Filed under: Fanboy Frivolity

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!

Related post categories: Fanboy Frivolity :

Click Here to add an
Avatar to Your Account
Post #1
Gravatar

"What do I care … if that isn’t “what a black hole is, or how it behaves” as Roger Ebert complains."

At the end of that road lies cavemen flying 2,000 year old Harriers.

- Forrest
( May 11th, 2009 | 6:31 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #2
Gravatar

Having read about it before going to the cinema, I was a little sceptical, but went in with an open mind; absolutely loved the film from start to fniish. The alternate reality aspect was a brilliant way of allowing a reboot that would not alienate hardcore fans as it does not erase all we have learned about Star Trek over the past 40 years. Nimoy's presence served to make it 'okay' for trekkies to like the film and most complaints can be dealt with by the 'alternate reality' theory or the comic (Star Trek: Countdown). My only lingering complaint is that the Nokia product placement was aggravating (especially the annoying Nokia ringtone) and did severely cheapen a few moments of the otherwise fantastic and well-cast movie.

- NP
( May 11th, 2009 | 6:49 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #3
Gravatar

The movie “Star Trek” is utter bad! It is out of orbit for TV series of Star Trek: Original Series. The movie had confusing and contradictory events, scenes, and crews’ relationships. For example, James Kirk’s father was killed in the battle, James’s birth in space, not in Iowa, Spock’s human mother was killed, Vulcan’s home planet was destroyed, the entirely different scenes of bridge, hallways and engineering section in USS Enterprise, characteristic flaws among crew members: Uhura’s romantic relationship with Mr. Spock, too sentimental behavior for Mr. Spock, too provocative and egotistic behavior for James Kirk. There was none of Nurse Chapel and blonde-haired Yeoman in this movie! Kirk's immature heroic epic swiftly promoted his rank to be the Captain of the ship – irrational! This movie is incompatibility to harmonize to Star Trek: Original Series because of these contradictory and baffling results to Star Trek: Original Series. We will see the secret reveal of Tuvok who was a black Vulcan crew member of Voyager and he was born under his parents of Uhura and Mr. Spock!

- Jeffrey
( May 11th, 2009 | 6:54 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #4
Gravatar

@Jeffrey: Alternate Reality lol.

- William
( May 11th, 2009 | 7:37 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #5
Gravatar

Great article. I agree with you about the mindless comments about the film while those same ppl enjoyed the film. Star Trek was an amazing movie

- bryce
( May 11th, 2009 | 7:38 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #6
Gravatar

Top notch movie that won a fan who thought that Star Trek was boring and for 'old farts'….ME!

- adu
( May 11th, 2009 | 10:16 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #7
Gravatar

It's ok but won't have a long life after this. Although the alternate reality idea will bring in new fans it also alienates long term fans basically telling them STFU your universe is dead! Good luck with Airhead Trek which is what this was. It's like Vin Diesel/90210 & Star Trek in space! Enjoy! I'm done with Paramount.. they should have sold the Star Trek license and started a new sci-fi series instead of raping an old one. There really is no more originality in Hollywood anymore.
This movie was 2 out of 5 stars mostly for effects

- Marco
( May 12th, 2009 | 12:53 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #8
Gravatar

I feel sorry for you, Marco. I really do. For the rest of your life you're not going to see another Paramount movie? Yeah…you're like those people in 2004 who vowed to move to Canada when George Bush got elected for a second term.

- oldskool138
( May 12th, 2009 | 5:53 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #9
Gravatar

Captain's Log star date 5/5/09 = I thought the movie was awesome, I grew up watching Star Trek with my father and I thought this was a good representation of the old crew. If anything was a little different it was simply for entertainment purposes and that is ok by me. I walked out of the theater saying, "that was a good movie". So everyone really needs to enjoy life and stop picking at the little things.

- Jadium
( May 12th, 2009 | 7:50 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #10
Gravatar

From what we've been taught about Spock and Uhura, those two would never have a regular thing going. Vulcans only mate once every seven years. Spock is half human but his mating urges follow the seven-year Vulcan cycle and take him over completely. Spock would see no logical purpose in pressing lips in the interim. Even if the events in this movie take place in an alternate universe, the split point between the two universes would have to have been tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years earlier to explain the change in Vulcan biology, which would make the idea of the same people appearing in both universes ludicrous. Raxin

- raxin@mailinator.com
( May 12th, 2009 | 10:05 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #11
Gravatar

@raxin@mailinator.com: I don't want to get into a silly Star Trek argument, but Spock is half-human/half-Vulcan, something that explains his emotional attachment. It all makes sense and there is no debate to be had on the Spock/Uhura relationship.

- Brad Brevet (Post Author)
( May 12th, 2009 | 11:23 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #12
Gravatar

Oh all the nitpickers out there haha……I have been a Trek fan since the early 90s in that time I completely assimilated the Trek world. Ive seen all the series every episode more than once and god only knows how many times ive seen all the movies even the trash ones like Star Trek 5 and of course Nemesis and Insurrection, so I'd like to think I know a little bit about what I'm talking about. Bottom line is until this our show was dead the whole Star Trek universe was going no where. We can't sit here and nit pick every little detail of this new movie and not be excited that Star Trek breathes again. The most important part of the story is the characters and their interactions and I loved the way everyone worked with the new movie harkened back to the old days. The Spock and Uhura deal can easily be explained, at first I didnt agree with this but now I understand. Sarek a full vulcan spoke the line in the movie when asked why he was with a human woman and simply put he loved her an emotion none the less. Even in the real Star Trek universe Sarek was more inclined to take a human wife than a vulcan ever think of that. Like old Spock stated hes emotional compromised after all the events that have occurred. The fact that the ship and the uniforms don't look exactly like they did in the 60's……..haha I mean c'mon people we don't need to take it so literal again it's a character story and our characters of Kirk and Spock will now live on thanks to this movie telling new stories to new generations and ensuring Star Trek immortality.

- marsh
( May 12th, 2009 | 12:09 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #13
Gravatar

One of the main features of Star Trek was that it blended with every other product under its name. It started out very vague and as the franchise progressed, each new thing revealed something about the unknown. The whole "alternate universe" thing was a easy step around that. They had no need to look to the other episodes at all. They talk about Star Trek needing a revamp, and I agree with that. The effects and costumes and things were great…and who can really say that one design is ahead of another? But they didn't revamp it, they undid it. They tossed away all the old Star Trek and replaced it with something entirely new, and tethered it to the "fans" by bringing in the old characters in a a non-stop cameo bonanza. Every 10 minutes they were breaking out 5 seconds of something old school to keep real fans from walking out. Sure worked for me, I stayed. I even liked the movie, just would have liked it more if it didn't pretend to be something it isn't. Star Trek has always been one of those series that fan's examine closely, and they missed that. Why? Because they've prolly never even seen the old school episodes. This movie was like taking X-Men, making it a romantic comedy where everyone gets along and no one decided to use powers and saying "Oh, it's an alternative timeline. But there's Prof. X making out with Scott. Alternative timeline."

- IV
( May 13th, 2009 | 2:46 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #14
Gravatar

@marsh:

Totally agree…The Franchise was D E A D—You nitpicking fans assured that it would be dead—You Killed Enterprise and Nemesis–the last hopes for the original 40 year run–You ruined it—Paramount was forced to Reboot or Mothball–franchise had too much potential value to mothball so we got the Reboot—So ask yourself this….did they reboot with loving care to treat the long time fans (Like Me) or did they give they series the same treatment that Battlestar Gallactica got—-hmm. Think about that….BSG Rebooted it's franchise and gave the Original BSG fans the finger…and it was freaking GREAT–I'm just saying that Kirk could have been a woman, or Spock a Emotionally conflicted Vulcan, or Uhura could have been a Puerto Rican Man, or Scotty an Asian Female, They could have brought Khan back as a Serial Killer, –Many things could have happened, but they didn't—JJ Abrams gave us our beloved characters–Intact and Well Cast—and used a tried-and-true Trek Vehicle–Alternate Reality- To explain everything. Rodenberry's Son and Everyone who's ever worked on Star Trek(Practically) has come out in support of the Reboot and Praise for the Film—What The Hell else do you want. —one more thing–to the fans who say "very Convienient that all these crew members happened to end up in their eventual roles on Enterprise–Okay—Scotty was on an Ice World that Kirk just happened to land on—okay—STOP—I prefer to think that this was the way the director chose to show us that the crew was destined to be together—regardless of the timeline….bring on the sequel

- Dr.Vern
( May 13th, 2009 | 9:09 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #15
Gravatar

I've always thought that the Star Trek series was never better than when Kirk, Spock, Bones, Uhura, Scotty, Chekhov, & Sulu were blasting around the cosmos; "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" being the greatest height that the franchise had ever achieved, and continueing admirably through III, IV & VI. This "WAS" Star Trek at its heart, its core. This dynamic has been faithfully recreated by J.J. Abrams and the folks over at Paramount.

Instead of giving us more Trek Trash, such as "Enterprise," fan films, & Nemesis, the world has a new and exciting vision of the future. Brilliant young actors, an exciting story and lets face it, the best special effects the franchise has ever seen, have ensured a great future for Trek.

- The Jackal
( May 14th, 2009 | 2:13 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #16
Gravatar

Yes Please quit complaining!
1.) an alternate reality does not mean the old stuff is gone it can still happen only a little differently, except of course some Vulcan related things but who cares, I don't

complaining about Vulcan being gone is like someone blowing up congress & we all get mad about it. i know i wouldn't

2.) This is Star Trek the Original series was fun! this movie was fun! the original series had comedy so did this! puffy hands or not this movie rocked and you all know it!

- Venomous Soul
( May 19th, 2009 | 8:39 pm )
Reply to this comment
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Leave Your Feedback
(required)
(will not be shown) (required)
DON'T WANT YOUR COMMENT DELETED?
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Follow Us On Twitter!
RSS Email
Latest Posts
Latest Video
Nine ~ TV Spot
New Pictures
Friend RopeofSilicon on Netflix!