criterionforum.org

JJ Abrams the next Steven Spielberg? Best of the year.

I'm a little shocked by how much I enjoyed Star Trek. I'm no Trekkie. My experience with the Star Trek universe consists of a handful of complete episodes I've seen, and bits and pieces of others. I've never watched any of the previous feature films and don't really have much knowledge of, or any investment in, the Star Trek mythos.

The generally positive reviews convinced me to give J.J. Abrams reboot of the franchise a shot. The first half hour, though, had me convinced the film was going to be a silly space opera -- Starship Troopers played straight: Kirk's Superman-esque origin story, Li'l Spock getting in fights at Vulcan Elementary, Uhura rooming with She Hulk at space college. With its exposition out of the way though, the story kicks into high gear with a brilliant conceit involving alternate realities and a breach of the space-time continuum. This essentially eliminates any complaints the Trek devotees might have about modifications to the universe.

Star Trek suffers from many of the same afflictions that plague most contemporary action films. The average shot length is far too short, fights are shot too close, camera angles are canted for no apparent reason. As reported, Star Trek also has more random lens flares than I've ever seen in any film. I could never live in space; my eyes are far too sensitive for the glare. This film is far more action-driven than I perceive the series to be, and the scenes involving the bad-guy Romulans generally fell flat for me. I don't know what Romulans were like on the show, but here they are basically tattooed hoodlums who fly around in a jalopy that looks like a garbage freighter on the inside, and a cast-iron squid on the outside. They are very angry with Spock for running late for an appointment in the future.

The film works very well though, especially in the third act, thanks to the new cast populating the Enterprise. Most of the actors were new to me, but this should prove to be a breakout film for all of them. All have a great gift for comic timing, which is one of the film's greatest virtues.

I knew enough about the original series (largely through cultural osmosis) to catch most of the nods and winks to the Star Trek universe. Oddly, it was this reverence to a show I know little about (and the presence of one particular actor) that I found so endearing. Even though the film is self-contained, it feels part of a larger world. The epilogue left the audience applauding, and me with inexplicable goosebumps. Consider me a convert; I can't wait for the future voyages of the Starship Enterprise.

I was utterly disappointed by almost every aspect of the movie. I'm a hardcore Trek fan, but many fans have been loving the film, it seems.

What was this film actually about? As heavy-handed as even the best Star Trek has been, it was always attempting to deal with a big idea of some description. Where were the ideas driving this pedestrian series of events? The plot was incredibly drab and, by Star Trek standards, even trivial.

The portrayal of Vulcans was especially horrendous, IMO. Everything that made Spock so fascinating (!) in TOS was gone in these angsty, self-absorbed Vulcans-in-name-only (and that includes Nimoy's uninteresting performance).

Even as a piece of popcorn enteratinment, it's no Iron Man in terms of filmmaking proficiency and economy of style and storytelling. Even though the audience applauded at the session I attended, I perceived none of the genuine sense of satisfaction that Iron Man engendered.

Saw the film this morning at a private screening of about fifteen people (a nice perk when a cinema chain is a client of the company you work for) and I thought this was fantastic. I'm a moderate ST fan, familiar with its standard tropes, though I gave up on the films during the TNG era, and for me the reboot worked completely. Abrams does a great job with a difficult task - staying true to the nature of the original characters, while breaking them out of the precious mold that Trekkers seem to want to keep them in. I like that the introduction of the original crew is actually spread out over the whole film, and that thankfully Abrams skips over most of Kirk's Starfleet training saving us from the drab "science" of ST. I was actually glad that the story didn't try and address some kind of moral issue as was really just a big space adventure. The worst of the ST films got caught up in just that kind of nonsense. The cast is uniformly great (Karl Urban is fantastic as Bones), with the exception of Anton Yelchin's Chekov whose accent borders on Borat styled camp. While I do agree with Jeff on some of the action sequences, the lens flares actually didn't bother me that much (though at times it practically whites out the screen). A great reboot that does the rare thing of actually breathing new life into a franchise. I can't wait to see where they take the series next.

This movie tries desperately to be as ordinary as possible and succeeds brilliantly at it. The plot felt like something out of one of the worse episodes of Star Trek: Voyager, the action scenes were indistinct and often pointless, Nero was a completely uncompelling stock villain, and Leonard Nimoy was wasted on really cringe-worthy expository dialogue. And the pacing is so breathless it renders much of the movie absurd. It's unusual that I enjoyed a movie like this even as much as I did, which probably has everything to do with the fact that I went in already having a great deal of emotional investment in the characters (and the cast does indeed do an excellent job of recreating them).

Also: there should be a ban over all of cinema on using black holes as a plot device.

Kirkinson wrote:Also: there should be a ban over all of cinema on using black holes as a plot device.

I'd prefer a ban on films not using black holes as a plot device. (Not because I think black holes make a great plot device, but because I think we'd see some amazing movies if, say, for one year everyone was forced to use such a ridiculous plot device. Plus, it would piss off Francois Ozon.)

I'm a huge fan of the original series. After seeing The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Thief of Bagdad, Cobra Woman, etc. I lamented that there weren't more lush technicolor adventure extravaganzas of the scifi variety. Forbidden Planet certainly qualifies, plus a few other entries, but I wished we'd gotten a full decade of Forbidden Planets. Then I started watching original Star Trek, and realized it was basically "Forbidden Planet: The Series" but with somewhat more memorable characters. The social statements (which, be honest, are in maybe 1/2 of all episodes) aren't what draws me to this show, it's the fact that it's an awesome silly pulp scifi adventure, and a fascinating cultural artifact.
And that said, I ADORED the new movie. SUCH fun. I could go on and on, but:
-I loved how the prologue encapsulated most of Star Trek in just the first minute or two

The first two minutes of Star Trek

-Hey there's a weird space thing!
-OH NO WE'RE UNDER ATTACK BY ROMULANS!
-SHIELDS DOWN TO 37%
*guys in jumpsuits run around and catch fire or something*

-I loved how the engineering section was a huge place for the first time ever (even counting the bigger budgeted Star Trek movies) yet still felt a lot like the original engineering sets
-Coolest phaser battle yet
-The absurd WTF moment when Nero explains that his ship is just a mining vessel from the future

StevenJ0001 wrote:As heavy-handed as even the best Star Trek has been, it was always attempting to deal with a big idea of some description. Where were the ideas driving this pedestrian series of events?

Please enlighten me as to what the "big ideas" behind "A Piece of the Action", "Spock's Brain", "The Trouble with Tribbles", "Mirror, Mirror", "Spectre of the Gun" were.
(and I adore those episodes)

Well, Tribbles can be trouble

I thought Tribbles was a scathing indictment of consumerism and a takedown of new age feel goodery ("the warm fuzzies")?

I liked this movie a lot too. Reboots are faring a lot better than prequels or even sequels ever have. The character introductions are all deftly handled and never bog or slow down the story. Despite the comparative runtimes the personalities are fleshed out more fully here than in the original series and films. I don't know why anyone's arguing that a summer blockbuster should be preachy. The references to the old show were tasteful too -- pandering to fanboys with constant winks and references drives me nuts but here it was integrated well and the biggest one, Spock, can be read as an endorsement from the old guard and doesn't stick out too bad. Really a refreshing experience, flushing out the nepotism (for example, cast members going on to direct so many episodes and films) and oppressive cannon tropes of the franchise and making it fun again.

The sequels could still go downhill, I'd hate to see them end up with two comic reliefs, two wallflowers and a goofy love triangle. But I guess Abrams does okay at shirking cliches. I'll remain optimistic.

Just saw this at the Ziegfeld. I thought the film was kind of fun, but only if I didn't think about it. Comedy and action were definitely the film's strengths, but other than Kirk and Spock the major characters were completely flat, the plot was obnoxiously dumb, and most of the art direction left something to be desired (that Romulan ship was just stupid). I wasn't too crazy about Sylar as Mr. Spock, but it's pretty easy to see why they picked him. Same thing with John Cho as Mr. Sulu. Frankly, I think the best casting pick was for Chekhov, which was the only time they really dared to completely abandon the look of the original actor (not counting Christopher Pike, mostly because he doesn't count).

I'm not sure why Christopher Pike looked so much like James Mason and Kirk looked so much like James Dean. That was just kind of… odd.

I don't know why I was disappointed—I wasn't expecting much in the first place. I guess I just thought the plot would be a little more interesting, but instead it almost felt like it got in the way, like something that just sort of inconveniently had to be resolved, but had to be there to tie the action scenes together and give the comedic moments some context. The action and comedy were really the only reasons to watch the film, but they weren't that good.

Huh, I saw this at the Ziegfeld, too, yesterday. And I disliked it quite a bit.

I'm neither a Trekkie nor a Trekker, but one of the many, many annoying things about the film is its relentless attempt to destroy Vulcan. This takes literal form, of course, but it is also accomplished on a number of levels: the very un-Vulcan-like performance of Spock by Sylar, and the essential repudiation of Vulcanism by Nimoy himself at the end. Then there are more subtle things, like the revelation of prejudice in Vulcan culture (the taunting of young Spock by his peers, the thoughtless comment by the Vulcan Science Academy guy, etc.) Huh, those Vulcans were lying hypocrites! I'm sure by delving deeper we would discover that they once owned slaves, too!

With Vulcan gone--and more importantly, the Vulcan way of thinking--the franchise loses one of its most fundamental distinctives. It is now free to become a generic space opera that will appeal to lowest common denominators everywhere. They've destroyed the franchise in order to save it.

If you are familiar enough with Vulcanism to have a preference for its depiction, you are a Trekkie

Domino Foxworthy, everybody. (couldn't resist, sorry Dom)

As a very lapsed Trekkie, I dug it. It had "the best of both worlds" (ow), a fresh take that respected the history. And I usually despise JJ Abrams. Loved Spock/Uhura. Wish Eric Bana'd had more to do, but I understand quite a bit of him ended up on the cutting room floor.

solaris72 wrote:Please enlighten me as to what the "big ideas" behind "A Piece of the Action"

Well, an entire society is built around slavish devotion to a book ... Think about it.

Jack Phillips wrote:the very un-Vulcan-like performance of Spock by Sylar, and the essential repudiation of Vulcanism by Nimoy himself at the end.

I think what the film is getting at here, using Spock's half-Vulcan, half-human identity as its vehicle, is an argument that the expression of emotion can sometimes be favorable to pure logic. Striving for a balance between the two is perhaps the central theme of the film: Kirk comes from it from the opposite angle--he is pure emotion and needs to learn to channel it into thoughtful leadership--and Nero is extreme emotion in the total absence of logic (well, he thinks he is being logical).

I'm not familiar enough with the series and films to know much about Vulcanism, but in the context of this film it seems that Vulcans are not simply born emotionless but rather learn to suppress their emotions deeply. That's what I took to be the point of the "schoolyard" taunting, anyway, and of the dialogue between Spock and his father. In the series, Spock usually seems like he's trying to "pass" as pure Vulcan by suppressing all emotion. In fact, Nimoy is quoted as saying he liked the role because Spock was "struggling to maintain a Vulcan attitude, a Vulcan philosophical posture and a Vulcan logic, opposing what was fighting him internally, which was human emotion." I see that at work in the new film, except that you have to see the struggle occur as just one part of a very compressed, multi-character narrative.

Themes aside, this was a total blast.

I went to see this last night, and I wasn't expecting much. Boy was I wrong. I have been a fan of the original series for years (some of my most watched discs). It all felt fresh and new to me, instant classic might be a stretch. But it really felt like the old gang was back at the helm of the Enterprise. Each character only got to say their trademark quotes once each in the film, I'm glad the "I'm giving her all she's got captain" and "I'm a doctor Jim" weren't overdone. All in all I really liked the film and might even go see it again.

J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous"

EDIT: Didn't see that antoine doinel had already posted it--apologies. Mods, please delete.

jbeall wrote:J.J. Abrams Admits Star Trek Lens Flares Are "Ridiculous"

Already noted.

Matt wrote:

Jack Phillips wrote:the very un-Vulcan-like performance of Spock by Sylar, and the essential repudiation of Vulcanism by Nimoy himself at the end.

I'm not familiar enough with the series and films to know much about Vulcanism, but in the context of this film it seems that Vulcans are not simply born emotionless but rather learn to suppress their emotions deeply. That's what I took to be the point of the "schoolyard" taunting, anyway, and of the dialogue between Spock and his father. In the series, Spock usually seems like he's trying to "pass" as pure Vulcan by suppressing all emotion. In fact, Nimoy is quoted as saying he liked the role because Spock was "struggling to maintain a Vulcan attitude, a Vulcan philosophical posture and a Vulcan logic, opposing what was fighting him internally, which was human emotion." I see that at work in the new film, except that you have to see the struggle occur as just one part of a very compressed, multi-character narrative.

All you say is true and well expressed. But what of the future? By the end of this film, Spock's internal human-Vulcan struggle is essentially over. Oh, there will be a few flare-ups yet when drama demands, but the main fighting is done. The homeworld has been extinguished, the culture has been revealed as a sham, Old Spock counsels Young Spock to relax and let it all go. Vulcanism has not a single advocate in the series anymore (maybe in Spock's father, but how much screen time is he gonna get?). And what was all that nonsense with Spock and Uhura? If I recall my "Amok Time," Vulcan mating habits are strictly regulated by a biological cycle that Spock himself cannot control. Come to think of it, aren't Vulcans like salmon, needing to return to their place of origin in order to spawn? With the planet gone, isn't the race screwed?

Of course, the writers will find a work-around; the point is, though, that Vulcanism is no longer Vulcanism. It used to be considered a viable alternative philosophy on the original TV show. Now it's just a handicap for Spock to overcome.

Jack Phillips wrote: It used to be considered a viable alternative philosophy on the original TV show.

By whom? Aside from fictional Vulcans themselves? It might have been interesting if one of the human crewmembers had become a Vulcan disciple during the series run, but I don't remember it happening. It always seemed racial first and philosophical second (the philosophy born to apply to their own native temperaments/realities).

Jack Phillips wrote: Now it's just a handicap for Spock to overcome.

Wasn't it always? What was cool about him was always what was broken about him. I haven't seen this film, but isn't one of the reasons Nimoy is able to come and say that stuff because they already had him "get over" all that bad Vulcan juju over the course of six films?

Jack Phillips wrote:And what was all that nonsense with Spock and Uhura? If I recall my "Amok Time," Vulcan mating habits are strictly regulated by a biological cycle that Spock himself cannot control. Come to think of it, aren't Vulcans like salmon, needing to return to their place of origin in order to spawn? With the planet gone, isn't the race screwed?

[I can't believe I'm about to dive into this debate, but] no. Spock returned to Vulcan in "Amok Time" because he was betrothed to what's-her-name and the issue had to be resolved, one way or another, with her involvement. It's been well established in the subsequent series that Vulcans can mate anywhere. And although mating habits are strictly regulated by Vulcan biology, there's no reason that gestures of affection would have to be. That's an aspect of Vulcan/human hybridism that I've always thought would be interesting to explore, actually -- Spock could conceivably be craving sexual companionship on a regular basis while always being locked into the every-seven-years Vulcan mating cycle, which would surely be a frustrating state of affairs.

After my lukewarm reaction upon seeing it, I'm liking the film less and less the more I think about it (I was hoping the opposite would happen). But I don't think the portrayal of Vulcans is especially problematic. Their portrayal in the TV series (even if we only talk about the original) was never unambiguously favorable. Sarek was stubborn, distant, and aloof when he was first introduced in the series, with a distinct air of condescension towards all the humans around him, including Spock's mother. (He doesn't really lighten up about this until Star Trek IV.) And in "Amok Time," the Vulcans are downright savage and cunning, with seemingly little regard for anything or anyone that stands in the way of their immediate self-interest. The only Vulcan I can think of who never really had any problems with anyone is Tuvok.

Moreover:

starmanof51 wrote:I haven't seen this film, but isn't one of the reasons Nimoy is able to come and say that stuff because they already had him "get over" all that bad Vulcan juju over the course of six films?

I think this is spot-on. Nearly everything Nimoy says in his last scene is a repetition of other things he has said throughout the series. What Jack Phillips saw as a repudiation of Vulcanism in the end, I read as merely an appropriation of the scene in Spock's quarters in Star Trek VI when he's talking to Valeris about having faith in the future ("Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end"). It's kind of a neat way to tie the threads together, actually, since that scene is about Spock asking Valeris to replace him on the Enterprise as he steps down. It makes sense that he would give the same advice to the younger version of himself.

starmanof51 wrote:

Jack Phillips wrote: It used to be considered a viable alternative philosophy on the original TV show.

By whom? Aside from fictional Vulcans themselves? It might have been interesting if one of the human crewmembers had become a Vulcan disciple during the series run, but I don't remember it happening. It always seemed racial first and philosophical second (the philosophy born to apply to their own native temperaments/realities).

Not amongst the characters, perhaps, but by the makers of the TV episodes. Spock wasn't always the Frank Burns of the crew, sometimes he had the best analysis and/or solution to the problem, and this because of his Vulcanism, not in spite of it. In "Specter of the Gun", in fact, he had to mind-meld with everyone so they would go into the final confrontation properly tuned. The message that came out, week to week, was this was the strongest crew in Starfleet: the human strengths brought to the mission were augmented by what the Vulcan had to offer. The combination was unbeatable.

Kirkinson wrote:

starmanof51 wrote:I haven't seen this film, but isn't one of the reasons Nimoy is able to come and say that stuff because they already had him "get over" all that bad Vulcan juju over the course of six films?

I think this is spot-on. Nearly everything Nimoy says in his last scene is a repetition of other things he has said throughout the series. What Jack Phillips saw as a repudiation of Vulcanism in the end, I read as merely an appropriation of the scene in Spock's quarters in Star Trek VI when he's talking to Valeris about having faith in the future ("Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end"). It's kind of a neat way to tie the threads together, actually, since that scene is about Spock asking Valeris to replace him on the Enterprise as he steps down. It makes sense that he would give the same advice to the younger version of himself.

Bad Vulcan juju? Yikes, as far as I can remember, the original series had none. Spock had issues, as would anyone trying to reconcile two disparate cultures warring within oneself, but there was never any sense that Vulcan culture was inferior to the human brand. It was just different. There was no reason for viewers to adopt McCoy's apparent cultural intolerance.

It may be true that the trend throughout the movies has been away from the original conception of Vulcanism. Once having seen the first six films, I could never go back and rewatch them, and my memory of them is not strong. So maybe Abrams is being consistent with everything after TOS. But something has definitely been lost. On TOS, Mr. Spock actually preached logic (i.e. ratiocination). Over time, apparently, the understanding of that word has been hollowed out. What I'm afraid Spock really meant, in the quote you cite above, Kirkinson, is "Movie-logic is the beginning of wisdom. . . ." Although it often failed to live up to its ideals, at least TOS aspired to something better than that.

You're sure you're not a Trekkie?

Godard was right about one thing: the citation of Iron Man as "quality" signals the death of cinema.

I saw the Star Trek with the Corinthian leather dude and that is the sum total of my experience, even though I am "of a certain age".

This is a terrible, terrible film on almost every level. I enjoyed it quite a bit, and loved the lens flare. But any notion that this is anything other than a fucking joke is untenable. It is a waste of time to complain about specifics--yet another completely useless plot and so many filler scenes that this thing barely constitutes a short. And all that typing at screens reminded me of Jada Pinkett Smith typing at a screen when she was battling The Machines in The Matrix. Except she had more testosterone in her index finger than the entire Enterprise crew. The first 45 minutes are literally the most forgettable minutes in cinema history.

B

P.S. Umm, with all that technology, why do people bother to physically inhabit their warships.