Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Star Trek (2009)

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews » Star Trek (2009) (Page 4)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: Star Trek (2009)

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 05-15-2009 08:46 AM

quote: Lyle Romer
...it wouldn't have been any more enjoyable if the plot was buttoned up better.

I think that's exactly what's wrong with movies today in general. As long as the numbers allow for bragging rights, the people in charge of green lights are satisfied. The many things which are wrong with this movie will catch up with it at the box office.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 05-15-2009 09:06 AM

The reason I was using numbers to talk about this movie is that legs indicate how well recieved a movie is by the public. It's a very strong indicator of word of mouth.

It's a sci-fi action adventure movie. Do people nit pick Star Wars (the original) and say the story relied too much on coincidence that Luke and his uncle bought C3PO AND R2D2? No they don't because they were entertained by the story. Everybody that I've talked to that has seen this movie has enjoyed it. It doesn't matter that there are plot holes.

The goal of this genre of movie is to have a fast paced, effects filled joy ride with some one-liner humor thrown in. It delivered on all those counts.

People don't nit pick that the entire look and feel of Gotham completely changed between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Why don't they nit pick? Because The Dark Knight was an incredibly entertaining film.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 05-15-2009 10:40 AM

Lyle, you sound like someone who would voiceover movie commercials or something using terms like "effects filled joy ride". Are you financially invested in this movie or something? Why are you being so cheesy?

quote: Lyle Romer
It doesn't matter that there are plot holes.

That doesn't mean that there should be plot holes.

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 05-15-2009 01:42 PM

The splashy effects and action are what attract people the first time. The plot holes are what will hurt repeat business.

Perhaps the reason people didn't nit-pick about the droid purchase in Star Wars was that the rest of the movie offered so many groundbreaking things that the audience felt were fresh and new. Besides, there was nothing convenient about the way Luke got caught up in that whole rebelion mess, even if it turned out to be his "destiny." But in this movie **spoiler alert** we need a quick way for Kirk to become captain and, presto! There's a Starfleet regulation of which everyone is aware but it still only takes about 20 seconds to provoke Spock and then, about a minute later, Kirk is captain! And then, the next time they're together, they're best friends. Too convenient for me... I'm just sayin'.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 05-15-2009 05:28 PM

quote:
Lyle, you sound like someone who would voiceover movie commercials or something using terms like "effects filled joy ride". Are you financially invested in this movie or something? Why are you being so cheesy?

quote: Lyle Romer

It doesn't matter that there are plot holes.
That doesn't mean that there should be plot holes.

I wish I was financially invested in the movie!

As for being cheesy, I guess I was just due for a cheesy post.

[ 05-15-2009, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]

| IP: Logged

Pravin Ratnam
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 844
From: Atlanta, GA,USA
Registered: Sep 2002

posted 05-19-2009 09:36 PM

I enjoyed the movie. Special mention to Karl Urban whose casting initially confused me. He played Bones as if DeForest Kelly was reincarnated.

I liked both old and new Spocks. I just loved the entire casting. The acting in this movie was definitely better than your typical Trek movie and I say this as someone who adored the the original TV series as a kid. The movies with the original cast seemed cheesy to me.

I rank this the second most fun Trek after Wrath of Khan.

| IP: Logged

Steve Wilson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 109
From: Paoli, IN, USA
Registered: May 2004

posted 05-28-2009 11:27 PM

I think they did a very good job with the movie, however, the original cast lives on in my heart. We will never get to know this group of actors in the fine detail of any other Star Trek Movie, because all the other movies were made with the original cast of the TV series that gave us decades of TV exposure to get to know them.

I think the casting was excellent! As good as one could hope for. The story was far too rushed for my taste it needed to be at least another half hour longer.

DeForest Kelly was a fine man with a heart of gold!

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 05-29-2009 12:02 AM

I simply cannot get over the fact that they call Leonard Nimoy's character "Spock Prime". That is unacceptable. One thing is certain, Kirk Prime could kick New Kirk's ass, especially since New Kirk is much too wimpy to win even a single fight by himself. Kirk Prime would also sleep with New Kirk's mom while New Kirk watched in shame. That's how awesome Kirk Prime is. Star Trek Prime: The Wrath of Khan Prime is still my favorite Star Trek movie.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 05-29-2009 09:37 PM

I finally watched "Star Trek" - The New and Improved 90120 iphone, ADD, I'm fucking addicted to Ritalin user" version last night.

Overall, on its own, Star Trek is an entertaining movie. I think it would be especially entertaining for any very young movie-goer not familiar at all with previous Star Trek movies and TV series episodes.

But then that's just it. Anyone familiar with previous Star Trek movies and TV series episodes stands a good chance of having nagging feelings of "this new movie just doesn't seem right."

I can forgive some of the liberties taken with the storyline of the original saga. But blowing up certain specific planets and killing off certain characters (and leaving others conspicuously alive) just as the reboot is getting on its feet is really pushing things a LOT.

I'm not a big "trekkie/trekker" fan, but even I was muttering to myself, "that shit never happened that way." The time warp, worm hole, whatever the hell you want to call it is just a damned cheat. A cheap shot in screenwriting revisionism. In the end it plays just as cheap and suck-ass-tastic as that part of the Dallas TV series where Bobby Ewing was stone fucking dead. But in the end Pamela (Victoria Principal and her luscious big nips) finds out that the whole damned thing was just a dream! American viewers are re-fucking-tarded! Jeez!!!
[Roll Eyes]

I don't know, maybe the things that tainted this otherwise decent movie were some of the small things.

For one, I really HATED the music score on this movie. It had totally NOTHING to do with the Star Trek saga. Normally Michael Giacchino does a good job with the music he scores for various movies and TV shows. But this score seemed absolutely forgettable.

Complaints about lens flares are at the very bottom of the list for me. I don't mind those style choices at all. Not in the slightest.

What I really disliked was the ADD - short attention span, spastic, I can't concentrate on one shot longer than 12 frames bullshit editing pace that went on in some of the more important action set pieces of this movie. It was a bunch of frantic bullshit without enough sense of organization. There was NO "music" to the editing. It sucked. I'll laugh out loud if this movie wins an Academy Award several months from now for best film editing.

Here's the point. Think of the edit pace in terms of tasty rock guitar solos. The very best rock guitar solos of all time are NOT anywhere near the fastest or most surgically precise. The best ones are ones that you can remember and ones that you actually "feel" to a certain extent. I can listen to great guitar solos from Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck or even Jerry Cantrell from Alice in Chains and just be in heaven from listening. Then fucking Yngwie Malmsteen walks on the stage proclaiming to be the fastest guitarist of all time with his screwy Fender Strat with the custom scalloped neck. He plays and plays faster than all fucking hell. But I am absolutely BORED OFF MY ASS. Fuck the tailpipe of an overheating racecar! I am BORED!!! Yeah, he's playing all great and fast, but it's just a shitload of scales. Boring, damned scales. Nothing more. Nothing creative. No feeling.

Female friends I know have similar complaints about certain men they date. Some men are in touch with their sensuality and know how to feel. These ladies get great sex from that. Then they complain about other assholes who screw like they're trying to finish an exercise workout in record time. Jackhammer sex with nothing more involved than getting off. No feeling involved. The ladies aren't going to feel like going back for another round of that crap. They can get better satisfaction from the little battery operated pocket rocket they have at home.

My analogies about shitty yet fast guitar solos and stupidly bad goal oriented sex absolutely apply to this Star Trek movie. Yeah, it's entertaining for what it was. But I'm with [joe]

on this. It's worth seeing once. But I'm not going to be buying this movie on Blu-ray.

| IP: Logged

Stu Jamieson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 524
From: Buccan, Qld, Australia
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 05-30-2009 05:37 AM

^ I'd like to subscribe to your sex class. Please PM your course details. Cheers.

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 05-30-2009 02:09 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
I can forgive some of the liberties taken with the storyline of the original saga. But blowing up certain specific planets and killing off certain characters (and leaving others conspicuously alive) just as the reboot is getting on its feet is really pushing things a LOT.

I think it's important that they made those choices because they are so different from what has come before. They're sending a message that anything can happen in this new timeline. I think that's pretty gutsy.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 05-30-2009 07:47 PM

But the previous timeline is erased from existence as a result. You like the old TV show? Too bad, it never happened since Spock Prime (LOL) erased it from existence.

Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
Spock Prime (LOL) is the most incompetent being ever, letting Romulous be destroyed, erasing an entire timeline and causing the destruction of his own planet! What a doofus!

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 05-30-2009 07:52 PM

No, it's not. The original timeline is still there, existing just as much as it always has. The new timeline is just running parallel to it. Think of it working the same way as the mirror universe.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 05-31-2009 01:47 AM

That's just stupid. If you go back in time, you alter the future hence the premise of plenty of Star Trek episodes and even movies. Spock Prime (LOL) went back in time and altered the future. Original timeline = gone. Any other argument = fail. The mirror universe is a parallel dimension where most things are ass backwards, not an altered timeline. The only way I will accept your premise is if the new "altered" Star Trek somehow becomes the mirror universe in which case I would think that is totally awesome and I would not argue a bit just because of how cool that would be.

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 05-31-2009 03:19 AM

While the old style time travel may have been the basis for many episodes of Star Trek, the theory used in the new movie is more scientifically plausible. It would be stupid (and very non-Star Trek) to ignore the latest developments in real-world science in order to maintain consistency with a plot device which has been notoriously inconsistent over the course of the series.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.