Slashdot Mirror
Reviews: Star Trek
The movie is a total reboot. And yes, it features time travel. While normally this is a giant red flag, in this case I don't think it's too bad. Especially when you want to make giant, universe-altering changes without pissing off the continuity nerds.
Star Trek starts off with a big action sequence that holds no surprises. You'll immediately notice a few dramatic stylistic changes in the camera work. This movie owes more to the pseudo-documentary style of Firefly or BSG than the traditional pristine look of the last few decades of Trek. Space is pretty silent (although it somehow gets noisier as the movie continues), and they even do the cool thing of making sure that everything in space doesn't share the same Z-axis. Minor, but I love it. The intro ends with an emotional note that resonates strongly; it could have been cheesy but it works. So, they reboot the universe. We get some Kirk/Spock back story, and some brief moments at the academy. Wacky events occur, leaving most of our familiar characters aboard the Enterprise. We witness each of them rise to their known rank and positions. It's all very wink-wink. Occasionally a bit overly cutesy, but ultimately fun. I found the scoring a little weak (Abrams uses the same composer for everything), but many of the sound effects echo the original sources. The effects are just great: I would expect nothing less than perfect, and I got it. I particularly liked the Vulcan architecture. Yes, the new bridge looks like an Apple Store, but the glass and white looks modern. It might not age that well, but it's cool. The costumes look forward and backward at the same time. We have mini-skirts on the bridge and familiar color coding. It all works. The Enterprise itself feels HUGE inside. Engineering isn't just a room with a console; it's massive. It has weight. I love it.
I'm not going to go into the story. It's convoluted, but frankly it's really not the key to this movie: this is a roller coaster movie with new actors playing parts we love.
So, let's talk about the most important thing: the characters. They basically nailed everyone. Uhura and Bones are used a lot in the early bits. Chekov and Sulu each have a few nice moments. Scotty shows up late in the game and steals almost every scene he is in. But as the movie goes on, it becomes almost entirely Kirk and Spock, which really is how it should be.
More so than anyone else, Kirk is an impression. But ya know what? I buy it. The Kirk we knew is older. This one is younger with bigger balls and swagger. This kid will chase the skirt instead of just knowing she will come to him. I could certainly see someone thinking they took Kirk too far, but I buy it. He has charisma and some great lines.
Quinto's Spock is great. I resisted the urge to make Sylar jokes (mostly). He's reserved, subtle, and when the need arises, emotional. It works. He's the best casting in the film. Since Nimoy gets to reprise old Spock, we're given the ability to stack the two Spocks up right against each other. And it's just great. I totally buy it.
Eric Bana is the big bad. He seems almost totally superfluous. He does just fine, but I just don't care either way. This movie is about our heroes. Bana's Nero could have been a robot or an entity or whatever. He's a plot device used to press the universe reboot button, and to give us a ticking clock.
Two of the "humorous" sequences go a bit far. You'll know them when you see them. It's like they were inserted to keep 12-year-olds giggling. I expect this in a Disney film, but I wish I didn't see them here. Another action sequence in the middle serves no purpose except letting us have a giant monster chase Kirk. Abrams probably wanted to toss some work to his Cloverfield monster-making buddy.
But here's the thing: Star Trek is entertaining. It has problems, of course. It won't make everyone happy. But by the time Scotty gets into the story, there are so many moments of unbridled joy that you can't help but feel giddy. I don't know if Abrams will stick around or if this cast will be back for more, but if they are, I know I'll be in the theater again. And you should be there too. Now. You're a carbon-based life form who reads Slashdot. You owe it to yourself.
Can someone please explain to me how this is NOT a failure?
Star Trek was always known for its strong story telling. Sure, it was sometimes campy and over the top. But the series was built on story. The action was just the frosting.
That was something that Berman never realized. He kept playing down the story in exchange for more action, more outlandish events, more of that adrenaline squeeze. Except that he was bad at it. I mean, really, really bad. Stinking up the screen bad. (Hey look: MACOs! Amazing how those guys never got any screen time, isn't it? Or how about the time Riker used a joystick to save the day? I know, let's have Picard fight himself! Or put 7 of 9 in a fight pit with a WWE wrestler! Yeah, those were great times. *cough*)
Now you're telling me that JJ doesn't suck at it. Therefore it's okay to finish tearing apart the foundations of Star Trek because at least it was a fun ride. Right?
Star Trek stood on its own two feet for 40 years. It was challenged by the networks, challenged by the box office, and challenged by its own actors. Yet the concept survived and is cherished by its fans. The core idea of a better future painted on the rich tapestry of space travel is not something to be ignored. It's something to protect, grow, and find ways to adapt to the changing times. After all, is there any better time to shout out this message than when things seem the darkest?
Instead we have a summer blockbuster. And like all summer blockbusters, it will be forgotten by next summer. It is a sad day for Roddenberry's vision of the future.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
And the reviewer loses a geek point by not knowing how to spell "Sylar".
After reading this review (and laughing/blowing milk straight out my nose - don't ask), I think this is the perfect non-spoiler-non-biased-perfectly-opinionated review I have seen on Slashdot in years. I'm happy to see that JJ is able to nail Trek perfectly, and Taco is right - the characters make the film, and it is all about Kirk and Spock.
As a golden Trekie (getting up there in age), I am hopeful this 'REBOOT' of Trek will see more of it in the cinemas, and maybe even on TV.
Thanks JJ for making it real again!
Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. - Peter F. Drucker
The latest Trek was OK as a pure fantasy action flick, but I had some problems with just how over-the-top they went for the younger crowd (caveat: I'm a 37-year old Trekkie and a former Naval officer). I'm not talking about "canon" material, but rather the fanciful way in which they handed the keys of the Federation flagship to an academy midshipman after a 24-hour tour of duty. Kirk has always been - and always will be - a swaggering action-oriented character, but he also picked up leadership and wisdom along his carer - skills he would have learned during his progression through Starfleet as an Ensign, Lieutenant, Commander, etc. So at the end of the movie when they promoted Kirk from midshipman to Captain, I couldn't stifle a laugh...
That episode was by far one of the best Star Trek episodes (in my opinion, up there with "In the Pale Moonlight" from DS9). To tie your comment into the movie review, Memory Alpha says that Rick Berman hated the entire premise of Darmok. If Memory Alpha is accurate, all I can do is shake my head...
> But please please please don't forget we're watching Star Trek for the philosophical questions that arise
No we're not. Speaking as someone who missed Boy Scouts to watch the first airing of The Man Trap, any appeal that endless philosophical discussions might have had has been thoroughly beat out of me in the last few years. I want to see epic, multi-ship space battles. When I get tired of that, and for some reason want to go back to watching tepid discussions in ultra-modern conference rooms, I'll let you know.
You're right, there was more to Star Trek than "set phasers on quick-fry-to-a-crackly-crunch" but in more recent years, wayyyyy too many stories went too far the other way. Star Trek became more boring than watching the NASA channel. About four episodes into Enterprise, I decided life was too short for mediocre Trek, and never looked back. Until now.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
In the first three paragraphs, the author makes all three of the most common English errors: to/too, its/it's, and then/than. Praise Bob, I'm glad he didn't screw up there/they're/their; that would have been too much to bear/bare (haha).
But seriously, if you're going to submit a lengthy bit of prose to a popular website, please ask someone with a high-school understanding of English to proofread it for you. Everyone knows that Slashdot keeps no such talent on the payroll, so you shouldn't expect editing from the "editors."
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
I'll put my "The Inner Light" up against your "Darmok" any day of the week.
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
I agree that time travel can be lazy. I used to love it, but it's been drastically overdone on film and television. Now I see it as a trap that screenwriters fall into when they want to connect elements of a story that shouldn't be able to connect.
In the Star Trek franchise The Voyage Home made novel use of it. At least it seemed novel at the time, and it made for an entertaining romp. But then came Generations. And then First Contact. And now this. That's four of the eleven Star Trek films, all reliant upon time travel in some way. Rather a lot, IMHO. And that's not counting the endless time travel episodes, stretching from TOS right up to Enterprise. What irks me most about time travel on Star Trek, though, is how it's treated as a novel, surprising development every time it happens. "What, he's from the future?" "What, we've been transported back to the 20th century?" "What, they changed history?" These future-folk should really get used to time travel: it's as commonplace as pizza.
You obviously know your Trek, but I'm a bit confused by many of your criticisms. Everything that happens from the moment Nero's ship appears in the past, prior to Kirk's birth, can depart from the known history of Starfleet without contradicting one bit of canon. Spock and Uhura's romance? That doesn't break with canon. They aren't saying there was always a romance. They are simply saying there is NOW a romance. Same with Kirk's service on Farragut, and the events that happened to Romulus. The movie makes it clear that the future that you saw DID happen, but is no longer GOING TO happen.
I think that the official word is that this DOES create an alternate universe, due to quantum branching, but that's mostly just the creators covering their butts.
There are some inconsistencies, of course, like the technology on Kirk's Father's ship; but I think overall this movie tried harder to fit into canon then most STAR TREK episodes themselves did.
More so than anyone else: Kirk is an impression.
I didn't get that until the end, and I think they threw in that line delivered in Kirk cadence as part of their plan to make Trekkies happy. It was just one more favorite clichés that we got to see once more. Sure, we're going to replace all your actors, but we won't ruin the characters. I approve.
Now, McCoy was the impression. He was pretty good at it though. No complaints.
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
Holes? How about the fact that no navy in the known universe is going to make a captain of a kid right out of the acadamy AND give him the fleet flagship to boot. I don't care how many planets he saves.
"Great job, Ensign Kirk. You're now Lieutenant Kirk. Report to the Yorktown."
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Just to counter your comment on the science.
Most of the series were logial in their application of science, transporters were limited by sensor range, warp drive worked based on real world theories of FTL (disproven recently), they used terms like dark matter and protons/gravitons/etc.. correctly and alot of the phonemon mentioned exist as theoretical ideas.
The film seemed to ignore science, we had "red matter", "lightening storms in space" aparently a ship can survive being in the middle of a black hole for a couple of minutes with no problems. Transporters can work over infinite distances, and little logical errors abounded. During their trip out they make a point of saving it will take three minutes, yet a more advanced ship from the future seems to make the same journey in a day.
I liked the movie but between saying f*** you to the ten years of star trek tv shows I grew up with and the complete inattention to the science or sticking with rules the film creates just annoyed the hell out of me. I'd rather they let the whole franchise have fizzled out than that film.
That the name "Nichelle Nichols" creates, in just my typing it?
I used to watch CARTOON Star Trek, in '73. Just to get more of that woman.
Tough luck, Betty and Veronica.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
I think the point of dumping Kirk off on the ice planet (other than the obvious ploy to get Scotty involved) was that Spock was being illogical. It was a way of demonstrating his "emotionally compromised" state before they get around to pointing out that Kirk can assume command because of it.