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

Goodshape

"You will always be a child of two worlds"

Threshold is well known to be one of the worst episodes of anything ever

But I'd agree that Star Trek 'science' didn't make much sense most of the time. Occasionally it did, and that was great, but really... most of the time, it didn't.


And Starship Troopers? Awesome film. Can't really see the comparison though, aside from the obvious (they're both about starships).

robby^5

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

Casper Van Dien to play Khan ftw.

Spon Farmer

ztoical wrote: »

"that felt more like a Starship troopers film then a Trek film"

don't see it, but then again for decades people have been comparing STAR TREK with STAR WARS. those two couldn't be anymore different so at least your the first to bring TROOPERS into it. maybe now Johnny Rico will get some recognition. fair play.

ztoical wrote: »

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.

I disagree that the FXs "took over" and there was some damn nice camera work. if we're comparing this film to previous TREK endeavours, the only good camera work was on the KIRK era series and movies. The camera work on the TNG era series and movies consisted turning them on and off and little else. Frakes broke his heart gertting Berman to let him try anything new in FIRST CONTACT. Colm Meaney has commented more than once on this and as has James Cromwell. did you say you are in the film business or was it someone you know? I'm just wondering because I'd like to discuss you views further.

ztoical wrote: »

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.

that might be you opinion, but again I see no facts to back it up. perhaps you could point to a few examples.

ztoical wrote: »

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.

Firstly, the "tecnobabble" was never a part of the original series so therefore the writers (one of whom is a major TNG fan as well as the original) were perfectly justified in abandoning it. Abrams and company were offered the franchise. they chose the Kirk era.
Secondly, I was an admirer of the "technobabble" and the "universe" the behind the scenes people created for TNG and the rest. it helped make it feel "real" when you were watching it. a comparison could be made with MIDDLE-EARTH. Tolkien put a lot of effort into creating a fantasy world that could at times feel real because of the pseudo-history and culture he gave it. This was the same notion the creators of TNG had when the brought in these scientist with (as you sais yourself) "actual scientific theories", i.e. guesswork, hunch, idea, supposition - the opposite of fact or proof. The scientist helped make TREKVERSE science sound believable, even in TNG they'd let it slip in exchange for telling a good story.
One criticism of the movie was based solely on the events surrounding the supernova, because a supernova cannot travel that fast, engulf the galaxy, etc. My response to such criticism is (a) no scientist can truthfully say the writers are wrong and (b) Spock says it can, I believe him.

Spon Farmer

Memnoch wrote: »

.... it's actually starting to drive me mental how so many people seem to think it's the 'best movie evah...'

that kind of grammer annoys me also.:D

tj-music.com

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

Saw the new movie yesterday and was delighted with it. I have been a fan of Star Trek since childhood (am 42 now) and have my favourites and, as a trekkie, can be unforgiving BUT the film was great from start to finish. Karl Urban as McCoy was amazing and although the new Kirk was a bit over the top at times they all carried the movie well.

It didn't disappoint.

So, Star Trek, continue to live long and prosper

InisMor

tj-music.com wrote: »

Saw the new movie yesterday and was delighted with it. I have been a fan of Star Trek since childhood (am 42 now) and have my favourites and, as a trekkie, can be unforgiving BUT the film was great from start to finish. Karl Urban as McCoy was amazing and although the new Kirk was a bit over the top at times they all carried the movie well.

It didn't disappoint.

So, Star Trek, continue to live long and prosper

yes Urban was great. stole the show without even trying.
I hope the deleted scenes are incorporated into the DVD version.

ztoical

Spon Farmer wrote: »

I disagree that the FXs "took over" and there was some damn nice camera work. if we're comparing this film to previous TREK endeavours, the only good camera work was on the KIRK era series and movies. The camera work on the TNG era series and movies consisted turning them on and off and little else. Frakes broke his heart gertting Berman to let him try anything new in FIRST CONTACT. Colm Meaney has commented more than once on this and as has James Cromwell. did you say you are in the film business or was it someone you know? I'm just wondering because I'd like to discuss you views further.

From a film point of view I wasn't judging the camera work on earlier trek films but on Abrams other films and I was surprised someone who has shown such an understanding of good camera work and with a rep for detail work in his shooting style would rely so much on FX's. I do work in film, mainly animation and the last feature film I worked on I did most of the camera rough composites so thats was 12+ months working just on camera work, my brother, [who also said the film felt like Starshipp Troppers ] works as a camera operator so there tends to be alot of camera talk in our house. Both myself and my brother really enjoyed the camera work in Cloverfield, there was alot of really sophisticated camera work in that film that most people didn't even notice and most of it they didn't need to worry about as alot people wouldn't notice [or care] and they could have easily hid behind the shaky cam effect but alot of the shots in the film are beautiful done to really frame and block everything while still looking like it's being shot on a camcorder. LOST also has some interesting camera work [for a tv show], even going back to Abrams earlier tv work on Alias he has shown he can really shoot action plus the cinematographer, Daniel Mindel, has a really solid CV behind him so I would have expected a high standard from the cinematography. You can have a high number of FX's and still have good cinematography but I'm finding it really hard to think of any scenes that were anyway interesting. All the jumping around in the Romulan ship towards the end springs to mind as being very weak.

Again this is very much personal opinion as it's something I have an interest in, most people hate cloverfield for the very reasons that I really like it.

Spon Farmer wrote: »

that might be you opinion, but again I see no facts to back it up. perhaps you could point to a few examples.

I went to look up who the make-up artist was out of interest and found that alot of the really bad make up wasn't done as a make up effect but was done digitally. The one that really annoyed me was Eric Bana's teeth, turns out they did the teeth digital, would love to know why as it seems something very silly to spend so much time doing digital, if you consider it's 24 frames per second and how many times did we have a close up of Bana? That's alot of work for something that didn't need to be done that way. In several cases they had to digitally replace his whole mouth and animate it. Maybe Bana couldn't speak clearly with fake teeth or he had a reaction to the make up but it still seems an odd choice.

edit: just to add I did look up the head of the make up department and it was someone who doesn't have a background in sci-fi and whose last few films include PS I love you and the nanny dairies. There are a couple of make-up artists who had worked on earlier trek shows and it's odd they didn't have one of them as a the department head but with studio politics you never know what the story is with these things.

tba

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

I like this thread, it's exciting!

User45701

"Did you leave the parking brake on?"

tba wrote: »

I like this thread, it's exciting!

didnt like that line in the movie but that quote made me smile - i dont know what that means

EDIT: Came accross this

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892

Spon Farmer

ztoical

I'm a Cloverfield fan myself, but JJ was not the director on that one. As I understand it shooting from the POV of a camcorder was his idea, but that's where it ended. the director and his team were responsible for all the "fancy" stuff.
Do I understand correctly - you don't think it was "bad" camera so much as you are disappointed they didn't try something "new and unusual"?

you said the "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." - In your last post, said "found that alot of the really bad make up wasn't done as a make up effect but was done digitally". you said Bana's teeth annoyed you yet you clearly thought the teeth were prostethic. you don't have to be a movie expert to tell the difference between shoddy CGI and "badly applied make up". bad VFX in no way ressembles bad make up.

however, I'm more interested in your opinion that it "didn't feel like star trek". so far you've only said you missed the "technobabble", but was only a tool for making the TREKVERSE more "credible". it's not what trek is about, and TNG, DS9 and ENT managed many a fine without it.

MetalDawg

"You will always be a child of two worlds"

I finally got to see this last night, and I liked it. The canon - obsessed fans may not be happy. But, as a fan myself I was willing to allow some bending of the rules, some retconning etc. Overall it was good but i'd like to see them top it.Does anyone know if there are sequels planned?

nyarlothothep

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

Abrams mentioned bringing Khan into the sequel. Not such a good idea methinks.

Johnny Storm

"You will always be a child of two worlds"

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Abrams mentioned bringing Khan into the sequel. Not such a good idea methinks.

+1
They'll need to try a bit harder than that.

Goodshape

"You will always be a child of two worlds"

Did he mention that?

There's bound to be a lot of temptation to revisit old characters and storylines... I hope they've got a bit more originality than that. Space is big. Really, really, big. Surely there's some new stories out there.


As a matter of interest... does anyone know what 'year' it is at the end of this film, and what year it was at the start of TOS? Alternative universes aside, I assume what we're seeing still pre-dates what we have seen?

Ziggy_1972

Can I just throw my two cents in about Spock/Uhura?
In the original series there was an episode where Uhura & Kirk kiss (Plato's Stepchildren, I think). Apparantly, it was originally supposed to be Spock & Uhura, but when Shatner read the script he said "If anybody is going to kiss Nichelle, I mean Uhura, then it's going to be me, I mean Kirk".
I just thought that the movie addressed that old point.:D

I really enjoyed the film, and forgave almost all of the inconsistancies, except one. In the original series, weren't Kirk and Pike the same age?:eek:

Spon Farmer

Ziggy_1972 wrote: »

I really enjoyed the film, and forgave almost all of the inconsistancies, except one. In the original series, weren't Kirk and Pike the same age?:eek:

no

Spon Farmer

Goodshape wrote: »

Did he mention that?

There's bound to be a lot of temptation to revisit old characters and storylines... I hope they've got a bit more originality than that. Space is big. Really, really, big. Surely there's some new stories out there.

It was Orci, not Abrams, who mentioned Khan for a sequel, but I don't think he really meant it.

As a matter of interest... does anyone know what 'year' it is at the end of this film, and what year it was at the start of TOS? Alternative universes aside, I assume what we're seeing still pre-dates what we have seen?[/quote]


the majority of the film is set in the year 2258 (ie. Spock Prime's arrival, Nero's attack on Vulcan, etc.). Orci and Kurtzman have said that they purposely decided to be vague about how much time passes between Nero's defeat and Kirk's official promotion to captain, leaving the individual audience members to decide for themselves. Personally, I'm going to consider it was a matter of days or weeks after the Enterprise returns to Earth.
the Voyager episode "Q2" reveals that Kirk's five year mission in the Prime TREKVERSE ended in 2270 (although prior to this Michael Okuda "TREKVERSE HISTORY" stated the five year mission was 2264 to 2269).

so the events of this film occur approximately 6 years before TOS.

Random

Just watched the film a second time. It was better than the first time.

If you haven't seen it twice yet go see it again.

Spon Farmer

I intend to.

User45701

"Did you leave the parking brake on?"

Random wrote: »

Just watched the film a second time. It was better than the first time.

If you haven't seen it twice yet go see it again.

*fingers crossed*

Derek Coleman

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

I hope thats the last of the time travel in Star Trek.

They should really look over the Original Series now and pick out ideas from that for future films.

Has anyone realised that any storyline with Klingons in it will have to be Klingons with no forehead ridges because they were all human looking back then.....(Enterprise episode explained this as a genetic mutation or something). I'm not saying they can't find a way around it but it'll be interesting to see what way they go.

I'm hoping for an attack on Earth film!

Random

Derek Coleman wrote: »

I hope thats the last of the time travel in Star Trek.

They should really look over the Original Series now and pick out ideas from that for future films.

Has anyone realised that any storyline with Klingons in it will have to be Klingons with no forehead ridges because they were all human looking back then.....(Enterprise episode explained this as a genetic mutation or something). I'm not saying they can't find a way around it but it'll be interesting to see what way they go.

I'm hoping for an attack on Earth film!

The klingons in Enterprise were TNG style. TOS was the only different one. This was commented on in a DS9 episode where Dax comments about it to Worf and Worf simply says "we don't talk about that outside the empire" (or something similiar). So they have a bit of leeway here .. and I'd assume they'll go with the ridges (if / when they do it).

User45701

"Did you leave the parking brake on?"

Random wrote: »

The klingons in Enterprise were TNG style. TOS was the only different one. This was commented on in a DS9 episode where Dax comments about it to Worf and Worf simply says "we don't talk about that outside the empire" (or something similiar). So they have a bit of leeway here .. and I'd assume they'll go with the ridges (if / when they do it).

in enterprise season 4 a 3 part episode explains why klingons look different in TOS

however it does not explain how Kor & Kang look different in TOS than they do in DS9

Random

User45701 wrote: »

in enterprise season 4 a 3 part episode explains why klingons look different in TOS

however it does not explain how Kor & Kang look different in TOS than they do in DS9

The quote I used should have been "We do not discuss it with outsiders.". Doh!


Fair point re Enterprise though - had forgotten completely. That series is due a complete rewatch by me one of these days!

Spon Farmer

Derek Coleman wrote: »

I hope thats the last of the time travel in Star Trek.

They should really look over the Original Series now and pick out ideas from that for future films.

Has anyone realised that any storyline with Klingons in it will have to be Klingons with no forehead ridges because they were all human looking back then.....(Enterprise episode explained this as a genetic mutation or something). I'm not saying they can't find a way around it but it'll be interesting to see what way they go.

I'm hoping for an attack on Earth film!

not all Klingons mutated. the idea to explain it all is the human looking Klingons were sent to deal with the humans.

Kor, Kolath and Kang are ridged in DS9 because a cure was found around the time of ST:TMP.

Earth was already attacked by Nero. I hope the next mo vie is set in deep space.

Goodshape

"You will always be a child of two worlds"

I hope they ignore that genetic disease story and just give us some updated Klingons.

After that, they are the baddies I'd most like to see. I know they've been done a lot in the past but a real good Klingon skirmish would be a sight to see in this new updated Trek.

silliegillie

I Enjoyed the FIlm but as a trek Fan i Didnt. They Broke the prime Directive

Nit picking here but Its the star trek Universe I enjoy so here is my Problem

1)In Trials and tribiltaions of DS9 Siko is interegated about infecting the timeline on his recent trip to the past. Its a breach of Prime Directive.

2) In Voyager Episode Futures End On the 29th Century Federation Scans time and found an Annomoly with Voyager and rectified it( Why Didnt that Happen in Star trek)

3) In Enterpise the temperal Cold war exist. In the future they explore time as they did space.So why wasnt this detected and rectified.

4)Also they Didnt know what a romulan looked like until TOS series Balance of terror, An spock postulates the posibility that Vulcans and Romulans are related. In the Film he says this as FACT and are very familiar with Romulans

Basically they have destroyed everything I hold Dear about star trek, and I feel cheated that TNG will never happen now, Tuvok of Voyager will never be. The game of Baseball Sisko Play in the holodeck against the Vulcan captian will never take place. Spock being brought back to life after the fight with Khan will never take place. so therefor the episode of Unifications in TNG will never happen. Dear I say it Picard may never have existed.

silliegillie

For those saying its an Alternate timeline, In star Trek they have Alternative universes But the Timeline is Precious. That is star trek universe FACT. Remember Yesterdays Enterprise. They Had to change it back to the Way it should have been.

Im A star trek Geek.

I Must re iterare, as a film I enjoyed it as a Fan ive issues

User45701

"Did you leave the parking brake on?"

silliegillie wrote: »

I Enjoyed the FIlm but as a trek Fan i Didnt. They Broke the prime Directive

Nit picking here but Its the star trek Universe I enjoy so here is my Problem

1)In Trials and tribiltaions of DS9 Siko is interegated about infecting the timeline on his recent trip to the past. Its a breach of Prime Directive.

2) In Voyager Episode Futures End On the 29th Century Federation Scans time and found an Annomoly with Voyager and rectified it( Why Didnt that Happen in Star trek)

3) In Enterpise the temperal Cold war exist. In the future they explore time as they did space.So why wasnt this detected and rectified.

4)Also they Didnt know what a romulan looked like until TOS series Balance of terror, An spock postulates the posibility that Vulcans and Romulans are related. In the Film he says this as FACT and are very familiar with Romulans

Basically they have destroyed everything I hold Dear about star trek, and I feel cheated that TNG will never happen now, Tuvok of Voyager will never be. The game of Baseball Sisko Play in the holodeck against the Vulcan captian will never take place. Spock being brought back to life after the fight with Khan will never take place. so therefor the episode of Unifications in TNG will never happen. Dear I say it Picard may never have existed.

Thats only the tip of the ice berg but one very strong point is the point about the romulans - at the time of this movie taking place there had been no romulan contact for almost 80? years

Romulan contact before that was the Earth/Romulan war which was fought

1. Before the federation was founded
2. With Nukes
3. The treaty that ended it was negoated over subspace radio - meaning Until TOS Balance of teror no human had seen a romulan

Goodshape

"You will always be a child of two worlds"

silliegillie wrote:

Basically they have destroyed everything I hold Dear about star trek

The prime directive? Tuvok? The temporal cold war? That's what you hold most dear about Star Trek? :-/

What about the sense of adventure, the excitement, the spectacle, the new adventures, the character interactions, the new worlds discovered and the lessons learned?

None of what you're saying is missing has anything to do with the good stuff imo.

And I don't get this "now X will never happen" --- it has happened. Past tense. TNG will always and forever exist as an early 90s TV show. Always. It's not going anywhere.