*** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread - Page 4

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

Personally I actually liked the product placement. It grounded the film in a reality, after all Star Trek isn't like Star Wars, it's set in our future. The product placement adds to that feeling IMO.

As for young Kirk stealing the car, the scene showed the transition of the character - the deviation from Shatner Kirk if you will - Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) which makes the character rebel, turning him into the character that we later meet in the bar. I also thought the parallels between young Kirks and young Spocks troubled childhood's was interesting.

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

I did enjoy the movies. And thought Urban's McCoy was spot on.

But, this is a Trek thread. And what would a Trek thread be without nitpicks. So here we go...

-Didn't like that Engineering looked like a manufacturing warehouse.

-Had no problem with Spock & Uhura. Just surprised how much open romancing they showed. Even if he wasn't Vulcan...He is her superior officer.

-Was very shocked they destroyed Vulcan. WTF?

-Nero was destraught that his wife, unborn child and Romulus was destroyed. Well your 80 so years in the past. How about using your awesome weapon ship and go back and save those on Romulus?

-Besides Spock & Pike. Are their any other officers who are not fresh from the academy? Scotty beams in and becomes head of engineering.

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

I actually liked that, it made the command structure for the film actually plausible, and is a subtle twist on the old "Something terrible is happening and the Enterprise is the only one in range" conceit that was used fairly often. It also reminded my of Star Trek II, and how they were crewed almost entirely of cadets.

There did appear to be a few experienced officers. I could be wrong but I believe the doctor they mentioned as having died before McCoy takes over was the doctor from the original Pilot.

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

Ahhhh...thanks for the reminder.

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

I have to speak to the experience element. It had a direct negative impact on my viewing of the film.

My other beef (not the one in the review thread) is not the film's problem, but mine. Starfleet Academy to Captain of the Federation flagship in a few weeks is pretty unbelievable. During a conflict, it speaks to the lack of a reasonable pipeline, but I could buy that OK. Then they made it official.

As a Navy guy (submarines to boot) and an Academy nerd, this film completely ignores long-standing traditions that enable maritime success. Not in little ways like most films. In huge ways. The magic of Captain Kirk from the original show is that he was a junior officer once. He was head of a department once, serving again. He was the First Officer once. He became the Captain without losing what made him a great officer, but possessing the one element most crucial to isolated command - experience. Most skippers lose their ability to rapidly adapt and be spontaneous...servants to their experience. Kirk was special in that he combined both. The film ignores that thousands of years of tradition and understanding (learned in blood and misery, like most nautical lessons) to be quick wish fulfillment; a sheer fantasy, to end as the series began, just 15 years younger. It (as you can tell) affected my ability to buy the story.

Like I said, it's directly related to *my* experience.

My review has the rest. I mostly liked the film. A little work and it could have been a great one. But "decent" works for a reboot.

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

The ending was the one thing I didn't like, well, I went along with it when I watched it-- a testament to the strength of the film. Over time though I'm sure it will bother me more and more. It's stupid for so many reasons. Kirk just graduated and now he's Captain?

And it foolishly closes the door on what would have been a perfect sequel, seeing this crew coming together aboard the Enterprise. This film introduced them all, but the ship wasn't really important here. In fact I wish they would have had the balls to not have the Enterprise in it at all. It wouldn't have changed anything.

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

Alright, here is another nit.

You dumped the red matter in the big evil ship. Awesome. You stay to render aid if desired. Check. That is your responsibility and obligation. Aid is rejected. You have personally both seen what a black hole does.

Why do you stay and shoot pointless ammunition and energy at a ship that will be the size of a molecule in less than a minute? Because it would lead to an awesome, yet pointless and irrationall dangerous "we have to escape" sequence?!? Bitchin'!

I even thought to myself before they offered aid (which made some sense, again)...shouldn't you be leaving right about now? Let's not talk about how smart Kirk and Spock are...let's show it

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

To be fair, the two times this type of black hole created by Red Matter opened up, it pulled two ships into the past. His ship was damaged badly but not destroyed. Kirk was ensuring nothing came out the other side into even a more distant past to create yet another alternate reality. Destroying it on this side was the logical solution. :-)

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

But the black hole wasn't opening on one side of the ship or the other It was opening in the middle. Pretty basic physics. The 1701's pew-pew phasers and photon torpedoes did little damage to the ship anyway. I had assumed the plan was for the black hole to destroy the ship, since their weapons could not (as had been proven earlier numerous times). As evidenced by the need to drill into a planet for the red matter to destroy it...which was part of the plan to put the Ambassador Spock ship inside of Nero's.

Elementary, my dear Phil. So the point had to be stupid one way or the other I chose the less stupid.

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

I am a lover of this film and would marry it. In the geeky film tradition of my family, I have seen it twice already...once for the midnight show (which sadly was reduced by last minute additions of earlier shows...the bastards) and another with my wife who can't handle the late night.

Anyway, I really enjoyed the hell out of this film and reading these responses is a lot of fun. Some random thoughts.

First off, I totally agree with a past comment about this being this year's IRON MAN. Absolutely. This is a fun, intelligent and cool summer movie that kicks off the season in style. Sad that they waited but it was a good decision and worth the wait. Another IRON MAN comparison is that next summer the season opener would do well to hire Faran Tahir...who was in Trek and Iron Man. He is the secret catalyst, I think. I liked his opening Captain. He has the bearing and the look and it was sad that he had to go out kind of cheaply off screen but still a nice performance.

Secondly, anyone else think "Chompers?" You know, from Galaxy Quest (which was until this Trek my second favorite Trek movie...yeah, you heard me).

Scene from Galaxy Quest:

Gwen DeMarco: What is this thing? I mean, it serves no useful purpose for there to be a bunch of chompy, crushy things in the middle of a hallway. No, I mean we shouldn't have to do this, it makes no logical sense, why is it here?

Jason Nesmith: 'Cause it's on the television show.

Gwen DeMarco: Well forget it! I'm not doing it! This episode was badly written!

Karl Urban= the man

I liked Scotty and shoot me as I liked his wee sidekick. Nick Frost should play that role in the next movie all shrunk down like a Hobbit. Yeah.

I keep hearing the writers in interviews talking about how they would love to tackle Khan. Boo!! I think the fun of this alternate universe is that you DON'T do things like that. No remakes. Take a twist on classic episodes but only in passing. Like note where things are changed like Pike not being in a box with two blinking lights, for example.

One thing I hope to see less of in the new continuity is less stories about the stogy, stoic, linear Federation heirarchy. The original series did have some episodes that involved the Federation but it always felt that the Federation was a distant piece of the story. Something that at times was quoted or involved but it was mostly some place Kirk would order a message sent to before going into a mission. Hell, how many times did the original Trek go back to Earth (of their time period, mind you)? I think none at all. They were out and about and may see a starbase or three but Earth was where the bosses lived, not explorers like Kirk. I hope this movie is the last one set anywhere near earth.

The saddest part of this movie is that I wanted more. I wanted to see their relationships build. I wanted to see more about the minor characters that a full length series would allow. For those that think these secondary characters were sketchy, well look back at the rest of the Trek movies. The only reason we felt these characters were at all well sketched was because of the baggage they had from the series. Outside of the series, Scotty, Chekov, Uhura and Sulu were at best named placeholders who were a means to an end. They might get a nod or a few bits but beyond that not much.

I hope this turns into a series. Doubt it but I hate to wait 2-3 years for another one.

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

You are right. Your version would have been more fun to watch. :-P

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

I heard a sequel has been greenlit. I wonder if its going to be a 2 or a 3 yr wait?

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

EXACTLY! I felt like I was watching one of those Indiana Jones fights where he kept getting his butt whipped. I mean, he occasionally lost a scrap on TOS but here he lost EVERY fight it seemed. Just not very "Kirk" to me, (I know, I know, alternate reality Kirk...) but still...

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

maybe in the sequel they could have kirk meet carol marcus.

Jacob

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

The main cast is contracted for three films.

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

I was surprised that they didn't even hint at her but I guess that would make a nice foil for the next movie.

Other side notes: I liked the parallel between KHAN and this movie with the Apple. In KHAN, Kirk is confidently crunching on an apple while telling the story of the Kobayashi Maru and in the new movie he is crunching an apple while beating it.

Also, is Slusho JJ's Red Apple?

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

I noticed the apple thing as well. He ate on in the Genesis Cave while ruminating on the situation and talking to Saavik.

I expected they would end the film beginning a five year voyage.

Some of the shout outs were nice...others obtrusive and merely fan-service. It's a fine line. They did a decent job with it.

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

Small nit, having to do with this thread (and the review thread) rather than the movie, but the proper spelling is 'Chekov' not 'Checkov'. There are not 2 'c's.

I liked this movie... I think?

I mean, what I liked, I really liked! The acting, costumes, sound, fx, and such I was good to go with. But mixed into that, were some things that were completely unbelievable to me. It seems I am the only one who did have a problem with the Spock/Uhura dynamic. I bought their closeness when they were alone in the turbolift, immediately after Vulcan was destroyed (just because of Spock's sheer grief), but later, on the transporter pad in front of everyone to see, they have another lip-wrestling session? I couldn't buy it twice.

Also, the immediate advancement to Captain from the Academy struck me as resoundingly false, for all the reasons stated earlier in this thread. That's FIVE ranks skipped. One successful mission does not a Captain make.

I think I would've preferred a straight reboot, rather than trying to pigeonhole one from existing continuity. This 'alternate timeline' effectively 'overwrites' what I have come to know and love, and says, "Well, none of that will happen now", or if it does, it may not happen in the same way.

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

What? The original timeline still exists. It does not get overwritten. An alternate timeline is exactly that. A new and separate timeline that exists independently of the known or canon one.

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

I definitely was bothered by Kirk's instant rise to captain but I will toss out a poor but plausible explanation. Future Spock talked to Starfleet and explained how many times Kirk saved Earth and the galaxy in his timeline and they simply bumped him up to captain because of it. I agree that in the real world Kirk would have still needed the junior level experience to make him a great captain. Plus how else would he learn to run every console or device and fix anything on the ship.

I think as a whole Abrams was stuck. If he sticks with reality then we have to wait another whole sequel to move up to captain and it makes it very difficult. How do you have the main characters interact if they are responsible for completely different areas of the ship? If you want to go there then toss out all the secondary characters and just focus on Kirk, Spock, and Bones that somehow have to go on the same missions together. Otherwise you just have to let it go and pretend the promotion ceremony was done a few years later and not immediately after the events of the movie.

One other solution is Abrams could have to a fast montage at the end of this movie or the start of the sequel showing in 3-5 minutes all the successful missions and heroics Kirk did over the past few years as an officer that earned him the title of Captain and respect of Starfleet.

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

This film is going to restart the Star Trek franchise, I'm stoked!

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

I am a purist, and I know of no other fan as hardcore as I am when it comes to Star Trek. With that being said, I saw the film today. I loved it, and found it to be very entertaining, well-written, and well-acted.

I am going to post a lengthy review of it at a later time, when I've had more time to recall and rate each of the major actors in the roles of the 'seven' TOS characters a bit more. I will also discuss the music score, which used the ambitus of the trombones wonderfully, diatonic vocalizations at key points in the film, and the often-employed 'tritone triad' relationship (both harmonically and melodically) that has become almost the norm in sci-fi films since at least 1951 with The Day the Earth Stood Still.

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

Actually, the reason is that the red matter is still on Spock's ship. He can't achieve his goals without it, so he has to wait.


IMO the shot was a tad too quick to be effective, it wasn't water. The tube is labelled "Inert Coolant", hence the blender, being used to maintain a steady flow of coolant to a presumably hot reactor.


Two points.

1. A Black Hole has an event horizon, a point where a ship's power is insufficient to escape the pull. At vulcan, they were not at the horizon, which is presumably a very near horizon as the neighboring planets are not affected either. Which actually makes sense if you know the theory behind black holes, as their pull is directly related to their size, which consuming one planet wouldn't make for a very large hole. In short, the Enterprise could probably get within a foot of that one safely.

2. The second hole is created by the entire mass of the Red Matter, not just a single drop as in the first case. Now we're talking about a whole lot more. Judging from the scenes, one can infer that the red matter creates a signularity when it contacts matter, as it was consistently stored in a container for delivery. Think Anti-matter with much bigger results. Hence a substantially larger black hole, with a bigger event horizon, and an Enterprise in trouble.

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

Here are my impressions. Spoilers.

Most of you know I am a diehard TOS fan. Grew up on it and know it backwards and forwards.

My reaction is a mix of feelings. I was entertained. It was a very well made film on the technical side. Acting was very good. The slightly new take on the supporting characters was great. I liked that they made Chekov a very smart character, like Wesley Crusher, but without all that goes with being a boy. Nice to see Sulu's characteristics shown in TOS brought out here to help save Kirk on the drilling rig. Though he wasn't too different from Takei's. Forgetting to release the parking brake was not in character though, only good for a laugh at his expense.

Uhura probably got one of the biggest changes. I liked that her intelligence, hinted at during TOS was brought out more. Though kind of like Hoshi on Enterprise, but a smarter, stronger lady. But in love with Spock? Where did that come from?

Scotty, what were they thinking for him? It was not clear in the screenplay or how the film is edited why he's there. Yes he's been exiled on Delta Vega for trying to push the technology. That doesn't make sense to me. If he's that smart, why isn't he at Starfleet doing more research and development. And to be brought onto the Enterprise and put in charge of all the technical departments. I had a hard time with the character literally becoming what he developed into later in the series. All the cliches that he's known for, he's doing already. "I'm given her all she's got!" At the start, Scotty was more reserved and smart and serious. Yes, he did have his moments in S1 of TOS, but it didn't get full blown till S3. Pegg was chosen for comic relief.

I like Urban's take on McCoy. Though my friends had the same reaction I did, he was doing an imitation of DeForest Kelley. All the stock McCoy lines almost sounded inserted as part of a check list to be included at moments that sort of worked. Most of the time, they called too much attention to itself. But I did like Urban the most of the actors. He had that right feel for the character.

Pine wasn't bad as Kirk. I was worried that he goes from Cadet to Command too fast. But the writers found a reasonable, for a movie, way to get him to rise to Captain. I liked how Pike made Spock Captain and Kirk XO. And Spock Prime got Kirk into the command chair the same way Kirk did it using the same way he got the spores out of Spock, by making him angry! And unfit for Command. As for his performance, I thought he was pretty good. The writers got all we know of Kirk into him, cocky, jumps before he looks, gets into a lot of fist fights, romances the ladies and takes command.

Though I prefer the history of Kirk's rise from cadet to captain better, rising through the ranks from other ships.

My favorite revised character is Pike. Greenwood does a terrific job. I am glad he survives. And it's funny he's in a wheelchair at the end. (Anyone get the Star Trek The Motion Picture Admiral's uniform vibe from the uniform he wears at the end?) This Pike has a chance to come into his own because Hunter's Pike is only seen once in The Cage. He's good here, he's got that authority figure going for the younger cadets, he's tough, but he's also not going to berate you for a little newbie mistake. He's nurturing, that's a good word. I hope we see more of him.

Quinto's Spock was pretty good. Though I thought his cadence was a little off. I know he's not going to be exactly like Nimoy. And I didn't expect him too. He's still young here and not the Nimoy Spock we see in TOS. So I can accept him. Some things I had issues with. Where did the romance thing with Uhura come from? This is the alternate timeline, so I guess this Spock can love. Not that he could not before, but he would never demonstrate that openly. And Orci and Kurtzman know that.

Lots of homages to TOS in this film. The children did torment Spock as a child. Stiff lipped and bleeding from his skirmishes, nice touch. Delta Vega, tribbles, Chekov's accent and how it's hard to understand. (Nuuclear wessels) The Kobiyashi Maru test was nice to see enacted. And nice touch to have Kirk eat an apple as elder Kirk did in the Genesis cave in Trek 2 as McCoy tells Kirk's son that Kirk is the only cadet to beat the no-win scenario.

I also did not like JJ's choice to film the lower decks of the Enterprise and the Kelvin in a brewery. No design continuity from the bridge to the engineering end of the ship.

The music was an interesting change, but is not what we expect. It is more intimate. And I was okay with it. The Enterprise theme was okay. Didn't stir.

Where I had some issues with, Kirk calling Scott, Scotty. And McCoy Bones. Just sounded odd coming from Pine. He sounds too friendly so soon. And hearing Urban say, I'm a doctor, not a physicist. It got a laugh from the fans in the audience, but it was also a bit jarring. Stuck in there because we expected to hear him say it.

The new Sarak was actually quite good. It had enough of Mark Lenard with a new twist. His admission for love of Amanda. He married her not only because it was logical, but for love. And he doesn't seem to be offended that Spock rejects the Vulcan Science Academy.

Taking Vulcan out was also a surprise. And seeing Amanda die! Wasn't seeing Vulcan implode enough to make Spock sad for his later breakdown? She was in the transporter beam, I would think they had a piece of her already and wouldn't fall.

Finally, Nimoy was the foundation for this film. Though I am surprised that he failed to save Romulus. But then we would not have a movie. He still has the chops to play Spock. I was worried that he might die in this film to save the past. I'm glad he returns to help rebuild Vulcan. He lives on.

Why didn't they use Shatner for the tag? Reuse his original recording? It was a nice touch to hear Nimoy do it again, since Khan.

The altered time line does give them an opportunity to start over. Though it can be argued that now TOS is cleared from history. I can see some who argue it's still there, as an alternate timeline. What I like is that it erased Generations and Kirk doesn't die. So Shatner could have been in the movie! (I'm a little surprised they didn't show or imply that Young Kirk see his own life pass by during his mindmeld with Spock.)

That's it for now. Pretty good movie.

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

Well I guess it was a good thing that Kirk got exiled to the ice planet sorta like Hoth except Leonard Nimoy was waiting there to bail him out.

That seemed to be awfully convenient even in Star Trek terms.

I liked that they expanded Uhura's character and the new actress playing her brings a new vibe for sure.

Not sure how the Spock-Uhura relationship will work in the long term ... but it adds an interesting new dynamic I suppose and gets Uhura more screen time.

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

Scotty wasn't sent to rot on a ice planet due to trying to push technology. He was sent there for testing this tech on the Admiral's prized beagle and losing the critter. That's old school "to the Russian front!" sort of officer privilege. :-)

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

Thanks Phil for reminding me why Scotty was on Delta Vega, the dialogue during that sequence went by fast and it didn't stick!

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

A textual blurb, like several already used in the movie, would have solved this (1 or 2 or 3 years later). Would have had to rework the Spock/Spock scene at the end (either as a flashback or have it happen before the promotion ceremony). Not enough of an issue to spoil the movie for me, but rather the biggest "nit" I have to pick about it.

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

Yeah, it was flying fast and furious in that very Pegg-like style. I liked the "Kenobi and Skywalker overlooking Mos Eisley Spaceport" shot as Kirk and Spock Prime were overlooking the station onf Delta Vega.

On an unrelated note, I wanted to comment on the general consensus with Kirk's early promotion. Seems to some that this is a dealbreaker. This is too bad as this early promotion is from one of Roddenberry's big influences for the original series.

Roddenberry would often use the "Wagontrain to the Stars" to describe the show but just as often described Kirk as Horatio Hornblower. This comparison is most apt for the current Trek movie, as well. Hornblower is a young midshipman on one of Her Majesty's ships during the late 18th and early 19th century (akin to cadets on a training cruise in KHAN or pressed into service in an emergency like in the current movie).

Like Kirk, he is exceptionally talented and does more to save the ship and his nation in one book than others do in a lifetime. For this he also gets quickly promoted and gets command of his first ship at an even younger age than Kirk.

The "promotion based on acts of valor" model of these fictional novels may fly in the face of modern military protocol but I find that far more interesting than having either a "5 year later" montage or more exposition to get him and his crew together that would cause more nitpicking ad nauseum. The original series never spent that much time worrying about that. Why should the new movie? How would that in any way make for a good movie?

Roddenberry clearly liked the idea of a Hornblower kind of character and the new movie fits that model far more than some pedantic (but more accurate) military promotion procedural. Like Hornblower, Kirk jumps in to save the ship from the short sighted people in charge and in saving Earth (for the first of many times...I doubt saving an entire planet is on many resumes...even for the ones who ranked up in an appropriate time period) he gets the helm of the ship he was destined to lead. That's pretty cool and consistent with the Great Bird's original vision.