| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Cheese_Ed 
"The Provolone Ranger"
|
 Posted - 05/10/2009 : 14:56:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by randall
quote:
Originally posted by Cheese_Ed
And the time thing is more than a minor distraction, it doesn't make any sense.
A minor distraction to me because I hadn't had the time to think it through, and of course there was no professor at a blackboard during the film. I simply noted that it made my virtual horse buck a little and I couldn't discern every detail of the thru-explanation while I was sitting in the theater, but I trusted that there was one, and guess what: it turns out there is!
Re "doesn't make any sense": to the best of my -- and your -- knowledge, time travel is impossible, except the 24/hr/day forward-only kind. Reminds me of my friends who hate Broadway musicals because whenever the story stops to let someone sing, it's so unrealistic. Fair enough, but they have no problem when a "hobbit" puts on a "magic ring" that makes him frickin invisible...Peter Jackson made that as realistic as hell!
I'm not putting this stuff down. I love fantasy too. But once somebody travels through time, please quit looking for logic. Just listen to what the storyteller tells you, and see if you can buy it for the duration of the story. Maybe not. But "makes no sense" has to refer to the world s/he's set up before you, not what you already thought before you entered the theater. The STAR TREK time travel gag makes sense to me now within the context of the story: just as much, and no more, than [as?] "phasers" and "warp drive" do.
Agreed, and there are probably a hundred different justifications that people have written about the time travel in this movie, so I haven't done any homework on it. But it seems to me that the time travel in this film flies in the face of the nature of time travel as it was already established in the Star Trek universe. This whole alternate universe thing bothers me, probably because it feels like a simple means of getting a re-boot and endless sequels to line the pockets. They could have just have easily made a true prequel, but then they couldn't add all the titilation - like Spock humping Uhura across the galaxy. To me a re-boot devalues all the great (and mediocre) work that has gone into the Trek timeline as we know it. |
 |
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 05/10/2009 : 16:19:36
|
Quinto was excellent in this movie -- by far, the best performance in the movie. Anyone who thinks it was wooden clearly just wasn't watching or is unfamiliar with the character -- his acting suggested very deep emotions running underneath the surface. I loved how he made "Live long and prosper" sound like he was telling the council to go fuck themselves.
My biggest complaint is actually with the Romulan villain -- his motivations were both inadequately explored and highly illogical (captain). But I like that all six principals were made important to the plot and engaging in its own right. I know just enough Trek to recognize a lot of the in-jokes but am separate from it to recognize a fun action movie when I see it. |
|
|
|
damalc 
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 01:32:44
|
i liked it a lot.  everything i want in a summer sci-fi film. folks who dig Star Trek for the philosophical aspects may be disappointed.
and the time travel in the case of "Star Trek" wasn't the kind where time is manipulated, but more like a force of nature, so it didn't bother me like it did in "Back to the Future" or "Terminator."
bottom line, they made Star Trek kinda cool for a big audience again. yeah, there was stuff there for Trekkies but knowledge of a dozen films and tv series was not necessary. i know a lot of people will never think Star Trek is cool but this makes a good place for a lot of people to jump in. the space jump was my favorite part. and i thought Simon Pegg as Scotty stole every scene he was in.
edit: and my mother the Trekkie, who has watched all those other tv shows and films, enjoyed it a lot too.
edit 2: and Uhura and her green roomie were fucking hot. |
Edited by - damalc on 05/11/2009 17:23:40 |
|
|
|
MguyX 
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 05:16:26
|
| I liked it a lot. I've got nothing to explain: I liked it a whole lot. |
|
|
|
BiggerBoat 
"Pass me the harpoon"
|
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 17:54:14
|
I thought it was great. Thoroughly enjoyable with just the right amount of references back to the original characters and their personalities.
I didn't have a problem with the plot either - seemed to make perfect sense within my understanding of time travel and its effects (although how the time travel occurred was a little questionable, but not beyond the bounds of possibility).
My only gripe would be the dialogue given to Simon Pegg, which seemed a little too comedic at times - it was almost like they needed him to have a funny quip otherwise he wouldn't get a line in some of the scenes. Hopefully that can be addressed in the inevitable sequels. |
|
|
|
MguyX
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 19:06:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
edit 2: and Uhura and her green roomie were fucking hot.
Yes.
Remember the Green Girl from the original series? That was Yvonne Craig (aka "Batgirl"), who was also hot. And Julie Newmar ("Catwoman"); yeah, she was smokin' hot!  |
|
|
|
silly 
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 19:41:16
|
| I'm afraid I laughed when I first saw her well because I thought of Princess Fiona... |
|
|
|
RockGolf
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 19:44:31
|
I liked the movie too, but the plot holes were hard to take. Basically, anything that happened on Delta-Vega 4 (I think) just stretched all credulity.
C'mon, randomly and independently drop two people off on an entire planet and a) they meet, b) one knows the other, c) the same one knows the only other human being on the entire planet?
And, without overly spoiling things, how could there be two M-Class planets so close to each other that one would appear in the other's sky as about the same size as our moon? And given the nature of what happened to that 2nd planet, a) wouldn't the first planet be similarly effected? and b) wouldn't light around that 2nd planet be absorbed, making viewing of the event impossible? and c) Wouldn't the complete disappearance of such a nearby planet be noted at a scientific study station in the vicinity? |
|
|
|
damalc
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 05/11/2009 : 20:14:46
|
a couple of funny comments from another of my fave film sites, hollywoodbitchslap.com: "Changing Star Trek history was stupid." and "this movie disposes of every concept behind the real star trek. total trash!!!!!"
i hate to be the one to break this to the poster of the 2nd comment, but, ummm -- you might wanna sit down -- but "Star Trek" isn't real.
though, as a Batman purist for years, i understand, but "Star Trek" fans are a different breed.
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 08:16:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ro�k G01f, MD+
I liked the movie too, but the plot holes were hard to take. Basically, anything that happened on Delta-Vega 4 (I think) just stretched all credulity.
C'mon, randomly and independently drop two people off on an entire planet and a) they meet, b) one knows the other, c) the same one knows the only other human being on the entire planet?
And, without overly spoiling things, how could there be two M-Class planets so close to each other that one would appear in the other's sky as about the same size as our moon? And given the nature of what happened to that 2nd planet, a) wouldn't the first planet be similarly effected? and b) wouldn't light around that 2nd planet be absorbed, making viewing of the event impossible? and c) Wouldn't the complete disappearance of such a nearby planet be noted at a scientific study station in the vicinity?
Hm... I'm guessing that if there's a Facebook application on which Star Trek character you are, that you'd be Spock for sure.
In any case, may I remind you that:
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
might wanna sit down -- but "Star Trek" isn't real.
|
|
|
|
RockGolf
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 12:47:20
|
| Obviously Star Trek isn't real, but it should be written with more depth than a Saturday morning cartoon. For any fiction to work, we must have a plausible suspension of disbelief. When dumb gaps like that take you out of the movie and into "Error! Error! This does not compute!" it spoil the effect of an otherwise clever re-imagining of the core characters. As a reboot, this was more faithful than most. But that doesn't excuse failing Screenwriting 101. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 13:58:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ro�k G01f, MD+
Obviously Star Trek isn't real, but it should be written with more depth than a Saturday morning cartoon. For any fiction to work, we must have a plausible suspension of disbelief. When dumb gaps like that take you out of the movie and into "Error! Error! This does not compute!" it spoil the effect of an otherwise clever re-imagining of the core characters. As a reboot, this was more faithful than most. But that doesn't excuse failing Screenwriting 101.
Well, yes and no, actually. Thing is, we all know that Roddenberry's original stuff was so off the wall that enjoyment required suspending scientific reasoning. I realize that science and general knowledge has progressed so much that some (if not many) of the things we took for granted as total fantasy when season 1 came on the TV just seems silly to us today. Again, I haven't had a chance to see this movie yet, but I admit I'm also about as clueless as can be when it comes to science, and especially anything to do with outer space, astronomy and physics of any kind (let alone the quantum kind). But I'm also someone who watched those shows faithfully, and enjoyed them (all except Deep Space 9, that is). So why would someone so clueless enjoy something so obviously flawed? Because a good action story is a good action story, and likeable characters are likeable characters, and who cares what two M-class planets can or cannot do!
I admit, the bit about the two people being dropped on that planet and meeting like that does sound a bit far fetched. But that's only because it sounds about as likely as two people being sent from different sides of this world into the same large unknown city and meeting like that. Still, sometimes movies need an extraordinarily large dose of serendipity to further a plot line. We excuse it because we know it is Hollywood and that's what movies are all about.
The question is, how much are we willing to swallow? When it comes to Sci-Fi and Fantasy films, I think we are often willing to gulp down tons of this kind of stuff, where only a fraction of the same thing would be spit out as crap in a realistic drama or even in some comedies. We go firstly for the CGI special effects, acting, direction and cinematography, and then for the script and characterizations. We are willing and able to ignore the holes in the plots if all the rest falls into place. From what I hear, this movie fits that bill quite well.
But I can understand your disappointment, and I'm sure there are many other people who feel exactly as you do about this movie. I'm sorry that it wasn't what you were hoping for.
|
|
|
|
silly
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 14:49:14
|
This discussion reminds me of the time I watched Jurrasic Park sitting next to my good friend, with a degree in paleobiology.
After a while I got tired of hearing "That. Can't. Happen!" and just stuffed some popcorn in their face.
Hollywood has always taken liberty with reality, otherwise I'm sure the movies they made would be utterly boring, whatever the genre. |
|
|
|
RockGolf
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 15:14:24
|
Nope, sorry, gotta disagree with that. You don't see western gunfight where one combatant is attacked by bees unless the bees were already established. You don't have a sealed room murder mystery where the killer escaped using a time machine, unless you've established the existence of the time machine. You don't have a gritty war movie where both sides break out into choreographed song and dance in the last act. Why? Because Screenwriting 101 says so!
You can set up any set of rules in the first 5 minutes or so of a film: revised history, impossible events, irregular sequencing. But then you gotta play by those rules. Ridiculously improbable things can't happen in a plot where you've previously identified a (sigh!) logical cause for their occurrence. If you're being scientific, or in the case of Star Trek pseudo-scientific, then major events can't happen just by wild, fluky, lottery-odds improbable chance. And the worst part is that it was sheer laziness on the part of the writers. They could have added a line or two of pure crypto-babble to explain how the two met. Just namedrop "tachyons" or "residual transporter energies" or "nexus", for example, and I'd have bought it. |
|
|
|
silly
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 15:44:40
|
Okay, I think I get what you're saying now.
Inconsistencies within the film itself; not just that this film takes liberty with 23rd century science as we will know it. 
Maybe it's just eddys in the space-time continuum? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Star Trek
