Where is Ambassador Spock?

[starlady]

I have seen Star Trek: 2009. I did not expect this icon to be so appropriate.

---

Some of my impressions are shallow. Others run deep. Some are simply squee incarnate.

1. Dear Spock(/Zachary Quinto): MARRY ME.
2. Spock/Uhura FTW! (And it wasn't just the stereotypical "one quick kiss in the face of danger" either.)
3. I didn't know moving at warp speed could give one whiplash, but I feel like this movie gave me whiplash. Hello breakneck pacing! Even in the scenes in which no actual action took place, everyone spoke their lines insanely quickly (particularly Spock before the Vulcan High Council and Kirk before the Academy Board).
4. Haven't I seen this movie before? Elements Abrams & crew nicked from Star Wars include, but are not limited to: a) genocidal destruction of a main character's planet; b) main character romping about on frozen ice waste with killer snow creatures; c) our ship won't go! d) general style of action scenes.
5. I think the bad acting prize goes, not to the actress playing Uhura, but to the guy playing McCoy. There's a fine line between gruff bluff simple Southern medical gentleman and racist reactionary Southern man, and the actor playing Bones in this incarnation definitely flirts, through overacting, with crossing that line.
6. Similarly, the dude playing Sulu is so not Japanese. I know Takei said he was fine with the casting, and the dude playing Sulu does a great job (Sulu saving Kirk FTW!), but seriously, there were no Japanese actors!? I'm nitpicking. I should be exulting that the captain of the Kelvin was an Asian dude.
7. Despite the cast generally nailing the high camp that is classic Trek (despite #5 above, McCoy's actor does not stick out too badly imo), I am not sure I feel that I have actually seen a Star Trek movie. Particularly since the movie not only ran roughshod over the entirety of canon from 1965 to 2009 and then doubled back and ran over it a few more times, but also due to its aforementioned frenetic pacing. This is not the Star Trek that I grew up watching (and I came to Star Trek through the movies, and then the novels. The show I've seen the most of, and love best, is actually Deep Space Nine)--the Star Trek thing to do would have been to go back in time and set everything to rights!
8. Waterboarding is still torture, even when it involves Centauri slugs. That said, though, I'm glad the actor who played PIke finally got a role in which he could kick some butt and be tough. Also, way to redeem Pike, movie!
9. Given the fact that every fiber of my being rebels at the thought of accepting this movie as canon (aside from the inter-character relationships; those I'll take) I'm not sure whether to be delighted or filled with dread at the reference to Admiral Archer's beagle, which definitely sounds like a tie-in with Enterprise to me.
10. I loved this movie, in a deeply schizoid way, and I could watch movies with this cast incarnating our classic heroes until I was as old as Leonard Nimoy. That said, though, how is this movie (and its sequel) really going to re-invigorate the franchise? Yes, Star Trek is cool again, but where does Trek go from here that isn't a retread of things done before? When are we finally going to move post-Voyager, and how? And what sort of captain will sit in the chair? (We're due for a black woman or an Asian of some kind, by my calculation, if the suits keep playing minority bingo. Not that I mind minority bingo; Star Trek's playing the game with such relish is a big part of what makes it Trek.)
11. Many, many, many nitpicky little things I will not mention here, running from building starships on Earth to the idea of a supernova near Romulus destroying the galaxy (huh!? what!?) to the exceptionally tacky product placements (I'm looking at you, cell phone and beer companies) to Kirk referring to Spock "resigning commission" when clearly he "relinquished command." Bad screenwriters! No commendations for you!

Comments

My Star Trek icon went the way of my paid account.

[kwviola.livejournal.com]

I think I agree with you. :) I just saw it yesterday.
As for #6 - I half expected them to float past a White Castle somewhere. xD

As for how they'll make more money, I think they're just going after things that people will remember from back in the day, and we'll spend money to go see if they've butchered our childhoods or not. (Transformers, ThunderCats, Star Wars, Star Trek, probably lots more that I haven't seen). I think probably they WILL run out of steam, sort of in the same way I think Disney has in creating more movies out of stories that ended "happily ever after, the end" instead of creating new ones.


I don't know how much of that made sense, I'm still kinda in a fog from this cold.

Re: My Star Trek icon went the way of my paid account.

[starlady38.livejournal.com]

I think I got your gist. ^^ Going back to the past in the future certainly seems to be the thing these days--did you see the preview for "G.I. Joe", to pick one example?

I wasn't bothered by the Beastie Boys song, but the Nokia and beer placements were really just annoying for many reasons. I'm sure, however, that I have more knowledge of Star Trek canon IN MY LITTLE FINGER than J.J. Abrams has in his entire body, so there's no point in going off on how companies surviving into the twenty-third century is COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL.

But even if they make another half dozen nuTrek movies, eventually they're going to hit the problem they had with the original cast, which is that everyone got old. And I mean, much as I like the movies (well, half of them; the other half I pretend never existed), Star Trek is a TV property first and foremost. Movies aren't suited to boldly going like TV shows are. There's got to be a way they can create something post-Voyager and sell it to today's audiences. Heck, they should get Abrams to develop a new Trek series (provided someone who actually understands Star Trek is there to ride herd on him)!

[duskshadows.livejournal.com]

i kind of randomly read your journal through a reccomendation, but your thoughts on Trek pretty much parrallel mine.
I came out of it wondering why they bothered with the whole alternate reality thing, surely they could have blown up *something* other than Romulus. pshh.
Also, i apologise for McCoy. it's what you get when you cast a kiwi guy to pretend to be american. XD

[starlady38.livejournal.com]

Welcome!

I harp on the guy playing McCoy a bit, but all in all (especially in retrospect) I can't really complain too much about him, especially in the larger context of the entire movie. Partly I'm sure it's what was handed to him in the script, too.

Yeah, I don't even know. The whole movie was nothing but action--which one of my coworkers pointed out is much more Star Wars than Star Trek, and I agree--so it's like, they could have picked some other action! I mean, come on, they can shoehorn Spock choking a bitch beating up Kirk onto any plotline practically, why this callous and plothole-filled one?

[duskshadows.livejournal.com]

as with all kiwi actors, he plays better drunk. XD i have what i call the "kiwi cringe" - being a kiwi, i can spot a kiwi, and *know* they're a kiwi, no matter what accent they put on. it's why i can't watch True Blood.
i've heard a lot of people say it's more Wars than Trek, and i'd agree. as a lure for new fans, it seems to have worked well - i know a lot of people who have somehow (don't ask me how) never seen any Trek, who love the film. that's pretty hard to do.
bwahaha. you just made me mentally recast Wayne Brady as Spock and it worked well. XD

[clancy-s.livejournal.com]

Here from star trek news.

wrt #8, I thought the point was that it was torture???

[starlady38.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly, totally torture--sorry if that wasn't clear. But I can think of no earthly reason for the torturing area to be surrounded by water other than an implicit reference to waterboarding. Though I may be giving Abrams & company more credit than they deserve.