Star Trek 2009 - What did you think? **POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT**

User45701

"Did you leave the parking brake on?"

mewso

"You will always be a child of two worlds"

FutureGuy wrote: »

I'm a trek fan for many many years, and I haven't been as excited about Star Trek in years.

But it's not Star Trek. It's an action movie featuring Star Trek characters. I go along with the fact that the franchise was dead so this is what we get and it's entertaining nonsense but I repeat it is not Star Trek.

Conor108

"You will always be a child of two worlds"

Derek Coleman

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

LMAO. That report is comical. Very good.

nyarlothothep

"Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence"

Calling Rodenberry a hack was just plain inaccurate. Also Klingon is a language, how can it be fictional if people speak it?

Derek Coleman

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

Pinch of salt.

Spon Farmer

musician wrote: »

But it's not Star Trek. It's an action movie featuring Star Trek characters. I go along with the fact that the franchise was dead so this is what we get and it's entertaining nonsense but I repeat it is not Star Trek.

I'm pretty sure it is STAR TREK. the chick who sold me the ticket said it was. and the name came up at the start.

if you don't like, then go make your own TREK movie.

be creative, not jealous.

Spon Farmer

Calibos wrote: »

I enjoyed it but......

The Ewok/JarJar?? WTF?

Chekov and "Wulcan" Whats so ironic about this is that did I not read that the actor who plays Chekov actually is Russian. Its like an Irish actor playing an Irish character in a movie and told not to use his real irish accent but to use the American stereotyped Irish accent like Tom Cruise in Far and Away....or Michael Flatley, because thats what Anericans expect to hear?

The flashing in shots in scenes with sunshine. I thought that was fault of a bad Cam torrent I downloaded (Don't worry, I'll pay my fair share for the Bluray when it comes out.

As for the science. Some of it was bugging me until I heard about the prequel comic. I haven't read it but read a bit of a synopsis. this clarified a few things for me. Ah right, its not a normal supernova, its effects are amplified by an orbiting planet with red matter ore. The refined ore also being a way to suck up the supernova. So thats why its a danger to the galaxy. So thats why its a danger to Romulus a few star systems away. So thats why the Romulan government didn't believe Spock. ie. Red ore my arse Vulcan. Supernovas go off all the time. Its no danger to us.

Heres the thing though. While the comic clarified the science, in the same stroke it messed up Nero's motivations. Before I read the explanations in the comic synopsis I could accept Nero as just another Romulan renegade that hates Vulcans and wants to kill Spock and destroy the planet Vulcan. Taking the comic into account it makes no sense.

Romulan government doesn't believe Spock and offer no help or prepare for evacuation. Nero the miner with his big mining ship does believe Spock and offers his services. He mines the red or for spock. Spock heads off to Vulcan to have the ore refined. Vulcan highcommand decides not to give the refined red matter back to Spock in case it was used as a weapon. Spock steals some and tries to get back with it in time but is to late.

Someone tell me why Nero hates Spock so much and the Federation? They did all they could to help. If anyone is to blame for the death of his family its the Romulan government for doing nothing and the Vulcan high command. WHy does Nero hate Spock....with a Vengance??

are you sure you liked it?

mewso

"You will always be a child of two worlds"

Spon Farmer wrote: »

be creative, not jealous.

make a point not a jab

Spon Farmer

Spon Farmer wrote: »

if you don't like, then go make your own TREK movie.

be creative, not jealous.

that was my point.

robby^5

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

What exactly gives you the right to say what is and isn't Star Trek?

It's this ridiculous mentality that killed the franchise in the first place, the idea that Star Trek has to follow some invisible set of guidelines, that each new Trek has to follow continuity precisely and adhere to 40+ years of canon. Heaven forbid if they try to do something different!

The only noticeable difference with this film from any other Star Trek film is the absence of the insufferably cerebral and moralistic elements of the series. That's not to say I don't like these elements, but it's been done to death and movie-goers aren't interested in it any more.

For me this film succeeded on all counts. It wasn't mind numbingly cerebral, but it wasn't entirely dumbed down either. There were still concepts that the average non-trekkie would have to wrap their head around such as temporal mechanics. The story ultimately succeeded in that it was told in a very accessible way, everybody could understand it.

The story grabs you by the balls and takes you along for the ride, this fast pacing is leading some people to label it an action movie (as if Star Trek hasn't had fist fights, phaser shootouts and space battles before). No hamfisted morality tales, no preaching just an enjoyable blockbuster that takes the best of Trek and offers it up in a new shiny package for a new generation of fans.

Lets not forget that this film had a lot of ground to cover, it had the retcon the entire star trek universe and re-introduce us to to the cast of characters as well as play out it's own internal story and it did all of that remarkably well in 2 hours. J.J. Abrams isn't one for staying with the status quo, I'm sure he'll find a way to shake things up even further in the sequel, he might even find a few minutes for the new crew to sit down at a nice long table and debate the finer points of *insert pseudo science here*

User45701

"Did you leave the parking brake on?"

Spon Farmer wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it is STAR TREK. the chick who sold me the ticket said it was. and the name came up at the start.

if you don't like, then go make your own TREK movie.

be creative, not jealous.

make my own star trek movie? What age are you?

Dont you need actors and licence fees and a whole host other things including money to make a star trek movie?

Cactus Col

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

User45701 wrote: »

make my own star trek movie? What age are you?

Dont you need actors and licence fees and a whole host other things including money to make a star trek movie?

Hasn't stopped these lads :http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/

Sonic_exyouth

"You will always be a child of two worlds"

Ronny Mitchell wrote: »

The biggest wtf bit of the new film was

Spock and Uhura. I'm gonna have to rewatch some classic trek to see where that came from.

Overall, I thought it was brilliant, at one point

(when Vulcan had been destroyed), I thought we were gonna see a First Contact type story with them going back to prevent it happening, but thankfully they steered clear of it, making the story much better in the end.

Still on a buzz from it, gonna go again on Sunday I reckon. Second viewing might bring more clarity.

Oh, and I hated that little furry ewok thingy Scotty was mates with.

I really like the Keenser guy!

And, as I recall (probably badly) in Plato's Stepchildren

Spock was intensenly jealous of Kirk gettin' it on with Uhura. This never had a chance (til now) of being explained

Random

Lads, can you stop using spoiler tags in a thread with a spoiler warning on it? It makes it harder to follow the thread via email updates of new posts as all i see is "spoiler removed" everywhere.

Is it just me?

Thanks

thelordofcheese

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

robby^5 wrote: »

What exactly gives you the right to say what is and isn't Star Trek?

I'm pretty sure 'real trek' can be defined as the ratio of technobabble to frothing nerdrage.

For it to be counted as 'real trek' you need a ratio of at least 6:1

ztoical

hated it. Nearly walked out when the product placement started. Never felt like star trek for me. Can see its appeal to a general audience but too many FX's and flash and not substance for me to watch it again.

ztoical

FutureGuy wrote: »

I always thought that the litmus test for this film was not the opinion of the die hard (closet or otherwise) Trek fans, but the opinion of the general person on the street. I have spoken to many many non-trek fans who have seen the film and I have heard nothing but glowing reviews.

If the film annoys a few existing fans in order to bring in a completely new fanbase, critical to the survival of the franchise, then I'll gladly take it.

General cinema goers don't turn into die hard fans thats why they are general cinema goers. When you've already got a franchise with a huge fan following why they hell would you alienate them in the hopes that you might be able to gather a new fan base? Lots of films have been able to please both die hard fans and the general cinema audience without putting one group over the other. The first two x-men films had enough nerd fanboy moments to keep me happy while still keeping the films accessable for people who don't read comic books. General cinema goers will see a film enjoy and maybe rec it to friends. Fans will see it several times, buy the DVD and every bit of tie in crap you can make.

I was looking forward to this film as I thought it would have high production values, a new take on the material but have those little things, maybe just in the background in a blink and you'll miss it moment, that I could all nerdy about and go woohoo I know what that is referencing. Instead I got Starship Troopers with product placement and Eric Bana playing an english football hooligan.

But lets say you get a new fan base from this, you've created fans for this version of star trek, these aren't people who are going to go out and get all the older trek stuff as it doesn't fit with this version so unless they've got a new series ready to roll or the next film comes out ASAP there's nothing to really feed these fans and you've alienated the old fans.

Spon Farmer

maybe you feel alienated, but many others do not.

there hasn't been a proper TREK movie since ST6.

TNG films looked like TV movies and had stupid stories.

Spon Farmer

User45701 wrote: »

make my own star trek movie? What age are you?

Dont you need actors and licence fees and a whole host other things including money to make a star trek movie?

so you mean you can't do it?

:rolleyes:

User45701

"Did you leave the parking brake on?"

if somewhere where to supply me with funding yes i could - anyone could with funding and permission from studio.

Spon Farmer

User45701 wrote: »

if somewhere where to supply me with funding yes i could - anyone could with funding and permission from studio.

and I suppose you believe you could do better than JJ Abrams?

ztoical

Spon Farmer wrote: »

maybe you feel alienated, but many others do not.

I'm sure there are many who loved it and many who felt blah and many who hated, just like every film that comes out, I was simple stating my opinion based on decades of watching every version of Trek and having just watched this film. I disliked the film on two levels - it didn't feel like the star trek universe to me, I wouldn't watch it again nor can I see myself buying the DVD or any other related tie ins. Hopefully for the film makers their gamble of limiting the techno babble and relying so heavily on FX's will pay off from them and they'll get their new fan base.

Secondly the product placement - the film could have been the greatest Trek film of all time and I would hate it purely for this reason. There was no need for it, this wasn't a Michael Bay film.

User45701

"Did you leave the parking brake on?"

Spon Farmer wrote: »

and I suppose you believe you could do better than JJ Abrams?

ye of coarse - would that movie really be that hard to top? - ive seen many a B movie that kept me more interested than jj trek

mewso

"You will always be a child of two worlds"

Spon Farmer wrote: »

that was my point.

Your point? Is this a discussion about the movie or isn't it? I give an opinion and you go all whiny and say "bleh make your own movie if you don't like it". Is that how you discuss things?

I liked the bleedin thing. I thought it was good throwaway nonsense. I had some issues with the idea that it was a Star Trek themed movie. It wasn't Star Trek themed at all, it was an action movie.

And in response I get your well considered reply. Maybe we should all trawl the film forums and anyone who criticises a movie gets the "make it yourself if you don't like it" bleat.

Say what you thought was good about it. Say I'm wrong, point to examples of where it did live up to the spirit of Star Trek. In essence try discussing the movie in a discussion forum without taking pot shots at someone for a comment they make.

nyarlothothep

"Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence"

NERD FIGHT!!!!

it is possible to make a good fan fic production. I saw fx in one which was almost film standard. Incredible stuff, although the bridge was made up of couches and was clearly a sitting room. Still its doable. I'd actually like to see a serious fan fic production which isn't based on old trek which people would tune into on youtube.

I don't see problem with trek doing action. If it were 1987 you could argue TNG isn't real trek because it doesn't have the old crew and fist fights in some sand. You could say Star Trek IV isn't real trek because it involves a frankly ridiculous plot about saving Whales with a cheesy 80s romance subplot, although without this film we probably wouldn't have TNG or DS9, you could say DS9 isn't real trek because it was too dark. Like any good franchise trek evolves, this is the next phase in its evolution.

User45701

"Did you leave the parking brake on?"

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Like any good franchise trek evolves, this is the next phase in its evolution.

fair point but i dont want to see this happen its not the direction i want it to take. i hope i see what i consider to be star trek again in the future.

If they make another jj trek i wont go see it in the cinema or contributing to DVD sales so that would be an old rent the dvd me thinks just so i can see it on the off chance its a good movie

ztoical

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Like any good franchise trek evolves, this is the next phase in its evolution.

yes the franchise should evolve but there should always be a central core to the whole franchise that holds it all together otherwise why not just make a whole new franchise. While I found TNG to be different from TOS, which is different from DS9 etc etc there was a feel to all of them that felt that they took place in the one universe, I personally didn't feel that with this film. It sort of kinda maybe felt like it but never quite, I don't mind action but there is action and there is an over reliance on flashy FX's in replace of plot. And I don't mind a new take on the material, in fact I was looking forward to it but I felt like it had lost the star trek feel for no real gain.

nyarlothothep

"Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence"

I don't want to see it go down the mindless action blockbuster route either but for this film as with IV I think they had to be populist to keep the franchise alive. Abrams introduced new elements such as "fun," "fresh" and "non leaden" in the respect that he removed their opposites which served to almost destroy the franchise in the first place. For the next film I want depth and trek philosophy but also want these new elements.

User45701

"Did you leave the parking brake on?"

nyarlothothep wrote: »

For the next film I want depth and trek philosophy but also want these new elements.

an interesting premise - if it happens great - once they lose the shaky cam for space battle scenes and have some decent bridge communication between the officers during a battle = re: speed, direction manoeuvring, specific targeting of weapons (eg. Shinzon targeting shielding around deck 29 so they could beam a assault team aboard) just needs more trek to have the name star trek