*** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread - Page 7

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

Star Trek works better than Transformers because of the tried and true characters/character relationships.

If you're comparing purely the story/plot, both Transformers and Star Trek are both of similar quality. It's kind of a checklist of having X-number of "bad ass moments" for each character, X-number of "comic relief moments", and action sequences. The plot simply serves to drive that more than it does to tell a story.

Case in point: you need another action sequence with Kirk and a bad-ass moment for Sulu? Well ... lets shut down the transporter so they have to sky dive and kick some Romulan butt.

That's the worry I have with these two writing future Star Trek movies. I don't think they can construct an actually strong story that can stand on its own without the gee-whiz CGI.

It is getting good reviews, but even a lot of those reviews sort of preface things by saying the plot isn't the greatest, but they sure do love the new young crew and the fun attitude ... I wonder if that's like a sugar rush after the last two dour TNG movies.

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

My understanding is that Damon Lindelof is coming on as a writer of the sequel so, in my mind, it's in good hands.

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

I don't watch Lost, but I hope he's better than Orci/Kurtzman.

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

That still happens ? That problem didn't cease to exist somewhere in the 70s or 80s ?

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

I got to see this today at the local IMAX Theater. Though I had to sit too close to the screen for my taste since I arrived only 10 minutes prior to the sold at 1pm showing overall I thought it was a blast.

For background I go back with Trek literally to the beginning -- family's first Color TV and TOS was a great show to demo the new Tech, after-school showings in syndication for the majority of my Jr and Sr High years, first in line for TMP, saw Khan 4 times out of its first 7 showings, blah, blah. I do not consider myself anywhere nearly a purist however and am absolutely fine with the Sequel/Prequel.

I hate shaky cam in general and too close IMAX probably exagerrated my hate even more as my eyes don't refocus quick enough to keep up with the quick cuts and shaky style. I will be so glad when this Style finally goes into remission (the last Bourne just about killed me).

Some of the homages were pretty fun though I could have done without the mind melds. The kids tormenting Spock as far as I know was only shown in the Animated Series though it was referenced a couple times otherwise, Kobayashi Maru and the Apple was pretty funny, Nero screaming "SPO-O-O-O-CK" once he learned Spock had stolen the ship paralleled Khan's "KH-A-A-A-A-A-N!" in STII (I haven't seen that one mentioned here yet though maybe it has), several of Older Spock's lines ("I have and always will be your friend" in particular, Young Spock eyebrow rise, Kirk baiting Spock into attacking him ("This Side of Paradise"). Too many others to count, many subtle that seemed to elicit minimal crowd response, some in your face which got a mixture of laugh/ooh-ahh moments/applause/or gasps.


Easy to recommended this film. I'll probably see it again next weekend with any of my family who wants to go.

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

Another Orci/Kurtzman comparison not brought up but more apt due to Abram's involvement is Mission Impossible III. I really enjoyed that one and found it to be my favorite of that trilogy. I liked the writing, pacing, action and characterizations. I also liked Trek a lot. Transformers I can live with. It wasn't the best written movie or best acted but it was fun to watch for what it was...I mean, it was based on a half hour cartoon of talking toys. Toys that have the power to transform into anything they want...but they choose to transform into a VW Bug or a big rig. Yeesh. :-)

I think this Trek movie is the death knell for the serious fans who spend their weekend wearing Trek costumes and pretending to be ranked officers in Starfleet. A friend of mine who was a huge Trek fan long before I was worked in the 80's for paramount and was paid to do his favorite thing...make and wear costumes to Conventions. They paid him to be in Klingon costumes during a bit in the 80's (before I guess you couldn't wade through the fans without bumping into a half dozen of them in seconds).

One year in the early 90's after the release of VI he wore a Trek costume he built that had Admiral rank insignia. A more serious fan came up to him and chided him for wearing that because he hadn't earned that rank. He hadn't earned that rank!!! He giggled and reminded the person that this was a costume for a sci-fi tv show and not a real military organization but it was lost on the dude. I bring this up because of all the handwringing about Cadet Kirk becoming Captain Kirk in one movie (which as I noted was closer to Roddenberry's Hornblower concept than military regulations). I ask again...how is trekkin' through space encountering aliens and new life made better by some drawn out ranking up procedural?

I am curious to see a breakdown of fans that have the biggest issue with the new movie and my guess it isn't the old guys like me who grew up on 3 seasons TOS. Instead, I suspect it is the people who grew up with over 2 dozen seasons of Next Generation (because lets face it...stylistically the shows since 1987 have been of one mindset).

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

Still happens on the majority of films distributed around here, unless you go see it in DLP. Otherwise, yeah, you get the blotch/reel change notice.

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

As I said in the review thread, I thought it was terrific. You can pick nits with any movie, and especially with one that has so many hours of backstory, but the writers really did a good job respecting the many series, movies and even books that have come before. I thought the humor worked and didn't break the dramatic tension (as it does many Lucasfilm projects - one of my biggest complaints of those movies). The action sequences were great - far far better than what passed for action sequences in Nemesis or even Insurrection (that stupid dune buggy scene in the former, and that equally dumb shuttlecraft/Gilbert & Sullivan scene in the latter -- both examples of humor breaking the tension).

It is very satisfying to me that after watching Star Trek for about 35 years now to see a new movie that is not only artistically and commercially successful but also a damn great film. I guess seeing Star Trek be relevant again to the masses validates my long association with it, even if I never sought or put much credence in such validation.

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

Well, I sure didn't notice it in this film.

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

One possible minor nit (or my misunderstanding) about the film that occurred to me. Pike says it will take Kirk four years to get through the academy and Kirk says he'll do it in three. We then see three years later that it looks like he has done it, but it isn't really anything special as it seems McCoy and Uhura also just take 3 years. Chekhov for that matter is even pointed out to be younger than most others (a child prodigy who enlisted in his early teens?). So, did I misunderstand or what?

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

Well, Uhura might have been on shore leave after her first year, and McCoy is a grown man (not a teenager) and a doctor, so he might have an accelerated path.

Chekhov might have gotten there through alternate means. I have plenty of nits (none of them continuity I might add), but that was OK.

PLEASE change the writers. I am amazed the film worked as well as it did considering how bad I thought the script was. I'll credit the actors, the director, and admit the writers wrote enough of the characters well for the film to work. If the Lost writer story is true (I don't watch it), that'll make me happy. Orci and Kurtzman can cash big checks for TF2, 3 and spin-offs for all I care.

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

Not a Trek person here just attempting to provide an answer to your inquiry based on this film and nothing to do with the back story of the series. I don’t think you are misunderstanding perhaps you are assuming Kirk is a prodigy when he’s just a really smart and bright person. Is this version of Kirk supposed to be a prodigy? Pike telling a young Kirk that he’ll get through the academy in four years is his perception that based on his (Kirk’s) knowledge, test scores and IQ with very little tutelage to prepare for the academy assuming most children prepare for this, is he’ll get through in four years.

If you follow basketball at all Neil look at Lamar Odom of the Lakers he has a unique set of skills that actually comparable to LeBron James, yet he does not apply himself and sometimes is invisible when he plays, but when he’s focused and honed in he looks incredible on the court and he knows this he just chooses to apply himself when he wants. Odom can handle the ball, rebound well on both sides of the floor, shoot the three, he has a post game and is pretty good at the line. Kirk has the same unique set of skills, he knows he’s really smart, witty, the ability to listen at critical times, good looking, brazen, reckless and unapologetic. Pike being aware of this as well is basically saying if this guy only applies himself……

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

I had said previously that if Kirk's instant rise to Captain was a concern, just pretend it was years later. Well I saw the movie again on Sunday and during the whole promotion sequence including Spock meeting Spock, there was nothing to indicate it was immediately following the events of the film other than it followed the destruction of Nero.

Spock Prime says to young Spock: "Now there are so few of us left, we should no longer avoid each other" (or so). That implies some time has passed as the only other time to avoid each other was during the fight when Spock Prime stayed on Delta Vega.
"We have found a suitable colony." Finding a colony takes time given they would first have to track down all existing Vulcans, form a committee and decide on a location. That could take years. Also young Spock wouldn't need to resign his commission until they found a suitable colony to help repopulate his people. That is also kind of odd since he is a half-breed and probably would not be wanted for such an activity.
Young Spock: "Why didn't you just come aboard and explain it." Plus Spock Prime's answer that he had to learn for himself about Kirk. That question could have been asked years later simply as a first question to "himself" as to why hide all that. The answer could have implied about learning about Kirk not just on that first mission but many more since.

In the promotion ceremony nothing in the speech specifically references the movie's events and are a generic "for heroics and valor" type stuff that could be refering to years worth of exploits. Plus Captain Pike is now an Admiral? The movie wiped out lots of Captains not Admirals so they would need more Captains and not more Admirals. Plus why would Pike be promoted from the events of the film? He didn't do anything the would imply Admiral unless you are going to argue his promotion was really a demotion to get him out of the Captain's chair for his failings. The fact he is in a wheel chair could be coincidental since there was nothing shown in the interrogation that implied a longer term inability to walk.

For more fun with ranks and promotion:
Uhura was already in Starfleet Academy for an untold amount of time so it is reasonable that since it was recruiting day she had been in for at least one year as she was not a new recruit.
Chekov was an Ensign (I thought) and it did seem like he was not a cadet but rather a Wesley Crusher type who was able to go to the academy early and on a special program. Normally though his abilities would give him a different path and likely not a navigator. I thought it was funny they left a 17 year old in charge of the bridge several times.
Sulu appears to also have been a graduate and not a cadet. I don't think any of the bridge staff at the start of Enterprise' first voyage were cadets. The cadets were all stationed "in the back" like Uhura who got field promoted to the bridge because she knew Romulan.

So anyway, I am going to believe that Captain Kirk walking onto the bridge was several years later and that each of the main cast had distinguished themselves over those years to earn a place on Starfleet's flagship until a future movie states otherwise. Also since the next movie will be years later I will take the end as a quick glimpse of the start of the sequel 2+ years later so all the characters will be 2+ years older.

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

I have a major problem with how they changed the future...I don't want to believe that everything we know is not set in stone now...

Vulcan is gone??? Wow, this one is huge...

However, how do we know in a sequal that spock won't somehow put things back to the way they are - restoring the timeline(?)...I mean, it *IS* Star Trek...

It's just jarring thinking about possible futures now...instead of what we know.

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

I thought of this too, that maybe it could be viewed as just another jump in time, to bookend the opening of the film. However, Spock comes on board and offers his services as first officer after talking with Spock Prime and deciding to stay in Starfleet, which is a pretty linear event.

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

also remember he just saved earth and all of starfleet. thats a pretty big accomplishment for a cadet

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

Also, I'd just like to say; The black shirt didn't mean shit.

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

I'm way behind in this post, but I think my favorite thing they did with the first film was setting up future films where they do not have to follow a timeline or already established story line from older movies. It's free to go in any direction it wants, regardless of what Kirk and Spock did in old stories.

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

I sure hope not.

The reset button should be thrown away for good. Look at what happened to Heroes if you need dramatic proof on what the misuse of said device does.

Deal with the consequences of actions.

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

I find it rather freeing, actually. The slate is wide open, and let's hope they don't cover familiar ground.

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

I find it odd that people have an issue with the rapid promotion, and even more odd that some would cite the modern military as proof of its unrealistic nature. It needs to be reminded that just a few hundred years ago, you had to purchase your commission, and women weren't allowed at all. The point being that stranger things have happened. Plus, he literally saved the entire planet.

Also, while the events up until the battle between Nero and the Kelvin followed the prime universe timeline, I think a lot of people are ignoring the alterations that incident had to the timeline, with regardes to both Kirk and Starfleet. For one, Kirk seems to have grown up more reckless that in the prime universe, without a father to guide him (I'm assuming Greg Grunberg was a jerk step-father). Pike, having studied the Kelvin incident a great deal, had determined the headstrong attitude was something Starfleet was missing a great deal. Pike, while not the head of Starfleet by any means, clearly has an immense amount of clout/political capital, and I think his move to promote Kirk to first officer showed that he basically does whatever he wants.

My point being, that when all is said and done, Pike has a hand in how this universe's Starfleet will continue, and a clear direction it where it should go. He's willing to gamble on Kirk, and it seems the brass at Starfleet agrees.

Also, I thought the movie kicked ass

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

I meant that all of the end sequences: Spock meeting Spock, promotion, and stepping on the bridge all occured year(s) after Nero's destruction but that they were effectively days apart.

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

From what I've read, Orci and Kurtzman are still on as writers for the ST sequel but, they are adding the guy from Lost to the team.


BTW, saw it for a second time last night. Just as great the second time around! This movie puts the SW prequels to shame IMO.

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

Chuck,
I can pretend lots of things. I could pretend reasons for numerous gripes with numerous films. I tend to rebel against that advice, because I can only respond to the film as it is presented. If they wanted a time gap, they could have easily inserted some gag to make that clear. They did not.

Josh,
I am not just citing the modern military for my issue with cadet to captain. I am citing historical seafaring service of Western nations, military, commercial, merchant marine, and even cruise ships.

Being a captain is not simply a physical skill. You can certainly have an aptitude, as can a surgeon or a lawyer. But the crux of the matter is making decisions. Historically, that has been most effectively done by people with experience.

Would you like your airline pilot to be someone with incredible aptitude but little experience? As a recent example, Captain Sullenberger was able to do what he did specifically because of his experience. You don't get HIRED to be a captain (or a chief engineer)...you get GROOMED. You give someone who saves the Earth a medal. And the next level of responsibility. You don't skip three levels unless you want to relearn a brutal lesson with your flagship (that experience protects Captains, especially ones with more guts than brains).

As for the writers having him save Earth...didn't Spock actually do that? He was the one who stole and then inserted the Red Matter into the bad ship, which is what actually saved the planet. Kirk got beat up and then killed Nero's first officer, with some luck. Shouldn't Spock be getting some props?

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

It puts a lot of movies to shame.

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

So are you upset that they didn't put in a tag "13 years later" when young Kirk steals the car and the "5 years later" when Uhura steps into bar or can you infer the time gap? This movie actually has lots of little things not specifically explained.

When Kirk and Spock are aboard the Narada, Kirk's phaser twirls around from red to blue, fires, and then twirls back to red. Do you assume that it twirls to recharge as that is a reasonable assumption? The scene continues with Spock mind-melding with a fallen Romulan as Kirk shoots a Romulan behind him. When you follow the scene it is clear that Kirk stunned a Romulan so Spock could mind-meld and get the information they needed and therefore implied that blue facing phaser equals stun and red facing equals kill. They also never explained the plan and you had to figure it out for yourself.

If J.J Abrams claims the final scenes are really a few years in the future and are actually the start of the sequel, there is nothing in those scenes to dispute that claim. You only assume that is true because that is the way all movies are made unless they put up a "X years later" tag or specifically say it.

No because if Spock had his way Enterprise would be in the Laurentian system with the main fleet as Earth was destroyed. Also you have to give props to Sulu for showing up and destroying the Narada's torpedos that allowed Spock to get his ship rammed into the Narada in the first place.

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

Apples and oranges. Where was he actually given command of something? The "it's just a movie" excuse doesn't work.