I don't agree with most of what you have to say about Abrams' movie. I think Star Trek was genius. I joined with "Steve" during the tumultuous lead-up, defending the film makers' motives. But I have to agree with you today about this. He is very predictable. He can be predictably relied on to always take the shortest distance to the contrary.
The only thing I am not happy about is that it took him so long to say it. He's absolutely right: about the mundane script, the cop-out and the action vs. character development. CrapTrek finally gets what it deserves.
Am I correct in assuming he was the first actor to trash it?
He sounds a little bitter to me.
I liked what John had to say. He's somewhat accurate, but not totally, about the script being mundane and having action at the expense of character development. However, I thought he missed pointing out the major flaws of the script: plot holes, wild coincidence and a sagging and babbling second act.
Where I think he really knocked the ball out of the park is his criticism of time travel and pointing out what a colossal cop-out it was to create a parallel universe. That approach to the film was just absolutely lame to me. Given the choice of a TOS film with over 10 canon violations in the prime universe and one occurring in an alternate universe with none, I vote for the former every time.
McCoy might have said:
"Dammit Jim, Billingsley's an actor, not a movie critic."
Phlox was one of the only interesting things about Enterprise, but I cannot agree with his assesment of the movie.
All the ENT veterans are fair game for an appearance in the new movie.Admiral Archer, for example.They are the only thing left from the original timeline.
Quote:
I actually have more respect for an actor that is critical of the movie than one that praises it. Praising it is in your self interest and sounds like ass kissing.
I have less respect for an actor who takes shots at a movie then ends it with "Ha Ha, don't take it too personally cuz I'd kill to be in the next film."
Hate to break it to you.....that's ass kissing.
--------
Everyone Booze Up And Riot!!!
Milk And Cheese
Lensman, I miss you more than my civil liberties.
...Smoking Astronaut...
... he should be thrilled, because his shows stories are the only ones which have survived into this new timeline.
But of course his last line shows how little he actually cares for the art, as long as he is getting paid.
--------
Cop shows and crime dramas are more cliche than time travel, yet who would argue shows like "The Shield" or "The Wire" aren't compelling drama, none the less?
Most of ENTERPRISE was cliche-riddled uninspired story writing, not to mention it was the 4th spin-off of a series started in the nineteen sixties. The product was tired before it was ever green-lighted and it came to embody the rigor mortis in which Trek was entombed before Abrams and team snatched it from the jaws of oblivion.
I agree Billingsley is a fine actor, but he seems to have a blind spot from which not even light can escape. To argue with a straight face that the action in Abrams' Star Trek usurped character development or that the writing was mundane--opinions I don't share--smacks of hypocrisy when it's coming from a regular cast member of the last, cancelled Star Trek TV show. If the worst that can be said of the new movie is that it used the cliche of time travel to slough off the mundanity of the past his show helped create, and get on with a fun story, then so be it. Spock meeting Spock was great stuff, I don't care what he says. Maybe he's mad the beagle got a mention and he didn't.
Pretty hilsarious, an Enterprise cast member complaining about continuity.
I love how you guys can hack away at a Star Trek film, its producers and writers whenever there is an aspect of the film you don't like. But as soon as a Star Trek actor chimes in (even though they are FAR more qualified to do so) you KILL them predictably every time. Billingsley is right to an extent. This film was not the "Shakespeare in space" formula we are used to. I just don't think he understands that the franchise needed this sort of accessible film. We can go more traditional in the sequel.
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
I have to say that I do not agree with Billingsley's criticisms. Firstly, he claims: "as is often the case with the movies, there's too much of a premium put on 'action' at the expense of character development". Here, Billinglsey really fails to take into account the context in which the film was made. Star Trek was an attempt to reinvograte the franchise by attracting new fans, so in many ways the film had to blow people away from the start. As Abrams states in the special features, audiences these days are accustomed to fast-paced movies, and if Star Trek had ignored this, then it would have woefully undermined its own attempt to draw new fans into the fold. This instalment had to be the shot in the arm that woke people up, and now that it has done so, subsequent films have the luxury of being able to focus more on the growth of the characters.
Also, of course movies have to put more of a premium on action rather than on character development. For a start, series build up characters over multiple episodes, and over the course of far more hours than in a movie. To squash into a movie the same amount of character development we see over the course of half a season of television would simply seem forced. I personally think Star Trek did a great job of establishing the fundamentals of many of the characters, providing us with a firm base on which to build in future films. If Billingsley's opinion is that the movie didn't have enough character development, then he's got a right to think that; but I personally think he's being far too demanding, and hasn't grasped the fine line that this film has walked.
Secondly, Billingsley says that: "I also felt that it was a colossal cop out to create a 'parallel universe' - this allows the filmmakers to do whatever they want in subsequent instalments without worrying about Trek continuity, plus now they can kill actors off if they start bitching about not getting paid enough." Yes, the parallel-universe concept allows future stories a large degree of freedom, and I am sure this will be capitalised on in the subsequent movies. But Billingsley forgets that Star Trek has already established the notion that the timeline is attempting to correct itself, and so we certainly will not get a circumstance in which characters are killed off because actors bitch about not being paid enough. For one thing, this would be an instant death knell for a franchise which, arguably, Abrams and co. have done well at bringing back to life; and I doubt that anyone in a position of creative power would be stupid enough to entertain the idea of killing off one of the original crew, considering that one of the main points of these films is to bring them to life for us after so many years.
Personally, I'm not "all that enamoured" with Billingsley's comments, and think that he's missed the point slightly. I'm sorry to hear that he didn't enjoy the film, but I think his reasoning could take the conditions of its production into account a little more.
I don't think anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who was in 2012 has any right to turn their nose down at the new Star Trek.
I mean... it was 2012!!!!
Speaking of which, Billingsley probably had the hackiest line in a movie full of hacky lines when he laments that the Myans saw it coming but they didn't. I can buy him selling a line like that on Enterprise, but in a "realistic" movie...no way. Very lazy and obvious, too.
2012!! Awful!
--------
An elephant never forgets . . .TO KILL!
"Hey, J.J., your movie sucked, but I need the paycheck, so don't forget me in the next one!"
Seriously, an Enterprise actor bitching about continuity, time-travel and character development? I mean, he's not wrong, but it does sound a little hypocritical in restrospect...
--------
"Gods drunkenly cried juvenile acne, lop ears, the Lafontaine park, retirement at 60, disappointing love, public washrooms and raging toothaches"
tupperfan.blogspot.com
(1)
| 
