The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Movie Discussion/ SPOILER reviews HERE - *SPOILERS* enter at own risk
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #421  
Old 05-10-2009, 02:06 PM
VulcanAeneas's Avatar
VulcanAeneas VulcanAeneas is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 59
Default

One of the main criticisms of the movie I've seen is the lack of 'message' or social commentary.

Folks, J.J. Abrams has brought Trek back from the almost-dead and because of his efforts (and those of the writers, actors, crew and tea ladies/lads) we will now have more movies made, Star Trek's future is secure. This means that future movies can be more flexible and have the ability to highlight and explore issues.

The franchise is now off the ground and can now take more risks. That is why this movie had to be a 'by the numbers' sort of film - a focus on being entertaining, introducing classic and new elements and being easily digested by the mainstream audience. It's marketing 101.....if you're embarking on a risky venture, don't make it over complex (keep it simple stupid) and then you'll have room to take more risks and form a better story next time.

Personally I loved the movie, I was unsure about it at first when I left the cinema but the more I've thought about it the more I realised - this movie is exactly what Star Trek needed.

Because of Abrams Star Trek will indeed 'live long and prosper' for another forty odd years.
Reply With Quote
  #422  
Old 05-10-2009, 02:07 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

Wow, black and white thinking starts here. Not everyone who criticizes the movie does not like it. I like it very much for what it is, a fast-paced, action-filled blockbusters with great actors and an interesting "origin" story for them. Not to forget the best version of the "academy movie" idea, which has existed for quite some time, I can imagine.

But I also have to point out that the movie is, compared to all previous Trek movies, thematically thin (e.g. life and death in TWOK, fear of the change in TUC, making the first steps into a better future in FC ... see, not particularly intellectual, just a simple theme which gives the movie substance) and that this lack of sustance makes one care less for the characters.

Last edited by horatio : 05-10-2009 at 02:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 05-10-2009, 02:12 PM
Captain Pike's Avatar
Captain Pike Captain Pike is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Burbank
Posts: 399
Default

I think the movies message is that revenge gets you nowhere and Karma ensues.
Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 05-10-2009, 02:23 PM
KiwiTrekFan KiwiTrekFan is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 65
Default

How about fate, what's meant to happen will happen? Despite all the changes to the timeline, Kirk still became Captain of the Enterprise, the entire crew was assembled etc
Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 05-10-2009, 02:30 PM
Yagami Crewman's Avatar
Yagami Crewman Yagami Crewman is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Goose Creek, South Carolina
Posts: 1,141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Gennarelli View Post
With all the complaining and kvetching going on here, I hope JJ avoids all of the boards and blogs.
To me, seeing "Star Trek" come back is a gift. Let's not walk over this gift with our dirty, muddy sneakers. I'm grateful for my 2 hr plus gift.
If Roddenberry, Harve Bennett or Rick Berman had made this movie, there would be things to complain about too...
Actually no... This is not a gift but a product that we pay for by our ticket purchases and the people on this board HAVE made criticisms of even Gene and Harve. While Abrams should not feel like he is under personal assault, consumer gripes should encourage a better end product.

Why does your mother tell you to dress warm, eat your vegetables and stop putting beans up your nose? Because she loves you and wants the best for , from, and of you.

So I say to Abrams and Orci... Read the boards. Seek out the fans. Listen to them... and if you find their advice sound, take it.
__________________
Ever notice that many of the same people who want variety in life frown very hard on vanilla... But without Vanilla, Baskin Robbins just wouldn't BE 31 flavors.
Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 05-10-2009, 02:31 PM
mmoore's Avatar
mmoore mmoore is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: OKUSA
Posts: 1,973
Default

The problem with any origin story is you only have so much time to introduce the characters, get them to where they're supposed to be, and have some kind of story. Every origin movie (I've ever seen) is flawed. The sequel always has more room for story because the characters and their place in the universe was established in the origin. The next one will be better.

Like the man said, "Buckle up."
__________________
"Are you out of your Vulcan mind?"
Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 05-10-2009, 03:01 PM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default

Here you go. All three ConfusedMatthew and StandinStan videos of their review:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsI7Mhu1G94

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1WkVg3v9YQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO5uXUcbmPw

Their reception of Red Matter: they seemed less like scifi fans, and more like the bully that makes fun of a scifi fan for liking scifi. That's what I got from that. I am very surprised that someone as nitpicky as these two are did not get Red Matter.
spoiler


My short analysis of the whole thing: ConfusedMatthew seems like someone who wants to break out of his "I hate everything" shell and admit that he actually liked this movie, whil StandinStan is just over the top "I hate it all", just everything. Matthew would say, "this is what I liked..." and Stan would interupt him and say, "Oh I hated that." There were "3 things" that Stan liked, but then he just went back into his angry hate rant.
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000
Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 05-10-2009, 03:03 PM
NX Enterprise's Avatar
NX Enterprise NX Enterprise is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmoore View Post
The problem with any origin story is you only have so much time to introduce the characters, get them to where they're supposed to be, and have some kind of story. Every origin movie (I've ever seen) is flawed. The sequel always has more room for story because the characters and their place in the universe was established in the origin. The next one will be better.

Like the man said, "Buckle up."
I agree 100% People Just need to give this movie and this new trek universe a chance, and be more open minded.
Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 05-10-2009, 03:34 PM
The New Order The New Order is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5
Default

Hi all,

Many fans on these boards have repeatedly stated that the new film should have used these new characters in new adventures etc to continue the Prime time-line and not use the alternative time-line generated in this one. The problem is with this is that to make it "fit" into the "canon" the ship, decals, interiors etc would have to be the same as the 60's series. I love the TOS and the episodes and what came after in the TNG etc etc but this would have stretched credibilty to far. How would you get the new blood and fans that WAS needed to achieve a rebirth using dated 60's type settings etc especially with the teens and younger generation. You wouldn't. Everyone was losing interest and even some Trek fans after Nem and ENT. It needed something that could UPDATE the settings and generate new interest and make it unpredicatable.
If they had made a new-cast-same-timeline type of film I don't realistically believe this new blood would be generated. Yes the film has its flaws but Star Trek has always had contradiction and holes in the plots to some degree.
This film plot was in my humble opinion the best way to keep whats gone before intact but start afresh with new directions and possibilities.
No matter how we discuss, argue and debate these merits the one inescapable fact was that Star Trek was dead in the water and sinking out of sight. This film by the fact of the opening figures in the US and here in the UK, $8.8m (roughly £5-6m) so I've read, show that this interest HAS been generated and the non-fans have come to see the film with generally excellent reports. The imax I went to was sold out for all shows for 3 days and at my screening had 50/50 men to women and ages from 8-70 odd with I would say average age around mid 20's.
This gives us Star Trek back and makes it in the general populus "cool" again.
The needs of the many.......
Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 05-10-2009, 04:06 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionTrek08 View Post
Sorry, but even the idea of casting TOS as not part of the sex and action genre to then blame Abrams' film was embodying it is just ignoring history... which is exactly what critics are accusing Abrams of doing.

Bad basis for a logical argument.
Indeed, it was as much a part of TOS as the social commentary. Guess it was something to do with the 60s!

No, Star Trek was not 'a message' show week in/week out. It was when it wanted to be, but it didn't want to be every week. This movie has buckets of the former and is great at giving it.

That said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by VulcanAeneas View Post
One of the main criticisms of the movie I've seen is the lack of 'message' or social commentary.

Folks, J.J. Abrams has brought Trek back from the almost-dead and because of his efforts (and those of the writers, actors, crew and tea ladies/lads) we will now have more movies made, Star Trek's future is secure. This means that future movies can be more flexible and have the ability to highlight and explore issues.

The franchise is now off the ground and can now take more risks. That is why this movie had to be a 'by the numbers' sort of film - a focus on being entertaining, introducing classic and new elements and being easily digested by the mainstream audience. It's marketing 101.....if you're embarking on a risky venture, don't make it over complex (keep it simple stupid) and then you'll have room to take more risks and form a better story next time.

Personally I loved the movie, I was unsure about it at first when I left the cinema but the more I've thought about it the more I realised - this movie is exactly what Star Trek needed.

Because of Abrams Star Trek will indeed 'live long and prosper' for another forty odd years.
Correct - Trek has now been given the resuscitation it required. But, it now also has to restore the latter of the above - the social commentary side, in order for the sequel to basically be a bit less shallow than this film ended up being.

I really enjoyed the new film, really did, but there was a distinct lack of substance in it.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:02 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.