The new Star Trek

MooseJam

SPOILERS !!!

FutureGuy wrote: »

Not BS, I thought it was evident enough..the red matter needed to be placed at the heart of the planet in order to cause a black hole...it's a plausible explanation.

evident enough ? did you miss the part where the red matter went black hole because Spock crashed his ship ! oh yea and the black hole Spock created to try and save Romulus than was just in space somewhere

I might reply to your other points later

MooseJam

Little SPOILER !


I'm going to be picky here but sometimes in films there are just these little things that are plain daft and can really spoil the immersion with you sitting there going duh
When Scotty gets beamed into the water pipe, that pipe was a good 4 or 5 feet in diameter with a strong water flow - several meters per second and Kirk opens a HUGE hatch and Scotty drops out with a little splash of water - if he opened that hatch in that pipe a little splash is not what would result - a monstrous deluge would ensue, flood the whole room so it would

lt_cmdr_worf

Screen 1 in Athlone IMC hasn't seen a film this good grace the projector in years.

hacx

MooseJam wrote: »

Little SPOILER !


I'm going to be picky here but sometimes in films there are just these little things that are plain daft and can really spoil the immersion with you sitting there going duh
When Scotty gets beamed into the water pipe, that pipe was a good 4 or 5 feet in diameter with a strong water flow - several meters per second and Kirk opens a HUGE hatch and Scotty drops out with a little splash of water - if he opened that hatch in that pipe a little splash is not what would result - a monstrous deluge would ensue, flood the whole room so it would

I thought that too, but I came to the conclusion that the opening of the emergency hatch sealed off the rest of the pipe.

BlitzKrieg

Enjoyed it, thought they nailed the characters pretty much especially as alot of people pointed out spock and bones. Kept a good pace and it was a good adventure flick.

nothing outstanding though I would say and there were some moments that either looked daft, or I didnt think was well done.


such as:

the pop up samurai sword irked me slightly, the backflash with old spock was really badly narrated and just helped to confuse the matter more then clear it up, it didnt give enough justification to why the hatred was focused on spock/federation and was also a sort of rehash of the plotline of star trek 6 (which handed it alot better and more realisticly) I was expecting an extra level to the trechery that spock made some logical decision that sacrificed the lives of romulas and saved the rest of the universe rather then simply he was too late. Pretty much all the old spock scenes felt abit stuck in the mud. Alot of the scenes that dont gel with the other films (kobiasha scene etc) are ok because the alternative timeline set up so from a trekkie perspective I aint too p*ssed, I am picking at it more from a narrative perspective

The coincidence wasn't that Spock was there, the coincidence was that Spock, Scotty and Kirk would all be there, in the same relative location on this large planet, all for different reasons yet all meet up with each other

I would agree that running into old spock was a bt of a stretch but Scotty was expected because it was set up in the scene that he had been dumped near a federation station and Scotty gave a slightly OTT explanation of why he was there. So I can accept running into Scotty no problem, but Spock was a serious leap of faith even after it was explained (you think a big f*ck off ship dropping someone off 14 miles from a starfleet outpost would have someone call it in or check on it at least?)

Fysh

Saw this on Friday night and enjoyed it, although the one plot-hole that was actually nagging at me a bit was to do with the black holes.

The hole that destroyed Vulcan then created a wormhole that sucked Original Spock and Nero's ships into the past and changed the timeline. What happened to the mass that was sucked into it? Did that also go through the wormhole? And if the black holes create wormholes, what about the other times they were used? Shouldn't there be incidents popping up throughout history where an entire planet-load of rubble appears out of nowhere?

None of which interefered with the enjoyment of the film - it was a decently acted action film & origin story, although it did seem to be slightly lacking the worldview/philosophical perspective that I normally associate with Star Trek. I would definitely watch a sequel, and as someone else said earlier in the thread "they made Star Trek cool again".

sourwine

It's black holes, not wormholes, so the matter doesn't actually "go" anywhere, it just disappears. So that's why the stuff doesn't reappear somewhere or somewhen else.

Fysh

sourwine wrote: »

It's black holes, not wormholes, so the matter doesn't actually "go" anywhere, it just disappears. So that's why the stuff doesn't reappear somewhere or somewhen else.

Well, yes, but if the black holes don't ever open spacetime wormholes then the whole time travel aspect of the movie can't happen. Quite aside from the fact that a black hole being a superdense stellar object of theoretically infinite density at it's centre doesn't just disappear in the first place.

I mean, I know it doesn't really matter, but it did seem a bit odd that nobody involved even though to stop and ask whether there might be some safe way of harnessing the science behind it. Hell, even at the end

when they let Nero's ship drop into the black hole, nobody stops to say "hang on, his ship getting dragged into something like this seems to be where the whole mess started, perhaps this isn't the best solution to the problem"?

A bit too lacking in the "think your way out of a problem" aspect of things for my liking, but it's still a relatively minor quibble.

omerin

as a fan of the original series i am bitterly disappointed with this film. having heard the glowing reviews of this film i was a bit apprehensive and thought that it would only appeal to a new generation of fans and it will, but it left me feeling short changed.
in the original series you empathised with the characters, while the acting, the fight scenes, the special effects and the costumes were of their day and extremely basic there was an appeal and strong story lines, this film is just your annual 'summer blockbuster' and it leaves me cold adding nothing

Jack B. Badd

I really enjoyed this and look forward to the inevitable sequel(s). My only real criticism is that it didn't feel like Star Trek, it kind of missed that Roddenberry vision that really made TOS and early TNG.
That said it was an enjoyable action/adventure film, the plot was happily far-fetched, the casting and acting good (though not brilliant, not that I was expecting that). I appreciated the amount of effort the guy playing Bones had put into getting the character down. Ditto for Quinto on reflection - initially I thought he was totally out-acted by Nimoy, I'm now not convinced that he wasn't out-acted to an extent but on thinking about it he put in a pretty good performance and I don't envy how intimidating it must have been for him to work on the character which is pretty much owned by Nimoy. The guy playing Kirk was pretty but lacking, I missed Shatner's personality (looniness) in the character.

If nothing else it's persuaded me to dedicate a chunk of next month's pay to buying TOS on DVD

deathstarkiller

I have always been a fan and I was really worried but I thought it was fantastic. I would have liked maybe a few of those slow majestic shots of the Enterprise that were always in the old movies and the old Trek music to be there a few times. Still, I thought the effects were flawless, I loved the designs of everything. I liked the way the working areas of the ship were like a factory. I felt the actors all did a great job, I could see Kirk in Chris Pine's mannerisms and the same for Spock and especially Bones. Despite the lack of the old theme appearing I did think the music was fantastic and loved how the enemy had a really strong theme.
Everything just felt so legendary. For example,

The opening scene with Kirk's birth and how he was named, Pike's speech of how Kirk's father was a starship captain for 12 minutes and saved 800 lives and daring Kirk to do better, Kirk looking at the Enterprise being built while deciding whether to join Starfleet, Various things happening that could have split up the crew like Kirk being suspended from duty, Kirk being marooned only to find old Spock and Scotty. I know a lot of people had problems with that last point but I liked how no matter what happened even if it was through pure coincidence, events would take place to ensure that that particular crew and ship would stay together because that was their destiny in ANY timeline.
I'm excited for the future of Trek again. Already looking forward to the next movie. There's so much they can do. They can go with new ideas and they can even incorporate old stories from both the 60's series and the movies and put a slightly different spin on things. I mean, the doomsday machine is out there, Khan is asleep waiting to be found somewhere, V'ger is on it's way.

Conor108

This might have been mentioned before but I dont have the patience to read all 8 pages:D

When they did that space jump onto the drill, why didn't they burn up in re-entry? Or am I thinking too much?:D:D

Roar

quite enjoyed it, the plot holes mentioned above in previous posts all occured to me while watching it

spock senior appearing on Hoth whatever planet that was, was one of the most obvious examples of deus ex machina i've ever seen (love that term). on reflection, I don't think the movie needed spock senior/nimoy in it. i know there was an element of passing on the torch involved, but it kinda took me out of the movie a bit. and why did he voice the "space: the final frontier" monologue? surely kirk should have done that?

i'm looking forward to seeing it again. and

the beastie boys

in a star trek movie? WIN

Fysh

I don't think this has been mentioned previously, so I'll link to this 6-page comic that was in April's issue of Wired. I'd read it before watching the film, but I'm curious what people who've seen the film first would make of it.

norrie rugger

Conor108 wrote: »

This might have been mentioned before but I dont have the patience to read all 8 pages:D

When they did that space jump onto the drill, why didn't they burn up in re-entry? Or am I thinking too much?:D:D

Future tech. Why would the suits of 220 years time not be able to handle re-entry?

hacx

Did anyone like the phasers that were clip loaded? I thought it was a nice little touch.

PixelTrawler

plot holes: bah, just dont think about them. Thoroughly enjoyed it, good cinema action romp...

Funny no-one commented on

the inclusion of "the red guy" character who you just knew was going to be short lived - nice nod to the original

monument

Fysh wrote: »

I mean, I know it doesn't really matter, but it did seem a bit odd that nobody involved even though to stop and ask whether there might be some safe way of harnessing the science behind it. Hell, even at the end

when they let Nero's ship drop into the black hole, nobody stops to say "hang on, his ship getting dragged into something like this seems to be where the whole mess started, perhaps this isn't the best solution to the problem"?

A bit too lacking in the "think your way out of a problem" aspect of things for my liking, but it's still a relatively minor quibble.

(1) Nero's ship was destroyed to a large extend at this stage and it was still breaking up as it was going into the black hole.

(2) Everybody seams to be thinking the black hole alone caused time travel, when it was actually the red matter / black hole effect combined with the explosion from the star which caused it. And these conditions were not repeated when the red matter was used a second or third time.

Oh, feck, I guess this post goes beyond I just like watching ST, and I do think too much about it.

chrussell

Solyad wrote: »

Funny no-one commented on

the inclusion of "the red guy" character who you just knew was going to be short lived - nice nod to the original

I did but just not here....post number 47 here

Crucifix

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

such as:

the pop up samurai sword irked me slightly

Yeah, that bothered me too. He said he knew

fencing, as Sulu did in the tv show. But then he breaks out a racial stereotype appropriate samurai type sword. It's not a big deal, but it wouldn't have been hard to give him a space sabre

constitutionus

Roar wrote: »

quite enjoyed it, the plot holes mentioned above in previous posts all occured to me while watching it

spock senior appearing on Hoth whatever planet that was, was one of the most obvious examples of deus ex machina i've ever seen (love that term). on reflection, I don't think the movie needed spock senior/nimoy in it. i know there was an element of passing on the torch involved, but it kinda took me out of the movie a bit. and why did he voice the "space: the final frontier" monologue? surely kirk should have done that?

i'm looking forward to seeing it again. and

the beastie boys

in a star trek movie? WIN

im pretty sure the whole point

behind spock senior was to act as a demarcation point of the two timelines.

quite literally EVERY episode and spinoff series of the original series , includling all the movies, are now null and void with spock senior the only guy who remembers them. thanks to the events in this film they WONT happen.

its actually kinda fun to see that the fact that this film was meant to be a complete reboot of the franchise actually gets acknowledged in the film as part of the plot in such a big way and i think spock senior acts as a touchstone for future films for the old fans so that in some way theres still a connection to whats gone before without compromising what the point of all this was . also he's got alot of info in his head, gotta be some consequence to that down the line

nyarlothothep

constitutionus wrote: »

im pretty sure the whole point

behind spock senior was to act as a demarcation point of the two timelines.

quite literally EVERY episode and spinoff series of the original series , includling all the movies, are now null and void with spock senior the only guy who remembers them. thanks to the events in this film they WONT happen.

its actually kinda fun to see that the fact that this film was meant to be a complete reboot of the franchise actually gets acknowledged in the film as part of the plot in such a big way and i think spock senior acts as a touchstone for future films for the old fans so that in some way theres still a connection to whats gone before without compromising what the point of all this was . also he's got alot of info in his head, gotta be some consequence to that down the line

I liked the way they included Spock. But the original universe is still valid. They were using the many worlds interpretation of time travel.

Dark_lord_ire

i enjoyed all the movies and most of the star trek tv shows but always felt it was getting worse and worse the last 2 movies before this were junk. This movie i loved it was excellent and the jokes spot on. I'm sorry for all the nerds who did not like it but those days are over people.

I welcome the new vision of star trek and cant wait for number 2 and 3

robby^5

constitutionus wrote: »

im pretty sure the whole point

behind spock senior was to act as a demarcation point of the two timelines.

quite literally EVERY episode and spinoff series of the original series , includling all the movies, are now null and void with spock senior the only guy who remembers them. thanks to the events in this film they WONT happen.

Not entirely true.

The changes in the timeline such as Vulcan being destroyed and the crew of the enterprise having slightly different lives to what they originally had may have very little impact on the next generation crew and the events they are involved in.

There might be some implications for Picard in Generations if Kirk doesn't get wrapped up in the nexus though, but that is still a long way off and we don't know if it will happen or not.

If any other series will be affected adversely, off the top of my head I can only think that Voyager will be without Mr.Tuvoc since it would be unlikely he was ever born, the only character in that show I actually liked too

imo the only events that have been wiped clean are the original series and it's film spinoffs yet events from those films may still occur, I can see them retelling the Khan storyline possibly

Trekkies will be debating the finer points of the adverse affects to the timeline for many a year to come.

tferg20

I LOVED IT!!

Was highly skeptical going in because for me ''Enterprise'' ruined the franchise. I have been trying to think of a sci-fi film that i've seen in the cinema to match it & i'm coming up short.
Of course it has it's flaws there are some cringe worthy moments, namely one including the Beastie boys Also not mad on the chekhov actor.
The Trekkie references are ace, subtle enough to be missed if you're not familiar with the original series and not in anway important to the film.
Anyway i'm rambling.

Tip of the cap to you Mr.Abhrams

mewso

A lot of people complaining about Kirk meeting Spock on the ice planet when for me young Spock ejecting him off the ship was the truly ludicrous part. What happened to the brig? I thoroughly enjoyed the film but there are some serious leaps to get the story where they want it to go.

I love Sci-Fi that is accurate but can forgive it when it is enjoyable without the accuracy but it annoyed me that a few scenes in space had no sound while most did. Either go the inaccurate route as most Sci-Fi does and have loud explosion noises in space or the realistic route and have a silent space (always cooler to my mind but not to Hollywood) but to have both??

lostexpectation

good stuff

lots of xplosions

it seems simon pegg the ultimate sc-fi fan boy in order to be involved in his dream projects has to be lumped with the comedy role, the kiddie bit and the jar jar binks
character.

at the start why didn't kirk senior but a brick on the accelerator, ok autopilot was broke, but just use a spacebrick.

and at the end most of the vulcans have been whipped out how is that a happy ending

i fracking hate using spoilers, just spoiler alert the whole thread

funny orion slaves goes to stafleet lol

nix

lostexpectation wrote: »

at the start why didn't kirk senior but a brick on the accelerator, ok autopilot was broke, but just use a spacebrick.

I'm pretty sure the reason for that

is so he could steer the ship to maximize his crash damage caused to ensure the safety of all the people escaping on the other ships

Have to say im not the biggest Star trek fan, but i really enjoyed this movie

lostexpectation

nix wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the reason for that

is so he could steer the ship to maximize his crash damage caused to ensure the safety of all the people escaping on the other ships

Have to say im not the biggest Star trek fan, but i really enjoyed this movie

death wish

why did only start evacuating people after the captian was killed, it pretty clear they were fuked before he left,

Otacon

lostexpectation wrote: »

death wish

why did only start evacuating people after the captian was killed, it pretty clear they were fuked before he left,

More importantly, wasn't he in Home and Away years ago!

lostexpectation

he never plays likeable characters

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well it wasn't as bad as I expected, but I wouldn't say it was good either.

big bored 'meh' from me.

looked good though, uhuras underpants were probably the most visually stunning part of the whole movie.

Killme00

I thought it was funny but very much like a TV pilot in that they films was a reintroduction to the characters and pretty much fck all else. Star Trek meets the OC or 90210 is pretty much spot on in tersm of the characters. There was not enough of Nero in this film. It was hilarious in parts though and big props to Abrams for using Sabotage, pity he could use Intergalactic somewhere too. There will undoubtedly be a sequel or three.

Does this mean there are no more Romulans?

Otacon

Killme00 wrote: »

Does this mean there are no more Romulans?

Romulus wasn't destroyed, Vulcan was. Romulus was only destroyed in the future.

In any case, according to Spock, there were about 10,000 survivors.

TinCool

constitutionus wrote: »

im pretty sure the whole point

behind spock senior was to act as a demarcation point of the two timelines.

quite literally EVERY episode and spinoff series of the original series , includling all the movies, are now null and void with spock senior the only guy who remembers them. thanks to the events in this film they WONT happen.

I agree. After having watched the new Star Trek which I thought was pretty good, I went in to my local Xtra Vision to rent out or buy a copy of Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan. One, if not the best of the original Star Trek movies. I couldn't find it, or any Star Trek movie or any of the series box sets for that matter. I asked the guy at the desk where was Star Trek II and he didn't have a clue what I was talking about. He said that no such movie existed possibly due to the events that had occurred in the "new" Star Trek movie.

I then went home to check my DVD collection where I already had a couple of the Star Trek movies and they had mysteriously disappeared from the shelf where I could have sworn I had see them only a few weeks before... Wierd

speedboatchase

TinCool wrote: »

I asked the guy at the desk where was Star Trek II and he didn't have a clue what I was talking about. He said that no such movie existed possibly due to the events that had occurred in the "new" Star Trek movie.

Lol

senordingdong

I found it dissapointing.

Resorting to a time travel plot is the lowest common denominator of any sci fi story.

Killme00

TinCool wrote: »

I agree. After having watched the new Star Trek which I thought was pretty good, I went in to my local Xtra Vision to rent out or buy a copy of Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan. One, if not the best of the original Star Trek movies. I couldn't find it, or any Star Trek movie or any of the series box sets for that matter. I asked the guy at the desk where was Star Trek II and he didn't have a clue what I was talking about. He said that no such movie existed possibly due to the events that had occurred in the "new" Star Trek movie.

I then went home to check my DVD collection where I already had a couple of the Star Trek movies and they had mysteriously disappeared from the shelf where I could have sworn I had see them only a few weeks before... Wierd

Isnt that called the butterfly effect?

Draupnir

Loved it even though I think Star Trek is crap.

User45701

senordingdong wrote: »

I found it dissapointing.

glad im not alone.

And for me the worst part is moast of you lot (and the people on the other thread on this in the star trek forum) you lot wont give a **** or even want to watch this movie in 10-15 years. Its hip/in/cool or whatever is the correct term. People being so worked up over what they call a great movie will unfortuantly make them think about a sequil to this film.

ive seen a good few posts wand mentions in conversation - people went to see this because of JJ - then others went to see it because its star trek then others went to see it because mates where going.

Did anyone actually just go to see this by themselves with noone else who is not a star trek or JJ fan - This movie was supposed to be for a new generation of fans but its proffit has been derived from trek fans and JJ fans and not the target audience the film has talked about.

ugh im really not bothered ill explain why i hated it some other time

exiot

I thought it was good but not as good as I expected it to be. I agree with the above post with the time travelling thing - it seems too typical JJ Abrahams and an easy way to derive a plot..

Just another Hollywood blockbuster..

Otacon

User45701 wrote: »

Did anyone actually just go to see this by themselves with noone else who is not a star trek or JJ fan - This movie was supposed to be for a new generation of fans but its proffit has been derived from trek fans and JJ fans and not the target audience the film has talked about.

While I went as it was a JJ Abrams film, my housemates just saw the trailers and thought it looked good.

All of us agreed it was a solid 8/10 film.

BTW Zoe Saldana is HAWT!

Goodshape

User45701 wrote: »

glad im not alone.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film

tbh. :P

// also.. I went with three friends.. not Trek fans and I doubt they know much about JJ Abrams. They thought it was great.

Fysh

User45701 wrote: »

glad im not alone.

And for me the worst part is moast of you lot (and the people on the other thread on this in the star trek forum) you lot wont give a **** or even want to watch this movie in 10-15 years. Its hip/in/cool or whatever is the correct term. People being so worked up over what they call a great movie will unfortuantly make them think about a sequil to this film.

ive seen a good few posts wand mentions in conversation - people went to see this because of JJ - then others went to see it because its star trek then others went to see it because mates where going.

Did anyone actually just go to see this by themselves with noone else who is not a star trek or JJ fan - This movie was supposed to be for a new generation of fans but its proffit has been derived from trek fans and JJ fans and not the target audience the film has talked about.

ugh im really not bothered ill explain why i hated it some other time

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're complaining that existing Star Trek fans have gone to see the new Star Trek film and existing Abrams fans have gone to see the new film directed by Abrams - because they're not supposed to be the target audience?

What kind of madman would take as established a franchise as Star Trek, with a director like Abrams, and try to exclusively court people who had no interest in either of those two aspects? They both have built-in audiences, and that's not something any studio with any sense is going to ignore. I don't understand what your complaint is.

I do think you're right about the film's durability, though. For all the talk about how "legendary" everything felt, this will be more important for its effect on the Star Trek franchise than for its actual merits as a film. Doesn't mean it's not fun though - not everything has to be some world-changing, life-shaping experience, you know. Sometimes it's nice to just have a bit of fluff to watch at the cinema.

mewso

Fysh wrote: »

not everything has to be some world-changing, life-shaping experience, you know. Sometimes it's nice to just have a bit of fluff to watch at the cinema.

Absolutely but I would argue as I have on the other thread that it probably shouldn't be called Star Trek under these circumstances.

Otacon

musician wrote: »

Absolutely but I would argue as I have on the other thread that it probably shouldn't be called Star Trek under these circumstances.

Besides Khan, none of the rest of them went beyond fluff anyway!

mewso

Otacon wrote: »

Besides Khan, none of the rest of them went beyond fluff anyway!

More like failed attempts to go beyond fluff.

User45701

Goodshape wrote: »

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film

tbh. :P

// also.. I went with three friends.. not Trek fans and I doubt they know much about JJ Abrams. They thought it was great.

ive seen that vid and i like some of the onion things like "Obama depressed and distant since BSG finale" but that one was a little silly even for my taste - id made very little sense and while i get what they where trying to do it would have been funnier if they had made sense and accurately slagged trek fans

1. "im just really really disappointed that the story line made sense"

- huh? ye sure it made a little sense but really there where far too many things in the movie that made no sense, the plot of a person going back in time and altering events makes sense and has happened in sci allot - but the story in the star trek movie was terrible - i thought it was full of holes as well as loads of things that did not make sense

2. the bit about klingon dialogue made no sense - anything that was ever spoken in klingon without subtitles had no relevance to the story (i think) and if you had 1/2 a brain you could guess what they where saying like when they speak Chinese in firefly

3. "heart stopping chases? - when did that happen?"

4. "State of the art CGI? - Really? well if it there i missed it - shaky cam in space? all the bright lights i didnt see much and found the space battles uninteresting and an eye sore. a 1 on 1 fight in TOS like when they fought the romulan warbird was more fun to watch

5. "Alien Battle scenes" - when did this happen - was this when zach and pine where fighting on the bridge because spock is an alien? - or was there a alien in the bar fight at the start? - wait does Nero running in the direction of the camera and shouting count as a battle scene?

5. "Biggest slap in the face to fans is the studio turned it into something people will actually like"

*Sigh* so who are these people? would these be all the people who have started using the internet over the last 10/11 years? or are they talking about other people? Also "something they will like" - do you see this movie standing the test of time - will you watch it in 20 years? how much re-watchabality does that really have?

6. the big about casting pine as kirk and not shatner does not make much sence and really did anyone compain - i didnt see one post asking why a 73 year old shat was not covered in makup plying a 20 something version of himself - seems like something onion threough in to kill their 2min 30 sec quotoa

7. The hack who created star trek

Hack:
A cheap, mediocre, or second-rate practitioner, especially in the fields of journalism and literature: a charlatan or incompetent

Does anyone agree with the above or is just funny to call someone something their not - i thought that was only really among friends or social groups as calling someone you don't know or don't any relation to is considered offensive and has started many a fight

8.the last 30/40 seconds of onion didn't even relate to the movie - for a take the piss this is one of onions worst

Fysh wrote: »

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're complaining that existing Star Trek fans have gone to see the new Star Trek film and existing Abrams fans have gone to see the new film directed by Abrams - because they're not supposed to be the target audience?

No - im not complaining about star trek fans going to see a star trek film and no - im not complaining about jj fans going to see a film made by him - if ronald d more made a movie i would go to see it in the cinema if i had a interest in the movie or not

Fysh wrote: »

What kind of madman would take as established a franchise as Star Trek, with a director like Abrams, and try to exclusively court people who had no interest in either of those two aspects? They both have built-in audiences, and that's not something any studio with any sense is going to ignore. I don't understand what your complaint is.

Im complaining because this movie is not star trek really - i didn't see anything to do with trek besides some names and spock. I was dreading this movie once i heard it was a re imagining and to me it seems the studio/producers decided money was the main goal instead of a good addition to the franchise.

As i pointed out i do not see people still watching this in 15-20 years - what does it have that could make someone say that - ive seen 3 or 4 posts saying best film of all time and best film since 2000

I wonder will they even still watch it in 20 years

Fysh wrote: »

I do think you're right about the film's durability, though. For all the talk about how "legendary" everything felt, this will be more important for its effect on the Star Trek franchise .

Thats what has me worried ive enjoyed trek for a long long time and yes i have hundreds of episodes to rewatch but id hate to think i only have them to watch for the next 40 years until someone else does a re-imagining of it and actually returns it to star trek because what jj created was not trek. I dont want a sequel to that - a TV series maybe because there is less creative interference and chances are you might get one or two amazing episodes but as long as that is in movie format it wont be even remotely trek.

I really hope they just leave it at that and we dont have to sit though another one of them.

Ill admit it was a interesting idea to remake trek but it didnt work out well
(imagine they had gone terran empire instead - now that would have been interesting)

Fysh wrote: »

Doesn't mean it's not fun though - not everything has to be some world-changing, life-shaping experience, you know. Sometimes it's nice to just have a bit of fluff to watch at the cinema.

Exactly - so why is this film called star trek? it really is a "slap in the face" this would have been a decent scifi film if it was called something else and was not related to star trek.

All they have to do is invent 2 or 3 new species names to replace vulcan/romulan & ewok and there done. Same actors same story just chance the names. Have some creativity and create some interesting new ship designs instead of 1/2 arsed alterations to existing ones.

The use of the name star trek was just to increase the films box office gross.

Anyway out of curiosity what made this better (in all of your opinions) than other trek films?

EDIT:

I've still only seen this the once btw - i will watch it a 2nd time i was a decent mood that day besides for this movie putting me in a **** mood after so i cant think of any reason why i might not have enjoyed it. Still based on so many positive reviews i will give it a 2nd watch but admittedly one of the reasons im watching it again is because it was so terrible i only remember bits and pieces and i want more ammo to use against the film when i do finally get around to posting what i thought of the movie itself. so many positive rants on both forums i really should put some effort into saying why i hated it instead of just voting 2 out of 5 and saying that was ****

hacx

The onion is a website edition of the satirical print newspaper of thesame name. Look at the other videos, norne of them make sense. They were playing on stereotypes of star trek fans and movies and what some fans expected of the movie.

lostexpectation

musician wrote: »

A lot of people complaining about Kirk meeting Spock on the ice planet when for me young Spock ejecting him off the ship was the truly ludicrous part. What happened to the brig? I thoroughly enjoyed the film but there are some serious leaps to get the story where they want it to go.

the sound thing is very noticeable, the new theme was crap hodge-podge of other themes.

time travel is star trek thing as much as jj thing

most of the star trek films started off and screenplays for totally different films which were then star trekised.