After reading this, and many other positive reviews of the new Star Trek movie, I’ve decided that I am all wrong about this film when I say that it is full of more plot holes, bad acting, and bad writing than time allows me to list here. Instead, I have been convinced that J.J. Abrams has apparently done it again! In fact, after this and his similar betrayal… uh, portrayal… of Mission Impossible’s universe, I think it is time that Mr. Abrams fully spread his wings and show us what is possible with his kind of “movie magic”.
J.J. Abrams’ production of “Hamlet: 2009! Hamlet’s Revenge!” In this much-needed reset of the tired Danish family feud, Hamlet’s ghost doesn’t waste time trying to talk his wimpy son into avenging his murder. No, this time Hamlet Sr. comes back looking for his own special brand of pay-back. And he’s brought a few of his after-life friends with him. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (note: might want to change those names for more mass appeal) know a winner when they see one. And, once King Hamlet and his ghostly thugs show up, they dump Claudius like yesterday’s trash! But Claudius has a few friends of his own. Not to mention a doomsday weapon that will destroy half the planet! It’s up to young Hamlet to get to the castle tower and disarm it — if he has the time! The red wire, or the blue wire? That is the question!!
So Kevin, you didn’t like JJ Abram’s take on Star Trek then?
As for Hamlet: Michael Almereyda, Ethan Hawke, and co. already realised that fear for you back in 2000 by setting the Danish Prince’s woes in (then) present day NYC. But let’s not pretend that Star Trek ever had aspirations towards Shakespeare; I’m pretty confident that Gene Roddenberry wouldn’t have had such presumption.
You mention that Abram’s effort is:
full of more plot holes, bad acting, and bad writing than time allows me to list
The Star Trek franchise has long been a bastion of these very qualities; the ham’n'cheese factor is part of the franchises appeal to many fans – the long running TV show most of all (and what scifi storyline is watertight and not fraught with multiple narrative difficulties?) Perhaps you are saying that you really don’t like Star Trek in its broader sense? In that case why would you like a new take on it?
Whatever the case, I think* that Abrams’ offering evinces personal warmth towards the original material even though he wouldn’t label himself a trekkie like some of the writers working on the project. He keeps the film camp and fun with enough action to satisfy most viewers and enough homage to draw the praise of many confessed trekkies.
But it’s not a piece of art; it was never intended to be.
Regarding Mission Impossible: I only ever saw the first one. It was also a bit of light action fun, but didn’t really inspire me to pursue any sequels regardless of how many doves John Woo promised to release for his art.
PS: Besides, Shakespeare’s Hamlet can be seen as a much-needed reset of Saxo Grammaticus’ tired Danish family feud narrative in his Historiae Danicae from some 400 years or so earlier. Interestingly, roughly the same temporal distance from Shakespeare’s Hamlet to now. Nice.
Reviewing movies is, of course, subjective. If you liked it, it was a good movie… to you.
In point of fact, I would consider myself a “trekker” (the preferred moniker). And I understand that this is Science Fiction. “Fiction” is in the name of the genre. So I am not looking for something that is going to pass muster at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The plot must be advanced to a conclusion in 2 hours. Things are going to get glossed-over. Fine. But Mr. Abrams and his writers treated the story line as filller between action sequences.
This movie wasn’t an homage to Star Trek. Whether intentional or not, it was an indictment by J.J. Abrams, against Gene Roddenberry, basically stating that everything Star Trek: its themes, its characters, its whole universe is boring crap. Here’s how it should have been done. Even that would be OK, if it would have been done well. It wasn’t.
Don’t get me wrong. I understand that a face-lift was needed. Rick Berman had done just about all he could. Iit was time for someone else to bring a new perspective to the franchise. But that does not mean that it was time to abandon everything that made Star Trek great. Gene Roddenberry was, above all else, a storyteller. J.J. Abrams is not.
Watching this movie was like watching a $100 million dollar version of a “Saturday Night Live” skit. All the Star Trek stereotypes and the one-liners were there; with none of soul.
I hope I am not coming-off as one of those geeks who thinks that all things Star Trek are holy. And no one must mess with doctrine. Because that is not how I feel. The idea of doing a complete reset of the Start Trek universe is interesting. It frees the writers to go in any direction they want and not have to be tied-down by the events of the original series. All I’m saying is that this is just a bad movie. It’s badly written, badly directed, and badly acted — although I am willing to forgive the actors who were saddled with no script and no direction.
Thanks for your thoughts: nice to have some reasoned debate on a blog instead of senseless verbal frothing. Apologies for mistaking the Trekker moniker (clearly showing me to be in the ‘not a devoted fan’ camp. I must admit Star Trek never caught me in the way that Blakes 7 did). Interesting looking at the etymology of the names; understandable that the preferred name changed when it did.
Now onto comments, I agree with you (to a great degree) on many of your points but not on some:
The plot must be advanced to a conclusion in 2 hours. Things are going to get glossed-over. Fine. But Mr. Abrams and his writers treated the story line as filller between action sequences.
I agree that the plot outline for the film was a little thin – hence I referred to it’s ‘episodic’ feel. Clearly i don’t feel as strongly on that point as you do. I always felt that the original TV series had a mix of great and average plotlines – pretty formulaic for the most part – and that is where my comparison lies and where I think the bulk of Abram’s reference material (and probably his personal viewing) stems from.
Watching this movie was like watching a $100 million dollar version of a “Saturday Night Live” skit. All the Star Trek stereotypes and the one-liners were there; with none of soul
Yep, I thought he crossed the line into parody on several occasions but i didn’t think that this was because he was …stating that everything Star Trek: its themes, its characters, its whole universe is boring crap but rather that he has a more obvious sense of humour/drama. I also thought that Karl Urban did a respectable job with his version of a young Dr. Leonard ‘Bones’ McCoy.
I would be interested to see where Abrams takes things if he helms the announced sequel, which is presumably a very real possibility considering the box office success of this one (although he may stick to Producer duties only). A second outing would mean, by its very nature, less referencing of the previous parts of the franchise and more original input/direction/development. I think this would be a better indicator of where Abrams will sit in the overall life cycle of all things Trek.
I do appreciate that you think that this film was simply badly made, and that you have some solid reasons for that. As you’ve pointed out, we just divert in our opinions here.
Thanks again for your comments – appreciated.
Jacob.
His points – at least, the points about the plot and the like – are apt. The best Star Trek episodes and movies, ultimately, are about the characters. The rest is fantasy and cheese, and it’s just bumb to pretend otherwise.
I mean, “The Wrath of Khan” was the best of the lot, and was pretty terrific. Still, wasn’t it about Ricardo Monteban going after Shatner (on the video), quoting Melville along the way, as his ship is torn apart around him?
And the “Save the Whales” one, the fourth. Wasn’t the best moment, watching Spock getting his rhythm back by trying to swear (“a colorful metaphor”) in public, in San Francisco?
This new movie hit the “feel” of the old relationships, very well. There was a bit added into the mix: the clowning-around from Scottie and the whiz-kid Chekhov were a bit exaggerated, as an example.
More importantly, they captured most of what really makes us care about the stories. The new Spock is the old one, with a slightly different past as a result of a believable time-shift; the new Kirk has a bit less formal training and discpline, but the luxury of knowing from an early glimpse-at-older-Spock, what he can work to be.
The original series screwed up timelines, quoted invalid star dates, and broke the Prime Directive more times than they had episodes (almost). The movies with the original cast, rewrote parts of the original series.
So, if this is a retelling of the characters in yet-another-story, I’d say it was a cracking good tale.
After reading this, and many other positive reviews of the new Star Trek movie, I’ve decided that I am all wrong about this film when I say that it is full of more plot holes, bad acting, and bad writing than time allows me to list here. Instead, I have been convinced that J.J. Abrams has apparently done it again! In fact, after this and his similar betrayal… uh, portrayal… of Mission Impossible’s universe, I think it is time that Mr. Abrams fully spread his wings and show us what is possible with his kind of “movie magic”.
J.J. Abrams’ production of “Hamlet: 2009! Hamlet’s Revenge!” In this much-needed reset of the tired Danish family feud, Hamlet’s ghost doesn’t waste time trying to talk his wimpy son into avenging his murder. No, this time Hamlet Sr. comes back looking for his own special brand of pay-back. And he’s brought a few of his after-life friends with him. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (note: might want to change those names for more mass appeal) know a winner when they see one. And, once King Hamlet and his ghostly thugs show up, they dump Claudius like yesterday’s trash! But Claudius has a few friends of his own. Not to mention a doomsday weapon that will destroy half the planet! It’s up to young Hamlet to get to the castle tower and disarm it — if he has the time! The red wire, or the blue wire? That is the question!!
Can’t wait.
So Kevin, you didn’t like JJ Abram’s take on Star Trek then?
As for Hamlet: Michael Almereyda, Ethan Hawke, and co. already realised that fear for you back in 2000 by setting the Danish Prince’s woes in (then) present day NYC. But let’s not pretend that Star Trek ever had aspirations towards Shakespeare; I’m pretty confident that Gene Roddenberry wouldn’t have had such presumption.
You mention that Abram’s effort is:
full of more plot holes, bad acting, and bad writing than time allows me to list
The Star Trek franchise has long been a bastion of these very qualities; the ham’n'cheese factor is part of the franchises appeal to many fans – the long running TV show most of all (and what scifi storyline is watertight and not fraught with multiple narrative difficulties?) Perhaps you are saying that you really don’t like Star Trek in its broader sense? In that case why would you like a new take on it?
Whatever the case, I think* that Abrams’ offering evinces personal warmth towards the original material even though he wouldn’t label himself a trekkie like some of the writers working on the project. He keeps the film camp and fun with enough action to satisfy most viewers and enough homage to draw the praise of many confessed trekkies.
But it’s not a piece of art; it was never intended to be.
Regarding Mission Impossible: I only ever saw the first one. It was also a bit of light action fun, but didn’t really inspire me to pursue any sequels regardless of how many doves John Woo promised to release for his art.
Cheers,
Jacob.
*Note the use of subjective personal opinion
PS: Besides, Shakespeare’s Hamlet can be seen as a much-needed reset of Saxo Grammaticus’ tired Danish family feud narrative in his Historiae Danicae from some 400 years or so earlier. Interestingly, roughly the same temporal distance from Shakespeare’s Hamlet to now. Nice.
Reviewing movies is, of course, subjective. If you liked it, it was a good movie… to you.
In point of fact, I would consider myself a “trekker” (the preferred moniker). And I understand that this is Science Fiction. “Fiction” is in the name of the genre. So I am not looking for something that is going to pass muster at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The plot must be advanced to a conclusion in 2 hours. Things are going to get glossed-over. Fine. But Mr. Abrams and his writers treated the story line as filller between action sequences.
This movie wasn’t an homage to Star Trek. Whether intentional or not, it was an indictment by J.J. Abrams, against Gene Roddenberry, basically stating that everything Star Trek: its themes, its characters, its whole universe is boring crap. Here’s how it should have been done. Even that would be OK, if it would have been done well. It wasn’t.
Don’t get me wrong. I understand that a face-lift was needed. Rick Berman had done just about all he could. Iit was time for someone else to bring a new perspective to the franchise. But that does not mean that it was time to abandon everything that made Star Trek great. Gene Roddenberry was, above all else, a storyteller. J.J. Abrams is not.
Watching this movie was like watching a $100 million dollar version of a “Saturday Night Live” skit. All the Star Trek stereotypes and the one-liners were there; with none of soul.
I hope I am not coming-off as one of those geeks who thinks that all things Star Trek are holy. And no one must mess with doctrine. Because that is not how I feel. The idea of doing a complete reset of the Start Trek universe is interesting. It frees the writers to go in any direction they want and not have to be tied-down by the events of the original series. All I’m saying is that this is just a bad movie. It’s badly written, badly directed, and badly acted — although I am willing to forgive the actors who were saddled with no script and no direction.
Get past the hype. It’s a bad movie… to me.
Kevin: I’m going to have a disagree with you. Star Trek was a couple of hours of pure enjoyment. But then I’m not a Trekker.
Kia ora Kevin,
Thanks for your thoughts: nice to have some reasoned debate on a blog instead of senseless verbal frothing. Apologies for mistaking the Trekker moniker (clearly showing me to be in the ‘not a devoted fan’ camp. I must admit Star Trek never caught me in the way that Blakes 7 did). Interesting looking at the etymology of the names; understandable that the preferred name changed when it did.
Now onto comments, I agree with you (to a great degree) on many of your points but not on some:
The plot must be advanced to a conclusion in 2 hours. Things are going to get glossed-over. Fine. But Mr. Abrams and his writers treated the story line as filller between action sequences.
I agree that the plot outline for the film was a little thin – hence I referred to it’s ‘episodic’ feel. Clearly i don’t feel as strongly on that point as you do. I always felt that the original TV series had a mix of great and average plotlines – pretty formulaic for the most part – and that is where my comparison lies and where I think the bulk of Abram’s reference material (and probably his personal viewing) stems from.
Watching this movie was like watching a $100 million dollar version of a “Saturday Night Live” skit. All the Star Trek stereotypes and the one-liners were there; with none of soul
Yep, I thought he crossed the line into parody on several occasions but i didn’t think that this was because he was …stating that everything Star Trek: its themes, its characters, its whole universe is boring crap but rather that he has a more obvious sense of humour/drama. I also thought that Karl Urban did a respectable job with his version of a young Dr. Leonard ‘Bones’ McCoy.
I would be interested to see where Abrams takes things if he helms the announced sequel, which is presumably a very real possibility considering the box office success of this one (although he may stick to Producer duties only). A second outing would mean, by its very nature, less referencing of the previous parts of the franchise and more original input/direction/development. I think this would be a better indicator of where Abrams will sit in the overall life cycle of all things Trek.
I do appreciate that you think that this film was simply badly made, and that you have some solid reasons for that. As you’ve pointed out, we just divert in our opinions here.
Thanks again for your comments – appreciated.
Jacob.
I don’t agree, really, with Mr. Kevin.
His points – at least, the points about the plot and the like – are apt. The best Star Trek episodes and movies, ultimately, are about the characters. The rest is fantasy and cheese, and it’s just bumb to pretend otherwise.
I mean, “The Wrath of Khan” was the best of the lot, and was pretty terrific. Still, wasn’t it about Ricardo Monteban going after Shatner (on the video), quoting Melville along the way, as his ship is torn apart around him?
And the “Save the Whales” one, the fourth. Wasn’t the best moment, watching Spock getting his rhythm back by trying to swear (“a colorful metaphor”) in public, in San Francisco?
This new movie hit the “feel” of the old relationships, very well. There was a bit added into the mix: the clowning-around from Scottie and the whiz-kid Chekhov were a bit exaggerated, as an example.
More importantly, they captured most of what really makes us care about the stories. The new Spock is the old one, with a slightly different past as a result of a believable time-shift; the new Kirk has a bit less formal training and discpline, but the luxury of knowing from an early glimpse-at-older-Spock, what he can work to be.
The original series screwed up timelines, quoted invalid star dates, and broke the Prime Directive more times than they had episodes (almost). The movies with the original cast, rewrote parts of the original series.
So, if this is a retelling of the characters in yet-another-story, I’d say it was a cracking good tale.
Not everything is, pardon the pun, Chekhov.
Will anybody be able to smell a smoke smell on me?