| You're currently viewing the Jolene Blalock - We Want Brunette Jolene SciFi Fan Forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. We do not release ANY email information at the Brunette Jolene Board!! As a new memeber your access will be limited until you have 10 posts. Once you reach that level other sections of the Forum will open up. Due to spam we have blocked certain IP and email addresses. If you are having difficulty with registration, please email the board admin using the link and request to be added manually. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Abrams Trek - the review thread; *HEAVY SPOILERS* | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: 9 May 2009, 11:24 (1,042 Views) | |
| Kevin Thomas Riley | 9 May 2009, 11:24 Post #1 |
Jolene Blalock Worshipper
|
OK, this is the spoiler-full review thread of J.J. Abrams's Star Trek reboot. If you haven't seen it yet, and abhor spoilers, then read no further (you shouldn't have clicked on the thread in the first place :wink: ) My review below. ETA: I added a poll to the thread. Edited by Kevin Thomas Riley, 9 May 2009, 12:23.
|
 |
 
|
| Kevin Thomas Riley | 9 May 2009, 11:25 Post #2 |
|
Jolene Blalock Worshipper
|
Star Trek by J.J. Abrams Reviewed by Kevin Thomas Riley Having already decided from spoilers that I was not going to like J.J. Abrams's version of Star Trek and that I wasn't about to give him any of my money, I nevertheless caved in and watched the movie this afternoon. In my defence I didn't give him any money, courtesy of the advantages of being a newspaper editor I just flashed my press card and was admitted for free. Still, I'll have to write something up for Monday's paper to justify my subterfuge. So what did I think of it? In one word I felt it was soulless. Being predisposed not to like it I walked out of the theatre with the same feeling I had before. This wasn't Star Trek, at least not my Star Trek. It was something else masquerading as Star Trek. It might have been an average-to-good sci-fi action flick in its own rights had it not been labelled Star Trek, and had the names and settings been changed. I suppose this it what it will feel to many of the non-Trek fans watching this, today's kids that doesn't have the emotional investment in Star Trek that I have. But is that enough to sustain this new version of the franchise for the coming 40 years? I somehow doubt that. There are a lot of things, sci-fi and otherwise, that competes for attention nowadays and I didn't think this movie stood out that much above the rest. Sure, there might be another movie or two of Trek 2.0, but that will be no different from, say, the Transformers or X-Men movie franchise. My main gripe with Abrams Trek is the same as it was before I only knew spoilers, and it's that it not just reboots everything, it's that it in the process of doing so completely overwrites and erases all previous Treks (with the ironical exception of Enterprise). 700+ episodes and 10 movies spanning the last 43 years - never happened! Gone from the timeline! I would've accepted a more honest reboot à la Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica, which didn't pretend to exist in the same 'verse as the old Gary Larson show from the 1970s. It was just another interpretation of BSG, much like, for example other versions of comic superheroes (Adam West's Batman is not the same as Michael Keaton's or Christian Bale's). But for whatever reason Abrams decided to tie his Star Trek into the pre-existing Trek by means of the tired time travel formula and Old Spock. Time travel in Star Trek has always been tricky, and frankly much too overused, but in the end the message was that you shouldn't tamper with the timeline lest everything changes. So Edith Keeler had to die, or the Krenim timeship had to be destroyed, or the temporal bugs in Archer's brain had to be eradicated. Even accepting the existence of parallel timelines (like the mirror universe) there was still one "real" continuity in the Trekverse that sustained the five shows and ten films. But no more, with Abrams Trek that proper timeline is gone. It does not even exist as a parallel timeline. It's wiped out along with Vulcan, Amanda Grayson and George Kirk. And this is, in my not so humble opinion, not just a great injustice to Star Trek but an insult to all the fans that has helped and kept this franchise running for longer than I have lived. One of Star Trek's greatest strengths is its universe, the fact that it spans vast amounts of time and space. It's world-building in a classical sense, and it has, for better and worse, been building for over 40 years. There are details and a shared history coming together to form a mostly coherent whole that in itself is enough to create a sense of wonder. Sure, there are a lot of clunkers, some shows and movies are better than the others, but that's to be expected from something that has over 700 logged hours of screen time. We all have our favourites and pet peeves (I don't particularly like The Next Generation much anymore, or Voyager, but I accept that they're part of the great Trek continuity). It comes with the territory. But now we're supposed to accept that it doesn't matter because J.J. Abrams, a self-professed non-fan, is too lazy to adhere to previously established canon. With this movie he's now free to do whatever he pleases with Trek without being "burdened" with all that went before him. And by destroying Vulcan he sure has hammered that message down. That's not showing respect. That's being an iconoclast for the sake of being an iconoclast. I'm still amazed at the number of Trek fans that still eat this up. It starts at the very beginning, when the Romulan Nero and his planetkiller ship comes back in time and destroys the very ship Daddy Kirk is onboard right at the time James Kirk is being born, thus changing the way young Kirk is brought up. I didn't see a lot of, if anything, that told me this Jim Kirk had any relation to Shatner's Kirk. But then this is another Kirk, changed by events. It's still a cheat since this Kirk could just as easily have been named something else and the story would've worked anyway, as a self-contained sci-fi adventure. He only has the name in common with the Kirk we know. And that in my mind goes for everyone else as well. I may be prejudiced against them, but I never got the "feel" that this was actually a young Spock, a young Uhura, a young Bones etc. This is also where Abrams's overwriting fails. If this is supposed to be the original crew as we knew them, only as younger versions in a slightly (by then) changed universe, then there's a disconnect with what's previously established. I'm not just talking about the design aspects, uniforms, vessels and so on, but more seriously the characters. While our Kirk, from the real timeline, was a young starship Captain, he certainly wasn't the same age as his junior officers. He was in his thirties whereas people like Uhura, Sulu and (especially) Chekov was perhaps ten years younger. There's no way they'd be about the same age, attending Starfleet Academy at the same time. In fact, Abrams Kirk has even shorter time in grade and service than the others, and he still ends up commanding the Enterprise. This is not something that Nero could've changed. In all this I suppose it's a minor nit to pick to point out the silliness of having a bunch of cadets suddenly rise to officer ranks. They haven't even graduated and yet as soon as they come onboard they don officers' uniforms, except Kirk who's on suspension. That doesn't stop him from becoming Captain before everyone else though. I know Pike in a moment of insanity made him the first officer, but it still is much too implausible. And speaking of Pike, from the real Trekverse we know he commanded the Enterprise for many years, with Spock as his science officer, before Kirk succeeded him. This is also nothing Nero could've changed just by destroying the Kelvin 25 years prior. And the Spock/Uhura romance comes right out of left field. Also nothing that Nero's incursion would've precipitated. But then again, neither Zachary Spock nor Zoe Uhura feels like the Spock and Uhura I know. These are some other persons using their names. I know many have said that Zachary Quinto's Spock is a dead ringer for a young Spock/young Nimoy, but I fail to see it. He's a decent half-Vulcan/half-Human but he's not Spock. And while Zoe Saldana is extremely pleasing to the eye, she's not Uhura. Even Karl Urban's McCoy, another character celebrated as being much in tune with De Kelley's McCoy, didn't feel like the real McCoy to me. And Simon Pegg's Scotty was just reduced to comic relief. He's not the awesome bad-ass miracle worker I've grown to love. Sorry to say, but they all seem like impostors to me. They're decent actors mostly, and had they been called something else in a different setting I wouldn't have any problems. I could even have accepted them all as their Trek characters had Abrams gone the BSG route and just made a different take on them, like I can accept that Starbuck is a cocky female on nBSG. But for all intents and purposes, Abrams would have us believe that these characters are mostly what the younger versions of the real original characters would be like, and it just doesn't jive with me The tech is also off. The engineering sections on the Starfleet ships are huge and more resembles the bowels of the Titanic, with a lot of steam, pipes, valves and railings, than what one would assume an advanced warp engine would look like. Even the NX-01 looked more advanced than this. And the less said about the iBridge the better, not to mention the Nokia product placement. The Romulans are way off too. Nero and his band bear little resemblance to the sneaky and devious but sometimes even honourable Romulans we've come to know. These are just bald, tattooed space bikers with a mad grudge. But this is maybe what's left of them after Romulus gets zapped by that galactic-wide superdupernova (another very odd concept, together with the "red matter"). His actions make no sense either. How are destroying Vulcan and the Federation going to help stop that supernova? I discovered another discrepancy regarding the Romulans. Since Balance of Terror hasn't happened (and is now not likely to happen either) they shouldn't know what the Romulans look like and their Vulcan ancestry, but here they seem familiar. Uhura even knows their language - all three dialects. The thing is, if Abrams did all this is order to lure a new generation of fans, it was completely unnecessary. He could've created a good Star Trek shoot 'em up-flick without destroying everything that went on before. God knows, old Trek has had its fair share of nifty space battles and action. Why the need to erase Trek 1.0 and thus alienating many old-timers? He could've made an action-packed movie still light on canon references as to not scare away the newbies, but kept it within the realm of continuity. And the beautiful thing about Star Trek for new fans is that once they're in, they'll learn that there's a vast universe for them just waiting to be explored. But with Abrams Trek they won't get that because from now on everything is brand new and what went on before doesn't matter. So this isn't my Trek and never will be. If Abrams Trek does succeed in creating a new fanbase that will enjoy his take on it, I can only hope they enjoy it as much as I have with the previous Star Trek, but I'll bow out. In my mind I'll still consider Trek 1.0 as the real Star Trek and this as just an aberration with no connection to the rest, despite what is being said in the movie. In that I'm helped with the glaring inconsistencies mentioned above that cannot be explained by Nero's interference. There's no point in me giving this a grade at all. Had it not been called Star Trek, or had it been an honest reboot/re-imagining I might have given it an average grade. But since it isn't... ***** This review can also be read at my website here. |
|
|
|
| Captain X | 9 May 2009, 12:07 Post #3 |
"Vice" Admiral
|
Thanks for the review. Seems this movie is everything I expected. |
|
|
|
| Oldguyy | 9 May 2009, 12:30 Post #4 |
T-Pol's Champion
|
Thanks for the review KTR. I had told my Daughter that even if I had a gun up to my head I would not see the film and with your review I am even more determined not to. |
|
|
|
| Jedikatie | 9 May 2009, 12:36 Post #5 |
Rygel's Chief Engineer, Throne Sled Maintenance and Repair
|
Did you happen to catch any other references to Enterprise other than the one about the Archer's beagle, KTR? |
|
|
|
| Kevin Thomas Riley | 9 May 2009, 13:06 Post #6 |
|
Jolene Blalock Worshipper
|
Nope! None that I can recall anyway. That one was stupid, btw. How old wouldn't Admiral Archer be by then? Not to mention Porthos, although they probably meant another in a long line of successors to Porthos. |
|
|
|
| Jedikatie | 9 May 2009, 14:38 Post #7 |
|
Rygel's Chief Engineer, Throne Sled Maintenance and Repair
|
Hmmm... I had another thought just now about this movie. Besides the Enterprise episode "Regeneration," which may very well not take place depending on whether or not the Borg queen, TNG crew, etc. all end up in Earth's past in this new universe, this movie could possibly invalidate TATV as canon as well, since the future is now a blank slate. After all, the whole situation with the Pegasus was that they'd developed a cloaking device, contrary to an agreement with the Romulans that the Federation wouldn't pursue such things. Does anyone seriously believe that the Federation, after everything Nero did in this movie, is actually going to make any such agreement with the Romulans? So Riker (if he exists as first officer on the 24th century Enterprise) wouldn't have any reason to worry about coming clean to Picard about his involvement, and therefore would have no reason (despite the original in-episode explanation for why he did come clean) to go mucking about the holodeck watching people from 200 years before on Troi's advice so he can "decide" whether to tell or not... For that one thing, I can almost forgive them for destroying everything I've loved about Star Trek for the past 30 years. Almost. |
|
|
|
| sipovic | 9 May 2009, 14:39 Post #8 |
Cultist
|
I think you take all this "reseting history" stuff way to serious. You now yourself that it will take 5 minutes and a technobabble to make things right. It is a star trek anyway. I actually find it quite funny that all people who didn't care about star trek too much liked this movie and all "hardcore trekkers" are bashing it. For myself except destroying of vulcan I haven' any serious problems with this movie. Edited by sipovic, 9 May 2009, 15:05.
|
|
|
|
| Kevin Thomas Riley | 9 May 2009, 14:59 Post #9 |
|
Jolene Blalock Worshipper
|
But they've made it abundantly clear they're not going to reset this with 5 minutes of technobabble or anything else.
Not to me, it isn't!
From what I've seen online, there's quite a lot of "hardcore Trekkers" that says they like it. So much that they get away with trolling and flaming anyone who opposes them. (Yes, TrekBBS, I'm looking at you!) |
|
|
|
| Jedikatie | 9 May 2009, 15:02 Post #10 |
|
Rygel's Chief Engineer, Throne Sled Maintenance and Repair
|
^ Ah, but they're not using Trek's version of time travel where everything's okay in the end. They're using Back to the Future's version, and once you change something, no matter how small, you're in a different timeline than the original, with no way of going back to the original. Do you remember how it went in the BTTF movies? 1. There was the original timeline, with Marty's dad, who was a nerdy geek --until Marty went back to 1955 and shoved his dad out of the way of his grandpa's car. So, even though they 'fixed' it so that his parents would get together, it actually formed yet another timeline. Timeline #2: Marty's dad is a successful novelist, while Biff is reduced to washing and waxing cars. Which goes along fine, even with the jaunt to 2015 by Marty, Doc and Jennifer, until Marty buys the sports almanac, and old Biff decides to give it to his 1955 self, creating Timeline #3: which has Biff, in 1985, as a wealthy man, Doc committed and George McFly dead. Marty learns about the sports almanac, and he returns to 1955, along with Doc, and has to avoid his younger self, while not interfering in what he'd done the first time around to make sure that they still got together, to get the book back so his father doesn't end up dead. But all that did was restore it back to timeline #2, not the original one, where Marty didn't interfere at all with his parents' meeting. Same with this: The only way they could correct it is to have yet another time travel movie, wherein they go back and invalidate Nero's actions from this movie (all of his actions), by stopping him before he destroys the Kelvin, if you want to stop the whole process. If you stop him at any later point, there will be differences, because he has already interfered with the timeline. And that's pretty much a cop-out. It's why Kirk and Spock had to correct what McCoy did when he saved Edith Keeler, despite the fact that Kirk was in love with her--he had to let her die, to save everyone else. But old Spock is the only one who would really know or care that there is another, different universe out there from the one in this movie--none of the younger versions would even think twice about there being an alternate to what they've always known, so they have no reason to go back and try and find the first thing that needed to be changed in order to make that universe a reality. |
|
|
|
| sipovic | 9 May 2009, 15:12 Post #11 |
|
Cultist
|
There is some poetical justice anyway - now All ENT fans could say that "Enterprise" is the only real Star Trek (except TOS) that ever was). So all TNG, VOY and DS9 fans could feel how nice it is when you're totally ignored like you've never existed. :biggrin: It is a joke of course but actually it is obvious that if it would be needed all rest TREk future could happen without change despite all events of this movie. Scriptwriters always found a way. And I actually prefer to think about htis movie as an AU. Of course this people woudn't change for me REAL kirrk-spock and mccoy but if this is what it takes to revive franchise I have no problems. My point is that from all previous trek movies this one will not be on the bottom. Edited by sipovic, 9 May 2009, 15:15.
|
|
|
|
| Rigil Kent | 9 May 2009, 15:23 Post #12 |
Professional (but unpaid) troublemaker
|
Well, I just got back from seeing it and I rather liked it. Sure, there were some real problems with it, but overall it was a fun ride that I rather enjoyed. Karl Urban flat out rocked as Bones and I rather liked the look of a lot of the tech (the shuttles were particularly sweet looking). |
|
|
|
| Jedikatie | 9 May 2009, 15:41 Post #13 |
|
Rygel's Chief Engineer, Throne Sled Maintenance and Repair
|
^ What, no full review like you usually do? :P |
|
|
|
| Rigil Kent | 9 May 2009, 15:47 Post #14 |
|
Professional (but unpaid) troublemaker
|
I didn't see the point really. Both CX & KTR are firmly in the "nuTrek blows & you're a traitor if you enjoyed it" mindset, and I wanted to avoid any mud-flinging. |
|
|
|
| Jedikatie | 9 May 2009, 15:49 Post #15 |
|
Rygel's Chief Engineer, Throne Sled Maintenance and Repair
|
^ Okay, I was just teasing anyway... |
|
|
|
| Kevin Thomas Riley | 9 May 2009, 15:50 Post #16 |
|
Jolene Blalock Worshipper
|
Well, obviously. But since Abrams took great pains to tie this with the original Trekverse (which he then promptly erased) he should've, for consistency, have used the Trek and not the BTTF type of time travel.
I know, and this they will certainly not do. Abrams's goal with this is to make his Trek the only "real" Trek.
Well, the 10,000 surviving Vulcans, Zachary Spock included, might have six billion reasons to want to reset things. |
|
|
|
| Jedikatie | 9 May 2009, 16:05 Post #17 |
|
Rygel's Chief Engineer, Throne Sled Maintenance and Repair
|
^ Yeah, I know that Abrams won't undo this movie. Okay, the Vulcans could be motivated to undo it--but how many of those 10,000 Vulcans actually know that the destruction of their world was caused by some lunatic from an alternate universe in retribution for what Nero perceives as Spock's inaction in saving Nero's own planet in that alternate universe when it was faced with destruction? And, if they did know that it was because of Spock that this madman targeted their world to be destroyed, who's to say that they might not take out their own grief and anger on him, since he's the reason their race was virtually wiped out... |
|
|
|
| Kevin Thomas Riley | 9 May 2009, 16:12 Post #18 |
|
Jolene Blalock Worshipper
|
Vulcans are a smart people. Of course they will learn why their homeworld was destroyed. Besides, it would be highly immoral for the Feds to keep them in the dark.
Now that's an interesting take on it. :vulcan: |
|
|
|
| Jedikatie | 9 May 2009, 16:18 Post #19 |
|
Rygel's Chief Engineer, Throne Sled Maintenance and Repair
|
Let's not forget that there were undoubtedly members of other races, besides Amanda, on Vulcan at the time of its destruction as well. Even if the Vulcans remained cool, collected, and logical about it when they learned it was due to old Spock's actions in the other universe, I could easily see him (or young Spock or both) being a target from surviving family members of other species who were on the planet who are not so in control of their emotions... |
|
|
|
| Kevin Thomas Riley | 9 May 2009, 16:18 Post #20 |
|
Jolene Blalock Worshipper
|
That's unfair. I never said anyone who likes this is a "traitor". All the more power to them, since this is obviously all the Trek there's going to be from now on. I just won't be a part of it. Regarding presumed "traitors" I've seen plenty of views online (especially at TBBS) saying that you cannot really be a Trek fan if you do not embrace the Abrams reboot. It's often typically coming from persons that have previously been of the mindset that you have to like all Trek (including Archer, TATV and Twilight if I just confine this to ENT) if you claim to be a Trek fan. You probably know of which persons I speak. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Star Trek · Next Topic » |
9:52 AM Sep 4
