So I said some of this in another thread. I literally just got back from seeing it so my thoughts are a touch muddled right now, but I feel like jotting some of them down.
I guess the first thing to say is that I did enjoy the film, certainly a lot more than I thought I was going to, because I'm really not a fan of the first film, I'd hear bad things about this one and I'm really not a fan of Abrams of Lindheloff. I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about why I liked it, mostly because it's the sort of enjoyment that is difficult to put into words. For me it was a bit like a Michael Bay movie with the more obviously awful stuff removed (pointless knickers scene excluded).
Overall though, I think I agree with @thrice_604 when he says it feels more like Star Trek than the first one, partly because the things from the last film that felt really un-star trek are illuminated or brought into a more familiar framework. I know it seems minor, but things like showing us the reactor core, and locating that within the huge industrial engine room from the first film (which felt quite un-trek to me) really did a lot to help me accept it. Something in the structure of it felt very trek to me as well, but may also be weaknesses in terms of it being a film of its own; It was very compartmentalised, and you can very easily break it up into (accelerated) episodes of a tv series I think - the one where they have to sneak around on Qo'nos to find someone; why has the reactor stopped working?; oh no we're falling onto this planet what are we to do?! - each of these episodes felt like the could probably fill a star trek episode, or at least one of the ones with loads of filler shots. For me this segmented quality wasn't a problem, partly because it was generally clear how each scenario related to the wider narrative, and I think it works far better than the (largely) laser focused first film, because what the first film focused on was just so uninteresting, and the biggest detour felt grafted on uncomfortably.
Unfortunately very few of these situations are used for anything other than narrative force and (admittedly well staged) action sequences. Not a bad thing in itself, but it does sort of show you where the tone of the film is really divergent from the TV Series (although as I am mostly a fan of TNG perhaps I am not the best person to say this), which might have spent a bit more time examining the philosophical questions around some of the less time-critical situations. I think the best example might be the whole Noel Clarke Daughter/coerced bombing thing, a situation from which a lot of thematic threads could have been drawn. Ultimately the entire sequence came off as a rather empty excercise in style. Like I say, it's not a fatal problem, but it means for all the enjoyment that can be extracted, it is not a film destined to linger in the mind.
This is probably the root of my difficulty in just saying I liked the film, really. There's a shallowness to it that runs right the way through it, and is perhaps most evident in the way the characters interact in such a static fashion, particularly Bones and Spock. On one level, it seems like a great idea to explore as many relationships between the different crew members as possible, but for these two it is reduced to Bones making jokes about Spock's coldness. I just felt, how interesting might it be if there felt like there was some real animosity there, that might impact the plot in some way? This lack of exploration of characters and motives is actually a real problem the more I think about it. The nadir is probably when Spock references Khan's desire to purify the universe of anything which is genetically inferior, a motive which isn't deemed important enough to show us before then, nor to draw much of our attention to it as Spock mentions it (if, as I assume is the case, Spock Prime is supposed to have told him this off-screen).
I think that's the end of any organised thought I can give you, but I have a couple of other scattered thoughts to offer:
Firstly, I think I might be going against the grain in saying I didn't enjoy Cumberbatch all that much, overall. Some great moments (his decisiveness in deciding whether or not to surrender to Kirk on Qo'nos is a well tuned moment, and he puts a lot into a very quick gesture). It started relatively well, but he just cranked it up so much over the course of the film, and I thought it was really overboard. I am usually a fan of scenery chewing, but this was something else entirely. I felt like they wanted me to be seduced by him, and I just wasn't getting the requisite charisma in his performance - although was mesmerised by the stuntman doing his action sequences. The fluidity of the fight between him and the Klingons really is seductive. This is another slight miscue as well, I thought. More could (should?) be made of how obviously impressed Kirk is by Khan's efficiency when that efficiency tips over into brutality.
I don't like to list minor plot holes and factual errors, but there were some fairly egregious ones. Cold Fusion does not make stuff cold, and even if it did I don't think that would prevent a volcano from erupting. The real headscratcher for me though, was why, after witnessing (and making awestruck note of) his dispatch of a large force of Klingons, would you believe that 4 security officers would do anything against him? Nice one Kirk.
Both in terms of this film's relationship to established Trek continuity, and to some extent it's own continuity. Robocop makes a reference to seemingly recent first contact with Klingons, but Uhura can speak Klingon basically fluently? Did the Vulcans never run into any Klingons, and if they did how come there isn't some sort of diplomatic network set up? OK, so maybe I am asking for a bit much here, but I do feel a better overview of what that situation is, politically, would have been good. What about the robot dude on the bridge, who is seemingly dirctly linked to the Ship's systems? In TNG, Data was advanced to the point that no one had been able to replicate him (and even he couldn't directly hook himself into the ship's computer without causing shit to go wrong), so is he just a piece of equipment (in which case, why bother?) or is robotics just way more advanced in this timeline for some reason. I guess I'm not asking for these things to be explained, I just wish they were thought through a little more? yes, I realise I sound like a massive nerd.
Lens Flare - it literally covers the face of a character who is speaking at one point. that is too far, Abrams.
Finally, I just really hate all the "easter egg" type stuff. By far the nadir was when Kirk says "if they find out we're starfleet then there'll be a star war." Not only is it a lame joke, it barely makes any sense as a thing to say (unless Star Wars came out in '76 in the star trek universe as well?). A "star war" is not really a thing outside of star wars, is it?
I dunno. Like I say, I enjoyed it a lot more than the first one, although perhaps it won't bear repeat viewing. It was certainly better than some of the other blockbuster action flicks I've seen recently.
Log in to comment