Captain Canuck
The poster formerly known as captaincanuck65
haha, sweet!
(and I didn't even have to make fun of Canada this time!)
I saw it again last night and I fell in love all over again. I really wish this would turn into a tv series, but that doesn't seem likely. It would even be cool if they could make a TV series about a different crew based in the same timeline (directed by JJ Abrams).
anyway, to Joe K and Gothamite, I can totally understand where you're coming from, you enjoyed it in it's own right but it didn't feel like Star Trek. That makes sense to me. But at the same time, I can totally see how that 'Star Trek feel' was holding the franchise back; it was nerdy. Like on the spectrum of nerdiness, the only thing more nerdy is Dungeons and Dragons (and maybe that X-Men meet Star Trek book that came out several years ago). Nerdy isn't bad - I'm pretty nerdy myself - but why wouldn't you want to make it awesome instead if you could? I'm not at all a fan of dumbing down a movie and making it just about action and effects, but I honestly don't think that's what happened with Star Trek. There was a lot more going on than 'get the bad guy' in this film. This was essentially an origins movie, and it had to introduce the seven major characters (Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Bones/McCoy, Sulu, Chekov, and Scotty - with an emphasis on developing the relationship between Kirk and Spock), address the timeline issues in a semi-believeable way to appease Trekkies/Trekkers, and have some sort of conflict that needed to be resolved. This film did all of that well and kept me very entertained. I'm sure the sequel will have a better developed villain, more trekking and exploration and maybe even a bit of ethical dilema. This was implied to me by Nimoy's "Space - the Final Frontier" monologue. The basis is set, now let's see where it goes.
I don't think anyone would try to argue that this is the same Star Trek that Gene Roddenberry envisioned, but I think it did a good job of paying homage to Roddenberry's Star Trek. It took something that was good in it's day and rethought it for today.
ultimatedjf
Well-Known Member
I know, right? And there were SO many themes I heard as I was watching the movie that I was hoping would be on the soundtrack, and pretty much none of them were("Scotty in the Tubes" -- just my name for it -- being one of them)! The CD is just the main theme over and over and over and over and over again. And yeah, that's not a bad thing per se (the theme was frakking awesome), but there were so many more themes I heard that they could've put on there.
*sigh*
*puts on the "Star Trek" score anyways*
At least tomorrow is the 75-minute LOST Season 4 score!!! W00t! :rockon:
*is actually more excited for the soundtrack than Wednesday's finale*
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
More than anything else, this movie has me pumped for a Superman reboot, oddly enough. I hope WB gets crackin' and puts together a good team like Paramount did for this.
Joe Kalicki
Well-Known Member
It's accptable. I liked the movie. I just want to talk about it, but apparently every comment that isn't gushing praise is considered a condemnation that needs to be shot down. They made a good movie, and I liked it.
I think it's just the point of why bother changing the franchise into something it isn't? If you want to make a movie like this, why not just create a new one instead of changing something that a lot of people love?
Gothamite
Well-Known Member
You're mistaken. You already have seen the third best Star Trek film. It's the newest one. That's the point Joe is trying to make.
Some other thoughts on the movie (that I posted on another forum):
- The whole bar scene at the start was screaming for a Common People reference. It was as if they actually filmed it with that in mind and then to be mean, they didn't add in any of the lyrics to the song. I mean it's all there! Uhura with her thirst for knowledge, Kirk living like a common person and Pike damning him for it. Where was the reference?
- The music and themes throughout the film were really cool. Usually with these reboots, you get a theme that's completely unlike the ones that have come before (like in the Nolan Batman films), but this theme didn't really seem that unlike a Star Trek theme and I liked it. It reminded me a bit of the Galaxy Quest theme.
- *SPOILERS* The whole idea of Nero actively rebooting the Star Trek canon within the film was great and I'm not even sure the film understood how clever this idea was. It's the first time outside of comic books that a reboot has been explained rather than just simply happening (like Batman). That being said, there still are a number of continuity nitpicks that prevent the pre-booted universe in this film from being the exact same as the original I know and love (ask me about the insignias). Still, great.
- That Nokia joke at the start was a serious facepalm moment. I'm glad there was nothing else like that in the movie. It was straight out of Back to the Future Part 2. Uhura's drink orders were also a bit silly, but not as much.
- In spite of those two "It's da future, lolz!!" gags, I do have to commend the film for not having to spell out the timeframe for the uninitiated. You just get that it's the far future and you don't question it any further than that.
- The aliens in this film are stone cold proof that animatronics and costumes are better. Stone-cold, hard-fact proof. That said, there was some small, subtle and interesting uses of CGI for some of the species (whatever the wide-eyed midwife was supposed to be at the start, she looked really cool).
- I couldn't have been happier that Kirk got to have random, carefree green-alien sex. That scene pretty much defined the whole film.
- I was a bit miffed that the Klingons were mentioned as often as they were and yet were nowhere to be seen. The main reason I want a sequel is to see what this Trekverse's version of the Klingons will be like. Is it too much to ask for a bit of modern, updated social subtext as well? Probably, but I'm sure they'll still be cool to look at.
- It's been said millions of times by many other fans other than myself, but Kirk & Spock versus Borg needs to happen in these films.
- In terms of where I'd rank it in relation to the other movies, this is very firmly the third-best Star Trek film with Wrath of Khan being the best and First Contact being the second-best (and still my favourite). Third place is very admirable when there's been eleven films (with the majority of them being decent at worst).
Void.M
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2005
- Messages
- 4,034
Good god.........Zachary looks like my cousin and it's creepy.
Anyway,movie comes out here this thursday and there is one thing i need to know.......How hot is the new Uhura?
ProjectX2
Don't expect me to take you with me when I go to s
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2004
- Messages
- 25,007
Langsta
Well-Known Member
Extremely hot. Only sexier are the appearances by She-Hulk and Old Spock.
Void.M
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2005
- Messages
- 4,034
ProjectX2
Don't expect me to take you with me when I go to s
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2004
- Messages
- 25,007
Rachel Nichols as an Orion Starfleet cadet.
She is the one playing Scarlett in the GI Joe movie. And she is hot.
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
Bass
Nexus of the World
Also:
:lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol:
:lol::lol::lol:
Okay... so... I saw STAR TREK on Friday.
It was a stupid, vapid piece of nonsense.
That happened to be awesome.
It's true. The plot, the concept, and pretty much every single character and element of the movie is turgid nonsensical crap. Not only is it crap, its regurgitated crap. It relies on a ludicrous amount of contrived coincidence, from start to finish.
However... the movie looks fantastic. The camera whips and moves through space in a clear, yet disorientating fashion that is three-dimensional and evocative. The scenery and set design is brilliant, creating a very palpable feel of reality, while being completely serendipitous. Big chrome handles to go to warp. The Romulan mining ship, from its silhouette to its drill, was terrifyingly beautiful. The collapse of Vulcan was astounding.
Then there's the actors. Yes, Pegg and Urban were great. Chekov was hysterical. Bana's Nero was oddly charming. Nimoy was pleasant. The rest were fun. But Chris Pine... well, we're all agreed the man was a show-stealer in this movie. He was unbelievably charismatic from start to finish.
And the musical score, while not very definitive, was wonderfully old school with terrific sci-fi fantasy leanings.
But what the movie is, the story, the substance... it's like every other damn thing Abrams has done. Cliched, nonsensical idiocy (just look at Olsen... or the bloody ending). Especially the whole 'reboot' nonsense of saying nothing else in canon happened. What retarded pandering that is. Why pander to fans who complain that the problem with Vulcan's destruction is that's "not how black holes work"? Did they not SEE how brilliant the gradual collapse was? Who cares about the accuracy of the science when it looks that good? Why pander to these fans?
The idea of rebooting it is stupid. Just let it be and do what CASINO ROYALE did. I argued with a Trekkie who saw the film with me. I told him they should've just rebooted Trek. Ultimate Trek. He complained that you can't ignore the continuity. I exclaimed that you could, that Bond does it all the time. That Craig's Bond is both a prequel and a remake and it works fine. He said Trek is 'different'. "How?" I asked. "It is far more complex than Bond." And I said that Nolan did a prequel/remake with BATMAN BEGINS. He argued that Batman has a less complex continuity that Trek. I pointed out his folly, in that Batman appears in about 50 individual stories a YEAR and has done for sixty years. That in five years, Batman will have been in more stories than their are Trek episodes. And that's including the continuity of tangenital characters who have their own continuities from Robin to Superman. If it works for him, it can work for Trek which has bull**** continuity.
Trek fans can be such terrible idiots when it comes to continuity. And this film added a whole layer of idiotic time travel nonsense to appease them. Rubbish.
This is why I'm not able to rate it. It is an awful story and concept, beautifully told.
Three observations no one else seems to have noticed:
1) If it wasn't for Sulu being a crap helmsman, everyone is dead. (Wasn't his sword fantastic?!)
2) This movie is so stupid in that it retcons all Star Trek ever... except ENTERPRISE. Who in their right ****ing mind thought that it's a good idea to retcon "The Best of Both Worlds" or "The Wrath of Khan" but leave "Broken Bow" and "The Communicator" as 'canon'? As it stands the Trek universe consists of this movie, and the one of the worst shows ever made. :arrgh:
3) Some people express their interest to see Abrams' version of "The Wrath of Khan". Well... you just did. This movie is a shamless rip off. Every Trek homage in the movie is from Wrath of Khan. The Kobayashi-Meru, the Ceti Alpha eels, and the vengeful rag tag alien crew with a hard-on for the Enterprise captain and a weapon that destroys planets. They just had the villain hate Spock instead of Kirk. And those were used in far better ways in Wrath of Khan than here. Some argue this movie is almost as good, if not better. They are demonstrably wrong. Yes, this movie is flashier, but no, it is in no way a better movie. To think so is just superficial. Now, new Trek didn't HAVE to be Khan. I'm fine with it not being Khan. But it's a shameless rip off and it's just not as good. I'm judging it on what it is, and not what I "wish it had been". It's nowhere near as good as Khan.
I'll probably go into a much bigger detail on just how ****ing stupid this movie is - not in a "what makes Trek great" way or "this is what it SHOULD have been" but rather "why this isn't actually well-written by any standard" way - but not right now. But I will, and a lot of it will be about why prequel movies are wank and not much more than tv pilots, why that's a BAD thing, and why this Trek is just a tv pilot with a big budget, yet not as good as IRON MAN was. (Not even close.)
Sufficed to say - it is an awful film, but it is engaging, exciting, and entertaining.
It is the reverse of WATCHMEN, which was a good film that was told in a dull, unsubtle fashion.
But then, what did you expect? I seem to be the only one who sees Abrams' work as superficial nonsense. Maybe I'm wrong, but I tried so hard to love this film, and I couldn't stop noticing how ****ing stupid and lazy it was.
Will I watch it again? I doubt it.
Did I like it?
I honestly don't know. I'm conflicted. I hated it, and I really enjoyed it. I did both at the same time. If I could rate it, I'd rate is a 1/5 and a 4/5.
Take that for what it's worth.
Last edited:
Lynx
Well-Known Member
What people don't realize is that it does retcon Enterprise. Because time was altered in such a fundamental way, it's very likely that the Temporal Cold War never happened. And, as such, at the very least, the first three seasons of Enterprise didn't happen. Or, they happened much differently then told.
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
:sure:...are you schizophrenic per chance? kidding.
I am interested to see the reasons why the plot is so stupid though.
Last edited:
Well, if it helps, Star Trek didn't recon anything.
It just made an alternate timeline. That's what time travel does. It makes an alternate timeline every single friggin time it happens.
So Wrath of Khan did happen.
BTW, I just watched Wrath of Khan. Very good. I liked how it wasn't very epic, that it was more personal and character driven. I usually prefer those type of stories anyways.
It just made an alternate timeline. That's what time travel does. It makes an alternate timeline every single friggin time it happens.
So Wrath of Khan did happen.
BTW, I just watched Wrath of Khan. Very good. I liked how it wasn't very epic, that it was more personal and character driven. I usually prefer those type of stories anyways.
Last edited:
Ultimate Houde
UC's Resident Genetic Recombinator
Man, I do despise time travel.
But hey, I enjoyed the film. The fact that is was set in an alternate time line is fine with me. Which I think they did so they could tell the story that way, and not the way Enterprise the TV show did. Which was also with a time thing, wasn't it?
I have to admit, the way Joe Kalicki hates anything that takes an old idea and makes it suitable for new audiences is hilarious. I love the guy for that.
Kiwi ****
Time Travel always provides plot problems.
Now now now, be nice about things. They have opinions too, no reason to get all defensive about it.
Reminds me of a Bond film. I fell asleep in it and had no idea why they were suddenly in Russia.
As for warping away from Saturn, Spock warped, and then the mining ship followed. It was pretty apparent on what was happening there. And this is coming from someone who hardly pays attention to movies, and more on the people watching them.
And the ****er in front of me 'Tweeting' on his iPhone.
Now that's just condescending.
I applaud this. To me it seems that fans need to complain about it because other people other than 'Trekkies' would like it. Good job Lynx, you are now one of my buddies.
I think it's pretty condescending to disregard people who enjoyed this film because they aren't Old Time fans of Star Trek.
Film was good, this thread was much more fun.
But hey, I enjoyed the film. The fact that is was set in an alternate time line is fine with me. Which I think they did so they could tell the story that way, and not the way Enterprise the TV show did. Which was also with a time thing, wasn't it?
I have to admit, the way Joe Kalicki hates anything that takes an old idea and makes it suitable for new audiences is hilarious. I love the guy for that.
Kiwi ****
Time Travel always provides plot problems.
Now now now, be nice about things. They have opinions too, no reason to get all defensive about it.
Reminds me of a Bond film. I fell asleep in it and had no idea why they were suddenly in Russia.
As for warping away from Saturn, Spock warped, and then the mining ship followed. It was pretty apparent on what was happening there. And this is coming from someone who hardly pays attention to movies, and more on the people watching them.
And the ****er in front of me 'Tweeting' on his iPhone.
Now that's just condescending.
I applaud this. To me it seems that fans need to complain about it because other people other than 'Trekkies' would like it. Good job Lynx, you are now one of my buddies.
I think it's pretty condescending to disregard people who enjoyed this film because they aren't Old Time fans of Star Trek.
Film was good, this thread was much more fun.
I get that you like other people will continue to view the "Old Trek" as somehow this massively deep franchise. I hate to hurt your feelings, but it wasn't. At All.
Yes, I enjoyed TOS as a kid, TNG and DS9 as a teen, and after that, I kinda realized, it was a shallow show that pretended to be deep and science truth. It wasn't. At All.
It was a fun sci-fi/fantasy show, just as much as Star Wars, Buck Rogers, and BSG79. This movie was no worse than any other, from the slow and drawn out Motion Picture, to the hammy Wrath of Kahn, to the nigh unwatchable Nemesis.
It was an origin story, pure and simple, it was as good as Iron Man, not as good as Batman Begins. The characters finally became something more than one note stereotypes in this, but if you didn't see it, it's your loss.
Lastly, Abrams didn't **** the continuity, it was Scotty in Star Trek 4: Save the Whales.
Bass
Nexus of the World
My head explodes thinking about the idea if that were true. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that it doesn't make any bloody sense. You may be right and it does retcon ENTERPRISE too, but it doesn't make any sense. Head 'splode.
I'll get to it another time.
Firstly, on the ****ed up continuity - It wasn't that "OH NOES! THEY'VE CHANGED CONTINUITY!" but rather that they went to desperate, idiotic lengths to do so when it was unnecessary, as well as just being annoying in that only ENTERPRISE, the worst of Trek, actually remains 'canon'. It's just bizarre, not "Abrams destroyed Trek".
Secondly, I never said the problem with Abrams' Trek was it wasn't "Trek enough" or "deep enough". These are arguments other Trek fans have put against the film but I did not. It is quite clear from my post that none of my problems stem from the concept that the movie is, in some way, not worthy of being part of the Trek franchise.
What I *did* say was that it was a poor copy of Wrath of Khan. I explicitly pointed out it didn't HAVE to be, but that it IS. And it is flashier and more light in tone than Khan, but it is a worse movie. I did not set out to compare it to the best parts of Trek, but compared it to the one piece of Star Trek it continually referred to.
You've reacted to a point I never made, and then snidely commented that you may "hurt my feelings" with your insightful comments into the point I never made.
And then you called me condescending.
How very reasonable of you.
