STAR TREK movie thread- Page 2

[jacobtsf]

Posted: 5/8/09 at 6:13pm

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.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/9/09 at 1:11am

Karl Urban was my absolute favorite. The movie is a perfect serving of sheer fun.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 5/9/09 at 1:17am

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?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/9/09 at 1:50am

Really, I thought it was perfect in its logic and laid out everything perfectly.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 5/9/09 at 1:52am

Ahaha...another Urbanite!

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 5/9/09 at 1:17pm

It was phenominal!

"Clearly the reboot of the timeline allows for a plethora of new movies without having to worry about the canon of the original series/movies."

Exactly why this film was so brilliant. All of the sequels can do whatever they want without exhaustively trying to match the continuity of the other films or series.

And, what a yummy cast! Even Eric Bana's hotness was evident despite his makeup. And the acting was terrific.

[Mazz0626]

Posted: 5/9/09 at 4:26pm

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.

[Tom's Cat]

Posted: 5/9/09 at 4:31pm

I just came back from seeing it. Let me throw this baby-boomer's take on it.

I was just starting high school when Star Trek first appeared on network TV and I thought it was the most fantastic thing I'd ever seen. I never missed an episode and I was heartbroken when it went off. Every time a new version of Star Trek came on TV, I'd watch and hope for the same magic. Some became favorites (ST2 and Voyager) and others just failed completely. I did enjoy most of the films. I was never a 'trekkie' (or the preferred term 'trekker') No silly costumes or conventions or souvenires. Just a fan of the shows.

Now this film - is BRILLIANT! I felt like the characters portrayed on that screen were old friends from my past. I agree with others here that Quinto and Urban were particularly fine. (Urban would have been perfect had he managed to maintain a bit of a Southern drawl in his dialogue. Slight hints came through here and there, but he didn't maintain it.)

I also want to make mention of Saldana's Uhuru. She was a beautiful, sensuous and sexy earth-mother who showed great affection and love for her crewmates and used her body to express it. I honestly feel that the Uhuru of the 60's would have done exactly the same thing - had the censors and studios allowed it!

Pine made a cocky, brash, fun Kirk - just as he should have. jacobtsf's explanation for the anachronisms and 'errors' in the story is brilliant and makes me feel even more certain that there are a lot more stories out there involving this wonderful, young crew.

Updated On: 5/9/09 at 04:31 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/9/09 at 4:36pm

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

[romantico]

Posted: 5/9/09 at 4:41pm

I think Gene Rodenberry would be proud and not sure if anyone noticed,but the ship's computer was Majel Barret Rodenberry's voice.Between her and Leonard Nimoy,I felt it had the blessing of the original crew to "boldly go"in a new direction.

It's a shame the STAR WARS prequels/reboot were not as successful.

[Taryn]

Posted: 5/9/09 at 4:46pm

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.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/9/09 at 5:41pm

This should be in IMAX 3 D

Better still would be OmniMax 3D but there are no venues to show it in but it would be great.

[Q]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 1:31am

"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

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 1:45am

Maybe you sat too close?

[Q]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 2:01am

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.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 2:04am

I have to say while I liked it, I didn't love it.

The special effects were really astounding, the score was fine I guess (nothing really special or new for this type of film), the performances were good enough (especially Pine, who could become the next big teen heartthrob), and some sequences worked well. But some didn't.

I'm not a Trekkie by any means but can I ask (spoiler?) how/why there were two Spocks? Did I miss something? I was so confused by this. Can anyone explain?(end spoiler)

The best sequence in the entire film happens within the first ten minutes. The rest of the movie didn't live up to that truly brilliant and heartbreaking sequence that starts the film off with a huge bang and surprise shot at the heart.

I also had a problem with the plot...maybe it was just me but it didn't seem to evolve into anything other than what it was introduced as. Bad guys vs. good guys. Unless, again, I missed something. My friend turned to me during the (very strong) scene where Kirk and the two other cadets (or whatever they're called) parachute out of the ship and asked if the plot was going to develop any further...we were both a bit disappointed that there really wasn't very much of a plot. And a lot of the plot I found confusing. I definitely want to see it again though, if only to help explain things I may have missed or been confused about the first time.

It's a definite crowd-pleaser and certainly the best Star Trek movie ever. But I wasn't totally sold for some reason that I really can't put my finger on to be quite honest.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 2:11am

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.

[justagirl2]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 2:19am

"(especially Pine, who could become the next big teen heartthrob)"

God, I hope not. I've had the hots for him since I had to pay money to see that beyond horrible Lindsay Lohan movie he was in a few years back (I was babysitting, don't judge me). Those shrieking teen young'ns best stay away.

I can't add much that hasn't already been said, but as someone who went in the movie knowing only character names and catchphrases, I found it really enjoyable. The special effects were breathtaking, and I could readily accept the lack of plot in exchange for character development. Obviously, both are desirable, but for a summer blockbuster, I was satisfied. I will say that I had more fun than with any of the recent Star Wars films.

[Q]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 2:22am

"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.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 2:26am

I was being 100% sarcastical. It was completely explained (twice). Were you guys just not paying attention? I'm easily distracted and I was never confused for a second.

[Q]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 2:28am

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'.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 2:33am

The only thing that confused me was the existence of the two Spocks.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 2:34am

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.

[thetinymagic2]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 2:36am

Great pix. that's my new wallpaper.

[Taryn]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 2:36am

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.