*** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Lou Sytsma]

You stated you wanted to hate the film. That sets up a hostile witness vibe for me. Nothing personal intended. Merely relaying my impressions of your post. Much the same as you did with your thoughts on the trailer.

On the positive side your conversion in opinion of the movie makes me even more excited to see it.

 

[Oliver_A]

I think that my review is fair and balanced, not written with any malicious intent. DID you actually watch it? If not, then you can hardly judge if I am actually "correct" or off-base with my review. I mean, you are going to see it anyway, so please do it. My main beef with this movie is "just" the camera "work".

 

[Chris Will]

I consider myself a die hard but, I doubt I will hate the film. Everything I've seen I have loved so far so I don't think that will change tonight when I finally see it. I'm sure some fans will hate it but, many will enjoy it as well.

I understand your point about the camera work but, honestly, that is just the style right now for big action movies. Stay away from Transformers if you don't like that kinda of camera work. It has never bothered me though, guess I have a higher tolerance.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Again apologies if you feel personally slighted.

A figure of speech can unfortunately mean different things to different people and set up unforeseen or undesired perceptions beyond the author`s intent.

Peace & IDIC

 

[Oliver_A]

I never got sick watching Transformers either. But this film constantly wiggles the camera around (even during non-action sequences!), and makes use of a lot of close-ups while doing that. The only other time I got that motion sick in a theater was when watching Blair Witch Project.

 

[Oliver_A]

No problem. I think the problem comes also with the fact that English is not my native language, so I seem to lack certain sensibilities sometimes.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

If it makes you feel any better English is my first language and I also lack certain sensibilities.

 

[Ockeghem]

Oliver,

Thanks for the review.

This is very bad news for me, especially the part about the motion sickness. It's the primary reason I cannot participate in first-person gaming sessions with my children.

We purchased our tickets last night, and I'm really looking forward to it. I just hope that I can watch it, given what you've written here. I too am unimpressed with this technique, and I am puzzled why TPTB believe this is required in a film.

 

[Nick Martin]

Well, Abrams did come up with "Cloverfield" and we (likely) all know the big issue people had with that in theaters.

 

[PaulDA]

Well I guess the IMAX showing I'm attending tonight will be a test of my resistance to "sea/see-sickness".

 

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "Star Trek (2009)". Please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.

All HTF member film reviews of "Star Trek (2009)" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


Crawdaddy

 

[Ockeghem]

Nicholas,

I'm not familiar with the film or the issue. Can you elaborate in a nutshell?

 

[Brent M]

This person's review is the first one I've heard mention anything about "motion sickness" from seeing this film. I seriously doubt Star Trek is anywhere near Cloverfield, The Blair Witch Project or even the Bourne films.

 

[Yee-Ming]

I loved it!

This coming from someone who owns all the movies, all seasons of TOS, TNG and DS9 (plus TAS) on DVD, watched all of VOY on TV and 3/4 of ENT (still haven't watched S4).

Discussion thread so spoilers allowed, yes? Time travel as ever is a tricky thing, but the reboot is logical within those parameters. In effect Paramount et al have a new slate to play with, with one huge factor affecting 'the future' as compared to the present canon: no Vulcan (the planet).

Plenty of nods and semi in-jokes to keep long-time Trekkers happy -- heck, it opens with the classic TOS computer sounds -- yet not too obvious so as to alienate new viewers.

One thing which I thought was a bit of a stretch plot-wise: after Kirk saves the day, he in effect has gone from a mere senior cadet to captain of a starship in one jump, and the Federation's flagship to boot. Kinda like making a final-year law student chief justice after he wins a big case. Patently ridiculous: I can maybe see them giving him command straightaway, but it would be of a smaller vessel, or possibly promoting him to commander and first officer, but captain of the flagship? But if they didn't, then what are they going to do in the next movie? One problem I guess of a re-boot and origin story that starts with most of the TOS crew characters still at Starfleet Academy; they didn't have much choice, after all: the movie had to end with Kirk in the captain's chair.

I thought this movie had a surprising amount of emotional heft, in so far as the theme of family goes. For instance: right out of the gate, George Kirk's sacrifice to save his wife and newborn son, and as he's hurtling to his death, he spends his last moments talking with them; all the interplay between Sarek and Spock, especially when Spock was asking about his mother; that Spock primary concern on reaching Vulcan was saving his parents, and that Kirk using his mother's death to needle him was what made him snap emotionally; Kirk wondering about what life with dad was in the 'original history', and so on. Again, this would help appeal to the non-die-hard Trekkers, or indeed non-sci-fi fans.

I also loved Nimoy's appearances. Again, all very logical in the context of the time-travel story, and his final scene was priceless.

Brilliant movie. Well-acted, effects were great, pacing was just about right, story was pretty good, light enough in proper places to bring on a laugh yet serious enough when things got rough.

All my opinion, of course, feel free to disagree. I can imagine that many old-time Trekkers are going to be furious at the way this movie practically jettisons the entire established canon (excepting ENT I guess, and there was a nod to Admiral Archer's prize beagle!); moving forward, they can of course continue following what's gone before, in effect saying that the events of this movie didn't affect those subsequent events, but as noted earlier, no Vulcan is a huge change. Vulcan was after all one of the strongest and most powerful members of the Federation (if not the strongest), and its destruction would surely invite Klingon aggression? Ah, sets up the next movie quite nicely...

 

[Ockeghem]

Brent,

On another Board, two people said there is some of that type of camera movement in the film, but nowhere near in every scene was this movement (according to them) to be found. Thank goodness.

 

[Oliver_A]

Well, this person most certainly didn't expect it too, especially considering how the previous films had been shot. But fact is, there are lots of shaky camera shots. Everything this person can do is report his personal viewing experience, so go see it for yourself, as most of us will do anyway.

 

[TravisR]

I imagine that there's some old-time Trekkers that decided the day they heard about the movie to be furious about any and every thing in it.

 

[Brent M]

Don't worry, I will.

100 reviews in now on RT with 94 positive. Pretty damn impressive.

 

[TheBat]

I am not a hardcore. I like the original series. never was a fan of the spinoffs. I had some problems with the early trailers with kirk.. then I saw some clips and it looked fine. I am seeing it tonight in digital.

I agree about van helsing.. it was a peice of shit.

Jacob

 

[Brian D H]

This is what's wrong with the science, not just of this movie, but of the fans as well....

(In my best nasally geek voice)
As everyone knows, a generation ship like you describe would gradually accelerate to near light speed, which per Einstein's theorys, would cause relative time aboard the Enterprise to slow to a near stand still for the bulk of the voyage. Thus, the crew would age at most 5 or 6 years over a 30 year voyage due to the approximately 3 years spent accelerating and 3 years spent decelerating. So yes, a scientifically accurate Star Trek would be interesting, but we would still need the younger cast to pull it off. This assumes, of course, that the destination (Vulcan?) is only about 28 light years away, which is also inaccurate.