Abrams Trek

[Alelou]

haha. I've seen that movie at least five times and I still can't remember anything that happens in it. How does that happen, anyway?

I've often wondered that myself, though I definitely didn't see it five times. The only other time I remember so thoroughly forgetting something was a much-anticipated Remington Steele episode that I watched while on post-operative Demerol.

Though KTR's reviews of Voyager are drawing total blanks from me too, so maybe I just don't normally notice how much I forget.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

Star Trek Phase II answer to JJ Trek - Timeline Restored

[CoffeeCat]

Rented it tonight and saw if for the first time. The movie was enjoyable for what it was, but the actors didn't portray their characters convincingly. Spock was just badly written. Seemed so un-Spock-like. This version of Kirk.... well, I was like "Damn right!" when Pike stripped him of his command whereas, I would have never felt that way if Kirk had it actually felt like it was Kirk. I think I know what tipped me off that Kirk deserved what he got in the beginning. It's a little nit pick that made me question his command abilities, but had nothing to do with him breaking the Prime Directive.

It was Spock/Uhura.

You don't see Riker/Troi, or Paris/Torres, or Trip/T'Pol, or whoever, smooching on the bridge in front of everyone, but for some odd reason, it's perfectly acceptable for one of the most sternly logical characters in Star Trek to be doing it. I just don't understand it. Kirk - The real Kirk was many things - a gambler, a ladies man, a formidable opponent, etc..., but his crew RESPECTED him enough not to be smooching on the bridge. This Kirk, well, if his crew can't respect him enough to use restraint while on duty, then why is he in command?

There were other things in this movie that felt very un-Trek like to me, but I think that's the perfect example of some of the shenanigans this movie was chock full of. I wouldn't go so far as to say I'd rather be strapped to a chair watching ANIS in an infinite loop with my eyes super-glued open, but I might go as far as saying that I'd rather watch that TNG movie that I've seen before and for some reason keep forgetting everything that happens in it.

[Alelou]

You're right about the smooching. That kind of thing makes it a sloppy teen movie instead of anything you can believe.

Though I can't remember them smooching on the bridge. (I do remember the unbearable unprofessional arguing during an away mission.) Maybe it's already fading away in my memory like Nemesis. (All I remember from that is Gilbert and Sullivan and wondering where the hell THAT came from....)

[CoffeeCat]

The more I think about Abrams version of Captain Kirk, the more I ask myself this question: If I were in Starfleet, would I want to serve under him?

The answer is an all out, Hell No!

In fact, I'd rather be stuck in the Delta Quadrant in a garbage scow under the command of Captain Archer with Kathryn Janeway as the first officer, Neelix as cook, and Quark as our official ambassador.

The only person in that film with half a brain was Scotty.

I'm pretty sure Kirk ruined it for me and I think I know where Abrams failed in depicting Kirk's character. He reinvented him as an "Ares" and not the "Zeus" that Roddenberry created.

If anyone wants to really understand what I mean, then you should probably read 45 Master Characters which has helped me a great deal in nailing every character in my own fiction.

And, also, did anyone else here watch the Spock/Uhura thing in the first movie and ask, "D'fuq did I just see?" because I'm pretty sure I did and I'm still in state of disbelief.

[putaro]

OK, finally got to see it. Frankly, you're all a bunch of curmudgeons.

The opening set piece was great. One of the things I liked about this movie was putting the ships in relationship to things we understand (people, skyscrapers) so you really get a sense of how big and awesome they are.

The plot as the trailers set it up looked like it was going to be some kind of a terrorist hunt which I was not looking forward to. Fortunately they didn't actually go in that direction.

We got old Spock, ass-kicking Augment, a Dreadnought class starship, Robocop chewing the scenery, Augment vs Vulcan and a cable car! The Kirk-Spock bit of pathos I enjoyed.

This was a summer block buster. The plot is full of holes but it mainly exists to allow the movie to speed along. The movie sped along, it was an E-Ticket ride and it was fun. I saw it on an Imax screen so all the shiny really came across and the sound was really loud. I don't think it will have the same impact watching at home.

Unfortunately Hollywood doesn't do "thinking SF" very well. They like to do things they think are thinking SF (e.g. Oblivion) but since they don't have brains it never quite works out. This didn't pretend to be anything more than a roller coaster.

[Alelou]

And as an action flick to pass the time, it's fine, but as Star Trek, it just didn't cut it -- and that Wrath of Khan reprise scene actively offended me. What's sad is that the mere thought of seeing it again makes me wince.The last movie they did I managed to watch three or four times, sharing it with different people, before I'd definitely had enough. So I'm not anti-Abrams per se, but I don't consider this movie a great success. (I'd say it's better than Star Trek V or The Motion Picture, though.)

See how you feel about it after a couple of weeks.

I'm still quite contented to see the next one -- but I sure hope it's better than this one.

[putaro]

The biggest problem I see is that it will be impossible to slow down the speed of these movies for the same reason there will be more of them - it made money, lots of money. Not only that but it got good reviews overall. So we're unlikely to see Enterprise doing anything interesting (like interacting with an alien culture) for more than a few seconds unless doing so requires them to fly through a city or do a parachute jump off a volcano.

As far as the reprise:

SPOILER!!!:

I actually liked it. I thought it was more poignant for Spock to lose his friend, almost his only friend (we should count Uhura among his friends in this version, I suppose) than it was for Kirk. And this version of Kirk hasn't shown much evidence of self-sacrifice, so some character development. And resurrection via Khan's blood is no worse than resurrection via Genesis Planet.

[Alelou]

I bet the second one didn't make nearly as much money as the first, though. It didn't get the repeat visits from happy Trekkies that the first one got.

Re the other comment:

SPOILER!!!:

No. I just can't go there with you. It offended me. It felt like a deeply cynical ploy to me. Not to mention that the original version was so much better, and that's even with William Shatner's acting factored in.

[putaro]

I bet the second one didn't make nearly as much money as the first, though. It didn't get the repeat visits from happy Trekkies that the first one got.

Well, according to Box Office Mojo, the 2009 film made $258M domestically and $128M internationally. Into Darkness made $228M domestically and $236M internationally. So, pretty close in the US market and a big jump internationally. $150M budget vs $190M budget.

Did Trekkies actually like the first one? I don't talk to many outside of this group and all I heard around here was kvetching about the shiny and the explosions.

[CX]

My impression is that a lot of Trek fans like it because it's something new, and because they have the impression that Trek is popular and "mainstream" now. But hey, if you don't care about things like a good story, character development, or a plot that makes sense, I guess Abrams Trek is for you.

[Asso]

Well, I do not know in those parts, but here in Italy, no one longer speaks of Star Trek, now.
Narrow circles of a few fanatics and nothing more.
It's certainly not with films of this kind that you can renew the ancient laurels.

[Alelou]

International sales made all the difference for it then -- and interesting that they chose to premiere overseas, too. Did they know something about the likely reaction? Or is that just a fiendish way to defeat the pirates in the most likely pirate countries? Did killing their chance to pirate it actually bump up sales that high? (Could it be those countries simply care more about action than characterization from English-speaking films?)

[putaro]

It's often said that action films do well in the non-English speaking markets because you don't need to follow what's going on as much. Whether that's true or just Hollywood logic I can't say. I took my ten year old son to see this one and he really, really liked it, even though he hasn't seen much Star Trek of any kind before and his English can be a little sketchy (and subtitles were in kanji which is challenging for ten year old Japanese kids).

This one made a solid profit, it got good reviews, there will be another Star Trek movie. So, what would people like to see/not see in the next movie?

I'd like for them to NOT save the Earth. Boring. Go somewhere. A new alien race or races would be cool. I don't want to see any more retreads from any of the series. No Klingons, no Romulans, no Borg, at least not as the main antagonists. No Charlie X, or Tremaine, or whoever. I like the action but I would like to see a plot that hangs together better. Not so much Uhura/Spock kissy-face. Or at least deal with the issues that are going on between them, but NOT by having Uhura getting all huffy when Spock isn't paying enough attention to her feelings in a life-or-death situation. And Kirk should start acting behaving better. The "hello ladies" bit was funny when he's a cadet but it's sexual harassment when he's the captain.

[Alelou]

That all sounds about right to me.