Just came back from the new Star Trek film. (spoilers inside)

[Rabrrrrrr]

What a steaming pile of vomitous garbagaceous shit.

Seriously.

It kind of works okay for a movie on it's own, but not totally - it still could have been better. Pretty fucking lame plot, and some truly stupid turns.

But what it doesn't work as is a Star Trek film. Abrams - as I was sure he would - is worse than Rick Berman in terms of throwing to the winds everything that made Star Trek great, and also throwing to the winds the entire canon of Star Trek.

Complete rewrite of history within the Star Trek universe, complete ignoring of 40 years of real world Star Trek care for the storyline and continuity and the characters.

All Abrams cares about is action, and more action, and he turned what was a story/series that was designed to be thoughtful political and social commentary on present day reality, and turned wholly to the embrace only what is in science fiction actually just incidentals: space fights, action, whizbang gizmos, and so on.

It's not as bad as Nemesis, which was not only an abomination to Trek but also an abomination to anyone who likes a well-written story.

But it's goddamned close.

Apparently, as far as Abrams is concerned, the entire ouevre of Star Trek, the entire dream and vision of Gene Roddenberry, is about "blowing shit up".

Asshole.

You are a traitor to humanity, Abrams. Maybe even more so than that criminal fuck Rick Berman.

Fuck you.

[orestes]

1. Not to be a total contrarion but

"Complete rewrite of history within the Star Trek universe, complete ignoring of 40 years of real world Star Trek care for the storyline and continuity and the characters."

Thank the FSM for that.

Personally, I liked the movie. Haven't been able to say that about a Star Trek film or show since sometime toward the last season or two of Deep Space Nine, and even that was pushing it.

I wonder how many people who hated it are the hardcore Trekkie types, as compared to more casual fans (like me) or people who haven't bothered with Trek before.

Edit:

Also, now that I think about it, it didn't really rewrite the ST universe, it created a divergent one. Perhaps a minor distinction, but one that should be made.

[BlueJazz]

2. Any Necked Women or Car Chases in it ??

I mean, something that a Manly Man would appreciate? :)

[pokerfan]

3. There is a car chase

I know that much from the trailer.

[Rabrrrrrr]

4. a couple of almost naked ones, and yes, one car chase.

[krispos42]

6. There's some female underwear shots, yes.

Fighting, shootouts... let's just say you don't want to piss off Spock.


I don't think Kirk manages to get his uniform shirt ripped off by a vicious alien, but you do get to see him shirtless.

[krispos42]

5. Oh, good, it's not just me.

I've read plenty of the novels, and while I understand that they are not canon, JJ Abrams seems to take an awful lot of liberties with the Trek universe. Vulcan destroyed by an artificial black hole? Then what the hell is that planet in TOS??? Seems to me that if the entire planet with 6 billion Vulcans on it was sucked into an event horizon, it might have been mentioned at some point in the movies or in one of the TV serieses.

And there seemed to be an awful lot of plot holes in the story. And science holes.


I wonder what twisted logic they used to make this fit into the canon?

[Rabrrrrrr]

7. The twisted logic that was expressed in one of the last lines - it's an "alternate universe"

Which makes it even fucking worse than if Abrams had had the courage to tell Roddenberry his whole vision was fucked up and rewritten the history.

But, no, we get a story about our heroes, except they're not really our heroes, because they're in an alternate universe because of the Romulan (who didn't look jack fucking squat like a Romulan) interference.

Seriously, until they said later in the film that the bad was Romulan, I had no fucking idea. There is absolutely nothing in there to make one think that that guy is a Romulan.

[krispos42]

22. Yeah, that Romulan thing was odd.

We know what Romulans look like, after all... LIKE VULCANS!!!


And since when did Romulans get tattoos???



Maybe the next movie will "fix" the universe.

[orestes]

27. They still look like Vulcans

You just don't see shaved heads and facial tats on the Romulans in the shows because those are almost all military and government officials. Don't see many generals or diplomats with that kind of work done in our species, either.

[krispos42]

28. Good point

Hadn't thought of that.

[no name no slogan]

77. Sounds like how they explained the difference in Klingons between the original series and movies/TNG

They said that the Klingons in the original series were "southern" Klingons, but the ones in the movies and Next Generation were "northern" Klingons.

[Deja Q]

104. The tattoos didn't bother me. It fits Romulan lore.

I was expecting the Romulans to be more than generic heavies, however. They're known for being devious and guile. Just like the Vulcans. But with emotion. "Nero" (there's an original name, not) was good as your average villain, but by no means special in the ways that made Khan or Chang memorable. Not to mention Khan and Chang were unpredictable. This is a big motion picture; having memorable characters you like to hate rather helps. "Nero" was nothing without his fiery drill, and seeing the drill fire into the planet had more creep-out factor than the generic villain, who said he'd do the same thing for every Federation planet.

[Political Heretic]

33. They don't. This is a new canon. Which, frankly I like.

I'm grew up on star trek, and I have been a life long fan. Particularly of the original crew and especially the original cast movies. I thoroughly enjoyed the new Star Trek reboot. It's referred to as a "reboot" for a reason. It's a new vision and spin on the star trek world.

This apparently makes some fans shit their pants. But not me, I happen to really like the "world" that Abrams is spinning. And I like the artistic and "mood" direction he is taking the franchise.

Clearly as far as fans go, this is going to be a love it or hate it film. For those not already invested in that way, it will be a huge success, most likely a mega blockbuster, and is already getting pretty high praise from critics.

[Deja Q]

54. Why couldn't this be a new sci-fi movie/series, without having to use the name & characters of Trek?

I mean, if I took the show "Friends" and showed it as a bunch of kids who were S&M addicts who otherwise loathed each other apart from their activities and still called it "Friends", I'd reckon people who liked friends would curse me for sullying their show and would wish I didn't leech off their name just to grab ratings.

The movie might genuinely work as an original entity, but nicking the name and the characters and ships of "Star Trek" but avoid what TREK has been about, that's what's wrong. (of course, assuming that, once Neo-Kirk gets done with "Nero" (:eyes:), he'll be saving planets and helping people...

The usual nerd and geek jokes don't apply. Reboots are okay but if one is going to take an established name, what it is at its core has got to remain the same. The detractors have implied that isn't the case, and Roger Ebert's review makes sense too. (oh, it may be "fun" but that still doesn't mean it's _good_.)

[Political Heretic]

58. I really don't care. I believe they are more than faithful to what is "core" in Star Trek

But my definition of what is "core" isn't (pushes up glasses) what max warp factor is or what planet is where in the galaxy...

I think you should probably see the film.

[Deja Q]

95. Guess what? I saw the film. And a lot of my worries were confirmed. BTW:

"Core Trek" isn't the technobabble. It's about exploring the Human Condition. Something that the new movie grossly lacks.

I think you should probably watch some of the original series (1966-1969, NBC). No push-up glasses or bras required.

[Noodleboy13]

8. Just saw it, and found it pretty darn good.

Is it as good as Khan? No. Is it better than pretty much every other Star Trek movie? IMO, yes. I've read several posts lamenting the lack of Roddenberry's 'vision' of social commentary etc. while there is some validity to that, I feel that the main focus of this film was to get the audience to accept these new actors in established iconic characters. In that capacity it succeeds. Karl Urban absolutely nails McCoy. Quintos? does an admirable job as Spock, and those are some pretty big ears to fill. The new Kirk does a subtle job of incorporating some Shatner-esque quirks into his character without devolving into parody.

The film is pretty darn good looking too. The Enterprise is gorgeous. The action/space battle scenes are more kinetic both in editing and what is presented onscreen; it's a little busy, but not as chaotic as say, Battlestar Gallatica dogfights.

I saw it as a $5 matinee, and it was worth it. I left feeling "OK, we got the crew together, and they're pretty cool, and this has potential. I want to see what happens next."

Feel free to tell ask me if I'm out of my Vulcan mind.


peace
Noodleboy

[Sky Masterson]

9. I saw the same movie that you did

:thumbsup:

[orestes]

14. I'm with you

It was the best bit of Trek since Khan.

[Political Heretic]

32. Yeah it was a really great addition, I love the cast and look forward to future films.

[pokerfan]

39. $5 matinee?

Matinee prices here are $7.50. :(

Plan to see it next weekend.

[FVZA_Colonel]

47. They even had Kirk nail a green chick.

It felt kind of 'fan-servicy,' but I enjoyed all those little nods to the mythos that has evolved around Star Trek.

[Deja Q]

103. Parody. I hated the catering to stereotypes. Nod-nod-wink 4th wall-breaking jokes are patronizing

and they do not serve to say "We're the same characters".

At least Spock gets to say that in this new timeline, their motivations are different. Unfortunately, this also means what made Star Trek more than a generic action piece set in space may be gone forever too.

[Deja Q]

10. Ambivalence...

Ignoring Roddenberry's ideas that makes it "Star Trek"; doing a "Just another show about space where big space ships fire weapons at each other and go *boom*?" is really depressing to have read.

Mind you, given how just about every other thing in the media has to be topical and get orgasmic over it, maybe neo-Trek will be a refreshing change...

Irony...

[Rabrrrrrr]

11. I wish Q would have shown up 3/4 through and said, "Wait, this alternate reality is bullshit"

and ended it.

Oh, if only there were a real world Q, and if only he were a Star Trek fan.

Berman would have disappeared 15 years ago, and Abrams would have been transported to Ceti Alpha Five every time he even thought about Star Trek.

[Deja Q]

109. !!!

:rofl:

So true. This movie was BEGGING for Q to come in and slap these doofuses around.

Even Berman's worst days with "Nemesis" aren't as outright _bad_ as this campy trolloping remake...

[Rabrrrrrr]

114. Just Shrubbie made Nixon saintly, so this Star Trek makes Nemesis look like Hamlet

[sammythecat]

12. Roger Ebert didn't like it either.

His opinion was very similar to yours. I read it this afternoon and was disappointed. It's a shame to see such fertile ground wasted.

[Political Heretic]

37. You might want to check rotten tomatoes. 195 reviews. 96% favorable.

[Pacifist Patriot]

52. And I have found the folks over there to be pretty tough on films.

It's what convinced me to go. That and an interview with Kevin Smith where he discussed the film he couldn't discuss.

[Deja Q]

96. Oooh! The populist response! You know where the pied piper can go shove his flute.

Just because the masses like it doesn't mean it's genuinely good.

It's a generic action movie with great visuals, which nicks trademarks and character names and makes a mockery of them.

[TK421]

13. My friend just saw it....said it kind of sucked balls!

kind of what you're saying here, but if I'm not a fan of Star Trek...are you telling me this would be a total waste of my time? And money?

[orestes]

15. Actually, if you're not a Trekkie

you'll probably enjoy it.

[TK421]

16. Oh....they moved something there from the storyline, huh?

I heard Spock was getting it on with Uhura....well, is that true?

[orestes]

17. It's more like

Lets say that :

_________________________________________________________________

represents the Trek universe timeline prior to this film

What this movie does is insert an event that makes the timeline go like this


X_______________________________________________________________
\_______________________________________

Where X is the event that diverges this universe from the previous one.

I don't want to say too much more because I don't want to give any story away.

As a casual fan of Trek, none of what seems to be bothering the Trekkies is a negative to me. Actually, I consider most of it to be positive.

[Noodleboy13]

20. Exactly.

It's a very similar, but slightly different universe.



oh and yes, their choice for Uhura's love interest was .....fascinating.


peace
Noodleboy

[no name no slogan]

81. Does that mean

that Spock also gets a cheesy goatee, like he did in that one episode where they were in the alternate universe where the Enterprise was evil?

[TK421]

21. I'm gonna take that as a tentative "yes" but will look more into the background

presented in the film....I'm certain there is more than meets the eye here

[KatyMan]

65. I'm a Trekkie

And in my 42 years of life, I honestly can't remember a time without ST. My mom loved it and my brothers did, and I do. And I loved this movie, and thought it's the best thing to happen to this franchise since DS9.
And if you're gonna sit here and make noise about being true to the timeline, please go see the movie again and pay attention this time. It pretty much explains what's up.

[Dappleganger]

90. another Trekkie here.

We took the entire family to see and and both dh (another Trekkie) and I loved it, while the teens really got into it too.

It was a good story line which helped to explain some characters' nuances, mixed in with typical ST humor and paradox. I think that Abrams made a brilliant move in re-booting the entire ST series with the change in the timeline as well--I'm really looking forward to what comes next.

IMO Trekkies can be overly critical of anything new to the ST lineup--that doesn't mean that criticism isn't warranted, but they take it too damn seriously. The only beef I had with the movie tonight was it seemed that Kirk transitioned a bit too quickly in some scenes, from the rebel to the leader.

My favorite character by far was Simon Pegg--would really have liked to have seen him do more scenes!

[DainBramaged]

18. Movies have one purpose, to entertain you and ask you to simply suspend your disbelief

You act like this is a life-changing event, and for those of us who just want to go to enjoy the movie for what IT is in this shitty lousy difficult time, I think you've jumped not only the shark, but the whale and maybe a battleship.

Good thing I never depend on DU for movie reviews. And I am glad the public isn't as crazy over the minuatie.

Oh and I remember people raving about that comic book remake, whats it's name, you know, with the nekkid blue guy? It finally hit $100,00,000.00 at the box office after 4 months, may it rest in pieces. Oh and Dragonball crappola. It died after hitting $8 mil. Fast and Furious? Hit $150,000,000 domestic this week after 3 weeks. People who aren't movie criticer than thou (as is the case on DU) go to be entertained, period.

Sorry you didn't take a chill pill with you.

[Rabrrrrrr]

25. I'm sorry you can't make allowances for those of us who ARE passionate about art.

And especially those of us for whom Star Trek DOES have a lot of meaning and importance in our lives.

Anyway, enjoy the high horse. Hope you have a good view from up there, looking down on we awful cretinish shitbags who made the god-awful mistake of fucking caring about something.

[DainBramaged]

43. Passion, save it for those you love.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film


:shrug:

[Rabrrrrrr]

44. Oh, I'm sorry - I have enough for a number of things, including the SO.

I'm sorry that yours is so limited.

[Political Heretic]

85. Star trek has a lot of meaning to me, and I loved the film - so stop speaking for everyone

"Those of us for whom star trek does have a lot of meaning and importance in our lives"

Yeah well, not everyone who feels that way is shitting their pants in nerd-rage over this film.

[Deja Q]

97. So when I put "Friends" in the big screen, I can make them all serial killers and hookers.

Hey, they fucked around with the Kirk-era characters. I can take another show, update it for modern audiences, and so the same things.

If they're going to call it "Star Trek", then it has to be more than the space battles. Trek was about exploring the human condition (until TNG turned it into a one-sided political wankfest). No wonder Abrams never understood or liked the original series. He would have been lost with "The Cage", the pilot the NBC suits turned down. That is a WONDERFUL piece of sci-fi.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Film makers explain continuity errors.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-orci-explains-how-the-new-star-trek-movie-fits-with-trek-canon-and-real-science/

It's because of quantum.

[TK421]

23. As always...I will have your own review in my mind as I go to see this thing

and I probably will this weekend...though, according to you ( and you and I seem to have the same tastes in film ) I will not expect much....one thing I didn't get from your review was ( the most important thing for me ) was there actual character development?

[Rabrrrrrr]

26. There was character development, but since it's all in aln alternate reality, it doesn't matter

and there isn't very much of it to begin with.

The characters are pretty one-dimensional.

The more I think about this movie, the more I realize how much it is missing. There is no subtlety, no nuance to the characters. They are quite one-dimensional - archetypal, one might say - and lacking in the stuff that made the characters so interesting.

And by "lacking the stuff", I think what I mean most - they're lacking good writers who actually give a shit about what they're writing.

Harlan Ellison should get first dibs on being executioner for the writing team.

[Redneck Socialist]

24. Odd, I rather liked it.

:shrug:

[Pacifist Patriot]

29. Loved it.

I was raised on Star Trek. It ended about the time I was born, but my dad was a huge fan and we saw every episode rerun on American military television when I was in grammar school in Germany in the mid-70s. Went through a personal Star Trek revival when I was in high school in the early to mid 80s. I've probably seen every episode 3-4 times.

Watched Next Generation throughout college and beyond. Followed Voyager for a few years, but lost track. Never could get into Deep Space Nine and couldn't keep track of Enterprise after the pilot aired.

I've seen every Star Trek movie made.

This one is probably my favorite.

To each his own.

[alphafemale]

30. I'm just intrigued that the "Shaun of the Dead" guy, Simon Pegg is playing Scotty

I actually may want to see it now.

[Political Heretic]

36. He was great!

[alphafemale]

69. I liked him in "shaun"

And "Hot Fuzz"

But I really adored him in "How to Lose Friends..." a flick that didn't get much notice.

So does he get to cut his drama chops in this role?

[Pacifist Patriot]

53. He's good.

[alphafemale]

70. Yeah maybe NCC-90210 isn't going to be quite the trainwreck I feared it to be. nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

76. LOL! That's exactly what I feared.

[Rob H.]

88. Pegg was really good

and seemed to be having a lot of fun with the role. If you go see it, keep your eyes peeled during his first appearance onscreen--he has a tribble in a glass container on his workbench (they even make the same trilling sound as in TOS).

[alphafemale]

93. oooo-ooooh

I love Pegg.

I hope this is a great launch for him so far as landing wider roles.

[Political Heretic]

31. I just got back too, and as a lifelong fan of star trek I thought it was one of the best movies

of the whole franchise.

[baldguy]

34. I didn't know Hayden Christensen was in it.

[Political Heretic]

35. That cartoon sort of sums it up nicely.

[Critters2]

38. I worry, Rabrrrrr, about the way you keep your feelings all bottled up inside.

That can't be good for you.

[Skip Intro]

42. If he could just learn to express himself. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

40. well, at least you didn't call him a

cocksucker.

[Deja Q]

98. That would be a compliment. Abrams is a hack that thinks making everything generic and glossy is..

good enough.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

106. and...

he would have got his thread locked :o

:yoiks:

[Maiden England]

41. Well this uniform owning & wearing, totally self admitted trekker geek

LOVED IT.


so there.

[edbermac]

45. GET A LIFE!

I love Star Trek and I love this sketch. :rofl:



http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=shatner+saturday&n=21&ei=UTF-8&js=1&fr=yfp-t-501&fr2=tab-img&tnr=21&vid=0001443775419

[kentauros]

48. I like this Shatner clip best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIW-UoDQ8Ew&feature=related

:D

[Orrex]

46. Just so I'm clear on this

You're quite fond "of 40 years of real world Star Trek," right? But you revile Rick Berman, who was pretty much driving the franchise for 20+ years?

Even before Roddenberry breathed his last, Berman already exerted substantial creative control over the course of things.


So do you like all 40 years, other than this film? Or just the first 20 years, which includes the execrable animated series?


:evilgrin:

[GaYellowDawg]

49. I thought it was great. In fact, I saw it twice.

It. Was. AWESOME. I really liked the new takes on the characters. Karl Urban in particular nailed McCoy.

I like the idea of discarding canon, frankly, because every single second of every single Star Trek episode/movie gets picked to death by the canon Nazis. "oh no, Kirk couldn't possibly have done this because of episode x and book y and z!!" The nitpicking is so tiresome. I'm glad that Abrams did it this way. At least it leaves room for something new, and there are those of us who are pretty enthusiastic about that, even if purists would rather see the series die entirely rather than go in a new direction.

What was thoughtful and political social commentary in "Spock's Brain"? Or the awful episode about the space hippies? Or the really awful episode where Kirk loses his memory and becomes a space Native... Native... Space Native Not-American? Or the tribble episode? For every meaningful moment in the original series, there's some serious schlock. No denying it had great moments and episodes... but many of the original episodes can be pretty painful to watch.

I'm sorry you didn't like it. I loved it. I will more than likely see it another couple of times. And I really hope Abrams gets the cast signed on for another movie ASAP.

[Pacifist Patriot]

51. Urban was just brilliant.

Then again, Bones got some of the best lines in the original series.

I'll probably buy this one on DVD. I loved the way Abrams handled it with the alternate reality. Wipes away, the but, but, but.... with one fell swoop.

[LostinVA]

57. Didn't know Karl Urban was McCoy -- LOVED him in LOTR

[Political Heretic]

59. I thought McCoy was a little forced. Too much "fan service"

with some "My God Man!"'s and "I'm a doctor not a---" feeling forced. Which is a shame because the overwhelming majority of the movie does not feel like that.

I did feel that his on screen friend-"chemistry" with Kirk was very...very promising for the future.

[Mojambo]

75. His was the best performance I thought.

Very, VERY good.

Hope we get more of him in the sequels.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

50. love the 60s series and cast - hate everything wooden and techno-dull since

i thought this movie captured the old show's spirit and i liked it.

now that they've got everyone in place and the origin's out of the way, i can't wait to see a proper adventure

the characters feel like people again and not the robotic automotons bergman and co. made the show known for

yeah, it's a fast-paced one with not a lot of plot, but i forgive it, just to see the characters captured so dead on. i think they have a lot to build on here.

if you liked wrath of khan and the voyage home, this one's for you.

if you're the type who knows what every cardassian insignia from deep space nine looks like, you'll hate it

[Deja Q]

55. I will give it a genuine chance then.

I will even overlook Nu-Kirk's presentation in the trailers; where he's stolen a car and is being chased by robocop...

[Political Heretic]

60. "if you're the type who knows what every cardassian insignia from deep space nine looks like........

....you'll hate it."

Exactly.

[Deja Q]

99. The Nokia and Budweiser product placements were far worse.

Of course, I hated the in-jokes like that one. It's modern media's way of catering to fans to get them to think it's somehow the same franchise.

"Flash Gordon" (sci-fi), "Doctor Who" (BBC Wales), et al, do the same exact thing. Needless continuity references that aggravate fans because it's about the spirit of the movie, not how many references it can dig up and throw in and think it's done a good job. Many supporters of this overpriced dross don't seem to understand that. The movie could have been any generic, modern space battle movie starring Bruce Willis and David Duchovney as the automation figure battling his emotional urges and nobody would know the difference.

[Rabrrrrrr]

113. All your comments in here are spot on. Especially about the ridiculous product placement.

I mean, fucking hell, Budweiser got a thank you in the end credits!

What the hell does that have to do with Star Trek?


Not a goddamned thing.

If I were a billionaire, I would offer Paramount 2 billion dollars to let go of Star Trek and let me have it. It would be worth it to take it away from that money-hungry pathetic fucking company.

The only reason Paramount is still in business is because of Star Trek, and yet they constantly fuck the fans.

And, stupidly, we keep going back, because they're the ones making the Star Trek stuff that we love (or, at least, that we wish we could love, nowadays).

How many times and in how many ways will they release the shows and the movies? Fucking hell, it's out of control.

And now they're doing Budweiser and Nokia product placement in Star Trek? Fuck them.

[NYCGirl]

62. I'm a TOS fan through and through. Even wrote/edited a zine back when

and co-owned a company that sold Trek collectibles. Never warmed up to the other series, though. Seeing the film tomorrow.

[LostinVA]

56. I've had three HUGE Trekkies tell me they loved it

[rucky]

61. I enjoyed the character development

but admit that time-travel plots tend to be hokey and a bit lazy.

What i really liked though was the portrayal of Spock as a suppressed rage-a-holic that hides his Romulan impulses behind science and logic. I also enjoyed Kirk as a punk-ass.

There wasn't much character development in the original series, but I think the writers stayed true to their origins and shed some light on why they are the way they are - in a way that goes deeper than explaining it away through species types, or the archetypal two sides of one brain.

If you left the movie thinking it was about Renegade Romulans chasing Starfleet, you were really missing out on a great Bromance story.

[blogslut]

63. It was a fun

I enjoyed it.

But then, I have no trouble suspending my disbelief when it comes to such things.

[ReverendDeuce]

64. I wish I saw this post earlier so my reply would have a chance to be seen...

I've seen all of the shows and movies, but I don't consider myself to be a fanatic. I don't share the hate for Rick Berman, but I can recognize your frustration. There are a ton of people that felt let down by Berman and Braga.

I feel that Trek only started to run out of steam after season 6 of Voyager. Season 7 of TNG did have some real stinkers in it, though.

As far as the films, I didn't even mind Nemesis that much. I thought it was just okay.

I agree with you though, this new movie was pretty poor. The effects were terrific, as should be expected, but the rest of it was very poorly done.

[Tikki]

66. This new Star Trek movie must have reached God-dom status..

people are already debating it's existence. ;)


Tikki

[Coventina]

67. I'm just sick and tired of the whole "alternate universe" thing.

It's why I quit watching "Heroes" and why I didn't like this movie.

I would be okay with a "re-visioning" of the Star Trek origins. After all, you simply can't do TOS anymore. I was okay with the casting (although I thought Kirk's character overdid the arrogant jerk aspect and underplayed the vulnerable charm side).

But to me it felt like much of the action was done just for the sake of action. (Let's maroon Kirk on a frozen world & then have wacky creatures chase him!)

[kentauros]

71. Just as I'm tired of the "massive amounts of death and destruction"

in place of a good thought-provoking story. Of course, "massive amounts of death and destruction" is all Abrams and crew seem to know and thus why I won't be bothering with this movie. It's yet more desensitizing of the audience to such things, making them actually desire more and more destruction in order to actually enjoy a story. Getting people to actually think for a few hours after seeing a film is anathema to Hollywood. Heaven forbid they actually think about a film for years after seeing it. Afterall, movies are simple entertainment meant to be 'consumed' along with all of the merchandising.

Seriously, give me a science fiction film on the order of Solyaris (not the remake), 2001 or even Contact and remove the label of "science fiction" from all the rest. They're shoot'em ups, plain and simple, no matter what the background or setting.

[Coventina]

72. ITA: The "massive death and destruction" was way overdone.

The entire destruction of a planet is completely lost in the constant barrage of explosions, fist fights, chase scenes, and shouting that the movie is constantly throwing at you.

The "6 billion lives" (and not even mentioned are entire eco-systems with countless other life-forms)are mentioned in passing and quickly forgotten.

On top of that, the destruction of a planet isn't even new or creative by sci-fi movie standards (CF: Star Wars).

[kentauros]

73. That's true about the destruction of a planet not being new.

But at least in Star Wars you had people reacting badly to it, whether as direct trauma or psychically as in the case of Obiwan.

People just don't react to the trauma of death anymore. You mention that 3000+ people died in New Orleans from Katrina and they're like "so what?" It takes something like the tsunami disaster to really impact their brains and even then, it happened on the other side of the world, so who really cares? And yet, I remember getting upset at the stories of minor amounts of death from the flooding we've had around here like the woman that drowned in downtown Houston during the Allison TS when her elevator went to the basement and lost power. What a horrible way to die. Yet people don't even allow their imagination to 'see' that kind of death, that personal trauma. Media has excised that empathy from them because it would get in the way of consuming violence as a means of entertainment.

So for me, just hearing that an entire world has been wiped out and all the life gone (again, what a horrible way to die) and that it's only mentioned in passing as if to say 'so what' just turns me off to this kind of storytelling. Very few people die in the movies I mentioned and you still felt sorry for them. You were drawn into their lives and characters and you didn't want to see HAL killing them or the crazy fundamentalist blowing up The Machine and all of them with it. You were 'into' the story by then because it was well-written and plotted out. Blowing things up and all the other violent actions for the sake of action is worthless storytelling and a waste of time and resources.

[wickerwoman]

116. Exactly.

Compare the destruction of Vulcan with the destruction of the twelve colonies in the first few episodes of the new Battlestar Galactica. Vulcan barely even registers because it barely even registers with the characters (except for the Spocks and then not much). It's treated as a blip on the way to giant lizards chasing Kirk on the ice planet. In BSG you care about the twelve colonies because you have well-rounded characters who care.

The central problem in Star Trek is that the villain has almost no screen time, isn't developed at all and is completely one dimensional. That puts the whole destruction of Vulcan/threat to Earth thing into the extreme background while the audience is ticking off a mental checklist of cast member introductions and catchphrases.

I wasn't thinking "damn, Vulcan genocide"- I was thinking "eighty minutes in... where is Simon Pegg?"

[Orrex]

74. I think you're a little too quick to dismiss "all the rest"

After all, one of the earliest science fiction novels dealt with a world-ending plague (Shelley's The Last Man), so large-scale death has been a sci-fi staple since its inception. You may find it distasteful in modern film, but there's no denying its place in the genre. Heck, Clarke himself destroyed the Earth in one of his novels.

I've also grown a bit weary of the complaint that popular films don't make people think. When were thought-provoking films ever the norm in Hollywood or elsewhere? For that matter, why should commercial art be expected to make anyone think beyond the bounds of whatever entertainment is on-screen at the time? Art is under no obligation to instruct or elevate; entertainment for its own sake is every bit as valid a goal.

[kentauros]

78. Since when are films strictly "art"?

It is a communication medium, however it is presented. I ask that "science fiction" present a story that is thought-provoking. Plenty of the Star Trek stories, both new and old and even the movies of recent decades, are thought-provoking. Action-movies rarely provoke that part of the brain.

Where do I say that "popular" films don't make people think? Action-films don't make people think because that's not the point. Everything I have seem come from Abrams is action and very little in terms of making you ponder about the plot or some aspect of it. As for past science fiction killing off massive amounts of people and life, I never said it didn't happen. I am pointing out that people are desensitized by it these days thanks to the effects and the way action is pushed over story and plot. No one is empathetic towards those injured or killed because that would detract from the action; it would slow the film down and bore the audience.

I might ask, though, just how popular those past stories by Shelley and Clarke were? How well known and received were they? H.G. Wells killed off much of the planet, too, in a short story called The Star, yet I had to read that one online; it was never in any of the compilation books of his I read as a teen. Douglas Adams destroyed the planet, too, but then he brought it back without anyone knowing it had been gone. I have seen Clarke accused of not having very strong characters or not very good characterizations, of presenting such destruction without much feeling and I would have to concur. That's what I'm getting at here: no feeling, no trauma, no empathy for the events. The action of the event is more important to the movie creators and the movie-goers and everything else be damned. I'm just trying to ask that we get more empathy, more feeling to what's happening instead of such disinterested acceptance. I find that more important than the action of the events, and anyone that's lived through a natural disaster would likely agree.

[Orrex]

83. To what standard should a "communication medium" be held?

Film is many things. It's an art form, it's a lucrative industry, it's brain candy, it's a communication medium, it's a tool of propaganda, etc. But so what?

I don't think that you said that popular films don't make people think, but I said it, because it's overwhelmingly true since the inception of the art form. Or communication medium. Or whatever.

Childhood's End is actually quite popular. Shelley's The Last Man is less well known, but mostly because it's greatly overshadowed by Frankenstein. However, I don't see that popularity is really relevant; my point is that the destruction has always been part of the genre. And more often than not, in a post-apocalyptic science fiction story, little or no time is spent empathizing with the dead, because they're simply a plot device, part of the back story. I expect that this is true also in Star Trek, though I haven't yet seen it. Throughout its history, much of science fiction has been primary plot-driven; certainly this is true of most of the giants of the genre.

Perhaps you're decrying the lack of empathy shown by the characters after the destruction of Vulcan? Well, I can only think of two characters who gave a shit about Alderaan, so that's a bad example to use as a counter-point. In The Immunity Factor, Spock suffered quite a jolt when the Intrepid was destroyed, but no one else in the crew even batted an eye.

Incidentally, Wells' The Star made the mistake of predicting that the errant star's heat would cause trouble, rather than its gravity. I don't fault him for that, of course, but it's an interesting anecdote to the story.

While we're at it, Adams re-destroyed the Earth at the end of Mostly Harmless, and you're absolutely right about Clarke's inability to develop characters.


I think it's also a mistake to equate an onscreen disaster with a real-world disaster survived by the audience. I think most people can distinguish between reality and fiction, and when a particular fictional disaster comes too close to a real-world event, the film is frequently criticized for exploiting the real tragedy.

[kentauros]

87. To the standard you put it in with your statement:

For that matter, why should commercial art be expected to make anyone think beyond the bounds of whatever entertainment is on-screen at the time? Art is under no obligation to instruct or elevate

I know Childhoods End is somewhat popular, but if you ask your average blockbuster-action-movie goer out there to describe the plot, they will just as likely tell you they've never heard of it. It's popular among those that read and watch science fiction; it's not so in the general public knowledge like, say, 2001. And as I recall from the book, the Earth isn't destroyed. Humanity is set on the next step in evolution through the children while the adults die off, slowly. While sad, that's not a truly traumatic event, like the various full planetwide destructions of Earth throughout film and literary history. It certainly wouldn't "wow" audiences like any of the other recent end-of-the-world movies.

Oh, Wells did use gravity to destroy North America through tidal flooding up into the interior of the continent through the Mississippi river and others. I only read the story about a year ago, so it's still fresh in my mind. However, it really wasn't even a story. It was more of a reporting of a catastrophic event. There were no characters, and no plot. It would likely do very well as a typical end-of-the-world movie today :P

I'm decrying the lack of empathy shown by anyone whether onscreen or in the audience. I find it sad and aggravating that empathy is so lacking in the majority of the movies produced and in the general public. My observation is that the film industry has helped in making people less sensitive and empathic toward anything but what impacts them directly.

I think it's also a mistake to equate an onscreen disaster with a real-world disaster survived by the audience. I think most people can distinguish between reality and fiction, and when a particular fictional disaster comes too close to a real-world event, the film is frequently criticized for exploiting the real tragedy.

I think you're also missing what I'm getting at. Just look at how good the special effects have gotten, how mimicking reality has become so fine that unless you know what to look for, it is truly indistinguishable from "reality". With that kind of ability, you can then make people think it's real, even in a film. They don't have to make people "suspend disbelief" anymore because it's gotten so good. You can then easily blur the distinction between fiction and reality, so where does that leave your point? Mine is that this is desensitizing people to reality and why there's less empathy toward real-world events and even experience of them. They don't get traumatized by events in film and that carries over to reality because it looks exactly the same. Yes, people should be able to make the distinction between fiction and reality. However, I would be far less entertained by a film or book that has little to no emotional impact, as that's not reality.

[Deja Q]

100. It's not supposed to be thought provoking in any way. See, consumers don't like to have to think.

:shrug:

And I don't mean technobabble. Trek was about the Human Condition. All we got were some bar fights, a scene that was probably nicked from an Army commercial, and some bad guys that could have been anybody. There was NO depth in this movie. Nothing to chew into. People don't seem to understand that.

Hell, give us real science fiction. Not space action/adventure.

You are SO right about "Contact"... and the sci-fi genre now becoming generic "shoot'em ups". :thumbsup:

In the 1950s, sci-fi was a generic monster scarefest with chicks. Save for "The Twilight Zone", "Star Trek", and "Doctor Who", there's not much in the sci-fi genre from that time period that has lasting value. So, this point being, sci-fi has been generic drivel before. Sci-fi is generic drivel once again. Eventually, somebody will make sci-fi worthy again.

[kentauros]

105. "Consuming" is part of what I'm getting at

so we're in agreement. Hell, we're in agreement on all of it :) I know people that only want an action movie. They abhor the idea that they would be required to think for what they are being fed. It is meant only to be consumed, an initial taste and then inhale the meal, no chewing required. Sit back and let it fill you, but only satiating enough to the following week when the next big action-packed consumer product comes out.

I haven't seen the movie, but I may still just wait to get a torrent online. I have no intention of supporting Abrams or the rest. I was really disappointed to see that Rendezvous with Rama never could get the funding it so desired, even with Morgan Freeman producing and starring. Why can't great stories like that make it to the bigtime? Why don't people want to think and ponder a really good story? There are movies they are willing to do that with, such as Contact or even the remake of Solaris. However, those movies don't get shown in the summer because they don't have the blockbuster potential, or the suits don't feel they do. Plus, they aren't shoot-em ups.

I guess the general movie-going public can think from time to time, but it takes so much effort that the suits can't ask them to do so more than a few times a year. Science fiction still has this stigma against it, no matter how many great shows and movies we give the public. Most people I know and have worked with are simply not science fiction fans and don't understand why anyone would like that kind of thing. They can tack on the label of science fiction to this new Star Trek and people will believe the suits and then expect all science fiction after the fact to be shallow shoot-em ups. When it isn't, they don't respond as well, especially with box-office proceeds. And the cycle continues.

Oh, I did want to say that the late 50s and well into the 60s gave us some fine British science fiction movies and shows, other than Dr. Who. Look at Nigel Kneale's "Professor Qatermass" series (both the kinescope and subsequent movies) or the wonderful semi end-of-the-world flick "The Day the Earth Caught Fire". And even the monster movie "The Day of the Trifids" was a British science fiction movie, treated with more dignity and respect for the story than I expect will happen with the remake...

[Orsino]

68. It's like they put in all the good things about Trek...

...and left out the suck that dragged down all the other movies--and yeah, I'm looking at you, Wrath of Khan. My wife and I enjoyed the hell out of this heresy, which managed to capture the essence of beloved characters and give them lines that don't sound stupid and awkward. Anachronistic as it was, I was hooked the moment they cranked up "Sabotage." Abrams' movie has the pulse that has been missing from 90% of Trek's big-screen time; I'll forgive it for the rushed feel, because I felt the rush.

This movie was all about trying to prevent shit from blowing up, by the way, It's just that the best way to do that is usually to blow other shit up.

[Mojambo]

79. I enjoyed it very much.

Well worth my $7.75.

[wyldwolf]

80. 'Star Trek' fans blast new movie for being 'fun' and 'watchable'

Accusing Abrams of treason for making a movie that people will actually go see.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film?utm_source=videoembed

[Bryan]

84. That parody is dead on the money

The movie is pretty entertaining, but watching the butthurt paleocon rump of Star Trek fandom freak out about it is priceless.

[Political Heretic]

86. BINGO. That is 100% accurate.

Basically if your fringe fans are nerd-raging over the movie, the odds are its going to be great.

Same was true with the BSG remake. Same was true of Serenity the movie (movie of Firefly series). Same was true with Batman Begins.

[no name no slogan]

82. If they can "re-imagine" Battlestar Galactica, they can re-imagine Star Trek

Not that BS was ever at the level of Star Trek, but Hollywood is in no place to create a new, unproven sci-fi universe and make an epic summer movie for it.

Unfortunately, it's a sign of the very conservative financial times we live in. Nobody is taking any risks right now, and that includes creating new universes and characters, especially when existing, familiar ones can be "re-imagined".

We'll see more and more of it as time goes on, even though we've already seen too much of it.

[InvisibleTouch]

89. This long-time Trekkie completely disagrees.

This movie had the magic that made "Wrath of Khan" so excellent: it can be enjoyed by a non-fan on a completely surface level, as a great action-adventure tale, but if you're a fan from decades back, and are well-versed in the characters and their personalities and history, you will get so much more out of it. Well, at least I did. I felt that this movie really paid tribute and homage to those 40 years of history you seem to feel were flushed down the toilet. Lots and lots of inside references that only a true fan would catch the significance of. I have to say, I loved that! Of course I was bothered by the classic characters who didn't look like "themselves," but I made a conscious effort to put that aside. It's sad but true - we can't send the original actors back in time and cast them in this film in their youth, so the only other option is to find new actors. And they all did great. Some more so than others, of course, but I didn't hate anyone.

Far from having seeing this movie as wiping out 40 years of canon, I see it as adding to the canon. Now we have two timelines (at least!) that we can follow and enjoy. It's not negating what came before, but going back to the beginning and starting over with a slightly different set of starting circumstances, to see how it develops. (Puts me in mind of Stephen Jay Gould's book Wonderful Life, which asks the question: if we could go back to the very beginning of vertebrate evolution and run the clock forward again, with the inevitable random variations along the way, what would we end up with? Surely not what we see today!)

Now I've been puzzling about which of the plot elements in this "new" timeline may also have existed in the "old" timeline. We know there are lots of similarities. Sulu being trained in fencing, for instance, and Kirk re-programming the Kobayashi Maru. But how about ******(SPOILER ALERT)******* whether Spock in fact wrote the Kobayashi Maru scenario? And what about Spock and Uhura? Those are elements that might just as easily have fit into "our" classic timeline, and it's lots of fun to play with those ideas. Puts a whole new spin on some things, and adds depth!

Ultimately, the Star Trek universe is not only about social commentary and philosophy, but also about adventure and action. The social commentary grows out of that framework. And most of all, to my mind, the Star Trek universe is about the characters and their interrelationships with each other. It was fascinating to me (forgive the Vulcanism) how in this movie the friendship between Kirk and McCoy is already very strong, while Kirk and Spock are just getting to know each other. I'm really looking forward to future installments! In fact, I'm hoping we see a new "five year mission" with this new crew, incorporating elements of the original series, but giving it the new "Wonderful Life" twist.

And, lest I have to give my geek credentials here: I'll admit that I'm not as passionate and well-versed in the Star Trek universe these days as I was some 25 years ago (I cannot quote chapter and verse on the episodes anymore as I once could, nor do I read every new novel or buy every new action figure anymore, and I haven't been to a convention in years), but I've never lost my love for the original characters and the universe they inhabited. At one point they were a great inspiration to me, and very literally kept me alive. So, I'm sorry if some longtime fans are disappointed in this new movie; they are of course entitled to their view. But they do not speak for all of us. I would hope they might watch the film again with a more open mind and appreciate the tribute that is there.

[Deja Q]

101. Roddenberry's inspiration helps keep me alive. And still does. THAT is why I'm upset.

Some people think that 'core Trek' is the technobabble. Well, that proves how naive they are. Trek, TOS in particular, is about exploring the human condition. That is something this intro movie lacks, yet even the Kirk pilot "Where No Man Has Gone Before" still managed to keep, having been developed because the suits thought "The Cage" (1964) was too cerebral.

I will concede this movie was an intro movie to get strangers acquainted with the characters. If it's liked then followup MUST start to do what Trek is supposed to be. A shame that Abrams is on record saying he never liked or understood the show... As with Roger Ebert, a man who eminently knows the business he's in, I agree: The next movie MUST do and be more than an empty shoot'em'up action piece.

Roddenberry's ideals started with "The Cage", the rejected NBC pilot. NBC wanted more action, hence the bringing in of Kirk. There was still plenty of commentary on the human condition. Sometimes topical discussion, but more often it was about the human condition. "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is action-packed, but at the same time uses nerdy geek shit like ESP because, OMG, this is still sci-fi.

The cast of NuTrek was very good, no argument there. But the next movie has got to be far more than a shallow shoot-everything where the only depth came from characters acting like campy parodies of themselves combined with lines stolen, word for word, from previous trek movies and tv shows. That isn't expanding lore; that's patronizing to those of us who sadly remember where they got the lines from. I don't mean their catchphrases. "I'm a Doctor, not a ___" are to be expected for obvious reasons.

I shouldn't be so passionate, but I know enough of Gene Roddenberry's beliefs and what he fought for while being producer of the show in the 1960s (he fought the suits so many times because the suits wanted a generic action piece and he wanted so much more.) So, yeah, I will be so passionate. Gene would not liked this new movie. The "wham bam thank you, now get tested every 6 months" mindset is the one he always had to fight.

I'll watch it again; as evening tickets are $10 and proper daytime showings are $5.75, I feel I can watch it again, be on par with one evening ticket, and feel just as bored twice over how shallow the flick ultimately was. I might be able to articulate the set pieces/scenes I enjoyed. (the intro to Uhura was good, as was McCoy. I liked Spock's dilemma at the start. )

[InvisibleTouch]

110. For my part, I had a moment at the very end...

...during the final voice-over, of absolute electrified amazement where the thought ran through my head: "I lived to see this." For an instant it all came full-circle for me from the time of the early 80's, when my life was hell and Star Trek was one of the very few bright spots in my existence. Suddenly everything fit into place.

I'm not convinced Gene would have hated this movie, but I guess there's no way to tell. In the credits the film is dedicated to him and Majel.

You're right that the one element that was lacking was a significant commentary on the "human condition," the philosophy and the stretch of imagination and idealism. But not every TV episode had that either. Some were just straight-out adventure stories. And this movie had the brilliant character interactions, which was always what I loved best about Trek. In terms of elements that make you ponder, it did address what it means to be a leader (sometimes the leader must sacrifice himself to save everyone; sometimes being a leader means coming to terms with fear and a no-win scenario - more overtly addressed in WOK and even SFS, granted); and what is it like to be an "endangered species," to witness the destruction of everything you've ever known, and to be among the last of your kind - from the point of view of two different species, as personified by two key individuals? It's subtle, but it's in there.

And if nothing else, this movie will introduce a whole new generation to the original classic episodes. I know I now have the urge to re-read my favorite novels and dig out my old old VHS tapes and watch the original series again - though those tapes have probably long since deteriorated, and I'll just have to find it on DVD sometime. There are viewers today who have never seen TOS at all, and will now seek it out. If they can see past the bargain-basement special effects and settings to the great stories and endearing characters, they're in for a treat!

[Odin2005]

91. I found the plot reboot refreshing. Being hated by the Trekkies is a sign that it's a good movie!

To understand the Star Trek universe one has to understand Gene Roddenberry's worldview and politics, which were those of the Far Left who came of age during WW2 and he late 40s. Picard's defensively smug "That is the past, we are civilized now and don't act like that anymore" rhetoric is pure Roddenberry, and fits the mindset of people born in the 1920s and 1930s, but that vision is out of step with our darker times. It's no accident that TNG became noticeably darker in tone as Berman took over.

[GaYellowDawg]

92. re:

It's no accident that TNG became noticeably darker in tone as Berman took over.

Not to mention one hell of a lot better.

[Odin2005]

111. *Borg enters, stage left*

[Alexander]

94. And HOW many times has time travel been used as a plot device in Star Trek?

This Trekkie counts about a billion.

Seriously, anyone who has watched the show or the movies enough knows that the plots are chock full of time travel, alternate timelines and parallel universes.

I don't get the problem people have with this one - it simply uses a convenient plot device that's present in every single series already.

I loved this Star Trek.

[Deja Q]

102. The time travel bit to explain the new timeline is one I liked. Sorry to disappoint everybody, but

you'll find what I like and dislike about the movie breaks the stereotype currently accorded the "trekkies who hate the movie".

I've said what I disliked a thousand million times already, but I liked the time travel aspect. It's the only part of the movie that elevates it from a generic kaboom-laden movie into something that breaks the generic state that sci-fi has become.

The time travel bit was well handled.

Pity it's otherwise a generic action piece whose characters are pale imitations of their former selves, who are used to comedic effect in a mocking way to the originals (save for Spock), but whatever... The last time I saw Trek characters be lampoons of themselves was, uh-oh, Star Trek V. (Sulu, in both movies, being a navigator, had bad jokes suggesting he wasn't so good after all.)

[bikebloke]

107. It has some clever tie-ins. **SPOILERS**

They beam down onto the island and taser Ben. Then fleeing from the Others, they stumble upon Starbuck and Apollo's hot pillow shack. Suddenly Al Swearingen lurches out of the jungle and stabs Kirk. Meanwhile, back on the Enterprise, Captain Jack loses communication with Spock who beamed down with another party to Drover's Run. Falling in love with Tess, Spock tossed his communicator to be an Aussie jackaroo.

:evilgrin:

[Deja Q]

108. Don't forget the product placement for Durex because now we have an audience that can use 'em...

:silly: :crazy: :silly:

[no name no slogan]

112. This thread needs a

NERDS!

[InvisibleTouch]

115. A dumb cross-eyed jock yelling about nerds?

I'll be a nerd, thanks. ;)