| Author |
Message |
|
| Earl |
 Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 9:20 pm |
 |
|
|
Joined: 09 Jun 2004
Posts: 2621
Location: Houston
|
billyweeds wrote: Got my tickets for Star Trek and will see it tomorrow night. Selling out fast. This is going to be huge in a whole new sense. It will dwarf Wolverine and Watchmen at the box office and will win awards. The early reviews are rapturous, and I expect to love it even though I was never even momentarily enchanted with the TV series and liked only one of the movies. I am not a Trekkie by the slightest stretch of the imagination, and yet I have my tickets in advance. This says something.
I was impressed by the first few lines of the review by Amy Biancolli of the Houston Chronicle (no spoilers in the quoted section):
Quote: I’ll say it loud, and say it proud: I am a Trekkie.
I have awaited J.J. Abrams’ ballyhooed reboot of the original Star Trek for the better part of three years, following its development with great anticipation and no small fear. Would Abrams do it justice? Would he treat the franchise with respect? Or would he atomize accepted canon and start from scratch, transforming a much-loved classic into something completely different?
Wonder of wonders: He did all three. Somehow — I’m not sure how, because it defies several laws of physics and most storytelling conventions — the team behind this spangly new Star Trek has made a film that lands squarely in the mainstream while paying homage to the original geeky micro-niche. The movie crams in endless catchphrases and Trekarcana for the nerd demographic, and I could, if my bosses let me, dedicate seven or eight paragraphs to broad themes and bits of minutiae lifted from the 1960s series and subsequent films.
But it’s also the whizziest Star Trek ever. It’s the fastest, the hippest and the least prone to grandiloquent theorizing.
Full review (with some spoilers) here. |
_________________
"I have a suspicion that you are all mad," said Dr. Renard, smiling sociably; "but God forbid that madness should in any way interrupt friendship." |
|
| Back to top |
 
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 10:39 pm |
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
I just returned from seeing STAR TREK. The theater was enoromous with an Imax-sized screen. It was almost a private screening. Maybe 30 people in the audience.
Let me preface my comments by saying I was never remotely a Star Trek fan, either tv or movies. In fact, I'm generally not a science fiction fan at all. Haven't read many sci-fi books and rarely find science fiction movies compelling. I am much more drawn to horror and fantasy. Okay. So having said that, I can report that I found the new STAR TREK both fun and exciting. The cast was top notch, the score majestic, the sets and cgi impressive. For hardcore Star Trek fans I am sure this will have them expelling precious bodily fluids all over the theater seats.
My main problem with this movie and the sci fi genre is that they don't play fair. When you can beam people up out of perilous situations the tension is reduced. When action scenes don't have to follow conventional laws of physics, when anything goes, the suspense is diminished. Being able to move people and objects thru space using hyperdrive (or whatever its called) and fucking with the molecular structure of human beings to transport them from one place to another gives the writers and directors a way out of dangerous situations that is basically a cop out. Imagine if Hitchcock beamed Cary Grant up and out of Mount Rushmore when Grant was hanging by his fingernails from Lincoln's nose. To me, its cheating. In addition, the creators of these sci-fi flicks seem to use these devices in a very arbitrary way. Characters are left to endure extreme danger and pain in some sequences while in others they are simply beamed out of danger's way. Starships crash and burn killing hundreds of people in some scenes, while in others they merely shift into hyperdrive. When there is no consistent logic in an action flick, my interest flags. This is the case with STAR TREK. I also find the bogus sci-fi jardon impenetrable at times. It seems such nonsense. These are the reasons I don't invest much emotion in science fiction books or movies.
Will STAR TREK be a hit? Absolutely. Is it, as the critics say, "an unrelenting thrill ride"? Yes, it is. Do I recommend it. Yes, with reservations.
Why are the critics going nuts for this movie? Because most of them are in their 50s and grew up with the show. Most critics are nerds. Even the Village Voice loved the new STAR TREK. Is it overpraised? Without question. Nostalgia and sentiment cloud even the most cynical critics minds when it comes to something like the beloved STAR TREK. Don't believe the hype. Go to see the movie and have fun. You'll enjoy it. But, it is by no means a great film. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 10:56 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
I love this line from Anthony Lane's review of STAR TREK describing Leonard Nimoy's appearance in the film:
"Leonard Nimoy, who these days makes Bela Lugosi look like Zac Efron" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lissa |
| Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 11:50 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2148
Location: my computer
|
Quote: To me, its cheating.
Perhaps so, in a movie where it isn't relevant. But in this case? In three words: it's Star Trek.
Let's face it - there are inherent qualities we expect from this movie. Vulcans will have pointy ears, alien beings will be commonplace, the impossible possible. And people will be beamed from place to place to extricate them from dangerous situations.
As you mentioned, the people who will most enjoy this film are those who are die-hard Trekkies from the start. Those who remember the series, and followed every movie through the Next Generation and beyond. Those who don't care about the cop-out aspect of beaming characters in and out of scenes. If the film didn't build upon these expectations in the first place, we'd pretty much all sit back and yell "cheap trick!" at the scenes. But we expect the gimmicks, and so I'd bet that viewers attending the film cheer at all the kitschy built-in givens.
I'm sure that viewers too young to remember the series, or even the films, will also devour the movie; those young enough to have only heard about the Star Trek brand won't care about storyline cop-outs. I'd say this film will have a very wide-ranging audience make-up and pretty much a guaranteed hit.
I'll probably see it for the nostalgia, but also for the hype that's built since Abrams announced he was making the film and leaked stories hit the news wires. And for the excitement of seeing it on the big screen. |
_________________
Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarfs aren't happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 2:04 am |
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9010
Location: Shanghai
|
Few of these recently released films sound like something I'd like.
I'll probably try Watchmen and Adventureland. |
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| lshap |
| Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 12:28 pm |
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 4248
Location: Montreal
|
I need to get some sleep.
I need to eat food.
I need to see Star Trek.
In that order. Sex would be nice, too. Hoping to accomplish all at some point in the day. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lissa |
| Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 12:50 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2148
Location: my computer
|
| Star Trek before sex....Dr. Freud would have a field day... |
_________________
Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarfs aren't happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| lshap |
| Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 1:07 pm |
|
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 4248
Location: Montreal
|
| It's a complex formula of priorities and access. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lissa |
| Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 1:40 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2148
Location: my computer
|
You sound like a certain logical Vulcan....I don't recall his priority list being much different.
You really do need to see Star Trek first! |
_________________
Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarfs aren't happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| carrobin |
| Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 1:52 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 7795
Location: NYC
|
| The "beaming up" aspect of the Star Trek series never bothered me at all, mostly because I understood even back when it was first on TV that it would require a lot of boring tech stuff to move people from starship to planet and back unless there was a fast, easy way to accomplish it. Using it as a deus ex machina is somewhat different, but I haven't seen the movie (any of the movies, in fact) so I can't comment on that specifically. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lshap |
| Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 8:25 pm |
|
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 4248
Location: Montreal
|
I've loved Star Trek since I was a tiny kid watching the original 60's series. Back then it was all cool spaceships, action scenes and scary alien planets made out of styrofoam. Later it became a tale of iconic characters and morality lessons couched in sci-fi metaphors. Then it morphed into a new series with a new cast, becoming a weekly offering of great acting and storytelling. Star Trek evolved on television. That was the medium on which it flaunted its sharp and shiny message of hope. That was where everyone fell in love with Kirk, Spock and McCoy, later Jean-Luc Picard and Data, where we got prescient peeks - decades before they came to exist - of cellphones, personal computers, the Internet, not to mention automatic doors that go swoosh when they open, and where odd words like, "The Borg", "Beam me up" and "Klingon" developed popular meaning.
The movies, for me, were always the big fluffy fundraisers. They celebrated the mythology but, strangely, never hooked into it completely. Some of the films were really good and some others really awful, but none felt as grounded in the Star Trek world as the TV shows. The films were one-offs, not long-term relationships, and the show, the characters and the stories demanded commitment in order to put out. I was fine with that. I liked that slower-paced weekly foreplay I got on the tube.
But even if the movies are cheap one-night-stands I'm down with this one. It's been a long, long time since the last installment of Star Trek and the makeup sex promises to be great. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 10:30 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Back from Star Trek. As Marc says, it's not a great film, but who the hell cares? It's a blast almost from beginning to end. The pacing is breathless, the action scenes coherent and exciting, the characterizations superficial but excellent. And the casting--especially of Chris Pine as Kirk--is terrific. Pine makes Kirk the hero/hunk Shatner never approached. Zachary Quinto makes a wonderful Spock and looks a lot like Leonard Nimoy. Eric Bana is a great actor and makes the most of his underwritten villain role. Only Nimoy himself is a letdown. He tends to suck the energy out of the screen when he speaks.
Go and hoot and holler. It's a movie made for that. |
Last edited by billyweeds on Fri May 08, 2009 10:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 10:33 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
billy,
how was the audience response? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 10:34 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
Quote: As Marc says, it's not a great film, but who the fuck cares?
As a film fan, I always hope for greatness in a movie. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 10:46 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
| When a movie gets the kind of glowing reviews that STAR TREK has gotten, one does expect greatness. A popular entertainment can be great. I think the first RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is great. BONNIE AND CLYDE is great. PSYCHO is great. E.T. is great. NORTH BY NORTHWEST IS GREAT. BLADE RUNNER is great. SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is great. You get my drift? I think critics and audiences have lowered their expectations to the point that an okay movie like STAR TREK has people coming in their slacks. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
