Madame G (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
filthgoblin) wrote2009-05-17 04:06 pm
filthgoblin) wrote2009-05-17 04:06 pm
More Trek ramblings
I am going to go see the movie again tomorrow with Rich. I've been craving it since I got back, so I was delighted when he asked me if I wanted to go with him.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
alba17 pointed me to this critical review of the movie and asked my opinion. I will probably have a second wave of thoughts following a rewatch but there are a few things, having read the review, that I totally disagree with.
Firstly:
Two examples: what story function did the ice planet animals serve? And, why did the Enterprise fire on Nero's dying ship at the end?
Their only function was to provide more opportunities for sub-sonics and special effects and the second was a huge violation of the Star Trek morality on top of it.
In my view, the reason for the ice planet animals was to show that there is stuff out there that is still beyond the comprehension of the almighty Federation. And, as I recall, it was running away from said animals and falling down a chasm that led Kirk to where Spock was hiding out.
And as for firing on Nero's ship, I agree that was dubious in terms of so-called Star Trek morality. But that said, I don't think that there's been a single episode of the show that focuses on matters external to the ship/starbase where the Prime Directive wasn't in some way violated.
Next thing:
Nero's entire motivation, the entire plot of the movie was described by original!Spock in the five minute scene in the ice cave. For a two-plus hour movie, that's not much story.
I personally thought that this scene was one of the weaker parts of the movie. I know that a certain degree of exposition is inevitable in sci fi, but I found that a rather turgid way of hashing out the background. And then, even once the motivation of a character is known, it doesn't stop them from acting on that motivation. Otherwise it's just explain, go "ah, that is why he's doing it. Let's go home" and then leave the cinema? I don't remember seing a single film that is just about the motivation and nothing about the action that flows from that motivation. It would, to my mind, make for very dull viewing.
I've read a few reviews by various people, published reviewers and otherwise, objecting to the treatment of "women issue" in the film and the feminism or otherwise presented by this portrayal of female characters. To that all I say that this is a story set against the backdrop of TOS. It is a remake to all intents and purposes, and that means that certain things will remain the same. I don't recall anyone complaining the men's uniforms are the same as they were in TOS. And rightly or wrongly Uhura always was a somewhat two dimensional character. The fact she was there at all, and not only female but black, was pretty cutting edge at the time. If you want a film that is truly "modern" in its attitudes towards women, then you don't want to go and see one that's based on a 1960s view of how the future will look.
But the bit I disagree with most vehemently is this:
It was rather chill, no one really liked each other, gestures of affection were strictly cross-gender
I personally thought that the relationship between Jim and Bones came across extremely warmly, and I was more convinced by their physical interactions than I was by those between Spock and Uhura to be honest. Whilst I agree to a certain extent that Spock's relationship with his mother was pretty scant, I thought the way he was with his father was really touching, particularly towards the end. I agree that there's more development that needs to be done in the friendship between Kirk and Spock, but if they'd gone from out-and-out detesting each other to loving one another like brothers by the end of the movie I would have called foul.
Overall, I went to see an action movie, and that's what I got. And as a Trekkie, I'm delighted that they didn't go too far in bringing it "up to date" with modern interpretations of what the future will be like. Because none of us really know, and we loved TOS for what it was, not as an accurate reflection of how we'll be living in three or four hundred years time.< br />
alba17 pointed me to this critical review of the movie and asked my opinion. I will probably have a second wave of thoughts following a rewatch but there are a few things, having read the review, that I totally disagree with. Firstly:
Two examples: what story function did the ice planet animals serve? And, why did the Enterprise fire on Nero's dying ship at the end?
Their only function was to provide more opportunities for sub-sonics and special effects and the second was a huge violation of the Star Trek morality on top of it.
In my view, the reason for the ice planet animals was to show that there is stuff out there that is still beyond the comprehension of the almighty Federation. And, as I recall, it was running away from said animals and falling down a chasm that led Kirk to where Spock was hiding out.
And as for firing on Nero's ship, I agree that was dubious in terms of so-called Star Trek morality. But that said, I don't think that there's been a single episode of the show that focuses on matters external to the ship/starbase where the Prime Directive wasn't in some way violated.
Next thing:
Nero's entire motivation, the entire plot of the movie was described by original!Spock in the five minute scene in the ice cave. For a two-plus hour movie, that's not much story.
I personally thought that this scene was one of the weaker parts of the movie. I know that a certain degree of exposition is inevitable in sci fi, but I found that a rather turgid way of hashing out the background. And then, even once the motivation of a character is known, it doesn't stop them from acting on that motivation. Otherwise it's just explain, go "ah, that is why he's doing it. Let's go home" and then leave the cinema? I don't remember seing a single film that is just about the motivation and nothing about the action that flows from that motivation. It would, to my mind, make for very dull viewing.
I've read a few reviews by various people, published reviewers and otherwise, objecting to the treatment of "women issue" in the film and the feminism or otherwise presented by this portrayal of female characters. To that all I say that this is a story set against the backdrop of TOS. It is a remake to all intents and purposes, and that means that certain things will remain the same. I don't recall anyone complaining the men's uniforms are the same as they were in TOS. And rightly or wrongly Uhura always was a somewhat two dimensional character. The fact she was there at all, and not only female but black, was pretty cutting edge at the time. If you want a film that is truly "modern" in its attitudes towards women, then you don't want to go and see one that's based on a 1960s view of how the future will look.
But the bit I disagree with most vehemently is this:
It was rather chill, no one really liked each other, gestures of affection were strictly cross-gender
I personally thought that the relationship between Jim and Bones came across extremely warmly, and I was more convinced by their physical interactions than I was by those between Spock and Uhura to be honest. Whilst I agree to a certain extent that Spock's relationship with his mother was pretty scant, I thought the way he was with his father was really touching, particularly towards the end. I agree that there's more development that needs to be done in the friendship between Kirk and Spock, but if they'd gone from out-and-out detesting each other to loving one another like brothers by the end of the movie I would have called foul.
Overall, I went to see an action movie, and that's what I got. And as a Trekkie, I'm delighted that they didn't go too far in bringing it "up to date" with modern interpretations of what the future will be like. Because none of us really know, and we loved TOS for what it was, not as an accurate reflection of how we'll be living in three or four hundred years time.< br />