I've seen the movie and want to talk about it with other h'thonners who've seen it. SPOILER WARNING! Don't even think of clicking on this unless you want to read major plot points immediately given away (in my first comment within). You have been warned.
[Octopunk sez: Jules and I just saw it tonight and I want in on the discussion, so I manipulated time itself to move the post up and jump in to the talks.]
19 comments:
Everybody inside the secret clubhouse? Good.
WHAT THE FUCK with blowing up Vulcan? I spent the entire rest of the movie waiting for that to be reversed. I'm not objecting because it's "bad canon" or whatever; I don't really give a shit about that. I'm objecting because it's such an unbelievably big deal. Couldn't Nero have blown up a little space station or something?
Remember how, in the beginning of Armageddon, those fragments of meteor hit New York City and did all that damage? Including the destruction of Grand Central Station and the partial destruction of the World Trade Center? And then, after everybody goes bananas in the Pentagon or whatever, you cut to the next sequence (involving the oil drillers on their rig and then the same oil drillers having their R&R) and nobody seems broken up or even aware of what happened to New York? Bruce Willis' character Harry Stamper (always loved that name) seems to have no idea about the meteor at all. Neither do all those people in the strip club with Buscemi, etc. The world doesn't even find out about the meteor until 2/3 of the way through the movie. What the hell did they think happened to New York?
It seemed fine at the time (1998 or whatever), but, later, after 9/11, it became a nearly unwatchable movie because we'd learned what would actually happen if portions of New York were destroyed...namely worldwide numbness and grief for weeks to come.
Anyway, same remarks here. Vulcan is destroyed. That's like the Federation equivalent of England getting nuked. But at the end of the movie everyone's just hanging out, having a good time etc. I mean, I don't get it.
By the way, J. J. Abrams co-wrote the Armageddon screenplay. (But he didn't write the story, and he certainly didn't write any of Star Trek.)
Okay, since you started the spoiler thread I'll bring up my two grievances.
1. WTF with Spock and Uhura
2. The whole past is now null and void because Nero changed everything so therefore all those adventures we love so much are canceled out.
Now I understand the premise of this and the necessity as well. They had to wipe out the original past so they could forge new adventures and not be doomed to repeat what we've already seen, but damn! Did they have to be so matter of fact about it? Vulcan is gone, that's HUGE! Is it just me or did that seem way underplayed.
I did not hate this movie, on the contrary actually. I really liked it. I loved seeing Captain Pike in action, I've always wanted to see him in his prime. The "newbies" playing our familiar beloved characters were outstanding to say the least and the visuals were stunning. I guess I just have to pick at it, you know.
Catfreek, I've got to nip this one in the bud. Here's how I see it:
1) The movie is a REBOOT of the franchise, making arbitrary changes and starting over. The Enterprise looks like that; Pike's crew is different; everything is different. Think Casino Royale vs. Dr. No or The Dark Knight vs. 1989 Batman or any other Batman/Joker story. No "canon" involved. NEW Canon.
2) Spock from the future technically should have been played by Zachary Quinto in age makeup. However, as a nod to the original continuity, he was played by Nimoy. (Kind of like the 1962 Aston Martin Bond drives in Casino Royale.)
3) However, despite the presence of Nimoy, this world is already a totally different story before Nero's intervention. In other words, the idea that Spock and Nero come from the "real"/existing Star Trek canon is just not the case. They come from another, third continuity we've never seen before.
4) Alternatively, I'm wrong and it IS the same world as before, but everything looks different and the shirts and technology and all are different because Trek just arbitrarily changes that stuff, adding forehead ridges to the Klingons or re-upping the special effects or whatever. If one of the movies had a flashback to the TOS era, would you suddenly see those old sets? Maybe you would and maybe you wouldn't. According to the mirror episodes of Enterprise, you totally would. So go figure.
But can you dig where I'm coming from? I'm saying that it already wasn't the same continuity BEFORE Nero/Spock fucked it up.
Yeah, I was waiting for that to be reversed as well. And you're right that it's weirdly unacknowledged late in the movie, but I didn't notice it at the time because by then, I think I'd realized it wasn't that type of movie.
As I noted in my brief review on the earlier thread, one thing that slightly bugged me (I enjoyed the movie overall) was the breathless shorthand that parts of the story and characters were developed with. It first struck me with the "3 Years Later" transition, which really bummed me out. I was totally ready to see how training worked, what Starfleet was all about, etc. As soon as I saw that, I was like: "OK, I see what Abrams is doing here." I could tell he wasn't going to be dealing with background realism stuff to help flesh out the story--not when there's so many possibilities for blowing stuff up! Once I recognized this, it didn't bother me, so this is just a mild gripe. But I think that's where your "worldwide numbness and grief" got lost.
And ultimately, their reaction is right in line with how things unfold at the end of Star Wars after Alderon has been zapped. Leia seems pretty happy and chill as she's handing out medals.
Btw, I mentioned that I'm going to finally go back and watch TOS, and I found that it's airing on TVLand channel, and they recently started the whole run over, so I've got good timing. I think episode 4 or 5 of the first season airs this week, so I've got a few days to watch the earliest ones on Youtube. I'm 1/2 way through The Man Trap right now.
Every time I come up with
1) A stupid coincidence (Kirk family on board Kelvin to intercept Nero)
2) Bad science (black holes etc.)
3) Bad continuity (Kirk's brother Sam, etc.)
I realize that none of it is any worse than what we've already got going in Trek. Original Trek is FILLED with the same kind of bullshit.
For example: look at the overwhelming three-way coincidence of Wrath of Khan. The U. S. S. Reliant
1) Is assigned to help Kirk's ex-girlfriend with her science project
2) Has Kirk's ex-navigator on board
3) Happens to pick Ceti Alpha V as the Genesis target.
I mean, come on. All three of those things happen to be true at once? That's completely ridiculous! But we all bought it. So I guess I can buy George Kirk and his family being on board the Fed ship that encounters the villain who's looking for Spock (purely by chance).
And don't even get me started on the bad science in Trek. The science is miserable. (And the probe looking for the whales is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of, particularly since their fucking crazy scheme actually works and the probe just leaves).
You dig what I was saying? It doesn't make sense, but then, it NEVER made much sense to begin with. Why else would the Enterprise ALWAYS be the "only ship available" when the shit went down?
By the way, I LOVED the movie. I just found it, well, disorienting.
I see what you both mean and I got that too but I still feel that sense of loss.
On the other hand the possibilities here are pretty limitless. Imagine this new crew of old favorites encountering the Borg or new adventures with some of our old favorites like the Horta or the big Lizard from "Arena". Now all those planets are around and untapped. Know what I mean.
Question is, do you think this is a lead in for a tv series or just more films?
If we accept Star Wars canon (including the prequels), Leia's ship getting boarded over Tatooine (where Luke lives) ISN'T a coincidence, because she was there to bring a message to Obi Wan (who lived on Tatooine). However, the robots escaping to the planet and then getting sold to Luke is an UNBELIEVABLE coincidence. (Unless you believe in fate, destiny etc. but you can say that about any story).
By contrast, Tolkien spent pages and pages discussing how fucking weird it is that Bilbo found Sauron's ring. But then Gandalf has to go and blame destiny.
Coincidences drive me nuts, but people don't seem to mind them. As I writer I'm always afraid to use them and end up going to ridiculous lengths to explain why things happen to line up the way they do. I've learned that readers don't mind and you can just say "because I said so" and readers will totally buy it.
Star Trek V: The Enterprise is assigned to investigate a problem on Nimbus III. The problem is caused by Spock's half brother. Gee, what are the odds of that?
This is one of the awesomest comment threads I've ever seen on this blog, which is one of the main reasons my love for Trek has grown exponentially over the years (see my 2nd comment below).
I haven't seen the movie, and I'm in no way dissuaded from the spoilers here. I knew what I was getting into.
If I could offer my four cents:
- the Ring was always described (even in the movies) as having a "will of its own" to influence persons and events around it. I agree that Tolkien did go to great lengths to explain the sheer randomness of the situation, but then, the implied "but I said so" bit is that we just wouldn't have this story if things went the way they would in real life, i.e. Bilbo never leaves the Shire, and tells Gandalf to bugger off. Shortest. Trilogy. Ever. Ditto the Force being responsible for coincidences in SW. Somewhere, in every good narrative, is a healthy dose of deus ex machina.
- as a person raised on Star Wars, I've always given that franchise the edge in the ages-old, tiresome debate with Trekkers. However, I have a deep, deep respect and ever-growing admiration for the way the Trek canon can unfold in sometimes quantum ways. I think Cat brings up a great point when she mentions the possibility of the new gang encountering the Borg, et al. What we've got here is an example of parallel universes and alternate timelines. Much like the evil, Biff Tannen Casino 1985 of Back to the Future II, we've got a whole new wavelength and whole different universe to explore with the reboot. Sure some things will be similar, like Old Spock, but it's all just stuff that is vibrational wavelengths away from each other in the quantum foam.
- I also just wanted to throw in one defensive voice for the whale probe. Having not been raised on Trek, IV was my gateway drug, and I still have a soft spot for that one, even though I know it is anathema to Trekkers everywhere. Plus, the probe made a noise that kind of freaked me out when I was trying to go to sleep that night.
- Overall, I still cannot wait to see the movie. This discussion has only enhanced my desire.
Hope to see everybody on Haiku Hump Day! (Hint: topic is NOT Star Trek :)
Cool, HS, glad you like the discussion. "Welcome to the party, pal."
I'm not knocking Star Trek IV. Not really. I'm actually defending everything else by pointing out just how silly the story conventions turn out to be when you examine them. Star Trek was certainly invested in consistency and logic, but, like, not that invested.
I used to complain about the history of the Enterprise, as follows:
1) The Enterprise has a five-year mission
2) The Enterprise gets "refitted" (e.g. turned into a completely different starship with not a single component of the old one remaining) for the first movie. (I'm not kidding; it's not remotely the same shape or size. There's no way that's a "refit.")
3) The ship goes on "active duty" in Star Trek II, serving a single mission (resolve the Genesis planet problem).
4) Once that SINGLE MISSION is over, the obviously-brand-new Enterprise is slated to be "decommissioned" because it's "nearly twenty years old." (So why did they "refit" the damn thing?) Kirk steals it and blows it up.
5) They get a new "Enterprise" (the A) That's just like the one they blew up. (The "A" indicates that we're maintaining the ridiculous conceit that the ship from the first two movies is the same ship as the ship in the TV show).
6) A few years later, Kirk's showing some gray hair, Scotty's bought a boat, and the Enterprise A is sent to Kiddomer. Then it gets "de-commissioned" after that one mission.
See? Makes no sense, and the filmmakers themselves cannot tell the difference between upgrading the sets/effects and actually changing the fucking ship they're supposed to be flying in the actual story.
Once I realized all this, I just gave up on Trek story logic. By contrast, George Lucas does an awesome job of making the pieces all fit together. But he introduces his own ridiculous coincidences too. (The Emperor was from Luke and Leia's mother's home planet?)
I am blocking the left half of the screen with a piece of paper. I haven't seen the movie yet and it'll be a couple of days at least. Very psyched about how well it's doing.
This fact was mostly lost in the "Tom Cruise sucks" brouhaha that was cresting at the time, but Mission Impossible 3 is an AMAZING save of a foundering franchise. Not that Trek is foundering, but it's another example of J.J. Abrams taking the good parts of a thing, distilling it, decanting it back to us and making it look easy.
I guess what's most disorienting (having thought about it some more) is the abruptness of the story.
If this was The Sopranos we'd have time to watch the Enterprise family form realistically. On the original show, there was no "back story" at all (except when necessary for the specific episode's plot, like when Kirk has to deal with the repercussions of his time serving as a Lieutenant on the U.S.S. Farragut). We got the sense that these people were career starfleet and came together slowly, over time...the same sense you get from any police squad or high school gang or whatever the subject matter is of most old-school television.
In the movie that's all gone. It definitely takes something away. But then, it's the same problem with superhero movies. There were probably thousands of "Batman vs. Two Face" stories in comic books over the decades, but, according to the movie, they only dealt with each other once.
howdy. just wanted to add my impression of the movie. i'm not an abrams fan or a anything, but as soon as it became apparent that time travel was involved, i was just disappointed. was reading somewhere else that abrams had nothing to do with the story, but still.... doesn't it seem way too familiar to LOST?
obviously, prequels are at their heart an attempt in 'story telling' time travel. however, to include a time travel plot device in a prequel is moronic.
and as soon as we got out of the cinema, the immediate topic of conversation was "didn't they travel through time in like the last 5 movies"
anyway, i still liked it as a movie, but not as a star trek
and being an aussie, it's always great to see eric bana spreading our great accent accross the hollywood silver screen
"nero here mate!"
pure
gold
I just finished watching it about an hour ago and all I can say is, WOW! Despite some jarring changes in the Trek we know, I was blown away by the non-stop action on such a tremendous scale. Almost every sequence could be the climax of an action movie. At one point I was feeling uncomfortable and I suddenly realized that I had been shallow breathing/holding my breath throughout the entire film. I think Spock's attack on Nero's ship was utterly thrilling and hypnotic. This is a film to be consumed over multiple viewings given the amount of detail/action going on in virtually every scene.
Minor complain, I thought Kirk was written as too much of an outlaw and a little over-the-top (I know, Shatner played him in a somewhat similar manner). I thought Spock and Bones were perfect. Chekov's accent was a bit too affective.
I'm actually relieved that they didn't show them training in the academy, this is something I've never been interested in knowing more about. I was totally psyched when it said, "Three years later". I thought, "Excellent, straight to the action!" I know I'm a simple man.
I was happy to see Nimoy play Spock again, it brought a gravitas to an otherwise solid action flick. Zachary Quinto NAILED Spock and at times I forgot that I wasn't watching a young Nimoy.
One final minor complaint; too many lens flares throughout the film.
Okay, I get all gung-ho but I just did my haiku post and I gotta go to bed soon. I'll see how far I can get here.
Jordan: "WHAT THE FUCK with blowing up Vulcan? I spent the entire rest of the movie waiting for that to be reversed."
Well it turns out I looove the desicion to nuke Vulcan. So ballsy!
But, I also figured that was going to be reversed... until Old Spock described what happened. This was time travel by accident, not design. No slingshotting around the sun to catch the dolphin show this time.
While that's weird for so many Trekkish reasons, I thought they did great with the very up-front timeline/reboot thing.
What stuck out to us afterwards was the weirdness of Eric Bana's plan. They wander around the 22nd century for 25 years and never go visit the planet they're mourning, which is, like, still there? Nobody wants to visit favorite nature spots, say hi to their grandparents, or, say, hand over their future technology and thereby allow Romulus to rule the galaxy. Instead it's "wait for Spock."
Still, it's fine. I'll totally give it to them. Trek is best realized as character driven and I think that worked swimmingly.
Aw, Octo made my comment! I feel a little possessive about that one, since I think it was my after movie in the bathroom realization. "Heeeey...wait a minute...."
I mean, the Romulans are advanced enough to make a ship like that, but they're not smart enough to think of another plan? And what the hell did they eat while they were waiting near that black hole for 25 years? They don't want to nip back to their planet to get a sandwich or something?
And what about that singularity thing? I mean, do you really need to drill into the planet's core to ingite it? I mean, what if you ignite it kinda near the planet? Wouldn't that have about the same effect? The drill seems like a dramatic waste of time.
And why were there only two guys manning that drill?
But OMG the movie was just fantastic! I really loved it. We caught it on IMAX, which was so worth the extra $$.
my mom called yesterday to say she loved the movie but had some questions pertaining to time travel and whether old spock could really meet young spock and certain coincidences, etc. i told her i didn't know the answers, bcause i was really just enjoying the movie as an action movie. the reboot device helped me keep the TOS world separate from the alternate reality portrayed in the movie, which apparently deactivated my nitpick antennae (for the first viewing, anyway).
sounds like we all need to check it out in imax in the near future!
WRT black holes, meeting your doppelganger, etc:
There is no "Trek science." There never was. It's whatever they say it is at any one time in order to make the story work.
I realized this back in the 'Eighties, re-watching the original show, and it's helped me "just relax" (Joel Hodgson style) and enjoy the show.
Hey, octo, check out the Trek design geek thread below.
Post a Comment