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.
The Onion News Network has an informative brief piece on this entitled Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'.
My work here is dung.
This movie was definitely the best (least cheezy) movie made from the star trek franchise. That being said, I have a few qualms:
1. The villain was lame. He was a nobody with stupid motivation. Could it happen? I suppose... but come on! Such small fish. (Forgive me, I'm just looking for a deeper plot.. not just a crappy summer action flick.
2. I prefer TNG over TOS for a few reasons: Kirk is clearly an action-based fly by the seat of his pants type guy. Makes for a great action movie like this. But please please please don't forget we're watching Star Trek for the philosophical questions that arise as well in the star trek universe. I loved Picard because he was the opposite. He drank hot tea on a regular basis. He thought about things, and thusly, I thought about things. Remember: We're not watching star wars, we're watching star trek here...
3.There was a moment when young spock had kirk by the neck. I seriously expected him to slice open kirk's head with his finger.
All in all, I loved this movie, and anxiously await the next in this version of the franchise, but please please please don't forget the parts of star treck that make it so awesome (and not star wars), and balance it well with action!
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
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
Screw the MPAA! I have ideals!
...
OMG Star Trek movie!
That strange Moe-Stooge-haired dude had pointy ears. Why didn't casting QA catch that?
Table-ized A.I.
Singularly.
There are 16 colons in that review! 16! At least eight of them should be periods, another six should be hyphens. I'll give him two. :)
Not to be a grammar Nazi, but man that's distracting.
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
Kirk would break the rules if they needed to be broken and was willing to admit when humanity was the less advanced, the less civilized. Granted, a lot of this was in later material but still.
Picard on the other hand was always right and the rules were everything. Also intresting to note, Spock/Vulcans were in many ways the superior race in TOS. This was comepletly lost in TNG. All human with only a half human and a human robot thrown in. Lesser racial mix with it being very clear that all the TNG crew was from north america or europe.
No, TNG was TOS-light.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Nothing gets better than Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra! That episode was STUPENDOUS. If this is one eighteenth as good as that, I'll be OK.
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...
Damit Jim! I'm a doctor, not a carpenter.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
right at the Time Travel part.
Coupled with the previews, It just smells lame.
Let me guess. They blew up the ship at the end.
So is it the more mild transhumanism, or the heavier general AI?
From my understanding, Star Trek's interpretation of end result of transhumanism/singularity is the Borg.
As reasons why the Federation does not implement such technology is really up for debate. Of course I have not seen the new movie yet so I cannot say whether or not this addresses such an issue.
Or for that matter, explain why the Borg don't just sent a cube back in time to blow up earth during the time of the dinosaurs or something reasonable like that.
I mean if they thought Earth was a threat enough to sent a cube to destroy it in present time that warped back in time after it had been weakened, why not just sent a cube back before the federation was really around.
Unless its one of those Terminator plots where the Federation is really the source of the Borg... So they had to sent the cube back knowing it would be destroyed in order for some borg piece to be around so that they are created sometimes in the future.
Gawd.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
The Borg are not xenophobic. They do not wish merely to crush their enemies or protect themselves. They wish to incorporate other races' biological and technological distinctiveness into the Collective. Destroying Earth before it gives rise to the Federation and thus is a threat to the Borg is a response to fear, one the Borg do not feel.
... And so it comes to this.
Here's my own review, for what it's worth:
Within about 10 minutes I knew that Star Trek was back, and that this film is exactly what the franchise needs: some life breathing in to it - and who better to provide a new direction than J. J. Abrams, the co-creator of the hit series Lost.
This is not a complete reboot or re-imagining but a prequel set just before the original series from the 1960s. It features a new cast taking up the original roles of Kirk, Spock and the crew.
As the film opens we're placed in the middle of a space battle and straight away stylistic differences are apparent. The feel is much more gritty and realistic. When a hole is ripped in the ship, as well as the usual exterior shot this time we're shown the crew member's view as they are violently blown out of the ship, followed by the cold silence and emptiness of space. Camera work is sometimes of the cinéma vérité style often used today (e.g. with the reimagined Battlestar Galactica) which adds to the realism but can be a little headache inducing on the big screen.
The sets and props from the original series would look out of place today so things have been updated visually. It's a fairly believable and realistic looking future based on the technology of today - so in place of the dials and buttons of the sixties series we have flat black touch screens; The Enterprise interior, instead of being multi-colour and angular is now clean and white with simple curved lines.
As this is set before the original series it's nice to see that the characters are not their usual calm, professional and mature selves and are unrefined, undeveloped and rough around the edges. Kirk is like an immature teenager and angry at the world. Spock has not yet fully given up his emotions. Sulu is having trouble getting to grips with the ship's controls.
Zachary Quinto is superb as Spock... as many have said, it's as if he was born to play the part.
I'd heard good things about Simon Pegg's portrayal as Scotty but in truth his screen time is minimal and limited to the odd one or two mildly amusing one liners, not too dissimilar to the Scotty of the original series and films. His odd ewok-like alien sidekick was completely pointless, no doubt an attempt to add comic relief and appeal to younger viewers as with Jar Jar Binks from Star Wars, and the humour grates just as much.
There are no complaints with the casting for the rest of the crew. McCoy, Uhura, Sulu and Chekov were all completely believable and worthy to take the places as the younger versions of the original crew.
Story wise, the back story regarding characters is great. For me this would almost be enough, but there is also a non-too-original plot involving yet another super-villain hell bent on destroying the earth. (Why is it they always go for the earth anyway - doesn't that seem a bit earth-centric? Wasn't it established pretty early on that the federation already existed long before the earth joined? Anyway... moving on...).
The plot reminded me a lot of the last Star Trek film - Nemesis - which also involved a rogue Romulan (OK, technically a Reman) who tried to destroy Earth. Given the overwhelmingly negative response to that film it would have been wise to come up with a completely different plot, but fortunately it doesn't spoil things too much.
The plot also doesn't make a lot of sense. The villain - Nero - travels back in time to avenge the destruction of his home planet after the older Spock fails to save it. If he's travelled back in time though, why not attempt to avoid the future destruction of his home planet instead of going after Spock? And why go after someone who was only trying to help? You could put all this down to him being a maniac I suppose, but it just doesn't seem that credible, even for a Star Trek film involving time travel and warp drives and all the rest.
One thing that surprised me was that it stuck to canon at all. Some differences can be explained by rift in the timeline (time t
Can someone just enjoy watching Star Trek without being a Trekkie? Yeah, I've watched them all (except Enterprise) but it's just a TV show, not part of my identity.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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 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.
Why, in my day we had to battle giant spiders on our way to school......
the characters: they basically nailed everyone
see, explicit sex is exactly what i thought was missing in all the previous start trek movies.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
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
As usual, Smidge207 stole this review from someone else and should be modded down accordingly.
...so I may be the Senior here. (kudos to RAH!)
I fully admit to smoking the Trek crack since 1966. Hard habit to break!
And I know it led me to enlist in the Air Force and end up at Edwards AFB in 1976. My clearance and job allowed me to get up close and personal with the real first spacecraft to be named Enterprise.
So, TOS really meant a lot, especially at that time. The other cool thing was that my proximity to L.A. allowed me to see Star Wars 3 days after it premiered. Did not suck.
In spite of that, I am not fanatic about the Trek. Of the series, I prefer TOS and Voyager. Of the movies, I think I'm in the majority with 2, 4, 6, and 8. Everything else was not-so-good.
I'm going this weekend to see the new movie. I think it has a chance. I'd like to see 2 sequels that are even better. I think the first 3 Raiders movies were uniformly good, if for different reasons. There's no reason Abrams can't turn out 3 good movies. Hey, Judd Apatow hasn't really served up a turd yet, so this is doable.
As for a future TV series, I don't know. Might seem too much like Galaxy Quest. Then again, if this movie and possible sequels get giant box office numbers, it may be a foregone conclusion.
I am my own gestalt.
It's an OK movie. If it weren't "Star Trek", it would probably rank with The Chronicles of Riddick.
Annoyances:
Maybe someday there will be a David Weber SF movie, one that makes military sense. This isn't it. It's a mediocre space opera.
The above post was stolen from an IMDB comment. Scroll down and you'll see that Smidge207's post is practically identical to the Star Trek comment except for the references to gay sex and homosexuality. Smidge207's "reviews" are always plagiarized and should be modded down. The other review that he posted in this thread was taken from a Rotten Tomatoes user.
Want some Trek Cheese? How about in TNG movie when Riker tells the computer to go on manual pilot and a joystick pops up out of the floor?
Nichelle Nichols would have been in the movie in a cameo as Uhura's grandmother were it not for the writers' strike.
-=Steve=-
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
It was actually pretty good. As a standalone movie, it's a little confusing; I feel like the viewer needs knowledge of the Star Trek Canon in order to appreciate what this movie is doing. I've seen some of the original series, but I don't know my Trek backstories. Someone who knows Star Trek is likely going to enjoy this a lot more than someone who knows nothing. Going in, the newbie would have no idea who Vulcans or Romulans were, what Starfleet is, or who anyone outside of the famous Enterprise crew is, and by the end of it, they still might not know as much as they want to.
This could be a good springboard for anyone who wants to explore the original series. It's definitely not any sort of one-shot entertainment. And because it's a universe reboot, I kind of look forward to what they do with this now open alternate continuity.
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
> Why do you yell "F**k you" to Rick Berman?
The feeling I got was that Berman was responsible for the dilution of the Trek franchise. Capitalizing on the fanbase created by TOS, the first few movies, and the first few seasons of TNG, he started a campaign of maximizing Trek's presence on the screen, replacing what used to be (mostly) the exploration of ideas with what became (mostly) formula, as long as it maximized screen time. There was always technobabble and contrived drama in Star Trek, going clear back to the old series, but like a property owner who subdivides, packs in as many families as possible and then refuses to maintain the property, he seemed intent on maximizing return with little thought towards quality or creativity. What amazes me is that the fans let him get away with it for as long as he did.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.