Robin Bland

EW on Trek films

157 posts in this topic

I think one good concept to bring Picard and Kirk together was the script for TNG third season episode YESTERDAY'S ENTERPRISE, one of my favorite episodes, it would make a blast of  a movie. Nevertheless, I am very happy with GENERATIONS, actually the several versions of GENERATIONS, since I have two studio workprints of the movie on DVD.

Here is the ending for my second GENERATIONS workprint DVD, which I made available on TrekWeb years ago, featuring KIrk being shot in the back by Soran and Picard killing Soran with a phaser -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnzHD9MKP9g

Gus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one good concept to bring Picard and Kirk together was the script for TNG third season episode YESTERDAY'S ENTERPRISE, one of my favorite episodes, it would make a blast of  a movie. Nevertheless, I am very happy with GENERATIONS, actually the several versions of GENERATIONS, since I have two studio workprints of the movie on DVD.

Here is the ending for my second GENERATIONS workprint DVD, which I made available on TrekWeb years ago, featuring KIrk being shot in the back by Soran and Picard killing Soran with a phaser -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnzHD9MKP9g

Gus

Yeah, I saw that ending on the GEN DVD bonus features, and I really am glad the previews led to it being changed.  I'd prefer that Kirk died leaping heroically, helping Picard destroy the probe and then falling from the mountaintop (an homage to his rock-climbing stuff in STV); it was a little better than him just getting shot in the back like typical red shirt.   I know there are some that would've preferred Kirk died fighting off an army of Klingons or Borg, but I think GEN is more poignant.  Sometimes the greatest heroes have died in far less grandiose circumstances than their legends would lead some to imagine.  I preferred a smaller, more personal conflict (that still managed to save the Ent-D's crew and millions of Veridians).   It was still very heroic, but not typically so. 

And yes, the original "Yesterday's Enterprise" was (according to CFQ magazine) supposed to feature Kirk and the Ent-A, not Rachel Garrett's Ent-C.   Personally I prefer that the story eventually went with an 'unsung' Enterprise (the Ent-C), rather than the more famous Ent-A.   It shines a new light into the Enterprise's long history, rather than just add a new story to an already familiar ship and crew.   It also firmly added the Ent-C to the show's canon.

Not to mention that if the show HAD used Kirk and the Ent-A that early in its run?  It would've overshadowed the then-still struggling TNG (this was the show's third year, in 1990).   TNG really didn't come out from under the parent show's shadow until "Best of Both Worlds" truly achieved a level of popularity that rivaled that of TOS.    If Kirk had swaggered onto the Ent-D's bridge that early in the show, it would've undermined Picard and his crew when they weren't that firmly established just yet (the same problem I have with Superman appearing face-to-face with his cousin in "Supergirl").

But by the time GEN premiered in theatres, GEN had completed its run and was a very proud member of the ST family (at the time, it was enjoying a similar level of popularity to TOS) so it was a safer time to bring back Kirk (they'd already had McCoy, Spock and Scotty on TNG as well).   Kirk and Picard were EQUALS by the end of TNG's run.    That was the right time to do the captains crossover, not S3 of TNG's run. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I could go back in time and tell all sorts of people how to redo things, I think "Yesterday's Enterprise," as much as I love that episode, should've been a plot held back for a potential movie.  Granted at the time, they were still struggling with behind the scenes issues and fighting...and they had no idea they'd be making the season that turned the ship around...but still.  That idea could easily be expanded upon and as a crossover movie with the TOS crew?  Man...it could be badass.  I mean doing that story with Kirk and Crew with Picard and Crew AFTER TNG had run it's course?  That would've been a big deal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I could go back in time and tell all sorts of people how to redo things, I think "Yesterday's Enterprise," as much as I love that episode, should've been a plot held back for a potential movie.  Granted at the time, they were still struggling with behind the scenes issues and fighting...and they had no idea they'd be making the season that turned the ship around...but still.  That idea could easily be expanded upon and as a crossover movie with the TOS crew?  Man...it could be badass.  I mean doing that story with Kirk and Crew with Picard and Crew AFTER TNG had run it's course?  That would've been a big deal.  

I agree.

It would've been a nice 'final sendoff' for the entire Enterprise A crew (not just Kirk) as they go back in time to change history for the better.   Maybe Spock, Scotty and McCoy survived somehow (?), who knows.   But yes, the ambitious story was almost too much for a standalone hour episode (even if it is a remarkable hour episode).   

I love "Yesterday's 
Enterprise" for what it is, but I have to agree that the story (reworked with the Ent-A) would've also made for a spectacular passing of the baton. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I made the original ending of GENERATIONS available on TrekWeb BEFORE Paramount released a version of it without music of FX on the GEN 2-disc DVD deleted scenes (if you click on my YouTube link I posted here, you will otice that my version has music - from various movies including DANCE WITH WOLVES - and the ILM FX completed, although the VHS quality image of my copy is kinda poor).

I for one love the second ending - as you said a homage to KIrk climbing a mountain and falling, like the opening of STAR TREK V - and gave the director, David Carson, the budget to reshot it.

And for YESTERDAY'S ENTERPRISE, it was the greatest STAR TREK TNG episode for me in  the 1990s, and still remais up there with CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER and THE VISITOR.

Gus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/06/10/star-trek-generations-end-cinema

This guy is reviewing all the Trek films in the lead up to the 50th, and Beyond. Ive only read this one but he has a unique perspective and fresh ideas. 

He quotes Rob Moore saying that the concepts (i.e. studio directives) that the movie were based on were flawed from the start.  

It got me wondering: whether you like GEN or not, what would have been a better concept that could have brought Kirk and Picard together and passed the torch? I seem to recall that one of the directives was no time travel. Maybe that was a mistake. Thoughts?   

 

Hate to say it, but Gus scooped you on this one.   No worries. I'll merge them... 

I would not expect anything less of Gus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one good concept to bring Picard and Kirk together was the script for TNG third season episode YESTERDAY'S ENTERPRISE, one of my favorite episodes, it would make a blast of  a movie. Nevertheless, I am very happy with GENERATIONS, actually the several versions of GENERATIONS, since I have two studio workprints of the movie on DVD.

Here is the ending for my second GENERATIONS workprint DVD, which I made available on TrekWeb years ago, featuring KIrk being shot in the back by Soran and Picard killing Soran with a phaser -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnzHD9MKP9g

Gus

Can we tease that out a bit. I enjoy ret-conning how stories could have been told, while also keeping the perameters of the original production situation. How could the basic premise of Yesterday's Enterprise been repeated in Generations? The Enterprise-A (presumably in the weeks after TUC, but before the that ship was decommissioned) is shot forward in time? An accident? A mission? What's the conflict? Is the TNG era an alternate timeline, with out regulars playing alternate versions of themselves. It worked in the episode, but could not have worked in a film introducing those characters to a film audience. I know the YE crew was not that different from the TNG regulars, but still... What is the grace note send off, if its not going to be Kirk and Picard fist fighting on a mountain top?    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it yesterday and I've been angry ever since. I had to rage-quit reading it after the "Borg Queen seduced Picard" part - I wasn't aware that forcefully entering someone's mind and then using it, probing through it for knowledge, all without consent, AND then also using that person's BODY counts as "seduction". This is unacceptable to me, I'm sorry.

But then, the review guy is insufferable (I came across his Twitter), I'm not surprised. Also, the review part that I did read was pretty... terrible from a style point of view. I'm a writer myself, and there IS such a thing as trying TOO hard to sound cool. 

I'd say more about content if I could bring myself to read on, but if I have to read one more of this guy's terrible sentences I'll end up banging my head against the nearest wall... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it yesterday and I've been angry ever since. I had to rage-quit reading it after the "Borg Queen seduced Picard" part - I wasn't aware that forcefully entering someone's mind and then using it, probing through it for knowledge, all without consent, AND then also using that person's BODY counts as "seduction". This is unacceptable to me, I'm sorry.

But then, the review guy is insufferable (I came across his Twitter), I'm not surprised. Also, the review part that I did read was pretty... terrible from a style point of view. I'm a writer myself, and there IS such a thing as trying TOO hard to sound cool. 

I'd say more about content if I could bring myself to read on, but if I have to read one more of this guy's terrible sentences I'll end up banging my head against the nearest wall... 

I've had similar reactions to a couple of his other reviews; on this latest one, I agree.   He is trying too hard to be the 'cool' critic and not the honest one.  There are a few minor points of his I agree on (Troi's overplayed drunk scene, for example), but on most others he's just too Snarky McSnarkson for my personal taste.  Pretentious and overly cynical.  

The conceit that the mind-stealing, body raping Borg leader (he eschews the term 'queen'; whatevs) is the movie's secret 'hero' is just so much bulls#!t.  That's like reading Vincent Buglioisi's Helter Skelter and rooting for the Manson clan's exoneration.  Most of the focus of the review is (bizarrely) on the B-subplot between Data and the Borg queen.  For me, Data's imprisonment and 'seduction' by the BQ is hardly the thrust of the story.   But the reviewer seems curiously fixated on it for whatever reason.   Okay, moving on... 

And Frakes (IMHO) made quite a nice transition from TV to film; his frames are well-composed, the scale is anted up, and excellent performances are coaxed from many of his actors, including the brilliant Alfre Woodard (who steals the show in her scenes by sheer force of willpower; a part of me wishes Picard took her back to the 24th century).   The reviewer barely gives her a mention, beyond her dancing with Picard in the holodeck (are you f--king kidding me?!?).   For me, Lily represents the arc of humanity itself in the movie; a scared, frightened child with a large, clumsy weapon who (over the course of the movie) settles and eventually matures to see a future overflowing with possibilities within reach.  She even comes so far as to evolve into the conscience for our hero (which is Picard, not Data; as the review would falsely lead the reader to believe).  Woodard's Lily has the single largest arc of the movie, and in the review you'd think she were little more than a contestant on "Dancing With the Stars."   Humanity's surrogate reduced to 'she's a nice dancer.'  Bulls#!t. 

firstcontact0740.jpg

ST is a wide-eyed, inherently optimistic franchise.   It wears its optimism on its sleeve, and this critic just seems determined to beat it up, steal its lunch money, and pants it in front of the 'cool' kids. 

His next one is INS, and while that is my singular least favorite ST movie (for my own reasons), I'll probably sit that review out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it yesterday and I've been angry ever since. I had to rage-quit reading it after the "Borg Queen seduced Picard" part - I wasn't aware that forcefully entering someone's mind and then using it, probing through it for knowledge, all without consent, AND then also using that person's BODY counts as "seduction". This is unacceptable to me, I'm sorry.

But then, the review guy is insufferable (I came across his Twitter), I'm not surprised. Also, the review part that I did read was pretty... terrible from a style point of view. I'm a writer myself, and there IS such a thing as trying TOO hard to sound cool. 

I'd say more about content if I could bring myself to read on, but if I have to read one more of this guy's terrible sentences I'll end up banging my head against the nearest wall... 

I've had similar reactions to a couple of his other reviews; on this latest one, I agree.   He is trying too hard to be the 'cool' critic and not the honest one.  There are a few minor points of his I agree on (Troi's overplayed drunk scene, for example), but on most others he's just too Snarky McSnarkson for my personal taste.  Pretentious and overly cynical.  

The conceit that the mind-stealing, body raping Borg leader (he eschews the term 'queen'; whatevs) is the movie's secret 'hero' is just so much bulls#!t.  That's like reading Vincent Buglioisi's Helter Skelter and rooting for the Manson clan's exoneration.  Most of the focus of the review is (bizarrely) on the B-subplot between Data and the Borg queen.  For me, Data's imprisonment and 'seduction' by the BQ is hardly the thrust of the story.   But the reviewer seems curiously fixated on it for whatever reason.   Okay, moving on... 

And Frakes (IMHO) made quite a nice transition from TV to film; his frames are well-composed, the scale is anted up, and excellent performances are coaxed from many of his actors, including the brilliant Alfre Woodard (who steals the show in her scenes by sheer force of willpower; a part of me wishes Picard took her back to the 24th century).   The reviewer barely gives her a mention, beyond her dancing with Picard in the holodeck (are you f--king kidding me?!?).   For me, Lily represents the arc of humanity itself in the movie; a scared, frightened child with a large, clumsy weapon who (over the course of the movie) settles and eventually matures to see a future overflowing with possibilities within reach.  She even comes so far as to evolve into the conscience for our hero (which is Picard, not Data; as the review would falsely lead the reader to believe).  Woodard's Lily has the single largest arc of the movie, and in the review you'd think she were little more than a contestant on "Dancing With the Stars."   Humanity's surrogate reduced to 'she's a nice dancer.'  Bulls#!t. 

firstcontact0740.jpg

ST is a wide-eyed, inherently optimistic franchise.   It wears its optimism on its sleeve, and this critic just seems determined to beat it up, steal its lunch money, and pants it in front of the 'cool' kids. 

His next one is INS, and while that is my singular least favorite ST movie (for my own reasons), I'll probably sit that review out...

I swear it's going to happen, I'm going to want to DEFEND Insurrection...  that guy and his review style make me angry and upset enough for that. He just has a knack for finding the wrong words, drawing the wrong conclusions, taking things out of context and focusing on the most unimportant details. I honestly wonder if he's watching the same movie(s) or if he's from some kind of parallel universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it yesterday and I've been angry ever since. I had to rage-quit reading it after the "Borg Queen seduced Picard" part - I wasn't aware that forcefully entering someone's mind and then using it, probing through it for knowledge, all without consent, AND then also using that person's BODY counts as "seduction". This is unacceptable to me, I'm sorry.

But then, the review guy is insufferable (I came across his Twitter), I'm not surprised. Also, the review part that I did read was pretty... terrible from a style point of view. I'm a writer myself, and there IS such a thing as trying TOO hard to sound cool. 

I'd say more about content if I could bring myself to read on, but if I have to read one more of this guy's terrible sentences I'll end up banging my head against the nearest wall... 

I've had similar reactions to a couple of his other reviews; on this latest one, I agree.   He is trying too hard to be the 'cool' critic and not the honest one.  There are a few minor points of his I agree on (Troi's overplayed drunk scene, for example), but on most others he's just too Snarky McSnarkson for my personal taste.  Pretentious and overly cynical.  

The conceit that the mind-stealing, body raping Borg leader (he eschews the term 'queen'; whatevs) is the movie's secret 'hero' is just so much bulls#!t.  That's like reading Vincent Buglioisi's Helter Skelter and rooting for the Manson clan's exoneration.  Most of the focus of the review is (bizarrely) on the B-subplot between Data and the Borg queen.  For me, Data's imprisonment and 'seduction' by the BQ is hardly the thrust of the story.   But the reviewer seems curiously fixated on it for whatever reason.   Okay, moving on... 

And Frakes (IMHO) made quite a nice transition from TV to film; his frames are well-composed, the scale is anted up, and excellent performances are coaxed from many of his actors, including the brilliant Alfre Woodard (who steals the show in her scenes by sheer force of willpower; a part of me wishes Picard took her back to the 24th century).   The reviewer barely gives her a mention, beyond her dancing with Picard in the holodeck (are you f--king kidding me?!?).   For me, Lily represents the arc of humanity itself in the movie; a scared, frightened child with a large, clumsy weapon who (over the course of the movie) settles and eventually matures to see a future overflowing with possibilities within reach.  She even comes so far as to evolve into the conscience for our hero (which is Picard, not Data; as the review would falsely lead the reader to believe).  Woodard's Lily has the single largest arc of the movie, and in the review you'd think she were little more than a contestant on "Dancing With the Stars."   Humanity's surrogate reduced to 'she's a nice dancer.'  Bulls#!t. 

firstcontact0740.jpg

ST is a wide-eyed, inherently optimistic franchise.   It wears its optimism on its sleeve, and this critic just seems determined to beat it up, steal its lunch money, and pants it in front of the 'cool' kids. 

His next one is INS, and while that is my singular least favorite ST movie (for my own reasons), I'll probably sit that review out...

I swear it's going to happen, I'm going to want to DEFEND Insurrection...  that guy and his review style make me angry and upset enough for that. He just has a knack for finding the wrong words, drawing the wrong conclusions, taking things out of context and focusing on the most unimportant details. I honestly wonder if he's watching the same movie(s) or if he's from some kind of parallel universe.

He'll probably spend the entire review talking about the Riker/Troi's romance subplot or Data's boob jokes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it yesterday and I've been angry ever since. I had to rage-quit reading it after the "Borg Queen seduced Picard" part - I wasn't aware that forcefully entering someone's mind and then using it, probing through it for knowledge, all without consent, AND then also using that person's BODY counts as "seduction". This is unacceptable to me, I'm sorry.

But then, the review guy is insufferable (I came across his Twitter), I'm not surprised. Also, the review part that I did read was pretty... terrible from a style point of view. I'm a writer myself, and there IS such a thing as trying TOO hard to sound cool. 

I'd say more about content if I could bring myself to read on, but if I have to read one more of this guy's terrible sentences I'll end up banging my head against the nearest wall... 

I've had similar reactions to a couple of his other reviews; on this latest one, I agree.   He is trying too hard to be the 'cool' critic and not the honest one.  There are a few minor points of his I agree on (Troi's overplayed drunk scene, for example), but on most others he's just too Snarky McSnarkson for my personal taste.  Pretentious and overly cynical.  

The conceit that the mind-stealing, body raping Borg leader (he eschews the term 'queen'; whatevs) is the movie's secret 'hero' is just so much bulls#!t.  That's like reading Vincent Buglioisi's Helter Skelter and rooting for the Manson clan's exoneration.  Most of the focus of the review is (bizarrely) on the B-subplot between Data and the Borg queen.  For me, Data's imprisonment and 'seduction' by the BQ is hardly the thrust of the story.   But the reviewer seems curiously fixated on it for whatever reason.   Okay, moving on... 

And Frakes (IMHO) made quite a nice transition from TV to film; his frames are well-composed, the scale is anted up, and excellent performances are coaxed from many of his actors, including the brilliant Alfre Woodard (who steals the show in her scenes by sheer force of willpower; a part of me wishes Picard took her back to the 24th century).   The reviewer barely gives her a mention, beyond her dancing with Picard in the holodeck (are you f--king kidding me?!?).   For me, Lily represents the arc of humanity itself in the movie; a scared, frightened child with a large, clumsy weapon who (over the course of the movie) settles and eventually matures to see a future overflowing with possibilities within reach.  She even comes so far as to evolve into the conscience for our hero (which is Picard, not Data; as the review would falsely lead the reader to believe).  Woodard's Lily has the single largest arc of the movie, and in the review you'd think she were little more than a contestant on "Dancing With the Stars."   Humanity's surrogate reduced to 'she's a nice dancer.'  Bulls#!t. 

firstcontact0740.jpg

ST is a wide-eyed, inherently optimistic franchise.   It wears its optimism on its sleeve, and this critic just seems determined to beat it up, steal its lunch money, and pants it in front of the 'cool' kids. 

His next one is INS, and while that is my singular least favorite ST movie (for my own reasons), I'll probably sit that review out...

I swear it's going to happen, I'm going to want to DEFEND Insurrection...  that guy and his review style make me angry and upset enough for that. He just has a knack for finding the wrong words, drawing the wrong conclusions, taking things out of context and focusing on the most unimportant details. I honestly wonder if he's watching the same movie(s) or if he's from some kind of parallel universe.

He'll probably spend the entire review talking about the Riker's romance subplot or Data's boob jokes. 

tumblr_inline_nr3nivXXck1tn6jvv_500.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it yesterday and I've been angry ever since. I had to rage-quit reading it after the "Borg Queen seduced Picard" part - I wasn't aware that forcefully entering someone's mind and then using it, probing through it for knowledge, all without consent, AND then also using that person's BODY counts as "seduction". This is unacceptable to me, I'm sorry.

But then, the review guy is insufferable (I came across his Twitter), I'm not surprised. Also, the review part that I did read was pretty... terrible from a style point of view. I'm a writer myself, and there IS such a thing as trying TOO hard to sound cool. 

I'd say more about content if I could bring myself to read on, but if I have to read one more of this guy's terrible sentences I'll end up banging my head against the nearest wall... 

I've had similar reactions to a couple of his other reviews; on this latest one, I agree.   He is trying too hard to be the 'cool' critic and not the honest one.  There are a few minor points of his I agree on (Troi's overplayed drunk scene, for example), but on most others he's just too Snarky McSnarkson for my personal taste.  Pretentious and overly cynical.  

The conceit that the mind-stealing, body raping Borg leader (he eschews the term 'queen'; whatevs) is the movie's secret 'hero' is just so much bulls#!t.  That's like reading Vincent Buglioisi's Helter Skelter and rooting for the Manson clan's exoneration.  Most of the focus of the review is (bizarrely) on the B-subplot between Data and the Borg queen.  For me, Data's imprisonment and 'seduction' by the BQ is hardly the thrust of the story.   But the reviewer seems curiously fixated on it for whatever reason.   Okay, moving on... 

And Frakes (IMHO) made quite a nice transition from TV to film; his frames are well-composed, the scale is anted up, and excellent performances are coaxed from many of his actors, including the brilliant Alfre Woodard (who steals the show in her scenes by sheer force of willpower; a part of me wishes Picard took her back to the 24th century).   The reviewer barely gives her a mention, beyond her dancing with Picard in the holodeck (are you f--king kidding me?!?).   For me, Lily represents the arc of humanity itself in the movie; a scared, frightened child with a large, clumsy weapon who (over the course of the movie) settles and eventually matures to see a future overflowing with possibilities within reach.  She even comes so far as to evolve into the conscience for our hero (which is Picard, not Data; as the review would falsely lead the reader to believe).  Woodard's Lily has the single largest arc of the movie, and in the review you'd think she were little more than a contestant on "Dancing With the Stars."   Humanity's surrogate reduced to 'she's a nice dancer.'  Bulls#!t. 

firstcontact0740.jpg

ST is a wide-eyed, inherently optimistic franchise.   It wears its optimism on its sleeve, and this critic just seems determined to beat it up, steal its lunch money, and pants it in front of the 'cool' kids. 

His next one is INS, and while that is my singular least favorite ST movie (for my own reasons), I'll probably sit that review out...

I swear it's going to happen, I'm going to want to DEFEND Insurrection...  that guy and his review style make me angry and upset enough for that. He just has a knack for finding the wrong words, drawing the wrong conclusions, taking things out of context and focusing on the most unimportant details. I honestly wonder if he's watching the same movie(s) or if he's from some kind of parallel universe.

He'll probably spend the entire review talking about the Riker's romance subplot or Data's boob jokes. 

tumblr_inline_nr3nivXXck1tn6jvv_500.gif

riker-ho-hum-5.14.gif  
Exactly....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it yesterday and I've been angry ever since. I had to rage-quit reading it after the "Borg Queen seduced Picard" part - I wasn't aware that forcefully entering someone's mind and then using it, probing through it for knowledge, all without consent, AND then also using that person's BODY counts as "seduction". This is unacceptable to me, I'm sorry.

But then, the review guy is insufferable (I came across his Twitter), I'm not surprised. Also, the review part that I did read was pretty... terrible from a style point of view. I'm a writer myself, and there IS such a thing as trying TOO hard to sound cool. 

I'd say more about content if I could bring myself to read on, but if I have to read one more of this guy's terrible sentences I'll end up banging my head against the nearest wall... 

I've had similar reactions to a couple of his other reviews; on this latest one, I agree.   He is trying too hard to be the 'cool' critic and not the honest one.  There are a few minor points of his I agree on (Troi's overplayed drunk scene, for example), but on most others he's just too Snarky McSnarkson for my personal taste.  Pretentious and overly cynical.  

The conceit that the mind-stealing, body raping Borg leader (he eschews the term 'queen'; whatevs) is the movie's secret 'hero' is just so much bulls#!t.  That's like reading Vincent Buglioisi's Helter Skelter and rooting for the Manson clan's exoneration.  Most of the focus of the review is (bizarrely) on the B-subplot between Data and the Borg queen.  For me, Data's imprisonment and 'seduction' by the BQ is hardly the thrust of the story.   But the reviewer seems curiously fixated on it for whatever reason.   Okay, moving on... 

And Frakes (IMHO) made quite a nice transition from TV to film; his frames are well-composed, the scale is anted up, and excellent performances are coaxed from many of his actors, including the brilliant Alfre Woodard (who steals the show in her scenes by sheer force of willpower; a part of me wishes Picard took her back to the 24th century).   The reviewer barely gives her a mention, beyond her dancing with Picard in the holodeck (are you f--king kidding me?!?).   For me, Lily represents the arc of humanity itself in the movie; a scared, frightened child with a large, clumsy weapon who (over the course of the movie) settles and eventually matures to see a future overflowing with possibilities within reach.  She even comes so far as to evolve into the conscience for our hero (which is Picard, not Data; as the review would falsely lead the reader to believe).  Woodard's Lily has the single largest arc of the movie, and in the review you'd think she were little more than a contestant on "Dancing With the Stars."   Humanity's surrogate reduced to 'she's a nice dancer.'  Bulls#!t. 

firstcontact0740.jpg

ST is a wide-eyed, inherently optimistic franchise.   It wears its optimism on its sleeve, and this critic just seems determined to beat it up, steal its lunch money, and pants it in front of the 'cool' kids. 

His next one is INS, and while that is my singular least favorite ST movie (for my own reasons), I'll probably sit that review out...

I swear it's going to happen, I'm going to want to DEFEND Insurrection...  that guy and his review style make me angry and upset enough for that. He just has a knack for finding the wrong words, drawing the wrong conclusions, taking things out of context and focusing on the most unimportant details. I honestly wonder if he's watching the same movie(s) or if he's from some kind of parallel universe.

He'll probably spend the entire review talking about the Riker's romance subplot or Data's boob jokes. 

tumblr_inline_nr3nivXXck1tn6jvv_500.gif

riker-ho-hum-5.14.gif  
Exactly....

He's probably also going to LOVE Blandij Botoxface and he'll probably ramble on about how awesome it is that Mega Macho Jean-Luc gets to save the damsel in distress woman who is so badly written that she can't even swim despite having lived next to a lake for hundreds of years. Which, of course, would be yet another point on my "reasons why I can't stand this guy and his reviews" list.

tumblr_nc5rtfV3Xv1s67vyfo4_r1_250.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it yesterday and I've been angry ever since. I had to rage-quit reading it after the "Borg Queen seduced Picard" part - I wasn't aware that forcefully entering someone's mind and then using it, probing through it for knowledge, all without consent, AND then also using that person's BODY counts as "seduction". This is unacceptable to me, I'm sorry.

But then, the review guy is insufferable (I came across his Twitter), I'm not surprised. Also, the review part that I did read was pretty... terrible from a style point of view. I'm a writer myself, and there IS such a thing as trying TOO hard to sound cool. 

I'd say more about content if I could bring myself to read on, but if I have to read one more of this guy's terrible sentences I'll end up banging my head against the nearest wall... 

I've had similar reactions to a couple of his other reviews; on this latest one, I agree.   He is trying too hard to be the 'cool' critic and not the honest one.  There are a few minor points of his I agree on (Troi's overplayed drunk scene, for example), but on most others he's just too Snarky McSnarkson for my personal taste.  Pretentious and overly cynical.  

The conceit that the mind-stealing, body raping Borg leader (he eschews the term 'queen'; whatevs) is the movie's secret 'hero' is just so much bulls#!t.  That's like reading Vincent Buglioisi's Helter Skelter and rooting for the Manson clan's exoneration.  Most of the focus of the review is (bizarrely) on the B-subplot between Data and the Borg queen.  For me, Data's imprisonment and 'seduction' by the BQ is hardly the thrust of the story.   But the reviewer seems curiously fixated on it for whatever reason.   Okay, moving on... 

And Frakes (IMHO) made quite a nice transition from TV to film; his frames are well-composed, the scale is anted up, and excellent performances are coaxed from many of his actors, including the brilliant Alfre Woodard (who steals the show in her scenes by sheer force of willpower; a part of me wishes Picard took her back to the 24th century).   The reviewer barely gives her a mention, beyond her dancing with Picard in the holodeck (are you f--king kidding me?!?).   For me, Lily represents the arc of humanity itself in the movie; a scared, frightened child with a large, clumsy weapon who (over the course of the movie) settles and eventually matures to see a future overflowing with possibilities within reach.  She even comes so far as to evolve into the conscience for our hero (which is Picard, not Data; as the review would falsely lead the reader to believe).  Woodard's Lily has the single largest arc of the movie, and in the review you'd think she were little more than a contestant on "Dancing With the Stars."   Humanity's surrogate reduced to 'she's a nice dancer.'  Bulls#!t. 

firstcontact0740.jpg

ST is a wide-eyed, inherently optimistic franchise.   It wears its optimism on its sleeve, and this critic just seems determined to beat it up, steal its lunch money, and pants it in front of the 'cool' kids. 

His next one is INS, and while that is my singular least favorite ST movie (for my own reasons), I'll probably sit that review out...

I swear it's going to happen, I'm going to want to DEFEND Insurrection...  that guy and his review style make me angry and upset enough for that. He just has a knack for finding the wrong words, drawing the wrong conclusions, taking things out of context and focusing on the most unimportant details. I honestly wonder if he's watching the same movie(s) or if he's from some kind of parallel universe.

He'll probably spend the entire review talking about the Riker's romance subplot or Data's boob jokes. 

tumblr_inline_nr3nivXXck1tn6jvv_500.gif

riker-ho-hum-5.14.gif  
Exactly....

He's probably also going to LOVE Blandij Botoxface and he'll probably ramble on about how awesome it is that Mega Macho Jean-Luc gets to save the damsel in distress woman who is so badly written that she can't even swim despite having lived next to a lake for hundreds of years. Which, of course, would be yet another point on my "reasons why I can't stand this guy and his reviews" list.

tumblr_nc5rtfV3Xv1s67vyfo4_r1_250.gif

He makes good points every now and then (his review of TMP was a bit more charitable than most) but from TSFS on, they've been a bit more mean-spirited.  Maybe he's just tired of the assignment (?), who knows...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it yesterday and I've been angry ever since. I had to rage-quit reading it after the "Borg Queen seduced Picard" part - I wasn't aware that forcefully entering someone's mind and then using it, probing through it for knowledge, all without consent, AND then also using that person's BODY counts as "seduction". This is unacceptable to me, I'm sorry.

But then, the review guy is insufferable (I came across his Twitter), I'm not surprised. Also, the review part that I did read was pretty... terrible from a style point of view. I'm a writer myself, and there IS such a thing as trying TOO hard to sound cool. 

I'd say more about content if I could bring myself to read on, but if I have to read one more of this guy's terrible sentences I'll end up banging my head against the nearest wall... 

I've had similar reactions to a couple of his other reviews; on this latest one, I agree.   He is trying too hard to be the 'cool' critic and not the honest one.  There are a few minor points of his I agree on (Troi's overplayed drunk scene, for example), but on most others he's just too Snarky McSnarkson for my personal taste.  Pretentious and overly cynical.  

The conceit that the mind-stealing, body raping Borg leader (he eschews the term 'queen'; whatevs) is the movie's secret 'hero' is just so much bulls#!t.  That's like reading Vincent Buglioisi's Helter Skelter and rooting for the Manson clan's exoneration.  Most of the focus of the review is (bizarrely) on the B-subplot between Data and the Borg queen.  For me, Data's imprisonment and 'seduction' by the BQ is hardly the thrust of the story.   But the reviewer seems curiously fixated on it for whatever reason.   Okay, moving on... 

And Frakes (IMHO) made quite a nice transition from TV to film; his frames are well-composed, the scale is anted up, and excellent performances are coaxed from many of his actors, including the brilliant Alfre Woodard (who steals the show in her scenes by sheer force of willpower; a part of me wishes Picard took her back to the 24th century).   The reviewer barely gives her a mention, beyond her dancing with Picard in the holodeck (are you f--king kidding me?!?).   For me, Lily represents the arc of humanity itself in the movie; a scared, frightened child with a large, clumsy weapon who (over the course of the movie) settles and eventually matures to see a future overflowing with possibilities within reach.  She even comes so far as to evolve into the conscience for our hero (which is Picard, not Data; as the review would falsely lead the reader to believe).  Woodard's Lily has the single largest arc of the movie, and in the review you'd think she were little more than a contestant on "Dancing With the Stars."   Humanity's surrogate reduced to 'she's a nice dancer.'  Bulls#!t. 

firstcontact0740.jpg

ST is a wide-eyed, inherently optimistic franchise.   It wears its optimism on its sleeve, and this critic just seems determined to beat it up, steal its lunch money, and pants it in front of the 'cool' kids. 

His next one is INS, and while that is my singular least favorite ST movie (for my own reasons), I'll probably sit that review out...

I swear it's going to happen, I'm going to want to DEFEND Insurrection...  that guy and his review style make me angry and upset enough for that. He just has a knack for finding the wrong words, drawing the wrong conclusions, taking things out of context and focusing on the most unimportant details. I honestly wonder if he's watching the same movie(s) or if he's from some kind of parallel universe.

He'll probably spend the entire review talking about the Riker's romance subplot or Data's boob jokes. 

tumblr_inline_nr3nivXXck1tn6jvv_500.gif

riker-ho-hum-5.14.gif  
Exactly....

He's probably also going to LOVE Blandij Botoxface and he'll probably ramble on about how awesome it is that Mega Macho Jean-Luc gets to save the damsel in distress woman who is so badly written that she can't even swim despite having lived next to a lake for hundreds of years. Which, of course, would be yet another point on my "reasons why I can't stand this guy and his reviews" list.

tumblr_nc5rtfV3Xv1s67vyfo4_r1_250.gif

He makes good points every now and then (his review of TMP was a bit more charitable than most) but from TSFS on, they've been a bit more mean-spirited.  Maybe he's just tired of the assignment (?), who knows...

He really goes out of his way to find things to bash, or to focus on the most irrelevant plot points. I get it that the TNG movies in particular aren't exactly total masterpieces for the most part but if he has to take them apart he should at least focus on IMPORTANT FACTS and reflect from there. All I've seen him doing is jump from irrelevant detail to irrelevant detail and explain in weird language why it's all so horrible. That isn't a review, that's just... unfocused noise. But then, EW is, as the name says, an ENTERTAINMENT site. The reviews probably HAVE to be written like this in order to get noticed by the intented target audience. He's not writing for the Trek fandom, he's writing for a general entertainment audience. It shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read it. Surprised there's so little mention of Alfre Woodard's Lily who, for me, is a standout character, brilliantly played and used to great effect to counterpoint the problems with Picard's 24th century humanity, his command and his attitudes, not to mention his personal demons. I agree with both Mr. Picard and Sehlat that he seems to dwell on minor plot points, using those to prop up his personal reading of the movie, rather than focusing on the movie's wider themes and intent, and also what it was in 1996 and is now. Although he does forward his vision for pop culture as a reaction to 90s technophobia - and reduces the Borg to an expression of same. There is an element of bitchiness to the whole that makes it read more like the minutes from a roast than a cultural essay. Can't agree at all with his criticisms of Frakes - I think Frakes really rose to the occasion as director on First Contact and transcended his TV training in a spectacular way. It's still a great-looking movie, and those intimate little visual asides he includes for all the supporting characters are what help them be present, a little more three-dimensional than otherwise the movie's running time would've allowed for. I do agree the Troi moment is great. 

I think, over the course of these essays, he does make a lot of good points, but some also feel kind of half-baked as a pieces of writing - overly cynical and concerned with the fact that Star Trek (and particularly the TNG crew) isn't timeless, as if it's somehow had the cheek to age badly while daring to hope for a better future for humanity. The times have changed, yeah, and of course we can't look back and not acknowledge where we're at now - which, frankly is a scarier proposition than the Borg. But in concentrating on the eroticism of Queenie, he consigns them to a place where they can be perceived only as 90s bogeymen and little else, as if their effectiveness in the TV episodes is also moot. (Actually, maybe that's true in many episodes of Voyager after Scorpion.) That said, show me a movie or a show, a book or a comic that isn't a product and reflection of its times.

It's true that this essay isn't writing that captures a consensus - nor should it, it's the author's piece, and his very personal reaction to the movie, take it or leave it. I understand that, but I do object to using one's own list of shortcomings of a movie as a spine on which to hang your own pop theories. It becomes not a celebration or even deconstruction of the film on offer but a showcase for the writer's own self-perceived cleverness. He didn't do this with his look back at TMP, which was an essay of his I enjoyed. Some of the others are pretty good too, if a lot less charitable than that one. He also manages to like and hate on The Voyage Home, The Search for Spock and The Undiscovered County, the latter of which remains my own personal favorite big screen Star Trek outing. It's a divisive style of writing but - y'know what? I read them, all the way through. They do make me pause and think, even if I don't agree. So, in all fairness, in that regard, I think he's an interesting writer. Just one, in most instances here, who seems utterly shackled to some perceived need to be cool and not like the things he really likes, because they're somehow a little bit silly and not quite worthy of taking on their own terms. This is a presentation of his own obsessions, not an in-depth look at First Contact in 2016. But hey, he's a critic. And critics just wanna be loved too, y'know? 

I do kind of wish they'd had a few alternating writers on these - call Mark Altman! He's not afraid of saying what he thinks either, but some other voices on these might not have resulted in such a feelbad experience in a year when we're supposed to be celebrating the 50th anniversary of Star Trek. Over the course of them, it feels like a long-winded assertion that Star Trek has had its time, that it should've remained a geek experience and never had the temerity to exist in all those different incarnations, let alone ever try to work on the big screen. Okay. I get it. Got it first time. Can we remain out of the closet now? I'm a Star Trek fan. I like this stuff, I like it when it tries to get deep and transcend it's origins as simple (not simplistic) entertainment, because it shows me that the writers and producers actually cared enough to try and keep my brain engaged. Don't hate it for what it isn't. Don't try to make me ashamed of liking it, because I ain't, and I never was. That's your schtick. 

Edited by Robin Bland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read it. Surprised there's so little mention of Alfre Woodard's Lily who, for me, is a standout character, brilliantly played and used to great effect to counterpoint the problems with Picard's 24th century humanity, his command and his attitudes, not to mention his personal demons. I agree with both Mr. Picard and Sehlat that he seems to dwell on minor plot points, using those to prop up his personal reading of the movie, rather than focusing on the movie's wider themes and intent, and also what it was in 1996 and is now. Although he does forward his vision for pop culture as a reaction to 90s technophobia - and reduces the Borg to an expression of same. There is an element of bitchiness to the whole that makes it read more like the minutes from a roast than a cultural essay. Can't agree at all with his criticisms of Frakes - I think Frakes really rose to the occasion as director on First Contact and transcended his TV training in a spectacular way. It's still a great-looking movie, and those intimate little visual asides he includes for all the supporting characters are what help them be present, a little more three-dimensional than otherwise the movie's running time would've allowed for. I do agree the Troi moment is great. 

I think, over the course of these essays, he does make a lot of good points, but some also feel kind of half-baked as a pieces of writing - overly cynical and concerned with the fact that Star Trek (and particularly the TNG crew) isn't timeless, as if it's somehow had the cheek to age badly while daring to hope for a better future for humanity. The times have changed, yeah, and of course we can't look back and not acknowledge where we're at now - which, frankly is a scarier proposition than the Borg. But in concentrating on the eroticism of Queenie, he consigns them to a place where they can be perceived only as 90s bogeymen and little else, as if their effectiveness in the TV episodes is also moot. (Actually, maybe that's true in many episodes of Voyager after Scorpion.) That said, show me a movie or a show, a book or a comic that isn't a product and reflection of its times.

It's true that this essay isn't writing that captures a consensus - nor should it, it's the author's piece, and his very personal reaction to the movie, take it or leave it. I understand that, but I do object to using one's own list of shortcomings of a movie as a spine on which to hang your own pop theories. It becomes not a celebration or even deconstruction of the film on offer but a showcase for the writer's own self-perceived cleverness. He didn't do this with his look back at TMP, which was an essay of his I enjoyed. Some of the others are pretty good too, if a lot less charitable than that one. He also manages to like and hate on The Voyage Home, The Search for Spock and The Undiscovered County, the latter of which remains my own person favorite big screen Star Trek outing. It's a divisive style of writing but - y'know what? I read them, all the way through. They do make me pause and think, even if I don't agree. So, in all fairness, in that regard, I think he's an interesting writer. Just one, in most instances here who seems utterly shackled to some perceived need to be cool and not like the things he really likes, because they're somehow a little bit silly and not quite worthy of taking on their own terms. This is a presentation of his own obsessions, not an in-depth look at First Contact in 2016. But hey, he's a critic. And critics just wanna be loved too, y'know? 

I do kind of wish they'd had a few alternating writers on these - call Mark Altman! He's not afraid of saying what he thinks either, but some other voices on these might not have resulted in such a feelbad experience in a year when we're supposed to be celebrating the 50th anniversary of Star Trek. Over the course of them, it feels like a long-winded assertion that Star Trek has had its time, that it should've remained a geek experience and never had the temerity to exist in all those different incarnations, let alone ever try to work on the big screen. Okay. I get it. Got it first time. Can we remain out of the closet now? I'm a Star Trek fan. I like this stuff, I like it when it tries to get deep and transcend it's origins as simple (not simplistic) entertainment, because it shows me that the writers and producers actually cared enough to try and keep my brain engaged. Don't hate it for what it isn't. Don't try to make me ashamed of liking it, because I ain't, and I never was. That's your schtick. 

^

Well said! :thumbup:

And yes, I used to read Mark Altman's SciFi Universe and Geek Monthly magazines often; not to mention his editorials/articles from his days of working on Cinefantastique (still one of the greatest genre mags of all time, IMO).   I've even had to chance to talk with Altman at conventions (most recently at WonderCon 2015); he's an insightful guy.  He would be perfect for this retrospective since he brings both the POV as Trek fan and as filmmaker/producer ("Free Enterprise" "Castle").    His co-authored ST books with Ed Gross ("Captain's Logs: Unauthorized Complete Trek Voyages" for one) are great stuff. 

Altman would also be able to better view these movies in cultural context than the current author of these reviews, rather than someone who smears ST for (as you say) 'having the cheek' to age badly.   Heaven forbid a pop movie of 20 years ago gets a few lines and gray hairs, right?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Robin as well. If I wasn't still so angry at that guy thinking an assimilation is a seduction and using it to talk about "sexy Borg Queen and Picard" nonsense I'd probably have written a similarly long and good post.

To me the two reviews (okay, one and a half review) I've read sound like as if the guy hates Trek (or TNG, whichever) and is looking for reasons to back up his bias. Whatever his real problem is, he rubs me the wrong way with every single sentence he writes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Robin as well. If I wasn't still so angry at that guy thinking an assimilation is a seduction and using it to talk about "sexy Borg Queen and Picard" nonsense I'd probably have written a similarly long and good post.

To me the two reviews (okay, one and a half review) I've read sound like as if the guy hates Trek (or TNG, whichever) and is looking for reasons to back up his bias. Whatever his real problem is, he rubs me the wrong way with every single sentence he writes.

Me too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Robin as well. If I wasn't still so angry at that guy thinking an assimilation is a seduction and using it to talk about "sexy Borg Queen and Picard" nonsense I'd probably have written a similarly long and good post.

To me the two reviews (okay, one and a half review) I've read sound like as if the guy hates Trek (or TNG, whichever) and is looking for reasons to back up his bias. Whatever his real problem is, he rubs me the wrong way with every single sentence he writes.

Me too.

 

It's almost an accomplishment though - I'm not really a big Trekkie and I honestly don't care much for the Trek movies in general, but he totally manages to rile even ME up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its obviously that this EW guy is not  a  fan of TNG, or say, the TNG movies.

Gus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Robin as well. If I wasn't still so angry at that guy thinking an assimilation is a seduction and using it to talk about "sexy Borg Queen and Picard" nonsense I'd probably have written a similarly long and good post.

To me the two reviews (okay, one and a half review) I've read sound like as if the guy hates Trek (or TNG, whichever) and is looking for reasons to back up his bias. Whatever his real problem is, he rubs me the wrong way with every single sentence he writes.

Me too.

 

It's almost an accomplishment though - I'm not really a big Trekkie and I honestly don't care much for the Trek movies in general, but he totally manages to rile even ME up. 

That takes some talent... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites