Royal Andorian

It starts Matthew Perry which means its doomed to failure...lol. How many cancelled TV shows has Perry starred in since "Friends"?

Two. Studio 6o on the Sunset Strip (which deserved a far better fate) and Mr. Sunshine (which wasn't great but not awful).

 

I have to imagine this will meet a similar fate not because of Perry, but because it's on NBC and the premise seems somewhat limited (it would probably make a better movie).

I think thats a bad track record for a guy that was a star of a very popular comedy show. NBC has a habit of not caring about the quality of their shows, hence the ridiculous premises that are the norm at that network. This show will in all likelihood follow suit.

I kinda remember when there was much celebration about his involvement with ENT and then he was gone almost as soon as he got there. I hope he hangs around and maybe becomes part of the cast.

His role on Enterprise was never intended to be long-term. It was always going to be the three episode arc.

It still doesnt change the mega fan fare that accompanied his appearance there. It was a big let down to those of us that had hopes of more involvement in the series from spiner.

"In the Heart of the Sea was written by Nathaniel Philbrick. Herman Melville‘s classic Moby Dick was inspired by this tale." Actually, Moby Dick was written more than a century before this ripoff. So, in other words, not only is Hollywood out of fresh ideas, but "writers" like philbrick are too and feel the need to make money by ripping off an American classic like Moby Dick. How truly tasteless. Just sad that the only way to earn accolades is to ripoff the talents of others. I can't wait for the this one to be an epic fail at the box office like all the other ripoffs and remakes.

Perhaps it's not worded completely correctly but what they're saying is true.

 

In the Heart of the Sea is about the sinking of the Essex in 1819. It's told from the perspective of the cabin boy Thomas Nickerson (who was 14 at the time). Apparently the notebook he wrote while on board was found in 1960 and that's what the book was based on.

 

Additionally, the first mate of the Essex, Owen Chase, also wrote an account of the sinking of the Essex called "Narrative of the Most Extraordinary and Distressing Shipwreck of the Whale-Ship Essex". This was published in 1821 and inspired Herman Melville to write Moby Dick in 1851.

 

So basically, this movie is about the true event on which Moby Dick was based.

 

Don't know why I went to all this trouble. I really have no interest in seeing this.

Based loosely on it.....maybe. Still doesn't explain why Hollywood produces one ripoff and remake after another. Its their money to throw to the wind, i guess. I just know better than to throw any of mine in the direction of a film that's claim to fame is based on an alleged notebook found more than a century after Melville wrote one of the greastest pieces of literature. Its sad that talents like Melville, Shakespeare and others have become the victim of detractors of low intellect that create theories based on sporadic pieces of 'evidence' and on the speculations of the unitiated. Anyways, this new film = Mega epic fail.

NBC is home to the failed comedy, sitcom, etc, etc. Too bad Cho got mixed up with this show.

I kinda remember when there was much celebration about his involvement with ENT and then he was gone almost as soon as he got there. I hope he hangs around and maybe becomes part of the cast.

Its always good to see Nimoy on tv. I cant get enough of that "pointy eared hobgoblin."

"In the Heart of the Sea was written by Nathaniel Philbrick. Herman Melville‘s classic Moby Dick was inspired by this tale." Actually, Moby Dick was written more than a century before this ripoff. So, in other words, not only is Hollywood out of fresh ideas, but "writers" like philbrick are too and feel the need to make money by ripping off an American classic like Moby Dick. How truly tasteless. Just sad that the only way to earn accolades is to ripoff the talents of others. I can't wait for the this one to be an epic fail at the box office like all the other ripoffs and remakes.

:biggrin: Lets hope his performance here will be better than on TNG.

Cool. At least the film got some recognition after 30+ years.

This has to be one of the coolest photos ever. They all look so happy.

Pine shoulda kept that firm that had to sue him for compensation then he wouldn't have to worry about landing projects like this.

This is good news. They helped get him where he is and now he can pay what he owes them.

Those are nice looking shirts. I got one for my friend. I hope he likes it.

I found this one to be a good episode. Not the best, but still it held up well.

I think he would've wanted a family if his life hadn't centered around his Starfleet career. For Picard, his family was Starfleet.

I think that it was not a good idea to kill him off so abruptly. I liked him and was upset when he got killed off.

Many of these remakes are garbage. Bad enough that Star Trek was bastardized in '09 with a 'reboot',but to remake Quantum Leap without Scott Bakula is just inexcusable. However, if Bakula were to reprise his original role then I am all for it.

I would have to go for Dukat. But, Louise Fletcher did play the 'smarmy politico' well...all the references to Kira with the 'My child', and etc...with the smile that got under poor Kira's skin, as she knew so well who was the woman beneath the robes...and dealing with a man who epitomized everything she depised...played well by Marc Alaimo

Good statement. I agree with that.

I guess it would depend on if we're talking about Shatner's Kirk or pine's kirk. If its Shatner's Kirk then he would win. If its pine's then Picard gets my vote.

I enjoyed Insurrection second best. Second only to Wrath of Khan.

I would argue that Star Trek is hardly dead, it's been completely brought back to life by this movie. Star Trek was dying a slow and painful death because it couldn't move on. Now it has and thank god. Star Trek has a whole new audience and a whole lot of long time fans like myself who are so relieved that this happened.

 

 

I disagree. Its dead, face it and 'move on'. If it were 'alive' it wouldn't go out of its way to be re-packaged, re-cast, and re-written for the semi-literate 'fans' that need to get their sci fi fix.

 

If your 'relieved', fine. Thats great, but also sad that you could find 'relief' from a film whose performances could've been phoned in and whose story is such a blatant violation of established canon that no serious fan can really accept this dour attempt to insult lifelong fans of the franchise.

 

So I'm not a serious Trek fan because I have a different opinion on the matter? :) LOL ok have fun with that point of view, it's not even worth arguing. Enjoy your bitterness.

 

BTW, many Trek actors have mentioned they love this movie, Leonard Nimoy included. I guess they don't live up to your idea of real Trek fans.

Obviously he's not a fan. he's a paid actor that will like whatever pays his bills at the time

If you like second rate revision thats FX laden, thats fine. I however, prefer more cerebral entertainment.

I watched the new movie yesterday.

 

It wasn't as bad as I expected, I've had my doubts about re-cycling TOS. I have to admit that I liked it in a way, at least when it comes to entertainment and action and I must also admit that it didn't give me the bad feeling I got when I watched "Nemesis" some years ago.

 

I think that the movie is OK as sheer entertainment if you simply want an exciting, action-loaded movie whatsoever with old Trek characters as the "good guys". The actors were doing a good job and those in charge of the movie had obviously did their best to get actors who had some resemblance to the original characters as we are used to see them in TOS. The actors were OK when it comes to portraying the old favorites.

 

But there were too much screwing-up of established Trek history there to annoy me.

 

First of all, mr Abrams: Would it have been totally impossible to bring in Okuda as advisor or at least read through "Star Trek Chronology" before making this movie? Most of us Trek fans are a bit protective when it comes to established Star Trek history. To simply abandon all that by simply create "an alternate timeline" was a too easy way out..

With that said I must state that:

The destruction of Romulus and Vulcan was bulls**t, to say the least. Totally unnecessary. Not to mention the silly Stardates. On the positive site was that events like the Eugenic Wars and things that never really has happened when they should have happened according to established Star Trek history seems to have been postponed and moved into the future which makes more sense. But the destruction of planets so important to the Trek universe? No!

 

Another thing is that..........I sometimes I didn't get the feeling that I was actually watching a Star Trek movie.

 

OK, we did have Kirk, Spock and the old heroes there. But this movie's Kirk could have been Jimmy Jones, Scotty could have been McGregor and Spock could have been Ixtyl from the planet Vorn and the movie called "Defending The Empire" and it would all have been the same. A good, entertaining SF-movie with lots of action but nothing more.

 

So I have mixed emotions about the movie. As sheer entertainment, it's good and if it gives Star Trek some good publicity and creates new interest for the whole phenomenon, than it's OK too and I could easy imagine to watch a similar movie if possible.

 

But if future movies, series and books will be created on the basis of this movie and the screw-ups of established Trek history, then I don't know if I'm that interested.

 

For the entertainment as such, I'll give it 3 points out of 5.

 

As for being a Star Trek movie, I'll give it 2 points out of 5.

Exactly my sentiments.

Who says the ENTIRE planet of Delta Vega is a barren wasteland? We certainly have room for every type of terrain on our own planet.

Check out the ep "Where no man has gone before". It is even mentioned as such. Its uninhabited too. So much for your 'excuses'. :P

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Delta_Vega

I would argue that Star Trek is hardly dead, it's been completely brought back to life by this movie. Star Trek was dying a slow and painful death because it couldn't move on. Now it has and thank god. Star Trek has a whole new audience and a whole lot of long time fans like myself who are so relieved that this happened.

I disagree. Its dead, face it and 'move on'. If it were 'alive' it wouldn't go out of its way to be re-packaged, re-cast, and re-written for the semi-literate 'fans' that need to get their sci fi fix.

If your 'relieved', fine. Thats great, but also sad that you could find 'relief' from a film whose performances could've been phoned in and whose story is such a blatant violation of established canon that no serious fan can really accept this dour attempt to insult lifelong fans of the franchise. :P

* McCoy bulkier - granted, but the director has to work with whatever actors are available. Remember also that this McCoy is quite a bit younger than he would be when TOS started. Remember how old Yar looked in All Good Things...? Sometimes the casters have no choice.

 

* "Chekov" - You are probably the only one to notice the eye color. Surprised you didn't talk about his age (19) or his new mathmatical wizardry. (I don't know why you would need another math whiz if you have Spock.) The new hairstyle is a major departure. However, "Pavel" and "Chekov" are both common names in Russia so perhaps this is a different Pavel Chekov?

 

* Sulu older - You might be right, he certainly looks older. Heavier too. But again, you work with what is available.

 

* Kirk driving - OK, this is because the TOS Kirk was raised by his natural father. The XI Kirk was raised by a car enthusiast foster dad. This also explains why TOS Kirk was a walking bookstack and XI Kirk clearly was not. Different upbringing will naturally lead to a different Kirk.

Thanks for agreeing. :P

All the excuses in the world(yours included) don't change the fact that all the inconsistencies about this "film" make it a big disappointment. Its incredulous that you go out of your way to make (personal attack removed- AE)witted excuses for the films many mistakes. :(

There are a couple more I just wanted to point out. First, the "Cardassian gin" served at the local bar in Iowa seems a huge departure of what is known about Cardassians( they weren't introduced until ep#87 'The Wounded" of TNG) and weren't they involved in a war with the federation nearly 90 years later? secondly, wasn't Delta Vega a barren planet in "Where no man has gone before"? Now, its an arctic wasteland? Yeah, in fact Lee Kelso was killed there by Lt. Cmdr. Gary Mitchell. There are undoubtedly more continuity snafus in the film, but then again only real fans would take the time to notice and care about such things, obviously the 'fans' that just want anything with star trek in the title could care less. Oh well, your loss (personal attack removed - AE).