Offering the 'Star Trek' Backlash Backlash
Nitpicking the 'Star Trek' plot points is meaningless... I agree
This morning io9.com asked if J.J. Abrams' box-office topping Star Trek was already becoming the target of a fanboy backlash. They point to complaints about Nokia product placement and then the silliest of them all, Devin Faraci's list of continuity nitpicks in which he describes his very own complaints as "meaningless" before ever breaking down a single one of them.
Meaningless, is a perfect way to describe the nitpicks I have read so far against the film, especially considering the folks hating on it actually liked it. Take Sci-Fi Wire's Thomas Mill for example. His post complaining about 11 things that bothered him about the movie (I agree with the puffy hands bit) comes with a preface saying "[We] love J.J. Abrams' new Star Trek and reservedly recommend it to all, including longtime fans, those who've never heard of Star Trek, and everyone in between." So why are you complaining?
As io9's Graeme McMillan points out when referencing someone questioning why Star Trek gets a pass when films like the Star Wars prequel The Phantom Menace didn't, it is quite simple — because Star Trek was good.
Beyond all of this I still can't help but go back to Faraci's self-described "meaningless" nitpicks because they can all be explained thanks to the one major plot point that is perhaps the most ridiculous of them all — time travel. Star Trek takes place in an alternate reality, which means nothing that happened in any of the Star Trek movies or TV shows happened in this universe. So, when Faraci complains "Everybody's too old," I say, "Alternate reality."
When he gets worked up because "Sulu [is] on the bridge," I say, "Alternate reality."
Or when Faraci is bothered because "the Starfleet uniforms are way ahead of their time," I say, "Alternate reality."
How about the Spock and Uhura relationship? Yup, "Alternate reality."
Finally, about the fact "Everybody knows what Romulans look like," I say, "Alternate reality."
Seriously, complaining about something as trivial and stupid as uniforms and people knowing what Romulans look like is up there with some of the sillier things I have read. Would it have been more in line with "Star Trek" canon had the uniforms been as cheesy as before and the sets made of cardboard? Sure, but I think anyone that covers movies nowadays realizes that just isn't going to happen. So, again, why complain?
On top of that Faraci gave the film an 8/10 review, but even in his review he takes a final swipe saying, "I think that Star Trek is really a 7 out of 10 movie, but I've bumped it up to 8 because the elements that work work so well that while you're watching it, before you've had a chance to think about the numerous and idiotic plot holes and writing deficiencies." Ahhhhhh, snap! Take that Star Trek! You're fun and entertaining! It's almost as if he is upset he liked it and he isn't even done here as he offers up some backhanded compliments in a second editorial.
Before it seems like I am piling on, I do agree with Devin on a couple of his points, but I have to wonder where the motivation comes from and if his passion to continue to dissect the film's problems may actually confirm Star Trek's quality and status as a bonafide summer blockbuster. In my mind a blockbuster film is a film that doesn't require a lot of intelligence, is heavy on spectacle and ratchets up the entertainment. While I believe the entertainment value of these films can be debated (for example I didn't particularly like Transformers) I think most will agree the plot structure of a film such as Star Trek or Transformers is relatively weak, but is that worth dwelling on if you ultimately find the films to be greatly entertaining?
In my own review I point out the film's issues saying it "is light on story, heavy on convenience, weak in villainy and perfection in character and casting." However, I am happy to say I enjoyed it despite any flaws that are easily picked out. What do I care if time travel Spock somehow happens to be at the right place at the right time? Or if that isn't "what a black hole is, or how it behaves" as Roger Ebert complains. Perhaps Ebert overlooked the fact the villain is actually making black holes… who cares if that isn't how they behave? The friggin' planet just disappeared!










