Author Topic: Star Trek  (Read 25111 times)

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 19044
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #30 on: April 06, 2018, 10:23:29 AM »
As a fan of the original series in the 70s, what a lot, perhaps most of us, really loved, was not just individual characters, but the camaraderie of the top three. We would have been happy to see more people involved in this repartee, but instead we received a lifeless film, full of wonderful sights, but no characterization.  It was the 2001 of the Star Trek films, but we didn't want 2001.  We wanted the Star Trek characters. 

I'm surprised that we were at all excited about the second film, but we were.  More about that later.
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #31 on: April 06, 2018, 11:41:32 AM »
I suppose something should be said about Captain Decker. :)) Boy, things go sideways for him pretty much immediately. Outranked and bumped from command, then an old love interest appears, then she gets vaporized by a lightning bolt on the bridge, comes back as a space-cloud emissary, and he decides he's just gunna go become a space-consciousness with her for eternity. Phew. I mean I get being smitten with her, she's quite the attractive and leggy figure wearing nothing but a space-blazer, but Decker falls for her hard. How does he know what he's signing up for even? I don't think I'd be bold enough to make the same choice in the end, lol. From a script writing pov it smells of convenience. A quick easy way to make the Decker-problem go away. A bit of tough sell in the moment.

I also had meant to slam home this alley-oop from smirnoff...

You could say that he was in 7th Heaven with her.
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #32 on: April 06, 2018, 12:44:15 PM »
This one is definitely slowly paced. That's what makes it such a good sick-watch. You can dip in and out of consciousness and not miss too much, which is good. I liked this one quite a bit the one time I watched it because of that easy-going nature. I'm not exactly rushing back to see it again, and your reviews confirm my reticence is well-founded, but it's good enough for what it is.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #33 on: April 06, 2018, 11:00:27 PM »
As a fan of the original series in the 70s, what a lot, perhaps most of us, really loved, was not just individual characters, but the camaraderie of the top three. We would have been happy to see more people involved in this repartee, but instead we received a lifeless film, full of wonderful sights, but no characterization.  It was the 2001 of the Star Trek films, but we didn't want 2001.  We wanted the Star Trek characters. 

Star Trek was always the series that was most attractive to me in terms of wishing to be a part of it, I found. I mean Star Wars was a good adventure and all, but living on the Enterprise always seemed like a cool life. In part because of the camaraderie you mentioned. Also because it was all very peaceful when things were on red alert. :))

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12075
  • "The life we build, we never stop creating.”
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #34 on: April 07, 2018, 01:14:43 AM »
Ten Forward, Transporter Room, The Holodeck... What's not to love?! :)

Not having watched TOS reruns as a kid, I'm not sure why my family went to see Star Trek: The Motion Picture, except that it was a pretty big deal at the time. Lots of buzz around it. My memories of the film are of long, long, long takes and the reveal at the end. For me it was as challenging to sit with as 2001. I don't think I really got into the groove of Star Trek until The Voyage Home and that's probably because I had learned enough about the characters through the first three to appreciate their world and their relationships.

Wish my memory was sharper, but that's all I got for this first one!

Knocked Out Loaded

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • I might remember it all differently tomorrow.
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #35 on: April 08, 2018, 04:30:14 PM »
Flying in here with very light luggage!

I have not seen any of the Star Trek movies previously, nor any of the original TV series. As I arrived at the forum some three years ago, there was a little buzz about ST:TNG which made me watch the first season of it or so. Let's say that I see the charm in it much more than the profoundness. Kirk and Spock ar less familiar entities altogether, except for this. ;D

Some comments I read after having watched The Motion Picture suggested that it would be better off being titled The Slow Motion Picture. There may lay some truth in such an observation. I too found it to be a slow, meandering movie but I do however feel that it is a better one than the initial reactions give and that it will clock in on the upper half of my Star Trek movies rank.... The Star Trek universe is a rational one and the characters overall come across as pretty bloodless creatures. If that is a good prospect I am not sure.

https://youtu.be/EkDF3Kufh6c

40°
Extraordinary (81-100˚) | Very good (61-80˚) | Good (41-60˚) | Fair (21-40˚) | Poor (0-20˚)

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #36 on: April 08, 2018, 09:41:37 PM »
Ten Forward, Transporter Room, The Holodeck... What's not to love?! :)

Ten Forward! :)) It's the only pub I want to go to. A quiet murmur of conversations, not smokey, no music, free drinks... Guinan is there usually. My kind of place, lol




Flying in here with very light luggage!

You don't need a large wardrobe in Starfleet, so you're doing alright. :)

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #37 on: April 09, 2018, 06:12:19 AM »
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (Nicholas Meyer, 1982)        8/10

I wonder how many of the remaining films will also have to begin by giving Kirk an excuse to assume command of the Enterprise. We’re two for two so far. In the first film he is acting on Federation orders to investigate a distress call for a far away outpost. In this film he again receives an order to investigate a distress call from far away outpost, the only difference being that he’s already aboard the Enterprise when he receives the order, under the pretext of doing a routine inspection of the ship and it’s young crew. Naturally they are the “only ship in the quadrant”, and so it has to be them. Now that Kirk is an Admiral he no longer has a ship of his own to command, so I suspect it will be an exercise in creative writing to continually find ways to sit him in the Captain’s char going forward. That is unless the future adventures are about land-based, federation politics.

The film does begin with Kirk on Earth again though. This affords us the unique opportunity to once again measure the screen time the film spends transporting Kirk to the Enterprise aboard a shuttle. And more importantly measure the difference between this film and the last. In the previous film it took five minutes of screentime. In this film it takes only one. I wouldn’t go so far as to say the entire film feels 5 times snappier, but it brings it closer to conventional adventure-film pacing. That’s always an improvement, but it seems to suit the story in this case.

The stale character interactions are gone too. That I hope is true of all the future films. Everyone and everything seems to have more life. I was engaged and I warmed to the crew. It all pays off in the end with an emotional climax which definitely worked on me.

About Khan. A lone madman with absolutely clear objectives. So the exact opposite of the the last “villain”. While this ends up being a better film, taken on his own Khan is kind of boring in my opinion. His most interesting quality is his supposedly super-human intellect. The trap he lays, and scenes where Kirk is attempting to outsmart him are the most interesting. A battle of wits, great! But most of the time his intellect takes a back seat to his anger and his raving which are dull and make him come across as just some crazy guy. And then the film also draws attention to his physical power, with displays of strength and the choice of wardrobe. This somewhat undermines the “intellect” characteristic and makes him seem brutish. And maybe least interesting of all… he’s human, or near as makes no difference. We’re a bajillion miles away from Earth, we could encounter any number of strange new worlds or new lifeforms, and instead we encounter a guy with a grudge. 


So while the Enterprise characters and their interactions are way, way better, scenes with just Khan twisting his mustache tend to be the low point of the film with none of the mystery or intrigue of Vger. He is a useful character insomuch as he pushes the crew into making tough choices, or come up with creative solutions (which any good obstacle in Star Trek should do), but he does not present a perplexing, mystery of the universe. All that said, Khan seems to be at least somewhat justified in his anger. I haven’t seen the episode of the television show which gives the backstory for Kirk and Khan’s relationship, but I’m sure that would’ve enhanced the experience. One thing that’s interesting to me though is why they would decide to give away the plot with the title. Why they wanted to let everyone know exactly who and what the film would be about. It seems like if they’d saved that twist to be revealed at the same time as Kirk discovers it, it would have a big impact. But I guess doing it that way would leave the uninformed (myself) with even less understanding of Khan’s motivations. It is what it is I guess.

I think maybe the only plot line that really falls flat on its face is the one with Kirk’s son. It’s like, huh? Kirk has a son? It’s too important a thing given too little time to develop. In the span of what feels like a day Kirk learns he has a son, we see the relationship is strained and then after primary plot has been resolved we see them embracing and declaring how proud they are of one another. It’s such strange side story to introduce in the midst of this plot. And it’s not as though the Kirk’s son is held hostage by Khan or leveraged against him in some way. He’s just there in the background. In fact that kind of annoys me because for whatever reason he’s permitted to stand around on the bridge of the Enterprise during their final ship to ship encounter with Khan. It seems very sloppy. I am not accustomed to tourists and loafers doing as they please on the bridge while the crew is dealing with a life or death situation.

Speaking of Bridge shenanigans, why does Scotty bring an injured (dead) crew person all the way from engineer to the bridge after they've been attacked. Is he lost? Go to sick bay! A big sub-plot of the movie is that many of the Enterprise crew are very young and inexperienced... that's why Kirk is there to inspect the ship and crew early in the film. But it seems to me it's the older crew who are failing to follow procedure. Tsk tsk.


At the end of the day though the film’s power is delivered by Kirk and Spock. I think that part of the film hits all the right notes and ends in a moving way. It pays off on the whole experience.

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #38 on: April 09, 2018, 07:24:25 AM »
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (Nicholas Meyer, 1982)

After what was the disappointment of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, how in the world could I possibly be excited about the prospect of its sequel, The Wrath of Khan? I am sure many fans were wondering the exact same thing back in 1982 when the film was released, but just like them, it’s because of the brand, because of the characters. While I’ve not seen the (Original) Star Trek be a smashing success as of yet, the reputation of this film and the brand in general, along with a couple promising moments in the first film, give me room for excitement that there could be a great Star Trek film on the horizon. The Wrath of Khan is precisely that film for basically doing every single thing different, and much better than the original film, which was a veritable bore and slogged its way through 130 minutes without anything but cardboard characters and the absence of a prominent villain.

The Wrath of Khan once again features Admiral Kirk (William Shatner) commandeering the Enterprise, now manned by a freshman crew being put through their paces under young rookie captain Saavik (Kirstie Alley) in order to race across the galaxy to save the Genesis project, a powerful new technology, from falling into the wrong hands. All the usual suspects are on hand (DeForest Kelley, George Takei, Leonard Nimoy, James Doohan, Nichelle Nichols, Walter Koenig) to aide in putting a stop to Khan’s (Ricardo Montalban) revenge mission against Kirk, whom he accuses of marooning him and his crew on a desolate planet, left to die.

The best place to start with this film has to be Khan himself, since the film is named after him of course. Our concept of Kirk, as a brash but well-intentioned, good-hearted captain, is shattered by the allegations laid upon him by Khan, a frenzied madman who has had to live out 15 years on a nothing planet. I think Ricardo Montalban is both perfect and horrible casting. He’s perfect in that he is endlessly believable as a madman. He’s horrible because, well, his performance is a rather rotten over-the-top trainwreck. In some ways, however, I learned to love him for this. One of the features that is beginning to charm me about Star Trek is its silliness, and Montalban fits right into that mold with his turn as Khan. I like that Star Trek doesn’t take itself too seriously to this point. it’s definitely something which differentiates itself from a lot of the science fiction of the time.

And speaking of the film’s science fiction style, I love how wholesome it is compared to something like Star Wars. Okay, so it’s not that Star Wars isn’t wholesome, that’s probably the wrong word, but I love how Star Trek is positioned as this group of people who are going forth to explore the galaxy for science, to explore and improve relations and communities, including their own. Timing has a lot to do with this, as in Star Trek, we’re still exploring the galaxy, learning new things, experiencing new things. With Star Wars, the worlds already seem established, so while we as the audience might be experiencing something for the first time, it’s just some place, some thing to the characters. I am buying into the love for Star Trek for the simple reason that it’s the thinking man’s space adventure. We get to learn new things, see new things! It’s more than just an action movie set in space! Not that there’s anything wrong with that, I love Star Wars too. I think I just find that very refreshing about this series, and I hope it continues down that path (as I expect it will).

I think that while The Wrath of Khan shows the potential of the film series, and proves a good if not great Star Trek film is possible, it also continues to show how much it leans on the original series to fill in its blanks. For instance, Khan is plucked right from an original series episode, with his story continued here. Prior knowledge of his character and situation would certain enhance the experience and story here, but while I lack that experience, the filmmakers are still able to fill him in as a character, making The Wrath of Khan something that can be easily consumed by newbies like myself. I know I’m not a fan of the original series (for having not seen it), but I can still greatly appreciate how this film series is tied into that series, and works as a continuation of the story and universe already built there, as a continuation of the characterization of the heroes already built there. So many times outsiders complain of films in series which don’t “stand on their own”. Why should they? They are parts of a greater story after all. That’s exactly the way they should be.

Once again here I find myself well into my review and I haven’t even really touched on much in the way of specifics, just mere generalizations more about the series overall than The Wrath of Khan specifically. It really works, and is light years better than The Motion Picture because it resolves just about every problem I had with the original. It’s faster paced, features fleshed out characters who have great interactions and utility within the film, it features a truly threatening villain, and even looks and feels more cinematic than the first. I think the result here is a much more polished, enjoyable film, one which becomes difficult to pin down just how much I liked it. Was it great because it’s great? Or was it great because it’s so much better than The Motion Picture, a film I really didn’t like? I’d like to think the former, so until something proves me wrong otherwise, we’ll go with that.

I love how everyone has something to do. It seems like each of the crew members have a least one moment when they’re doing more than just following orders. They have their own opinions, they prove that they have value-add to the crew and to the mission, and especially the relationship between the main players, Kirk, Spock, Bones is enhanced and fleshed out. It’s even funny at times! We get our first look at the Kobayashi Maru exercise! There is so much packed into this movie that there’s even real, legitimate stakes! SPOILERS AHEAD: We find out Kirk has a son! Spock dies! While I know with 4 more original series films Spock can’t really be dead, it’s not lost on me the affect this might have originally had, when true, passionate fans wouldn’t have that same assurance. It’s shocking! And it’s brilliant!

I cannot stress enough the difference in quality between the first film and this second film. I really do hope that this success can be sustained, and I am genuinely intrigued by where the story will go from here, especially with Leonard Nimoy himself getting behind the camera as director of the subsequent two films. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. At least with The Wrath of Khan, I can say that my confidence in the series has been confirmed. I won’t say renewed, I always had confidence, but The Motion Picture certainly brought a sense of doubt into the equation, even if only momentarily. Let us go forward now, boldly.

★★★★ - Loved It
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #39 on: April 09, 2018, 09:56:10 AM »
Little known fact: The Genesis Effect scene was done by Pixar.

Two reviews and only one mention of Montalban as an "over-the-top trainwreck". What about Shatner? He's hammy in the quiet scenes.