Star Trek/Terminator/Transformers

Mark Hamill

So was looking at the online reviews of Star Trek, Terminator 4 and Transformers 2 and I noticed something in the general scoring that, I must say, confuses me a bit. Star Trek is 95% and 83% (on Rottentomatoes and Metacritic critic), Terminator 4 is 33% and 52% and Transformers 2 is 22% and 37%, and I'm wondering why Star Trek is so high, compared to the other two.
You see the way I see it, all three films where very similar. All three had great special effects, pretty weak directing and absolutely god awful plots (full of massively convenient plot devices that make no sense). The one film that does edge ahead, is Star Trek as it has much better acting than the other two, I'll give it that, but is that enough to consider it as being 2-3 times as good as the other two?

BlitzKrieg

Personnally I would put it down to characters.

Star Trek simply had more appealling characters (with the exception of ahem miss fox's assets.).

Terminator had for the most part p*ss poor characters and the few that people liked were not given enough space to breath.

Transformers had one dimensional characters that can be summed up in in short phrases. She's over protective, he's excessively loyal, she's hot, she's hot and evil, he's annoying consipiracy nut, he's less annoying conspiracy nut, he's going crazy, he's noble, he's slimey, he's evil, he's more evil, he's old etc etc etc.

Really after that there's nothing else to any of the characters.

Magic Eight Ball

Honestly, The whole Star Trek/Terminator/Transformers discussion is starting to get real old at this stage.

johnny_ultimate

Star Trek had a competent director / screenwriter / ensemble cast and a genuine sense of fun.
Terminator Salvation had an incompetent director / screenwriter / lead actor and took itself far too seriously.
Transformers I couldn't be bothered watching, but based on the first, it has an incompetent director and has an awfully uneven fun to seriousness ratio. Plus it has Shia La****ingBeouf.

brennaldo

i thaught star trek was class, coming from someone who never watched a second of the old ones,

from what im seeing and hearing im also one of the few who liked transformers 2, i thaught it was just as good as the 1st. cant understand why everyone else is hating it.

couldnt even be bothered seeing terminator, lost interest in it a long time ago, plus i heard it was terrible.

Mark Hamill

I suppose the point of this thread should not really another discusion on the merits of these films but more a general discussion about how three sci-fi films with retarded plots can have such different levels of appreciation.
To me, a good sci-fi is al about the story. If the story isn't good (interesting and logically consistent), then its pretty much a fail. My reviews for all three films are nearly the same: Good CGI, vagely entertaining, retarded story (and stupid childish jokes for Transformers). And why I can see that Star Trek is the best out of the three, I wouldn't raise it up to the heights some reviewers have as the story is a fail.

Shryke

I think some of the praise for Star Trek comes from the fact that it is a great reboot of a pretty much dead sci-fi tv show. It's blockbuster epic and it ticks all the right boxes regarding entertainment values. Good cast, genuinely humorous moments, special effects, dialogue that works. Basically it was fun.
I can't critisize Star Trek for being weak on the sci-fi element because, well look at the TV show. I know a guy with a physics degree that said you could teach a person physics just by watching Star Trek and pointing out what's wrong with it.

Mark Hamill

Sandor wrote: »

I can't critisize Star Trek for being weak on the sci-fi element because, well look at the TV show. I know a guy with a physics degree that said you could teach a person physics just by watching Star Trek and pointing out what's wrong with it.

Yeah sure, I'm not expecting Star Trek to be able to predict the next few hundred years of scientific advancement, its the science aspect that really bothered me (

although time travel through a black-hole is moronic

), its the other major plot holes in the story:

That the villain would trave back in time and wait 25 years to exact revenge, but not once think: "hey, maybe I should warn my planet of the impending disaster"; That kirk ends up on a planet within walking distance of old Spock and Scotty

.
These are no better or worse than Terminator :

man doesn't realise that he is robot until the hole in his chest is shown (after not eating, drinking or taking a leak for two or three days); skynet being almost completely empty of terminators, only a minigunner with weak neck and a naked, weaponless Arnie whose programming stopped him from ripping Connor in half when he had a grip on him and said "no, not yet, ruff him up a bit"

, or Transformers:

Transformers have been on earth for 19000years? what did they transform into? cows?; why did the primes leave the key to the most dangerous weapon in the galaxy, 5 minutes away from it? Did they think they where being clever? "Oh the Fallen will never think of looking here" Was it there version of hiding a car key in the sun visor?

So yeah sure Star Trek was more enjoyable than the others, in that you didn't want to repeatadly punch the characters in the face, but at the end the story was still sh*t and that just killed the escapism for me.

Rhyme

Transformers had the breas- er I mean BEST... damn.

BlitzKrieg has it right though, Star Trek had great characters and that counts for a lot when a ton of dialogue and exposition is being thrown around.

Handsome Bob

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Star Trek had a competent director / screenwriter / ensemble cast and a genuine sense of fun.
Terminator Salvation had an incompetent director / screenwriter / lead actor and took itself far too seriously.
Transformers I couldn't be bothered watching, but based on the first, it has an incompetent director and has an awfully uneven fun to seriousness ratio. Plus it has Shia La****ingBeouf.

Strange criticism. What do you think T1 and T2 are? Lighthearted?

johnny_ultimate

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Strange criticism. What do you think T1 and T2 are? Lighthearted?

Well they did have lighter moments, but at least the serious action and scenes were handled by someone who knew what he was doing. If you wish, you can change "Terminator Salvation takes itself too seriously" to "Terminator Salvation was ****". Probably more accurate :pac:

Sleazus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

...I'm wondering why Star Trek is so high, compared to the other two.

Very simply, Star Trek was a good film. It's as simple and as complex as that.

You can talk about writing/acting/diriection all you want, but it boils down to the fact that more people enjoyed Star trek than the other two for any number of reasons.

I think it was well-written, well directed and well acted, despite a ridiculous plot. But that's just my opinion.

Mark Hamill

Sleazus wrote: »

Very simply, Star Trek was a good film. It's as simple and as complex as that.

You can talk about writing/acting/diriection all you want, but it boils down to the fact that more people enjoyed Star trek than the other two for any number of reasons.

I think it was well-written, well directed and well acted, despite a ridiculous plot. But that's just my opinion.

Fair enough, and I wouldn't disagree that thats what most people felt too, but for me that notion is a little depressing. Its essentially "have a simple, attactive cast and then you dont need to care about the story". Without a good story, then the dialogue, no matter how well acted, is just waffly nonsense, and what you essentially have is a reality tv show along the lines of something MTV does, ie some contrived situation and some "pretty" people to complain about it. All style, no substance.
I think its rare enough for blockbuster films to actually make sense and I dont think it bares well for any future blockbuster to have even the inkling of a coherent plot line if they realise they dont even need to try as long as the cast is right.

Sleazus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Fair enough, and I wouldn't disagree that thats what most people felt too, but for me that notion is a little depressing. Its essentially "have a simple, attactive cast and then you dont need to care about the story". Without a good story, then the dialogue, no matter how well acted, is just waffly nonsense, and what you essentially have is a reality tv show along the lines of something MTV does, ie some contrived situation and some "pretty" people to complain about it. All style, no substance.

That's a fair point, but isn't it possible to be a great film without excellent plotting or creativity?

And before we continue, can I clarify if you are implying that Transformers 2 and Terminator 4 were any better plotted or written? And I think Star Trek was well-written, the plotting was just a mess - relying on huge coincidence and unnecessarily convoluted time travel and villain motivations.

Great ideas won't work with bad writing and bad performances (take The Matrix Sequels for example), but it is easy to have a ridiculously nonsensical film that is brilliant in its own way.

Just looking at imdb.com's top 250 movies: Raiders of the Lost Ark (#18) was no less an empty spectacle that Star Trek. Even ignoring that, Die Hard is an action classic despite not having much going on in any department other than direction and acting.

It's hard to quantify what a good film is, it's different strokes for different folks, and I doubt any one who values coherency and plotting above all else loved Star Trek (nor the other two films mentioned). I can only speak to personal experience, but it was fun. Which is something - to me - that those MTV reality TV shows are not.

This reminds me of discussions we'd have in primary school. I can't tell you why my red fire truck is better than your blue police car, I can just tell you that I think it is.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think its rare enough for blockbuster films to actually make sense and I dont think it bares well for any future blockbuster to have even the inkling of a coherent plot line if they realise they dont even need to try as long as the cast is right.

Hollywood realised that long before Star Trek came out. And I don't think you can hold up either Transformers or Terminator as a shining example of a "coherent plot line".

For all the detractors out there, The Dark Knight and Iron Man were a godsend last year in terms of brain and heart to summer blockbusters. Having them so close together kinda eclipsed the fact that these sort of films aren't the norm in the Summer cycle. Unfortunately, people will go and see just about anything with explosions during the summer, so us discerning film fans are left to one side waiting.

Sorry to break it to you, but I think very few studios will be looking to Star Trek for any sort of lesson. It's done very well, but it's Transformers that the studios will want to emulate this year. And even then, I don't think studios tend to take the right messages from blockbusters - certainly they didn't from the Dark knight (that we've seen so far).

uncleoswald

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Fair enough, and I wouldn't disagree that thats what most people felt too, but for me that notion is a little depressing. Its essentially "have a simple, attactive cast and then you dont need to care about the story". Without a good story, then the dialogue, no matter how well acted, is just waffly nonsense, and what you essentially have is a reality tv show along the lines of something MTV does, ie some contrived situation and some "pretty" people to complain about it. All style, no substance.
I think its rare enough for blockbuster films to actually make sense and I dont think it bares well for any future blockbuster to have even the inkling of a coherent plot line if they realise they dont even need to try as long as the cast is right.

In fairness I don't think the good critical will towards Trek has anything remotely to do with the attractiveness of the cast (wouldn't that mean that Transformers 2 be regarded as the best movie ever made) People genuinely liked it story and the likability of the characters (not their looks) meant they were able to forgive all the plot holes. There was very little likable about the other two movies so people were less forgiving.

Put simple there is Good nonsense: Jaws, Ghostbusters, T2, Die Hard and IMO Trek. And there is Bad nonsense:Transformers 2, Speed 2, Terminator 3 (worse then 4.)

FreudianSlippers

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Star Trek had a competent director / screenwriter / ensemble cast and a genuine sense of fun.
Terminator Salvation had an incompetent director / screenwriter / lead actor and took itself far too seriously.
Transformers I couldn't be bothered watching, but based on the first, it has an incompetent director and has an awfully uneven fun to seriousness ratio. Plus it has Shia La****ingBeouf.

This is pretty much it. Star Trek took the time to come up with a script and a compelling story. Terminator could have been good... but idk. it was just ****ed up.
Transformers is just damn ridiculous. Michael Bay gets his rocks off over blowing stuff up and forgets to include any kind of coherent story. Plus no one can even figure what's going on and who's who 90% of the time

Mark Hamill

Sleazus wrote: »

That's a fair point, but isn't it possible to be a great film without excellent plotting or creativity?

Yeah sure, I'm not asking for some Richard Matheson-esque paranoid mind f*ck in all my films (I love Pixar films), I just expect a film to make logical sense (at least within the constraints it sets itself).

Sleazus wrote: »

And before we continue, can I clarify if you are implying that Transformers 2 and Terminator 4 were any better plotted or written? And I think Star Trek was well-written, the plotting was just a mess - relying on huge coincidence and unnecessarily convoluted time travel and villain motivations.

Oh god no!, transformers and terminator were horribly written, transformers with a infinitely worse story line, and terminator with a good idea, but ultimately a terrible storyline. And I already said that I believe the dialogue in Star Trek was much better written, its just that without the decent plot behind it, I dont think it raises itself that much above the other two.

Sleazus wrote: »

Great ideas won't work with bad writing and bad performances (take The Matrix Sequels for example), but it is easy to have a ridiculously nonsensical film that is brilliant in its own way.

IMO those films tend to be comedies or out-and-out action films, where the plot is secondary to jokes and action.

Sleazus wrote: »

Just looking at imdb.com's top 250 movies: Raiders of the Lost Ark (#18) was no less an empty spectacle that Star Trek. Even ignoring that, Die Hard is an action classic despite not having much going on in any department other than direction and acting.

Both films though had plots that went from A-B-C in a rational way. Sure the plots were simplistic or OTT, but they weren't full of huge coincidences or massive plot jumps.

Sleazus wrote: »

It's hard to quantify what a good film is, it's different strokes for different folks, and I doubt any one who values coherency and plotting above all else loved Star Trek (nor the other two films mentioned). I can only speak to personal experience, but it was fun. Which is something - to me - that those MTV reality TV shows are not.

I'm not trying to convince anyone they didn't enjoy it, or to tell people what should be really important in a film, i didn't hate the film myself, it is as, you say, a fun film. I just don't get the massive critically acclaim it seems to be getting.

Sleazus wrote: »

This reminds me of discussions we'd have in primary school. I can't tell you why my red fire truck is better than your blue police car, I can just tell you that I think it is.

I can tell you why my blue police car is better- cause its my blue police car

Sleazus wrote: »

Hollywood realised that long before Star Trek came out. And I don't think you can hold up either Transformers or Terminator as a shining example of a "coherent plot line".

For all the detractors out there, The Dark Knight and Iron Man were a godsend last year in terms of brain and heart to summer blockbusters. Having them so close together kinda eclipsed the fact that these sort of films aren't the norm in the Summer cycle. Unfortunately, people will go and see just about anything with explosions during the summer, so us discerning film fans are left to one side waiting.

Too true.

Sleazus wrote: »

Sorry to break it to you, but I think very few studios will be looking to Star Trek for any sort of lesson. It's done very well, but it's Transformers that the studios will want to emulate this year. And even then, I don't think studios tend to take the right messages from blockbusters - certainly they didn't from the Dark knight (that we've seen so far).

To be honest, if they did learn to, at least, make consistently likeable characters with good dialogue in films it would be a massive step up for them.

paulieeye

also something must be said about the scoring system on these sites like rottentomatoes. Star Trek got 95% but this cud mean that 95% of reviewers gave it 6/10. Make a movie with mass (even mediocre) appeal and it'll score high

Sleazus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yeah sure, I'm not asking for some Richard Matheson-esque paranoid mind f*ck in all my films (I love Pixar films), I just expect a film to make logical sense (at least within the constraints it sets itself).

No, I appreciate that. I'm fairly crap when it comes to evaluating films. I can tell you what I liked and didn't like, but my reasons don't necessarily add up. I'll concede that Star Trek isn't particularly well plotted, but that's less important to me than the fact that it managed to give us likable characters and provide two solid character arcs through some well put-together action sequences. It isn't that I don't value great writing as much as the other things - I like Swingers because Favreau is a better writer than an actor - but I think that like - particularly of films - is a strictly subjective thing for people.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

IMO those films tend to be comedies or out-and-out action films, where the plot is secondary to jokes and action.

I accept that and I'll concede. I liked Star Trek, I may even have an affair or daliance with it, but I'm not sure I love it. It isn't the best film of the year by a country mile, but it does what it says on the tin, which is action, character and spectacle.

I'm an old school Trekkie, I loved that Star Trek was about ideas and hope and wacky crazy concepts as much as about action sequence after action sequence. So Star Trek isn't my favourite thing linked with the franchise by any means. It isn't even my favourite movie of the franchise (it's third or fourth).

I don't think anyone claims it's a masterpiece, but it is a well-put together summer film. It's ridiculous and convoluted, yes, but it does (on balance) a lot better than most of this year's blockbusters (waiting for Up and Public Enemies before I make a definitive statement).

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Both films though had plots that went from A-B-C in a rational way. Sure the plots were simplistic or OTT, but they weren't full of huge coincidences or massive plot jumps.

I can see what you're saying, and I kinda agree. But if you take Die Hard, that relies on John McClane being in the toilet when the hostage takers arrive to get its show on the road. Or one of the core sequences in Raiders, which asks the audience to buy that the Nazi's could run an operation like that inside British-occupied Egypt.

A good deal (by no means all) of the convolutions and contrivances arrise from the time travel element of the plot (which is no stranger than a mystical ark which spares Indy because he doesn't look). There are others - what did Nero do for twenty-five years? how come no one cares that Romulans look like Vulcans? how come the Enterprise can intercept a ship from the future with a massive head start? - and I think that the film earns the audience's suspension of disbelief by delivering on character, humour and action. Yes, it would be best if it didn't have these holes and convolutions, but, in my opinion, on average, I'm willing to let it away with some of this stuff.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not trying to convince anyone they didn't enjoy it, or to tell people what should be really important in a film, i didn't hate the film myself, it is as, you say, a fun film. I just don't get the massive critically acclaim it seems to be getting.

I get this, I really do. I think there's too much hyperbole around the film and I want to choke the reviewers who describe it as "the best Trek ever", for example. The mainstream makes some strange choices. For example, I don't really get The Shawshank Redemption. Yes, it's well made and well acted and uplifting, but it doesn't resonate with me.

EDIT: See also the post above, paulieeye makes a valid point. It just means 95% thought "better than average".

Mark Hamill wrote: »

To be honest, if they did learn to, at least, make consistently likeable characters with good dialogue in films it would be a massive step up for them.

Exactly, we can work on the rest when we've got that. I personally thought the film had these, despite its other errors.