ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

The Good, the Bad, and the Abrams

Gawain_VIII

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 191

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 12:26 pm

The Trek reboot was not my favorite.  It is likely my least favorite of all Trek films... but I enjoyed it immensely, quite possibly more than any other Sci-fi franchise in history, except Firefly.  I liked it better than Star Wars (I don't dislike SW, but I'm not a fan) and it is lightyears better than Sliders (my next facorite Sci-fi after Trek and Firefly).


So, I would like to have a calm, rational discussion without all the yelling, name-calling, and drama associated with most (all?) of the other Reboot threads.


Starting off with what I liked.


A great premise backed by solid "Trek-science".  Immense personal growth in the character of Spock-prime.  Throughout the entire franchise, Spock has been fighting and struggling to become more Vulcan, the perfect picture of logic and emotional control.  The poster-child for Eta Eridanii-B (the star that Vulcan orbits, for those who were unaware).  And then, due to no fault or mistake of his own (he simply wasn't fast enough because he had no idea when the Hobus star would explode) he became purely emotional and blamed himself for the destruction--going back in time, violating every rule, regulation, and moral concept he ever held throughout his career, to become "more human" than his friend... out of pure emotional instinct, he became acutely aware of why Kirk came back for him and went back in time to "fix" his "mistake".


The ship was beautiful.  I could have done without the extra plexiglass stand-up stations on the bridge, but the exterior design and the choice of colors and lines were magnificent.  The costumes were GREAT!  I loved how they redesigned them to appear more "modern" while still maintaining trubute to the original.


The adventure was exciting, entertaining... great dialog, good acting--ESPECIALLY on the part of Karl Urban, he hit Bones dead on!  Chekov was hilarious, just like in TOS.  The music (as Trek has always been) was utterly FANTASTIC!


The things I don't like were PURELY cosmetic or continuity issues that only a hard-core fan could identify.


Phasers were bolts instead of beams... *meh* Just not feeling it, but not really a big deal.  I did like the blue vs red stun/kill settings.


Light flares! I'M BLIND!!!!! The plexiglass consoles (mentioned above) made it worse.


Spock-Uhura romance... really? What purpose did it serve? NONE!


No organizational rank structure--Cadet Kirk becomes captain through a loophole?!?!? Really?!?!?  Except for Pike, Spock, and Scotty... all of the main cast graduated at the same time, so we have an Ensign (Chekov), two Lieutenants (Sulu and Uhura), a Lt Cmdr (McCoy), and an ungraduated cadet-turned-Captain (Kirk) all of which were 4th year cadets less than 24-hours prior.


Enterprise was built in space, not Iowa. (Just a pet peeve)


The ship was TOO big! (That's a topic all by itself... again, it's really a continutiy issue more than anything).


So when it comes down to it... if I can set aside the little things, there are only 3 bad things I can say about the movie: Light flares, unexplicable promotions, and Spock/Uhura romance.  But it was an exciting, entertaining film... I can learn to forgive the rest.


ROBERT CHARLES GRAHAM, Vice Admiral
U.S.S Gawain NCC-91980
Commanding Officer, Frontier Fleet
sto-frontier-fleet.proboards.com

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 1:30 pm

Well I wasn't very fond of the change from phaser beams to bolts but that crud started long before the 2009 movie went that way.

A few points

-Considering that transparent aluminum has been a part of Star Trek for a while it shouldn't be surprising to see lots of things that could be considered plexiglass but are really something else entirety.

-The Spock & Uhura romance simply shows that he's a sentient individual who makes his own decisions.

-Kirk became Captain because the situation was confused, highly chaotic, and desperate. He had a direction, confidence, a purpose and drive. Also you only ever really have as much authority as people allow you to have.

The lens flare was a bit excessive but the heart was in the right place with it. They just wanted to give the viewer the impression that they were looking through a camera lense at something real.

I Am Ultra Narcissus.

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 1:41 pm

Oh, and Star Trek hasn't given a flying fig about things being am appropriate or even consistent size for a while. DS9 was a magical fairy land that got as big or as small as they wanted it to look.

I Am Ultra Narcissus.

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 4:34 pm

My only dislikes are stuff that really amount to pet peeves. I didn't like the new Enterprise; its nacelles were too big and the neck was mounted too far back on the engineering hull. I also would have preferred beam phasers (ship-mounted and hand-held both). Kirk's rapid promotion did seem a bit off, but I guess Pike decided his street-smarts were more inportant than formal Academy training.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4028

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 10:46 pm

I didn't have many quibbles.  Other than Spock flying around with enough red matter to destroy the entire galaxy


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 10:55 pm

[quote]


I didn't have many quibbles.  Other than Spock flying around with enough red matter to destroy the entire galaxy


[/quote]


Why? If the Jellyfish is a product of the Vulcan Science Academy to study Red Matter, wouldn't they want to keep it in a protected environment. Perhaps the Jellyfish was the only stable container at the time.


Yeah, its a quibble, but I guess it didn't bother me too much.


Kirk's promotion never bothered me. And even with more and more thought behind it, it still doesn't bug me.

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this Feb. 28 2013, 11:08 pm

The sheer volume of Red Matter kind of puzzled me as well but on the other hand I'm glad they didn't spend half the movie technobabbling the hell out of it. It may be that its initial production was accidental and the volume wasn't intentional. Keeping it all together would be an easy way to keep track of the dangerous substance and perhaps ensured that it could all be gotten rid of in one shot if necessary.

I Am Ultra Narcissus.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Mar. 01 2013, 3:02 am

Quote: Gawain_VIII @ Feb. 28 2013, 12:26 pm

>A great premise backed by solid "Trek-science".  Immense personal growth in the character of Spock-prime.  Throughout the entire franchise, Spock has been fighting and struggling to become more Vulcan, the perfect picture of logic and emotional control.  The poster-child for Eta Eridanii-B (the star that Vulcan orbits, for those who were unaware).  And then, due to no fault or mistake of his own (he simply wasn't fast enough because he had no idea when the Hobus star would explode) he became purely emotional and blamed himself for the destruction--going back in time, violating every rule, regulation, and moral concept he ever held throughout his career, to become "more human" than his friend... out of pure emotional instinct, he became acutely aware of why Kirk came back for him and went back in time to "fix" his "mistake".


Dude I dont want to sound rude, but what film did you watch??You seem gto be implying Spock Prime went back in time by intent, to fix things.And that was not in any wasy the case in this film.


The things I don't like were PURELY cosmetic or continuity issues that only a hard-core fan could identify.


Phasers were bolts instead of beams... *meh* Just not feeling it, but not really a big deal.  I did like the blue vs red stun/kill settings.


Phasers were bolts instead of beams in the verey early episodes of TZOS, so theres no real continuity issue here.


No organizational rank structure--Cadet Kirk becomes captain


Kirks rank in the film was lieutenant


Except for Pike, Spock, and Scotty... all of the main cast graduated at the same time,


We saw no graduation shot, so theres no reason to assume the conclusions your coming to.Its quite possible, in Trek, for cadents to hold officer ranks and serve on star sdhips for a semester and then return to the acadamy.


Enterprise was built in space, not Iowa. (Just a pet peeve)


actully according to the placq on the originsal time line Enterprise, the ship was built in San Francisco [just a pet peeve]


Photobucket


The ship was TOO big! (That's a topic all by itself... again, it's really a continutiy issue more than anything).


well the ship was built and designed with influances from the scanns taken of the Nerada.


 


Photobucket

2takesfrakes

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3683

Report this Mar. 01 2013, 3:07 am

In Art School, they taught us in Photography
to avoid Lens Flare, so I'm always conscience
of its use, especially in movies, and particularly
when used to help "sell" a CGI environment. Also,
I found myself bored during the climactic CGI orgy.


Finally, STAR TREK '09 advertised itself, often, as
being so radically different from TOS ... but I was
surprised - and kind of disappointed - at how much
it relied on formulae and "homages." of the day. It
had ambition, but there wasn't really anything "new."


It simply wanted to be commercial and it succeeded.
I like(d) it. I was just hoping for more ... originality.


guillermo.mejía

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2852

Report this Mar. 01 2013, 4:56 am

Quote: 2takesfrakes @ Mar. 01 2013, 3:07 am

>

>In Art School, they taught us in Photography
to avoid Lens Flare, so I'm always conscience
of its use, especially in movies, and particularly
when used to help "sell" a CGI environment. Also,
I found myself bored during the climactic CGI orgy.

>Finally, STAR TREK '09 advertised itself, often, as
being so radically different from TOS ... but I was
surprised - and kind of disappointed - at how much
it relied on formulae and "homages." of the day. It
had ambition, but there wasn't really anything "new."

>It simply wanted to be commercial and it succeeded.
I like(d) it. I was just hoping for more ... originality.

>
Maybe that's what you'll get this time around.


I can understand not straying too far from the formula in order to engage the more stubborn fans, in light of how ENT turned out. I'm sure execs saw it fail cause they assumed it was too radical a change.


"Aye. And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon." - Scotty, The Miracle Worker since 2265.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 01 2013, 9:16 am

Quote: Mitchz95 @ Feb. 28 2013, 4:34 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>In Art School, they taught us in Photography
to avoid Lens Flare, so I'm always conscience
of its use, especially in movies, and particularly
when used to help "sell" a CGI environment. Also,
I found myself bored during the climactic CGI orgy.

>Finally, STAR TREK '09 advertised itself, often, as
being so radically different from TOS ... but I was
surprised - and kind of disappointed - at how much
it relied on formulae and "homages." of the day. It
had ambition, but there wasn't really anything "new."

>It simply wanted to be commercial and it succeeded.
I like(d) it. I was just hoping for more ... originality.

>

Its an unfortunate burdern for anyone doing a reboot like this movie. They have the task of reintroducing the characters to bring in new fans and also appeal to old fans as well. I agree it wasn't entirely new, but it did some new twists that got me engaged. Kirk's dad's death at the beginning was a gripping introduction, as well as the destruction of Vulcan. While a little formulaic, I agree with guillermo.mejía that Abrams set himself up for a sequel that could be more original, that would see more challenges, a different direction and story than the first. The first movie really had to bring in the characters and let people get to know them in this time line, rather than just assuming everyone knows who they are.

I think that Into Darkness will be far more original and probably similar to Wrath of Khan in its tone-a darker exploration that pushes the characters to the limits. People might think that is not good Trek but I am inclined to disagree becase Trek is about characters and exploring their humanity. "Mirror, Mirror" explored darker aspects of humanity as did Wrath of Khan. Trek never shied away from darkness but showed positive aspects as well. I think Abrams is trying to explore that part rather than cookie cutter Trek.

My only dislikes are stuff that really amount to pet peeves. I didn't like the new Enterprise; its nacelles were too big and the neck was mounted too far back on the engineering hull. I also would have preferred beam phasers (ship-mounted and hand-held both). Kirk's rapid promotion did seem a bit off, but I guess Pike decided his street-smarts were more inportant than formal Academy training.


Well, sto-vo-kor mentioned it, but I think that Kirk was already a lieutenant, given his current course work at the Academy. We see similar precedent with Saavik in Wrath of Khan, as she is addressed as lieutenant and not cadet, and is able to be placed in charge of the bridge.


Also, once Pike made Kirk first officer, Kirk received a field commision at a rank of at least lieutenant because he needed to be in the chain of command. Cadets are not in the chain of command in the American military, which may be why some get confused. But, once Kir was first officer, he was in the chain and had to serve that position regardless of previous rank or status.


I also wonder why people have difficulty with the new Enterprise, its being built on Earth rather than in space, the size of the ship given its facing down a huge Romulan ship and things like that. I get not liking the over all look with the nacelles, but the size and other technical aspects seem to really bother people.

2takesfrakes

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3683

Report this Mar. 01 2013, 12:29 pm

I doubt there will be much originality in this one, either.
The reboot's not about art, it's about making money. And since,
Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln" made a killing at the box office
AND seeing how Lincoln, himself, was also a STAR TREK character ...



... I would not be at ALL surprised to see him appearing in the
next movie. It makes perfect sense and would please hard-core fans.


leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this Mar. 01 2013, 12:35 pm

"I doubt there will be much originality in this one, either."

I doubt that anything short of time travel being used to drag Roddenberry into the future to sniff the film reel and saying that it tastes like Andorian Tacos will satisfy some people.

I Am Ultra Narcissus.

2takesfrakes

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3683

Report this Mar. 01 2013, 12:46 pm

WRATH of KHAN wasn't necessarily "original" but it was good!


Into the Darkness has already made direct ties between itself
AND Wrath of Khan, certainly, with the Carol Marcus character.
Where's the originality in that? Does that mean the movie will
suck? No. I didn't say that. I don't believe that, either ...
I for one am interested in Carol Marcus' backstory and how she
met Kirk. Will The Good Captain stick around, this time, to
feed and water his seed? Stay Tuned ... !!! I'm sure going to.


fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 01 2013, 12:50 pm

Quote: 2takesfrakes @ Mar. 01 2013, 12:29 pm

>

>I doubt there will be much originality in this one, either.
The reboot's not about art, it's about making money. And since,
Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln" made a killing at the box office
AND seeing how Lincoln, himself, was also a STAR TREK character ...

>

>... I would not be at ALL surprised to see him appearing in the
next movie. It makes perfect sense and would please hard-core fans.

>


Interesting...


Roddenberry was also about making money. He introduced the IDIC symbol so he could sell the pendant. He often redid things so that royalties did not have to be paid in order to save money. Saying that Abrams is about making money shouldn't come as any surprise, anymore than any other movie is about making money. Movies are business and companies want returns on investments.


As for Abrams, his artistic choices were to present the characters as less polished but still recognizeable. I think he will be more original with Into Darkness because he has more freedom than with the first, as well as not dealing with other real world issues, like the writer's strike and things like that.


Not sure what more originality is needed here if he gets the characters right. I enjoyed the first Abrams movie because of the characters.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: DS9_FOREVER!

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum