Star Trek

JonJacob wrote: 5/ Holy Coincidence Batman!! So, Kirk gets dumped out of the ship and chucked on a random planet that just happens to have OS Spock on it for some fucking retarded reason (what are the odds!!) and whoooo, Scotty's there to and he'll beam you back up there because don't ya know, he just invented the tech for it. Wow, that's lucky man. Also, Kirk grows up and gets force fed his first mission, graduating with people who were in the force significantly before him, and this first mission, it's all about him and his daddy. Isn't that sweet? Wow, what luck! There are so many of these it's impossible to keep track of all of them. It's like they had a huge book of bad Trek cliche's and went through trying to check off as much as possible.

I can't go on, it hurts too much especially because it was a huge success and now you can guarantee more of these shit films... mainly because I like Trek and yes Pete, it's way better then Star Wars and this film is in Star Wars prequel territory, quality wise.

For me, the low point was when *everybody* at Starfleet academy dies except Kirk and crew. What saved them? Sulu forgot to disengage the parking brake on the Enterprise. I wish I was joking about this.

Oh, and the Enterprise, flagship of the entire fleet? You know how you always thought Kirk and his crew were assigned to that prestigious vessel because they were the best Starfleet personnel in the universe? It turns out they got the ship just because nobody else was around to take it. And I guess Starfleet didn't want to hurt anybody's feelings by asking for it back when the dust settled.

And the event that sets the whole plot in motion? Spock tries to prevent a galaxy-destroying supernova by single-handedly creating a black hole, because:

1. black holes are the most perfectly benign objects in existence, and they never, ever destroy nearby planets (e.g. planet Romulus)
2. when you need to save an entire galaxy from a giant exploding star, you send the oldest guy you know and you send him in the spacefaring equivalent of a 1988 Chrysler Le Baron, and you put no contingency plan in place to -- y'know -- save planet Romulus in case Grandpa Spock drives too slow and gets there late
3. any senior citizen in a Le Baron can create black holes at will

SuperflyTNT wrote: It's STAR TREK. It's Roddenberry, not Asimov or Clarke. Don't expect them to explore deep concepts. Star Trek has ALWAYS been a action show in space. Kirk and his lame-ass judo chops were always evident. The man hardly owns a shirt that hasn't been torn off of him at some point. Give me a break, man. It's Star Trek, not 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Star Trek for me has always been about exploring sci-fi idea's first and foremost with a bit of action here and there. OS that is. It wasn't just Rodenberry, there were a lot of good writers on that show. Some of the same guys that worked on Twilight Zone. They had interesting ideas like the one were the societies abolished real war and replaced it with disintigration machines that would kill select groups occasionally; for the greater good right?.. or the one were a group of people explored the benefits of eugenics (Space Seed I think), they play around with bizzre social situations like that all the time. What if a society idolized and worshipped a robotic god or you could create a playground of all your hearts desires? There are dozens of episodes that do this and it worked because the show was still light hearted (the one thing the movie gets right) and it only lasted 45 minutes. The movie has the dilemma of filling an hour and a half.

The city on the edge of forever man, c'mon, that's sci-fi. Just because it doesn't take itself as seriously as Space Odyssey doesn't mean it has less to say.

The first Trek movie did this well, it was real sci-fi albeit just a longer episode of something they kind of explored before. Definitley not an action movie. The other movies not so much but I like Kahn for the camp value anyway. This new one is kind of sad because these actors are actually impersonators for the film and if they wanted to tell a story I'd rather they just make a new universe.

The only two things I remember from the movie are:

Why are there so many halogen spotlights on the bridge of the Enterprise, and why are they all aimed directly at the camera?

and

Why are Kirk and friends jumping out of a ship and plummeting through the atmosphere wearing nothing but motorcycle leathers to land on a giant particle-beam platform to have a swordfight?

Meh.

Yes, it has vast plot holes and deus ex machina devices. Yes, I spotted all the ones mentioned here. But an awful, awful lot of blockbuster films have gaping plot holes. Did anyone else worry how on earth the Joker in TDK managed to plant enough explosives over a busy hospital to demolish it without being seen? The question is whether the energy, pace and suspension of disbelief carries you through. And in this case, it did.

No, it didn't have the emotional intelligence or "classic" sci-fi wisdom of the original series or TNG. I did miss that. But sometimes sheer roller-coaster entertainment is enough to pull a film through. In this case, it was.

Yes, time travel is a terribly overused plot device, especially in Star Trek. Yes, it did make me briefly uncomfortable when I realised it was going to play a big part here. But when it became clear how it was being used as a lever to ensure the reboot film could have it's own fresh start while maintaining a modicum of continuity with its forebears, as well as a shovel to pile on the nostalgia for middle-aged viewers, I forgave it.

MattDP wrote: Meh.
Yes, it has vast plot holes and deus ex machina devices. Yes, I spotted all the ones mentioned here. But an awful, awful lot of blockbuster films have gaping plot holes. Did anyone else worry how on earth the Joker in TDK managed to plant enough explosives over a busy hospital to demolish it without being seen? The question is whether the energy, pace and suspension of disbelief carries you through. And in this case, it did.

TDK was even worse than Star Trek. Illogical, offensive, mirthless entertainment. The argument that "Star Trek isn't much worse than lots of other nonsensical movies" is pretty weak. Add some racist stereotypes in the form of CGI muppets and you've got The Phantom Menace.

Juniper wrote: TDK was even worse than Star Trek. Illogical, offensive, mirthless entertainment.

Aha, I see. You and I are clearly not going to agree on any film commentary, ever. Thanks for making that clear so as to avoid wasting further argument

But I do have to say ...

Juniper wrote: The argument that "Star Trek isn't much worse than lots of other nonsensical movies" is pretty weak.

That would indeed be a poor argument, but luckily it's not the one I was making. The one I was making says that nonsense in films is okay so long as they have something - plot, depth, acting, characters, pace, CGI, whatever - that distracts you from the nonsense. Indeed I suspect if you sat down and analysed the likelihood of a lot of film plots, even straight-laced arthouse film plots, many would come across as staggeringly unlikely. But people generally enjoy stories about unlikely things, and not the humdrum of their everyday lives.

MattDP wrote: nonsense in films is okay so long as they have something - plot, depth, acting, characters, pace, CGI, whatever - that distracts you from the nonsense. Indeed I suspect if you sat down and analysed the likelihood of a lot of film plots, even straight-laced arthouse film plots, many would come across as staggeringly unlikely. But people generally enjoy stories about unlikely things, and not the humdrum of their everyday lives.

Yep. That's where we disagree. I enjoy lots of shitty entertainment, too, but I would never argue that a movie is non-shitty just because I enjoyed it. Shitty is shitty. Further, sometimes the shittiness is so irredeemably awful, I'm offended by it, and it ruins the entertainment for me. TDK and Star Trek are both so thoroughly stupid that they make me angry, and I can't like them no matter how much I want to.

And trust me, if something has Batman in it, I am *very* strongly predisposed toward liking it, but TDK was so awful that it would have been improved by the presence of Jar Jar and that flying blue merchant guy, IMO. Vastly so.

trekmovie.com/category/startrek12/

There's another one...and I'll be first in line to thank God that I can find joy in stupid things. It comes down to a simple philosophy: some people find farts funny, others find them appalling. If you're a whoopie cushion kind of guy, you're probably going to like Star Trek.

Delobius wrote: The only two things I remember from the movie are:

Why are there so many halogen spotlights on the bridge of the Enterprise, and why are they all aimed directly at the camera?

and

Why are Kirk and friends jumping out of a ship and plummeting through the atmosphere wearing nothing but motorcycle leathers to land on a giant particle-beam platform to have a swordfight?

The lens flares did get a bit annoying with overuse. I can't remember the exact reason given for that reckless assault on the giant particle beam platform, but I do remember that they didn't have transporter tech at that point, and landing a shuttle there would have been even more dangerous.

Yeah, there were weak points in the logic of the movie, like that gigantic canyon in the middle of Iowa. But I'm glad that I am still able to suspend some disbelief for an otherwise enjoyable and fast-paced movie, instead of squirming in my seat with anger like Juniper apparently did.

When I first saw Star Trek, I was a little underwhelmed. I loved the new cast almost without reservation, and I think that the reset was a pretty good move. It lets new people in without too much baggage, a little like the Great Time War in Doctor Who.

My main beef with the movie at the time was that it propelled itself forward with some of the silliest plot devices I've ever seen. Their understanding of black holes pushed a little too hard against me suspension of disbelief, and I kept wondering why this "red matter" didn't just cause black holes to appear everywhere. And remember that nothing can escape from a black hole, unless the plot requires that they do so.

Having said all that, I watched it again a couple of months ago, and with tempered expectations I actually enjoyed it a lot. It's dumb, but it's fun dumb. The movie feels young, which is a first for Star Trek. That's a really good move, and it was necessary to the survival of the film franchise, which before this hadn't been much good since First Contact. And silly plot aside, I was able to accept the ridiculous aspects and enjoy the movie. It reminded me a lot more of the original show, although with a far smaller social conscience. I look forward to where they take the series next.

Of course, I don't want to see Star Trek become a franchise of extended fun dumb. I'd like it if the next movie is more character-based, while still managing to be fun and vibrant. I have some concerns that JJ Abrams (whose TV shows I tend to enjoy) may not be the man for that job, but I look forward to finding out.

And for the record, I recently rewatched The Dark Knight, and if possible liked it even more than I did before. Even if the characters use most of the dialogue to discuss the themes of the movie.

Aw, Junnie, man...we also will probably never agree on movies, ever. I loved both Star Trek and TDK, have them on DVD, and will still watch them anytime they're on. In TDK's case, even peppered with commercials.

Ken B. wrote: Aw, Junnie, man...we also will probably never agree on movies, ever. I loved both Star Trek and TDK, have them on DVD, and will still watch them anytime they're on. In TDK's case, even peppered with commercials.

Haha, agreed for sure.

I grew up watching the old Star Trek television series and I loved the JJ Abrams movie despite all its ridiculous plot holes. Star Trek's always been full of them anyway. I think it was a fresh take on an increasingly old (and in danger of becoming tired) theme.

And while I'm on the subject I'm still pissed that Firefly got cancelled . Easily one of my favourite sci-fi TV series since Star Trek and full or original ideas in a unique setting.