Star Trek is Fun Again
Added 11/7/2009
Remember when Star Trek was fun? Well, it's fun again. For folks who aren't interested in anything new or different, there's the grand old TOS series on DVD. For others, there's this (plus viewings of favorite TOS episodes).
Like many others, I left the movie theater with mixed feelings. The alternate universe, the destruction of Vulcan (which, since we've seen comparatively little of the planet over the years was oddly emotional), the Spock-Uhura thing...they were all...different. And the movie really was leaving all those changes in place. It didn't pull a fifth-act "save the future" stunt. But I also left feeling really, really happy because for two hours I had had lots and lots of real, true fun at a Star Trek movie. I'd laughed out loud, with the rest of the movie theater, from a genuine place. I'd felt suspense, even while wondering at some of the plot holes. I'd seen a thoroughly enjoyable movie that has at its core the study of the relationships that pop culture has immortalized. This was the first time that had happened since First Contact.
So I went to see it again, because I wanted to have fun again, and I got over the strangeness of the alternate universe and found I enjoyed it for what it was. Are there plot holes? Yes, as there are in every Star Trek movie. Is the villain strangely stupid? Yes, but why not another baddie bent on destruction rather than on salvation? Do things change? Yes, but if they didn't, there could never again be suspense in a Star Trek movie because we'd all know, deep down, that nothing was really at risk because everyone would have to be intact and in place in time for TOS to begin.
What makes it work is the fun and the excellent casting. Chris Pine captures the devil-may-care side of Kirk and throws in just enough spot-on Shatner moments (the leg-crossed chair-sitting, for example) to connect his performance with Shatner's without merely copying. Zachary Quinto comes off as a rough draft of the Spock we know from TOS and the movies--in a good way. I realized I'd become used to a Spock who's comfortable with himself, and Quinto captures the unease of being caught between two worlds very well. And Karl Urban just is Bones. He's obviously studied DeForest's performance (and I've read that he's a longtime Trekkie), and he had the whole theater with him with his one-liners. The fact that Pine and Quinto both present characters who are still in the process of becoming makes Urban's already-there Bones the perfect counterpoint. The rest of the cast all entertain and engage. I'm not sure the character of Sarek matches with the disapproving father that I always thought he was, but again, the situation he's reacting to is different than what has gone before, I really enjoyed watching him watch his son navigate some treacherous waters. And Bruce Greenwood's Pike is simply fabulous.
For me, this Star Trek is worth having on DVD because it's rewatchable because of the great character moments. The balance of character and excitement is perfect, and there are moments of real humor and moments of real emotion. Which is what many, many of the TOS episodes were about in the first place.
I think people new to the franchise will enjoy the movie because it is fast-paced and not too full of itself. After all, everyone already knows Kirk and Spock even if they never watched the series, so in a sense everyone's coming home to these characters, even if it's the first time they've really watched Star Trek. For people already into Star Trek--well, if you want exactly what you saw 40 years ago on TOS, watch TOS, but if you're up for some fun, this more than fits the bill. It cancels out none of the great TV (or the movies, which cannot all be called great by a long shot), it merely adds to the possible ways to have fun watching Star Trek. And that's a very good thing indeed.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Great flick with misfires and do-overs
Added 11/4/2009
I can certainly understand how non-Star Trek fans could give this movie such a high star rating. It is, in fact very entertaining and visually stimulating. However, from a Star Trek fan prospective, it is a major blow to the Star Trek world. I now understand the movie's tag line; "This is your father's Star Trek." Yeah, no kidding, because it's been completely redone.
The short end - From a visual prospective, this Star Trek installment was GREAT! It had all the effects and looks that the rest of the movies couldn't or didn't do, thanks to advancements in movie making, obviously. For that part, visually speaking, I would give it a 4 1/5
The downside is the fact that JJ Abrams has taken a series of 40+ years and rewritten it! It is so rewritten that it could be compared to rewriting Star Wars and having Darth Vardar tell Luke, "Luke, I'm not your father. Hans Solo is." Of course, JJ would NEVER to that to the Star Wars ethos, since he is a Star Was fanboy, not to mention Lucas would castrate him.
The Spoke/Uhura relationship, what was that? Scotty not being the guy that had a major hand in building the Enterprise, instead he's working some second rate gig, etc, etc. For that, I would give the movie a ½ to 1.
The biggest misfire, I think, was the premise of a pissed off Romulin, who has all the power in the world to alter time, wanting more to revenge upon and kill Spoke, who tried to save the planet, instead of just altering time and saving his entire world. Hmmm. weak, at best. 1 1/2.
I've never understood writers and directors who come up with such weak stories and premises, that the viewer is asking the question "why didn't he just do X," within 5 mins of witnessing the event. Star Trek is one of those movies. But, the movie still carries on in an entertaining way, so I can't complain too much.
Overall, I think the movie is good. I just don't think, from a Star Trek prospective, it's great. To completely redo a beloved series/world, is a major blow.
1 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
Bartlet's Dictum In Action...
Added 11/4/2009
I am, it must be said, only a casual fan of "Star Trek" in that I thoroughly enjoyed watching the original series on TV, and the films which featured the original cast, and largely despised the "Next Generation" and the rest of it's tedious, politically correct ilk. That said, lest I sound like too much of a curmudgeon, let me state for the record that a big-screen reboot of the original series made with intelligence, style and affection - say along the lines of a Batman Begins (Widescreen Edition) or a Casino Royale (2-Disc Widescreen Edition) - would have been most welcome.
Unfortunately, that didn't happen and J.J. Abram's "Star Trek" is such a catastrophic misfire of a film that it's almost impossible to begin sifting through the wreckage in order to ascertain where it all went so horribly wrong. Suffice it to say, if you want a textbook example of how NOT to go about reviving a television and film franchise, then this film is it.
So how did he screw it up so badly?
Well, for a start, He completely disregarded the canon of the original series; decided to film a script with so many plot and credibility holes that it could double as a hunk of Gorgonzola; and, by his own admission, embraced a film-making sensibility that was the polar opposite of the franchise concept in order to try and hook an audience that apparently suffers from attention deficit disorder and a low IQ.
Largely though, you can ascribe the failure of this film to a case of misguided intent and having the wrong director at the helm.
After all, when the first question on a director's mind when attempting to reboot "Star Trek" is "what can we learn from Star Wars here?" (as is established in a behind-the-scenes extra on the DVD) then you've pretty much instantaneously established that you've got the wrong man for the job.
"Star Trek" is not "Star Wars". People do not want "Star Trek" to be "Star Wars". If they want to watch "Star Wars" then they can go and watch "Star Wars".
I could go into myriad incidental details about what is bad about this film - the nauseating product placement; the irritating "camera flare" lighting; a "Death Star-esque" planet killing Macguffin that looks like a giant ball of Edam; the fact that the deck of the "Enterprise" looks like the interior of an iphone shop and that the engine room looks like the floor of a brewery - but they are not really the problem.
The fundamental problem with this film is that, cosmetic similarities aside, it is not "Star Trek" in any way, shape or form.
Whilst watching The West Wing - The Complete First Season, recently (a series which is the antithesis of this film in that it is brilliantly written, intelligently plotted and well-acted), a quote from Martin Sheen pretty much managed to sum up the feelings this film left me with. The quote in question - which makes explicit President Jed Bartlet's response to the question of whether his administration should be giving tacit support to a film-maker who makes gratuitous, bad films - is along the lines of, "Why not? Nothing I do will really make a difference. Hollywood will only stop making crappy films when people stop paying to see them".
My other half and I paid all of $3 to rent this DVD and still felt ripped off the following morning. Suffice it to say, we will be heeding Bartlet's dictum from hereon out and refusing to pay even one cent to rent, buy or watch a film of this quality ever again.
7 out of 10 people found this helpful.
|
THIS IS A FRENCH VERSION--NOT ENGLISH
Added 10/28/2009
The movie is great, but be careful what you are buying. All pre-orders lead to Amazon.com but Amazon is only selling a FRENCH VERSION WITH ENGLISH SUBTITLES.
0 out of 10 people found this helpful.
|
May This New Trek Live Long And Prosper
Added 10/28/2009
Let me say up front I am not a die-hard Star Trek fan. I did grow up watching original series re-runs, the tapes of the movies that my father bought, I've seen episodes from across the various spin-off shows and I've read some of the novels here and there so I've got a good working knowledge of the show. Having (like so many) assumed that Star trek was dead after the lack-luster Nemesis and the cancellation of Enterprise (a show that remains underrated in my opinion) I was rather surprised over a year ago when the teaser trailer for this movie popped up before Cloverfield announcing that J.J. Abrams was bringing it back. Having raised my expectations since then I went to a screening last night with hopes for a good Star Trek movie. That in short was what I got and more.
To start off with there's the cast. It's never an easy task replacing a well known cast with a new group of actors especially when the cast in question is those of the original Star Trek series but not only has this film done it has done well. I was initially skeptical of Chris Pine as Kirk but Pine not only fills the rather large shoes left before him but fills them admirably and by the end of the movie you have no doubt that he is Captain James T Kirk. In truth that statement can really be applied to the entire cast of "new" old characters but in particular it can be said of Zachary Quinto as Spock and Simon Pegg as Scotty as both (like Pine) fill some rather large shoes very nicely indeed. There's also a nice (if underused) villain in the form of Eric Bana as Nero plus a fantastic supporting cast including the ever excellent Bruce Greenwood as Captain Pike plus Ben Cross and a woefully underused Winona Ryder as Spock's parents. And then there's the return of Leonard Nimoy to the role that made him famous in some of the best and most unexpected scenes of the movie. In short it's one of the best Star Trek casts ever and the best for a feature film (in my opinion) since The Undiscovered Country.
This Trek has also got some really good production values in fact they put other Trek films to shame. The set designs have echoes of what we know from the original series but give a nice modern feel to them and this is especially true of the bridge of the Enterprise itself. The film's CGI is (in two words I use very infrequently) awe-inspiring on the big screen especially when it comes to the various ships sued in the film but especially of the Enterprise which (on the outside) looks like a perfect meshing of both the original TV series ship and the one used in the original series cast movies. In fact if one can find nothing else to say about this film it is that it has the best special effects in the history of Star Trek to date.
The film is an action film by any definition of that phrase. From the opening teaser sequence right thru to the end the film is full of space battles, sword fights and fist fights. The fights are all well staged and put similar sequences in the two most recent Trek films to shame. The space battles, thanks to the excellent CGI mentioned above, also come across as the best yet done for Star Trek as whole (or at least what I've seen of it). Yet while this might be an action film it hasn't lost what makes Star Trek so good to begin with.
That would be story. In what can be called increasingly rare in the Hollywood action movie the writers actually take the time to explore character development. This is especially true of the background and early years of Kirk and Spock. In fact it is the journey of these two young men whose destines has always been intertwined that forms the emotional center of this movie. Spock, always seen as the logical being, gets some emotional material in this film unlike we've seen in Star Trek prior to this point with that character (at least since he died but as they say that's another movie all together). That really brings us to the Nimoy scenes and the stick issue of continuity.
As I said I'm not a die-hard Trek fan so continuity doesn't really bother me in this case but I know it bothers some out there so let me the following. While this film features the original group of characters from the original series they're different versions of them. This is thanks to one of the tried and true plot devices of Star Trek: time travel and interference with the past. That said the interference causes a lot of changes from the subtle to moments where I can see some going "blasphemy on the alter of Roddenberry!" In particular there's two plot points (one of them being a relationship) which might do that but for those of us who realize (as the movie itself says) that the past has been altered and this is a new time-line it shouldn't be anything too upsetting and if fact it makes for some fascinating viewing. The film is also full of nice little references to various Trek stories of the past especially the best of the Trek films The Wrath of Khan. The scenes with Nimoy (including the most impressive Vulcan mind meld I've ever seen) illustrate this point beautifully: this is the end of the beginning (albeit a forty plus year beginning) and the start of a whole new Trek (no pun intended).
Another aspect that brings the point of this being both an ending and a new beginning is the score by Michael Giacchino. Star Trek has always been known for some nice film score and this film is no exception to the rule. The score is bombastic when it needs to be and personal when it needs to be. Giacchino also makes very sparing use of the classic Star Trek theme itself (something done wisely by David Arnold with the James Bond Theme in Casino Royale) until the end credits to let the audience know for certain that while things might have changed this is still Star Trek. It might be on the same level as the Goldsmith or Horner scores of previous films but this is still a Trek score and a fine one at that.
If this new Star Trek movie is any indication there's a life for this little TV series after all. With a fine cast, well designed sets, fantastic CGI work, well staged action, nice scripting and good music I can say one thing for certain. If this is the future of Star Trek then may this new Trek live long and prosper.
1 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
They actually pulled it off!
Added 11/7/2009
I've been a Trek fan since day one, back in 1966. So, when I heard about this reboot I was nervous. Hopeful, but nervous. My wife, a fellow Trekker (or Trekkie, if you prefer), had no interest at all in seeing the film. It was not going to be the Kirk, Spock and McCoy she grew up with. Why should she care? Well, I convinced her to come with me to the movie and we both loved it. She was amazed that they actually pulled it off! Can't wait to watch this again on blu-ray!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Abramsss!!! A Pox Be Upon Thee!
Added 11/7/2009
Do you know who liked this film?All of the people with ADD who could never sit still long enough to watch the various Trek series and therefore were not fans. As for the real fans(of which group I am proud to count myself amongst), this film will hit you like seeing your dog getting run over on Christmas morning;it is that sad and heartbreaking to see what J.J. has done to what Mr. Roddenberry slaved and fought for; namely, a glorious vision of the future where mankind is trying to evolve and live in unity with the universe using logic, reason,and yes, sometimes raw emotions. I am a second generation Trekkie, have watched all of the series and films as well as having read a great number of various Trek novels, and guess what? 40+ years of history,alien and future human cultures, ethics, characters,etc. are destroyed with a single film.I hope that Mr.Nimoy received a great deal of money to justify this atrocity.Why do I feel so strongly? Let me begin:
1)Kirk is a wild criminal youth and goes from being kicked out of the Academy to acting captain in only a few scenes. Nonsense.
2) The Orion girl at the Academy. If you know anything about Trek history (which clearly Abrams does not),a nonFederation member cannot attend the Academy without the recommendation of someone in Starfleet.The Orion Syndicate is a group of slave trading pirates and does not belong to the Federation. Also, Orion females emit an intoxicating hormone which literally drives human men crazy and thus would not make for an ideal classmate or crewmate.
3) Spock is too emotional and too sexual.Vulcans feel the need for sex only once every 7 years and he is engaged to T'Pring on his homeworld. In the series, he wished to uphold his family honour and was fully ready to marry her. No romance with Uhura was presented.
4) Alternate timelines are just a lazy excuse for not wanting to follow the Trek vision. Sorry Abrams, but your "alternate Trek" universe was garbage, and worse than any made for tv SciFi channel movie. Romulus is gone,Vulcan is gone,everything we Trekkies love about the true Trek universe is gone and replaced by Twilight in Space.
I could go on, but I won't. Surfice it to say that if you are a true Trek fan, revelled in Mr. Roddenberry's vision of a better, more enlightened universe, you will hate this film. However, if you view Trek on the level of Flash Gordon and Star Wars you'll probably think that people like me are a bunch of crybabies. Each to his own. All I know is that at the end of this film, about half of the theatre was sitting with our mouths open and brains in a knot. "What just happened? Was that for real"? Those statements were uttered more than once as we realised that Abrams has just massacred our Bible. Was there anything good about it? The special effects were awesome, casting was pretty much on the mark (the actor who played the young McCoy could literally had been DeForrest Kelley's clone in every way). Young Kirk really didn't capture anything about Shatner, which I don't know if that was on purpose since Shatner was publicly upset about not being included, but I didn't care for him at all. Quinto(aka Sylar for Heroes fans) was excellent with the material, but this just wasn't thought out or written by anyone who remotely cared about Trek. If you are a nonTrekkie, please don't write about how I need to get a life or how great you found the film to be. Trek films are supposed to be for those of us who have loved the series for 30+ years, not for the special effect junkies who want to see explosions in space.
1 out of 9 people found this helpful.
|
Tons of Fun, but not really Star Trek
Added 11/5/2009
First, I want to say that I really enjoyed watching this movie. It was FUN.
Second, I had to ignore a lot of inaccuracy and inconsistencies with the original Star Treck Vision, Story Line, and Characters. Lots of liberties were taken with the technologies and I had to ignore that too in order to find enjoyment in this movie.
J J Abrams is pretty good at putting together action and comedy packed fast moving dramas, but it was like he made this really tasty beef and vegetable stew without actually adding beef and vegetables.
So I say, 5 stars for Fun, but 1 star becouse it's not really Star Trek - Average 3 stars.
BR
2 out of 8 people found this helpful.
|
