Star Trek

  • This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.

Lepplady

Chillin' since 2006
Nov 30, 2006
12,498
65,639
Red Stick
I've enjoyed all of the Star Trek movies, all the way back to the poorly concieved Motion Picture. That one was a snoozefest trying to be the next Space Odyssey, but it had its merits.

There will never be another Ricardo Montalban as Khan Noonien Singh. Ever. Hearing that the latest installment was a Khan reworking, with a skinny British guy stepping into the role, I was very wary. Then again, I wasn't very enthusiastic about the franchise relaunch with new actors taking on old, dear and familiar roles to begin with. I was rooting for the grandson of Kirk and son of Spock (and Lt Saavik) carrying on where the old folks left off. I was fully prepared to hate it. But I didn't.
I'm usually a stickler for time travel and the grandfather paradox. I can't STAND how they ended the Voyager series with the Captain going back and changing the past. If she changed the past, she wouldn't exist to go back and change the past. Not as they presented it. If they'd written it in with Janeway knowing that even though the ship returned early and everybody was fine, she'd still have to go back and sacrifice herself, in the altered timeline, I could have lived with that.
That said, I was even able to accept the whole alternate universe premise in the Star Trek reboot. I still squint a bit at the notion of old Spock existing in the new alternate universe, but I forgive it because it lets us visit with Leonard Nimoy in pointy ears now and then. Besides, he was caught in the vortex, so that could have protected him from all the changes in the space/time continuum.
What? No I am NOT geek.
I like Chris Pine as Kirk and adore Karl Urban as McCoy. I frown at the way they've treated Uhura, though. Nichelle Nichols was dignified and composed as a bridge officer, while Zoe Saldana's version is rather a hot mess. Most of all, the more I see Zachary Quinto as Spock, the less I like it. He looks the part, without any doubt. It's obvious that he's studied Leonard's expressions, mannerisms and body language. Props to him for that. But his dialogue sucks. The way he delivers his lines is exactly the same from one to the next. It's deadpan, decidedly not Spock-like. The first movie wasn't as bad as the second, and I hope it improves by the third.
I also hope they trim the hair on the back of Kirk and Spock's necks for the third. It's a wall of hair back there, and these guys are supposed to be officers.
As for Khan, I have mixed emotions. If I'd seen Benedict Cumberbatch's rendition first, i would have loved it. He committed to it completely and didn't back down from it. He did an amazing job with a pretty big role. Problem is, I've relished Ricardo Montalban's personification of that madman for quite a long time, and it holds sentimental value. Benedict was committed (as well his Khan should be) but Ricardo was downright psychotic. Benedict shed a tear as Khan. Ricardo never did.
The biggest problem I had with "into darkness" were the ridiculous and glaring inconsistancies. If they could beam Spock out of the volcano in the opening segment, they could have beamed the cold-fusion device in. He never needed to be in harm's way and the natives never needed to see the ship.
Another issue is Scotty's kvetching that you can't hide a star ship on the bottom of the ocean. I mean, come on. After the crushing void of space, a ship can't handle the pressure under water? And how were there air bubbles coming from the ship under water? Isn't that bad boy airtight if it travels in space?
Nobody ever explained to me why none of the other 300 year old people's blood couldn't save Kirk if they were genetically engineered the same way as Khan, why they could all of a sudden remove a crew member from a cryo-tube ("and keep him in a drug-induced coma!") to put Kirk in when they claimed earlier that they didn't know how to open the ancient tubes without killing the crew, or how there were only 72 cryo-tubes, yet there seemed to be an extra one for Khan at the end. Even taking Kirk out of it, there was still the other member of Khan's crew to put back in it.
Details, I know, but they nag at me.
I look forward to seeing more films in the Star Trek franchise. I hope they tighten up those details, and I hope somebody has a serious talk with Quinto about his line delivery. I just wonder what old story lines they'll revisit. Will we see more familiar notions? Will Carol Marcus bear Kirk's son, David? Has she already? The very end of the movie took place a year after the events, and Carol made some quip about how "It's nice to have a family." There could be a lot of continuing adventures with the bridge crew's offspring.
Somehow, whatever canon they revisit, I doubt they'll travel back in time to pick up a couple of whales.
 

mstay

Older than most, not as old as some.
Oct 13, 2007
6,022
5,554
Utah
This is a great review Lepplady! I enjoyed reading your insight almost as much as I enjoyed watching the films. :biggrin2:
I like the reboot very much. And I liked the old ones too. Even the first one! I remember going to see it with my parents and it was something we could enjoy together.
 

GNTLGNT

The idiot is IN
Jun 15, 2007
87,651
358,754
62
Cambridge, Ohio
Harry-Potter-in-Star-Trek--59923.jpg
 

OldDarth

Well-Known Member
Jul 10, 2006
730
2,994
Canada
I liked all of the original cast movies - even the horrible 5th one which has the great campfire scenes and the best McCoy back story sequence ever in the history of that character.

ST:TMP, the Director's Cut is a marked improvement over the rushed theatrical version - I quite like it. Plus the score to that movie is fantastic.

The first reboot movie was a lot of fun and proved in spades that new iterations of the classic characters can work. It gets a big pass on story because of the great job it did resetting a very well established universe that was over 40 years old at that point. Unfortunately the writing did not step up its game for Star Trek In Darkness and, since the free pass had been used up, that was big mistake. Bringing back Khan was disappointing after setting the stage for brand new adventures. STID tried to skip from Space Seed to Wrath of Khan in one movie and consequently it carried none of the emotional impact the passage of time had built between the two appearances of Khan in the original timeline.

JJ et al tried to turn Star Trek into Star Wars. Star Trek at its best is a marriage of action and idea. The JJ turns are pretty well all action with no substance. Orci is writing and directing the third installment - my hopes are pretty low that it will be any good.

My biggest quibbles with the reboot lie with the introduction of transwarp beaming - hey we no longer need starships - a terrible idea, marooning Kirk in the first movie - seriously?, and the magic blood nonsense in STID.

No matter, the previous body of work still exists for rewatches and continued enjoyment.
 

kingricefan

All-being, keeper of Space, Time & Dimension.
Jul 11, 2006
30,011
127,446
Spokane, WA
I like Chris Pines as Kirk. The only cast member I haven't warmed to is the one playing Scotty. He's just there for tension-breaking humor, like Ron is in the Harry Potter movies. The guy playing Scotty is a better actor than what they use him for- he was the kid in Hearts In Atlantis for crying out loud!
 

Lepplady

Chillin' since 2006
Nov 30, 2006
12,498
65,639
Red Stick
I like Chris Pines as Kirk. The only cast member I haven't warmed to is the one playing Scotty. He's just there for tension-breaking humor, like Ron is in the Harry Potter movies. The guy playing Scotty is a better actor than what they use him for- he was the kid in Hearts In Atlantis for crying out loud!
Agreed. They're not giving him the substance of James Doohan's incarnation. I love Deep Roy as the new crew member (the little guy). They can use him for plucky comic relief. I must admit, though, that I loved the "Can I get a towel?" moment in the first one. Zac Quinto almost didn't get through it.
I think they can redeem the reboot. I don't even mind if they keep bringing in old story points, as long as they're faithful to them. They did a good job of that in the first one, going so far as to put Captain Pike in a wheelchair at the end of it, just like he was in the original series. ...and then he's walking in STID? What's up with that?
They can save it. But they need to tighten up the writing and stay to canon. And they need to make the new Uhura a little more dignified, like the original. That's a pet peeve of mine about the reboots.
 

Grandpa

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2014
9,724
53,642
Colorado
No, please. Let's hear it.

Well, first, they did what every producer since Gene Roddenberry wanted to do, because there's no special drama from a narrative and character standpoint - get rid of the Vulcans. And they do so by having a ship drill down through the apparently defenseless planet, even though Vulcan had interstellar travel while the earth was still recovering from WWIII with the population perched around generators.

Getting rid of Vulcan offended me. Vulcan was Roddenberry's special feature that he fought hard for, threatening to fall on his sword if the network didn't cave and let him keep Spock. This was essential to Roddenberry's vision, so the show would have 1) a valid outside perspective of what we humans do and 2) provide a rather higher ideal of rationality, not to mention the notion that, hey, there's an arguably superior species hanging with us arrogant humans and 3) generate some dialogue about bigotry. Getting rid of Vulcan is as offensive to the Star Trek canon as it would having aliens introduce a special genetic bio-warfare that kills off almost all black people on the planet so there's no more of them in the show, except Uhura.

In the original series, Kirk was a high achiever, albeit driven and sometimes reckless. In the reboot, he's a delinquent. Now, I can understand how that happened with the different storyline about his parents, but as a delinquent, he gets into Starfleet Academy, graduates, and within a month of being assigned to the Federation's flagship, the captain decides that Kirk is the best one to command it. What???? Can you imagine a brand-new cadet getting special dispensation to get in the Naval Academy, squeaking through Annapolis, then getting assigned to the Nimitz, and then getting put in charge in the next few days? Geesh.

Red matter creating black holes. I'll just leave it at that. As plot devices go for science fiction, this is stupider the crossing timelines.

And the other things mentioned previously, such being convenient when transporters can and can't be used.

Now, what I liked about it was the casting, although I agree with Lepplady about Uhura - Saldana can pull it off; she just needs a different character paradigm. The high bright spot was Urban. He channeled McCoy.

But that wasn't bright enough to thrill me to the show. I didn't want to see it again, and when Into Darkness came out, I had a few moments of devotion to the franchise, but gave it up. Sorry, but they lost me.
 

Lepplady

Chillin' since 2006
Nov 30, 2006
12,498
65,639
Red Stick
I absolutely agree about Vulcan. Had they NO defenses? How is that logical?

Trying to mess around with Vulcans is why I never watched the "Enterprise" series. They tried to completely rewrite the relationship between Vulcan and Humans, creating tension and animosity. I refused to watch a single episode for that one reason only. I can deal with a little deviation from canon, but that chucks the entire history of the two species right out the window. Not dealing with it. And I like Scott Bakula.

And Winona Ryder as Spock's mother? Really?

As for that red matter... even if we do accept that there's this highly volatile material that can create black holes, which is dubious, Spock was on his way to create one singularity with it. That takes one small speck. So why did he have a glob of it the size of a beach ball? Why did he have so much of it? How is that logical?

I like Saldana as Uhura. I'm glad she's doing it. I just hope they tighten up her writing a little bit. ...A LOT.

They've got some work to do unless they want to lose the franchise to total mediocrity, but I remain hopeful that they can do it.
 

Grandpa

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2014
9,724
53,642
Colorado
Trying to mess around with Vulcans is why I never watched the "Enterprise" series. They tried to completely rewrite the relationship between Vulcan and Humans, creating tension and animosity. I refused to watch a single episode for that one reason only. I can deal with a little deviation from canon, but that chucks the entire history of the two species right out the window. Not dealing with it. And I like Scott Bakula.

I thought the series had real potential. I liked it early on. Yeah, I didn't agree with the treatment of the Vulcans. First, they're sanctimonious bureaucrats; and then they have to fight against their own corrupt leadership where treachery and deceit are at play rather than logic. Really, guys? You have to go that far to make the Vulcans interesting to you? Newsflash: For me, and a lot of fans, the Vulcans already are interesting, just as they are.

Kinda sad as a legacy. Roddenberry goes to the edge of the cliff to keep Spock as a dramatic necessity. His heirs spend their efforts trying to subvert the Vulcans or just get rid of them.

They've got some work to do unless they want to lose the franchise to total mediocrity, but I remain hopeful that they can do it.

For those who watch the Big Bang Theory, in one episode, an exasperated Penny explains the difference between Star Wars and Star Trek by saying, "There is no difference!" With Abrams now in control of both franchises, I suspect she's closer to the mark than we want to admit.
 

ghost19

"Have I run too far to get home?"
Sep 25, 2011
8,926
56,578
51
Arkansas
I've enjoyed all of the Star Trek movies, all the way back to the poorly concieved Motion Picture. That one was a snoozefest trying to be the next Space Odyssey, but it had its merits.

There will never be another Ricardo Montalban as Khan Noonien Singh. Ever. Hearing that the latest installment was a Khan reworking, with a skinny British guy stepping into the role, I was very wary. Then again, I wasn't very enthusiastic about the franchise relaunch with new actors taking on old, dear and familiar roles to begin with. I was rooting for the grandson of Kirk and son of Spock (and Lt Saavik) carrying on where the old folks left off. I was fully prepared to hate it. But I didn't.
I'm usually a stickler for time travel and the grandfather paradox. I can't STAND how they ended the Voyager series with the Captain going back and changing the past. If she changed the past, she wouldn't exist to go back and change the past. Not as they presented it. If they'd written it in with Janeway knowing that even though the ship returned early and everybody was fine, she'd still have to go back and sacrifice herself, in the altered timeline, I could have lived with that.
That said, I was even able to accept the whole alternate universe premise in the Star Trek reboot. I still squint a bit at the notion of old Spock existing in the new alternate universe, but I forgive it because it lets us visit with Leonard Nimoy in pointy ears now and then. Besides, he was caught in the vortex, so that could have protected him from all the changes in the space/time continuum.
What? No I am NOT geek.
I like Chris Pine as Kirk and adore Karl Urban as McCoy. I frown at the way they've treated Uhura, though. Nichelle Nichols was dignified and composed as a bridge officer, while Zoe Saldana's version is rather a hot mess. Most of all, the more I see Zachary Quinto as Spock, the less I like it. He looks the part, without any doubt. It's obvious that he's studied Leonard's expressions, mannerisms and body language. Props to him for that. But his dialogue sucks. The way he delivers his lines is exactly the same from one to the next. It's deadpan, decidedly not Spock-like. The first movie wasn't as bad as the second, and I hope it improves by the third.
I also hope they trim the hair on the back of Kirk and Spock's necks for the third. It's a wall of hair back there, and these guys are supposed to be officers.
As for Khan, I have mixed emotions. If I'd seen Benedict Cumberbatch's rendition first, i would have loved it. He committed to it completely and didn't back down from it. He did an amazing job with a pretty big role. Problem is, I've relished Ricardo Montalban's personification of that madman for quite a long time, and it holds sentimental value. Benedict was committed (as well his Khan should be) but Ricardo was downright psychotic. Benedict shed a tear as Khan. Ricardo never did.
The biggest problem I had with "into darkness" were the ridiculous and glaring inconsistancies. If they could beam Spock out of the volcano in the opening segment, they could have beamed the cold-fusion device in. He never needed to be in harm's way and the natives never needed to see the ship.
Another issue is Scotty's kvetching that you can't hide a star ship on the bottom of the ocean. I mean, come on. After the crushing void of space, a ship can't handle the pressure under water? And how were there air bubbles coming from the ship under water? Isn't that bad boy airtight if it travels in space?
Nobody ever explained to me why none of the other 300 year old people's blood couldn't save Kirk if they were genetically engineered the same way as Khan, why they could all of a sudden remove a crew member from a cryo-tube ("and keep him in a drug-induced coma!") to put Kirk in when they claimed earlier that they didn't know how to open the ancient tubes without killing the crew, or how there were only 72 cryo-tubes, yet there seemed to be an extra one for Khan at the end. Even taking Kirk out of it, there was still the other member of Khan's crew to put back in it.
Details, I know, but they nag at me.
I look forward to seeing more films in the Star Trek franchise. I hope they tighten up those details, and I hope somebody has a serious talk with Quinto about his line delivery. I just wonder what old story lines they'll revisit. Will we see more familiar notions? Will Carol Marcus bear Kirk's son, David? Has she already? The very end of the movie took place a year after the events, and Carol made some quip about how "It's nice to have a family." There could be a lot of continuing adventures with the bridge crew's offspring.
Somehow, whatever canon they revisit, I doubt they'll travel back in time to pick up a couple of whales.
About the only redeeming quality I've seen out of the new cast so far is Karl Urban as Doctor McCoy. He must've studied McCoy's character because he has the eyebrow raise, the dry sense of humor and just the overall screen presence of the original Dr. McCoy. I could take or leave the latest Star Trek movie. I'm with you Lepp, you can't beat the original Start Trek II with Ricardo Montalban.
 

muskrat

Dis-Member
Nov 8, 2010
4,518
19,564
Under your bed
I like the new flicks. Simon Pegg's Scotty and Karl Urban's Bones are great. You can't replace Jim and Spock, but whatayagonnado? I dig the alternate time/reality concept, which, to me, gives both the old series and this one their own stand-alone relevance. A little too much fake camera glare schtick in that first one, yeah, but I like the production design. Oh, and the mini-skirts, gotta love the mini-skirts.

I've never taken Star Trek too seriously (that's always been my sister's job), but I can see how some purists could find a lot to gripe about.

And yes, red matter will cause black holes, everybody knows that.
 

johntfs

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2008
277
966
Probably my favorite of the new movies was the newest movie, Star Trek Beyond. If finally got us off the USS Lensflare and into a cool, mostly planetside adventure. I won't go too much into the plot, but I will say a few things about certain characters. I really liked Sofia Boutella's Jaylah and that character ends the movie in a position to potentially show up for various sequels.

One weird things about Jaylah is that she felt like she was almost purposely set up as a potential replacement for Anton Yelchin's Chekov. Except that Anton Yelchin died June 19, 2016 while Star Trek: Beyond was released July 22, 2016, a little over a month later. So Boutella's character was set up like she was long before Yelchin's death.