You are not logged in. Please login or register.
And it just highlights the contrast even further - both Star Trek 2009 and STID end with the famous narration about exploring new worlds, but are just villains-out-for-revenge plots. After all the chasing and punching, the reminder of a more noble time is like an extra kick in the nuts. It's like ending Fast and Furious with a Shakespeare soliloquy.
And it just highlights the contrast even further - both Star Trek 2009 and STID end with the famous narration about exploring new worlds, but are just villains-out-for-revenge plots. After all the chasing and punching, the reminder of a more noble time is like an extra kick in the nuts. It's like ending Fast and Furious with a Shakespeare soliloquy.
Personally, the nerd in me wanted to hear the Captain's Oath.
Also, the idea of a 5 year mission was stated as never being attempted before, and a long time in space. Also, Trek 09 ended with the crew together but did not imply the 5 year mission. I think the IDW comics are designed to fill in that time a little bit, but that maybe too much crammed in there.
As stated before, I think they tried to hard to please fans with moments rather than trusting their story to stand on its own.
That's the worst part about it, instead of understanding and emphasizing the things that make Star Trek good and likable, they almost completely throw it out, do the opposite (which makes it just another generic blockbuster), but then sprinkle in all this fan-wank throughout to try to win Trek fans back over. Instead of trying to make a movie that lives up to the legacy of the series, they say fuck the series, but think we're stupid enough that a couple references will win us over.
Well, I think there is more good Trek in there than just wink-wink moments.
I think the whole Section 31 aspect is a great storyline first experimented with in TNG and explored further in DS9.
This movie, I think, will suffer from the blockbuster aspects and the deeper themes will be missed at times because of the fan service and shiny parts.
Thanks for the link Faldor, that does sound interesting. Having recently watched the first TOS episode with the Romulans for the first time, where the Enterprise tracks a cloaked ship into the Neutral Zone, I'd like to see them feature in a movie, properly this time rather than as a human clone leading orcs in Nemesis or as a crazed Khan rip-off in Trek09. I always liked it when they appeared in the TNG series.
Curiosity strikes me: do you think that the Abrams Enterprise crew is actually developing on screen?
Not really. I find most of it occurs between scenes or between movies. So, Kirk and McCoy develop their friendship almost entirely off screen during their time at the academy and doesn't develop any more in either movie. It's constant, but as a result doesn't appear to strengthen either. McCoy appears to have no developing relationship with anyone else on the ship, even when they set up an otherwise great scene with the admiral's daughter. Same with Uhura, her falling in love with Spock - the most interesting aspect of that relationship - is done off screen as well. They try to do stuff with the relationship in the movies, almost the only thing that Uhura is there for it seems, and in both cases they're in the same position at the end as they are at the start. Kirk and Spock, all their bonding appears to have taken place between the movies, as in this new one they're always bickering and Kirk seems to overtly dislike him.
Besides, I'm hoping the hint at the 5 year mission will allow for an actual exploration movie next time around. Either that, or war with the Klingons.
My money's on a war with the Klingons. An even bigger blockbuster style action movie.
the nerd in me wanted to hear the Captain's Oath.
...I thought that was the Captain's oath.
My money's on a war with the Klingons. An even bigger blockbuster style action movie.
It would be cool if it starts with war with the Klingons that turns into an Errand of Mercy type plot with Energy beings 
The Energy beings could punch people and explode!
fireproof78 wrote:the nerd in me wanted to hear the Captain's Oath.
...I thought that was the Captain's oath.
You thought "Space, the final frontier..." was the Captain's Oath?
Or did I miss something?
redxavier wrote:My money's on a war with the Klingons. An even bigger blockbuster style action movie.
It would be cool if it starts with war with the Klingons that turns into an Errand of Mercy type plot with Energy beings
The Energy beings could punch people and explode!
The point of the Organinans was that they were pacifists. Though, doesn't make for the best action movie, I suppose.
I would prefer a plot were they might end up attacked by Klingons and end up discovering a bigger enemy that forces them to work together.
Also, the Organians made an appearance in ENT in "Observer Effect."
You thought "Space, the final frontier..." was the Captain's Oath?
Or did I miss something?
Yes. Although it's fair to say I'd checked out by that point.
The point of the Organinans was that they were pacifists. Though, doesn't make for the best action movie, I suppose.
Is it Errand of Mercy or Arena where they are fighting and energy beings step in and are like "You kids stop messing around!" and Kirk has to make an argument for why he should kick the crap out of the baddies in which realizes the energy beings point of why he shouldn't? Or am I writing fanfic?
Also, the Organians made an appearance in ENT in "Observer Effect."
ENT's last season was brilliant
fireproof78 wrote:You thought "Space, the final frontier..." was the Captain's Oath?
Or did I miss something?Yes. Although it's fair to say I'd checked out by that point.
Ouch. That doesn't sound good.
fireproof78 wrote:The point of the Organinans was that they were pacifists. Though, doesn't make for the best action movie, I suppose.
Is it Errand of Mercy or Arena where they are fighting and energy beings step in and are like "You kids stop messing around!" and Kirk has to make an argument for why he should kick the crap out of the baddies in which realizes the energy beings point of why he shouldn't? Or am I writing fanfic?
Errand of Mercy is the one were the Klingons are occupying an apparently less civilized world. Eventually, the Organians, the natives, put a stop and force a peace treaty to avoid further blood shed after Kirk attempts to kill Kor.
Good episode
fireproof78 wrote:Also, the Organians made an appearance in ENT in "Observer Effect."
ENT's last season was brilliant
Yes, until the series finale, I'd say
So the effort of wilfully ignoring the issues of STID grew too much.
Fuck this film. Fuck it right in the eye.
Finally, I saw this movie. To quote an often repeated phrase, it's a ride. A flawed, but enjoyable ride. As a matter of fact, it should be called Star Ride, 'cause it doesn't really feel like Star Trek. Quite frankly, I'd prefer not to think of it as Star Trek.
The previous ST movie I saw in a theater was Generations (it was in April 1995). The audience consisted of a few male, bespectacled nerds. One of them, a fat guy with greasy hair, kept grinning at me creepily. I still wonder if he was a child molester (I was 13 at the time).
18 years later I walked into the screening of STID and saw... three giggling girls in an otherwise empty room. Exactly the kind of girls that I would expect to see at a Twilight screening. After a few minutes some guy and a (heterosexual) couple joined us.
Good job, Mr. Abrams... Thanks to you, Star Trek became just another teen flick. Somehow I liked it a little better when it was a science-y, nerdy and "uncool" TV show 
Have I just fallen victim to this trope? Is there something wrong with me? Am I some kind of hipster? 
18 years later I walked into the screening of STID and saw... three giggling girls in an otherwise empty room. Exactly the kind of girls that I would expect to see at a Twilight screening. After a few minutes some guy and a (heterosexual) couple joined us.
Good job, Mr. Abrams... Thanks to you, Star Trek became just another teen flick.
Yep - the new international box office means all PG-13 tentpoles look and feel the same. Minimise the dialogue - so it plays in all markets to the main demographic, teenagers. Lots of visual running, chasing, fighting as that doesn't need subtitles. And do you get adults also into the cinema? By relaunching all their nostalgia shows they grew up with.
If you're over 30 - you're getting too old for this shit. Go to an art gallery. TED talk. Science lecture. See the world. Start a family.
Finally, I saw this movie. To quote an often repeated phrase, it's a ride. A flawed, but enjoyable ride. As a matter of fact, it should be called Star Ride, 'cause it doesn't really feel like Star Trek. Quite frankly, I'd prefer not to think of it as Star Trek.
SPOILERWhat struck me the most about today's screening was the audience.I could nitpick about the various inconsistencies, but Bernd Schneider (my personal hero) did this already. I won't even diss Cumberbatch, because I don't envy him the task (out-Khaning Ricardo Montalban was impossible).The previous ST movie I saw in a theater was Generations (it was in April 1995). The audience consisted of a few male, bespectacled nerds. One of them, a fat guy with greasy hair, kept grinning at me creepily. I still wonder if he was a child molester (I was 13 at the time).
18 years later I walked into the screening of STID and saw... three giggling girls in an otherwise empty room. Exactly the kind of girls that I would expect to see at a Twilight screening. After a few minutes some guy and a (heterosexual) couple joined us.
Good job, Mr. Abrams... Thanks to you, Star Trek became just another teen flick. Somehow I liked it a little better when it was a science-y, nerdy and "uncool" TV show
Have I just fallen victim to this trope? Is there something wrong with me? Am I some kind of hipster?
Not sure why people insist upon viewing it as "not Star Trek." Am I the odd one out in that I see more Star Trek in this film than Nemesis or Insurrection? O_o
Again, its personal preference and I like both equally. I just view them as both Star Trek.
Well, I say it's not Star Trek because (to me anyway) the thing that made Star Trek distinctive is that it didn't say "it's science fiction, so anything goes". Especially for a '60's tv show, that was a pretty radical stance to take. It set out to establish some hard-science ground rules, and even though it also made up some of its theoretical technology, it mostly kept to the rules it laid out.
And one of the earliest and non-negotiable rules was the Enterprise is not meant to function in atmosphere. That's why it had such a bizarro shape. That's why it had shuttlecraft that were aerodynamic.
That alone made Star Trek stand out when it first debuted - they dared to have a "spaceship" that didn't look like a Buck Rogers rocket. Even that minimal amount of understanding of what space travel truly might be like set Star Trek apart from any tv show that came before it (and a lot of them since).
This new thingamawhizzy with the Star Trek label starts out with the Enterprise not just blithely tootling about in atmosphere, but going underwater. This is the filmic equivalent of giving a five-year-old an Enterprise toy and him taking it into the bath with him. Sure, it's fun but it's ridiculous.
It does answer one question I had from the first movie - if they assembled the Enterprise on Earth, how the heck did it get into space? I thought maybe there was some clever rationalization for that, but now we know the answer - JJ and company think that's how the Enterprise works.
That's how the movie starts, by the end they're actually ignoring the rules of freakin' gravity in order to justify another kickass action sequence.
It's actually an entertaining movie in that a lot of exciting stuff happens, but it really is like a five-year-old in a bathtub full of Trek action figures without any understanding of anything, including basic physics. I found it ultimately insulting, just as I do any movie that expects me to swallow a pound of dumb for an ounce of action. It's just a little extra sad that this particular dumb movie has a Star Trek label on it.
I'm annoyed by the ignoring of some laws of physics, and like I said, I can enjoy both as Star Trek equally, but that is for the characters and their relationships rather than just the action beats. So, the dynamics between the characters, especially Admiral Marcus, is more compelling to me.
Honestly, you could take the space jump and Enterprise in the ocean out, and I would enjoy the movie more.
I think that part of the problem is people not just looking at TOS but also DS9, VOY and ENT, all of which i think show a starship in atmosphere regardless of aerodynamics.
But, I'll not argue with a old school Trek fan 
Ok, so I think about things way, way too much (ask anyone). So, I've been mulling over and chewing on Star Trek Into Darkness (no colon-grammar Nazis). So, I am kind of thinking in type over fixes for the movie, why I like it (covered in my review but I'll touch on it here) and how to get the most out of it, IMHO.
First of all, for those curious SFDebris has posted an initial feelings review, not his usual in depth analysis because the movie isn't out yet. Watch it here:
http://sfdebris.com/videos/special/intodarkness.asp
He definitely sums up my feelings of the movie. Its good, but it could have been more. I've made no secret of my defense of the film, with mixed feelings over all. Its a fun ride, I think we can all agree on that, and has some solid character moments and acting. For me, the characters save the film, but your mileage may vary ( a lot sometimes ). So, with that in mind, I think that some changes could have taken this good but flawed film and made it much better.
Thus, I present, my fixes, also known as the [redacted] treatment:
I'm annoyed by the ignoring of some laws of physics...
Then you're gonna like this analysis of the science of Star Trek into Ignorance
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62867
I tried getting through that review, Marty, but just wasn't impressed with it.
I maintain, in case I didn't say it in this thread, that if this movie were what the reviewer said it was, then it would not work on any level. And maybe for some people this is true.
Personally, I find the characters working very well in this film so I forgive some of the silliness or mindless action bits. Perhaps I'm too forgiving and not willing to take off the rose colored glasses, I'm not sure.
I just feel this movie deserves more credit in some places.
The movie works pretty well on an emotional level, but the logical and scientific inconsistencies are still rather annoying.
There's another thing that bothers me about the Abramsverse - the design aesthetics. The simple elegance that we've known from previous shows is gone. Everything is either flashy and toy-like (the Enterprise exterior and bridge) or grey and ugly (engineering/brewery, dress uniforms, buildings on Earth).
I believe this again has to do with being too familiar with Star Trek (which doesn't make sense, but bear with me).
As someone who has no idea what Star Trek is about, I wasn't bothered at all by the elements you pointed out. When it comes to sciency stuff, nothing seemed really over the top to me. Maybe I wasn't paying attention, but it shows I liked what universe Abrams was showing me enough not to care.
In the end, maybe the Abrams Star Trek movies are good for people who don't know about Star Trek, which means that he didn't do a good job about making Star Trek movies, but at least didn't screw them up as sci-fi action movies.
The movie works pretty well on an emotional level, but the logical and scientific inconsistencies are still rather annoying.
SPOILERAnd the worst thing is that they repeated some mistakes from the previous movie (Red Matter/"cold fusion device", the miraculous "transwarp beaming" technology, promoting a very young officer to captain/chief engineer, Enterprise on the ground/under water, etc.)... Doctor Who runs on such clunky science and logic, but Star Trek shouldn't.There's another thing that bothers me about the Abramsverse - the design aesthetics. The simple elegance that we've known from previous shows is gone. Everything is either flashy and toy-like (the Enterprise exterior and bridge) or grey and ugly (engineering/brewery, dress uniforms, buildings on Earth).
SPOILERThe Vengeance is undoubtedly the most hideous Federation starship ever. The Klingon D4 ships aren't particularly attractive either - the remind me of Transformers movies.
Am I simply to old to appreciate the new "realistic" aesthetics?
Well, the aesthetics of the uniforms is probably a reflection of the attitude of Starfleet and the Federation. That is one thing that I liked was the fact that it explored a theme similar to DS9, where the Federation was under constant fear of an attack from an unknown force. So, I think we see Starfleet moving towards that "military role" and the aesthetics reflect that. However, I will agree that the solid gray of the dress uniforms is bad. Needs more color.
As someone who has no idea what Star Trek is about, I wasn't bothered at all by the elements you pointed out.
Exactly. Abrams did exactly what I suspect he was trying to do - take a niche property and make it mainstream. As I've said, I found the movie "entertaining" myself... once I realized it was just going to be circus rather than Star Trek.
Just as (to re-use an analogy Dorkman made about a different movie) if a movie called SuperBowl had interesting characters and funny quips and lots of great action setpieces - except "football" in that movie was played with hoverboots and involved catching seagulls - I might find that entertaining, too, because I don't know much, or care about, football. But someone who's into football might be a bit perturbed. 
Similarly, I'll probably get around to seeing Man of Steel eventually - and whether I like it or not will have very little to do with whether they got Superman "right" since I'm not a Superman fan.
But Star Trek I have a stake in, so I had some problems with Brand Name We Licensed Into Darkness. And even if it wasn't a "Star Trek" movie at all, I'd still have been annoyed by all the silly science. Everything that happened in that movie could still have happened without breaking the rules of reality, if anyone had bothered to care about that.
I actually like the late DS9 uniforms, they had the right balance of colors (more black than grey, department colors on the undershirt) and weren't too militaristic. The STID dress uniforms are all ugly grey and look like Soviet uniforms (especially the big hats and epaulettes), there's nothing particularly futuristic about them.
LeVar Burton weighs in regarding Abrams:
http://www.treknews.net/2013/06/16/leva … ddenberry/
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
