The other side: Star Trek's failures
I wanted to do the positive review of Star Trek before I discussed its weaknesses, because I truly enjoyed the movie tremendously and recommend it strongly.
That said, the film is weak in two key areas that are normally essential to good SF: science and plot.
That science was a tertiary consideration of the filmmakers is clearest in the treatment of black holes, which can not only eat a planet and not touch its star but also be caused by a drop of a mysterious "red matter." The level of the science is so inconsistent, in fact, that it's tempting to critique it as a major problem on its own, but I don't think that's the right analysis. Instead, I believe the science is weak because the writers manipulated it as necessary to serve the plot, the true central problem of the film.
The issue with the plot is that some key events do not occur because they reflect the motivations of the characters or are inevitable consequences of previous events or for any of the other valid reasons for fictional things to happen. Instead, some parts of the story occur simply because the filmmakers needed them to happen. I could give examples, but I don't want to spoil the movie if you haven't seen it.
Okay, one example, which I'll keep vague: the means by which one key character meets a major player from the past is utterly nonsensical, both on its own and in light of later vital events in the plot.
If you've read both this post and my previous one, and if you haven't seen the movie, you may be wondering how an SF film can have bad science and weak plotting and still be such a joy. I've wondered that a bit myself, and I've concluded that the answer is partly that we expect weak plotting and weak science from Star Trek and partly that there is so much joy, so much energy, and so much good in the characters that the movie overcomes its weaknesses and makes you love it.
So, despite these problems, go see it.
Posts
8 comments:
I'm inclined to wait for the DVD via netflix to minimize the amount of money the studio gets.
This has nothing to do with this specific movie. Given the vicious behavior of the MPAA over the past decade, I've come to regard giving the studios money as nothing more than giving a robber money so he can buy a gun(congressman) and come back and take more.
I, too, dislike the MPAA's behavior, but I love movies too much not to keep going. I think this one benefits from a theater.
Your call, though, and a fair point it is.
I agree with you Mark in that I too love movies too much to not keep going. I enjoyed Star Trek enough that I have now seen it twice, one in IMAX and once in just a Digital Projection theater. This is one movie that is absolutely awesome in IMAX, which is an experience you are not going to get at home.
On the topic of weak science in the movie; there was one other scene that bothered me. It's seen in the trailer when Kirk and two others 'drop' onto the drilling platform. They somehow go from low orbit to atmosphere with no problem wearing just basic space suits. They most likely should have all worn red shirts and boiled on the way down.
I would love to see this one in IMAX. Perhaps one day.
I am glad that I am not the only one who noticed plot problems.
John
You're definitely not.
Aw c'mon, take it for what it is. Entertaining, exciting and an escapist film. Sure, there are some major sequence inaccuracies and plot issues, but, admit it, it really is just a lot of fun to watch. Besides, there is a sequel in the making, warts and all.
As I said, I loved it despite its issues.
Post a Comment