*** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread - Page 2

*** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Nicholas,

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

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

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.

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

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...

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Don't worry, I will.

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

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

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

Re: Star Trek XI- Official now- 05.08.2009 (merged)

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.

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

Because "Cloverfield" was told exclusively through the lens of a home video camera, the entire film is "shaky-cam" style, and during the film's theatrical release movie theaters had to post signs warning of motion sickness after audience members throughout screenings complained of being nauseous and dizzy, because seeing a hand-held "home movie" on a giant theater screen was too much to tolerate for some people.

"Cloverfield" was created/produced by JJ Abrams, after wanting to make an American Godzilla movie, that wasn't actually Godzilla.

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

There were only a couple of scenes that really bothered me with the shaky cam.

One of the things that kind of bothered me (and it's actually pretty small) was that Vulcan had a blue sky. Vulcan is supposed to have a red sky.

Yee-Ming, you need to check out the fourth season of Enterprise. Aside from the finale that was some pretty damn good Trek. And I loved the fact that Porthos was mentioned in the film.

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

Saw it tonight on IMAX and loved it. Found myself tearing up a couple of times, the big softie that I am.

I've heard that there's a tribble hidden somewhere within the film. Anyone catch where?

I really enjoyed the nods to TOS. Out of all of the movie 'reboots' that have been made, THIS is the most respectful to the original series IMO.

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

The Dallas Morning News gave it an A, which is fairly rare for them--especially for a genre film. The review was glowing and ended thusly: "Bottom line: Star Trek isn't just a great sci-fi movie or great summer movie. It's just a flat-out great movie."

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

This year's Iron Man, through and through with a much better final act than that film. Essentially, it has the same problems as Iron Man...mainly the script if you really break it down and a weak villain who's played at the best of his ability by a great actor.

Can't wait to check it again.

As for Abrams, he's getting better as a film director but I'd be lying if I didn't say that at times, it felt like a big budget TV episode, just in terms of how it was shot in certain moments.

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

the tribble was in a hanging bird cage (with grain) in scotty's outpost....listen close you'll hear it purr and then see it briefly behind him at his desk. Hearing it in the background make me look for it.

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

I saw it and it's very, very good. The movie is exciting, moving at times, has laughs and is just flat out fun. I'm not a Trek fan so I have no clue (and don't care) how much it deviates or changes Trek lore but as long as you're willing to allow for some changes, you're probably going to enjoy this movie.

It's only the second week of the summer movie season but I'd be shocked if there was a better 'summer movie' this year.

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

Travis,

Potter Year 6 will probably be better than this...and I liked this one a bunch, despite my criticisms.

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

That tells me it's going to be one fantastic film. The fewer the stars, the better the film.

I'm going first thing in the morning for a DLP showing, looking extremely forward to it. This, I'm hoping is everything TNG wasn't, good Star Trek.

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

I saw the trailer for HP6 tonight and it does look pretty awesome.

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

I may be the only nay-sayer I know of, I walked out of the theater insanely dissapointed. I thought the film was cloying, had some really poorly written moments, and suffered from a narrative that had absolutely no reason to care about any character.

I found myself drawn out of the film several times by logical leaps that made no sense at all. If you reset the whole thing, in a sense, by killing Kirk's father and changing his motivation, then it seems ridiculous that he would end up on the exact same path anyway. And, by destroying Vulcan, you immediately create a gigantic paradox as to what happens in the future with Romulus (ie, there would never be the creation of the "red matter" so then it's all wrong).

But while these science things bothered me (like a cold blooded insect monster on an ice planet), it was the other moments that I felt really hurt the film. Having Scotty played for an over-the-top joke stolen straight from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory - and I mean EXACTLY the same joke made me roll my eyes. Most of the comedy came across as real groaners and seemed to just be padding the film, or an effort to shoe-horn in scenes for underused actors.

Back to the paradoxes though, by providing Scotty the formula for transwarp teleportation, by giving younger spock access to a next-generation vehicle, etc..

I don't know, I just couldn't draw myself into it at all. Yes, they basically give themselves a blank slate by offering trekkies a choice of saying: we've created an alternate timeline. Either you accept this as cannon, or the other, but not both. Or, you can accept both and just consider this a "possibility" somewhat like the 1-off Xmen books.

The problem I have either way is that this film came off to me like a parody of trek without realizing it is. An almost too-smart by half Star Trek that has a lot more in common with Galaxy Quest.

I'm glad others enjoyed it, I can't get my money back, so it is what it is. But yeah, I'll pass on the BD/DVD.

Minor edit: I want to say I could care less about canon changes in the sense that if they want to do something else, fine, it's fiction. It's just that a fiction has to have a through line that makes sense. By basically starting the premise that one timeline caused this, there have to be some elements that still cause that to happen.. and they try to address it, they just fail. It's that if you take this film out of any star trek reference point, it still can't explain how to get from the beginning to the end.. which is a major problem of any time-travel piece.

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

Loved it! The idiots that showed up in "uniforms" were fuming at the end of the credits when there was no special appearance by the original James T. Kirk.

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

I hate Potter, only seen 2 of then and couldn't stand either one.

As for TreK...

Easily the best Trek film IMO. JJ nails every character IMO with the stand outs being Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Loved Scotty as well, he has some great moments. Chekhov took the longest to get use too but, by the end of the film he fit right in and felt like Chekhov too me.

This was the Trek film I have been dreaming about. So big, so epic, yet still very personal. It was just a lot of fun as well and I can't wait to see it again. Don't see how any other movie this summer will top it for me. I have loved Star Trek for so long, even the bad series and movies. I'm just so happy to finally see Trek get the treatment it deserves and become one of the big boys in Hollywood. It was so much fun that I don't mind the thin villain and a few very convenient plot moments. I can over look those because I enjoyed it so much and had a great time.

If I had to pick one thing to nit pick it would be the scene where the 2 Spocks meet. Just felt a little tacked on with no real importance to the story but, it is a very nice scene none the less.

I absolutely loved all the original sound effects that kept popping up all over the place. The shot of the Enterprise in front of Saturn would make an amazing computer background. The final shot of the Enterprise in the movie was spectacular as well.

I could go on forever but, this Trek fan had the time of his life (and could careless about any canon changes).

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

One more brief thing, because this was mentioned somewhere else. I really disliked the Kirk joy riding bit, but someone in another forum mentioned why I hated it, and I had completely forgotten.

What the hell was with the Nokia commercial in the antique car? Admittedly, that whole sequence meant absolutely nothing to the rest of the film, drug on and then was completely pointless later, but was there really a need for the Nokia ringtone and then a nice splash of Nokia phones in the dash of the car?

I mean, how much did Nokia pay for that spot? The reason I mention this is because if you're a film that you have to come up with a sequence to highlight buyable product, then what the heck. Two things:

(1) IF you accept the old canon, and you don't have to, then cell phone companies survived a nuclear war, kept their brand names, Khan probably used a motorola or something, and then that all went down. There would be no reason for all the desolate land space and deserts in the middle of IOWA for pete sake, or at least landscapes with cliffs to fling themselves off of (?)

(2) If you don't care about canon, you still have to assume that three hundred years from now, Nokia is still a brand and a company SELLING product that they badge and re-produce with their big shiny logos. Considering we later cover in the same movie that all technology goes through Starfleet and that things like money, etc. are pointless (covered in the bar scene, where no one pays because we've moved beyond that) then the existance of a corporate entity for cell phones seems completely stupid.

That sequence was the one that snapped me out of the film right off the bat and made me say: argh. Lucas decides to make another Star Wars and the empire will have to be using blackberry.. and make sure you can see the logo and hear the ringtone.

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

Geez...your blood must have been boling then at the mention in the bar of a Budweiser Classic!

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

n/a

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

At that point, I was pretty resigned to the film being pretty poor. Product placement in films is something I generally dislike, but it seemed completely idiotic in this film. It's not Trek, it's just a general sci-fi thing. If you're going to set things hundreds of years in the future, then the reliance on brand name placement is idiotic.

When I think about great sci-fi they understand that. Look at Firefly, where they create their own product base, based on some Chinese-English combination. Even other trek properties got onto this and established that such concepts were ridiculous; which is why you heard non-branded stuff in all of the series.. even the original. (Tea / Ale / some weird alien stuff).

I mean, if you had someone in Star Wars grab start talking on their iPhone, wouldn't it seem pretty stupid? Last I checked, major sci-fi writers weren't writing in plugs to Sony in their scripts.

I generally hate product placement in films. But, if you're doing a real world romantic comedy and they stay at a Hilton or they decide to buy a (name brand) car or whatever, that's at least justifiable - it could happen. Having something set several hundred years in the future and they are worried about cell phone carriers and name brands? Please. In 5 years, it's those moments that will make this film seem REALLY dated.

Was the car chase near the beginning anything to the film, anything at all, outside of a chance to advertise Nokia while playing 90s grunge music? I mean, what the hell was that?

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

Actually, Chris Pine was just interviewed, I think in the new EW, and said he specifically DID NOT watch any of Shatner's performance as Kirk. He wanted to make the character his own, not just Chris Pine playing Shatner playing Kirk. Quinto had Nimoy on set, so that was likely a little different as he reportedly did ask for his advice on many occasions.

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

Personally, I could care less about product placement in a movie. As long as the film itself is good I'm willing to overlook minor annoyances like that.

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

I didn't really notice too much shaky cam and I usually am bothered by it so it didn't make my radar. However the beginning was using "twirl cam" and I think it was the most effective I've seen at showing space is 3-D and there is no "up". It was difficult to always understand what we were looking at in space but the loss of bearings made it clear that ships can move in any direction and isn't a single plane like a battle on the sea.