*** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread - Page 3

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

Favorite moment; Learning the origin of "Bones".

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

Anyone who saw it in IMAX - please comment on how aspect ratio was handled. Was it true to OAR? I checked the separate IMAX discussion thread, where some commented that letterboxing of some films to preserve OAR was distracting or overly squeezed image size on an IMAX film.

I am interested in seeing it in IMAX - but only if OAR is preserved, and if after letterboxing the improved resolution is sufficiently superior to conventional 35 mm to justify the premium admission cost.

Comments?

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

Apparently, classic Trek fans are none too happy!

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable' | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

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

It's good. It's ok. I just got back from a rather modestly attended midnight screening. It's certainly not the 5 star raves that are being bandied about by some critics. Yes, compared to the typical summer popcorn explosion laced piece of dreck, it might seem VERY good. But compared to say the best of trek, both TV and film? No. It's average. First Contact and TWOK are MUCH better films. Many of the TOS eps. are much better.

The beginning sequence was great. Very emotional, epic and serious. But then it sort of devolved into many instances of light comedy, (I know TOS was RIFE with that, but here after the very well executed and dramatic prologue, it felt like this would be heavy, dramatic, memorable epic TREK. But then we got very strained comic relief with Chekhov and Scotty. They are reduced to one dimensional comic relief and it's a shame. Sulu is wasted, does virtually nothing except show off some so-so "fencing" skills.
Saldana was good as Uhura. The BEST thing about the film is McCoy. He nailed it yet never felt forced whereas the poor soul playing Chekhov was just putting on a horrendously unrealistic and pained Russian accent. Almost like Koenig being satirized.

Pine was very good. Quinto had the emotions and acting down but never crossed that threshold like Urban did with McCoy in both playing the character and not looking self conscious about it. He is a natural.
Bana was decent but was a VERY one dimensional character and lines to read. Pales in comparison to what Montalban did with Khan.

The new E looked better in motion than the stills suggest. The interiors though. The super trendy i-bridge will indeed look more dated in 10 years than the classic TOS retro bridge and that's a shame. It never ONCE felt like a real enviornment where the crew could do their tasks. It was RIDICULOUSLY bright, (don't get me started on the endless lens flares...) even during "red alert". You know how in the previous films, when they went to red alert, it would get a bit darker, red tinted, so maybe, they could SEE what was on the screen? Here, there are reflections all over the WINDOW, (It's not a screen anymore) Seems very dangerous to just have glass there...
Also engineering looking like any old industrial basement? Lame and lazy call IMHO.

There were though some GREAT moments. That really connected. Then there were some VERY strained moments where they seemed like they were just trying to shoehorn references in from TOS.

All in all. It was good. NOT great or amazing. It will probably play better with non Trek fans. Knowing the potential of what COULD have been done with these characters, a bit of a letdown though.
__________________

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

Absolutely loved it. I need to see it again but at the moment I'm saying it's my favourite of all the Hollywood reboots.

I agree with Zack, the origin of 'Bones' was brilliant, it was these little moments that made the film for me. Can't wait for Star Trek II. I wonder if they'll bring Kahn back? The opportunity is there now.

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

I've been reading lots and lots of reviews over the last few days in part because it's been interesting to hear what people think now about the preceeding Star Trek films and tv shows.

The article that I just read had some comments that really surprised me because I thought to myself, "that's not the same Star Trek that I've been watching all this time"

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

Agree that Chekhov and Scotty were a bit one dimensional. But those are my only complaints with the film (and keep it from being an instant classic). But the film is a lot of fun, epic, and worth revisiting at least a couple more times in the theater.

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

Way better than Van Helsing. (Ironically, I haven't had a chance to see Wolverine yet, but during the end credits, I overheard someone saying how ST "raped" Wolverine, which I guess is actually better on the quality scale. So Hugh Jackman is a two-time loser.)

Two words: transparent aluminum. (Is the rest of the hull some kind of aluminum, or something even stronger? I dunno.)

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

I saw this last night in an IMAX theater. First, the IMAX thing. I worked in an IMAX dome theater for just under 10 years all through my undergraduate and graduate work so I'm used to the "look" of the IMAX theater, but there was just something wrong with this IMAX (it wasn't the one I worked in). This was a flat screen IMAX (which is better for these commercial films than a dome due to the "burnt in" black bars on the film frame to conserve OAR), but the lamp just seemed too bright or it was hotspotting or something, I just couldn't put my finger on it because there was absolutely no contrast to the image. It also had the usual softness I expect from a 35mm to IMAX 15perf70mm conversion, but overall I've had better visual experiences in IMAX. The sound though is always amazing in an IMAX, so I might recommend it just for that.

As for the film itself . . .

I loved it, mainly because it was a fresh take on an old formula and it was just great to see some new material to shake up the whole universe. I didn't grow up with TOS though, I grew up with TNG, but I've seen the majority of the TOS and all of the movies, so I still feel like I had some connection to these characters that was honored and respected in this film.

It was great to finally have a Star Trek film LOOK like it had the money to spend - mainly because this one actually did have the money to spend I suppose. I'm no purist, so I suppose it isn't surprising that the aesthetics of the bridge didn't bother me, and I really have to wonder at anyone that thinks it will look more dated than the original within a decade. I mean really? I can agree about the "window viewscreen" and the fact that is cracking there near the end illustrated why it's a bad design decision, but I guess it does make for a way to up the tension in that scene. Then again, I've always wondered why bridges on starships were put on top of the dome like a big bullseye rather than being buried internally in the middle of the saucers as to make them less susceptible to begin with.

Someone also complained about Scotty being given his own equation. I suppose you lambasted Star Trek IV when he gave out the chemical composition of transparent aluminum - and in this one at least Spock had the reassurance of actually knowing that it was Scotty that discovered the equation instead of how Scotty, in IV, said, "Why? How do we know he didn't invent the thing?"

Concerning the characters, I loved their relationships and was actually glad that Uhura got so much to do. Scotty, Chekhov, and Sulu got less to do, but the TOS films always revolved around the three principle characters of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, so I'm not sure we can expect much more of an "ensemble" thing from this new incarnation or not. The TNG ensemble this is not. Nimoy is always welcome and hopefully the conclusion of the film leaves him open to come back again.

My main "good" character beef is that the way the new timeline made Kirk grow up he seems a little more frat-boy then I'd imagine he did in the original timeline. I always under the impression that though he was cocky he was still likable. There were times here where i actively disliked Kirk and his attitude, mainly because I can't stand people with this false sense of bravado.

My real MAIN character beef is, as it always is with Trek, the villain. Thank goodness the rest of the film was so strong because Nero makes Shinzon, from Nemesis, look like a brilliant exercise in characterization. He's another in a long line of maniacal madmen, and another in a slightly shorter line of maniacal madmen with amazingly large and powerful ships. There's not really much to say about him since his motivations and arc were so thin (for those that only have information in the film to go by), and I still have yet to figure out why he sat around for 20-something years after getting to the past. I guess he's supposed to be so maniacal that he waits that long just so Spock can see Vulcan's destruction, cue Abrams, "Look how CRAAAAZY he is!!!!!"

Speaking of the stuff the movie audience didn't see, did anyone else that read the comic prequels notice that the story Spock tells Kirk during the mind-meld seems to be different than what happens in the comic? The mind-meld makes it seem like Spock was racing to save the day when Romulus was destroyed, but I could have sworn he was still on Vulcan debating with the council or something when it was destroyed. The mind-meld also makes it seem like Spock has no idea who Nero is when he attacks Spock upon stopping the supernova. Maybe I'm just remembering the comic wrong though, it's been a few weeks since I read them.

In any event, the good greatly outweigh the bad in this film. I loved the design and the look and the character work (outside the villain), and not being a purist lets me characterize other liberties taken as a "fresh look" at things rather than as the "wrong look" at things. So I suppose in that regard ignorance is bliss.

Now give me four or five of these films then re-cast TNG and make another whole series.

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

So, 15 minutes into the movie you had already decided that it was a "pretty poor" film. Sounds like, to me, that you never really gave it a chance. I respect your opinion but, just feels like you went in expecting the worse and found ever reason to nitpick it apart. I didn't have a problem with the Nokia phone. Who's to say it wasn't a vintage phone modified to still work and not necessarily a company still doing business. I mean Kirk was in a vintage car and it wouldn't be the first time vintage products were used in Trek.

Yea, I don't know where all the shaky cam complaints are coming from but, I didn't notice any shaky cam at all, except in the shuttle ride before the orbital jump (but it was a bumpy ride so it didn't bother me). I thought the camera work was amazing. For the first time in a Trek movie you really get a good idea of the scale of everything, especially the Enterprise. There were just some amazingly beautiful shots of the Enterprise.

One review mentioned that the Enterprise was not a character but, I thought it was. Maybe not to the extent of other movies but, it felt like more of a character then the Enterprise E ever did. I love the shot of the Enterprise slowly rising out of one of Saturn's moons. Those big nacelles creeped out first, then the rest of her appeared. She was like an angry animal on the prowl! Loved it!

There was a cut scene with Nero breaking out of the Klingon prison planet of Rura Penthe. So some of those years was spent in prison but, my question would then be how did the Klingons capture him?

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

Me neither. By what I consider shaky cam (things like The Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield, the Bourne movies or even the TV series The Shield), there is nearly zero shaky cam. There's alot of pans in the movie but that's not shaky cam in my book.

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

The scene where the cadets go up to the Enterprise for the first time...wow. Just completely floored me. The score, the reveal of the ship, the reaction of the characters...it was absolutely pitch perfect.

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

Surprisingly, if you look back in other threads here, I've really been looking forward to this, and I made some good mocking comments of those that couldn't take a reboot.

But yes, one of my gigantic pet peeves is product placement. I have that pet peeve about any film, it really bothers me because it sucks me right out of any movie experience. I think it's pretty cheap and it does almost nothing to the storyline outside of come across as product placement. There are quite a few films that at a certain point I just go: "this is a commercial" and am pretty sick of. Consider it the biggest pet peeve I have about any film.

So, let's say that you use it as a key prop.. Reeces Pieces in ET, or a Delorean in Back to the Future. Fine. Both of those are set in an environment where you at least make the use of the prop understandable. But bad product placement to me is the worst. It's one of those sins that just does boil my blood, because it tells me some writer had to figure out how to work in dialog or craft a scene just to get in product. So, Harold & Kumar go to White Castle = riff on pop culture; that's the premise. Wil Smith monologuing about Converse All-Star shoes in I, Robot? Yeah, I might as well walk out.

The big problem I have with the product placement in Star Trek isn't just that it's product placement, it's pointless product placement. Kirk steals a car as a kid, an "antique" as the angry owner calls and tells him, and destroys it in a long scene as a 12 year old. Great. What happens after that? Did he end up in juvi? Rehab? Who knows, because 30 seconds later, all of that is forgotten, totally pointless. The scene meant nothing to the development of the character and was quickly forgotten. It's as though we just slammed together action sequences to slam together action sequences.

I get that tons of people will like it, I'm not faulting them for it. But come on, the moment action gets good you'd have over-the top ridiculous moments that made NO sense as to why they existed.

Scotty gets beamed into a water tube, and outside of not-dying you do the exact scene from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory? He gets sucked through the tubes to a giant blender. And why the hell is there a giant blender in the water system? Who knows, of course, we don't really need that kind of exposition.. except for the fact that I can't think of a single reason why you'd need to have a gigantic blender to handle water. Last I checked, blended water / still water is still equally liquid. But I guess that's me.

I think the bigger problem I had was that as a SCI FI film it was pretty poor. Even outside of the strek universe, the Science Fiction kept lapsing all over itself.

Spock beams down to the planet to rescue his parents and the council. The bridge yells "if we don't get out of here soon, we'll never escape the black hole" It takes him a while to get them onto the ship, then there is a scene where they mourn, and they lazily get out of there.. which, BTW, was also a strange scene because all the debris from the other ships had been sucked down toward the planet but the Enterprise just hovered there.. fast forward to the end.. "how are we going to escape the black hole!" Now, escaping a black hole created inside of a ship is so dense that they have to do all sorts of crazy things to get away (?) If you can't maintain your own fake science...

The film had a lot of great moments that I liked too. It just seemed like every time we'd get on a good roll, it would break up with cornball comedy that seemed out of place, bad science, or dialog that just laid there.

The girl who plays Uhura, though, was very well cast

Look, it was an action romp. And I get that people love it. I know that people go for that thing. It's the same reason why I pretty well hated Transformers, which was another big box office hit. It just smacks of being empty and ridiculous (IMHO), and I just walk out of the theater feeling like I've just wasted a few hours. I can go for a fantasy romp, but give me a cohesive story that makes me buy the characters without stupid gags. I'm sure also that this summer will see big hits in GiJoe, Transformers2, etc.. blah, I guess I'm just becoming an old coot.

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

Fair enough, that is your opinion and we will have to respectfully disagree. The science in the film never bothered me that much and I can easily overlook the Nokia moment. To each there own.

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

Rats. I was wondering whether I should wait to see it in the IMAX theater here in Boise.

The real problem of "product placement" is that it really dates the film. Consider 2001: A Space Odyssey. The plot has held up. The special effects have held up. But the product placement? Pan Am. Ma Bell. Hilton Hotels. Two of the three had gone away by the time the actual year 2001 rolled around. And HAL was built in Urbana Illinois, not in Silicon Valley.

However, nobody ever complains about the product placement in Casablanca, even though the drinks poured in Rick's are calls: Champagne Veuve Cliquot, Cointreau. Famous Westerns always extol the virtues of Winchesters, Colts, and Smith & Wessons.

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

Dennis, when I said "with this IMAX" I meant the particular theater I was in, not this particular IMAX film. There may have been issues with the lamp, but I will admit I'm used to seeing IMAX on a dome, and the fish-eye lends used on the dome projectors may diffuse light differently so I'm just not used to how the light looks on a flat screen imax. It was almost like the contrast/brightness was turned up too much on a TV (I can never remember which is which). The whites looked blown out and the black levels were elevated.


Disregarding your "what happens next" qualm (which I somewhat agree with actually, it seems like it was filmed for the teaser and should have just stayed in the teaser), the car was an "antique" though we actually have no idea what year it's from, so I sort of looked at the Nokia as maybe something that was offered in the car in its original run and so it remains there since it's a maintained antique car.


It looked to me like they were in engineering, so I assumed it was some kind of coolant or something having to do with the engines and during that scene you can see tags on the pipes that say "Inert Reactant" so I also assumed the "blender" was blending the inert substance with some kind of catalyst to start the necessary reaction - for whatever the hell it was it did.


The enterprise merely had to be outside the singularities event horizon in order to escape, once they're outside it and able to maintain distance they're fine. It's not like they have to run away from an exploding Genesis device that will create a concussive shockwave that could destroy the ship.


The black hole created by destroying Spock's ship was created by all of the Red Matter in the hold of his ship. When Nero would create the black hole to destroy a planet they made a point of showing them carefully removing a very small sample of Red Matter to shoot into the planet. Before the singulatiry was created in the ship they had establishing shots showing the large quantities of Red Matter droplets exploding, implying to anyone paying attention that this singularity was going to be much larger and powerful - hence the difficulty they had getting away.

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

See, though, that's the big problem. Ok, it was for the teaser. I get that. But then how does it not screw the film up? I mean, it basically gives Kirk a criminal past of sorts. And then the film continues on by having him complete the same tasks in the same way as the regular canon contends from Trek. There are a lot of these "mini-resets" even inside the own film where we see something happen, and then we just need to forget it happened or it doesn't matter at all. Yes, the product placement annoyed me more then others. But how do you get from that scene to him following up with a barfight, and learning somehow, in the middle he had top-notch school scores and could do anything he wanted.

Ok, where did Kirk the academic testing genius come from, in between his car theft and bar fight? Who knows, we just get one line of dialog from Pike saying somehow it happened.


Yes, I got that there was a lot more red matter. But way early on, they had pointed out - the older Spock did - that it would convert the existing matter of that Supernova that was going to take out romulus and invert it. So, if it fed off matter, no matter how many "red drops" there were, a planet = greater matter then a ship.

But I get that by the point we got to that moment in the film, we were just supposed to be thinking about all the red dots floating around and not about science.

The villain hates spock so badly (because he couldn't stop a cosmic event, a supernova?) that he goes back and tries to hurt him. And, when he gets back 25 years too early, he just.. I don't know, hangs out for 25 years. Instead of blowing up the planet that Spock is on as a little kid, he wants to abandon Spock decades later so he can watch his planet blow up (??????????) I get that JJ will say it proves he's crazy, but I guess it means every member of his crew was equally crazy and has no desire at all to really change the future, they just want to.. I don't know, hang out for 25 years and wait around. It's like the dumbest villain of all time.


Like I said, I get that people love it, I'll drop out of the thread so that people who love it can discuss it, I just think those who see it as "Iron Man" .. yeah, I don't see that. I'm betting an opening weekend around $70M, and a quick fall off. Does it make $200M? Could be the first Trek film to do that. But it's not going to sniff Iron Man type #s.

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

He couldn't blow it up until future Spock showed up in the past so he could capture his ship and get the Red Matter. Just drilling to the center of the planet wasn't enough to destroy it.

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

One more comment.

I hope Kirk learns how to fight. He was getting his ass kicked more times than Worf during the first 3 seasons of TNG.

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

I came into the movie spoiler-free and with lowered expectations (I had heard this movie was more sci-fi than science fiction), and while it was indeed more sci-fi than science fiction, I was pleasantly surprised to find out it was entertaining, refreshing, and FUN. Set in an alternate universe, they eliminated the (I hate to admit) jaded canon of the previous trek univserse while still keeping what we love about Star Trek (at least from the TOS).

Stuff I loved:
- The "Bones" origin explained.
- Top notch space battles since WOK.
- Spock's more acceptance and displays of his human side than the TOS version.
- Admiral Archer's prized beagle!
- Michael Giacchino's score.
- Spock's ship (a ship with external moving parts!).
- Unlike what other's have posted, I actually enjoyed the stark contrast in environments between the bridge and engineering. Reminds me of the TOS Enterprise and the old ships-of-the-line of the past.
- Preserving Kirk's mannerisms but not Shatner's.
- Scotty's moment of beaming multiple targets from multiple locations in a single beam.


Stuff I not so loved:
- Shuttling to the Enterprise instead of beaming. I get that the scene was primarily to show the awe (by characters and audience) of revealing the Enterprise for the first time, but wouldn't it have been more efficient to have beamed the crew members onto the ships? They certainly used the transporteds much more later in the movie.
- Spock-Kirk Mind Meld/exposition. This was the slowest and most uneeded part of the movie. The entire sequence was already expained in Nero's dialogue earlier in the movie.
- Scotty's water tube ride. They should have just cut to the next scene after where we find out Scotty was beamed to.

Nitpicks aside, this was just a plain fun movie! I usually don't see a movie more than once in a theater, but this is one of the few exceptions, and will plan to see it again today!

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

Here's what I took away from those events as the film played out:

In the 24th century, Ambassador Spock has offered to help the Romulans save their dying star. (That's probably why the planet wasn't evacuated.) For whatever reason, the star went supernova earlier than expected, before Spock was able to stop it. Spock still used the Red Matter to end the supernova before it took out anything else, but Romulus was gone. Nero and his crew were pretty devastated by this and felt betrayed; they felt that they, their society, had trusted Spock and by extension, the Vulcans, to save them, and they failed to do so. I wasn't entirely clear on this next point, but the film seems to suggest that Nero may have felt Spock did it on purpose and deceived the Romulans about his intentions. (We know that's not true, obviously.)

Anyway, when Spock releases a small amount of Red Matter to stop the supernova from expanding any further, it created a black hole (or "singularity" as they called it in the film) which sucked Spock through. Nero had wanted to destroy Spock's ship and was following him, which explains how his ship was sucked through as well.

Nero's ship went through last but came out first. I do not believe Nero intended to travel through time. As we see from the first scene aboard his ship, he doesn't know the stardate; I think he must have assumed the black hole put him somewhere else in the universe but not somewhere else in time.

The Red Matter was onboard Spock's ship, so when Nero went through the black hole, he didn't have the weapon. He had the drill on his ship (he did explain that they had been miners), but not the Red Matter. Nero had no idea what would have happened to Spock's ship but expected that it would show up. When his ship does show up some 20 years later, for Spock it was an instant, so he had no idea that a) Nero had followed him through the black hole or that b) Nero had twenty years to be waiting for him. So as soon as he gets through the black hole into the 23rd century, Spock and his ship are captured by Nero. Nero exiles Spock to that ice planet, keeps the Red Matter, and sets off the Vulcan to do his damage.

Nero and his crew didn't want to just wait around; they came through time and didn't expect to and had no idea where or when they were when they made it through. I don't think there was a plan at that point other than "Blow up Spock's ship on sight" initially. But they had all of that time there to figure out what happened, to postulate that Spock would eventually materialize in the 23rd century, and that they could steal the Red Matter from him.

Neither Spock nor Nero intended to time travel. At least that's how I saw it.

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

It wasn't Romulus' star that went supernova, just a star. I am assuming they were using current science that shows there is concern for Earth if another star goes supernova within 100's of thousands of light years. A star going supernova affects a sizable area of the galaxy, not just its own solar system. The real danger is the radiation emitted from the stars poles can travel extremely far and just about wipe out whatever is in its path. The "shock wave" took time to reach Romulus so Spock did invent something to absorb it but didn't get there in time. That might have been because of a debate or miscalculation.

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

Thanks for clarifying, Chuck, that makes a little bit more sense in at least explaining why they didn't simply evacuate the planet - a supernova like that and there'd be nowhere to go, I suppose.

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

The prequel comic, if I'm remembering it correctly, basically made it out that the star going supernova didn't exactly do a traditional supernova, it continued to expand as it enveloped the planets of its own solar system, so it eventually was going to engulf the entire galaxy.

As I said in my original post though, I think there were some discrepancies between what happened in the comic and the story Spock actually told Kirk during the mind-meld in the film.

And I completely missed the reference to Archer's beagle - I was wondering why there was somewhat of a commotion amongst some in the audience at that line of dialog. Then again, I barely watched four episodes of Enterprise, so I suppose it's expected.

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

I read the prequel comic, the background of how Spock and Nero get here is its sole story. The movie presented things with less nuance, but technically everything that happened in the prequel could still be true within the film. There were a lot of (imo, corny) TNG appearances as well. Here are the important bits, if you've seen the movie it should flesh things out well enough;

*Spock was now the Ambassador to Romulus. A follow-up to his role in TNG. In a Superman-esq beginning, Spock tries to warn of the dangers of this weird new supernova star, but the Romulans don't agree with his conclusions.

*We know that the star will destroy both Romulus AND Vulcan.

*Having seen the stars destruction first-hand, the miner Nero tries to back up Spock's claim. After being ignored the two of them join together to escape Romulus. Nero has the red-matter on his ship (he mined it) and they make for Vulcan. At this point the Romulans attack them and are saved by Captain Data and the Enterprise-E.

*When they get to Vulcan, the Vulcans also refuse to Help. Vulcan Ambassador Jean-Luc Picard intervenes.

*The Jelly-Ship was designed by Geordi LeForge.

*Spock is now sleeping with Diana Troy. (okay I made that one up. )

*When Romulus is destroyed they go into some background about the shaved heads/tattoos the crew adorn. It's some kind of tribute to their dead blah blah blah.

*Nero's ship gets outfitted with the latest Romulan weaponry, including.. *gasp* BORG technology.

*A Klingon fleet tries to stop Nero, who's already started killing everything in sight. Worf is commanding it (were you surprised?) and Nero kills him. (oh but then they say he has a chance of making it)

*In the end Spock completes his mission, thinking it would be his last. But as Romulus has already been destroyed, only Vulcan was saved. Nero believes this to have been Spock's intentions the entire time.

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

Since I didn't much keep up with all the goings-on for the Star Trek film (I've gotten to the point where I'd rather save some surprises for myself while seeing the film for the first time), I was surprised to see Tyler Perry and Winona Ryder in the film (along with Rachel Nichols, who dyed her hair for the 1 minute or so of screen time at the behest of Abrams, she work on Alias's 5th season). And it wouldn't be a JJ Abrams production without Greg Grunberg (listed as the Stepdad, but I am not sure I remember him in the film), and Amanda Foreman.

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

Okay that should have been in the movie somehow. I was thinking about it and it made no sense that a mining ship even 100 years from the future could wipe out the military ships of 100 years ago. Imagine the best commercial ship today outfitted with the usual military hardware available to large companies and there is no way it could wipe out the military ships of the early 20th century. Sure an aircraft carrier of today could but not a commercial vessel.

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

In fact, in the film, there was a moment of dialog where Nero explained the ship as a "Normal" mining vessel from his time period. Which made me think "WTF are you mining with that thing" but since they focused on it doing the drilling, I just rolled with it.

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

*shrug* I always assumed it was just a shortened take on "sawbones"...

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

When Young Kirk is driving the car and he gets a call on the car phone to return the car immediately, that's Grunberg's voice. I thought it sounded really familiar during the scene but couldn't place it until I saw the credits.