Reviews: Star Trek 544
The movie is a total reboot. And yes, it features time travel. While normally this is a giant red flag, in this case I don't think it's too bad. Especially when you want to make giant, universe-altering changes without pissing off the continuity nerds.
Star Trek starts off with a big action sequence that holds no surprises. You'll immediately notice a few dramatic stylistic changes in the camera work. This movie owes more to the pseudo-documentary style of Firefly or BSG than the traditional pristine look of the last few decades of Trek. Space is pretty silent (although it somehow gets noisier as the movie continues), and they even do the cool thing of making sure that everything in space doesn't share the same Z-axis. Minor, but I love it. The intro ends with an emotional note that resonates strongly; it could have been cheesy but it works. So, they reboot the universe. We get some Kirk/Spock back story, and some brief moments at the academy. Wacky events occur, leaving most of our familiar characters aboard the Enterprise. We witness each of them rise to their known rank and positions. It's all very wink-wink. Occasionally a bit overly cutesy, but ultimately fun. I found the scoring a little weak (Abrams uses the same composer for everything), but many of the sound effects echo the original sources. The effects are just great: I would expect nothing less than perfect, and I got it. I particularly liked the Vulcan architecture. Yes, the new bridge looks like an Apple Store, but the glass and white looks modern. It might not age that well, but it's cool. The costumes look forward and backward at the same time. We have mini-skirts on the bridge and familiar color coding. It all works. The Enterprise itself feels HUGE inside. Engineering isn't just a room with a console; it's massive. It has weight. I love it.
I'm not going to go into the story. It's convoluted, but frankly it's really not the key to this movie: this is a roller coaster movie with new actors playing parts we love.
So, let's talk about the most important thing: the characters. They basically nailed everyone. Uhura and Bones are used a lot in the early bits. Chekov and Sulu each have a few nice moments. Scotty shows up late in the game and steals almost every scene he is in. But as the movie goes on, it becomes almost entirely Kirk and Spock, which really is how it should be.
More so than anyone else, Kirk is an impression. But ya know what? I buy it. The Kirk we knew is older. This one is younger with bigger balls and swagger. This kid will chase the skirt instead of just knowing she will come to him. I could certainly see someone thinking they took Kirk too far, but I buy it. He has charisma and some great lines.
Quinto's Spock is great. I resisted the urge to make Sylar jokes (mostly). He's reserved, subtle, and when the need arises, emotional. It works. He's the best casting in the film. Since Nimoy gets to reprise old Spock, we're given the ability to stack the two Spocks up right against each other. And it's just great. I totally buy it.
Eric Bana is the big bad. He seems almost totally superfluous. He does just fine, but I just don't care either way. This movie is about our heroes. Bana's Nero could have been a robot or an entity or whatever. He's a plot device used to press the universe reboot button, and to give us a ticking clock.
Two of the "humorous" sequences go a bit far. You'll know them when you see them. It's like they were inserted to keep 12-year-olds giggling. I expect this in a Disney film, but I wish I didn't see them here. Another action sequence in the middle serves no purpose except letting us have a giant monster chase Kirk. Abrams probably wanted to toss some work to his Cloverfield monster-making buddy.
But here's the thing: Star Trek is entertaining. It has problems, of course. It won't make everyone happy. But by the time Scotty gets into the story, there are so many moments of unbridled joy that you can't help but feel giddy. I don't know if Abrams will stick around or if this cast will be back for more, but if they are, I know I'll be in the theater again. And you should be there too. Now. You're a carbon-based life form who reads Slashdot. You owe it to yourself.
Fans are disconnected (Score:5, Insightful)
Can someone please explain to me how this is NOT a failure?
Star Trek was always known for its strong story telling. Sure, it was sometimes campy and over the top. But the series was built on story. The action was just the frosting.
That was something that Berman never realized. He kept playing down the story in exchange for more action, more outlandish events, more of that adrenaline squeeze. Except that he was bad at it. I mean, really, really bad. Stinking up the screen bad. (Hey look: MACOs! Amazing how those guys never got any screen time, isn't it? Or how about the time Riker used a joystick to save the day? I know, let's have Picard fight himself! Or put 7 of 9 in a fight pit with a WWE wrestler! Yeah, those were great times. *cough*)
Now you're telling me that JJ doesn't suck at it. Therefore it's okay to finish tearing apart the foundations of Star Trek because at least it was a fun ride. Right?
Star Trek stood on its own two feet for 40 years. It was challenged by the networks, challenged by the box office, and challenged by its own actors. Yet the concept survived and is cherished by its fans. The core idea of a better future painted on the rich tapestry of space travel is not something to be ignored. It's something to protect, grow, and find ways to adapt to the changing times. After all, is there any better time to shout out this message than when things seem the darkest?
Instead we have a summer blockbuster. And like all summer blockbusters, it will be forgotten by next summer. It is a sad day for Roddenberry's vision of the future.
Re:Good, but (Score:5, Insightful)
And the reviewer loses a geek point by not knowing how to spell "Sylar".
Re:Fans are disconnected (Score:4, Insightful)
I know, let's have Picard fight himself!
You enjoyed that one, huh? You're right, it was cheesy. We need the original riveting Star Trek fight scene [youtube.com] where our hero manages to put commas not only in his dialogue but also his attacks ... against a man in a rubber lizard suit.
Trek fans are hilarious. They are even more hilarious when they turn on each other.
It's a movie, relax. If you didn't like the "modernized plot" they opted for, don't watch it. If you would rather watch a journey through space, watch a journey through space. Today's movies are made to target the largest cross section of audience to maximize income. You certainly won't find me watch Star Wars 1-3 anytime soon because of this.
Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
As a golden Trekie (getting up there in age), I am hopeful this 'REBOOT' of Trek will see more of it in the cinemas, and maybe even on TV.
Thanks JJ for making it real again!
OK, but just not "believable" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fans are disconnected (Score:4, Insightful)
The story is a bit convoluted, but I think a lot of that is necessary for the reboot they wanted to accomplish. There is a lot of story telling in there, but it's sprinkled around and not played up in most parts. If you're looking carefully, you see it in several spots.
Maybe I was just not distracted because I haven't seen a lot of the other shows that these actors played in, thus I was not experiencing the "Agent Smith" phenomenon.
I thought Spock was well done, very much in line with what I remember of Spock from TOS, Vulcan with enough Human in him to drive him in ways other Vulcans could never grasp. Kirk was very much a young bulldog just coming into his prime, full of testosterone and bravado, but with enough brains to see what no one else seemed to be able to.
This doesn't tear apart the foundations of Star Trek so much as it sweeps aside most everything built on those foundations: Honor, fear in the face of death, duty in the face of insurmountable odds, there is no such thing as a "no win" solution--those are still there. Even when beings die by the planet-load (Hopefully that's not too much of a spoiler), all is not lost and with perseverance, the good guys can still win and the universe can still be saved.
Re:DARMOK! (Score:4, Insightful)
That episode was by far one of the best Star Trek episodes (in my opinion, up there with "In the Pale Moonlight" from DS9). To tie your comment into the movie review, Memory Alpha says that Rick Berman hated the entire premise [memory-alpha.org] of Darmok. If Memory Alpha is accurate, all I can do is shake my head...
Re:Fans are disconnected (Score:4, Insightful)
Can someone please explain to me how this is NOT a failure?
Because the reviewer got it wrong. The villain story is convoluted. The true story in this film is how the Enterprise crew was put together (or put back together due to the Alternate timeline). Nero is only there as a driving force behind the crew getting together. This is a film like Star Trek IV. It's not about villains, it's about the characters themselves.
Re:Singularity? (Score:3, Insightful)
So is it the more mild transhumanism, or the heavier general AI?
From my understanding, Star Trek's interpretation of end result of transhumanism/singularity is the Borg.
As reasons why the Federation does not implement such technology is really up for debate. Of course I have not seen the new movie yet so I cannot say whether or not this addresses such an issue.
Or for that matter, explain why the Borg don't just sent a cube back in time to blow up earth during the time of the dinosaurs or something reasonable like that.
I mean if they thought Earth was a threat enough to sent a cube to destroy it in present time that warped back in time after it had been weakened, why not just sent a cube back before the federation was really around.
Unless its one of those Terminator plots where the Federation is really the source of the Borg... So they had to sent the cube back knowing it would be destroyed in order for some borg piece to be around so that they are created sometimes in the future.
Gawd.
Re:Fans are disconnected (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a summer action flick. This is worthless. This is not Star Trek. JJ Abrams is a moron on a level I have never observed before. Lost is not quality storytelling. Lost is an endless sea of twists and convolution. The man should never have been allowed near the franchise. What's more depressing though, is that everyone seems to have jumped ship... or never understood to begin with.
Re:Fans are disconnected (Score:3, Insightful)
The plot device they use to explain the 'reboot' is somewhat convoluted...but is straight forward
Please explain how something can be both convoluted and straightforward. If that's what we've got to look forward to with this movie, I think I'll wait for the $1 DVD rental at Redbox.
Re:Good, but (Score:4, Insightful)
> But please please please don't forget we're watching Star Trek for the philosophical questions that arise
No we're not. Speaking as someone who missed Boy Scouts to watch the first airing of The Man Trap, any appeal that endless philosophical discussions might have had has been thoroughly beat out of me in the last few years. I want to see epic, multi-ship space battles. When I get tired of that, and for some reason want to go back to watching tepid discussions in ultra-modern conference rooms, I'll let you know.
You're right, there was more to Star Trek than "set phasers on quick-fry-to-a-crackly-crunch" but in more recent years, wayyyyy too many stories went too far the other way. Star Trek became more boring than watching the NASA channel. About four episodes into Enterprise, I decided life was too short for mediocre Trek, and never looked back. Until now.
Re:Good, but (Score:3, Insightful)
2. I prefer TNG over TOS for a few reasons: Kirk is clearly an action-based fly by the seat of his pants type guy. Makes for a great action movie like this. But please please please don't forget we're watching Star Trek for the philosophical questions that arise as well in the star trek universe. I loved Picard because he was the opposite. He drank hot tea on a regular basis. He thought about things, and thusly, I thought about things. Remember: We're not watching star wars, we're watching star trek here...
When we have a young Jean-Luc Picard on the screen, you can have more tea sipping. Meanwhile, this is Kirk. Sorry if that unbalances your view of what Trek is.
Re:Frankly, I was disappointed (Score:1, Insightful)
so you don't like Abrams and it sounds like you went in wanting it to suck
"The science is woeful. I know we have to cut movies some slack, Star Trek was noted for being pretty accurate with the real-world science they used, but that's certainly not the case here."
WHAT? Granted some gadgets or ideas made their debut in Star Trek and later inspired people to make them a reality, but I don't think much of Star Trek is based on reality. They have always played free and loose with science. If a writer has a scene in mind, they will invent the science that makes that scene possible no matter how far fetched.
"He and the writers have only a passing familiarity with basic stuff like the command structure of a starship."
I'm curious where you got YOUR familiarity with the command structure of a STARSHIP. Starfleet was always a quasi-military organization from the beginning, so a strict adherence to military custom and chain of command should not be expected.
"There's a same-sex romantic relationship between two main characters, that I thought was highly implausible and unbelievable, for two major reasons."
Because homosexuality has been "cured" in the 24th century. are you a republican?
"The portrayal of the Vulcans was pretty inconsistent...another Vulcan elder smiled at one point."
I recall Sarek and several other Vulcans cracking half-smiles and smirks in other episodes and movies.
"Simon Pegg does the best he can as Scotty, but writing that role as comic relief was a terrible mistake."
i almost wonder if you watched the same Start Trek as me. Scotty cracking wise in the face of disaster or while making a miracle happen was also fairly common.
"Only hardcore fans will even notice those changes, so it's like a secret little 'Up yours' to the fans. The fans that he claims he doesn't need. The same fans that kept Star Trek going for the last 40 years."
taking this a little personally here. The sad truth is that a reboot is required after 40 years because the original cast and those who came after have so mangled the entire concept. The other sad truth is if Star Trek had never come back after the cancellation of TOS (no movies, no spinoffs) and Abrams had wanted to make a big movie loosely based on some cool old TV show, the movie would be just as big a hit without the hardcore fans...
Re:Good, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Star Wars deserves to be insulted. *glare*
the English language weeps (Score:4, Insightful)
In the first three paragraphs, the author makes all three of the most common English errors: to/too, its/it's, and then/than. Praise Bob, I'm glad he didn't screw up there/they're/their; that would have been too much to bear/bare (haha).
But seriously, if you're going to submit a lengthy bit of prose to a popular website, please ask someone with a high-school understanding of English to proofread it for you. Everyone knows that Slashdot keeps no such talent on the payroll, so you shouldn't expect editing from the "editors."
Re:DARMOK! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fans are disconnected (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't kid yourselves: if this movie tanks, then Trek is dead forever. So you better pray this does VERY well and makes 100's of millions so Paramount doesn't declare it dead forever.
Personally, I don't give a crap whether Paramount declares it dead or alive. They had 40 years to play with the concept and blew goats for more years than not. If people are looking for a real reason to justify shorter periods of "intellectual property" protection this is it. Rather than following the blind assumption that the "rights holders" somehow have a superior vision and a greater ability to execute on that vision, the playing field should at some point be open to those who care more about the material rather than those who merely hope to turn a buck from those nerdy fans.
I'd love to see what the Star Trek: Phase II (http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/) could accomplish if they weren't crippled by the need to remain 'non-commercial' as a form of 'respect for the rightsholders'. They should be able to raise capital from investors, present the work in venues and forms which might bring a profit rather than just offer it for free on the internet, and heck, even have a budget that could pay for professional acting talent rather than relying on talented volunteers. I bet that they could produce work that would rival or surpass that produced by the "rights holders" without the compromises that come from either not understanding the material or the desire to jazz things up to make it more "accessible".
In a world with sane intellectual property laws, Paramounts theoretical failure would herald the beginning of opportunities for others to interpret rather than a guarantee of being "dead forever".
Re:Abrams (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that time travel can be lazy. I used to love it, but it's been drastically overdone on film and television. Now I see it as a trap that screenwriters fall into when they want to connect elements of a story that shouldn't be able to connect.
In the Star Trek franchise The Voyage Home made novel use of it. At least it seemed novel at the time, and it made for an entertaining romp. But then came Generations. And then First Contact. And now this. That's four of the eleven Star Trek films, all reliant upon time travel in some way. Rather a lot, IMHO. And that's not counting the endless time travel episodes, stretching from TOS right up to Enterprise. What irks me most about time travel on Star Trek, though, is how it's treated as a novel, surprising development every time it happens. "What, he's from the future?" "What, we've been transported back to the 20th century?" "What, they changed history?" These future-folk should really get used to time travel: it's as commonplace as pizza.
Re:Good, but (Score:2, Insightful)
What I mean to say is that it's very professionally done- whereas EVERY other star trek movie I've seen has a cringe moment or two, where you go .. eeeek that's an awkward scene.
I got that eeeky feeling at the completely unnecessary Hoth scene.
Tell me, in nature, what type of predator chases its prey down, essentially catches it, and then proceeds just to yell at it (multiple times!)? Really?! And incidentally, with an entire deserted ice planet available, said creature just happens to chase the protagonist into a tiny cave where another key character has been camping out?
That entire segment was extremely cringe-worthy for me. Loved the rest though, despite its flaws.
Re:Fans are disconnected And should be... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that the official word is that this DOES create an alternate universe, due to quantum branching, but that's mostly just the creators covering their butts.
There are some inconsistencies, of course, like the technology on Kirk's Father's ship; but I think overall this movie tried harder to fit into canon then most STAR TREK episodes themselves did.
Re:Good, but (Score:2, Insightful)
MORE SPOILERS
That's the Star Trek way, kick the opponent, when he already lies on the ground.
The Federation lost an entire planet because they didn't follow through on killing off Nero and his ship the first time. Do you think they should have potentially let him go and maybe had him come back later? They gave him the chance to surrender first, and he refused.
Re:2. is exactly the opposite for me (Score:5, Insightful)
More so than anyone else: Kirk is an impression.
I didn't get that until the end, and I think they threw in that line delivered in Kirk cadence as part of their plan to make Trekkies happy. It was just one more favorite clichés that we got to see once more. Sure, we're going to replace all your actors, but we won't ruin the characters. I approve.
Now, McCoy was the impression. He was pretty good at it though. No complaints.
Re:the English language weeps (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it does matter. If you stop caring about the proper use of language, you will begin making the same mistakes yourself. This not only makes you look dumb, but also leads to communication problems in which using the wrong words significantly changes the meaning of a sentence.
I routinely work with outsourced Indian workers who have very poor English skills. Much time is wasted dealing with miscommunications resulting from their undisciplined approach to language, especially when time zone differences result in 16-hour delays to our "what does that mean?"-emails.
Re:OK, but just not "believable" (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me guess...you wanted to serve on CVN-65.
I don't know about the grandparent poster, but I did serve on CVN-65.
That aside, with my own Navy background, I have the same qualms as the GP poster. I have not seen the movie myself, and I'm relying in the review here and the spoilers from others for details. But what I hear has some strange implications. Bad enough that the reboot screws up the ages of the characters (Kirk and McCoy and Scottie were considerably older than guys like Sulu and Chekov in the series), but handing command over to a cadet with no experience? What the hell? I'm pretty sure that's not how Kirk came up in the ranks in the original canon, and in a real fleet, the CO would be quickly relived of his duties and scheduled for a court martial for doing such a thing. There's a damn good reason that you have to do time as a division officer and an Executive Officer before you get anywhere near that chair; experience counts, and no matter how talented you are, no one is born with it.
Abrams is simply asking for too much suspension of disbelief here. I know it's fiction, and science-fiction adventure at that, but speaking as someone that's actually served in a military force, the cadet-to-captain thing is just too much. That's not Star Trek, that's Spacecamp [wikipedia.org] with photon torpedoes.
Re:Good, but (Score:3, Insightful)
The movie itself was ok, but I'm not hopeful about the future ones that will probably follow. Sure, the plot was entertaining enough, and it wasn't a bad movie, but to me it seemed like that was by chance rather than by design.
The writers once again demonstrated that they're childish and stupid. The premise was ripped straight out of Nemesis, complete with badly scripted Romulan renegades in a super powerful ship with a planetkiller main weapon. They did it better this time, but it was still the exact same premise! (And it's never going to be done well, it's so lame. At least the guy wasn't a clone.)
Then there's yet more main character stupidity just to move the plot forward. For example, an out of control crew member was left behind on a deadly planet instead of being put in the brig, just so he could end up somewhere else. I can ignore physics errors, I can't ignore illogical actions!
Captain Kirk (Score:5, Insightful)
Holes? How about the fact that no navy in the known universe is going to make a captain of a kid right out of the acadamy AND give him the fleet flagship to boot. I don't care how many planets he saves.
"Great job, Ensign Kirk. You're now Lieutenant Kirk. Report to the Yorktown."
Re:Good, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Frankly, I was disappointed (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the series were logial in their application of science, transporters were limited by sensor range, warp drive worked based on real world theories of FTL (disproven recently), they used terms like dark matter and protons/gravitons/etc.. correctly and alot of the phonemon mentioned exist as theoretical ideas.
The film seemed to ignore science, we had "red matter", "lightening storms in space" aparently a ship can survive being in the middle of a black hole for a couple of minutes with no problems. Transporters can work over infinite distances, and little logical errors abounded. During their trip out they make a point of saving it will take three minutes, yet a more advanced ship from the future seems to make the same journey in a day.
I liked the movie but between saying f*** you to the ten years of star trek tv shows I grew up with and the complete inattention to the science or sticking with rules the film creates just annoyed the hell out of me. I'd rather they let the whole franchise have fizzled out than that film.
Will Uhura Give Me HALF the Boner (Score:3, Insightful)
That the name "Nichelle Nichols" creates, in just my typing it?
I used to watch CARTOON Star Trek, in '73. Just to get more of that woman.
Tough luck, Betty and Veronica.
Re:Onion News Network Coverage (Score:1, Insightful)
"...sounds totally gay."
I wasn't aware a person's sexual orientation had such negative connotations.
Or are you just the typical insensitive clod? :)
Oh wait, this is slashdot...
Re:Good, but (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the point of dumping Kirk off on the ice planet (other than the obvious ploy to get Scotty involved) was that Spock was being illogical. It was a way of demonstrating his "emotionally compromised" state before they get around to pointing out that Kirk can assume command because of it.
I saw Star Trek TOS first run ... (Score:3, Insightful)
...so I may be the Senior here. (kudos to RAH!)
I fully admit to smoking the Trek crack since 1966. Hard habit to break!
And I know it led me to enlist in the Air Force and end up at Edwards AFB in 1976. My clearance and job allowed me to get up close and personal with the real first spacecraft to be named Enterprise.
So, TOS really meant a lot, especially at that time. The other cool thing was that my proximity to L.A. allowed me to see Star Wars 3 days after it premiered. Did not suck.
In spite of that, I am not fanatic about the Trek. Of the series, I prefer TOS and Voyager. Of the movies, I think I'm in the majority with 2, 4, 6, and 8. Everything else was not-so-good.
I'm going this weekend to see the new movie. I think it has a chance. I'd like to see 2 sequels that are even better. I think the first 3 Raiders movies were uniformly good, if for different reasons. There's no reason Abrams can't turn out 3 good movies. Hey, Judd Apatow hasn't really served up a turd yet, so this is doable.
As for a future TV series, I don't know. Might seem too much like Galaxy Quest. Then again, if this movie and possible sequels get giant box office numbers, it may be a foregone conclusion.
Bleah. Not impressed (Score:3, Insightful)
It's an OK movie. If it weren't "Star Trek", it would probably rank with The Chronicles of Riddick.
Annoyances:
Maybe someday there will be a David Weber SF movie, one that makes military sense. This isn't it. It's a mediocre space opera.
Re:Good, but (Score:2, Insightful)
I get that, but it was so illogical that someone should've removed him from duty right then and there. In fact, it was attempted murder, and there's no way Kirk would've respected him afterwards. It made no sense.
My theory is this: either the writers or the target audience have the emotional maturity of a five year old. I don't know which, but it's making many modern movies exceedingly annoying to me (even ones that are otherwise excellent).
I also think there's a tendency towards general mild overacting that makes the characters more comedic, but less real. Movie characters have always cracked jokes, and Star Trek traditionally even has some slapstick, but the one liners no longer sound like an adult would say them (mostly limited to Scotty).
There have also always been chase scenes, but nowadays they're just there for no purpose. Like when Starfleet suddenly had a dune buggy and Picard just had to go drive around and get into a firefight.
Re:Captain Kirk (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I had a problem with that too - seems like 5 minutes of screen time could have brought them from fresh cadets to having some kind of experience that would have made Kirk in command a little more reasonable.
Oh well - I still enjoyed it.
Re:Bleah. Not impressed (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. I think having lots of plumbing and tanks and the like could probably work, but it still felt like it was the interior of a terrestrial building: lots of wasted, empty space above "ground" level. This could have been done a lot better.
It's possible the kamikaze run by Kirk's father sufficiently disabled the ship so that the shuttles had a chance to escape. It's also possible that the antagonist calmed down afterward and figured there was no point in even going after the shuttles, much less killing or capturing them.
Generally, yes, but there was no deus ex machina this time. Time travel didn't solve the problem; it created it. We're now "stuck" in an alternate timeline drastically different from the one we've grown up with. It's a "reboot" for us, and for the characters. I've cringed with each movie/TV episode that (ab)used time travel, but in this particular case I think it's completely forgivable.
Re:Good, but (Score:3, Insightful)
While TNG was infinitely better made, I always much preferred the spirit of TOS -- the 1960s spirit of optimism and curiosity, of exploring space "because it is there". At its core was a belief in the virtues of science (Spock) tempered by morality (Bones).
I always felt that TNG was infected by the pessimism and the pragmatic mindset of the profit-oriented 1990s. Over-compensating for it by going on a search for elaborate political correctness -- "to baldly go where no bald man has gone before" (at least, not without a toupee.)
Besides, TNG had a swaggering arrogance that TOS lacked. We were constantly being told that the Enterprise was the prestigious flagship of the federation, the crew the best of the best, and its captain a tactical genius, a great scientist and the outstanding moral philosopher of his age. Even the insufferable brat on the bridge was presumably someone who we were supposed to admire.
Re:Trekkie - (Score:3, Insightful)
> Why do you yell "F**k you" to Rick Berman?
The feeling I got was that Berman was responsible for the dilution of the Trek franchise. Capitalizing on the fanbase created by TOS, the first few movies, and the first few seasons of TNG, he started a campaign of maximizing Trek's presence on the screen, replacing what used to be (mostly) the exploration of ideas with what became (mostly) formula, as long as it maximized screen time. There was always technobabble and contrived drama in Star Trek, going clear back to the old series, but like a property owner who subdivides, packs in as many families as possible and then refuses to maintain the property, he seemed intent on maximizing return with little thought towards quality or creativity. What amazes me is that the fans let him get away with it for as long as he did.
Re:Good, but (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes! Somebody else appears to get it! Trek, to me and many others I'm sure, is about exploring the unknown and how that relates to the human condition. But since Rick Berman took over, Trek has devolved into just-another-action-movie, and it's sad.
I did not enjoy much about the new Trek movie. The cast, I though, was well picked and did their roles well. Someday, perhaps, they will be given a decent Trek movie in which to act, but this was not it. It ended up being a long series of explosions, coincidences through which the characters meet one another, and a couple of scenes with a generic villain. This was all strung together by horrible (though common these days) cinematography and excellent special effects.
The Trek I loved is gone... and I don't think it will be coming back. Fortunately, I've go the TOS and TNG episodes as well as (most of) the movies made by the TOS cast.
Everything after that began to change and oftentimes become very un-Trek. Not that I didn't find enjoyment in watching DS9 and even (most of) Voyager, but they both strayed further and further from the core ideals of what Trek should be.
I guess the only saving grace here is that I worked very hard to not get my expectations up because I knew the movie would be a let down. I didn't know how it would, but I knew it would find a way.
Since we know there will be many sequels coming forth, here's hoping that they can take this admittedly good cast and put them in something worthy of being called Star Trek.