The Furr Den

A place for *B/DL Furs and the like to come be themselves!
HomeHome  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 

 A look back: JJ Abrams' startrek

Go down 


Number of posts : 257
Age : 27
Localisation : Vancouver BC
Registration date : 2010-09-04

PostSubject: A look back: JJ Abrams' startrek   Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:30 am

Repost from FA journal:

Well after a somewhat frustrating day I decided to try and unwind by watching some movies... popping in a DVD I got for christmas a year or so ago now I suddenly came to a realizaton: "This movie is terrible!", the movie? JJ Abrams' 2009 Startrek film.

Now I was never as big a fan of this movie as others were, I did however have to admit it wasn't as horrible as I'd imagined it might be, at the time of first watching I was overshadowed by my imagined atrocity and surrounded by people telling me to "stop being such a preachy geek and watch the movie you square.". Years on and with no idiots or trolls giving me their opinions I can honestly say this movie is terrible.

First off: for the most part the casting was alright, actually I really like Quinto as Spock, but other than that there were some which just rubbed me the wrong way. Pine for instance kind of turns Kirk from a fully rounded if a bit stock character into basically a gigantic infalable douche with legs. Erik Bana (Nero) makes a forgettable villain with no personality. ANd Kirks dad (I forget the actors name so I'll just call him Petey) makes for a forgettable generic sacraficial character, basically turning James T Kirk into every Mary Sue calibur writers wet dream.

My second big issue is astetics: I know boohoo but it's a big deal for the overall enjoyment of a movie. Don't get me wrong, I kind of like the federation ships in this version, they are cool loking and they do a nice job of bringing them into a modern look. The only problem was that that had already been done in the TNG era shows. Now as for the Narada (the romulan deathstar... I mean mining shipp), what the hell is that? Since when do the Romulans build anything that but ugly? And why is it the size of a bloody moon if it's an industrial ship? Also: since when are rockets used as a weapons-delivery system in the startrek universe? And what the hell is with the rotating bits on pods now? Or that thing Spock was flying? I mean it looks like something out of lost in space! Another interesting thing is the abcence of "clean" space shots: every external space shot is literally FULL OF CRAP! FLoating crap, gassious crap, debris, light effects, anything to prevent you from getting a clean view of anything. I mean maybe Bill Maher said it best: "Only humanity could visit an infinite void and leave it cluttered." But worst of all: the bloom... DEAR GOD THE BLOOM! I'm serious, inside shots, outside shots, space shots, bloom and lens flares EVERY FUCKING WHERE! Why? It doesn't serve any purpose! It just looks horrible and makes everything hard to see! The first shot of the movie litterally has them putting sun glasses on a ships view screen because SPACE IS TOO BRIGHT!? What? I even watched the audio commentary for why this was used and no explanation, just a mention that they'd occasionally, and I'm not making this up: "Have a guy with a flash light on stage to get the right lens flare effects." Damn JJ it feels like the film is vomiting into my eyes.

Next up: the plot and the writing. It didn't occur to me the first run through, but this movie uses science so soft it could be mistaken for marshmallow fluff, takes liberties with the canonal technology to the point of ridiculousness, and has plot holes the size of the mutara nebula. Since there are so many I'll just make an itemized list of them instead of making an ordered paragraph.

- The entire black hole scenario: What the hell is this? How exactly does a black hole warp you into an alternate universe? To our knowledge it's just a super-dense point in space, it doesn't go anywhere! And even if the "white hole" theory of it all coming out somewher else is correct it would all be in the form of "spegitified" single strands of particles. And what the hell is "red matter?" To me it just sounds like a lazy writers attempt to cover "we have no idea how to justify this so here it is." Let me get this straight: it's a super dangerous... stuff which generates black holes from a droplet of it, but can be carried in a giant glob of it, extracted with a syringe, not a special on mind you, and then used? Even forgiving that it still doesn't make sense: how does a blac hole cancel out a super nova? How is the close proximity of a black hole preferable to the survival of a planet over a super nova? And why is Spock carrying so much if he only ever neede one? And why was he "too late?" Did he stop off at the burger king or something?

- Nero's revenge plot: What the hell mate? I mean I get it, the guy is pissed but really? His big plan is wait 100 years to find the original Spock and then destroy Vulcan? Hey, buddy, you've got a few centuries before that event which you see as destroying your world even happens and a masive ship... oh I don't know how about Warning them? Something? And you're trying to get revenge on the guy who was trying to save your planet?

- - The destruction of Vulcan: Don't pretend this wasn't just a hook to get nerds to pack the theatres JJ. I can get over the fact you were eyeing starwars' Alderaan destruction with envy (along with virtually every single other plot point), so I'll overlookj that. What I will blame Abrams for is the fact that there's no weight to the thing. It just feels like one giant special effect. It's the same way hundreds of faceless soldiers dying has no impact but a single character we like dying has.

- "yo mama": Seriously? That's all it takes to break Spock's emotional fortitude? A few "yo mama" jokes? The stuff we all learned to shrug off by the 8th grade? The stuff only gradeschoolers ought to use in actual arguments? The canonal Spock's mother dies long before the TNG era, why? Because Vulcans live for centuries! The passing of a human relative should not come as that large a shock.

- Transportation?: Okay JJ... thanks for turning an iconic piece of kit into godmodding put on steroids. So apparently now we can transport people not only between planets, but also onto ships going at warp speed? Yeah they make a big deal about it being hard but they do it well enough. So tell me this... WHY when they beamed Kirk and Spock onto the Narada did they not take a platoon of soldiers with them? I mean what was the point of bringing the whole Enterprise if they alone were going to do everything? I mean I know this was a staple of Startrek TOS but that was forgivable owing to limited budget and 60s writing. Also if they could do that, why bother at all? Why not just beam Nero off his ship and right to you? or beam something crucial out of his engine room?

- Exiling: Seems it's a bit of a theme in this movie, because agrand total of 3 persons/organizations exile 3 seperate individuals to a single planet al to meet at the same time! ie: Nero sticks Spock proper there, the federation sticks Scotty there, and Quinto Spock sticks Pine Kirk there. I didn't realize Spock operated on Captain Barbosa's prefered method for ship-board punishment. I mean what happened to the brig? No locks in this universe? I'm fairly sure there's no "starfleet regulation alpha 45-86: in the event the CO becomes reallly pissed off with someone they have the right to expell them out an escape pod onto a hostile planet with no oversight or ensurance of survival." This isn't good plot developement, this is coincodence based writing.

I could probably find more but those are the main ones.

Over all it kind of feels like the writers sat down and said "okay everyone, you know how the old startrek was intelligent on occasion, tried to actually follow themes, develope things and make their audience think? Well screw that letz shoot stuffs!" I mean the whole alternate universe doesn't feel like a real artistic choice but rather a half-assed way to ignore all that's come before and not have to hold to the fans demand to stay a little respectful.

All I can say is the next one better be a Wrath of Kahn to this one's The motion picture.
Back to top Go down
A look back: JJ Abrams' startrek
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
The Furr Den :: Social/fun :: General Chit Chat-
Jump to: