This is topic Star Trek (2009) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001540
Posted by Steve Wilson (Member # 2411) on 04-12-2009, 11:04 PM:
 
I saw this earlier this week and it looked and played really good in this re-boot of the original cast. I think it should do some business and I am looking forward to seeing it again!

I also saw the trailer to the new Transformer Movie and it looked to kick ass too!
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-02-2009, 08:06 AM:
 
I have mixed feelings about this. We'll see.

Btw, Transformers 2... parts filmed right here in Bethlehem, PA!
 
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 05-03-2009, 07:24 PM:
 
It would be easy to be hyper-critical of Star Trek (2009) and tear it apart block by block but this would be contrary to the spirit of the franchise. It matters nought that the unleashing of a black hole in the midst of our solar system results in little consequence to the neighbouring planets (or galaxies, for that matter); or that Simon Pegg's Scotty bears zero resemblance to James Doohan; or that an unlikely intra-crew love affair will require some significant (and potentially fascinating) narrative acrobatics in order to segue future franchise instalments back into Gene Roddenberry's timeline. Star Trek is about the fun, the fantasy, and the politics - elements which are tied but loosely to reality - and in this charge, Hollywood hitmaker JJ Abrams' prequel to the seminal 60's sci-fi TV series succeeds admirably.

The nostalgia factor is high so naturally the proceedings must be commensurate with Trek Lore lest Abrams suffer the hex of a trillion Tribbles. So accordingly Mr Spock must deliver his mandatory "live long and prosper" line whilst gesturing the corresponding salute; Scotty must declare, "I canna change the laws o' physics, Capt'n!" (or something similar); the loss of an hitherto unknown crew member must perish during an off-Enterprise expedition; and there must be the obligatory big explodey things, sleek techie space ships, breathtaking hemlines on Uhura's tunic and mean-looking tatooed aliens resembling Chopper Read. With all the boxes duly and dutifully ticked, the Trekkies/Trekkers/Roddenberrites/Starfleet Cadets (or whatever the hell they call themselves these days) are appeased.

With it's young spunky talent and incumbent soap opera tendencies, the film teeters on the edge of Star Trek 90210 but crucially remains on the fun side of saccharine melodrama. The enjoyable cast have a wonderful time caricaturing their celebrated elder selves resulting in a plethora of in-jokes which will keep the fans in giggles. Of particular note is Karl Urban's playful rendition of Bones McCoy and it's a credit to Simon Pegg's performance that he so successfully pulls off his Scotty despite his unDoohan-like appearance. Winona Ryder's appearance, however, is nothing short of mysterious considering she spends all her screen time in aged makeup. Why not just cast a 60 year old? Perhaps her flashback scenes failed the final cut? Leonard Nimoy makes his obligatory cameo, indeed the Back To The Future plot seems derived specifically to get him in it; a point further supported by the contrived means by which he is united with the young James T Kirk, subsequently MacGuffining the fledgling Starfleet Captain back into the story. But be it as it may, it's always a pleasure seeing the big fella with the big voice don the pointy ears just one more time (again). Oddly, though, The Shat™ is nowhere to be seen.

Gunning for the fun end of the spectrum, Star Trek is undeniably good, solid, undemanding entertainment.

7.5 out of 10.
 
Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 05-04-2009, 02:33 PM:
 
Damn I thought I was reading a critic! The summary of the top review is IS GOOD BUT NOT AS GOOD AS IT COULD BE!
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-04-2009, 05:40 PM:
 
Thank you.
 
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 05-04-2009, 05:42 PM:
 
^ A summary which would surely apply to all but those cinematic experiences which achieve perfection (unless the movie is really, really, bad). I prefer to summarise my review as WON'T CHANGE THE WORLD BUT ADMIRABLY ACCOMPLISHES WHAT IT SETS OUT TO ACHIEVE.
 
Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 05-06-2009, 05:36 AM:
 
I thought this was pretty good. Actually character driven rather than just relying on special effects. 4/5
 
Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-06-2009, 06:49 PM:
 
Saw this on Sunday and was really impressed, possibly the best mainstream Hollywood film I've seen this year. Great special effects back up an entertaining story and the cast do a great job with the characters. Can't wait to see the IMAX presentation.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-07-2009, 05:12 PM:
 
Loved it! I didn't think I would like it based on the trailers, but other than the completely useless "red tarantula creature thing" that chases Kirk on the planet's surface, I enjoyed it very much.

4.5 out of 5

Re: the Transformers 2 trailer - holy fucking shit this turd is going to be even worse than the original movie! How is that possible??? I'll just go ahead and give my review right now to Transformers 2: -1 out of 5
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-07-2009, 07:07 PM:
 
..you can give the 'Golden Turd Award' to Michael Bay if the 2nd one might reek a bit. Then, it would be his 2nd award-his first was "Pearl Harbor"
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-07-2009, 07:33 PM:
 
Monte, did you forget...
Transformers (2007)
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Armageddon (1998)
Bad Boys I and II (1995/2003)
The Rock (1996)

And then there is his SLEW of godawful remakes...
Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
Friday the 13th (2009)
The Hitcher (2007)
TX Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
Amityville Horror (2005)

This certainly won't be his SECOND one.
 
Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 05-08-2009, 02:47 AM:
 
Excellent movie. The cast turned out much better than I thought it would be originally.

quote: Brad Miller
Re: the Transformers 2 trailer - holy fucking shit this turd is going to be even worse than the original movie! How is that possible??? I'll just go ahead and give my review right now to Transformers 2: -1 out of 5
Every single person I have talked to LOVES that trailer. I don't know why so many people bash on the first movie, I felt it was one of the better action movies I have seen in the last few years.

The trailer NOBODY can stand is the one for G.I. Joe. THAT movie is going to be as much fun as food poisoning if the preview is any indication. I will still watch it, because G.I. Joe is a real American hero and all.
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-08-2009, 09:06 AM:
 
I concur with Anslem.

Very well-done movie. 4.5/5.

I thought the Transformers 2 trailer looked good and the G.I. Joe one seemed lame beyond belief. When I first noticed the names that made it obviously be G.I. Joe, I got excited for a sec then progressively got less and less interested.

And on Transformers, I liked it too. It's definitely Michael Bay's best movie so far, though that's not saying much.
 
Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 05-08-2009, 09:25 AM:
 
I am a die-hard Star Trek fan so I was really nervous about this one. However, I really loved it more than I thought I would! I talked with customers as they excited these shows yesterday and everyone seemed to really like it. Every auditorium got applause. I think this will play well and have legs for days.

5 [Smile] out of 5 [Smile]
 
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-08-2009, 02:57 PM:
 
I have not seen the new STAR TRECK movie yet and would like to see it in IMAX but I will not have the time to see it during the next two to three weeks. The IMAX ad for the movie said "For Limited Time" and was wondering approximately how long that would be?

-Claude
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-08-2009, 03:20 PM:
 
It's probably based on your local IMAX having a pre-existing thing scheduled to start up soon.
 
Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 05-08-2009, 03:42 PM:
 
Saw it last night, enjoyed it. Rank it behind the "Wrath of Khan" and "Undiscovered Country" as far as best Star Trek films. Saw it with seemly an audience full of Treckers. I liked all the "shout outs" and inside references they put in. Similar to what they did with "Cloverfield" where the producers "leaked" images of the monster which all where false, I liked how they "leaked" a possible relationship between Kirk and Uhura (while getting the fan boys into a tizzy), teased it at the beginning of the film, and then took things to a completely unexpected direction. Overall 4 out of 5 stars...

************************* Spoilers **************************

When I first heard that there where making this movie, I had hoped that they where going to do a relaunch similar to the Batman franchise. Of course when Leonard Nemoy signed on, it seemed that this was not going to be the case. Now after watching the film, it looks like it is a relaunch after all. As explained by Spock (with a sledgehammer) in the middle of the movie, everything that happens after Nero's ship went though time and attacked the USS Kelvin, takes place on an alternate timeline. Since the timeline was never restored, they can pretty much do whatever they want and not worry about contiguity.

-Nitpicky stuff

1) So after going back in time and destroying the USS Kelvin, Nero and crew just sit in a corner of space and do nothing for 25 years besides waiting for Spock's ship to show up?

2) Why does Spock's ship carry all that "Red Goo" when all he needed was a drop to create a black hole?

3) Both Earth and Vulcan have such little planetary defenses that they can't do anything to stop a big ass drill which could be damaged with simple phaser rifle fire? Hell we could stop one of those today with an F-15 and a couple of missiles.

4) Wow never knew that the Vulcan's where so racist against Humans even up to their council people. I guess their planet deserved to be destroyed after all.

5) So Kirk goes for ensign to captain in a couple of days, but it takes Sulu 30 years to get his own ship.
 
Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 05-08-2009, 04:27 PM:
 
Two words: Lens flares. [Mad]
 
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 05-08-2009, 06:52 PM:
 
Lens flares are great!

**SPOILERS**
@Michael: How about the big whopper whereby Kirk is banished to a planet which just happens to be the same planet which aged Spock is marooned on. And when he gets attacked by a creature, Spock just happens to be at precisely the same GPS coords to conveniently save his life and fill him in on the plot. AND they just happen to be a stones throw from an outpost where Scotty is stationed who just happens to have the technology which, when combined with information from Spock (gleaned from the future Scotty, no less), enables them to get back on the enterprise thus, in turn, allowing the plot to clunk forward. Now that is one hell of a plot contrivance! And it looks like its primary purpose is simply to shoehorn Nimoy's cameo into the story.
 
Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 05-08-2009, 08:13 PM:
 
I don't post on the Movie Reviews Forum , being a follower of the Dirty Harry addage that "Opinions are like ass holes. Everybody has one."

This time, I will make an exception.

I'm not a Trecker, so I can't debate all the fine points of plot and faithfullness to the original. Having enjoyed the TV series many "moons" ago I became disinterested with some of the recent efforts in the series.

However, I judge a movie by it's entertainment value. In other words, does it remove me from the present and entertain me for a couple of hours, engrossing me in the presentation? This one sure as hell did.

What more can I say? Then again, Opinions..... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-08-2009, 08:20 PM:
 
Claude, many of the IMAX locations have already booked NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM: BATTLE OF THE SMITHSONIAN that opens May 22.

This is one good movie. There are enough things to keep the old Trek followers on their toes and lots of action for everyone else. Good plot, good story and good acting. Very involving and lots of fun.

This one gets a solid A from me. Best non-arty film I've seen in a LONG time.
 
Posted by Jarret Chessell (Member # 5077) on 05-08-2009, 08:30 PM:
 
I watched the new star trek last night.....

I thought the movie was very entertaining. I noticed a lot of little picky things i didn't like.

----Spoiler----

I mentioned the waiting in the corner of space thing for 20+ years to one of the managers who watched it last night as well.

Also, the plot moved so quickly the action was packed to the edge of the reels. I'd hate to show this print in a few years after ten frames have been hacked off the heads and tails.

I think it was the start of reel 6, right after kirk and spock make nice, the reel changes, and spock is all about recovering the red matter... which I don't recall kirk and anyone saying to anyone on the enterprise what had transpired with future spock.... sooooo, not previewing the film, i had a momentary flutter thinking i had the reels out of order. I was relieved when i checked my watch and saw that I must be right lol
 
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-08-2009, 09:14 PM:
 
SPOILERS:

quote: Stu Jamieson
**SPOILERS**
@Michael: How about the big whopper whereby Kirk is banished to a planet which just happens to be the same planet which aged Spock is marooned on. And when he gets attacked by a creature, Spock just happens to be at precisely the same GPS coords to conveniently save his life and fill him in on the plot. AND they just happen to be a stones throw from an outpost where Scotty is stationed who just happens to have the technology which, when combined with information from Spock (gleaned from the future Scotty, no less), enables them to get back on the enterprise thus, in turn, allowing the plot to clunk forward. Now that is one hell of a plot contrivance! And it looks like its primary purpose is simply to shoehorn Nimoy's cameo into the story.
I was discussing this and other convenient acts of coincidence which are scattered throughout the film with a co-worker of mine, and he hypothesized that these were intentionally inserted into the movie to drive home the idea of destiny. After thinking about it, I think he's right.

That actually makes me like the movie a little less. It's one thing to ignore a bit of sloppy writing. But I cannot embrace a concept as stupid as destiny.

However, this, along with some avoidable nerdy inconsistencies with Trek canon, are really all that is wrong with this movie. Had they not relied so heavily on coincidence, this may very well have been the best Star Trek movie of all-time. As it stands, I'd say it's the best Star Trek movie that's not directed by Nicholas Meyer.

For the first time since the original series, Star Trek is on the cutting edge of filmmaking, and not a decade or so behind. I loved the look of the movie. The super-glossy production design and lighting coupled with the chaotic hand-held camera work was beautiful. And once again, the editing duo of Maryann Brandon and Mary Jo Markey have assembled a movie with perfect rhythm.

The portrayals of Kirk, Spock, and Bones accurately captured the essence of the original characters, and the portrayals of Uhura and Scotty were way way better than the original characters. Sulu was a little cheesy, and Chekov should not have been in this movie, but whatever.

Does this movie have problems? Hell yes. But it's so jam-packed with awesomeness that its flaws can be overlooked.
 
Posted by Jon P. Inghram (Member # 4125) on 05-08-2009, 09:49 PM:
 
I rate it "marginally ok."

More when I can think of 'em...
 
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 05-08-2009, 10:15 PM:
 
@Mike regarding the destiny thing: That did occur to me but I don't buy it. If destiny were to explain it then that means that everything was preordained and if that were the case then Spock would remember meeting himself, Kirk would always have been a fatherless child and I'm sure there would be a plethora of other inconsistencies if I could be bothered thinking harder about it. The destiny theory just doesn't add up.
 
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-08-2009, 10:43 PM:
 
Well, I agree that it doesn't work at all. That's why destiny is a terrible storytelling device. But as to whether or not that was their intent, here's an excerpt from an interview with the writers on Trek Movie :

quote:
Trek Movie: Even though things are different in this timeline, like Kirk coming aboard the Enterprise first as a cadet, by the end of the movie every one of the original bridge crew end up where they are supposed to be. Is there some kind of notion that it is their destiny to be on that bridge, regardless of what timeline you are on?

Kurtzman: Yes. In fact there was one version of the script where Kirk points out that it is incredibly odd that they all sort of turned as they would have. Nimoy Spock tells Kirk ‘I knew this character as this person and that character as that person’ and Kirk says ‘wow, those characters are exactly the same ones that I know’ and Spock says something like ‘Fascinating, that must be the timestream’s way of trying to mend itself.’

Orci: It is a nod to destiny. And there is still something like that in the film.

 
Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 05-09-2009, 12:10 AM:
 
quote: Jon P. Inghram
I rate it "marginally ok."

* - TOooOooOO MmMuuUccHhh SsshHHaakKiieE cCaaMMmm!11!1
* - The iBridge made my eyes bleed.
* - T. Oo. Many. Ra. Pid. Cut. S. Dur. Ing. Ac. Tion. Sce. nes!
* - The engineering spaces of the Enterprise appear to be located in a basement boiler room.
* - The Romulans need to hire a plumber.
* - The focus puller needs to be canned. In quite a few close-up shots the focus is on the back of the actors head instead of on their face, most notably when Spock Classic is talking.
* - The racist Vulcans made me raise one eyebrow.
* - The "Chekov has a bad accent" gag was funny for about 5 seconds and then got really annoying.
* + The Vulcan terrain was an amusing touch.
* ? I can't tell if it was just a coincidence, but the little glass tube that Spock puts the "red matter" into bore a striking resemblance to a Shizuma Drive.
* + The way the ships violently jump to warp speed was nifty.
* - Boring villian
* + Time travel plot that wasn't annoying.
* + A redshirt gets incinerated.

More when I can think of 'em...
LOL at iBridge. Great term.

* Agree with the boiler room engineering room I thought it was out of place as well

* I honestly wondered if they had intentionally blurred Leonard Nemoy's face on some close up to hide some of the wrinkles.

* Couldn't they have thought of a better name then "Red Matter"?

* I like Eric Bana but yea he was terrible in this. Though it could be argued that he didnt have much to work with.

* It would have been a nice touch to have mention Spock's older brother even if just in passing.

* OMG they finally brought back the Green Women.

Anyway a good entertaining movie, will probably try to check it out on the Imax...
 
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-09-2009, 12:50 AM:
 
quote: Michael Gonzalez
* Couldn't they have thought of a better name then "Red Matter"?
Like, "Rambaldi Device"?

quote: Michael Gonzalez
* OMG they finally brought back the Green Women.
They were actually in the last season of ENTERPRISE.
 
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 05-09-2009, 02:57 PM:
 
CINEMA: 13th Avenue Warren, Wichita, KS
AUDITORIUM: 13
PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital Cinema DLP/THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None [Cool]
RATING: Three stars (out of four)

WARNING: Spoilers are like assholes. Everybody has one.

HOLY CRAP that's a fat guy who just walked in. He's HUGE. He must be as round as he is tall. He makes me look like Adam "Twiggy" Martin. And he's the leader of a posse. They clearly consider him to be the coolest guy ever, and he seems to pull it off.

Some soundtrack theme that I recognize, but can't place, starts playing (because that's what they do before the show...play songs from soundtracks) and the guy three seats down from me goes "Nooooo!"

Then the music pauses.

Then he says "Do you think they stopped it because they knew I'd turn into a giant Japanese monster?"

Then it started again. The pause was just a natural part of the piece.

He didn't.

THE PLOT: Eric Bana is pissed. Wackiness ensues.

As villains go, Eric Bana was crappy here. He was as dumb as the one in "Nemesis". But he's just secondary fodder to the reboot of a massive franchise. He can Wile. E. Coyote his character here and nobody will care. We're really here to see a new youthful testosterone-laden Enterprise crew, and we are not disappointed.

In fact, I'd go as far to say the Onion News Network "story" was actually dead-on. There will be a contingent of Trekkies (fuck off, "trekkers") who will whine and complain for the exact reasons the Onion portrayed. But the masses are going to eat this up.

There's lots that's accurate to the franchise...I totally bought all of the main characters except Chekov, and in some cases McCoy (who just seemed to be acting older than his character's age)...and not only were most of the trademark catch-phrases intact, they actually lifted entire lines of dialogue from previous movies. And that's only the tip of the hat of little tributes sprinkled throughout. And the Enterprise has never looked better.

It's a completely kickass ride from start to finish and a lot of fun to watch. I wouldn't be surprised if it holds the top spot at the box office next weekend as well.
 
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 05-10-2009, 05:35 PM:
 
I enjoyed the movie quite well.

My biggest gripe is the guy playing Spock, while I am sure he is a fine actor, he sucked at portraying Spock.

****Spoiler****
So Nero kills JT's dad and he turns out exactly how Capt Kirk should turn out. But somehow the destruction of the USS Kelvin, while having no direct impact on his early development, turned Spock into a whiny little brat cunt? It is suggested that this takes place before he does his Kolinahr ritual, which would account for his increased emotion, but still I had to constantly remind myself that I was supposed to be watching Spock and I never believed it. ugh...I hope I don't have to see this guy in the throws on Pon Far. The love story was so tacked on too and completely pointless.

I thought Eric Bana was great though. but when is he not?

And on a side note, I know it is a reboot, but I think it would have been nice to see some familiar faces in the minor roles. For example, why stupid Tyler Perry as the Commandant of StarFleet Academy? Why not use Micheal Dorn or Avery Brooks? Would have been a cool little addition for the people who are already Star Trek fans.
 
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 05-10-2009, 06:46 PM:
 
^ Nerd. [Wink]

I've read the word "reboot" a bit in reference to this movie,is this officially a reboot of the franchise? I presumed it was just a prequel.
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-10-2009, 07:20 PM:
 
The assumption is that with it's success this will reboot the franchise regardless.
 
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 05-11-2009, 05:25 AM:
 
Yeah, not quite the same thing though. What I'm getting at is if this is a reboot then there is no need to maintain continuity with the existing canon - they can do whatever they like with the story and timeline. If it's a prequel, then it will have to mesh with the TV series at some point.
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-11-2009, 08:53 AM:
 
I thought this was an extremely entertaining and action-packed movie. I've never been a trekkie (I watched some series reruns growing up and saw most of the movies but don't remember much about them since I was young) but I liked how they mixed some of the "sterotypical" stuff into the script. I put this on par with an Iron Man type movie where it's got great action and enough seriousness but mixes in a little humor. It felt a lot shorter than the runtime which is always a high grade!

One minor critique - HOLY LENS FLARE BATMAN. Was it real from the lighting and photography design or did they go nuts with adding it in in post production?

4 1/2 out of 5 stars

*********SPOILERS BELOW*****************

A comment on some of the discussion going on about the coincidences I assumed that "Old Alternate Timeline" Spock knew exactly where "Young This Timeline" Spock would send Kirk and that's how he knew where to go to find him. I don't think it was destiny. Remember that he said something to him about "after today's events" or something like that indicating that he knew what happened on the ship. I guess you can nitpick that since he was from a different timeline he couldn't know and all kinds of other things but such is the downside of time travel plots.
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-11-2009, 09:43 AM:
 
Saw Star Trek XI: Lens Flares on 5/9 at Regal 15 in Eugene, 6:30PM in #15, NEC 2K DLP. The show looked and sounded great!

Pretty much what everyone else has said, not much I can add. The movie is highly entertaining and I plan to see it again. Glad they made the decision to shoot it in 35mm anamorphic because dammit it just makes it look more "cinematic". [beer]

I give it 4.5 out of 5. [thumbsup]

Someone at Regal or NCM should think about redesigning that screen at the end of the preshow so it "works" with masking set to either flat or scope on screens with either top or side masking. It's kind of dumb to freeze on that screen and the top masking comes down and cuts off the Regal logo. Top masking is enough of an abomination without drawing attention to it like that.
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-11-2009, 11:00 AM:
 
quote: Lyle Romer
A comment on some of the discussion going on about the coincidences I assumed that "Old Alternate Timeline" Spock knew exactly where "Young This Timeline" Spock would send Kirk and that's how he knew where to go to find him. I don't think it was destiny. Remember that he said something to him about "after today's events" or something like that indicating that he knew what happened on the ship. I guess you can nitpick that since he was from a different timeline he couldn't know and all kinds of other things but such is the downside of time travel plots.
I don't quite buy that. Nimoy's Spock seemed to be surprised that Kirk wasn't a Captain, so he wouldn't have known that the other Spock would maroon him for being a stowaway.
 
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-11-2009, 01:03 PM:
 
SPOILERS! DO NOT READ THIS POST IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE!

quote: Stu Jamieson
I've read the word "reboot" a bit in reference to this movie,is this officially a reboot of the franchise? I presumed it was just a prequel.
Creatively, it's a reboot. Story-wise, it's actually a sequel.

Think of it this way: Everything that happened from ENTERPRISE through NEMESIS played out exactly as it did. Eight years afer NEMESIS, Nero and Spock go back in time to the year 2233, which is 33 years before Season One of the original series. When that happened, a new timeline was created where anything can happen, regardless of what happened in the original timeline.

Because of that, this new movie may eventually lead into the original series, or it may not. Lots of stuff is already different from the original series. Vulcan is gone. Kirk has taken command of the Enterprise 8 years earlier than in the other timeline. There's a lot more than that.

The writers have said that they plan on taking certain elements from the original series and twisting them into another direction when you least expect it.

So, it's a reboot in the sense that they can do whatever they want, but it's a sequel in the sense that Spock has lived his life as portrayed in the original series, and this is where he's at now.

quote: Lyle Romer
A comment on some of the discussion going on about the coincidences I assumed that "Old Alternate Timeline" Spock knew exactly where "Young This Timeline" Spock would send Kirk and that's how he knew where to go to find him. I don't think it was destiny. Remember that he said something to him about "after today's events" or something like that indicating that he knew what happened on the ship. I guess you can nitpick that since he was from a different timeline he couldn't know and all kinds of other things but such is the downside of time travel plots.
Old Spock definitely would not know what Young Spock would do because those events were a direct result of Nero traveling back in time. In Old Spock's timeline, Kirk wasn't even stationed on the Enterprise at that point.

As for the "today's events" comment, he was referring to the destruction of Vulcan.

I've written a rather lengthy (and rather nerdy) essay on the problems I have with the movie as it relates to canon. Here it is, for those who are interested:

As much as I love J.J. Abrams' new STAR TREK movie, it sure has its share of problems.

Some are of a storytelling nature. This movie relies heavily on coincidence. Whether or not that was an intentional nod to the idea of destiny or just a bit of lazy writing doesn't really matter. Either way, it's a problem, and one which could have been drastically reduced.

Other problems are things that only the nerdiest of Trekkies would ever notice. And while I understand that it is more important to tell a good story than to appease Trek canon, they could have done both.

After skimming through Denise and Michael Okuda's STAR TREK CHRONOLOGY, I'm fairly certain that most of these continuity errors could have been avoided without sacrificing anything major in terms of story.

Now, I realize that any number of events could change based on Nero and Spock traveling back in time. But that seems like the lazy way out to me. I want to see cause and effect. So while there may have been some chain of events which caused Chekov’s parents to get it on four years earlier than they did in the original timeline, I want that shit explained.

With that in mind here is a list of the problems that I have with STAR TREK, and how I would have avoided them.

The film starts with Nero's ship appearing in the year the 2233, and destroying the U.S.S. Kelvin. When Captain Robau is killed, George Kirk assumes command. As he sacrifices his life, his wife, Winona, gives birth to their son, James, in a shuttlecraft.

While this may be very poetic and beautiful, it is highly coincidental that Nero travels back in time and space through a black hole created by Spock, and ends up in the exact place that Kirk is born. While the story hinges on Nero killing Kirk's dad, this did not have to occur through an act of heroism on George Kirk's part, and at the exact moment of Kirk's birth. That sequence could have played out more like the opening of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, with some sort of reveal that one of many casualties resulting from Nero's attack was George Kirk.

The death of George Kirk is what causes significant changes to the timeline for the next 25 years. Without a father, Jim Kirk's life loses direction, and he enters Starfleet Academy four years later than he did in the original timeline. Luckily, the destruction of the Kelvin also caused the location of the shipyard where the Enterprise was built to change from San Francisco to Kirk's hometown of Riverside, Iowa. It's also fortunate that, for some reason or another, this also happens to be where new recruits gather before departing for Starfleet Academy in San Francisco.

Call me crazy, but wouldn't it be ever so slightly more plausible if, upon the death of her Starfleet officer husband, Winona Kirk would hook up with another Starfleet officer who might be stationed at Starfleet Command in San Francisco? This would give reason for her to relocate her family, where young Jim could interact with new recruits who are naturally in the town where their training will take place.

Of course, the other problem with Kirk witnessing the construction of the Enterprise in his hometown is that the Enterprise should have been built eight years prior to when those scenes take place. There is no reason why Kirk needs to see the Enterprise being built, and there is no reason why this needs to be the story of the Enterprise's maiden voyage.

When I first heard of the plan for this movie, I was most skeptical of how they intended to include all of the cast members in this story. In particular, Uhura, Chekov, and McCoy did not appear until after WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE.

While it is possible that Uhura was on the Enterprise at the start of Kirk's five-year mission in 2264, it's not very likely. The communications officer in WNMHGB was Lieutenant Alden. But she could have been a lower ranking officer. Who knows?

Chekov is even less likely, since he would have only been 19 years old, but I suppose that is also possible.

The one that I found hardest to believe was McCoy. The doctor in WNMHGB was Mark Piper, suggesting that McCoy had not yet been assigned to the Enterprise.

Much to my surprise, The inclusion of McCoy works perfectly in the new timeline, and actually makes his relationship with Kirk more believable. This is due to the fact that George Kirk's death inadvertently postpones Jim Kirk's entry into Starfleet Academy for four years. This allows Kirk's time at the Academy to coincide with McCoy's, and explains how they became such close friends. McCoy's promotion to Chief Medical Officer is explained in the movie by the death of his predecessor in the battle at Vulcan.

Uhura's inclusion in the film works too. Much like Kirk and McCoy, Uhura is also a cadet during the movie. Uhura's age was never established in the original timeline, so the filmmakers were able to mold her backstory to suit their needs.

However, Chekov has no place in this film. Based on original series continuity, he was born in 2245. That would make him 13 years old at the time of the film, not 17 as the movie states.

I can understand fudging facts a little bit if you really want him on board the ship. But I don't see what he's good for. His character is portrayed as a Wesley Crusher-like boy genius to explain away his presence as ship's navigator. But once on board, he doesn't do much of anything, least of all navigation. His one shining moment seems like it would fall more into the realm of physics. Which leads me to my next complaint.

There's nothing wrong with having Sulu aboard the Enterprise in the new timeline. Much like Uhura, his age was never established over the course of the series, and there's no reason to think that he isn't an academy graduate and officer.

However, he did not begin his career aboard the Enterprise as a helmsman. In WNMHGB, Sulu is a physicist. So why not make him a physicist in this movie, giving him all of Chekov's stuff to do? And as for the helm, why not use THE CAGE's helmsman, Lieutenant Jose Tyler?

Speaking of CAGE continuity, it doesn't really make much sense that Spock is Pike's first officer in the new timeline. In THE CAGE, which takes place four years prior to the film, Spock is the science officer. He doesn't become first officer until Gary Mitchell is killed in WNMHGB.

It would have made more sense for Number One to still be Pike's first officer at the start of the mission in the new movie, with Spock as science officer. Then in the battle at Vulcan, Number One could be killed, making way for Spock to take command.

On the whole, Spock's backstory is very true to the original timeline. It seems that most changes to his character will result from the events in this movie, most notably, the destruction of Vulcan.

The one problem I have with the portrayal of Spock in the movie is his romance with Uhura. As much as I loved this storyline, it doesn't make any sense how the destruction of the Kelvin would have altered events to a point where this relationship would occur. It was a nice touch by the filmmakers, but ultimately not necessary, and so it should go.

The only other minor gripe I have with changes to Trek canon is the inclusion of Delta Vega. Nice touch, but it doesn't make any sense. Delta Vega's location in the galaxy is problematic. So why not just ignore it, and name the planet something else?

Delta Vega is also responsible for the most ridiculous series of coincidences in the entire movie. Okay, so the planet is near Vulcan, and that's why both Kirk and Old Spock end up there. Fine. I can also accept that Kirk is shot down to the planet and lands within 14 miles of a Starfleet outpost. It makes sense that Spock would intentionally do that so as not to completely leave Kirk all on his own.

I'm even okay with Scotty being there. Not much is known about his time in Starfleet prior to joining the Enterprise, so who is to say he wasn't on that outpost?

But Kirk randomly running into a cave that Old Spock happens to be in which is also mere miles from Scotty's outpost? That's stretching it a bit. At the very least, they could have had Old Spock find the outpost on his own, which is where he would eventually meet up with Kirk. Isn't it coincidence enough that Spock would find the outpost on his own?

So there you have it. I feel somewhat guilty for harshly criticizing a movie as fantastic as STAR TREK. But the fact of the matter is that it should have been better. Nearly all of what Abrams had set out to accomplish could have been achieved without sacrificing continuity. True, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of the movie, but this level of attention to detail, along with a decreased sense of coincidence, would probably have made this the best Star Trek film of all-time.
 
Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 05-12-2009, 09:58 AM:
 
I saw Star Trek on the Giant 78" Wide Screen at Denver's Continental Theatre on 5/11 at 7:30.

The 35mm image was bright, clean, sharply focused (except during the Nimoy scenes) and I *think* it was very steady... It was hard to tell for sure because of the epileptic cinematography.

The sound was loud, clear, and widely separated. The (sparse) audience was quiet.

All in all, it was an excellent presentation, with only one complaint: There are some vertical lines (Stains or seams?) at the top of the screen that are distracting during bright scenes.

I thought the film was only ok. The only time I was really "engaged" was during the opening scenes w/ Pa and Ma Kirk. Everything else felt very by-the-numbers. I never felt any real sense of danger, urgency, yearning, fear, awe, etc.

I didn't regret seeing it, but I didn't have any desire to ever see it again. I had more fun watching Khan on the same screen earlier this year.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-12-2009, 09:41 PM:
 
OK, finally saw this one and it is a good movie in its own right for the most part. I am a "casual" Star Trek fan. But it would have been better if it was an official reboot through and through. Instead, they thrashed the story around so it could include Nimoy and connect itself with the original series. Now we officially have a fake Star Trek. A real reboot would have just been a different Star Trek, not an officially fake one. Also, there would be less to explain. Like, for example, how Christopher Pike knew so much about Romulons and their planet Romulous. In season 1, humans and Romulans had never seen the other, but here they know all about each other even before the timeline is altered into the fake one. This really bothered me, but if it was a real reboot with no connection to the official Star Trek cannon, it wouldn't have. There was no need to make this a time travel saga. Because they tried to tie it to the original series, it makes the movie more confusing as a whole especially to those not familiar with the franchise. They did it wrong. Maybe that's what happens when they let the person responsible for one of the shittiest TV shows ever take control of the movie. That's right, LOST is shit. I said it, now go cry in your corner. This movie is not as good as Batman Begins.

I won't be picking this up on Blu-ray or seeing it again.
 
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-13-2009, 01:24 AM:
 
quote: Joe Redifer
Also, there would be less to explain. Like, for example, how Christopher Pike knew so much about Romulons and their planet Romulous. In season 1, humans and Romulans had never seen the other, but here they know all about each other even before the timeline is altered into the fake one.
They've never seen each other, but they have fought a war against each other.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-13-2009, 02:49 AM:
 
How would McPike know that Romulous was still intact? Why was McPike in a wheelchair in the end?

Sorry, I am calling everybody Mc because of the director of Terminator 4, McG. McFuckin' G. Jesus Christ.

Oh, and I agree with Brad that Transformers 2 is gonna suck major ass. The first one was awful. Couldn't even tell the robots apart, especially the bad ones. McBay sux.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-13-2009, 06:55 AM:
 
I'm with Mike on this one...way too many inconsistancies. Star Trek, despite being ficition, has a very well established universe and time line. Hand waving just doesn't do it for me. And, quite frankly, there is NO REASON that ALL of the old crew has to assemble at the same time on THIS FILM. There is nothing wrong with Chekov coming in later in the series (presuming it makes it that far). Even Batman delayed Robin's inclusion.

In addition to all of Mike's timeline problems...I'm sorry... going from Cadet (one about to be bounced out for cheating) to the rank of Captain and being given one of the top ships in the fleet? Would any organization do that? It isn't believable. While Kirk was a fast rising officer and the youngest Star Ship Captian in TOS...it wasn't THIS fast.

To aid in the timeline of TOS one could use rank as an indicator of age...Note Uhura and Sulu were Lts. Scotty/McCoy a Lt.Cmdr and Spock a Commander. Certainly they all moved at different rates through Star Fleet but it kinda give one a since of how long they've been in.

I think they lost opportunities with other old characters that Kirk went through the academy with that were introduced TOS that in this time-line would actually be ahead of Kirk.

FWIW...the bridge certainly seemed too bright.

I did like some of the sound effects that paid respect to TOS...they were nice touches.

However...for me, this was a 2/5 film. Maybe on another viewing I might warm up to it more...or perhaps if future movies (or possibly a TV series)...they could make the story work for me...right now, it doesn't.

Steve
 
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-13-2009, 02:08 PM:
 
I had some business to take care of in Honolulu and decided to make time to see the new STAR TRECK movie in digital IMAX at Regal's Dole Cannery 18 late yesterday afternoon. The presentation was awesome but unlike WATCHMAN and MONSTERS & ALIENS 3_D, the first two Digital Imax films I saw which were originated in the digital format, the STAR TRECK film's visual quality was lacking on that large screen because it was shot on film. It was good bot not as good like the others but the fantastic IMAX sound made up for it. I just purchased the STAR TRECK Trilogy on Blu Ray yesterday and the trailer for the new movie was included and seeing how great the movie looked in HD is something I am looking forward to seeing at home on BD in about five months. The movie was very entertaining and just as good as the first six films that featured the original crew. Although I had enjoyed the movie very much, the only part I could not figure out was how the older Spock could come back in time and play a part in the movie

4 out of 5 for me

-Claude
 
Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-15-2009, 01:01 AM:
 
I can compress my reaction to 7 words: "This shaking camera rubbish must end immediately." Or... four words: "The cinematography was horrible." I give this movie a 50% success rating, for all the reasons you've already discussed. It should drop off fast.
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-15-2009, 07:07 AM:
 
quote: Greg Anderson
I can compress my reaction to 7 words: "This shaking camera rubbish must end immediately." Or... four words: "The cinematography was horrible." I give this movie a 50% success rating, for all the reasons you've already discussed. It should drop off fast.
As a stand alone movie this film is extremely entertaining and that's what the general public cares about. After today it will be the highest grossing Star Trek film and it has a pretty good shot at ending up being the most attended Star Trek film. That's because "non-trekkies" like the movie. Projections are for a less than 50% drop in week 2 which means it'll probably hit almost $150 million after this weekend. Then, with memorial day weekend it should hold very nicely also. My point being this will make good money with legs not because it had a ginourmous opening weekend followed by a bunch of 60% drops which means that most people that see it are ENTERTAINED.

As for the cinematography, it wasn't that bad. It wasn't Cloverfield shakey-cam and honestly I didn't notice it that much while viewing. The only thing distracting in the cinematography was the crazy lens flare that upon further reading was added on purpose using flashlights and things shined at the lens.

Films like this aren't meant to be Gone with the Wind and it wouldn't have been any more enjoyable if the plot was buttoned up better.
 
Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 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.
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 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.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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.
 
Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 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'.
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 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 ]
 
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 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.
 
Posted by Steve Wilson (Member # 2411) on 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!
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.
 
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 05-30-2009, 05:37 AM:
 
^ I'd like to subscribe to your sex class. Please PM your course details. Cheers.
 
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 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.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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

 
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 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.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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.
 
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 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.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-31-2009, 10:43 AM:
 
You are no fun. And neither is this as a plot device. So full of fail, just like Spock Prime (LOL)! I also can't buy that Spock Prime (LOL) is that incompetent that he creates a whole new universe and manages to let planets be destroyed in both.
 
Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-31-2009, 10:42 PM:
 
I can't wait for Bobby's review of Up. [Razz]
 
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 06-01-2009, 01:23 AM:
 
Cinemark Movies 14, Mishawaka, IN
Auditorium 12, Dolby Digital
Presentation: [thumbsup]

The above denotes when I saw it in 35mm. The presentation was stellar, and typical #12 performance.

I liked this movie, alot. In fact, I think it's kind of brilliant. I was very very worried we'd get a bunch of horribly casted wannabes, but instead we got a cast that had to fill some big shoes on the Enterprise. They succeeded admirably.

Sure, some die hard fans don't like the possible erasure of 40 years of history, but you can always go back and watch the DVDs.

Special note on presentation. 35mm was great. Saw the IMAX Experience in Portage, IN's Goodrich IMAX. Image was great, for a DMRd movie. Sound was a little wanting. I saw the Dark Knight there last year and the sound was vastly superior.

I also saw this in DLP at Cinemark in Mishawaka, house number 1. This was their first digital presentation, and the image was excellent. For such a large screen (I'd guess 50'+?) it was bright, crisp, and the best I've seen 1 look. Heck, it replaced a CFS lamphouse. How could it NOT be better?

The audio was a different story. The subs were working overtime, which was nice to hear in this house once again. However, the center channel was distorting often, the right channel was non-existent, and there was a nice, loud, ground loopish hum.

I made sure to let the management know. Things are being fixed I've been told. That's great, but how did the techs that did this install miss these issues before they left?

Welcome to [dlp] !

AJG
 
Posted by Patrick de Groot (Member # 858) on 06-01-2009, 03:41 PM:
 
My problem with this one is the bad script. Time travel is a lame plot device and completely inapropriate in a reboot. There are many plot holes and the story depended on to much coincidenses and unlikely events. It was enjoyable, but I hoped for something better. Abrams went for straight forward action which isn't a suprise.

And Chekov speaking was funny for like 1 minute. Everyone including the aliens speak fluent English and our friendly Russian has a terrible accent.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-01-2009, 04:49 PM:
 
Hell, the aliens even speak English amongst themselves. It is as I've always said: English is the BEST language. All other languages suck.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-01-2009, 06:37 PM:
 
The folks selling "Rosetta Stone" won't like hearing that.

quote: Stu Jamieson
I'd like to subscribe to your sex class. Please PM your course details.
The class wouldn't be taught by me. I'd leave that up to those female friends I know. One is a speech pathologist who works with children, but in the past wanted to become a sex therapist.

quote: Greg Anderson
I can't wait for Bobby's review of Up.
I'm planning to watch Up later this evening. Unfortunately I probably won't have that review littered with curse words and references to sex and rock guitar solos. Although, if the movie is good enough the temptation might be there to bring up those topics.
 
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 06-01-2009, 06:54 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
The class wouldn't be taught by me. I'd leave that up to those female friends I know. One is a speech pathologist who works with children, but in the past wanted to become a sex therapist.
Even better! [thumbsup] Where do I sign up?
 
Posted by George Parker (Member # 5336) on 07-09-2009, 11:36 AM:
 
The track was on the loud side, a test for any sound system. My beef is with the editors that don't arrange their reel-end edits to give c/o cues a chance to be seen, burying them in light/dark flashing motion, and also carry dialog into the c/o's. The first c/o of Star Trek was impossible! Working in a c/o house, you see the expectation of platter presentation by some cutters. If they wanna keep doing this, give me braille cues and I'll feel the film!
 
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-09-2009, 04:29 PM:
 
Just make your own braille cues...it's called a hole punch. [Devil]
 
Posted by Jarret Chessell (Member # 5077) on 10-26-2009, 05:58 PM:
 
Star Trek blu-ray released on Nov. 17th.
Looks like a three disc set: Disc Info
I was really hoping for an extended cut, but it doesn't look like we're going to get one [Frown] I'm sure in the next five years they'll release a few new editions to see how many times I'll buy it.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2