Star Wars came out in 1977 with an $11 million dollar budget. Wrath of Khan came out in 1982 with an $11 million budget. Star Wars had better special effects 5 years earlier.
Wha...?
I've seen both films many times, and I certainly don't recall anything in SW that's any better than WoK. What in SW do you think is better? Compare phaser fire in WoK with the blasters in SW. And you have nothing to compare with the Genesis demo.
A re-boot is just that. There was no reason to have a tie to the old timeline, or to start with Kirk as a cadet.
Why not start with Kirk as a Lieutenant who saves a ship? More like the way his father was portrayed?
A bad movie. With lens flare.
_________________________________________________ [Kluless][Kold][Steel Heels][Snagtooth] [Louis Cipher][Outta Gum][Thysa Kymbo][Spanner][Frakk] [D'Mented][D'Licious]
Joined October 2009. READ BEFORE POSTING
I've seen both films many times, and I certainly don't recall anything in SW that's any better than WoK. What in SW do you think is better? Compare phaser fire in WoK with the blasters in SW. And you have nothing to compare with the Genesis demo.
In fact, the only serious digital effect in Star Wars was the Death Star blueprints, which took so long to render that by the time they were done the design of the station had changed and thus they were incorrect; this is why the laser dish is on the equator on the blueprints and off on the upper hemisphere on the finished model.
Wow. You youngsters and your digital effects. Heh. Both movies were made in a time when special effects meant other things besides digital effects.
That's my point. With the exception of that one sequence, every other effect in Star Wars was done the old fashioned way, with model spacecraft and rotoscoped laser beams.
I don't think JJ Abrams ruined Star Trek considering that it's in the alternate universe instead of the prime universe. The only way he'd ruin Star Trek is if the two movies took place in the prime universe thus conflicting with canon.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Kirk relieves Decker as Captain and field demotes him to first officer without an explanation - even when confronted with the accusation (and the eventual proof, via asteroid) that Kirk is trying to command a ship that he is no longer comfortable with. Yet, Starfleet brass does not put a stop to this.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Spock correctly presumes that Khan has no experience in a 3-dimensional battlefield and would not predict that the Enterprise would descend on a Z-axis to lead a surprise attack. The odds that Ceta Alpha, Regula One, and the Mutara nebula are all sitting on the same plane of space is almost impossible. Khan would have figured out that he could fly up or down if he wanted to. And in the 20th century, we had things like submarines, airplanes, helicopters... the third dimension has been a part of combat since we figured out how to travel through these spaces. Khan doesn't even seem as smart as the average fighter pilot in 1976 by these standards.
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
If Spock was revived on Genesis, and started aging rapidly, why did he not continue aging until he withered and fell apart like wet sugar glass? If it's because he left the planet, why were the other visitors to the Genesis world not also aging every few minutes as well? What was making Spock get older, and why did the process stop at just the perfect time for Nimoy to take over his old role? Sounds like pure convenience to me. Not very science fiction.
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Who told the writers that flying really fast around the sun would send you back in time? And what kind of life would George and Gracie have now that Kirk has screwed with the timeline and dumped two lonely whales into an ocean that has probably developed a new ecosystem after the fallout of World War III?
And when did Starfleet go from "violating the Prime Directive is punishable by DEATH" to "you saved Earth, so we'll kiiiiinda give you pass on this one"? Kirk has undoubtedly saved Earth about a thousand times by this point, so if you were going to factor in that, why bother demoting him at all?
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
Excuse me... but what does God need with a science fiction movie?
And how does the Enterprise fly at Warp 7 from the Romulan Neutral Zone to the centre of the Galaxy? That's about 30 000 light years. Even Voyager and that little band of magical space cadets needed 3 years and a lot of really good luck to get that far.
Also, the rest of the movie.
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
How does Uhura not know Klingon at her age? She's been a communications officer for about 30 years at this point. She served in Starfleet during several conflicts with the Empire. You'd think she would want to make herself more useful by learning Klingon in case she needs it to, oh, ya know, DO THE THING SHE WAS TRYING TO DO IN THIS MOVIE?!
Star Trek: Generations
Why did they bother with Data's subplot? It was never put to use to advance the story; all it was there for was so that Data could be the "comic relief", which he does much better by being Data, instead of some lame comedian.
Why is the Enterprise-B the only ship within 3 light years of Earth? That seems like a major problem on Starfleet's part.
Why the hell was Kirk in the movie? Like, at all? Shatner was old, overweight, and he's really not a good actor - especially when the director treats him like gold (something Nick Meyer didn't do. In fact, Meyer had Shatner repeat early scenes of Star Trek II over and over, until he was so tired that he just did the lines without the melodrama.)
Why did Picard not bring the body of James Kirk to the Farragut for a proper burial? he just left the body on some uninhabited planet under some rocks. The disappearance of James T Kirk was probably one of the biggest mysteries in Starfleet history and it was just suddenly solved. And Picard doesn't even feel obligated to bring the body back.
Star Trek: First Contact
The Borg attempted to assimilate Earth using one Cube already. They ate their way through an armada, but lost thanks to ONE SHIP. Why did they think they could do the exact same attack plan and meet with better success? They lost another cube to the SAME CAPTAIN! Again, the Borg were WINNING until the Enterprise showed up.
Why is Picard and the Enterprise told to stay away from the battle anyway? "Starfleet has every confidence in the Enterprise and her crew; they're just not sure about her Captain. They believe that a man who was once captured and assimilated by the Borg should not be placed in a situation where he would face them again. To do so would introduce an 'unstable element to a critical situation'." Riker's disagreement is perfectly valid and Starfleet can't seem to decide whether Picard is qualified or not. During the series, Picard leads a task force fighting Borg attackers late in the series, AFTER he'd been rescued from the Borg. Furthermore, even if Starfleet had changed hands from one Fleet Admiral to another, why would brass not have simply relieve Picard of duty and place the Enterprise under temporary command of Riker? He's more than qualified to command the Enterprise.
When did Picard become obsessed with revenge? First Contact marks the point when he simply stops caring about being a diplomat, and jumps on the action-hero bandwagon. maybe it's a midlife crisis. He gets so angry that he nearly bitchslaps Alfre Woodard in the face with a phaser rifle. He's had way more chances to smack-a-b*tch before then, but he never did - because he's a Frenchman and a gentleman - and a DIPLOMAT. He's not a soldier. He's not a general. And he's not supposed to be a psychopath.
Star Trek: Insurrection
Why is Data on a survey team studying a civilization? He doesn't understand people yet. What the hell would he have to report on? Aside from how well the citizens handle sudden invisible-man-fights.
Why is the duckblind sitting in the middle of the Ba'ku village? Wouldn't they want to install much smaller surveillance devices around the village and keep the duckblind far out of possible discovery sight, in case something happens to the holographic rocks? Which is something that happened in an episode of TNG, "Who Watches the Watchers?". Starfleet didn't seem to learn their lesson very well.
Why all the subterfuge? The Ba'ku were going to figure out they're not in Kansas any more one way or another. So... why bother with the holoship and the invisible-people?
If Starfleet knew that the Ba'ku used to be spacefarers (evidenced by Dougherty's very quickly stated assertion that "these people were never meant to be immortal"), why hide from them? If they didn't know that the Ba'ku weren't native , why would the hierarchy collectively agree to disregard the Prime Directive entirely? Furthermore, is this even a Federation planet? It certainly can't be, as the Ba'ku have been on that planet for longer than Starfleet and the Federation even existed. They were settling down around the time that we would have been reaching the very first stars in our neighbourhood.
How does a face stretching machine kill Dougherty? You'd think those machines would be equipped with failsafes to make sure it didn't do that, considering they are operated by slaves and used on a bunch of 300 year old monsters who were very few in numbers.
Star Trek: Nemesis
Why is Janeway an Admiral??! She broke the Prime Directive basically once a bloody week. She started wars between races, allied with the Borg, and left scars on dozens of cultures simply to save her crew. She also violated the Temporal Prime Directive so many times that people from THE FUTURE were getting pissed off at her.
How did the Remans go from slaving away in a space mine to having a "secret base" to build the largest warship in Romulan history? Where did the Remans get the expertise to do so? It's feasible that Remans may have been labouring in starship construction - but what about starship design?
Why was Shinzon a ranked officer in the Romulan military? He was a cloned human; you'd think that the Romulans would keep him tucked away somewhere that Starfleet would never find him. Like... a pauper's grave.
Why is everyone's response to needing a blood sample "I'll just slice my hand open with a big knife"? I don't think people in Star Trek understand what's just under the skin. Try pressing your fingers (gently) against the palm of your hand. Unless you're a big fat guy, you should feel tendons. You kinda need those for your fingers.
Why did the Starfleet armada not start heading toward the Enterprise when it didn't show up at the rendez-vous? There was, after all, the Bassen Rift between them that screwed with sensors and communications.
When the Scimitar sent the boarding party to the Enterprise, why did they not just seal off the compartment with forcefields and vent all the atmosphere? The phasers were set to kill anyway. Why risk your own crew?
What the hell was Picard doing beaming over to the Scimitar? Send Worf. Pack him with Rambo gear and tell him to kill everything that moves, and blow up the weapon before it wipes out the Enterprise. You don't send over a 70 year old man with something to prove, armed only with a plastic phaser rifle that snaps in half faster than an AR-15 and a phaser that isn't even fastened into the holster. That, and isn't the Enterprise armed with shuttles? Why not launch them and use their phasers to disable the weapon's firing tips? That would have taken a matter of minutes. Forget procedure, put two crewmen on each shuttle and just open the bloody doors. It would have been done in time for Picard's afternoon tea.
Star Trek
How does Mrs Kirk give birth in nine minutes? Doesn't labour take HOURS?!
Aren't officers supposed to enroll in Starfleet Academy, while crew are made of the "enlisted" folks who didn't want to be in command? If so, then why did Pike encourage Kirk to ENLIST and not ENROLL? He did, after all, state that Kirk could have his own ship in as little as eight years.
Why would Starfleet be so cruel as to assign Chekov an authorization code that he couldn't pronounce?
Spock must have a HUGE... um, "IDIC"... because I can't think of another reason why someone as passionate as Uhura would fall in love with someone as dispassionate as Spock.
Why did Pike name Kirk as first officer and not someone with a rank, like Sulu? Kirk wasn't even an Cadet - his privilege of service was revoked for cheating during an exam.
Why would Spock dump Kirk on a frozen wasteland? Especially considering the closest inhabited planet was just sucked into an artificial black hole.
Why did I go through all of this? To prove that nothing is perfect - not even our favourites.
Star Trek: Nemesis
Why is Janeway an Admiral??! She broke the Prime Directive basically once a bloody week. She started wars between races, allied with the Borg, and left scars on dozens of cultures simply to save her crew. She also violated the Temporal Prime Directive so many times that people from THE FUTURE were getting pissed off at her.
This question answers itself. It was a move to get her OUT of the chair and behind a desk. Saving starfleet a LOT of headaches.
Star Trek
How does Mrs Kirk give birth in nine minutes? Doesn't labour take HOURS?!
It does, but as we heard the assistant say, "We'll deliver in the shuttle". If anything, that implies she was already in labor even before she showed up. So onscreen, she was really just going through the last of the contractions, then the painful push, all as we saw it.
At least, that seems the most likely version to me
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
It does, but as we heard the assistant say, "We'll deliver in the shuttle". If anything, that implies she was already in labor even before she showed up. So onscreen, she was really just going through the last of the contractions, then the painful push, all as we saw it.
At least, that seems the most likely version to me
She was seen going into labour shortly after the initial attack. If she had gone into labour several hours earlier, would that not have been hinted at? Maybe with Lieutenant Kirk arriving on the bridge, having come from medical, when the black hole appeared?
Abrahms didn't ruin Star trek, our culture did. That's why there has been such a different take on this film, extremes on both ends.
The movie, for younger generations, is everything it could have been and needed to be. It was fast-paced, it had a basic, current political context (drone strikes) and Alice Eve in undies. A younger friend of mine who went to see it with me and is a self-proclaimed "Trekkie", LOVED it. He loved the throw-back jokes, the whole re-boot to "keep Trek alive" idea is strong in that one, I assure you. And I don't doubt him.
I on the other hand, have a different recollection of Trek, because I'm older and lived when trek was addressing different social ideas. The Cold Wars was going on strong during Trek VI. The infamous Trek 2 is now recalled for Khan when the reality was it was the first time we got to saw a real Trek fight in space with the tech of the day. Khan was just a great tool used for the bigger story arc which is what the whole movie was premised on: sacrifice. That's what I missed in Darkness. An underlying "hrmm" moment.
It was just simplified, in-you-face dilemmas that might speak to a summer movie-goer but not necessarily to me as a fan. I won't go into the 7 massive plot holes that made the movie too convenient. The worst part for me is how Spock was developed in writing. the acting was outstanding but what they've done is made Spock like everyone else but with pointy ears. I get he lost Vulcan. I get he's half-human. The thing is, now, other than the tone of voice and ears, Spock is now an average human with all those frailties and emotions. Yes, Vulcans always have those emotions but the suppression is what makes them inherently interesting. I didn't like Spock laughing in the TOS pilot and i'm not digging him doing so in the future. He's now a Data re-hash, striving to be more human in some sense rather then trying to stay away from emotions. Honestly, I blame the character of T'pol for all this, lol.
TL;DR
the movie is only bad or good, depending on the context of perception in which you view it. From my context, it sucked. Bad. it was like watching "zero-calorie" Trek, which I supoose is all the rage these days.
In any other organization, she would have been stripped of rank and sent to prison.
At Dunder Mifflin she'd have been promoted to the Albany Branch Manager position? Or at least not demoted. You could start a fire there, bag someone's head with a rabid bat, or punch a hole through the wall with very little consequence.
I don't mean to offend people about the special effects. I just think the update is nice. I have always thought Star Trek is cool, now it looks even better!
I get the whole substance over special effects. That's how I am with old video games. I always say to my friends, "remember when video games were awesome and you didn't care about the graphics". So I can appreciate those who feel the same about the new Trek movies.
On the other hand, I knew ahead of time that there wouldn't be as much substance in the new Trek movies. That's just how big budget special effect movies are made today. I tampered my expecations and loved the movie because of it. It still had enough Trek in it for me to be okay with it.
If you don't like the new movies, why go? You aren't going to find the substance you seek. Enjoy the old shows and movies for that. I still play my old video games from time to time.
Edit: I just want to see Star Trek live on. Sadly, my teenaged nephew didn't even want to go see the movie, so he stayed home. I would like to see Star Trek passed on to the next generation(no pun intended, for real).
Abrahms didn't ruin Star trek, our culture did. That's why there has been such a different take on this film, extremes on both ends.
[abridged quote for space's sake]
Honestly, I blame the character of T'pol for all this, lol.
TL;DR
the movie is only bad or good, depending on the context of perception in which you view it. From my context, it sucked. Bad. it was like watching "zero-calorie" Trek, which I supoose is all the rage these days.
Signed,
Grandpa Lored2death
You make a fair argument. The new Star Trek films are for a much broader audience, and may not speak on the same intellectual level as the films used to, such as Sacrifice, Life and Death, the Cold War/Chernobyl Incident, or other modern day political surfaces, but that simply doesn't sell anymore. Filmmakers don't make movies that don't stand a chance to make money. That's just how studios survive.
The result is an action movie with a Star Trek hat on. There's nothing wrong with that; it just doesn't do much to tickle your brain box. Thankfully, a full library of Star Trek: The Next Generation is on DVD to tease your thinking muscles.
Star Trek has become what it needs to be in order for a new audience to come in. Let's face it; Trek fans have become very jaded about the franchise and incredibly hard to please. Everyone who has tried in the last ten years has had their efforts spit back in their faces. Think of Enterprise, Star Trek Legacy, and even this game. The reception has been one of struggling fans and a lot of angry Trekkies.
The only viable solution is to seek out new fans and new directions. To boldly go where no Star Trek property has gone bef--- okay, I'm sorry for that one.
But the point is, (and here's your damnable TL;DR), Star Trek has two ways to go; either to change with the times and leave the stubborn, inflexible, impossible-to-please fanboys behind, or to stagnate and simply die off. Paramount made a good choice in trying something new. The formula is successful, if not completely in tune with the so-called "vision" of Star Trek.
At Dunder Mifflin she'd have been promoted to the Albany Branch Manager position? Or at least not demoted. You could start a fire there, bag someone's head with a rabid bat, or punch a hole through the wall with very little consequence.
I had to actually look up what Dunder Mifflin is; I don't watch The Office (I won't discuss my reasoning). But I seriously doubt that's even close to a fair comparison. If you're just trying to be funny, the joke was entirely lost on me (like the show itself).
I don't buy that. Spock could have commanded the ship. So could any number of other officers. Starfleet suffered huge losses at Wolf 359 and in the Dominion war too. They weren't tossing cadets into the Captain's seat because of them.
At Dunder Mifflin she'd have been promoted to the Albany Branch Manager position? Or at least not demoted. You could start a fire there, bag someone's head with a rabid bat, or punch a hole through the wall with very little consequence.
You make a fair argument. The new Star Trek films are for a much broader audience, and may not speak on the same intellectual level as the films used to, such as Sacrifice, Life and Death, the Cold War/Chernobyl Incident, or other modern day political surfaces, but that simply doesn't sell anymore. Filmmakers don't make movies that don't stand a chance to make money. That's just how studios survive.
The result is an action movie with a Star Trek hat on. There's nothing wrong with that; it just doesn't do much to tickle your brain box. Thankfully, a full library of Star Trek: The Next Generation is on DVD to tease your thinking muscles.
Star Trek has become what it needs to be in order for a new audience to come in. Let's face it; Trek fans have become very jaded about the franchise and incredibly hard to please. Everyone who has tried in the last ten years has had their efforts spit back in their faces. Think of Enterprise, Star Trek Legacy, and even this game. The reception has been one of struggling fans and a lot of angry Trekkies.
The only viable solution is to seek out new fans and new directions. To boldly go where no Star Trek property has gone bef--- okay, I'm sorry for that one.
But the point is, (and here's your damnable TL;DR), Star Trek has two ways to go; either to change with the times and leave the stubborn, inflexible, impossible-to-please fanboys behind, or to stagnate and simply die off. Paramount made a good choice in trying something new. The formula is successful, if not completely in tune with the so-called "vision" of Star Trek.
.
Well said. That's what I was truly trying to get at.
Also, after years of being considered nerdy for being a Trekkie, it's nice to have a couple of movies that people think are cool. LOL.
Well said. That's what I was truly trying to get at.
I like what you had to say as well. It made me think of just what these new Trek movies can do. They can act almost as gateways. New audiences who thought Star Trek was too nerdy for them, now going into theatres to see it, and coming out wowed. That's your in; the foot in the door to be exposed to what Star Trek stands for.
In fact, my girlfriend (I sense "imaginary" jokes incoming) didn't care for Trek until we saw JJ's 2009 film. It gave me a chance to sneak in a few episodes of Deep Space Nine while we were... shall we say, herbally inclined. She is now a fan of that series. Not a bad start.
Abrahms didn't ruin Star trek, our culture did. That's why there has been such a different take on this film, extremes on both ends.
The movie, for younger generations, is everything it could have been and needed to be. It was fast-paced, it had a basic, current political context (drone strikes) and Alice Eve in undies. A younger friend of mine who went to see it with me and is a self-proclaimed "Trekkie", LOVED it. He loved the throw-back jokes, the whole re-boot to "keep Trek alive" idea is strong in that one, I assure you. And I don't doubt him.
I on the other hand, have a different recollection of Trek, because I'm older and lived when trek was addressing different social ideas. The Cold Wars was going on strong during Trek VI. The infamous Trek 2 is now recalled for Khan when the reality was it was the first time we got to saw a real Trek fight in space with the tech of the day. Khan was just a great tool used for the bigger story arc which is what the whole movie was premised on: sacrifice. That's what I missed in Darkness. An underlying "hrmm" moment.
It was just simplified, in-you-face dilemmas that might speak to a summer movie-goer but not necessarily to me as a fan. I won't go into the 7 massive plot holes that made the movie too convenient. The worst part for me is how Spock was developed in writing. the acting was outstanding but what they've done is made Spock like everyone else but with pointy ears. I get he lost Vulcan. I get he's half-human. The thing is, now, other than the tone of voice and ears, Spock is now an average human with all those frailties and emotions. Yes, Vulcans always have those emotions but the suppression is what makes them inherently interesting. I didn't like Spock laughing in the TOS pilot and i'm not digging him doing so in the future. He's now a Data re-hash, striving to be more human in some sense rather then trying to stay away from emotions. Honestly, I blame the character of T'pol for all this, lol.
TL;DR
the movie is only bad or good, depending on the context of perception in which you view it. From my context, it sucked. Bad. it was like watching "zero-calorie" Trek, which I supoose is all the rage these days.
Signed,
Grandpa Lored2death
I think you make some great points and I definitely appreciate your perspective.
I do, though, think we're unfairly putting Abrams' two films up against a compilation of 40 years of Star Trek.
I saw each one of the TOS movies in theaters, and I can tell you that in my experience, neither me nor any of those I went with came out of those movies thinking about some greater cultural theme. We came out feeling like we'd just had an adventure (some better than others).
Yes, ST 6 was a clear allegory for the Cold War, but other than that, I don't think any of the TOS movies had a larger "philosophy to action ratio" than these movies did.
Star Trek 2 was about sacrifice, yes, but it really spent very little time exploring it. Very few minutes of screen time were used to address it. Not much more than the screen time used to address the themes of sacrifice, terrorism, human rights (even for criminals), and learning humility in this new movie. It was about even, IMO.
Into Darkness definitely spent more time on it than ST 3 and 5. And ST 4 was about as shallow as you can get. It slammed the "Save the whales" message down the viewers' throats and wrapped it in a movie that was so much a comedy it was almost of parody of the characters (I loved it, believe it or not; just making a point here).
As far as Star Trek movies, I think these new ones fall right in the middle. Behind Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country, but ahead of 3,4, and 5... both in terms of fun and depth.
We have to remember that when we're talking about the depth of characters here, we're comparing the 5 hours that Abrams had to the 40 years that the others had. He wasn't continuing the development of these characters... he was tasked with introducing them - from scratch - to a new audience.
If you put the Abrams films up against any other Trek film individually, Abrams holds up pretty well.
It's definitely not the best Trek, but it's definitely not the worst. And it certainly (IMO) doesn't deserve the claim that it has ruined Trek.
You make a fair argument. The new Star Trek films are for a much broader audience, and may not speak on the same intellectual level as the films used to, such as Sacrifice, Life and Death, the Cold War/Chernobyl Incident, or other modern day political surfaces, but that simply doesn't sell anymore. Filmmakers don't make movies that don't stand a chance to make money. That's just how studios survive.
The result is an action movie with a Star Trek hat on. There's nothing wrong with that; it just doesn't do much to tickle your brain box. Thankfully, a full library of Star Trek: The Next Generation is on DVD to tease your thinking muscles.
Star Trek has become what it needs to be in order for a new audience to come in.
Maybe you hit on what I was really thinking: that Star Trek is changing to be what it needs to be to have an audience. I would prefer, and I think the creator himself would've agreed, that people came to the messages of Trek instead of it being milk-toasted to get people to come to church.
It feels too much of evangelizing to me and once they get inside, there's really nothing going on.
The movie has its points such as the CGI and acting but the story is just soooo bad once you get home and think about it. It's like the movie is better if you *don't* think about it and that philosophy seems rampant in our culture and why I made the claim that I did.... that this movie is more the product of our culture than anything else.
Maybe you hit on what I was really thinking: that Star Trek is changing to be what it needs to be to have an audience. I would prefer, and I think the creator himself would've agreed, that people came to the messages of Trek instead of it being milk-toasted to get people to come to church.
It feels too much of evangelizing to me and once they get inside, there's really nothing going on.
The movie has its points such as the CGI and acting but the story is just soooo bad once you get home and think about it. It's like the movie is better if you *don't* think about it and that philosophy seems rampant in our culture and why I made the claim that I did.... that this movie is more the product of our culture than anything else.
And that makes me a little sad.
Also well said. I can understand the way you feel about the "getting people to come to church" and then having nothing to show for it. I hope after "going to church" people keep seeking the "Star Trek" way. Lol. Hopefully they will watch the old shows and movies and find that they are as cool as we think they are.
Maybe you hit on what I was really thinking: that Star Trek is changing to be what it needs to be to have an audience. I would prefer, and I think the creator himself would've agreed, that people came to the messages of Trek instead of it being milk-toasted to get people to come to church.
It feels too much of evangelizing to me and once they get inside, there's really nothing going on.
The movie has its points such as the CGI and acting but the story is just soooo bad once you get home and think about it. It's like the movie is better if you *don't* think about it and that philosophy seems rampant in our culture and why I made the claim that I did.... that this movie is more the product of our culture than anything else.
And that makes me a little sad.
I think I have to disagree with the end of your statements there. It's not very much like the director selling the franchise on the laurels of an action film. The true fans who finally get to stop feeling like nerds and outcasts and move up to, at the very least, the hipster category. The fans are the ones who get the chance to open up their friends to the franchise with this new opening. The old 60s show just can't be taken seriously by young audiences now.
As for lacking story, I gotta say I don't agree with that either. It was said earlier that you don't tend to walk out of a Star Trek film feeling like you just watched something groundbreaking and intellectual. You walk out feeling like you just had an adventure. Each film has tried (well, some tried) to push the envelope of special effects. Star Trek II certainly did, and it definitely helped make the film that much more successful. Star Trek: The Motion Picture was far more in tune with Roddenberry's Star Trek than its sequel - and yet movie-goers in general, and Trekkies specifically, always say that The Wrath of Khan was the better film.
If you see past the dazzle, the action, and the lens flares (which are in curiously fewer numbers in Star Trek into Darkness), you will see a real story there. A careful set-up to the plot leads characters through an experience that reshapes how they view the chain of command. Kirk is subjected to the true burdens of captaincy, and Spock's Vulcan half is tested to its breaking point.
Was the action over-the-top? Yes. Did it overshadow the underlying story elements? Yes. It can be hard to pick up on subtleties when your retinas are full of laser beams and giant explosions. No one can be blamed for missing the fine details, especially if they're not actively looking for them.
I dont think its as innovative as it could be. It seems to directed to a type of audience, tweaked for populist appeal. Its not really what ST was about - that its remebered for. If you are going to go for that type of character development route British TV sifi of the last few years is far more innovative.
Also, I think we (i.e. old coots like me) sometimes don't give young people enough credit.
I saw a Facebook post this week where a bunch of folks (mostly young) were discussing the new movie and they had a very in-depth and long debate about whether or not Kirk had the right to kill Harrison. One side was saying he was following orders and Harrison had to be stopped by any means while the other side was saying Kirk had a moral obligation to disobey orders and bring Harrison in for a trial.
Now, no matter what side of that debate you're on, I think the debates itself shows 2 things:
1. Kids aren't as shallow as we think
2. This movie did - on some level - make them go "hmmmm."
Also, I think we (i.e. old coots like me) sometimes don't give young people enough credit.
I saw a Facebook post this week where a bunch of folks (mostly young) were discussing the new movie and they had a very in-depth and long debate about whether or not Kirk had the right to kill Harrison. One side was saying he was following orders and Harrison had to be stopped by any means while the other side was saying Kirk had a moral obligation to disobey orders and bring Harrison in for a trial.
Now, no matter what side of that debate you're on, I think the debates itself shows 2 things:
1. Kids aren't as shallow as we think
2. This movie did - on some level - make them go "hmmmm."
You just made my day. I could only speak from personal experience seeing this movie with a couple other people. We all seemed to have no trouble seeing past the flashy exterior. The questions of whether Kirk did the right thing, in a lot of situations, can be raised to strengthen the case that a story was in fact present and fully developed.
I had to actually look up what Dunder Mifflin is; I don't watch The Office (I won't discuss my reasoning). But I seriously doubt that's even close to a fair comparison.
Ah, if you had seen the episodes in particular that I referenced (especially the Dwight fire safety one since he does get called to corporate for almost burning down the building and killlng everyone in it), or really just generally you know most of what Michael Scott did for the first four seasons, you'd see it's a very apt comparison.
You just made my day. I could only speak from personal experience seeing this movie with a couple other people. We all seemed to have no trouble seeing past the flashy exterior. The questions of whether Kirk did the right thing, in a lot of situations, can be raised to strengthen the case that a story was in fact present and fully developed.
And with proof that a story is indeed present, and the movies are making people think, at least on some levels... I believe the claims that JJ ruined the franchise certainly lose a little steam
He made an entirely different ST, for sure, but that doesn't automatically make it terrible (or great). I for one, think it's good in it's own way, and think it's great that it revitalized ST for a new audience, who otherwise wouldn't have even looked at the older versions
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
I don't know what all the hate is for. I really don't. I Having said that, I have gripes. Precisely 3 gripes.
1. Harrison beams from Earth to the Klingon Homeworld without the aid of a starship. Had to really try to suspend disbelief - but I managed to.
.
Scotty said that he (Harrison) used a teleportation device that used Scotty's formula, the one he said could beam grapefruits and presidents' dogs from planet to planet and onto a starship traveling at warp speed.
Scotty said that he (Harrison) used a teleportation device that used Scotty's formula, the one he said could beam grapefruits and presidents' dogs from planet to planet and onto a starship traveling at warp speed.
Yeah, that actually added to the story for me. It certainly didn't take away from it.
They could have just as easily had Harrison take a starship, but by using that warp tech, it showed that the warp equation from the first movie actually had an impact on the galaxy. By using that particular tech, they basically moved it from a plot device to an actual part of the new continuity.
Yeah, that actually added to the story for me. It certainly didn't take away from it.
They could have just as easily had Harrison take a starship, but by using that warp tech, it showed that the warp equation from the first movie actually had an impact on the galaxy. By using that particular tech, they basically moved it from a plot device to an actual part of the new continuity.
Yes, and that's what I like about this. It does have a Star Trek feel, always a land of new inventions.
And, just as TOS communicators were the predecessors of the Cell Phone, we could also see those floating gurneys (stretchers) in the future
Comments
I've seen both films many times, and I certainly don't recall anything in SW that's any better than WoK. What in SW do you think is better? Compare phaser fire in WoK with the blasters in SW. And you have nothing to compare with the Genesis demo.
A re-boot is just that. There was no reason to have a tie to the old timeline, or to start with Kirk as a cadet.
Why not start with Kirk as a Lieutenant who saves a ship? More like the way his father was portrayed?
A bad movie. With lens flare.
[Kluless][Kold][Steel Heels][Snagtooth]
[Louis Cipher][Outta Gum][Thysa Kymbo][Spanner][Frakk]
[D'Mented][D'Licious]
Joined October 2009. READ BEFORE POSTING
In fact, the only serious digital effect in Star Wars was the Death Star blueprints, which took so long to render that by the time they were done the design of the station had changed and thus they were incorrect; this is why the laser dish is on the equator on the blueprints and off on the upper hemisphere on the finished model.
Wow. You youngsters and your digital effects. Heh. Both movies were made in a time when special effects meant other things besides digital effects.
Anyways, I think it's dumb to compare effects of those two movies considering the company responsible for the effects in each particular film.
It's like saying the effects in Avengers were better than the effects in Iron Man.
That's my point. With the exception of that one sequence, every other effect in Star Wars was done the old fashioned way, with model spacecraft and rotoscoped laser beams.
Kirk relieves Decker as Captain and field demotes him to first officer without an explanation - even when confronted with the accusation (and the eventual proof, via asteroid) that Kirk is trying to command a ship that he is no longer comfortable with. Yet, Starfleet brass does not put a stop to this.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Spock correctly presumes that Khan has no experience in a 3-dimensional battlefield and would not predict that the Enterprise would descend on a Z-axis to lead a surprise attack. The odds that Ceta Alpha, Regula One, and the Mutara nebula are all sitting on the same plane of space is almost impossible. Khan would have figured out that he could fly up or down if he wanted to. And in the 20th century, we had things like submarines, airplanes, helicopters... the third dimension has been a part of combat since we figured out how to travel through these spaces. Khan doesn't even seem as smart as the average fighter pilot in 1976 by these standards.
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
If Spock was revived on Genesis, and started aging rapidly, why did he not continue aging until he withered and fell apart like wet sugar glass? If it's because he left the planet, why were the other visitors to the Genesis world not also aging every few minutes as well? What was making Spock get older, and why did the process stop at just the perfect time for Nimoy to take over his old role? Sounds like pure convenience to me. Not very science fiction.
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Who told the writers that flying really fast around the sun would send you back in time? And what kind of life would George and Gracie have now that Kirk has screwed with the timeline and dumped two lonely whales into an ocean that has probably developed a new ecosystem after the fallout of World War III?
And when did Starfleet go from "violating the Prime Directive is punishable by DEATH" to "you saved Earth, so we'll kiiiiinda give you pass on this one"? Kirk has undoubtedly saved Earth about a thousand times by this point, so if you were going to factor in that, why bother demoting him at all?
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
Excuse me... but what does God need with a science fiction movie?
And how does the Enterprise fly at Warp 7 from the Romulan Neutral Zone to the centre of the Galaxy? That's about 30 000 light years. Even Voyager and that little band of magical space cadets needed 3 years and a lot of really good luck to get that far.
Also, the rest of the movie.
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
How does Uhura not know Klingon at her age? She's been a communications officer for about 30 years at this point. She served in Starfleet during several conflicts with the Empire. You'd think she would want to make herself more useful by learning Klingon in case she needs it to, oh, ya know, DO THE THING SHE WAS TRYING TO DO IN THIS MOVIE?!
Star Trek: Generations
Why did they bother with Data's subplot? It was never put to use to advance the story; all it was there for was so that Data could be the "comic relief", which he does much better by being Data, instead of some lame comedian.
Why is the Enterprise-B the only ship within 3 light years of Earth? That seems like a major problem on Starfleet's part.
Why the hell was Kirk in the movie? Like, at all? Shatner was old, overweight, and he's really not a good actor - especially when the director treats him like gold (something Nick Meyer didn't do. In fact, Meyer had Shatner repeat early scenes of Star Trek II over and over, until he was so tired that he just did the lines without the melodrama.)
Why did Picard not bring the body of James Kirk to the Farragut for a proper burial? he just left the body on some uninhabited planet under some rocks. The disappearance of James T Kirk was probably one of the biggest mysteries in Starfleet history and it was just suddenly solved. And Picard doesn't even feel obligated to bring the body back.
Star Trek: First Contact
The Borg attempted to assimilate Earth using one Cube already. They ate their way through an armada, but lost thanks to ONE SHIP. Why did they think they could do the exact same attack plan and meet with better success? They lost another cube to the SAME CAPTAIN! Again, the Borg were WINNING until the Enterprise showed up.
Why is Picard and the Enterprise told to stay away from the battle anyway? "Starfleet has every confidence in the Enterprise and her crew; they're just not sure about her Captain. They believe that a man who was once captured and assimilated by the Borg should not be placed in a situation where he would face them again. To do so would introduce an 'unstable element to a critical situation'." Riker's disagreement is perfectly valid and Starfleet can't seem to decide whether Picard is qualified or not. During the series, Picard leads a task force fighting Borg attackers late in the series, AFTER he'd been rescued from the Borg. Furthermore, even if Starfleet had changed hands from one Fleet Admiral to another, why would brass not have simply relieve Picard of duty and place the Enterprise under temporary command of Riker? He's more than qualified to command the Enterprise.
When did Picard become obsessed with revenge? First Contact marks the point when he simply stops caring about being a diplomat, and jumps on the action-hero bandwagon. maybe it's a midlife crisis. He gets so angry that he nearly bitchslaps Alfre Woodard in the face with a phaser rifle. He's had way more chances to smack-a-b*tch before then, but he never did - because he's a Frenchman and a gentleman - and a DIPLOMAT. He's not a soldier. He's not a general. And he's not supposed to be a psychopath.
Star Trek: Insurrection
Why is Data on a survey team studying a civilization? He doesn't understand people yet. What the hell would he have to report on? Aside from how well the citizens handle sudden invisible-man-fights.
Why is the duckblind sitting in the middle of the Ba'ku village? Wouldn't they want to install much smaller surveillance devices around the village and keep the duckblind far out of possible discovery sight, in case something happens to the holographic rocks? Which is something that happened in an episode of TNG, "Who Watches the Watchers?". Starfleet didn't seem to learn their lesson very well.
Why all the subterfuge? The Ba'ku were going to figure out they're not in Kansas any more one way or another. So... why bother with the holoship and the invisible-people?
If Starfleet knew that the Ba'ku used to be spacefarers (evidenced by Dougherty's very quickly stated assertion that "these people were never meant to be immortal"), why hide from them? If they didn't know that the Ba'ku weren't native , why would the hierarchy collectively agree to disregard the Prime Directive entirely? Furthermore, is this even a Federation planet? It certainly can't be, as the Ba'ku have been on that planet for longer than Starfleet and the Federation even existed. They were settling down around the time that we would have been reaching the very first stars in our neighbourhood.
How does a face stretching machine kill Dougherty? You'd think those machines would be equipped with failsafes to make sure it didn't do that, considering they are operated by slaves and used on a bunch of 300 year old monsters who were very few in numbers.
Star Trek: Nemesis
Why is Janeway an Admiral??! She broke the Prime Directive basically once a bloody week. She started wars between races, allied with the Borg, and left scars on dozens of cultures simply to save her crew. She also violated the Temporal Prime Directive so many times that people from THE FUTURE were getting pissed off at her.
How did the Remans go from slaving away in a space mine to having a "secret base" to build the largest warship in Romulan history? Where did the Remans get the expertise to do so? It's feasible that Remans may have been labouring in starship construction - but what about starship design?
Why was Shinzon a ranked officer in the Romulan military? He was a cloned human; you'd think that the Romulans would keep him tucked away somewhere that Starfleet would never find him. Like... a pauper's grave.
Why is everyone's response to needing a blood sample "I'll just slice my hand open with a big knife"? I don't think people in Star Trek understand what's just under the skin. Try pressing your fingers (gently) against the palm of your hand. Unless you're a big fat guy, you should feel tendons. You kinda need those for your fingers.
Why did the Starfleet armada not start heading toward the Enterprise when it didn't show up at the rendez-vous? There was, after all, the Bassen Rift between them that screwed with sensors and communications.
When the Scimitar sent the boarding party to the Enterprise, why did they not just seal off the compartment with forcefields and vent all the atmosphere? The phasers were set to kill anyway. Why risk your own crew?
What the hell was Picard doing beaming over to the Scimitar? Send Worf. Pack him with Rambo gear and tell him to kill everything that moves, and blow up the weapon before it wipes out the Enterprise. You don't send over a 70 year old man with something to prove, armed only with a plastic phaser rifle that snaps in half faster than an AR-15 and a phaser that isn't even fastened into the holster. That, and isn't the Enterprise armed with shuttles? Why not launch them and use their phasers to disable the weapon's firing tips? That would have taken a matter of minutes. Forget procedure, put two crewmen on each shuttle and just open the bloody doors. It would have been done in time for Picard's afternoon tea.
Star Trek
How does Mrs Kirk give birth in nine minutes? Doesn't labour take HOURS?!
Aren't officers supposed to enroll in Starfleet Academy, while crew are made of the "enlisted" folks who didn't want to be in command? If so, then why did Pike encourage Kirk to ENLIST and not ENROLL? He did, after all, state that Kirk could have his own ship in as little as eight years.
Why would Starfleet be so cruel as to assign Chekov an authorization code that he couldn't pronounce?
Spock must have a HUGE... um, "IDIC"... because I can't think of another reason why someone as passionate as Uhura would fall in love with someone as dispassionate as Spock.
Why did Pike name Kirk as first officer and not someone with a rank, like Sulu? Kirk wasn't even an Cadet - his privilege of service was revoked for cheating during an exam.
Why would Spock dump Kirk on a frozen wasteland? Especially considering the closest inhabited planet was just sucked into an artificial black hole.
Why did I go through all of this? To prove that nothing is perfect - not even our favourites.
This question answers itself. It was a move to get her OUT of the chair and behind a desk. Saving starfleet a LOT of headaches.
To keep her out of the Captain's chair and thus somewhere where the Starfleet brass can keep an eye on her.
EDIT: Bloody ninjas.
At least, that seems the most likely version to me
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
If it's too long for you to bother, don't! You're not hurting my feelings by not caring.
In any other organization, she would have been stripped of rank and sent to prison.
She was seen going into labour shortly after the initial attack. If she had gone into labour several hours earlier, would that not have been hinted at? Maybe with Lieutenant Kirk arriving on the bridge, having come from medical, when the black hole appeared?
The movie, for younger generations, is everything it could have been and needed to be. It was fast-paced, it had a basic, current political context (drone strikes) and Alice Eve in undies. A younger friend of mine who went to see it with me and is a self-proclaimed "Trekkie", LOVED it. He loved the throw-back jokes, the whole re-boot to "keep Trek alive" idea is strong in that one, I assure you. And I don't doubt him.
I on the other hand, have a different recollection of Trek, because I'm older and lived when trek was addressing different social ideas. The Cold Wars was going on strong during Trek VI. The infamous Trek 2 is now recalled for Khan when the reality was it was the first time we got to saw a real Trek fight in space with the tech of the day. Khan was just a great tool used for the bigger story arc which is what the whole movie was premised on: sacrifice. That's what I missed in Darkness. An underlying "hrmm" moment.
It was just simplified, in-you-face dilemmas that might speak to a summer movie-goer but not necessarily to me as a fan. I won't go into the 7 massive plot holes that made the movie too convenient. The worst part for me is how Spock was developed in writing. the acting was outstanding but what they've done is made Spock like everyone else but with pointy ears. I get he lost Vulcan. I get he's half-human. The thing is, now, other than the tone of voice and ears, Spock is now an average human with all those frailties and emotions. Yes, Vulcans always have those emotions but the suppression is what makes them inherently interesting. I didn't like Spock laughing in the TOS pilot and i'm not digging him doing so in the future. He's now a Data re-hash, striving to be more human in some sense rather then trying to stay away from emotions. Honestly, I blame the character of T'pol for all this, lol.
TL;DR
the movie is only bad or good, depending on the context of perception in which you view it. From my context, it sucked. Bad. it was like watching "zero-calorie" Trek, which I supoose is all the rage these days.
Signed,
Grandpa Lored2death
At Dunder Mifflin she'd have been promoted to the Albany Branch Manager position? Or at least not demoted. You could start a fire there, bag someone's head with a rabid bat, or punch a hole through the wall with very little consequence.
I get the whole substance over special effects. That's how I am with old video games. I always say to my friends, "remember when video games were awesome and you didn't care about the graphics". So I can appreciate those who feel the same about the new Trek movies.
On the other hand, I knew ahead of time that there wouldn't be as much substance in the new Trek movies. That's just how big budget special effect movies are made today. I tampered my expecations and loved the movie because of it. It still had enough Trek in it for me to be okay with it.
If you don't like the new movies, why go? You aren't going to find the substance you seek. Enjoy the old shows and movies for that. I still play my old video games from time to time.
Edit: I just want to see Star Trek live on. Sadly, my teenaged nephew didn't even want to go see the movie, so he stayed home.
You make a fair argument. The new Star Trek films are for a much broader audience, and may not speak on the same intellectual level as the films used to, such as Sacrifice, Life and Death, the Cold War/Chernobyl Incident, or other modern day political surfaces, but that simply doesn't sell anymore. Filmmakers don't make movies that don't stand a chance to make money. That's just how studios survive.
The result is an action movie with a Star Trek hat on. There's nothing wrong with that; it just doesn't do much to tickle your brain box. Thankfully, a full library of Star Trek: The Next Generation is on DVD to tease your thinking muscles.
Star Trek has become what it needs to be in order for a new audience to come in. Let's face it; Trek fans have become very jaded about the franchise and incredibly hard to please. Everyone who has tried in the last ten years has had their efforts spit back in their faces. Think of Enterprise, Star Trek Legacy, and even this game. The reception has been one of struggling fans and a lot of angry Trekkies.
The only viable solution is to seek out new fans and new directions. To boldly go where no Star Trek property has gone bef--- okay, I'm sorry for that one.
But the point is, (and here's your damnable TL;DR), Star Trek has two ways to go; either to change with the times and leave the stubborn, inflexible, impossible-to-please fanboys behind, or to stagnate and simply die off. Paramount made a good choice in trying something new. The formula is successful, if not completely in tune with the so-called "vision" of Star Trek.
I had to actually look up what Dunder Mifflin is; I don't watch The Office (I won't discuss my reasoning). But I seriously doubt that's even close to a fair comparison. If you're just trying to be funny, the joke was entirely lost on me (like the show itself).
Well said. That's what I was truly trying to get at.
Also, after years of being considered nerdy for being a Trekkie, it's nice to have a couple of movies that people think are cool. LOL.
I like what you had to say as well. It made me think of just what these new Trek movies can do. They can act almost as gateways. New audiences who thought Star Trek was too nerdy for them, now going into theatres to see it, and coming out wowed. That's your in; the foot in the door to be exposed to what Star Trek stands for.
In fact, my girlfriend (I sense "imaginary" jokes incoming) didn't care for Trek until we saw JJ's 2009 film. It gave me a chance to sneak in a few episodes of Deep Space Nine while we were... shall we say, herbally inclined. She is now a fan of that series. Not a bad start.
I think you make some great points and I definitely appreciate your perspective.
I do, though, think we're unfairly putting Abrams' two films up against a compilation of 40 years of Star Trek.
I saw each one of the TOS movies in theaters, and I can tell you that in my experience, neither me nor any of those I went with came out of those movies thinking about some greater cultural theme. We came out feeling like we'd just had an adventure (some better than others).
Yes, ST 6 was a clear allegory for the Cold War, but other than that, I don't think any of the TOS movies had a larger "philosophy to action ratio" than these movies did.
Star Trek 2 was about sacrifice, yes, but it really spent very little time exploring it. Very few minutes of screen time were used to address it. Not much more than the screen time used to address the themes of sacrifice, terrorism, human rights (even for criminals), and learning humility in this new movie. It was about even, IMO.
Into Darkness definitely spent more time on it than ST 3 and 5. And ST 4 was about as shallow as you can get. It slammed the "Save the whales" message down the viewers' throats and wrapped it in a movie that was so much a comedy it was almost of parody of the characters (I loved it, believe it or not; just making a point here).
As far as Star Trek movies, I think these new ones fall right in the middle. Behind Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country, but ahead of 3,4, and 5... both in terms of fun and depth.
We have to remember that when we're talking about the depth of characters here, we're comparing the 5 hours that Abrams had to the 40 years that the others had. He wasn't continuing the development of these characters... he was tasked with introducing them - from scratch - to a new audience.
If you put the Abrams films up against any other Trek film individually, Abrams holds up pretty well.
It's definitely not the best Trek, but it's definitely not the worst. And it certainly (IMO) doesn't deserve the claim that it has ruined Trek.
Maybe you hit on what I was really thinking: that Star Trek is changing to be what it needs to be to have an audience. I would prefer, and I think the creator himself would've agreed, that people came to the messages of Trek instead of it being milk-toasted to get people to come to church.
It feels too much of evangelizing to me and once they get inside, there's really nothing going on.
The movie has its points such as the CGI and acting but the story is just soooo bad once you get home and think about it. It's like the movie is better if you *don't* think about it and that philosophy seems rampant in our culture and why I made the claim that I did.... that this movie is more the product of our culture than anything else.
And that makes me a little sad.
Also well said. I can understand the way you feel about the "getting people to come to church" and then having nothing to show for it. I hope after "going to church" people keep seeking the "Star Trek" way. Lol. Hopefully they will watch the old shows and movies and find that they are as cool as we think they are.
I think I have to disagree with the end of your statements there. It's not very much like the director selling the franchise on the laurels of an action film. The true fans who finally get to stop feeling like nerds and outcasts and move up to, at the very least, the hipster category. The fans are the ones who get the chance to open up their friends to the franchise with this new opening. The old 60s show just can't be taken seriously by young audiences now.
As for lacking story, I gotta say I don't agree with that either. It was said earlier that you don't tend to walk out of a Star Trek film feeling like you just watched something groundbreaking and intellectual. You walk out feeling like you just had an adventure. Each film has tried (well, some tried) to push the envelope of special effects. Star Trek II certainly did, and it definitely helped make the film that much more successful. Star Trek: The Motion Picture was far more in tune with Roddenberry's Star Trek than its sequel - and yet movie-goers in general, and Trekkies specifically, always say that The Wrath of Khan was the better film.
If you see past the dazzle, the action, and the lens flares (which are in curiously fewer numbers in Star Trek into Darkness), you will see a real story there. A careful set-up to the plot leads characters through an experience that reshapes how they view the chain of command. Kirk is subjected to the true burdens of captaincy, and Spock's Vulcan half is tested to its breaking point.
Was the action over-the-top? Yes. Did it overshadow the underlying story elements? Yes. It can be hard to pick up on subtleties when your retinas are full of laser beams and giant explosions. No one can be blamed for missing the fine details, especially if they're not actively looking for them.
I saw a Facebook post this week where a bunch of folks (mostly young) were discussing the new movie and they had a very in-depth and long debate about whether or not Kirk had the right to kill Harrison. One side was saying he was following orders and Harrison had to be stopped by any means while the other side was saying Kirk had a moral obligation to disobey orders and bring Harrison in for a trial.
Now, no matter what side of that debate you're on, I think the debates itself shows 2 things:
1. Kids aren't as shallow as we think
2. This movie did - on some level - make them go "hmmmm."
You just made my day. I could only speak from personal experience seeing this movie with a couple other people. We all seemed to have no trouble seeing past the flashy exterior. The questions of whether Kirk did the right thing, in a lot of situations, can be raised to strengthen the case that a story was in fact present and fully developed.
Ah, if you had seen the episodes in particular that I referenced (especially the Dwight fire safety one since he does get called to corporate for almost burning down the building and killlng everyone in it), or really just generally you know most of what Michael Scott did for the first four seasons, you'd see it's a very apt comparison.
As well as me being funny.
He made an entirely different ST, for sure, but that doesn't automatically make it terrible (or great). I for one, think it's good in it's own way, and think it's great that it revitalized ST for a new audience, who otherwise wouldn't have even looked at the older versions
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Scotty said that he (Harrison) used a teleportation device that used Scotty's formula, the one he said could beam grapefruits and presidents' dogs from planet to planet and onto a starship traveling at warp speed.
HIPPIES. HIPPIES EVERYWHERE.
Yeah, that actually added to the story for me. It certainly didn't take away from it.
They could have just as easily had Harrison take a starship, but by using that warp tech, it showed that the warp equation from the first movie actually had an impact on the galaxy. By using that particular tech, they basically moved it from a plot device to an actual part of the new continuity.
Yes, and that's what I like about this. It does have a Star Trek feel, always a land of new inventions.
And, just as TOS communicators were the predecessors of the Cell Phone, we could also see those floating gurneys (stretchers) in the future
HIPPIES. HIPPIES EVERYWHERE.