STAR TREK Official Thread -- Reactions *Spoilers*

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Message
Author
User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34440
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#166 Post by AndyDursin »

Again, I've only seen it once but in the time I've had to think it over, let it digest, and take the good and the bad (and process with David Banner earlier in this thread.
How long does it take you to "digest" whether you like a movie or not? lol. ;)

Honestly, I think if you take that long to dissect whether a movie works or not by analyzing every plot development there probably aren't too many films out there that hold up under that kind of scrutiny -- especially in the sci-fi/fantasy genre. This movie is a FANTASY. It's not reality. The plot isn't meant to be held up under a microscope and every aspect of it dissected on that kind of level. I mean, if you did that to STAR WARS or SUPERMAN or any work of fantastic fiction, most of the time you're going to come away with flaws. (And of course they needn't be brainless, yet they are essentially works of fantasy).

At any rate, I completely disagree with you guys on the visuals. The Romulan ship aside visually I felt the movie looked nothing like NEMESIS whatsoever. This movie had loads of primary colors -- I had NEMESIS on AMC for a moment the other day and it was all washed out and green-hued, some of the ugliest cinematography I'd ever seen. Outside of the Romulan ship this movie's visual scheme isn't even remotely similar to it, which is one of the things I liked about it. And for me, the shaky-cam aspect I don't think had much to do with being influenced by BG than it does every TV series on the air today...it was more like LOST and Abrams' other shows with the handheld, zoomed-in stuff. Agreed there was too much of it but it didn't ruin it.

Overall I think the movie's effectiveness with long-term Trek fans varies from individual to individual, which I can respect (that's a different issue than whether or not most casual movie-goers like it -- the box-office receipts are clearly indicating that they are). The performances didn't work for some, they did for others, etc. Personally I felt it was much more like the old show, which I liked more than the TNG era anyway, and I think if you're more of a TNG fan, this probably doesn't resemble Star Trek to you, which is also fair.

Yet for all the dissection and the nitpicking this movie has gotten from the old-school Trek fanbase (and if you rip apart FIRST CONTACT the same way, for me it's a much more flawed movie), this movie isn't being aimed at them. Never was. Parts of it are (mainly in Nimoy's appearance), but overall this is a piece of mainstream, pop entertainment -- that's the whole point of it. If they wanted to continue making the same kinds of TREK movies you'd have gotten a sequel to NEMESIS (which nobody wanted because nobody saw it).

On that level I still (three viewings in) haven't seen anything like it in years -- and indeed it's the first film of 2009 to hit the $200 million threshold, something that no TREK movie has ever done before.

In the final analysis, Abrams had a tough task here and never could have pleased everyone with this movie. As the box-office numbers and critical consensus indicates he did, however, manage to please most viewers. That is a major accomplishment given the history of the franchise and the amount of critical scrutiny this movie was under. He was able to make a STAR TREK movie "for the masses" without irritating most pre-existing fans too badly that they threw a hissy-fit. In other words, the movie achieved exactly was it was supposed to.

Whether or not the hard-core Trek fanbase "accepts" it or quibbles about what it does or doesn't do that the old shows did is, quite honestly, besides the point now that the public -- prior Trek fans and non-fans alike -- has by and large embraced it.

Eric W.
Posts: 7580
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

#167 Post by Eric W. »

AndyDursin wrote:
Again, I've only seen it once but in the time I've had to think it over, let it digest, and take the good and the bad (and process with David Banner earlier in this thread.
How long does it take you to "digest" whether you like a movie or not? lol. ;)
I've said since I saw it that I like it on its own merits. I've never changed my mind on that.


I'm talking about the details. That's the kind of conversation David and I were having. Two long Trek fans just having a big o' chat. :)




Honestly, I think if you take that long to dissect whether a movie works or not by analyzing every plot development there probably aren't too many films out there that hold up under that kind of scrutiny -- especially in the sci-fi/fantasy genre. This movie is a FANTASY. It's not reality. The plot isn't meant to be held up under a microscope and every aspect of it dissected on that kind of level. I mean, if you did that to STAR WARS or SUPERMAN or any work of fantastic fiction, most of the time you're going to come away with flaws. (And of course they needn't be brainless, yet they are essentially works of fantasy).
I understand this. You're preaching to the choir.


At any rate, I completely disagree with you guys on the visuals. The Romulan ship aside visually I felt the movie looked nothing like NEMESIS whatsoever. This movie had loads of primary colors -- I had NEMESIS on AMC for a moment the other day and it was all washed out and green-hued, some of the ugliest cinematography I'd ever seen. Outside of the Romulan ship this movie's visual scheme isn't even remotely similar to it, which is one of the things I liked about it. And for me, the shaky-cam aspect I don't think had much to do with being influenced by BG than it does every TV series on the air today...it was more like LOST and Abrams' other shows with the handheld, zoomed-in stuff. Agreed there was too much of it but it didn't ruin it.
I'll go with this for the most part. The ship did remind me of Nemesis but there was definitely more color in this thing and especially primary colors, as you say. Nemesis practically had no color at all.



Overall I think the movie's effectiveness with long-term Trek fans varies from individual to individual, which I can respect (that's a different issue than whether or not most casual movie-goers like it -- the box-office receipts are clearly indicating that they are). The performances didn't work for some, they did for others, etc. Personally I felt it was much more like the old show, which I liked more than the TNG era anyway, and I think if you're more of a TNG fan, this probably doesn't resemble Star Trek to you, which is also fair.
Well...yes and no. I love it all but especially TOS and TNG. There's some aspects of it where I'll agree it touches some of the older show more than TNG...if I understand what you mean by that.


Yet for all the dissection and the nitpicking this movie has gotten from the old-school Trek fanbase (and if you rip apart FIRST CONTACT the same way, for me it's a much more flawed movie), this movie isn't being aimed at them. Never was.
To quote Spock from Star Trek IV: "That much is certain." ;)

Parts of it are (mainly in Nimoy's appearance), but overall this is a piece of mainstream, pop entertainment -- that's the whole point of it.
"Mainstream, pop entertainment"... there are good and bad things that come with that territory IMO at least.
If they wanted to continue making the same kinds of TREK movies you'd have gotten a sequel to NEMESIS (which nobody wanted because nobody saw it).
No one wanted that kind of dreck to continue on, that's for sure.



On that level I still (three viewings in) haven't seen anything like it in years -- and indeed it's the first film of 2009 to hit the $200 million threshold, something that no TREK movie has ever done before.
Yup. Can't argue with the success of it, that's for sure. I've said this since I've seen in it: I definitely DO like it on its own merits.

I guess I need to see it again soon because I'm just not "totally blown away with it/by it" as you obviously are.

I just haven't been in any rush to go back to theater, in general.





In the final analysis, Abrams had a tough task here and never could have pleased everyone with this movie. As the box-office numbers and critical consensus indicates he did, however, manage to please most viewers. That is a major accomplishment given the history of the franchise and the amount of critical scrutiny this movie was under. He was able to make a STAR TREK movie "for the masses" without irritating most pre-existing fans too badly that they threw a hissy-fit. In other words, the movie achieved exactly was it was supposed to.

Whether or not the hard-core Trek fanbase "accepts" it or quibbles about what it does or doesn't do that the old shows did is, quite honestly, besides the point now that the public -- prior Trek fans and non-fans alike -- has by and large embraced it.
All true. I think all that David and I were doing here was having a pretty good, fun, kind of in depth conversation as two long time Star Trek fans. :)

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7114
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

#168 Post by Paul MacLean »

AndyDursin wrote: At any rate, I completely disagree with you guys on the visuals. The Romulan ship aside visually I felt the movie looked nothing like NEMESIS whatsoever. This movie had loads of primary colors -- I had NEMESIS on AMC for a moment the other day and it was all washed out and green-hued, some of the ugliest cinematography I'd ever seen.
I agree that it bucked the trend of tinting everything green...something that was very refreshing to see in a major summer studio release!

Outside of the Romulan ship this movie's visual scheme isn't even remotely similar to it, which is one of the things I liked about it. And for me, the shaky-cam aspect I don't think had much to do with being influenced by BG than it does every TV series on the air today...
Make no mistake -- I thought this film was infinitely better than Nemesis! I just was struck by the fact that this film also had a weird-looking Romulan ship commanded by a bald megalomaniac (albeit one who is a much better actor!).

As far as the Galatica similarity, it wasn't just the "shakeycam", it was the way the characters were "reinvented" with more "edgy" behavioral traits (Kirk as a drunken brawler, Spock being more emotional and involved with Uhura, etc.), which was very much along the lines of what BG did with its characters. Also, the massive sets (particularly the hangar bay) reminded me of BG's style.

This is mostly just an observation. It didn't "ruin" the film for me. There were a lot of things I liked -- I thought McCoy was perfectly cast, and I also thought it was cool how Sulu used a sword to ward off the Romulans, and the film overall certainly held my interest. But there were some things that didn't work for me. I thought the visual style was a little too frenetic, and that the Spock/Uhura thing was misplaced. And I didn't really care for the score at all. The music was particularly disappointing, considering the number of excellent scores that have been written for Star Trek movies.

I mean, I'm not saying that JJ Abrams "raped my childhood" like the Star Wars geeks! :lol: I basically found it enjoyable and entertaining and worth the admission price.

Eric W.
Posts: 7580
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

#169 Post by Eric W. »

^^ +1 :)

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34440
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#170 Post by AndyDursin »

And I didn't really care for the score at all. The music was particularly disappointing, considering the number of excellent scores that have been written for Star Trek movies.
Absolutely. There were a couple of sections of the score I liked, but the main theme does no favors for it at all. Of course we're now living in the Year of Michael Giacchino -- oh joy! :lol:

Eric W.
Posts: 7580
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

#171 Post by Eric W. »

AndyDursin wrote:
And I didn't really care for the score at all. The music was particularly disappointing, considering the number of excellent scores that have been written for Star Trek movies.
Absolutely. There were a couple of sections of the score I liked, but the main theme does no favors for it at all. Of course we're now living in the Year of Michael Giacchino -- oh joy! :lol:
There were a few segments of the score I liked but the whole thing and especially the so called main theme are miserable letdowns. I haven't bought the CD of it yet and I can't say I'm in any hurry to do so, either.

Like I said a long time ago in this thread: This is a first for me to not be rushing out to buy a Star Trek movie score and to pretty much not even care.

It's a pity MG simply didn't do what he does best: Ape someone better than he is.

All he had to do was ape a little Goldsmith and a little Horner on this the way he aped John Barry on The Incredibles or John Williams on Medal of Honor and it would have been gold. :)

John Johnson
Posts: 6108
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:28 pm

#172 Post by John Johnson »


It's a pity MG simply didn't do what he does best: Ape someone better than he is.

I seem to remember back in the 90's, some people were saying similar things about Joel McNeely. LOL
London. Greatest City in the world.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34440
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#173 Post by AndyDursin »

I seem to remember back in the 90's, some people were saying similar things about Joel McNeely. LOL
...and look where he is now!

On the other hand, McNeely did Williams better than Giacchino did, and IMO also put a bit of himself in SHADOWS OF THE EMPIRE -- more than Giacchino did with his video game scores, which were really close to being straight carbon copies of other composers.

What I don't understand is how McNeely vanished off the face of the earth while Giacchino is getting one A-list assignment after another. He's got to have a great agent.

John Johnson
Posts: 6108
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:28 pm

#174 Post by John Johnson »

AndyDursin wrote:
I seem to remember back in the 90's, some people were saying similar things about Joel McNeely. LOL
...and look where he is now!

On the other hand, McNeely did Williams better than Giacchino did, and IMO also put a bit of himself in SHADOWS OF THE EMPIRE -- more than Giacchino did with his video game scores, which were really close to being straight carbon copies of other composers.

What I don't understand is how McNeely vanished off the face of the earth while Giacchino is getting one A-list assignment after another. He's got to have a great agent.
Found this at imdb.com
Not that great.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0006193/
London. Greatest City in the world.

Eric W.
Posts: 7580
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

#175 Post by Eric W. »

John Johnson wrote:
AndyDursin wrote:
I seem to remember back in the 90's, some people were saying similar things about Joel McNeely. LOL
...and look where he is now!

On the other hand, McNeely did Williams better than Giacchino did, and IMO also put a bit of himself in SHADOWS OF THE EMPIRE -- more than Giacchino did with his video game scores, which were really close to being straight carbon copies of other composers.

What I don't understand is how McNeely vanished off the face of the earth while Giacchino is getting one A-list assignment after another. He's got to have a great agent.
Found this at imdb.com
Not that great.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0006193/
No, I meant MG has a great agent. McNeely just pretty much disappeared.

JSWalsh
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Boston, MA USA

#176 Post by JSWalsh »

I finally saw this, and it was outstanding. I got the feeling that Abrams is a Star Trek fan the way *I* am--loved the original show as a kid, but i grew up and the movies and TV shows grew in a very different way. In retrospect, STTMP (from the hiring of Serious Oscar-winning Director Wise to the lame attempts at 2001 ambience) looks like Roddenberry became part of the L.A. New Age scene and was embarassed by the very things I liked about the original show--the characters' quasi-American take-charge, can-do attitude, the adventure, the FUN of running around out in space with people you enjoyed. Roddenberry and his bunch seemed embarassed to be working on a "space thing" (and make no mistake, Trek was never science fiction ala sf novels, it was space opera--"Wagon Train to the stars" or whatever) and tried to make it RELEVENT. The flop of the first movie made the makers of the second to veer hard in the opposite direction and thus made the template for all the other movies, which was almost as bad--every movie tried to be a battle movie, which wasn't what the original show was, either.

Then, when the NG came along, Roddenberry got to make a new show in alignment with his new mindset. Patrick Stewart is a good actor, but the character he played is an eradication of all that Kirk stood for--he even had a younger (but equally neutered) assistant who did all the heavy lifting. Yes this was more "realistic" than having a spaceship captain charging into danger, but you see, folks, this is an adventure, a scifi adventure, and realism isn't the point--fun and color and enjoyment are. I bailed on NG when I realized the makers were more interested in sharing their incredible insight that people should be nice to each other week after week after week than in having fun.

This movie shows someone reaching back pre-STTMP and taking an alternate universe spin on all that followed--What if we lived in a universe where movie makers admitted that this is indeed an adventure show, and it's FUN, not DEEEEEEP?

When the end titles (possibly the most enjoyable, colorful ones ever) were over, I turned to my friend (seeing it for his second time) and said "That was REALLY good," more in astonishment than anything else. Star Trek has been freed of pretentiousness.

Fans complain about the most ridiculous, pointless "mistakes" in this thing, which is what fans do, I guess. But that kind of mindset is what makes Star Trek an embarassment to other folks in the first place. Who cares about "canon"? Not people who have full lives and want to see something fun and enjoyable, yet isn't moronic, either. This movie is about the thrills of being in this kind of situation, the building of interesting characters that no one kids themselves are on the level of Fitzgerald or Shakespeare.

The FX were colorful and special, and the lens flare thing? So what? It only jolted me once or twice. It also made me realize that for all its good points, Galactica is rather weary and won't hold up in memory (well, I didn't even see all of the shows, so my interest faded out after a point). I don't see the comparisons there at all, but whatever.

I thought Giacchino's score was good, and the theme is very appropriate--this isn't a respectable march, it's a CHARGE, and that's what we want to see these characters doing, charging into the unknown. I sure hope the next movie is a good aventure, but doesn't get bogged down in the "We must be like Wrath of Khan" mode. I am REALLY glad we won't be seeing anymore 2-hour drones about aging and dying, too.

What this movie indicated to me that the worst things for Star Trek since the 70's have been Gene Roddenberry and the fans. I'm glad the concept is in the hands of someone who could step back and look at the original concept and say "You know, there's nothing to be ashamed of here--looking at sexy green chicks and flying around the universe fighting baddies is fun!"
John

Eric W.
Posts: 7580
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

#177 Post by Eric W. »

JSWalsh wrote:
What this movie indicated to me was that the worst things for Star Trek since the 70's have been Gene Roddenberry and the fans.
I've been a Trek fan for close to 30 years. I guess this statement has to include me.

At face value, from my perspective as a fan of that length of time, your statement is fundamentally wrong on many levels and I really don't know how in the world you come to this conclusion at all.

Try and explain it to us, please.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34440
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

#178 Post by AndyDursin »

I'm glad the concept is in the hands of someone who could step back and look at the original concept and say "You know, there's nothing to be ashamed of here--looking at sexy green chicks and flying around the universe fighting baddies is fun!"
That, exactly, is how I felt about the movie. It's what I liked about the old show, it's what I didn't like as much about the TNG era -- that sterile, pseudo scientific talk that came to dominate the later shows at times -- and I think it's what Abrams brought back, brilliantly, to this film.

As I said before, for the TNG fans, or people who weren't so much into the old show, I can understand how they'd find it "silly". But this is more what STAR TREK is to me, than any of the franchise's later entries or shows.

IMO, Abrams "got it," and I also agree most of the people who don't care for it are hard-core Trekkies who wouldn't have accepted anything he would've done. Frankly, I think it's their loss. It may not be perfect, but this movie is exceptional for the type of entertainment that it is.

As far as the whole fan thing goes -- not all of them were the reason for "ruining Trek." I've been a long-time fan, I loved the old show, and I also liked several of the TREK movies which Roddenberry had nothing to do with. I also felt they were very much in keeping with the tone of the original series. The TNG series and movies, and the shows that came later, are a whole different issue however.

Eric W.
Posts: 7580
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:04 pm

#179 Post by Eric W. »

AndyDursin wrote:
I'm glad the concept is in the hands of someone who could step back and look at the original concept and say "You know, there's nothing to be ashamed of here--looking at sexy green chicks and flying around the universe fighting baddies is fun!"
That, exactly, is how I felt about the movie. It's what I liked about the old show, it's what I didn't like as much about the TNG era -- that sterile, pseudo scientific talk that came to dominate the later shows at times -- and I think it's what Abrams brought back, brilliantly, to this film.

As I said before, for the TNG fans, or people who weren't so much into the old show, I can understand how they'd find it "silly". But this is more what STAR TREK is to me, than any of the franchise's later entries or shows.

IMO, Abrams "got it," and I also agree most of the people who don't care for it are hard-core Trekkies who wouldn't have accepted anything he would've done. Frankly, I think it's their loss. It may not be perfect, but this movie is exceptional for the type of entertainment that it is.

As far as the whole fan thing goes -- not all of them were the reason for "ruining Trek." I've been a long-time fan, I loved the old show, and I also liked several of the TREK movies which Roddenberry had nothing to do with. I also felt they were very much in keeping with the tone of the original series. The TNG series and movies, and the shows that came later, are a whole different issue however.
All of this I can more or less go with.

JSWalsh
Posts: 1607
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Boston, MA USA

#180 Post by JSWalsh »

Eric W. wrote:
JSWalsh wrote:
What this movie indicated to me was that the worst things for Star Trek since the 70's have been Gene Roddenberry and the fans.
I've been a Trek fan for close to 30 years. I guess this statement has to include me.

At face value, from my perspective as a fan of that length of time, your statement is fundamentally wrong on many levels and I really don't know how in the world you come to this conclusion at all.

Try and explain it to us, please.
I think I did when I said what I disliked about Roddenberry's altering the formula after the original series. As for the fans, I'm really not interested in getting into a pissing match with Star Trek fans, and I don't think they want to hear it. I just think their influence has been deadly.
John

Post Reply