|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on May 23, 2009 18:34:58 GMT -8
1) Saying this movie has worse writing than your average summer action film (Or any of the previous ST films) is being disingenous, I think, especially as I can put it back-to-back with the other films out thus far and can find examples of equal or greater errors. Dude. It's a badley written film. Just admit it. Stop coming up with all sorts of off the wall justifications and simply admit it. It desn't matter if I liked Wolverine and you didn't or it compeates badly with previous films. This film, Star Trek, is a badly written, poorly execued film that succeeds simply because it's got some witty dialogue. It's doesn't even have very good special effects. And worse, and why the reason it bugs me so much, is because it was written and directed by a non fan, who never really appreciated the material he based off of, but he's going to reimagine it anyway to make it more accessable to the masses, and who cares if he pisses all over the previous fanbase that existed for 40 years... the rest of us can enjoy it now.... And yes, it bothers me when people "adapt" or "reimagine" previous material because a.) it very rarely works, (BSG, Cat People being some of the few exceptions) and b.) it shows just how unimaginative the people trying to entertain us are becoming. For Christ's Sake they're remaking fucking Footloose! and C.) I'm tired of people ripping off other's people's vision and calling it a reimagining. If you're going to make a movie to meet some need then for fuck's sake, instead of "reimagining" Star Trek, make something new! And yes, you do have blinders on by the by. Just because you liked it, and hated Wolverine, doesn't mean I have to also. Plus, no offense, but I have seen a lot of summer blockbuster films, yes even star treks, that even if the writing isn't all that great, the film is just fun. I enjoyed Wolverine. It was fun. I enjoyed Pirates of the Carribbean as well. They were just fun. This movie is not fun. Batman Begins was fun. Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country, First Contact. All of these movies were fun. Hell I even liked Insurrection until the last 45 minutes of the film. Star Trek is not fun.It's annoying and worse, it's insulting. OK, I'll admit it Star Trek has the exact same level of writing as every other summer action film. Exactly the same as every other one, no more and no less. And as for the fan/non-fan...well, sorry, but productions made by so-called fans have exactly the same likelyhood of success as non-fans (Daredevil and Superman Returns, anyone?), so I don't buy that a fan would have done any better or worse. As for the fanbase? Well, I'm one too, as are some of the other people here, and I don't think I feel pissed on. However, if you do, well, do something about it. Get a letter writing campaign started. Hey, it's what the fanbase traditionally has done. Also, what does the fanbase want? I'm sorry, but any post-TNG trek was DOA. Berman and company did an excellent job of burning down the franchise in the future and the past, and yeah, driving people like me AWAY from it; now those are people who pissed on the fanbase. The way I see it, Trek was either going to die off or reimagine. Unless you can think of something else that would have worked, which I'm waiting on. As to your opposition re: reimaginings: A) James Bond, Batman, BSG, among others that have been "re-imagined" - when it works, it works big time. B) and C) Unimaginative? Well, that's as much the fault of the viewers as the producers. That's a "Chicken and the Egg" arguement. You just went to the 4th Wolverine movie (you already confessed that In your own opinion the X-films were just Wolverine vehicles) as well as Batman remakes and all these other things. So yeah, if Hollywood gets the idea that sticking to the formula works, and being new doesn't, it's because "Reimaginings" bring in money and stick in theaters, and "New" doesn't. I'm in a sci-fi *loathing* community, but Star Trek has lasted over three weeks here, and "Push" lasted a week and a half. People do vote with their dollars. And no, I don't have blinders on because I'm willing to admit that all the summer movies have effectively the same level of quality, good and bad. But to settle this, I think we'll simply have to agree to disagree on what each of us considers "fun". The Pirates films? Made my brain bleed, each and every one. Batman Begins? You have to get past some major coincidences and dumb luck (no one died on the freeway chase? Really? wow) Voyage Home? Silly but fun (and should have been the last film with the original cast). Wrath of Khan? good. "First Contact"? Have to get past some heavy handed metaphors and bad in-jokes, but alright. "Star Trek Insurrection" could have been done in the space of a single TNG episode, and it would have been better for it. X1,X3, and Wolverine? Barely tolerable, fun but incredibly stupid, and just plain soul-destroying stupid, in that order. This Star Trek? Fun. In my opinion. And let's agree to leave it at that. |
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on May 23, 2009 19:39:00 GMT -8
However, just in case it didn't get mentioned by somebody else, I would like to point out that the ship pre-Academy Kirk watches being built in Iowa (or Ohio, or whevertheheck he's from) isn't necessarily the Enterprise. It's never shown which ship it is. It could be the USS Fartenfetchum for all we know. Kirk rides up to the build site and as he boards the shuttle to starfleet, it takes off and painted clearly on the side of the warp nacelle is NCC-1701. |
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on May 23, 2009 19:49:26 GMT -8
We can agree to disagree if you want that's fine. But here's what I don't get.
Why are you continually comparing this particular movie to the other summer movies out right now? Why institute that standard?
Because I'm not.
I'm not talking about Wolverine, not about T:S, nor about Angels and Demons. I'm not comparing it against other summer movies at all. Because I haven't even seen Land of the Lost or GI Joe yet and I can already tell you I'll dislike Land of the Lost more than Star Trek. Quite frankly Will Ferrell should be shot before being allowed to ever make another movie again.
I am simply talking about Trek XI. So I do not understand why you keep comparing it to other summer films. Again, it's irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on May 23, 2009 19:52:22 GMT -8
I throw it in there because you stated you liked Wolverine and despised Star Trek, and from my perspective, the "flaws" they have are nearly identical, if not exactly so (well, I think Wolverine's are worse, but I might even be willing to say that's a personal judgement).
That's what *I* don't get.
|
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on May 23, 2009 21:59:55 GMT -8
I throw it in there because you stated you liked Wolverine and despised Star Trek, and from my perspective, the "flaws" they have are nearly identical, if not exactly so (well, I think Wolverine's are worse, but I might even be willing to say that's a personal judgement). That's what *I* don't get. I'll echo this, Jard - you're letting Wolverine off the hook for pretty much the exact same reasons that you say you can't stand Star Trek. There is absolutely no way that it's not a double-standard on your part, and I say that as an old-school fan who's actually started watching the original series episodes again, and if you're not willing to forgive the movie's flaws, then you probably shouldn't watch Classic Trek ever again.  |
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on May 25, 2009 0:22:43 GMT -8
I liked Wolverine. But it's popcorn.
If you read back you'll find I also said I didn't percieve it as being a masterpeice by any standard.
And it's certainly not being portrayed as the second coming of sci-fi jesus.
I don't expect from X-Men: Wolverine Origins what I expect from Star Trek. I have higher standards for a Star Trek movie than I would from an X-Men movie. Similarly, by the by, I have higher expectations from Terminator Salvation (Haven't seen it yet) than I would from either Star Trek or X-Men. And, sorry Kirk, but guess what, Classic Trek pretty much pushed some boundries for the portrayal of science fiction, AT THAT TIME, than what else was being seen on TV. And still stands the test of time today. Yes, it does. Don't beleive me, than go back and watch a few old OG episodes and then tell me if anything else being produced for mass media at the time came even close. I don't care about flaws such as trying to come up with a name for Star Fleet in the first sixteen episodes of the original series because I was more interested in stories like Balance of Terror, (Dealing with Prejudice), Armageddon Factor (Dealing with War and the dehumanization of a entire people to perserve the culture,) and, oh yeah, City on the Edge of Forever, which you know, as written by Harlan Ellison didn't have any basis for thought provoking science fiction at all...
You want to talk flaws? Go back and watch the entire first season of TNG....I can't.
X-Men Wolverine is popcorn. And it stays somewhat faithful to an origin story I never agreed should be told in the first place, so why should I care? It features a good actor playing a part he's nevertheless completely wrong for, in a manner I don't agree with. For the record, Constantine did the same thing.
I'm not willing to forgive the movie's flaws because, again: It's currently being portrayed not only by media, but by people such as you and Mike as this utterly fantastic second coming of sci-fi Jesus. Guess what? It's not.
It's a bad script with some witty dialogue thrown in for cheap laughs. It's not even remotely exciting. It's badly edited. It's badly designed. And for a space science fiction movie, it's pretty much mediocre special effects and attempt to turn it into Star Wars, but without George Lucas's ability to make utterly astounding imagry on the screen. (Say what you will about the man's writing and plots, his movies are gorgeous.) It does have a few decent performances from a cast that was picked not because of their ability so much as their appearance. (Well, okay, maybe Simon Pegg. But hell, he's only in the last half hour of the movie.) And oh... hey... Look! Uhura's boobs! I will admit that in retrospect I liked it more than either Final Frontier or Nemesis, but... even so...it's a bad movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by jbhelfrich on May 26, 2009 9:37:51 GMT -8
I liked the core of the reboot. There were a lot of decisions and story points that I question.
The whole "get Jim on the ship" bit was silly. Star Trek does not require sight gags. Instead of interrupting Kirk's hearing, have the committee return in his favor. You leave the key point of the Spock-Kirk relationship at that point (Spock thinks Kirk is a hothead and rule breaker) and skip the humor. Kirk can be a senior cadet, making Pike choosing him as the new First Officer less glaring. It's not like the story hinged on the tension of "will he get kicked out of the academy for cheating after saving the planet?"
Also, Kirk running from giant monsters was out of place. If Kirk engineered a rock slide to crush the giant monster, the scene is redeemed, but as it is, it's fluff.
If there is a Starfleet outpost 14 kilometers away, why is SpockPrime sitting in a cave? Was he left there 15 minutes ago or three days ago? Either way, start walking, don't make a fire. Call up Vulcan, give the super secret password, tell them to get off the planet now please. *sigh*
Star Trek has played fast and loose with physics before. Star Trek has never boldly thumbed its nose at physics as it did in this movie. Science fiction must remain internally consistent.
Why did it take 5 minutes to get from Earth to Vulcan, and multiple hours to get back? Why does a faster than light ship get stopped by a black hole sucking in at light speed? If the engines can't produce enough power to get out of the black hole, how does an uncontained explosion make it possible? Inside the general laws of Star Trek physics, you could make a plausible explanation for a couple of these. Try.
SpockPrime's exposition was so damn wooden, even where it wasn't contradictory, that it was almost unwatchable. I was so glad Nimoy actually turned on the acting skills for the final scene with Spock.
The villain disappearing into a singularity caused by red matter which has previously been used for time travel? I saw what you did there, JJ.
There were a lot of good points--the nod to the expanded universe stories and previous continuity (going out of their way to say that all the old stories still happened and and potentially are still happening was probably the smartest thing they could have done; it will be interesting to see how the established print media lines adapt to the changes, or if they just ignore them) and subtle in jokes were great. The cast managing for the most part to be new but still recognizable versions of the old characters was also good. (Karl Urban was being DeForest Kelly doing Leonard McCoy, rather than just being McCoy, so it came off like an imitation. But that was my only complaint on that front.)
For the most part, my complaints have the feel of "notes from the studio"--the sight gag and the monster chase most resemble "required" scenes, with a lot of other changes flowing from them--so I hope that the original script and/or a director's cut finds it's way out at some point. And I think the reboot will go places. But coming out of the movie, I couldn't shake the feeling that it could have been a great movie, instead of a good reboot.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulpogue on May 26, 2009 17:58:45 GMT -8
The villain disappearing into a singularity caused by red matter which has previously been used for time travel? I saw what you did there, JJ. You mean the possibility that this was an "out" allowing for Nero to return? Maybe, but I got the impression that Kirk and Spock understood this too -- hence bombing the holy living hell out of his ship even as it's vanishing into the black hole. Nuke the site from orbit -- only way to be sure. There really didn't seem to be enough of the Narada left intact to ever come back. |
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on May 26, 2009 20:52:52 GMT -8
I HAVE TO GO NOW MY PLANET NEEDS ME  NERO DIED ON THE WAY BACK TO HIS HOME PLANET |
|
|
|
Post by jasonlatta on May 27, 2009 8:41:16 GMT -8
A scientist dissects the whole Red Matter thing from the new movie. Not only funny in how bad the science of Trek is, but pretty dang interesting in how a Doomsday Weapon might actually work: scifiwire.com/2009/05/columnist-wil-mccarthy-st.phpAnd, Jard, Yes, the ship seen on earth is apparently the Enterprise after all. My bad. |
|
|
|
Post by jbhelfrich on May 28, 2009 8:10:21 GMT -8
Nuke the site from orbit -- only way to be sure. There really didn't seem to be enough of the Narada left intact to ever come back. Comic book rules apply to summer blockbusters in general and Trek in particular. No body = Not dead. Even having a body isn't a complete block, as Trek 3 proves. All it takes in this case is one escape pod. Yes, it was part of clearing the stage--can't leave a large ball of red matter and a late Next-Generation ship laying around in "NuClassic" Trek--but if they really wanted to bring him back, or have a mechanism for an "undo" button, that could do it. |
|
|
|
Post by paulpogue on May 28, 2009 9:56:19 GMT -8
Speaking as the world's most devoted acolyte of the Comic Book Prime Directive, I can't argue with you here. Although to be fair, in spacefaring movies, there's almost NEVER a body due to disintegration-in-space, which would mean that Khan could theoretically still be out there. (Then again, given that Trek is lousy with resurrections all over the place, I suppose I should bite my tongue! I was about to use Emperor Palpatine as an example, and then I thought about it for a moment ...) That said, I'm pretty sure, as you say, he was INTENDED to be killed to clear the decks, but yeah, there's a big undo involved in the "he got away in an escape pod" elements. Although any plan to bring him back would, I think, vastly overestimate Nero's popularity as a villain . |
|
|
|
Post by jasonlatta on May 28, 2009 12:09:48 GMT -8
Although to be fair, in spacefaring movies, there's almost NEVER a body due to disintegration-in-space, which would mean that Khan could theoretically still be out there. Well, Khan IS still out there, since in this new timeline, the Botany Bay hasn't been discovered by the Enterprise yet. It follows that Nero will return...when he's actually born in another 70 years or thereabouts. Which also means Nomad, The Borg, The Tribbles, Q, etc. are also all out there. I can't imagine the next movie will be anything other than Klingons, though. You'll note in the film they were never even mentioned. BTW, tying all this back to comics, here's Paul Pope's short Trek piece: www.wired.com/special_multimedia/2009/whenWorldsCollide |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on May 28, 2009 21:56:14 GMT -8
I've heard something about there being a short snippet about the Klingons in the movie but that it got cut. I have no idea if that's reliable or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by jessebaker on May 29, 2009 10:18:42 GMT -8
If they do use the Klingons in Nu-ST II, I think that they should use them in a role similar to how they were used in STNG/DS9: reluctant allies of the Federation, with all sorts of politics going on behind the scenes within the Empire over who will run the Empire when the current Chancellor dies.
Indeed, they could get some decent milage out of a Klingon Civil War storyline, especially if they go the route of coming up with an alternative solution to the different looking Klingon issue of the original series. The human-looking Klingons are a minority seperatist group not at all thrilled with the Klingons allying with the Federation while the movie/STNG-onward Klingons are the ones wanting an alliance with the Federation for the purpose of preserving their empire by cutting a deal with the Federation to be their eallies in exchange for free reign in their territories.
|
|
