General Trek Movie Discussion & Review Thread
#121
Posted 14 May 2009 - 08:47 PM
#122
Posted 15 May 2009 - 05:42 AM
It's funny you should say that. Because Star Trek V flopped because it missed the glitz factor. That movie had all the substance, cohesiveness and merit you could want in a Star Trek movie (Does God exist, is he just a fragment of our imagination or is he just an alien we don't understand?) ST:V had the best story (and the closest story to a TOS episode) of all the Star Trek movies but failed to be a hit because it was badly told (bad effects, untried director.) Even with all it's flaws, it has always been my favorite Trek movie, untill this new movie came along.
#124
Posted 17 May 2009 - 08:23 PM
#125
Posted 17 May 2009 - 09:40 PM
I'm trying to be vague, but just in case.... POSSIBLE PLOT SPOILERS BELOW THIS LINE...
My biggest complaint with it is all the amazing coincidences and movie cliches:
The USS Kelvin incident happening during labor.
Just HAPPENING to run into Spock Prime.
The Galaxy Quest-like monster.
Just HAPPENING to run into Scotty
Oh yes, of course! That's the equation!! After seeing it for 10 seconds...
Why was he on a planet with stuff that could eat him instead of thrown in the brig? ... somebody 'd have a lot of explaining to do if he died.
More ships designed with chasms and suspended platforms?
The one inept guard (all I could think of was Austin Powers)
NOBODY ELSE on a ship crawling with security guards has hand-to-hand combat training?
Spock's apparent romance seems quite unethical to me on many levels, considering his position before the crisis.
Spock Prime's ship obviously has weapons, yet he's captured without even a struggle?
Spock Prime knows that he's in another timeline, so how does he know who he is (or is not, for that matter) supposed to serve with?
Chekov is 17 and a commissioned officer? A junior one, but still.... did he join the academy at 13 or something, or are they letting 1st year freshmen on this ship?
Why are there seemingly no seasoned officers on this ship besides Pike and Spock? And if that's not so, why would Kirk be named first officer?
2 main characters and a guy we never heard of.... I wonder who lives and who dies?
I thought Spock Prime was shoehorned into the plot, as was time travel to make it happen.
I know .. I'm one of THOSE... the obsessive nit-pickers, and maybe I am just thnking too much about it... individually I can dismiss them... it's not like other Star Trek movies didn't have them, but I don't remember the movie really relying on them so much in order for the plot to go forward. Collectively, it all just piled up to really drag down the movie for me.
#126
Posted 18 May 2009 - 03:57 AM
As a purely fun action movie I actually rated it higher.
#127
Posted 18 May 2009 - 04:46 AM
#128
Posted 18 May 2009 - 04:55 AM
#129
Posted 18 May 2009 - 05:51 AM
#130
Posted 18 May 2009 - 07:25 AM
Reptilian Xindi... now that's a real straight shooter!
#131
Posted 18 May 2009 - 09:50 AM
Really? ... I mean... REALLY? Well, we can't have good ideas all of the time, but that's astoundingly bad.
Is this going to be one of those "he has to die to preserve the timeline" things? Star Trek II: "Knoll on the Edge of a Plaza" ...
[edit] actually, now that I think about it... Didn't Quantum Leap do essentially this same idea? Sam leaped into Lee Oswald and then leaped into a bodyguard just before he would've pulled the trigger and saved the First Lady.
#132
Posted 18 May 2009 - 11:51 AM
You lose me a bit with these two posts...on the one hand it sounds like you are acknowledging that TOS was usually about deeper meanings or philosophical questions, when you say that ST:V was your favorite movie because it provided that. But then earlier you said that this new movie, which you openly acknowledge is devoid of such depth, is "what Star Trek was meant to be"... How is this not completely contradictory?
I agree with you about Star Trek V, it was always one of my favorite movies too because it still had this true Trek exploration/philosophizing spirit underneath all the flaws with the questions about religion -- and it pained me to see other fans ridiculing it so harshly. The fact that that is what I am looking for in a Star Trek movie is precisely what caused this movie to appear hollow to me, and not truly like the Star Trek I grew to love.
I do see "destiny" in the mix, but I do not personally think that theme belongs in Star Trek. How many times were we instead shown the more scientific argument -- that you are entirely a product of your environment? Picard, in Tapestry. Picard again in Nemesis. Those two off the top of my head. Add in the fact that Gene did not believe in superstition (or religion) and wanted humanity to be freed from it in his vision of the future. Fate/destiny is superstition -- implication that there is some meaning to events that is beyond our grasp or that "the hand of fate" (some unseen force) is controlling things. Belief that one's actions are sanctioned by a greater force is partly what leads to religion & war, and this is what Gene imagined we would overcome. As far as overcoming differences, you can find that theme in just about any drama aimed at adolescents and children...no need for a science fiction setting to explore that.
I do hope you are right, that they saved the "deep thinking" for the sequel. Unfortunately, even if they had this as their intent originally, the runaway success seems like it will cause Paramount to demand for more of the same, lest they disrupt this new found formula for profit.
#133
Posted 18 May 2009 - 11:58 AM
Off-topic alert... The British sci-fi/comedy series Red Dwarf also explored this idea, in its own interesting way...they accidentally prevented JFK's death, discovered that it would alter the future quite negatively (surely an homage/reference to City on the Edge), and then concocted the plan to explain all this to JFK himself and convince him to shoot himself from the grassy knoll. http://en.wikipedia....i/Tikka_to_Ride
#134
Posted 18 May 2009 - 01:12 PM
#135
Posted 18 May 2009 - 03:27 PM
#136
Posted 18 May 2009 - 05:31 PM
#137
Posted 18 May 2009 - 08:44 PM
Say WHAT?!? Gee, Cap'n Phil, I'll just have to respectfully disagree with that one. ST5 didn't flop because it lacked "The Glitz Factor". It flopped because it totally sucked, in most people's opinion (including mine). Better FX would have certainly helped, but it would have just been a different level of suckiness. To each his own.
As for the new movie, I have moved my review to the other movie thread.
#138
Posted 18 May 2009 - 09:01 PM
As for the new movie, I agree with a lot of things posted previously. I saw it for the second time on Wednesday. I hoped I would like it better the second time. I didn't.
That's not to say that I didn't like it, because I did. What's odd is that the stuff I thought I'd have the most trouble with -- new actors playing my old favorite characters as well as the "timeline reset"
#139
Posted 18 May 2009 - 10:32 PM
#140
Posted 18 May 2009 - 10:54 PM
Thanks
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users