Star Trek

[AJ Rimmer]

I had a period of being super-against this movie, but I gave it a fair chance and goddammit, it was good. Damn good. They paid due reverence to all the old characters (especially Spock and Kirk, obviously) and the plot was decent, except for the main villain who was as interesting as Picard's clone from Nemesis, who incidentally was also Romulan. Apart from him, the only other big downside was Uhura. God she was annoying and did nothing, except cause me to dislike new Spock just a little bit for being together with her. I mean seriously.

 

[hot564231]

The movie would have been better if they had shown Nero becoming a bad guy, instead of being a outright villain of the week type character.

 

[Yorick]

Ok, since you tools can't understand why this was a bad movie, let me spell it out for you.

Let me first say that I was never a huge fan of the original series, or DS9. I grew up on TNG and Voyager, though. All of the Star Trek TNG movies have sucked, hard. I haven't seen all of the original series ones.

That said, if you changed all the names, and removed everything that tied this movie to Star Trek, of which there wasn't much to begin with, it would still be a horrible, cliche, typical, JJ Abrams masturbation fest.

- So the Romulans come back in time, have a nice conversation with Kirk Senior's captain, and then lay waste to the Enterprise for absolutely zero reason, but also let the escape pods get away. Motive: 0.

- Awful science. "Blood boiling" because of a crack in the hull? Dropping a "Black hole" into a planet's core, aside from completely ridiculous, would not drag a planet in from one single location like draining the water out of a bathtub. Also more bad science, you can't DRILL INTO A ****ING PLANET LIKE THAT.

- Kirk and Sulu standing on a giant laser drill fighting some Romulans, while Sulu pulls out a collapsable Katana. REALLY.

- RED MATTER.

- Let's talk about the premise of this entire goddamn thing. So, years into the future, the Romulan homeworld is destroyed, and Ambassador Spock is unable to save it. So, the Romulans jump into a black hole , dragging Spock back in time with them, (which couldn't ****ing happen leaving them intact, not to mention taking them both back in time) so that he can watch as they destroy HIS homeworld. How unacceptably petty.

- Oh, and the science used in explaining how the sun's supernova takes out Romulus could not have been more wrong.

- Plus Ambassador Spock violates the Prime Directive about a billion times through the course of this movie, which Spock would not do.

I have no problem with series reboots, I have no problem with alternate timelines, but as usual, in this case it seems like an excuse to have poor writing. "We don't know what the **** we're doing, sooo yeah, alternate timeline". This movie should have changed the names, dropped the shitbag time travel plot, and just been a generic space movie - because that's all the **** it was anyway.

Anyone who actually liked this isn't a Star Trek fanboy, they're a fanboy of the worst kind, a fanboy of terrible directors and the awful scripts they use, such as JJ Abrams, Michael Bay, Joel Schumacher, Roland Emmerich, and let's not forget McG.

 

[jondy]

"Blood boiling" because of a crack in the hull? Dropping a "Black hole" into a planet's core, aside from completely ridiculous, would not drag a planet in from one single location like draining the water out of a bathtub. Also more bad science, you can't DRILL INTO A ****ING PLANET LIKE THAT.

Also more bad science, you can't DRILL INTO A ****ING PLANET LIKE THAT.

bad science

HOLD THE PHONE

 

[Sulkdodds]

Yorick, if the movie has such terrible direction, pacing and writing then why didn't you criticise the direction, pacing and writing instead of listing its obvious science flaws and plot holes? When I say 'writing' I don't just mean the (ludicrous) plot - I mean the way that it carried along moment to moment, with dialogue etc, which was generally pretty competent.

I'm not sure it's to your credit that your reaction to the nonsense plot is to be scornful rather than amused.

 

[Yorick]

If the movie has such terrible direction, pacing and writing then why didn't you criticise the direction, pacing and writing instead of listing its obvious science flaws and plot holes?

In what upside down world do you live where science flaws and plot holes aren't bad writing? Should I instead point out the retardedly "comical" scene where Kirk is running around with giant hands and McCoy keeps chasing after and injecting him? Or would you prefer me to mention the ridiculous scene in Kirk's youth where he slides the car sideways off a cliff and leaps out JUST IN TIME to give the officer some smart ass remark.

I think direction was pretty much summed up in the ridiculous premise, and if you can watch the movie and not notice the bad pacing, then you must be epileptic, and continually seizure.

[edit]

Yorick, if the movie has such terrible direction, pacing and writing then why didn't you criticise the direction, pacing and writing instead of listing its obvious science flaws and plot holes? When I say 'writing' I don't just mean the (ludicrous) plot - I mean the way that it carried along moment to moment, with dialogue etc, which was generally pretty competent.

I'm not sure it's to your credit that your reaction to the nonsense plot is to be scornful rather than amused.

The dialogue was tolerable for the most part, but there also wasn't really all that much of it, not with substance anyway.

There was a lot of it that I really wanted to like: Spock and Kirk disliking each other and fighting I feel was a great touch, but there's so much of the movie that's just a complete mess, and munching popcorn and laughing about it is what keeps awful movies getting made.

The same crowd that liked this probably likes Transformers, and is going to like Cameron's Avatar. That is not okay.

 

[Lucid]

Also, you actually liked Voyager and yet you hated this movie?

 

[Sulkdodds]

In what upside down world do you live where science flaws and plot holes aren't bad writing?

Yeah see the edit. The film is certainly an "insult" to Star Trek, but not so much because it's a terrible movie as because it's pure fantasy, a rollercoaster ride with a sci-fi setting. Problems of motive are bad writing full stop, but science flaws - in a film that obviously isn't even attempting realism - are comical rather than showstopping. EDIT: Oh okay you saw my edit.

I don't think it was awful on the level that Transformers was (sorry Darkside). And even if it was, you're being silly. Seeing good movies that come from ordinary distribution companies helps pay taxes towards governments that murder and cheat. Come on! You're always implicated in something much worse than bad moviemaking. Anyway, as to the rest of your initial argument, that's fair enough. Maybe I'm just not capable of true critical vision. After all, I am disabled. D:

EDIT: I should note that the motive flaws are limited to the villain, and this makes them a little bit forgiveable because the precise nature of the villain is unimportant. The focus of the film is on the federation dudes and they could have been fighting a giant polar bear for all it would have mattered. Of course, that in itself is a flaw (no decent/interesting villain) but that's another matter.

 

[Yorick]

Yeah see the edit. The film is certainly an "insult" to Star Trek, but not so much because it's a terrible movie as because it's pure fantasy, a rollercoaster ride with a sci-fi setting. Problems of motive are bad writing full stop, but science flaws - in a film that obviously isn't even attempting realism - are comical rather than showstopping.

Well, I mean, it's not like Star Trek has always been known for scientific accuracy, but I feel like the writers on the shows did their homework a LOT more than the scripters did for this movie.

I don't think it was awful on the level that Transformers was (sorry Darkside).

True, I'm probably more bitter because I care about the source material. Transformers was never all that great.

EDIT: I should note that the motive flaws are limited to the villain, and this makes them a little bit forgiveable because the precise nature of the villain is unimportant. The focus of the film is on the federation dudes and they could have been fighting a giant polar bear for all it would have mattered. Of course, that in itself is a flaw (no decent/interesting villain) but that's another matter.

I disagree. I think having a great villain is wonderful. And, you know, that's part of what made the show and even the original movies great. Look at the stuff with Q, with Data's brother, with the Borg. I feel like with this they tried too hard to recreate the awesomeness that was Khan instead of doing something different. The revenge plot in this is really quite meaningless.

 

[Sulkdodds]

On the contrary, I think they didn't try at all with this villain. He barely even speaks, right?

Anyway, what I meant by insult is sort of more that even in old Star Trek, if you had scientific inaccuracy, it would still be serving a plotline which was about the effects of two cultures coming together, or what society would be like if x changed or whatever (often pretty ****ing clumsily, but hey). In the movie none of that was particularly important. It was fiction of an entirely different character.

 

[Yorick]

On the contrary, I think they didn't try at all with this villain. He barely even speaks, right?

Well, there's a parallel I think, but not a good one.

- Kirk accidentally kills Khan's son. Khan's retaliation is killing Spock, Kirk's closest friend.
- Spock can't save Romulus. Nero's retaliation is to destroy Vulcan, Spock's own homeworld.

Anyway, what I meant by insult is sort of more that even in old Star Trek, if you had scientific inaccuracy, it would still be serving a plotline which was about the effects of two cultures coming together, or what society would be like if x changed or whatever (often pretty ****ing clumsily, but hey). In the movie none of that was particularly important. It was fiction of an entirely different character.

Yes that's true.

 

[Asknoone]

EDIT: I should note that the motive flaws are limited to the villain, and this makes them a little bit forgiveable because the precise nature of the villain is unimportant. The focus of the film is on the federation dudes and they could have been fighting a giant polar bear for all it would have mattered. Of course, that in itself is a flaw (no decent/interesting villain) but that's another matter.

No it's exact the same matter; if you have one weak element, it's going to impede the potential of the rest. That the story of the Federation characters - their relationships, their place in this world, their first steps on the path to their destiny - was built around this wholly worthless premise (Nero coming back in time to make Spock weep) and character motivation is what prevents the film from ever becoming more than it is: mediocre and boring. One sloppy element in the grand narrative infests another, as it did here. The villain should have been very important.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Well, there's a parallel I think, but not a good one.

- Kirk accidentally kills Khan's son. Khan's retaliation is killing Spock, Kirk's closest friend.

...huh?

 

[AJ Rimmer]

- So the Romulans come back in time, have a nice conversation with Kirk Senior's captain, and then lay waste to the Enterprise for absolutely zero reason, but also let the escape pods get away. Motive: 0.

Not the Enterprise, the USS Kelvin. And they specifically say that Kirk stays behind to allow the shuttles time to escape- You see the Kelvin destroy the missiles targeting them.

- Oh, and the science used in explaining how the sun's supernova takes out Romulus could not have been more wrong.

Really? You're gonna bring up bad science in a discussion about Star Trek? Star Trek V had the Enterprise being hijacked by Spock's half-brother, and then travel into the center of the galaxy to find God, who shoots lasers at them with his eyes before Spock blows Him up with a Klingon Bird-of-Prey. This incidentally also works as an example of a Star Trek story way, way, waaaay more convoluted than Star Trek. But hey, if you want another example: Star Trek Voyager.

- Plus Ambassador Spock violates the Prime Directive about a billion times through the course of this movie, which Spock would not do.

Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home, Star Trek TNG: Reunification "Cowboy Diplomacy".[/QUOTE]

Anyone who actually liked this isn't a Star Trek fanboy, they're a fanboy of the worst kind, a fanboy of terrible directors and the awful scripts they use, such as JJ Abrams, Michael Bay, Joel Schumacher, Roland Emmerich, and let's not forget McG.

Bite me.

EDIT* Aaah cripes! Forgot I wasn't editing.

 

[Yorick]

Yes your opinion carries a lot of weight YOU CAN'T EVEN WORK THE BUTTONS ON THE FORUMS.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Yes your opinion carries a lot of weight YOU CAN'T EVEN WORK THE BUTTONS ON THE FORUMS.

And you don't know the plot to The Wrath of Khan. I'm okay with my handicap. Are you?