Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Good Movies => Topic started by: jimmybob on May 07, 2009, 04:09:33 PM



Title: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: jimmybob on May 07, 2009, 04:09:33 PM
Any good? I heard that the effects were great, but it didn't really pull off the classic feel.

-Jimmybob


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: schmendrik on May 07, 2009, 08:26:59 PM
Is this out yet? I would like to see it as an old trekkie. It looks like they're messing with the chronology a little. In publicity photos I've seen the entire Enterprise crew together as young cadets, and I don't think that really works since Chekhov at least was supposed to be a fresh ensign at the time Kirk was captain.

But I'll forgive them for it. I'm not a fanatic. It looks like fun.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Doggett on May 07, 2009, 09:46:14 PM
I'm planning on seeing it today !

Love Trek films, don't like the show, though.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Texdar on May 08, 2009, 01:28:23 AM
Haven't seen it yet but really want to. 

Found this video about it.  :bouncegiggle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02LgdXVkXgM&feature=channel_page


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Trevor on May 08, 2009, 05:24:47 AM
Any good? I heard that the effects were great, but it didn't really pull off the classic feel.

-Jimmybob

It's releasing on May 8th in South Africa and I am willing it to be a hit.

The last time I saw a Trek film (Nemesis) was in 2003 and the only reason I couldn't go for a walk or popcorn during it was that I was 30 000 feet up in the air.  :buggedout:


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: indianasmith on May 08, 2009, 06:31:52 AM
We'll be seeing that one tonight, and I'll chime in with my .02 worth.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Hammock Rider on May 08, 2009, 09:34:02 AM
The Onion has a pretty funny video showing how die-hard Trekkies feel about the new release. I'm looking forward to it. It might be this summer's Iron Man.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Rev. Powell on May 08, 2009, 11:02:09 AM
Early reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are an astounding 96% positive  :buggedout:.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: jimmybob on May 08, 2009, 08:37:57 PM
Just came back from the cinema...

HOLY SODA CRACKER!

That was great! Special effects blew my mind all over the room! It was like BANG BANG BANG, and all you could do was sit there like a vegetable. Pretty insane.

From a semi-trek fan's standpoint, I thought it was nice little 21st century adaptation but my only gripe was that they basically erased the Star Trek timeline, they are pretty much starting fresh, and now you know there's gonna be this whole new generation Star Trek movies. Sometimes it felt as if you were watching Star Trek produced from George Lucas, and there weren't many of the classic 'sit around and think to outsmart the enemy' scenes. Plus I thought that the villain seemed like a softy. You weren't feeling like they were ultimate cock and they should die.

But still, it's an action packed regeneration of star trek that had me stuck in my seat. You have my recommendation.

I'll slap this one with a 3.5/5 I enjoyed it very much but I feel more intense Trekkies won't.

-Jimmybob



Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: indianasmith on May 08, 2009, 11:22:49 PM
I'm a pretty hardcore Trekker and I LOVED it!!  The casting was darn near perfect, (I'm too lazy to pull up IMDB and give you names this late) and the actor who played Spock absolutely nailed to role.  He also looks amazingly like a young Nimoy.  The only one who seemed a little off to me was Chekov - he had the voice down, but the resemblance just wasn't even close.  Scotty was excellent, and Kirk, Bones, and Uhura were all pretty believable.

The plotline was interesting, but it was the chemistry between characters and the amazing effects that carried this one.  I am trying not to give away any spoilers, but . . .  (don't scroll down unless you want to see a major, major one!)

















I still can't believe Darth Vader was Kirk's FATHER!!!!  :teddyr:  Gotcha!!

Now, seriously, go see this movie.  It rocks!


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Jim H on May 09, 2009, 12:36:24 AM
I really did enjoy it.  Manages a lot of elements, and sets up a lot more.  Usual JJ Abrams problems - a little too much shaky cam (though it's restrained compared to M:I3), overabundance of visual gimmicks (lense flares, dirt and specks on the lense), punched zooms.  Minor trifles on the whole though.

Great casting, exciting action, a great use of Leonard Nimoy (I especially liked his bit about being self-serving towards the end), really liked the use of classic designs and sound effects, and a very good way of handling a version of a reboot.  From what the movie itself implies, this doesn't actually ERASE the previous Trek history, they've actually created an alternate, separate time line.  So, I guess now there are three trek universes, counting the "evil" one from the original series (with Goateed Spock).

I will agree I missed the grand "tricking the villain" schemes the old films would have, and there is little debate or moral calamity like in the old films.  This is much more of a space opera than science fiction, and that will turn off some fans I expect.  I'm hoping they just pull back a little for the next film, and balance it out some more.  There's certainly room for a bunch of great sequels here. 

Overall, an 8/10.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Trevor on May 09, 2009, 03:19:29 AM
 :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :teddyr:

All I can say to the spoiler is what I said above and karma, of course.  :cheers:


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: ChuckSplatt on May 09, 2009, 01:25:06 PM
I want to take my wife to see this very soon.

I like TOS the best, followed by Next Gen Trek...then gave up...

I'm impressed at their casting job for the young Spock and some people are raving about how perfectly McCoy was played. I don't expect the movie to thrill TOS fans, but from what all I have read it sound very good and a MUST SEE on a theater screen.

 :thumbup: :thumbup:


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: wickednick on May 09, 2009, 07:22:35 PM
Just saw this and I thought it was pretty good. It didn't meet all my expitations but it was the best Star Trek film in years, and was a great leap forward in special effects and action, which for a sci-fi series I always felt Star Trek lacked. The casting was great and I liked everyone in the film, well maybe except for Eric Bana. His acting is really bland. The movie was amazingly funny and the charectors were well written. I liked that they fleshed out the Star Trek universe giving a more detailed look at life in the 25th century( I think its the 25th).
My gripes with the film though is that it suffered from a un-interesting villian and a somewhat convoluted plot. It also seemed to me that J.J. Abrams was trying to recreate a Wrath of Khan for Spock. Theres even a scene were Nero yells Spocks name dramatically, but unfortunately hes no William Shatner.
Over all the film is good, I do wonder how future films will deal with the major changes made to the Star Trek universe. But as others have said before this could just be alternative reality. God bless sci-fi theres a way around everything.



Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: schmendrik on May 09, 2009, 10:21:10 PM
Just saw it. Excellent. Yep, they definitely messed with a few things in the chronology but it was well done. And we watched it in a theater surrounded by chattering trekkies so we fit right in. A couple of whom straightened us out on one or two fine points afterward.

Minor spoilers that aren't really spoilers. I don't think they'll detract from any major surprises but skip if you want it all to be fresh. (Highlight to view)

Uhura is in love with Spock? Fascinating. Quite a departure but... it works. Interesting little thing thrown into the mix (wasn't Majel Barrett/Nurse Chapel in love with Spock in the old TV series?)

The minor point we were confused about was how the heck did Scotty get from where he was to be in charge of engineering in such a short time? The explanation we got from our fellow movie goers: there was only one other engineer on the entire ship and he got killed, so there was an opening. Doesn't seem like a good way to run a starship. Wouldn't there be, oh I dunno, an engineering CREW? But OK, we had to get Scotty into that seat. So I'll deal.

(Dang, the background color changed so my color trick didn't work. Let's fix that... done)


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: meQal on May 09, 2009, 11:34:12 PM
Hey all. I've seen it twice. I went opening day to continue a tradition which goes back to the first Star Trek film for me, seeing a Star Trek film on opening day. 11  for 11 on that now. Being a fan of the Original series which I literally grew up watching, (started with watching reruns of TOS and the animated series as a small child) I loved the film. I felt the actor that plays McCoy could pass off as DeForest Kelly's son. When the major key event of the film (which I am not going to say what it is cause it will mess up the movie's biggest surprise by doing so) happen, I was shocked. Never would I have ever guessed that would of happened in a million years.
Also the reason Scotty ended up with the chief engineer position didn't happen until after Kirk was officially named Captain by Starfleet. Until then, he was just another engineer on board. Also was happy to see the "red shirt" rule still applied. When Kirk, Sulu, and Lt. Redsuit were on the away team, who didn't go, "yep, we know who's dead here." Also Kirk making out with a green chick in the Academy backstory had me rolling in the floor. Was a great fan in joke added in the film.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Neville on May 11, 2009, 07:52:19 AM
I thought it was very close to greatness. The acting was very good, a decent compromise between mythos, parody and effectiveness, the action had my heart pumping faster and the plot was a serviceable remix of every ST plot we've had so far.

And then there's Leonard Nimoy. This is the kind of homage Spock deserved from the very beginning, but the franchise chose to focus on Kirk instead. His appearence in the ice planet was wonderful, and his final reading of the ST opening speech almost had me in tears.

On the minus side, J. J. Abrams should stop filming every movie as an "Alias" episode. Yes, the hanheld camera makes for a livelier camerawork, but at the expense of jumpy action scenes and lackluster framing. The rest of the ST films so far are too static, I can see that, but there was no need to jump to the opposite philosophy. 


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: schmendrik on May 11, 2009, 09:19:11 AM
I was reading an entertainment magazine this weekend that says Chris Pine (Kirk) is signed on for two more movies, so there are definitely sequels on the drawing board. Bring 'em on!

One thing I loved about the writing is that they tried to explain the old-fashioned swashbuckling of Kirk (a product of the 60s and the old adventure movie/TV traditions this show had to work within) and yet also gave us a much more plausible Starfleet captain character in Christopher Pike. I love how Pike is in command in a crisis, instantly absorbing and reacting to new information, tossing off orders, making decisions, unquestionably the commander. And the old Kirk traits from the TV show, always going after the girl, always going personally on landing parties, getting personally into fist fights... that's because he's a bad boy and a rule breaker who doesn't quite fit the Starfleet mold.

Well done, writers.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: trekgeezer on May 11, 2009, 09:43:18 AM
My only two big gripes are the bridge by Playschool and how they copped out on the engineering sets by dressing up some old factory.  Sorry, but the part with Scottie in the water pipes is lamer than when he conked his head on a beam in Star Trek V.

The actors all did well.  As far as the chronology, it's an all new one.  They had to find a way to get around the canon issues and did so by creating a whole new timeline.

This is the movie where they had to throw together the characters, so I'll be waiting to see if they get it right in the sequel.


If anyone is interested in what set Nero on his rampage, they produced a four part comic called Countdown (http://www.amazon.com/s/185-6039764-9876623?ie=UTF8&tag=mozilla-20&index=blended&link_code=qs&field-keywords=star%20trek%20countdown&sourceid=Mozilla-search) which is now in trade paper back form. 


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: hotspur on May 11, 2009, 10:32:37 AM
I am a pretty hard core TOS fan.  I started watching the show in the early 70s as a 3-4 year old and haven't ever stopped.  That I said I liked the movie a lot with only a few quibbles.

I am not an action movie fan.  If I see 1 action movie a year that is a lot for me; I tend to get bored during action movies and lose interest in whether or not Jason Bourne or John McClain or whomever gets away or not.  That said, I never lost interest in this movie and the 2 hours flew by.  


I thought the person playing McCoy was best (I liked all the actors!) cast.  Not only did he looked like DeForrest Kelley, but he had exactly the right crotchediness and when he said, "I'm a doctor not a physicist" that whole audience erupted.  I thought the woman playing Uhura was a knockout, very well done there too.  As others have said, the guy playing a young Spock looked exactly right and did a great job with the role.  Someone her complained about Chekov not looking right (the curly hair int he movie versus, what my brothers maliciously called "the inverted buttercup" when I was a kid) was, for me no loss.  Walter Koenig was chosen for the part because he looked like Davie Jones of the Monkees, so little reason to hold on to that look.  Oh and the guy playing Sarek was excellent too with very big shoes to fill.  The original Sarek - Mark Leonard - was twice a guest star on TOS and was my favorite in hisrole as the Romulan commander in Balance of Terror.

I thought the scenes on Vulcan were really cool.  Not only the buildings, but the school where the children are taught in those bowls was an inventive idea.

I thought the fight scene between Kirk and Spock - when he has finally been provoked by Kirk (not unlike This Side of Paradise) - was really good.  I liked how that was shot and how rapid Spock's movements were and how ferocious he was once angered.  In the TOS, as tough as he was supposed to be, Leonard Nimoy never looked that formidable.

I kind of wished that they hadn't changed the timeline, but I realize that they had to do that to get all the characters assembled quickly.  I am looking forward to the next one and considered going bac to see this again this past weekend.  

Now for the quibbles:

I wish Scotty hadn't been made into the court jester.  That was never his character and I wish they'd stayed with a more dutiful, dour Scot.

There was a truly dreadful line said by Uhura to Spock about keeping her hailing frequencies open.  I groaned "Jesus Christ" audibly when she said it.  Maybe this was meant as a throwback to some of TOS's truly cringe-inducing dialogue**, but if not whoever wrote that should be more heavily edited in the future.

Why did they use the planet Delta Vega as the place for Kirk to be stranded?  In TOS Delta Vega, in the episode Where No Man Has Gone Before, is where they try to strand Gary Mitchell and is supposed to be a remote planet with no one on it, not Vulcan's neighbor.

Also, the whole monster scenes on Delta Vega were unnecessary and should have been cut.  Why did they need 2 monsters?  Did anyone think Kirk wouldn't get away?  And then once he finds Spock they stroll to the station.  It was the one part of the movie I thought they could have shortened or cut entirely without missing anything.  



** Cringe-inducing examples (Off the top of my head...there are a lot):

Whom Mourns for Adonis - Kirk says to Scotty, "Plus you stiff necked thistle head you could've gotten yourself killed."

Catspaw-Lt DeSalle says, I'll bet credits to navy beans we can punch a hole it it" when they're trying to get free from the cube the ship has been imprisoned in.

Sposk's Brain - The leader of the Eymorg says, "Brain and brain, what is brain!"


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: schmendrik on May 11, 2009, 10:57:13 AM
I wish Scotty hadn't been made into the court jester.  That was never his character and I wish they'd stayed with a more dutiful, dour Scot.

Well, I kind of liked him, but perhaps that's because one of my friends at work is a Scotsman who looks and sounds a lot like this guy. As soon as we were introduced to Scotty I turned to my wife and said "And THAT's what Bruce is like!" Not exactly a court jester, competent and brilliant but also with a wry sense of humor. But yeah, I agree you didn't see that humor side in the old Scotty, they added that.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Hammock Rider on May 11, 2009, 11:42:56 AM
Wow this was a really good, fun movie. I'm going to see it again. And after seeing that green chick Kirk was with I might start going to Trek conventions. I think I'm in love. I'm in love with Uhura too but her standards are too high. :wink:


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Doggett on May 11, 2009, 12:41:15 PM
I wish Scotty hadn't been made into the court jester.  That was never his character and I wish they'd stayed with a more dutiful, dour Scot.

Well, I kind of liked him, but perhaps that's because one of my friends at work is a Scotsman who looks and sounds a lot like this guy. As soon as we were introduced to Scotty I turned to my wife and said "And THAT's what Bruce is like!" Not exactly a court jester, competent and brilliant but also with a wry sense of humor. But yeah, I agree you didn't see that humor side in the old Scotty, they added that.


I think it might be because we've never seen scotty this young before.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: ChuckSplatt on May 12, 2009, 12:36:27 AM
NO SPOILERS!

(To put this in perspective, I'm one of those age 40 something guys who can name all the TOS episodes.)

GREAT MOVIE FUN!! My wife and I just arrived home from the movie. The advantage TOS fans will have is you get to laugh harder at quite a few of the jokes. Monday night turned out to be an excellent choice for seeing the movie and sound was BOOMING as it should be.

Scotty was a riot, Chekov was funny, McCoy was played very well. Spock was really good and quite convincing. I began to accept Kirk more as the movie progressed. There were moments when the camera angle was just right and Kirk had certain expressions that YES, he actually LOOKS LIKE a young Shatner Kirk for a few seconds several times during the movie.You get to see some of the chemistry
of their relationships developing together as a team.

I know were going to watch this again and again. My wife told me she used to PLAN her schedule around when TOS was on TV and saw all the episodes with her Mom.  Awwwwwww, I found out my wonder wifie has a little Trek love inside her!!!


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: The Burgomaster on May 17, 2009, 08:36:02 AM
I saw it yesterday.  It's okay, but I'm predicting it will fizzle out quickly at the box-office after the initial hype and will be released on DVD before the end of the summer.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Jim H on May 17, 2009, 01:58:30 PM
I saw it yesterday.  It's okay, but I'm predicting it will fizzle out quickly at the box-office after the initial hype and will be released on DVD before the end of the summer.

It got a 42% drop on the second weekend, which from what I've seen seems about average.  Word of mouth is extremely good though, so I think it'll have some legs - though nothing like the Dark Knight.  I'm betting worldwide gross in the $600 million range.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: The Burgomaster on May 17, 2009, 02:22:57 PM
I saw it yesterday.  It's okay, but I'm predicting it will fizzle out quickly at the box-office after the initial hype and will be released on DVD before the end of the summer.

It got a 42% drop on the second weekend, which from what I've seen seems about average.  Word of mouth is extremely good though, so I think it'll have some legs - though nothing like the Dark Knight.  I'm betting worldwide gross in the $600 million range.

But not because it's a good movie . . . the Trekkies will see it a hundred times each and drive up the worldwide gross.  This movie should not be mentioned in the same breath as THE DARK KNIGHT.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Shadow on May 17, 2009, 04:07:54 PM
But not because it's a good movie . . . the Trekkies will see it a hundred times each and drive up the worldwide gross.  This movie should not be mentioned in the same breath as THE DARK KNIGHT.

I'd have to disagree. People overestimate the ticket buying power of the hardcore Trekkies. They may infest the internet, but they actually make up a very, very small percentage of ticket buyers in the big picture. If they could impact a film's success by merely seeing it multiple times, the last Trek film, 2002's Nemesis, would not have been a colossal flop.

It seems the studio has realized this as well, marketing the film to a new generation of potential fans because they know the existing fanbase is simply not enough to support a movie franchise any longer (or even a TV series).

I think that this film's success is simply because it is a good movie in the eyes of most people, though your tastes may differ. The strong word of mouth is drawing people to the theater to purchase tickets, not a tiny minority group of fans that want to see it succeed out of fanboy love.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: The Burgomaster on May 17, 2009, 05:48:08 PM

I think that this film's success is simply because it is a good movie in the eyes of most people, though your tastes may differ.

The first 2/3 of the movie was very good . . . but they failed to create a memorable climax.  And it took way too long for Scotty to show up!


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: trekgeezer on May 18, 2009, 07:42:00 AM
Actually there are a lot of Trek fans out there that don't like this movie.  I for one have mixed feelings about it.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: RCMerchant on May 19, 2009, 05:04:38 PM
Actually there are a lot of Trek fans out there that don't like this movie.  I for one have mixed feelings about it.

I want to see it...as the original series is the ONLY Trek for me. But I dunno....I'm kinda wary as well. It's hard to top the original cast. Kinda like when Chris Lee did the Frankenstein Monster in '57....you have to try and forget the Universal monster. I love the Hammer version now,though.I accepted it on it's own terms. Not as good as King Karloff,of course-but Cushing IS the definitive Doctor Frankenstien.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Rev. Powell on May 19, 2009, 07:05:34 PM
Honestly, I wasn't that impressed.  It was an average to good summer action film, nothing more.  I'd give it 3/5.

Things I liked:
*Action scenes (though see below)
*Spock
*Looking at the new spins on the old characters  It actually made me appreciate how well drawn those characters were.
*Impressive visuals (though not blown-out-of-my-seat impressive)
*Zoe Saldana - va va voom!

Things I didn't like:
*Contrived plot
*Short attention span editing -- too many quick cuts give the impression of a lot of action and excitement, but you can't tell what's actually happening.  Seems like a cheat.
*Kirk--I actually didn't like the cocky hotshot kid Kirk very much, though I have no problem with the mature Kirk

Things I was neutral about:
*Felt like a Star Wars film with Star Trek characters in it

I also had a big problem with one of the plot elements that almost ruined the last half of the movie for me.  Maybe I missed something that explained it.  I've put the spoiler below in green text (highlight to read):

Why did "Spock Prime" sit on Delta Vega for 25 years waiting for Vulcan to explode instead of walking 15 minutes to the nearby Federation outpost and trying to stop Nero?  If he didn't care about it, why did he suddenly start to care once Kirk showed up?   


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Shadow on May 19, 2009, 07:51:23 PM
I also had a big problem with one of the plot elements that almost ruined the last half of the movie for me.  Maybe I missed something that explained it.  I've put the spoiler below in green text (highlight to read):

Why did "Spock Prime" sit on Delta Vega for 25 years waiting for Vulcan to explode instead of walking 15 minutes to the nearby Federation outpost and trying to stop Nero?  If he didn't care about it, why did he suddenly start to care once Kirk showed up?   

He had only been there a matter of hours. Nero arrived in the past first  - on the day that Kirk was born. Spock didn't arrive until 25 years later. That was how Nero was able to capture him so easily, he was already ready and waiting for his arrival.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Rev. Powell on May 19, 2009, 07:57:34 PM
I also had a big problem with one of the plot elements that almost ruined the last half of the movie for me.  Maybe I missed something that explained it.  I've put the spoiler below in green text (highlight to read):

Why did "Spock Prime" sit on Delta Vega for 25 years waiting for Vulcan to explode instead of walking 15 minutes to the nearby Federation outpost and trying to stop Nero?  If he didn't care about it, why did he suddenly start to care once Kirk showed up?   

He had only been there a matter of hours. Nero arrived in the past first  - on the day that Kirk was born. Spock didn't arrive until 25 years later. That was how Nero was able to capture him so easily, he was already ready and waiting for his arrival.

Thanks-looks like I did miss something.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Torgo on May 20, 2009, 03:22:33 AM
I found it to be decent but not great. I thought it favored action too much over genuine ideas a lot of the time.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Jack on May 20, 2009, 07:09:37 AM
Seeing the trailer where the little kid runs a Corvette off a cliff, while leaping out of it like some CGI gymnast, then announcing himself to be "James Tiberius Kirk".  Man.  That so totally turned me off on this thing I don't know if I'd bother watching it if it was on TV.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: inframan on May 20, 2009, 10:56:17 AM
Yeah the beggining with the stolen car going off a cliff was not needed. I liked it a lot, I might have had low expectations seeing the typical hollywood crap thats out lately.

Did anyone else notice that Kirk spent a lot of time being hit in the face and hanging off the edge of a ledge? At least four times he's haning by his fingers on the edge of something.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: schmendrik on May 20, 2009, 12:28:56 PM
Yeah the beggining with the stolen car going off a cliff was not needed. I liked it a lot, I might have had low expectations seeing the typical hollywood crap thats out lately.

Did anyone else notice that Kirk spent a lot of time being hit in the face and hanging off the edge of a ledge? At least four times he's haning by his fingers on the edge of something.

Actually, yes. We decided that he got practice in doing that when he was a kid and that's why they put that scene in there.

I didn't mind the hot-shot wild child depiction of Kirk. I actually thought that was rather clever. Because in more thoughtful sci-fi, a captain is a mature, steady personality, a Picard type (or like Pike in this film). So they had to explain the very different Kirk type character of the original series and this is they way they did it. It unifies the different Star Treks in a nice way for me. I thought the Pike character was wonderful, just the guy you'd want to see in command.

What's still missing for me is some explanation for what makes young Kirk a good captain. Why should he have the trust of his crew? For that matter, why does Spock decide he wants to sign on as first officer, having already had a command? Why does Pike think it's a good idea to hand over the car keys to the kid?


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Dr. Whom on May 28, 2009, 05:29:18 AM
Well, it was good fun. The disturbed timeline ploy is very clever, because it avoids continuity issues. The franchise can take off again as it were.

Another thing that was handled well, was the checklist. In movies like this, there are a number things that have to be put in: the characters have to say their signature lines, Kirk has to snog a green skinned girl, you have to kill a redshirt etc etc. All this was accomplished elegantly.

Of course, there are quibbles and things I could have done without (the scene with Scotty in the piping took too long, for instance), but overall, hugely enjoyable.

One point of criticism that is completely justified is that the feel is more Star Wars than Star Trek. It lacks the high moral purpose and reflection on values and society that is so typical of the Star Trek universe. Instead we get an action packed rollercoaster ride. As such it is more an adventure movie than science fiction. But then, if George Lucas won't make proper Star Wars movies anymore, someone else has to do it.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Neville on May 28, 2009, 05:32:18 AM
But then, if George Lucas won't make proper Star Wars movies anymore, someone else has to do it.

Well said.  :thumbup:


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Newt on May 28, 2009, 07:17:07 AM
One point of criticism that is completely justified is that the feel is more Star Wars than Star Trek. It lacks the high moral purpose and reflection on values and society that is so typical of the Star Trek universe. Instead we get an action packed rollercoaster ride. As such it is more an adventure movie than science fiction. But then, if George Lucas won't make proper Star Wars movies anymore, someone else has to do it.

Interesting.  Perhaps the "high moral purpose and reflection on values and society" element was too 'mature' for the movie: after all, it does feature the familiar characters in their younger and less experienced days.  (Just speculating.)  An adventure/action flick does have wider appeal in terms of ticket sales - and philosophising might have slowed things down too much: hobbled it a bit?


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: akiratubo on June 08, 2009, 06:55:10 PM
I finally got around to seeing it and, eh, it was ok.  Not too bad, not too good.  I don't really care enough to get into specifics.  It was a standard "blockbuster" to me, pretty much exactly what I've come to expect from big budget popcorn movies.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: the ghoul on June 10, 2009, 05:15:19 PM
I was going to wait until I could rent it on Netflix since I was only mildly intrigued by it, but I went and saw it yesterday on a whim.  I was very pleasantly surprised that I liked it.  In fact, I would say that they hit this one out of the park.  It was a great story, and any so-called continuity flaws or inconsistencies with the old series can be adequately explained by the fact that Nero and Spock have altered the course of history during their time travel.  I'm sure many of the "trekkies" and Picard lovers out there dislike this film, but I am neither.  I enjoy the original series and the movies with the original series cast.  I don't really care for any of the other incarnations of Star Trek.  This movie carries on with those same characters, and the new cast did a fine job of portraying them.  This is my second favorite Star Trek film.  The only one I remember liking more than this one was Star Trek 4 "The Voyage Home."


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: blu_clover on June 10, 2009, 09:28:39 PM
I myself love the original and Next Generation shows and movies. I can honestly say I loved this one too. I even got teared up that I didn't bring my momma to see it with me because she and I always watched the shows together.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Trevor on November 23, 2009, 02:43:10 AM
I only saw it on Friday on DVD because I was reluctant to see it in the cinema ~ what I knew about it sounded a bit too much like Harve Bennett's rejected StarFleet Academy idea.

All I can say after watching it twice is "Wow, I enjoyed it" ~ the direction was great and the bits of comedy here and there were good too. As an almost lifelong Trekkie / Trekker, I had a bit of a hard time dealing with the fact that Kirk and Spock were almost enemies in the beginning, but that resolved itself quickly.

The actors to a person were great and all I can say is  :cheers: to the future of the Star Trek franchise. After the IMO disaster that Rick Berman wreaked on us with the TNG film series, my faith has been restored.

Thank you JJ Abrams and the cast.  :smile:


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: 3mnkids on November 23, 2009, 07:45:51 AM
I only saw it on Friday on DVD because I was reluctant to see it in the cinema ~ what I knew about it sounded a bit too much like Harve Bennett's rejected StarFleet Academy idea.

All I can say after watching it twice is "Wow, I enjoyed it" ~ the direction was great and the bits of comedy here and there were good too. As an almost lifelong Trekkie / Trekker, I had a bit of a hard time dealing with the fact that Kirk and Spock were almost enemies in the beginning, but that resolved itself quickly.

The actors to a person were great and all I can say is  :cheers: to the future of the Star Trek franchise. After the IMO disaster that Rick Berman wreaked on us with the TNG film series, my faith has been restored.

Thank you JJ Abrams and the cast.  :smile:

I agree. I enjoyed the hell out of it. The franchise had gotten old and stale and now they can go anywhere with it. I think it opens it up to a whole new generation of fans. I was very surprised by Karl Urban as bones, he nailed it.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Trevor on November 23, 2009, 07:52:11 AM
I was very surprised by Karl Urban as bones, he nailed it.

I agree there.

Bones: "I don't need a doctor, I am a doctor!"  :bouncegiggle:
Bones: [looks down at Kirk's crotch] "Good God, man!"
Kirk: [raises huge hands] "Ahhhhh! What the hell is this?"  :teddyr:

Also the very special appearance of you-know-who was great.

Kirk [on meeting him and being told who he is] "Bullsh*t."  :bouncegiggle:


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: Javakoala on November 23, 2009, 05:56:53 PM
I remember having people tell me about it when it was in the theaters, and I kept thinking, "Good God, is nothing sacred?"

But I broke down and bought it on Blu-Ray and watched it. Very entertaining. I do myself the favor of not thinking too deeply about it as it is loaded with flaws that basically negate it -- IF you let yourself think about it. But they made Kirk in to a total horndog, Uhura into the sexy goddess you KNOW she was in the old series, Spock has a nasty side that he will no doubt indulge in and Bones, well, he's still Bones, which should never change. And Scotty should get loads more screen time in the sequels.  I'm hoping Chekov is dusted off during an early away mission in the first sequel. He is the Jar Jar Binks of Star Trek.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: trekgeezer on November 30, 2009, 08:29:24 AM
I know it's a generational thing, but I've been watching Star Trek since it was on NBC in 60's.  This was a summer action movie for people with short attention spans. I really didn't like the way Kirk was portrayed (especially during the Kobiashi Maru sequence). In fact all the comedy they injected was totally juvenile and stupid.

I'll give them one more try to make a real Star Trek movie.  I hope JJ Abrams decides not to direct the next one because he take those camera flares and stick'em.

They didn't have money for an engineering set, so they used a Budweiser brewery.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: D-Man on December 10, 2009, 10:55:30 AM
I'm someone who enjoys all the aspects of the Star Trek franchise, and I loved this new film.  I didn't find the humor juvenile at all.  I thought it worked in a lot of ways.  This is coming from someone who groaned through a lot of the "humor" in Star Trek Generations. 

I think a lot of the people who trash this film, frankly, are people who can't let go of the Old Trek.  They don't like the new Kirk because he's not William Shatner, just like the new Spock isn't Leonard Nimoy, nor could they dig up and revive DeForest Kelly to play Bones one more time, so they find any reason to pick it apart.  I know it's painful to see something you grew up with being turned and reshaped into something new, but when it's done well, it can be the best thing for a franchise.

And what's wrong with turning Star Trek into a summer action movie?  Kirk was a man of action after all, remember? 


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: paula on December 11, 2009, 05:37:55 AM
I was very surprised by Karl Urban as bones, he nailed it.


agreed, prob. the most understated performances in the film.


Title: Re: STAR TREK (2009)
Post by: D-Man on December 11, 2009, 06:47:56 AM
I found this by chance this morning.   Thought it was pretty funny.   :teddyr:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film