by kaytodd »

OG, your points are very well taken. The film I saw Friday night with different characters would have been an entertaining action film. But you know why they gave those characters the names Kirk, Spock, Chekhov, etc. and their motives are not laudable. They are taking full advantage of the Star Trek brand name and they want conversations like this to take place all over the world on the internet and at schools and workplaces. Trekkies are expressing outrage at the changes and they hope non-Trekkies, especially young ones, will want to see what the fuss is all about. I am sure Trekkies are sending hate mail to Paramount and to those who own the rights to Star Trek for allowing Abrams to do what he did.

I think you will see more of an attempt to flesh out the characters other than Spock and Kirk in the future films. They really did not have much to do other than introduce themselves. Uhura seemed to be a pretty sharp and capable cadet when we were first introduced to her. She will probably show more of these qualities in future films but I also predict standard complications involving her and romantic entanglements, including an obvious love triangle. And I also predict future films will show the same "intergalactic cooperation" the TV shows and earlier films had. This film just gave us the story of Spock and Kirk and how the Enterprise crew was put together.
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

You probably love that they updated Halloween and Friday the 13th for a new generation. Would you support an update of Casablanca or Citizen Kane for a new audience. Obviously Star Trek was not on those levels, but I challenge you to tell me that City of the Edge of Forever, Trouble with Tribbles and Balance of Terror weren't among the finest written programs in history.

I'm not a Trekkie but I've watched a lot of Star Trek. "Trouble with Tribbles" is totally stupid but a lot of the show is not.

I shouldn't be shocked that a non-Trekkie would attack a Trekkie like that. Seriously, you yourself said that the writing wasn't that great and I've acknowledged that it was fun, but it was pointless and derivative.

So, I said the plot derived entirely from coincidence. The characterizations of Spock, Kirk, and Uhura are not. They're intentional set-ups that I found interesting. They didn't have time for the rest but it's good set-up and I didn't mind.

This is science fiction, not science-porn. It doesn't matter if the crew is sexy...if they had actually accomplished something in terms of using that energy to bring an important story with moral implications to the screen, then we might be in agreement, but that they have done nothing but made it a popcorn flick like Transformers or Day After Tomorrow, is a disgrace.

J.J. Abrams is a TV man. He's an idea man. Your science fiction/porn comment is myopic. They're clearly setting up a love triangle that will threaten the friendship of Kirk and Spock, which is totally understandable and interesting. Besides, how many episodes of Star Trek features Kirk landing on a planet and fucking some multi-colored alien girl presumably without a condom? Tell me how anything that Abrams is doing is anything removed from that? At least when Uhura kisses a white man, it's not because of mind control.

And, to think more about it, we all know how Sabin would react if in 20 years someone decided to "update" Rushmore to a modern audience, make Bill Murray's character sexy and throw in some revisions to the history of the characters and warp what was presented originally. He'd blow a gasket, but since Trek isn't his sacred cow, it must be ok.

The original Manchurian Candidate is one of my favorite films of all time and I love the 2004. The original IS a sacred cow and the remake does it proud. Anything's possible.

Also, in the past hour, you have personally attacked me twice in defense of Star Trek. Calm down. I was simply responding to your post in a non-vitriolic fashion.
"How's the despair?"
Post Reply

Return to “2009”