Star Trek

innerSpaceman · 05-09-2009, 09:58 AM

On the other hand, since there are two threads, let's have this one allow spoilorz talk, and the "Star Trek Swanking" poll thread be for people who haven't seen the movie, since it's more about going to see the movie.

* * * * *

So, responding to JW about what I liked:

Primarily, for what they were trying to do - - namely, come up with a scenario that brings all the characters together from zip to how we knew them at the start of the original series in the space of a week or so, I think they succeeded beyond reasonable expectations for such a hokey endeavor.

Yes, the casting was mixed, but the only character I truly didn't like was Uhura ... and Sulu was kinda meh. I think the others were great, most especially Spock and McCoy.

I also liked the growing Kirkitude of Kirk and how Pine played him like Shatner only in the final moments when he became Captain of the Enterprise.

Most successful, imo, was the interplay between the characters and how that was set up. The standout of this being Kirk and Bones. And, hahahaha, that scene were Bones keeps jabbing him in the neck with one shot after another to cure the onslaught of bizarre side effects is just brilliant.

The revenge Nero time-traveling plot was boring, but as a device for having a series of Star Trekisms and especially Kirkisms along its length, I thought the film did just fine. But yeah, giant inconquerable Earth-endangering Verjurish ships are ho-hum boring, and I found the use of Leonard Nimoy to be gratuitous and too much.

But the film was funnny, breezy, endearing, action-packed, nice-looking and, to me, very very Star Treky.

Oh, and I want to have Chris Pine's babies.

Now, I will address some of your issues, most of which - quite franky - I see as nitpicking:

The original Scotty was a professional; this movie turned him into a buffoon.

Scotty evolved to a comic relief character in the original series, a process accelerated in the movies. I think this Scotty was completely in line with that, and was set up as an eccentric genius that others will dismiss, but Kirk will trust implicitely.

Overall, I was bothered by the “Muppet Babies” version of the Enterprise crew that they presented us. They were all the same age and all at the academy at the same time. How convenient! It ignored that Spock, Scotty, and McCoy were older and more experienced, and that Sulu and Uhura were younger… And what in the name of the Seven Hells was Chekhov doing there?

Well, it seems pretty obvious that Muppet Babies Star Trek was the entire point. Yeah, it was a tad un-canonly convenient that they are all part of the same cadet class, but a dramatic license I accept for the story of getting them all to their ToS status within a week of meeting. Besides, and I think this was the only clever achievement of the thin plot - - it's an alternate timeline from the first minute of the movie, so there's no canon to adhere to. Everything's the same, but free to be completely different. Brilliant, imo.

BTW, it's "canon" that Chekov was aboard the Enterprise in first season before he was promoted to a Bridge Officer. To have him on the Bridge from the get-go in an alternate timeline is, imo, completely acceptable.

My second big complaint was the sets. $150 million and they couldn’t afford to build some sets??? The 20th century power plant interiors reeked of Sci Fi Channel Movie of the Week. Totally unbelievable, cheesy, and cheap. Every time they showed “Engineering” I was yanked out of what little suspension of disbelief I could muster.

Yeah, ok, but so? I thought they were going for a kind of early-Federation look, but I don't watch Sci-Fi Channel and I didn't watch "Enterrpise" to see how they did that same thing. Of course, the Bridge was ultra high tech, so this was inconsistent. But really, set design? Nitpick.

(The Bridge was awesome, btw.)

The destruction of Vulcan was one of the biggest WTF moments in my moviegoing career. If I hadn’t been with friends, I think I would have walked out on the movie at that point. And I shall never forgive them for killing off Spock’s mother.

First, I'll grant that I'm tired of the movies having to have some "big" destruction thing, either the Earth in mortal danger or the Enterprise being destroyed over and over again. But I liked this plot-point very much for setting up the tortured Spock of the original series. We are so used to Spock being so together and wise and ultra cool, but in the early series he was a tortured soul of stranger in a strange land. I think this plot point and its affect on Spock brings this element back to the character, and I like it.

So what if they destroyed Vulcan? It certainly was unexpected! And the alternate timeline allows for anything. Oh, and the actress playing Amanda was lame, so I'm glad they killed her off. Jane Wyatt she was not.

(Young Sarek, on the other hand, came off reasonably well, I thought)

There were many other things that had me squirming in my seat; the red goo that was so dangerous and powerful that a drop of it can destroy a planet, yet it’s stored an handled so casually

Really? Do we want our madman planet-destroying weaponry depicted with precise realism now in Star Trek? Since when?

a starship being built out in the middle of a cornfield – at a place that just happens to be where Star Fleet recruits from all over Earth report to (what, no direct flights to San Francisco from anywhere else?).

Seems to me a lot of military bases are in the middle of U.S. nowhere. Sure this was a stretch, if you're going to think about things in terms of real-world probable logistics. When has Star Trek ever gone there either?

They made Kirk into the same arrogant asshole we seen in nearly every action film out there. He was indistinguishable from dozens of others of that type. At no time did I believe him as Kirk.

To me, this is the crux of it. Either you bought Kirk or you didn't, and your enjoyment of the movie is very affected by this ... because it's basically the story of Becoming Kirk.

I thought Chris Pine was pretty cookie-cutter at times, I admit. But overall, I thought he had a nice through-line of becoming more and more Kirk ... certainly more and more as he interacted with the other characters.

So I was sold on Kirk, and I guess that makes all the difference.

As I've said, imo, the movie was funny, endearing, well-paced, easy on the eyes, and relentlessly Star Trekian. Loved It.

JWBear · 05-09-2009, 11:00 AM

To respond to some of your points:

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Scotty evolved to a comic relief character in the original series, a process accelerated in the movies. I think this Scotty was completely in line with that, and was set up as an eccentric genius that others will dismiss, but Kirk will trust implicitely.

That doesn't make it right. imo. Why follow the trend from the later movies which i disliked, btw) if your goal is to "reboot" the entire mythos?

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Well, it seems pretty obvious that Muppet Babies Star Trek was the entire point. Yeah, it was a tad un-canonly convenient that they are all part of the same cadet class, but a dramatic license I accept for the story of getting them all to their ToS status within a week of meeting. Besides, and I think this was the only clever achievement of the thin plot - - it's an alternate timeline from the first minute of the movie, so there's no canon to adhere to. Everything's the same, but free to be completely different. Brilliant, imo.

BTW, it's "canon" that Chekov was aboard the Enterprise in first season before he was promoted to a Bridge Officer. To have him on the Bridge from the get-go in an alternate timeline is, imo, completely acceptable.

This movie takes place 7 years before the events in the first season of TOS. I still don't buy Chekov being on the Enterprise in any capacity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Yeah, ok, but so? I thought they were going for a kind of early-Federation look, but I don't watch Sci-Fi Channel and I didn't watch "Enterrpise" to see how they did that same thing. Of course, the Bridge was ultra high tech, so this was inconsistent. But really, set design? Nitpick.

(The Bridge was awesome, btw.)

Enterprise had sets that looked far better than the crap we saw in this movie. There is no excuse for putting a freaking chemical factory on board the USS Enterprise. It was lazy and cheap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

First, I'll grant that I'm tired of the movies having to have some "big" destruction thing, either the Earth in mortal danger or the Enterprise being destroyed over and over again. But I liked this plot-point very much for setting up the tortured Spock of the original series. We are so used to Spock being so together and wise and ultra cool, but in the early series he was a tortured soul of stranger in a strange land. I think this plot point and its affect on Spock brings this element back to the character, and I like it.

So what if they destroyed Vulcan? It certainly was unexpected! And the alternate timeline allows for anything. Oh, and the actress playing Amanda was lame, so I'm glad they killed her off. Jane Wyatt she was not.

(Young Sarek, on the other hand, came off reasonably well, I thought)

If he already was a "tortured soul" in TOS, why did they need to do something that wasn't part of original canon to make him so? It doesn't make any sense. the destruction of Vulcan was just a gratuitous excuse for more "gee-whiz" special effects.

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Seems to me a lot of military bases are in the middle of U.S. nowhere. Sure this was a stretch, if you're going to think about things in terms of real-world probable logistics. When has Star Trek ever gone there either?

Star Fleet Academy is in San Francisco. Why were recruits from all over the globe going to Iowa first? As I asked, do they not have direct flights to SF in the future? Canon has established that the main Starfleet shipyards were in orbit around Mars. Why would you build a huge masive starship on a planet's surface? Illogical. Small things, yes, but all the small inconsistencies add up to one big annoyance.

innerSpaceman · 05-10-2009, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

This movie takes place 7 years before the events in the first season of TOS.

Sorry, but I missed this earlier.

Um, did I miss this? I've seen the movie twice now and I don't recall them mentioning that it was seven years ealier? Was there some StarDate announced that's seven years earlier than the first StarDate ever mentioned in the first season of the show?

That would be a stretch, but please don't tell me it's in the press materials or the novelization or some such completely non-canonical source. The MOVIE made it seem as if the time of the tv series is about 3 months later, though of course they didn't specify if it was that or 7 years or any such thing.

Unless I missed it.

Oh, and Alex ... touche.

JWBear · 05-10-2009, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Sorry, but I missed this earlier.

Um, did I miss this? I've seen the movie twice now and I don't recall them mentioning that it was seven years ealier? Was there some StarDate announced that's seven years earlier than the first StarDate ever mentioned in the first season of the show?

That would be a stretch, but please don't tell me it's in the press materials or the novelization or some such completely non-canonical source. The MOVIE made it seem as if the time of the tv series is about 3 months later, though of course they didn't specify if it was that or 7 years or any such thing.

Unless I missed it.

Oh, and Alex ... touche.

Kirk was 35 when the first season began (accepted canon). He goes from 0 to 28 in this movie.

I also found the idea that Starfleet would promote a cadet fresh out of the Academy to Captain of one of their capital ships to be laughable.

Alex · 05-10-2009, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

I also found the idea that Starfleet would promote a cadet fresh out of the Academy to Captain of one of their capital ships to be laughable.

Actually I think there's precedent. Isn't it true that after the events depicted in Red Dawn, Lea Thompson was appointed Secretary of Defense by a grateful nation-fragment?

Ghoulish Delight · 05-09-2009, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

So what if they destroyed Vulcan? It certainly was unexpected! And the alternate timeline allows for anything. Oh, and the actress playing Amanda was lame, so I'm glad they killed her off.

Yeah, total hack.

05-09-2009, 09:58 AM	#1
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	On the other hand, since there are two threads, let's have this one allow spoilorz talk, and the "Star Trek Swanking" poll thread be for people who haven't seen the movie, since it's more about going to see the movie. * * * * * So, responding to JW about what I liked: Primarily, for what they were trying to do - - namely, come up with a scenario that brings all the characters together from zip to how we knew them at the start of the original series in the space of a week or so, I think they succeeded beyond reasonable expectations for such a hokey endeavor. Yes, the casting was mixed, but the only character I truly didn't like was Uhura ... and Sulu was kinda meh. I think the others were great, most especially Spock and McCoy. I also liked the growing Kirkitude of Kirk and how Pine played him like Shatner only in the final moments when he became Captain of the Enterprise. Most successful, imo, was the interplay between the characters and how that was set up. The standout of this being Kirk and Bones. And, hahahaha, that scene were Bones keeps jabbing him in the neck with one shot after another to cure the onslaught of bizarre side effects is just brilliant. The revenge Nero time-traveling plot was boring, but as a device for having a series of Star Trekisms and especially Kirkisms along its length, I thought the film did just fine. But yeah, giant inconquerable Earth-endangering Verjurish ships are ho-hum boring, and I found the use of Leonard Nimoy to be gratuitous and too much. But the film was funnny, breezy, endearing, action-packed, nice-looking and, to me, very very Star Treky. Oh, and I want to have Chris Pine's babies. Now, I will address some of your issues, most of which - quite franky - I see as nitpicking: The original Scotty was a professional; this movie turned him into a buffoon. Scotty evolved to a comic relief character in the original series, a process accelerated in the movies. I think this Scotty was completely in line with that, and was set up as an eccentric genius that others will dismiss, but Kirk will trust implicitely. Overall, I was bothered by the “Muppet Babies” version of the Enterprise crew that they presented us. They were all the same age and all at the academy at the same time. How convenient! It ignored that Spock, Scotty, and McCoy were older and more experienced, and that Sulu and Uhura were younger… And what in the name of the Seven Hells was Chekhov doing there? Well, it seems pretty obvious that Muppet Babies Star Trek was the entire point. Yeah, it was a tad un-canonly convenient that they are all part of the same cadet class, but a dramatic license I accept for the story of getting them all to their ToS status within a week of meeting. Besides, and I think this was the only clever achievement of the thin plot - - it's an alternate timeline from the first minute of the movie, so there's no canon to adhere to. Everything's the same, but free to be completely different. Brilliant, imo. BTW, it's "canon" that Chekov was aboard the Enterprise in first season before he was promoted to a Bridge Officer. To have him on the Bridge from the get-go in an alternate timeline is, imo, completely acceptable. My second big complaint was the sets. $150 million and they couldn’t afford to build some sets??? The 20th century power plant interiors reeked of Sci Fi Channel Movie of the Week. Totally unbelievable, cheesy, and cheap. Every time they showed “Engineering” I was yanked out of what little suspension of disbelief I could muster. Yeah, ok, but so? I thought they were going for a kind of early-Federation look, but I don't watch Sci-Fi Channel and I didn't watch "Enterrpise" to see how they did that same thing. Of course, the Bridge was ultra high tech, so this was inconsistent. But really, set design? Nitpick. (The Bridge was awesome, btw.) The destruction of Vulcan was one of the biggest WTF moments in my moviegoing career. If I hadn’t been with friends, I think I would have walked out on the movie at that point. And I shall never forgive them for killing off Spock’s mother. First, I'll grant that I'm tired of the movies having to have some "big" destruction thing, either the Earth in mortal danger or the Enterprise being destroyed over and over again. But I liked this plot-point very much for setting up the tortured Spock of the original series. We are so used to Spock being so together and wise and ultra cool, but in the early series he was a tortured soul of stranger in a strange land. I think this plot point and its affect on Spock brings this element back to the character, and I like it. So what if they destroyed Vulcan? It certainly was unexpected! And the alternate timeline allows for anything. Oh, and the actress playing Amanda was lame, so I'm glad they killed her off. Jane Wyatt she was not. (Young Sarek, on the other hand, came off reasonably well, I thought) There were many other things that had me squirming in my seat; the red goo that was so dangerous and powerful that a drop of it can destroy a planet, yet it’s stored an handled so casually Really? Do we want our madman planet-destroying weaponry depicted with precise realism now in Star Trek? Since when? a starship being built out in the middle of a cornfield – at a place that just happens to be where Star Fleet recruits from all over Earth report to (what, no direct flights to San Francisco from anywhere else?). Seems to me a lot of military bases are in the middle of U.S. nowhere. Sure this was a stretch, if you're going to think about things in terms of real-world probable logistics. When has Star Trek ever gone there either? They made Kirk into the same arrogant asshole we seen in nearly every action film out there. He was indistinguishable from dozens of others of that type. At no time did I believe him as Kirk. To me, this is the crux of it. Either you bought Kirk or you didn't, and your enjoyment of the movie is very affected by this ... because it's basically the story of Becoming Kirk. I thought Chris Pine was pretty cookie-cutter at times, I admit. But overall, I thought he had a nice through-line of becoming more and more Kirk ... certainly more and more as he interacted with the other characters. So I was sold on Kirk, and I guess that makes all the difference. As I've said, imo, the movie was funny, endearing, well-paced, easy on the eyes, and relentlessly Star Trekian. Loved It. Last edited by innerSpaceman : 05-09-2009 at 10:06 AM.
	Submit to Quotes