STAR TREK movie thread — Page 2

craww is right. This film was made for people who don't know trek lore so that the franchise can gain new blood. Go see it, it is SOOO good.

---

I just got back. It was a lot of fun. However, like Lost, you can't think about it too hard or its ridiculousness will consume you. Fun fun fun.

What was with turning Uhura into sexpot Hoshi, though?

---

Ahaha...another Urbanite!

---

This thread makes me happy. I was expecting everyone to hate it(because I'm a cynic) and the film to have completely missed the point. Perhaps I should have greater trust in powerful creative types.

It makes me tingle for e Sex & The City reboot!

---

I think Gene Rodenberry would be proud and not sure if anyone noticed,but the ship's computer was Majel Barret Rodenberry's voice.

She actually just barely finished recording before passing away. It's truly a blessing that she is a part of this movie, as she has been for all the others.

"Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate"

I went into this experience with the best of intentions. I'm a fan of Mr. Rodenberry's ideology, and enough of a fan of the various Trek incarnations to look forward to the 'reboot'. Ultimately, though, I was left completely underwhelmed.

Actually, that's not true. I was completely OVERwhelmed by a visual style and approach that gave me a headache. Have audiences been so trained by video games and advertising media that they can't tolerate even two seconds of static visual representation? I reached a saturation point and simply had to close my eyes to the visual onslaught. And even with my eyes closed I could count up many, MANY minutes in a row with nothing but continual flashing lights and sounds.

And in the midst of all that cacophony? Nary a bit of Gene's philosophies. Yes, there was a plot, simplistic as it was - buried underneath all the 'razzle dazzle'. Was this a chance to reintroduce the main characters? Yes, and it did that - with zero emphasis on what any of it might mean in the long run. I can only hope that the inevitable future installments actually have a point.

After the movie ended and I fled the theater, I sat outside watching a magnificent moonrise. I also watched all the people scurrying to their cars trying to 'beat the rush' - oblivious to the very natural 'space show' taking place right in front of them. While we continue to seem to want and need these ever increasing levels of stimulation, the real world continues to exist - seemingly without interest to its inhabitants.

And I beg to differ with those who claim that not being familiar with Trek background will affect your experience. While my eyes were closed to the visual barrage, I was able to focus on the audience reactions. They were many, but invariably revolved around some reference to the lore.

This is going to be a hit, as initial reports indicate. But I don't believe Gene would recognize his legacy.

In the end, I can only quote Maggie Smith's Reverand Mother from SISTER ACT: "I am a relic, and I have misplaced my tambourine."

Updated On: 5/10/09 at 01:31 AM

Well, it was the IMAX presentation, which left me with a feeling that there was nowhere to hide!

But I really don't think I should need to hide from a movie.

Most movies that aren't made for Imax but that are blown up for the format give me a feeling like I'm on a boat on choppy seas. Charlie & The Chocolate Factory made me dizzy on Imax.

"how/why there were two Spocks? Did I miss something? I was so confused by this. Can anyone explain?"

Oh no, you didn't miss a thing. It was never explained, it just happened and it was totally awesome.

---

"It was never explained, it just happened and it was totally awesome."

That's . . . fascinating.

And it seems to fall into what I felt the rest of the audience was experiencing - "WOW! I really love what I'm seeing! Don't ask me what any of it means."

Not that I think a summer flick needs to answer any of the 'big questions' - but I DO think Gene attempted to address some important issues. This came across to me as a very cynical attempt to capitalize on a proven commercial product. And they seem to have succeeded.

I wasn't confused - I just don't think it ammounted to anything.

And I agree - what little there is to it is easily 'followable'.

I can't speak for the very dead Mr. Roddenberry, but I don't think he would have been disappointed in an exploration of the themes of growing up, enduring friendships, teamwork, negotiation and sacrifice.

---

Older Spock is from the future. The supernova he talks about happening in the future, which destroys Romulus (hence Nero's whole vendetta) caused an anomaly which sent both Nero and Spock to the past. Hence, older Spock is now existing in the same time period as his younger self.

It was explained multiple times in the film, and I thought it was pretty simple.