Sign in to follow this  
VaBeachGuy

Rate Star Trek (2009)

Rate Star Trek XI  

103 members have voted

  1. 1. What rating would you give Star Trek XI?

    • 5. It's great, I loved it!
      66
    • 4. It's good.
      17
    • 3. It's average
      5
    • 2. It's not that good
      2
    • 1. I hated it!
      13


Recommended Posts


Click for Spoiler:
I understand the argument that the new writers are trying to make regarding time lines. My issue is that it still doesn't flow with how time travel works in the other series/films. In all the other Star Trek series traveling back in time resulted in a clear impact in the future, unless dealing with an alternate reality. The new movie didn't make any mention of this being a new reality sothe destruction of Vulcan would clearly change everything from the other show. Now the argument that star trek is always embracing new scientific theories and that old space/time mechanics don't fit with current theories is bogus. If a new scientific theory to come out and state that Warp drive was theoretically impossible would the writers also change that...I think not. The destruction of Vulcan had nothing to do with new theories it was just a cool thing that Abrahms wanted to do, and tried to justify to hardcore fans.

One final thing, how does a star going supernova potentially cause the destruction of the galaxy? This movie was nothing more than Star Wars in a Star Trek shell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Click for Spoiler:

The new movie didn't make any mention of this being a new reality sothe destruction of Vulcan would clearly change everything from the other show.

 

Click for Spoiler:

The words "Alternate reality" are clearly stated in the movie. At least twice, I believe.

 

Click for Spoiler:

One final thing, how does a star going supernova potentially cause the destruction of the galaxy?

Click for Spoiler:

According to the Countdown tie-in comic, the star in question would absorb energy from whatever it destroyed, which when then fuel further destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Click for Spoiler:

According to the Countdown tie-in comic, the star in question would absorb energy from whatever it destroyed, which when then fuel further destruction.

 

Click for Spoiler:

I think that's where some of the issues that people have are coming from, I'm sure that there are very few Star Trek fans and far fewer non Star Trek fans that read comics. For the Caonoists, comics and even TAS have always been considered non-canon. So any information in the comics will be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant.

 

I fully believe that this exact story could have been written in such a way that issues of canon would not have been a problem. For instance, if they wanted the movie to be set in 2258 then why have Chekov in the movie? People might have questioned the fact of him missing, but the answer would have satisfied everyone. He was there because he was only 13. That would have given a new movie the opportunity to introduce him.

 

Other issues could have been dealt with the same way as well. I understand that they wanted to attract a "new audience" and that's great. I agree that new fans are needed. But is there honestly anyone here that believes that they couldn't have accomplished this AND stayed true to canon? Was the canon location Delta-Vega and Chekov's age the 2 key things that made non fans stay away for all these years?

 

They're all minor things, they can be overlooked but how hard would it have been to do it right and keep the hard core fans happy while at the same time changing things up a little to attract a new audience? The argument seems to be this: "Stop caring and stop being so hard core, they HAD to get new blood into the fandom!" Yes, new blood was needed. But do you have to turn you back on the fans that made the movie possible in order to get new blood?

 

Would it be worth alienating 20 Million fans in order to get 2 Million new fans? Star Trek fans won't completely turn their backs on the franchise, but at the same time while there might be 50 Million new "fans" right now, 5 years from now how many of those 50 Million will even remember having seen the movie? How many will be retained as "fans". Getting "new blood" doesn't require discarding all of the "old blood" lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Click for Spoiler:

I think that's where some of the issues that people have are coming from, I'm sure that there are very few Star Trek fans and far fewer non Star Trek fans that read comics. For the Caonoists, comics and even TAS have always been considered non-canon. So any information in the comics will be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant.

 

Click for Spoiler:

I fully acknowledge that Countdown is non-canon. But it is an interesting read and can give more information about the intentions of the writers. However, one does not need to read it to get what is going on in the movie. It just gives some unofficial context.

 

Click for Spoiler:

I fully believe that this exact story could have been written in such a way that issues of canon would not have been a problem. For instance, if they wanted the movie to be set in 2258 then why have Chekov in the movie? People might have questioned the fact of him missing, but the answer would have satisfied everyone. He was there because he was only 13. That would have given a new movie the opportunity to introduce him.

 

Other issues could have been dealt with the same way as well. I understand that they wanted to attract a "new audience" and that's great. I agree that new fans are needed. But is there honestly anyone here that believes that they couldn't have accomplished this AND stayed true to canon? Was the canon location Delta-Vega and Chekov's age the 2 key things that made non fans stay away for all these years?

 

They're all minor things, they can be overlooked but how hard would it have been to do it right and keep the hard core fans happy while at the same time changing things up a little to attract a new audience? The argument seems to be this: "Stop caring and stop being so hard core, they HAD to get new blood into the fandom!" Yes, new blood was needed. But do you have to turn you back on the fans that made the movie possible in order to get new blood?

 

Click for Spoiler:

I know what you mean, but do these two glitches make it impossible to enjoy this movie? Does that fact that Khan recognizes Chekov despite never meeting him ruin Wrath of Khan? And these are comparable situations because Nick Meyer knew they'd never met face to face and kept that in anyway. They're deliberate errors for the sake of the story. So yes, they are annoyances, but minor ones and they can easily be explained away. Memory Alpha has already done so:

 

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Delta_Vega_(Vulcan_system)

 

Not ideal, I'll admit but it does work. And c'mon, two little deliberate changes hardly represent turning their backs on the fans who made this movie possible. There is more than enough for the fans in there already to compensate for these minor changes.

 

Click for Spoiler:

Would it be worth alienating 20 Million fans in order to get 2 Million new fans? Star Trek fans won't completely turn their backs on the franchise, but at the same time while there might be 50 Million new "fans" right now, 5 years from now how many of those 50 Million will even remember having seen the movie? How many will be retained as "fans". Getting "new blood" doesn't require discarding all of the "old blood" lol.

 

Click for Spoiler:

We won't convert all the non-fans into fans but we've got more people now who will be willing to see more of the franchise than we did when Enterprise went off the air and that will translate into financial success, which at the end of the day is all that matters because Star Trek is a business. This movie has succeeded in reinvigorating the Star Trek brand in a way that seemed impossible only a few years ago. 'Star Trek' is the most successful Star Trek movie in terms of box office gross (unadjusted for inflation, and while it currently is not the highest when one adjusts for inflation, it is well on its way to doing so) and it terms of critical praise (currently the highest rated wide release of 2009 on Rotten Tomatoes at 95% (which is also the highest of any Trek movie), though it may not hold that title as I think 'Up' can beat it).

 

And if you ask me, that is well worth stepping on the toes of a vocal minority. And I think Paramount would agree and their opinion is really the only one that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Click for Spoiler:
A major concern for me with the movie is how Uhura ended up on Enterprise. It seems like she used her 'relationship' with Spock to be transferred from the Farragut(sp?) to the Enterprise. While it was made clear that she was a superior communications officer who merited assignment to the Enterprise, why did the writers not have her assigned to the Enterprise with the other cadets? I found that a bit disheartening that the major female character advanced her career in this way.

I also am troubled by the inability of the modern writers to write about Vulcans, and other alien cultures. I think Vulcan was destroyed in this movie so they could be remade. I am going to watch what happens in later films.
At the end of Enterprise, true Vulcan culture had been re-established. Now an event catastrophic enough to undermine that culture has taken place, even though the keepers of the Vulcan culture had been rescued. I think it leaves writers a free hand to re-make the Vulcan survivors into something other than what they have been. I think that ending conversation between Sarek and the young Spock was decidedly more 'human' than Vulcan, and would never have occured in the original series or the next generation. Sarek would never have told Spock that he loved his mother....

Still, even with these flaws I am going back to see it again some time this week. I really enjoyed this movie. And it still felt like Star Trek to me, not Star Wars.

What about Jim Kirk's brother Sam? Is he a gonner in this version of the Stae Trek saga?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Click for Spoiler:

I fully believe that this exact story could have been written in such a way that issues of canon would not have been a problem. For instance, if they wanted the movie to be set in 2258 then why have Chekov in the movie? People might have questioned the fact of him missing, but the answer would have satisfied everyone. He was there because he was only 13. That would have given a new movie the opportunity to introduce him.

 

Other issues could have been dealt with the same way as well. I understand that they wanted to attract a "new audience" and that's great. I agree that new fans are needed. But is there honestly anyone here that believes that they couldn't have accomplished this AND stayed true to canon? Was the canon location Delta-Vega and Chekov's age the 2 key things that made non fans stay away for all these years?

 

They're all minor things, they can be overlooked but how hard would it have been to do it right and keep the hard core fans happy while at the same time changing things up a little to attract a new audience? The argument seems to be this: "Stop caring and stop being so hard core, they HAD to get new blood into the fandom!" Yes, new blood was needed. But do you have to turn you back on the fans that made the movie possible in order to get new blood?

 

Click for Spoiler:

I know what you mean, but do these two glitches make it impossible to enjoy this movie? Does that fact that Khan recognizes Chekov despite never meeting him ruin Wrath of Khan? And these are comparable situations because Nick Meyer knew they'd never met face to face and kept that in anyway. They're deliberate errors for the sake of the story. So yes, they are annoyances, but minor ones and they can easily be explained away. Memory Alpha has already done so:

 

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Delta_Vega_(Vulcan_system)

 

Not ideal, I'll admit but it does work. And c'mon, two little deliberate changes hardly represent turning their backs on the fans who made this movie possible. There is more than enough for the fans in there already to compensate for these minor changes.

 

Click for Spoiler:

There were more than just those 2 things, those were simply the only 2 that I mentioned here. As for Khan and Chekov in ST II, it's far closer to possibility that Chekov would meet Khan on the ship even though he wasn't seen on the show. All you have to do is look to "Lower Decks" to see that not every person "on the ship" is seen on the show.

 

We know from the official Star Trek website that Chekov joined the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise in 2263 though there is no episode that shows him there. If we look to Memory-Alpha it simply says that he joined the crew prior to 2267. Khan was on the Enterprise in 2267, so there isn't a very far leap to suggest that Chekov was on the ship at the time of Khan but just not "on camera".

 

It's a far easier and more reasonable leap to make than to suggest that somehow he could be born 4 years earlier because Nero jumped back in time.

 

Click for Spoiler:

And if you ask me, that is well worth stepping on the toes of a vocal minority. And I think Paramount would agree and their opinion is really the only one that matters.

 

Click for Spoiler:

I will actually be surprised if the number of retained "New Fans" is all that significant. I hope the numbers are big but I just have my doubts, and what happens when all the "New Fans" start watching real Star Trek and find all these differences? Does it help or hurt the franchise?

 

As for Paramounts opinion being the only one that matters... I greatly disagree with you on that one. Paramount could say "You know what? We need to bring Yoda in to talk to Kirk and teach him to use the Force. That's our opinion and it's really the only one that matters!"

 

Now, if that happened what do you suppose would happen? Would the opinions of the fans would just not matter? I think everyone would agree that if they did that it would mark the death of the franchise because all the opinions that "didn't matter" would also say that "it must not matter if I don't spend my money going to see it..."

 

The only opinion that matters is the collective opinion of the viewing public. (And who's to say it's a 'vocal minority'? That to me just seems a polite way of dismissing someones opinions as 'unimportant')

 

Keep in mind (again) that I liked the movie a whole lot (Alterego), I've seen it more than once and am not putting it down in any way. It's a very good movie and I want it to be successful. I even said in another thread that a TV series with this cast might prove to be very interesting. But this being a board dedicated to discussing all aspects of Star Trek I think that a discussion of the movies shortcomings is proper.

 

I just wish they had been more careful or mindful when writing the script. I have to believe that if Ira Behr had been involved in this production that there wouldn't have been any of these little issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Click for Spoiler:

A major concern for me with the movie is how Uhura ended up on Enterprise. It seems like she used her 'relationship' with Spock to be transferred from the Farragut(sp?) to the Enterprise. While it was made clear that she was a superior communications officer who merited assignment to the Enterprise, why did the writers not have her assigned to the Enterprise with the other cadets? I found that a bit disheartening that the major female character advanced her career in this way.

 

What about Jim Kirk's brother Sam? Is he a gonner in this version of the Stae Trek saga?

 

Click for Spoiler:

She was on the Farragut initially because Spock wanted to avoid the appearance of favouritism. She is fully capable and deserving of serving on the Enterprise, but since he felt it would appear as if he only assigned her to the Enterprise because of their relationship, he decided to assign her to the Farragut. She called him on this and he reassigned her to the Enterprise. So really she didn't use the relationship to advance her career, she had to fight against it and stand up for herself.

 

As for George Samuel Kirk, I've addressed this elsewhere, but I'll repeat it: They did cast an actor in the role and he does appear in the film (but not as George Samuel Kirk). The majority of his scenes were cut, so they decided to redub the corvette scene so that young Kirk said "Johnny". The actor is older than the young Kirk actor, so they had planned to make him the older brother. As for where he was, I think it can be assumed he was not on the Kelvin, and was likely staying with family elsewhere.

 

 

Click for Spoiler:

There were more than just those 2 things, those were simply the only 2 that I mentioned here. As for Khan and Chekov in ST II, it's far closer to possibility that Chekov would meet Khan on the ship even though he wasn't seen on the show. All you have to do is look to "Lower Decks" to see that not every person "on the ship" is seen on the show.

 

We know from the official Star Trek website that Chekov joined the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise in 2263 though there is no episode that shows him there. If we look to Memory-Alpha it simply says that he joined the crew prior to 2267. Khan was on the Enterprise in 2267, so there isn't a very far leap to suggest that Chekov was on the ship at the time of Khan but just not "on camera".

 

It's a far easier and more reasonable leap to make than to suggest that somehow he could be born 4 years earlier because Nero jumped back in time.

 

Click for Spoiler:

Once again, the official website does not actually count as a canon source (and is likely wrong on that 2263 date). Secondly, this proves my point, we are willing to work around goofs to come up with explanations even when there is no evidence to support them. There is no 100% canon proof that Chekov was aboard the Enterprise at any point before Catspaw. Khan's statement was a goof at first, but has since been worked around. And if we are willing to do that for the rest of the Star Trek universe, we have to we willing to do it for Star Trek XI. Some may be more logical than others but that doesn't prevent us from doing so.

 

I will actually be surprised if the number of retained "New Fans" is all that significant. I hope the numbers are big but I just have my doubts, and what happens when all the "New Fans" start watching real Star Trek and find all these differences? Does it help or hurt the franchise?

 

Hard to say how many 'converts' there will be, but it is impossible to deny that the audience for future Treks is larger as a result of this movie.

 

Click for Spoiler:

As for Paramounts opinion being the only one that matters... I greatly disagree with you on that one. Paramount could say "You know what? We need to bring Yoda in to talk to Kirk and teach him to use the Force. That's our opinion and it's really the only one that matters!"

 

Now, if that happened what do you suppose would happen? Would the opinions of the fans would just not matter? I think everyone would agree that if they did that it would mark the death of the franchise because all the opinions that "didn't matter" would also say that "it must not matter if I don't spend my money going to see it..."

 

The only opinion that matters is the collective opinion of the viewing public. (And who's to say it's a 'vocal minority'? That to me just seems a polite way of dismissing someones opinions as 'unimportant')

 

Click for Spoiler:

Alright, I admit I misphrased that. What I really meant that overall, the decision to make more Star Trek is always going to come to Paramount's opinion on whether or not they can make money on it. The opinions of the viewing public and the fans on the projects to date will ultimately be a determining factor in that opinion, but Paramount's opinion will be the only one that truly determines the future of Star Trek.

 

The decision to cancel Enterprise is an example of that. There were a lot of fans who wanted to keep the show on the air. However, their opinion was not enough to change Paramount's mind because they did not believe that they could continue to produce Enterprise in a manner that would be financially viable. Numerous other factors went into that decision but ultimately it came down to financial viability.

 

And when I refer to a vocal minority, I'm talking about the lunatic fringe, the people who view any change as a bad change and are dead opposed to the very idea of this movie (of which you are obviously not a member). They're aren't many of them, but they never shut up (I've mostly seen this on another board). And their opinions are unimportant in the sense that they will have no impact on the future of Star Trek.

 

And I would like to apologize if I have in any way implied that your opinion is unimportant.

 

I even said in another thread that a TV series with this cast might prove to be very interesting. But this being a board dedicated to discussing all aspects of Star Trek I think that a discussion of the movies shortcomings is proper.

 

I just wish they had been more careful or mindful when writing the script. I have to believe that if Ira Behr had been involved in this production that there wouldn't have been any of these little issues.

 

Not really a criticism, but I would totally rule out the possibility of a TV series with these characters (or at least the actors). A side story with a new crew is possible, I suppose. Hard to say based on the current split of the franchise's movie and TV rights.

 

As for Ira Steven Behr, he is an excellent writer, that is for sure. But he is far from infallible.

 

Also, can we just agree to disagree and let this conversation rest? I've having trouble keepoing track of all the quote and spoiler tags. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for Paramounts opinion being the only one that matters... I greatly disagree with you on that one. Paramount could say "You know what? We need to bring Yoda in to talk to Kirk and teach him to use the Force. That's our opinion and it's really the only one that matters!"

 

Now, if that happened what do you suppose would happen?

George Lucas would sue Paramount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for Paramounts opinion being the only one that matters... I greatly disagree with you on that one. Paramount could say "You know what? We need to bring Yoda in to talk to Kirk and teach him to use the Force. That's our opinion and it's really the only one that matters!"

 

Now, if that happened what do you suppose would happen?

George Lucas would sue Paramount.

No he wouldn't, in the hypothetical question he'd have agreed to the 'melding' of the 2 franchises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave it a four (five is for exceptional movies) - this was a good, action adventure movie - it was entertaining - had a bit of humor and a tad of romance. As a stand alone movie I'd recommend it to anyone.

 

For Trek fans there could be some disappointment and the argument of whether it lost the essence of what makes Trek Trek -well that could go on for a bit.

 

Im one of the few here that was in front of my tv set (okay my older sister's tv set) on Sept 8, 1966 - and other than one ep of Enterprise I think I've seen every episode. I like thought provoking drama and missed that aspect of Trek; but that is easier to do on tv than in movies - people go to the movies to see action.

 

I agree with some others

Click for Spoiler:

Chekov was too young; and what a different character - I guess he was raised by a different dad too. Actually, liked this Sulu better - not so brooding. The thing with Uhura and Spock - total surprise on that - maybe she was raised by a different dad because Spock obviously had the same one. Actually, it's a different culture now than in 1966 and that's what drove most of the changes - this Uhura got to be spunkier than what 1966 would have allowed - still whatever happened to Leila Kalomi?

 

And they were all too young to get promoted from cadet to bridge officer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, I saw 11. Not sure if I can put spoilers in here, so I won't...But I am sorry that they screwed with the established history. Sure, it can be explained away with one little comment as "parallel universes" or "alternate reality" or even "new timeline," but I am not happy with the changes. .... I am done.
Oh, you're done? Oh, sorry, I sort faded away during your rant.

 

I'm nearly 50 years old. Been a Star Trek fan for 40 plus of those years. James Blish short story collections of TOS episodes. Star Trek Novels. God only knows how much money I spent on Starlog magazine ads of different, limited edition books. Met my wife when she was wearing a Next Gen communicator pin as a broach. Our dog, we named him Sisko.

 

So, please, take this as being from the heart when I say "Bitch, bitch, bitch. Piss 'n moan, piss n' moan." Who give a damn if it pisses you off. This movie was a darn good reboot of the franchise, because it's need to get more new fans or commercially, it was going to die off.

 

One other thing: Star Trek is intellectual property, owned by Paramount for movies, CBS for TV. They have a fiduciary obligation to their stockholders to do whatever it takes to legally make a buck, and not spend money to make just the old time fans happy, when the declining TV ratings and box office receipts show there haven't been enough of us remaining interested in Star Trek to justify spending the money continuing it.

 

This isn't your father's Star Trek. Get over it, and start enjoying Star Trek 2.0 or move on.

 

Personally, I'd rate this movie a 5 out of 5 as an action film and a 6 out of 5 as a successful Star Trek film. Out-freaking-standing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Jack.

 

 

Yes, the rules of Time Travel in Star Trek has always been 'the original timeline must be preserved'* but something is missing from this discussion, the extraordinary factors which lead to the sweeping changes we are experiencing here now.

 

This incident wasn't like any of the others; never before had time travel been experienced by being caught up in an

Click for Spoiler:

artificial singularity created by the introduction of Red Matter into a never before studied Type of Supernova.

 

That alone, IMO, totally validates the change in the rules for the way TT happens in ST on this occasion. Yes, it is all very convenient but frankly, it smacks of the way real life events can come along and unexpectedly knock us for life changing loops.

 

* Technically they followed the rules, the original timeline

Click for Spoiler:

still exists, we know that for sure. It's just; we are no longer in a position to observe it.
(that could always somehow change)

 

One more thing; The Dept. of Temporal Investigations and/or any similar entity, are not leaping into action because from their POV, the only things changed were the

Click for Spoiler:

destruction of Romulas, the loss of Nero, his crew, Spock and his ship. These events are now part of their history so to them and their mission, their goal would be to preserve what happened from being tampered with or changed. No doubt, they, along with everyone in the original timeline, are in deep mourning and giving reverence to fallen Spock who, from their POV, gave his life to preserve everything in that timeline from certain death by the Supernova.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again I feel I must say - multiple worlds ie multiple universes is not the same thing as multiple timelines. And when they talk about a universe for every possible action (many worlds or multiverse) - they mean that literally down to the spin of every electron. so a different world (universe) for every spin of every electron of every atom - well that gives infinity a run for its money.

 

But again, a different thing from changing the timeline - once the timeline has changed - it's changed. The Star Trek we knew is gone - forever - it ain't coming back and it doesn't exist anywhere else except our memories.

 

Despite their protestations to the contrary - it was a literary device that the writers use to create a blank slate for future sequels. But I'd rather watch these strange, totally unfamiliar characters with familiar names have a rip roaring romp through space than most other movies I've seen. The movie was fun and entertaining it just wasn't Star Trek - not really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a good point. Every instance of time travel we had seen in Trek up to this movie has been deliberate. They intended to go to another time. Nero's force and Ambassador Spock got caught up in something that sent them back but they did not intend to go back on their own. Nero didn't even know he had been sent back until running into the Kelvin.

 

Perhaps the method people use to travel to other times makes a difference in whether a new timeline is created or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, as a stand alone movie, ST XI is ok, much as "Spiderman, The Hulk, and Superman" were ok......But on the other hand, "The Dark Knight" SMOKED IT!

 

 

 

 

In more blunt terms, JJ Abrams is a peice of crap that can blow me!

 

 

My dream film makers for a series of "Star Trek" films would be Peter Jackson, and/or Joss Whedon!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Click for Spoiler:

A major concern for me with the movie is how Uhura ended up on Enterprise. It seems like she used her 'relationship' with Spock to be transferred from the Farragut(sp?) to the Enterprise. While it was made clear that she was a superior communications officer who merited assignment to the Enterprise, why did the writers not have her assigned to the Enterprise with the other cadets? I found that a bit disheartening that the major female character advanced her career in this way.

 

What about Jim Kirk's brother Sam? Is he a gonner in this version of the Stae Trek saga?

 

Click for Spoiler:

She was on the Farragut initially because Spock wanted to avoid the appearance of favouritism. She is fully capable and deserving of serving on the Enterprise, but since he felt it would appear as if he only assigned her to the Enterprise because of their relationship, he decided to assign her to the Farragut. She called him on this and he reassigned her to the Enterprise. So really she didn't use the relationship to advance her career, she had to fight against it and stand up for herself.

 

As for George Samuel Kirk, I've addressed this elsewhere, but I'll repeat it: They did cast an actor in the role and he does appear in the film (but not as George Samuel Kirk). The majority of his scenes were cut, so they decided to redub the corvette scene so that young Kirk said "Johnny". The actor is older than the young Kirk actor, so they had planned to make him the older brother. As for where he was, I think it can be assumed he was not on the Kelvin, and was likely staying with family elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just saw the movie again today,

Click for Spoiler:

and I think you are right about Uhura standing up for herself.

 

It remains to be seen what has happened to Kirk's broter, who dies in the TOS series anyway.....

 

I love the film and it still feels like Star Trek to me. I was listening to the Spock we know talk to the

new Jim Kirk about the importance of friendship, and then later to the new Spock. In the last scenes,

I had the feeling that the friendship aspect of Star Trek was preserved amidst all the other changes.

 

 

I want to see it again, although I am spending too much money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been posting for a very long time. Didn't feel the need after Nemesis since there wasn't any new movie or series to watch. I didn't think there'd be any good topics to check on... until today. I just watched it last night and I'd like to give it a 5.

 

I like it. I really do. Despite the fact that lives were lost, planets destroyed and characters changed, I look forward to xi and even at least 2 new series. I hope they'll do a new series based on xi soon (real soon) and at the same time come up with a new series that takes off from where Nemesis left off. With 2 different timelines, there's just so many more possibilities.

 

By the way, I like this new Chekov. I thought the acting was well done. And I love the classic uhura-uniform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the new film was great. Just like Batman Begins, I love origin stories. Sure it's loud and splashy, it's a summer action movie, what do you expect? They are obviously shooting for a wider audience, and that's OK, since it will help ensure more interest and opportunity for future films and maybe series. I really enjoyed the nods to fans in the form of little one liners, and for instance the genesis of the nickname "bones". I thought the actors did a great job of capturing the essence of the characters tempered by their inexperience. Simon Pegg was right on with Scotty, but they could have thrown in a drinking reference for fun :) . The whole timeline change opens up a range of possibilities which I think was necessary for sequels.

Click for Spoiler:

I think the loss of Vulcan was a little harsh though...no climbing the stairs of Mt. Solea now.
I agree that Bana could have been given a little more to work with to flesh out his character. I hope the sequels will concentrate more on the characters and ethos of the star trek universe, and less on the glitz and explosions, now that the new franchise has shown box-offfice clout. I give it an 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4. Saw it this afternoon. Solid movie. I thought Spock was impeccably done. Bones kicked butt, as did Uhura, Sulu and Chekhov. Scotty was a little over the top, but still excellent. I thought Pine didn't *quite* capture Kirk though. The cockiness was definitely there, but the mannerisms and way of speaking wasn't quite there. A good choice, but maybe not the best. There were just times I couldn't get into Kirk.

 

The camera constantly moving unneccessarily annoyed me too, but by halfway through, I was used to it.

 

They threw in a bunch of "nod and wink" moments for the hard core fans, but I think this was something that even those unfamiliar with the franchise would thoroughly enjoy. That's something that Enterprise did a lot of and after awhile, it just didn't sit right with me, but this movie balanced it out well.

 

Click for Spoiler:

I haven't kept up with the reports/news/hype about this movie, so if they said so, pardon me: I think this could be the first of a possible trilogy, wherein by the end of it, the correct the timeline by undoing the damage that Nero wrought in the first place.
Edited by youbroughtheryouRiker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me, as a stand alone movie, ST XI is ok, much as "Spiderman, The Hulk, and Superman" were ok......But on the other hand, "The Dark Knight" SMOKED IT!

 

Is that good or bad?

Sorry for the long pause........ Ive been recovering from a stroke

 

 

Let me give you an example of what I mean.......

 

 

 

In "The Dark Knight", youll remember the "Why so serious?" scene long after you forget most of the rest of it.....

 

ST.TWOK had several momments like that..... Simply unforgetble

 

 

even 4 5 and 6 had a collected handful

 

 

in Generations, when you see Kirk and Picard together for the first time.....

 

 

Snoop Borgy Borg and the Borg Queen

 

 

and in my mind, the last true Star Trek we may ever see, the death of Data.......

 

 

 

Why that said, I cant the think of one thing that elicited emotion from me in the new movie....

 

 

Its the evililent of Bubble Gum music

 

 

Boston compared to Led Zepplin

 

Metallica compare to...well....90s Metallica

 

 

Like I said in my prior post....Peter Jackson and or Joss Wheldon............ JJ Adrams is to much of a SELLOUT!

Edited by I.Q.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant to reply to this since i first seen it on opening saturday. but alas i've been busy. I LOVED IT. it was different than what were used to, but very familiar at the same time. it had good action, excellent FX, all around entertaining. also after MUCH BEGGING i convinced my wife to go (WHO HATES STARTREK AND ALL SCI FI) She actually really liked it. i think this movie has more than enough to keep startrek fans, and it also can be a good movie for anyone who never really got into it. I know there's plenty of haters here, (I REALLY JUST DONT GET IT) I do understand everyone has different tastes and ideas but some of the reasons i read are just crazy. but ill just leave it at that. i cant wait for it to come out on dvd and for the next movies to come out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this