On April 17 2013 03:06 KadaverBB wrote: I hate this film, I hate what Star Trek has become lol. Yes, I know I am in the minority with this opinion
I wouldn't say you are the minority in this opinion amongst those who like star trek. Personally, ST2009 was the second piece of trek I watched. (I was only 11 then and my parents aren't super trekkies) I had watched the city on the edge of forever the night before. Of course I loved it, but 4 years later, it's clear to me that this is garbage and is not real star trek. You will like it alot more if you think of it like that. If you want real ST go watch TNG/DS9/VOY.
Also, the whole alternate timeline thing as a main plot kinda destroys it's legitimacy automatically.....
i guess we can completely forget about the mirror universe episodes of the trek series' then, even though they are some of the best episodes.
On April 17 2013 04:56 th3_great wrote: in the run-up to the new film i feel it is necessary to link this article
I have no idea why. Like most Onion articles, it reflects a distortion of reality, a caricature intended for humorous effect, not real reality.
ST2009 has its good elements, yes. But those are generally rooted in the style of the work. The writing is mostly terrible, some of the characterization is shoddy (Kirk never got the comeuppance his smug arrogance richly deserved, which would have lead to some form of growth), and the plot itself is demonstrably stupid, disintegrating into confetti the moment you think about it at all.
Yes, it's fun and watchable. But it's also empty, a fun, watchable series of mostly vapid cardboard cutouts running from scene to scene because the idiotic plot tells them to. ST2009's success is merely the success of form over substance.
Yes, ST2009 was a decently executed action flick. But I want my Star Trek movies to have some substance to them. Why is that wrong? Isn't having standards and not taking whatever crap you're handed a good thing?
On April 17 2013 02:59 Sanctimonius wrote: Hah. Can't wait for it to come out, but did anyone else think of even bigger Jaws when you see Cumberbatch's ship? 'He needs a ship. Let's give him the Enterprise, but even bigger. Boom.'
That's what's really sad about Abrams and this film. In Wrath of Khan, they were able to make the Reliant, a much smaller ship, look absolutely menacing next to the Enterprise. Reliant was this sleek, compact, brawler, while the Enterprise was a more elegant and refined lady. It was the visual equivalent of Cameron from The Sarah Conner Chronicles vs. Shu Lien from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: small and badass vs tall and elegant.
Of course, doing that would require actual directing talent, involving the subtle use of camera angles and shots. But screw subtlety; we have to make sure that even a mentally deficient monkey can know that he's the badguy. So Abrams, the hack that he is, takes the easy way out: make the badguy's ship huge and black. He may as well put a big neon sign on the ship saying, "THIS IS THE BAD SHIP!"
Rather than using subtlety and nuance, he resorts to caricature. But hey, at least he's consistent: his writing and directing in general are the same way. When offered the choice between subtlety and a sledgehammer, he will always pick the sledgehammer.
This is what film Sci-Fi has been reduced to: unsubtle crap like this hackwork.
On April 17 2013 03:38 Oleo wrote: This could be a good movie, but its not star trek. Release it in a different universe or whatever thats not star trek and it would be quite enjoyable, with star trek attached, its just a bad joke and a big **** you to all previous star trek.
Why react in this way? If as you say it would be enjoyable if it was made outside of the Star Trek universe, then why not just accept it for what it is? Someone may come along in a few years and remake a more cerebral version similar to the old Star Trek. For right now, what we're getting is pretty entertaining and pretty fun to look at, so IMO drop all the hate of change and embrace it.
I'm curious: why do you think someone would come out with "a more cerebral version"? Here's how capitalism works: if people pay money for it, companies will continue doing it until people stop paying money.
So if this film is successful like the last one, why should we expect the next film to be any different? The only way we can have decent Trek again is if there's a personality falling out between the writers/directors and the owners of Trek, or if the film fails at the box office. And the latter would require a big hiatus between this film and the next.
Trek is now mainstream again. The 60s TOS got that way thanks to long-term popularity and reruns. The 90s TNG got that way thanks to being good television. The 2010 film series got that way by selling its soul.
On April 17 2013 04:56 th3_great wrote: in the run-up to the new film i feel it is necessary to link this article
I have no idea why. Like most Onion articles, it reflects a distortion of reality, a caricature intended for humorous effect, not real reality.
ST2009 has its good elements, yes. But those are generally rooted in the style of the work. The writing is mostly terrible, some of the characterization is shoddy (Kirk never got the comeuppance his smug arrogance richly deserved, which would have lead to some form of growth), and the plot itself is demonstrably stupid, disintegrating into confetti the moment you think about it at all.
Yes, it's fun and watchable. But it's also empty, a fun, watchable series of mostly vapid cardboard cutouts running from scene to scene because the idiotic plot tells them to. ST2009's success is merely the success of form over substance.
Yes, ST2009 was a decently executed action flick. But I want my Star Trek movies to have some substance to them. Why is that wrong? Isn't having standards and not taking whatever crap you're handed a good thing?
On April 17 2013 02:59 Sanctimonius wrote: Hah. Can't wait for it to come out, but did anyone else think of even bigger Jaws when you see Cumberbatch's ship? 'He needs a ship. Let's give him the Enterprise, but even bigger. Boom.'
That's what's really sad about Abrams and this film. In Wrath of Khan, they were able to make the Reliant, a much smaller ship, look absolutely menacing next to the Enterprise. Reliant was this sleek, compact, brawler, while the Enterprise was a more elegant and refined lady. It was the visual equivalent of Cameron from The Sarah Conner Chronicles vs. Shu Lien from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: small and badass vs tall and elegant.
Of course, doing that would require actual directing talent, involving the subtle use of camera angles and shots. But screw subtlety; we have to make sure that even a mentally deficient monkey can know that he's the badguy. So Abrams, the hack that he is, takes the easy way out: make the badguy's ship huge and black. He may as well put a big neon sign on the ship saying, "THIS IS THE BAD SHIP!"
Rather than using subtlety and nuance, he resorts to caricature. But hey, at least he's consistent: his writing and directing in general are the same way. When offered the choice between subtlety and a sledgehammer, he will always pick the sledgehammer.
This is what film Sci-Fi has been reduced to: unsubtle crap like this hackwork.
On April 17 2013 03:38 Oleo wrote: This could be a good movie, but its not star trek. Release it in a different universe or whatever thats not star trek and it would be quite enjoyable, with star trek attached, its just a bad joke and a big **** you to all previous star trek.
Why react in this way? If as you say it would be enjoyable if it was made outside of the Star Trek universe, then why not just accept it for what it is? Someone may come along in a few years and remake a more cerebral version similar to the old Star Trek. For right now, what we're getting is pretty entertaining and pretty fun to look at, so IMO drop all the hate of change and embrace it.
I'm curious: why do you think someone would come out with "a more cerebral version"? Here's how capitalism works: if people pay money for it, companies will continue doing it until people stop paying money.
So if this film is successful like the last one, why should we expect the next film to be any different? The only way we can have decent Trek again is if there's a personality falling out between the writers/directors and the owners of Trek, or if the film fails at the box office. And the latter would require a big hiatus between this film and the next.
Trek is now mainstream again. The 60s TOS got that way thanks to long-term popularity and reruns. The 90s TNG got that way thanks to being good television. The 2010 film series got that way by selling its soul.
On April 17 2013 03:06 KadaverBB wrote: I hate this film, I hate what Star Trek has become lol. Yes, I know I am in the minority with this opinion
I wouldn't say you are the minority in this opinion amongst those who like star trek. Personally, ST2009 was the second piece of trek I watched. (I was only 11 then and my parents aren't super trekkies) I had watched the city on the edge of forever the night before. Of course I loved it, but 4 years later, it's clear to me that this is garbage and is not real star trek. You will like it alot more if you think of it like that. If you want real ST go watch TNG/DS9/VOY.
Also, the whole alternate timeline thing as a main plot kinda destroys it's legitimacy automatically.....
i guess we can completely forget about the mirror universe episodes of the trek series' then, even though they are some of the best episodes.
Yes but unfortunately the ST2009 movie reminded me more of a 2 hr The Next Generation episode with more action and better pacing and dialogue. Better SFX too but it's not fair to TNG to make that comparison.
I'm not saying that made the movie bad for me or even detracted from it by too much, and I think with Into Darkness we're going to see Abrams trying to make more like the original series. Specifically I think he's going to try to recapture the spirit of Wrath of Khan, in some ways, and definitely moving away from that TNG feel.
I have no idea why. Like most Onion articles, it reflects a distortion of reality, a caricature intended for humorous effect, not real reality.
ST2009 has its good elements, yes. But those are generally rooted in the style of the work. The writing is mostly terrible, some of the characterization is shoddy (Kirk never got the comeuppance his smug arrogance richly deserved, which would have lead to some form of growth), and the plot itself is demonstrably stupid, disintegrating into confetti the moment you think about it at all.
Yes, it's fun and watchable. But it's also empty, a fun, watchable series of mostly vapid cardboard cutouts running from scene to scene because the idiotic plot tells them to. ST2009's success is merely the success of form over substance.
Yes, ST2009 was a decently executed action flick. But I want my Star Trek movies to have some substance to them. Why is that wrong? Isn't having standards and not taking whatever crap you're handed a good thing?
I have to disagree almost entirely. The writing isn't bad, the plot itself did take a back seat to the action but it wasn't terrible and it closed off the loose ends it needed to to move this new series to fully realize itself without being tied down too much by past lore.
Kirk never got his comeuppance? He had to grow up, fast, in order to save the crew of the Enterprise, Captain Pike, and ultimately the Federation itself. And avenge his father. And prove himself that he really could do it. Remember, this Kirk is a young man just out of the academy. In the original series, he had already had several years experience serving on ships, moving up the ranks, going back to the academy for more training, and also already having been captain of a Starfleet vessel before when he took command of the Enterprise.
Kirk's character development was definitely not shoddy. I don't think the other character developments were either. Some were a little brief, like Uhura's, but I think that will be rectified in the next movie. The first movie is about Kirk. The next one I think will be about the USS Enterprise and her crew, led by James Kirk.
That's what's really sad about Abrams and this film. In Wrath of Khan, they were able to make the Reliant, a much smaller ship, look absolutely menacing next to the Enterprise. Reliant was this sleek, compact, brawler, while the Enterprise was a more elegant and refined lady. It was the visual equivalent of Cameron from The Sarah Conner Chronicles vs. Shu Lien from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: small and badass vs tall and elegant.
Of course, doing that would require actual directing talent, involving the subtle use of camera angles and shots. But screw subtlety; we have to make sure that even a mentally deficient monkey can know that he's the badguy. So Abrams, the hack that he is, takes the easy way out: make the badguy's ship huge and black. He may as well put a big neon sign on the ship saying, "THIS IS THE BAD SHIP!"
Rather than using subtlety and nuance, he resorts to caricature. But hey, at least he's consistent: his writing and directing in general are the same way. When offered the choice between subtlety and a sledgehammer, he will always pick the sledgehammer.
This is what film Sci-Fi has been reduced to: unsubtle crap like this hackwork.
The Federation was always presented as being reluctant to build vessels specifically for war in TNG and to an extent in TOS. The intensity of the cold (and hot at times) war with the Klingon Empire was much more blatant in the movies. The Federation must have had more imposing ships built exclusively for war. I would agree that the ship looks too large and also like it is significantly more advanced than the Enterprise, which I don't think makes sense. Hopefully that won't be the case or your criticism in this case, along with other criticisms (namely that facing a vastly technologically superior enemy would just be a rehash of the first movie both for old Star Trek and the new series) would be valid.
I'm curious: why do you think someone would come out with "a more cerebral version"? Here's how capitalism works: if people pay money for it, companies will continue doing it until people stop paying money.
So if this film is successful like the last one, why should we expect the next film to be any different? The only way we can have decent Trek again is if there's a personality falling out between the writers/directors and the owners of Trek, or if the film fails at the box office. And the latter would require a big hiatus between this film and the next.
Trek is now mainstream again. The 60s TOS got that way thanks to long-term popularity and reruns. The 90s TNG got that way thanks to being good television. The 2010 film series got that way by selling its soul.
I want a soul. Why should I not want a soul?
Honestly you sound like a very hysterical fanboy, that's all I can say about that.
I'm curious: why do you think someone would come out with "a more cerebral version"? Here's how capitalism works: if people pay money for it, companies will continue doing it until people stop paying money.
So if this film is successful like the last one, why should we expect the next film to be any different? The only way we can have decent Trek again is if there's a personality falling out between the writers/directors and the owners of Trek, or if the film fails at the box office. And the latter would require a big hiatus between this film and the next.
Trek is now mainstream again. The 60s TOS got that way thanks to long-term popularity and reruns. The 90s TNG got that way thanks to being good television. The 2010 film series got that way by selling its soul.
I want a soul. Why should I not want a soul?
I was talking more about another reboot in like a decade or 2 with a different director, not just the next movie made by JJ Abrams.
I may not be a Trekkie, but I do like movies and I consider myself to be a person who has good taste when it comes to telling the good movies from the bad ones. In my humble opinion as a movie fan, Star Trek (2009) is a well directed, well acted, well written movie with great visuals. It also helps that it takes advantage of characters that people already know and love.
If you ask me, movies like the Michael Bay version of Transformers, Fast and the Furious movies and the Star Wars prequels are the type of films that you're talking about when you say they're "selling their souls". Those films are not well acted or well written. They are far poorer than the new Star Trek film.
I'm curious: why do you think someone would come out with "a more cerebral version"? Here's how capitalism works: if people pay money for it, companies will continue doing it until people stop paying money.
So if this film is successful like the last one, why should we expect the next film to be any different? The only way we can have decent Trek again is if there's a personality falling out between the writers/directors and the owners of Trek, or if the film fails at the box office. And the latter would require a big hiatus between this film and the next.
Trek is now mainstream again. The 60s TOS got that way thanks to long-term popularity and reruns. The 90s TNG got that way thanks to being good television. The 2010 film series got that way by selling its soul.
I want a soul. Why should I not want a soul?
I was talking more about another reboot in like a decade or 2 with a different director, not just the next movie made by JJ Abrams.
I may not be a Trekkie, but I do like movies and I consider myself to be a person who has good taste when it comes to telling the good movies from the bad ones. In my humble opinion as a movie fan, Star Trek (2009) is a well directed, well acted, well written movie with great visuals. It also helps that it takes advantage of characters that people already know and love.
If you ask me, movies like the Michael Bay version of Transformers, Fast and the Furious movies and the Star Wars prequels are the type of films that you're talking about when you say they're "selling their souls". Those films are not well acted or well written. They are far poorer than the new Star Trek film.
I agree with your last point, that those films are far worse than ST2009. Well, not with the Star Wars prequels. Well, not in the way you mean (they're worse as films but they do have a soul).
But ST2009 is just as soulless as Bayformers and FatF. The difference is that ST2009 is competent in its basic execution as a film. I don't consider ST2009 to be well directed; it was overbearing and heavy-handed. But it was functionally directed; it has no flair or style, but it gets the job done. ST2009 certainly lacked most of the audience insulting, gratuitous, pandering bullshit that Bayformers et. al. provide. And the acting was good, the pacing was a bit fast but overall fine, and so forth. Like I said, it has good elements to it.
But there was still no soul. When I talk about a "soul", what I mean is some kind of theme. The reason why the plot elements and characters we're seeing matter, why this story is being told. A reason why a work exists beyond basic entertainment.
Wrath of Khan had a lot of action, but it had a number of strong thematic elements to it. The nature of aging and one's worth is an issue that Kirk wrestles with. Kirk's arrogance is a part of that; his "I know every Goddamn thing in the world" attitude leads to Khan blowing the hell out of his ship because he didn't want to listen to Starfleet regulations. He has to deal with this and find a way to overcome the odds despite his age and how he feels about it. This is a repeated refrain throughout the film, one that resonates.
But there are others; just look at the conflict. There are two "supermen" in this film: one a human with all of humanity's traits amplified, the other an alien of pure, remorseless logic. And what happens at the end? Khan's quest for vengeance, his petty human frailties, lead him and everyone he cares about to their doom. Whereas Spock sacrifices his own life to save his shipmates, his friends. The superior man exhibited the worst of humanity, while the alien exhibited the best.
Because Khan, in his arrogance, could not accept that the needs of his people outweighed his need for revenge.
What is the soul of ST2009? What is it trying to do here? What is the central theme of the work? It doesn't have one. It doesn't care.
A film can still be entertaining without a soul. And the Star Wars prequels show us that a soul isn't enough to be good (the prequels still maintain the overall Star Wars themes), if the outer shell is a vile, twisted, wretched mass of body parts and appendages that are all assembled wrong (the prequels are Frankenstein's Monster: a soul bound to a perversion of the form of man). A soul is important, but it's not necessary for basic enjoyment.
Star Trek does have overall themes. Star Trek uses exploration of the galaxy as a means of exploring the nature of humanity. And Wrath of Khan does that. Indeed, most of the film franchise has at least some element of that. ST2009 does not.
Abrams doesn't care about the themes of Trek; he just wants to make a buck off of it. The difference between him and Bay is that Abrams is a capable hack, able to produce movies that aren't audience insultingly bad. But he has no more affection for Star Trek as a property than Bay did for Transformers. Abrams is just a better filmmaker.
I'm not sure if im allowed to talk about it, but they didnt make me sign an NDA so I'll just say this...
I saw the first 10 minutes of the film at an invite-only imax event last night, and it was fucking awesome. I need more D:!
I had little expectations as to the quality of the film, but what I saw captured the soul of star trek in a really fun, engaging and exciting way. The 3D is also phenomenal!
I'm probably a small minority but I am a long time Star Trek fan, who absolutely loved the 2009 movie and I'm very much looking forward to this. I think the alternate timeline has a lot of potential, and i think the first movie was a great opener. It is quite different from the stuff that came before, but I genuinely think that is a good thing.
There is no need to compare it to the very best of the old stuff. THe old series included many, many absolutely ridiculous episodes, and many of the movies were quite bad. Compared to the last 2 seasons of Enterprise, which was the previous attempt to revitalize the series, this new thing is really good.
Wow I had a whole long post I closed the window on by mistake. Oh well I'll type it again. I feel passionate about this for some reason.
But ST2009 is just as soulless as Bayformers and FatF. The difference is that ST2009 is competent in its basic execution as a film. I don't consider ST2009 to be well directed; it was overbearing and heavy-handed. But it was functionally directed; it has no flair or style, but it gets the job done. ST2009 certainly lacked most of the audience insulting, gratuitous, pandering bullshit that Bayformers et. al. provide. And the acting was good, the pacing was a bit fast but overall fine, and so forth. Like I said, it has good elements to it.
There is no way this is true. ST2009 is about Kirk maturing to accept responsibility and Spock maturing to, upon reflection, realizing that showing emotion is not always a bad thing. Kirk has to accept responsibility for deliberately making Spock angry to get command . The lives of the Enterprise crew, all the people on Earth, and probably many more planets after that. By the end of it he knows how to take on responsibility and rise to it. He's still brash, but not as arrogant. It is tempered with the realization that he has to put everything he has into reaching his goals. Spock is more accepting of his human side and also starting to admire Kirk. Kirk recognizes Spock's value and now likes him as well. McCoy matures as well, stepping right up into his role as the irascible but honorable and dutiful doctor. The door is open in Into Darkness for him to develop into the other best friend, equal to Spock, that Jim Kirk has.
But there was still no soul. When I talk about a "soul", what I mean is some kind of theme. The reason why the plot elements and characters we're seeing matter, why this story is being told. A reason why a work exists beyond basic entertainment.
They show why these characters matter. The two main protagonists, Kirk and Spock, have significant development. And Abrams has set things up to give more time to the development of the other classic characters like Uhura, Scotty, Chekhov, Sulu, and McCoy.
Wrath of Khan had a lot of action, but it had a number of strong thematic elements to it. The nature of aging and one's worth is an issue that Kirk wrestles with. Kirk's arrogance is a part of that; his "I know every Goddamn thing in the world" attitude leads to Khan blowing the hell out of his ship because he didn't want to listen to Starfleet regulations. He has to deal with this and find a way to overcome the odds despite his age and how he feels about it. This is a repeated refrain throughout the film, one that resonates.
Kirk wrestles with just as serious issues in ST2009. Duty, vengeance, being possibly the only thing between death for billions or even trillions. And he's what, 21 in the movie?
But there are others; just look at the conflict. There are two "supermen" in this film: one a human with all of humanity's traits amplified, the other an alien of pure, remorseless logic. And what happens at the end? Khan's quest for vengeance, his petty human frailties, lead him and everyone he cares about to their doom. Whereas Spock sacrifices his own life to save his shipmates, his friends. The superior man exhibited the worst of humanity, while the alien exhibited the best.
Because Khan, in his arrogance, could not accept that the needs of his people outweighed his need for revenge.
It's unfair to compare ST2009 to Wrath of Khan first of all. And one of the biggest themes Khan expounded upon was Kirk's responsibilities and duties to his son and her mother, to his crew, to the Federation, to life itself, considering the possible destructive uses of the Genesis device. ST2009 had similarly deep human themes, even if they were not as deeply probed. But it wasn't like that means they were not probed to a sufficient degree to give us enough investment in the characters to hurt ST2009 very much, and it sets up the next movie for something truly great.
What is the soul of ST2009? What is it trying to do here? What is the central theme of the work? It doesn't have one. It doesn't care.
What? Kirk is arrogant, he thinks he's the best, he tries to bluster his way into command and then manipulates his way into it later. And then, he's responsible. Nero is going to blow up the earth and probably devastate the Federation, at least. He can't trick or bluster anymore. He has to go out and do what needs to be done. He does it. He recognizes the worth of others. That's just using Kirk's character, Spock recognizes Kirk's worth as well.
Star Trek does have overall themes. Star Trek uses exploration of the galaxy as a means of exploring the nature of humanity. And Wrath of Khan does that. Indeed, most of the film franchise has at least some element of that. ST2009 does not.
Okay.
You're just making the same accusations again and again without details.
Abrams doesn't care about the themes of Trek; he just wants to make a buck off of it. The difference between him and Bay is that Abrams is a capable hack, able to produce movies that aren't audience insultingly bad. But he has no more affection for Star Trek as a property than Bay did for Transformers. Abrams is just a better filmmaker.
The greatest theme of Star Trek is the friendship of Kirk and Spock showing that different species (aka different races) can work together and not just be tolerant of each other but develop deep connections with. Did ST2009 not develop this, in the same indirect way as TOS, with Kirk and Spock?
Saying Abrams is a capable hack is another way of saying that the rubes might be fooled, but not you. But all you make is the same accusations without support. The accusations, unquestioned, sound kinda good. But there's no details backing them up. You're just explaining some of the craft of storytelling and asserting ST2009 failed at this.
Could you please provide us with some details?
Here's what I hope happens and I think will.
I hope and think that Into Darkness will have as its protagonists the crew of the Enterprise and the Enterprise herself. That includes Kirk, and Spock, the rest of the main characters of the crew, and the nameless crewmen. They were kind of thrown together and had to become a group under the stress of Nero's rampage. Wrath of Khan in particular made a commitment to showing the crew and the ship itself as important characters we should care about. I hope that will happen again and I think it will. That's the most plausible next step that Abrams set up for with ST2009. Now he might not, but the first sequel is usually better than the first movie. I think there's a great opportunity to make a truly great movie and that Abrams can just maybe pull it off. He set up everything very well to do that.
As I said I accidentally deleted what would have been this post, but I think this version is much better.
On April 17 2013 17:58 DeepElemBlues wrote: Wow I had a whole long post I closed the window on by mistake. Oh well I'll type it again. I feel passionate about this for some reason.
But ST2009 is just as soulless as Bayformers and FatF. The difference is that ST2009 is competent in its basic execution as a film. I don't consider ST2009 to be well directed; it was overbearing and heavy-handed. But it was functionally directed; it has no flair or style, but it gets the job done. ST2009 certainly lacked most of the audience insulting, gratuitous, pandering bullshit that Bayformers et. al. provide. And the acting was good, the pacing was a bit fast but overall fine, and so forth. Like I said, it has good elements to it.
There is no way this is true. ST2009 is about Kirk maturing to accept responsibility and Spock maturing to, upon reflection, realizing that showing emotion is not always a bad thing.
Narrative is a non-linear combination of three elements: plot, character, and theme. Plot is "what happened". Character is "who it happened to." And theme is "why we're seeing these things happen to these people."
Character is not theme. So you can cite whatever character development you like, but that doesn't make it theme. Having characterization does not give your film soul; it gives your film characters.
WoK explores the theme of aging through not just Kirk's character but Spock's as well, as he's the instructor for this crew. It explores aging in how Kirk and Spock interact, but also how Kirk behaves as captain, how he acts towards his crew, and how he deals with his new-found son and old girlfriend. That's not merely an element of character; it's a repeated motif across multiple characters and independent moments of the film, thus forming into a coherent theme.
Having a character develop alone is not theme.
As for the veracity of your claims of character development, I'll spot you the Spock point (though you've got it somewhat wrong. It's about him finding his place in the world), but I strongly contest Kirk. He didn't "accept responsibility" for anything. Indeed, responsibility is never a part of his character. His character is focused squarely on him being a jackass to authority figures; he just keeps getting promoted until there are no higher authority figures to be jackasses to. And because he helps resolve the plot, he appears to be more responsible.
Kirk's arrogance is never addressed. This is his primary character trait throughout the film. It defines most of his actions in the film.
He reprograms the Kobayashi Maru because of his arrogant belief that he knows better than Starfleet about how to train officers. He thinks that if they catch Nero's ship, that he can magic up a way to defeat him despite his ship being superior in every way and despite not having first come up with an actual plan to stop Nero (note: at the time Kirk first proposes this, Scotty isn't available to use his magic transwarp-beaming thing, so there was no actual plan). When his insanely suicidal plan is shot down, he whines and complains about it until Spock has him escorted off the bridge. Oh, and then he decides to start a fight on the bridge, getting him ejected from the ship. And later, he believes that he, alone, should go in with Spock instead of a security detail.
None of this is ever addressed. Kirk never receives any lessons in humility. He never learns his lesson about thinking things through. In fact, the only reason his idea to go after Nero succeeds instead of failing spectacularly is because of Scotty's magical plot device transporter. Without that, Kirk's arrogant presumption would have gotten his entire crew killed. And, since Starfleet would still have no idea what happened, probably gotten more planets blown up too.
Kirk never changes as a character throughout the film. He never grows or improves. At the end of the film, he is the same jackass we saw in a bar hitting on Uhura.
McCoy matures as well, stepping right up into his role as the irascible but honorable and dutiful doctor.
... what? McCoy performed exactly one function in that entire movie. He was the justification for getting Kirk on the Enterprise. After that, he was relegated to a cameo. He didn't "step right up" into anything; he was cast aside, left to occasionally spout McCoy-isms at the audience.
McCoy never "matures" into anything. He never grows or changes. The only difference at the end of the film is his rank, not what he says or what he does.
Wrath of Khan had a lot of action, but it had a number of strong thematic elements to it. The nature of aging and one's worth is an issue that Kirk wrestles with. Kirk's arrogance is a part of that; his "I know every Goddamn thing in the world" attitude leads to Khan blowing the hell out of his ship because he didn't want to listen to Starfleet regulations. He has to deal with this and find a way to overcome the odds despite his age and how he feels about it. This is a repeated refrain throughout the film, one that resonates.
Kirk wrestles with just as serious issues in ST2009. Duty, vengeance, being possibly the only thing between death for billions or even trillions. And he's what, 21 in the movie?
"Wrestling" requires an acknowledgement of some kind of difficult decision. But none of the decisions are difficult for Kirk. He never thinks about any decision; he never takes time to ponder anything. Once Nero blows up Vulcan and flies off, Kirk unhesitatingly wants to go after him. There is no pause here, no recognition of the danger in doing so, no understanding that he's jeopardizing the lives of his crew. He just says to follow them.
Show me a single scene where Kirk "wrestles" with any of that. The closest thing to self-doubt he has is his reply to Uhura's question about whether he's able to command. Other than that one line, there is no "wrestling" with any of those issues. Kirk never admits to wanting vengeance. Duty is not discussed. So I don't know where you're getting this stuff from.
Compare that to WoK. There, the script actually notes the fact that Kirk screwed up in his first encounter with Khan. He tells Saavik that she was right and he was wrong. It has the great scene between Kirk and Carol, where he admits to feeling old, worn out, and so forth.
That is what "wrestling" looks like.
Just look at ST Into Darkness's trailer. Do those look like the actions of someone who has the slightest idea of what the burden of command feels like? Into Darkness looks very much like the film where Kirk will get called out on his arrogance and properly chastised (by getting a lot of people killed).
Why? Because he needs that after ST2009, just as WoK Kirk needed Khan to kick his ass to realize that he can still screw up. If your understanding of his character were correct, he wouldn't need that attitude adjustment. So why do the filmmakers appear to be giving him comeuppance for an arrogance problem that you say he has already solved?
What is the point of Into Darkness if it's not about Kirk learning that he doesn't know every Goddamn thing in the world?
And one of the biggest themes Khan expounded upon was Kirk's responsibilities and duties to his son and her mother, to his crew, to the Federation, to life itself, considering the possible destructive uses of the Genesis device.
No it isn't. Kirk's responsibilities to his son are never mentioned in the film. The "possible destructive uses of the Genesis device" are treated as a MacGuffin, given no more weight than that (ie: the excuse for why the protagonists need to stop the antagonists). And his responsibilities to the crew are only important in relation to the question of his age, whether he can really handle command again.
So I have no idea where you're getting this stuff from. Are you looking at what the film is actually saying or something else?
There is a difference between needing to stop a villain and actually dealing with questions of duty and responsibility. If nobody ever talks about their duty or responsibility, if nobody acknowledges any such thing, if they just go out and do it because it's their job or whatever, then you can't say that "responsibilities and duties" are a thematic element of the work. Yes, the character probably feels a sense of those things, but if the film itself never mentions them, then they're not part of the theme.
What is the soul of ST2009? What is it trying to do here? What is the central theme of the work? It doesn't have one. It doesn't care.
What? Kirk is arrogant, he thinks he's the best, he tries to bluster his way into command and then manipulates his way into it later. And then, he's responsible. Nero is going to blow up the earth and probably devastate the Federation, at least. He can't trick or bluster anymore. He has to go out and do what needs to be done. He does it. He recognizes the worth of others. That's just using Kirk's character, Spock recognizes Kirk's worth as well.
You seem to be of the belief that him sitting down in the captain's chair and saving the day makes him "responsible" and thus constitutes development. It doesn't. There was never any point where he was shown to grow into that role.
Kirk doesn't "trick or bluster" because there's nobody to "trick or bluster" to. That was reserved for authority figures, and once he's captain, there are no authority figures. So there's no need to "trick or bluster" anyone. He can "go out and do what needs to be done" again because there's nobody to stop him.
He only seems to change because nobody argues with him anymore.
Abrams doesn't care about the themes of Trek; he just wants to make a buck off of it. The difference between him and Bay is that Abrams is a capable hack, able to produce movies that aren't audience insultingly bad. But he has no more affection for Star Trek as a property than Bay did for Transformers. Abrams is just a better filmmaker.
The greatest theme of Star Trek is the friendship of Kirk and Spock showing that different species (aka different races) can work together and not just be tolerant of each other but develop deep connections with. Did ST2009 not develop this, in the same indirect way as TOS, with Kirk and Spock?
Um, no. That's not even what TOS was about, let alone all of Star Trek.
In terms of character, the relationship between Kirk, Spock and McCoy is the most important in TOS. But that's not the theme. TOS is still about using exploration of space as a means to explore the nature of humanity.
Here's what I hope happens and I think will.
I hope and think that Into Darkness will have as its protagonists the crew of the Enterprise and the Enterprise herself. That includes Kirk, and Spock, the rest of the main characters of the crew, and the nameless crewmen. They were kind of thrown together and had to become a group under the stress of Nero's rampage. Wrath of Khan in particular made a commitment to showing the crew and the ship itself as important characters we should care about. I hope that will happen again and I think it will. That's the most plausible next step that Abrams set up for with ST2009.
What is the "most plausible next step"? You didn't actually hope for anything beyond simply, "I hope the film has the characters from the first film in it." Indeed, you could say the same thing about any film's sequel.
He set up everything very well to do that.
Only in the sense that he ended the film by putting all the characters in the same places that they were in in TOS. That's hardly a clever feet of planning.
I'm obviously not going to try and quote responses for every one of your arguments NicolBolas. For one, that would take too much time and I don't care about this that much. For two, it seems you have a pretty good idea of what you like about Star Trek and what you don't like, and that's fine. You don't need to like the new Trek.
I however, like the new Trek. I am speaking from the standpoint of being a Star Wars fan and never having seen any Star Trek content before the 2009 movie, which I was dragged to by some friends. I liked the film as kindof a Star Trek Origins or Star Trek Begins film which shows us how these characters became a team and learned to work together.
As you said before, Abrams is an able director, and if he doesn't use a similar way to develop themes in his scripts as films such as Wrath of Khan, that's fine by me, it doesn't bother me. Maybe I won't ever be accepted into the old school Trekkie community, but I don't care. I'm standing by my opinion that the 2009 film is good, even if it isn't made in the same way that the old films were.
On April 17 2013 16:47 Crushinator wrote: I'm probably a small minority but I am a long time Star Trek fan, who absolutely loved the 2009 movie and I'm very much looking forward to this. I think the alternate timeline has a lot of potential, and i think the first movie was a great opener. It is quite different from the stuff that came before, but I genuinely think that is a good thing.
There is no need to compare it to the very best of the old stuff. THe old series included many, many absolutely ridiculous episodes, and many of the movies were quite bad. Compared to the last 2 seasons of Enterprise, which was the previous attempt to revitalize the series, this new thing is really good.
Well, if you are in a minority I am right in there with you. I too am a long time Star Trek fan and I really enjoyed the new movie. But, there is little point in debating this with the other Star Trek fans who dislike it because it is not Star Trek enough (whatever that means). I agree the sci-fi element was a little lacking but I don't look for that in the movies. I don't believe the medium allows for the best exploration of Star Trek sci-fi themes (in the way that the TV series does). The best Star Trek movies have been focussed on characters and adventure and were fun to watch. The new one maintained that tradition.
On April 17 2013 15:06 DeepElemBlues wrote: I have to disagree almost entirely. The writing isn't bad, the plot itself did take a back seat to the action but it wasn't terrible and it closed off the loose ends it needed to to move this new series to fully realize itself without being tied down too much by past lore.
Were you asleep during the film? When you can travel back in time, why not warn anyone about the upcoming danger instead of demanding revenge? How does everyone end up in the same spot on that ice planet? You can not pass through a black hole, not even in ST. What do you think, why a black hole is so black? And what did that stupid ship do all the time during the almost 30 years?
That's what's really sad about Abrams and this film. In Wrath of Khan, they were able to make the Reliant, a much smaller ship, look absolutely menacing next to the Enterprise. Reliant was this sleek, compact, brawler, while the Enterprise was a more elegant and refined lady. It was the visual equivalent of Cameron from The Sarah Conner Chronicles vs. Shu Lien from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: small and badass vs tall and elegant.
Of course, doing that would require actual directing talent, involving the subtle use of camera angles and shots. But screw subtlety; we have to make sure that even a mentally deficient monkey can know that he's the badguy. So Abrams, the hack that he is, takes the easy way out: make the badguy's ship huge and black. He may as well put a big neon sign on the ship saying, "THIS IS THE BAD SHIP!"
Rather than using subtlety and nuance, he resorts to caricature. But hey, at least he's consistent: his writing and directing in general are the same way. When offered the choice between subtlety and a sledgehammer, he will always pick the sledgehammer.
This is what film Sci-Fi has been reduced to: unsubtle crap like this hackwork.
The Federation was always presented as being reluctant to build vessels specifically for war in TNG and to an extent in TOS. The intensity of the cold (and hot at times) war with the Klingon Empire was much more blatant in the movies. The Federation must have had more imposing ships built exclusively for war. I would agree that the ship looks too large and also like it is significantly more advanced than the Enterprise, which I don't think makes sense. Hopefully that won't be the case or your criticism in this case, along with other criticisms (namely that facing a vastly technologically superior enemy would just be a rehash of the first movie both for old Star Trek and the new series) would be valid.
Canon material suggests that the Constitution-class vessels were technologically superior to all other Starfleet vessels in their time until the Excelsior arrived, but schematics of a dreadnought were also shown. It was also described in a technical manual, but Roddenberry denounced it as problematic and because of him it never appeared on screen. It was nothing more but a cheap rearrangement of the Constitution, bigger and more of everything.
On a first glance, if this is a Starfleet warzone-vessel, it should be able to carry a lot more fire-power, should be fast and not easily spotted. In fact it should be the logical outcome of a ship-design geared towards survival of the fittest in a warzone and also should be economically viable, thus not elegant. I think the design shown makes sense in that regard.
Unless you heard something else.. what makes you think Abrams had anything to do with making the ship design Nicolbolas? Is he the writer/director? Even then sometimes that isn't the call of the writer but most certainly not the director..
I know it's really in fashion to bash successful directors because they aren't our edgy indie film writers that we read about in our Film courses but come on.. has to be a limit.
A film director is a person who directs the making of a film. Generally, a film director controls a film's artistic and dramatic aspects, and visualizes the script while guiding the technical crew and actors in the fulfillment of that vision.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_director
Sounds to me like it was Abrams' job to supervise the ship design.
On April 18 2013 01:37 bode927 wrote: As you said before, Abrams is an able director, and if he doesn't use a similar way to develop themes in his scripts as films such as Wrath of Khan, that's fine by me, it doesn't bother me. Maybe I won't ever be accepted into the old school Trekkie community, but I don't care. I'm standing by my opinion that the 2009 film is good, even if it isn't made in the same way that the old films were.
You're not really understanding the issue. It's not that he's not developing themes in "a similar way" to Wrath of Khan. It's that he's not developing themes at all.
It's just fast-paced action. Minimal character growth, etc. It doesn't have to do what Wrath of Khan does specifically. But it should what every good action movie does, from The Dark Knight trilogy back to Terminator 2 and everything in between: provide character, theme, and other solid material beyond simply having well-shot action.
That's what's really sad about Abrams and this film. In Wrath of Khan, they were able to make the Reliant, a much smaller ship, look absolutely menacing next to the Enterprise. Reliant was this sleek, compact, brawler, while the Enterprise was a more elegant and refined lady. It was the visual equivalent of Cameron from The Sarah Conner Chronicles vs. Shu Lien from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: small and badass vs tall and elegant.
Of course, doing that would require actual directing talent, involving the subtle use of camera angles and shots. But screw subtlety; we have to make sure that even a mentally deficient monkey can know that he's the badguy. So Abrams, the hack that he is, takes the easy way out: make the badguy's ship huge and black. He may as well put a big neon sign on the ship saying, "THIS IS THE BAD SHIP!"
Rather than using subtlety and nuance, he resorts to caricature. But hey, at least he's consistent: his writing and directing in general are the same way. When offered the choice between subtlety and a sledgehammer, he will always pick the sledgehammer.
This is what film Sci-Fi has been reduced to: unsubtle crap like this hackwork.
The Federation was always presented as being reluctant to build vessels specifically for war in TNG and to an extent in TOS. The intensity of the cold (and hot at times) war with the Klingon Empire was much more blatant in the movies. The Federation must have had more imposing ships built exclusively for war. I would agree that the ship looks too large and also like it is significantly more advanced than the Enterprise, which I don't think makes sense. Hopefully that won't be the case or your criticism in this case, along with other criticisms (namely that facing a vastly technologically superior enemy would just be a rehash of the first movie both for old Star Trek and the new series) would be valid.
Canon material suggests that the Constitution-class vessels were technologically superior to all other Starfleet vessels in their time until the Excelsior arrived, but schematics of a dreadnought were also shown. It was also described in a technical manual, but Roddenberry denounced it as problematic and because of him it never appeared on screen. It was nothing more but a cheap rearrangement of the Constitution, bigger and more of everything.
On a first glance, if this is a Starfleet warzone-vessel, it should be able to carry a lot more fire-power, should be fast and not easily spotted. In fact it should be the logical outcome of a ship-design geared towards survival of the fittest in a warzone and also should be economically viable, thus not elegant. I think the design shown makes sense in that regard.
The odd thing is, I'm perfectly fine with a more warlike StarFleet. I'm willing to believe that the Kelvin incident at the start of ST2009 served as a 9/11 moment for the Federation, pushing them down a more military path. If that's the story he wants to tell, I'll have a go with it. As much as I like old-school Trek, I'm not wed to continuity.
What I don't accept is that this ship design is so crude and obvious. It's like what a 5th grader would draw if you told him to draw a villainous version of the Enterprise.
I'm willing to meet Abrams on the story design and where he wants to go in the ST universe. I'm not willing to meet him on his unsubtle and childish ship design.
How in the hell was Abrams involved in Fringe of all things, yet still approves of this kind of design. He must have just been a big-shot name they put on the title of that series.
A film director is a person who directs the making of a film. Generally, a film director controls a film's artistic and dramatic aspects, and visualizes the script while guiding the technical crew and actors in the fulfillment of that vision.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_director
Sounds to me like it was Abrams' job to supervise the ship design.
Exactly. It may not be Abrams' job to draw the design himself, but it's certainly his job to provide the vision that informs that design, as well as to approve the final product.
Go watch the "Appendices" to the three Lord of the Rings films. They offer an incredibly candid look into how a film is made. And Peter Jackson was everywhere, involved in every aspect of the making those films. He approved of every element that went in front of the camera, whether a physical prop or CG design.
So either Abrams approved of the design for the main antagonist's ship, or he's an absentee director (and therefore negligent and bad by default).
In film, unless you have reason to believe otherwise, you should assume that any artistic features of a film are ultimately the product of the director. They happened under his watch and with his approval. That's why the choosing of a director for a film is so important; a director will color every element of production.
Does it even make sense to criticize the new Star Trek movies while comparing them to Star Trek on TV? I'm really not sure any of the old movies were any better, so saying the current movies are bad Star Trek does not make sense to me. All of the movies always felt like something different, pretty separate from TOS/TNG/DS9/Voyager.