*** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread - Page 6

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

Please do not give the writers any ideas!

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

Its the whole geography of that scene. What Spock saw in the sky made Vulcan look as close to Delta Vega as the earth is to the moon.

So is Delta Vega a planet or moon of Vulcan? And if it was that close would not the the destruction of Vulcan have some gravitational impact on it?


Again its the geography of that scene. Beaming between two ships at warp speeds is one thing. Beaming onto a ship at warp speed from a planet involves distances far beyond anything postulated in any iteration of Trek that I am aware of.

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

Isn't the attached supposed to be Vulcan or one of its moons from TMP? Seems there's no want for planets in the system, so pick one. The gravitational thing is a good point. The singularity could technically remain there exerting similar if not identical gravitational force as the planet did - since it absorbs all of the planet's mass.

As far as the transwarp beaming, by the time you get to Star Trek 3 they're testing the Excelsior which is supposed to have transwarp drive, right? Regardless of the success or failure of the transwarp drive it seems plausible that a smaller application of the same technology such as beaming could be done as a proof of concept. Granted, Scotty seems rather dubious of the whole transwarp-anything in ST3, but hey, it's an alternate timeline!!! Yeah, that's it!!! Hehe.

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

Sean we can dice up the Trek Tech fifty ways to Sunday but the issue I have with this super duper version of the transporter is that it was an obvious plot contrivance. It was made up to get Kirk and Scotty off Delta Vega and back onto the Enterprise.

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

Deus ex Trekia is responsible for 90% of Trek Technology(TM) since 1987.

I liked the movie, evne if it did feel like TWOK at times.

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

Liked it. But would rank it probably 4th in all the Trek movies overall. The whole Spock-as-momma's-boy thing just didn't work for me, although that was really the only thing that stood out along the way watching it, the others came afterward. Since it's all been covered here nicely, won't go over them again. Good movie? Yes. Best ST ever? Not even close.

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

I’ve seen defenses of poor science in movies before, but never have I seen someone claim that nonsense in a film is ok because “no SF film has ever made sense or ever can make sense (patently untrue), because science fiction is inherently a nonsensical genre” (again patently untrue). There are FAR too many examples of literary science fiction that DOES make sense (simply because the writer gave enough of a damn to make it so) to accept your claim as true, and there’s NO reason other than sheer laziness and/or ignorance and/or shoving other considerations aside in favor of commercial expediency why it should be so in movies. Sensible science fiction HAS been done in cinema, even if it’s not as common as in literary science fiction.

Make use of the usual “I don’t go to the movies to exercise my brain, I go to have some popcorn-level fun” justification all you want, but please don’t try to claim that nonsense in movies is ok because the genre makes it logically impossible not to be nonsensical. It just isn’t so.

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

I just hope that in the sequel no one kidnaps the elder Spock to try to learn about events in the future.

Meanwhile, folk might want to see the bit in SNL's Weekend Update last night about the film
Saturday Night Live - Update Feature: Star Trek - Video - NBC.com

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

On one hand you can say it is nit picking. On the other hand, truth is maybe Orci and Kurtzman just aren't all that great at writing plots. These are the same guys that wrote Transformers, which dials up the convoluted summer movie plot and arbitrary Maguffins to an 11.

Their plots are pretty contrived and basically serve to keep the action moving/putting the characters in situations that allow either: A.) "Cool" or B.) "Haha Funny" moments. The villains in both Trek and Transformers are woefully underdeveloped as well.

To their credit I think they did get the character relationships mostly right and got the youthful angle as well. In fact, I think they improved the character of Uhara, creating an interesting new dynamic to boot. Spock seemed a little forced at times though. Still, this is something the Star Wars prequels never really seemed to be able to get a hold of, so they should be credited for that. My goodness, can you imagine the box office if the Star Wars prequels had a really likable, sassy, and confident cast of characters and more accessible character relationships? Buh bye Titanic.

I hope they are gone for the sequel though because I don't think they can write a great story. A lot of the assumptions being made like "well ... don't worry about the story, this is just a set up movie, the sequel will be way better" ... I'm not so convinced about that. At some point, you can't rely on CGI explosions or obvious humor ... there has to be a little more substance.

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

It's interesting you should say that Transformers and Trek were written by the same people, because I was curious how many people saying they love Trek also loved Transformers. That helps me get a feel for what they like/want/expect in a movie. On the other hand, if some people said they love Trek but have no use for Michael Bay, Orci and Kurtzman, and Transformers, that would also be very interesting.

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

Pete-

I agree. The next film has to have some substance and not rely on effects, flash and the bad humor. Though Orci and Kurtzman are the Golden Boys now and are on board to write the next installment.

This is kind of like the two who wrote the last Brosnan Bond films, they were okay. But it would be great if a third writer came in and got the plotting better as they did for Casino Roayle with Paul Haggis. I have read that Damon Lindelof could be the third man for Trek 12.

The die may have been cast as the studio knows this kind of Star Trek is making big money now. The reports are that Star Trek has earned $76.5 million from Thursday through Sunday. Though I don't see how they know since it's still Sunday! So I'd expect to see that figure possibly exceed Wolverine's opening weekend gross.

The limits of TV in the 1960's that gave rise to the creative storytelling not dependent on flash is not a limitation now and they may go the easy way and just have flash, bang for the next film. Orci and Kurtzman know this, but may not have the creativity to go there or are forced not to go there in order to be commercial. They were not very original here as it stands. But as been said, JJ and the writers got the characters right in a fun package.

And I have no use for Transformers.

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

The one thing that seperates Transformers from Trek is Orci and Kurtzman have the tried and tested characters/character relationships of the beloved OS crew to fall back on.

And they do again to their credit take full advantage of that, even expanding on them in some ways (Uhura as mentioned before).

If you can make the audience like the characters enough and have enough things exploding and a checklist of 8-10 "bad ass" moments in your script ... that's generally enough to hit the box office jack pot in the summer.

Films like The Dark Knight and the LOTR prequels that have all that *and* a fantastic story to go with it are the rarest birds in Hollywood though. I look at the 80s and wonder how the hell things like Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T., Back to the Future, Terminator, Ghostbusters, Wrath of Khan, etc. all got made so well.

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

Neither do I. I'm curious why you don't. Is it because you don't find the characters/story interesting, or because you don't like the style of filmaking? If Michael Bay did a Trek film, do you think you would enjoy it?

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

Well, it looks like opening weekend numbers are rolling in.

MSN is reporting 76 million.

DarkHorizions is reporting 72.5 million.

I don't know if that's a great start, or if it's got sufficient legs to avoid a steep drop in the next week, but it sounds like a decent result to me.

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

It sounds like you've made up your mind about Trek already but I thought Transformers was terrible and I thought Star Trek was a very good and very fun movie.

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

Not really. I'm reading some things that sound positive, but I'm also reading things that give me pause.

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

I guess its partly due to not being a fan of Transformers.

I thought the leads were charming, but the bathroom humor at the house dumbed it down. The action was pretty good and the effects were very well done. But on the whole, I was not a fan of that universe.

Michael Bay has his style and does well in that genre of action films. But not all of them are good. I can't see him doing Star Trek. Can you imagine the scene where there is smoke blowing across the screen at the end of Armageddon and on the aircraft carrier in Pearl Harbor where the heros are walking towards the camera in slow motion but with Kirk and crew? I suppose it would look cool!

I prefer my Star Trek to be smart and I have to really like that crew as much as I liked TOS.

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

Its kinda funny because I think Abrams visually is probably the closest director to Bay.

Abrams likes to use more shaky cam and lens flare, whereas Bay goes for slow motion, but visually they are both quite similar. The visual look and color style they use for their films is pretty dead on. Abrams Star Trek is probably the closest you would get visually to a Bay Star Trek.

I think it's probably why Orci and Kurtzman's scripts work for these guys ... it suits their visual style and gives them enough action scenes to keep the movie moving.

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

Same here. TRANSFORMERS was pretty lousy(except for the f/x), but I thoroughly enjoyed STAR TREK.

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

Try 1966.

Complaining about the science aspects of Star Trek seems stupid to me ever since I saw the episode Miri from TOS. In this episode the Enterprise finds a planet that is an exact replica of Earth! Riiiiiight....

As for Star Trek and Transformers, I liked and enjoyed Star Trek and give it a 8/10, would unenthusiastically give Transformers a 6/10, and that's somewhat generous in my book, but I think the technical wizardry of that film helps bring it up from "mediocre" to merely "okay".

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

The trailer for Transformers 2 looked really bad. The effects amazing, but the rest was laughable. Haven't seen the first one but plan to some day.

OT, they showed the trailer for GI Joe too and the audience I was with did a "WTF did we just see?" kind of thing. People were laughing. I thought it looked like fun.

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

G.I. Joe looks awful. A-W-F-U-L.

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

Same here.

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

See, and i like Transformers more than the Trek movie!
Course i hated, and i mean HATED the Transformers cartoon. Im more a Macross/Robotech guy.

Maybe i am bringing all my Trek baggage with me. But some of the problems you guys mentioned, are the same ones i have with the movie.
1. Seeing Vulcan implode from Delta Vega! I thought Delta Vega was remote, like near the edge of the galaxy.
2. Bad production design. I will always cringe when i see current technology, much less cinder block walls, on a starship!
3. The ship at the start of the movie must of had 30 shuttle craft, and its a small starship!
4. Kirk kicked off the ship, instead of being sent to the brig.
5. A cadet given officer status, and first officer at that!
6. Cadet Kirk being made Capt. Kirk at the end of the movie. Almost as bad as a doctor being given command of a starship (remember that Next Gen episode?). I dont give an ass if the Dr. is a commander in rank, they still wouldnt run a starship, or even a medical ship!
7. Scotty's buddy/ sidekick pisses me off. Id rather of seen Lt. Arex, or M'ress.
Yep, the animated series had better stories, for the most part, and stayed more true to Trek, than this movie.

Just my random thoughts, on follow up.

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

I just assume it's a totally different planet with the same name. How many cities are named "Springfield"?

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

I was getting a kind of Alien vibe to it. I guess that should be getting old by now.

funny, at first I thought GI Joe was a trailer for Ironman 2 or something.

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

I had seen the earlier G.I. Joe trailer, so I knew immediately what it was, but there was a general sense of "Huh?" from the rest of the audience.

It had at least one excellent shot of Megan Fox. I enjoyed it, but I liked Star Trek more. Neither is great. Transformers also has less surface area for nitpicking; fewer interlocking characters and plot points, especially versus forty years of canon and "established" technology.

The writers made the wrong call on this:

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

What are your opinons on digital presention vs standard presentation of Star Trek at the theatre? AMC theatres have both.

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

I had a choice, and I picked the DLP showing because it's nice to not see cigarette burns in films, plus you know that a scene change is about to happen in 7-9 seconds after you see a cigarette burn signifying a reel change for the conventional film version.

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

I loved Trek but am so-so on Transformers.