While everyone I meet is raving about Avatar, I only just recently caught up to the big Sci-Fi movies of last year. I’m speaking Star Trek, Terminator: Salvation, and District 9.
Mind you, I plan to go watch Avatar at the theater, maybe even at the I-Max, but for the three movies listed above I had to wait for the DVDs to be released. Now that I’ve seen them I can write about them, and I’ll start with the one for which I had the highest expectations.
A lot of people liked the Star Trek reboot, but I was not one of them. Sure, the movie was a passable action flick, but it lacked a decent plot, and the characters – while sporting familiar names – were seriously deficient in the likability department. I get it, the universe changed because some dude traveled back in time, but apparently the main change was to turn nearly everyone into jerks, while still ensuring they all end up in the same ship, with the same Starfleet ranks, and without credible evidence of their professed abilities.
Some people I know made the argument the improbable paths to their respective slots in life were the result of the universe’s attempts to realign timelines and events. That might be a good argument were it not for the millions of people who died on Vulcan alone, not to mention those meeting their demise when a large portion of Starfleet was wiped out… by a mining ship. Apparently none of those people were franchise players… just a bunch of Red Shirts as far as the Universe was concerned, their sole purpose to provide an emotional hook for the audience; an audience which obviously has no need for decent plots.
At this point I have to wonder if it’s time for me to stop referring to myself as a science fiction fan, but then I remember… there was no evidence of science in this movie, only fiction. Well, OK… bad fiction. For that’s my biggest beef with this thing; the original series also played fast and loose with science, but to their credit, back in those heady early days we knew a lot less than we do now. The moment I saw the Narada hang motionless halfway out of the black hole I knew the writers did not bother with even basic science, let alone looking up the “spagettification” effect near the event horizons in black holes. The Narada is a mining ship, and as such would not have any special properties allowing it to negotiate singularities. Certainly there is no indication, or explanation of how/why, it has the ability to hang half-in-half-out of a black hole.
Further, the original series utilized science fiction as a neutral vehicle for the exploration of social themes and the human condition. What did we get here? Revenge is presented as the driving motivator, but there is no exploration beyond that, no resolution, no moral to the story, and most of all, nothing is required from the audience other than to suppress any thinking process.
For if one were to think they might start wondering about the odds of Nero dumping Spock Prime (!) on a planet in the Vulcan system so he can watch the destruction of his home planet, which he got to see appearing larger than our own moon looks from Earth, through a small break in the clouds (lucky that – a few minutes either way and he would have missed it), and the Spock-not-Prime dumping Kirk on the same planet, and that being the same planet where Scotty is stationed doing transporter research. One might also wonder about a transporter powerful enough to beam two people onto the Enterprise which has been traveling for some time at warp speed.
I won’t even mention the idiotic monster chase sequence on the moon or the water pipe incident once they beamed aboard the Enterprise. Wait, now that I did mention them, I should say something about them… oh yeah… WhyTF WERE THEY IN THE MOVIE!?!?
Sorry, small outburst. Where was I? …something about thinking, or not thinking, as it were. As in why launch three people to glide onto the drilling platform above Vulcan when later we learn all it takes is a small ship to shoot the drill to bits. And if that’s all it took, why didn’t Vulcan, or for that matter Earth, send out a couple of military vessels to do the same thing?
And most of all, if it was 150 years before the destruction of Romulus, why didn’t Nero fly there and warn them about what would happen, thereby saving those he loved and the whole planet to boot?
And then there are the characters themselves. I suppose if one accepts the altered timeline hooey, one must accept the differences in personalities from the original characters, except… we have an original character, Spock Prime… only he’s not. Spock Prime shows few of the traits of the original Spock. He seems more relaxed, apparently mellowed in his old age. Why he almost smiles a couple of times while cracking jokes. In fact, he reminded me of Mr. Miyagi in mannerism and comportment. I half expected him to pipe up with “Logic On, Logic Off” while waving his splayed fingers of the traditional Vulcan greeting.
And so, here I am. I’m wondering why this movie was so well liked. The only serious complaints I heard were about lens flares. Yes, lens flares are stupid, but as a Star Trek fan I felt insulted by what was shown to me, not the manner it was shown.
I normally add the disclaimer this article expresses my opinions, and I respect differing opinions about less-than-life-shaping entertainment. BUT… I am at a loss to understand why Star Trek fans liked this effort. I still respect other people’s opinions, but I plead with someone, anyone, to explain to me what made this the supposed great reboot many rave about.
About the only argument which comes even close to making sense is this opens up the way for more Star Trek tales. But that just saddens me for all it points to is more plotless action, and since filmmakers feel compelled to top themselves with each franchise offering, I suppose we can expect even more absurd stories adorned with these newly introduced cardboard characters. I’ll repeat my oft-stated opinion we should hold film makers to higher standards, and crappy sci-fi is not a viable substitute to no science fiction at all.
Though I am totally with you on some of the continuity issues and the seemingly helpless Vulcan people, what no space defense fleet (or even mutual aid) – hello, you either purposely or incompetently miss the point. The space-time approach was brilliant. It was truly the only way the story could be told without getting raked over the coals for breaking Star Trek canon. The only person from the real Star Trek timeline is Spock Prime and the bad guys. All the other characters are from an alternate universe. The entire story is told in an alternate universe with an alternate timeline. Blow up Vulcan, re-meet all the characters, yeah, because it did not really happen. At least not in the Star Trek universe we all know and love.
You are absolutely right. This was the worst piece of crap to ever call itself Star Trek. All it needed was some wearwolves and vampires and the 14 year old girls would have loved it more. JJ should have left it alone. Gene is rolling in his grave. I would watch an Enterprise marathon before ever seeing this movie again. Crap!
I was not impressed by the ice moon either and I think it was some poor writing (insert “then a miracle happens” here). The water tube was a cheap laugh, that went too far as well. With all that said, I think much of why I liked the reboot was I went in expecting it to be bad. Really bad. ( Lets face it , Sci Fi movies in 2009 were not all that impressive and a reboot of a property as rich as Star Trek just made me cringe all the more.) I found I liked the characters, a lot. There was just enough of the old characters with the new. More than that, I loved the idea of a whole new generation watching Trek through a different looking glass. To lean over and see my 12 year old glued to the screen was wonderful. All and all, I forgave the lack of credible science, the over abundance of coincidence and Spock Prime being your sweet elderly uncle, because I went in expecting to leave at best disappointed and at worst angry. Instead I left entertained.
Why couldn’t we have seen a prequel that set up the characters, rather than completely obliterating all the previous Star Trek? We LIKE the previous Star Trek! We want more stories in that universe!
And yes, the fact that the main villain’s motivation makes no sense whatsoever was particularly galling. He could’ve saved his family and planet; abandoning that in favour of revenge against someone who was only trying to stop the destruction is idiotic. And, okay, Nero might have been insane – but no-one on his crew wanted to go and save their home planet instead of hanging around for twenty years plotting stupid revenge against a peripheral character?
I don’t mind the altered timeline as a way to bring fresh perspective/stories to the franchise. I mind that it was (in my opinion) badly executed. I minded the movie makers not knowing if they wanted to make a comedy or a serious drama. I minded my favorite character from the original series being turned into a illogical-drama-queen-mamma’s-boy.
But, I’ll grant the point a new generation is looking at this with fresh eyes, and maybe my eyes are too jaded to appreciate whatever they latched onto . . . which still eludes me.
As a “Prime Trekker”, I didn’t see the need to reboot the show in the first place. I am SICK of remakes, reboots, and prequels. They did it right the first time. Take the history and move forward.
What will be next? A Star Wars Reboot? Maybe have Han and Chewie be in love and Obi Wan be alive instead of dead. I know, it can be in an “Alternate Star Wars Universe” That will make everything better. That way, we can have a new generation “enjoy” the characters again in a “fresh, new way”.
I think past box office has proven that the audience JJ was seeking was not, and will never be, satisfied with the “old Trek formula”. The pattern over the last decade has seen the moraliity plays based on some reliable science set in the sci-fi genre have been lost to the “Die Hard” film style, which is basically what we got with this new Trek effort.
That being said, and keeping that major fact in mind, I liked the new Trek movie for those very reasons….lots of action, lots of quick reference to the old without being bogged down or reliant on it while at the same time setting a new direction for an alternate universe canon for a whole new generation of Trek fans (those under 50).
This is exactly what Cameron did with “Avatar” only on a much grander scale (1/2 billion dollar grander scale). His movie also followed the Die Hard trend in filmmaking with an obvious mundane storyline, but one filled with awe-inspiring beauty and special effects that will likely change filmmaking for the next century. All future films will be measured against “Avatar” and that will include the next Trek sequel from JJ or whomever.
I liked the film as a popcorn film . . . put brain on park, and munch on some snacks while mesmerized by the visuals.
. . . except . . . these are characters we know. I would not have minded the film as much if the new versions of the characters were at all likable. With the exception of Karl Urban’s Bones (refreshing to see him without furrowed brows – almost unrecognizable) I thought the other familiar personages were either miscast or badly portrayed. No, I did not want someone imitating Shatner’s stilted speech pattern, but neither was I ready for what I thought was a total jerk.
Spock was the biggest disappointment . . . I could understand the child version being goaded into wild rage, but the adult Spock acted in an erratic and mostly emotional way, to the point of being petty.
Perhaps those very traits are what younger audiences identified with . . . but that’s just an old man talking and reflecting on the sad state of humanity.
Were it not for the Trek label I would have nodded in passive acknowledgment of this movie, deriding the same science gaffes, but ultimately being a bit more lenient on the overall assessment. That said, it’s obvious I was not the target audience, and in that respect they hit the mark dead on.
As my good friend Tim G. has stated, the next ‘trek film will make or break the “reboot”.
I found the film entertaining. Initially I gave it a B+, but the more I thought about it I’ve downgraded it to a C- for all the previously stated reasons by fans.
The one brilliant thing was having it take place in a parallel universe (not time travel). Not that it will happen, but this movie doesn’t preclude picking up ‘Trek in the 24th century again.
What will really fix ‘Trek is to get it OFF the big screen and back to the small. What made ‘Trek so loved, amongst other things, was the small morality tales it told, not the universe saving adventures “required” by it being in the movies. I’ll continue to watch it at the theatre (I’m a card carrying fan), but it will never be the same. JJ tells a good yarn, however let someone with some heart tell the next tale. Would Nick Meyer like another crack at trek II?