I am the Buzzer Coming to Kill
Daniel says I'm being a buzzkill for saying the new Star Trek movie isn't as good as everyone keeps saying. Furthermore, he claims that he can see no cliches in the film. Ergo, I must disabuse him of this by listing them all! (okay, I'm including poorly implemented plot devices as well)
(1) This item might be considered nitpicky, but the design of the Romulan vessel (a) doesn't match the aesthetics typically displaced in Romulan craft and (b) looks a fucking lot like the designs for a Babylon 5 shadowship. The whole spikey-squid look. Done before.
(2) Kirk's tongue swells up in one scene. Coincidentally, this is right when he needs to tell Cpt. Pike some very important information. The tongue swelling / can't speak bit is a comedic piece used over and over again in physical comedy routines. Fuck, half the improvisational theater games rely on it for their jokes. Ergo, cliche. The scene was unnecessary and would have been better if Kirk just stormed the bridge without any physical ailment. Instead, they added a cookie cutter scene, a "standard" scene used throughout movies rather than relying on developing new material.
(3) Kirk is stranded on what one of my Profs. called "Hoth." There he meets a monster. This monster is quickly eaten by a larger monsters. Wait. Didn't this happen in "Jurassic Park," "Star Wars Episode 1?" Actually, I recall George Lucas beating this horse to death in the new Star Wars films. He ran the sequence two or three times.
(4) Immediately after killing a much larger, much tastier animal, the predator turns to the weird-looking pink mouse and insists on killing it to. Wtf? No animal is going to ignore the much larger piece of meat in order to chase a mote across the land. Not unless Kirk's trying to take its kill or something. The plot device, that humans inherently must be chased by larger predators as though we wear mystical signs that say "eat me" on our backs must die, die, die.
(5) What also needs to die is the shot where the protagonist stands in the foreground while the monster opens is gaping maw in the background and roars. Every fucking time a giant monster appears in Hollywood it does this, why? Are they psychic? Did all the monsters get together one day and agree to lower their heads to the ground, pause for a beat, then roar? Stupid stupid cliched shot. Any film director who cuts a scene like this and uses this take should be shot.
(6) Deus Ex Machina. Means "The God in the Machine," and boy, does Abrams abuse this. Kirk just happens to run into the one ice cave on the entire planet where future Spock is having a barbecue. Oh, and Scotty happens to know how to teleport people to wherever the fuck they want. And there's an escape hatch to the water-main right before the deadly spiny fan that's going to kill Scotty (you might as well just stick a "plot device" sticker on the terminal like they used to do when they were pulling this stuff on the show.) Deus Ex Machina is bad. What else is bad?
(7) Info Dumping will get your novel chucked in the trash faster than anything else. DO NOT INFO DUMP is beaten into any good science-fiction writer's head. Info dumping is where you create a scene in which one character turns to another and proceeds to explain everything that is going on to the third character. This is done in order to avoid actually developing the plot intellectually and is a gross violation of "Show don't tell". Abrams info dumps. Big time. Kirk meets Spock in the cave and there Spock proceeds to explain the entire damn plot of the movie. This is disrespectful of the audience's intelligence, since anyone with half a brain has already figured out the plot long ago. Yet Abrams feels the need to hold our hands and treat us like children as he carefully details each step of the narrative.
(8) Scotty teleported into the tubes = Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. (enough said)
(9) Kirk assumes command of the vessel after demonstrating that Spock is "emotionally compromised" he does this by inciting Spock with an argument in which he challenges the Captains cool demeanor into violence by attacking recent tragic events. The violence thus lowers the Spock's position in the eyes of the crew forcing him to leave. We have seen scenes like this before. Wherein the cool brash protagonist nags the composed antagonist into some rash or foolish choice by appealing to his vanity and attacking him verbally until he acts contrary to his assumed cool exterior. I really wanted this scene to be a one-on-one verbal spar between the two characters. No violence. Just a private debate where Kirk corners Spock with his own logic and proves that he has acted upon emotion rather than logic in his handling of the ship. The fight doesn't really develop their relationship. My solution, I think, would be a more fitting connection between the two characters. Either way, "emotionally compromised" scene is cliched. Done.
(10) The Enterprise rushes to save earth after most of Starfleet's been compromised by some superweapon. Am I the only one who recalls Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, and Star Trek: First Contact? Am I the only one who notices that the Enterprise has saved earth four fucking times from "mystery superweapon of the week?" (I'm not even counting episodes in which this happens.) Also, tell me this. In what other film is a planet destroyed mid-film by a nearly unstoppable superweapon and then the superweapon is destroyed in the act of destroying a second planet? Ring a bell anyone?
(11) In the final climatic scene the Enterprise shoots down the missiles that Nero shoots at Spock's craft. Why did it take two prior battles for the Enterprise to realize that they can just shoot down slow-moving physical objects? Major oversight by the writing staff.
(12) Why is everyone an exceptional genius on the enterprise? One of the things I liked about the show was that it felt like the adventures of Kirk and co. was just standard fair for any Starfleet Ship. Yet, Abrams adds a scene for each character in the show in which they demonstrate how exceptional they are . . . as though we need the crew to be almost superhuman in their intellectual capacity.
(13) Star Trek references were overdone. A lot of them just felt like Abrams needed to hit each and every one. We need a redshirt to die. We need McCoy to say his famous line. We need Spock to say his famous lines. We need a green lady. Its like he kept a list and checked them off as he got each one into the film. Some, felt natural (the green lady). But some felt forced (the redshirt, not only does he wear a blatantly red suit but he steps onto the shuttle with a line reminiscent of the jock who dies first in a horror film.)
So that's it. A list of each cliche and poorly handled plot device in the film. Like I said on facebook -- I did like the film, I'd say I even loved the film. But by no means is it a great film. Its not "Wraith of Khan" material. The characters and the acting was spot on. The dialogue well written. The overall handling of the film an exciting action flick. I just find it frustrating that Hollywood can have a perfect film sitting on their desk and yet they still fuck it up by making some very common, very easily fixable mistakes in their plot treatment.
(1) This item might be considered nitpicky, but the design of the Romulan vessel (a) doesn't match the aesthetics typically displaced in Romulan craft and (b) looks a fucking lot like the designs for a Babylon 5 shadowship. The whole spikey-squid look. Done before.
(2) Kirk's tongue swells up in one scene. Coincidentally, this is right when he needs to tell Cpt. Pike some very important information. The tongue swelling / can't speak bit is a comedic piece used over and over again in physical comedy routines. Fuck, half the improvisational theater games rely on it for their jokes. Ergo, cliche. The scene was unnecessary and would have been better if Kirk just stormed the bridge without any physical ailment. Instead, they added a cookie cutter scene, a "standard" scene used throughout movies rather than relying on developing new material.
(3) Kirk is stranded on what one of my Profs. called "Hoth." There he meets a monster. This monster is quickly eaten by a larger monsters. Wait. Didn't this happen in "Jurassic Park," "Star Wars Episode 1?" Actually, I recall George Lucas beating this horse to death in the new Star Wars films. He ran the sequence two or three times.
(4) Immediately after killing a much larger, much tastier animal, the predator turns to the weird-looking pink mouse and insists on killing it to. Wtf? No animal is going to ignore the much larger piece of meat in order to chase a mote across the land. Not unless Kirk's trying to take its kill or something. The plot device, that humans inherently must be chased by larger predators as though we wear mystical signs that say "eat me" on our backs must die, die, die.
(5) What also needs to die is the shot where the protagonist stands in the foreground while the monster opens is gaping maw in the background and roars. Every fucking time a giant monster appears in Hollywood it does this, why? Are they psychic? Did all the monsters get together one day and agree to lower their heads to the ground, pause for a beat, then roar? Stupid stupid cliched shot. Any film director who cuts a scene like this and uses this take should be shot.
(6) Deus Ex Machina. Means "The God in the Machine," and boy, does Abrams abuse this. Kirk just happens to run into the one ice cave on the entire planet where future Spock is having a barbecue. Oh, and Scotty happens to know how to teleport people to wherever the fuck they want. And there's an escape hatch to the water-main right before the deadly spiny fan that's going to kill Scotty (you might as well just stick a "plot device" sticker on the terminal like they used to do when they were pulling this stuff on the show.) Deus Ex Machina is bad. What else is bad?
(7) Info Dumping will get your novel chucked in the trash faster than anything else. DO NOT INFO DUMP is beaten into any good science-fiction writer's head. Info dumping is where you create a scene in which one character turns to another and proceeds to explain everything that is going on to the third character. This is done in order to avoid actually developing the plot intellectually and is a gross violation of "Show don't tell". Abrams info dumps. Big time. Kirk meets Spock in the cave and there Spock proceeds to explain the entire damn plot of the movie. This is disrespectful of the audience's intelligence, since anyone with half a brain has already figured out the plot long ago. Yet Abrams feels the need to hold our hands and treat us like children as he carefully details each step of the narrative.
(8) Scotty teleported into the tubes = Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. (enough said)
(9) Kirk assumes command of the vessel after demonstrating that Spock is "emotionally compromised" he does this by inciting Spock with an argument in which he challenges the Captains cool demeanor into violence by attacking recent tragic events. The violence thus lowers the Spock's position in the eyes of the crew forcing him to leave. We have seen scenes like this before. Wherein the cool brash protagonist nags the composed antagonist into some rash or foolish choice by appealing to his vanity and attacking him verbally until he acts contrary to his assumed cool exterior. I really wanted this scene to be a one-on-one verbal spar between the two characters. No violence. Just a private debate where Kirk corners Spock with his own logic and proves that he has acted upon emotion rather than logic in his handling of the ship. The fight doesn't really develop their relationship. My solution, I think, would be a more fitting connection between the two characters. Either way, "emotionally compromised" scene is cliched. Done.
(10) The Enterprise rushes to save earth after most of Starfleet's been compromised by some superweapon. Am I the only one who recalls Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, and Star Trek: First Contact? Am I the only one who notices that the Enterprise has saved earth four fucking times from "mystery superweapon of the week?" (I'm not even counting episodes in which this happens.) Also, tell me this. In what other film is a planet destroyed mid-film by a nearly unstoppable superweapon and then the superweapon is destroyed in the act of destroying a second planet? Ring a bell anyone?
(11) In the final climatic scene the Enterprise shoots down the missiles that Nero shoots at Spock's craft. Why did it take two prior battles for the Enterprise to realize that they can just shoot down slow-moving physical objects? Major oversight by the writing staff.
(12) Why is everyone an exceptional genius on the enterprise? One of the things I liked about the show was that it felt like the adventures of Kirk and co. was just standard fair for any Starfleet Ship. Yet, Abrams adds a scene for each character in the show in which they demonstrate how exceptional they are . . . as though we need the crew to be almost superhuman in their intellectual capacity.
(13) Star Trek references were overdone. A lot of them just felt like Abrams needed to hit each and every one. We need a redshirt to die. We need McCoy to say his famous line. We need Spock to say his famous lines. We need a green lady. Its like he kept a list and checked them off as he got each one into the film. Some, felt natural (the green lady). But some felt forced (the redshirt, not only does he wear a blatantly red suit but he steps onto the shuttle with a line reminiscent of the jock who dies first in a horror film.)
So that's it. A list of each cliche and poorly handled plot device in the film. Like I said on facebook -- I did like the film, I'd say I even loved the film. But by no means is it a great film. Its not "Wraith of Khan" material. The characters and the acting was spot on. The dialogue well written. The overall handling of the film an exciting action flick. I just find it frustrating that Hollywood can have a perfect film sitting on their desk and yet they still fuck it up by making some very common, very easily fixable mistakes in their plot treatment.