criterionforum.org

Barmy wrote:This is a terrible, terrible film on almost every level. I enjoyed it quite a bit.

Amazing.

Barmy = Ignatius J. Reilly?

swo17 wrote:Barmy = Ignatius J. Reilly?

There's no other explanation.

I adore Barmy.
I saw it a couple of days ago and enjoyed it very much, but only because it felt like I was watching the slickest MST3K movie ever made.

Barmy wrote:The first 45 minutes are literally the most forgettable minutes in cinema history.

Be careful which such opinion like 'the most something'.

Cause if this is the most forgettable minutes in cinema history, a lot of people here could probably provides you movies that will make you cry, puke, or even kill yourself.

I've already have one for you : Dungeon Siege. And that's not even the worst.

I love Dungeon Siege!

Seriously, is this something that people will worship? I know implausibility comes with the territory, but just stop and think (if you must): the birthing scene and the "is it a boy or a girl" thing--umm, TECHNOLOGY might be able to answer that question before the damn thing comes out; all the hanging by fingers; the ability to warp people in freefall; dodging gazillions of bullets. It's all so "whatever". And was Spock supposed to be all campy and silly?

Yes, I still enjoyed it, because it was so ridiculously stupid. I hope that dwarf that Scottie hangs out with gets his own movie. [-o<

I really hated this film for many reasons (I am composing a review today), but I wanted to ask if anyone else picked up on this:

In one of the final scenes in the Assembly where Kirk is congratulated and promoted to Captain, did anyone notice a California State flag in the background behind the council? It was pretty apparent. If true, this is counter to Roddenberry's vision in the worst way.

aox wrote: In one of the final scenes in the Assembly where Kirk is congratulated and promoted to Captain

I haven't seen the movie yet, but does this part take place several years after the academy, because otherwise it would be impossible. Otherwise,them just being out of the academy, would mean he is only an ensign or Lt. jr, grade. Even if he saved the universe from the borg or something similar he wouldn't be promoted to such a high position so quickly.

aox wrote:did anyone notice a California State flag in the background behind the council? It was pretty apparent. If true, this is counter to Roddenberry's vision in the worst way.

Yeah, that was one of the many WTF? moments in this film.

knives wrote:

aox wrote:In one of the final scenes in the Assembly where Kirk is congratulated and promoted to Captain

I haven't seen the movie yet, but does this part take place several years after the academy, because otherwise it would be impossible. Otherwise,them just being out of the academy, would mean he is only an ensign or Lt. jr, grade. Even if he saved the universe from the borg or something similar he wouldn't be promoted to such a high position so quickly.

That was another. Without wanting to spoil things too much, there's a whole lot of this kind of thing going on throughout the movie, especially involving Mr. Scott.

I didn't hate the movie; for me, it wasn't substantial enough to draw such a strong emotion. It was fun enough, a not-unreasonable way to spend $6.25 (matinee). But you really need to check your brain, especially your Trekkie brain, at the door.

Barmy wrote:I know implausibility comes with the territory, but just stop and think (if you must): the birthing scene and the "is it a boy or a girl" thing--umm, TECHNOLOGY might be able to answer that question before the damn thing comes out

Well, you know, even in Star Wars Ep 3... 'We have laser saber, intergalactic ships, but we don't have echography'. Hells yeah.

Plus, perhaps they didn't want to know the sex of the baby before the birth. That's very common nowadays.

But, generally speaking, I don't really think that there is something worthy for hardcore trekkies here. I mean, I'm not at all familiar with the specificities and details of the Trek universe. But the movie was just a lot of fun (except the sometimes ridiculous lens flares...). Of course it's very far from the original deep of Star Trek.

But you know what ? It gave me the curiosity of discovering the original series. And that's probably the best thing it could do.

It's like Watchmen. You can hate it, you can like it. But Snyder said it himself : 'if it can help people to buy the book, then, I did great'. And fact is that they have to reprint it twice during the 6 months before the release.

aox wrote:In one of the final scenes in the Assembly where Kirk is congratulated and promoted to Captain, did anyone notice a California State flag in the background behind the council? It was pretty apparent. If true, this is counter to Roddenberry's vision in the worst way.

Wrong. Just because it's a one world utopian government doesn't mean there can't still be states. In multiple Star Trek series (including the original) there are references to states. Kirk says he's from Iowa. Commander Riker mentions growing up in Alaska.

Also, I personally feel that people who are obsessed with "Roddenberry's vision" don't really get Star Trek.

solaris72 wrote:

aox wrote:In one of the final scenes in the Assembly where Kirk is congratulated and promoted to Captain, did anyone notice a California State flag in the background behind the council? It was pretty apparent. If true, this is counter to Roddenberry's vision in the worst way.

Wrong. Just because it's a one world utopian government doesn't mean there can't still be states. In multiple Star Trek series (including the original) there are references to states. Kirk says he's from Iowa. Commander Riker mentions growing up in Alaska.

They (Kirk and Riker) could be referring to regions (of former states), not political states.

aox wrote:They (Kirk and Riker) could be referring to regions (of former states), not political states.

But is it inconceivable that they might keep the old state flag around in government buildings as a ceremonial gesture? Or that there might be administrative regional subdivisions along state lines?

Um, you're talking about people too stupid to use robots to do their fighting. You can't expect them to get the flags right.

What about the Grand Canyon size gorge Kirk ditches the Corvette in. I didn't think natural wonders like that existed in Iowa.

Barmy wrote:Umm, with all that technology, why do people bother to physically inhabit their warships.

Because it's space opera. They're using swords even! Why? Because it's awesome.
One either has a taste for Flash Gordon, Robby the Robot and Captain Kirk, or one doesn't

Yes, but part of my point is that it is impossible to become invested when the technology just gets ridiculous. For example I didn't understand why Chekov had to run to some other console to retrieve 2 of the crew that were in freefall but I also was sitting there wondering, why are they making him run to the other console and wasting a minute on THAT? I'm sure there is an "explanation", but said explanation is just being made up.

Barmy wrote:Yes, but part of my point is that it is impossible to become invested when the technology just gets ridiculous. For example I didn't understand why Chekov had to run to some other console to retrieve 2 of the crew that were in freefall but I also was sitting there wondering, why are they making him run to the other console and wasting a minute on THAT? I'm sure there is an "explanation", but said explanation is just being made up.

I think they were just trying to build tension on an already horrendous scene. WILL HE MAKE IT TO THE CONSOLE IN TIME?!?!?!

The sad part about scenes like that and the terrible cliff side chase in Indiana Jones/Crystal Skull is that the CGI looks so fake, there can be no tension because anyone with even a minimal IQ can tell that the actors are just in a room. I find two kids fake fencing with wooden swords in the backyard more exciting; at least there is a chance the kids will hit each other accidentally.

knives wrote:

aox wrote:In one of the final scenes in the Assembly where Kirk is congratulated and promoted to Captain

I haven't seen the movie yet, but does this part take place several years after the academy, because otherwise it would be impossible. Otherwise,them just being out of the academy, would mean he is only an ensign or Lt. jr, grade. Even if he saved the universe from the borg or something similar he wouldn't be promoted to such a high position so quickly.

No, not several years later, but a matter of days after they leave the academy. The kids basically take over the ship. Without having to put in years of flight time or specialized training or working your way through the ranks. It's the "self-esteem" generation. Everyone gets promoted, no matter what they've done (or haven't done).

That's the kind of movie it is. As Armond White called it, a Muppet Babies version of Star Trek.

Just to add to that: The Enterprise is billed in the film as the flagship of the fleet. I highly doubt any flagship of a (space) naval force would be filled with inexperienced cadets at important positions. The idea of the Enterprise as a warship as well was kind of disconcerting as well. In the series it shown as primarily an exporation vessel. This gunslinger mentality coming from a series that stressed intelligence over muscle is kind of hard to swallow.

I would have enjoyed the film had it not had a Star Trek name attached to it. I felt it was in line with the countless other fun action films of this decade. Unfortunately, that's not what Star Trek has ever been about.

Barmy wrote:Yes, but part of my point is that it is impossible to become invested when the technology just gets ridiculous. For example I didn't understand why Chekov had to run to some other console to retrieve 2 of the crew that were in freefall but I also was sitting there wondering, why are they making him run to the other console and wasting a minute on THAT? I'm sure there is an "explanation", but said explanation is just being made up.

In the first "Flash Gordon" serial, in the episode "Flaming Torture", Flash, Barin and Thun are captured by the Hawkmen and put to work shoveling radium into the atom furnaces that power the gravity ray that keeps the Hawkmen's "Sky City" hovering. Fortunately, in the next episode "Shattering Doom" Dr. Zarkov sets a plan in motion where he secretly attaches a wire to a shovel and tells Flash to throw the shovel into the furnace. This causes the furnaces to explode for some reason and the prisoners escape. Sky City starts plummeting to the ground. King Vultan (ruler of the Hawkmen) begs Zarkov to save the city. Zarkov quickly invents an alternative power source and the city is restored to its sky status.

I can accept the above, with a smile on my face even. I watch Star Trek (both the series and the new movie) with the same mindset as when I watch Flash Gordon. In both (original) Star Trek and Flash Gordon the technology portrayed is sufficiently "advanced" (if one could call it that) as to be practically indistinguishable from magic, and only encounters limits when the story demands such limits. I find original Star Trek even more charming in this matter, because (as true with a lot of early space-age science fiction) it seems like the creators actually felt this stuff was a reasonable and realistic speculation on the future.

solaris72 wrote:Also, I personally feel that people who are obsessed with "Roddenberry's vision" don't really get Star Trek.

Maybe you can elaborate on this; I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Are you trying to say that the essence of Star Trek (that which you are saying some people don't "get") is not defined by "Roddenberry's vision"? If it isn't, what would you say is the essence of Star Trek that the "Roddenberry obsessed" aren't "getting"?

StevenJ0001 wrote:Maybe you can elaborate on this; I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Are you trying to say that the essence of Star Trek (that which you are saying some people don't "get") is not defined by "Roddenberry's vision"? If it isn't, what would you say is the essence of Star Trek that the "Roddenberry obsessed" aren't "getting"?

Perhaps I should've worded it differently. What I mean is, when people talk positively about Star Trek, you always hear about the social issues and philosophical ideas that Roddenberry put into it, slipping past the network censors. Or they talk about its vision of a better tomorrow that we can all strive for. But for me, that's not the most appealing aspect. I don't watch Star Trek as a treatise on race relations any more than I watch The Thief of Bagdad for its commentary on Middle Eastern politics in the middle ages. I find it a brightly colored, enjoyably naive pulp scifi adventure show. It's like Flash Gordon but targeted at adults.

I think this fits comfortably among the worst of the Star Trek films. It's another awkward generation shift with all the cliche stuff that's required for that.

I am so fucking sick of giant CGI monsters that roar into the camera instead of biting the fucking hero's head of when they have a chance.

solaris72 wrote:Perhaps I should've worded it differently. What I mean is, when people talk positively about Star Trek, you always hear about the social issues and philosophical ideas that Roddenberry put into it, slipping past the network censors. Or they talk about its vision of a better tomorrow that we can all strive for. But for me, that's not the most appealing aspect. I don't watch Star Trek as a treatise on race relations any more than I watch The Thief of Bagdad for its commentary on Middle Eastern politics in the middle ages. I find it a brightly colored, enjoyably naive pulp scifi adventure show. It's like Flash Gordon but targeted at adults.

Interesting--that sounds more like Star Wars to me than Star Trek.

The original series (and some of the best TNG episodes, for that matter) certainly had a wonderfully light touch and the fun of a space romp, but to define Trek by that measure alone would leave out many of the things that distinguished it in the first place. One of the problems I have with the current film is that it has reduced the franchise to being just another sci-fi/action adventure, which is probably why the mass audience prefers it. The fact that Star Trek was distinctly different (and less obviously "entertaining" for a lot of people) from the popcorn movie franchises was probably why that same mass audience was never very interested in Star Trek in the past.

EDITED TO ADD: I do acknowledge that there is a naiveté in the original series episodes that was lost in later years as the creators and cast adopted a level of self-importance that wasn't there when the show hadn't yet developed much of a following. There are traces of that spirit of innocent fun and discovery in the new movie, which I found appealing, but only fleetingly, because the rest of the film was so empty and uninspired on so many levels, IMO.