Why Does Everyone Like This New Star Trek Movie So Much?
...Please help me to understand why this is not a poorly written film.
As a general rule, I like to focus most of my energies on things that I actually like, and NOT waste time with things that I donít.
I am going to break this rule now in the hopes that someone can help me to see the error of my ways.
Like everyone else I watched the new Star Trek Movie, and Iíll admit that itís a completely watchable mindless romp through space that is filled with eye candy. BUT I need to ask... why does no one seem to care that it is so poorly written?
The movie has gotten a lot of good press, most of which seems to focus on what a "good job" it has done on IMPROVING that "silly" old show.
I honestly donít see how this is possible.
UNLESS we are just talking about blowing crap up with effects... because I can completely accept that. Again, itís visually a fun little space movie.
As far as I can tell, the movie is utter baby talk from the moment that Spock shoots Kirk off of the Enterprise in an escape pod, until the moment that he gets back onto the ship with Scotty.
Thatís the part where they enjoy the "Galaxy Quest Engineering Water Park" Theme ride.
I donít know if this occupies 10 minutes of film time, or half an hour... Either way itís a pretty important segment of the movie that is supposed to push the entire "plot" forward.
In an effort to focus on my areas of concern I have numbered the key issues that I canít wrap my brain aroundÖ
ONE: We start with a Logic Driven, Vulcan Star Fleet Officer that is in charge during a time of genocide and War. Then, during a battle that is so serious that they must use college kids to hold back the enemy at the gatesÖ WHAT does he decide to do?
He shoots someone on HIS side off of the ship to possibly face their death on the surface of a hostile planet, rather than just simply putting him into the Brig.
Obviously this is the best course of action.
TWO: Then, said dead man wanders out of his escape pod towards the regal five star "Deus Ex Machina" cave, where conveniently the entire plot is clumsily waiting to be laid out before him.
From here the wander off to meet their destiny pal Scotty.
THREE: Spock shows Scotty a formula that solves the issue of beaming onto a vessel that is moving at warp speed. Fine, I have absolutely no problem with thatÖ BUT said vessel has been flying at warp for what, 10, 20, 30 minutesÖ maybe hours? And yet SOMEHOW this teleportation solution can also cover ANY distance?
Did they mention that important bit of info and I just missed it?
If distance is not an issue that is addressed here, why didnít Scotty just beam home every now and then for lunch? Why didnít Vulcan abandon the planet by transporter? Why even use star ships?
FOUR: Once Team destiny beams aboard the ship, "Galaxy Quest" style wacky antics ensue as Scotty rides a flume ride towards his possible death.
And this is the improved version of that "silly" old show?
I completely get that a show from the 1960ís filled with cardboard sets would look silly to the modern moviegoer... but is it really an improvement to replace that with a cardboard script?
I just donít get it.
Why is reimagining a silly old show like Battlestar Galactica into a more complex show considered an improvement, yet making a complex old show like Star Trek into something silly not in turn a disappointment?
Please help me out by explaining how theses four things are NOT just examples of bad writing.
HELP, I really want to be wrong about this.
ohjeepers [AT] milkmoneycartoons.com
If you liked the movie, please understand that I actually did enjoy the movie for what it had to offer. I totally accept that it is an artistically flawed popcorn movie, I am just trying to understand how peoples reaction to the film does not seem to be hindered by these really fundamental issues.
Please note that if you click on the link above AND purchase this product, YOU will be contributing to the cost of maintaining this site. Thanks!