RE: New star trek movie. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Fitznicely -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/11/2009 11:02:26 AM)

It improves with repeat viewing. First time, I was shocked at the pace of the thing...Earth to Vulcan in around five minutes??...but that aside, there were so many references to previous Trek, it all felt familiar enough for me to begin thoroughly enjoying it on second viewing.

The plot's silly and overused, but in around 650 episodes and ten movies, it's a pretty mined-out franchise.

And let's be honest...JJ Abrams and no time travel/alternative timelines? Ain't gonna happen. Unlike Berman/Braga, he does it WELL, though. This really was a reboot, with the field left open for a new set of movies with all the rules changed.

I understand how people will be upset that THEIR trek is dead. I recall the same argument when DS9 and Voyager started - No Enterprise? it'll never work...a female captain, I'm not watching THAT....but they worked out OK...

As for the new characterisations of well loved personalities...they NAILED McCoy and Spock. Kirk I could understand why they made him that way, but he's not the man Shatner was in'66...yet. Scotty...I liked him, I like Simon Pegg, but to make him into comedy relief was just wrong. As for that lil pin-eyed thing...Just No.

All in all, a nice shiny romp of a movie which finally blows the cobwebs off a series that was getting, let's face it, more irrelevant by the minute. To the naysayers, remember - My Trek Is Not Your Trek, but rock on regardless [:D]



underyourlash -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/14/2009 10:39:17 PM)

I enjoyed it, but I feel it's more like Star Wars now than it should be, and yeah, I recognize most people probably think that's a good thing. Hopefully, the next one will go off the map and be more bold. I agree that Urban's McCoy was pretty darn spot on, but still his own. It is what it is.



LookieNoNookie -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/15/2009 10:02:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackPhx

Beaten Up, sexed up, shot up with an inoculation that he is allergic to and dumped, but not tied up..That sole honor goes to Captain/Admiral  Pike. Now what happens to Spock is interesting indeed...Fascinating one could say.

poenkitten



But we didn't get to see what happened to Captain Pike and why he became disfigured years later.

I sure wish, since the Enterprise was clearly of the earlier time, that they'd been a little more true to the original command deck, however, the imagery around the transporter atomizer was relatively close to original (kind of), and the command deck was (kind of) true to the original, while a smidge smaller....all in all, an exceptionally good movie.



LookieNoNookie -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/15/2009 10:03:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: underyourlash

I enjoyed it, but I feel it's more like Star Wars now than it should be, and yeah, I recognize most people probably think that's a good thing. Hopefully, the next one will go off the map and be more bold. I agree that Urban's McCoy was pretty darn spot on, but still his own. It is what it is.


I agree with that...McCoy was the best as to a young McCoy....well done.  Scotty wasn't bad, but McCoy was very much believable.



LookieNoNookie -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/15/2009 10:06:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

FR

...can't remember where i read this, but i can't claim it as original....

Trek fans condemn new movie as watchable and entertaining.....


TheOnion.com (a parody website)



YoursMistress -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/15/2009 10:40:37 PM)

I'm a Star Trek fan, but not a rabid one.  I found the new movie thoroughly enjoyable.  The new twists were interesting and the bits of nostalgia were cute reminders of the genesis of the franchise. 

I have turned into a HUGE Sylar fan, and was enthralled by the new Spock.  Uhura was totally hot, but I'm a little up in the air about Scotty.  I agree that Ben Cross was great as Sarek.  Cap'n Pike was a believeable heroic figure also, I thought.  I may very well go to see it again.  

yours



GreedyTop -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/15/2009 11:18:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kalista07

i will say i went to see it begrudginly........  i was not a huge Star Trek fan....Although, next generation wasn't horrible...  {As opposed to the original which made me want to carve my brain out with a rusty spoon}



BLASPHEMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


quote:

But, frankly this movie.....rocked. i loved it..
Kali



redeemed......



lazarus1983 -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/16/2009 1:01:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: underyourlash

I enjoyed it, but I feel it's more like Star Wars now than it should be, and yeah, I recognize most people probably think that's a good thing. Hopefully, the next one will go off the map and be more bold. I agree that Urban's McCoy was pretty darn spot on, but still his own. It is what it is.


That's one of my primary concerns, is that Star Trek will lower itself to Star Wars level.



Loki45 -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/16/2009 2:03:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

This is easy, Master Bull. John Norman writes book 35 and sends an agent from the future to give the women a weapon of mass destruction which causes them to win the war. Sorta changes things a bit, yes?  The Gor you know, that you practice and embrace no longer exists. It's just gone. No need to worry about continuity. As far as I'm concerned, this is a new franchise, because the old one has finally been put to death and by someone who purported to love it so much that he would spend the rest of his life making Star Trek movies if he could. Meh. My Star Trek is dead. No, that's not right because to die you had to have lived and living with Trek for the last 40+ years was just wiped out in a little over two hours.


Your issue with the movie is a common fallacy I've seen. At no point did they say the other series' versions of events never happened. All that's officially changed is Kirk's father, Vulcan and the way the crew comes together. It's SCI-FI....the events of TNG, Voyager, DS9, etc all could still very easily happen. It's just the backgrounds of the OS' crew has changed. Nothing more.

Now, if the next movie shows Kevin Spacey as Picard, the unexplained return of Tasha Yarr, Geordie LaForge with eyes, etc....THEN your Trek is dead.

As for now, it's not. It's just gotten a bit of a background change. You see, in sci-fi.....anything can and often does happen with the stroke of a pen. Do I have to remind you of the "Temporal Prime Directive?" (And this from a non-Trekkie). Do you *really* think with all the references to the Temporal Prime Directive that they'd just 'let' what occured in this movie actually happen? No. They'd go back and stop it before anyone was the wiser. If not, at the very least they would dispatch agents to ensure the rest of the timeline remained intact.

As I said.....sci-fi....the stroke of a pen is all that's needed to preserve things....or change them.



Loki45 -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/16/2009 2:26:07 AM)

By the way, for anyone hating J. J. Abrams for the his 'blasphemous' take on Star Trek......

It's not HIS take. It was written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman.  Those two only approached Abrams to produce the movie, not write it *or* direct it.  However, having been heard making the statement that he would be  "so agonizingly envious of whoever stepped in and directed the movie," Abrams was eventually asked to direct it.

However, things like the time travel, the reboot-meets-prequel style...all that had been decided even before Abrams was asked to direct it.



lazarus1983 -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/16/2009 3:36:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

This is easy, Master Bull. John Norman writes book 35 and sends an agent from the future to give the women a weapon of mass destruction which causes them to win the war. Sorta changes things a bit, yes?  The Gor you know, that you practice and embrace no longer exists. It's just gone. No need to worry about continuity. As far as I'm concerned, this is a new franchise, because the old one has finally been put to death and by someone who purported to love it so much that he would spend the rest of his life making Star Trek movies if he could. Meh. My Star Trek is dead. No, that's not right because to die you had to have lived and living with Trek for the last 40+ years was just wiped out in a little over two hours.


Your issue with the movie is a common fallacy I've seen. At no point did they say the other series' versions of events never happened. All that's officially changed is Kirk's father, Vulcan and the way the crew comes together. It's SCI-FI....the events of TNG, Voyager, DS9, etc all could still very easily happen. It's just the backgrounds of the OS' crew has changed. Nothing more.

Now, if the next movie shows Kevin Spacey as Picard, the unexplained return of Tasha Yarr, Geordie LaForge with eyes, etc....THEN your Trek is dead.

As for now, it's not. It's just gotten a bit of a background change. You see, in sci-fi.....anything can and often does happen with the stroke of a pen. Do I have to remind you of the "Temporal Prime Directive?" (And this from a non-Trekkie). Do you *really* think with all the references to the Temporal Prime Directive that they'd just 'let' what occured in this movie actually happen? No. They'd go back and stop it before anyone was the wiser. If not, at the very least they would dispatch agents to ensure the rest of the timeline remained intact.

As I said.....sci-fi....the stroke of a pen is all that's needed to preserve things....or change them.



Funny thing is, you're wrong too.

This movie is supposed to take place in an "alternate universe," which is an easy way to erase everything that's been done before in Star Trek and start over. So technically, the events of TNG, DS9, and the rest did not, or at least have not yet, happened in this new "alternate" Star Trek.



Loki45 -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/16/2009 3:11:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983
Funny thing is, you're wrong too.

This movie is supposed to take place in an "alternate universe," which is an easy way to erase everything that's been done before in Star Trek and start over. So technically, the events of TNG, DS9, and the rest did not, or at least have not yet, happened in this new "alternate" Star Trek.


Actually, I'm not wrong. Because I've made no definitive statement about the subsequent events. Just because it created an alternate universe doesn't mean the events can't or won't happen. They just as easily can happen as cannot happen.

As I said, with the stroke of a pen all is decided. They can go either way with it. But you cannot cry foul about them erasing the other series' events because since the movie is set in the OS' alternate universe, and the events haven't happened yet, you can argue endlessly on whether that alternate history or the original history is where TNG, Voyager, etc came from. There's no proof either way. Nor will there be as it is all FICTION. You pick what you like and leave the rest.

Perhaps the alternate history created in the movie is the one that spawned TNG, Voyager, DS9. We don't know. Perhaps they never talked about it on the show because it was erased by the agents protecting the Temporal Prime Directive.

My point being, it's a movie and it's just one in a long series. The creators did it for the reasons they chose and it does not defile the sanctity of Star Trek.



winterlight -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/17/2009 12:48:29 PM)

I have had two people at work tell me to go and see it. They really loved it. One went and saw it twice!

i will wait til it comes out on video..



DemonKia -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/17/2009 11:38:15 PM)

FR, after read thru

The following is meant to be mostly humorous, FYI . . . . ..

Okay, so I'm watching The Original Series (TOS) online:

http://www.cbs.com/classics/star_trek/

I'm on my 3rd watch thru in as many months (I'm both a little OCD, & I'm a practicing fictionalist of the scifi variant, lol) . . . . . & the show's a hoot. (I've loved it since childhood, love the relatively peaceful & positive vision of the future that sets the whole series apart from the overwhelming apocalyptisicm of much filmic & teevee scifi, loved Spock from moment one, love Shatner's Z-rate cheesy Shakespeareanism, love the sets, the wigs, the el-cheapo fx (from today's vantage), love the wholesale uncredited theft of material from all the masters of the era (fave example being the tribbles which were lifted from Heinlein's flatcats in 'The Rolling Stones', written about a decade before the show), love that it was shot in delicious 35 mm & looks absolutely luscious, have always loved all the paper mache boulders gettin' tossed around, love it love it love it. Just so's ya knows.)

& all this whining & whinging here there & everywhere about the 'sanctity' of TOS is hysterically funny when I'm watching all this delightfully whacked out bare-bones sci-fi making for that time & place. For example, episode #4, The Naked Time, Kirk & Spock don these containment / pressure suits that are made out of bright orange fabric that looks suspiciously like chiffon shot with gold thread in a pattern that has nothing to do with any technical needs but has everything to do with the fashion trends of the production's temporal locality . . . .

Or that, to my eye it looks like they prolly spent as much money on the wig budget as they did on all the other fx combined, lol . . . . .. I didn't notice the extensive use of hairpieces on men in the show until this recent obsessathon -- weirdly enough in retrospect, Shatner is one of the few guys not wearing a 'piece . . . . . But Spock is, which I'd never realized before, lol . . . . .

& I gotta say, as a practicing fictionalist, I got into it so I could do whatever I want on paper. If I'd wanted to be constrained by lots of rules & expectations I'd prolly be a practicing researcher instead.

&, of course, all of the the previous is le opinion de moi, hehehehe . . . .



DomKen -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/18/2009 4:11:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DemonKia
the relatively peaceful & positive vision of the future that sets the whole series apart from the overwhelming apocalyptisicm of much filmic & teevee scifi

This is what I loved about TOS and feel the franchise has steadily lost since Roddenberry's death. It's also what was completely lacking from the present movie.



kolly -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/18/2009 5:12:15 AM)

Hello



DemonKia -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/18/2009 5:39:56 AM)

See, I didn't get that from the movie. I thought it still presented the future, space travel, humanity's place in all of that, et alia, from an optimistic & positive perspective. We're going to the stars, bay-buh!! My way geeky male offspring (25 & 22) were both arguing / hoping that the movie might reinvigorate public enthusiasm for actual commercial exploitation of the solar system, but I'm doubtful / cynical about that one . . . . .. .

Yeah, the flick had lots of crashy-bangy fighting & carrying on, but so did TOS & all the franchise heirs. That stuff's both narrative convention & basically necessary to get any $100+ million-dollar-budgeted flick made. Like the widespread 'stupid science' in all action-adventure pics (not just scifi), I just ignore that part of it . . .. . I have fairly strong pacifist leanings & I can remember that the violence in TOS, when I was young, bothered me quite a bit. I was very offended that people would die; it was the later lampooning of the 'red shirt' thing that helped me understand it as a narrative convention, the 'death' that proves the seriousness of the situation . . .. . .

But I'm gonna go see it a second time, so I can watch it from a more analytical space, & I'll keep your critique in mind & try to report back, hehe . . . . . . The first go thru was definitely experiential . . ....

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DemonKia
the relatively peaceful & positive vision of the future that sets the whole series apart from the overwhelming apocalyptisicm of much filmic & teevee scifi


This is what I loved about TOS and feel the franchise has steadily lost since Roddenberry's death. It's also what was completely lacking from the present movie.




YoursMistress -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/18/2009 6:37:34 AM)

I was just disappointed that they didn't use some of the old music.  That would have been awesome.

yours



Rule -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/18/2009 2:43:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: YoursMistress
I was just disappointed that they didn't use some of the old music. That would have been awesome.

I saw it with two friends starting at about five hours ago. One of them said that they did use the old music at the end of the movie when they listed the cast and technical staff and such.

I enjoyed the movie. It may be the best of them all - except perhaps for the first one: Star Trek The Motion Picture.

I think that the cast is over all about twenty times better and more believable than the old cast. Zachary Quinto is an excellent Spock and for me the actor that stood out above them all. The Enterprise is also far more impressive than the old Enterprise. The pseudoscience sucked, especially in the beginning. What I also did not like was the hectic camera movement in the beginning during the battle. Uhura had more of a role than in the old series, but her skills were not very credible. Scotty had a too small role. Nor did I appreciate Chekov's thick Russian accent - that was overdone.

Nevertheless: a great movie and a must see. I completely understand that many people will go see it more than once.



philosophy -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/18/2009 3:22:08 PM)

FR

...i went to see the movie........what struck me first was the audience. Of course there were old duffers like me, fans of the originals. Hanging around in groups of one or two, supping thir coke and munching the popcorn. However they were heavily outnumbered by the younger ones, early 20's or so. Some groups all male, some mixed, some all female. Pretty even spread.
None of these kids were around for TOS, chances are they were too young for TNG too. This was a new audience.
So, the film spoke first to them. And rightly so. Olivier once said that every generation has to rediscover and redefine Shakespeare. If Trek is as important as us oldsters want it to be, so it too must be redefined generationally. i enjoyed the movie, didn't think it used any plot devices unused in the original canon. Yesterdays Enterprise comes to mind. i thought it was the right thing to do and i look forward to the sequals.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.515625E-02