A Sneak Attack Supernova with an Entitlement Complex: 25 Reasons Why J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek Falls Flat on its Tattooed Romulan Face
Friday, May 8th 2009Yay! Abrams delivers slipshod TV triteness on the big screen once again! And now we have a sullied Trek legacy to look forward to. Thank you J.J., love and kisses! Here are 25 reasons why the movie that endeavors to call itself Star Trek utterly fails.
- Time travel. It's kind of like playing the Nazi card in an argument. Once you're there, we know you got nothing left.
- A flimsy, needlessly complicated plot that requires the Architect from The Matrix to explain in under three minutes, because if it took any longer, we'd realize it makes absolutely no sense. Plain old lazy screenwriting, if you ask me.
- Sentimentality. How many fathers and mothers need to die before you think sheer sentimentality will distract me from the bogus time-travel plot? I know there's this "backstory" for this whole horrible "2.0 universe" that originates with this comic, forking off Star Trek Nemesis. But we Trekkies aren't allowed to judge this film in the context of the greater Star Trek universe, right? This is a reboot—an alternate reality, yeah? We have to analyze this movie without referring to a comic that nobody knows about, correct? Well apparently nobody told Abrams.
- Do we NEED more Romulan badguys? Did Abrams even watch Star Trek Nemesis? Hello: it sucked. I'd rather watch the whale movie again.
- A sneak-attack supernova.
- LAME Romulan badguys. A lamer badguy than Darth Vader in the Star Wars prequels. How dare you even attempt to compare Nero to Khan! The guy looks like a Wiccan tattoo artist and his name is NERO. Of all the Roman names to choose from, Nero? Really?
- Sensationalism. Bullshit that a film can't succeed if it has to "appease the fans." Maybe this is true financially, but we have yet to even find out. The simple fact of the matter is that every Hollywood reboot that's been put out in the past ten years (with the exception of Batman Begins and its sequel, which arguably adheres to the spirit of the Dark Knight more than it ever departed from it) is trash for the simple fact that Hollywood refuses to appease the fans. (I'm looking at you, Marvel). Of course, it's silly to bring this up because Hollywood isn't interested in making good movies, it's only interested in making cash off a sheepish, "Lost"-induced audience.
-
Khan
Forgettable dialogue. Not a single memorable line and you're working with some of the richest characters in scifi history. Too many one liners borrowed shamelessly from the classics. How dare you have Nero yell "Spooock!" in a pale imitation of Khan, who manages big screen gravitas across the ages, despite man-boobs and a Conan the Barbarian fur coat.
- Senseless militarism. Yeah, let's shoot at Nero when he's already imploding and completely defenseless for absolutely no reason! Go peace-loving humanist Federation!
- A sneak-attack supernova.
- Hand-holding. How many times do we have to be reminded that Spock has emotional problems because he's half-human, and Kirk is a indefatigable jackass? And that they're destined to be bestest buddies even though they hate each other for 95% of the film? We get it already, stop TELLING and start SHOWING.
- Canon flip-floppery. You can either jettison the canon or stick to it. There's no inbetween: if this is an alternate reality created by time travel (via the Many Worlds Theory) or traveling through a black hole into a parallel universe (whichever, because it's never made clear), then this isn't Trek anymore. It's Abrams "Trek." You can't have it both ways.
- Uhura. McCoy. Scotty. Disgraceful caricatures of their classic counterparts. Perfect cardboard cutouts for The Next Generation of gee-whiz scifi and endless remakes.
- Wait, did I just see a Star Trek prequel or Starship Troopers? I don't remember.
- Sneak-attack black holes. Yes, multiple ones.
- "Red matter" ahahaha.
- Roller coasters. How many times is Kirk going to fall to his death or teeter on the brink of destruction? We just stop caring after awhile. He's an indestructible jackass. We get it. That's all there is to Kirk in Star Trek 2.0. Besides, there's not much time for chitchat (i.e., character development) when everything's exploding every ten seconds.
- Insincerity. Total failure to elicit even slight nausea when Nero drops the Khan-bug into Pike's mouth. Good job completely failing there with cheap imitations of the real thing.
- How did the aliens from the Mos Eisley Cantina find their way aboard the Enterprise?
- Sneak attack supernovas!
- Plot holes. Okay so why did Spock not just explain the situation to Heroes Spock in the first place? Yeah, don't try to explain it. Yoda, like Abrams, acts in mysterious ways.
- That Hoth beast. It was designed after the muscles in a rectum. I'm not kidding, read the article in Wired. The artist actually studied assholes to design its lovely, tentacled mouth. Too bad Kirk missed Luke on the way down to Yoda/Spock's ice cave.
Rectal Hoth Beast
- Young Kirk. Kirk is just a jackass with an entitlement complex, plain and simple. We have no reason to applaud his so-called heroism, or ever take him on his word, because he never earns it. There's nothing at stake for Kirk, unlike Heroes Spock, whose parents get dangled before us every other scene.
- Shallowness. No larger moral consequence. No spiritual underpinnings. Basic Trek essentials, blatantly lacking.
- Thematic emptiness. Zero philosophy, zero emotional appeal. Yeah I know, this ain't Gene Roddenberry, may he Rest in Peace. Just shut up and watch the sexy explosions.
Hopefully there won't be a sequel, but see you next time in case there is.
awwww poor baby.
i think everyone else liked it though.
A lot of functioning idiots like a lot of things that are inescapably moronic: God; The Iraq War; Jay Leno; etcetera.
Well put. It's nice to see someone speak out against JJ Abrams' work. So many people are sheep.
Word.
I've finally found someone who didn't like it!
Here is a list of problems I had with the movie that I wrote right after seeing it opening day:
Entire plot line
* Almost exactly the Xindi story arc from Star Trek: Enterprise: Xindi want to destroy Earth first because they believe Earth will destroy Xindi in the future = Nero wants to destroy Federation to stop it from destroying Romulus in the future
First Romulan attack scene:
* I never even knew they were Romulans until later in the movie. I'd forgotten that somewhere along the line, Romulans switched from a Roman-like regimented, militaristic society into a biker gang with a fondness for long leather coats.
* Did you see all the shuttles? The original enterprise had like 4, and this one seems to have dozens. And why exactly couldn't the Romulans just pick them off?
* Would the captain, even for his pregnant wife, really keep a live channel open for that long during a huge battle where he's theoretically having to single-handedly pilot the ship during battle? And how convenient how it all fit
exactly into the number of seconds before he plowed into the Romulan ship. WAY overdramatic.
Kirk being dropped off on the ice planet, etc.
* My first thought: "oh, he's on Hoth"
* When he's chased by monster #1, and then monster #2 eats #1, it was totally that scene from Star Wars I when Obi Wan and Qui-Gon are traveling on Naboo underwater. I heard in my mind Qui-Gon saying "there's always a bigger fish"
* If (old) Spock knew the Federation post was there, why hadn't he ever gone there before. You'd think at a minimum he'd warn them about the Romulans out there.
* The mind meld was silly. Spock said he needed to do it to tell Kirk the story, 'cause it was so long. Well they told the audience just fine in the same amount of time as the mind meld. Also very forced. It's an example of bad writing that
they just had to stop and basically say, "okay, here's all the background of what's going on because our writers couldn't figure out a way to write it into the script more naturally by this point in the movie."
* If the Nero wanted Spock to see Vulcan's destruction, why didn't he just keep him on the ship? It made no sense that Spock just happened to be standing outside his ice cave on a fortuitously sunny day looking up in the sky for the 6 minutes
that it took for Vulcan to be destroyed.
* Scotty's assistant was the silly little required comic relief character that I so loath in many shows (can you say Jar-Jar?)
Scene on Vulcan during attack:
* When the transporter starts its whirly-gig, it's always had the person. If there was trouble it'd usually be loss in the matter stream. The long, drawn-out Spock reaching out to Winona, and then her falling, despite being in the transporter lock for so
long, was yet another example of changing a basic Star Trek concept just to artificially create drama. It didn't even jive within the movie. When Kirk and Sulu were hurtling to the ground, Chekov got them almost instantly. And that was with them
plummeting to the ground like rocks. Winona and the Vulcan elders were just standing there. Why the huge difference? Just to create that contrived dramatic scene.
* The "drill" blocks communications and transporters. Why? Makes no sense. Another example of bad writing. "Hmmmm, it wouldn't work if they could communicate with Star Fleet or beam around. Let's just say the drill blocks that! Yeah, that's it!"
Scotty in the water tube
* OMG. That was so Willy Wonka (Jeff thought Galaxy Quest). Scotty in the TV show and movies had comic elements, but he was also a serious Star Fleet officer. In this movie, he was 100% goofball. No depth of character.
Dropping onto the planet from space:
* SOOOOO contrived. What was with all that screaming out the altitudes every few seconds? Had no purpose plot-wise other than to artificially create tension and drama. Again, bad writing. A good writer/director would have created a
scene with action/tension/drama that made sense. And it was totally like a scene from Reign of Fire.
* They plug so much how technologically advanced the Romulans are, and then Sulu & Kirk fight, with swords? Just a way to showcase Sulu's retracting sword (which was cool, I have to admit)
* After all that, regular phaser rifles were enough to destroy the drill?? Why, then did they need explosives? Seems their own weapons would have worked fine. And if simple rifles could destroy it, why didn't they just shoot it from space?
And all of Vulcan had no ground defenses or ships or planes to try to take out the drill?
The Enterprise
* Why did it look different? In the movies, when it looked different from the original Star Trek they at least came up with a reason.
* In the battle scenes, it always looked small and flimsy and flitted about like a gnat, not the gallant, proud ship of the movies and tv show.
* The bridge looked all plasticy and WAY too bright.
Red Matter
* "We don't want to think about some clever way to destroy things, so we'll just talk about 'Red Matter' which conviently creates black holes without any explanation. And it looks cool!"
* If Red Matter can create black holes, why drill holes? a black hole on the surface of the planet would have the same effect. Oh, but we need to artifically create some situation where you might need to free-fall from space.
Nero on viewscreen
* Really? What real viewscreen shows huge face close-ups filling an entire wall? Again, just artifical contriving "bad guy"-ness. "Look, he's big and has tatoos! He's mean!"
* And like, really? The viewscreen stays on for the Enterprise crew to watch Nero's demise?
Caught in black hole
* So they're all just sitting there watching Nero die, and no one thinks, "hmmm, we're near a black hole, maybe we should move." Again, contrived drama that makes no sense.
lolz: "a biker gang with a fondness for long leather coats."
Wow, I don't think there was a single point there that I either agreed with or can't be shownn to be arrant nonsense.
Terrible, terrible article.
ank
Thursday, July 9, 2009
at 3:59 pm
Er did you actually watch the movie? I mean I know you saw it, but did you WATCH it? I mean at all? seriously?
Most of your points are actually answered in the movie. They aren't even points BECAUSE they are pretty straightforward things that make perfect sense if you're not blogging to "Trek Nerds who live in their mum's basements .org (not cool enough to get a dot com) whilst the movie is on to pay attention.
Oh and if you look hard enough you answer many of your own criticisms either in your self important rants Or in a different criticism. I think the transporter rant was the best. They're just standing there, she's falling. See how you've answered your own question there?
Oh and maybe the drill stops the things it does, because they want it to? But nah you so smart boss, and we 93% who love da movie and writers dumb yes.
Loving that you've never heard sky divers counting off the distance before. I have, and it does increase the tension, which is kinda the point. You'll be wanting them to stop the noise in space nexxt. Oh wait they do a much better job of that than other Trek movies, and it's only some contrivences we dislike isn't it. mostly the new ones, . . er.. proto-matter much? I think the only point you make that actually holds water is the one about drilling. Other than scaring the crap out of the people you're gonna kill before you kill them what possible. oh. oh wait I see.
Last time I check 21st cameras show about as much or as little as you want them to see. 23rd Century ones can't because?
One last thing, you know the mind meld took longer than say 5 seconds how?
It's easy to dismiss someone's argument without actually refuting any talking points. I mean, any nine year old can stick his fingers in his ears and fling around ad hominem attacks in order to avoid actually arguing. That, sir, is arrant nonsense.
As you appear to have more time than I perhaps you can read both of my posts, fully, and without bias so you can see that I actually do answer the arguments. I answer 1 specifically :- .....
"Oh and if you look hard enough you answer many of your own criticisms either in your self important rants Or in a different criticism.
I think the transporter rant was the best. They’re just standing there, she’s falling. See how you’ve answered your own question there? ".....
.... I challlenge the authors to read their own work objectively and they can see the blatant errors in MOST of what they say.
One assumes that you haven't tried and failed before replying to my posts?
There' plenty of nonsense flying about this article, however Mine appears to be expecting people to do a modicum of objective reading.
That appears to have been arrant stupidity on my part. But this is an online forum. I forget that these are often filled with children (not implying that you're a child) whom believe in the mantra, "Those who like what I don't like must be idiots / morons / sheep / intellectually or mentally" inferior.
Whilst I believe that all people are able to like or dislike at their pleasure, but will allways point out errors, if those errors are stated as facts AND the reason for not likeing a movie or any other art form.
DQ:
Here, let me respond to your comment point for point, to show you how it's done.
^^^
I think the transporter rant was the best. They’re just standing there, she’s falling. See how you’ve answered your own question there? “…..…. I challlenge the authors to read their own work objectively and they can see the blatant errors in MOST of what they say.
^^^^
DQ:
This is quite jumbled, but I think you're missing the point. I think Hank is saying that the transporter scene is overly dramatic and drawn out. This is his subjective interpretation of that particular scene. While I personally didn't mind the transporter scene (and didn't particularly feel that it was overly dramatic in and of itself), I can agree that, given a second look, it contributes to the contrived over-dramaticism of the film as a whole.
^^^^
One assumes that you haven’t tried and failed before replying to my posts?
There’ plenty of nonsense flying about this article, however Mine appears to be expecting people to do a modicum of objective reading.
...
Whilst I believe that all people are able to like or dislike at their pleasure, but will allways point out errors, if those errors are stated as facts AND the reason for not likeing a movie or any other art form.
^^^^
DQ:
It's not clear what you mean by "objective reading." You're implying, I believe, that "objective reading" means reading something without imposing your own subjective bias. The problem here is that criticism of art isn't an objective process, and this is something that I, like all other English majors, struggled with in my undergraduate years. In film criticism, you're putting forth your interpretation of the film, and providing evidence (from the film) as to why you believe your interpretation holds water. Your interpretation is only valid insofar as it is coherent and well-supported by evidence from the work. That's what Hank and I have done here. You, on the other hand, just dismiss our evidence out of hand without any argumentation. Again, that's not arguing, that's just "arrant nonsense."
^^^^
That appears to have been arrant stupidity on my part. But this is an online forum. I forget that these are often filled with children (not implying that you’re a child) whom believe in the mantra, “Those who like what I don’t like must be idiots / morons / sheep / intellectually or mentally” inferior.
^^^^
DQ:
Interestingly enough, neither of us called people who like the film "idiots or mentally inferior." Scott Foley's comments about people being "sheep" was in response to the first commenter Mike's suggestion that just because "everyone else liked it," that makes it a good movie. The problem is that Mike is arrogantly employing faulty logic . For a long time, everybody thought smoking was perfectly cool and healthy, but they were horribly wrong. Consensus does not make reality.
You failed to read objectivly aGAIN and continue to resort to personal insults to goad a bigger response. As I said I don NOT have time to answer point by point. But I thank you for once again implying that I and by extension people who like this movie are inferior. Easy to see from your writing style and tone, and in bllack & white
>>>
DQ:
Where did I make any personal insults? If you don't have time to argue effectively, why bother?
>>>
I quote you
"A lot of functioning idiots like a lot of things that are inescapably moronic: God; "
Scott...
"So many people are sheep."
>>>
DQ:
I responded to this claim above, if you had read carefully:
"Interestingly enough, neither of us called people who like the film “idiots or mentally inferior.” Scott Foley’s comments about people being “sheep” was in response to the first commenter Mike’s suggestion that just because “everyone else liked it,” that makes it a good movie. The problem is that Mike is arrogantly employing faulty logic . For a long time, everybody thought smoking was perfectly cool and healthy, but they were horribly wrong. Consensus does not make reality."
>>>
Sure there's no superiority complex coming out there at all.
At least Hank, generally, lists his problems as things HE didn't understand or like etc. The article simply states a list of "FACTS". My posts challenge people to read the thread and look OBjectively, without bias at the points listed and see if you can spot the flaws/ It's like reading the Old Testament and the New Testament,, you'll find countless contradictions just as you will here.
>>>
DQ:
The absurdity of many of those things I list, in the manner they are presented, raise my criticisms without their having to be spelled out. For example, a "Sneak Attack Supernova" is silly in and of itself, because supernovae can't "sneak attack" you. Supermassive stars in their death cycle become red supergiants for tens of thousands of years before they go supernova, therefore it is contrary to anyone's basic knowledge of astronomy that a supernova could have "sneak attacked" a planet full of space-faring aliens. If you think you can "ook OBjectively, without bias at the points listed and see if you can spot the flaws" why don't you try doing that instead of griping about how we haven't? You have yet to address a single issue we've pointed out.
>>>
If you and others cannot be bothered to read the threa objectively then please don't comment on my poosts because its virtualy useless.
Oh an re the transporter incident with Spock's mum. It isn't argued in a subjective way, it's argued using "facts" re old Trek transporter tech vs neo Trek transporters; which, by the way, we see as a working model for the first time. As oppossed to the sliding knobs up and down stuff. As evidence he uses the falling Kirk and Sulu as an example of how the Transport should have been easy. Negating the fact that we see Checkove struggle to adjust the (whatever it was) to capture them whilst they were moving. We also here Scotty remark on how incredible it was to beam 3 targets from 2 different locations and onto one pad. The movie spelss it out SEVERAL times the pros and cons of the trsnsporete tech.
Oh I'll see your English major and raise you the highest marks ever in English A-level Fim studies, a degree in media studies and a PGCE which allows me to teach English at high school level. Although I'm more interested in teaching Juniors numeracy and literacy.
>>>
DQ:
This isn't a pissing contest, but feel free to make it into one, if that amuses you. As I said earlier, I have no real problem with the new movie's use of transporters. In fact, I like the squiggly fx.
>>>
Now that the (I told you there was a superiority complex going on)nonsense is out of the way we're left with this.
I say that the majority of points raised by the article AND Scott are in fact answered in their on comments and anyone reading it and NOT just letting the words fill them with pride that the minority of people who don't like this film are somehow a superior Khan like breed of meta-humans.
>>>
DQ:
I can say, for example, that ABC is not true of D, or does not accurately describe D. But saying so is a entirely different matter than demonstrating that it is so. You continue to say that our points are self-evidently wrong, yet refuse to demonstrate how this is so. Our only conclusion is that you're incapable of demonstrating why they are false, which implies that you have no argument.
>>>
Read the words,
understand the words,
Make your mind up how many of these gripes / facts are actually false.
regardless of whether you like the film or not.
Hell I had to study "Birth of a Nation" in Film studies, but I chose to write about it.I should hope that most people would see the film as abhorrent, and being black I probably felt that more than some others. However whilst, disliking the topic of the film and it's heroic portrayl of the KKK, I was able to see what a masterpiece of cinema it was. To describe how revolutionary some of it was for a silent movie, the cross cutting etc. You don't hae to like something to critique it objectively.
>>>
DQ:
That's all fine and wonderful. Now why don't you argue our talking points instead of whining about our supposed "superiority complex"?
>>>
You know you can just say " I didn't really like it". It's not for me and some of the things in it were a bit silly for me. Without calling other people sheep or idiots. (Oh yes that has happened on here and you know it)
>>>
DQ:
Just saying, "I didn't really like it" is not criticism. That's not why I wrote this blog post.
Also, if you read carefully, I said there are a lot of functioning idiots in the world, and implied that because there are a lot of functioning idiots in the world, many popular things are liked by idiots. You could of course take this to mean that I'm calling you an idiot, if you belong to the population of idiots who indeed like this movie. I hope that is not the case for you, or your wife. But then again, I don't know you at all, so you and your wife could actually be idiots. The value of that proposition would have to be examined separately.
In any event, certainly you agree that this line of reasoning is sound? To break it down for you, I'm saying is simply that, the fact that a lot of people like something doesn't contribute to the thing's artistic merit. If that were true, a thing could have integrity solely on account of many people liking it. The mere existence of politicians proves that this can't be true!
>>>
My wife loves it and she's not an idiot, as her nursing degree could show. Her dad was watching Trek before either of us was born. From the 1st episode ever shown in Britain through to this movie. He's the epitome of a genuine lifelong fan, not a fanatic. Guess what he likes the movie. He likes it a lot. He's no fool either. In fact as we were watching he leaned across to my wife and I and Wwhispered "Why are they making so many things different?"
I said I think they're gonna tell us soon. Lo and behold 2 minutes later the whole concept is spelled out. He's happy and can enjoy the movie.
I'm no idiot and regularly have genuine film arguments with people. whoo don't feel the need to call everyone who has an opposing view an idiot.
I mean for crying out loud I swear when the Uhura poster came out some fanatics were screaming blue murder about her earrings! HER EARRINGS! Seriously why? Worse they were trying to argue that Nichelle Nichols never wore Earrings in the show. Obviously they never watched the show, so must have just wanted an opportunity to have a go at, the as yet unseen, neo Trek.
>>>
DQ:
I'm glad you think many of the hardline Star Trek fanatics' quibbles with the movie's relationship to classic Trek are needlessly technical. I agree with you there. My gripes with the film have little to do with technicalities.
>>>
Read it or don't read it. Think Michael Cain in "Without a Clue" ....
"You see, but you do not observe".
Feel free to have the last word in this thread, but I'm not going to spend time replying if I can't see that you have, TRULY, read what I ahve written further up the page, and that you've dropped the smug, self important, tone, then I'm sure you and I could have a genuine and entertaining debate about film.
Have you got a Terminator Salvation thread on here? Now there's a movie that's blah. Not good enough to get excited about & not bad enough to hate. I have a review on Amazon.co.uk. It's full of typos as I wrote it at around 1:30 in the morning.
>>>
DQ:
I haven't seen that movie yet, but since you're looking for it, I'll be happy to write up my two cents
OOh. I forgot to ask what this comment was about:-
"I’m looking at you, Marvel"
What are you saying here? Marvel have only made two movies so far. First was the extremely well received (deservedly I think) Iron Man, The 2nd being The Incredible Hulk. No the latter movie was a reboot, and a fairly successful one. It's liked by far more people than the underrated "Hulk" but it wasn't a dissaster. Neither was Casino Royal.
I'm citing Marvel as a good example of a studio that refuses to appease the fans and as a consequence, consistently puts out dramatic failures that only serve to tarnish the reputation of comics in pop culture.
Specifically, I would say Iron Man, the X-Men movies, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil are among their worst. I haven't seen either Hulk, as I was never interested in that character. And Casino Royale wasn't great, but it wasn't good either (Wasn't that by MGM, not Marvel?). Of course, this is material for another article
Sulu was hot.
Hmmm.
Well Iron Man is the only one of those films that was actually made by Marvel, so you can't really blame them for the others. I happen to rate X2 very highly as a film, and as an X-men film. But I think it seceded IN SPITE of FOX who should just hand the rights back to Marvel so that they can incorporate them into the Marvel movieverse.
It's a shame because most people see the Marvel logo and put all those films, the fantastic 4 (what a waste! TWICE!)
Again I thought Iron man worked out pretty well. Anyone I know who didn't know who the hell Iron Man was loved it. It wasn't totally superficial either.
I mentioned Casino Royal for this reason:-
"... every Hollywood reboot that’s been put out in the past ten years (with the exception of Batman Begins and its sequel, which arguably adheres to the spirit of the Dark Knight more than it ever departed from it) is trash for the simple fact that Hollywood refuses to appease the fans. "
DQ:
I don't think Casino Royale does anything particularly fantastic for the Bond franchise. As I said above, it wasn't especially bad, but it doesn't deviate from trash all that much either.
An example that goes in the opposite way to your argument is Harry Potter. Quality of the books aside the Harry Potter movies didn't become watchable until they stopped trying to "appease the fans" (fanatics) and trying to cram as much of the books into the films as possible. the 3rd HP movie and from there onwards the films could be called entertaining. 1 & 2 are average to crap at best. You know what went wrong with them? They were so obsessed with getting Harry potter onscreen they forgot that films are not like books. They are different and you have to treat them as such.
DQ:
There's a big difference between "fanatics" and fans, which you equate here. Fanatics are usually rabid, stinky, and foaming at the mouth. They're worried about technicalities and exact renditions of the original work on the big screen. Harry Potter is not a "reboot" of an existing film franchise, so it does not go against my statement you cite above. You and I do not disagree that the adaptations are just that - adaptations of the original work.
For all the things films can do that books can't (visuals / sound / energy) There are many things books can do that Films can't; namely explain in rich detail and depth far better than even a 3 hour epic can hope to do. (I find the only exception to this that I can remember is Fight club. That may have had something to do with the shortness of the book, as well as the talent involved in making the film itself.) A film has to do it's best to bring to life, visually, the world of the film, but then it tries to squeeze the book from it's universe into the movie universe.
DQ:
This has nothing to do with what we've been discussing. I don't disagree with you here.
The thing is make a good film first. Good has several meanings to different people. Entertaining enough to draw audiences back for repeat viewings and dvd / Blu-ray purchasing. In other words making money.
DQ:
Here, however, I strongly disagree with you. The merit of a work, whether it's a film, a novel, or any other art form, must stand apart from its commercial viability. We clearly have different opinions as to what "good" entails for a film. Whether or not a work sells well says nothing about its integrity as art. If that were the case, what would we do with poetry? Why would it continue to be published? Consider any of the great classic novelists of the modern era: How many of them enjoyed publicity and fanfare and commercial success in their lifetimes?
for others it's a level of quality superb acting and direction that may or, as is often the case, not make much money. Sometimes you get both. Whilst neither Trek or Iron Man should have been up for best film at the Oscars but (as most critics have said as well as the paying public, even worldwide) they are films that manage to do the blockbuster thing AND not make you feel like they were made for idiots.
DQ:
Just because a lot of people like something doesn't mean it has artistic value or is worth anything to our culture. It's logically fallacious to make this argument, as I have demonstrated above. I walked out of Iron Man feeling like it was made for stupid warmongering Americans. Of course, in this case I would just be opining on this point, without presenting my reasons for feeling this way.
Abrams has done the smart thing, as have the writers. They made a good (Entertainment good) film first, and a Trek movie second. That is right and was the only way to bring Trek back from the slow, gruesome death it suffered , pretty much since the end of DS9. If you make a good film first and a (insert book / comic/ manga / tv show here) second then at least this should happen. You have an entertaining movie that doesn't exactly thrill those familiar with the source material but likely entertains them in the mean time. You try to be too faithful to the source, at the fanatic level, and get it wrong then you've got nothing. The film doesn't work for the fans or fanatics and as it isn't even entertaining.
DQ:
I'm not concerned with the economics of the Trek franchise, actually. If keeping the franchise alive means peddling cheap, flashy reboots at the expense of what Trek means to our culture, then let Trek die. Why can't Hollywood come up with an original idea? Abrams did something that was smart for the franchise, but this doesn't make him a virtuoso as so many make him out to be. Nor does it add anything to the artistic merit of the work he produces. It's not impossible to be both wealthy and a hack.
And to your second point, I don't think it's been proven that appeasing the fans will result in "a film that doesn't work." Lord of the Rings, despite all its deviations from the source material, is true to the spirit of that source material, and it was one of the greatest fantasy movies of all time. It was made for the fans by a fan, and it was a blockbuster as well. This is a double-edged sword.
As I said earlier the other argument is over. I meant it when I said I don't have time to go down those lists point by point. Also you have an amusing habit of saying / doing something and then acting surprised when I respond to it. If it's not a pissing contest don't use your academic experience as a reference.
DQ:
That's strange, because you seem to have chosen to write an entire post that actually cites from my article, in response to my previous comments! Kudos to you for employing reason!
Your moronic / idiot quote is clearly having a go at people who like the new movie. By extension your remark is aimed at me, my wife, my father-in-law , sister... and so on. They all may be functioning idiots to you. The fact that you deny this leads me to understand why you just can't read the points objectively. It doesn't appear to be in your DNA.
DQ:
Well, I mean if you class yourself among the population of functioning idiots who liked this prequel, then by golly you're an idiot.
Another example is here, where you try to claim that you answered a point of mine. You didn't, although you provided more evidence that Scott had indeed labelled people who liked the movie sheep. As someone who has studied English you will be aware that the statement "..so many people are sheep" has to refer to a thing / event / person tat people behave like sheep in relation to. There are 3 possibilities.
1. people who like Alias as created by Abrams up until he left the show. People who like Lost, as created by Abrams (as opposed to pretty much everything else after the end of season 1.
2.Mission Impossible 3, which given the amazing garbage that was the 1st 2 movies and Cruise' ego he kind of has a ready built excuse for making an average movie.
3. Given that the topic was Star Trek it's most reasonable to assume it's aimed at people who like that movie are sheep and OR functioning idiots.
oh as for this
DQ:
Hmm, I'm not sure how clear I can make this, but let's do it your way:
"A lot of functioning idiots like a lot of things that are inescapably moronic: God; The Iraq War; Jay Leno; etcetera."
1) There is a class of people called "functioning idiots."
2) This class of people like "inescapably moronic" things. (Trek is assumed to be among this class of things.)
If you draw a Venn diagram of "all people" (which includes the class of "functioning idiots"), you will find that there can be overlap between those people among "all people" who are not in the class of "functioning idiots," yet who still like "inescapably moronic" things.
"You have yet to address a single issue we’ve pointed out"
Which once again demonstrates your failure to READ what I have written. I have answered TWO points and used them as examples of how you can critique your own and Hank's points.
DQ: These were?
As for the Supernova. well They take a short cut, as I think I've already said the movie is stripped of all fat to keep up a fast pace. This is quite deliberate and I look forward to the deleted scenes / director's cut. There may be an explanation sitting in the cutting room floor (Do they even use celluloid anymore?) but the shortcut is this:-
" " ..a star will explode, and threaten to destroy the galaxy"
There ya go. Simple as that. Now you exposition it to death "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" style, but you take it as read that something unusual is going on. Something about this star is unique in a dangerous way.
"..consuming everything in its path.."
Now you can crave the details and say you wanted more info on the science side, but the film clearly spells out and shows that this is different. It threatens the entire Galaxy.
As for the Romulans, and the Remans well I'm no expert on these things but How long would it take the Romulans to evacuate what 3billion? 4billion? 9 billion? people, even with the transporter tech they have?
And sometimes you just have to go with the flow. Many films great and poor ask for a willing suspension of disbelief.
They have said that this is a genuine , fast moving threat. That's it. It's like the Superman conceit. You accept that this planet full of genius level men & Women don't believe the planet will blow up and just sit around. Same as you accept that putting on Glasses makes him unrecognisable. Klutzy mannerisms or not.
DQ:
Sometimes the suspension of belief is stretched too far, at the expense of the movie's credibility within its genre. Given that Trek is science fiction, suggesting that a supernova could sneak up on you and threaten an entire galaxy of highly advanced, space-faring aliens is highly incredible. I don't think it incredible to assume that thousands of years is plenty of time to evacuate a planet of billions of people. A simple escapist explanation like, "the Romulan star is in fact some kind of fancy 'hyper'-star containing undetectable 'omega particles'" would suffice, and we'd all accept that for the purposes of proceeding with the plot. But you can't just sidestep the issue and then stuff an explanation into ancillary merchandising. The work must have integrity on its own.
There will be at least two sequels ad expect the next trek to make almost double the money this one has worldwide. Dark knight style. It's the 2ND most successful Trek (adjusted) for a reason. Whilst you cannot equate popularity with quality
DQ:
"Whilst you cannot equate popularity with quality"
Exactly. I'm arguing about the film's quality. I could care less how much money it made at the box office or how many people like the thing. A film's artistic merit can only be assessed on just that: its artistic merit.
I think people have tried to say that the overwhelming majority of people like this film, even if just on an entertainment level AND most critics, people paid to give opinions on films and who traditionally look down on Trek movies and complain that they seem like extended tv episodes and not films. Neo Trak looks and feels like a movie. Increasing the size of the Entrprise works here, as do the shots that show how small it is in relation to the vastness of space and the giant Narada.
DQ:
Your argument is dead in the water. You concede that popularity has no impact on a film's quality.
Oh one more thing. There have been 11 Star Trek movies an this is the ONLY one where the Romulans are the out and out bad guys. And even then it's only the crew of the Narada. They "... stand apart", Trek 6 the Romulan ambassador is in on the massive conspiracy; his 2 minutes of screen time hardly warrants a Romuulan takeover of that movie. Trek 10 has a few Romulans skulking about some in support of the human Shinzon ANDD the REMANS. Near the ed of that film The Romulans make some lame, half arsed attempt to help the Enterprise. The bad guys in Nemesis are a human and the Remans.
DQ:
I grant you that Shinzon was a "Reman" (which for those of you non-Trekkies rubbernecking is a race of Romulan, albeit still a Romulan -- if you want to argue alien politics!). I was never really interested in technicalities, like those "Trek fanatics" you so dearly despise. In any event, the prequel's biker-clad badguy contributes nothing new to the Romulan Empire that we haven't already seen before.
Feel free to talk movies, but I've said all I'm gonna. Like anyone I've ever taught / trained I do expect you to do some of the work for yourself.