Comments | moviebuffs: Star Trek Movie Retrospective: Final Part

fatpie42 in moviebuffs

Star Trek Movie Retrospective: Final Part

Nov 04, 2013 23:20

This set of reviews is part of a series:
- I introduce the series and review the first three movies here.
- I review the fourth, fifth and sixth movies here.So now finally in this entry I review all the "Star Trek: The Next Generation" movies (as well as giving a quick mention to the new rebooted Star Trek movies). At the end I'm also including a ( Read more... )

Comments 6

ashmh November 5 2013, 21:36:53 UTC

Darth Vader's "NOOOOO!" in "Revenge of the Sith" didn't bother me one bit. Spock's "KHAAAAAN!" nearly made me gag. And I disliked the 2009 movie even more, thanks to script choked with major plot holes.

fatpie42 November 5 2013, 23:14:36 UTC

I find "plot holes" to be a bit of a problematic term. People keep on using the term to refer to any little thing they didn't like about a film. And often these little problems can either be quickly excused (though how good the excuse is depends on your perspective) or they are the sorts of things that you can happily ignore so long as you are sufficiently caught up in the action.

The biggest problem for me in the "Star Trek" 2009 movie was the ridiculous macguffin that acts both as a portal through time AND a black hole. I mean seriously, if the red matter sent Spock back in time without a scratch, how did the same stuff destroy the planet Vulcan? Shouldn't it have sent the planet back in time? Bizarre.

What was the biggest problem you had with that film?

soleiltropiques November 16 2013, 02:00:00 UTC

I didn't like 'Generations' and 'First Contact' that much either. I also agree with the silliness of the genetic plot element in 'Nemesis' as well ( ... )

fatpie42 November 16 2013, 19:42:19 UTC

I am referring to Gene Rodenberry's having reportedly chosen to insert the mention that Kirk and Spock were never lovers into the novelization. Because apparently this was a big concern to Rodenberry. Lovely. Ugh.

That's random. I mean, even deciding to comment on that seems to raise the possibility that they could have been lovers ( ... )

soleiltropiques November 18 2013, 03:21:45 UTC

"Still, I don't think you can judge "The Motion Picture" based on something Rodenberry put into the novelisation ( ... )

fatpie42 November 18 2013, 08:02:34 UTC

Wow. Um, okay, I don't think I ever implied that I judged the FILM based on this. There is a difference between the film and the franchise, which is what I was referring to.

Isn't that what I said? I don't think we are disagreeing on this. I am saying that while Rodenberry's comments are worrying, it shouldn't colour opinion on the movie. That's fair, right? I'm really not trying to be combative at all.

Also, I got an email update on your first comment and if you hadn't deleted it I'd have been happy to mark it "not spam". In any case, I will have a look at those links. This is a side of the series I haven't seen before.

As for the insertion into the novelization, I'll try to come up with the reference (it was in a text by academic Henry Jenkins, the same who wrote 'Textual Poachers').

You don't need to find the reference. I trust you. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with Henry Jenkins.

'Into Darkness' has a notable and completely gratuitous scene which was the source of many complaints (which, I acknowledge, the producers later ( ... )