Abrams is Destroying Star Trek like Lucas has Destroyed Star Wars — Page 27

I don't totally agree with Confused Matthew's review but i found it funny on youtube.  I'm sure Hunter6 will love that confused matthew gave it a bad review.

Johnny Ringo said:

Well from now on any inconsistency or error can be explained away with "Oh that's cuz Nero messed with the timeline..." :)

I just saw Star Trek and this is exactly what I was thinking with the changes to Kirk's character that everyone was talking about before.  I have a whole host of other things that I didn't like about the movie, but I'll have to post them later.  It was a fun movie, but I didn't like all the in your face moments that seemed like they were trying to remind the audience of the original series.

I just got back from seeing it... I liked it a lot. I wish they'd give the Star Wars franchise a treatment like this, because it's getting to the point where 'Wars needs a similar kick in the arse.

There's no way I can agree with ConfusedMatthew on this one. It was a great film. It brought Star Trek into a modern era while being very respectful of the classic material, and all the while remained its own entity.

I look forward to the next two films.

Things I didn't like:

1. The lens flare.  My god man, what was he thinking?  I know everyone has mentioned this, but damn, sometimes it was unbelievable how in the way it was.

2. McCoy with his "Damnit Jim!" lines.  I think one time would've been sufficient, but I'm pretty sure I counted at least three occurrences of that line.  I started to feel like it was being shoved in our face.  "Look, they're the same characters as before...see".  Scotty's one line near the end was the only one that really seemed to fit.

3. Chekov's accent interfering with the voice recognition.  It just so happen to be on the same letter as vessel (as in nuclear vessel) too.  I always thought that thing was coded to your voice, so this one seemed doubly lame to me.

4. Kirk making out with the green alien chick.  Yeah, I know he did that a lot in TOS, but again, it seemed forced.  It seemed like just another "Hey, remember, Kirk makes out with green aliens".  I also always thought he only did that because they were in deep space and there wasn't anything else around.

5. Sulu forgets to take off the "parking brake".  I know most of this is suppose to show that they're inexperienced, but again, it was a groaning moment for me, especially after Pike asked if he had done it.

6. Kirk gets a captains commission and the Enterprise at the end.  I get that he was getting an officers commission for his actions, but to go straight to captain and get the flagship starship?  Again it just seemed a little overdone to me.  Maybe someone else with a military background can sound off on the accuracy of that.  It obviously had to happen, just seemed like a "wow" over the top moment.

Other than those things, I liked it a lot.  It was probably better than all the prequels combined too.

You should know by now that Starfleet subscribes to the Main Character Promotion Track school of militarism.  It's the same way that Star Wars operates.  Remember?  When Han and Lando become generals for... reasons?

Gaffer Tape said:

You should know by now that Starfleet subscribes to the Main Character Promotion Track school of militarism.  It's the same way that Star Wars operates.  Remember?  When Han and Lando become generals for... reasons?

Han had a history and experience before joining the rebellion.  So did Lando.  If I recall correctly, Kirk was fresh out of the academy and was in the middle of a trial for cheating when they all (except Kirk) got called up.  That's the other thing I didn't like, the way he acted during the Kobayashi Maru.  Did he really need to sit there eating an apple acting like it was nothing?  They could've at least had him pretend like he didn't know what was going on.

Han was captain of his own ship.  He may have been made a General, but we don't really see him commanding anyone in the movies until Jedi.

Heh, I knew you'd like that, Anchorhead.

Another thing that bugged me that I haven't heard anybody bitch about is the "Stardates."  And I use that in quotes because they're not stardates in this movie, they're years!  Our years!  Years with decimals after them!  And I could almost force myself to accept that the alternate timeline altered how people count stardates, except that the only two prominent "Stardate" periods we're given is from Nero/Spock's time and from the Kelvin's time, both of which exist outside of the branched timeline and should therefore conform to existing Trek canon!

Did they think people wouldn't understand the dates unless they were made to reflect our own?  I don't know.  It seems pretty clear to me that bigger number=later date than lower number, so I don't get why they changed this at all.

Ripplin said:

Gaffer Tape said:

I suppose the problem with Klingons would be over which style of Klingons to put in a future movie:  the original smooth-headed ones or the more familiar ridge-heads?  Most likely the latter, but you know some fans would bitch about that.

Meh, they already explained it too much on "Enterprise." My favorite explanation was from DS9, where Worf just said it's not something they discuss with outsiders. Leaves a lot to the imagination, just like Boba Fett should've been.

 

Actually, FASA games back in the 1980's came up with a really good explanation which I'm surprised Berman and company didn't lift from it: the reason the Klingons look more human in the 1965 series  is that they are human-klingon hybrids created to better interact and infiltrate the Federation.  In the FASA game, the Klingons had Human and Romulan "fusions", and the bone-headed Klingons were the "Imperial" pure-bloods.  It would have made a great lead-in for the whole "civil war" thing in the NG series...

Gaffer Tape said:

Did they think people wouldn't understand the dates unless they were made to reflect our own?  I don't know.  It seems pretty clear to me that bigger number=later date than lower number, so I don't get why they changed this at all.

I think they figured the original stardate system was confusing.  I know that I never really understood how a stardate worked.  I knew that bigger number=later date, but I always figured the number was just random.  I know it was explained somewhere, I just don't know where.  I honestly didn't even notice that the stardate reflected the actual year in the movie.

Monroville said:

Ripplin said:

Gaffer Tape said:

I suppose the problem with Klingons would be over which style of Klingons to put in a future movie:  the original smooth-headed ones or the more familiar ridge-heads?  Most likely the latter, but you know some fans would bitch about that.

Meh, they already explained it too much on "Enterprise." My favorite explanation was from DS9, where Worf just said it's not something they discuss with outsiders. Leaves a lot to the imagination, just like Boba Fett should've been.

 

Actually, FASA games back in the 1980's came up with a really good explanation which I'm surprised Berman and company didn't lift from it: the reason the Klingons look more human in the 1965 series  is that they are human-klingon hybrids created to better interact and infiltrate the Federation.  In the FASA game, the Klingons had Human and Romulan "fusions", and the bone-headed Klingons were the "Imperial" pure-bloods.  It would have made a great lead-in for the whole "civil war" thing in the NG series...

 

I enjoyed Star Trek and am looking forward to a sequel that is just an adventure now that all the time travel/timeline stuff is out of the way.

lordjedi said:

Gaffer Tape said:

Did they think people wouldn't understand the dates unless they were made to reflect our own?  I don't know.  It seems pretty clear to me that bigger number=later date than lower number, so I don't get why they changed this at all.

I think they figured the original stardate system was confusing.  I know that I never really understood how a stardate worked.  I knew that bigger number=later date, but I always figured the number was just random.  I know it was explained somewhere, I just don't know where.  I honestly didn't even notice that the stardate reflected the actual year in the movie.

 

Yeah, you're right.  In the original series, they were completely arbitrary.  They simply existed to make it seem more exotic and (at the time) help disguise when the series took place in relation to us.  Later series (TNG, DS9, and VOY) used a system where the second number was the TNG season number equivalent, but that's really the only major step in making stardates have any logical sense.

Since it's so arbitrary, I wouldn't have even noticed except that Nero/Spock's stardate only had four digits when it should have had five.  Then I realized that it was very close in number to the Kelvin stardate, and that left me scratching my head.  It annoys me.  There was no reason they couldn't have done that correctly.

Confused Matthew's written review of Star Trek seemed to hinge upon the "faulty logic" of the time travel story. Below are his comments and my responses I sent in an e-mail.
 
The basic plot is this: In the future the Romulan sun is about to go nova and ambassador Spock rushes to try and save Romulus. He comes equipped with "Red Matter" which can create a black hole that Spock plans to use to absorb the sun’s…deadliness I guess.

The explosion will claim the planet, therefore the black hole will contain the explosion. What's the problem here?
 
Lo and behold it turns out that the same black hole that was suppose to have enveloped all the energy of a sun is also a portal in space time which accidentally sucks both Spock and the Romulan commander back in time (don’t ask me).
 
I think it's a lot easier for us in the audience, if we are unwilling to suspend belief, to identify what time travel isn't rather than what it is. The reality is that neither you nor I nor any other moviegoer (with the possible exception of any physicists who watched the movie) knows what sort of temporal effect a black hole could have. Maybe you do get sucked into another timeline/universe. Who really knows?
 

First, if this Red Matter can cause time travel on accident, shouldn’t it be able to cause time travel on purpose?

I once read an account of a baby who lived (pretty much unscathed) through a tornado, despite the fact that the tornado carried him through the air over a long distance. That doesn't mean we should try to harness the power of the tornado as a means of travel.

If so, you’d think the Romulan commander would spend his time researching the time travel properties of the Red Matter to send him back and forth whenever he wants.

He's a miner. I don't mean to impugn the intelligence of miners, but I feel safe in saying that most miners are not given to rigorous scientific research of time travel and black holes.

Also, he's a villain. Most villains fall into a pattern of rash behavior and faulty reasoning.

All he has to do is inform the Romulans of what’s going to happen in the future and prevent it from happening.

Again, Nero is a villain. And what's more, he has over a century to inform Romulus of its impending doom. He can kill everyone he wants first, then go on to warn the Romulans.

lordjedi said:

That's the other thing I didn't like, the way he acted during the Kobayashi Maru.  Did he really need to sit there eating an apple acting like it was nothing?  They could've at least had him pretend like he didn't know what was going on.

Uh...

[THINKS]

... never mind...

auraloffalwaffle said:

lordjedi said:

That's the other thing I didn't like, the way he acted during the Kobayashi Maru.  Did he really need to sit there eating an apple acting like it was nothing?  They could've at least had him pretend like he didn't know what was going on.

 

Uh...

[THINKS]

... never mind...

What?  Were you thinking back to that scene and realizing how lame it was or were you thinking back to it and recalling something I missed?  In all honesty, when I was watching it, all I could think of was "Arrogant much?"  It was his third time taking the test, we're informed that nobody takes it even twice, and there he is acting like everything's hunkey dorey.  I guess I should've said that they could've at least make him look like he didn't know what was going to happen, when it's obvious he clearly did.  At least that way it wouldn't have been so obvious that he cheated too.

My review

Star Trek filtered through a Star Wars mentality.

I totally get what J.J. Abrams and screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman are trying to do here, and I support it. Without giving too much away, they’re trying to restart the Star Trek franchise by going back and focusing on the iconic, beloved, original characters who put Star Trek on the cultural map in the first place. And they want to do it without being locked in to what was established so definitively in the 79 episodes of The Original Series (TOS), six movies, and even in the spin-off TV shows The Next Generation (TNG), Deep Space Nine (DS9), Voyager (VOY), and Enterprise (ENT).

It makes sense to go back to the original crew. With the TNG crew played out after 2002’s execrable STAR TREK: NEMESIS and none of the other spin-off shows warranting a promotion to the big screen, Abrams and company really had only two choices: create an entirely new crew and concept and risk audience apathy, or go back to the familiar but put a whole new coat of paint on it. Let’s face it: it was not that difficult a choice to make. Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov are still the best-known characters of the franchise. It’s been many years since anything significant has been done with them on screen. And it would be very difficult to pass up the chance to tackle these classic characters and put a fresh new spin on them and the universe they inhabit.

In taking this approach, Abrams and company did neither a total reboot, a la the Sci-Fi Channel’s recently completed Battlestar Galactica TV series, nor a proper prequel that ties in directly and adheres faithfully to the established continuity. It’s a little of both--the filmmakers try to have it both ways. And for the most part, they succeed.

The fates of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the rest are now unwritten. Anything can happen to them. Some can die, or leave Starfleet in a huff, or lose a limb. This adds a tremendous amount of suspense and drama to the proceedings, because you CAN’T rely on prior knowledge--what you know from the TV series and the movies is no longer applicable. So this movie is not really a prequel in that it doesn’t set the stage for TOS. It simply CAN’T. You won’t be able to walk out of this movie and then sit down and start watching the original TV series and the original-cast movies and have it feel like a seamless fit.

And that doesn’t bother me, really. Why bother going back to Kirk and his crew and making new movies about them if we already know exactly how their lives are going to play out over time?   The good news for longtime fans is that this movie doesn’t negate or wipe out what has come before. Abrams and Co. make it fairly clear that the original timeline is still in place, still intact, and if you want to revisit it, just pop in your DVDs of TOS, TNG, DS9, etc. It’s all still there. We even get a new detail about Kirk’s personal backstory as it exists in the original timeline.

But if you want to follow the NEW adventures, you’d better go in with an open mind. Because Abrams and Co. don’t pull their punches. They are not afraid to upset the apple cart and depict sweeping, drastic, and, quite frankly, shocking events that bring significant changes to the Star Trek universe as a whole.   With all that out of the way, I’ll get to the FUN stuff.

As for the cast--by and large, they’re terrific.  Abrams makes it sing. He's assembled a cast that is terrific, and - for the first time in Trek history - actually gives each and every one of them something to do that helps define them as characters.

Chris Pine shows us a somewhat different James Kirk from what we’re used to, which is only natural given the nature of the film, but by the end, you can see him settling in to being the Kirk we know and love. Pine also carries himself well during the action and fight scenes, and he's good at portraying a rough-around-the-edges Kirk who’s developing his notorious magic with the ladies. He is also good during the more comedic moments. And during his scenes with Leonard Nimoy as the elderly Spock, he more than holds his own. What I WOULD like to see in future films is Kirk portrayed as a bit more intelligent, more thoughtful, more cultured, and more strategic than he’s shown here. We get to see plenty of Kirk as a rough-and-tumble man of action in this movie, but there’s a lot more to him than that.

Simon Pegg is hilarious as Scotty, but his slightly manic version of the character doesn't really gibe with the laid back, always a little toasted version from the show and the original movies. But whatever, he's great and he makes the character work. He’s played mostly for comic relief here. My main criticism with regard to Scotty is that he falls into his familiar place just a little too quickly and easily, given the circumstances surrounding his arrival aboard the Enterprise. The establishment of his relationship with Kirk--right down to Kirk calling him “Scotty”--came off, at least to me, as just a wee bit rushed.


As the young Spock, Zachary Quinto doesn’t quite capture the essence of Nimoy--I found his delivery to be a bit on the robotic side on occasion, and even arrogant at times. (Nimoy played Spock as a Zen master, while Quinto plays him as almost a sociopath. He's simply unsettling), It’s not a bad performance by any means, just a different interpretation of the character. In the future, though, I would like to see Quinto try to incorporate more of the wisdom, the dignified demeanor, and the gentle wit that Nimoy brought to Spock.

Karl Urban is WONDERFUL as Leonard McCoy, from start to finish. Karl Urban is astonishing as Bones.  He captures the spirit of the late great DeForest Kelly marvelously. The irascible nature, the sarcasm, the irreverence, the nervous raise of his eyebrow--it’s all there. One thing is certain: Urban MUST have a bigger, more central role in future films.

My prediction is that the breakout character in this movie will be Zoe Saldana's Uhura. She's absolutely gorgeous--you can't take your eyes off of her. She carries herself extremely well, projects an air of confidence and ability, has a lovely speaking voice, and has good chemistry with both Pine and Quinto. It's a really strong performance, and I think she’s given more to do and more of a characterization than Nichelle Nichols was given in all six original movies combined--and maybe even the TV series, as well.

Anton Yelchin is  my only complaint...as Chekov and has a great scene where he really shines. He’s a bit more of a charterer  than a character.

As Sulu, John Cho gets less of a chance to make a strong impression but has a few very nice moments and gets to take part in one of the film’s most thrilling sequences.


Bruce Greenwood is very effective and likable as Captain Christopher Pike. His performance is more or less consistent with Jeffrey Hunter's, and I wouldn’t mind at all if he returned in a future film. His relationship with Kirk, as portrayed in this film, shows lots of potential for further exploration.

Eric Bana’s obsessed Captain Nero does not rank among the best-developed or most compelling antagonists we’ve ever seen in Star Trek. He’s certainly no Khan, who without a doubt remains the most memorable and dramatic villain ever faced by an Enterprise crew. But I wouldn’t place Nero among the utterly forgettable and inadequate bad guys from the last couple of Next Generation movies, either. He’s okay. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for Leonard Nimoy... it almost would have been enough just to see him back on the screen as Spock after 18 years. But to see him play such an important role--one that doesn’t give him a lot of screen time but is nonetheless absolutely essential to the story (unlike Shatner’s return as Kirk in the ill-conceived mess that was STAR TREK GENERATIONS)--makes it all the more special and essential. It’s clear that Nimoy had a good time playing Spock again. There's a warmth, a sense of comfort, and a level of gravitas in his performance that I don't think we've really seen since STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN. Nimoy’s Spock (referred to in the end credits as “Spock Prime”) is shown the utmost respect and treated with dignity--again, unlike Kirk in GENERATIONS. And there are two moments--one between Nimoy and Pine and one between Nimoy and Quinto--that are really quite touching.

Overall, I found STAR TREK to be a high-octane, fast-paced, exciting, funny, and even poignant adventure. It does what it set out to do, which is make Star Trek accessible to a new audience and forge a new direction without being constrained by the franchise’s history--while respecting and acknowledging everything that came before .  There are some rough spots here, to be sure, but I think Star Trek has gotten the shot in the arm that it’s needed for quite some time.

At the end of the movie, as Pine walks onto the bridge of the Enterprise in that yellow tunic, Chris Pine IS Captain Kirk.  And that is all that matters.

My bro said this is the best star trek film ever made.

Though he has never been a trek fan except mildy of the next generation tv series a long ways ago.

In fact he is a halo 3 fanatic.  Not surprising really he likes this film.

I say its a fun action flick and nothing more.  Respects the mythology to a certain degree and all the young players seem to be playing the same characters we saw in the old star trek.  Despite the timline and backstory changes and that the enterprise looks like a video game spaceship.

To me personally this movie is kind of a glass half full kind of thing.  It is better to have a new trek intead of none, yet if this is the best they could come up with after 43 years perhaps trek should have stayed dead or at least for a while longer.  Enterprise ended in 2005 and Nemesis came out in 2002. 

If i was responsible for treks direction .  I would have let trek remain dormant for at least another decade until resurrecting it.  Plus i would have set it in the future hundreds of years after picard and crew and have it have all new characters and a brand new starship enterprise. Instead of a rehash of old trek been there done that. Or do a earth romulan wars movie set in kirks fathers era. Unlike the idea of berman to have it set in kirks grandfather's time.

The safe thing to do is what they did.  Use the old star trek which is the most relatable to older folks and spice it up just enough to get young people involved too.  If you ask me they really did not change all that much it is almost the same old star trek.  Not really boldly going where no man has gone before.

There were other stories they could have done.  The fourth and Fifth seasons of tos for instance in their first five year mission.  Or the second five year mission.  Both never told on tv or in movies.  What about the in between time when the crew goes there seperate ways leading up to the motion picture.  Or what happened in between trek 1 and 2.  Kirk goes from being an admiral to a captain in the first movie on his own decision agreed to by nogura then suddenly he is an admiral again in star trek II and spock is captain with no explanation.

lordjedi said:

auraloffalwaffle said:

lordjedi said:

That's the other thing I didn't like, the way he acted during the Kobayashi Maru.  Did he really need to sit there eating an apple acting like it was nothing?  They could've at least had him pretend like he didn't know what was going on.

 

Uh...

[THINKS]

... never mind...

What?  Were you thinking back to that scene and realizing how lame it was or were you thinking back to it and recalling something I missed?  In all honesty, when I was watching it, all I could think of was "Arrogant much?"  It was his third time taking the test, we're informed that nobody takes it even twice, and there he is acting like everything's hunkey dorey.  I guess I should've said that they could've at least make him look like he didn't know what was going to happen, when it's obvious he clearly did.  At least that way it wouldn't have been so obvious that he cheated too.

 

I believe the scene in its current form is meant to incorporate elements of this concept in order to illicit a formed reaction of this substance from the audience.

Vaderisnothayden said:

"Blah blah, fanboy entitlement blah!"

-_-