By Bob Clark
Though it began and broke new conceptual and thematic ground on television, and wound up thriving in spin-off after spin-off years later, the Star Trek franchise only really took hold and proved itself as something viable once it channeled its creative energy onto the big screen. That’s not to say that The Motion Picture was a resounding success– despite the talent and pedigree of director Robert Wise, special-effects guru Douglass Trumbull and of course the entire returning cast of the television series, that first film venture proved itself just a little too remote for most audiences. Amounting to something of a high-concept, somewhat more linear cousin of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the movie has quite a lot going for it if you want a piece of hard science-fiction that could stand tall with any of the speculative episodes that came before it on television (its script began as a pilot for a return to the small-screen, which wouldn’t happen until The Next Generation). But it was a little too slow for the mainstream crowd, and even a little trying on the patience of fans, who missed the adventurous, swashbuckling style that William Shatner cut on television as Captain Kirk, and that’s what they got in droves in The Wrath of Khan, perhaps the one movie perhaps that lives up to its reputation as a sequel that doesn’t just match the original, but handily outpaces it.
Since then, it seems that nearly every succeeding Star Trek theatrical venture has tried to imbue itself with at least some of the swaggering manner of Khan, or even pattern itself after its basic structure of space warfare and revenge storylines, this in a series that began as a vision of mankind coming together from all differences to reach a better society, free of hatred or conflict of any kind. In a sense, it’s only natural that the franchise should rely upon it as a standard narrative, as it provides a very nice way to contrast the high-minded social themes and concerns inherent in Gene Roddenberry’s hopeful look into the future with more personal motives, allowing an audience to better appreciate the sometimes more distant utopian aspects. The fact that the film also married this with the killer sci-fi MacGuffin of the Genesis device, capable of bringing life to a dead planet or wiping out the existing natural order of an inhabited world, and was moreover willing to take real chances with the status-quo of the series and add legitimate life-or-death stakes to the mix helps it stand above even the better imitators in the franchise. First Contact places a worthy, if distant second, mostly thanks to Patrick Stewart’s commanding lead and the genuine menace of the Borg, as well as a nifty inversion of the Captain Ahab tropes, but it’s by no means the only Trek film that attempts to resurrect the vengeance-themed goalpost of Khan, most of which have been middling affairs. But none have been so direct in their appropriation or as epic in their failure as Star Trek Into Darkness.
Picking up where 2009’s time-traveling reboot of the series left off, what we have here is mostly a rather complete recycling of the same narrative elements that the original series’ episode Space Seed and The Wrath of Khan used, retelling the same basic plot points with a younger cast, and characters switching in and out of their respective places from the original timeline. We still have all the same players occupying their characters– Chris Pine playing Kirk less as the showboat adventurer of Shatner and more douchey frat boy in dire need of having a chip knocked out of his shoulder with a sledgehammer, with Zachary Quinto and Karl Urban not so much performing Spock and Bones as delivering impersonations that could be mistaken for Disneyland animatronics. Joining the fray is Bennedict Cumberbautch as the lead villain, who in all fairness pours just as much menace and relish into his performance as his predecessor, but not enough to make up for box-office bait like this being the reason that we only get three episodes of Sherlock a year. In addition there’s a distracting subplot involving Peter Weller as a Starfleet admiral pursuing a militaristic course that subverts the organization’s utopian ideals of exploration and peace in favor of trying to start a war against the Klingon Empire with futuristic black-0p technology– in other words, the basic plot of The Undiscovered Country and Insurrection, which earn points for not copying and pasting the Khan revenge story outright, despite both still being a little dull.
In that sense, Into Darkness is at least in good company among the more middling Trek efforts, but not so much because it’s dull– rather, it’s so unrelentingly bombastic and explosive in its pace and action formula that it quickly becomes deadeningly monotonous. One of the things that writer/director Nicholas Meyer, himself a Trek novice at the time, understood was that the series was essentially a naval adventure of the Horatio Hornblower or Master & Commander ilk set in space, and the template he established of cat-and-mouse style capital-ship battles is one that the best films of the series have followed for how they favored both the actors, who could chew plenty of scenery in the command-deck portions, as well as the special-effects spectacle by creating something distinctive from the more kinetic duels and dogfights of Star Wars and its ilk. When directing the 2009 reboot J.J. Abrams seemed only all too willing to throw out the more strategic starship shootouts of the series in favor of a hyperactive brand of digital fireworks that makes Michael Bay’s Transformer movies look docile by comparison, throwing volley after volley of laser blasts and explosions into sequences that have the standard shake-and-bake look of action movies whose makers think that coherence only stands in the way of realism. This gets ramped up even more throughout Into Darkness, which piles on so many additional chases, shootouts and attacks in its running time that there’s barely any time left over for anyone to figure out how to get their hand into the right position for a Vulcan salute.
And this in and of itself wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing– First Contact jettisoned the capital-ship combat mostly and focused on the Borg, basically amounting to a cybernetic variation on the zombie genre– if it weren’t for just how derivative the sequences Abrams stitches together feel. It’s especially sad considering how unique the best of his work on television could be, like the sensational pilot to Lost, but here as a mercenary auteur for Star Trek, it seems like all he can do is steal set-pieces, story beats and atmosphere from a whole decades’ worth or more of more original adventures and slap a Starfleet logo on it. In allowing Cumberbautch to be taken under arrest all as part of an elaborate plan, it joins the ranks of Skyfall, The Avengers and the Dark Knight movies and their increasingly far-fetched Rube Goldberg plotting masterminds. In weaving together a mad dash through the insides of the Enterprise as it loses control of gravity during a firefight it copies the same stunts that Inception pulled, with perhaps even less visual grounding. And in a late-climax series of escalating chase and fistfight across a vast futuristic cityscape it recalls not only Minority Report and the latter-day Star Wars films, but also films that have already been drawing from the same well for their own derivative action sequences.
It was bad enough when Len Wiseman’s Total Recall remake owed far more to Lucas & Spielberg than it did to the Paul Verhoven original, to say nothing of Phillip K. Dick, and when Into Darkness begins looking more like Wiseman’s nested-dolls of ripoffs and homages, it becomes hard to see it as anything other than pop-cultural wallpaper– a reboot wrapped in a remake inside a retelling. The fact that Abrams has moved on to another one of those franchises is all the more telling in how cynical and impersonal his time in Trek has been, and it doesn’t bode well for how he’s likely to treat even a series he’s spoken fondly of. It’s all the more disappointing to look at his original television creations and see how corporate his vision has become after being drafted into pre-existing franchise filmmaking, from Mission: Impossible onwards– even his so-called original movie Super 8 felt less like a work of real inspiration and more an attempt to genetically reverse engineer the manner of 80’s movies Spielberg directed and/or produced under Amblin. Like that film, the most descriptive thing that can be said of his Star Trek films is to paraphrase a filmmaker who has had the time to throw a quote from Khan into one of his own revenge-fantasy pastiches– “It’s a wax museum with a pulse,” but I’m not certain at all its heart is beating.
Bob – thanks so much for keeping it real. I think JJ Abrams is one of the most boring “trailblazing” directors out there, and while his Star Trek reboots are far from bad…they are rather just ho-hum. I don’t get all the overwhelming praise, and your title here says it all for me. Plus I don’t like the trend of devolving Star Trek from a political allegory into run of the mill sci-if action spectacle. I haven’t seen this one yet but I did of course see his first effort, but I feel I already have seen this one too 🙂
It’s not just a run of the mill sci-fi action spectacle instead of a political allegory– it’s also a run of the mill political allegory. Hell, we’ve had better sci-fi action spectacles with political allegory as well, and they tend to be all the ones that Abrams rips off (“Minority Report”, the “Star Wars” Prequels, everything Nolan that doesn’t involve amnesia or magicians, etc). And to top it off, we’ve had much better sci-fi action spectacles with political allegory in the “Star Trek” franchise before, too. There is nothing new here.
Preach it, Bob – you’re talking to the choir here.
Testify! See the light, brother! Seriously, see the freaking light (really, the literal “trail blazing” lights that the Enterprise leaves when it jumps to warp in this one are basically from “Firefly”, which is especially ironic).
It is not remotely “run of the mill.” And frankly I could care less if this film goes where no man has gone before, I am far more interested in the ride that gets us there. Unlike David, I think the overwhelming praise it has received in the critical ranks is well earned.
Though it began and broke new conceptual and thematic ground on television, and wound up thriving in spin-off after spin-off years later, the Star Trek franchise only really took hold and proved itself as something viable once it channeled its creative energy onto the big screen.
As a lifetime passionate trekkie, right from the start I am at odds with the general perception being bandied around here – one that dismisses the four exceptional television incarnations that led up to the mostly very fine but inferior movie versions. Mind you WitD has a glorious history of bucking the trend (META CRITIC reports this morning that this new STAR TREK film has received 35 favorable reviews with only a single negative (The New York Post’s Lou Luminick at that) and five “mixed” for what is obviously a superlative consensus that even includes three “100’s.” Even the notoriously difficult-to please SLANT issued a 3/4 review. However the difference with David Schleicher here as far as joining the thread is that I have seen the film -last night- and while I am not willing to go to the mat in it’s behalf I can at least set the matter straight as far as Bob’s review. In fact I really should go to the mat now that I think of it. STAR TREK INTO THE DARKNESS is not quite on the level with it’s predecessor (also diced here by Bob and David) but it again incorporates emotional investment into the characters into a roller coaster ride of exhilarating proportions. This whole business of whether it is “new” or not is not at all relevant to a genre that is always cannibalizing itself in the first place. There are some terrific and imaginative set pieces here and the morality play trappings are largely successful. Benedict Cumberbatch is the standout in an impressive cast.
I’ll leave the Village Voice’s Scott Foundas to side up the positive response to what Bob Clark is trying to use as his main ammunition employed in the title of his essay in dismissing the film:
Markedly grander in scale, although never at the expense of its richly human (and half-human) characters, “Into Darkness” may not boldly go where no “Trek” adventure has gone before, but getting there is such a well-crafted, immensely pleasurable ride that it would be positively Vulcan to nitpick.
Sam – I do agree with you on the point about the tv series. Certain stretches of the original and The Next Generation were where the ideas really flew highest. And that’s my biggest problem with the Abrams’ incarnation…there are no real ideas to be found in it…and Star Trek was always at its best when it explored new ideas and mirrored societal and political shifts. Granted, I haven’t seen the second film yet, but nothing I have read so far leads me to belief it is any different from the first one…though I reserve the right to be proven wrong 🙂
Yeah, there’s the lack of ideas which is a big problem, and the insistence that you have to dumb “Trek” down in order for it to work on the big screen. The best of the “Trek” movies found ways to mix the ideas and blockbuster aspects, like “Khan” and the life-creating doomsday weapon of the Genesis device. In the new ones, there’s none of that. Even that wouldn’t be so bad in and of itself if the action sequences Abrams stitches together weren’t ripped off wholesale from half a dozen other, better sci-fi movies (which all found the time to mix ideas and spectacle, to boot). Sci-fi doesn’t always have to cannibalize itself, and we shouldn’t give a blind pass to the dreck that does just because of nostalgia.
“Even that wouldn’t be so bad in and of itself if the action sequences Abrams stitches together weren’t ripped off wholesale from half a dozen other, better sci-fi movies (which all found the time to mix ideas and spectacle, to boot).”
We know some of the “better” films your referring to, and we don’t believe you Bob lol. I’m no trekkie, but I always found the campy Shatner series, and Stewart’s The Next Generation the spots “where the ideas flew best”. I have never heard anyone echo the opinion that the motion pictures were where the series became viable creatively. That sentiment certainly has to be an extreme minority position when this franchise is concerned (something trekkie Sam seems to confirm). Some of the actual movies are good (like Khan), but television is where Star Trek shined the brightest for most.
When it comes to Abrams, we all know he’s basically a blockbuster filmmaker who’s not looking to imbue his product with any depth. Its all about popcorn/ticket sales aimed at teenage boys. He has a formula and works well within it. With that aim in mind, he did make a good first film. I wouldn’t ever want to revisit it again, but its no worse than any other comic book, Harry Potter movie being made these days. In some ways one may even argue its a smidge better than those. I will probably wait for In Darkness to come to Netflix or cable before I see it. That should tell you where I am with this reboot.
Get ready because Star Wars is next Bob. If Lucas at least had some high minded concepts he couldn’t administer with any panache in his prequels, the next three with Abrams will have absolutely none. They will probably be better flowing films from a technical/entertainment standpoint (since Abrams can certainly make his “product” smoother and is a superior director for this modern age) but will in all likelihood be adolescently empty. And I guarantee you the Star Wars fans will eat it up big time…..
It doesn’t really matter if you believe any of the movies STID (which is a really great acronym, come to think of it) are necessarily good (though they’re by default better than this flick for not ripping off their narratives wholesale off of a previous film, at times scene for scene). But there’s no real question as to whether STID is ripping them off, as well as strip mining the memory bank of big-screen “Trek” films.
“Trek” has always been on its strongest footing while on television– the original series is dated as hell both in terms of its effects and, more importantly, its purely episodic brand of storytelling, but it was groundbreaking in important ways. TNG is probably the best the franchise has ever been, with a great blend of writing that balanced episodic and serial narrative styles (further shows DS9 and “Voyager” tended to be much more serialized), a great brand of conceptual and visual imagination, and no doubt whatsoever, much better acting.
But at a few key moments the movies have been as good as the best moments of the series on television– I’ve always thought TMP was underrated, a big-screen version of something that would’ve fit perfectly in with the kinds of big-ideas stories they told on television. “Khan” is stand-out blend of ideas and spectacle. Beyond those there have been a couple here or there that at least place somewhere within the overall quality of the series, and at the same time a share of duds here or there (Kirk, Spock and Bones go ask God why he needs a starship). Abrams’ films stand out to me as something to bemoan for how much they outright ignore the conventions of the series and cynically graft cookie-cutter imitations of the world and characters onto wholly different stuff. It’s very cynical, and that sets it apart from any of the various comic-book movies out today that at least can come from a genuine place of shallow sentiment.
As for his upcoming tenure on SW– it isn’t just that he doesn’t seem to have a capacity for the high-minded concepts that Lucas tried without panache (whatever that means– for most people it probably boils down to “there’s no Han Solo”). It’s that he can’t even come up with his own adolescent spectacle set-pieces, and keeps ripping off others. Yeah, he’s got the technical chops to execute similar sequences and to guide his actors through decent performances (though at this point they’re not really acting so much as they are delivering expert impersonations of Leonard Nimoy & company), but does that really matter when you’re just seeing a Xerox of blockbusters past? Even Nolan, who’s overrated to high heaven, could dream up his own nifty set-pieces for the “Dark Knight” movies and “Inception”, even if he couldn’t quite shoot or cut them perfectly. It’s valuing technical perfectionism over originality.
As for whether or not Abrams’ next venture will be a success– it’ll doubtless attract the fawning old-school fans in their 30’s, 40’s and 50’s who simply want more of the same from three decades ago. The younger generations of newer fans or those who’ve yet to be converted might show some resistence. The real question is where the mainstream crowds who don’t see a difference between the old and new will sit– they could very easily go in and enjoy themselves, sure, but if Abrams plays it too deep to the old-school crowd and delivers a love-letter to a set of movies that are a decade older than his target demographic, this could turn into the second coming of Bryan Singer’s “Superman Returns”.
As for whether or not Abrams’ next venture will be a success– it’ll doubtless attract the fawning old-school fans in their 30′s, 40′s and 50′s who simply want more of the same from three decades ago.
Are these fans anything like the fawning Lucas adherents who will take anything the STAR WARS franchise offers up, even to praise the awful pre-sequels that polluted our sci-fi consciousness with ideas as stale as the genre has ever ventured to translate. I just got back from a second viewing of the film with the two members of my clan who had not seen it (and one, an adoring sci-fi fan Sammy who couldn’t wait to see it a second time) and am convinced that Bob is smoking some kind of anti-STAR TREK crystal meth that has been cooked up by the unimaginative STAR WARS groupies. I summarily reject the position taken here by Bob (and to a lesser degree by David) that the franchise is “devoid” of ideas. This riveting, exhilarating ride – yes America’s critics, you all called it right; don’t listen to those attention-seeking renegades at WitD! Ha! – is visually creative, and spins some new gadgetry and technological set pieces into an ever-evolving franchise, and the morality play at hand has some new twists that both fill in some plot holes intimated from the television series and offer up some new revelations. Saying that this film and it’s predecessor offer no new ideas is a cheap shot and a lazy way of saying that for whatever reason the show’s unique combination of adventure and character affectations was never the cup of tea in the first place, never making the emotional connection like it did with the millions and millions of fans worldwide. I greatly respect my good friend David Schleicher, but it’s clear from his own additions here that he really was no big fan of the television series, despite throwing a few bones by way of an admission that some episodes may have gotten it right. And while Bob’s rightful acknowledgement that the second series, the seven season STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION is the high water mark for the entire franchise (the fifth season’s “The Inner Light” may well be the greatest single episode ever filmed under the STAR TREK banner)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inner_Light_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)
he gives less than sneering credit to the original series with Shatner and Nimoy, which is close behind and the two excellent follow-ups DEEP SPACE NINE and VOYAGER (a fifth series ENTERPRISE never achieved full potential because of a shorter run) that are part of this continuing cultural phenomenon. I frankly was far too busy have such a great time with this new sci-fi gem than worrying if it satiated people who went in there looking to tear it down with these vague and general objections. Frankly though, really who cares? I loved the first film, and love this second film (4.5 now methinks) and sincerely hope Abrams will tear up his STAR WARS commitment and stick with a series he has really energized. But of course that won’t happen as Abrams’s STAR WARS re-boot is slated to release in two years. Nice to see Maurizio has this entire picture figured out, regardless of whether he is or ever was a big fan.
Hey hey wait, Sam…I grew up watching and loving TNG and always found DSP intriguing…I think the later spin offs sucked the good will from me. I consider myself a fan of Star Trek overall…and mainly due to the tv shows. As far as the films, I found The Voyage Home and First Contact to be the best. Abrams…eh…meh..
First, “The Inner Light” was from TNG’s fifth season, not the first (something Sam apparently realized, and likewise edited his comment). Second, as I look at some of the labeled “positive” reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, I find that a good deal of them are actually fairly lukewarm– it seems they count anything above two stars as the same thing as a five-star rave. And though a lot of the more casual critics who don’t know “Trek” from a hole in the ground may be somewhat more forgiving thanks to their ignorance of the series, there’s more and more especially online who can see through the cheap gimmicks of the film and recognize how it’s blatantly pandering to those who just want a remix version of the old-school vanguard with all the same scenes copied beat for beat. And again, if it weren’t ripping off other sci-fi movies left and right for its action sequences or if it had the guts to at least follow through on what it was ripping off from “Trek” (what’s the point of having Kirk and Spock replay their Damn Death Scene in reversed roles if you’re just going to turn Khan’s blood into a deus ex machina get-out-of-death-free card?). But the degree to which it represents unoriginality both within its franchise and its genre overall make it an apogee of generic blockbusterism.
First of all, I said FIFTH SEASON, not FIRST. Yes I did edit it before you came in here, and be rest assured it was a TYPO, My mind said to type in FIFTH, but it came in as FIRST.
And I provided a link there for reference. it’s one of my favorite individual television episodes of all time.
Secondly do not use RT as a critical reference point, use MC. I have stated this many times. RT is only good for a general idea, not for cogent critical analysis.
I am less concerned with whether it could or should be referred to as a “blockbuster” rather than whether is connects with me emotionally. And yeah that is another variation of the death scene that overlapped from KAHN to the SEARCH FOR SPOCK. So what? It works within this new context and loses no resonance.
“and am convinced that Bob is smoking some kind of anti-STAR TREK crystal meth that has been cooked up by the unimaginative STAR WARS groupies.”
Too bad he doesn’t smoke Walter White’s potent concoction above all else.
I’m with you Sam that The Next Generation is the best thing in the Star Trek franchise followed closely by the original series. None of the films quite have the same power… though two or three are very good in my estimation. Deep Space Nine I liked to some degree, but only sporadically watched Voyager (Enterprise maybe two episodes in total). Won’t get into a Star Trek/Wars discussion other than to say that I find the former more worthy overall. I honestly either didn’t know you were a trekkie or had completely forgotten. You sure are coming out swinging in this thread lol. And I think the above 30’s SW crowd hated the prequels for good reason. Abrams can only go one way with that franchise…up.
Yep Maurizio, I am a passionate lifetime Trekkie, though opportunity to express it in force at this site has never really exhibited itself, oddly enough. The fanaticism reached epic proportions when I went so far as to attend conventions in the 80’s and 90’s. I may decide to write posts on the series in the future. Dennis is also a massive fan of the series.
I completely agree on what you say about ST:TNG in the overall pantheon.
1. ST: TNG
2. ST: The Original Series
3. ST: DSN
4. ST. VOYAGER
5. ST: ENTERPRISE
Like you I do find quite a bit to admire in DEEP SPACE NINE.
I “trust” RT more than Metacritic. Always go for the larger sample size that will skewer consensus less and be a more accurate gauge of where it stands critically (if thats your thing).
Maurizio you make a good point there with the larger scope.
Fair enough David. I completely understand where you are coming from.
But I am a bit surprised you didn’t not name THE WRATH OF KAHN among the best of the films. Just about every trekkie I have ever known in my life always sites that one as either the best or very near the top.
I haven’t seen this, but I hear it’s pretty awful from people that I trust.
I’m glad that not everyone is eating it up, even if I am a good fan of J.J. Abrams stuff (specially Lost), but this just looks awful from its conception and to the fact that the perfect human Khan is now a white guy, when in its time it was played by Montalvan, a GREAT choice.
I’m gonna reproduce a couple of negative reviews from people that I know:
“I’ve only just gotten into TNG and sporadically watched TOS, so I’m not a die-hard at all, but this is so far from what Star Trek is it is truly repulsive. “I thought we were explorers,” Scotty protests right around the time I thought the same thing, but the idealism of Gene Roddenberry is unfashionable, so instead we get slick cynicism and an utter lack of consequences. To begin the film with a casual violation of the Prime Directive that invites a punishment that lasts all of three minutes is an insult; what is the point of Pike trying to teach Kirk about respect if Abrams and his trifecta of the worst screenwriters in Hollywood intend to let him off as just a can-do maverick? Then again, the character arcs themselves are rote repeats of the last film, to the point that if it wasn’t for all the shoehorned references to events of the reboot I’d have assumed they were restarting yet again.
Star Trek is by no means a work of perfection. Roddenberry’s idealism very often crossed into simpering naïveté, and his desire to put women and POC on television was often hampered by network restrictions and plan reductive writing. But this Uhura is more reductive than the original, having hissy fits over her relationship with Spock when she isn’t covering her mouth in weakening shock. John Cho gets so little to do he makes Takei’s underwritten Sulu look like a fourth lead. Add to it a whitewashed villain and the future Roddenberry thought would show an end to petty human conflict looks more exclusionary than it did when he was running a show before the end of fucking segregation.
Obvious in-jokes take the place of an engagement with Trek’s history, a frenetic and incomprehensible directorial style is somehow so much worse when things calm down and you can see for seconds at a time just how clumsy Abrams is, and an offensive incorporation of 9/11 do not critique and expand Roddenberry’s vision so much as jettison it. I would spit in Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof’s faces if they were in the vicinity when the veterans’ dedication flashed at the end of this exploitative, clumsy, self-serious and deeply stupid film. I’ve been entertained by Abrams before, albeit in a wispy, cotton-candy way that has charmed on the first bite and then just started to melt my teeth as I keep chewing. But this repels on the first go, a despicable wretch of a movie that trades a franchise’s awkward, stumbling move toward a better tomorrow for a cheap, artless approximation of the now. They ought to be ashamed.
Props to Quinto for livening up a character written so stiffly that Vulcan logic threatens to become mannequin display, and to Cumberbatch for adding a booming chill to bog-standard villain lines. Also, seeing Pain and Gain and this so close to each other reminds me: when did Peter Weller and Ed Harris start to look alike?”
“Entertaining as far as it goes– slick, full of clever banter, easy chemistry among the Enterprise crew, an above-average villain in Benedict Cumberbatch– but the plot grows murky over time and the political metaphor grows even murkier, to say nothing of callbacks to the first film and Star Trek mythology that resonate very little with me. The bizarre end-credit 9/11 dedication (which appears and disappears so quickly that it seemed like it was some contractual obligation) made it all the more frustrating for me to piece together some coherent message. For example, the extra-legal authorization of missile strike on Cumberbatch was a clear enough drone commentary, but it’s dropped early and replaced by… [fill in conspiracy theory here].”
“I hate this movie for all its cutesy quoting of Wrath of Khan while trying and spectacularly failing to sublet its gravitas. I hate it for casting the whitest actor on Earth as a man named Khan Noonien Singh. I hate it for the way that every shot in the back half is a three-ring circus of lens flares, cluttered sets, and CGI embellishments. I hate it for turning Spock into Sheldon from “The Big Bang Theory”. I hate it for its abuse of Leonard Nimoy’s fealty to the franchise and to J.J. Abrams, reducing Old Spock to a fortune-teller Young Spock now keeps on speed dial. I hate this movie, this hacky, weightless, soulless “Muppet Babies” theme-episode of a movie.”
I really haven’t seen any really positive reviews (100%, 4 stars, I like it a lot, whatever) from the venues I like, follow and adore.
Really Jaimie? Just where are you reading? Why don’t you try META CRITIC and RT for starters? Bob Clark is the very first person that I have encountered who has talked down the film. Everyone I know personally and everyone I have read on-line has been singing it’s praises.
It’s funny that what you are saying here is completely contrary to what has been posted. It seems like wishful thinking.
My translation for your long put down here is that you are not emotionally invested in this franchise. Fair enough. Let’s just say I am completely on the other side with this.
Not really, I’m on twitter and letterboxd and there’s where I get all the links to the pages, many are lukewarm or just plain negative reactions. It has not premiered here, but I don’t care about chilean critics anyway.
Well I have read nothing but tremendous praise, perfectly in tune with the spectacular critical consensus among the professional scribes, including the ones that are the best writers and most reliable.
I can only imagined what they said about Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit on those social media sites lol. Yet you gave it ***** stars. Emotional investment is a key factor as Sam brings up.
A.O. Scott’s review is pretty negative, once you get past the knots he has to tie himself into to describe the movie without giving away contractually-obligated Paramount secrets.
True enough Maurizio. I read many negatives on THE HOBBIT, yet it worked with Jamie, and he gave the highest rating accordingly.
I’ll confess STAR TREK was a franchise I grew up with in my formidable years, and it really did me a lot to me. This new film really does retain the magic, and it smartly plays to the aspects that so many of us connected to and continue to be fascinated with.
It’s (Scott’s review) is counted as positive, and I think you are reading into it the way you would like it to be.
No, it isn’t, Sam. Not on RT anyway.
Bob, my apologies. I mixed up Mike Scott with A.O. Scott. A. O. Scott’s review is listed as mixed on MC, but in any case even at that venue the numbers are overwhelmingly positive:
35 positive
5 mixed
1 negative
If we go over to RT to get a wider parameter (yes I know this site sucks for a number of reasons) then this is what we have:
186 positive
29 negative
That’s like 7 to 1.
A far far cry from what Jaimie is making claims to in the delirium to invalidate this film.
Most of the people didn’t even bother seeing The Hobbit. Their loss.
Now I’m delirious because I think that I try to invalidate the film?
No, I’m just saying that there’s a good amount of people who don’t like it, and I’m glad that there’s that because it’s nice to hear that when a movie is already in the top 250 at the IMDb (honestly the only completely positive praise that I’ve had in these days). I’m just here to stop this madness of attacking Bob Clark as if it wasn’t his honest opinion, pointing out to other reviewers as if to tell him “HAHA YOU’RE WRONG”. Well, he’s not actually wrong, he’s not alone, and no matter how much people like it more than they hate it, they still exist, and diminish someone’s review based on concensus is dumb and almost childish. That’s all I’m doing here: demonstrating that Bob Clark is not alone.
I will see it when this opens, in like three months or so, maybe by that point all the dust would’ve settled.
There are many many more who hate THE HOBBIT Jaimie, though I am NOT one of them. No Bob is not alone, but then again who is ever alone? Every film has at least a few dissenters. The numbers speak loud and clear here, not that you need to listen to them. In fact you are not listening. Which is fair enough. But when a comment is placed here to imply that the general consensus is negative, well then I felt I had to move in.
I am not calling you delirious at all, I am just stating that your frenzied action was a kind of delirium.
Well I haven’t seen the film (and am not in a hurry either) but I could see both Sam and Bob making pertinent points. For me, Abrams’ Star Trek is typical 21st century summer blockbuster filmmaking, and some of Bob’s misgivings should come with the territory. For me, all these films cannibalize each other anyway, that the argument of no originality is a moot trivial point (especially one about multi-faceted characterizations). Also all these Hollywood created set pieces are just one big CGI money-shot explosion after another anyway.
In the end, the emotional investment angle becomes the ultimate trump card.
Originality’s a salient point for me, when it comes down to a film that rips off the originality of both films from the past decade or more, and from within its own damn franchise. When Nicholas Meyer made “The Wrath of Khan”, it was original as you can get within the confines of a based-on-a-tv-series movie project. When J.J. Abrams remakes “The Wrath of Khan” and piles on stolen atmosphere and set-pieces from Lucas, Spielberg, Nolan and god knows who else, it feels beyond cheap. It’s the equivalent of imagining a new Bond movie in which Daniel Craig faces off against John Goodman as Auric Goldfinger while wearing the Iron Man suit.
“It’s the equivalent of imagining a new Bond movie in which Daniel Craig faces off against John Goodman as Auric Goldfinger while wearing the Iron Man suit.”
That sounds like a good film to me. In fact if we’re getting Goodman, lets make him a slightly unstable vietnam vet who loves to bowl and kills spies with mutant pomeranians instead.
You’re kind of proving my point, but whatever.
In the end, the emotional investment angle becomes the ultimate trump card.
The defining point here Maurizio. Bob doesn’t feel this at all so his next line of attack in an attempt to mitigate this all-important audience connection to the material is that it “isn’t original.” It’s really a faulty claim, one that seemingly close to no-one else agrees with, even among the minority nay-sayers. I don’t see it for sure, and I’m much too occupied with the superbly crafted thrilled ride, the engaging performances, the success of Abrams to keep the appeal of the original shows, excellent CGI work, and a riveting morality play that fascinates throughout. Claims could be made against any science-fiction film that it isn’t original, but heck, who is really listening and who cares? If it works it works, and this new installment is just what the doctor ordered for STAR TREK fans.
NYC was grid-locked tonight and for the first time in a very long time we were shut out, and retreated to our weekly eatery earlier than expected. PIETA will have to wait for another night to be seen.
If “emotional investment” were a bulletproof argument, wouldn’t we have all shut up about our various contrary likes and dislikes by now? I also can’t really take seriously the idea that this is keeping up the appeal of the Original Series– the only thing that seems to be carrying over are the primary-color shirts, the girls in mini-skirts and Urban & Quinto doing impersonations of De Forest Kelley and Leonard Nimoy that would win first-prize at a Trekkie convention, but don’t really amount to actual performances. Everything else has been transmogrified to fit the contours of a modern generic action-extravaganza, with especially cynical fanservice pandering just to keep things recognizable. It’s the equivalent of a Beatles cover-band adding obnoxious guitar and drum solos where they think the songs are too boring, or adding “Yeah, Yeah, Yeah!!!” into “Sgt. Pepper” or sitar music into “I Wanna Hold Your Hand”.
If “emotional investment” were a bulletproof argument, wouldn’t we have all shut up about our various contrary likes and dislikes by now?
Not really. The idea of emotional investment was brought out in response to your issues with originality which I see as fraudulent observations, and nothing more than a defense of why you never cared for these characters and franchise all that much in the first place. And then to bring up the obvious changes over nearly 50 years in the colors and clothes? Now, really? the essence of the characters were retained and apparently that’s why the reviews have been so excellent, taking in far more than just trekkies. That convoluted Beatles simile is true to your eyes and your eyes only.
If I didn’t have any emotional connection to the franchise before it, I probably wouldn’t mind STID. It’s because I do have something of a connection and don’t like seeing it turned into something it isn’t that I have objections like these. But I don’t have enough of an emotional investment to make excuses for it either, or like it just because it gets superficial details right.
No more superficial than any other sci-fi film in any other series. By George it worked, and to these eyes and ears it’s all that counts. But as to everything else you just said I will respond with ‘fair enough.’ You certainly were reasonable there Bob.
Are we in the 80’s Sam?
Bob hates this because he has a preconcieved hate towards Star Trek because he likes Star Wars?
I applaud Bob Clark’s comment: he likes ST, and I believe that, we’ve spoken about it, how he likes the movies and the series (some of them, of course) so he doesn’t like what it’s being done here; but he’s also not a fanboy that will forgive anything that comes up with the name Star Trek in it with teeth and claws.
Right Jaimie. But he’s allowed to continue as a STAR WARS fanboy, approving every new incarnation of that series though, right? I came here to strongly oppose the negative pan of a film so many fans and non-fans are praising. It’s as much my right to do so as it was his to issue the post in the first place. And regardless of what Bob says here he has always been very cool towards the STAR TREK franchise in previous posts where it has been broached. But that’s certainly his right.
And I wonder how many ‘fanboys’ are among that 35 to 1 critical concensus on META CRITIC that loved or liked the film?
Different kind of “superficial”, Sam. Superficial in that it superficially resembles the Original Series, with all the costumes right and most of the performances close enough mimicry of the originals. But then fan films that Trekkies shoot on a shoestring budget in their basements can do that, too, or parody movies like “The Brady Bunch” flicks, and in either case you’re more likely to have genuine affection for the source material to get it right. J.J. Abrams has gone on record that he didn’t like “Trek” as a kid, and just took the job as an opportunity to do a big-budget sci-fi movie. And it shows, because it doesn’t really have the same kind of storytelling or adventure that the original series or movies did. It’s just doing modern blockbuster fireworks in “Star Trek” guise.
Now, can you drastically change the kinds of storytelling and action with the same characters and franchise and get away with it? Sometimes. Michael Mann threw a lot of people for a loop when he directed the movie version of “Miami Vice”. They were probably expecting a nostalgia-fest 80’s comedy, or at best a period piece. Instead he brought Crocket & Tubbs into the new millenium, and made it a harder look at the modern war on drugs. It probably alienated a lot of fans of the original, but at least here it was the show’s creative lead doing the revisionism (the same is true of “Star Wars”, for what it’s worth).
And it shows, because it doesn’t really have the same kind of storytelling or adventure that the original series or movies did. It’s just doing modern blockbuster fireworks in “Star Trek” guise.
I just don’t agree with this at all. This is YOUR take, not mine, not so many others. I say it has that storytelling adventure, and the modern technological advances are wed impressively to the humanistic trappings of the original story and characters. It thrilled, it exhilarated and it moved.
Sam, classic “Trek” on the shows and in the movies was largely about Kirk and crew encountering bizarre alien races or civilizations they’d never met before and trying to make sense of them, or running into adversaries like Khan or the Klingons and outthinking them, with the “Horatio Hornblower” style ship warfare battle became the signature mode for action, especially in the movies. That’s just not in these movies– we have big chases, shoot-outs and set-pieces that lean heavily on stuff from other films, but none of the classic exploration or ship battles (other ships shoot at the Enterprise a lot, but it just sits there while everyone on the inside replays “Inception”). It’s the equivalent of making a ninja or samurai movie where nobody uses swords and everyone just blasts each other with AK-47’s.
Bob I must say I did get the feel of alien races, within the framework of the technological advances available in these big screen extravaganzas. The recipe didn’t change at all in the end, just the manner in which it was presented.
While we have battled on this thread in true Starfleet vs. Klingon fashion, I will never deny that your writing and knowledge in this genre is first-rate, and you’ve been at the top of your game defending your position. I know you are not one to look for praise and rarely respond to it when it is given, but I’ll say here what I do think is irrefutable.
“Bob I must say I did get the feel of alien races, within the framework of the technological advances available in these big screen extravaganzas. The recipe didn’t change at all in the end, just the manner in which it was presented.”
Alien races we’ve seen a billion times before for the most part (Klingons now come with trendy facial piercings– as Mr. Sulu might say, “Oh my!”), or ones that are given short shrift (those condescending “Raiders of the Lost Ark” natives on the volcano planet that wind up worshiping the Enterprise), and technological advances that either raise all kinds of logistical problems (if you can beam yourself from the Earth to the Klingon planet with nothing more than a briefcase, why bother with starships at all anymore?) or amount to nothing more than bigger versions of stuff we’ve seen before (Enterprise vs. Super Sized Enterprise– they look so identical that in the trailers all that footage of a crashing ship looked like it was the Enterprise itself). There’s nothing resembling the new worlds or races that we saw in the original cast movies– nothing like V’Ger, the Genesis planet, or even that funky thingamajig that was going to destroy Earth unless it got to talk to some damn whales. Even the TNG movies either introduced new races and ideas, or added substantially to things we already knew before (the Borg Queen in “First Contact”). Here, everything was old hat. No exploring, no naval cat-and-mouse battles in space, just reliving the glory days of “Trek” and other franchises as though they were its own.
Some good points here from whoever they are. Yeah, Kirk routinely broke the rules on the show and in the movies, but at least when he did he was man enough to accept the consequences of his actions (one of my favorite moments in the films has always been Kirk pleading guilty to violating regulations in “The Voyage Home” and taking all the blame, rather than his crew being punished, and subsequently being demoted from Admiral to Captain). There’s lots of noise here about the whitewashing of the villain, which I tried my best not to mention in the review in the interests of the 2 or 3 people on the planet who havent’ figured it out yet. Cumberbatch is an actor I like quite a bit, but his place here strikes me as cynical for two reasons– one, it’s stunt casting that looks good, but makes a rather attrotious poor use of his gifts as a performer (he basically just gets to sneer and parade around as a villain, nothing more– even the original Khan was much more complex than that); two, it seems as though they cast him as Khan not necessarily to take away a great part from a latin american actor, but to keep up the whole shoddy mystery-box gimmick and make everybody think it wasn’t Khan after all (not that it fooled anyone).
one, it’s stunt casting that looks good, but makes a rather attrotious poor use of his gifts as a performer (he basically just gets to sneer and parade around as a villain, nothing more–
C’mon what was he supposed to do in that role, speak Shakespearean dialogue? Ludicrous criticism, methinks.
He could’ve spoken Mellville, at least. My point is– the writers only saw Khan as “the ultimate Trek villain” and forgot that he was a fair deal more than that.
Well, I didn’t find it’s personification that way at all, and to be honest they went as far with it as they could in this kind of film, where the visual design, and atmosphere will always clash for attention. Cumberbatch did a great job in fleshing out the character as far I saw it.
If only the visual design and atmosphere were original enough to be worth sacrificing character work, rather than the generic catch-all of sci-fi tropes from the past 15 years or so. Cumberbatch didn’t do a bad job of acting, but that’s not really as important as long as he’s performing a script that has him do nothing more than play a sociopathic thug. It’s especially disgusting how the movie avoids letting him be a sympathetic character by having him simply switch into bad-guy mode as soon as Leonard Nimoy pops up to remind us that he’s bad. It makes no sense for his character to start gunning after everyone in the last act of the film, and stands in outright contradiction of his manner in the original series and TWOK. What’s the point of bringing back an iconic figure if you’re just going to turn him into a bargain basement villain?
Bob I am leaving with Lucille and Broadway Bob within minutes to see a Korean film called PIETA at the Cinema Village (7:00 start) so I won’t be able to address this thread -I didn’t even have time to do my 1992 voting, though I notice that Allan has not yet done the post in WP—highly unusual for him. I dearly love HEIMAT 2 (television) but Terence Davies’ THE LONG DAY CLOSES will not only be named as my #1 film of 1992, but it is in fact my favorite for the entire decade- but I will return late tonight or tomorrow.
For now I will say only this: So much in the television series episodes can be seen as “generic” and subsequently in the movie versions. It’s part of the essence of this presentation. For me when this aspect does not impact the thrills, the excitement, the character chemistry and the exhilaration, well then i really could care less. If this bothered you so much that it wouldn’t allow for a more favorable summary judgement, well let’s just say you really weren’t going to be there is the first place.
Until later Live long and prosper my friend.
PIETA?
https://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/pieta-2012-ki-duk-kim-12/
Yep that’s the one!!!!
How did I forget that you reviewed it here, and gave it such high praise? Not intentional I assure you!!!
In any case I’ll let you know soon enough what I think. You really say some interesting things here in this excellent review!
I’m not talking “generic” in terms of how it relates to the previous television series or films, or how they were shot for their formats. I’m talking about “generic” in terms of how similar the film looks and behaves in terms of its visual atmosphere and set-pieces, which are all old-hat borrowings from the past decades’ worth of sci-fi movies. Much of the movie’s action consists of Kirk or Spock running around and jumping about in vast anonymous futuristic cities and hallways without gravity, with a flying chase and shoot-out earlier that could’ve been in an 80’s movie. Looking back on it now, there’s next to nothing of the type of ship-to-ship battles from previous “Trek” films or shows– come to think of it, did the Enterprise actually fire a single shot in the entire film?
Much of the movie’s action consists of Kirk or Spock running around and jumping about in vast anonymous futuristic cities and hallways without gravity, with a flying chase and shoot-out earlier that could’ve been in an 80′s movie.
Were we watching the same film here?
Anyway I remain in complete disagreement with your issues.
Simply, I will say…
I walked into the 2009 STAR TREK expecting nothing and what I got was a lightning bolt of creativity, visual ingenuity, wonderful writing and a cast that was more than up for the challenge of reimagining characters that have become as beloved and cherished as anything in fiction over the past 60 years. J.J. Abrams bent down and gave the corpse that was STAR TREK a breath of life and I found the film invigorating. Easily the best of the filmed adventures (I liked it even more than WRATH OF KHAN and my personally admired STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE-so much better in the DIRECTOR CUT), the supposition of visualizing the history of the characters (albeit in an alternate timeline) and how they will grow to become the heros we have known and loved for decades, was a stroke of some kind of genius.
As for the very best of TREK, I am left astounded that BOB has little to say in the positive for these films and some of the TV shows. At the very worst, I say that the whole of NEXT GENERATION is enough to keep the memory of something brilliantly conceived and executed alive and breathing forever. That we also have CLASSIC TREK, DEEP SPACE NINE (which some believe, when the smoke clears and there is absolutely no more TREK, may be the very best series of the bunch) and a good portion of VOYAGER, also attests to it’s deep, almost epically constructed arc and presents a vision of the world and its future in a deeply positive, almost inspiring way.
I have high hopes for INTO DARKNESS simply because I felt that the combination of Abrams and the rest of those that brought STAR TREK to the big screen a few years back did such a loving, respectful and bang up job. For a guy who admitted he really knew nothing about TREK before he had been given the assignment of creating a TREK for a new generation of film goers, he certainly brought a rousing sensabilty to a dying franchise and created a balanced homage that had most TREK fans not only smiling from ear to ear but agreeing with the logic of the story’s account of the history of Kirk and company. I will take a leap fo faith and say that I trust Abrams with all things STAR TREK now and look forward to INTO DARKNESS so much that I want to do a solitary screening of it (in 3-D no less) so I can, like I did with the 2009 film, be enveloped, once again, in Roddenberry’s take where we may go in a few short centuries of learning and understanding.
ALSO, I am in full agreement with SAM that the fifth season episode of NEXT GENERATION, entitled THE INNER LIGHT (matterof fact, it was me that turned Sam on to that episode), could well be the finest moment in the entire history of TREK (and there were no 5 actors doing better work on American TV than Patrick Stewart as the emotionally and intellectually complex Captain Picard)… To me, THE INNER LIGHT exemplifies why STAR TREK stands tall and, for the most part, even bests the over-the-top and epically sappy STAR WARS films.
As a long term lover of the ‘Star Trek’ – there’s a slew of things I disagree with about Bob, such as the movie series making the franchise or the fact that because modern tv has story arcs, that somehow that negates the wholesale, the complete production of every TV show from the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s (and ’80s, too). Way too binary for me, too black and white. Akin to saying b/w films are of no merit now that we have colour.
But I applaud him for not getting on the band wagon of the dumbed-down media reviews that jump to the tune of Paramount Corp. How bracingly refreshing.
As for Abraham’s first film; a comic-book generated, blood-sucking, jagged and frezied cutting mess, a card-board cut-out faeces-drenched travesty; it made me feel as if I’d some how ended up in a Pottersville, a dystopia where something beloved, beautifully made (1st season of the original series, before the fall) and intelligent (how many SF writers gave it a crack in that season?), was turned into a shallow, ‘I Was a Teenage Starfleet Captain’ franchise for the new generation.
No one supporting the new film has articulated the supposed original ideas in this film.
God, the news that Lucas had sold his soul was bad enough, but to put it in the hands of a complete moron of a director, a mover and shaker who makes Charlie Gordon (from ‘The Flowers of Algernon’) look like Orson Welles, the ‘Star Wars’ brand is in deep, deep trouble.
Allow me to clarify– I’m not saying that the ST franchise was “made” in a creative sense solely by the movie series, and I’m not completely discounting the Original Series itself. I’ll admit that the OS represents something I’m not into as much personally, but at least I can pinpoint the reasons why as being due to its purely episodic nature. That’s really more a matter of my having grown up with TNG and the balance it had of episodic and serial storytelling, not a representation of the OS’ quality. Indeed, there are plenty of episodes I rather like there, and I can only wish that they went on beyond a single hour.
As for the movies– they didn’t “make” the series creatively, but they did help the franchise turn into a mainstream success with audiences. You probably wouldn’t have seen TNG happen or a return to television at all if it weren’t for TWOK and the features that followed it.
Lucas was probably motivated in part by wanting to just get SW out of his hands and let it be somebody else’s problem– considering the way that so-called “fans” turned on him, it’s hard to blame that impulse. What’s especially troubling is he was thrown under the bus by fanboy nation basically for doing the opposite of what Abrams has done with ST– simply take all the stuff that people have labeled “dark” and “cool” and press reset over and over. In fact, it occurs to me now that SW and ST have basically suffered the same problem as far as their fanbases go– they peaked early with a dark sequel (“Empire Strikes Back” and “The Wrath of Khan”) and ever since then fans and even some casual viewers alike have more or less demanded that each succeeding entry be a repeat of that experience, and punishing anything that dares to be different. Even Nicholas Meyer, who co-wrote and directed “Khan”, knew that you couldn’t just repeat that movie’s success, and when time came for him to do “The Undiscovered Country”, he made it more of a political thriller.
At least until now SW has been in the hands of a creator, better or worse, has been more interested in doing what he wants rather than dishing out empty fanservice. Now that one of the fans is in charge of the asylum, so all we can look forward to is a lens-flare lobotomy.
But I applaud him for not getting on the band wagon of the dumbed-down media
reviews that jump to the tune of Paramount Corp. How bracingly refreshing.
Right Bobby. Shall we now dismiss every review ever posted for any film? Are these critics allowed to say they like STAR TREK or shall they ask for permission first. By your reasoning every review ever posted shall be scrutinized for nefarious intentions. How “bracingly refreshing” is it to pan a film that seemingly everyone else likes both in the critical and audience ranks? That’s not exactly the way I’d size it up myself. Are you listening Stephanie Zacharek, Andrew O’Hehir, J. Hoberman, Jonathan Rosenbaum, Stanley Kauffmann, Manohla Dargis? You all need to back off from patronizing Paramount! And I wouldn’t be too adoring of Bob’s pan, as he is an expert hater. He’s a very good friend, (and always will be) and I’ve been out with him a number of times, but he is difficult to please to a fault. Is that why we go to the movies?
Good points Sam,
I can’t really see J. Hoberman, Jonathan Rosenbaum, Stanley Kauffmann giving Trek a pass but will look them up on the views. As for Paramount or any other multinational, there is a lot of tie-ins and accumulated power; freebies, concessions and even the creation – a couple of years ago – of virtual critic that only existed to give rave reviews and didn’t exist at all in the real world. Which is why he I’d prefer the honesty of a review posted here than in many, many other media. Also, venues like ‘Empire’ and ‘Total Film’ seem to be completely run by and for fanboys. On a scale of 1 to 5, their ratings fall way towards 4 stars, three stars and five stars. In fact, any big budgeted movie that comes along that’s been anticipated get raves. Exceptional films are far rarer.
I’ve been googling some of those names, and frankly not finding any reviews for the film by them. Stephanie Zacharek and Andrew O’Hehir are the only ones I’ve found so far– the other ones seem to simply be current or former writers at papers that have other reviews for the film by others (including A.O. Scott’s pan in the NYT). And looking at Zacharek and O’Hehir’s takes, neither seem terribly positive to be honest. Merely begrudgingly tolerant at best. O’Hehir’s ends particularly close to contempt:
“There’s absolutely nothing wrong with “Star Trek Into Darkness” – once you understand it as a generic comic-book-style summer flick faintly inspired by some half-forgotten boomer culture thing. (Here’s something to appreciate about Abrams: This is a classic PG-13 picture, with little or no sex or swearing, but one that never condescends.) That’s the way almost everyone will experience it, and fair enough. Still, if you feel like bitching about it, come on over. We’ll crack a couple of watery brews and complain (in Klingon) about Uhura’s ill-fitting romance with Spock, or Chris Pine’s frat-boy weightlifter Kirk, who completely lacks the air of provincial, semi-educated suavity that made William Shatner the greatest bad actor in TV history. Or the fact that those in charge of the “Star Trek” universe could have entrusted its rebirth to someone who actually liked it.”
“I’ve been googling some of those names, and frankly not finding any reviews for the film by them. Stephanie Zacharek and Andrew O’Hehir are the only ones I’ve found so far– the other ones seem to simply be current or former writers at papers that have other reviews for the film by others (including A.O. Scott’s pan in the NYT). And looking at Zacharek and O’Hehir’s takes, neither seem terribly positive to be honest. Merely begrudgingly tolerant at best. O’Hehir’s ends particularly close to contempt:
Ha Bob, I NEVER said that those critics reviewed STAR TREK or if they did, reviewed it favorably. I used the argument hypothetically questioning Bobby J’s blanket dismissal of the critical mass as in-pocket slaves of Paramount. I think our signals got crossed there. As far as what you say after that it really does come down to personal taste. I connected with this latest film on a number of levels. You did not. As far as Zacharek, now that you brought it up I found her review well beyond tolerant. O’Hehir is lower yes, but his revbiew is still considered mixed.
Bobby, I apologize for snapping on you the way I did – you are a longtime friend whose input at this site has been deeply appreciated and you and I have similar taste on so many things. I can’t deny the fanboy aspect you broach here, and in a number of instances it’s true. What you say about EMPIRE to this end is indeed telling.
Again, personal taste is sort of a non-argument as far as debate goes, especially here. Personal taste can make a snuff film a compelling and emotionally rewarding experience– it depends on the person. As for Zacharek, the review is mixed at best, with perhaps an advantage due to its being another typical summer blockbuster, and therefore to be taken less seriously and graded on a kind of curve (which is where a lot of the “mixed/positive” reviews fit). O’Hehir’s on that side too, but he’s less forgiving overall.
Why would personal taste be a non-argument? So you have embraced the age-old “If you don’t agree with me you are wrong” argument, which frankly is worthless at this site, and mostly everywhere else. There are no facts here, only perceptions. And yours and mine are miles apart. You keeping asking for something new. Having Starfleet take on an expansionist strategy or appear to do so, we are seeing a picture not seen before.
But with this film is the breakneck tension and the ride, and a spectacular visual design that supplements the emotional bonding. Invalidation because of taste is fair enough, but an attempt to pose that taste as and established truism makes the entire argument baseless.
It’s not “If you don’t agree with me you are wrong”, but rather “well I like it, so I must be right” isn’t enough of an argument to make on its own. We’ve all been at each other’s throats over personal tastes in the past, so claiming that you can make an emotional connection with a movie is nice and all, but it’s not really a persuasive argument in and of itself. Otherwise you’d have convinced us all of the greatness of “Driving Miss Daisy” long ago.
As for countering with raising the movie’s technical graces or the excitement of it as a thrill ride, etc– ignoring the personal taste argument (I prefer thrill rides that aren’t too bumpy to see anything clearly), one could make this exact same argument in favor of pretty much any mainstream blockbuster. And that’s perfectly fine, but as with any big franchise entry the question of originality becomes a major valid factor in its quality. It’s all well and good to defend the merits of a picture as a cinematic roller-coaster, but would you rather go on a one-of-a-kind ride or something that’s merely cloned from a big-chain theme park, each one the same as the next? That’s why I can’t buy the notion, because I’ve been on this ride before, and it’s been done better.
Bob, did you not read on this thread what Maurizio Roca said? He made claim that the emotional connection was pretty much the clincher, and I happen to agree. You had issues that many other people and seasoned critics did not share. Many of them including myself has a fabulous ride with this film, and experienced the character resonance that we felt in past Star Trek films and television episodes. Everything came together here, and this was as entertaining a Star Trek film as we have ever had. Sorry, but I counter that it IS enough to play the taste card, especially as nothing you’ve said on this entire thread has gone beyond what you perceive, not what is any kind of a proven fact.
Sam, the point is that ANYONE can make a claim to emotional engagement, one way or the other. It’s really no different than saying “I liked it”. Is that enough on its own to justify itself? Sure, but if it’s part of a larger debate, it’s pretty meaningless. It’s one thing to say “I liked it”, and another thing to say why. And it’s on the matter of why that I find all arguments in favor of the film lacking– That it’s a thrill ride? That it’s visually impressive? That it has a moral/political subtext? That it has a story and characters that move you? All well and good, but what makes it a thrill ride? Exactly how do its visuals impress? What precisely do you walk away from morally/politically, and what makes you like its dramatics? And on so many levels, each of the aspects of the film that may stand out for those that enjoy it fall apart for me as flimsy and superficial at best, and wholly derivative at worst– its set-pieces and visual design all come from other films, and mostly from outside the “Star Trek” brand; its subtexts have already been mined countless times in blockbusters since 9/11, and the broader moral question of whether or not it’s okay for a good guy to kill a suspected bad guy is at least a decades old pop-culture cliche; and the story and cast are all recycling the exact same story and scenes from a 31 year old antecedent, and the bulk of its characters hail back almost 50 goddamn years.
Sure, at the end of the day you can still say that it being a visually impressive, morally and politically sensitive thrill ride with a story and characters you appreciate, but without giving specifics beyond that, what you have is a description that could be applied to just about any entertainment in this or just about any other genre, Again, it’s not enough to simply say “I liked it”, but to underline why you liked this, as opposed to something else– what sets it apart from other similar entertainments you’ve enjoyed, what makes it unique. And maybe that’s something one could do with enough time, effort and space to play with– for my part, I’m not sure that I could find anything in this film that was unique even if I were playing devil’s advocate.
I find all arguments in favor of the film lacking– That it’s a thrill ride? That it’s visually impressive? That it has a moral/political subtext? That it has a story and characters that move you? All well and good, but what makes it a thrill ride? Exactly how do its visuals impress? What precisely do you walk away from morally/politically, and what makes you like its dramatics?
Bob you have quite a gift for wordplay, but I’m afraid you are just running around in circles. I assure you I have liked films that had far less than what you acknowledge STAR TREK had for me here. I would venture to ask you some of the same questions for why you liked specific sci-fi films. This film works as spectacular entertainment because it thrills, exhilarates, spurs the imagination and moves. What is the point of stating the obvious? Are we children? You ask what I walk away from in a moral.political sense? Really? What do YOU walk away from while watching the newest STAR WARS film? Films are meant to entertain, and STAR TREK makes no pretenses to offering up a life-changing experiences. Within those parameters it succeeds magnificently.
I think I’ve elaborated upon what “thrills, exhilarates, spurs the imagination and moves” me where the “Star Wars” movies are concerned in the past. I’m not asking that anything exhaustive or lengthy as anything I wrote for TPM or AOTC be done here to back up what you’re saying, but there has to be something more than the empty platitudes you’ve been spouting endlessly. Sure, it’s fine that a movie can simply entertain, but you’re the one claiming that there’s a morality play at the heart of this latest “Trek” film, so you have to walk away from the film with something other than just mindless entertainment.
My main point about emotional connection was due to the fact that it becomes the crucial element when talking about mass entertainment. Sam’s Star Trek is your Star Wars or X-Men First Class. You may think that your elevating certain blockbuster films with crucial insights in the past… but I’m not so sure anyone would agree. Mostly, we get “Clarkian” platitudes that could also be categorized as eruditely hazy if one chooses. You do a great job stringing words together, but I rarely buy what your selling personally. If Sam’s explanation/defense seems vague, it’s probably because he’s already admitted that In Darkness isn’t The Tree Of Life or The Turin Horse for him. It’s top-notch popcorn entertainment, and he’s mostly fine to leave it at that and move on (not before some choice words obviously, but you get the point). If an attempt has been made to elevate the material to some higher standard (morality play etc) then perhaps he should elaborate further. Either way, the picture that was painted for me was one of nostalgic adoration, popcorn delight, and trekkie fun. Bresson or Bergman need not apply.
Living long…prospering.
Insomnia cured I think….
hahahaha insomnia cured indeed Maurizio! I think I was up pretty late last night, though I was also trying to respond to as many MMD comments as I could before collapsing.
Well, needless to say I commend you on a superb assessment of the situation. The morality play in the film was broached to Bob because I wanted him to realize that the popcorn entertainment has at least some degree of thematic heft, much as the best episodes in the series and film franchise had. I did find some of Bob’s value judgements as rather artistically hypocritical, and the attempts to set aside personal taste and emotion or nostalgic connections sour grapes. It’s true that in the end, I rarely place any popcorn entertainment films in my year-end top ten, though STAR TREK holds my affectations more than say THE HUNGER GAMES, which I liked but would never consider for such artistic validation. STAR TREK is indeed no Bresson or Bergman, and trying to inject it with something that is not there or trying to invalidate it because it doesn’t is to miss the point entirely.
Great comment.
We’ve already covered the ground that emotional connection is an acceptable defense for personal enjoyment, but not an appeal for anything beyond that. And though a lot of my own writing is centered around stuff that I enjoy, I at least try to go into the actual details of what makes me enjoy even the most populist kind of popcorn entertainments– the kinds of coverage and cinematography being used in set-pieces, the choreography of the action whether it’s with live performers or special-effects, the way it’s all cut together in the editing bay, and however many other things. That helps allow me to discern how, for instance, a “Star Wars” movie impresses me in ways other than how I’m affected by an “X-Men” film.
Now, is it impossible to do this for “Star Trek”? Of course not, but so far all I’ve heard or read from anyone is a bunch of the same old faint praise that could be used to describe any reasonably popular blockbuster film. The way that Sam’s described “Into Darkness” so far could be used for last year’s “The Avengers” or any of Nolan’s “Batman” movies– it describes some of the basic sensations and the pre-existing emotional investment in the characters, but beyond that it’s interchangable. Hell, depending on how you define the emotional side (are they characters you cared about before the film began, from pre-existing media, or characters the film itself made you care about?) just about everything could be used to describe “Avatar”, a movie I like well enough, but has almost zero in common with “Into Darkness”.
The real difference between our approaches, I fear, and this is something that you’re getting at Mauriz, is that I don’t differentiate between the art-house and the popcorn entertainment. I think it’s just as possible to find real worth and treasures in the blockbuster as anywhere else– not as probable, to be sure, but the possibility is always there, however remote. As such, I don’t believe in praising popcorn entertainment without mounting a real defense or appreciation of it– I don’t take it as disposable or for granted. It’s not a matter of stringing words together that convince anyone who reads it of changing their mind– anyone who could do that would’ve taken a job in politics or advertising long ago. Rather it’s a matter of disecting one’s own emotional and intellectual responses, conscious or otherwise, to any given work, and providing something resembling a basic summary to show what, why and how you responded to something. Otherwise, if we merely rest with our own enjoyment and nostalgia, all we have is empty copy with blanks to be filled in.
The way that Sam’s described “Into Darkness” so far could be used for last year’s “The Avengers” or any of Nolan’s “Batman” movies– it describes some of the basic sensations and the pre-existing emotional investment in the characters, but beyond that it’s interchangable.
And for virtually every film in the STAR WATS franchise, most of which you vigorously defend!!!
How else are we to assess or defend these films? You seem to want it both ways according to your subsequent remarks. When one looks at the films as popcorm entertainment you ask for more. When more is offered up (morality/political story components) you then reduce those to minor potboiler trappings.
The definition of successful popcorn vehicles to be is simply……….intelligent entertainment. To these yes and ears STAR TREK succeeded admirably. Your position by the way is accentuated by the fact that you are no trekkie, neither have you ever been. rather you are a Star Wars groupie, which is fair enough.
“And for virtually every film in the STAR WATS franchise, most of which you vigorously defend!!!”
That’s the whole point! All you’re offering are broad, sweeping statements that could be used to describe ANY blockbuster entertainment, with only a Mad Lib insertion of one title for another. “How else are we to assess or defend these films?” Well, it would help to go into a little more detail and explain how and why any given element impresses, beyond simply repeating that they entertain. It isn’t enough to simply state that there ARE moral/political story components– if there are, go on and describe them, and either point out how they parallel or contrast with the various other moral/political components of other such films.
“lens-flare lobotomy” – brilliant, sums up the whole shebang in three words. Bob, I do agree there is something very seductive about serialised story-telling, though in the TNG, many of the strands ended up wholly unsatisfactory, with the promise of earlier segments never being fulfilled or going downhill. My own personal favorite is probably ‘The Best of Both Worlds’ parts 1 and 2 plus ‘Family’, the the two-parter has some poor back-story padding that didn’t bother me at the time with the thrill of the Federation’s Empire crumbling on the onslaught from the Borg. The back-story I’m referring to is the Riker, will he leave or won’t he and the artificial friction with his replacement.
Overall, TNG was a commendable sequel with at least six classic individual episodes of the first rank. If I remember correctly, three from the third season, three from the fourth and one from the seventh. I would have loved to have seen it being far more seductive in it’s photography, it’s musical scoring and to bring in top notch SF writers of the modern era and veterans too. Imagine George R.R. Martin riffing something akin to his savagely brilliant ‘Sandkings’ off on the Enterprise. For a show that had Paramount Corp back it up to the tilt and with the freedom of syndication and no network censorship, it was too tame. A solid professional job though.
Yeah, one of the few drawbacks of the TNG era is that, despite having some of the very best designs for ships and alien species and the absolute pinacle of TV special effects that money could buy, it has something of a bland look when it comes to how it was shot. Obviously that wasn’t really their main concern, and the writing and acting on the show made up for its visual shortcomings, but all one has to do is look at how ambitious and adventurous other programs from around the same time could be, and not with huge budgets. During its lifespan you had shows like “Miami Vice” and “Twin Peaks” open up the whole look of television to something more cinematic, something more visually interesting, and it’s something that TNG never really picked up on. Neither did any of the succeeding shows in that era, and here you started seeing a lot of competition from other programs like “The X-Files” (though that definitely had a very different kind of story it was telling).
The Trek reboot is more visually conscious– in fact, it really seems to be only concerned with images, and yet somehow it’s less substantive in its imagination, especially where those images are concerned.
Nah Bobby, you are too light. There are several more episodes in this extraordinary series that are of the “first rank.”
Here’s my own listing of the ones that would receive the highest rating. They are listed in an approximate order of preference. I have seen each numerous times in my life:
1. The Inner Light
2. Yesterday’s Enterprise
3. The Best of Both Worlds 1 & 2
4. Family
5. Chain of Command
6. Tapestry
7. Sins of the Father
8. Conundrum
9. All Good Things……..
10. The Measure of a Man
11. Redemption
12. Cause and Effect
13. Encounter at Farpoint
14. Who Watches the Watchers?
15. Time’s Arrow
16. Darmok
17. The Lower Decks
18. I, Borg
19. Phantasms
My votes go to:
Season 2:
“Elementary, Dear Data”***
“Q Who”***
Season 3:
“The Bonding”***
“Déjà Q”***
“Yesterday’s Enterprise”****
“The Offspring”****
“The Best of Both Worlds”***
Season 4:
“The Best of Both Worlds” part 2***
“Family”****
“Data’s Day”***
“First Contact”****
“The Drumhead”****
Season 6:
“Schisms”****
“Chain of Command, Part I”***
“Ship in a Bottle”***
“Tapestry”***
“Starship Mine”***
“Frame of Mind”****
Season 7:
“Lower Decks”****
for the original series…
“Where No Man Has Gone Before”****
“The Corbomite Maneuver”****
“Mudd’s Women”****
“Charlie X”****
“The Conscience of the King”***
“Balance of Terror”****
“Shore Leave”***
“The Galileo Seven”***
“This Side of Paradise”***
“The City on the Edge of Forever”****
Season 2:
“Amok Time”****
“Mirror, Mirror”***
“Metamorphosis”***
Deep Space Nine:
Trials and Tribulations***
Excellent, comprehensive work there Bobby!
I am pretty much with you on the ORGINAL SERIES episodes you favor. However, I believe you left off two of the very best episodes of the three years in ERRAND OF MERCY **** (using your four star system) and the extraordinary two-part THE MENAGERIE ****, which featured a wheel-chair bound Christopher Pike.
I would also myself have these on the top level:
Journey to Babel ****
The Man Trap ***
The Trouble with Tribbles ***
The Devil in the Dark ****
The Naked Time ***
The Deadly Years ***
Space Seed ***
Miri ***
The Doomsday Machine ***
A Piece of the Action *** (rather a guilty pleasure)
My dozen favorite episodes of the orginal series would be:
1. City on the Edge of Forever
2. Amok Time
3. The Menagerie
4. Erannd of Mercy
5. The Corbomite Maneuver
6. Charlie X
7. The Devil in the Dark
8. Journey to Babel
9. Where No Man Has Gone Before
10. Balance of Terror
11. This Side of Paradise
12. Mirror Mirror
Ok ok…I did see the film last night, and I pretty much stand by my comments and most of what Bob has said here…though I did like it better than the first and was entertained to some extent. Full Spin ahead: http://theschleicherspin.com/2013/05/20/do-ya-do-ya-want-my-khan-the-shiny-happy-people-of-j-j-abrams-star-trek/
Yeah, right on, man. You give a bit more credit to the film as far as some of its setpieces go (the ones that you can see enough of to make sense of) and its effects. I can’t make allowances for those, because of the copycat nature of those setpieces (“Hey, wasn’t it cool when everything went upside-down in ‘Inception’ or when they had those big flying future-city chases in ‘Star Wars’ and ‘Minority Report’? Let’s do that here, only it’ll be totally new, ‘cuz it’s with Kirk and Spock!”) and because of the way his hyperkinetic coverage and lens-flaring makes even the slightly original stuff impossible to read. The only really “original” set-piece I could discern was the space-jump between the two ships with all the debris in between… and even that is really just a redux version of the space-jump he did in the first “Trek” (and even that’s a redux of stuff, but I’m tired of going down the rabbit hole there). The movie really does share more in common with the comic-book films for how it treats the characters, but at least there they have the decency to be doing adaptations, and not timeline-altering stuff that cancels out any further development of the existing ST brand.
You give a bit more credit to the film as far as some of its setpieces go (the ones that you can see enough of to make sense of) and its effects. I can’t make allowances for those, because of the copycat nature of those setpieces.
Yet you have no issues with the set pieces in the STAR WAR prequels. Whether the set pieces were great, average or poor (I’m inclined to think they are between great and average) they did nothing to mitigate this glorious roller coaster of a sci-fi film.
Important difference, Sam– the set-pieces in the Prequels aren’t simply ripping off from other movies. There’s plenty that sets them apart from the action in the previous films in their franchise, as well– more kinetic staging, shooting and choreography, more variety in the types of action, etc. Also, the camera was kept stable enough in those movies for the action to actually read on screen, as opposed to Abrams’ constant shaking, canted angles and lens-flares cluttering the frame left and right. So, fail on both counts for STID. There are certainly modern directors who can show either imagination or technical proficiency with their set-pieces (Nolan is just as shaky and cluttered often, but at least he stages cool, unique sequences in the Batman movies and “Inception; meanwhile Sam Mendes’ stuff in “Skyfall” wins no points for originality, but at least it’s got a classical style that makes it easy to follow), but Abrams in the “Trek” franchise has neither.
Yes, but shouldn’t there be some conformity and continuity in an ongoing moving franchise that followed up on an ongoing television series franchise? Filmmakers in large measure are bound to keep that design.
What design, the modus operandi of ripping off 00’s blockbusters? The “Trek” films had their own way of doing action in the past– occasional fistfights or precision-based phaser firings, and a whole lot of grandstanding on the bridge, squaring off against an enemy vessel in naval war at space, “Horatio Hornblower” style. Those things are largely jettisoned in Abrams’ films for a whole lot of futuristic city chasing and jumping off of skyscrapers, running along anti-gravity hallways that defy the laws of physics, and kinetic shoot-outs and dogfights. Plenty of past “Trek” films found ways to work with the structure and not break loose of it entirely– “First Contact” didn’t do as much of the naval-style battles, but at least it built on the phaser-shootouts with the Borg that TNG built up. Abrams spent these two films ignoring most of what made “Trek” unique and opting for other movies’ materials. Ignoring that is like watching an “Underworld” or “Resident Evil” movie and pretending “The Matrix” doesn’t exist.
those things are largely jettisoned in Abrams’ films for a whole lot of futuristic city chasing and jumping off of skyscrapers, running along anti-gravity hallways that defy the laws of physics, and kinetic shoot-outs and dogfights.
I say let’s have more of it and pronto!
Then check out “Minority Report”, “Attack of the Clones”, the “Total Recall” remake, “Inception”, “Cloud Atlas”, pretty much anything from the career of Kurt Wimmer, and god knows a good baker’s dozen or so of anime.
I’ve seen them all. As I have stated in the past I am mainly interested in the human elements. STAR TREK always fused those with always-fascinating perceptions of life in the future, when space travel became a realization.
Then why praise it as a thrill-ride at all, especially when all the thrills are derivative of at least half a dozen other movies, and many more if you count the plot elements it photocopies from “Wrath of Khan”? This is one of the reasons the movie falls apart for me, because it pushes aside most of what makes “Trek” different and unique, (the more cat-and-mouse ship battles, the focus on truly new alien and technological developments that comment on our own time) in favor of filling most of its running time with action sequences that could be interchangable with those of other non-“Trek” movies. The only real “human elements” in this film come cloned-cliches from earlier, better movies, “Trek” and non alike, and are given incredibly short shrift in favor of so much generic running, jumping and shooting. If you really want a movie that has that classic “Trek” experience, the last one that offered it was probably “Galaxy Quest”, which has more brains as a damn parody than either of Abrams’ ventures.
Did I not say a number of times that it is the combination of a thrill ride and the humanistic maneuverings of characters deeply embedded in our emotional wheelhouse?
And if this were 1982, that would be fine. Except the only humanistic maneuverings we get are a 31 year old story, and characters carbon-copied from the time of the Johnson administration. And even those humanistic notions are largely pushed aside in favor of thrill ride set-pieces that are derivative at best. If the thrills and story are both thoroughly recycled and repackaged as this, what matters if it’s a combination of the two? 0 + 0 = 0.
I get the message. You are not a fan. But let the rest of us (a great majority at that) enjoy it. Live and let live. I have never tried to take your beloved STAR WARS away from you even though I have found some of the prequels -1 + -1 = -2
I’m not trying to take anything away here. I’m just looking for a defense of STID that doesn’t essentially amount to “it has Kirk and Spock in it, who cares if its story rips of a 31 year old movie from the series and its thrill-ride action sequences are ripped off from movies that have been around barely a decade, if that”. If having somebody, anybody play dress-up as characters you have a pre-existing affection for is enough to get a movie this derivative a free pass, you’re better off riding the Trekkie convention circuit and watching fan-films and episodes– frankly you’re much more likely to see something truly deserving of the “Trek” pedigree than this generic piece of pop-culture mercenary filmmaking.
The numbers seem to support strong regard for this film from the die-hard trekkies.
“The numbers seem to support strong regard for this film from the die-hard trekkies.”
Um… No, they don’t, really. Check for yourself if you want, but it’s underperforming, especially compared to its competition so far.
70 million for opening week is not exactly chopped liver.
Compared to “Iron Man 3” making 174 million? Yeah, it kinda is.
Is it some kind of artistic validation to earn IRON MAN 3’s figures? Or is it the kiss of death? i’d say 70 million for the re-boot sequel is great box office myself.
You’re the one who brought up box-office returns as some kind of indication of quality, or fan-support, or whatever. Even if that’s a fair measurement of success or quality, STID ain’t reaching it, and that’s with the inflation of 3D and IMAX super-prices.
Show me where I said box-office is an indication of support on this thread.
I did not.
I used reviews and audience word-of-mouth.
“Show me where I said box-office is an indication of support on this thread.
I did not.
I used reviews and audience word-of-mouth.”
“The numbers seem to support strong regard for this film from the die-hard trekkies.”
So, how do you express critical and audience word-of-mouth numerically?
Right.
Numbers as in the review composites. Some of the critics are admitted Trekkies.
When have I ever used box-office criteria as a validation of artistic excellence anywhere on these site over five years?
You certainly were when 70 million needed to be pointed out as better than chopped liver. If you had meant “the critics” you would’ve said “the critics”, or “the reviews”, or “the ratings” at least, as you have when mentioning them before. You’d have an easier time convincing that you meant gambling and rackateering when you said “the numbers”.
Look back up the thread to see exactly the point where I broached 70 million.
It was right after you opened the floodgates to B.O. receipts with this:
“The numbers seem to support strong regard for this film from the die-hard trekkies.”
Um… No, they don’t, really. Check for yourself if you want, but it’s underperforming, especially compared to its competition so far.
It was you who misunderstood what I has said earlier about numbers and basically coaxed a response out of me concerning box office performance. Whenever I use the word numbers it is always in reference to reviews. The fact that in the past I never refer to box office ever, would seem to support my assertion.
Technically I didn’t mention the box office. So if you didn’t mean that before, you could’ve easily corrected me, instead of answering me with its receipts, which you did.
I went with the flow. You broached box-office specifically and I responded.
Not so much specifically, and certainly not by name. Granted, don’t know of that many other meanings for “underperform” in a filmic sense, but you filled in that blank yourself, and didn’t correct the mistake. So even if you aren’t simply course-correcting the argument right now, it was important enough to make hay of at some point.
Not so much specifically, and certainly not by name.
OK let’s see, did you not say this?
Um… No, they don’t, really. Check for yourself if you want, but it’s underperforming, especially compared to its competition so far.
In what other way was the film “underperforming”?
Underperforming in what? A beauty pageant? A dog show?
Read what I said above one more time, I already made that point about “underperforming” and what it could mean. And that’s still only mentioning box-office by implication, rather than specifically. You could’ve corrected way back before, but only decided to after the box-office card turned out not to work in the movie’s favor.
When on this entire thread did I initiate any kind of a discussion on box office except to answer you when you broached it either by direct implication or as a way of (incorrectly) translating my use of ‘numbers.’? To repeat: Box office figures mean absolutely nothing to me or any other serious cineaste, (a little NIGHT IN THE MUSEUM anyone?) and I came back at you only when you implied that the film was “underperforming.” My mind at that time was on the critical reception, which seemed to indicate most were quite pleased with Abrams’ film. I think readers can look back on this thread and see the point where you mistook my critics’ comment for box office performance. Five years at this site, and I have yet to discuss box-office unless someone else broaches it as you did here.
There aren’t enough “hard core trekkies” in the critical ranks for their reviews to be any kind of concensus (in fact, from most of the reviews I’ve read, it seems that there’s only a casual familiarity with the franchise at best from the more favorable reviews, and even those are mixed) It’s far more logical to assume a broach beyond the critical opinion to the broad sweep of moviegoers, which is where you’re going to find far more genuine “Trek” fans. Either way, it doesn’t really make a lick of sense.
There aren’t enough “hard core trekkies” in the critical ranks for their reviews to be any kind of concensus
I have to dispute this. In the reviews of the first film series I read a sizable number of critics admit that were huge fans of the original and TNG series.
Translation – trekkies.
Yes, and I’m sure they’d be perfectly happy to pass up engagements at Cannes, Tribecca or Sundance to put on pointy ears or a bumpy forehead and hot-tail it to a sweaty convention center. There’s plenty more critics in print and online especially who take issue with these new films, and there you’re more likely to find the vocal contingency of fans. Like it or not, but these new films are not beloved by all trekkies (if you’re a fan of TNG, especially, since they wipe everything out of the timeline). Sure, there are some who can legitimately claim and explain why they like it, but as far as I can tell there are two main camps who are praising this film– new fans who like all the flash and bang but wouldn’t know the Genesis cave from a hole in the ground, and the die-hards who just want to see “Trek” become visible and popular again, no matter the cost.
So every person who loves STAR TREK or has admitted they were a trekkie when they were younger must make convention appearances dressed up like the characters. Really? Various studies done on the show’s remarkable appeal to all age groups and professions has revealed many medical doctors and lawyers as fervent fans. Should they have or should they now dress up to prove their long-running affinity? Admission of being a trekkie does not include costumes and long ears, contrary to what you may think.
For some reason you keep mentioning that there are so many critics who have serious issues with this film. Despite the presentation of numbers on this thread that prove otherwise you keep making this dubious declaration. And since when does any film release not have admirers and detractors? STAR TREK’s admirers outnumber it’s detractors by quite some distance. Live with it.
You’re the one who said “hardcore”– now you’re downgrading it into something so casual that could, again, be applied to any given franchise with a fanbase that’s wide enough to crossover into the mainstream (also, there need to be studies done to prove that “Star Trek” appeals to medical doctors and lawyers? What, is some university going to start funding a national census of Batman fans, while we’re at it?). As for the critics– again you keep ignoring how lukewarm and mixed most of the reviews counted as “positive” have been. And if you’re really looking for a survey of fans, the print press is really about the worst place you can look. Jaime’s already cited a number of online writers, and there’s plenty more in the professional circuit as well who look at this latest film as an absolute disgrace to the “Trek” legacy. At best, people are divided over it.
And if you’re really looking for a survey of fans, the print press is really about the worst place you can look. Jaime’s already cited a number of online writers, and there’s plenty more in the professional circuit as well who look at this latest film as an absolute disgrace to the “Trek” legacy. At best, people are divided over it.
By all means keeping spinning to support your judgement. If you think that the 35 to 1 consensus on MC is “divided at best” then you must also conclude that the big, bad print press (who you now downgrade because they don’t agree with you) also missed the boat on AMOUR and THE MASTER, films that received the same kind of numbers. I prefer to read serious critics than to find some isolated people on the net–those who you now say Jaimie has located. You won’t accept that you are in a severe minority so you keep trying to paint things with your special kind of rhetorical deception. What is really a disgrace to these eyes (and apparently to so many more) are those embarrassing STAR WARS sequels you have given your seal of approval on. They practically obliterated the STAR WARS legacy.
You are welcome to do the research on the lawyers/doctors front. Try the STAR TREK compendiums for starters. I am not attempting to downgrade anything. I never defined hardcore as dressing up, YOU DID!
Your frustration centers around the fact that you are in a severe minority here. Your answer is to provide false mitigating information.
And if we are going to tear down the print press, let’s immediately disqualify the review you wrote at the head of this thread!
If only we counted as the print press.
The problem is, you’re taking these critics as if they’re representative of the whole of trekkies. The vast majority of fans aren’t working for newspapers or magazines. Yes, they do come from any and all walks of life (next up– are veterinarians and forensics experts fans of “Doctor Who”? Film at eleven), and the ones that are doing something other than print journalism but still want to express their opinion on the movie, are doing so online– some professionally, the vast majority just casually. And if you count them in the pool (and if you’re looking for a real concensus on trekkies, and not just the suspected ones who are members of the New York Critics Circle), you have a much less favorable take on the recent “Trek” films.
I am NOT taking the critics as the entire ball of wax. However I acknowledge the critical zeitgeist as the first place you look when you want to get intelligent opinions. You keep pointing to those from all walks of life. Amongst that group there will always be favorables and negatives. Your Dr. Who question could well be answered with a ‘yes.’ How would I know? I reported what I read during my years of STAR TREK adoration. And your final sentence is not rooted in fact at all, but rather a figment of your imagination.
And yeah I hold the members of the NYFCC as more reliable in a critical sense than some on line geek. Yes, guilty as charged.
Considering that the critics are outnumbered something into the hundreds to one, at least, by the online crowd, it’s something of a mathematical certainty that “Trek” fandom is a hell of a lot more balkanized than you’re aware of. And hey, I’m not citing any of this as evidence of quality either, but simply to get a better look at the reality of “Trek” fandom.
“Critical sense”? “Intelligent opinions”? Please decide what you’re trying to prove– if the trekkies like it, or if the critics do. There may be a handful of overlap, but they’re not the same thing.
Mother of christ, you guys just keep going and going. Love to see old-school Bob Clark arguing his little behind off like it was Drive circa 2011.
Rotten Tomatoes has In Darkness at 86% with an Avg rating of 7.5, metacritic has it at 72% with only one negative (but a slew of mixed and lukewarm reviews). The users section actually has it at 80% based on over 300 reviews. If I can play unbiased arbitrator, I think the general consensus is that In Darkness is pretty good but not great. It certainly has not received the praise of Nolan’s Batman, Lord Of The Rings (minus that pile of crap The Hobbit), and the Harry Potter series, but definitely better than the Prequels, Twilight, and Transformers. Not sure how we could gauge the trekkie contingent without pulling numbers out of our butt, but it seems that you are both exaggerating to win the argument…. Bob is perhaps doing it a little more.
I’m not exaggerating. It just looks that way when you’re trying to keep up with the constantly changing arguments being made (like whether or not we’re trying to gauge the opinions of professional critics or die-hard trekkies).
Maurizio–of everything you say there I would think that 80% rating from the users at MC is significant in answering some of Bob’s incessant references of who likes or loves the film outside of the critics.
As to the MC specifics, there wasn’t quite a ‘slew’ of mixed reviews but rather by the site’s own cumulative report:
35 favorable
6 mixed
1 negative
By any reading those numbers are outstanding in a favorable sense. You really can’t get too much better, though yes you are right that the LOTR, HARRY POTTER and some others have eclipsed it.
As to “changing arguments” Bob you have been doing it every other comment!!!!
Rotten Tomatoes user ratings has it at 89%. I know that a large percentage of these people are probably pimply faced pre-teens who eat any summer blockbuster thrown at them, but the objective truth is that the general consensus is extremely positive. I would think that if large swaths of trekkie’s had serious reservations about the film then they would be skewering the numbers more. In fact it looks like critics are actually less enthusiastic then the masses on this one (though not by much). I think that from the little evidence we have, its obvious that the movie is not getting negative appraisals in large numbers.
The Phantom Menace (to use a relevant example) has a user rating of 62% on RT and 60% on Metacritic. I don’t even need to go into critical opinion which is absolutely abysmal. If your argument is that In Darkness is getting mixed reviews from audiences then your wrong. If your argument is that trekkie’s are giving it mixed reviews then I need to see the actual evidence to support that (since it doesn’t seem to exist). If your argument is that critics are not fawning over Abrams’ work then you have a better case (though by no means a slam dunk). And if your argument is that Sam keeps changing the subject… well I’m not about to spend two hours rereading this thread again to find out lol.
Sam many of those favorable reviews are in the low 70 range. The overall rating from critics is a decent but not outstanding 72. This is basically a C level grade. You have a better case with audiences who certainly love the film more. I would think that if trekkie’s truly didn’t like In Darkness, then that reflection would be more apparent. It’s not, so that leads me to believe that trekkie’s are generally satisfied with the final product.
I know that a large percentage of these people are probably pimply faced pre-teens who eat any summer blockbuster thrown at them
hahaha Maurizio!!! Those are the very people Bob has been referencing throughout this thread! Again as an impartial arbitrator you come in with the critical numbers that would support any perception that the film may not have received any masterpiece declarations but solid reviews from both the critics and the masses. Bob’s claims to this point are all speculation, without proof aside from citing a few people Jaimie knew.
Sam, you’re making up your defense for this movie as you go along. I’ll reiterate that even the favorable reviews that get collated into the positive columns on MC and RT are much more mixed than they let on– I can’t help but wonder if part of this is due to writers trying to tapdance around the waivers Paramount made them sign to not divulge spoilers in the reviews, or if it’s just critics giving up on expecting anything other than a brainless time-killer from the franchise and giving into vapid nostalgia. They’re not the only ones.
Maurizio, the better critical consensus can be seen at MC, but yes while the average at RT is less impressive than the excellent 86% would suggest, it is still very good. At least quite a bit better than Bob claims with his assertions that the film is severely divided and that audiences think it’s disgraceful. The film was well-received from critics and audiences.
Sam, you’re making up your defense for this movie as you go along.
Bob, you are making up your attack for this movie as you go along.
Oh yeah, the Paramount thing is stolen from Bobby J.
hahahahaha!!!!
“Maurizio, the better critical consensus can be seen at MC”
No. The better consensus is at RT from both critics and users. The critics at metacritic have In Darkness at 72 overall. 8 of the 35 positives are between 63-70 (23%) and thus somewhat lukewarm.
The eight positives that are not conclusive are still within the cut-off designated by green, but I see your point. Yes, when users are figured in RT tops MC, agreed. And you could make a case too that RT tops MC in the depth of the positives.
It may be interesting to compare how many 100 grades were registered at each site. MC has 3, which for that site is pretty good, but how many 5/5s are at RC? I will have to check.
I have been showing young Sammy the original STAR TREK series episodes (Shatner/Nimoy) over the past three nights. We have watched 7 so far, and I have THE MANAGERIE set for him to watch now.
But I will return to this thread later.
No, Bobby J was outright calling a number of the critics shills and plants– and he’s probably right. I’m just saying that if you’re forbidden to describe the movie’s plot in any more than the most superficial way when penning a review, it’s already going to be compromised going in.
Mauriz– the whole average system that RT and MC use in general has a lot of flaws, particularly that for older movies they don’t differentiate between contemporary reviews and newer ones (TPM is an interesting example– RT did an assembly of scores for the original SW movies, but only used the reviews that came out when the movies were new in the 70’s and 80’s, cutting out all the nostalgia-enriched 90’s ones, and they all got the around the same scores). I have been at least trying to argue that STID is far from a slam dunk with the critics (again, even the positive scores are written with a less serious air about them). But the bigger issue, insofar as Sam keeps bringing it up, has been the question of whether “Trek” fans themselves have been favorable to it, and to really get a finger on that pulse you have to look beyond the establishment sources. And there’s plenty who aren’t happy about the new “Trek”, which is true of all franchises that undergo change. The Enterprise isn’t immune to this.
No, Bobby J was outright calling a number of the critics shills and plants– and he’s probably right.
Well it’s right to a point, but the same could be said for other films and other studios. In the end he is saying something that supports your attempt to lessen the significance of reviews.
You know what? Let’s look at something outside of our respective passions, something that we both have critical contempt for– last year’s “The Avengers”. On Metacritic, it has a score of 69 out of 100 based on 43 critics, and 7.9 from 1987 user ratings. Nowhere near your ** or my bottom-scraping opinion, but far from raves. Meanwhile, over on RottenTomatoes, it has a fucking 93 from the critics, and 96 from users.
Can we all agree to disagree with the likes of them?
Yes, we can definitely agree to dislike those. No question there.
You two are incredible. I greatly enjoyed the thrust and parry of your debate. And most civilised too.
I remember coming out of the ‘The Motionless Picture’ in ’79 or ’80 giving it a great review (I was young and wouldn’t accept that it was a turkey) and actually saw it three times! Lol. I don’t know where, but somewhere along the line, perhaps shifting through Halliwell’s Film Guide and watching classics, I made the resolution that I would never lie to myself or beholden to past nostalgia. To mine own self, be true. I called ‘The Godfather Part III’ a turkey with some good bits. The noted and distinguished UK critic Alexander Walker gave it a rave review – one that was printed fully as a poster over here. I’m sure that he was willing it to succeed and blind-spotted himself. There is a powerful pull from the past.
This film reminds me of the musings by the super-evolved egghead genius whilst doing a piano recital in the classic segment ‘The Sixth Finger’ from ‘The Outer Limits’, and I’ve often thought about it with the deluge of remakes and sequels and reboots and the comic book takeover, the franchising and branding;
“This simple prelude, for instance. Bach will quite probably outlive us all….Man produces little that is lasting – truly lasting. It’s understandable. Fear, conformity, immorality, these are heavy burdens. Great drainers of creative energy. And when we are drained of creative energy we do not create. We procreate: we do not create.”
A modern variation of that might be…
Fear: Of not hitting the big opening weekend! Of being too different.
Conforming: Aiming for the least demanding segment of the demographic indices; teenagers.
Immorality – doesn’t really apply in a corporate world.
“The Motionless Picture” is easily my favorite of the series. “Khan” is fun, but TMP is probably the closest both to the spirit of the original series, maybe even the best possible expression of what was being aimed for there, and a visual smorgasbord of old-school effects at their most expressionistically severe and surreal.
Ha Bobby!!! Thanks very much for this wholly enthusiastic and comprehensive comment!! Unlike Bob I would never name TMP the best in the series. It’s better than some give it credit for, but it’s largely static. KHAN, THE VOYAGE HOME and THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY are superior in my opinion. TMP does boast one of Jerry Goldsmith’s stupendous score, one of his best. So great to see you bring up The Outer Limits’ THE SIXTH FINGER, which is one of that series’ most celebrated segments.