Star Trek

[OscarGuy]

True enough, Sonic, but at least I don't begrudge the fans of the original Ring of Fire their displeasure and distaste for the new version.

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.

[Sonic Youth]

As I've learned in the American Idol thread, nothing is too big a sacred cow for someone else to re-create or otherwise fuck with in their own image. Not "Ring of Fire" and not "Star Trek".

The movie was okay.

[OscarGuy]

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.

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.

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.

[Sabin]

Fun and enjoyable, with some really awesome moments (the shuttle-birth scene was really well done), but overall, the plot was unnecessary and irreverential to all the work Gene Roddenberry once put in.

Look, Roddenberry's day is over. He created great characters for the sixties and was incapable of keeping with the times. Look at Star Trek: The Motion Picture. He had to be booted off of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan AND Star Trek: The Next Generation to keep them entertaining. Who gives a shit about what Abrams changed? For the first time in almost half a century, the cast of the Starship Enterprise is young, energetic, and sexual. Star Trek is a team movie about Spock and Kirk but also has to introduce everyone else on the ship. They display promise if not dimension. The film is great set-up.

[OscarGuy]

So, what's the purpose of using the original enterprise crew? Why not create a whole new future and set it 100 years after the last series? If it was to get existing fans of the series to the theater, then aren't they betraying their intention? Just throwing in all the catchphrases does not make a good movie and only limitedly appeals to Trekkies. These are well established characters and situations and they have entirely sodomized the history so they could make tons of profit. So, again, why not just set it in the future instead of tampering with the existing formula?

And then, not only do they re-write history, they two-dimensionalize most of the crew. What's the purpose of making Uhura nothing but a smart sexpot? She doesn't have any real purpose and has no depth. The same goes for Sulu, Chekov and Scotty. They are paper-thin characters. And where's the inter-galactic cooperation? Where's the themes that we succeeded b/c we moved past our social intolerance and embraced the future? Many of the things that made the Star Trek series and movies so important is their place in history as beacons of acceptance, tolerance and progress. This movie has none of that. And don't get me started on the influences of Star Wars here...the frozen planet monster chase, the unintelligible midget alien placed there entirely for comic relief? The more I think about it, the more I detest what they've done with it. Sure, it's not "what does God need with a starship" bad, but it's not as involving, inventive or mesmerizing as Wrath of Kahn, First Contact or 75% of the episodes of all of the series.



Edited By OscarGuy on 1242061287

[kaytodd]

I think the changes from the original, even those that are unnecessary, were quite deliberate. Abrams and Paramount want as much freedom as possible in developing the characters and plot. I think the time travel/alternate reality gimmick, with all its flaws, is a good way to do this. This frees Paramount and Abrams (if he makes the inevitable sequels) to focus more on entertainment value and relevance to young filmgoers and less on continuity.

But like all time travel films, there are huge plot holes. Besides the obvious ones below, I wondered about Spock's original task of saving Romulus. He was going to put a probe with some red substance into Romulus' sun before its supernova consumes the planet. This creates a black hole and the star consumes itself instead of becoming a supernova. If Romulus no longer has a sun, it may be spared burning up but it certainly cannot be said the planet is "saved."

I read an article about the film in yesterday's Times-Picayune that had a funny line. There is a scene in which all of the Enterprise key crew members report they are ready to take off. The camera moves from Uhura to Spock to McCoy to Sulu to Chekhov to Scotty and then to Kirk just like old times. The article said it was like watching "the Muppet Babies version of the original Enterprise crew." Maybe future films will show these people can act. I hope so, for this franchise is off to a good start, IMO.

SPOILERS
=
=
I do not think Spock meeting himself creates a paradox for he does not really know the future. This is an alternate history. It is a remarkable coincidence that the same people join Star Fleet and are assigned to the same ship. But I think Abrams went through a lot of trouble to send the message that we must not look to the TV series or earlier films for clues as to what will happen in future films.



Edited By kaytodd on 1242060145

[OscarGuy]

SPOILERS

And, when messing with time travel, you either do it right (Voyage Home and First Contact) or you fuck it up (every other sci-fi film that's ever involved time travel.

Not only does it not make sense that he waited around just for vengeance, but that A) the new blackhole didn't take them back in time instead of destroying them, B) Spock meeting himself DOES create a paradox in that now he knows the future and, if he really cared about saving Romulus as he supposedly did, then why would he not warn himself and thus alter the future. And, since it's an alternate timeline, how does Nero still exist? b/c by creating an alternate timeline, he has set events in motion that aren't likely to result in the destruction of Romulus...

Oh, and let's not forget Trophy Girl Uhura, overly exacerbated speech limitation Chekov, overly humorous Scotty and a complete destruction of the history of the show, which doesn't make one lick of sense why it was even necessary.

Fun and enjoyable, with some really awesome moments (the shuttle-birth scene was really well done), but overall, the plot was unnecessary and irreverential to all the work Gene Roddenberry once put in.

[rolotomasi99]

While the movie was fun and exciting, the main storyline made absolutely no sense. The only Star Trek movies I liked were 2, 6, and 8. Those had simple plots, fun action scenes, and relatively strong emotional cores. This newest one was middle of the pack. Definitely exhilarating action scenes. Most people will enjoy it, but its story will not hold up to repeat viewings...or one viewing if you think about it for even a few seconds.

*S*P*O*I*L*E*R*S*
Nero is mad at Spock because he tried to save Romulus from destruction but was not quick enough. So he travels back in time (accidentally I think...the mind meld was going way too quickly) determined to destroy Vulcan. He sits around for 25 years doing absolutely nothing but waiting for Spock and the "red matter". All this time he and his crew are doing what exactly? There would have been a mutiny by then. They are in no way saving Romulus. The star will still go supernova and destroy all their families. Would it not make sense to warn the Romulan empire now so they can prepare for disaster? Totally illogical!
*S*P*O*I*L*E*R*S*



Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1242053721

[Sabin]

Awesome.

Not a great movie. The entire plot derives from pure, unadulterated coincidence, the cameos are pretty egregious, and the third act is disappointing, but this is a damn fun movie that sets up a newly reenergized franchise. J.J. Abrams mise-en-scene teeters from enjoyably goofy to too much like a TV show in his attempts to conceal the set's shortcomings and film efficiently, ie shaky-cam close-ups. But the film's overall tone is so apart from the dreary blockbusters we usually see. It's a lot of fun. I'm not a huge fan of the series. The Wrath of Khan and First Contact have more overall well-structured narratives by way of beginning-middle-and-end, but this movie is the most viscerally enjoyable. I bet the sequel is going to be outstanding.

[kaytodd]

I've only seen a few scenes from the any shows and movies and most of knowledge of the Trek universe comes from Futurama and the many other shows that reference it. That being said, I thought this was a great, intelligent action flick that wasn't too complicated nor was it oversimplified. As I watched the movie I felt like I have been missing genuinely descent science-fiction that featured compelling characters, strong story, and a more plausible look at the future, space travel, and otherworldly civilizations (something Lucas took a dump on the past ten years). This is a great Sequel/Prequel/Reboot despite this being the one that busted my Trek cherry.

8/10

While I personally enjoyed (in varying degrees) all six Star Wars films you are correct when you point out that Roddenberry's franchise was filled with much more intelligent stories and writing and characters than Lucas'. Roddenberry was an experienced veteran of the TV industry by the time he developed Star Trek. He had a modest budget and had to make about 26 hour long sci-fi shows set in a technologically advanced future every year. Special effects obviously could not do the heavy lifting so he had to rely on good storytelling and the writers and actors doing a good job building relationships among their characters. It also had to deal intelligently with important issues to maintain interest with its fans. It struck a chord with my generation and the world in which the original series took place grew in size and details throughout the 70's and 80's. Millions of fans all over the world, mostly adolescent and slightly older males, demanded to know more about that world and Roddenberry obliged the fans. I will watch an episode every now and wonder why I thought it was so brilliant (I have a similar feeling when I listen to some of the rock music I thought was brilliant in the 1970's). It now seems cheesy, contrived and melodramatic. But I am probably in the minority among men my age, and I have to acknowledge the original series raised the bar for popular sci-fi.



Edited By kaytodd on 1241973541

[Zahveed]

I've only seen a few scenes from the any shows and movies and most of knowledge of the Trek universe comes from Futurama and the many other shows that reference it. That being said, I thought this was a great, intelligent action flick that wasn't too complicated nor was it oversimplified. As I watched the movie I felt like I have been missing genuinely descent science-fiction that featured compelling characters, strong story, and a more plausible look at the future, space travel, and otherworldly civilizations (something Lucas took a dump on the past ten years). This is a great Sequel/Prequel/Reboot despite this being the one that busted my Trek cherry.

8/10



Edited By Zahveed on 1241927485

[Penelope]

I enjoyed it quite a bit, as well. I'm not a "purist," but am a casual fan of the original series and the subsequent films, so the explanation for the changes is thoroughly acceptable, while still nodding at the original series (the doomed red shirt guy, "I'm giving her all she's got, Captain!", etc.)

The one big problem I have is in Abrams' direction; for the dialogue scenes, he uses the dreaded shaky cam, but for the special effects scenes, they are largely fluid (and gorgeous--a sure nominee for Visual and Sound Effects)--this is discombobulating to me as a viewer--I would've preferred a fluid approach throughout.

[kaytodd]

I saw Star Trek last night and enjoyed it very much. First rate action/adventure film. Not Oscar worthy for anything other than tech awards but one of my favorite 2009 releases so far.

I grew up loving the original series and saw every episode many times. So I found some of the changes startling but they did not affect my enjoying the film. But I was never one of those Trekkies who have been deservedly lampooned for decades. The SNL skit when host William Shatner addresses a Star Trek convention was LOL funny, and that probably aired over 20 years ago.

I thought the way the Abrams and the writers decided to address the concerns of the "purists" was very clever and it is not distracting (or probably even noticed) for those young filmgoers who are not familiar with the original series
=
SPOILERS
=
=
=
=
=
The scene when Kirk speaks to Leonard Nimoy's chracter for the last time gives a very plausible explanation (by sci-fi summer film standards) for the changes in the behavior of the characters and events from the original. My understanding is that when Spock, in the future, creates the black hole during his failed attempt to save Romulus, both Spock and the Romulan "bad guys" enter into the black hole and emerge in the past, about 25 years before the action in the film takes place. And I guess their mere presence creates a butterfly effect that leads to all kinds of changes, an alternate history. So you have Uhura and Spock having the hots for each other, you have Kirk growing up without a father and Spock losing his mother at a relatively young age. Purists need to deal with the facts that while the names are the same and a lot of personality features are carried over, these characters experienced a different history than those in the original. It would be "illogical" for them and their experiences to be identical.

So those who say there is no way Spock and Uhura can have a romance need to remember this is not the same Spock. He is obviously a much more intelligent Spock. They picked another dropdead gorgeous actress to play her. And both Spocks should have made moves on their Uhura. That actress made me wish a few times during the film that it was rated R.

[Zahveed]

Well, you have the purists and then you have the purists, those that are so pure that they are exactly what JJ described and laugh at the aspect of a purist having any less knowledge than they do. You're an internet guy, OG, you should know this about geek culture.

[OscarGuy]

First of all, Abrams is an idiot. Not all 'Star Trek Purists' are upset that Shatner's not in there. Personally, I couldn't care less b/c it's an origin story and it wouldn't make too much sense to do such.

However, but telling 'Star Trek Purists' to stay home, he adds to his stupidity. You don't make a movie called Star Trek and fill it with popular and well known characters from the Star Trek Universe and then tell the Star Trek Purists to stay home. It's like telling baseball fans not to go to a baseball game or suggesting film critics shouldn't go to the movies. I'm going in with as open a mind as I can this Sunday, but don't expect me to just roll over for him to rape the franchise if he actually did so. If it's good, I'll be happy. If it's bad, I'll have no problem saying so...but for heaven's sake, JJ, don't be a douche and tell the people who even MADE the franchise a success to stay home.



From WENN:
Star Trek Director Advises "Purists" To Stay Home

6 May 2009 2:28 AM, PDT

While the new Star Trek movie is receiving mostly approving reviews from film critics, director J.J. Abrams is apparently bracing for an onslaught of criticism from those he calls "Star Trek purists." In an interview with Australia's AAP wire service, Abrams has this advice for them: "Don't waste your time." He indicated that he has already heard from some who were particularly critical of the fact that he did not find a slot for William Shatner, the original Capt. Kirk, in the movie. "For them I say, 'Don't see the movie. You'll just get angry. It is not Shatner playing Kirk, so I do apologize." And actor Chris Pine, who plays Kirk in the new film, indicated that he went out of his way to avoid watching Shatner movie and TV appearances. "I know how I work and by watching a lot of Mr Shatner's performances as Captain Kirk I knew by osmosis I would get on set and try and impersonate Mr Shatner," he said. "It was not my job. I didn't want people to start paying attention to whether I was doing a perfect William Shatner."