Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Star Trek, 2009

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I never watched the shows and have only seen like one of the movies but overall it was decent. There was some questionable statements but i think the idea behind them was better than the questionable (from what I've heard) ideas of the original. one of the better movies ive seen this year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott Holleran thought it was disappointing. I've never been a fan of the series, and have only really watched a few episodes of Deep Space 9; however, I do plan to go see the movie. Just a good excuse to go to the theater, which I haven't been to in a while.

<_<

What a silly review.

THE MOVIE WAS AMAZING.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you tell us a bit more?

There was amazing little bad philosophy on display. Even young Spock's opportunity to "stick his foot in it" from our perspective fails to be viciously evil. He is in a Vulcan school and gets to say something about "morally praiseworthy, but not obligatory". Old Spock says something about not being self-serving at the end of the movie, but it is not a plot moment. Everybody else is busily pursuing values, achieving things, and showing off how goddamn excellent they are.

I think all the actors fit their roles well. I am amazed that Eomer from Lord of the Rings and Bones can be the same person. The villain is a revenge motivated sadist and nihilist, in other words a totally boring 2-d caricature. But that's just the script, not the actor. Fortunately he is not the center of the film but given as background.

Pacing was blisteringly fast. Even the dialog had a lot of people talking over each other just to make things snappy. Lots of humor was scattered through the movie when people weren't blowing up or being somber Vulcans. I saw the movie in IMAX. Much of the space battle action was shot zoomed-in, and there was a lot of detail to see and the visual effects were uniformly excellent. The finale (as in fireworks finale) though spent so great a proportion of the time zoomed in on exploding ship parts it was hard to get a sense of the action.

I intend to see it again. The big thing I take away from this movie is that Star Trek now has lusty, passionate characters and not politically correct technocrats. Yay!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was amazing little bad philosophy on display. Even young Spock's opportunity to "stick his foot in it" from our perspective fails to be viciously evil. He is in a Vulcan school and gets to say something about "morally praiseworthy, but not obligatory". Old Spock says something about not being self-serving at the end of the movie, but it is not a plot moment.

The only problem I had was when Old Spock said "Put aside logic and for once do what you feel is right.", but then I realized that this wasn't a matter of ethics per se, it was about what Spock wanted to do with his own life, not what some duty told him to do. Then he says "You will always be a child of two worlds, and fully capable of deciding your own destiny. The question you face is: which path will you choose?". So all in all, the philosophy of the movie isn't that bad.

Now some people have said "It didn't have a great plot". Personally I think the plot was fine, but what they're missing is that the movie was character-driven, which makes sense when you understand that the entire purpose of the movie was to re-introduce the characters we've known and loved for 40 years. While they weren't able to flesh out every single character (which they didn't need to), they did a great job with a 2-hour movie. Next movie will most likely have a better plot, because the characters won't need introduction.

The action sequences were spot-on, the actors' performances were great (Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy was an epic win), and overall the beauty of the film has beaten anything I've seen in a while.

Edited by Sir Andrew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In The Art of Fiction by Miss Rand, she states that multiple conflicts are very important to the plot. Spock vs. Kirk, The federation vs. Romulans, Spock vs. Logic to name a few. The intensity of each struggle made me an instant trekie.

However, the star trek society is very confusing. I don't know where star fleet gets the money to fund their operations. Also, are Vulcans objectivists? Their motto is: live long and prosper.

Edited by Dr Chiill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In The Art of Fiction by Miss Rand, she states that multiple conflicts are very important to the plot. Spock vs. Kirk, The federation vs. Romulans, Spock vs. Logic to name a few. The intensity of each struggle made me an instant trekie.

No she doesn't, in fact she cautions against trying to cram too complicated of a plot into a shorter story. Multi-layered conflicts are great, but you can write a novel that focuses on a single major conflict if you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the way Rodenberry wrote them, Vulcans are Socialists: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is what Spock utters to Kirk as his reason for dying in The Wrath of Kahn.

In The Art of Fiction by Miss Rand, she states that multiple conflicts are very important to the plot. Spock vs. Kirk, The federation vs. Romulans, Spock vs. Logic to name a few. The intensity of each struggle made me an instant trekie.

However, the star trek society is very confusing. I don't know where star fleet gets the money to fund their operations. Also, are Vulcans objectivists? Their motto is: live long and prosper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I find personally annoying is the absurdly unrealistic postmodern "realism" of constantly subverting authority. In Firefly, if you disobey the captain, you (literally) get shoved out an airlock. That's a bunch of outlaw pirates. How is it that a quasi-military ship like the Enterprise is ruled democratically, with no real consequences for disobeying orders?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warning! Spoilers abound!

I can't remember the last time I was in a film that kept you at a sprinting pace for two hours. Star Trek was a great science fiction show, and the beginnings of a new series (more likely a trilogy) of movies.

There is so much right with this film that I can completely ignore anything that is wrong with it. A lot of other reviews will talk about how the engineering set looks cheap, or how there was gratuitous use of lens flare, or how Chekov's accent might be too strong. The great thing about this movie, is that none of that matters, and none of that detracts from the best Star Trek film ever, for fans or non-fans.

Some people have said that this is just making Star Trek a run of the mill action film. I completely disagree. Transformers was just an action film, it was not "about" anything profound. This was different, this was about personal character growth, and learning how and why people can meet their full potential. The two main characters in the film, Kirk and Spock, are both clearly competent but both held back by both the death of a father figure for Kirk, and the death of the mother figure for Spock as well as the absence and coldness of his father. Kirk learns that he can overcome circumstances to be a true leader, and Spock begins to truly balance his Vulcan-Human elements to learn that what he always knew was not a defect truly is his greatest strength.

The supporting characters all shine. We all knew Nichelle Nichols, George Takei, and Walter Koening were class actors, but their characters did always reflect that, sometimes reduced to being cliche stereotypes (which was still progressive for the 1960's.) Here, though, every character is someone who you care about and who you want the future movies to tell you more about. Uhura is confident and brilliant, but also has a clear feminine side which is not submissive. Sulu is more of an action hero here but that is still a huge step up from just piloting the ship. Chekov is a brilliant wunderkind whose services are invaluable. Scotty is humorous (like the original) and a miracle worker, literally. While McCoy did not get top billing the way Kirk and Spock did, he is clearly not only an important part of the "troika" but also has a much stronger relationship to Kirk.

Finally, the Spock-Uhura romance is not only a brilliant new idea, but also a great homage to how it was meant to be Spock who would have the first inter-racial kiss on TV in "Plato's Stepchildren" before it was changed to Kirk. The movie is full of brilliant new ideas and is no longer constrained by canon dictating the look, feel, or plot of the movie. From now on, every consequence matters, and from now on, the directors and writers of the TV show can make the 23rd century look like the future.

This movie may not be overloaded with themes and morals the way "The Wrath of Khan" or "The Undiscovered Country" were, but it still has a Star Trek sensibility about the greatness for human (and alien) achievement and that timeless sense that the Characters really will "boldy go where no man has gone before." This film has been a long time coming, and the franchise is better for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spoilers ahead.

I loved how the movie made a point of shoving aside the silly deterministic idea of a 'time paradox' if a past person meets his future self. The movie also seemed to be less about attempting to keep in with 'the rules' of your typical time travel story and they just did whatever they needed to do to get the job done. I liked it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the star trek society is very confusing. I don't know where star fleet gets the money to fund their operations.

It's a centralized bureaucracy. Star Fleet handles interstellar trade, resource exploration, base construction, ship construction, transportation, communication, energy, research, education, ...

Personally I don't know why someone would join Star Fleet. The only reason I could think of is that you get some priviliges, i.e. "more stuff".

I think the federation is something like the "Alliance" from Firefly/Serenity.

Also, are Vulcans objectivists?

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warning! Spoilers abound!

I can't remember the last time I was in a film that kept you at a sprinting pace for two hours. Star Trek was a great science fiction show, and the beginnings of a new series (more likely a trilogy) of movies.

You put it very well and saved me some typing.

Edited by JMeganSnow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that the ship is called the enterprise shows that the writers didn't understand politics and history.

How so? There's always an Enterprise, yes? Isn't it usually a fleet flagship? I know the current one is an aircraft carrier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the star trek society is very confusing. I don't know where star fleet gets the money to fund their operations.

It is a magic society where the "problem of production" has been solved. They have plentiful cheap energy, and transporter tech which together enables things like replicators that can make nearly anything for nearly free. Its a kind of potlatch economy where people angle for social status via achievement. I doubt the society is plausible without an Objectivist basis, because when there is no economic motivation to keep people grounded and rational then they would need to explicitly know their philosophical premises to keep from drifting off into hedonism, religiosity, or an aggressive conquering fascism. The integrating power of the mind will find something to organize itself around, and if it is not economics it will be something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I find personally annoying is the absurdly unrealistic postmodern "realism" of constantly subverting authority. In Firefly, if you disobey the captain, you (literally) get shoved out an airlock. That's a bunch of outlaw pirates. How is it that a quasi-military ship like the Enterprise is ruled democratically, with no real consequences for disobeying orders?

They can be relieved of duty, transferred, or court-martialed. I don't see where you're getting this notion that everyone gets away with anything.

Most of the time, people don't disobey orders. When they do, they usually have good reasons.

Edited by Sir Andrew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spoilers ahead.

I loved how the movie made a point of shoving aside the silly deterministic idea of a 'time paradox' if a past person meets his future self. The movie also seemed to be less about attempting to keep in with 'the rules' of your typical time travel story and they just did whatever they needed to do to get the job done. I liked it.

I quite liked that too, I was hoping at the end in front of the black hole they would say something like 'hey can we go back in time and

stop vulcan from being destroyed

?' only to have someone else say 'no that is utterly ridiculous' then, oh well, on with the world... Again to distance themselves from tired Star Trek plot lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were some weak plot points, and some bad dialog in parts, but overall an enjoyable escape. I saw it in IMAX - my first MMP in IMAX - and I would not recommend it. We had pretty good seats, but "pretty good" doesn't seem to cut it. You really need to be nearly even with the top of the screen and dead center. There was just far too much going on to catch it all on a screen that big.

Karl Urban was simply fantastic, and I'm glad the Spock guy (don't know his name) didn't overact the part - I could see Leonard Nimoy's Spock in him. I could not see Shatner's Kirk in the Kirk actor. He wasn't necessarily bad, but he didn't capture me the way Shatner does.

Abrams seems to have traded quality for quantity. The movie is simply non-stop action, but the fight scenes are truncated and not very deep. You never really feel any tension during the battles because they're over before you have time to. I understand he's setting up the characters, but we already know the characters. We don't know how they develop their relationships, but they don't need to develop them all in one movie. I'm willing (and I think everyone else would be, too) to watch their relationships develop over several movies.

But, again, an enjoyable escape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could not see Shatner's Kirk in the Kirk actor. He wasn't necessarily bad, but he didn't capture me the way Shatner does.

For the most part I liked this Kirk, but when he would argue with emotion he seemed like a screaming teenager. That's the place where I'd have liked to see classic Kirk; emotional, but in control of his voice. Pluss, I never once saw him throw a double clenched fist at anyone. No hip-check either. Boo!

The movie is simply non-stop action, but the fight scenes are truncated and not very deep.

I'm grateful for the short fight scenes. I've suffered through enough of the 5+ minute fights that became popular after the Matrix sequels to come to dread fight scenes in movies. Fights don't last that long in real life, and they shouldn't in movies. Long fights bore me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...