The Review I Promised
Right...my thoughts on "Star Trek."
And yeah, there are spoilers here.
Seriously.
I mean it...I spoil the shit out of the film.
OK, you were warned.
Short version - I didn't like it. In fact, it may be fair to say that I hated it. I was kind of in a bad head space the day I saw it, and that may have had something to do with it. I also have a lot of emotional baggage where "Star Trek" is concerned, and that may have colored my perception of it as well.
The thing is, when the credits rolled, while everyone was cheering and clapping, I was sitting there rubbing my chin and trying to nail down what I didn't like about the movie. So here's where we go into "Why Alex Didn't Like The New "Star Trek" Film - The Long Version."
But first...one thing that I *didn't* mind, and that was the alternate timeline plot hook. "Star Trek" has been using that old trope for, well, as long as I've been alive, and it was about the only way you could make the franchise work if you went back to the crew's Academy days and you didn't want to get bogged down in 40+ years of continuity. The movie took great pains to keep emphasizing "ALTERNATE REALITY" over "NEW TIMELINE." The first means that the U.S.S. Enterprise and the Federation that we all know is still out there, running concurrently with the "new" reality; whereas the second phrase would indicate that the old ST universe was gone, blasted out of existence when Nero tripped into the black hole. I think Spock Prime, at the end of the film, knows this to be true, and he's just waiting for a chance to slide back over into his reality. That's just me, though.
Oh, and Karl Urban as McCoy. I *REALLY* enjoyed every second he was on screen, and you could tell he was having a fucking blast every time he opened his mouth. I could have watched an entire movie just with him.
And yeah, the effects were good. But it was Lucasfilm, so I wasn't worried about that standard.
OK, on we go to the criticisms...
(These points are in no particular order...just as I think of them.)
1. The first two minutes brought me totally out of the film. I liked the U.S.S. Kelvin overall (the bridge seemed both low-tech and advanced enough to be a 24th century space vessel), but when the Captain went down to Engineering, I actually said "what the fuck" out loud. Boilers? Pipes?? But later it was OK, 'cause when Scotty had to jettison the warp core at the end, the Enterprise could still cruise on steam.
That was sarcasm, by the way.
And let's not get started on the water pipes and the chomper that almost ate Scotty. "Galaxy Quest" did that one much better.
2. The plot was just stupid. I don't mean usual, run-of-the-mill action movie stupid, I mean insult-your-intelligence stupid. First, the raw series of coincidences that brought everyone together was staggering. Kirk joined up the very day Uhura and McCoy shipped off to the academy, on the same shuttle, in Iowa? Come on.
Second, if Nero came through time on the day Kirk was born, but didn't attack Vulcan until Spock Prime came through twenty-three years later, what the hell was he DOING in all that time? Just cruising around, taking in the sights? If he was all gung-ho about saving Romulus, why didn't he take his super-advanced ship to the Romulan Praetor and say, "here's a whole bunch of new tech that will allow you to save everyone from this cataclysm 125 years from now, AND smash the Klingons and Federation to paste at the same time."
3. Kirk jumped from ungraduated cadet to captain, leapfrogging over an entire bridge full of officers (including Spock) who had more time-in-service than he did. What? I could see him earning a battlefield commission from Pike in order to act as first officer pro-tem, but that would only get him to Lieutenant at BEST.
4. Some of the characterizations did not ring true for me, and some were borderline insulting to the original portrayals. Particularly Scotty and Chekov, who (in my opinion) were played almost strictly for laughs, which I didn't appreciate.
5. The acting was all over the place. For every Karl Urban and Bruce Greenwood, you had Eric Bana (who was just completely unthreatening) and Anton Yelchin (who seemed to me to be reading from cue cards). Pine did OK as Kirk, but there wasn't much characterization there past "arrogant cowboy." Zachary Quinto was better as Spock, but I kept seeing the "Sylar smirk," which if you've never seen "Heroes" probably doesn't mean much to you.
6. The science. Oh man, the science. Red matter? Transwarp beaming?? Spock Prime watching Vulcan collapse from Delta Vega??? I know "Trek" science is usually wonky at best, but Jesus Christ, at least get a NASA physicist to be a consultant.
I could go on, but I really don't want to, as just those points make my stomach roll over. I'll probably try to see it again, when the crowds thin out and I can watch it in a theatre mostly uninterrupted, just to give it another chance, but if this is the standard that Abrams and Co. are setting, i do not have high hopes for any sequel or ongoing series.
That's my two cents.
And yeah, there are spoilers here.
Seriously.
I mean it...I spoil the shit out of the film.
OK, you were warned.
Short version - I didn't like it. In fact, it may be fair to say that I hated it. I was kind of in a bad head space the day I saw it, and that may have had something to do with it. I also have a lot of emotional baggage where "Star Trek" is concerned, and that may have colored my perception of it as well.
The thing is, when the credits rolled, while everyone was cheering and clapping, I was sitting there rubbing my chin and trying to nail down what I didn't like about the movie. So here's where we go into "Why Alex Didn't Like The New "Star Trek" Film - The Long Version."
But first...one thing that I *didn't* mind, and that was the alternate timeline plot hook. "Star Trek" has been using that old trope for, well, as long as I've been alive, and it was about the only way you could make the franchise work if you went back to the crew's Academy days and you didn't want to get bogged down in 40+ years of continuity. The movie took great pains to keep emphasizing "ALTERNATE REALITY" over "NEW TIMELINE." The first means that the U.S.S. Enterprise and the Federation that we all know is still out there, running concurrently with the "new" reality; whereas the second phrase would indicate that the old ST universe was gone, blasted out of existence when Nero tripped into the black hole. I think Spock Prime, at the end of the film, knows this to be true, and he's just waiting for a chance to slide back over into his reality. That's just me, though.
Oh, and Karl Urban as McCoy. I *REALLY* enjoyed every second he was on screen, and you could tell he was having a fucking blast every time he opened his mouth. I could have watched an entire movie just with him.
And yeah, the effects were good. But it was Lucasfilm, so I wasn't worried about that standard.
OK, on we go to the criticisms...
(These points are in no particular order...just as I think of them.)
1. The first two minutes brought me totally out of the film. I liked the U.S.S. Kelvin overall (the bridge seemed both low-tech and advanced enough to be a 24th century space vessel), but when the Captain went down to Engineering, I actually said "what the fuck" out loud. Boilers? Pipes?? But later it was OK, 'cause when Scotty had to jettison the warp core at the end, the Enterprise could still cruise on steam.
That was sarcasm, by the way.
And let's not get started on the water pipes and the chomper that almost ate Scotty. "Galaxy Quest" did that one much better.
2. The plot was just stupid. I don't mean usual, run-of-the-mill action movie stupid, I mean insult-your-intelligence stupid. First, the raw series of coincidences that brought everyone together was staggering. Kirk joined up the very day Uhura and McCoy shipped off to the academy, on the same shuttle, in Iowa? Come on.
Second, if Nero came through time on the day Kirk was born, but didn't attack Vulcan until Spock Prime came through twenty-three years later, what the hell was he DOING in all that time? Just cruising around, taking in the sights? If he was all gung-ho about saving Romulus, why didn't he take his super-advanced ship to the Romulan Praetor and say, "here's a whole bunch of new tech that will allow you to save everyone from this cataclysm 125 years from now, AND smash the Klingons and Federation to paste at the same time."
3. Kirk jumped from ungraduated cadet to captain, leapfrogging over an entire bridge full of officers (including Spock) who had more time-in-service than he did. What? I could see him earning a battlefield commission from Pike in order to act as first officer pro-tem, but that would only get him to Lieutenant at BEST.
4. Some of the characterizations did not ring true for me, and some were borderline insulting to the original portrayals. Particularly Scotty and Chekov, who (in my opinion) were played almost strictly for laughs, which I didn't appreciate.
5. The acting was all over the place. For every Karl Urban and Bruce Greenwood, you had Eric Bana (who was just completely unthreatening) and Anton Yelchin (who seemed to me to be reading from cue cards). Pine did OK as Kirk, but there wasn't much characterization there past "arrogant cowboy." Zachary Quinto was better as Spock, but I kept seeing the "Sylar smirk," which if you've never seen "Heroes" probably doesn't mean much to you.
6. The science. Oh man, the science. Red matter? Transwarp beaming?? Spock Prime watching Vulcan collapse from Delta Vega??? I know "Trek" science is usually wonky at best, but Jesus Christ, at least get a NASA physicist to be a consultant.
I could go on, but I really don't want to, as just those points make my stomach roll over. I'll probably try to see it again, when the crowds thin out and I can watch it in a theatre mostly uninterrupted, just to give it another chance, but if this is the standard that Abrams and Co. are setting, i do not have high hopes for any sequel or ongoing series.
That's my two cents.