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

User45701

"Did you leave the parking brake on?"

Goodshape wrote: »

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?

Did you find this movie very adventureous? - i was bored and uninterested for allot of it

exciting? - same as above nothing in the movie made me sweat or have my heart pump faster. - i also expierenced no emotional reaction

new adventures - i dont consider this movie an advanture there was nothing new about it - an adventure to me involves the unknown

charactor interactions where ****e and unconvincing

new worlds - vulcan? earth ?

This movie was not trek

Goodshape wrote: »

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.

Its only a theroy that all of what people love did not happen, a theroy - there is a contradictory theroy that everything did happen and the events in that movie where in a different timeline

Goodshape, Im not having a go at you i just didnt like the movie

on a side note i cant wait for big bang theroy to reference the movie - sheldon missed it being

in the north pole

silliegillie

Goodshape wrote: »

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.

I Really Dont care about your opinion on how I feel. Ive been a Star trek Fan ever since I was 8 and saw my first episode of TNG. I wasnt Born for TOSbut got into it and am a big fan. Im Now 31. I know Star trek inside out. Its the Star trek universe I said I loved and I make no apologies.

MetalDawg

"You will always be a child of two worlds"

Derek Coleman wrote: »

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

*Possible spoiler alert*
maybe the sequels can form part of a story arc, culminating with the timeline being set "right"

Johnny Storm

"You will always be a child of two worlds"

Saw it for the second time today. Definitely stands up. Chris Pine = excellent, a surprisingly entertaining cross between virile, serious TOS Kirk and later, self-parodying, comedic movie Kirk. As I said before if I was Shatner I would adopt Pine immediately.
Karl Urban - great!
Zachary Quinto - slightly better than my first impression but definitely a non-Spockian whinging quality to his voice in some scenes. Not too bad, though.
Rest of the cast - all pretty good, even Pegg They can all act! Oh yeah!
The only thing pissing me off in the second viewing, the knowledge that

some Enterprise interior scenes were filmed in a ****in' brewery. Once you know it's so obvious and quite stupid looking. :mad:

The music is pretty good in the USS Kelvin opening scenes. The actual theme that's played over the opening credits is amazingly dull. They really missed an opportunity to use musical cues from TOS and the old movies, particularly IMHO Spock's melancholic bass guitar theme. That could have blown an ol' lad's mind at certain moments during this movie. (I'm talking about this ol' lad )
Can't believe they left Kirk's brother George out of the movie for some random "Johnny". WTF? :mad:
Also Gerry Anderson in Thunderbirds would have made a more realistic job of animating the motion of the cop's flying bike. It's almost made up for by the cop's Dreddian use of "citizen" and kid Kirk's snappy comeback.

robby^5

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

Goodshape wrote: »

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.

I really cant see them parading around some guys painted brown TOS style tbh, we'll get our cranial ridges don't you worry

Abrams is hardly going to spend time referencing continuity issues such as the whole genetic disease back story, that goes against the point of resetting the timeline. Star Trek is no longer tied to continuity/canon, he can do whatever he wants so to speak.

Klingons would make a lot of sense for the sequel since they've already been introduced by mentioning the attack on their fleet and the two Klingon cruisers in the simulation gives us a visual to go along with that, sort of a soft-introduction for the uninitiated.

Personally I want to see the next film move in a new direction, I really wouldn't be terribly enthused if they decided to bring back Khan, fanboys would have a field day. I'd like a new villain, keep things fresh.

Spon Farmer

User45701 wrote: »

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

a giant ship with advanced technology came through a black hole and destroyed the USS Kelvin.
you can be damn sure Starfleet investigated this matter fully and that led to the Romulans.
where is the problem?

Ziggy_1972

User45701 wrote: »

on a side note i cant wait for big bang theroy to reference the movie - sheldon missed it being

in the north pole

It was referenced quite well on Fringe, with Clint Howard.
Actually, Big Bang referenced Summer Glau in the Terminater series last year, and she appeared in it this year...

Spon Farmer

Goodshape wrote: »

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

it's lost on some people, friend:(

Spon Farmer

User45701 wrote: »

Did you find this movie very adventureous? - i was bored and uninterested for allot of it

exciting? - same as above nothing in the movie made me sweat or have my heart pump faster. - i also expierenced no emotional reaction

new adventures - i dont consider this movie an advanture there was nothing new about it - an adventure to me involves the unknown

charactor interactions where ****e and unconvincing

new worlds - vulcan? earth ?

This movie was not trek

[/spoiler]

if you didn't think the movie was exciting I'd be curious to know what your opinion of TNG and their movies were?
let alone VOY

silliegillie

Seen as How Continuity has been Broken, Well Then why not got for all out and have the Founders as the Main Antagonist in the Sequel or Cardasians. It would be Cool to see a Villian that hasnt had a mojor movie story ARC. I mean sisko has alrady met Kirk, Maybe there was a stow away Founder/Jem Hadar/Cardasian/on the defiant when it went back in time.

mickoneill30

Saw the film last night. Pretty enjoyable. The major thing that bugged me was the

musical chairs for the captaincy. Kirk's not meant to be on the Enterprise. 5 mins later he's first officer. A few hours later he's captain. If I was henson (is that the correct term) I'd be pretty annoyed at other guys getting promoted like that. That's a pretty rapid career path. If the film was a half an hour longer he'd be admiral.

robby^5

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Saw the film last night. Pretty enjoyable. The major thing that bugged me was the

musical chairs for the captaincy. Kirk's not meant to be on the Enterprise. 5 mins later he's first officer. A few hours later he's captain. If I was henson (is that the correct term) I'd be pretty annoyed at other guys getting promoted like that. That's a pretty rapid career path. If the film was a half an hour longer he'd be admiral.

But sure it was just favouritism by Pike, the ship was mostly crewed by Cadets so logically he gave captaincy to the only qualified person which was the first officer Spock and gave first officer position to his favourite cadet, Kirk, a cadet who Pike felt would make a great captain. After Spock relinquished command who else was going to take over? Sulu? Chekov? The bridge crew were mainly cadets or ensigns. It Isn't that much of a stretch tbh, he was the only person willing to be captain at that stage.

Also henson? Do you mean ensign?

mickoneill30

robby^5 wrote: »

Also henson? Do you mean ensign?

Probably

robby^5 wrote: »

the ship was mostly crewed by Cadets

There's the next issue I've a brand new shiny flagship. Lets fill it with people just out of training. Leave the more experienced guys flying their clunkers. I know, I know just nitpicking.

Spon Farmer

mickoneill30 wrote: »

Probably



There's the next issue I've a brand new shiny flagship. Lets fill it with people just out of training. Leave the more experienced guys flying their clunkers. I know, I know just nitpicking.

the Enterprise didn't have a crew because it wasn't meant to be doing anything for a few weeks until the launching ceremony. alot of experianced Starfleet personnel had been reassigned due to the situation in the Laurentian System. there was only cadets left which was no biggie as the Vulcan swituation was thought to be enviromental.
Most of Kirk's crew in STII were cadets also.

azezil

"You will always be a child of two worlds"

I didn't read through the entire thread, just flicked so I know it's been covered already but I was a little disappointed.

I went to see a Star Trek movie but what I saw was an action packed, appeal to mainstream audience, sci-fi flick using characters with names from an already well established franchise.

I didn't like that they changed so much so I'll have to watch it again to get a better feel for how I feel about it as a movie.

senordingdong

"Did you leave the parking brake on?"

It was nice to look at but lacked any substance and re-watch-ability.

robby^5

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7Lr8cdZwHQ

I laughed my ass off at this guys reviews of Star Trek First Contact and Generations, extremely satirical (the monotone voice and deliberately bad editing is great!) but he does point out some gaping plotholes which makes you think why First Contact is ranked so high among Trekkies whereas this film is being picked apart for plot holes when First Contact, arguably ranked as one of the best Star Trek films by the majority of trek fans is held in such high regard... maybe it's because it doesn't have the name JJ Abrams attached, cause you know... cant have popular producer/directors making Star Trek cool.

[edit] - fixed link

_Kaiser_

Saw this last night. Very skeptical going in but in the end I really enjoyed it.

Yes I noticed the Nokia phone (but as someone else said, there's nothing wrong with that as it connects the film to the "real world" and it was only a few seconds anyway), and I'm not keen on the bridge if I'm honest (too virtual-reality like .. reminds me of the Dock control room in Zion in the Matrix films), and a lot of the ship seemed too factory/foundry like, but the main actors nailed the parts and made me believe they were the young crew and there were enough references and nods to the Trek we've seen before for the nerd in me More importantly, the film captured the spirit and humor of the original series and films.

The action and effects were top-notch save for the overuse of the lens flare, and I thought the final scene with the Romulan ship being swallowed by the black hole was a bit visually confused.

Still, all in all, a very good (and long overdue) reboot of the franchise and I'll certainly be buying the DVD

Goodshape

"You will always be a child of two worlds"

robby^5 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7Lr8...e=channel_page

Your link got all messed up there.

Spon Farmer

robby^5 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7Lr8cdZwHQ

I laughed my ass off at this guys reviews of Star Trek First Contact and Generations, extremely satirical (the monotone voice and deliberately bad editing is great!) but he does point out some gaping plotholes which makes you think why First Contact is ranked so high among Trekkies whereas this film is being picked apart for plot holes when First Contact, arguably ranked as one of the best Star Trek films by the majority of trek fans is held in such high regard... maybe it's because it doesn't have the name JJ Abrams attached, cause you know... cant have popular producer/directors making Star Trek cool.

[edit] - fixed link

TNG movies are terrible. a DS9 movie would be awesome at some point in the future

somuj

Spon Farmer wrote: »

TNG movies are terrible. a DS9 movie would be awesome at some point in the future

i always liked TNG movies except for generations. load of toss that was. I would agree tho. A DS9 movie would be the ultimate trek film.

FutureGuy

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

somuj wrote: »

i always liked TNG movies except for generations. load of toss that was. I would agree tho. A DS9 movie would be the ultimate trek film.

It might be the ultimate Trek movie, but would do about $60 million regardless of how good it was. New Trek has made $200 million in 3 weeks in the US alone.

Paramount loves the money. Thankfully, they made an excellent film.

Have seen it twice, and I actually enjoyed it even more second time around. Some truely laugh out loud moments.

Spon Farmer

I know I brought up wanting a DS9 movie, but it would not be the the "ultimate TREK movie".
JJ's movie was the ultimate. Hopefully, a new word will need to be created to describe the awesomeness of the next one.:D

ms flywheel

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

dimejinky99 wrote: »

Loved it..my only wtf moment was

the beastie boys 'sabotage' playing in the car hes stolen when hes a kid..just outta place in an uncomfortable way

There is a reason behind it, you might know it already but for those who don't.

There is a video of Shatner recording lines for the Animated Series or something, he reads the line but he says the word sabotage differently, when asked to say the word correctly, he gets cross. The video is on youtube, it's funny. Anyway, the track is in the film for that reason

I LOVED this film. I was sitting in the cinema giggling like a school girl. I really loved Chris Pine as Kirk. Karl Urban was fantastic as Bones and Simon Pegg (who I was worried about when I heard he was cast) managed to pull off Scotty.

robby^5

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

ms flywheel wrote: »

There is a reason behind it, you might know it already but for those who don't.There is a video of Shatner recording lines for the Animated Series or something, he reads the line but he says the word sabotage differently, when asked to say the word correctly, he gets cross. The video is on youtube, it's funny. Anyway, the track is in the film for that reason

Abrams said that wasn't his intention, he just thought the song was good. Funny coincidence though.

moonboy52

I have got to say i hated the movie. As an action movie it was good, but as a trek movie it was just awful. Abrams just pooped into roddenberry's mouth:eek::). Style over substance. 90210 in space!

Pride Fighter

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

Great film IMO, just saw it yesterday in Dundrum, one of the last places still showing it. It was exceptional, I'd rank it 4th out of the lot, 2, 6 and 4 are just ahead in that order.

Speaking of 2, as they have gone back to the beginning I hope they have the next sequel about Khan. With the current cast and crew, and changing of the timeline they could make an epic Trek film with a new Khan.

murfie

moonboy52 wrote: »

I have got to say i hated the movie. As an action movie it was good, but as a trek movie it was just awful. Abrams just pooped into roddenberry's mouth:eek::). Style over substance. 90210 in space!

Completly agree, I was so dissappointed coming out of this movie, not because it was lacking the flashy action and amazing visual scenes but for the direction they have taken the genre.

90210 in space says it all.

I for one wont be looking forward to the next movie, more dissappointing teenager storylines!

User45701

"Did you leave the parking brake on?"

ok - i cant remember who it was on the thread who asked me to explain why i didnt like it.

I watched the dvd thing yesterday and i have to say its more enjoyable to watch this on the small screen - i spotted less flaws, enjoyed it more but that said

1. Shaky cam in space battles is just stupid - biggest waste of a budget possible

2. why does the ship have 20+ shuttles (although on a small screen you cant see them well so its not as "what the ****" but its still rather silly.)

It was better than i remembered but if you really want a detailed why its a bad movie google it or if you really really want i could go though the effort of listing whats wrong.

I still think they could have just called it anyhting else but star trek and it would be a 1/2 decent movie.

Kiith

"I like this ship. It's Exciting"

User45701 wrote: »

1. Shaky cam in space battles is just stupid - biggest waste of a budget possible

2. why does the ship have 20+ shuttles (although on a small screen you cant see them well so its not as "what the ****" but its still rather silly.)

Why wouldnt a ship have 20+ shuttles? On boats today there is supposd to be enough lifeboats for all the crew, so why would that change in the future. It never made any sense at all for there to be only a few shuttles in some of the older series. Maybe the Kelvin just didnt have any lifepods, which were isntalled on later ships, which reduced the number of shuttles needed.

Shaky cam i'd agree with. Well, i dont mind it for battles, but not so much for conversations.

User45701 wrote: »

It was better than i remembered but if you really want a detailed why its a bad movie google it or if you really really want i could go though the effort of listing whats wrong.

To be fair, google any movie and you'll find reasons why its a bad movie. I watched it again last night and i enjoyed it as much as when i saw it 3 times in the cinema.

Its not just a great Star Tret movie, its a great movie.