Abrams is Destroying Star Trek like Lucas has Destroyed Star Wars — Page 26

Well, I saw it last night, and I found it enjoying and entertaining.  At the same time, the story was completely stupid and made no sense.  I liked the way the score finally used the Star Trek theme at the end, and I like the way they used it.  Other than that, the score didn't do much for me, and I could have sworn I heard pieces directly from the Star Wars prequel trilogy in it.  Probably my imagination, but several cues felt directly lifted from them.  And Spock's spaceship sounded just like that stupid lizard monster that Obi-Wan rode in ROTS.  I wasn't surprised to see Ben Burtt's name attached to the sound effects.

Karl Urban was amazing as Bones.  A lot of the actors impressed me, but, after having had some time to think about it, I wonder if that's just because all the actors were just standing around regurgitating lines the original actors had said in the past, and I think my nostalgia factor just kicked in.  "Oh, Bones just called Spock green-blooded!  And he sounds just like DeForest Kelley!"

I have to say I didn't like the Spock recitation at the end.  It would have fit for the movie to have ended on the classic declaration, but I think they screwed it up.  I think it should have been Kirk saying it, and it should have been in its original form "five year mission," "no man has gone before..." etc, since it seemed to me like this would be starting the five year mission of the TV show.

Finally, my biggest complaint about the film was that it seemed very much like either a type of show like The Flinstone Kids or Muppet Babies or an episode where all the characters are turned into children and no longer have the capacity to function in their roles and have to overcome that.  The fact is, nearly every position seemed arbitrary.  Kirk has to become captain!  Why?  Because he's Kirk!  Well, Scotty has to come with us and be chief engineer!  Why?  Because he's Scotty.  And there were moments like that for nearly every character.  Why is Sulu at the helm?  Because the real helmsman got sick.  Why is Uhura communications officer?  Because the real communications officer can't distinguish Romulan from Vulcan.  In fact, the only bridge characters who seemed to belong on the bridge rather than just being placed there were Spock and Chekov (of all people!) who really should have been about five!  But I can forgive that age discrepancy.  I don't know.  I just had this moment towards the end of the movie, as they were rushing in to confront Nero for the last time that this ship was just being run completely by cadets, and none of them seemed to know what they were doing.  And this is the Federation flagship.  It just felt weird and a bit contrived.

Okay, but other than that, I enjoyed the movie, and I'd probably like to see it again at some point.

Maybe I should make a video about this.  Everybody else is doing it.  ^_~

I could'nt agree more Gaffer Tape. In fact I was bummed that they didn't make the movie more about Nero...Eric Bana I thought was very good and either the script or the editing didn't give him his due...he deserved a lot more screen time. IMO.  Instead it seemed to me at least that the movie was mostly about Spock. Who cares? I already know who spock is.  Give me more of the mysterious Nero...he was bad ass.

I'm not sure since i've only read the first issue.  But Star Trek Countdown the comic might help people understand the set up for the movie better. 

Just wanted to point out the Enterprise 1701 was run mostly by Cadets and trainees The Wrath of Khan.  The only difference is the command crew were not cadets or trainees.

Hey at least it was not the young academy kirk and friends steal the enterprise.  And go out alone and fight the Romulans.

I also recommend for some amusement for those who have seen the movie to read Shatner's book the Academy for his version of the young kirk.  And compare the two and imagine that book as a movie. 

I think Shatner's book as a movie would have been far more ridiculous.

Gaffer Tape said:

... contrived.

Wow, Don Gaffer, you just summed up all the characters and plot points of this entire film in one word! Most impressive.

I admited before that the movie was a lot better than I expected, and that is true. I might end up going to see this once more while it is in theaters, but I cannot imagine myself really caring to see it again in in some years time. The movie is really all action and no substance, a lot of people enjoy this kind of thing (like the friggin Matrix movies, but they are even worse because they pretend to have substance), but I for one just don't find a whole lot of value in that sort of thing. Sure, it is funny to watch a youtube video of a guy getting kicked in the stones by a horse, but how many times can you really watch it before you have seen it and it is done? This new ST film feels a lot like that, very disposable, how many times can you watch that long stream of action sequences before you get the "been there, done that" feeling?

skyjedi2005 said:

Just wanted to point out the Enterprise 1701 was run mostly by Cadets and trainees The Wrath of Khan.  The only difference is the command crew were not cadets or trainees.

Well, another major difference is that it was being used as a training ship in Wrath of Khan.  It was no longer the flagship of the Federation.  And they certainly weren't prepared to go into battle.  Oh, and only one cadet (Saavik) got to do anything substantial in the face of the established command crew.  In the new film, Pike says it's the flagship, but it seems fully packed with cadets who quickly fill the roles of senior crew.  I do have to give the movie credit, though.  At least when an emergency came up, they had an entire fleet of ships to go to work.  Too many Star Trek television episodes and movies (Wrath of Khan is an offender in this category as well) have the amazing coincidence that the Enterprise is the only ship around that's close enough to be able to do anything about any given problem.

Saw it tonight. It was ok, I guess. Fun but pointless. :p Was a bit 'too much' for me at times, like Transformers was.

Sadly, this is my biggest comment on it:

Someone at another forum where I posted that pic just asked me why I didn't like the sound effects and I said "They sounded exactly like the Star Wars prequel trilogy, which were one of the biggest problems with it for me. Mr. Burtt (whos work I loved in earlier films!), is on this major warbling kick. Kirk's bike, Spock's ship, other ships, etc...all do this irritating warbling thing that I hate. It's hard to explain, but the engines can't just sound normal, they all have to 'wawawawawawawawawa...' and I hate it. The worst for me was that green creature in the arena in Attack of the Clones doing it?! Oh, and the hand phasers sounded goofy, too. Like spitting watermelon seeds or something.

It may be a very small, almost insignificant thing for some, but it's big for me. "

Hmm... he did well in Wall-E, no?  Don't see why his sound effects were bad here. 

bkev said:

Hmm... he did well in Wall-E, no?  Don't see why his sound effects were bad here. 

Yes, he did very well with Wall-E. The sound effects weren't bad in Star Trek at all. As I said, it's the "warbling" effect he adds to so much stuff now. If you didn't mind, great! But I hate it. I would just love to hear engines run smoothly, not with the sound going in and out, or like it's about to stall all the time.

If I could somehow apply that warbling effect to scenes from the OT, I bet everyone else would hate them too. ;) Imagine every snowspeeder passing by going 'wawawawawa,' for instance. Like, gag me with a spoon, ok?!

I'm sick of hearing all the whining and bitching over the new movie.  Yeah i probably deserve a good dose of what i dished out,lol.

But would people have rather had that prequel with Kirk's Grandfather in the romulan wars that berman and the screenwriter from band of brothers were working on, or even the top gun trek academy years by Harve Bennet penned by the screenwriter of star trek V.  Both would have been far more horrible movies.

I'm also glad that JJ kept things on the lighter side, and still trek has a hopeful future even in a time of crisis and great evil mankind rises to the Challenge with that pioneer spirit so nobly evoked in the opening credits for Enterprise.  Those Pioneers were mostly American.  But in the future there is no country,lol.

They could have had a darker more cynical Trek like Battlestar Galactica's reboot.  Instead they paid tribute to the great bird of the galaxy's hopefull future.

Some fans won't get on board this new Trek.  But  Rod Gene's son has.  Shatner has, as well as nimoy, takei, and the doohan family.  They embraced the new film as a worthy sucessor.  As did Gene's wife before she died.

FanFiltration said:

 

Making him a full Captain in command of the flagship at this point is rushing things too much.

I felt it was really rushed, too. Spock loses his cool, so the cocky, laid-back dude jumps in the chair and no one says a word. Haha. Oh well, I guess it just wouldn't have felt Star Trek-y enough if Kirk wasn't in the chair. I do see the logic of it.

Oh, and how old was Spock's mother supposed to have been in the movie, anyway? (and in turn, how old was Spock in relation to her age?) The guy that played Spock is 6 years younger than her. :p They can wrinkle up Winona Ryder, but uh...well, I found it weird. She looked her age, which isn't even 40 yet, just a bit weathered.

Thanks for the explanation, C.A.

Oh, and I did like Pike as well. Of course, it doesn't hurt that I'm a fan of Bruce Greenwood already, especially from his series "Nowhere Man." I liked Simon Pegg in it as well, though he was sort of comic relief on top of comic relief on top of comic relief. Haha.

I may see this again next Tuesday (cheap night) with my mother. I told her a bit about it, but mostly how I felt about things, not plot stuff. One thing I said I wondered about is if some characters, like Sulu, for instance, will have a chance to be expanded on in future installments. Would be nice.

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.

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.

Yeah, and it's because of that that I am pretty convinced they'd go with the ridge-heads since there's already an in-continuity explanation that doesn't even need to be explained by the time travel.