-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

*** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
655 replies to this topic

#41 of 656 OFFLINE   Nicholas Martin

Nicholas Martin

    Screenwriter

  • 2,683 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 18 2003

Posted May 07 2009 - 06:13 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ockeghem
Nicholas,

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

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.

#42 of 656 OFFLINE   Kevin Hewell

Kevin Hewell

    Screenwriter

  • 1,962 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 28 2003

Posted May 07 2009 - 08:41 AM

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.

#43 of 656 ONLINE   Dale MA

Dale MA

    Supporting Actor

  • 958 posts
  • Join Date: May 22 2004

Posted May 07 2009 - 10:43 AM

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

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.

#44 of 656 OFFLINE   Greg_S_H

Greg_S_H

    Executive Producer

  • 14,849 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2001
  • Real Name:Greg
  • LocationNorth Texas

Posted May 07 2009 - 01:04 PM

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."

#45 of 656 OFFLINE   Cory S.

Cory S.

    Supporting Actor

  • 983 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 07 2004

Posted May 07 2009 - 02:09 PM

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.
"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves.  But, not the one it needs right now.  So, we'll hunt.  Because he can take.  Because, he's not a hero.  He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector.  A DARK KNIGHT."

#46 of 656 OFFLINE   paul_austin

paul_austin

    Second Unit

  • 271 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 16 2002

Posted May 07 2009 - 02:28 PM

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.
"My Hovercraft is Full of Eels"

#47 of 656 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 22,054 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted May 07 2009 - 02:37 PM

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.

#48 of 656 OFFLINE   Cory S.

Cory S.

    Supporting Actor

  • 983 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 07 2004

Posted May 07 2009 - 02:39 PM

Travis,

Potter Year 6 will probably be better than this...and I liked this one a bunch, despite my criticisms.
"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves.  But, not the one it needs right now.  So, we'll hunt.  Because he can take.  Because, he's not a hero.  He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector.  A DARK KNIGHT."

#49 of 656 OFFLINE   Ron-P

Ron-P

    Producer

  • 6,283 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 25 2000
  • Real Name:Ron

Posted May 07 2009 - 02:40 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tino
two and a half stars from ebert.

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.
You have all the weapons you need...Now fight!


#50 of 656 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 22,054 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted May 07 2009 - 02:47 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory S.
Travis,

Potter Year 6 will probably be better than this...and I liked this one a bunch, despite my criticisms.
I saw the trailer for HP6 tonight and it does look pretty awesome.

#51 of 656 OFFLINE   mattCR

mattCR

    Lead Actor

  • 9,998 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2005
  • Real Name:Matt
  • LocationOverland Park, KS

Posted May 07 2009 - 03:16 PM

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.

trakt.tv

Ask Me about HTPC! (Threads in HTPC / PMs always responded to)

This signature is povided by MediaBrowser 3 Trakt Plugin: Media Browser 3


#52 of 656 OFFLINE   Michael_K_Sr

Michael_K_Sr

    Screenwriter

  • 1,345 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 14 2005
  • Real Name:MichaelK
  • LocationChicago 'burbs

Posted May 07 2009 - 03:27 PM

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. Posted Image

#53 of 656 OFFLINE   Chris Will

Chris Will

    Supporting Actor

  • 733 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 07 2003
  • Real Name:Chris WIlliams
  • LocationMontgomery, AL

Posted May 07 2009 - 03:33 PM

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).

#54 of 656 OFFLINE   mattCR

mattCR

    Lead Actor

  • 9,998 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2005
  • Real Name:Matt
  • LocationOverland Park, KS

Posted May 07 2009 - 03:54 PM

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.

trakt.tv

Ask Me about HTPC! (Threads in HTPC / PMs always responded to)

This signature is povided by MediaBrowser 3 Trakt Plugin: Media Browser 3


#55 of 656 OFFLINE   Michael_K_Sr

Michael_K_Sr

    Screenwriter

  • 1,345 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 14 2005
  • Real Name:MichaelK
  • LocationChicago 'burbs

Posted May 07 2009 - 04:04 PM

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

#56 of 656 OFFLINE   Kevin Hewell

Kevin Hewell

    Screenwriter

  • 1,962 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 28 2003

Posted May 07 2009 - 04:07 PM

n/a

#57 of 656 OFFLINE   mattCR

mattCR

    Lead Actor

  • 9,998 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2005
  • Real Name:Matt
  • LocationOverland Park, KS

Posted May 07 2009 - 04:12 PM

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?

trakt.tv

Ask Me about HTPC! (Threads in HTPC / PMs always responded to)

This signature is povided by MediaBrowser 3 Trakt Plugin: Media Browser 3


#58 of 656 OFFLINE   Malcolm R

Malcolm R

    Executive Producer

  • 11,612 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 2002
  • LocationVermont

Posted May 07 2009 - 04:25 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver_A in Review thread
it surprisingly got something right which I did not anticipate: the portrayal of our characters. Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Karl Urban REALLY DO A VERY GOOD JOB at portraying our beloved characters at a young age. All of them studied both their characters and the actors who played them in the past, and they really do them justice without falling into cliches.
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.
The purpose of an education is to replace an empty mind with an open mind.

#59 of 656 OFFLINE   Brent M

Brent M

    Producer

  • 4,486 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 15 2001

Posted May 07 2009 - 04:46 PM

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.
"If you're good at something, never do it for free."

#60 of 656 OFFLINE   Chuck Anstey

Chuck Anstey

    Screenwriter

  • 1,569 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 10 1998
  • Real Name:Chuck Anstey

Posted May 07 2009 - 04:59 PM

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.


Back to Movies (Theatrical)



Forum Nav Content I Follow