STAR TREK movie thread- Page 3

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 2:37am

Alright, Wikipedia explained it to me.

I liked the movie, I just didn't think it was "brilliant." And I do respect it for dealing with the themes you named, Namo, instead of just being a huge, pointless summer flick.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 2:39am

It was explained the slowest and most deliberately by Leonard Nimoy who even gave a detailed reason why Nero had to wait 25 years for something that only took seconds for Spock. Did you go out for Junior Mints and a pee?

[Q]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 2:48am

Don't know about WickedRocks, but my eyes were closed

[DAME]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 4:07am

Namo I agree. The movie was so much fun.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 5:40am

I LIKED it...a lot, not in love with it either. I appreciated it and was entertained but the feeling was: this is a movie of exposition. Simply a set up for the franchise of movies to come.

I will just say....all the motion near the beginging made my son actually throw up. THAT's never happened before.

Favorite two characters: Ahura and Scotty.

[Tom's Cat]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 7:01am

I was disappointed in Scott - but I think mainly because the character only appeared toward the end and then spent the majority of his time just running around. I expect more character development for him in future stories.

[romantico]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 10:17am

Nimoy's last line is priceless!

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-feature-star-trek/1099561/

[Q]

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

"the themes of growing up, enduring friendships, teamwork, negotiation and sacrifice"

Valid points, Namo.

But I'm still with Dramamama's kid

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 12:26pm

I saw it last night with my family.

When I was a wee one, my dad was a Star Trek fan - and we watched the series as a family together for years during re-runs, TNG and others. I remember going to see the first movie (which was pretty bad) and the fans in the audience oohh and awwwing of the damn ship itself for the first 15 minutes.

I felt that the characters in this movie captured the essence of the originals, and thoroughly enjoyed the movie. I actually thought the music was great as well (though I am admit a wee bit too loud).

Clearly, this first moving was a starting point, not an end point, and a way to reintroduce the franchise to a new audience, which I think it did very successfully. It will be interesting to see what they do with a whole new history to write.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/10/09 at 12:35pm

I just found sexy Robert Wilonsky's review at the Village Voice. Personally, I never picked up on Star Trek until "Wrath of Khan." I saw all the subsequent movies and would occasionally watch a Next Generation and an Enterprise episode. (I had no use for the other two series). I love the Pauline Kael quote about "Khan" and think it applies to the new movie, which I felt was a completely worthy stand-alone story without having to anticipate future sequels.
Proof that a franchise can live long and prosper

[broadway86]

Posted: 5/12/09 at 3:38am

Absolutely ADORED it. Such a well-made, fun movie. Zachary Quinto was a standout. Very impressive work.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 5/12/09 at 8:03am

I saw this yesterday and thought it was quite enjoyable. I can't say I'm completely enamored with it, but I think that's due in part to the fact that I'm not at all familiar with the series. The movie is definitely good as a stand-alone, but it seems considerably more fun for people who recognize the characters and references.

[Tom's Cat]

Posted: 5/12/09 at 11:05am

I think you're right. We had a big family get together on Sunday for Mother's Day and I told my sister that all of the kids would enjoy it but she and her husband would get that extra 'kick' out of it that the younger ones would never understand.

[romantico]

Posted: 5/12/09 at 8:59pm

As much as I love Shatner and would have loved to see Kirk make a cameo, it just would not have worked. When Watching the opening scene in STAR TREK and watching how Kirk's father died on the USS Kelvin, I thought to myself. This is how James T.Kirk SHOULD HAVE gone out! Kirk going down with his ship would be like Spock's death in WRATH OF KHAN.To die a hero,or should I say the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one?I HATED Kirk's death scene in STAR TREK:GENERATIONS!!!!!!

Turns out, Kirk WAS actually written into the new film. SO GLAD they did not stick with it.

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1611116/story.jhtml

[pharmer2000]

Posted: 5/13/09 at 12:30am

The new Trek Movie is amazing. Lots of fun, "old friends", and a great soundtrack. I saw it on a true IMAX screen, and when you see the Enterprise in space for the first time on that huge screen, it is incredible. Too bad the IMAX sceening is a limited engagement.
I thought is was cool how Kirk lands on Hoth, and is visited by old Obi Wan, woops, wrong movie.
Awesome job harnessing the spirit of TOS and making it new and exciting for 2009.
If possible, see it on a true IMAX screen!

[Plum]

Posted: 5/13/09 at 4:32am

I think some of the space fight scenes were pretty incoherent, and yes, the utopian vision of the original Trek was sort of missing, but there was some lovely characterization work going on in this movie, and Zach Quinto was an excellent Spock. The movie's kind of frustratingly begging for a sequel for something that was two hours long, but such is life in franchise-land.

And despite some of its resulting plot holes (is old Spock going to keep giving out physics equations and his various other knowledge from the future or sit there and watch?), the device that Abrams and the screenwriters used to give a bow to the old continuity without being bound by it was pretty ingenious.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/26/09 at 12:05pm

Just saw this last night and I really enjoyed it. While I was never a fan of any of the series, I have always enjoyed watching the films. This particular film prompted a rather fun discussion with my parents over dinner as they were more well-versed in the original series and they were a bit confused by the alternate reality and the shifts from the original stories, but they pretty much accept it for what it is now, which is a far more preferable treatment of the original material than the new Batman franchise. My one criticism was with the rather schizophrenic cinematography and effects, which would inconsistently waffle from the more classic cinematic style to the high-octane edgy shaky-cam (even during static conversations). I know they are trying a fresh new take on the subject and attempting to cultivate a younger audience, but there were times I really just wanted the film to back off a little. I really liked it and I had a great time, but I was occasionally puzzled by its style, which seemed to be awkwardly straddling the fence at times.

My parents' major complaint was that there wasn't a stronger presence of the original sci-fi "fable" structure that was the basis for the original series.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/26/09 at 12:16pm

Exactly Matt- the effects, the battles, the "teamwork" was never the focus for Star Trek. It was the ability to use an alien world to comment on our condition in a way that made it palatable for people who would never otherwise consider a different way.

In the new film, stuff blowed up real good, though.

[Jud Faginsky]

Posted: 5/26/09 at 4:49pm

Many here have complained about the lack of issues that the new movie brings up. I think it brings up a very large issue. In this movie, James Kirk grows up in a completely different reality than he did in the original series. His father is killed when he was a baby, which does not happen in the original series. He grows up as a rebelious teenager. But he makes some choices (with Pike's help) that leads him to Starfleet Academy. And he ends up in command of a starship, despite being a different person. For me this brings up the nature vs. nurture question. Are we a product of our environment, or are we what we are born as? If we look at the same person in two different realities, will they be predominantly the same person? I think this is a fascinating question. I wonder if this will be explored in the future movies. And I agree with other posters that this entire alternate timeline is a brilliant way to restart the whole franchise.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 5/26/09 at 7:07pm

Well, the concept of "destiny" played a major part in the original series and, to an extent, the next generation. Even though things got wacked out along the way, the crew was destined to be on that ship. Plus, I think Kirk was always rebellious, which caused the pairing with Spock to be a great balance with that.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 6/27/09 at 3:55am

I'm bumping this because I had the urge to have a repeat viewing of the film tonight.

As I said before...I feel like a proud mother seeing Karl Urban in this film. I've been following his career for thirteen years and have seen nearly all of his US films (I had to turn off Ghost Ship). I can't explain why but I'm more excited about him being in this film than I was the final two LOTR films. Perhaps because he's better able to flex his acting chops than he was with Eomer.

Karl aside I love this movie. I was never really a Star Trek fan. I don't think I've ever seen a full episode of any of the series. The movie is so enjoyable for fans and non-fans alike. I even got some of the in-references such as the "Dammit, I'm a doctor" and "I'm givin' all she's got cap'n". And even after repeat viewings I still cannot look at Nero and see Eric Bana. Kudos to the makeup department on that one. He looks nothing like himself.

And this time around I was totally able to recognize Greg Grunberg as the voice of Kirk's stepfather. Love him.

ETA: I've seen Chris Pine in other films but never realized he was Robert Pine's son. CHiPs was an enjoyment of mine as a child.

Updated On: 6/27/09 at 03:55 AM