[Chris Grieb]

I finally watched it and I must say it was well done. The young actors doing the crew were very good. The explanation for the coming events of the series while implausible was credible until you get home and think about it. It's very good fun.

[Bill P]

Chris Grieb, on 21 December 2009 - 06:44 AM, said:

I finally watched it and I must say it was well done. The young actors doing the crew were very good. The explanation for the coming events of the series while implausible was credible until you get home and think about it. It's very good fun.

I agree. I can remember eagerly anticipating new movies in the Star Trek: TOS series. I haven't been similarly eager for a new Star Trek movie since the end of the TOS movies, and the ones I have watched have been, in my judgment, substantially inferior to the bulk of those in the TOS series.

Bill P

This post has been edited by Bill P: 21 December 2009 - 08:54 AM

[BaalChatzaf]

Chris Grieb, on 21 December 2009 - 06:44 AM, said:

I finally watched it and I must say it was well done. The young actors doing the crew were very good. The explanation for the coming events of the series while implausible was credible until you get home and think about it. It's very good fun.

I thought the plot had holes fit for Swiss Cheese. However the guy who did a young Leonard McCoy got the cantakerous doctor down letter perfect. The was worth the price of the movie ticket to me.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Greybird]

It was worth a matinée theater admission, which is increasingly difficult to say about any movie in recent years. I had awaited it with great interest, especially with "Trek" having lost its storytelling moorings in the last decade. Its SFX and casting were quite well done.

Yet I can't call any story that portrays the genocide of several billion sentient beings — and, even worse, has the event matter very little to the central characters — "very good fun."

Which is why, unlike every other "Trek" iteration since I watched The Original Series (in black & white) back in 1966, I'm not going to bother to see it again.

The first of the TOS movies, "... The Motion Picture," an especially underrated creation in Robert Wise's director's cut on DVD, is sitting on my shelf. That's worth pulling down again.

[Darrell Hougen]

Greybird, on 21 December 2009 - 10:49 AM, said:

Yet I can't call any story that portrays the genocide of several billion sentient beings — and, even worse, has the event matter very little to the central characters — "very good fun."

I guess I didn't have quite the same reaction. I happen to like Vulcans and was sad to see most of the killed off, but I viewed it sort of like the death of the inhabitants of Krypton in the Superman series. On the other hand, if you take the movie seriously, it does have problems.

Darrell

[Las Vegas]

I thought the movie had little substance as far as plot goes, and the acting wasn't anything to rejoice.
The special effects, however, were quite good, imo.

This post has been edited by Las Vegas: 21 December 2009 - 06:35 PM

[John Day]

Greybird, on 21 December 2009 - 10:49 AM, said:

Yet I can't call any story that portrays the genocide of several billion sentient beings — and, even worse, has the event matter very little to the central characters — "very good fun."

You could make the same argument with the first Star Wars. Luke seems to be more distraught over the death of Obi-Wan than Leia is over the destruction of her planet. But properly mourning a loss like that would seriously detract from a film's plot.

[Greybird]

John Day, on 21 December 2009 - 11:05 PM, said:

Greybird, on 21 December 2009 - 10:49 AM, said:

Yet I can't call any story that portrays the genocide of several billion sentient beings — and, even worse, has the event matter very little to the central characters — "very good fun."

You could make the same argument with the first "Star Wars."

Yes, you could. I wouldn't quite call that "good fun," either. The heroes show notable wit, huge inventiveness, frequent charm, and utter savoir-faire ... but not really pleasure, until their final victory.

What I should have done, though, is frame this more broadly, and your example helps with that:

In the "Trek" film, such repeated planetary mass death doesn't even ultimately matter. It barely is noticed by those opposing the plotting of the villains, who themselves are seeking a mechanized and quite poorly explained revenge. It also has little to do with what unfolds of the plot, for it barely affects how the villains carry out their plans or are dealt with.

In the first "Star Wars," losing a planet at least drives the rest of the plot, with the heroes' fervent determination both to prevent its happening again and to destroy the tool that can bring it about. It has vast and essential consequences.

Portraying genocide is a bad enough crutch, but not having it result in substantial storytelling consequences is even worse. Punching up the importance of such an event shouldn't be followed by its being more or less disregarded later, as to its shaking up what the characters choose to do. That doubles the esthetic waste.

Quote

[In "Star Wars,"] Luke seems to be more distraught over the death of Obi-Wan than Leia is over the destruction of her planet. But properly mourning a loss like that would seriously detract from a film's plot.

Well, showing that the loss of Alderaan matters to those characters doesn't mean that they would have had to interrupt everything else they were doing. (Though Obi-Wan shows more than a bit of such recognition. Transit times can be convenient.)

Transmuting such a loss into other emotions and actions actually serves a purpose, and very likely a more productive one — given that the heroes couldn't prevent it. (This last being true of the destruction of Krypton in the Superman stories, as well.)

The new "Trek" film defaulted on carrying out that task of transmuting or redemption, or of even fully recognizing the need for this — which turns such a loss into something almost anti-heroic.

[Michael E. Marotta]

I saw it in the theater when it came out and overall, I agree with everything everyone said. The movie was not like going to the dentist, but it was not much better. While Dr. McCoy was easy to recognize, the actor's job was as cut out for him, and so it was almost too easy ... cranky, southern accent, hates technology, drinks. Oh, must be Dr. McCoy...

Speaking of the good doctor, one missing element was the line "He's dead, Jim." Did anyone else not see some other iconic Star Trek shtick?

When the floating drill got crashed into, the unnecessary guy fell off. In the parody Galaxy Quest, the security guy realizes that he is the one wearing the red shirt: he's not going to make it -- though in fact he does, but it is a nod to the cliche.

You have to wonder about the wider cultural and social reflections. I mean, these movies take millions of dollars to produce and engage human resources on a tremendous scale. Similarly, among the wealthiest suburbs in America are three around Washington DC where live researchers and others for think tanks and lobbyists. Meanwhile, the trains languish... the roads are 50 years old... commercial aviation is a cartel ...

On another board (or maybe this one), I think because of the Agora movie, I read a comparison of our time to the eastern Roman ("Byzantine") Empire. They fought and argued among themselves over Christian doctrine while the more pressing problems went unacknowledged or unattended... forces pressing their frontiers, the Visigoths, the Muslims, eventually, the Ottoman Turks.... Of course, in that we are speaking of over 500-600 years, but on the other hand, things move faster now, slower then. Maybe I am making too much of a cliched theater production.

[anonrobt]

Michael E. Marotta, on 22 December 2009 - 08:36 AM, said:

I saw it in the theater when it came out and overall, I agree with everything everyone said. The movie was not like going to the dentist, but it was not much better. While Dr. McCoy was easy to recognize, the actor's job was as cut out for him, and so it was almost too easy ... cranky, southern accent, hates technology, drinks. Oh, must be Dr. McCoy...

Speaking of the good doctor, one missing element was the line "He's dead, Jim." Did anyone else not see some other iconic Star Trek shtick?

When the floating drill got crashed into, the unnecessary guy fell off. In the parody Galaxy Quest, the security guy realizes that he is the one wearing the red shirt: he's not going to make it -- though in fact he does, but it is a nod to the cliche.

You have to wonder about the wider cultural and social reflections. I mean, these movies take millions of dollars to produce and engage human resources on a tremendous scale. Similarly, among the wealthiest suburbs in America are three around Washington DC where live researchers and others for think tanks and lobbyists. Meanwhile, the trains languish... the roads are 50 years old... commercial aviation is a cartel ...

On another board (or maybe this one), I think because of the Agora movie, I read a comparison of our time to the eastern Roman ("Byzantine") Empire. They fought and argued among themselves over Christian doctrine while the more pressing problems went unacknowledged or unattended... forces pressing their frontiers, the Visigoths, the Muslims, eventually, the Ottoman Turks.... Of course, in that we are speaking of over 500-600 years, but on the other hand, things move faster now, slower then. Maybe I am making too much of a cliched theater production.

then perhaps not, if you compare movies of the 30's as to today, disregarding technological advances...

[Michael]

It was entertaining and the cast was good, but the story is tired tired tired. I kind of wish they had simply used this cast for a new TV show instead of a film franchise because the films have been of substantially less quality in terms of story than the TV shows. I'm hoping they go out on a limb with the next one and actually make it a sci-fi story of some sort that explores sophisticated ideas and has some morally challenging content. Not every Star Trek film has to be a Wrath of Khan remake-that is a Shakespearean actor playing a villain who wants to kill Kirk (or Spock, or the Enterprise) out of vengeance for a perceived wrong.

[Selene]

Michael, on 08 February 2010 - 09:36 PM, said:

It was entertaining and the cast was good, but the story is tired tired tired. I kind of wish they had simply used this cast for a new TV show instead of a film franchise because the films have been of substantially less quality in terms of story than the TV shows. I'm hoping they go out on a limb with the next one and actually make it a sci-fi story of some sort that explores sophisticated ideas and has some morally challenging content. Not every Star Trek film has to be a Wrath of Khan remake-that is a Shakespearean actor playing a villain who wants to kill Kirk (or Spock, or the Enterprise) out of vengeance for a perceived wrong.

Michael: Oh no, not another Michael!

Welcome to OL. I have not seen the movie.

So, what do you do to support the statists? Worker or student or both?

Adam

[Chris Baker]

I only watched it once on DVD. I had some major issues with how the characters were portrayed.

In TOS, Captain Kirk NEVER would have fired on a disabled ship. This bothered me a great deal, as it has always been one of his strengths.

The time-travel theme is so unbelievably overdone in sci-fi. Please lose it.

The Spock-Uhura business made no sense whatsoever. In TOS, it was always Nurse Chapel who was in love with Spock. Interestingly enough, that character never appeared.

Movie was not consistent with a lot of the series in a whole lot of ways. Chekov, of course, did not appear during the first season at all.

Spock was down pat. The woman who played Uhura was actually a little too good looking.