*** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread - Page 5

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Review Thread

I like too how this cast sets up the possibility for many more films. I realize that they are currently contracted for three, but who knows?

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

If they were going to beam to the Enterprise we could have had a scene where Bones complains about not wanting himself scrambled by the beam.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Right, which is why I was puzzled by Kirk saying to Spock that time traveling was cheating. That didn't make sense in context there.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Review Thread

This is true, though that's part of the problem I had with it. Just pumping up the action and jokes and CGI but not really improving the story telling ... it reminded me more of Lost in Space (1998) or Starship Troopers actually.

I wonder if they would have just been better off creating new characters. Pine's Kirk is good, but really could just be a new character entirely. Quinto could still have been a Vulcan, but he is hit and miss as Spock.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

From the review thread:


Yes, those films were terrible. But it's partly because they also tried to turn Trek into a giant action film, except they did it in a far more miserable (less WOW) then this. The fact that they were low budget attempts at action also hurt them.

But a contention of "it's no worse then" doesn't really make me feel good either. Is it better then Star Trek V? Of course. Better then say, Nemisis? Sure. But it's not even in the same league as II/VI type films. If it had a plotline that good and the budget, it would have been a home run. But this really suffered from a plotline that was a mess, despite the great action.

And stealing from DeadlineHollywood daily, someone brought these nits up and I nodded with all of them.


I wondered that to. The only reason you'd taunt to begin with is if they had a lot of pride over their status, etc.. which is an emotion (envy/pride). So, what was that ?

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

You know, if just a little bit of red matter was enough to take out the supernova, I really don't understand why Spock had so much of the stuff on his ship.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

The bullying scene and Orion slave girl talking like a L.A. valley girl made me cringe a bit. The script basically is structured simply to take the characters from one action/special effects sequence to the next, much like a Bond movie (ie: the drill fight, the final showdown, Spock's Star Wars like spaceship finale, etc.).

It's kind of pointless to nit pick the plot (like the red matter stuff) ... it's pretty obvious it was written with the purpose of keeping the action coming.

Enough with the Bond villains already. They're not particularly good to begin with, and they are certainly not even close to Khan (or even General Chang from VI). No more Shinzon's, Ru'afo's (sp?), or Nero's please. At least the Borg Queen was relatively interesting.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Just a little bit was enough for a planet, but perhaps Spock needed a lot more for a sun.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

That doesn't work. He did solve the supernova that would have eaten the universe by using a single drop. It was just too late, living his ship and the other ship on the other end as the blackhole formed, sucking them back.

If he needed a "lot more" for that, then it wouldn't have succeeded, and the two ships wouldn't be near a black hole, they would have been destroyed by the supernova, and the film wouldn't have happened

He just had a bunch of extra to have a bunch of extra, I guess.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Rex, I have to comment on your post! (I'm sure I'll regret this )

I essentially agree with all of it. But my experience with the film was an enjoyable one. What could they do if they are filming the young lives of these guys? I don't think a Battlestar Galactica type of treatment would have been accepted. A drunkard McCoy who is self loathing and medicates himself with booze after his divorce is not what I would enjoy seeing.

The creative people here felt compelled to be beholden to the fans and more so to the material this film is based on. So I expected that the major characters were similar to the source materials. I wouldn't have accepted less. And I know JJ didn't want to go dark. He said, too any films have gone dark, and not too many make you feel good.

And I agree with you, my post with my reactions mainly focused on the characters. The plot wasn't anything new, Wrath of Nero here against Spock.

The problem is this is a set-up movie, to reintroduce Star Trek to the newest younger audience members. It's meant to appeal to us long timers, but it has to be modern to make new fans. It's like that scene in When Worlds Collide and the scientist says, "no this ship is for the young, not us."

And yet it does include us. They took the best of what made Star Trek great and put it in a modern film version, not original or new, just a new take on our favorite crew.

Here are a few more thoughts I had through out the day:

I thought the Spock Prime character here is used a lot like Yoda or Obi Wan. He's old and wise and nurtures the young Jedi.

The Nero drilling rig was like the Deathstar drilling into a planet to nuke it. Or like the weapon used by the Xindi. A whole planet and home world to a major race is wiped out.

Many nods to Wrath of Khan, 2 dimensional thinmking sort of maneuver to reveal the Enterprise from Titan. The Ceti Ell as has been mentioned.

There was nod to The Best of Both Worlds I thought as the Enterprise flies through the debris field. Sulu scratched the paint though.

Urban's performance could have been more nuanced. At times, it reminded me of Dan Ackroyd's version of McCoy from Saturday Night Live's spoof of Star Trek.

The film did deliver that optimistic view of the future. This crew appears to like each other and the cast appears to work well together.

And Lou, did you leave the film feeling young? I sort of did.

By the way, I forgot to add, there was so much going on, I forgot to try to hear Majel Roddenberry's computer voice.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Actually one of the things that disappointed me the most was the film didn't really have much to say about the "future". It's hellbent on introducing all the characters (as either bad ass types or comic relief) and then getting on to the action scenes that it basically glosses over what the Federation is or what Roddenberry's version of the future is about.

If you're a Star Trek "newbie", based on this film, I don't think you really would understand what the Federation is or what the future is about.

I just don't think Abrams is the right person for this. They could've rebooted and done it fresh without having to dial the superficial aspects up to an 11 (and without the annoying "super close up shaky cam + lens flare in every ... single ... scene). I think Bryan Singer could've done it.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

After seeing it a second time, I like the film much better even though the criticisms are valid.

And yet, the best way to go over these nitpicks, really, is to think of this film as a sequel to Nemesis FIRST...and a reboot of the franchise second. Thus, the explanation of the future and the Federation isn't really needed...even though it really is needed for this new crew...

Weird, I know.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Sulu had his folding sword (not some ancient weapon as indicated by a past poster...it flipped out) because his captain asked for people with close quarter combat skills. That was established with dialogue. The joke was that the Captain not knowing Sulu assumed it was some hand-to-hand stuff that is taught at the academy and not "fencing." Sheesh. At least nit pick something unspoken in the movie. :-)

As for being in the league of II and VI, do we really want to see if those movies are nit pick proof? Seriously, the entire Klingon Empire has all its energy resources on one planet and that planet's loss will destroy the entire empire? That is like a powerplant in Cleveland knocking the nation into the dark ages. Someone shooting a phaser into a pot of mash potatoes? To prove a point? AND is Vulcan? C'mon.

Khan lived on a planet that turned into a desert 6 months after he was left there 15 years ago. Apparently the entire party lived on his superior intellect because a scan of the planet detected no life forms. Man, he is so smart food pours out of the sky like mana. As well as the water. Sheesh. What kind of junk science is that? And the Enterprise...again...is the only ship within warp distance of this problem? Again? Seriously?

Do they really keep viridium patches on hand on the bridge? Like bandaids? I like these cool Klingon prisons that just send you down in the clothes you were arrested in. Like some futuristic drunk tank...in spaaace!

And so on. Thank god the Internet wasn't around at the times those two movies were out (or at least the degree that it is now). :-)

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

The "phaser shooting at mashed potatoes" thing is laughably bad, but it was neccessary to provide context for "murder mystery" plot.

I actually think VI is better than II.

Those old films I don't think are really comparable any more anyway. This new Trek is more of an action-adventure film, science fiction isn't bankable any more I suppose. I suspect the studio will want even more action in the sequel.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Absolutely.

The movie accomplished what it needed to do. It made Trek cool again and introduced the characters to a new generation of fans.

Plot nitpicks aside, and I have many - the worst being the whole Delta Vega section ie the planet of convenient plot points - the film was damn FUN!

In the end that is what I took away from it and what I will remember.

The sequel however will be held to much higher standards, especially story wise.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Ah, yes, but maybe that could be explained in TOS, specifically City on the Edge of Forever. Here's the quotation:

Spock: "Time we faced the unpleasant facts. First, I believe we have about a week before McCoy arrives, but we can't be certain."
Kirk: "Arrives where-- Honolulu, Boise, San Diego? Why not Outer Mongolia, for that matter?"
Spock: "There is a theory. There could be some logic to the belief that time is fluid, like a river-- with currents, eddies, backwash. And the same currents that swept McCoy to a certain time and place might sweep us there, too."

So there is a precedent there in the show. In fact it's right there in TOS. [/Star Trek geek]

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

A couple of people have complained about that one, but I think it was quite logical. Both Spock and Kirk end up there at that time for believable reasons, so what's to complain about?

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Even better than expected. Breathtaking visuals. I found nothing to complain about. The Enterprise bridge wasn't colorful like TOS...more like ST:TMP. Didn't bother since it looked great. Kirk, Spock and Bones were brilliant together. I'd like to see more moments with Bones and Spock since they've been so brilliant in the past. But Kirk and Bones had some awesome scenes together (LMAO at the big hands and everything), as did Kirk and Spock. And the Spock/Uhura romance was unexpected! The scene in the lift brought tears to my eyes.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

OK, well...i saw the movie, and unlike Lou, i feel old!

But really, i liked it, except for the production design. Damn it sucked! A milk processing plant, or whatever it is, as the engine room doesnt work for me. It reminds me of a bad 50s sci-fi movie. They used to film in a plant of some kind, and call it a spaceship. It might work in a 50s cheapo movie, but doesnt cut it for a Trek movie. Hell, the 60s TV show had some better sets, then this movie! IMO, of course!

Best part of the movie...Nimoy!

More thoughts later. I have to think about it some. Need to watch classic Trek.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Speaking of using a brewery for the engineering section of the Enterprise, I thought I saw in the stairwell of the Kelvin, concrete!

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

I found the whole movie a great re-start to a show I loved as a kid. The only critique I would have, and it is move of a complaint of action movies as a whole now a days, is that they ramp up the cut sequences so fast and shake the camera so much that at times it is difficult to follow what is going on.

That aside, the key to watching this or any Sci-Fi movie is not to look to closely at the details. Because just by the vary nature of the genre, nothing makes sense. That's why its called Science fiction. The idea is to create a alternative reality and put interesting characters in it and see how they react.

I loved it. 2011 i just too freaken long to wait for the next one.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Rick,

You know, your last sentence above is interesting. If you take Trek chronologically (in the sci-fi universe, that is) then the sets in this new film ought not to have been as good (dare I say as advanced?) as those in TOS. So that to me actually makes some sense. It may not appeal to 'newer' audiences in that respect, but to me that isn't as important, especially since many other factors appear to have appealed to a 'newer' audience.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Isn't that what Nemesis was suppose to do? For me, the movie is near flawless. Except for a few convenient plot points, I loved everything about the movie. Abrams has proven that he is the right guy from my point of view.

The close ups and shaky cam stuff didn't bother me at all, in fact I hardly noticed it. I know there were a lot of lens flares but, honestly I don't remember noticing them much. I loved the close up action scenes. It brought a sense of scale to everything that Trek has always lacked IMO. Abrams made the Enterprise seem extremely huge in this movie, something none of the other movies ever did. I just didn't notice all the shaky cam and close ups like some here have, I guess because they never bothered me.

As far as Singer, I wouldn't mind him getting a crack at Trek if Abrams decides not to direct the sequel. Abrams would be my first choice though, if for nothing more the continuity between films (something that really on II & III did). Some poeple would say that Singer has already failed at an attempted reboot with Superman Returns, a movie which I really enjoyed as well (I mean WB is already talking about rebooting the reboot).

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

If that was the only item of contention I could let it slide but there are others such as Delta Vega must be close to Vulcan for Spock Prime to see Vulcan destroyed.

The first item of contention is Spock ejecting personnel from the ship especially in a time of crisis. Makes no sense. Confine Kirk to quarters or throw him in the brig. Eject from the ship? Not logical.

Why would Nero put Spock on that planet in the first place to watch Vulcan being destroyed? Would he not have wanted to see the pain on Spock's face when Vulcan imploded? After then Nero could have marooned him.

The thing that really bugged me is the whole trans-warp transporter concept. That is tech that exceeds anything even past the TNG time frame.

As to the lower decks of the starships I was actually fine with how they were envisioned.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Did anyone else think that Captain Robau and the Romulan who was killed by Kirk ("I've got your gun") looked very similar? I'm no Trekkie, so that threw me off a bit. I thought they had somehow turned Robau into a Romulan instead of killing him. I hope no one's brains just exploded by reading that.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Kirk killed Nero's right hand man, Ayel.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

I don't really see how this is a problem or highly unbelievable.


I'd argue that from the destruction of Vulcan up until Spock relinquishes control the film goes to great pains to show his growing emotional instability in the face of his circumstances and what has happened to his world and his family. The entire point of that arc is that he's reverted back to his volatile childhood state of heightened emotional vulnerability, so to expect him to be doing the logical thing at that point in the story isn't very . . . logical.


This is funny to read, not because it's necessarily wrong. It's an arguable point I suppose, but I just saw the film again tonight and when we got to the scenes on Delta Vega I actually thought to myself, "It's commendable that Nero didn't keep Spock on the ship to gloat throughout the ordeal. That's something a villain would do and the hero would conveniently get the upperhand because the villain failed to off him beforehand just because of his need to gloat over his victory. It actually seemed like a smart move to me coming from movie convention. Get Spock off the ship where he can't do some miraculous "save the day" by gaining access to the Narada computers or something.


Isn't this in an episode of TNG or something? I could have sworn it was, or maybe it was transporting between two ships traveling at the same warp speed? I know something somewhat similar has been in one of the shows, but I can't remember exactly.


I agree, I had no problems with engineering. If anything it at least gives engineering and the complexity of something like a warp system the kind of scale that you never get from a nice and compact engineering set with blinking lights like we tend to get. Using something that was more than likely an existing structure also gets you a sense of size that they probably couldn't have gotten on a set at the same pricepoint.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Ah, OK. I found Captain Robau's death scene at the official site.



Never mind.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

I guess in the sequel, Chris Pine will randomly crash land onto a desert planet that has (wait for it ...) William Shatner on it, lol.