The new Star Trek movie is...

[shilsen]

The new Star Trek movie is ... mediocre.

I saw it yesterday and while I'm pleased that the franchise is getting a decent reboot and hoping that it will produce better movies soon, this one was just average for me. I was entertained, but at least half the entertainment came from the movie's references to what we know of Star Trek rather than from the movie itself. Of course, that's probably the point, but I think it's possible to have that and for the movie to stand on its own merits too, and the latter it (for me) failed to do. Plot, characterization, etc all required you to know a fair bit about Star Trek for it to work, and even so didn't work that well for me. When it comes to space s/f movies, I'd put something like Serenity miles ahead of it. Much tighter and better done, and able to work for someone completely unaware of the Firefly series as well as for someone who knows and loves everything Joss Wheedon has done.

I'd also have liked it to be at least a little cerebral rather than primarily focused on the action (none of which was particularly noteworthy). And the primary non-action element, the bromance of Kirk and Spock, came across to me as a little forced. One of the things I liked about Star Trek TOS was the way it pushed boundaries and actually had some consideration for how a society, ethics, humanity, morality, etc might be different in a future world. Unfortunately, when you reboot a story from the 1960s to the 21st century and don't change enough, it looks horribly dated. For example, the presence of Uhura and other women on the bridge in TOS (despite the stupid uniform) was a majorly progressive move. But having Zoe Saldana reprise the character without updating anything (and they brought back the damn mini-skirt) just makes it seem horribly backwards now.

But I should quit here. In short, I thought it was okay. And wish it was much better.

 

[Arnwyn]

Just saw it and thought it was pretty decent.

Now, first thing's first - the idea that it was better than Wrath of Khan is hilarious! (Heavens, it wasn't even as good as Undiscovered Country, AFAIC). That's a load of nonsense. I suspect such statements are simply the result of a desperate happiness to see some form of Star Trek - any Star Trek! - back in the theater combined with... "over-enthusiasm"... thanks to very effective carpet-bombing marketing and a dash of uber special effects that we've never seen in a ST movie before.

But it's still an enjoyable movie. Sure, there are a load of flaws. It had that absolutely ty trope of

Spoiler

time travel

, so it already started off on the wrong foot and had to claw it's way back from that. That twit Abrams love of the shakey-cam was also detrimental to the movie (I chuckle when I see that thread/Onion headline about the movie being "watchable". Heh... hardly, with that craphole cam!) Also, unfortunately, the music was very weak - the weakest of all ST movies. Very unfortunate. Giacchino should go back/stick to TV and video games. And the villain... oh the lame, lame villain. It was Star Trek: Nemesis all over again. What's up with doing bad Romulans? (The way he was played, Jason Statham could have been in that role instead of Bana... hell, Statham would probably have been better. *rolleyes*)

But thankfully the whole pathetic villain thing was ancillary. It was about the characters - and the characters were great, thanks to them doing a mix of good and bad impressions of the original actors. Karl Urban as McCoy was an absolute dream each and every time he appeared on screen, and really made the movie. Sure, the whole

Spoiler

Uhura/Spock relationship was creepy and uncomfortable

, but the rest was great. Unfortunately, not a lot of it stood on its own - they were only funny due to knowledge of the original series.

The best thing was the tight, focused storyline. This was very much appreciated. The pacing was fantastic, and most of the scenes were valuable to the movie as a whole (well, except the ice monster scene, which was completely unneeded and kind of in the way). But otherwise, good.

So, not too bad at all: 8/10. I don't know how it'll hold up to repeated viewings, though... I know right now I have little desire to see it again, at least for a while.

Edit: Oh yeah -

Spoiler

Nimoy

being in the movie was silly and unneeded. It was the best choice for him to appear out of the others, I guess, but really... if you're going to make a reboot, then make a damn reboot! Half-way is a copout.

 

[Mallus]

Now, first thing's first - the idea that it was better than Wrath of Khan is hilarious!

Laugh it up, furball (oops, wrong franchise).

I suspect such statements are simply the result of a desperate happiness to see some form of Star Trek - any Star Trek! - back in the theater combined with... "over-enthusiasm"... thanks to very effective carpet-bombing marketing and a dash of uber special effects that we've never seen in a ST movie before.

Can we leave the analysis for the film, please?

It's fun to debate a film's merits, or lack of, as the case may be. But when you start speculating as to why other people responded to a film the way they did, you set sail for that undiscovered country where you sound like a yutz. Getting in someone else's head is notoriously hard, and people's responses to art are complicated. You kinda have to take them at their word, if there's going to be any discussion at all. At the very least you should focus on the objective, and limit the critiques to the work itself.

Insinuating that people are advertising dupes, desperate, or easily captivated by shiny (exploding) things, isn't helpful. Also, it makes you look like a crank.

BTW, I loved the film because I think they got the characters right. It's as simple as that. Though I admit the special effects were nice and shiny...

 

[Mallus]

The new Star Trek movie is ... mediocre.

You're wrong!

Now that I got that out of my system...

One of the things I liked about Star Trek TOS was the way it pushed boundaries and actually had some consideration for how a society, ethics, humanity, morality, etc might be different in a future world.

That's fair, but remember that TOS did this inconsistently, and some of it's best-loved episodes didn't engage in that kind of speculation cf. "Balance of Terror" (a WWII submarine duel, in space), "A Piece of the Action" (a gangster comedy, in space), or even "The Wrath of Khan" (a story about coming to grips with middle age, coupled with a WWII submarine duel and Moby Dick, in space). Some people seem to be faulting the new film for not doing everything Star Trek did during the course of its run (or several runs).

...(despite the stupid uniform)...

Your irrational objection to women in miniskirts and boots is duly noted, shil.

But having Zoe Saldana reprise the character without updating anything (and they brought back the damn mini-skirt) just makes it seem horribly backwards now.

I think you're forgetting what the portrayal of Uhura was like in TOS (I've been watching the Season 1 Blu-ray). She's a deferential receptionist in space. The new version is a top-flight linguist and, more importantly, a more rounded character. There's more to the character of Uhura in the new film that there is in a whole season of TOS. I'd say that qualifies as 'updating'.

In short, I thought it was okay.

Despite this, you're still invited over for an afternoon of cocktails and Kirk I'm planning for the near future.

 

[shilsen]

You're wrong!

I was waiting for you to say that

That's fair, but remember that TOS did this inconsistently, and some of it's best-loved episodes didn't engage in that kind of speculation cf. "Balance of Terror" (a WWII submarine duel, in space), "A Piece of the Action" (a gangster comedy, in space), or even "The Wrath of Khan" (a story about coming to grips with middle age, coupled with a WWII submarine duel and Moby Dick, in space). Some people seem to be faulting the new film for not doing everything Star Trek did during the course of its run (or several runs).

True, but I don't think it's asking too much to ask the movie to be at least a little thoughtful, which I really didn't find it to be at all. And that's something I'd ask of it anyway, irrespective of the original series, because I really don't expect or want a really faithful rendition of the original. I suspect that's one of the major variations between your expectation/desire of it and mine, hence the difference in opinion. After all, as you said

BTW, I loved the film because I think they got the characters right. It's as simple as that.

For me, getting the characters right really wasn't enough (I'm also not convinced they got Spock right, but that's another matter) for me to really like it. That would help me enjoy the movie, and it did, but for me to consider it to be really good, the movie had to stand on its own merits too.

Your irrational objection to women in miniskirts and boots is duly noted, shil.

Heh. I just like there to be a little more to women than looking pretty (or men, for that matter). In this movie, there wasn't.

I think you're forgetting what the portrayal of Uhura was like in TOS (I've been watching the Season 1 Blu-ray). She's a deferential receptionist in space. The new version is a top-flight linguist and, more importantly, a more rounded character. There's more to the character of Uhura in the new film that there is in a whole season of TOS. I'd say that qualifies as 'updating'.

I'll agree about Uhura in TOS, but having a woman (especially a woman of color) doing any job on the bridge was a big step forward when TOS came out. And I didn't see any real updating here. Uhura in this movie does absolutely nothing useful, besides translating a little Romulan. She's also apparently a shoulder for Spock to cry on and something for Kirk to eye and grope, but that's hardly what I'd consider a well-rounded character. Sure, a couple of characters say she's really good at her job, but she actually does nothing, so the character references are meaningless. Admittedly she does more than Bones, whose usefulness apparently ends once he gets Kirk on the Enterprise, but that's not saying much.

BTW, for a damn good take on the one-sided treatment of gender in the movie, check out the Warp Factor Sex review on the Guardian.

Despite this, you're still invited over for an afternoon of cocktails and Kirk I'm planning for the near future.

Thanks. Just don't make me watch the movie again. Which is a very easy way for me to judge whether I really like a movie or not. I was thinking today that I'd happily watch The Wrath of Khan again, and I've already seen it thrice. But the new Star Trek? Nope.

 

[Mallus]

I was waiting for you to say that

I was waiting for me to say it too!

True, but I don't think it's asking too much to ask the movie to be at least a little thoughtful, which I really didn't find it to be at all.

It wasn't. Then again, I never found Trek to be particularly thoughtful (or, rather, I found it thoughtful and dumb in equal measure, with lots of punching).

I suspect that's one of the major variations between your expectation/desire of it and mine.

To be honest, I'm not sure what my expectations were. All I can say is that I left the theater beaming (pun un... never mind), feeling the film reminded me of everything (mostly) I liked about Star Trek in the first place.

...(I'm also not convinced they got Spock right, but that's another matter)...

They replaced Spock's irony and loneliness with barely-concealed anger. I liked it. It seemed a viable interpretation of the character.

Uhura in this movie does absolutely nothing useful, besides translating a little Romulan. She's also apparently a shoulder for Spock to cry on and something for Kirk to eye and grope, but that's hardly what I'd consider a well-rounded character.

What would have been an acceptable display of her competencies? Also, I don't buy that her being compassionate to Spock somehow reduces the character. It humanizes both of them. Needing to refrain from showing a woman being compassionate is just as ugly artifact of gender stereotyping.

Sure, a couple of characters say she's really good at her job, but she actually does nothing, so the character references are meaningless.

Well, nothing aside from translating a plot-critical bit and standing up to a James T. Kirk pickup line (without hectoring or lecturing).

Just don't make me watch the movie again.

Wouldn't dream of it. I'll be screening 1st season TOS: "Space Seed", "City on the Edge of Forever", just the classics.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Laugh it up, furball (oops, wrong franchise).

But there were Kzinti in the semi-canonical cartoon series.

Insinuating that people are advertising dupes, desperate, or easily captivated by shiny (exploding) things, isn't helpful. Also, it makes you look like a crank.

But the Hollywood studios regularly assume that people are advertising dupes, desperate, or easily captivated by shiny (exploding) things. We may disagree on whether we individually think this film falls in that category. But to think that people will fall for that type of thing doesn't make make someone a crank, it means they realize what the studio execs realize and profit from.

 

[Arnwyn]

Can we leave the analysis for the film, please?

Long since covered in my post. Sorry if you somehow managed to get prematurely stalled.

But no need to worry yourself - I said I enjoyed it.

 

[Mallus]

But there were Kzinti in the semi-canonical cartoon series.

Right... Niven adapted "The Slaver Weapon". Why do I remember things like this? I could have more important things in my head...

 

[Mallus]

Long since covered in my post. Sorry if you somehow managed to get prematurely stalled.

Did I miss the part of your post where took back the suggestion that people raving about the film were dupes?

But no need to worry yourself - I said I enjoyed it.

Arn, I don't care if you enjoyed it. I cared that you suggested people raving about the film were dupes. Perhaps because I've been raving about it for several days now? I sense a connection...