Star Trek

May. 2nd, 2009 03:03 pm
fajrdrako: (Default)
[personal profile] fajrdrako


I just got back from seeing the new Star Trek movie.

I've wandered far from Star Trek fandom in the past few decades. Never really liked any incarnation of the TV show after The Next Generation. I forgot all the Trek trivia and lore I once new so well.

And I didn't expect much of the movie. J.J. Abrams, the producer, hadn't impressed me in the long run with Lost and I never saw Alias. Couldn't imagine Star Trek with new actors - some of which I liked, some of which I didn't. I didn't believe they could recapture old magic.

But somehow they did. They managed to find a hit a lot of my old trigger points. They even managed to make me cry. Three times. Without being in the least sentimental.

  1. Seeing Zachary Quinto as Spock was just like seeing Spock again. It wasn't like seeing Leonard Nimoy - he's good, but not that good - but I never for a moment questioned his identity or found him lacking. The difference? There was a beauty and a charm to Nimoy's young Spock that I don't see in Quinto. But that's all right, because he's terrific.

  2. My brain had more trouble accepting Chris Pine as Jim Kirk, but that didn't matter because the script and plot are so interesting where Kirk is concerned that I could enjoy it without comparison. His Kirk is more extreme than Shatner's, more of a wild card, more of a maverick. (And the original Kirk was maverick enough.)

  3. I wasn't nearly as impressed by Sulu and Chekov. They were all right. Sulu has a great fight scene.

  4. The rewrite of the story, and the rationalization of it through time-travel and universe-divergence worked totally to my satisfaction. Except I wish we hadn't lost Amanda.

  5. I thought I didn't like Simon Pegg. I was so wrong. Two sentences of his Scotty and I was in love. And I was never much of a Scotty fan before - ! But he was absolutely delightful.

  6. Likewise Karl Urban as McCoy. I was definitely not a McCoy fan - thought him too crusty, too cute and cantankerous. But Urban raises the stakes and his McCoy is a delight - Kirk's recalcitrant accomplice in all sorts of mischief.

  7. So it's Spock who gets the girl KIrk wanted, and... Well, what they did with that ought to have been tacky and absurd, and if anyone had told me about it I'd have screamed and complained. But. It worked. It was, in fact, delighted. Against all the odds.

  8. A bit too much in the way of fisticuffs. Nice use of many dimensions. Since Russell T. Davies has talked about movement of characters up and down on the screen - not just across it, left to right - I've been paying more attention than I used to. Lots of dramatic falls, spectacular jumps.

  9. And Eric Bana as the evil Romulan captain Nero - wonderful. Totally wonderful.



  10. Set designs are nicely evocative of the past but have a good futuristic look - not remarkable, but a suitable setting and backdrop for the action. There's some excellent use of innovative technology, a few time paradoxes, and that old taboo of time-travel stories is broken: a character meets himself. And the scene is brilliant.

  11. Favourite bits:
    • The first scenes, of Captain George Kirk and the Romulan attack.
    • The high-speed chase between Kirk as a child in a car and the police. "Is there a problem, officer?" I cracked up - and loved Kirk.
    • Spock says to Kirk, "I am and always will be your friend." That was one of the points where I got sniffly.
    • Our first meeting with Scotty and his little non-verbal alien friend - a gimmick straight out of Star Wars. I didn't like it there. Why do I like it here?
    • The first meeting of Kirk and Spock at the Academy - at a tribunal in which they are on opposite sides. Opposite temperaments, opposite philosophies. Perfect for each other.




A movie worth going back to see again.

WAY spoiler-y comment.

Date: 2009-05-02 08:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] taraljc.livejournal.com
What's interesting for me aesthetically is that this Trek definitely came from Enterprise. There's a visual continuity there that made it work for me. Also, ENT is now the only series that's canon for this AU. Which I find hysterical As well as the mention of Porthos' fate.

"Do they have sandwiches [in the future]?" cracked my ass up. The audience I was with laughed at all the obvious jokes ("I'm a doctor, not a [blank]" and "I'm giving her all she's got!") tho a lot of them missed Spock's "Fascinating." I did kinda find Kirk's allergic reaction to the sedative overkill, humour-wise, tho.

And interesting also (if simplistic) that what defines this Kirk and Spock as opposed to "our" Kirk and Spock in both cases was the loss of a parent. Also, the USS Farragut and all those ships being lost.. it's gonna be a very different Alpha Quadrant and Federation overall. A Trek universe with only 10,000 Vulcans breaks my brain. And I am so totally onboard with Spock getting the girl, and I'm fascinated that this Spock reconciled with his father and chose to favour his human side in a way TOS' Spock never could. It'll be interesting to see where they go with that.

I am still bummed we lost out on Pike's 5 year mission--just that it went to Kirk instead and as a result, no Number One :( Also, this means no Gary Mitchell, no Sam Kirk (which is still my big WTF? continuity-wise cos it's the only thing that doesn't fit with the temporal machanics-generated AU unless we're meant to believe in "Operation Annihilate" and "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" that's Sam's the younger brother, which given he's George Samuel Kirk Jr. makes ZERO SENSE to me), and no Tuvok unless he was born on a colony. I chosoe to believe T'Pol was off-world. Also, I'm totally fine with this meaning Vorik ceases to exist.

As for Spock meeting himself... It's not as if "our" Spock hasn't, since Dorothy Fontana's ST:TAS ep is the only one in continuity. In fact, I was waiting for "Call me Selak." Tho of course the AU may well mean Quinto's Spock never met "Selak".

There are a lot of shots from the trailer that weren't in the finished film. I'm wondering how much Sarek/Amanda we lost. I have to assume the crap old age make-up on Winona is because she was originally in a parallel scene to Kirk's birth that was cut.

Re: WAY spoiler-y comment.

Date: 2009-05-02 09:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dewline.livejournal.com
I was going to save this for the nitpick-detail essay, but since you raised it here:

Because of the ENT connections, and Vulcan's role as a Great Power during the 22nd therein, I can't really buy the "10 thousand" figure they gave. Surely the off-world colonies and outposts they had before Federation must've survived intact?

Re: WAY spoiler-y comment.

Date: 2009-05-03 12:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fajrdrako.livejournal.com
I was going to save this for the nitpick-detail essay

I hope you do write your nitpick-detail essay. I'd love to see it, even though it will be total Greek to me. I like hearing these things anyway.

Surely the off-world colonies and outposts they had before Federation must've survived intact?

Perhaps they didn't exist in this version of reality?

Re: WAY spoiler-y comment.

Date: 2009-05-03 12:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dewline.livejournal.com
I consider the non-existence of Vulcan's off-world holdings in this "Trekverse" unlikely.

Vulcan Off-World Holdings

Date: 2009-05-03 01:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dewline.livejournal.com
As I said, that ENT-related history plays into my thinking. If - as implied by the Archer references in this new movie - that history is still valid for Trek XI's purposes, then Vulcan had considerable off-homeworld populated holdings.

This is something I'd want to confirm with one or more of the ENT and movie scriptwriters, but I'm reasonably certain of my logic here.

Re: Vulcan Off-World Holdings

Date: 2009-05-03 02:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fajrdrako.livejournal.com
As I said, that ENT-related history plays into my thinking. If - as implied by the Archer references in this new movie - that history is still valid for Trek XI's purposes, then Vulcan had considerable off-homeworld populated holdings.

I would dispute the premise. I think they took aspects of it for the movie, but the canon is new and not tied to anything in the past. At least, so I hope.

Re: WAY spoiler-y comment.

Date: 2009-05-11 02:18 pm (UTC)
laurajv: Rock Out With Your Spock Out (rock out)
From: [personal profile] laurajv
Surely the off-world colonies and outposts they had before Federation must've survived intact?

I have a huge issue with this, too. I mean, the Romulans left Vulcan to colonize TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO. This is a people who have been spacefaring and colonizing for that long, and only 10K of them were offworld? Seriously? I disbelieve.

Re: WAY spoiler-y comment.

Date: 2009-05-11 04:48 pm (UTC)
laurajv: Holmes & Watson's car is as cool as Batman's (Default)
From: [personal profile] laurajv
I have issues with the whole "endangered species" comment in the movie -- it's a comment that implies that (a) a population of 10K individuals is meaningfully endangered (b) what, the freakin' Romulans don't count, genetically?

Vulcans, as a species, are not meaningfully endangered by the end of the film.

As a culture, they may well be.

And I don't buy political units as an explanation -- any former Vulcan colonies still under Federation auspices would surely count as Vulcan for both genetic and cultural purposes, even if they now call themselves Corellians (you know, because their founding colonists were such big fans of Han Solo that they named the colony after his homeworld).

Re: WAY spoiler-y comment.

Date: 2009-05-03 12:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fajrdrako.livejournal.com
There's a visual continuity there that made it work for me.

Cool. I didn't see enough Enterprise to notice that. I did catch the reference to Porthos, which made me smile.

also, ENT is now the only series that's canon for this AU. Which I find hysterical

Why so?

a lot of them missed Spock's "Fascinating."

I totally loved that one! I wanted to cheer.

I did kinda find Kirk's allergic reaction to the sedative overkill, humour-wise, tho.

Agreed. It was... too much, and too heavy-handed. But not a big problem.

And interesting also (if simplistic) that what defines this Kirk and Spock as opposed to "our" Kirk and Spock in both cases was the loss of a parent.

Hmm. Yes, very true. Interesting point. I was surprised they killed off Amanda and left her dead. But I don't dislike it. I also liked Kirk's relationship (or non-relationship) with his missing father - the sense of competition with him, as well as emulation.

the USS Farragut and all those ships being lost.. it's gonna be a very different Alpha Quadrant and Federation overall.

Yes. I like that.

A Trek universe with only 10,000 Vulcans breaks my brain.

Vulcans were always significant for their quality, not their quantity.

I am so totally onboard with Spock getting the girl, and I'm fascinated that this Spock reconciled with his father and chose to favour his human side in a way TOS' Spock never could.

I loved all of that. But I found it particularly interesting that when it came to 'expressing emotion' it was almost always anger that Spock got to express. His scene with Uhura was a nice exception.

Who was Sam Kirk? (I have forgotten so very much...!)

no Tuvok unless he was born on a colony

Is there any reason he couldn't have been? There is/will be a new planet called Vulcan, it just won't be the same as the one that imploded.

I'm wondering how much Sarek/Amanda we lost.

I would really have liked to have seen more of her. Maybe they'll put out an extended edition on DVD?








Re: WAY spoiler-y comment.

Date: 2009-05-03 12:49 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dewline.livejournal.com
Sam Kirk - full name being George Samuel Kirk - was Jim's brother.

Re: WAY spoiler-y comment.

Date: 2009-05-03 12:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fajrdrako.livejournal.com
I don't remember Sam Kirk at all. Was he in TOS?

Re: WAY spoiler-y comment.

Date: 2009-05-03 12:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dewline.livejournal.com
As one of the Denevan dead in "Operation: Annihilate". His corpse was played by Shatner.

Re: WAY spoiler-y comment.

Date: 2009-05-03 02:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fajrdrako.livejournal.com
What is "Operation: Annihilate"?

Re: WAY spoiler-y comment.

Date: 2009-05-03 04:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dewline.livejournal.com
The "flying parasite" episode?

Re: WAY spoiler-y comment.

Date: 2009-05-03 05:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fajrdrako.livejournal.com
Gad. I don't remember that at all. I used to know every episode and all the trivia. Now I've forgotten titles and stories and - well, just about everything! Shows what happens when you don't give something a thought for a couple of decades.

This is becoming an excuse to watch the Old Series all over again.

Date: 2009-05-03 09:56 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bright-lilim.livejournal.com
Were there any female officers? And if there were, was their uniform a miniskirt?

Date: 2009-05-03 12:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fajrdrako.livejournal.com
Uhura was a female officer,yes. Lots of miniskirts. Too bad the men weren't wearing them, too.

I liked the new formal uniforms the cadets wore - they were unisex. But I can't find pictures of them online.

Date: 2009-05-03 12:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bright-lilim.livejournal.com
Thanks. I've already decided not to see this one and the miniskirts are really the last straw.

Date: 2009-05-03 12:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fajrdrako.livejournal.com
Really? I don't like it insofar as it implies sexism, but I really do like miniskirts as a fashion... used to wear them all the time, and happily. The hair in the original series bothered me far more than the skirts.

So I don't mind miniskirts, especially since, in this case, it's a salute to the cheesiness-factor in the original show. And I did once love the original show. I'd just be happier if the men, or even just some of the men, wore miniskirts too, as regulation uniforms.

What bothers me much more, if let myself I stop to think about it, is the way there are so many more male characters than women (by a factor of - what? Ten? Twenty? Fifty?), and women get none of the action and almost none of the dialogue. There are two major examples of 'refrigerator woman syndrome', with the mothers of both Spock and Kirk - Kirk's especially - and I think otherwise, Uhura might be the only named woman in the show. (Oh, and her Orion roommate, a sexpot/joke - which I rather liked, but she doesn't count as a character.)

I do wish we'd seen a woman on the Romulan ship, but I don't think we did.

In other words, the woman in this movie are only there to be (a) killed for tragic effect and (b) chased after. They were doing tribute to the original show, and I suppose they felt they couldn't do it without the flavour of sexism. Pity.

The movie absolutely and certainly fails the Bechdel test at every level.

Date: 2009-05-11 04:43 pm (UTC)
laurajv: Holmes & Watson's car is as cool as Batman's (Default)
From: [personal profile] laurajv
Kirk's mother did not end up in a refrigerator. His dad did, though.

Date: 2009-05-11 08:31 pm (UTC)
laurajv: Holmes & Watson's car is as cool as Batman's (Default)
From: [personal profile] laurajv
She didn't die in childbirth.

Date: 2009-05-11 08:55 pm (UTC)
laurajv: Holmes & Watson's car is as cool as Batman's (Default)
From: [personal profile] laurajv
Yes; when Jim was joyriding in the car later, the person who called him mentioned his mother being off-planet. So unless she had an off-screen heart attack when she heard about the car misadventure, she's still alive. :D

Date: 2009-05-03 03:23 pm (UTC)
elebridith: (Default)
From: [personal profile] elebridith
That sounds good! I'm not much of a Star Trek fan, but one of my best friends is and so I pick up some stuff *g* (and I teach her Star Wars, and we get along fine *lol*). And she already asked me if I would go see it with her, so I'm glad to hear it's good and she won't be disappointed. Starts here in two weeks, if I'm right.

Date: 2009-05-03 04:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fajrdrako.livejournal.com
I'd recommend it. For a non-fan, it's a good intro to Star Trek, and a nice entertaining movie anyway. Lots of fun.

Profile

fajrdrako: (Default)
fajrdrako

October 2023

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
151617181920 21
22 232425262728
293031    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 8th, 2025 11:59 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios