Star Trek is DOA

Star Trek is DOA

Ridiculous plot and script doom what could have been a good Trek.

Review Opinion
By 12almonds - May 16, 2009 07:05 AM EST
Filed Under: Star Trek

I think people are in denial. They want to love the new Star Trek so bad, they can’t speak the obvious: The new Star Trek movie is not much better than the horrid “Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.” The things that are right with Star Trek can be counted on one hand. The things that are wrong? Well, it’s almost a never-ending list.

Here’s what was right:

1. Quinto: He does a very good job of portraying a young Spock, even with a poor story line.

2. Sulu: He finally gets his due with a good action scene, and even saves Kirk’s butt. Nicely done.

3. Overall, it was fun to see fresh faces playing familiar characters.

4. Good special effects.

Here’s what’s wrong, and I challenge someone to respond point-by-point, instead of personally insulting me:

1. Kirk is a wimp: Kirk spends the whole movie getting beat up. I don’t mind the fact that he takes a beating, but EVERY time? Since when is Kirk the punching bag of the universe?

2. Kirk’s Spiderman-like jump: Near the end of the movie, aboard the Romulan mining ship, Kirk jumps what must be 50 feet. He lands hard, is a little shaken, but within minutes is up and about, running around as fresh as can be. This is totally ridiculous. A jump like that would either kill you or seriously maim you. Is he Jim Kirk or his he Peter Parker?

3. Kirk’s ascent to leadership: Kirk is jettisoned from the ship like a common outlaw, but a short time later he’s the new captain of the Enterprise, and no one has a serious problem with it…not even Spock, who despises him. In fact, Spock comes sniveling back, practically begging to be Kirk’s “number one.” And, yahoo, they’re finally friends! This whole part of the plot is simply ludicrous, not one ounce of plausibility.

4. Kirk finding old Spock in the cave: What are the odds of Kirk just happening to end up in the same cave, on a barren planet, as old Spock? Again, ludicrous. I guess you don’t need a good script these days, just pull something miraculous out of your behind and the audience will accept it no questions asked.

5. Spock fighting off the snow planet creature: A huge, ferocious looking creature is after Kirk. It has just devoured another ferocious looking creature. Yet Spock is able to scare it off with a torch that, to the creature, is about as big as a matchstick. Oh well, guess the monster wasn’t so ferocious after all.

6. While we’re on the subject of the snow creatures, did anyone notice that the larger snow creature eating the smaller one was a steal from a similar scene in “The Phantom Menace?” (the water creatures)

7. Spock and Uhura being lovers: Please. This was done for shock value; it added nothing to the story. I don’t mind this subplot per se, but I saw no justification for it. It was just an “ooh, ahh” moment.

8. Kirk trying to sneak a peek at Uhura undressing: I don’t know, I just never pictured Kirk under the bed like a 16 year-old, straining to see Uhura take her panties off. Again, this added nothing to the story, it was just a “hip” thing to do. Yes, Uhura was gorgeous, but this is supposed to be Star Trek, not “American Pie.”

9. Scotty as a stand-up comedian: In the movie, Scotty is nothing but comic relief (and not that funny anyway). He has a little Star Wars-type muppet character side-kick for the audience to giggle at, and he gets transported into a water tube, and Kirk has to save him, in a scene that is a total waste of time (wasn’t there a scene in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory like that?)

10. The Romulans: Romulans are simply not that interesting. They’re essentially evil Vulcans. We’ve seen them many times before…let’s move on.

11. The time travel/alternate universe story: I get the feeling that this whole dull story was a contrived way of getting Leonard Nimoy into the movie. I have nothing against Nimoy, he’s a class act, but the story could have been so much more intriguing without any of the old cast forced in. Are we starting a whole new Star Trek, or are we going to have cameos and mixed universe stories from here on out? I’m tired of Picard meeting Kirk, Spock meeting Spock, Scotty meeting the Next Generation cast, etc., etc. Maybe Star Trek should be called Time Trek; they spend more time going back and forth through time than they do in their own universe.

12. The Romulan mining ship was a rip-off of the Borg ship: It’s massive and unstoppable!! And by the way, why is a mining ship more powerful than the combined might of Star Fleet? It can just come to Earth and do as it pleases?

13. Red Matter: Am I supposed to know what “Red Matter” is? I get the feeling that the writers of the movie just sort of pulled this from thin air and said: “Ah, the audience won’t know, and won’t care…it’s just something that’s very, very dangerous…um…can cause Black Holes! Yeah, that’s it!”

14. “Eject the Core!”: So, ejecting the core, and the resulting explosion, can save you from a Black Hole? Um, no, sorry...I’m not buying this techno-babble ending. This is the problem with a lot of Star Trek movies and tv shows (and the main reason I got tired of Star Trek generally)—the writers put the heroes in the most ridiculously impossible situations imaginable and then pull them out with techno-babble solutions or going back in time and fixing the problem. So, basically, anything is possible, and death is not really death, and losing is merely a temporary inconvenience to be solved with some technical thing that the audience is not yet aware of? Okay, well, not my cup of tea.

15. “Compromised by emotion” regulation: OMG, I’m laughing as I write this. “If a commander is compromised by emotion he must relinquish command!” Do you ever get the feeling that regulations are inserted into Starfleet command’s rule book whenever there’s a gap in the story that the writers aren’t sure how to fill? “Um, gosh, I’m having writer’s block…plus we’ve put the characters into a dilemma we can’t write ourselves out of. Time for a new regulation!”

16. Spock is more emotionally unbalanced than any character. For a guy who’s supposed to have little or no emotion (or, at least, be in near-complete control of his emotions), Spock sure does have some emotions! He’s mad at the school boy who insults him (and beats him up), he’s in love (and lust) with Uhura, he’s deathly angry at Kirk (and beats him up), and he’s extremely embarrassed walking around the ship after he gives up command. Hmmm, so much for Vulcan stoicism.

I know a lot of people are going to hate my review, but I’m tired of Star Trek and Star Wars “yes” people, who keep the mediocrity going by clapping at whatever nonsense is put on the screen. By appeasing and praising outrageousness and no-one-ever-really-dies scenarios, we send a message to Hollywood: “Keep it coming…make it more outrageous than any movie ever has before!” And Hollywood will oblige. Next time, we’ll get Uhura in a love swing with Spock, while Kirk peeks from the closet and Scotty makes wise cracks about Spock’s dilithium crystals running on full power! They’ll all be killed by a Romulan missile, but Sulu will go back in time, and make it alright, by telling everyone that there’s no time for a love swing, but that they should instead eject the core to save the ship from the Romulan missile. Scotty will stop his wisecracks just long enough to eject said core, and the ship will be safe for another outrageous sequel.

Judging by websites like Rotten Tomatoes, I’m obviously in the minority. But I want believable plots, even in Science Fiction and Super Hero movies. There’s no suspense or tension when death is impossible (e.g., Spock and the Genesis Project story), when every impossible situation has a heretofore unknown techno-babble solution, and Kirk is capable of Spiderman jumps.

Yes, the new Star Trek is flashy, sexy, and funny. But I can get that from “Sex and the City.” I expect more from Trek. I expect moral exploration, intriguing sci-fi plots, and believable stories. The new Star Trek scores a zero on these things. It’s a hip, but ultimately empty shell of its former self.

Quentin Tarantino Finally Explains Why His R-Rated STAR TREK Movie Is Never Going To Happen
Related:

Quentin Tarantino Finally Explains Why His R-Rated STAR TREK Movie Is "Never Going To Happen"

STAR TREK: Colm Meaney On Possible Miles O'Brien Return And What He REALLY Thinks About Trekkies (Exclusive)
Recommended For You:

STAR TREK: Colm Meaney On Possible Miles O'Brien Return And What He REALLY Thinks About Trekkies (Exclusive)

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Betty
Betty - 5/16/2009, 5:53 PM
Ok, Im going to take on your point for point challenge. I know wont counter all of them because i agree with some of them but it'll be a fun discussion.

1. Kirk is up against constant insurmountable odds. He's an impulsive smart ass not an impulsive super ninja. Half the time he is outnumbered or in a very tense unbalanced situation. It also shows he has weakness. He's not an all out badass, he needs his people with their own talent around him.

2. Kirk's jump. Its the future. Maybe everyone is slightly enhanced which is why you dont really notice. They could be slightly stronger with a more resilient bone structure. Also, it's a movie.

3. Kirk’s ascent to leadership. This did happen kinda fast. Kirk's father became captain inside of a few seconds and commanded for a few minutes. We have no idea how long he was at "number 1". You could assume it took forever to trudge his way up through the ranks. You could also assume he had made #1 that day and later on that day became captain.
However Kirk has already been promoted for knowing that they were headded for a romulan trap so he's already up there. He knows they are doing the wrong thing by reconoitering with whats left of star fleet and that spock cant see it. Later on Old Spock reinforces this with information. The rest of the bridge knows this but cant negate the captain. He pushes spock to show that he cant be cool and make the right decision under pressure. The rest of the bridge agrees so they back him up.

4. Same cave: Isnt kirk a few miles from spock? He runs from the creature for a little while then falls a long way then runs some more into the cave THEN spock shows up. Synchronicity?

5. Spock vs snow monster: I had a problem with this as well so ive been thinking about it. The only thing i can think is that fire is totally alien to this creature. This is a frozen, barren, wasteland. It has never seen fire before much less felt the heat from fire. The presence of it could be blinding and causing the creature serious pain. Also, Spock has been there for a little while and has probably discovered that it drives the creatures away. Although, If there are no trees, what is spock burning? Bones? Damnit Jim!

6. Similar creatures: Yes. Could be same character designer.

7. Spock and Uhura being lovers: This isnt implausible. There is an episode where the away team is down on a paradise-like planet where spock is effected in a way that makes him desire love and affection. Kirk tries to get him to leave his girl and come back to the ship and spock attacks his ass.
I know this isnt the same universe but on the same note, this new spock is a little different. He's more bottled up than completely under control. He's still developing that control. Also, the crew had just been through three types of hell so a little show of emotion is inevitable. Im sure in the future Spock and Uhura will be more subtle with their PDA and its probably against regulations. ha

8. Kirk peeking at Uhura: Dude, he's in college. Plus he's already shown extreme "Like" for Uhura. Put me in that situation I would Definitely look too! It's a win/win.

9. Scotty as a stand-up comedian: The part where Scotty first speaks up on the bridge was very essential to the situation. It was very tense and awkward and i couldnt see any other way to break the tension. Scotty has been in isolation for a long time and has lost some social grace. Alternately, this Scotty is making you laugh instead of laughing at the original scotty.
Isnt his little creature friend more of a buck rogers type little guy? You know, Twiki? Anyway i couldnt help but to laugh at the little guy. Hey, Im easy.

10. The Romulans: Romulans are simply not that interesting. They’re essentially evil Vulcans. We’ve seen them many times before…let’s move on. Correct!

11. The time travel/alternate universe story: I'd have to almost agree with this. The current time scenario with spock and all has been my least hated version of the time thing. Im glad they didnt even try to tie up all the loose ends if it was the same universe. They went ahead and stated different universe altogether. Got it out in the open, thats cool with me.

Im glad they had old spock state that it is a different timeline. You cant just hope the audience gets it. They have to be shown AND told. Hell, even then its not enough.

12. The Romulan mining ship was a rip-off of the Borg ship: Was it? I thought the Borg ship was a big cube.

13. Red Matter: I dont know why they used red matter. I thought dark matter was supposed to do the same thing. Hey its a mcguffin what can you do? at least its not a diamond necklace or a kidnapped lady.

14. “Eject the Core!”: Yeah this is supposed to work? At least its simple techno babble.

15. “Compromised by emotion” regulation: This is a real navel regulation. Ive never heard it exercised but it's real.

16. Spock is more emotionally unbalanced than any character: Spock isnt there yet. He is a creature of two worlds and in a way alien to them both. This is a different spock. An occasionally will explode spock. A not yet fully disciplined spock. I can see that because of the events in the film and his behavior, Spock will have much greater control over his emotions in the coming adventures unless its something very personal. Just like he is in the original series.
hanbert
hanbert - 5/16/2009, 9:48 PM
Some of the back story was sketchy. A single Romulan mining ship from the post-TNG era with enough firepower to destroy 7 decent ships from the past without a scratch was kind of implausible ... until I saw Star Trek: Countdown, the comic book sequel to TNG and prequel to the new film that explains why Nero hates everybody so much, how he got such powerful weapons (your guess was correct, his weapons were from the Borg), and what red matter was (made from decalithium to generate black holes).
12almonds
12almonds - 5/17/2009, 5:43 AM
Betty: Thanks for your point-by-point response. I still think the movie was completely ridiculous, but some of your responses are interesting.
Betty
Betty - 5/17/2009, 10:14 AM
Cheers!
Muffinman2007
Muffinman2007 - 5/17/2009, 11:22 AM
I feel sorry for anyone that goes to a movie with you, it seems from your review that your willing to nitpick every single thing.
Muffinman2007
Muffinman2007 - 5/17/2009, 6:38 PM
Just finished seeing Star Trek, and after reading your review once again I am now 100% positive that you just woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. That being said this new Trek is simply a faster sleeker version with less "trek" politics and mystery, and more action. Just because they did like 20 movies with the same formula doesn't mean changing it is a bad thing, its just different.

Get over it.



12almonds
12almonds - 5/18/2009, 5:48 AM
Muffinman2007: Instead of saying that you feel sorry for people who go to the movies with me, that I'm a nitpicker, that I woke up on the wrong side of the bed, and that I should "get over it," it would be more helpful for you to address my 16 reasons why Trek is ridiculous (or at least some of them).

I have no problem that Trek is faster--I was looking forward to that. I also don't need complex politics or mystery with every Trek. However, I do have a problem with an outrageous and unbelievable story. How many times does Kirk get punched, pummeled, choked, and clubbed? And yet, at the end of the movie, he's none the worse for wear (he does show some blood after his first beating, but his subsequent beatings leave no marks).

How many times does Kirk come to the brink of death, only to be miraculously saved? On the mining platform, when Spock is choking him, when the Romulan is choking him, when the snow creatures are after him, when he and Sulu are saved by the transporter as they are falling, when the Corvette almost goes over the cliff, when he is born during a space attack, when the ship is almost sucked into a blackhole...these are just the things I remember.

And these are just Kirk's perilous situations. Sulu almost dies, Scotty almost dies, Spock almost dies, the crew almost dies, the Earth is almost destroyed (as is usual in Trek).

Question: When is it too much for you? How much take-them-to-the-brink-of-death-but-miraculously-save-them are you willing to take before you say, "Hmmm, this is a little outrageous." 10 times? 100 times? 1,000 times?

The way this movie was hyped up, I was expecting an intense yet believable plot and script. Instead, the new Trek is simply a compilation of ridiculous occurences.

Again, address my 16 points, then I'll have a better understanding of why you disagree.
SuperSkrull
SuperSkrull - 5/18/2009, 2:23 PM
I love me some Star Trek, but this was the worst movie ever. I like the plot, but not the execution. In the hands of a good writer, this could have been one of the best sci-fi movies ever. Instead, it's another Battlefield Earth.

Things I hated:
1) The special effects in the beginning sequence moved so quickly that they looked out of focus (not moving fast, out of focus).

2) When the very young James Kirk was driving the Mustang, why was he listening to Sabotage? Seriously. Product placement? WTF!

3) The very young Kirk, again, popping the top off the car after voice on the phone told him there better not be a scratch. Did a 10 year old write this?

4) Red Matter. Are there other colors? What do they do? This was a bad name to use for such an important material.

I could go on and on, but I'd rather not think about this movie ever again.
elfokel
elfokel - 5/18/2009, 2:28 PM
"However, I do have a problem with an outrageous and unbelievable story."

Seriously, man? This is sci-fi, it supposed to be like that.
Betty
Betty - 5/18/2009, 2:58 PM
SuperSkrull--

1. It was probably the movie theater itself. They suck. It should really be a better picture.

2. I am from the future and i have to say that Beastie Boys have stood the test of time. In fact "Brass monkey is now USA's national anthem.

3. Um, in that scene Kirk is a 10 yr old so that makes sense.

4. My favorite kind of matter is neapolitan matter. It has all the flavors!
SuperSkrull
SuperSkrull - 5/18/2009, 3:27 PM
I saw the movie in IMAX and haven't had this problem with any other film.
shibazz
shibazz - 5/18/2009, 5:56 PM
You are an Idiot... i could number and list the reasons why, but i think you took care of that yourself. Hey i heard Wolverine Snorigins is still out, so you'll be happy bout that.

Whattup Betty!)
Gideon
Gideon - 5/18/2009, 6:10 PM
You're right, I also can't believe how unbelieveable Star Trek was. I mean, what's up with all those aliens anyway? And how can they expect us to believe that there are such things as "warp" engines? And who do they think they are fooling trying to make us believe that those big ass ships can fly? They're not aerodynamic at all! Ridiculous.

Do us all a favor and stick to Sex & the City. Movies like Star Trek are made for enjoyment, and to enjoy them, you have to suspend disbelief. You are asking for realism in things that ARE NOT REAL! Why is it you have a problem with "red matter" but no problem at all with characters being constantly "beamed up" or phasers? It sci-fi, or science FICTION, in case you've forgotten. Stop being a holier-than-thou fanboy and just try to enjoy yourself for once.

Gideon......................Out!
Gideon
Gideon - 5/18/2009, 6:13 PM
In case it wasn't obvious, my first paragraph in the first post is total sarcasm. Just clarifying for the dim witted. LOL!

Gideon........................Out!
SupermanEchols
SupermanEchols - 5/18/2009, 8:25 PM
I guess I'm just confused about what people on this site wanted from Star Trek. Perhaps its because I only vaguely ever watched the show and don't follow it like a religion, but here's my rebuttal to the 16 reasons it was craptastic:

1) Kirk doesn't seem like a Jason Bourne trained fighter, no, but isn't he just supposed to be a hot-headed guy who gets in over his head and narrowly finds a way out of tough situations? If he was doing some hand to hand combat like Liam Neesen in Taken I'd be kind of wondering if I walked into the wrong film. I thought him getting beaten down showed how he's not that experienced as a fighter or in making decisions, just cocky and quick to start something.

2) His jump at the end was about as plausible as anything else in a Bond, Batman, or Star Wars film. The basic premise is futuristic star travel with phaser guns and teleportation, so one jump won't pull me out of the experience in the least.

3) Kirk's ascent was fine for me. I don't need them to spend 2 whole hours showing his climb to captain. We saw him complete Spock's test, not get captain, struggle with the current captain's decision, make Spock loose his cool, and finally steps in as a last minute fill in captain who happens to really step up in a time of crisis...works for me.

4) The cave was the first shelter that Kirk could find after running from the beast. If Spock was anywhere near that vacinity and running from the same beast chances are he'd take shelter in a big cave too. Not too crazy a plot point at all.

5) So fire scares a creature who lives in nothing but cold snow and ice? Why is that hard to believe? It's probably something the creature'd never seen and fear of the unknown scares almost any species, especially if they've never been near heat.

6)I really thought the first Star Wars was bad, so forgive me for not getting any reference to Phantom Menace. If the scene was similar, I definitely didn't remember it, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the audience didn't either.

7) I liked that Spock had the one girl Kirk didn't have a chance with. I'm not sure if their relationship is equal to blasphemy in the lore of Star Trek, but her being attracted to intelligence and logic versus Kirk's bad boy character was a good spin on the characters.

8)Kirk is normally portrayed as somewhat of a womanizer if I'm not mistaken, so him trying to sneak a peak of a chick he likes in her underwear is not really that odd of a stretch is it? Seems pretty fitting with the character at this point in his life.

9)I liked Pegg's Scotty. He was entertaining and a different kind of character that filled out the core members of the crew. No one else really acted as the jokester on the ship and there's always a class clown in every group...Scotty just happens to be the Enterprise's.

10)The Romulans work fine as villains if you aren't oversaturated with them from previous experience to every Star Trek film and show. Yes, for some hardcore fans they may have been overused, but from the common filmgoer they work well and Nero was okay with me...nothing great, but not bad at all.

11)Nimoy in this film was a good "passing of the torch" as the ending of one franchise and the beginning of a new one. Seeing the 2 Spock's conversing was interesting as young Spock is made aware of how important his role in Starfleet and by Kirk's side will be.

12)The mining ship is a futuristic ship compared to Starfleet so it could be more advanced in size, defenses and weaponry than anything they have to offer. Also, they never fight all of Starfleet at once, usually just a couple ships or 1 at a time, able to pick them off and move on.

13)Red Matter was an acceptable explanation for the destruction of the planet. I'd never seen anything before that generated black holes on film, so it seemed perfectly believable as anything else they could've used like a big laser or planet devouring monster, which of course we've all seen.

14)Doesn't an explosion cause a blast that usually sends things away from the core of the explosion? Yeah, that's kind of the logic behind letting the core explode behind the ship...it pushed them away from the black hole. Makes sense in the Star Trek film I was watching.

15)Is there an actual Starfleet regulation book somewhere so that fans know which rules aren't actually "rules" in this fake universe that a writer created? If not, then who cares if this movie added a new one that so happened to work with the plot of the film without destroying the mythology that's come before?

16)The comment about Spock's emotions is kind of the same argument that people had about Craig's Bond not being suave enough, but that's the point...these are the beginnings of these characters' journeys and in no way show the complete package of who the character will eventually be after experience and time will develop them. Spock being conflicted with his two sides makes sense as he has yet to learn how to control the human side and doesn't yet seem to want to.

I don't hate your review at all, simply see no validity in most of your points outside of speaking to a strictly hardcore group of Trek fans at a convention. To the vast majority of audiences, Star Trek has been made accessible again by JJ by giving us an introduction to the cast that doesn't demand you have to know 40 years of previous history. It sort of reminds me how All Star Superman gave casual fans a jumping on point to read about Superman without needing you to understand what's been going on in the books for the last few decades. It was simply an entertaining story about the Man of Steel that any fan could pick up and enjoy, and that's sort of how the new Trek works...you can walk in without any prior knowledge, have an entertaining experience, and walk out a bit more of a Trek fan than you ever were before. Sounds like Abrams had a pretty good plan in making this film and it's paying off by making Star Trek relevant once more in pop culture.
Betty
Betty - 5/18/2009, 8:36 PM
SupermanEchols--Bravo!
shibazz
shibazz - 5/19/2009, 2:30 AM
c'mon i know my retort was like comedy and sooooo honest the truth knocked and asked what else i thought. Betty dammit betty i am drink and i got a bad case of the Russians right now. for real
shibazz
shibazz - 5/19/2009, 3:39 AM
oh and just so my con-shus is clear... my first and consequential posts were aimed at the ingrate who started this whole DE-Bacle with his/her dem-assery. Golly Mister could ya make yer self more obvious Mr. Lucas? oh and i would take Han Solo over Capt. J.T. Kirk like i was wakin up with a naked Bonnie Lass!

That being said i just wanted to make sure i am not offendin a certain BETTY cuz of my ingratin' words aimed at the owner of this here fansite. Yes Betty i mean you. lookin back at it itty almost looked like i was callin you out , and i want efvery one to know that is not the case.... i am talkin to the Mo-Rawn who stitched this thread! Hell at this point i wouldnt have put it past myself to have done it just to prove a point about what a good movie vs. a bad movie (wolferine-snarllll) should look like from an idiots point of view.
Muffinman2007
Muffinman2007 - 5/19/2009, 4:51 AM
almond12

I don't need to argue your points because your basing most of them by comparing the real world to a make believe world. If you don't find fake stuff and impossible situations entertaining then why did you bother writing a review for star trek? i do know why! you just felt like bashing it for fun.
12almonds
12almonds - 5/19/2009, 5:48 AM
A common criticism of my Trek review is that I'm expecting realism in sci-fi, and that I shouldn't. Question: Why shouldn't I? Why shouldn't I expect a plausible portrayal of the future? What my critics seem to be saying is that, since it's sci-fi, ANYTHING goes. But if that is the case, why not have Kirk fly in the next movie? Why not have Spock conjure up an ancient Vulcan technique of becoming invisible?

I think people who liked the Trek movie have a very high "outrageousness threshhold." I'm willing to suspend my disbelief when the situation calls for it. I actually thought the Wolverine movie was pretty good. I was willing to suspend my disbelief because it's a super hero movie, a comic book movie. But the crew of the Enterprise are not superheroes, they're supposed to be real people...just in a not-too-distant future setting. I have a hard time suspending my disbelief when Kirk is brought to the brink of death--probably a dozen times in the movie--only to be miraculously saved. Once? Twice? Thrice? Sure, I can deal with that. But not over and over and over again--it's silly after a while.

The Trek movie story was weak, uninspired, and ludicrous. It was merely the stringing along of one ridiculous occurence after another. If that's your idea of a "bold, new" Trek movie--basically James Bond in space--fine. But I'll take movies like Alien, Empire Strikes Back, and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan as my sci-fi food. I just can't suspend my disbelief with the new and exciting "Ridiculous Adventures of Star Trek."

And here's more wonderful news: Abrams is apparently thinking of bringing Shatner in for the next Trek. So, first we get a weak, forced story to bring in old Spock, and next we'll get a weak, forced story to bring in old Kirk. Aren't you tired of these time travel stories yet?!? Where all the crews get to be together like family?!? Trek isn't so much about space exploration anymore, as it is about getting all the past and previous versions of crew members together for a nostalgic reunion.

And for people who are applauding this movie as a bold new Trek...um...why the Romulans? Why bring in old Spock? Why bring in old Kirk? Why put the Earth in danger of total destruction (as many old Trek movies and shows did)? Doesn't seem very original to me. In fact, the only original thing in this movie is new actors doing outrageous things with old characters. The story is not much different than many, many other Trek stories. Fresh and exciting? Try "been there, done that."

So, I'm begging you: Stop applauding nonsense before Trek is totally destroyed. Your egging Hollywood on to make more and more outrageous Trek movies. Oh well, here's to Kirk putting on his Superman outfit and flying in the sequel.
comicb00kguy
comicb00kguy - 5/19/2009, 7:48 AM
First off, great review 12almonds! This is why I didn't go more detailed in my review of this film, because there are others like you who do a much better job of it than I could. Nice job on the point by point breakdown. The response right above my post is more brilliance. Standing O!

I'm seeing here an interesting paradox. People here expect comic book movies (especially Batman) to be completely realistic in every way (which makes no sense because comics are like cartoons- once you set the ground rules, you can do nearly anything in a comic), but sci-fi like Trek can make up crazy things that make absolutely no sense whatsoever and that's just fine. We can't have it both ways! Realism has its place in these things. There are basic laws of physics that apply to anything involving "real" people (not cartoon characters). The best sci-fi you can name has just enough realism in it to make it seem possible, if not now, then certainly in the future. Trek through its various series had this level of realism, and that was part of its lasting appeal. This new Trek film has less realism in it than watching Marvin the Martian fighting Bugs Bunny.
elfokel
elfokel - 5/19/2009, 2:13 PM
Sigan haciendose una paja mental...
12almonds
12almonds - 5/19/2009, 7:17 PM
comicb00kguy: Thanks! Y'know...I have no problem with people saying the new Trek was a fun movie, a sexy movie, an entertaining movie...but I do have a problem with all the reviews praising it as some spectacular reinvention of Star Trek, some incredible reboot. It was a lot of flash, but not much substance, and hardly any realism (as you point out). Given the off-the-chart reviews, I was expecting something like Star Wars, or the kind of intensity experienced in "Alien." Instead, I saw a far-fetched comedy/sci-fi hybrid. I'll put this on the shelf with Fantastic Four--fun yes, substance no.
Muffinman2007
Muffinman2007 - 5/19/2009, 11:35 PM
The reason it got rave reviews was because a lot of people felt it had a strong cast, dialogue, script, and effects. Was is amazing? No, Great? No, Good? Yes! Plus considering that good Trek movies are hard to come by as it is everyone was super hyped for this movie. I mean have you seen the one with freaking God in it? and hell i cant even remember the plots to at least 4 of em. It was entertaining and that's what a Star Trek movie should be, and for future reference, don't attend any movie trek or not, expecting something in advance. You'll just be disappointed.
12almonds
12almonds - 5/20/2009, 4:02 AM
Muffinman2007: I don't take issue with the movie being called good (although I think it was pretty bad myself). And I agree that it was not the worst Trek movie. The one you mention--Star Trek V, original cast--was indeed much worse than the current Trek (in fact, I'd say ST V is nearly unwatchable--it's so bad it makes you cringe).

But with all the hype the new Trek got, I was expecting far more than what I saw. It has a 95% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes (that's the highest I've ever seen), with reviewers tripping over themselves to write how amazing and fresh this Trek is. In three words--No, No, No! There's only one fresh thing--new actors (and I applaud that). The story is not fresh at all. It's an origin story for the first half-hour, and then it descends into old, weathered Trek themes (Romulans, an old cast member, the Enterprise must save the Earth for the umpteenth time!).

I agree that expectations can shape your experience, but look at "Saving Private Ryan." It received rave reviews, I had great expectations, and (for me) it delivered the goods.

I agree with comicbOOkguy's comment a few posts above: "The best sci-fi you can name has just enough realism in it to make it seem possible, if not now, then certainly in the future."

It's an art. Can you make it seem real, while having it in a future setting and injecting exciting action scenes? A movie like "Alien" does it--through serious acting, a serious script, and keeping the actors' behavior within the realm of possibility. Trek fails completely. The new Trek movie is something like the first Starship Troopers, a very fun ride but not much more (I actually liked Starship Troopers a lot, by the way). But Trek--again, for me--is supposed to be more.

The first half hour of the new Trek was great. I was loving it. Then, it descended into typical Hollywood outrageousness. As just one example, in Kirk's first fight scene, he's bloodied afterward (this is realism). In all of Kirk's subsequent poundings--and there were many--you'll notice there are no lasting marks (this is lack of realism).
View Recorder