Go and see Star Trek

[Blog of Reason]

Discussion thread for the blog entry "Go and see Star Trek" by AndromedasWake.

Permalink: http://blog.leagueofreason.org.uk/entertainment/go-and-see-star-trek/

 

[CosmicSpork]

STOP TORTURING ME!!!!!

 

[Otokogoroshi]

I liked it but..... It had a lot of flaws that I think a lot of people will overlook or just ignored.


Whoever did the lighting needs to never work again.

Whoever cut Spock Jr's hair needs to never work again.

JJ Abrams needs to die in a fire.

The directing was really bad, the camera work was horrid and some of the story could be completely chopped off and the film would have been better. Most of the begging was pointless or just retardedly stupid. Why did I need to see Kirk and Spock as a kid? Did it add anything? NO. JJ treats his viewers like thick headed idiots and has no respect for the material or his viewers.

Suffers from the typical more fi than sci in the science department but hey... its Star Trek... I can forgive it some...

Frankly I think the love its getting has a lot to do with what it is. Sorta like how some people actually say Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace was actually a good movie. PUELEAZE. Noooooo noooo. Shitty shitty shit shit!!! Sure this Trek movie was way better than any of the Star Wars movies (I like Trek over Wars so I am biased here) but that doesn't mean standing on its own merits it deserves all the praise its getting.

I just think most people either have rose tinted glasses on or are giving it so much credit because its been one of the few decent movies out in awhile so by comparison it just looks great!

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

I just think most people either have rose tinted glasses on or are giving it so much credit because its been one of the few decent movies out in awhile so by comparison it just looks great!

Nah. It's just one of the best\the best star trek film and revives a flagging franchise with a brand new and damn near perfect cast. That's why reviews have been so positive. Taken either as a film or an addition to the ouvre, I found it excellent.

And I won't try to convince you of the truth of my view if you won't try to convince me of the truth of yours!

Although I will say that not ALL the glowing reports are inspired by rose-tinted starspecs. It's not like everyone wants to avoid saying it sucks in case everyone else trounces them for it. And even comparing it to the Phantom Menace . . . ew. George Lucas stopped caring a long time ago. JJ is an excellent director of both scenes and people.

 

[GegoXAREN]

Seen it, liked it, but it [blank]....

the acting was good, it had a lil feeling of Star Wars at one point were Sulo flicked out his [blank], after [blank]-ing for 5 minutes.... that was awesome!

oh yes there was a hawt green chixxor to...

JJ directed it good...

but Phase II is still better, it does not have the "pro" feel to it as ST XI, but the acting is more in line with Star Trek...

 

[ebbixx]

I just think most people either have rose tinted glasses on or are giving it so much credit because its been one of the few decent movies out in awhile so by comparison it just looks great!

Quite probably. My own reaction was not that negative, though. Granted Abrams is a TV director with a fairly inflated reputation -- much as I like bits and pieces of Fringe it relies a little too much on eye candy for my tastes. Especially those idiotic 3D place titles. It strikes me as a dumbed-down X-Files with brighter lighting, and that's some kind of accomplishment, getting any dumber than X-Files.

Then again, this was an impossible project, in terms of dealing with the accumlated baggage and continuity constipation of the rest of the franchise, and I liked the Alexandrine simplicity of his solution (I'll only discuss it in detail if everyone's okay with a lot of spoilers). But considering the driving premise, I think showing Spock (and especially Kirk) as children was essential.

I'm mostly grateful that it sparked an interest for my daughter in looking at the (incredibly clunky itself) ST:TOS. And that it gives me a chance to introduce her to ST:Enterprise, which (I know I'm a minority here) is the only one of the TV spin-offs that I really liked much, and no, I won't defend it much, it's still TV after all. I was never a huge fan of the "in the future we've solved nearly all social problems and no one uses money any more" hand waving that really started with TOS, and mostly got much worse in ST:NG. I'd much rather see Patrick Stewart as Sejanus in I Claudius than watch him as Picard.

I'm really curious about exactly what you felt was so bad about the camera work? Granted, I've only seen it once, and I don't usually start to pick movies apart at the seams until the second viewing (unless there are truly awful). That may be why I ask, since I probably won't see it again until it's on disc.

Then again, perhaps some of the beginning is why we feel differently here... I feel Abrams completely rewrote the history and thereby big chunks of the emotional drivers for his Kirk, and while there might have been a few cuts possible from the beginning, most of them were needed if you were going to overcome the resistance of those who begged their parents to let them stay up late enough to see TOS in its first run. The Spock scene might have been non-essential dramatically, but it was needed for balance, and to keep Spock in the film, a lot of what was otherwise useless exposition was necessary to placate and pull in any viewers who may have totally ignored Star Trek for many years, or never liked any of the TV properties (which is probably the vast majority of the potential audience). One certainly can't hope to make a movie that only serves the aging, obsessive fan base and hope to do any kind of box office. Most of us no longer go to movies due to bladder issues, especially now that the typical running time is generally closer to 120 mins. than the 90 mins. that were once the rule, not the exception.

I speak as one of those kids who begged the 'rents, btw, even though I've always had reservations about the series -- I watched it in the '60s because it was the only thing that even remotely qualified as SF in those days, not because it was anything like perfect. Then again I also watched Lost in Space in its original run, or at least as many episodes as I could manage, despite how truly absurd and insulting it was as space farce.

I'm not counting this one as SF either, more like space opera/fantasy. But it was mostly purrty, even if overly reliant on spectacle (like every other tentpole movie being made these days). Who needs actors when you have effects and can vacu-suck whole planets? Ahh... let me be fair, as tentpole movies go, the acting was RSC-level, relatively speaking.

Actually, considering I'm a pretty big Abrams non-fan, the movie was much better than I expected, in light of my exposure to his other work. Then again, having seen and avoided a good deal of his stuff, maybe I had already set the bar of my expectations very, very low?

My ST resume:
All TOS, Enterprise, movies
Some ST:NG, smatterings of DS9, Voyager

 

[MikeFoz]

If you listen to the music in my latest PCS videos you may be able to tell which was my favourite scene.

EDIT: Before getting complaints this is hardly a spoiler.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

But it was mostly purrty, even if overly reliant on spectacle (like every other tentpole movie being made these days). Who needs actors when you have effects and can vacu-suck whole planets? Ahh... let me be fair, as tentpole movies go, the acting was RSC-level, relatively speaking.

I don't really see how you can accuse a movie of relying on spectacle when it's narratively demanded. It would be like saying Shakespeare is overly reliant on dialogue. I thought the actors and acting was great, Simon Pegg especially.

 

[Ozymandyus]

I thought it was great. Seems like there are a bunch of people out there that miss the 'good old days' and immediately discount anything that contains special effects. The actors were excellent, and are without a doubt completely head and shoulders above the sort of performances seen in the original movies or the TV show.

Not sure where the JJ Abrams hate comes from exactly, I am no hardcore fan but he certainly isn't a bad director by any means. I'm generally harsh on directing, lighting, and camera work saw none of the bad elements that Oto was claiming, the lighting struck me as completely appropriate. Complaints about something like Spock's childhood haircut... I mean honestly? I completely disagree with your hatred of the beginning, which I felt ease well acquainted audiences into the character changes and introduces new audiences to the main theme of the movie(which is also much of the theme of the original series): the juxtaposition of Spock and Kirk, the merits of emotionless logic vs non-linear thinking and courage.

As a fan of ST for the last 20 years I can say I really enjoyed the movie, and my wife who always disliked Star Trek (and geeky things in general) enjoyed it too. That should tell you something about why people are impressed by it - star trek is notoriously hard to watch if you don't already love it.

 

[Otokogoroshi]

Oh I'm not at all surprised to have a lot of folks disagreeing with me

I think ya'll mistake me. I really enjoyed the movie. I didn't like the beginning and it took a bit to grow on me but when it actually got going I really liked it. Granted it had flaws, some I mentioned before but the solid cast was really great.

My biggest issues are with JJ and his style of directing. I really really HATE shakey cam. Despise shakey cam. Needless to say Cloverfield is near the top of my list of 'Worst movies I've seen" with 28 Weeks Later on that list too. His direction style lacks subtlety which is amusing considering his ties with Lost.

Also their wanting to pay homage to the past movies and show came off in some cases as weak, forced, more than a little silly and in some cases slightly insulting. Where Nero yells "Spoooooooooooock!!!" in the style of Khan it just seemed...... so very pointless... out of place and really only there to hearken to the whole "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!" bit.

The lighting was worse in Imax which is how I saw it. Apparently on the normal screen its not nearly as bad so I guess I can take back a bit of fist shaking at the lighting director. Still there was an excessive use of lens flares




Also my dig about Spock's hair wasn't about the kid (his was bad too) but for the actor who played Spock that wasn't Leonard Nemoy. Bill Meher made a good comparison putting it next to Jim Carry in Dumb and Dumber!



I just dislike JJ because he's so ham fisted. Even when he's trying to be subtle he over does it or misses the point.



The green chick was hawt though!

 

[ebbixx]

I don't really see how you can accuse a movie of relying on spectacle when it's narratively demanded. It would be like saying Shakespeare is overly reliant on dialogue. I thought the actors and acting was great, Simon Pegg especially.

Just one example of what I mean (and I loved Simon Pegg too, fwiw):

WTF is "Red Matter" and if a dab smaller than I use to shampoo my hair can destroy a planet, why in the name of Surek is Spock carting around this monster globe of the stuff? Answer, the cinematographer saw Minority Report and wanted to fill the screen with a shiny, pretty red ball, with lots of cool subsurface ray-scattering, all suspended against his pretty, super-white set.

I don't actually mind this most of the time, but I certainly know people who are driven to distraction by aesthetically-driven decisions that are later painted over with a ultra-thin veneer of plot points and zero-plausibility science -- unless I missed some papers recently about how red enamel paint is the missing catalyst for creating a singularity, when mixed with material from a planet's molten core. I'm not even going to start on the engineering challenges of maintaining an exactly geosynchronous orbit, counter-acting drag and air resistance completely to dangle a particle beam drill head and punch perfect holes into the planet core.

Don't get me wrong -- it looks great, and it's thrilling to present all that kung fu fencing action suspended against a really cool series of models, matte paintings and CGI shots and whatever all else was done to create those cool images, and then later blow it all up. But it is about the images more than it's about anything remotely likely to happen in this or any other galaxy. And thinking about such plot points usually leads to absurd questions if one tries to defend the choices on anything but the grounds that the production designer and cinematographer were looking for something that would look wicked cool on screen, and the script adapted itself to accomodate that vision.

To be fair though, it's really not worthwhile to debate what is or isn't narratively demanded, such movies operate by a set of rules we've mostly come to accept (and expect to see observed) and they probably serve some deep, but not necessarily well-analyzed, set of needs in us, or we wouldn't buy tickets. One of my most popular YouTube videos is a 57 second climax from a fireworks show, after all.



We like to see shit blown up.

 

[Otokogoroshi]

There was plenty of moments where I wanted to groan about the science of this movie but I let it slide since it's heavy on the fi (fiction) and less on the sci (science) which is typical of this movies genre as well as Star Trek itself.


The fact that the ship was apparently built on the planet made me groan. It would just make more sense to build it in space!

 

[Zylstra]

Seen it, liked it, but it [blank]....

the acting was good, it had a lil feeling of Star Wars at one point were Sulo flicked out his [blank], after [blank]-ing for 5 minutes.... that was awesome!

Do you realize how wrong that sounds?

There was plenty of moments where I wanted to groan about the science of this movie but I let it slide since it's heavy on the fi (fiction) and less on the sci (science) which is typical of this movies genre as well as Star Trek itself.


The fact that the ship was apparently built on the planet made me groan. It would just make more sense to build it in space!

Physics and reason do not apply. Please enjoy the movie. Thank you

 

[Otokogoroshi]

Physics and reason do not apply. Please enjoy the movie. Thank you

Oh I agree! I can nitpick anything even crap I love

 

[ebbixx]

The fact that the ship was apparently built on the planet made me groan. It would just make more sense to build it in space!

Even the older ST movies managed not to entirely disregard aerodynamics and the implausibility of launching something like that... but as you say, I turned of my science module until after I left the theater, at least for the most part. As I said, especially with a director like Abrams it's all about the eye candy and the pacing.

 

[ebbixx]

Seen it, liked it, but it [blank]....

the acting was good, it had a lil feeling of Star Wars at one point were Sulo flicked out his [blank], after [blank]-ing for 5 minutes.... that was awesome!

Wasn't that scene from Indiana Jones, not Star Wars?

And just how does one put "good acting" and "Star Wars" in the same sentence? Or am I thinking of "good dialogue" here -- I love whenever Carrie Fisher talks about Lucas's script.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

WTF is "Red Matter" and if a dab smaller than I use to shampoo my hair can destroy a planet, why in the name of Surek is Spock carting around this monster globe of the stuff? Answer, the cinematographer saw Minority Report and wanted to fill the screen with a shiny, pretty red ball, with lots of cool subsurface ray-scattering, all suspended against his pretty, super-white set.

That was one of my two annoyances with the film, the unexplained nature of the red matter. And also why - if two guys with guns can take down an orbit-to-surface spacedrill - no-one got on the phone to the military and said "Hey, earth is being drilled into by a very fragile piece of metal chain - can one of you guys launch a missile or something?"

But if that's the cause of your gripe with an over-reliance on special effects, it seems a bit minor. I don't see how you could remove scenes involving stars and the trekking thereof. CGI is just a tool. If the original Star Trek had had access to such technology, they'd have gone completely crazy with it - the show was full of shots of ships and planets and stuff going on, but because it was good old fashioned models no-one seems to equate it with shiny modern special effects.

Same intent, different technology.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Despise shakey cam. Needless to say Cloverfield is near the top of my list of 'Worst movies I've seen" with 28 Weeks Later on that list too. His direction style lacks subtlety which is amusing considering his ties with Lost.

Well, he didn't direct Cloverfield. Also, whilst you may despise shakey cam - and I loathe it for the most part in "conventional" movies - I don't see you could really complain about it in Cloverfield considering it's completely integral and realistic. A shit-scared guy running around with a camera? Lord no! He should have a tripod. Would you have preferred Cloverfield told like every other monster movie, with complete exposition at every turn?

After about five minutes I stopped noticing the shakey cam in Star Trek, to be honest. I don't really see how his style lacks subtlety, either. It just lacks it from your perspective. What would you have done? How would you have improved the shots?

However, I'll grant you this - any film that has a close-up on a manly handshake needs a bit of a kicking. I wish people would stop it.

 

[ebbixx]

But if that's the cause of your gripe with an over-reliance on special effects, it seems a bit minor.

WARNING: HERE (MAY) BE SPOILERS


You may have read more into my hyperbole than I literally said, certainly more than I intended. I enjoyed the movie.

My gripe is more one with tentpole movies in general, that they tend to emphasize spectacle over any sort of plausible plot, and for reasons that make perfect business sense. And as you pointed out, think too hard (or think at all) and you start wondering why Vulcans never invented a missile defense net (though I recall there was some arm waving/lamp hanging about some general disabling of C,³I systems?).

Bombs, imploding planets and other gorgeously composed effects shots require almost no language (aside from standard film grammar, mostly set in stone decades ago in Battleship Potemkin and Birth of a Nation, so the viewer is not hampered by a need to follow subtitles, subtleties of characterization or any of the other things that might make an American movie less of a draw in international markets. It makes perfect sense that these movies are what they are and I don't begrudge them that.

And the fact that Abrams managed to tell the whole plot of the original Star Wars in the first 15 minutes with barely any words (nevermind why is a pregnant woman on a Federation warship?) is still a sort of impressive feat of visual storytelling, particularly given these implicit limits of the form, regardless that it's manipulative and absurd -- it solved oh so many problems for him as a filmmaker, since he no longer is obliged to adhere to any of the ST:TOS continuity or character development. His Kirk is literally a different person, he can match the old Kirk whenever it suits the story, and go as far from him as he wants whenever that serves his story's needs better.

But Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, Luis Buà±uel and/or Frank Capra he is not. Not even sure he compares favorably to Stephen Spielberg but then I'm picky that way.

He is the flavor of the month, though. Bryan Singer -- that's who I'd compare him to most favorably. And this is where tentpole movies are at the moment, so there's not really anything to be done. And almost all of this is driven by the math of international and DVD/BD distribution, so it's pointless in a way to call it into question much. OTOH, it does explain why I've only bothered to see a one movie (this one) in theatrical release in the last year or so, despite saying I was going to see several others, and despite watching movies at home on a nearly daily basis, sometimes repeatedly, when I have the time to watch closely (and pause, and analyze more closely).

My only gripe is that, aside from introduction technical effects that can only be afforded by a few movies in any given release year, a movie like this gives the impression that it is new, when most of its techniques are really very old and very well tested (and they have to be, given the capital risks involved). I don't dislike it. But its definitely not the only kind of movie I enjoy, and I learn a lot more in many cases from much riskier films that most people will probably reject out of hand, at least until the same techniques appear in something more "commercial."

That is what it is though, minor to you, critical to me because I'm looking for things I can legally "steal." So much depends on where you are standing.

 

[COMMUNIST FLISK]

i went to see it last night
it was awsome, explosions and all, you all need to stop going. how does this work, why didnt they do this etc. if your going to do that. wait for it to come out on dvd, sit in your basement for 5 months and watch it at like 1 fps picking out every little tiny detail.
otherwise. just take it as it is, a FILM, something which is NOT REAL and probably wont be for a LONG TIME.
grow up is all im saying, the films arent meant to be for people like you who sit there and tear them to shreds because they do not 100% satisfy you. they are meant for people to watch and do something other than sit at home and watch the news or something. damn you people for making me angry.
if your going to do that with every film, dont go to the cinema, let people who actually want to just go and watch a film watch it.