STARTREKFANS.NET: Rate Star Trek (2009) - STARTREKFANS.NET

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Rate Star Trek (2009) Rate Topic: ****- 3 Votes

Poll: Rate Star Trek XI (103 member(s) have cast votes)

What rating would you give Star Trek XI?

  1. 5. It's great, I loved it! (66 votes [64.08%])

    Percentage of vote: 64.08%

  2. 4. It's good. (17 votes [16.50%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.50%

  3. 3. It's average (5 votes [4.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.85%

  4. 2. It's not that good (2 votes [1.94%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.94%

  5. 1. I hated it! (13 votes [12.62%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.62%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 User is offline   nobtis 

  • Ensign
  • Group: Ships Crew
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 10-March 07

  Posted 14 May 2009 - 11:13 AM

This movie was almost perfect. Chekhov was the worst ever. Didn't look like him at all and his accent was way too thick. Nero must be the most boring enemy in Star Trek History. McCoy and Pike were perfect... Just PERFECT!! The action was awesome and the special effects were wonderful. Top-notch movie overall. The Bridge was horrible: It was too white, too bright and too many things going on and flashing on the screens and Sulu's chrome Throttle was over-the top. Don't take my negative comments to heart. This is an awesome film. It's just easier to list what I didn't like than to list what I did like. Except I really do have to give out props to McCoy and Pike... Bravo! Now, I would love to see JJ Abrams visoon of a new TNG!!!!!!
:superhappy:

View PostVaBeachGuy, on May 7 2009, 11:12 PM, said:

Ok, no spoilers without a spoiler box. Preferably any indepth reviews should be in it's own review thread but if you want to give a short reason for your rating just please use a spoiler box for any plot info.

I'll give it a 5 out of 5. I outlined some things I wasn't satisfied with in my review but I'll reserve final judgement when I see Star Trek XII. For now, I'll give it our highest rating.

Attached thumbnail(s)

  • Attached Image: NCC168e.jpg


#62 User is offline   He Who Shall Not Be Named 

  • 2 Bar Federation Ambassador
  • Group: Ships Crew
  • Posts: 7,617
  • Joined: 07-January 04

Posted 14 May 2009 - 12:23 PM

View PostCorina Arazius, on May 14 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

It was good, but I can't say I loved it 100%. First of all it wasn't really canon which bothered me a little, and also, why couldn't they just make the ship and the bridge look like it did in TOS?!?!?! It can't be that hard, I mean they did it for Enterprise. Anyway, the characters were good, especially Checkov and Scotty, but Kirk they made into too much of a scoundrel, instead of a clean cut Star Fleet member. I just don't think that TOS Kirk acted like that and it sort of bothered me. But like I said it was enjoyable and if you're not a total TOS purist like me then by all means go see it because you'll like it.

The movie is winning back fans we lost... one sexy Romulan model at a time. :superhappy:
Religion doesn't seem to work like [the scientific method]; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means. Really what it means is "Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about. You're just not. Why not? Because you're not!" - Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant!" Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way!" - Carl Sagan, author and astronomer

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes. - Gene Roddenbery, creator of Star Trek

#63 User is offline   fubar211 

  • Cadet 2
  • Group: Ships Crew
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 24-July 04

Posted 14 May 2009 - 12:28 PM

this movie was great but to die hard fans i can see why it would be a slap in the face i can see where they were going with it but in my opinion theyeve wiped the slate clean and the money and time i spent on the wrath of khan the serch for spock and the voyage home i feel has been wasted so tho i thought that this was a great movie i feel that certain aspects of the timeline should not have been affected.

#64 User is offline   trekspawn 

  • Lieutenant
  • Group: Ships Crew
  • Posts: 52
  • Joined: 31-January 08

Posted 14 May 2009 - 12:34 PM

I loved it, I have already seen it twice, and may go check it out a third time, which is a first for me. But overall I thought it was great. My wife who is not a Star Trek fan, has never watched the shows or movies (unless she saw me watching it, in which case she may have seen a few minutes) thought it was great. Looking forward to the next movie.

#65 User is offline   Ć 

  • 3 Bar Federation Ambassador
  • Group: Federation Vice President
  • Posts: 20,783
  • Joined: 16-February 03

Posted 14 May 2009 - 12:36 PM

I disagree with the slate being wiped clean or that I wasted any money buying previous Trek. I re-watched TWoK after seeing the new film and enjoyed the Kobyashi Maru(SP?) scenes and references more than I ever had before.

#66 User is offline   El Cid 

  • Lieutenant (Junior Grade)
  • Group: Ships Crew
  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: 03-June 04

  Posted 14 May 2009 - 12:53 PM

This movie is perfect action sci-fi, but poor ST - there is unsolved time paradox. Time line wasn't restored?? Vulcan is no more?? Then Vulcans can't invent ship or technology which was used by Spock! Finishing of TNG era could be better idea than this reboot. I'm waiting for Datas resurrection anyway...

#67 User is offline   QRiker 

  • Ensign
  • Group: Ships Crew
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 07-January 04

Posted 14 May 2009 - 12:59 PM

For a Alternative time line is not bad, the actor's are well place in there roll & the do justice to the corrector’s, the plot is well introduce & lay out so your coming back for more.
The especial effect’s are truly great, Abrahams did now were to go "Industrial Light & Magic* Lucas films.
Sound it's good but I did not hear some parts of the dialogue it was too low. Dolby 5.1 I think it was too much.
This Film is not your dad's Star Trek, but in the same time it is, Keep in mind the "alternative time line" for me it is Important.
For this I will give it 5 out of a 5 Star rate.
Go see it its well worth the price of you ticket if you a fan & for not a fan, I say go, you will be surprise whit it. :superhappy:

All The Best

QRiker

#68 User is offline   Ć 

  • 3 Bar Federation Ambassador
  • Group: Federation Vice President
  • Posts: 20,783
  • Joined: 16-February 03

Posted 14 May 2009 - 01:16 PM

Star Trek uses cutting edge science, (see sig info) in which paradoxes are eliminated.

#69 User is offline   Corina Arazius 

  • Empress of the Romulan Star Empire
  • Group: Ships Crew
  • Posts: 948
  • Joined: 04-April 08

Posted 14 May 2009 - 04:14 PM

View PostLt. Van Roy, on May 14 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

View PostCorina Arazius, on May 14 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

It was good, but I can't say I loved it 100%. First of all it wasn't really canon which bothered me a little, and also, why couldn't they just make the ship and the bridge look like it did in TOS?!?!?! It can't be that hard, I mean they did it for Enterprise. Anyway, the characters were good, especially Checkov and Scotty, but Kirk they made into too much of a scoundrel, instead of a clean cut Star Fleet member. I just don't think that TOS Kirk acted like that and it sort of bothered me. But like I said it was enjoyable and if you're not a total TOS purist like me then by all means go see it because you'll like it.

The movie is winning back fans we lost... one sexy Romulan model at a time. :superhappy:


Haha, yes Roy my life just wasn't complete without you :spock: ;) lol


Star Trek Fans number one fan!

#70 User is offline   RikerChick 

  • 3 Bar Federation Ambassador
  • Group: Advisor to the President
  • Posts: 16,823
  • Joined: 09-April 03

Posted 14 May 2009 - 04:54 PM

View PostVaBeachGuy, on May 14 2009, 03:24 AM, said:

I haven't seen Mandy this excited about Star Trek in quite some time, Kelly too. So if I have to live with a few minor annoyances to get them excited about Star Trek again, it's ok with me.



:superhappy: It has been a while since I was really excited about Trek. I'm also thrilled to see so many people I know who have never been into Trek who LOVE this movie.

Also, am I the only one who loves Chekov? Who cares if his hair isn't the same, he's just adorable. And as for him being "too smart" or whatever in this movie, please, maybe they didn't show his intelligence enough in TOS but he didn't get on the bridge of the Enterprise at a young age by being a dummy.


Follow STF on twitter @StarTrekFansNet




#71 User is offline   He Who Shall Not Be Named 

  • 2 Bar Federation Ambassador
  • Group: Ships Crew
  • Posts: 7,617
  • Joined: 07-January 04

Posted 14 May 2009 - 04:55 PM

View PostCorina Arazius, on May 14 2009, 05:14 PM, said:

View PostLt. Van Roy, on May 14 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

View PostCorina Arazius, on May 14 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

Anyway, the characters were good, especially Checkov and Scotty, but Kirk they made into too much of a scoundrel, instead of a clean cut Star Fleet member. I just don't think that TOS Kirk acted like that and it sort of bothered me.




Actually, there is a reason for that. We got a clue in the preview when young Kirk outran that cop in that vintage stick-shift even though he didn't know what a clutch was in A Piece of the Action.

TOS Kirk was raised by a Starfleet officer to be a Starfleet officer. That's why he was described as a stack of books with legs and why he made Captain at a relatively young age. However, since the new movie Kirk was raised by foster parents (and apparently vintage car enthusiasts as well) he would naturally behave differently as a young adult.
Religion doesn't seem to work like [the scientific method]; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means. Really what it means is "Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about. You're just not. Why not? Because you're not!" - Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant!" Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way!" - Carl Sagan, author and astronomer

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes. - Gene Roddenbery, creator of Star Trek

#72 User is offline   Jack_Bauer 

  • Gold!
  • Group: Starfleet Command
  • Posts: 2,909
  • Joined: 27-April 03

Posted 14 May 2009 - 05:47 PM

View PostLt. Van Roy, on May 14 2009, 05:55 PM, said:

View PostCorina Arazius, on May 14 2009, 05:14 PM, said:

View PostLt. Van Roy, on May 14 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

View PostCorina Arazius, on May 14 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

Anyway, the characters were good, especially Checkov and Scotty, but Kirk they made into too much of a scoundrel, instead of a clean cut Star Fleet member. I just don't think that TOS Kirk acted like that and it sort of bothered me.




Actually, there is a reason for that. We got a clue in the preview when young Kirk outran that cop in that vintage stick-shift even though he didn't know what a clutch was in A Piece of the Action.

TOS Kirk was raised by a Starfleet officer to be a Starfleet officer. That's why he was described as a stack of books with legs and why he made Captain at a relatively young age. However, since the new movie Kirk was raised by foster parents (and apparently vintage car enthusiasts as well) he would naturally behave differently as a young adult.

Kirk wasn't raised by foster parents. His mother was still alive. According to deleted scenes, they were living with George's brother (and Jim's Uncle) Frank. It's not really clear if Kirk's mom's married him or not.

In 8 Days and one television movie, Jack Bauer killed 266 people.



Learn the wisdom of Fake Busey:
http://twitter.com/FakeBuseySays
(Warning: Occasional explicit language)

#73 User is offline   VaBeachGuy 

  • Federation President
  • Group: Federation President
  • Posts: 21,866
  • Joined: 16-February 03

Posted 14 May 2009 - 06:06 PM

View PostRikerChick, on May 14 2009, 05:54 PM, said:

View PostVaBeachGuy, on May 14 2009, 03:24 AM, said:

I haven't seen Mandy this excited about Star Trek in quite some time, Kelly too. So if I have to live with a few minor annoyances to get them excited about Star Trek again, it's ok with me.



:superhappy: It has been a while since I was really excited about Trek. I'm also thrilled to see so many people I know who have never been into Trek who LOVE this movie.

Also, am I the only one who loves Chekov? Who cares if his hair isn't the same, he's just adorable. And as for him being "too smart" or whatever in this movie, please, maybe they didn't show his intelligence enough in TOS but he didn't get on the bridge of the Enterprise at a young age by being a dummy.

Of all the characters, my mother hated Chekov lol. Well, hated may be a little strong. Didn't care for Chekov.

I don't like the age thing, that's one of my little annoyances that I have to live with though lol.

#74 User is offline   He Who Shall Not Be Named 

  • 2 Bar Federation Ambassador
  • Group: Ships Crew
  • Posts: 7,617
  • Joined: 07-January 04

Posted 14 May 2009 - 06:17 PM

Whatever. The point is he at least had a different father figure who wasn't in Starfleet.
Religion doesn't seem to work like [the scientific method]; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means. Really what it means is "Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about. You're just not. Why not? Because you're not!" - Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant!" Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way!" - Carl Sagan, author and astronomer

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes. - Gene Roddenbery, creator of Star Trek

#75 User is offline   Jack_Bauer 

  • Gold!
  • Group: Starfleet Command
  • Posts: 2,909
  • Joined: 27-April 03

Posted 14 May 2009 - 07:15 PM

View PostLt. Van Roy, on May 14 2009, 07:17 PM, said:

Whatever. The point is he at least had a different father figure who wasn't in Starfleet.

I agree. I was just clearing things up.

In 8 Days and one television movie, Jack Bauer killed 266 people.



Learn the wisdom of Fake Busey:
http://twitter.com/FakeBuseySays
(Warning: Occasional explicit language)

#76 User is offline   Corina Arazius 

  • Empress of the Romulan Star Empire
  • Group: Ships Crew
  • Posts: 948
  • Joined: 04-April 08

Posted 14 May 2009 - 07:18 PM

Well hate to say this, but Kirk's father WAS killed in space in TOS as well. When James Kirk was 13 his father was killed in the massacre on Tarsus IV. And another thing, what the hell happened to Finnegan? That would have been cool to see him in Kirk's academy days.


Star Trek Fans number one fan!

#77 User is offline   He Who Shall Not Be Named 

  • 2 Bar Federation Ambassador
  • Group: Ships Crew
  • Posts: 7,617
  • Joined: 07-January 04

Posted 14 May 2009 - 07:34 PM

I brought up the Finnegan thing too, The answer I got was because Kirk in the movie started at the Academy later the two never met in this timeline.

14 years would still be enough to explain why Kirk turned out differently.
Religion doesn't seem to work like [the scientific method]; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means. Really what it means is "Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about. You're just not. Why not? Because you're not!" - Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant!" Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way!" - Carl Sagan, author and astronomer

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes. - Gene Roddenbery, creator of Star Trek

#78 User is offline   Jack_Bauer 

  • Gold!
  • Group: Starfleet Command
  • Posts: 2,909
  • Joined: 27-April 03

Posted 14 May 2009 - 07:58 PM

View PostCorina Arazius, on May 14 2009, 08:18 PM, said:

Well hate to say this, but Kirk's father WAS killed in space in TOS as well. When James Kirk was 13 his father was killed in the massacre on Tarsus IV. And another thing, what the hell happened to Finnegan? That would have been cool to see him in Kirk's academy days.


Click for Spoiler:
There is no canon proof that George Kirk died on (or was ever on) Tarsus IV. In fact, based on Spock Prime statement that he lived to see Kirk take command of the Enterprise, we now have canon proof that he didn't.

As for Finnegan, LVR is correct, Kirk attended the Academy later than he did in the Prime timeline, and therefore did not attend at the same time as Finnegan.In fact, it was a full four years later, so he likely never met Finnegan as their times would not have overlapped.


In 8 Days and one television movie, Jack Bauer killed 266 people.



Learn the wisdom of Fake Busey:
http://twitter.com/FakeBuseySays
(Warning: Occasional explicit language)

#79 User is offline   deagletime 

  • Commander
  • Group: The Founders
  • Posts: 428
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 15 May 2009 - 02:01 AM

HEY ALL ITS GREAT TO BE BACK!!!!

My thoughts... Well, I give it a 4... It seems the things I felt at the end of the movie was a sentiment shared by others...

Continuity: This isnt your father's star trek because it just isn't... Aside from a revamp of the characters, canon was thrown out the window with the destruction of Vulcan... I could almost rationalize it all up to that point... But now its just a parallel universe... No different than the Terran Empire Mirror Universe

But truth be told, we need this.. BAD... If there was ever a thing that could bring our established canon universe back to the small screen and on the big screen, a hundred million new fans will do it... Ultimately, the Star Trek Franchise is a business... With more fans, comes more money and therefore, new possibilities... So for that simple fact, STXI has won my loyal support....

Theres nothing like the first..

#80 User is offline   VaBeachGuy 

  • Federation President
  • Group: Federation President
  • Posts: 21,866
  • Joined: 16-February 03

Posted 15 May 2009 - 02:04 AM

View Postdeagletime, on May 15 2009, 03:01 AM, said:

HEY ALL ITS GREAT TO BE BACK!!!!

My thoughts... Well, I give it a 4... It seems the things I felt at the end of the movie was a sentiment shared by others...

Continuity: This isnt your father's star trek because it just isn't... Aside from a revamp of the characters, canon was thrown out the window with the destruction of Vulcan... I could almost rationalize it all up to that point... But now its just a parallel universe... No different than the Terran Empire Mirror Universe

But truth be told, we need this.. BAD... If there was ever a thing that could bring our established canon universe back to the small screen and on the big screen, a hundred million new fans will do it... Ultimately, the Star Trek Franchise is a business... With more fans, comes more money and therefore, new possibilities... So for that simple fact, STXI has won my loyal support....

Welcome back! How long has it been?

#81 User is offline   He Who Shall Not Be Named 

  • 2 Bar Federation Ambassador
  • Group: Ships Crew
  • Posts: 7,617
  • Joined: 07-January 04

Posted 15 May 2009 - 02:49 AM

Well, I saw it again. It isn't as exciting seeing it again.

One thing I did notice this time around: What the heck is Chekov's function on the ship? On the Enterprise Prime he was more or less the security chief / tactical officer, and nobody seems to be in that role in the movie. We see some redshirts more than others but nobody seems to be in charge of the security force.

OK, he is some kind of math whiz, but then so is Spock. And he seems to know a lot about transporters, but then so does Scotty. He is apparently in charge of internal communications, but Uhura is more than capable of this.

One other thing I didn't get: At the close of the movie everyone seems to be more or less at the same ranks they were in TOS, so why did they all have to get back into Cadet uniforms just to see Kirk get a medal? Shouldn't they just have worn their ship uniforms?

And Cadets getting hammered in a bar in uniform? What is that about?
Religion doesn't seem to work like [the scientific method]; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means. Really what it means is "Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about. You're just not. Why not? Because you're not!" - Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant!" Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way!" - Carl Sagan, author and astronomer

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes. - Gene Roddenbery, creator of Star Trek

#82 User is offline   VaBeachGuy 

  • Federation President
  • Group: Federation President
  • Posts: 21,866
  • Joined: 16-February 03

Posted 15 May 2009 - 02:58 AM

View PostLt. Van Roy, on May 15 2009, 03:49 AM, said:

Well, I saw it again. It isn't as exciting seeing it again.

One thing I did notice this time around: What the heck is Chekov's function on the ship? On the Enterprise Prime he was more or less the security chief / tactical officer, and nobody seems to be in that role in the movie. We see some redshirts more than others but nobody seems to be in charge of the security force.

OK, he is some kind of math whiz, but then so is Spock. And he seems to know a lot about transporters, but then so does Scotty. He is apparently in charge of internal communications, but Uhura is more than capable of this.

One other thing I didn't get: At the close of the movie everyone seems to be more or less at the same ranks they were in TOS, so why did they all have to get back into Cadet uniforms just to see Kirk get a medal? Shouldn't they just have worn their ship uniforms?

And Cadets getting hammered in a bar in uniform? What is that about?

How about a Cadet going from Cadet to Captain of the Federation flagship? That's like a Cadet from West Point graduating and becoming a Brigade commander of a frontline combat uint.

#83 User is offline   He Who Shall Not Be Named 

  • 2 Bar Federation Ambassador
  • Group: Ships Crew
  • Posts: 7,617
  • Joined: 07-January 04

Posted 15 May 2009 - 04:11 AM

View PostVaBeachGuy, on May 15 2009, 03:58 AM, said:

How about a Cadet going from Cadet to Captain of the Federation flagship? That's like a Cadet from West Point graduating and becoming a Brigade commander of a frontline combat uint.

Actually, that is pretty close to how General Custer got his rank. His West Point class was accelerated because the Union badly needed officers to fight the Civil War. He graduated dead last in his clsss. Due to clerical error he was promoted from 1LT to Brigader General without going through the ranks inbetween. (Back then Brigader Generals commanded brigades. Today Colonels command brigades.) He was 23.

George Pickett graduated dead last in his class as well and also made General. West Point actually keeps statistics on who is likely to eventually make General based on class ranking. The Cadets finishing either in the top 5 or bottom 5 of their class are statistically more likely to eventually make General than any other segment, but there is no statistical difference between the top 5 and bottom 5. IThe smart ones are apparently just as likely to make General as the dumb ones.

This post has been edited by Lt. Van Roy: 15 May 2009 - 04:34 AM

Religion doesn't seem to work like [the scientific method]; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means. Really what it means is "Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about. You're just not. Why not? Because you're not!" - Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant!" Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way!" - Carl Sagan, author and astronomer

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes. - Gene Roddenbery, creator of Star Trek

#84 User is offline   deagletime 

  • Commander
  • Group: The Founders
  • Posts: 428
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 15 May 2009 - 03:47 PM

View PostVaBeachGuy, on May 15 2009, 02:04 AM, said:

View Postdeagletime, on May 15 2009, 03:01 AM, said:

HEY ALL ITS GREAT TO BE BACK!!!!

My thoughts... Well, I give it a 4... It seems the things I felt at the end of the movie was a sentiment shared by others...

Continuity: This isnt your father's star trek because it just isn't... Aside from a revamp of the characters, canon was thrown out the window with the destruction of Vulcan... I could almost rationalize it all up to that point... But now its just a parallel universe... No different than the Terran Empire Mirror Universe

But truth be told, we need this.. BAD... If there was ever a thing that could bring our established canon universe back to the small screen and on the big screen, a hundred million new fans will do it... Ultimately, the Star Trek Franchise is a business... With more fans, comes more money and therefore, new possibilities... So for that simple fact, STXI has won my loyal support....

Welcome back! How long has it been?


Used to be on all the time... But after ENT was cancelled, i suppose once every 6 months?

I'd like to consider myself pretty scholarly about ST Canon (as I've seen every episode of all the series'), but with no new material for the last few years, there wasnt really much to debate about... Thankfully BSG, SG1, and SGA saved my sanity. But now that those are all over, I guess I'm gonna have to see how things go with SGU and Cap

Theres nothing like the first..

#85 User is offline   Voyager recruit 

  • Commodore
  • Group: Ships Crew
  • Posts: 1,128
  • Joined: 21-August 08

Posted 15 May 2009 - 10:33 PM

View Postnobtis, on May 14 2009, 12:13 PM, said:

This movie was almost perfect. Chekhov was the worst ever. Didn't look like him at all and his accent was way too thick. Nero must be the most boring enemy in Star Trek History. McCoy and Pike were perfect... Just PERFECT!! The action was awesome and the special effects were wonderful. Top-notch movie overall. The Bridge was horrible: It was too white, too bright and too many things going on and flashing on the screens and Sulu's chrome Throttle was over-the top. Don't take my negative comments to heart. This is an awesome film. It's just easier to list what I didn't like than to list what I did like. Except I really do have to give out props to McCoy and Pike... Bravo! Now, I would love to see JJ Abrams visoon of a new TNG!!!!!!
:superhappy:

View PostVaBeachGuy, on May 7 2009, 11:12 PM, said:

Ok, no spoilers without a spoiler box. Preferably any indepth reviews should be in it's own review thread but if you want to give a short reason for your rating just please use a spoiler box for any plot info.

I'll give it a 5 out of 5. I outlined some things I wasn't satisfied with in my review but I'll reserve final judgement when I see Star Trek XII. For now, I'll give it our highest rating.


Just to say one thing-THANK GOODNESS FOR THE HOLDOUT ENTERPRISE FANS!!Like the uniforms!!
'' Maybe it's not the destination that counts....maybe it's the journey. And I can't think of anywhere I'd rather be, or any people I'd rather be with''-HARRY KIM, ''ENDGAME''

#86 User is offline   drungh 

  • Cadet 1
  • Group: Ships Crew
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 16-May 09

Posted 16 May 2009 - 08:57 AM

Hi,
I am new on this site and not to familiar with star trek, though i have been trying to make time to watch it i haven't yet. What i am doing posting this is pointing out 3 very important things:
A) This movie is creating a new fan base and also creating interest in watching the old movies and series for people that have wanted to for some time.
:spock:(this thing turns into a smiley but its B ) The movie had to be an alternate universe different from the old one because:
1. The old one (universe/storyline just to be clear) should get to rest in peace you guys wouldn't want a follow up to the old series that would screw them up its been to long. Let them try and make a new story line, a new star trek with some resemblance to the old one ... but still no relations, that is anything happening in this story line has no effect on the old one ... a remade star trek
2. They don't have the same actors the same props writers etc. they would always fail at trying to make some direct follow up
3. It leaves more uncertainty for the hardcore fans, you get to experience new star trek movies, some guy that posted here before even said there might be new series, so instead of watching the old series you have already seen again or just stop watching star trek you guys get a new storyline more speculating and new people to argue with :superhappy:
C) The last thing i want to point out is that although this movie has bits and pieces that everyone would consider stolen (the platforms he was fighting on somehow reminded me of star wars (this opinion will probably be crushed but it still did) and the ice planet reminded me of a dozen movies first he is stranded there then he is chased by something big and mean that is eaten by something bigger he runs away and of course finds a cave.. and of course there is someone inside the cave and of course he is plot significant....) i mean it's kind of foreseen how the movie goes but the reason it is excused is that they had to make a new platform for building movies perhaps series on in about 2 hours and the main focus of the movie was on building up characters (granted they are stolen from the old series in every way and built up in a different manner, but the world is still different with no vulcan and all) the movie it self is a bit of a cliche action scifi movie but it creates a lot of opportunities for a cool story line

I hope you won't dismiss my comments on the basis of me not being a star trek fan enough or that i don't know what i'm saying cause i haven't seen all the episodes and read all the novels or something, but consider this: I came her and registered because of the movie and i will probably also be watching the old star trek because of it. You have to see this movie as a positive thing for the community even though it isn't exactly like you would have wanted it to be but if you look at the old star trek other really really popular tv shows and movies they seldomly end like you would have wanted to, which is what makes them great.

I would like to note that i my native language is not english and that any grammar, spelling or solecism on my behalve was not intended and a mistake i appologise for.

This post has been edited by drungh: 16 May 2009 - 08:59 AM


#87 User is offline   Judisparks 

  • Ensign
  • Group: The Founders
  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 06-March 03

Posted 16 May 2009 - 10:05 AM

I rarely, if ever post here but reading all your responses made me want to.

I am 50 years old and clearly remember watching "Mantrap" the night TOS premiered. The images of a society wherein all members got along, worked for the comman good, and promoted similar values out to the rest of the galaxy appealed to me. After seeing the newest installment eight times already -- and going shortly for number nine -- it still does. Gene Roddenberry's vison for the future continues to burn brightly.

Stop worrying about canon, for heaven's sake. ALTERNATE REALITY. Do any of you nay-sayers know anything about quantum physics and the multiverse? Try reading the collected works of Harry Turtledove, or S.M. Stirling's Nantucket trilogy. Watch Timeline. There are many examples of alternate reality throughout the genre. Science fiction fans used to be intelligent, well-read geeks, not whiny crybabies who want their --insert franchise name here-- back. Star Trek is about opening the minds of the mundanes to the possibilities that exist for the future, about setting goals for our society as a whole. You want your Star Trek back, fire up your DVD or tape players and write fan fiction. Society evolves, it is only reasonable that the vision that is Star Trek evolves.

Well done, Mr. Abrams. Please do more.

This post has been edited by Judisparks: 16 May 2009 - 10:09 AM


#88 User is offline   ussvwbeetle 

  • Commander
  • Group: Ships Crew
  • Posts: 287
  • Joined: 08-January 08

Posted 16 May 2009 - 02:50 PM

I loved this movie! It was so good to see Star Trek on the big screen again. The visuals were stunning and the sound was amazing. I couldn't believe the far cry from the other star trek movies this was. Now from a Trekkie point of view on the whole timeline ordeal. I like the idea of it, but some of the issues for the actors portraying can't be overlooked. Anyway, aside from that, I can't wait to see again and if I could, i'd give it over 5!
This is war, survival is YOUR responsibility

#89 User is offline   Chataeya 

  • To Old to mess around !!!!
  • Group: The Founders
  • Posts: 1,337
  • Joined: 08-May 03

Posted 16 May 2009 - 02:57 PM

View PostAlterego, on May 8 2009, 12:14 AM, said:

My biggest complaint was with the sound. The soundtrack, particularly the surround, was too loud and brash. I couldn't hear the dialogue in a couple places.


I agree with you on the sound (I carry a pair of sponge ear plugs with me) but it did make the seats movie :roflmao: so I did feel like I was in the movie.

I give it a 5 as I love it!

This post has been edited by Chataeya: 16 May 2009 - 02:59 PM


#90 User is offline   VaBeachGuy 

  • Federation President
  • Group: Federation President
  • Posts: 21,866
  • Joined: 16-February 03

Posted 16 May 2009 - 03:11 PM

View PostLt. Van Roy, on May 15 2009, 05:11 AM, said:

View PostVaBeachGuy, on May 15 2009, 03:58 AM, said:

How about a Cadet going from Cadet to Captain of the Federation flagship? That's like a Cadet from West Point graduating and becoming a Brigade commander of a frontline combat uint.

Actually, that is pretty close to how General Custer got his rank. His West Point class was accelerated because the Union badly needed officers to fight the Civil War. He graduated dead last in his clsss. Due to clerical error he was promoted from 1LT to Brigader General without going through the ranks inbetween. (Back then Brigader Generals commanded brigades. Today Colonels command brigades.) He was 23.

George Pickett graduated dead last in his class as well and also made General. West Point actually keeps statistics on who is likely to eventually make General based on class ranking. The Cadets finishing either in the top 5 or bottom 5 of their class are statistically more likely to eventually make General than any other segment, but there is no statistical difference between the top 5 and bottom 5. IThe smart ones are apparently just as likely to make General as the dumb ones.


You can't really fall back on that as the 'norm' though. Back then it was a matter of who you know and how well connected you were with the people that controlled such things. Promotions General were given out as a reward in many cases, more like being an appointment. Not like it is today with the Generals raising through the ranks.

In Custers case he was promoted to Brigadier General of volunteers, when the war was over he was promoted to Major General of the volunteers but was reduced in rank to Captain in the Regular Army (Captain being O3 in the Army while in Starfleet it would be O5 which is the same as a Colonel in the Army).

In the Example above (Custer vs. Alternate Kirk) for it to equate, Custer would have had to have been placed in command of the Army of the Potomac replacing General George Meade (which if you know anything about Gen. George Meade might not have been a bad thing lol).

I just wish they had written it (Star Trek XI) a little differently in regard to a few aspects.

Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


Fast Reply

  

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users