Friday, March 6, 2009

New Star Trek: Great? Awful?

It's hard to decide if the new Star Trek movie looks like it will be great or awful. They made a thrilling trailer, so even if the film stinks, we can't fairly say they contributed nothing:


Samuel John Klein Portlandiensis said...

I think reboots have come to be the modern laziness. Most of them suck.

But this one is either going to be the best Trek ever or suck worse than STV.

Jonah Falcon said...

It looks like J.J. Abrams is turning Star Trek into Armageddon.

Anonymous said...

Just saw it; this movie is not original at all. The scenes and ideas are borrowed from so many previous movies. Ramming an enemy ship has already been done in Nemesis; a trill seeking youthful Kirk is similar to way too many male characters, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, you name it. How many movies have you seen with a bar-fight scene? 1000? The bad guy lacks little plot; revenge based on the lost of a loved one; again, trivial plot. If there is one word that can be used to describe the movie: TRIVIAL. It shows that when the director does not have big-screen experience; he relies on what's already been done. I wish JJ could be a bit more original.

Dale said...

Anon., I'vc actually only seen 998 films with a bar fight scene, so this can take me achingly closer to 1,000! Cool!

Anyhoo, sorry to hear you didn't like it. To my surprise, the reviews are trending very positive.

As for "triviality," I'm unclear on your meaning. At one level, movies are inherently trivial. Do you mean to say that big themes are somehow trivialized in the film -- dealt with lightly, unrealistically, breezily, whatever?

Do you mean unoriginal? Most of your comment seems to support that. Originality of plot can be a little overrated -- it's safe to say some of the stuff Homer wrote was already "unoriginal" by the time he wrote it, and Shakespeare got nearly all of his material second or third hand. Ovid's most famous work is just a rehash of pre-existing mythology. Etc. I'm all for originality, but there's something to be said for quality of execution on even the oldest, most well-worn themes, plotlines, and archetypes.

Of course, it's also possible to take a well-worn premise and make crap out of it, so I'm not saying you're wrong -- I have not seen the film. You could well be right. Goodness knows Hollywood Blockbusters are notorious for nothing so much as turning potential-rich source material into foul, gleaming piles of dung.

DangerousBeauty said...

Saw it and hated it!!
I understand a reason for a reboot but to create an alternate time-line and universe and destroy everything about their early lives that created the original characters in to who they were and how they met and how they came to be friends and then expect us to believe that they still end up the same people and with the same dynamics is either stupid in its self or the director and writers truly believe a bunch expensive CGI effects will distract us from any intelligent questioning of their destruction of our classic show.
I can't even figure out how my friends were able to keep me in my seat. I was livid by the time I left the theater!

Matty Brown said...


Are they paying off the critics to say this piece of sh*t is good? I don't get it! Why is it so popular? IT IS SUCH AN AWFUL AWFUL MOVIE.

And I am NOT a trekkie. I'm not pissed because of any liberties taken as far as Star Trek continuity is concerned. IT JUST F*CKING SUCKED.

Dale said...

Matty Brown, Have you seen Congo? Every time anyone says something other than it is the worst movie ever, I have to question whether they've seen it.

Was it a great film? No. It had gigantic problems. But I think you exaggerate.