Star Trek Movie

[Vlad!]

This thread contains unashamed and unadulterated spoilers. Seriously. If you haven't seen the movie, go do so. It is worth the price of admission.

OK, so, the movie. Way better than I expected.

It's clear that Abrams has immense knowledge of and respect for the Star Trek canon, as it were, and the number of 'in jokes' is really off the charts. Actually, at times I was even thinking "really? He went there?", but in general yes, it was well done. It was a bit too action-y, I'd say, and cinematography was, as is his wont, far too dependent on the handicam and the action scenes cut around madly in the way that I find infuriatingly common in modern movies, but what can you do? If you hire the hunchback of Notre Dame, you can't complain about his freaking posture.

On the whole, I'd say I enjoyed it quite a bit. It certainly isn't the Trek of old, but it certainly *is* derived from it and pays homage to it at appropriate instances.

Alright, so now I'm really going to spoil the freaking movie for you, so stop reading if you haven't seen it. No complaining.

I have essentially three complaints:
* The USS Enterprise was not built on the freaking ground. It couldn't escape Earth. It was built in space. Why did Abrams show it being constructed on the ground? That is unnecessary and silly.
* Uhura plus Spock? Seriously?
* The whole "the Romulans went back in time to pull an Alderaan" thing is a little shaky, and at one point JJ Abrams physically grabs the mic from Kirk to say "look, guys this is an alternate universe". Was that really necessary?

I enjoyed the movie. I have to get up far too early tomorrow and it's far too late tonight, so my thoughts are doubtless incoherent. I'll try to write something that actually makes sense this weekend.

[spacebrat311]

[spacebrat311]

I actually liked the Uhura/Spock relationship, as I felt it gave Spock a certain support he needed in his instability. I think that the Spock/Kirk dynamic may erase this need, however.

I felt like Nimoy's acting has definitely weakened with age.

I'm excited about the prospect of a wide open Trek universe to explore.

[Josh]

Amazing, masterful pop filmmaking-- the best, most purely FUN action movie in years. (I don't count The Dark Knight as purely fun!) That's pretty much all I have to say at this point.

[murlough23]

I thought it was awesome. The Spock/Uhura relationship didn't bother me. I figure hey, alternate universe, they can do whatever the hell they want. My Mom pointed out that this was a different Kirk; he seemed almost like the original Kirk's son. I don't know the original Kirk as well, but I responded that he'd likely be a different man - a more rebellious one - if he didn't have a father around during his childhood.

Being a fan of both Star Trek and some of Abrams' work, I noted that there were several references to the number 47, which has appeared in other Abrams productions (most notably Alias) and is often referenced in the Trek universe (which is likely where Abrams got it from).

My favorite in-joke was the one where Scotty got banished to the ice planet for performing a transporter experiment on Admiral Archer's pet beagle. That almost made up for the torture of having to sit through an entire Enterprise episode that revolved around the damn dog being in sickbay. (Though I'm not sure how the hell it lived that long, if Enterprise happened a hundred or so years before Kirk.)

[Vlad!]

My thoughts are (slightly) more in order now...

I thought it was a great action movie. I'm not sure how he did it, but Abrams definitely managed to bring the series into the 21st century while still retaining hints of the camp that typified the original series and the movies. I appreciate both his devotion to the original canon and his willingness to make the series his own. He clearly realized that trying to reproduce Shatner's Kirk or Nimoy's Spock or even Kelley's Bones would be an exercise in futility, so rather than trying to resurrect the feel he chose to resurrect the spirit of the series. I feel like he succeeded in this.

For me, the movie achieved the right mix of action, plot/character development, and humor. It mostly remains consistent within the laws it sets for itself: I don't really care so much that the laws of physics get violated because Abrams works within the framework of the series. There were obviously a couple wonky parts (why would the transporter system require a human to lock on to the signal when a computer could clearly do it so much faster and better?), but I didn't find myself yelling (to myself or out loud) "that doesn't make sense". I think this is partly a function of knowing when to break the rules and partly just good pacing--I didn't have time to be upset because the movie was too busy being awesome.

As I said above, I'm not the biggest fan of Abrams' cinematography style, especially for action scenes, but I can live with it.

I still find myself perplexed by the decision to have the Enterprise built on the Earth's surface. It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure a couple episodes plus a movie (the first one?) come right out and say that the Enterprise was built in space. It seems like an odd decision to fly in the face of canon on this particular point, but it's possible that I'm just remembering things wrong. In any case, it's far from a dealbreaker. It's just way strange that there would be so many nods to longtime series fans and so many allusions to previous movies and episodes and then he would get something like that wrong.

I had a huge amount of fun with the movie. It was paced perfectly, in that I felt as if it was just as long as it needed to be. The space battles are suitably epic without becoming a SFX-fest, and the plot and characterization flows well. Abrams' devotion to the series is evident in every aspect.

My primary concern looking forward is that the movie relied very heavily on in-jokes and the novelty of a prequel/series reboot for old-time fans. It was great, but future endeavors will have to stand much more on their own merit. If they are anywhere near the quality of this one it should be fine, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[murlough23]

My primary concern looking forward is that the movie relied very heavily on in-jokes and the novelty of a prequel/series reboot for old-time fans. It was great, but future endeavors will have to stand much more on their own merit. If they are anywhere near the quality of this one it should be fine, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I understand your concern. I was so entertained during the movie by the jokes and acts of machismo, as well as the fact that I'm a sucker for origin stories, that it wasn't until a few hours later that I thought about the movie and realized that the whole story with Nero was a bit of a MacGuffin. I mean, I don't think that was a bad plot. But we kind of knew going into it that of course they'd defeat Nero and nobody important would die. (Though I suppose that's up for grabs if they're definitely allowing the story to unfold within the parallel reality in whatever sequels get made.) So I ended up thinking, "Plot? Who gives a crap if there's a plot? This is fun!" That sense of novelty probably can't continue to keep the series afloat.

In some ways, I almost wonder if Abrams had such a tough time performing the balancing act between writing an interesting story and avoiding the innumerable continuity landmines, that he took the story he was already working on and threw in the time travel angle to justify a break from continuity. It's the only way I can think of to satisfy both audiences. But then, if you're going to establish a parallel reality, why go to the trouble of keeping so many details, or hell, even major character traits, the same as the original series?

Thinking about these potential flaws doesn't change my opinion of the movie, but it does signal that Abrams and co. have their work cut out for them in the years to come. One misstep and they're really going to catch hell for it - even if only it causes a movie to be merely good instead of great.

[Vlad!]

In some ways, I almost wonder if Abrams had such a tough time performing the balancing act between writing an interesting story and avoiding the innumerable continuity landmines, that he took the story he was already working on and threw in the time travel angle to justify a break from continuity. It's the only way I can think of to satisfy both audiences. But then, if you're going to establish a parallel reality, why go to the trouble of keeping so many details, or hell, even major character traits, the same as the original series?

Because at that point he wouldn't be satisfying both audiences. The reason you and I enjoyed it so much is seeing the traits that we have grown to know and love in these characters develop from early proto-traits. It also sort of makes sense: having one ship destroyed in a freak attack in which only one person died who "shouldn't" have isn't going to significantly change the lives of any of the non-Kirk characters.

[murlough23]

Because at that point he wouldn't be satisfying both audiences. The reason you and I enjoyed it so much is seeing the traits that we have grown to know and love in these characters develop from early proto-traits. It also sort of makes sense: having one ship destroyed in a freak attack in which only one person died who "shouldn't" have isn't going to significantly change the lives of any of the non-Kirk characters.

That explanation works for me.

NP: "Traveler's Song", Future of Forestry

[bethany]

I watched ST:TNG a fair bit as a kid, and I've seen a few of the movies, but it's been probably at least 10 years, and I don't really remember it much. Would I enjoy the movie, or do you really need to know what it's paying homage to to appreciate it?

[spacebrat311]

You're probably who it's made for more than any of us Trekkie types.

[Josh]

Yeah, prior knowledge of Star Trek is completely unnecessary.

[murlough23]

Yeah, prior knowledge of Star Trek is completely unnecessary.

Indeed. You don't even have to know who Kirk and Spock are, despite the fact that even people who hate Star Trek generally seem to know that much.

NP: "Kansas", Vienna Teng

[bethany]

Cool; I'm looking forward to it. Although I'm heading to Germany tomorrow for 6 weeks...maybe I'll watch it in German!  Or maybe I can find a theater that doesn't dub American movies.

[Vlad!]

Yeah, prior knowledge of Star Trek is completely unnecessary.

I don't know if I'd go that far. I think series fans get a lot out of the little in-jokes and origin stories. That said, the plot itself makes no assumptions about your prior knowledge of Star Trek canon.

[murlough23]

I don't know if I'd go that far. I think series fans get a lot out of the little in-jokes and origin stories.

Right. But it's not "necessary" to get all the in-jokes to enjoy the movie. That's just icing on the cake.

NP: "(Untitled)", The Listening

[Vlad!]

Hm, I'd say knowledge of the fandom is necessary to get the same level of enjoyment I did from the movie, but I don't insist upon the point. I wholeheartedly recommend series fans and neophytes alike see it, though, so we're in complete agreement there.

[Aaron]

I might be one of the few that hasn't seen the movie.  The previews looked interesting but I've never liked Star Trek at all and haven't felt drawn to go see this movie.  I assume it's good from most reviews I have read/heard but it's just not my cup of tea.   At least it seems to be better than most Star Trek movies have been.

[murlough23]

I might be one of the few that hasn't seen the movie.  The previews looked interesting but I've never liked Star Trek at all and haven't felt drawn to go see this movie.  I assume it's good from most reviews I have read/heard but it's just not my cup of tea.

No movie is going to be for everybody, despite how they may try to advertise it as such. I'd have probably seen it even if it looked like it was only for the nerdy faithful, but that's just me. I've loved two of the five series, reasonably enjoyed two of the others, and I have little experience with the original, but I've liked more of the movies than I've disliked.

At least it seems to be better than most Star Trek movies have been.

I can say with confidence that it beats all of the movies with the Next Generation cast in them (this is true despite my thinking TNG was a stronger series than the original). I've got no recent experience with the original series movies except for IV, which is just a goofy, fun time-travel story, so I guess this beats IV. And pretty much anything beats V. So that's 6 out of 10 movies that I think the new one beats for sure.

I'm going to re-watch II, III, and VI soon. (And the first one if I'm feeling up to it.) We'll see how they hold up.

[chrisnu]

I'll be seeing this in IMAX tomorrow. I haven't read any reviews, so I know nothing of what the movie is about. I've watched some of TNG and DS9; I could probably count on one hand the number of episodes I've seen from the original series. The commercials irked me a bit in that they seemed to be making Star Trek out to be a commercial for the Army. I'm sure the film is different.

[Josh]

Saw it for a second time yesterday-- still exciting.

[murlough23]

The commercials irked me a bit in that they seemed to be making Star Trek out to be a commercial for the Army.

Man. If Starfleet was the U.S. Army, we'd have been overthrown by Al Qaeda/the commies/the Redcoats a long time ago. "Oh, hey kid. I know you were just a cadet on suspension and you snuck aboard the ship. But that's OK. I need to leave, so... you're first officer. Go!"

Fortunately, I can't really nitpick the movie for this, as Starfleet making horrendous tactical decisions seems to be a hallmark of Star Trek.

[Vlad!]

I hesitated about whether to post anything because this is a pretty strong off-topic veer, but I guess I'm a mod for this board so I can always do some split/merge ju-jutsu later if necessary.

Man. If Starfleet was the U.S. Army, we'd have been overthrown by Al Qaeda/the commies/the Redcoats a long time ago. "Oh, hey kid. I know you were just a cadet on suspension and you snuck aboard the ship. But that's OK. I need to leave, so... you're first officer. Go!"

I've always believed that people will, in general, rise to the level of responsibility that is expected of them, assuming they're competent enough for it in the first place. I think it's supposed to show that a) Kirk wasn't a delinquent, he just hadn't been given the opportunity/responsibility that he needed to shine, b) AdmiralCaptain Pike was a good enough judge of character to determine Kirk's competence and judge him adequate to the task and c) Pike knew that Kirk had just saved the ship.

Sometimes I wonder whether, if the US military was more willing to think with their brains and use their judgment rather than relying on regulations and How Some Dude With A Desk Job Says It Should Be Done all the time, we wouldn't be more successful.

[murlough23]

I've always believed that people will, in general, rise to the level of responsibility that is expected of them, assuming they're competent enough for it in the first place. I think it's supposed to show that a) Kirk wasn't a delinquent, he just hadn't been given the opportunity/responsibility that he needed to shine, b) AdmiralCaptain Pike was a good enough judge of character to determine Kirk's competence and judge him adequate to the task and c) Pike knew that Kirk had just saved the ship.

They didn't have a third in command?

Sometimes I wonder whether, if the US military was more willing to think with their brains and use their judgment rather than relying on regulations and How Some Dude With A Desk Job Says It Should Be Done all the time, we wouldn't be more successful.

Maybe the U.S. military was a bad comparison. My point was simply that Star Trek as a franchise often just plain ignores the chain of command just 'cause it'd be more fun to have one of its main characters in the captain's chair or doing some other important thing, rather than a no-name whose rank actually merits it. Battlestar Galactica had this problem on a few occasions as well.

Speaking of the franchise in general and not this movie, there's also the issue of why the big dangerous Away Team mission to whatever new planet they'd just discovered almost always seemed to include the captain. Of course it would only be the nameless redshirt on that team who actually got killed, but if the risks to all people on the team were equal (because it usually came down to which one of them was standing in the wrong place at the wrong time), one would think most of their command officers would have gotten wiped out eventually.

Of course, considering these two things together, maybe that makes it a wise move to promote your troublemaking cadet to first officer. Either he gets the job done, or the enemy kills him off assuming he's someone important!

[Vlad!]

Speaking of the franchise in general and not this movie, there's also the issue of why the big dangerous Away Team mission to whatever new planet they'd just discovered almost always seemed to include the captain. Of course it would only be the nameless redshirt on that team who actually got killed, but if the risks to all people on the team were equal (because it usually came down to which one of them was standing in the wrong place at the wrong time), one would think most of their command officers would have gotten wiped out eventually.

Haha, yeah. As you no doubt know, I'm sure they had Kirk, Spock, and Bones all beam down together because the show was as much driven by their chemistry as by any action that takes place. You may have noticed that in TNG, Picard and Riker never beamed down together specifically for this reason (I think they alluded at one point to a Starfleet regulation saying that both the captain and the first officer can't be away from the ship in a hostile situation or something like that). Is this the reason why Picard, Riker, and Data never really had the same level of chemistry going? I don't know, but it's interesting to think about.

[murlough23]

Haha, yeah. As you no doubt know, I'm sure they had Kirk, Spock, and Bones all beam down together because the show was as much driven by their chemistry as by any action that takes place.

Sure. Those three had chemistry to the detriment of everyone else on the show. (They tried to revisit this idea by only ever having Archer, Trip, and T'Pol do anything interesting in Enterprise, which only resulted in all of the characters on the show being bland.) Plus it was the 60's. I could forgive a lapse in logic for the sake of character chemistry back then. With a modern "reboot" of the series that's arguably supposed to have a little more realism to it, that sort of logic becomes harder to buy.

You may have noticed that in TNG, Picard and Riker never beamed down together specifically for this reason (I think they alluded at one point to a Starfleet regulation saying that both the captain and the first officer can't be away from the ship in a hostile situation or something like that). Is this the reason why Picard, Riker, and Data never really had the same level of chemistry going? I don't know, but it's interesting to think about.

TNG was a little better about using its ensemble, I think. But Picard seemed a little more stuffy in terms of how he ran things. He was cordial and kind with his crew but I felt like he kept himself at a bit of a distance from them. Data was TNG's equivalent of Spock in terms of the logical character often used for dry humor, who explored the questions of what it meant to be human from the outside looking in. But he and Picard didn't seem to have the kind of relationship that Kirk and Spock did. (Though I guess Picard and Crusher were once "closer" than Kirk and Bones, but that's another story.)

In any event, I'll take Sisko and Kira over any other captain/first officer relationship. I like how they went from not wanting to work with each other at all at the beginning to having a mutual respect and genuine friendship with each other at the end (without the show ever having to "go there" regarding sexual chemistry between the two... OK, maybe in the mirror universe, but that's it).

[chrisnu]

As popcorn entertainment, it was pretty awesome. It's not something that I'm going to ruminate upon for hours, but I don't think that was the movie's intent. I'm eager to see a new story with these characters, now that they have been firmly established.

[murlough23]

As popcorn entertainment, it was pretty awesome. It's not something that I'm going to ruminate upon for hours, but I don't think that was the movie's intent.

I'm sort of wondering about the movie's intent, actually. Was the point just to have fun? If so, mission accomplished. I loved it. And I don't expect this sort of a movie to be completely 100% nitpick-free. But if they were trying to launch a film franchise, I think they're going to have to step up the storytelling a bit in the sequel, because this one feels short on actual plot the more I think about it. Lots of setup and windows left open for future storylines, but not that memorable in terms of the story actually told.

[chrisnu]

I agree. The characters, and individual moments involving the characters, are more memorable than the plot itself. Nero's motivations are made clear, but the character has so little screen time that he's unremarkable as a villain. Also, the whole Red Matter / time travel subplot was a MacGuffin to make the audience realize that this series of stories is going to be happening in an alternate reality parallel to that of the original series. Thus, breaking continuity with the original series, which is probably unavoidable, can be explained by "alternate reality!"

[murlough23]

I agree. The characters, and individual moments involving the characters, are more memorable than the plot itself. Nero's motivations are made clear, but the character has so little screen time that he's unremarkable as a villain.

This makes me wonder what it takes to make a memorable villian. Nero destroyed an entire planet, and one important to the series at that. If he's still not memorable despite that dirty deed, why? Is it because we've never seen this guy before and don't care? Was Khan a memorable villian in Star Trek II because we'd seen him before? (Well, I hadn't seen him before, but those who saw the TOS episode Space Seed had.) Was the part just better acted? Or was the problem that we didn't find out Nero's motivation until halfway through the film?

Also, the whole Red Matter / time travel subplot was a MacGuffin to make the audience realize that this series of stories is going to be happening in an alternate reality parallel to that of the original series. Thus, breaking continuity with the original series, which is probably unavoidable, can be explained by "alternate reality!"

That's why I wondered if they realized as they were developing the character history that they were treading on thin ice by showing "past events" that they might contradict some stardate or other nitpicky detail that hardcore fans would remember from way back when, and ended up writing the story around their attempt to justify not needing to worry about it. I'm actually OK with this being the case, but the problem now is that it makes these iconic character moments ("Oh, so that's how Kirk cheated on the Kobayashi Maru!", "Oh, so that's how Kirk and Bones met!", etc.) not matter because these were not the actual events referred to in past films/episodes taking place in the original timeline's future.

At that point, why bother lining events up with the canonical story at all? Some of the parallel story elements were interesting (particularly how Pike ended up in a wheelchair, which had a different cause but the same overall effect as his story in the original series), but I have a hard time buying that a timeline with such a drastic point of divergence would still culminate in this same crew being present on the same starship in the end, with similar events in each character's history taking place to what was established in the original series. (Though I think Vlad! or someone else ponted out earlier that if they completely changed the history of this alternate reality, it would be unrecognizable to the longtime fans. So they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. It's weird to have this new continuity hang so close to the original, though that doesn't hurt the potential entertainment value of the new film franchise - it's just more of a "fridge logic" thing.)

NP: "Diane", Robert Randolph & the Family Band

[spacebrat311]

The point is that they can now pick and choose- The things they see as best about TOS they can keep, and they can ditch anything else guilt free. The writers have talked about the fact that history correcting itself was a major part of what was going on with all the coincidences, and that in some draft this was acknowledged in dialogue, but that this was found to be just too much exposition in the end.

[murlough23]

The point is that they can now pick and choose- The things they see as best about TOS they can keep, and they can ditch anything else guilt free. The writers have talked about the fact that history correcting itself was a major part of what was going on with all the coincidences, and that in some draft this was acknowledged in dialogue, but that this was found to be just too much exposition in the end.

I like that idea, but it needed to be acknowledged on screen. Hopefully going forward, they'll mention that at some point. I guess it would have to come from Spock Prime because only he would know the differences between the two timelines now that Nero is gone.

NP: "Midnight", Rock Kills Kid

[Vlad!]

I like that idea, but it needed to be acknowledged on screen. Hopefully going forward, they'll mention that at some point. I guess it would have to come from Spock Prime because only he would know the differences between the two timelines now that Nero is gone.

Didn't they come right out and say in-movie that it's an alternate timeline now?

[murlough23]

Didn't they come right out and say in-movie that it's an alternate timeline now?

No, but if it's not, then all of the continuity gripes apply. Either way, something's not quite right here.

NP: "Life's a Bitch", Rock Kills Kid

[spacebrat311]

They did say it on-screen. Uhura says it. It's quick, but it's there.

[murlough23]

They did say it on-screen. Uhura says it. It's quick, but it's there.

OK. My bad for missing it.

[spacebrat311]

My bad for seeing it 4 times and expecting everyone else to pick up little throwaway lines, haha.

[Aaron]

My bad for seeing it 4 times and expecting everyone else to pick up little throwaway lines, haha.

4 times? damn

[bloop]

I watched it for the first time last night, and enjoyed it immensely.

Just wondering, wouldn't dropping a black hole bomb on the surface of a planet do the trick just about as well as drilling to its core?

[Vlad!]

Just wondering, wouldn't dropping a black hole bomb on the surface of a planet do the trick just about as well as drilling to its core?

When your doomsday machine takes a long time to do its thing, it allows more conspicuous heroics to occur before said thing actually occurs (see: "the death star has to get around Yavin before it can destroy the rebel base").