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

thelordofcheese

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

User45701 wrote: »

ye of coarse - would that movie really be that hard to top?

Yes it would. You couldn't do it. It's probably one of the best star trek films ever made.

User45701

"Did you leave the parking brake on?"

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Yes it would. You couldn't do it. It's probably one of the best star trek films ever made.

guess thats just a difference of opinion - this was the worst of the 11 movies

cyrusdvirus

ztoical wrote: »

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.

As it takes place along a different time line then it's arguably a different universe.

I feel sorry for those of you who are annoyed by product placement (what, 5 whole seconds of NOKIA appearing on the screen???) and those who feel that this film has betrayed the Essesence of Trek, when to me it has re invigorated the whole thing.

ztoical

gatecrash wrote: »

As it takes place along a different time line then it's arguably a different universe.

But it still claims to be Star Trek so it should still feel like Star Trek even at a very basic level - in this case it should feel even more like Star Trek as they haven't bother to create new characters, they are basing the whole thing on the original series.

gatecrash wrote: »

I feel sorry for those of you who are annoyed by product placement (what, 5 whole seconds of NOKIA appearing on the screen???) and those who feel that this film has betrayed the Essesence of Trek, when to me it has re invigorated the whole thing.

You feel sorry? Odd choice of words. I don't feel sorry for people who enjoyed the film, they are entitled to their opinion just like I am to mine. You enjoyed it good for you.

Pointless product placement may not annoy you and had this been a Michael Bay film it wouldn't have annoyed me but to see it show up in a Trek film annoyed me. It took away from one of the things that I always liked about Star Trek - that it was set in this future were people didn't care about money and big ass companies didn't control the world like they do now. That was the essesence of star trek for me, it may not be what others enjoyed about the series but it was a main element that drew me to the show and kept me watching for years. By having the product placement no matter how short and quick it was took away from what I found to be important element of star trek and as such I didn't enjoy the film, wouldn't sit through it again and most likely won't rush out to see any follow ups.

cyrusdvirus

But it still claims to be Star Trek so it should still feel like Star Trek even at a very basic level - in this case it should feel even more like Star Trek as they haven't bother to create new characters, they are basing the whole thing on the original series

That's the entire point.......... it's NOT based on the original series. It's using the same characters but the events in this film

Vulcans destruction

don't come up anywhere in TOS.

I know i'm probably going over stuff you are already well aware of, but it bears repeating. The Time Line as we knew it was ENT>TOS>Movies>TNG/DS9/VOY

Now the time line as we know it is ENT> STXI

You feel sorry? Odd choice of words.

Fair point, apologies if i offended.



As for Nokia, well it just said to me that somethings that we can relate to today still survive to massive star ships being built

nyarlothothep

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

ztoical wrote: »

But it still claims to be Star Trek so it should still feel like Star Trek even at a very basic level - in this case it should feel even more like Star Trek as they haven't bother to create new characters, they are basing the whole thing on the original series.



You feel sorry? Odd choice of words. I don't feel sorry for people who enjoyed the film, they are entitled to their opinion just like I am to mine. You enjoyed it good for you.

Pointless product placement may not annoy you and had this been a Michael Bay film it wouldn't have annoyed me but to see it show up in a Trek film annoyed me. It took away from one of the things that I always liked about Star Trek - that it was set in this future were people didn't care about money and big ass companies didn't control the world like they do now. That was the essesence of star trek for me, it may not be what others enjoyed about the series but it was a main element that drew me to the show and kept me watching for years. By having the product placement no matter how short and quick it was took away from what I found to be important element of star trek and as such I didn't enjoy the film, wouldn't sit through it again and most likely won't rush out to see any follow ups.

Thats a good point, though there was product placement in the other films as someone mentioned, however the nokia instance was gratuitous. The best way to rationalize it away is that it was an old car with old tech, nokia probably doesn't exist anymore but the technology does.

Goodshape

"You will always be a child of two worlds"

nyarlothothep wrote: »

old car with old tech

That's what I thought. Old car, old tech. Brought the film closer to the real world for me.

Though on top of that, I don't really see why products have to vanish simply because the culture has moved on from capitalism. An old Nokia phone in an old Ford car.... some Budweiser Classics because I like the taste... I'm never thrilled about product placement but I don't think it detracted from the "Star Trek Universe" feel to the film.

Derek Coleman

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

I find myself agreeing with both sides of the arguement of whether you enjoyed the movie, and why.

I enjoyed it. People say its not a Star Trek movie, its an action movie..... but surely its both. It'll end up beside previous movies in dvd stores, un the Sci-Fi section.

Branoic

"You will always be a child of two worlds"

Long long time Star Trek fan, and thought the film was great. Loved the alternate timeline take, and I don't understand people complaining on forums that this somehow invalidates all the series they love and cherish, like they've somehow been conned out of all the money they spent on their DVD collections.

Also, regarding product placement - didn't bother me in the slightest. Just because Star Trek takes place in a future without greed and capitalism, doesn't mean there are no brands. What do people do when they want a drink? "Hi, I'd like one Generic Beer Flavour #2345, and two Vodka flavour #17463 for my friends"?

Only two things I didn't like in the movie:
Chekov - way over the top
Bones - I'm really surpised by all the positive comments Urban is getting for this. With all the other characters, I watched the movie believing they were the characters. With McCoy, I was watching an actor doing an impersonation of a charicature of McCoy.

Random

Please stop using spoiler tags in a thread that's marked spoiler

As for the product placement .. I loved the film but that Nokia scene was just out of place. It didn't blend in. It was Nokia product placement done solely to put a Nokia in there - this is not good IMO and detracts from the film / scene.

ztoical

Branoic wrote: »

I don't understand people complaining on forums that this somehow invalidates all the series they love and cherish, like they've somehow been conned out of all the money they spent on their DVD collections.

Haven't heard anyone making that particular comment but I certainly wouldn't make it. No matter how good or bad the film turned out it wouldn't run my enjoyment of the earlier films/shows. Some people said the same thing about Watchman but again the film was never going to change my enjoyment of the graphic novel.

Branoic wrote: »

Also, regarding product placement - didn't bother me in the slightest. Just because Star Trek takes place in a future without greed and capitalism, doesn't mean there are no brands. What do people do when they want a drink? "Hi, I'd like one Generic Beer Flavour #2345, and two Vodka flavour #17463 for my friends"?

Why not? they've managed to do it till now. My issue with the branding is that it doesn't fit with the established history. Even taking in the alternative universe, we establish that this alte universe happened when the Romulan ship appeared so all canon up to that point stays the same - so all of enterprise and more importantly First Contact is fact in this version. Star Trek's version of earth history has a number of wars and ****ty things happen and Earth was in a pretty **** condition which are changed with the first meeting with the Vulcans but just wandering into total nerd regions there. I understand the product placement didn't bug alot of people, they either don't care about or can justify it as being old tech in the car or whatever, it just read too much like "Nokia paid money for this to be here so pay attention and buy the limited edition star trek phone they are bringing out" for me. But to each his own I think we'll just have to be the moto from here on in.

Derek Coleman

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

If Starfleet were using Nokia com badges then I would have been :mad:.

"Kirk to Enterprise."
*engaged tone*
"The ship you are trying to connect to does not have its hailing frequencies open."

Spon Farmer

PRODUCT PLACEMENT: I don’t understand why that upsets people.

In the Trekverse, mankind would still need those the big companies to help develop their technology and give employment to people who are not in Starfleet. Money is still used in the Kirk era, remember bones was hiring the pilot with money in ST3 and in DS9 Quark wasn’t giving out free booze.
In the real world, star trek makes a huge money in merchandising. Star Trek is owned by one of those big ass companies. Your using a phone or computer and keeping those big ass companies in power. And in regards to people not caring about money, tell that to brent spiner and Patrick stewart (I for one say fair play, but are they not the opposite of their characters)

If something like this can take away your enjoyment, that’s to bad

VFX OVER PLOT: where did this happen? the plot was quite easy to follow

DEPTH AND PHILOSOPHY: TNG jettisoned its "morality play" ideals when it hit the big screen. New Trek very much had the feel of the original series and movies

Spon Farmer

BTW, can anyone recall what name Young Kirk called the kid he passed when he stole his stepfather's car?

I know the actor was originally listed as playing George Samual Kirk and I'm positive Young Kirk calls him "Georgie", but others are telling me they heard "Johnny" and imdb backs that up. It may be a re-dub but he was definitely meant to be Kirk's older brother.

Spon Farmer

ztoical wrote: »

I disliked the film on two levels - it didn't feel like the star trek universe to me ....

how so?

Spon Farmer

musician wrote: »

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.

Who got whiny? you complain it was action orientated nonsense and not true Trek – I challenged you do better. What is true Trek?

What did I love about this movie

the visual effects, the score, the sound, how the actors brought the old [and best] enterprise crew back to life without resorting to impersontions, the action. The humour was straight out of TOS, the make up [actual aliens], a few hot chicks. Spock battering kirk again, karl urban. Even simon pegg was good

tell me what was not Star Trek about this movie.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

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.

yes it possible to make fan fic with a little creativity and imagination.

thelordofcheese

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

Goodshape wrote: »

That's what I thought. Old car, old tech. Brought the film closer to the real world for me.

Though on top of that, I don't really see why products have to vanish simply because the culture has moved on from capitalism. An old Nokia phone in an old Ford car.... some Budweiser Classics because I like the taste... I'm never thrilled about product placement but I don't think it detracted from the "Star Trek Universe" feel to the film.

I liked that after uhura asked for two Budweiser Classics she listed about four other made up trek drinks, and then a slusho.

Nice little nod to cloverfield.

Cookie_Monster

@ User45701

Did you go into your list of why you didn't like the film yet

I'd be interested to know...

dyl10

Great movie, the inclusion of 'Sabotage' by the Beastie Boys was a great way to set the role of Kirk.

Uhura was a babe, CGI was some of the best I've seen and the film itself was about the perfect length. I wasn't bored at any point throughout.

My only disappointment is that this movie really shows up for me, how good the newer Star Wars movies could have been, if they'd been done differently.

Johnny Storm

"You will always be a child of two worlds"

Spon Farmer wrote: »

BTW, can anyone recall what name Young Kirk called the kid he passed when he stole his stepfather's car?

I know the actor was originally listed as playing George Samual Kirk and I'm positive Young Kirk calls him "Georgie", but others are telling me they heard "Johnny" and imdb backs that up. It may be a re-dub but he was definitely meant to be Kirk's older brother.

Well, George makes sense. Otherwise what would the point of "Johnny" being in the movie be?

chopperbyrne

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

Awesome in film form.

ztoical

Spon Farmer wrote: »

how so?

just didn't. Watching it I felt like I was watching Starship Troopers and it wasn't because of the action scenes, I don't mind action or big space battles [though the heavy use of FX's did start to ware thin] but the design feel of everything just wasn't quite right and neither was the makeup fx's. And the lack of techno babel, while fine people can argue it made it easier for a general audience, I missed as it was something that Star Trek did that other Sci Fi didn't. What I like about Trek is that the science is thought out and based on fact. I love Star Wars as well but for different reasons and in the Star Wars universe you don't care why things work the way they do they just work.

chopperbyrne

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

Some people seem to be complaining about this film being a retcon.

The film quite clearly establishes that it's an alternate reality on a divergent timeline and not a retcon.

It doesn't erase all Trek that has already been made, it's an offshoot from the established Trek universe.

Also, to settle an argument, did Scotty's mate just have large black eyes or was there anything else different about them?

User45701

"Did you leave the parking brake on?"

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

@ User45701

Did you go into your list of why you didn't like the film yet

I'd be interested to know...

its coming i haven't found the will to watch the movie again yet

Spon Farmer

ztoical wrote: »

just didn't. Watching it I felt like I was watching Starship Troopers and it wasn't because of the action scenes, I don't mind action or big space battles B]though the heavy use of FX's did start to ware thin[/B but the design feel of everything just wasn't quite right and neither was the makeup fx's. And the lack of techno babel, while fine people can argue it made it easier for a general audience, I missed as it was something that Star Trek did that other Sci Fi didn't. What I like about Trek is that the science is thought out and based on fact. I love Star Wars as well but for different reasons and in the Star Wars universe you don't care why things work the way they do they just work.

nothing in this movie was anything like STARSHIP TROOPERS.
HEAVY USE OF FXS - it was kind of necessary considering it's about aliens and spaceships
THE DESIGN - what did you not like exactly?
MAKE UP FXS - you mean they actually had people made up to look something other than human? perhaps you didn't like the tattoo'd Romulans. I believe that was they're "gang colours", the brief glimpse of the Romulan leaders in Spock's meld were regular looking Romulans, sans the silly TNG forehead.
What I like about Trek is that the science is thought out and based on fact.- please explain this further

Spon Farmer

User45701 wrote: »

its coming i haven't found the will to watch the movie again yet

either you know or you don't?:rolleyes:

Johnny Storm wrote: »

Well, George makes sense. Otherwise what would the point of "Johnny" being in the movie be?

alot of Americans I chatted to on forums are convinced it's "Johnny".
the actor was definitley cast as "George Jnr." and I'd bet money that I heard "Georgie", but his others scenes and those of Winona Kirk were cut. so it could be re-dudded from "Georgie" to "Johnny" to prevent American audiences getting confused and distracted by another "George" so soon in the movie (they test these things, it happens:rolleyes:). Perhaps JJ left the character as Kirk's brother for European audiences.

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Some people seem to be complaining about this film being a retcon.

The film quite clearly establishes that it's an alternate reality on a divergent timeline and not a retcon.

It doesn't erase all Trek that has already been made, it's an offshoot from the established Trek universe.

Also, to settle an argument, did Scotty's mate just have large black eyes or was there anything else different about them?

Dude, people won't listen. it's a bizarre snobbery amongst "fans" worldwide. they don't want "outsiders" in their elite society. the more sane haters just look down on pre-TNG Trek. I'm not making that up.

I'm certain that Keenser's eye sockets were black holes with his actual eyes being green "stalks". I thought he was great. I love that he upset people.

BTW, a related question. I assumed that Scotty's shuttle craft was in pursuit of the Enterprise when he and Kirk beamed aboard? My girlfriend says they were still on Delta Vega. Which is right?

Johnny Storm

"You will always be a child of two worlds"

Spon Farmer wrote: »

..
.alot of Americans I chatted to on forums are convinced it's "Johnny".
the actor was definitley cast as "George Jnr." and I'd bet money that I heard "Georgie", but his others scenes and those of Winona Kirk were cut. so it could be re-dudded from "Georgie" to "Johnny" to prevent American audiences getting confused and distracted by another "George" so soon in the movie (they test these things, it happens:rolleyes:). Perhaps JJ left the character as Kirk's brother for European audiences.

Well, the kid Kirk actor appeared to pronounce his own name as "James Siberious Kirk" so I wouldn't put too much faith in his accurate pronounciation one way or the other.

Memnoch

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

I enjoyed it, it was a good popcorn flick, but it was also instantly forgettable and it's actually starting to drive me mental how so many people seem to think it's the 'best movie evah...'

My reasons...

A lot of these flaws are covered by the breathtaking pace of the movie.

Space battles - okay, but not great, average. Mostly consist of big evil romulan ship killing federation ships that don't stand a chance, except at the end where some how ONE of those single ships manages to target and destroy the entire compliment of the romulan's torpedo's. Sorry, but the brief space battle at the end of serenity with the reavers vs the alliance was better than all the space battle's in trek.

Normal fights - CRAP. Watching it the first time the fight on the rig was OK, but really it's average, cliched, repetitive & without any originality. Spock vs kirk, again, nothing different or surprising, and so on.

Story line - full of plot holes and convenience, how Kirk HAPPENS to get marooned by young Spock on the ONE planet where Old spock was also marooned, and not just the same planet, but HAPPENS to get chased by a monster into the same frigging cave. Or How Spock from future needs a pea-sized globule of red matter to create a singularity but is carrying enough to destroy an entire galaxy of planets, so that when Nero captures him he has enough to destroy the entire federation. Lots of other stuff like this.

Characters had some nice touches, and were fine for the most part.

Acting was good too.

But nothing stand-out overall.

ztoical

Spon Farmer wrote: »

nothing in this movie was anything like STARSHIP TROOPERS.

That is a matter of opinion. My first thoughts upon leaving the cinema was "that felt more like a Starship troopers film then a Trek film" My thoughts, my opinion, I didn't state a fact I stated an opinion.

Spon Farmer wrote: »

HEAVY USE OF FXS - it was kind of necessary considering it's about aliens and spaceships

Star trek as always been about aliens and spaceships but has never relied so heavily on fx's. This is my opinion based on someone who works in film and I disliked the over use of fx's at a loss of good camera work and film making. Again this is my opinion, not forced upon anyone one else.

Spon Farmer wrote: »

MAKE UP FXS - you mean they actually had people made up to look something other than human? perhaps you didn't like the tattoo'd Romulans. I believe that was they're "gang colours", the brief glimpse of the Romulan leaders in Spock's meld were regular looking Romulans, sans the silly TNG forehead.

No I thought the make fx's looked badly done again my opinion. The original series can get away with cheap plastic glued to people, but a film with such a big budget should have employed better make up artists, the make up looked badly applied in several scenes.

Spon Farmer wrote: »

What I like about Trek is that the science is thought out and based on fact.- please explain this further

It's common knowledge that through out it's run the Star Trek franchise has hired actually scientists to consult on the scripts and to help with what they refer to as the technobabel - they try as much as they can to base any scientific talk made in the series on actual scientific theories when they can. The writers of this film have stated they toned down the technobabel to make the film appeal to a general audience and thats fine, that was a choice made in the aim of bringing in a larger audience. I missed the technobabel, it was something I enjoyed that was different from other sci-fi. Again this is my opinion, it does not take away from wither someone else enjoyed or didn't enjoy the film. People will love, hate or not care about the film for various reasons.

nyarlothothep

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

ztoical wrote: »

That is a matter of opinion. My first thoughts upon leaving the cinema was "that felt more like a Starship troopers film then a Trek film" My thoughts, my opinion, I didn't state a fact I stated an opinion.



Star trek as always been about aliens and spaceships but has never relied so heavily on fx's. This is my opinion based on someone who works in film and I disliked the over use of fx's at a loss of good camera work and film making. Again this is my opinion, not forced upon anyone one else.




No I thought the make fx's looked badly done again my opinion. The original series can get away with cheap plastic glued to people, but a film with such a big budget should have employed better make up artists, the make up looked badly applied in several scenes.



It's common knowledge that through out it's run the Star Trek franchise has hired actually scientists to consult on the scripts and to help with what they refer to as the technobabel - they try as much as they can to base any scientific talk made in the series on actual scientific theories when they can. The writers of this film have stated they toned down the technobabel to make the film appeal to a general audience and thats fine, that was a choice made in the aim of bringing in a larger audience. I missed the technobabel, it was something I enjoyed that was different from other sci-fi. Again this is my opinion, it does not take away from wither someone else enjoyed or didn't enjoy the film. People will love, hate or not care about the film for various reasons.

They must have some very odd scientists working for them. Watch scifi debris' reviews of Voy episodes. He tears the scientific arguments apart. For example in Threshold, why would Janeway and Paris evolve into lizards if evolution is a reaction to changes in environment? Secondly lizards?! With mammary glands??!!! It makes so little sense that it hurts.