Tales of the Parodyverse >> View Post
·




Post By
Visionary 
Moderator

Member Since: Sat Jan 03, 2004
Posts: 2,131
In Reply To
HH

Subj: I just saw it myself...
Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 at 01:16:39 am EDT (Viewed 573 times)
Reply Subj: So I finally saw the Star Trek film...
Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 at 06:30:06 am EDT (Viewed 10 times)



It didn't do much for me. It was obviously well made, and showed the benefits of a budget higher than any Trek movie has ever seen before, but overall it was bright, shiny, loud, energetic and... just kind of there.

The villain was a muddled, uninteresting antagonist. I too had trouble following his reasoning, and found him lacking in all menace. And you're right... the interior of his ship was just plain goofy, the ridiculousness of it overwhelmingly shown when, during the climax, he gets an announcement and has to leap to another platform in order to do anything about it.

Really, the whole movie had a bunch of those kinds of moments... ones that were (sorry) "highly illogical". Is it really Star Fleet regulations to launch insubordinate crewmembers onto nearby planets? Why on earth (or not) do people carry around unfolding melee weapons hundreds of years from now? Wouldn't a gun be far more practical? (For that matter, since when is "fencing" at all the same as using a katana?) When a giant ship starts drilling to the Earth's core, there's not a single ship that can shoot the cord like Spock did, or even try? And that goes for Vulcan too? (What kind of culture would send a captain into space with the codes to shut down all of your defenses?) And Kirk happening to be rescued by elder Spock (from a beast that was chasing him for no discernible reason, what with much bigger prey already dead and waiting to be eaten) beats any of the goofy coincidences that sunk "Spider-man 3".

In other words, it was pretty aggressively dumb, without much in the way of plot or really any big sci-fi ideas. The "Transformers"-esque shaky cam action scenes really annoyed me too.

All that said, I'd rate it a "B" or a "B-"... Most of these annoyances were countered by some really nice touches. And certainly, it's far superior than many of the other Trek movie offerings.





    Quote:
        This Star Trek movie had some serious strikes against it before it began. It came after a long gap when the Trek franchise had lain dormant and forgotten, at least to the general public for whom TV and movies are their only exposure. It featured recast versions of the best known characters, an ensemble of actors that defined the original roles perhaps more than any other movie series cast. It included a reboot of continuity that negated every favourite story that a trivia-driven fandom treasured.



    Quote:
        Despite my misgivings I went to see the film last night, based on good reviews from people whose opinions I value and an assurance that there were good in-story reasons for the changes in Trek history. I took with me my fifteen year old daughter and eleven year old son, neither of whom is familiar with Star Trek and especially not with the original characters. We saw the film in a Victorian village cinema with stained glass and plaster architraves and a big Hammond organ (for the silent movies) – and they stopped the performance half way through for an intermission to sell ice-creams!



    Quote:
        The good things about the film:



    Quote:
    1.    The characters were well defined and well introduced. Kirk was especially well depicted in his initial bar scene when he faces odds of four to one and offers his attackers the chance to get a couple more people. This was important from the point of view of my children who needed to be grounded in the protagonists and to pull for them and who had no previous affection for Kirk to carry them on. I was keen that the essence of the original cast interpretations should be preserved and I felt that for the main part it was.



    Quote:
    2.    The initial sequence with Kirk’s birth and the sacrifice of Kirk senior made for a gripping start as well as doing the necessary “setting up the villain” stuff. The choice of going to a full orchestral score and taking away the din of battle until we heard the baby’s cry was a bold one that worked. The only improvements I’d have appreciated would have been a “Captain’s Log” instant summary for reasons of both nostalgia and orientation and less use of headache-inducing out-of-focus hand-held cameras.



    Quote:
    3.    The cast interacted well and played off each other. This has always been a strength of the series and it was a strength here. I could have spent many more happy minutes watching all the crew getting to know each other.



    Quote:
    4.    Leonard Nimoy has long turned his acting limitations to strengths in his defining role as Spock. Here he brought a huge gravitas to his appearances and managed to command the screen whenever he appeared. His response to young Kirk was particularly well done. Nobody positions their fingers for a mind-meld exactly like Nimoy can.



    Quote:
    5.    The away mission to the mining drill was a particularly well-choreographed piece of work. It managed to establish Sulu as a heroic character, it allowed for a strongly defined combat in unusual conditions, and it looked stunning. Shame the mission failed to stop the actual plot, but what the heck. The downside was that the closing action also included Romulan-wrestling over more high drops and by the time that happened we’d already seen it done better in this sequence.



    Quote:
    6.    Most of the characters had story arcs and there was a good progression towards the status quo ante of the classic series. All of the regular crew got to contribute something towards the final victory.



    Quote:
    7.    I’d be happy to see more of Gaila of Orion. That body paint job was poor though. Red lips and green skin? Why?



    Quote:
        The bad things about the film:



    Quote:
    1.    I wasn’t impressed with the key set designs. Star Trek has managed to establish a number of visual themes for its various alien cultures and for Starfleet (two designs in the case of Starfleet from original Trek and Next Generation). These visuals have done much to convey the cultures and backstory of the various races and have become a helpful wallpaper for the series. Here the Enterprise bridge, which should be the most iconic and potent of sets was reduced to merely a room with some control panels in it, the engine room was a comedy tube maze, and the villain’s ship was a series of improbably high un-guard-railed dramatic drops with low level lighting. The visual effects were great. The scenery around which they took place let them down.



    Quote:
    2.    I wasn’t impresses with the music – until the end, when the final credits occurred to a fine orchestral version of the original theme tune. That music got a cheer from the audience. During the rest of the film the score was at best unobtrusive and at worst a pseudo-John Williams attempt at replacing themes which have become classic for a reason. I don’t have a problem in principle with adding new signature music. This wasn’t it.



    Quote:
    3.    I didn’t buy the time-travel plot-retcon explanation. How could Nero coming back in time change the relative ages of the cast, the styles of technology, or any of the other non-Kirk related trivia detail? Either it’s an in-canon story or it’s a “reimagination”. This movie tried to be both and fell between two stools. And if I understand this right, original Star Trek, Next Gen, DS9 and Voyager are now out of canon but Star Trek: Enterprise is still in there? Really? Those are the bits you’d choose to keep?



    Quote:
    4.    From a plot point of view the villain appears to have achieved an almost complete victory, beyond anything achieved by Khan or any other of the far more distinctive villains in Trek’s history. Nero has wiped out the future and everything we’ve ever seen done in it. That’s a big win. His motives remain confusing though. Why is Spock to blame for a supernova destroying Romulus? Isn’t that like blaming the fire brigade for your home catching fire? How does destroying the Federation in the past save Romulus from getting nova-d? Am I missing something here?



    Quote:
    5.    The sudden bursts of slapstick didn’t really sit well with the rest of the storyline. Kirk running around with giant hands while a planet is dying is like Jar Jar Binks clowning across a battlefield while people die all around him. Scotty in a water tube is a waste of screen time where we could have had a well-written Scotty’s-first-comments-on-seeing-Enterprise-engine-room.



    Quote:
    6.    The climax of the film wasn’t particularly well cut. The timing and emphases seemed wrong. Kirk’s usual big confrontation with the villain was reduced to Kirk getting briefly beaten up by the baddie then left to be beaten up by a sub-baddie. Spock saved the day from a distance by causing a fender-bender and being beamed to safety while the villain growled ferociously from a video screen. A little more thought and build up could have made the end action so much more potent. Kirk still on board and wrestling with the baddie – and giving him his surrender option face to face – while the ship disintegrates around them would have been one improvement. He could even have torn his shirt. Uhura being aboard the baddie’s ship too would have given Spock more of an ethical dilemma and brought his emotions vs logic theme to a pointed climax.



    Quote:
    The verdict:



    Quote:
    Not bad. Could have been much worse. With a little more thought and care, and particularly with tighter editing and more disciplined use of available time it could have been better. My children were happy enough with it, though, and they’re the demographic that the new franchise needs to hook. And I enjoyed it. I even enjoyed the ice-cream break.



    Quote:
    A more general comment on all Trek movies occurred to me though. A fundamental part of the original series and the Next Generation was “boldly going” – exploration, discovery, first contact, the frontier feel. Nearly all the Trek films have actually been Star Wars, a military struggle against a superior enemy that threatens home. That’s quite a disconnect from the main thrust of the series’ conception and leads to a particular kind of story and a particular kind of cast interaction. I can see why the money people might want the films to be all about the big explosions and the overwhelming archvillain but I think that formula has become very stale by now. Maybe it’s time trek returned to its roots and did some actual Trekking?



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.0.10 on Windows XP
NewEmailPrintRSSIndex