Reviews: Star Trek 544
The movie is a total reboot. And yes, it features time travel. While normally this is a giant red flag, in this case I don't think it's too bad. Especially when you want to make giant, universe-altering changes without pissing off the continuity nerds.
Star Trek starts off with a big action sequence that holds no surprises. You'll immediately notice a few dramatic stylistic changes in the camera work. This movie owes more to the pseudo-documentary style of Firefly or BSG than the traditional pristine look of the last few decades of Trek. Space is pretty silent (although it somehow gets noisier as the movie continues), and they even do the cool thing of making sure that everything in space doesn't share the same Z-axis. Minor, but I love it. The intro ends with an emotional note that resonates strongly; it could have been cheesy but it works. So, they reboot the universe. We get some Kirk/Spock back story, and some brief moments at the academy. Wacky events occur, leaving most of our familiar characters aboard the Enterprise. We witness each of them rise to their known rank and positions. It's all very wink-wink. Occasionally a bit overly cutesy, but ultimately fun. I found the scoring a little weak (Abrams uses the same composer for everything), but many of the sound effects echo the original sources. The effects are just great: I would expect nothing less than perfect, and I got it. I particularly liked the Vulcan architecture. Yes, the new bridge looks like an Apple Store, but the glass and white looks modern. It might not age that well, but it's cool. The costumes look forward and backward at the same time. We have mini-skirts on the bridge and familiar color coding. It all works. The Enterprise itself feels HUGE inside. Engineering isn't just a room with a console; it's massive. It has weight. I love it.
I'm not going to go into the story. It's convoluted, but frankly it's really not the key to this movie: this is a roller coaster movie with new actors playing parts we love.
So, let's talk about the most important thing: the characters. They basically nailed everyone. Uhura and Bones are used a lot in the early bits. Chekov and Sulu each have a few nice moments. Scotty shows up late in the game and steals almost every scene he is in. But as the movie goes on, it becomes almost entirely Kirk and Spock, which really is how it should be.
More so than anyone else, Kirk is an impression. But ya know what? I buy it. The Kirk we knew is older. This one is younger with bigger balls and swagger. This kid will chase the skirt instead of just knowing she will come to him. I could certainly see someone thinking they took Kirk too far, but I buy it. He has charisma and some great lines.
Quinto's Spock is great. I resisted the urge to make Sylar jokes (mostly). He's reserved, subtle, and when the need arises, emotional. It works. He's the best casting in the film. Since Nimoy gets to reprise old Spock, we're given the ability to stack the two Spocks up right against each other. And it's just great. I totally buy it.
Eric Bana is the big bad. He seems almost totally superfluous. He does just fine, but I just don't care either way. This movie is about our heroes. Bana's Nero could have been a robot or an entity or whatever. He's a plot device used to press the universe reboot button, and to give us a ticking clock.
Two of the "humorous" sequences go a bit far. You'll know them when you see them. It's like they were inserted to keep 12-year-olds giggling. I expect this in a Disney film, but I wish I didn't see them here. Another action sequence in the middle serves no purpose except letting us have a giant monster chase Kirk. Abrams probably wanted to toss some work to his Cloverfield monster-making buddy.
But here's the thing: Star Trek is entertaining. It has problems, of course. It won't make everyone happy. But by the time Scotty gets into the story, there are so many moments of unbridled joy that you can't help but feel giddy. I don't know if Abrams will stick around or if this cast will be back for more, but if they are, I know I'll be in the theater again. And you should be there too. Now. You're a carbon-based life form who reads Slashdot. You owe it to yourself.
Onion News Network Coverage (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Onion News Network Coverage (Score:5, Funny)
I am seeing it in 50 minutes. Why am I, like a dumbass, even looking at this thread? I managed to close my eyes and post. Thank Dog for tuoch tpying@
Re:Onion News Network Coverage (Score:4, Funny)
Oh good! There's a compressed version?! I'm so worried about it dragging after seeing the trailer. Do they just run everything at 2X with the voices shifted back down to normal pitch? Or do they cut the sappy parts and the pans of "space"?
Will Uhura Give Me HALF the Boner (Score:3, Insightful)
That the name "Nichelle Nichols" creates, in just my typing it?
I used to watch CARTOON Star Trek, in '73. Just to get more of that woman.
Tough luck, Betty and Veronica.
Blame the accursed writers (Score:3, Interesting)
Nichelle Nichols would have been in the movie [scifipulse.net] in a cameo as Uhura's grandmother were it not for the writers' strike.
-=Steve=-
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Onion News Network Coverage (Score:5, Funny)
I hear the new title is to be "Tryky".
Re:Onion News Network Coverage (Score:4, Funny)
Speaking as somebody with 4 shelves of Star Trek books, piss off. Trekker sounds totally gay. I am proud to call myself a Trekkie.
I just threw out all my Star Trek books, and the DVD collection too, because the timeline they took place in has been erased. Such a waste.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Though parent post was moderated as "Funny" I'd still like to point that Star Trek doesn't use a single timeline.
There's been plenty of alternate timelines in the series operating concurrently with the one we've come to know and love. The Mirror universe has made multiple occurences. Also, even if the movie is in the same reality, the previous state of the timeline still exists, as shown by Spock Prime's presence and memories.
If you take a string with points A and B, then loop B back to where point A is...t
Good, but (Score:5, Interesting)
1. The villain was lame. He was a nobody with stupid motivation. Could it happen? I suppose... but come on! Such small fish. (Forgive me, I'm just looking for a deeper plot.. not just a crappy summer action flick.
2. I prefer TNG over TOS for a few reasons: Kirk is clearly an action-based fly by the seat of his pants type guy. Makes for a great action movie like this. But please please please don't forget we're watching Star Trek for the philosophical questions that arise as well in the star trek universe. I loved Picard because he was the opposite. He drank hot tea on a regular basis. He thought about things, and thusly, I thought about things. Remember: We're not watching star wars, we're watching star trek here...
3.There was a moment when young spock had kirk by the neck. I seriously expected him to slice open kirk's head with his finger.
All in all, I loved this movie, and anxiously await the next in this version of the franchise, but please please please don't forget the parts of star treck that make it so awesome (and not star wars), and balance it well with action!
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, I'll go to see it simply because they have the Aptera 2e [wired.com] make a brief cameo in the background about half an hour into the movie (reportedly, it's with Kirk and McCoy on the steps at the Academy with the Golden Gate in the background).
Re:Good, but (Score:5, Funny)
Do you still remember his name?
Re:Good, but (Score:5, Insightful)
And the reviewer loses a geek point by not knowing how to spell "Sylar".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Good, but (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, give Rob a break.
It can be hard to type with a boner. Especially if you are holding on to it...
2. is exactly the opposite for me (Score:3, Interesting)
Kirk would break the rules if they needed to be broken and was willing to admit when humanity was the less advanced, the less civilized. Granted, a lot of this was in later material but still.
Picard on the other hand was always right and the rules were everything. Also intresting to note, Spock/Vulcans were in many ways the superior race in TOS. This was comepletly lost in TNG. All human with only a half human and a human robot thrown in. Lesser racial mix with it being very clear that all the TNG crew was
Re:2. is exactly the opposite for me (Score:4, Informative)
Wait... what? You forget you have a fucking KLINGON!
Main cast of TNG is:
- French/Scottish guy (Picard)
- White Guy (Riker)
- Robot (Data)
- Klingon (Worf)
- Human woman from small colony (Crusher)
- Black Blind Dude (Jordi)
- Half-Human Chick (Troi)
That's definitely more varied than TOS, which had all white guys except for one black woman, a half-vulcan, and an asian guy. I mean, both have more white guys, but TNG has more woman and aliens. The first season features a third female character as well (who sucked, but whatever).
Re:2. is exactly the opposite for me (Score:5, Informative)
Re:2. is exactly the opposite for me (Score:5, Insightful)
More so than anyone else: Kirk is an impression.
I didn't get that until the end, and I think they threw in that line delivered in Kirk cadence as part of their plan to make Trekkies happy. It was just one more favorite clichés that we got to see once more. Sure, we're going to replace all your actors, but we won't ruin the characters. I approve.
Now, McCoy was the impression. He was pretty good at it though. No complaints.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh dear God, you look to "Wagon Train in Space" for philosophical insight? I guess this explains all we need to know about our little group here. Or am I just missing the joke?
Brett
Re:Good, but (Score:5, Informative)
SPOILER ALERT:
> This movie was definitely the best (least cheezy) movie made from the star trek franchise.
Well... It starts of with Kirk being born to his mother on a space-ship, which is steered single-handedly by his father Kamikaze style into the enemy, in order to save everyone. How much more cheesy can it get? Before the opening credits?
Oh, I know it. Take a Spock, who gets emotional, every time someone mentions his parents in some agitating way (3 times in 3, IRC).
And it ends with the Enterprise firing all weapons on an enemy, who is already being consumed by a black hole.
That's the Star Trek way, kick the opponent, when he already lies on the ground.
Don't get me wrong, I think they got a great cast. Quinto as Spock was especially great. But simply, the plot had as many holes as a Swiss cheese, and didn't fit the original Star Trek at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The movie itself was ok, but I'm not hopeful about the future ones that will probably follow. Sure, the plot was entertaining enough, and it wasn't a bad movie, but to me it seemed like that was by chance rather than by design.
The writers once again demonstrated that they're childish and stupid. The premise was ripped straight out of Nemesis, complete with badly scripted Romulan renegades in a super powerful ship with a planetkiller main weapon. They did it better this time, but it was still the exact sa
Re:Good, but (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the point of dumping Kirk off on the ice planet (other than the obvious ploy to get Scotty involved) was that Spock was being illogical. It was a way of demonstrating his "emotionally compromised" state before they get around to pointing out that Kirk can assume command because of it.
Captain Kirk (Score:5, Insightful)
Holes? How about the fact that no navy in the known universe is going to make a captain of a kid right out of the acadamy AND give him the fleet flagship to boot. I don't care how many planets he saves.
"Great job, Ensign Kirk. You're now Lieutenant Kirk. Report to the Yorktown."
Re:Captain Kirk (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I had a problem with that too - seems like 5 minutes of screen time could have brought them from fresh cadets to having some kind of experience that would have made Kirk in command a little more reasonable.
Oh well - I still enjoyed it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trek Cheese (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good, but (Score:5, Informative)
> Do you think they should have potentially let him go and maybe had him come back later?
Well, being splattered by ludicrous amount of the very same red matter, of which a single droplet destroyed Vulcan by consuming it in a black hole fairly excludes that possibility. Unless the plot writer is out of ideas for the next film, that is.
> They gave him the chance to surrender first, and he refused.
No. Being aware of their dire situation, Kirk even offered to rescue them: Something along the line of: "Without our help you are doomed. Surrender, and we will help you". A dishonest offer, as the low voice exchange between Spock and Kirk showed. Nero refused the offer ("I'd rather die"), on what Kirk replied something like "Sure, we can help with that. All weapons fire".
On which the audience had their SFX and laughs and I waved my hopes on a post Rick Berman Star Trek revival good-bye.
Re:Good, but (Score:5, Interesting)
This movie was definitely the best (least cheezy) movie made from the star trek franchise. That being said, I have a few qualms
Bah, turn in your geek card. Now. Yes, the story is a bit convoluted, but I think a lot of that is necessary for the reboot they wanted to accomplish. There is a lot of story telling in there, but it's sprinkled around and not played up in most parts. If you're looking carefully, you see it in several spots.
Maybe I was just not distracted because I haven't seen a lot of the other shows that these actors played in, thus I was not experiencing the "Agent Smith" phenomenon.
I thought Spock was well done, very much in line with what I remember of Spock from TOS, Vulcan with enough Human in him to drive him in ways other Vulcans could never grasp. Kirk was very much a young bulldog just coming into his prime, full of testosterone and bravado, but with enough brains to see what no one else seemed to be able to.
This doesn't tear apart the foundations of Star Trek so much as it sweeps aside most everything built on those foundations: Honor, fear in the face of death, duty in the face of insurmountable odds, there is no such thing as a "no win" solution--those are still there. Even when beings die by the planet-load (Hopefully that's not too much of a spoiler), all is not lost and with perseverance, the good guys can still win and the universe can still be saved.
=Smidge=
Re:Good, but (Score:4, Insightful)
> But please please please don't forget we're watching Star Trek for the philosophical questions that arise
No we're not. Speaking as someone who missed Boy Scouts to watch the first airing of The Man Trap, any appeal that endless philosophical discussions might have had has been thoroughly beat out of me in the last few years. I want to see epic, multi-ship space battles. When I get tired of that, and for some reason want to go back to watching tepid discussions in ultra-modern conference rooms, I'll let you know.
You're right, there was more to Star Trek than "set phasers on quick-fry-to-a-crackly-crunch" but in more recent years, wayyyyy too many stories went too far the other way. Star Trek became more boring than watching the NASA channel. About four episodes into Enterprise, I decided life was too short for mediocre Trek, and never looked back. Until now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes! Somebody else appears to get it! Trek, to me and many others I'm sure, is about exploring the unknown and how that relates to the human condition. But since Rick Berman took over, Trek has devolved into just-another-action-movie, and it's sad.
I did not enjoy much about the new Trek movie. The cast, I though, was well picked and did their roles well. Someday, perhaps, they will be given a decent Trek movie in which to act, but this was not it. It ended up being a long series of explosions, coincid
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
2. I prefer TNG over TOS for a few reasons: Kirk is clearly an action-based fly by the seat of his pants type guy. Makes for a great action movie like this. But please please please don't forget we're watching Star Trek for the philosophical questions that arise as well in the star trek universe. I loved Picard because he was the opposite. He drank hot tea on a regular basis. He thought about things, and thusly, I thought about things. Remember: We're not watching star wars, we're watching star trek here...
When we have a young Jean-Luc Picard on the screen, you can have more tea sipping. Meanwhile, this is Kirk. Sorry if that unbalances your view of what Trek is.
Re:Good, but (Score:5, Informative)
2. Picard fans champion the drinking of hot tea and use words like "thusly." If there's a better argument for Kirk, I can't think of it.
On a more serious note, I like Picard. He's no Kirk, but there's no id or superego to keep Picard in check. To me the biggest problem with TNG was that Picard didn't have a peer. The closest he ever had was Pulaski but that only lasted one season. She was highly annoying without Picard around (or with Data around) but she was the only person who was ever really able to push Picard's buttons. As headstrong as they try to make Riker out to be, it would've been interesting if he spent more time at odds with Picard instead of fawning over him as much as he did. At least then his character would be interesting.
I also didn't care for the amount of time they spent on character development given that Worf and Data were the only characters to actually develop over the course of the series. TOS characters didn't exactly develop either but there wasn't any time spent trying to develop them.
And personally, I don't need a father figure character on the show to hold my hand through the philosophical questions raised. I thought about them whether or not Kirk did.
Geezer Alert!! (Score:3, Funny)
Why, in my day we had to battle giant spiders on our way to school......
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Totally agreed on (2). That's why I loved TNG so much, and why I hated Enterprise so much. TNG with the grittiness/action of this would probably be great, but if they're "rebooting the series" to be just another action series about projecting current xenophobic animosity onto "safe" aliens, then I've no interest whatsoever.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While TNG was infinitely better made, I always much preferred the spirit of TOS -- the 1960s spirit of optimism and curiosity, of exploring space "because it is there". At its core was a belief in the virtues of science (Spock) tempered by morality (Bones).
I always felt that TNG was infected by the pessimism and the pragmatic mindset of the profit-oriented 1990s. Over-compensating for it by going on a search for elaborate political correctness -- "to baldly go where no bald man has gone before" (at least, n
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Star Wars deserves to be insulted. *glare*
Fans are disconnected (Score:5, Insightful)
Can someone please explain to me how this is NOT a failure?
Star Trek was always known for its strong story telling. Sure, it was sometimes campy and over the top. But the series was built on story. The action was just the frosting.
That was something that Berman never realized. He kept playing down the story in exchange for more action, more outlandish events, more of that adrenaline squeeze. Except that he was bad at it. I mean, really, really bad. Stinking up the screen bad. (Hey look: MACOs! Amazing how those guys never got any screen time, isn't it? Or how about the time Riker used a joystick to save the day? I know, let's have Picard fight himself! Or put 7 of 9 in a fight pit with a WWE wrestler! Yeah, those were great times. *cough*)
Now you're telling me that JJ doesn't suck at it. Therefore it's okay to finish tearing apart the foundations of Star Trek because at least it was a fun ride. Right?
Star Trek stood on its own two feet for 40 years. It was challenged by the networks, challenged by the box office, and challenged by its own actors. Yet the concept survived and is cherished by its fans. The core idea of a better future painted on the rich tapestry of space travel is not something to be ignored. It's something to protect, grow, and find ways to adapt to the changing times. After all, is there any better time to shout out this message than when things seem the darkest?
Instead we have a summer blockbuster. And like all summer blockbusters, it will be forgotten by next summer. It is a sad day for Roddenberry's vision of the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fans are disconnected (Score:4, Insightful)
I know, let's have Picard fight himself!
You enjoyed that one, huh? You're right, it was cheesy. We need the original riveting Star Trek fight scene [youtube.com] where our hero manages to put commas not only in his dialogue but also his attacks ... against a man in a rubber lizard suit.
Trek fans are hilarious. They are even more hilarious when they turn on each other.
It's a movie, relax. If you didn't like the "modernized plot" they opted for, don't watch it. If you would rather watch a journey through space, watch a journey through space. Today's movies are made to target the largest cross section of audience to maximize income. You certainly won't find me watch Star Wars 1-3 anytime soon because of this.
Re:Fans are disconnected And should be... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that the official word is that this DOES create an alternate universe, due to quantum branching, but that's mostly just the creators covering their butts.
There are some inconsistencies, of course, like the technology on Kirk's Father's ship; but I think overall this movie tried harder to fit into canon then most STAR TREK episodes themselves did.
Re:Fans are disconnected (Score:4, Insightful)
The story is a bit convoluted, but I think a lot of that is necessary for the reboot they wanted to accomplish. There is a lot of story telling in there, but it's sprinkled around and not played up in most parts. If you're looking carefully, you see it in several spots.
Maybe I was just not distracted because I haven't seen a lot of the other shows that these actors played in, thus I was not experiencing the "Agent Smith" phenomenon.
I thought Spock was well done, very much in line with what I remember of Spock from TOS, Vulcan with enough Human in him to drive him in ways other Vulcans could never grasp. Kirk was very much a young bulldog just coming into his prime, full of testosterone and bravado, but with enough brains to see what no one else seemed to be able to.
This doesn't tear apart the foundations of Star Trek so much as it sweeps aside most everything built on those foundations: Honor, fear in the face of death, duty in the face of insurmountable odds, there is no such thing as a "no win" solution--those are still there. Even when beings die by the planet-load (Hopefully that's not too much of a spoiler), all is not lost and with perseverance, the good guys can still win and the universe can still be saved.
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't tear apart the foundations of Star Trek so much as it sweeps aside most everything built on those foundations: Honor, fear in the face of death, duty in the face of insurmountable odds, there is no such thing as a "no win" solution--those are still there.
??????
How can "they" still be there if they are swept away?
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent points, all of which could be said of other franchises which are being milked (Doctor Who being an obvious example). The story is being sacrificed for the flash-bang effects.
I also question some of the attitudes towards the little story telling there is in modern SciFi. I'm sure that if "Eastenders In Space" was actually what people wanted to see, there'd be a story of London getting blasted into space.
Given that there is no evidence of London (or, indeed, the Rover's Return, Emmerdale, or any oth
Re:Fans are disconnected (Score:4, Insightful)
Can someone please explain to me how this is NOT a failure?
Because the reviewer got it wrong. The villain story is convoluted. The true story in this film is how the Enterprise crew was put together (or put back together due to the Alternate timeline). Nero is only there as a driving force behind the crew getting together. This is a film like Star Trek IV. It's not about villains, it's about the characters themselves.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't explain why yet,
but the first half of the movie felt great. ("10")
The last half was okay. ("7")
I think there were a lot of character bits in the first half (including seeing the fabled "K" test.)
This kirk, being younger is a lot brasher and less of the seasoned man we will see by the time he is 35.
It really bugged me that Cameron was Kirk's dad. I wish it had been some other random actress. I found her much more jarring than Sylar.
A lot of the last half just seemed too implausible. it was implaus
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a sad day for Roddenberry's vision of the future.
It's important to understand the business context all of this is happening in.
When I came to LA in 1996, about 50% of the Paramount lot was dedicated to the production of Star Trek episodes (of various series) and films. Paramount was basically dependent on the revenues on the showings and reruns and reissues of the various Star Trek franchises -- to the point that they were commissioning expensive digital remasterings of the original episodes, let alone remixes and redoes of all the visual effects for the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The plot device they use to explain the 'reboot' is somewhat convoluted...but is straight forward
Please explain how something can be both convoluted and straightforward. If that's what we've got to look forward to with this movie, I think I'll wait for the $1 DVD rental at Redbox.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't kid yourselves: if this movie tanks, then Trek is dead forever. So you better pray this does VERY well and makes 100's of millions so Paramount doesn't declare it dead forever.
Personally, I don't give a crap whether Paramount declares it dead or alive. They had 40 years to play with the concept and blew goats for more years than not. If people are looking for a real reason to justify shorter periods of "intellectual property" protection this is it. Rather than following the blind assumption that the "rights holders" somehow have a superior vision and a greater ability to execute on that vision, the playing field should at some point be open to those who care more about the mat
Screw the MPAA (Score:5, Funny)
Screw the MPAA! I have ideals!
...
OMG Star Trek movie!
One annoying problem (Score:3, Funny)
That strange Moe-Stooge-haired dude had pointy ears. Why didn't casting QA catch that?
Mike Tyson didn't quite get it . . . (Score:2)
That strange Moe-Stooge-haired dude had pointy ears.
Moe Stooge did have pointy ears . . . until Curly bit them off.
He gave Moe fair warning, though, by first barking repeatedly, and then shouting, "Oh? A wise guy, eh?"
Tyson had the ear biting down, put couldn't master the barking.
Holy Colons Batman (Score:5, Funny)
There are 16 colons in that review! 16! At least eight of them should be periods, another six should be hyphens. I'll give him two. :)
Not to be a grammar Nazi, but man that's distracting.
Re:Holy Colons Batman (Score:5, Funny)
16 colons, but only one asshole
Re: (Score:2)
Brrzzzzt! You cannot complain about semi-colons -- and COUNT THEM -- then claim not to be a Grammar Nazi.
Wave your Freak Flag high, brother!
By the way, the "g" of "grammar Nazi" must be capitalized.
Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
As a golden Trekie (getting up there in age), I am hopeful this 'REBOOT' of Trek will see more of it in the cinemas, and maybe even on TV.
Thanks JJ for making it real again!
Re: (Score:2)
This [youtube.com] is the most reliable analysis of what a Trekkie is that I know of.
Meh. Maybe I'll rent it. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's the even-numbered ones that are crappy. You just have bad taste.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop your goddamned babble-spamming. Is there a setting to block a user from ever appearing for me again?
DARMOK! (Score:3, Informative)
Nothing gets better than Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra! That episode was STUPENDOUS. If this is one eighteenth as good as that, I'll be OK.
Re:DARMOK! (Score:4, Insightful)
That episode was by far one of the best Star Trek episodes (in my opinion, up there with "In the Pale Moonlight" from DS9). To tie your comment into the movie review, Memory Alpha says that Rick Berman hated the entire premise [memory-alpha.org] of Darmok. If Memory Alpha is accurate, all I can do is shake my head...
Re:DARMOK! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DARMOK! (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the only episode of Trek of any stripe that made me....get a little dirt in my eye, or something...
OK, but just not "believable" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess...you wanted to serve on CVN-65.
Re:OK, but just not "believable" (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me guess...you wanted to serve on CVN-65.
I don't know about the grandparent poster, but I did serve on CVN-65.
That aside, with my own Navy background, I have the same qualms as the GP poster. I have not seen the movie myself, and I'm relying in the review here and the spoilers from others for details. But what I hear has some strange implications. Bad enough that the reboot screws up the ages of the characters (Kirk and McCoy and Scottie were considerably older than guys like Sulu and Chekov in the series), but handing command over to a cadet with no experience? What the hell? I'm pretty sure that's not how Kirk came up in the ranks in the original canon, and in a real fleet, the CO would be quickly relived of his duties and scheduled for a court martial for doing such a thing. There's a damn good reason that you have to do time as a division officer and an Executive Officer before you get anywhere near that chair; experience counts, and no matter how talented you are, no one is born with it.
Abrams is simply asking for too much suspension of disbelief here. I know it's fiction, and science-fiction adventure at that, but speaking as someone that's actually served in a military force, the cadet-to-captain thing is just too much. That's not Star Trek, that's Spacecamp [wikipedia.org] with photon torpedoes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it's not. What I am saying is an affirmation of what the two former naval officers have said in this thread, which is that command aptitude is not the same thing as command ability.
The Colonel is the Army rank equivalent of a Navy Captain. A Colonel might typically command a brigade and depending on the force structure, this numbers between 2000-4000 men. The ability to command several thousand men in combat is not just about command aptitude, but about experience earned over time. There is no subst
Abrams (Score:2)
Abrams played with time travel between season 2 and 3 of alias. I think as a plot device it had potential, but failed. I can't
Re:Abrams (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that time travel can be lazy. I used to love it, but it's been drastically overdone on film and television. Now I see it as a trap that screenwriters fall into when they want to connect elements of a story that shouldn't be able to connect.
In the Star Trek franchise The Voyage Home made novel use of it. At least it seemed novel at the time, and it made for an entertaining romp. But then came Generations. And then First Contact. And now this. That's four of the eleven Star Trek films, all reliant upon time travel in some way. Rather a lot, IMHO. And that's not counting the endless time travel episodes, stretching from TOS right up to Enterprise. What irks me most about time travel on Star Trek, though, is how it's treated as a novel, surprising development every time it happens. "What, he's from the future?" "What, we've been transported back to the 20th century?" "What, they changed history?" These future-folk should really get used to time travel: it's as commonplace as pizza.
Berman bad? (Score:2)
So... what's so bad about Berman (and Braga)? They, like Jobs with Apple, milked the franchise for everything it was worth, while the "fans" let it happen. And it wasn't just them... the actors too didn't stay true to character. Why would the TNG cast make Nemesis? Its like they intentionally wanted to kill the genre.
(Go Commander Koennig!!)
Re: (Score:2)
So that someone would make a fan site [stardestroyer.net] about the movie?
they basically nailed everyone (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
<kirk>Dammit, Bones! Nailing everyone is my job!</kirk>
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I stopped reading (Score:3, Interesting)
right at the Time Travel part.
Coupled with the previews, It just smells lame.
Let me guess. They blew up the ship at the end.
quality wins out over hype (Score:2)
Well, at least I hope that's the case. Won't know until I see it tonight.
When the movie was first announced I groaned and said "Why? For the love of Christ, why?" Trek is dead to me and Berman and his crew spent a long time killing it. But then I started hearing more and more positive buzz, not from the marketing droids but fan reviews, people who would be just as happy to complain an weep bitterly if it sucked.
This is the same pattern that held true for Watchmen. I anticipated failure from the moment it wa
Uh... (Score:2)
And my wife will tell you, I scream 'F*** you Rick Berman!' during the credits every time I see it.
Which wouldn;t bother her so much if you weren't in the movie theater. :-D
If I were her lawyer, that'd be the first article in the divorce papers. ;-) I tease. Mostly.
Look, I enjoyed Star Trek. TOS and TNG and the first half of DS9 were great. A couple of the films were good, too. I even bought the After Dark Star Trek screen savers way back when. Haven't seen the new movie yet. When the TV franchise began to dumb down, I walked away. End of story. This emotionalism over it all... just never understood that
The problem that Star Trek faces is simple (Score:2, Interesting)
Just who is its audience?
Remember the mini? Talking about a car here. It was a very cheap model, tiny but because of its price and low operating costs it had a market. Then it was re-invented and the result was a very small, expensive car, expensive to maintain.
Basically, the designers of the new car ignored the audience that bought the original for its cheap price and instead aimed for another audience that over time either bought the mini to vamp it up or as a status symbol. It worked, to a degree. The
My own review... (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's my own review, for what it's worth:
Within about 10 minutes I knew that Star Trek was back, and that this film is exactly what the franchise needs: some life breathing in to it - and who better to provide a new direction than J. J. Abrams, the co-creator of the hit series Lost.
This is not a complete reboot or re-imagining but a prequel set just before the original series from the 1960s. It features a new cast taking up the original roles of Kirk, Spock and the crew.
As the film opens we're placed in the middle of a space battle and straight away stylistic differences are apparent. The feel is much more gritty and realistic. When a hole is ripped in the ship, as well as the usual exterior shot this time we're shown the crew member's view as they are violently blown out of the ship, followed by the cold silence and emptiness of space. Camera work is sometimes of the cinéma vérité style often used today (e.g. with the reimagined Battlestar Galactica) which adds to the realism but can be a little headache inducing on the big screen.
The sets and props from the original series would look out of place today so things have been updated visually. It's a fairly believable and realistic looking future based on the technology of today - so in place of the dials and buttons of the sixties series we have flat black touch screens; The Enterprise interior, instead of being multi-colour and angular is now clean and white with simple curved lines.
As this is set before the original series it's nice to see that the characters are not their usual calm, professional and mature selves and are unrefined, undeveloped and rough around the edges. Kirk is like an immature teenager and angry at the world. Spock has not yet fully given up his emotions. Sulu is having trouble getting to grips with the ship's controls.
Zachary Quinto is superb as Spock... as many have said, it's as if he was born to play the part.
I'd heard good things about Simon Pegg's portrayal as Scotty but in truth his screen time is minimal and limited to the odd one or two mildly amusing one liners, not too dissimilar to the Scotty of the original series and films. His odd ewok-like alien sidekick was completely pointless, no doubt an attempt to add comic relief and appeal to younger viewers as with Jar Jar Binks from Star Wars, and the humour grates just as much.
There are no complaints with the casting for the rest of the crew. McCoy, Uhura, Sulu and Chekov were all completely believable and worthy to take the places as the younger versions of the original crew.
Story wise, the back story regarding characters is great. For me this would almost be enough, but there is also a non-too-original plot involving yet another super-villain hell bent on destroying the earth. (Why is it they always go for the earth anyway - doesn't that seem a bit earth-centric? Wasn't it established pretty early on that the federation already existed long before the earth joined? Anyway... moving on...).
The plot reminded me a lot of the last Star Trek film - Nemesis - which also involved a rogue Romulan (OK, technically a Reman) who tried to destroy Earth. Given the overwhelmingly negative response to that film it would have been wise to come up with a completely different plot, but fortunately it doesn't spoil things too much.
The plot also doesn't make a lot of sense. The villain - Nero - travels back in time to avenge the destruction of his home planet after the older Spock fails to save it. If he's travelled back in time though, why not attempt to avoid the future destruction of his home planet instead of going after Spock? And why go after someone who was only trying to help? You could put all this down to him being a maniac I suppose, but it just doesn't seem that credible, even for a Star Trek film involving time travel and warp drives and all the rest.
One thing that surprised me was that it stuck to canon at all. Some differences can be explained by rift in the timeline (time t
Trekkie (Score:4, Informative)
Can someone just enjoy watching Star Trek without being a Trekkie? Yeah, I've watched them all (except Enterprise) but it's just a TV show, not part of my identity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And King Lear is just a play; the Bible is just a book; the Taj Mahal is just a building; the Mona Lisa is just a painting ... everything is just what it is. Or is it?
And identity, is that pieced together from parts, or is it some sort of holographic interference field where all of our experiences - even TV shows - meld together into one large, partless whole of which the ego or persona can only be at best a small and shallow representation?
Surely they can answer these questions in the next Star Trek instal
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Why do you yell "F**k you" to Rick Berman?
The feeling I got was that Berman was responsible for the dilution of the Trek franchise. Capitalizing on the fanbase created by TOS, the first few movies, and the first few seasons of TNG, he started a campaign of maximizing Trek's presence on the screen, replacing what used to be (mostly) the exploration of ideas with what became (mostly) formula, as long as it maximized screen time. There was always technobabble and contrived drama in Star Trek, going c
the English language weeps (Score:4, Insightful)
In the first three paragraphs, the author makes all three of the most common English errors: to/too, its/it's, and then/than. Praise Bob, I'm glad he didn't screw up there/they're/their; that would have been too much to bear/bare (haha).
But seriously, if you're going to submit a lengthy bit of prose to a popular website, please ask someone with a high-school understanding of English to proofread it for you. Everyone knows that Slashdot keeps no such talent on the payroll, so you shouldn't expect editing from the "editors."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it does matter. If you stop caring about the proper use of language, you will begin making the same mistakes yourself. This not only makes you look dumb, but also leads to communication problems in which using the wrong words significantly changes the meaning of a sentence.
I routinely work with outsourced Indian workers who have very poor English skills. Much time is wasted dealing with miscommunications resulting from their undisciplined approach to language, especially when time zone differences
well (Score:5, Funny)
the characters: they basically nailed everyone
see, explicit sex is exactly what i thought was missing in all the previous start trek movies.
I saw Star Trek TOS first run ... (Score:3, Insightful)
...so I may be the Senior here. (kudos to RAH!)
I fully admit to smoking the Trek crack since 1966. Hard habit to break!
And I know it led me to enlist in the Air Force and end up at Edwards AFB in 1976. My clearance and job allowed me to get up close and personal with the real first spacecraft to be named Enterprise.
So, TOS really meant a lot, especially at that time. The other cool thing was that my proximity to L.A. allowed me to see Star Wars 3 days after it premiered. Did not suck.
In spite of that, I am not fanatic about the Trek. Of the series, I prefer TOS and Voyager. Of the movies, I think I'm in the majority with 2, 4, 6, and 8. Everything else was not-so-good.
I'm going this weekend to see the new movie. I think it has a chance. I'd like to see 2 sequels that are even better. I think the first 3 Raiders movies were uniformly good, if for different reasons. There's no reason Abrams can't turn out 3 good movies. Hey, Judd Apatow hasn't really served up a turd yet, so this is doable.
As for a future TV series, I don't know. Might seem too much like Galaxy Quest. Then again, if this movie and possible sequels get giant box office numbers, it may be a foregone conclusion.
Bleah. Not impressed (Score:3, Insightful)
It's an OK movie. If it weren't "Star Trek", it would probably rank with The Chronicles of Riddick.
Annoyances:
Maybe someday there will be a David Weber SF movie, one that makes military sense. This isn't it. It's a mediocre space opera.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. I think having lots of plumbing and tanks and the like could probably work, but it still felt like it was the interior of a terrestrial building: lots of wasted, empty space above "ground" level. This could have been done a lot better.
It's possible the kamikaze run by Kirk's father sufficiently disabled the ship so t
Re:Bleah. Not impressed (Score:5, Interesting)
Much has been made about the lens flares but it is possible for indoor scenes that the lens flares were natural. If there were numerous lighting sources (and consider the bridge is, in fact, very brightly lit) just above the rim of the lens, the Panavision 2.39:1 anamorphic optics naturally produce substantial flares that stretch horizontally.
It's a stylistic choice, and not necessarily a good one... but in the case of space there would actually be a hell of a lot of glare. If we are meant to be observers with a camera, the resulting glare from numerous bodies either directly emitting light or albedo would result in substantial haze and flares. The intensity of celestial light not occluded by an atmosphere is so great that astronauts in spacewalk wear helmets thinly anodized with 24k gold to avoid sunburn and blindness.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's an OK movie. If it weren't "Star Trek", it would probably rank with The Chronicles of Riddick.
Annoyances:
No joke. I saw it on a pretty decent screen with a DLP projector and I thought I had temporary blindness from the flashes of light on the bridge. You know it is bad when JJ himself admits it is too much. http://io9.com/5230278/jj-abrams-admits-star-trek-lens-flares-are-ridiculous [io9.com]
Somebody likes plumbing too much. Most of the interior scenes have vast amounts of piping and tankage. It looks like some of the shipboard shots were filmed in a modern brewery.
Okay, I'm totally with you here. Is this ship steam powered? Do I need to go to YouTube and look up Steam Trek for inspiration?
How did the Grand Canyon move to Iowa?
Okay. I'll give this one to wild rain patterns in Iowa causing massive soil erosion. I can handle
Re:Singularity? (Score:5, Funny)
Singularly.
Re: (Score:2)
Instrumental plot device, but otherwise not really explained. It just is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So is it the more mild transhumanism, or the heavier general AI?
From my understanding, Star Trek's interpretation of end result of transhumanism/singularity is the Borg.
As reasons why the Federation does not implement such technology is really up for debate. Of course I have not seen the new movie yet so I cannot say whether or not this addresses such an issue.
Or for that matter, explain why the Borg don't just sent a cube back in time to blow up earth during the time of the dinosaurs or something reasonabl
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Borg are not xenophobic. They do not wish merely to crush their enemies or protect themselves. They wish to incorporate other races' biological and technological distinctiveness into the Collective. Destroying Earth before it gives rise to the Federation and thus is a threat to the Borg is a response to fear, one the Borg do not feel.
Re:Frankly, I was disappointed (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the series were logial in their application of science, transporters were limited by sensor range, warp drive worked based on real world theories of FTL (disproven recently), they used terms like dark matter and protons/gravitons/etc.. correctly and alot of the phonemon mentioned exist as theoretical ideas.
The film seemed to ignore science, we had "red matter", "lightening storms in space" aparently a ship can survive being in the middle of a black hole for a couple of minutes with no problems. Transporters can work over infinite distances, and little logical errors abounded. During their trip out they make a point of saving it will take three minutes, yet a more advanced ship from the future seems to make the same journey in a day.
I liked the movie but between saying f*** you to the ten years of star trek tv shows I grew up with and the complete inattention to the science or sticking with rules the film creates just annoyed the hell out of me. I'd rather they let the whole franchise have fizzled out than that film.