love

Author Topic: Star Trek  (Read 25108 times)

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #110 on: May 01, 2018, 07:28:18 AM »
Good grief, maybe I report to sick bay. This is always how an episode starts.

I noticed it too and meant to let you know but forgot.

Anywhoooooo....

I share you quibbles. The temporal vortex is, like you say, one of those things you have to be willing to sweep under the rug. Why for instance wouldn't the Borg simply open a vortex well outside of Federation space, travel back in time, and then travel to Earth? The film keeping up its pace does help you not to linger on these questions too long, but they are certainly there.

The Borg queen is a new facet of the species introduced for this film specifically. I'm on the fence about it. It seems contrary to the collective, hive-mind culture, as Data points out. The Queen responds to that apparent contradiction, but it's kind of a vague roundabout justification. I've never totally bought it. It yields some good scenes so I go along with it, but yea, the Borg queen sometimes feels like a solution to a screenwriting problem rather than a logical evolution of the Borg.

Overall it sounds like the film really struck a good tone for you, which I'm super happy about. :)

I agree it seems like we both liked this one a whole awful lot. When I posted my review on twitter I even said this about it:
"Star Trek: First Contact may very well be the most quintessential in the series, at least in terms of what Starfleet and the series overall stands for."

I'm not sure whether I communicated that message very well in my actual review, but I stand by it full-heartedly. It's a movie that I feel completely embodies everything I've come to learn and love about the series and brand.
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #111 on: May 03, 2018, 09:15:07 AM »
Star Trek: Insurrection (Jonathan Frakes, 1998)

To this point, albeit only two movies into it, I would say that The Next Generation Star Trek movies have been much more consistent in their quality. I didn't love Generations mostly because its tone was way off, but it explored some intriguing ideas and welcomed in a well-developed and entertaining new cast. First Contact is a film I loved and will easily be among the best of all the Star Trek films when I complete the marathon. So to this point, unlike the original series which saw great fluctuations, there hasn't been an outright stinker in the series. Well, with Insurrection, that streak may have come to an end. Even then, I would (and will do so through the rest of this review) argue that while Insurrection is a disappointment, it's low are not nearly as low as the lows of films like The Final Frontier. So I suppose what I'm saying is let's wait until Nemesis to determine whether I prefer the original series to The Next Generation, but suffice it to say, this film keeps that argument very much alive.

I've never actually watched the television series, of this iteration or the previous, but I like to think that they reserve some of the more grand, stunning, and high stakes type storylines for the cinema, seeing as they would be, um, more cinematic. There is an argument to be made that by staying at such a high stress, high stakes level through a series (of movies in this case) that the impact is lessened. Who can take it seriously if installment after installment the world is at stake just to be saved once more by our heroes. So the counter-argument would be that there needs to be some small stories told every once in a while to balance that high wire act. Insurrection works as that smaller story, and yet is the precise reason why it didn't really work for me, although, as I will try to address, it was less about the stakes of the mission in this film, and more about the characterization.

I hate to rag on a movie for feeling like a TV show, especially when in this case it is a TV show, but man did this feel like a TV show, in a bad way. The production values, the characters, the story line. It all felt like small ball to me and it sunk the film as a result. I think the most damning thing had to be how little it made me care about it. The village and people of Ba'ku is a very cool concept, the type of concept which fits right into the greater good of Star Trek. Very cool concept, love the life lessons they represent. I even liked Donna Murphy as the sultry village leader who woos and falls for Jean-Luc in the process. But how they come up against the Son'a people, and the titular "insurrection", feels very manufactured, uneventful, and to be honest completely telegraphed.

F. Murray Abraham is an actor I generally like, but he is very underwhelming here as the baddie. I think that was my biggest problem with the film, he didn't feel overly threatening, and I never really connected with his plight and reasoning for his villainy. He was a bit of a nothing presence here. Along with his Starfleet counterpart, they just felt like TV villains. Add to that the fact that the story very much feels stretched out beyond its logical length in order to fit the theatrical format. This is a 42 minute Star Trek: The Next Generation episode that has some really cool ideas in it, so they decided to try and make it the next movie instead of coming up with anything better, or more cinematic. That's very disappointing.

In its attempt to be more cinematic, the film crescendos into a finale filled with action. By this point I had unfortunately simply tuned out to some extent, content to let the mediocrity of it all wash over me. There was very little to keep me engaged and thrilled by this finale, so instead I just let it play out until it was over, fulfilling my obligation. As much as some of the ideas in this film are intriguing and interesting, as much as I have come to really appreciate these new characters and their relationships, the greatest indictment against this movie is that last line, that by the end it felt like an obligation. These movies are supposed to be entertaining! They are supposed to be fun, exciting, humorous! I hate to keep harping on this, but I wish I could have enjoyed this as an episode of the series, the type I would have enjoyed, then somewhat forgot about by the time I saw the next week's episode. Instead, theoretically, I had to wait two years to see this movie, and will have to wait four more years to get the taste out of my mouth. Of course I have the luxury of watching these films in close succession, but what did people have to think back when they were originally released I wonder?

★★ - Didn't Like It
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #112 on: May 03, 2018, 11:36:39 AM »
Star Trek: Insurrection (Jonathan Frakes, 1998)        8/10


I guess the events of this film vaguely fit the definition of an insurrection but I feel like there are better possible titles out there. There’s rich interesting conflicts here: the prime directive is at risk of being violated, Data gets a bee in his bonnet, the rest of the crew experiences hormonal anomalies, and more! But at it’s core what makes the whole narrative compelling is that a small group of people occupy a planet that is incredibly valuable and it’s up to the enterprise to ensure that they’re left in peace. And there’s quite literally a conspiracy to forcibly remove the planet’s occupants without their knowledge and place them in a simulation of their village. An alternate Matrix original story.

I feel like this plot would make a fascinating court case wherein it’s determined whether or not this really is a breach of the prime directive. The motives behind the conspiracy make it a clear act of evil, but with some script tweaking it could be a more difficult distinction to make. What if Iceland possessed a cure for all human diseases, but to extract it required making the entire country uninhabitable? You’ve got a classic “needs of the many / needs of the few” dilemma on your hands. This film doesn’t play too much in that sandbox and instead establishes sides early on and the film is about who will win. That would be my only major suggestion to enhance the film. But I also really enjoyed the film just as it was.

This is less intense, more pleasant film than First Contact. It isn’t a military conflict that threatens all of Earth. It’s a diplomatic conflict, and a philosophical dilemma, and an internal conspiracy. The stakes are still high enough for the film to be engaging, but for once we get through it without the Enterprise exploding, or losing entire shipfuls of people. And when it’s over the victory is not so bittersweet as it has been in past films. It's a nice reprieve for us the audience and for the crew after the ordeal of the previous film.

And in that less intense situation we are afforded character moments of a more personal nature. Dr. Crusher and Troi talking about their boobs for instance, and how the planet they’re on has made them firmer. Data, overhearing this observation, later interrogates Worf about the state of his own breasts. Worf declines to answer if I recall correctly. It’s all very silly and fun. On a more touching note, Geordi regains his natural eyesight and gets to experience a sunrise for the first time.

The film isn’t without action though. There is a pretty solid ship battle with Riker in command of the Enterprise. In fact this is the film where the Riker maneuver is executed for the first and only time… something where the ship sucks up a bunch of space gas and blows it out the other end, and enemies blow themselves up when they fly through it shooting torpedos. This is not to be confused with the informal Riker maneuver. The space battles look better and better with each film as the effects improve.


The people who occupy the planet, the Ba’Ku, are kind of interesting. They’re like space-Amish.  Simple living, rejecting technology… but at some point they did possess warp drive, they just decided to give it up. Now they live on a planet where they never age and live in a pre-industrial utopia. It’s a nice peaceful looking existence but I think it would be a bit boring. Especially when you’re population is only 600 people. An uptick in sexual activity would kill two birds with one stone.

I think this is the most successfully fun Star Trek film so far. I like it a lot. The film does have bad guys in it. They’re alright I guess. The conflict they create is more interesting than the characters themselves, which is fairly typical. When you boil it all down the dispute occurs because these few guys are too vain to accept facial wrinkles. Still, I enjoyed the film.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #113 on: May 03, 2018, 11:52:23 AM »
I like that both of our experiences are kind of pivoting on the same thing. It absolutely is more of tv episode than a film, I feel the same way. And F Murray Abraham really doesn't bring anything special to the role. In fact his side-kick was more compelling than he was. Abraham's character was just too hysterical and whiny.

The finale is quite weak. Though it ends with a bang, it didn't have a lot of impact.

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #114 on: May 03, 2018, 11:56:01 AM »
I think this is the most successfully fun Star Trek film so far. I like it a lot. The film does have bad guys in it. They’re alright I guess. The conflict they create is more interesting than the characters themselves, which is fairly typical. When you boil it all down the dispute occurs because these few guys are too vain to accept facial wrinkles. Still, I enjoyed the film.

While I disagree that this is the most fun film yet, I agree with your assessment of the baddies, though it would appear I took more exception to their relative blandness than you did.

The film isn’t without action though. There is a pretty solid ship battle with Riker in command of the Enterprise. In fact this is the film where the Riker maneuver is executed for the first and only time… something where the ship sucks up a bunch of space gas and blows it out the other end, and enemies blow themselves up when they fly through it shooting torpedos. This is not to be confused with the informal Riker maneuver. The space battles look better and better with each film as the effects improve.

I'm glad you mentioned the Riker manuever, as I did think that was pretty cool and the only action highlight of the film.



What I have found through these three films is that I really love all the characters and their little idiosyncrasies, but I have yet to be fully immersed in any of the characters within the narratives. Perhaps this indicates I would enjoy the series a great deal more than the films, even after really loving First Contact.

I like that both of our experiences are kind of pivoting on the same thing. It absolutely is more of tv episode than a film, I feel the same way. And F Murray Abraham really doesn't bring anything special to the role. In fact his side-kick was more compelling than he was. Abraham's character was just too hysterical and whiny.

The finale is quite weak. Though it ends with a bang, it didn't have a lot of impact.

Yes, I agree the side-kick had a much more interesting arc to his character than Abraham. Which is a shame.
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #115 on: May 03, 2018, 12:16:45 PM »
What I have found through these three films is that I really love all the characters and their little idiosyncrasies, but I have yet to be fully immersed in any of the characters within the narratives. Perhaps this indicates I would enjoy the series a great deal more than the films, even after really loving First Contact.

That is a nice quality of the series for sure. You get episodes here and there which almost entirely focused on one character. And just the sheer amount of time you spend with them the rest of the time as well. By the time these films came around 7 long seasons had already been done... and the movies in comparison have all the characters acting very loose. It's hard to describe just how loose and different it feels. They speak to each other informally much more often, and everyone feels less "on the job" then they do in the show. The whole vibe is more casual. And even some of the characters have morphed... none more so than Troi. Her personality is almost unrecognizable to the character of the tv show. It will be quite a shock if you go back and see it.

Also, the tv show provided a sense of routine and normalcy which I found I enjoyed. And humour often came in form of slight disruptions to those norms, or merely observing and enjoying the patterns of behavior (e.g. the informal Riker maneuver).

I think you would enjoy the series. Or find things to enjoy in it. :)
« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 12:18:20 PM by smirnoff »

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #116 on: May 03, 2018, 12:20:16 PM »
And in that less intense situation we are afforded character moments of a more personal nature. Dr. Crusher and Troi talking about their boobs for instance, and how the planet they’re on has made them firmer. Data, overhearing this observation, later interrogates Worf about the state of his own breasts. Worf declines to answer if I recall correctly.

This part made me cringe.
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #117 on: May 03, 2018, 01:35:46 PM »
And in that less intense situation we are afforded character moments of a more personal nature. Dr. Crusher and Troi talking about their boobs for instance, and how the planet they’re on has made them firmer. Data, overhearing this observation, later interrogates Worf about the state of his own breasts. Worf declines to answer if I recall correctly.

This part made me cringe.

When I look back at my reaction to most of the gags of the TOS films they were all pretty painful. And yet when it comes to the TNG films the gags are no less stupid, and yet somehow I enjoy them. I think I can chalk that up to not having watched the TOS tv series, but being a fan of the TNG series.

All of these films tend to proceed on the basis that you already love these characters, but in the case of TOS we didn't. We were trying to get to know them on the fly without a real introduction. And when they start making decisions in the film, those are literally the only decisions we've ever seen them make so that informs the entirety of our impression of them. When in fact there is a whole history of behaviour which, if we knew about, would probably provide a more balanced view of the character. Then we could recognize the actions taken in the film as extremes for the character and not the norm.

Then we get to TNG. My impressions of the characters are pretty well established already, and the films are fun because they sometimes play at the fringes of what's been established. But for you this fringe behaviour is the behaviour. And while most of the time it doesn't make much difference, I think perhaps when it comes to a joke like the Data/boob one, that difference then surfaces. Because it IS a stupid thing data asks... and a person's willingness overlook it (or laugh at it), and not let it undermine the character, may depend on them having a sufficient history of redeeming moments to offset that stupidity.

To relate, I never really came to like Bones in the TOS films for instance, because he so often played the part of complainer. He would chime in with folksy, sarcastic lines, and generally be a wet blanket. For the most part he was Kirk's sidekick and sounding board, and would usually resist and scoff at things Kirk was thinking of doing. The movies never seemed to adequately counter all his pessimism with redeeming qualities or actions. I didn't dislike him, but I never loved him unconditionally either. But approaching the TNG films I would say I already loved the whole crew unconditionally.

The premise of the joke is no mystery of course... an android makes an anatomical observation which he should keep to himself, but because he's an android he doesn't know better. It's a pretty hurrr-durrr obvious kind of joke to make where an android is concerned. It's like "yea, we get it, he doesn't get embarrassed because he's a robot". But somehow if the context changes and the android isn't just any android, but is the character you've known for x years, it's good for a laugh.

It's like this video if you didn't see what the kid did before she fell on her face. But once you do it's hilarious. :)

What do you think of this theory?

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #118 on: May 03, 2018, 01:42:24 PM »
Honestly it was less about Data's reaction and subsequent joke about it that bothered me. That I actually found to be a funny gag like you say about how an android would react to such an anatomical quandary. The fact that the movie even has Troi and Crusher talking about this is what made me cringe. I guess it's the setup for the joke, as opposed to the joke simply resulting from this line, but I still found it a little odd they would even mention it in that way.
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #119 on: May 03, 2018, 01:53:40 PM »
:)) It's true, characters in TNG are about as suited to talking about those things as they are to getting in shootouts.



Yea, get 'em counsellor Troi!