Hilarious and true review of Star Trek 2009

Klingon Hamlet

By the same insane dude who reviewed other Treks and Star Wars.

Link

RedDragonJack

I watched it last night for the first time. Huge star trek fan, worst star trek film ever. I was just laughing the whole way through it. Not even science fiction, space action adventure. Couldn't believe some of the reviews I was reading, from so called fans, praising this thrash. For Shame.

Kiith

RedDragonJack wrote: »

Couldn't believe some of the reviews I was reading, from so called fans, praising this thrash. For Shame.

Oh give me a break. Don't like it if you don't want to, but don't insult other fans for liking the movie. I've watched Star Trek pretty much as long as i can remember, and i loved the movie. I loved the movies before this (even is some of them were awful), but times change. They needed to update the genre because as it was you would have trek fans, and no one else, going to see it.

How dare they make an enjoyable action sci-fi, and make it incredibly successful, while bringing Star Trek to a whole new generation of fans. What were they thinking? :rolleyes:

This comes to mind...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSJF6UiGfa0

RedDragonJack

So you watched star trek for the explosions then? "update the genre", which genre are you talking about? the science fiction genre or the generic action movie genre.

Cookie_Monster

"Space Action Adventure"
much more apt title, little in commom with ST in general tbh.

Its a good review, and I've even started to appreciate the film as long as I keep in mind it has nothing to do with Star Trek when I watch it.

Klingon Hamlet

In my opinion the greatest Trek movies dispensed with the technobabble, limited the overindulgent navel-gazing, and delivered action, adventure and heart sometimes at the cost of 100% plausability and scientific accuracy.

Take Wrath of Khan for example. A five-digit code that renders an entire starship vulnerable to attack. A group of genetically engineered superhumans able to come to terms with technology 300 years into the future. Alien parasites that control men's minds. A bomb that turns moons/nebulas into worlds and resurrects dead aliens in the process (and called "Genesis" for god's sake.).

All hokey. All implausible. but delivered with finesse, artistic flourish and genuine excitement so that viewers can sit back and enjoy a good 2 hour epic story.

Star Trek 2009 had huge plot holes mainly because: (a) it walked a very fine line between reboot and sequel, and had to skirt some issues to get away with it; and (b) it was made during the huge writers' strike.

I personally enjoyed the 2009 film for what it was: a dumbed-down, beefed-up adrenaline boost to the dying heart of the Trekverse; a nostalgic last hurrah for my favourite Vulcan; a chance to see Trek through a whole new lens (lens flares being the obvious minus); and a taste of what's to come.

Batman begins brushed over events and spanned decades, as did this. here's hoping Trek Reboot II delves just as deeply into its own verse as Dark Knight did.

Quandary

Im a big fan of the Star Trek series and movies, TNG being my favourite and I have to say I really enjoyed the movie, albeit for different reasons to why I loved the other Star Trek movies/series. It was an interesting slant to take on the franchise - imo . Fair enough it wasn't classically "Star Trek" like the rest but I thought it was refreshing none the less.

If more fans are roped into Star Trek because of this movie then it can only be a good thing because we might be more likely to see another series or two!

nyarlothothep

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

In my opinion the greatest Trek movies dispensed with the technobabble, limited the overindulgent navel-gazing, and delivered action, adventure and heart sometimes at the cost of 100% plausability and scientific accuracy.

Take Wrath of Khan for example. A five-digit code that renders an entire starship vulnerable to attack. A group of genetically engineered superhumans able to come to terms with technology 300 years into the future. Alien parasites that control men's minds. A bomb that turns moons/nebulas into worlds and resurrects dead aliens in the process (and called "Genesis" for god's sake.).

All hokey. All implausible. but delivered with finesse, artistic flourish and genuine excitement so that viewers can sit back and enjoy a good 2 hour epic story.

Star Trek 2009 had huge plot holes mainly because: (a) it walked a very fine line between reboot and sequel, and had to skirt some issues to get away with it; and (b) it was made during the huge writers' strike.

I personally enjoyed the 2009 film for what it was: a dumbed-down, beefed-up adrenaline boost to the dying heart of the Trekverse; a nostalgic last hurrah for my favourite Vulcan; a chance to see Trek through a whole new lens (lens flares being the obvious minus); and a taste of what's to come.

Batman begins brushed over events and spanned decades, as did this. here's hoping Trek Reboot II delves just as deeply into its own verse as Dark Knight did.

I see your point but...TUC had no central villain, ok it did, but the villain wasn't the motivation for the plot. It was a political allegory for the end of the cold war, it was about the mindlessness of war, factionalism, racial hatred and personal injustices on both sides. If not the cold war it could well be an allegory for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Thing is it was quite understated and introspective with Spocks speech to Catrall about something or other philosophical. To me, while TUC isn't the most enjoyable trek film, it has a lot of depth which is successfully realized. So this would be an example of trek film which doesn't rely on satisfying an imagined need for the mainstream to enjoy big explosions and the like. By contrast Nemesis and Generations had a sequence of improbable events, things that made absolutely no sense, (they didn't even attempt to explain what the nexus was), and they rank as the worst trek films ever. On the other star trek 4 belongs to the so bad its good/cheese retro fest, it was a good film in a way but terrible in other respects.

With hindsight abrams trek did revitalize a genre that was becoming very stuffy and wooden, which I blame completely on voyager, and to be more completely honest, on Janeway. But it sacrificed too much, it turned trek into a joke of sorts with the way kirk quickly ascends to being captain. The plot was derivative and boring, pissed off major villian seeks revenge. The effects shots were brilliantly, and not just stylistically, I love the orange saturation, the fiery portrayal of space, it reminds me of the covers to space opera novels. But ultimately the film is mediocre, its not bad because it did actually pump life and spontaneity back into trek, its not good either because it was way too dumbed down ( eg red matter=magic property not even disguised as such by semi plausible techno babble).

Klingon Hamlet

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I see your point but...TUC had no central villain, ok it did, but the villain wasn't the motivation for the plot. It was a political allegory for the end of the cold war, it was about the mindlessness of war, factionalism, racial hatred and personal injustices on both sides. If not the cold war it could well be an allegory for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Thing is it was quite understated and introspective with Spocks speech to Catrall about something or other philosophical. To me, while TUC isn't the most enjoyable trek film, it has a lot of depth which is successfully realized. So this would be an example of trek film which doesn't rely on satisfying an imagined need for the mainstream to enjoy big explosions and the like. By contrast Nemesis and Generations had a sequence of improbable events, things that made absolutely no sense, (they didn't even attempt to explain what the nexus was), and they rank as the worst trek films ever. On the other star trek 4 belongs to the so bad its good/cheese retro fest, it was a good film in a way but terrible in other respects.

With hindsight abrams trek did revitalize a genre that was becoming very stuffy and wooden, which I blame completely on voyager, and to be more completely honest, on Janeway. But it sacrificed too much, it turned trek into a joke of sorts with the way kirk quickly ascends to being captain. The plot was derivative and boring, pissed off major villian seeks revenge. The effects shots were brilliantly, and not just stylistically, I love the orange saturation, the fiery portrayal of space, it reminds me of the covers to space opera novels. But ultimately the film is mediocre, its not bad because it did actually pump life and spontaneity back into trek, its not good either because it was way too dumbed down ( eg red matter=magic property not even disguised as such by semi plausible techno babble).

TUC was actually quite pulpy cos:

1. Chang was compared to Hitler by Kirk.

2. Klingons had a Bird of Prey that was seemingly indestructible.

3. The film opened with a moon exploding with an implausible shockwave that expanded with a radius wide enough to batter a starship light years away.

4. The co-conspirators followed the Scooby Doo route ("Colonel West!")

5. The crew all had their moments including the painfully insulting scene where Uhura had to claw through an old school dictionary to half-ass her way through Klingon

6. Worf's grandfather represented Kirk

7. Gorkon was a carbon copy of Lincoln

But what saved it was Nicholas Meyer's abilityto bust through Trek's overwhelming ability to turn emotion into analysis and navel gazing, and bring heart and emotion to a fairly stamdard political/stellar thriller.

Note Spock's heart-stopping mind-rape of his protege. Watch how Kirk's crew show their prejudices, and Kirk himself ("Let them die!"). See how Sulu backs his colleagues up even when Starfleet come a-calling. Catch Bones' bit---"What is it with you, anyway?" Spock pushes the boundaries of logic and integirty---"A lie?" "An error."

Meyer made them more than characters or caricatures. He made them enjoyable, bigger-than-life heroes. And that's what Trek as and should be---a tapestry of heroism, selflessness, and enterprise.

nyarlothothep

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

TUC was actually quite pulpy cos:

1. Chang was compared to Hitler by Kirk.

2. Klingons had a Bird of Prey that was seemingly indestructible.

3. The film opened with a moon exploding with an implausible shockwave that expanded with a radius wide enough to batter a starship light years away.

4. The co-conspirators followed the Scooby Doo route ("Colonel West!")

5. The crew all had their moments including the painfully insulting scene where Uhura had to claw through an old school dictionary to half-ass her way through Klingon

6. Worf's grandfather represented Kirk

7. Gorkon was a carbon copy of Lincoln

But what saved it was Nicholas Meyer's abilityto bust through Trek's overwhelming ability to turn emotion into analysis and navel gazing, and bring heart and emotion to a fairly stamdard political/stellar thriller.

Note Spock's heart-stopping mind-rape of his protege. Watch how Kirk's crew show their prejudices, and Kirk himself ("Let them die!"). See how Sulu backs his colleagues up even when Starfleet come a-calling. Catch Bones' bit---"What is it with you, anyway?" Spock pushes the boundaries of logic and integirty---"A lie?" "An error."

Meyer made them more than characters or caricatures. He made them enjoyable, bigger-than-life heroes. And that's what Trek as and should be---a tapestry of heroism, selflessness, and enterprise.

I haven't watched in 4 years and 3 months but it never ocurred to me to look at it in that way. So yes, those are good points, it is very pulpy, the scooby doo whodunnit plot was an obvious pulp element. Also the fact that as you mentioned, the political plot is fairly ho hum although in the context of Kirks history and the history of trek itself it reaches epic proportions. I found Kirks pain over the loss of his son to the klingons and the resentment he has for them to be an excellent way of conveying the rage and sadness that must afflict people in ethnic/inter state conflicts. Plus it really does give the mega awesome can get any lady he wants kirk some added humanity. Meyer also wrote TWOK, he was one of the best writers for trek imo.

poncho000

this guys reviews are hilarious, especially his star trek generations ones

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h06WKYFYdlo

mikhail

nyarlothothep wrote: »

So yes, those are good points, it is very pulpy, the scooby doo whodunnit plot was an obvious pulp element. Also the fact that as you mentioned, the political plot is fairly ho hum although in the context of Kirks history and the history of trek itself it reaches epic proportions.

The Undiscovered Country is full of nice character moments. Spock's line, "Is it possible that we two, you and I, have grown so old and so inflexible that we have outlived our usefulness?" gives me goosebumps. Nimoy mentions in one of his books that it was a very powerful line for him too.

However, the plot is pretty uninspired, and some of the dialogue is hammy. In particular, I'm thinking of the Hitler comparison Klingon Hamlet mentioned above. The excessive quoting of Shakespeare seems like a desperate attempt to recapture the "From hell's heart, I stab at thee," lin in The Wrath of Khan.

The latest film is an excellent summer blockbuster, full of humour, action and good characterisation. If they'd had something like a science fiction concept in there too, I'd love it*. I'll happily settle for enjoying it. If the sequel is more of the same though, it'll be a setback for actual big screen science fiction - the most recognisable brand in it will have wandered into the space fantasy genre.

Recon

Just wanted to put a link in here in case anyone wants to see his videos from there

http://www.redlettermedia.com/

Johnny Storm

FWIW - I never really liked The Undiscovered Country and have never understood how its so popular.

Here's a random list of some of the things I don't like:-
Why does the Enterprise have a galley with big cookers etc when back in the TOS TV era the food is dispensed from groovy slots in the wall?
Some of the crew sleep in dormitories with big woolly blankets - I don't think so.
Star Fleet is too militaristic (again)
The TOS crew is really too old... (sadly)
The whole Rue Penthe scene is stupid and overblown (Eddie Murphy was originally due to play the shape-shifter apparently).
They manage to make Kim Catrell look unattractive

Klingon Hamlet

mikhail wrote: »

However, the plot is pretty uninspired, and some of the dialogue is hammy. In particular, I'm thinking of the Hitler comparison Klingon Hamlet mentioned above. The excessive quoting of Shakespeare seems like a desperate attempt to recapture the "From hell's heart, I stab at thee," lin in The Wrath of Khan.

I respectfully disagree. It was (and in some ways still is) very topical: focussing on how history can be rewritten (Shakespeare was an allegory for this; Klingons stealing Earth's history as their own, is meant to get under the Fleeters' skin---remember, pretty soon they're planning to share their very territories with these aliens).

It was a rushed film which was underfunded, and yes Shatner was old and bloated, but everyone else was fine. Poor Uhura was shafted with the translation scene though.

hightower1

TBH the 2009 Trek was the only way to go. The movies were always based on the preceeding sucsessful tv serise but it'd be faily difficult to base a movie around DS9, you may be able to base it around voyager crew but then your faced with convincing studio bosses at a time when they are trying to tighten boot straps to flush out cash for a formula (movie based on the tv serise) that seemed to have been failing.

If the price we pay to keep trek alive is some teen version trek then so be it. The real fans like us can just suffer it with a smile and wait until the next big serise and following return to the formula.

RedDragonJack

I don't think there'll be a new series. If there is, it'll probably be a failed attempt to mimic the old. I think the best we can hope for is a small production company doing it.