Not a Fan
As I seem to be mainly reviewing things this week, I might as well tell you why I don't like that Star Trek remake. OK, I know, the makers will tell you that it wasn't a remake, it was a prequel, or a re-imagining, or a reboot, or whatever other phrase Hollywood uses these days to try and disguise its paucity of original ideas, but we all know it was a remake. First up, I should tell you that whilst I've seen a lot of episodes of Star Trek, (and still think the original series was the best), I'm not a fan, as such. I don't collect models of the USS Enterprise or other memorabilia, I don't wear Mr Spock ears or read the books based on it. I really don't have a problem with different actors playing the characters or changes being made to the continuity for dramatic purposes. (Although if you take a property like Star Trek and make wholesale changes to the continuity and accepted canon, what was the point in it, why not just start from scratch with an original idea? Oh yeah, then you couldn't cash in on the brand name to sell your crock of shit to fans, could you?)
My problems the most recent film are more basic than that. First off, I have a real problem with 'origin' stories, (which is what it is, in essence). Why does Hollywood seem to think that we need them? Especially with regard to a well-established scenario? Do they really think that audiences are so stupid they can't accept or understand an established scenario when it is presented to them? I mean, in real life, whenever we encounter a new situation, a new workplace or new people, we don't expect to have their entire history and how they all came to met spelt out to us on the spot, do we? Besides, it's surely part of any film maker's, (or writer's), craft to be able to provide the viewer/reader with essential background details through things like dialogue, therefore removing the need for unnecessary exposition? My other problem with the film is that it simply isn't Star Trek. Putting everyone in primary coloured uniforms, having someone speak in a Russian accent, someone else in a Scottish accent and have a hot black chick operating the radio, doesn't make it Star Trek. To me, the film just felt like another big budget science fiction action extravaganza, none of the ethos of the TV series or original films was in evidence. Leading me to suspect that, despite their claims of being fans, the makers of this movie simply didn't understand the original.
Oh, and one last thing - it strained my credulity. I know that sounds crazy when referring to a film set in the future, featuring aliens, starships and the like, but the fact is that any work of fiction requires that its audience is able to suspend disbelief. Star Trek falls down completely in this respect when, at the end, on the basis of this one exploit, Kirk gets promoted from Ensign to Captain in one go - utterly ludicrous! I think most audiences would assume that even a fictional twenty third century Star Fleet would have a strict formal structure for promotion, based on experience and achievement, with each step up the ladder representing a vital developmental stage for employees. The idea that they'd entrust a Starship with a crew of hundreds to some callow youth really insults our intelligence. It's just a step too far in terms of suspension of disbelief. Indeed, if it wasn't for this ridiculous conclusion, I'd say that the film merely left me cold, but its inclusion ensures that I actively dislike it!
My problems the most recent film are more basic than that. First off, I have a real problem with 'origin' stories, (which is what it is, in essence). Why does Hollywood seem to think that we need them? Especially with regard to a well-established scenario? Do they really think that audiences are so stupid they can't accept or understand an established scenario when it is presented to them? I mean, in real life, whenever we encounter a new situation, a new workplace or new people, we don't expect to have their entire history and how they all came to met spelt out to us on the spot, do we? Besides, it's surely part of any film maker's, (or writer's), craft to be able to provide the viewer/reader with essential background details through things like dialogue, therefore removing the need for unnecessary exposition? My other problem with the film is that it simply isn't Star Trek. Putting everyone in primary coloured uniforms, having someone speak in a Russian accent, someone else in a Scottish accent and have a hot black chick operating the radio, doesn't make it Star Trek. To me, the film just felt like another big budget science fiction action extravaganza, none of the ethos of the TV series or original films was in evidence. Leading me to suspect that, despite their claims of being fans, the makers of this movie simply didn't understand the original.
Oh, and one last thing - it strained my credulity. I know that sounds crazy when referring to a film set in the future, featuring aliens, starships and the like, but the fact is that any work of fiction requires that its audience is able to suspend disbelief. Star Trek falls down completely in this respect when, at the end, on the basis of this one exploit, Kirk gets promoted from Ensign to Captain in one go - utterly ludicrous! I think most audiences would assume that even a fictional twenty third century Star Fleet would have a strict formal structure for promotion, based on experience and achievement, with each step up the ladder representing a vital developmental stage for employees. The idea that they'd entrust a Starship with a crew of hundreds to some callow youth really insults our intelligence. It's just a step too far in terms of suspension of disbelief. Indeed, if it wasn't for this ridiculous conclusion, I'd say that the film merely left me cold, but its inclusion ensures that I actively dislike it!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home