It's dumb down action movie using the Star Trek name and characters to create a new audience. I was seriously disappointed after loving what he did with the giant monster-destroys-city trope in Cloverfield. Cloverfield is one clever movie while the new Star Trek is one of the dumbest movies of the last decade. LOL @ "Red Matter" - it's as if they couldn't be bothered with changing it's placeholder name in the script for something even vaguely pseudo scientific.
"LOL @ "Red Matter" - it's as if they couldn't be bothered with changing it's placeholder name in the script for something even vaguely pseudo scientific. "
Considering that "Dark Matter" is a legitimate scientific term, I don't think "Red Matter" is really that crazy sounding. Besides, Star Trek has always played fast and loose with science. Despite what many people think, Star Trek has never been hard sci-fi. It's just a vehicle for metaphors. If you want to nit-pick it, that's fine, but at least present examples of sci-fi movies that you prefer in order to show some contrast.
I can appreciate 2001: A Space Odyssey, but sometimes I want phasers blowing things up.
" How much actual science is the series known to incorporate? But yeah, I thought it was a silly and fun movie. "
I think Star Trek finds things people are TRYING to do and then makes them actually happen. Like the warp drives that warp space? People are actually looking into that.
I knew I had to see the movie after The Onion vid. By the way, I liked the new Star Trek movie. I hope that more films come from the cast. I also liked the older movies.
it is kind of how i feel about the movie. i never saw the movie but i kind of knew it was going to be a popular movie. star trek is a nerdy movie. i only like the original star trek.
Um actually StarTrek isn't doing anything that cant be done and the science is fine its simply made up. however since we don't have a clue what the science involved in travelling faster than light would involve or what shape physics and scientific theory might take in the centuries to come its as valid as most other SciFi settings.
The main point is that the movie is Kickass especially on Bluray on a nice big screen with true HD dolby... nice
I thought it was just another fun, silly action movie. I'm not saying it was a bad movie at all. But it asks you to suspend disbelief a bit too much. I had laugh out loud moments with the time paradoxes they made, and how they asked you to believe how black holes behave.
"LOL @ "Red Matter" - it's as if they couldn't be bothered with changing it's placeholder name in the script for something even vaguely pseudo scientific. "
Considering that "Dark Matter" is a legitimate scientific term, I don't think "Red Matter" is really that crazy sounding. Besides, Star Trek has always played fast and loose with science. Despite what many people think, Star Trek has never been hard sci-fi. It's just a vehicle for metaphors. If you want to nit-pick it, that's fine, but at least present examples of sci-fi movies that you prefer in order to show some contrast. I can appreciate 2001: A Space Odyssey, but sometimes I want phasers blowing things up. "
Dark Matter is a scientific term for unknown materials that theoretically exist in the proving Einstien's Theorry of Relativity with regards the research into a Unifying Theory. It's not held in a lab somewhere. The reason for my LOL is that Abrams should've just called it MacGuffin Matter if he wasn't going to explain what it was or how it did what it did. Star Trek has always gone to some length to make the faux science believable but with this dumbed down actionfest their was almost no tangibility at all. It may as well have been a fantasy or generic hero movie instead. What has generally separated Star Trek from generic science fiction was that it was about a research team and thus it always has had some basis in science even if it's broken, wrong or just plain made up.
While I do agree that its been dumbed down slightly I dont think that makes it bad, as a pure action movie I thought it worked really well and I felt it had the right heart in terms of the original characters. While the acting isnt just TOS with some new actors it does very much feel like those character portrayed by diffrent, and modern, actors in a way that is evocative of the original characters without being a copy. I couldent care less that they never explain what Red Matter is, they never really do in the show and later on just went into technobabble (which I personally love), since its used more as a vehicle to help push the film along and give the story a bit of a focal point.
Personally I thought it was a fantastic film on its own merits and is a worthy addition to the Star Trek franchise which needed a reboot in terms of mass appeal though I personally loved almost everything Star Trek has ever done.
" @djstyles92: ... I thought it was just another fun, silly action movie. I'm not saying it was a bad movie at all. But it asks you to suspend disbelief a bit too much. I had laugh out loud moments with the time paradoxes they made, and how they asked you to believe how black holes behave. "
yea i guess, when i go to movies, I turn my brain off and enjoy it. Sry if I came of a little dickish
Come on, the whole thing is broken and illogical even if you ignore things like the entirely lollable Red Matter.
One Drilling Rig is somehow supposed to be able wipe out a planet, Vulcan, that is inhabited by some of the smartest and most technologically advanced beings in the galaxy who forged out into the stars long before Earth did.
The same Drilling Rig somehow is also able to threaten Earth with destruction. The same Earth that can create warp drive capable ships which can use teleportation technology but doesn't have any early warning or satellite based defense systems of ANY kind.
When the best of the best (of the best SIR!) are selected to crew the Enterprise, some douchebag decides to scream like a even bigger douchebag (EXTREME DUDE!) all the way down to said Drilling Rig and pulls his 'chute too late because he was so enthralled with the jump that he forgets his training, mission, orders and own survival.
DUMBED. DOWN. BULLSHIT. it's forgivable in a Die Hard movie, it's inexcusable in a Star Trek movie.
Also, as do most people in pop culture, they believe that black holes suck. Like, vacuum sucking.
I was wondering about that as well - the drilling rig. Virtually nothing was done to try stop it. On Earth, everybody just ran going "awwww, we're fucked" screaming their heads off.
And one last note. The reason why the time paradoxes are so abrasive is because how they try to use real life science to back it up.
eh...I didn't mind the time paradox thing. It was clear that Abrams wanted to break away from previous Trek mythologies and so it made sense that he at least gave a reason for including Nimoy as Spock and having a totally different history for Kirk. I actually liked the new Star Trek as an action movie. It was well choreographed and shot and the CG was nice. As a Star Trek movie it just didn't have anything going for it from my perspective. The control room looked like a spoof of a 60s movie set.
Have any of you seen the original star trek movies???? Let me refresh your memory...
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek: The Search For Spock
Start Trek: The Voyage Home
Star Trek: The final Frontier
Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country
Star Trek: Generations
Star Trek: First Contact
Star Trek: Insurrection
Star Trek: Nemesis
What the hell were you expecting? Half the movies are about fucking TIME TRAVEL!!!!!
For what it is, It was a good movie, But if you had expectations of some incredibly well written movie then you dont know alot about the history of Star Trek. I'm a closet Trekkie myself, But the show has always been over the top, To expect anything else... ...well I'll just call you "one of them"
@Coombs: You misunderstand me, dearest Coombs. Star Trek was certainly a movie worth watching, to just veg out and enjoy a dumb action movie for a while. Not everything has to be high brow at all. My problem was that it was too much. It became so ridiculous that I got out of "the zone" required for a dumb action movie, and made audible noises of laughter. Without thinking about it.
@HaltIamReptar: Then I understood you perfectly, All Star Trek movies have been totaly over the top, Like I said before 1/2 of them are about Time Travel, Red Matter makes WAY more sense than that.
Seriously sit down and (try to) watch The Voyage Home
" Star Trek was certainly a movie worth watching, to just veg out and enjoy a dumb action movie for a while. Not everything has to be high brow at all. My problem was that it was too much. It became so ridiculous that I got out of "the zone require"d for a dumb action movie, and made audible noises of laughter. Without thinking about it. "
THIS. I found myself groaning and laughing at times when it quite was clear that there was meant to be air of seriousness. Abrams ham handedly handled (say that 5 times in a row quickly) the license in so many ways that it really detracted from my ability to enjoy the movie.
@Coombs : I'm a closet Trekkie too and I know well enough just how OTT the movies and shows can be. I mean, the first movie has the ship flying into V-Ger's VAGINA of all things! That said, there's a world of difference between deliberate crazy and Abrams' failings to make sense of his own plot.
" LOL @ "Red Matter" - it's as if they couldn't be bothered with changing it's placeholder name in the script for something even vaguely pseudo scientific. "
Does it though? At least Cameron was clear that ore was just a MacGuffin and that human greed and obstinacy was the real cause of the fight for Pandora.
Star Trek has always been a little silly. I'm not even talking about the science; I don't care how much a particular work of sci fi delves into the science. I can appreciate pseudo science, but I care more about the story and characters, and in Star Trek, the story and characters were always over the top. Also, Shatner is a terrible actor.
Shatner's input is incredibly low when you consider that the first series ran for two seasons.
The modern Star Treks have been a lot more restrained (with the exception of Enterprise with it's Time Wars malarkey) and some were very thoughtful triptychs exploring a lot of different subject matter. Of course, my issues with the Abrams movie have a lot more to do with his inability to properly tell the story he is responsible for, regardless of how over the top it is. Dumbed down =/ completely broken logic.
The original TV show was a silly Sci-Fi show, so I fail to see your point. The audio commentary points out numerous times that they wanted their wives to enjoy this flic as well.
A lot of episodes of the Next Generation and Deep Space Nine were much more thought provoking, clever and just much better than the new Trek movie. But I'm not surprised they dumbed it down so much to appeal to a wider audiance, and I still thought it was a pretty good movie. Could do with less mindless action in the sequel and more of a focus on the characters though.
@HaltIamReptar: Let me get this straight. You watched the movie to learn something? Maybe you went to watch previous star trek movies to learn something.
Did you learn that whales can speak to alien spaceship's and that flying around the sun or whatever can slingshot you back in time. Maybe you learned that if young spock lived out his previous early years out on that planet that the genesis project happened on. That he would grow super fast and need to do the Vulcan sex ritual with some random Vulcan because not having sex would kill him. Now as unlikely as that sound's, maybe you learned that there's higher intelligence called the Q collective (or something like that.) that can click his finger's and make anything happen. Yes, CLICK HIS FINGER'S and make ANYTHING HAPPEN.
Does this sound like realistic science to you? Does Red Matter not sound like countless "important thing's" in movies. Kryptonite for superman, Diamond's help make a lazer more powerful in the James Bond movie series, Batman is scared of BAT's(yes bat's. Those thing's that you could poke with 1 finger and kill.) The Ring contains a video that contain's a crazy phychopathic nutcase girl in it.(Yes the video case contains a persons hatred filled soul in it.) lol.
If you want accurate media. Then no offense, but you should probably start reading history book's instead. (And even they aren't as accurate scientifically/realistically as historian's/people would like to have you believe.)
" The original TV show was a silly Sci-Fi show, so I fail to see your point. The audio commentary points out numerous times that they wanted their wives to enjoy this flic as well. "
Well would I think that is both insulting to their wives and to themselves in the same breath. Whatever the original show was, however silly it may have seemed, that doesn't excuse the issues of poor direction, ugly set dressing, the needless sidekick for Scott and gaping plot holes which Abrams's reboot has in spades. It's a pretty good action flick, ranging between B and A grade but it's definitely not the calibre of movie to match the insane amount of money it cost to produce it. The whole point of a reboot is to bring fresh ideas to an older, worn out concept so that you can bring new fans to the theatres, which is what Abrams achieved no doubt, still the movie fails to actually make much sense - even within the confines of its own illogical plot. If the new fanbase and their wives are happy with that, good for them. For me, it was a hammy and groan inducing experience, punctuated by the occasional clever or flashy moment. It definitely is better than some of the worst Star Trek episodes (centered on Wesley Crusher for the most part) and movies (The Voyage Home I'm looking at you), but that really isn't saying very much.
Hell even the Trouble with Tribbles episode was more logical than this movie and that starred COTTON WOOL PUPPETS.
Its not really science fiction though, is it. I mean, look back at the old series. Its a glorified space opera; considering the source material I thought the new one was pretty great. I don't know about "dumb", it still had a pretty decent human element to it, but it was very entertaining, if a little light on subject matter.
No, Stars Wars is a space opera. There is no one villain, nor hero in Star Trek, nor any great tragedy to be overcome (aside from Shitner's hammy...pause...for..DRAMATIC EFFECT...every....damn...second!). Roddenberry always wanted it be a thoughtful illustration on how man might face different alien cultures. A comment on xenophobia and how one day we might overcome it if you will. I personally don't care that it was light on subject matter, I just am very disappointed with how utterly broken the logic was. Dumbing down doesn't have to mean stupid.
Speaking of Star Wars, the audio commentary is revealing in that regard, too. They actually went for a blend of Star Wars and Star Trek. In any case. I never said that this is a great movie, but not bad, either. I really enjoyed Kirk and McCoy, who are bantering and behaving just like the originals, especially McCoy. The plot itself is largely forgettable and the action merely okay. But I admit that the idea of a "drill in Space" is incredibly dumb, like the elevator in that one Voyager episode.
" How much actual science is the series known to incorporate? But yeah, I thought it was a silly and fun movie. "
I think Star Trek finds things people are TRYING to do and then makes them actually happen. Like the warp drives that warp space? People are actually looking into that. "
It's known as the Alcubierre drive. Unfortunately, it requires more energy than exists in the entire universe to operate, and requires the existence of negative energy, and the ability to have the negative energy stop existing and start existing at will. And in order to make the trip, you have to have two fixed machines at either end, so the first trip to somewhere must be slower than light to set it up. And it requires the existence of a Naked Singularity, which is a black hole without an event horizon.
Please try to understand that Trek is in NO way scientific.
I'm studying Physics, Chemistry and Maths and even I managed to ignore the lack of scientific consistency because the music, character development and casting was excellent. I wish JJ Abrams made the last 3 star wars movies.
Besides some plot holes, and obvious missed opportunities (why not just shoot the drill cable over Vulcan? I know the fleet is out in BFE, but doesn't star fleet have attack fighters and defense ships?), I felt it was an entertaining movie. At least it was well crafted as scifi movies go.
" Come on, the whole thing is broken and illogical even if you ignore things like the entirely lollable Red Matter.
One Drilling Rig is somehow supposed to be able wipe out a planet, , that is inhabited by some of the smartest and most technologically advanced beings in the galaxy who forged out into the stars long before Earth did.
The same Drilling Rig somehow is also able to threaten Earth with destruction. The same Earth that can create warp drive capable ships which can use teleportation technology but doesn't have any early warning or satellite based defense systems of ANY kind.
When the best of the best (of the best SIR!) are selected to crew the Enterprise, some douchebag decides to scream like a even bigger douchebag (EXTREME DUDE!) all the way down to said Drilling Rig and pulls his 'chute too late because he was so enthralled with the jump that he forgets his training, mission, orders and own survival.
DUMBED. DOWN. BULLSHIT. it's forgivable in a Die Hard movie, it's inexcusable in a Star Trek movie. "
LOL. At another forum I frequent theres an emoticon called goonsay that would be absolutely perfect for this horrible post. Star Trek was great fun that I enjoyed, I also enjoy the old Star Trek but it has just as much "dumbed down" stuff as the new one. My advice would be to try and relax and leave the physics book outside of the cinema and enjoy yourselves.
Yknow, as someone who's seen the old movies as well as the knew one, I think alot of trekkie fans are running hardcore on nostalgia here. This movie makes no less sense than any of the old ones did, and the newer, faster pace is talked about right on the DVD release. The writing/directing team said they wanted to make the pace more like "...[e]pisode 5 and 6 of the Star Wars movies." I can see why that would bother trekkies, but it didn't really bother me.
I wasn't terribly impressed with the latest Star Trek movie, but the effects were very nice. Personally, I preferred Star Trek: First Contact and Star Trek: The Voyage Home a lot more. Ha-ha, and those were both time-travel movies, too. I never try and figure out time-travel in movies because it's all "making it up as we go along" in my book. However, if you are going to have any grievances about Star Trek, I think I'd have a bigger problem with all aliens looking pretty much like humans. I know that in some TNG episode they attempted to explain this by saying a mysterious race of super-aliens fertilized the galaxy with DNA so that all these worlds would develop similar peoples, but I've never been able to buy that explanation. I think that's why I prefer Farscape or Babylon 5 to Star Trek. Yeah, there are too many human-like aliens on those shows, too but on the same order there are several non-human-like aliens running around, as well.
My favorite Star Trek moment happened on the 1st episode of The Next Generation. For a brief moment, there was a guy in one of those short-skirt uniforms from the 1960's show. Fashionable in 1966, it was considered sexist in 1987 I guess so to sidestep the whole issue they implied that men would wear the uniforms, too. You never see that happen again throughout the series, though. I remember in the Deep Space Nine episode, "Trials and Tribble-ations" the had to come up with some explanation of why all the Klingons had normal foreheads back then. I think Worf said they don't talk about it implying it was too shameful a time in his people's history.
LOL. At another forum I frequent theres an emoticon called goonsay that would be absolutely perfect for this horrible post. Star Trek was great fun that I enjoyed, I also enjoy the old Star Trek but it has just as much "dumbed down" stuff as the new one. My advice would be to try and relax and leave the physics book outside of the cinema and enjoy yourselves. "
You're ignoring what I have validly explained as broken logic in the movie's own universe and calling my post horrible by trying to quantify it as some nerd rage written by a science obsessed stickler for detail. That's just patently not true. My examples are about the illogical nature of the movie and how they kill the immersion because they just don't make sense at all. A movie needs to make sense within its own scope of reality, It doesn't need to be sensible to make sense. I'll give you an example of what I mean. TOXIC AVENGER by Troma Films. In that movie a college nerd is exposed to Toxic Sludge and is transformed into a crazy looking, mumbling, tutu wearing Superhero who defends the weak. The reason why he's wearing that tutu is because some bullies forced him to wear it before they threw him into a dumpster, which is how he came in contact with the Toxic Ooze. Now, there's nothing even remotely scientific about someone immediately mutating from zero to hero by coming in contact with Radioactive waste, but it makes sense in the scope of that story because it's explained and therefore logical. As is the fact that the Toxic Avenger gets around in a tutu, because he was forced to wear it by the bullies before he was transformed. See what I mean? If a B grade schlock movie, made on a shoestring budget with a ridiculous story can make sense of its own story logically, why the hell shouldn't a Multimillion Dollar Star Trek Action Epic? It fucking well should. When it doesn't, as a movie goer who paid a ticket price, I feel ripped off for having some half assed story broken because the produceers and director couldn't be bothered making it logical because they incorrectly assumed that action lovers won't care. I love action movies. Hell one of my all times is utterly crazy (some might say horrible) Last Action Hero. That movie was retarded and full of bad acting, not least of which was Arnie trying desperately to ironically play himself, but at least it's 'magic ticket is a gateway between movie reality and our reality" trope MADE FUCKING LOGICAL SENSE.
A best of the best security officer who plummets to his death because he's too busy being XTREME to open his parachute does not. An Earth that fly into space, as an extension of our own reality, but has no means of land, air or orbital defense against a ....flying drilling rig does not. A planet inhabited by the smartest beings in the cavalcade of aliens we're introduced to that also has no means of land, air or orbital defense against the same stupid flying drilling rig does not make any goddam sense! These are three important aspects of the Star Trek movie which Abrams uses to create emotional tension and if those moments are so logically broken that they incite laughter, groaning frustration or both then he and his creative team haven't done their fucking jobs. Get it? This is basic movie script writing 1-fucking-0-1. Considering he's the same guy who quite successfully reinvented the spy genre with Alias (great show) and the Godzilla genre with Cloverfield, you'd think he take good care of Star Trek. Well he didn't. He literally fucked it up.
@SeriouslyNow: You have literally just put more thought into the plot of The Toxic Avenger than anyone who had anything to do with its production.
The red shirt dying was a nod to the old series and it was good fun and a nice touch, who cares if he didn't follow his training (if you look at any Star Trek series or film people do crazy shit that makes no sense constantly, especially the captains). The drill is dumb as hell but if you really want to get an explanation its from the future. The Vulcans aren't a race that have ever been shown as being warlike and Earth is pretty much the same. The drill is also attached to a ship that is 150 years more advanced than anything in else in the film and owned by the Romulans who have always been shown to be technologically advanced and very aggressive.
Also you cite Cloverfield as being good - memory cards don't have static like vhs tapes do. Film is obviously terrible (it is but for a shitload of other reasons).
I thought the new Trek movie did would it was supposed to do. They could have cut a couple parts (the snow monster chase) and added a little more interaction with the villain (could have explored the time traveling conundrum a bit further). Other than that my main problem was with the guy that played Spock, I think of that character as wise and sometimes stubborn, he played it as an anal know it all.
the stuff in the original series was not true to science either. people really need to realize... its a movie/tv show... entertainment... so what if its not scientifically accurate... it was a good entertaining *movie*.
" @SeriouslyNow: You have literally just put more thought into the plot of The Toxic Avenger than anyone who had anything to do with its production."
I don't think that's fair to say. The guys who wrote the script certainly made an effort for it to make sense.
The red shirt dying was a nod to the old series and it was good fun and a nice touch, who cares if he didn't follow his training (if you look at any Star Trek series or film people do crazy shit that makes no sense constantly, especially the captains). It was retarded. I got the Red Shirt reference but that shit was just XTREME for no reason at all.
The drill is dumb as hell but if you really want to get an explanation its from the future. The Vulcans aren't a race that have ever been shown as being warlike and Earth is pretty much the same. The drill is also attached to a ship that is 150 years more advanced than anything in else in the film and owned by the Romulans who have always been shown to be technologically advanced and very aggressive.
THEY HAVE NO DEFENCE FROM A FLOATING SKY DRILL! Broken Logic. Filling in your own explanation is doing work that the creative team should've done themselves. Ditto on the Vulcan crap, none of which is setup in the story of THIS movie. You'll notice that I have not drawn from any preconceived notions or mythology. I take this movie as I see it, not based on any preemptive criticisms. This movie's main villainous premise is entirely broken. That is a huge failing on behalf of the creative team and it's something that could've easily been explained by a few choice MacGuffins, such as "He's blocked all our defences with FROMTHEFUTUREDEFENCEKILLING technology!" or some such. It was lazy that these were not put in place and it's mood breaking.
Also you cite Cloverfield as being good - memory cards don't have static like vhs tapes do. Film is obviously terrible (it is but for a shitload of other reasons). "
Whether you like Cloverfield or not is personal taste but was reasonably well received by critics and few took issue with the movie's logic but some disliked it's faux-handheld camera style of direction. That memory cards don't have static is not that relevant as that's a technical perspective issue. Static is a tool by which creative directors create cuts and it identifies the handheldness of the video to those who identify static with the handicams and home vhs machines. Attacking the validity of my claims based on your personal taste is weak and pretty close to an ad hom defence strategy.
I liked this rendition of Star Trek for its action, some of its acting, some of its characterisation and most of its CG. I saw it more than once. That doesn't mean I can't correctly criticise it's rather obvious and hilarious failings.
Star Trek has always been about the people first, and hard science a distant second. The only reason that people think otherwise is because A) compared to Star Wars, it feels like graduate level physics classes and B) young people who watched Star Trek grew up to be adult nerds who developed technology based on things they saw in the show, creating a strange retroactive relevance to the original series. Next Generation and on tried to have a more serious tone about them, but still uses things like Dilithium Crystals, an element that naturally occurs on just about every planet except Earth and makes for the world's greatest rocket fuel. Everything is allegory and symbol, not true speculative fiction. I personally prefer it that way (hard science fiction is occasionally interesting reading, and always tedious, boring watching) and really enjoyed the new Star Trek for what it was: a fresh coat of paint for a franchise that took itself too seriously for way too long.
Log in to comment