Star Trek discussion (Spoilers!)

[Lynx]

Khan and Kirk had clearly defined roles, but there was so much more going on in that movie. Accepting responsibility for past mistakes, with Kirk paying for his punishment of Khan and meeting his son, a whole bunch of family stuff, friendship, the morality of genesis, the needs of the many versus the needs of the few, it was pretty deep.

This new movie was just "stop the bad guy."

Spock struggling with his emotions and how he isn't ready for command, the power of friendship, Kirk dealing with the fact that he is destined for greatness, dealing with grief in a destructive versus constructive way (Nero vs Spock Prime), the Enterprise's crew being morally superior to Nero and his crew by offering them mercy, etc.

Saying it was just "stop the bad guy" is just asinine. It may not have been as cerebral as other Trek movies, but come on.

All that stuff was underdeveloped or pushed to the background for action and jokes and more action. See my example a few posts up.

So, I do dare to say the movie was just ''Stop the bad guy," because that's all it was.

Which is fine, it was a good movie, but it is a massive shift in tone from previous Star Trek, and the fact that I can't even discuss it without riling everybody up is pretty interesting.

It sounds like you are determined not to see past the action. Yes, the action and humor were forefront. That's how movies are made nowadays. But it wasn't devoid of that. Hell, you could say that Kirk's destiny and the development of Kirk and Spock's dynamic was just as forefront as the action.

I mean, hell, you could say that The Voyage Home was just jokes at the expense of the crew being fish out of water. Everything else was just background. It's ridiculous.

 

[Doublehex]

All that stuff was underdeveloped or pushed to the background for action and jokes and more action. See my example a few posts up.

So, I do dare to say the movie was just ''Stop the bad guy," because that's all it was.

Which is fine, it was a good movie, but it is a massive shift in tone from previous Star Trek, and the fact that I can't even discuss it without riling everybody up is pretty interesting.

"Don't you dare." Hilarious.

Ive got to agree with him on this guys.

I mean, it really wasn't a deep, profound movie. It was a great movie, no question about it! But it is not as profound as you guys are making it out to be.

 

[thee great one]

You scare me with arguments.

I always hated Star Trek and loved this. I loved it a lot. That's all I will add. I will stay out of this.

 

[Lynx]

Ive got to agree with him on this guys.

I mean, it really wasn't a deep, profound movie. It was a great movie, no question about it! But it is not as profound as you guys are making it out to be.

I'm not saying it is! When did we say it was?

But, going to the other extreme and saying that it was just "Good guys versus bad guys" is just as ridiculous. It makes it sound like the movie was nothing but explosions and CG when there was clearly character development through the entire movie.

We can also go the opposite way and say things can be too cerebral for their own good, like The Final Frontier. Or have movies like The Search for Spock or Generations, where the entire movie is based on one plot point: "Resseruct Spock" and "Give Kirk one last hurrah. . .with Picard!"

I'm not pretending that the movie was flawless. Far from it. I'd probably give it a 4/5. My beef is trying to pretend that it's not Star Trek because it's new and shiny. Or that every single piece of Star Trek related media was a cerebral masterpiece, while this one is brain dead.

 

[Doublehex]

Well, you were comparing the "deep" elements of Star Trek with that of Khan, and based off of what Joe listed, I had to agree with him.

BTW, can I watch that movie without seeing Space Seed?

 

[Langsta]

All that stuff was underdeveloped or pushed to the background for action and jokes and more action. See my example a few posts up.

So, I do dare to say the movie was just ''Stop the bad guy," because that's all it was.

Which is fine, it was a good movie, but it is a massive shift in tone from previous Star Trek, and the fact that I can't even discuss it without riling everybody up is pretty interesting.

"Don't you dare." Hilarious.

What?

 

[Joe Kalicki]

Well, you were comparing the "deep" elements of Star Trek with that of Khan, and based off of what Joe listed, I had to agree with him.

BTW, can I watch that movie without seeing Space Seed?

Yeah, of course you can.

 

[Lynx]

Well, you were comparing the "deep" elements of Star Trek with that of Khan, and based off of what Joe listed, I had to agree with him.

BTW, can I watch that movie without seeing Space Seed?

I never implied that Star Trek was deep. I said it was more than "good guys versus bad guys".

And no, you don't need to watch Space Seed. I saw it before I saw the episode and understood exactly what was going on. Khan explains the whole thing at the beginning of the movie.

 

[E]

Why can't everybody just be happy that they finally made a great Star Trek movie

Seriously. Post of the Day.

I mean, it really wasn't a deep, profound movie.

...so?

Who said it was?

 

[Doublehex]

...so?

Who said it was?

Lynx did. He listed a bunch of, what I saw as, "deep" stuff that occurred in the movie.

 

[Joe Kalicki]

Seriously. Post of the Day.

If you consider the third best Star Trek movie to "finally be a great one." :roll:

 

[Langsta]

If you consider the third best Star Trek movie to "finally be a great one." :roll:

You so jealous

 

[ProjectX2]

I'm going to make my own Star Trek movie and not only with it be cool with action and explosions and flashes, but it was also involve complex chaos mathematics!

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

****, people are arguing with me...I want in.

And my "****ing nuts" wasn't even a Star Trek-specific comment, it was a comment about giving what's a pretty standard action movie with some flaws the absolute highest rating you could give something.

So we can only rate something a 5 if it's made by the Coen Brother's or stars Daniel Day Lewis?

:roll:

Ive got to agree with him on this guys.

I mean, it really wasn't a deep, profound movie. It was a great movie, no question about it! But it is not as profound as you guys are making it out to be.

I never said that it was a profound movie. I'm just saying that as a piece of entertainment is is very, very good.

He's pretty much boiling down the movie to it's most basic elements and saying that is all it is. There is tons of stuff going on in the movie besides them going after Nero. It would be like saying that The Dark Knight is only a "good guy vs. bad guy" movie. Sure Batman's quest to take down the Joker drives the narrative, but the movie as a whole is so much more than that.

I would concede that Nero's demeanor when he is talking to Pike over the screen is kinda strange, but if that is one of your major complaints with the movie then you need to lighten up. Nero wasn't an epic villain, but he served his purpose. I think he got just enough screen time to set up the story, yet leave plenty of time for the crew of the Enterprise, which the movie is all about.

 

[ProjectX2]

I tend to rank it out of how much I enjoyed it and then once I've seen it a few more times, I edit it accordingly to how good I think it is. But still, I think my rating will stick around an 8.

Oh well. :?

 

[thee great one]

You people are nuts.

 

[Gothamite]

Why can't people just not enjoy a movie for themselves, rather than try to pretend like all fans of TOS are completely hating this movie? Or that because they didn't like it, it somehow isn't Star Trek?

The thing is, I did like it. I friggin' loved it. It was a great fantasy film with a fun plot and great action. I gave it 9/10!

But. It. Wasn't. Star Trek. No exploration, no social satire, not even a ******* tricorder. Just flashy battles. The characters were all there (Once again, Oh My GOD, Chris Pine) and that saved it from being just a completely different film, but once they got on the Enterprise, it was more Flash Gordon than Zephram Cochrane.

You know what, though? Maybe Star Trek needs to be a bit more like this, for a while, before it reverts back to its former 3-dimensional brilliance. Straight away, it has people watching the older episodes and admitting that they're pretty good, so that's a good thing.

 

[ourchair]

Where's Ourchair's review?

Soon.

I spent the entire weekend after Star Trek talking Star Trek with the group I watched it with and sifting around my Star Trek novels and hanging around Memory Alpha.

And cleaning my room.

So, I actually have a lot to say about it, though I don't know to what extent I can respond to the three page argument that follows this post.

In any case, before I do get around to my review...

...Behave.

 

[ProjectX2]

I have been listening to the soundtrack because I'm a Michael Giacchino fan and even though it's probably one of his weaker works, it's still awesome.

Start with post #134. That same conversation happened in this thread and both times it was Random and an Asian!

 

[E]

If you consider the third best Star Trek movie to "finally be a great one." :roll:

Not sure if I saw that one, and I doubt I ever will.

One thing - I agree with Joe about the confusion regarding the black hole and how they went through time, causing an alternate reality, etc. It could have been clearer.

For the long time fans who keep saying "it's not 'Star Trek'" - is it not acceptable to you that this movie should function as a set up for the whole series? The way the crew came together was not at all clean and easy, and the first mission was very frantic...is it so horrible that the themes used in classic Star Trek movies/shows will be dealt with in future movies now that the groundwork has been laid out and personalities and relationships established?