The first update is very small – simply search for the word UPDATE.
The reviews are in the point 8 (and its sub-points), but the previous points are important to understand my ratings.
1. Long perspective.
When I was a teenager I used to watch the series Star Trek Next Generation. To me some things were cool but overall I wasn’t really impressed. I can’t remember if I ever watched a “full” Star Trek movie, which proves that I wasn’t a true fan of this franchise.
2. Off-putting images of the villains.
I know that many people claim that the best Star Trek movie is The Wrath of Khan (1982), but I wouldn’t be able to watch a movie happening in space with characters dressed like barbarians with bare chests. This image is so ridiculous that I am personally sure that it was just a trick to make the main villain appear even more villainous. I know that this trick is used also in some other movies, also in some other Star Trek movies. I hate this kind of screenwriting – I strongly prefer villains who are villainous only by their behavior, not by their looks.
3. The catalyst: The Big Bang Theory and J. J. Abrams.
This conversation between Sheldon and Leonard, seen by me for the umpteenth time, made me finally read about the Star Trek franchise in general:
Sheldon: Next question: Kirk or Picard?
Leonard: Oh, that's tricky. Original Series over Next Generation, but Picard over Kirk.
Sheldon: Correct.
Reading about the Original Series vs. the Next Generation made me read about the Star Trek franchise in general and by the way I found out that it was brought back to life by J. J. Abrams. I wondered why I missed it, but I realized that it was in 2009, several years BEFORE The Force Awakens, so at that time I had no idea who J. J. Abrams was, so I ignored the Star Trek (2009) movie then.
I loved the way J. J. Abrams brought Star Wars back to life with the movie The Force Awakens. I also loved the way he saved Star Wars from collapsing with the movie The Rise of Skywalker, after Rian Johnson almost ruined the franchise with the movie The Last Jedi (I HATE Rian Johnson for what he did in that movie).
The main difference is that as far as Star Trek is concerned J. J. Abrams didn't write any scripts – he only directed and co-produced the movies Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness and only co-produced the movie Star Trek Beyond (without even directing it). But is was enough for me to buy the whole Kelvin trilogy.
Please notice that any plot flaws of the movies shouldn't be blamed on J. J. Abrams because he didn't write the scripts! I have no idea why some people hate him, but his story for The Force Awakens was quite good, especially when compared to the terrible story for the Star Trek (2009) that was wrote by other people – see my review in point 8.1.
4. No attachments.
As I already wrote I had never been a Star Trek fan (even though I used to watch the series Next Generation) and I can’t imagine watching the original series from 1960s, nor The Wrath of Khan (1982). In fact I don't intend to watch ANY Star Trek movies other than the Kelvin trilogy. So, in all my reviews I judge the movies without any attachments to any previous Star Trek movies/series. Some fans seem to be overreacting, but some other are more objective – see the screenshots farther down below.
I have to point out that in the Kelvin trilogy there is no continuity from earlier movies/series, because it’s an alternative time-line, so it’s UNLIKE the latest Star Wars trilogy. It means that in the Kelvin trilogy the Star Trek characters may be a little different, the story may be a little different and the whole concept may be a little different. No problems there at all, especially to me.
5. Science-fiction and the limits of the suspension of disbelief.
A part of a science-fiction movie is some fiction about science, obviously. It means that such a movie requires some sort of suspension of disbelief. However, to me there are limits of the suspension of disbelief and anything beyond these limits is a clear flaw of a movie.
Here are example of things that to me are within the limits of the suspension of disbelief:
5.1. Fast travel in space.
In reality a journey to a relatively close star system would take YEARS, even when traveling with a speed close to the speed of light (the maximum theoretical speed). Very long journeys would take thousands of years. Obviously that would make any movie about space exploration only a “one-way track” (which would be cool, actually).
5.2. Fast travel in space and passing of time.
This is connected with the point 1, but I have to point out that in reality for objects that travel almost with the speed of light from their point of view the time almost stops. In other reference frames (for example looking from a particular planet) the time of travel of the spaceship would be equal to the time needed to reach a particular point by an object traveling with almost the speed of light, so a time dilation would still apply to such travels. Such travels (almost at the speed of light) would be like traveling in time, but it would be again only a “one-way track” (into the future).
5.3. Instant long distance communication.
Any signal can’t exceed the speed of light either, so communication with a relatively close star system would also take YEARS.
5.4. Abilities of spaceships/weapons/devices/medicines.
I don’t mind such things under the condition that their properties “work”/are used in a consistent way.
5.5. Basic teleportation (beaming) technology.
Teleportation (beaming) technology is one of the most iconic features of Star Trek, but I can accept it only in a basic form – teleporting (beaming) small stationary objects, especially on short distances.
6. Coincidences and stupid behaviors of characters.
I hate when very important things are too unlikely/coincidental. I also hate when some actions of characters are based on stupid/illogical assumptions or conclusions. Sometimes I can accept/ignore some other illogicalities, but never when character's motives are concerned.
7. Imagination and your own explanations for some plot details.
This is actually a very important aspect when I judge a movie (of ANY kind). Quite often I can see a plot flaw, but I instantly realize that it could be easily explained/avoided by a slight change in the plot. Sometimes a one proerly phrased sentence would be enough. Such an avoidable plot flaw is not important to me at all.
8. The reviews.
There are so many misleading reviews of the movies that I have to address the most outrageous ones, but I will try to avoid significant spoilers (unlike the misleading reviews).
Minor spoilers ahead! (But everything is taken out of context, so the spoilers are not that bad.)
8.1. Star Trek (2009).
My rating: 6.5/10
There are some cool things happening, but there are also some things that are very poor as far as the story is concerned.
The cool things are the characters, especially that they are all very strong minded and are not afraid to speak their minds. I love especially Spock and his story, but sometimes he is too emotional, even from a human perspective.
Many people claim that the plot is very good, but to me such opinions are like jokes. The bad things about the plot are very striking and numerous.
Most notably in the movie it's possible to create a black hole from a drop of some red liquid! Outrageously ridiculous! A similar “black hole” creation was used in order to try to stop a “supernova explosion wave”. OMG! Such a black hole can destroy a planet, but can also move a spaceship back in time. WHAT?! The travel back in time actually leads to an alternative time-line. Why? Usually changing past leads to an alternative time-line, but in this movie the time-line is changed right away without any explanation!
The four things above are the base for the whole plot and this is why I think the plot is simply terrible overall. But that's not all!
Other annoying things are: The main villain's motives are completely illogical because people actually tried to help his planet. The main villain is supposed to lead a MINER spaceship but its weapons and overall combat abilities are much better than they should be. Another minor flaw is the fact that the miner spaceship can drill a hole to the core of a planet from an orbit, which is ridiculous on its own.
Other than that: One of the main characters is punished by being dropped onto an icy planet in a small capsule without any guidance, so it looks practically like a death sentence that is a total overreaction and doesn't fit the character who ordered this punishment. What’s worse it leads to an extremely unlikely meeting with another character that is followed closely by yet another extremely unlikely meeting with yet another character. What a fucking mess!
On top of that: Two characters are teleported/beamed to a spaceship that is moving extremely fast through WARP space! At another moment two characters are teleported/beamed to a spaceship when they are themselves moving very fast (falling down). There is more hand-to-hand combat than combat with using weapons. Lastly, a spaceship can destroy a swarm of missiles fired by the “bad guys”, but earlier the same “bad guys” were able to destroy SEVERAL similar spaceships! Couldn't the spaceships protect each other in the same way?
All the flaws above either cross my limits of the suspension of disbelief or are too unlikely/coincidental or the character's behaviors/motives are illogical. They can't be explain with just a tad of imagination – the plot is unsalvageable.
Some people claim that this movie has a better plot than the next movie, but this is total bullshit. It’s a mindlessly fun reboot, but the plot is definitely its weakest part. A very weak part, actually. After watching this movie only once I feel no inclination to watch it again in the foreseeable future, mostly because of the plot flaws I described above.
8.2. Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
My rating: 9.0/10
Star Trek Into Darkness is a GREAT movie! It's DEFINITELY better than the first movie! I can't believe that some people claim that it's the worst Star Trek movie ever, when the previous movie was so terrible as far as plot was concerned!
Before watching the movie I had read various reviews/opinions and lots of people complained about some particular things, giving heavy spoilers by the way. After watching the movie I have to say that I was shocked how misleading most of the negative reviews/opinions were – they were mostly half-truths or complete untruths. I will address them to some extent, but I will try to AVOID significant spoilers.
The very start of the movie is strongly criticized by some people, but it's actually not that bad – two characters create a diversion to lure away some primitive people from a volcano, so a “freezing bomb” can be safely detonated to prevent a huge eruption of the volcano. The only true flaw in this opening is a spaceship being “parked” underwater, but it's a kind of joke – after the spaceship lifts out of the water with the primitive people watching, it is later pictured by the primitive people like some kind of god. It cracked a smile on my face!
Here's a screenshot of a very good comment I found on the net – click to enlarge:
The opening scene may not be perfect, but it’s very important for two later scenes that are simply great (in one of them Spock is talking about his own emotions and the other scene is towards the end of the movie, so I can’t explain it without significant spoilers).
The “proper” start of the movie (the action on the Earth) is gripping right from the start and the plot is very interesting because it’s quite mysterious. Most importantly it's a very COHERENT plot! The main plot revolves around the villain, so I will address the misleading opinions about him first.
Some people complain about the villain just because he's similar to a villain from an old Star Trek movie (Khan), but to me this is complaining just for the sake of complaining. The villain in Star Trek Into Darkness is simply fantastic! He’s extremely intelligent, extremely strong, extremely durable, extremely cunning and extremely deceitful, all the time looking (and dressing) extremely normal. This is the kind of villain I like – his looks is NOT used to make him appear more villainous. Perfect!
Here's a screenshot of another very good comment I found on the net – click to enlarge:
The only thing I don’t really like about the villain is a minor thing that can be EASILY “replaced” by my own imagination – I don’t like the fact that he had been frozen for hundreds of years. The same ridiculous plot idea actually happened in the original Star Trek series and to me it seems silly either way. My own version is much better – the villain was not unfrozen, but he has been recently created by illegal genetic modifications done by the people who wanted to use him. I can’t explain for what they wanted to use him without spoilers, but it fits the fact that they trained him the way they did.
It’s not really important if the villain was unfrozen or recently created because everything still holds up if you can understand what happened off-screen. I understand it this way: After some time (after being unfrozen/created) the villain realized that he was much better than future/normal humans and started to plan his “grand escape”, all the time pretending that he could still be manipulated. The people who unfroze/created the villain also understood his power, so they prevented other genetically modified superhumans from being unfrozen/trained. When the villain escaped, the people who unfroze/created him panicked and they wanted him dead at all costs. It explains basically every “plot hole” about the villain that those stupid negative reviews were claiming. I have no idea why some people claim the opposite, but to me the plot of Into Darkness is simply fantastic!
Some people also complain about a SINGLE case of instant teleportation/beaming to another planet. In this case it can be EASILY explained within the limits of suspension of disbelief. The main villain helped the people who unfroze/created him invent a long distance device-to-device teleportation/beaming that was already functional and was already being tried out – one device was on the Earth (later stolen/taken over forcefully by the villain) and the other was already on the other planet, secretly transported by a small smuggler spaceship (which fits perfectly to the plans of the people who unfroze/created the villain). When the villain escaped to the other planet he destroyed the device that was there, so nobody could teleport/beam there from the Earth after him. A fantastic plot idea that wasn’t actually phrased/shown in the movie, but it holds up with the rest of the movie! It holds up perfectly!
Some people also complain about the gravity on a spaceship that is falling down, but it can also be EASILY explained by using just a tad of imagination. The spaceship was badly damaged, so there was malfunction of the artificial gravity on the spaceship and the gravity kept changing direction – the artificial gravity didn’t disappear (it was working on minimal emergency power supply), but it was simply working incorrectly. And everything holds up again!
Some people also complain about the end fight between the villain and one of the main characters, but this fight is perfectly CORRECT, considering who could face a genetically modified superhuman. Actually there is a fantastic scene earlier in the movie showing how it looked like when another character tried to beat the villain with bare hands. Hilarious!
What a GREAT movie! I love it! I fucking LOVE it!
Some more screenshots of opinions similar to mine – click to enlarge:
UPDATE:
I re-watched the movie Star Trek Into Darkness already after several days (just 1 day after publishing this post) and I loved it again! I fucking LOVED it!
8.2. Star Trek Beyond (2016)
I will update this post after I watch the Star Trek Beyond, but from what I've read on the net I'm afraid that this movie is overrated, exactly like the first one. I'll see.
No comments:
Post a Comment