# So... Star Trek!



## Xaios (May 6, 2009)

Star Trek officially opens on Friday May 8th, with some sneak previews opening tomorrow, May 7th. They're opening here tomorrow, and you can _bet your ass_ that I will be there.

So far, the reviews have been mostly glowing (see Star Trek Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes ), which fills me with hope. When the first images started coming out, I was scared that it was going to be Star Trek: The O/C Generation, but thankfully, it seems it's not so. Reviewers are giving top marks to pretty much every actor involved, save perhaps John Cho and Anton Yelchin, and only because they're hardly in the movie. But aside from that, seems that their casting was spot on. They're also saying it's a great story and great special effects.

So yeah... anyone else stoked as hell?


----------



## Rick (May 6, 2009)

Yes.


----------



## Uber Mega (May 6, 2009)

Hell yeah 

The only disappointment for me is, being massively into film music and whatnot, after seeing the most recent trailers which had incredible scores (especially the "Fire Everything" one) I was so, so, so stoked to hear the rest of it in the film...but it appears that, actually, it was just 'library' music (by Two Steps From Hell) and won't actually be in the film...ah well


----------



## kung_fu (May 6, 2009)

I'll be seing this on Saturday. Been looking forward to this for quite some time now. Last week I picked up the comic prequel to the movie "Star Trek: Countdown". Anybody else read it?


----------



## Xaios (May 7, 2009)

I read it. It was okay, but I was quite convinced afterwards that Star Trek should not be made into a comic book. Star Trek has many subtleties, it NEEDS to be able to move, and to breathe.


----------



## AK DRAGON (May 7, 2009)

I think I will go see it Fri Morning while all the kiddies are still in school


----------



## DavyH (May 7, 2009)

The first Trek episode I remember (on original showing, mind you!) was The Corbomite Maneuver (the one with the puppet head).... the series didn't get to the UK until about a year after it was aired in the US, but I still must have been no more than 2. Buggered if I know how I can remember that one, except I know it scared the shit out of me.

Looking forward to the new film? Hell yes.


----------



## damigu (May 7, 2009)

i'm not getting my hopes up. i have been very unhappy with all of the superhero/comic movies of the last few years (except batman), and this looks like it's going to be done in exactly the same style, unfortunately.

but i'd definitely like to see it in the theater instead of waiting for the DVD rental.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (May 7, 2009)

yeah I was going to avoid it at all costs until I saw the reviews... now I really want to see it


----------



## liquidcow (May 7, 2009)

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable' | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

I have no interest in Star Trek, and didn't get the fuss about the trailer for this movie that everyone was raving about, but it does seem like everyone is loving it, so I am curious.


----------



## Cyco Nino (May 7, 2009)

Tomorrow I'll see it.


----------



## Xaios (May 8, 2009)

Alright, just got back. It was indeed awesome, if a little fast-paced. Alas, the sometimes slower pace of Star Trek is something I actually quite enjoyed, but it's a minor complaint. Great movie.


----------



## silentrage (May 8, 2009)

Is this the one where Sylar is Spock?


----------



## Xaios (May 8, 2009)

Yup.


----------



## DavyH (May 8, 2009)

.... and Shaun of the Dead is Scotty


----------



## ADAMAKAGORE (May 8, 2009)

I really liked the trailer to be honest...


But Sylar (aka Heroes actor aka Spock) reminds me of heroes...

And it´s strange to see Spock wanting to kill Captain James Kirk....

I don´t know..

I´m much more into Star Wars though


----------



## silentrage (May 8, 2009)

Lol, spock kills kirk, takes his abilities and gets with all the alien hotties instead?
Interesting... interesting...


----------



## synrgy (May 8, 2009)

The first trailer sold me, no questions asked. I saw it in the theater (the trailer, I mean) and it was just RAD on the big screen.

I never cared much for the original series or movies, but I was a pretty big TNG fan for both the series and the movies. The other reboots after TNG didn't do it for me either. Anyway, if the trailer is any indicator what-so-ever, this reboot is gonna fucking ROCK. Syler as Spock = win.


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (May 8, 2009)

I can't take it seriously because everytime I see Spock I have to laugh because I am thinking that isn't Spock it's Sylar. Is he stealing abilities in space now?


----------



## playstopause (May 8, 2009)

^

 Yep. It's hard not to think of him as Sylar.


----------



## Xaios (May 8, 2009)

Not hard for me, but I don't watch Heroes.


----------



## damigu (May 8, 2009)

Xaios said:


> Not hard for me, but I don't watch Heroes.



same here.
i had no idea the guy was even in heroes until reading this thread.


----------



## JakeRI (May 8, 2009)

damigu said:


> same here.
> i had no idea the guy was even in heroes until reading this thread.



yeah i found out on the colbert report two nights ago haha


----------



## AK DRAGON (May 8, 2009)

It was fairly decent for a Star Trek film. 
Pretty fast paced with lots of action
None of the campiness that the original series had. 
I thought the music score was great.


----------



## sakeido (May 9, 2009)

Just saw it, loved it.. awesome movie.


----------



## Spondus (May 9, 2009)

was going to see it at one minute past midnight on release day, simply because i could, but no one was willing to drive down


----------



## Groff (May 9, 2009)

sakeido said:


> Just saw it, loved it.. awesome movie.



Yes.

I thought it was GREAT. Simon Pegg was awesome, Chris Pine NAILED the character of Kirk, Zachary Quinto on the other hand, not that great of a Spock IMO, but he held it down very well. And Karl Urban... Well he's just awesome.

The movie was fun to watch, and the action was great, and well paced.



Spoiler



DAMMIT SPOCK I'M A DOCTOR NOT A PHYSICIST!


----------



## ADAMAKAGORE (May 9, 2009)

Just came from the theater...LOVE IT!!!


----------



## kung_fu (May 9, 2009)

Saw it, loved it. I want this movie inside me, I want to have its babies .

An observation:



Spoiler



notice how the guy who got burnt to death by the drill was wearing red 


unless i am remembering things wrong


----------



## Xaios (May 10, 2009)

Not only are you correct, but that was definitely a deliberate shout-out to established trekkers and trekkies.


----------



## Marv Attaxx (May 10, 2009)

Saw it today, awesome movie


----------



## stuh84 (May 10, 2009)

I was very impressed, definitely a step up from the the last few TNG films anyway. I've enjoyed every Trek film because I tend to enjoy sci fi films regardless of whats happening, but this one is definitely up there as one of the best.



Spoiler



I do like how it has almost pleased the Trekkies by being non-canon, in that it is now in an alternate reality in a sense


----------



## kazzie (May 10, 2009)

Ah,
I heard it was a total Nerdgasm. I have to see it, but I can't see it without my Dad.
Nerd-stuff is father-daughter hangouts. Always!

I'm excited!


----------



## Randy (May 10, 2009)

:applauds:


----------



## silentrage (May 10, 2009)

So which is better, this or firefly?


----------



## synrgy (May 11, 2009)

I saw this last night.

FUCKING AWESOME. 

I only have one complaint/nay-say: HOW DOES ERIK BANA KEEP FINDING WORK?! That guy couldn't act his way out of a closet, and every scene he was in was dumbed down by his mere presence.

Besides that, this movie fucking ROCKED. Star Trek has always been a difficult story to tell on film, because there are so many characters, so many genres to cater to, etc, but Abrams pulled it off smashingly. Plenty of action, plenty of funny moments, plenty of nods to the original series, a plot that doesn't require a 30 minute explanation scene during which I inevitably fall asleep.. Best Star Trek movie ever.

(IMHO, of course.)

Somebody give the casting director a cookie. 

Then make them choke on it for hiring Erik Bana. 



silentrage said:


> So which is better, this or firefly?


 
That'd be like comparing Alien to Starship Troopers.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (May 11, 2009)

synrgy said:


> HOW DOES ERIK BANA KEEP FINDING WORK?! That guy couldn't act his way out of a closet, and every scene he was in was dumbed down by his mere presence.
> 
> Somebody give the casting director a cookie.
> 
> Then make them choke on it for hiring Erik Bana.



OH NOE U DINT!


----------



## Groff (May 11, 2009)

kung_fu said:


> Saw it, loved it. I want this movie inside me, I want to have its babies .
> 
> An observation:
> 
> ...



I lol'd when that happened, my step dad looked at me and said "What's so funny?" He lol'd too when I explained it quickly.


----------



## kung_fu (May 11, 2009)

I have to agree with the Bana comment, they should have found another Nero. The Nero character is a lot more complex than he was played. There should have been more of a good guy/bad guy conflict within him i think . Just came off as pissed off


Spoiler



although i guess you would be too if your home world was destroyed


----------



## Koshchei (May 11, 2009)

Not really interested. What I've seen so far is more of a car chase in space than the sort of Pyrrhic ethical conundrum I expect for my dollar.


----------



## Groff (May 12, 2009)

Koshchei said:


> Not really interested. What I've seen so far is more of a car chase in space than the sort of Pyrrhic ethical conundrum I expect for my dollar.



Have you seen the movie?


----------



## Xaios (May 12, 2009)

Koshchei said:


> Not really interested. What I've seen so far is more of a car chase in space than the sort of Pyrrhic ethical conundrum I expect for my dollar.



Not allowing one's self to see an extremely entertaining film based on the fact that it won't have some sort deep philosophical implication that we surely haven't seen in a thousand films before. Sounds like you won the battle, but at cost of a rollicking good time. A classic Pyrrhic victory if ever there was one. 

But seriously, even if this movie does stand in stark contrast to The Dark Knight by implying that sometimes the hero can have his cake and eat it too, it's still RIDICULOUSLY fun. I've now seen it 3 times, and it gets better and better with repeated viewing.

I don't mean to offend, and I can understand the point of view that sometimes entertainment value alone isn't worth spending money on a movie, but this film is WAY beyond mild entertainment, it is a great time from start to finish. Well worth every penny.


----------



## HighGain510 (May 12, 2009)

Took the day off from work yesterday as a birthday present to myself and went to see Star Trek mid-day before folks get out from work or kids can get dropped off at the theater by their parents!  Saw it in a nearly empty theater (think there were MAYBE 15 people!  I ABHOR crowded theaters!!! ) and LOVED it. I've never really followed the series or the other movies but the cast looked good and I thought it looked cool from the trailer so when Stu said it was great when he saw it I had to check it out. Loved the movie and if they come out with another using the same cast I will definitely check it out!


----------



## damigu (May 12, 2009)

Xaios said:


> I don't mean to offend, and I can understand the point of view that sometimes entertainment value alone isn't worth spending money on a movie, but this film is WAY beyond mild entertainment, it is a great time from start to finish. Well worth every penny.



some people watch movies for art, not entertainment. for those people, ST is just more hollywood fodder.
to be honest, i generally prefer art to entertainment out of my movies as well. i like movies that really make me think, expand my horizons, confuse me, provoke discussion and/or interest in a new subject, use unique cinematography/photography, etc.

but every now and then (maybe once or twice a year) i want a movie where i just have to show up, turn my brain off, and drool my way through a barrage of endless explosions and chase scenes with stereotypically mindless dialogue.
that's what i want out of ST when i go this sunday. and with those expectations, i'm sure it won't disappoint.


----------



## Xaios (May 12, 2009)

It most certainly won't dissapoint, but this film has some brilliantly reflective moments as well, such as...



Spoiler



Towards the end of the opening seen where George Kirk sacrifices himself to save everyone else, they got the facial expressions just right, giving him that uneasy 'oh shit, gonna die, but gonna save my wife and son too, so gotta press on' kind of conviction, but mixed with a subtle sadness. And the session that they hold at the academy after Kirk cheats on the Kobiyashi Maru test, and Spock is chastising him, Chris Pine's Kirk just emits this smouldering sense of shame like nothing else.



Oh yeah, and the movie is also really freaking hilarious, too.



Spoiler



Oh yeah, and another thing. Chris Pine does very little mimicry in this movie, but the moment right at the end where he walks on the bridge and exclaims "Bones!" is pure Shatner. Loved it!



And just another thing...



Spoiler



I don't know if a lot of people reflected on this, but the best bit of referencing in this movie, intentional or not is this. In the same academy session where Spock rails on Kirk, Spock says "A starfleet captain cannot cheat death." It brought me back to the conversation at the very end of Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, right after Captain Spock dies (which only adds to the irony), between Kirk and David in which Kirk talks about how he's spent his whole life cheating death and patting himself on the back. Those two moments put together really paint a picture of Kirk as a man. I love that!


----------



## synrgy (May 12, 2009)

damigu said:


> some people watch movies for art, not entertainment. for those people, ST is just more hollywood fodder.
> to be honest, i generally prefer art to entertainment out of my movies as well. i like movies that really make me think, expand my horizons, confuse me, provoke discussion and/or interest in a new subject, use unique cinematography/photography, etc.



I find those don't make good theater movies. Exceptions to that as always, but by-and-large not so much.

I go to the theater to see stuff that just won't have the same effect in my living room with the lack of ginormous movie screen and THX surround, etc. Action/adventure/sci-fi/fantasy/horror/epic/explodey stuff tends to be 100% more effective on the big screen then in my living room. There were a lot of movies I _thought_ I really enjoyed when I saw in the theater, and then thought were totally flat and lame when I watched them on DVD at home.

So anyway, I get what you're saying because I'm into 'artistic' films too, but I tend to just stay home to watch those. They'll be no better or worse at home than in the theater.

That's my 2 cents on that, anyway.


----------



## damigu (May 12, 2009)

synrgy said:


> So anyway, I get what you're saying because I'm into 'artistic' films too, but I tend to just stay home to watch those. They'll be no better or worse at home than in the theater.



i get what you're saying, too--unless the specific artsy movie has dramatic visual or sound effects, then the big screen and ultra-surround sound doesn't make a huge difference.

darren aronofsky's "the fountain" is one of those exceptions. it was absolutely fantastic in the theater.


but my point was that some people just don't like the explosions + chase scene movies and they don't have to see it to know it'll be bad for them.


----------



## synrgy (May 12, 2009)

damigu said:


> but my point was that some people just don't like the explosions + chase scene movies and they don't have to see it to know it'll be bad for them.



Word.

In that regard, this definitely wasn't our parent's Star Trek. That being said, it stayed true enough to the Roddenberry tradition of portraying the conflict of humanity alongside humanity's conflicts with scientific and/or universal progress.

They won't be analyzing it in film class any time in the foreseeable future I'm sure, but it wasn't just an endless array of gratuitous explosions by any stretch of the imagination. That classification will belong to the upcoming Transformers 2 and/or GI Joe movies, I'm sure.


----------



## Rick (May 12, 2009)

It was awesome. Just saw it last night at the IMAX in town.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (May 12, 2009)

I have to see this movie...


----------



## Xaios (May 12, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I have to see this movie...



Yes, good sir. You most certainly do.


----------



## Groff (May 14, 2009)

SPOILER ALERT!

This video is HILARIOUS! Only watch it if you've seen the movie.

My Favorite Movie (Star Trek vs. Star Wars) - CollegeHumor Video


----------



## silentrage (May 14, 2009)

synrgy said:


> Word.
> 
> In that regard, this definitely wasn't our parent's Star Trek. That being said, it stayed true enough to the Roddenberry tradition of portraying the conflict of humanity alongside humanity's conflicts with scientific and/or universal progress.
> 
> They won't be analyzing it in film class any time in the foreseeable future I'm sure, but it wasn't just an endless array of gratuitous explosions by any stretch of the imagination. That classification will belong to the upcoming Transformers 2 and/or GI Joe movies, I'm sure.



You're be surprised what gets analyzed in film classes.
In my case, it was anything with any variation of the hero's journey in it, which I later realized was just about every single movie I ever saw, lol.


----------



## MFB (May 14, 2009)

Film classes aren't usually a direct critique of movies nor are they used for mere entertainment purposes either; but I can say this most likely won't be used in one like Synrgy said - and this is coming from someone who's done 2 years of both Film Study and Videography


----------



## AK DRAGON (May 15, 2009)

Groff said:


> SPOILER ALERT!
> 
> This video is HILARIOUS! Only watch it if you've seen the movie.
> 
> My Favorite Movie (Star Trek vs. Star Wars) - CollegeHumor Video



^^ This is sooo true


----------



## daemon barbeque (May 19, 2009)

Groff said:


> SPOILER ALERT!
> 
> This video is HILARIOUS! Only watch it if you've seen the movie.
> 
> My Favorite Movie (Star Trek vs. Star Wars) - CollegeHumor Video



Woooooooooohoooooooooooo. That was soo cool!

The ST movie is the only ST movie which doesn't suck on quality ,action and "small details" .

Very good cast ,woderfull pictures (for those who want to see art) ,very cool details and enough humor.

Well done !


----------



## damigu (May 19, 2009)

i saw the movie over the weekend and i'm conflicted.

on the one hand, i want to say it is the best ST movie so far and i suspect we'll see a sequel with this same cast. the character interactions were pretty good, and i thought it was well cast.

on the other hand, i want to say it's also the worst ST movie so far because the story was *EXTREMELY* weak (it's like they took some of the worst elements of "star trek: voyager" to create this plot) and the throwbacks lacked all subtlety to the point of distraction.
and what was up with there being multiple lens flares in almost *EVERY* scene? i felt like i was watching the movie through an airplane window!


----------



## Scar Symmetry (May 21, 2009)

Xaios said:


> Yes, good sir. You most certainly do.



seen it 

I thought it was very good, definitely worth my £7.80.

I want to see a sequel!


----------



## Xaios (May 21, 2009)

Holy mother of toad feces, movies are expensive in your neck of the woods!

But glad you enjoyed.


----------



## Marv Attaxx (May 21, 2009)

Xaios said:


> Holy mother of toad feces, movies are expensive in your neck of the woods!
> 
> But glad you enjoyed.


Here it is 12 Euros 
EDIT: which is £10,5461 or 16,5222 us dollar -_-


----------



## Scar Symmetry (May 21, 2009)

> Live long and prosper


----------



## yingmin (May 22, 2009)

I thought this movie was pretty bad. I mean, it was somewhat enjoyable as an action movie, but nothing more than that. The plot was awful, starting from the consistently lame premise of time travel and proceeding through a torturously contrived meeting between all the principal characters of the original series. The movie was more hole than plot. The acting was decent enough, but I wish they didn't try so hard to work in the idiosyncracies of the characters. Mediocre action movie with a lousy plot. I just don't get the hype.


----------



## AK DRAGON (May 22, 2009)

yingmin said:


> I thought this movie was pretty bad. I mean, it was somewhat enjoyable as an action movie, but nothing more than that. The plot was awful, starting from the consistently lame premise of time travel and proceeding through a torturously contrived meeting between all the principal characters of the original series. The movie was more hole than plot. The acting was decent enough, but I wish they didn't try so hard to work in the idiosyncracies of the characters. Mediocre action movie with a lousy plot. I just don't get the hype.



Kinda makes me sad that Star Trek has run out of real ideas


----------



## yingmin (May 22, 2009)

AK DRAGON said:


> Kinda makes me sad that Star Trek has run out of real ideas


Film makers these days just don't get it: willful suspension of disbelief doesn't mean they can do whatever the fuck they want.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (May 22, 2009)

Uhura


----------



## Nick (May 22, 2009)

saw this last night

that film could not have been any better than it was

pure fucking WIN from beginning to end.

the guy who plays bones was absolutley immaculate at recreating his mannerisms. so much i started thinking he looked like him........and he didnt!



Xaios said:


> Not allowing one's self to see an extremely entertaining film based on the fact that it won't have some sort deep philosophical implication that we surely haven't seen in a thousand films before. Sounds like you won the battle, but at cost of a rollicking good time. A classic Pyrrhic victory if ever there was one.
> 
> But seriously, even if this movie does stand in stark contrast to The Dark Knight by implying that sometimes the hero can have his cake and eat it too, it's still RIDICULOUSLY fun. I've now seen it 3 times, and it gets better and better with repeated viewing.
> 
> I don't mean to offend, and I can understand the point of view that sometimes entertainment value alone isn't worth spending money on a movie, but this film is WAY beyond mild entertainment, it is a great time from start to finish. Well worth every penny.




this!

ive been a fan of star trek since i was 5 and it satisfied me entirley.


----------



## synrgy (May 22, 2009)

Nick said:


> the guy who plays bones was absolutley immaculate at recreating his mannerisms. so much i started thinking he looked like him........and he didnt!


 
That was Karl Urban, who we all knew as Eomer in the Lord of the Rings movies. 

I was reading an article that said during filming, he nailed the original actor's portrayal of the character so intensely that there were a couple of moments where Leonard Nimoy (original Spock) was moved to tears.


----------



## s_k_mullins (May 22, 2009)

Saw it.. loved it.. will see it again!

And Zoe Saldana=  yummy


----------



## damigu (May 22, 2009)

yingmin said:


> Film makers these days just don't get it: willful suspension of disbelief doesn't mean they can do whatever the fuck they want.



unfortunately, that's exactly what it means when the viewers just want chases and explosions (which is true for much of the demographic of this movie).

the script could have just had the cast saying nothing but "donkey kong" over and over again and most of the people in this thread would still be saying "pure win!" because it has good explosions and chase scenes.

that's why the "fast & furious" franchise has made so much money, too.


----------



## synrgy (May 22, 2009)

damigu said:


> the script could have just had the cast saying nothing but "donkey kong" over and over again and most of the people in this thread would still be saying "pure win!" because it has good explosions and chase scenes.



If you didn't like it, that's fine -- but you're being largely unfair here. This movie was hardly just a sequence of meaningless explosions.


----------



## damigu (May 22, 2009)

i didn't dislike it. i liked it for what it was (as stated a few posts earlier) but it could have been much better, especially with j j abrams at the helm. i've come to expect good things from him based on his other work.

but a lot of the script was very contrived.


Spoiler



like the way the parachuting redshirt died, he could have been killed just as easily by no fault of his own (it was a tough parachuting feat to begin with) but instead they forced the situation and made it so painfully obvious that it was practically a comical suicide.
and what the hell is red matter? looking at the periodic table, i'm pretty sure it is made from a bad batch of plotdevicium. there is real science they could/should have bastardized to accomplish the task, like how other star trek shows/movies do.


----------



## synrgy (May 22, 2009)

I personally thought the bit with Ensign Olsen (red shirt) was a perfect homage. 

Also, apparently if you ever watched Alias (I didn't, but a friend was discussing this earlier) you would know that JJ Abrams just seems to have a thing for big mysterious red balls.


----------



## AK DRAGON (May 22, 2009)

damigu said:


> unfortunately, that's exactly what it means when the viewers just want chases and explosions (which is true for much of the demographic of this movie).
> 
> the script could have just had the cast saying nothing but "donkey kong" over and over again and most of the people in this thread would still be saying "pure win!" because it has good explosions and chase scenes.
> 
> that's why the "fast & furious" franchise has made so much money, too.



Agreed.

What I look for in a movie is a *GOOD* plot. 
Star Trek's Plot = *EPIC FAIL*
Yes the explosions, chase scenes, fights are great eye candy but they don't support a *WEAK* plot.

At lease Tim Simonec & Michael Giacchino were not asleep at the wheel when composing the score


----------



## lefty robb (May 22, 2009)

damigu said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> and what the hell is red matter? looking at the periodic table, i'm pretty sure it is made from a bad batch of plotdevicium. there is real science they could/should have bastardized to accomplish the task, like how other star trek shows/movies do.



That's what we would call a deus ex machina, something Star Trek is famous for.

I liked the movie from a movie lovers perspective, but from a Star Trek lovers perspective it felt like they just has a random sci-fi script and just layered a Star Trek Theme over it. There was even some modern 21st century product placements wedged into the movie which I did _not_ appreciate. I also wanted to see more of Scotty 


I just saw Terminator last night and it was much, much better.


----------



## damigu (May 22, 2009)

lefty robb said:


> That's what we would call a deus ex machina, something Star Trek is famous for.



star trek is famous for pseudoscience, not unexplainable magic plot cures. they usually take real science and bastardize it just enough to do what they need it to do while maintaining some level of minimal scientific credibility. warp drive, for example, is based on genuine physics but ST's flub factor was that they made it achievable with relatively low levels of energy.



Spoiler



but the big red ball of plotdevicium doesn't even count as fictionalized science--it's basically just magic they created and expect the audience to swallow with absolutely no explanation and no basis in any science i'm aware of. no ST movie or episode i'm aware of has done that before. there is always some level of pseudoscientific explanation of the properties and/or origin of the material.

and riddle me this: how do you drill a hole in a liquid? last i checked, earth's (and presumably vulcan's) interiors are primarily liquid rock. even 3rd graders know that. and it's sad when a 3rd grader can reveal glaring plot holes.


----------



## yingmin (May 23, 2009)

lefty robb said:


> I liked the movie from a movie lovers perspective, but from a Star Trek lovers perspective it felt like they just has a random sci-fi script and just layered a Star Trek Theme over it.


That was my principal complaint about the movie: it felt more like bad fanfic than a proper Star Trek.



s_k_mullins said:


> And Zoe Saldana=  yummy


Good god YES.

Here's one more thing about the plot, though:


Spoiler



When Vulcan was destroyed and suddenly Uhura was all up on Spock's junk, was that foreshadowed at all? I don't remember seeing even a hint of attraction between the two, let alone any indication of an affair.


----------



## Nick (May 23, 2009)

as i say ive been into star trek for 20 years.

i dont know what the 'arty' people in this thread were expecting? have you ever seen star trek before?

u see the new movie?

its pretty much that over and over again.

old star trek movies - going back in time to resuce whales that will ultimatley save earth, the nexus (going into an alternate dimension), the search for Spok (genesis device etc) the wrath of khan, and the other one witht he Klingon who quotes shakespear cant remember the name.

these movies were all pretty heavy on fighting/chase/explosions etc.

why would this one suddenly have hidden undertones etc.

if you didnt like the film fine. but when i left the cinema people were clapping and actually cheering and let me tell you that may happen in america but it doesnt EVER happen here.

the only thing i would say is that they could have left out the uhura/spok romance it was largley needless.


----------



## Dan (May 23, 2009)

damigu said:


> star trek is famous for pseudoscience, not unexplainable magic plot cures. they usually take real science and bastardize it just enough to do what they need it to do while maintaining some level of minimal scientific credibility. warp drive, for example, is based on genuine physics but ST's flub factor was that they made it achievable with relatively low levels of energy.




Ohh for christs sake is a SCIENCE *FICTION* movie. I can understand fully that you wanted to be some form of realism in the script, but at the end of the day whos to say the things that happened in the film wont be able to happen in the future? There is so much we do not know about science and the environment around us. 

Now dont get me wrong im a trekkie as well, and i thought the movie was utterly splendid, i was completely overcome with emotion at the very end of the movie when.. well you know when.

But seriously come on, it was a damn good movie, a DAMN good movie. And at the end of the day someone will never be satisfied because of one thing or the other.


----------



## kung_fu (May 23, 2009)

yingmin said:


> Here's one more thing about the plot, though:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...





Spoiler



If you recall, when the cadetts were being assigned ships, she was able to persuade him to change her assignment to the enterprise, sort of how girl friends are able to do. This is the only thing i can think of. At first, i agree it did seem sort of random that they were kissing in the turbolift


----------



## silentrage (May 23, 2009)

Plug said:


> Ohh for christs sake is a SCIENCE *FICTION* movie. I can understand fully that you wanted to be some form of realism in the script, but at the end of the day whos to say the things that happened in the film wont be able to happen in the future? There is so much we do not know about science and the environment around us.
> 
> Now dont get me wrong im a trekkie as well, and i thought the movie was utterly splendid, i was completely overcome with emotion at the very end of the movie when.. well you know when.
> 
> But seriously come on, it was a damn good movie, a DAMN good movie. And at the end of the day someone will never be satisfied because of one thing or the other.



Trying to please fanboys is like trying to get your GF to agree to a threesome with her best friend, it just won't happen.


----------



## kung_fu (May 23, 2009)

damigu said:


> the script could have just had the cast saying nothing but "donkey kong" over and over again and most of the people in this thread would still be saying "pure win!" because it has good explosions and chase scenes.



 Okay, I see where you are coming from. You make a bunch of really valid points most of which i actually agree with. Seeing as how i have spock in my avatar, you could certainly call me a fanboy. One thing about hardcore trek fans are that they are typically the most critical of everything that is done under the Star Trek banner. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but if in the future you could refrain from suggesting we are a bunch of gullable idiots, that would be super. My main criticism of the movie would be the whole chase scene with the young kirk that you see in all of the trailers (and as much as i love Beastie boy's "Sabotage".... not in this movie). And perhaps maybe the only reason somebody loved/watched the movie _*was*_ for the explosions and chase scenes. That surely doesn't mean their opinion is any less valid.

Not trying to start a war, your comment just annoyed me. BTW have you ever checked out a book called "The Nitpicker's guide to Star Trek" ? Its basically a fan-written collection of inconsistencies between episodes and logical plot wholes. Just the fans basically poking fun at their favourite tv show. It is quite entertaining, i highly recommend checking it out.


----------



## ReSiDeNt JoKeR (May 27, 2009)

Honestly I thought it was utterly sublime. Superb direction, action, acting and fun. The only dissapointment for me was Nemoy who delivered his lines with all the enthusiam of a flat, wet fart. Other than that I thoroughly enjoyed it, best Star Trek movie.. period. Not that that's really saying alot... but still, damn good movie. Abrams might well be the new Spielberg. I will not elaborate on that, figure it out for yourself.


----------



## Xaios (May 27, 2009)

I wouldn't say the new Spielberg, but I COULD imagine him being the new George Lucas.


----------



## ReSiDeNt JoKeR (May 30, 2009)

Xaios said:


> I wouldn't say the new Spielberg, but I COULD imagine him being the new George Lucas.



Lucas is a lazy nothing in Director terms. He has ideas that other more talented people then make good use of. Lucas is not a good director, I think Abrams has the protential to be a great Director. The test will be how Abrams handles more mature material.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (May 30, 2009)

Abrahms definitely has potential.

Lost is good, Cloverfield was good, Star Trek was amazing.

I have a feeling we've yet to see Abrahms best.


----------



## damigu (Jun 1, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Abrahms definitely has potential.
> 
> Lost is good, Cloverfield was good, Star Trek was amazing.
> 
> I have a feeling we've yet to see Abrahms best.



i'd put it as: lost was good, ST was good, and cloverfield was amazing.

but other than that bit of nitpicking, i'm in agreement. i've come to expect good things from him.


----------



## ReSiDeNt JoKeR (Jun 1, 2009)

I don't believe Abrams actually directed Cloverfield... though it's pretty much given that he was a huge driving force behind it.


----------



## Xaios (Jun 1, 2009)

Correct, he didn't direct Cloverfield, but it was basically his baby.


----------



## Pauly (Jun 3, 2009)

I honestly thought it was awesome! Everything worked for me apart from


Spoiler



blowing up Vulcan, a Star Trek universe with Vulcans numbering under 10K upsets the nerd in me!


.

Btw I don't know how many people are aware of this but there's a 4-part official comic that acts as a prelude to the film and is set in the future (i.e where Nero and Old Spock are from). It tells you more about red matter, why it's not really Spock's fault and who made the Jellyfish.  If you know where to look you can download it in .CBR form.


----------



## damigu (Jun 3, 2009)

Pauly said:


> I honestly thought it was awesome! Everything worked for me apart from
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...





Spoiler



they addressed that by when old spock pointed out that it is an alternate timeline--the implication being that it is also an alternate universe.
(hence my complaint that they took the the laziest elements from "ST: voyager" and said "oh, we can do anything/kill anyone and it doesn't affect continuity and everything will be back to normal by the next episode.")


----------



## Xaios (Jun 4, 2009)

damigu said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> (hence my complaint that they took the the laziest elements from "ST: voyager" and said "oh, we can do anything/kill anyone and it doesn't affect continuity and everything will be back to normal by the next episode.")





Spoiler



Understandable, but I don't think they're going to hit the reset switch. It seems that these changes are here to stay.


----------



## Pauly (Jun 4, 2009)

Spoiler



Yes, pretty much. The changes in this Star Trek universe are for good so that they can make more Trek films without haivng to stick to 'The Original Series' canon. Thus they're not restricted by what has already happened in previous Star Treks. Events differ from canon from the moment Nero's ship arrives in the past and obviously accumilate: Spock and Uhuru's relationship, Pike only being captain for a very short period of time, the Enterprise being built much later than it was originally and so on. Basically Old Spock is there to tie the Star Trek universe everyone knows together with the new one, so simultaniously keeping continuity but breaking it.



Also something I didn't pick up on straight away and this isn't much of a spoiler, but Scotty's reference to Captain Archer was a nice nod to the Enterprise series, and McCoy talking to an off camera Nurse Chapel was a nice nod to TOS too.

There was also JJ Abrams using 'Red Matter' again (from Alias) and there's Slusho on the drinks menu at the bar.


----------

