|
Star Trek (2009)
For those of you who are too cheap or too far away to see Quantum Of Solace, heres the Star Trek trailer attached to it: Untitled on Vimeo
Frankly, it looks like crap. If JJ Abrams - a man I have no faith in to begin with - cut that himself (which wouldn't surprise me) then this film is already worse than Nemesis and Star Trek V in the same way getting your fingers smashed by a ball-peen hammer is worse than having wonderful, passionate sex with a beautiful supermodel. Everyone chime in on why they agree or disagree with this sentiment. |
Trailer is gone.
|
|
Yeah I just caught it on the tube.
Honestly, it's a trailer. There isn't much reason to jump to the conclusion -- like you did -- that the film will be poorly shot or edited based on what's presented here. To me, there wasn't anything I saw that made me think, "This doesn't look like an attempt to take something old and make it new." It's a movie that's trying to appeal to today's audience, the younger audience, and that's what the trailer presented. Frankly, so far there doesn't seem to be any attempt to say, "This story is about James Kirk," and that's what's most disappointing. The originals were all about Kirk and Spock and McCoy and the chemistry those three had, and there's nothing in that trailer to suggest anything but Spock and Kirk were not friendly to being with. So far, it's "James Kirk was a bad kid, he went into Starfleet to get some structure, Spock-ships flying-explosions-phasers-boobs-ahahaha he said something funny-scary space creature-atmosphere-end of trailer." If they're trying to improve what excitement people have about the movie, they've failed to do it to me. |
Quote:
I mean - can anyone take you seriously after what you just said here or have you just never seen a Star Trek movie before? |
I own all of them, remember? $22 for all of them? Forgot that story?
I thought you were complaining mostly about the editing or the cinematography, and that's what I was referring to in that statement. So, in a nutshell: LeHah (in nerdy voice): HAY GUYZ THE NEW STAR TREK MOVIE LOOKS LIKE SHIT BASED ON THIS TWO MINUTE TRAILER *sniffs back nasal drip* WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK Me: Uh, it's just a trailer. LeHah (in nerdy voice): FUCK YOU DOPEFISH YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE THE DUMBEST PERSON ON THESE BOARDS AND THAT MEANS YOU'RE WRONG I AM LEHAH, MASTER OF ARGUMENTS |
As someone who isn't a Trekkie at all, I got some enjoyment from the trailer. It looks like it will be a fairly fun time, with some good-looking action and some beautiful-looking scenery. I don't know why Abrams insisted on a prequel of all things, but whatever. Abrams hasn't let me down yet so I'm expecting some good things here, but for the most part I don't care too much about the film.
However, I *have* always wanted to get into the Trek series of films and TV. Where would be a good place to start with doing that? |
Quote:
Or any season of Next Generation after the first isn't a terrible place to start. The original is a lot of fun but I can see the level of camp and questionably over the top acting being a turn off to some. The other series build off of what those two set up enough that i's probably not as effective to watch them first. The trailer looks a little spastic and action filled for my taste in Star Trek and I have little faith in a product within the series by someone who claims to not particularly like the source material. This is the shit that made Blair Witch 2 even more god awful than the first. Still not a super informative piece of video so judgment will be reserved. |
Quote:
Quote:
Wrath Of Khan is good - but generally overrated. All Star Trek movies make completely improper literary useage, none worse than Kahn. |
Quote:
|
Voyager is Love Boat in Space, and the point at which they started to target the "stupid" demographic that is so large these days.
|
Voyager is TNG Redux.
|
I thought the kid saying his name was cheesy and cringe-worthy, but the rest of the trailer looked okay. Based on the previous movies, having a younger cast 'at the helm' will likely give the movie more action and a quicker pace. Based on the trailer, I'd say this will be a B on the Internet and an A- among critics. Yeah, I'll likely see it, but since I'm not a big Star Trek fan (I've seen the movies and most of the TV shows, but that's about it) I guess I'd enjoy it more then someone who's committed to the franchise, given the director's statement about making the movie appeal to a wider audience. In other words, I'll be watching it as a regular audience member, for lack of a better term.
|
But . . . as far as prior canon goes, Jimmy Kirk WAS a bad kid, unless I'm a complete and total idiot.
|
Huh? What does that have to do with what I said? I was talking about the delivery of the line by kid-kirk.
|
Quote:
Are you trying to give LeHah a concrete example of why Dope doesn't actually have the -worst- taste on the boards? |
Abrams' track record is nothing but a series of larger and larger let downs.
Felicity was a major hit - for one season. Then flailed a lot and added up to nothing; the show ends with a time travel episode. Alias lasted two seasons - and then died in an amazingly spectacular implosion when Abrams left the show to start LOST. LOST is crap. Its build-up without substance and suffers from Twin Peaks Syndrome - that no explaination, no matter how revealing, is going to satisfy the audience. Mission Impossible III was boring and trite. Badly directed, with a script that made less sense than the first Tomb Raider. Do we really need any more evidence than the press's constant question of if Abrams is the "next Spielberg"? Remember the last person that moniker was attached to? Yeah, he put out a movie this year - The Happening. |
Quote:
In terms of Abrams, the only things he's been a part of that I've seen are Cloverfield, Mission Impossible 3, and Lost. Cloverfield was excellent, both in terms of its marketing and it's actual execution, MI:3 was just a fun but unmemorable action flick (wasn't offensively bad like, say, Quantum of Solace), and Lost has always been a fun show to watch, discuss, and theorize with friends. Despite the third season being flat-out awful, it's a sharply-written show, and even though sometimes it pisses me off with the blue balls it leaves me, it's air-tight. In regards to Star Trek, I don't care enough about it to rush out and see it on opening day (far less interested now that I read that he's going to have both a Lost AND Cloverfield reference shoved in there), and based on the 2 minutes of footage that the trailer showed us, it looks like a fairly fun sci-fi film that I will give a chance some day. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
At least until Generations came along. I can see a little bit of "Independence Day" creeping into the trailer there, which is pretty disappointing considering the source material, but whatever. I'm not in the habit of judging movies before I've seen them. Then, of course, Dance Flick enters the picture and proves me wrong. |
Quote:
|
In the end it is I, Erik J. Portillo, who has the greatest opinion and bestest likes in movies.
The trailer looked boring as shit, as is the case with most Star Trek, TNG being the exception 20% of the time. |
Quote:
As for the trailer...it looks a little more actiony than I would expect, but i'm going to withhold full judgment until the film finally does come out. I was hoping for it to come out this holiday season, but oh well. All I hope is they dont make it campy, but I don't think they will. |
Quote:
|
I enjoy the trailer, it didn't really feel "star trek" in the sense that it seen like a different style of film making. Although I don't care for uneven and sometimes droning pace of some of the TNG movies (although First Contact is still my favorite) , I always felt that star trek is more of a cerebral experience relative to some of the other more action oriented Science Fiction films.
I think this might be an interesting exercise to get beyond the setup and the premise that nerd like me always likes to play off to. Although I don't know how well the gun-ho-ness of the whole trailer, if that's how the movie will feel like works with the design aesthetics of the 1960s. |
Quote:
Star Trek 2 is popular for, what, blowing shit up and having some early cross-pollenation between movie and show. Meanwhile, TOS had entire episodes devoted to allegory about Vietnam and TNG was doing episodes about acceptance of homosexuality. First Contact? Blowing shit up. Undiscovered Country? A Scooby-Doo episode. I mean, they're fun and I love watching them - but "cerebral experience"? Oy gevalt! |
Quote:
Oh wait, wrong movie |
Hmm, I'm guessing Trek is enjoyable -100% of the time, but somehow mandatory for you, LeHah. Am I close? It's like Math and Sciences, but Television, for those who don't like those subjects.
|
|
This will probably sound dumb to
|
Quote:
|
Logical disconnect discovered in Star Trek
film at 11 |
Pang makes a snide comment that adds nothing to the thread and only further bolsters the idea he lacks a personality
See page 16, after the middle school sports scores. |
Page 16? Well, I can't knock KIRK'S ORIGIN LADEN WITH INCONSISTENCIES off the front page, I guess. :(
|
LeHah attempts a comeback.
This event recieved no media attention. |
Quote:
The joke is that - for someone who supposedly loved and grew up on the original series - JJ Abrams and his script continuity department didn't do their homework at all. Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm excited about Trek born anew. We'll see if it's worth anything, but over all, it's about damn time they started over. The Trek universe is tired, very tired. Much like Marvel and DC rebirth their comic universes (albeit poorly at times), it's healthier for the franchise, healthier for story-telling, and it's a fresh take for fans. I myself am not a Trek whore, but I've enjoyed it over the years. The original series when I was a boy, the movies when I was a bit older, TNG as a teen... DS9 while some swear by it, lacked a certain momentum that earlier stuff had. Same with Voyager. Unfortunately, I never saw Enterprise, but I'm guessing I would have liked it. The overall developing Trek universe has been fun and entertaining, but it's layered complexity is too much anymore. The simplicity, mystery, and adventure of the originals is completely lost. I don't have an educated opinion on Abrams or any of the creators of this movie, but I'm certainly glad someone is attempting to restart this intriguing franchise/story as Trek still has potential to excellently entertain for years to come. |
Since it's a JJ Abrams film, the movie will only show the Enterprise as a silhouette, the trailer was actually a flashback, and the movie is shot in first person view.
|
Quote:
Ladies and Gentlemen of GFF - your common Star Trek internet person. :gonk: |
Being that I watch the original shows when I was a kid and have every since. I have just on thing to say ...
WHO CARES ITS STAR TREK \ @.@ / i love it period |
Yeah, but you're not allowed to enjoy it
The curvature of Spock's ears is all wrong And there are some scratches on the Enterprise which shouldn't be there |
So the movie's been premiered and the reviews are starting to come in. The word is good so far, character development being the main point of praise. I'll be going this weekend...who else is excited?
|
Has it leaked yet?
|
<Mo0vereaction>Just pay for a motherfucking ticket, for christ's sake.</Mo0vereaction>
|
He just wants it to make slash pictures from screencaps.
Kirk/Harold HOTTTTT |
Quote:
Wouldn't recommend starting with the films. They assume a great deal of prior knowledge about the characters and situations. If you want to start with the original series, then you'll probably get a more historical perspective on the events which follow... but many episodes are a bit weak. Mind you, the same could be said for the first couple of seasons of any other Star Trek. It seems to take these series about two seasons to really hit stride. I wouldn't skip the early episodes of any series because they establish the characters, but be prepared for some weak episodes. If you do watch some of the films, skip the first and fifth. I can honestly say that I wouldn't subject anyone to those, even an enemy. The most recent series, Enterprise, is a prequel to the whole saga. The others follow on the chronology in approximately broadcast order. It blows chunks. Don't watch, unless you feel like punishing yourself. With regards to the trailer... it looks like a Michael Bay movie. Fuck that noise. Additional Spam: Quote:
|
Quote:
No. Thats the way idiots think. Its The Right Stuff with Star Trek. It also features more than one clever episode - like the First Contact backstory and the series finale is probably the most clever of all the ST endings. (It uses the same literary device as Mary Shelley's Frankenstein) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
This would explain why Sturgeon’s Revelation applies so well to people and posts found on the internet. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
See, my problem with DS9 is that it was pretty horrid to start with, and by the time someone told me it had actually become GOOD, I was too lost with the near constant continuing storyline to do anything more than "hey this is decent too bad I don't have a clue what the fuck's going on," and give back up on the show.
|
Quote:
Around season two, the show becomes a very severe criticism of TOS and TNG and - to an extent - Roddenberry himself. Sisko has a big speech in "The Maquis, Part 1" where he says that the Federation has it far too good and that Starfleet headquarters looks like paradise but that its "very easy to be a saint in paradise". The show continues on as a very strong narrative drive of the sacrifices that it takes to get where TNG supposedly is - right down to the whole Section 31 subplot. The thing that makes DS9 so damn good is the same thing that makes Starship Troopers so good and BSG so fucking awful - it predates our current era. The fact that BSG deals directly with jerk-off Bush administration criticism makes it dated, while the other two become even more apt as they age. |
DS9 rules, haters get the fuck out
|
Quote:
Opinion. Everyone has one. Like I said, I won't be surprised if nobody agrees. It just happens to be my personal take on Enterprise that I've seen puppets which were substantially less wooden. As for your post, at least give me something to work with. If you think I'm wrong or that I said something stupid and you tell me, then at least I can discuss that with you. I don't even know how to respond to that. When I say 'by my standards' I mean, "by the standards against which I measure good acting, based on what I've seen so far in my lifetime." I assume that was understood, but you seem to find something objectionable about it. Additional Spam: Quote:
Though LeHah obviously thinks I'm a moron (hey, it happens to most people some day) I agree with what he's got to say about DS9. It was by far the most intelligently written of all the Star Trek series for me. |
Quote:
|
Oh so you were 10. I guess there weren't enough space anomalies to hold your attention.
|
Ugh, space anomalies - would you like a little holo deck plot with that?
Anyway, I just got home from the movies and I'd say they made a very decent film. Obviously, It's still all very fresh and a bit of a blur; those early reviews noting the relentless pace were spot on. But even with the SFX going through the roof, it still somehow manages to focus on all those classic characters, which the cast both portrays and innovates really well. Incidentally, the film also takes another familiar Trek plot device and actually does something interesting with it. Other than that, there isn't much in the way of aforementioned high-concept stuff, which for the purpose of rebooting the story and setting up the crew is probably a wise choice. Still, you don't watch Star Trek for around twenty years and then come out of this without some nitpicking to do: Spoiler:
|
Coming from the point of view of someone who has had moderate exposure to Star Trek, enough to know the gist of everything and who all the characters are but not really the fine intricate details of the lore, it was a flipping awesome movie.
|
I too liked the movie greatly. It's occasionally obtuse because it is a JJ Abrams film and something that tries to appeal to people unfamiliar with Star Trek, but I found it entertaining and a fairly decent special effects feast.
Simon Pegg's performance just makes me miss James Doohan, though. |
Even though I'm going to see it Sunday as part of my mom's Mother's Day plans, I will say that the movie obviously needs moar John de Lancie.
|
Quote:
|
Pegg didn't have enough time on screen to really piss anyone off. (Karl Urban deserves a high five for being the only person to play their character well, though.)
The rest of the movie, on the other hand, had two hours to do so. And man, as someone who actually enjoys Trek for more than pewpew lasers I must say I weep for the future of the franchise. If this is how it's being rebooted, I want no part of it. |
Quote:
I was just saying I miss Doohan. |
The Onion - Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film as 'Fun, Watchable'
'sup Skills? "Gene Roddenberry is the hack who created the Star Trek TV series way back in the 40's or something." :tpg: |
I fail to see the logic of any Star Trek fan bitching that the characters in this film aren't carbon copy replicas of the originals. Why would you want that? You've had those characters, and those characters have had their stories, their lives, their episodes and films. If you want those exact characters that behave in exact ways and end up doing exact things in time, go watch the original series.
At the very point you cast new people to play the roles you're not going to get exact same characters, you're going to get a version of that character that differs in little ways, but tries to stay true to the soul of the character, and personally I thought everyone did a bloody excellent job (though to Skills the fact that Uhura kissed someone she's seemingly in a long-term relationship with makes her a whore, or at least a bitch). Personally I think it would have been far more offense if the actors had even remotely attempted to impersonate the original actors. And I got to say, this line is completely misleading bullshit: Quote:
Watch the 'spoof' video Mo0 linked, and listen to the first fake Trek fan, that is basically Skills. And you know what, you may want no part of this reboot Skills, but that's sort of your tough luck, since I have a feeling a lot of people are. It's a bloody great film, and unless you're like Skills and hung up on the original series in a rather exacting fashion, go see it and enjoy. |
Skills was trying to bitch about Star Trek in chat and Radez and I just talked about books and ignored him.
Anyway, I plan to see it tomorrow. Expect an inane and irrelevant post. |
Quote:
...but people who are introduced to the series "improperly" may expect it to be something it isn't and support that. I can't speak for the movie yet - I'm going to see it this afternoon - but I am worried about what Abrams is going to do and how "old hands" like myself are going to react to it. His is not a job I envy. Star Trek is something of an investment in my family. I inherited it from my father through Saturday morning reruns and evenings with pizza and TNG. The possibility - however implausible - that someone is going to come through and track mud all over it gets my blood going. Destruction of this type, on this scale is much more insidious than anything anyone ever tried to unsuccessfully pin on George Lucas prequels. Quote:
However, ST toiled on and more or less continued the "question of the week" material. I think this more or less became flubbed on Voyager (dumb show, but not the horrible acid-in-the-face event its made out to be) and First Contact (while fun - why care at all?) and finally came back to course with Enterprise and Insurrection (expulsion from Eden, questioning the moral implications of Federation survival versus indigenous species). And now here we have this movie. It's good that the movie is bringing in new blood and new fans - but it has a huge responsibility to the franchise. Not since Star Trek IV (which did this accidentally) has so much been riding on a Trek movie; this movie will determine if a new show or series or whatever comes out. But more importantly, will probably determine *what* kind of show that is. I'm hopeful but skeptical. I have no faith in JJ Abrams - the guy abandons all his shows after a season to two, Mission Impossible 3 was a fucking awful mess, the guy looks like Pom - and he basically comes off as the Jewish answer to Joss Whedon which is enough to give anything thinking person a headache on concept alone. I have nothing against the concept of a reboot - and everything against the way it will probably be handled. |
While your argument that Abrams looks like Pom is completely valid and will not be argued, I think your last line sums up precisely why your (and Skills') odds of liking the movie are next to nil. There is a class of fans, of which you two are both in it, that will scream until the ends of the earth that they're not irrationally hating on the movie (which, for full disclosure, I'm seeing tomorrow) but they're only upset with how it was done but a reboot itself isn't a bad thing honest! I realize you haven't seen it but your pre-viewing misgivings sound an awful lot like Skills'
Problem is that really seems to be the source of most of the negative reactions I've seen, people either don't want a reboot and are kidding themselves ("I'm fine with the idea of a reboot but why did they change the characters?"), or they're so bloody tied into what their idea of a reboot would be (and these are Trek fans, they've probably written a couple of screenplays) that it's offensive that the writers didn't read their mind. |
Quote:
My point about the lasers stuff is that this film is not about laser gun fights at all. There are some laser gun fights that take place (only one being people shooting at each other), but they are far from the point of the film. There's a much more personal level to this film, since it's entirely about the people (on both sides of any conflict portrayed) and what I was getting at is that to dismiss it as Skills did as a film just about 'pewpewpew lasers' is complete bullshit. Also Axelrod, if you want to go around dissing people's posts like a coward, well have fun with that, but how about you grow a pair and put forward an argument as to why you disagree with me (you know, engage in some discussion). |
This was like watching an anime version of Trek written by teens out of alt.trek.slashfics. I'm surprised there wasn't a furpile with tribbles somewhere.
Absurdly Written Spoilers follow: "Kirk, you're a genius level genius whose genius levels are off the charts. Genius." I lost my suspension of disbelieve somewhere in the middle of the Kelvin destructo-sequence and started laughing at the absurdity of the ultra-long, pregnant telcom o' angst and sorrow. I never got it back through the final wrap-up of "yay Timmy, you and your band of merry heroes have saved the universe from miners, here's our bestest, fastest ship as a prize." This movie was 14 year old wish fulfillment through and through with almost nothing of the grand vision that has made Trek repeatedly interesting to watch. Nearly every crisis encountered by the characters was solved through improbable means and to cap it off, the final resolution wasn't enabled by their own creative problem solving, but by a deus ex from the future. In fact, the sheer amount of unexplained knowledge running around in this film, most notably centered around omniscient new Spock was unreal. "I haven't even looked at anything you've done, but I know you're right. Lets go." Quote:
My one redeeming note for the film was that Sulu was repeatedly more of an action hero than any other member of the crew. Gay people kick ass, take names, and are tough as nails. |
Frankly, the bigger the budget is on a film, the more it's going to conform to hollywood standards because the more the producers get to wipe their noses on it. If they're going to spend millions on the film they want millions back and that means marketing it to more people than the greasy, socially awkward Trekkies of the world. The writers will throw in references for fans to be smug about because they know what they are, but it's all cut from the same cookie cutter at the end of the day.
So that said, when I see a film like this with a huge special effects budget I expect big spectacles, things blowing up with remarkably crisp explosion sounds and girls in short skirts. And I got all of that. It's a summer popcorn movie, just because it has Star Trek attached as a name doesn't change that it's going to follow all of the conventions. If you just sit back and tune your brain off it can be fun in its own gaping plot holes, comic relief and yes, 14 year old wish fullfillment way. |
What I don't get is why you people even SEE the movie if you think it's going to be that bad. Seriously, nobody is forcing you to go. Just stay home and save yourself the money.
|
Quote:
I'm gonna get flamed big time for that statement. All in all, it's a movie. I'm just on my way out to go see it and I'm not a Star Trek fan in the least. Am I going to get some references? No. Am I going to care that I'm not? No. Does it make me a bad person that I'm not going to give two shits if it touches on some philosophical life statement like most M. Night Shamalamadingdong movies weave in? Probably in the eyes of hard core Trek fans it does make me an evil, evil person. |
Quote:
Logic! |
I saw it. I thought it was okay. I am not sure what I expected but I do feel oddly disappointed. A Trekkie at heart, perhaps? No. Fuck you.
|
I went in with mostly neutral expectations - I'm not a Trek fan at all, but I've seen and enjoyed a fair few episodes. I have no fond childhood memories of the franchise. I enjoyed what I saw of Enterprise and Voyager. I'm casual scum.
Anyway: Spoiler:
Sure, I had a few grievances about it, but overall I wound up enjoying the movie and - in spite of what this thread would have me expect to occur - it did nothing to diminish my enjoyment of anything else related to the series. |
I saw the film this morning, and Araes has summed it up best. It's a decent movie for casual viewers, but there are just way too many flaws.
Pros:
Cons and Plot Holes:
Impression:
|
Quote:
Spoiler:
|
So, standing on its own merits I think I'll give it a 9/10. It was a very entertaining movie despite its problems (which I offer in the spoiler) and I will look forward to the sequel(s, which is pretty much a given).
Quote:
Spoiler:
|
Quote:
Spoiler:
|
Quote:
Spoiler:
|
Quote:
Oh, and Dopefish reminded me of how much I hated the Uhura thing. |
Quote:
Spoiler:
Also. Zachary Quinto and Leonard Nimoy as Spock and Spock' were awesome. |
Quote:
Spoiler:
|
Quote:
Spoiler:
Nutty, I just read your post and hear it in the voice of comic book guy. It's just a knee-jerk reaction when I see someone scrutinizing fictitious technology. Although in the grand scheme of things, I can't be too mad at you. The one Star Trek convention I went to saw some fan ask Robert Picardo why his head was so shiny. |
Quote:
Spoiler:
I mean I could be wrong at seeing that, but I seem to remember it pretty clearly. Then again, I was high. |
Quote:
Spoiler:
|
Quote:
Saw the movie. I am not nearly as enamored with it as the general population of Earth seems to be. Its a good summer blockbuster popcorn movie - and I mean that as a good thing and as an absolutely terrible thing. Spoiler:
Rating: 3 Stars |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Spoiler:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Spoiler:
|
Quote:
Spoiler:
|
Quote:
Spoiler:
(GAWD with the complex tagging) |
Quote:
Spoiler:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
You know what, Jessy, I think that's it. You've successfully closed the plot hole. :tpg:
|
Quote:
Who's to say that Scotty won't become a drunkard in the sequel(s) anyway? Seems like a nit that doesn't necessarily have to be picked at this time. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
(o scotty u) |
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/me.../Its_green.jpg
Scotty: "I found this on Ganyroom... uh, uh, Ganymeer... mede" Tomar: "What is it?" Scotty: "It's... uh... it's green." By Any Other Name One of the classic "Kirk gets all the chicks" episodes. If they do take this down the route of sequels, or a new spinoff TV series, my hope is that they at least stick to their own path and not try to do reworks of all the old stuff. "You know, that 'City on the Edge of Forever' ep. was good, but it really needed more 'splosions." |
Quote:
The movie made 76 million this weekend. Pretty impressive numbers. |
Quote:
|
"Close" makes it sound like you walk around with a sewing kit in your pocket. I think you mean "fill".
|
I meant close.
|
Saw it today. Enjoyed it, but, much like LeHah, I found some of the camerawork absolutely fucking IRRITATING. I mean, seriously. Abrams, the shakeycam worked for Cloverfield because of the conceit. For this, it was nauseating at times. Also, that fucking zoom in on something from a wide shot to a shot that's . . . slightly less wide? Fuck you.
Spoiler:
There. I give it 4 stars outta 5. It's easily the best of the odd numbered Trek films (not that that's hard, but still). I mean, 1's concept is OK, but then it goes HEY LET'S DO SPARKLIES FOR 10 MINUTES and shoots itself in the foot. 5's concept could have been fantastic, but it's saddled with retardedness. Meh. Oh, and Brady, as far as not liking DS9 because of "NOT ENOUGH SPACE ANOMALIES" goes, I will say, in my defense, that Inner Light has been my favorite TNG episode since its original airing. |
Well, I saw it tonight and I have to say I enjoyed it. And I also agree that Bones was great.
Overall, 4 out 5 stars too. The antagonist part was not developed really well and as a result seemed more in the way than anything. I will write a short opinion piece in my journal later tomorrow. |
So if you know absolutely nothing about Star Trek, will this movie be enjoyable as a generic sci-fi action flick?
|
Quote:
When I look back, I kind wished I knew less of Star Trek than I actually knew. As a result, it ruined my experience of this movie a bit. |
Quote:
Black holes do not actually emit dangerous radiation. That is a result of matter spiraling into the black hole, causing it to heat up and emit radiation. That matter takes time to accumulate. |
I'd have to agree with Vivi, going in with little or no Star Trek knowledge is probably the best because it lets you se the movie for what it is. The more attached you are to the original series, the more likely you are to get pissed at the changes they made just because they're CHANGES.
Also check this shit out, sneak peek at Star Trek 2
|
|||||
Ok, I just found out that Tyler Perry was in the movie. I'm downgrading my opinion accordingly.
|
Quote:
I was dragged to see it, thinking I wouldn't understand a goddamn thing because I am not a trekky by any stretch of the imagination. But it was worth sitting through, and was entertaining none the less. Of course, you won't appreciate it as much as a trekky would since a lot is lost on the in-jokes and things like that. |
Quote:
|
Actually LeHah has had the most reasoned reaction to the movie amongst Trek fans that I've seen, and he didn't even really hate the movie.
|
Quote:
|
For the record, I didn't even read your post.
|
Quote:
|
Not like I did it out of spite, I just didn't see it.
|
His journal entry sure as hell didn't hate on it, so how did you know he hated on it?
(hated on hated on) |
|
Quote:
Quote:
http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z...ad-in-sand.jpg |
Short version: I saw Star Trek. I liked the writing and acting. I was neutral on the overall story, canonicity, etc. J.J. Abrams is still a shit director.
I saw Star Trek in Manhattan at the AMC Lowes at 84th and Broadway (I mention this only because it is an awful theater; don't ever go there). It was Saturday at around 10pm and the theater was quite empty. I had heard reports from folks back in San Francisco that showings were repeatedly selling out, but Manhattan has a ridiculous density of movie theaters so a loosely packed house wasn't a big concern. I was, within the first five minutes struck by what I would deduce as the film's key art directive: respectful modernization. The new textures and old colors on the uniforms, and other costume designs are a good example of this working well, while the overwrought & hyperactive computer displays are an example of this working poorly. As the movie went on and more of the characters were introduced I was thrilled. To varying degrees the essence of the characters had remained and the performances of the original actors were reinterpreted (good: Karl Urban as Bones ("My God, man!"), not as good: Zoe Saldana playing the all-poise Uhura as a Charlie's Angel). The dialogue was snappy, believable and fun to watch. Things unfolded in what seemed a largely sensible manner. As I left the theater though, doubts began to appear: Why was Nero a Bel Air'd copypasta of Nemesis's Shinzon? Plus, why pick on the Romulans? Is Ron Moore the only person who can write a Klingon story anymore? One of the masterstrokes of Generations is that it provides some fascinating back story for an already existing, but underdeveloped race (the El-Aurians). I mean, this is the equivalent of the Romulans waking up to find the writers have left turd on their chest, and then hours later realizing their dog has been shot as well. All other poorly-defined Star Trek races: Beware! Regrettably, establishing an alternate timeline is pretty much the only way to deal with the dense, conflicting, multi-century Star Trek canon. But there's still a big connection to the main timeline and some stuff crops up there. I felt like some screen time could have been taken from some of the more pointless-yet-cool action scenes or pointless-yet-cool Trek nerd nods to resolve some of the more pressing questions about what exactly is going on. I don't know who to blame or how it got started, but the needless mood lighting that's invaded action movies circa late 200X has got to go. Watch Rush Hour 1 or 2 and then watch a few minutes (I don't want to kill anyone) of Rush Hour 3 and you'll see how bad this shit has gotten. CSI's crime lab doesn't need to be lit dark and blue and neither does your movie. In the same vein, the Paramount Presents Michael Bay's Transformers Lens Flare From A Light Source Off Screen and the pointless, post-Matrix camera movements (see just after the cut to Spock at the Vulcan Science Academy) can all get the hell off my lawn too. Good movie? Yeah, I enjoyed myself. Will it hold up in 27 years the way Khan does? Nah. It will be as kitsch and dated and painful as the 23 year old Star Trek IV: The One With The Whales is today. |
Quote:
Okay, college grad, lets show you learned some critical thinking at school when you weren't trying to clear up the previous night's mishap with some cranberry juice. Watchmen exists in comic form, correct? I am familiar with this material very, very well. I wouldn't say I'd write a paper on it because only awful people try to validate their personal emotional response of a comic book with a logical process of deduction. Watchmen was turned into a movie. Follow me still? It followed the comic directly, page by page. It took the material that existed and I had read and put it to the screen. I have seen Hitchcock's Psycho. I have also, by osmosis, seen the 1998 remake of Psycho since its the same thing. Watchmen is absolutely no different and the failure of Zack Snyder is the same failure of Gus Van Sant. Why is this? (Pick up your number two pencils and begin filling in the bubble test, children) Because one of these things is not like the other. Synder and Van Sant did not understand why things were done in the source material; like George Carlin said about the blues "Its not enough to know the notes - you need to know *why they need to be played*". Moreover, Snyder both did not understand that the intent of the material on page is rarely the intent of a film. When Dave Gibbons drew panels that played with perspective or had scope, it wasn't intended to be turned into a movie storyboard as it is a figurative machination of the storytelling and not shoved-like-a-cat-in-a-shoebox literal adaption to film. SHORT ANSWER TO THIS ENTRY: If you do not understand the difference and disparate functions between written word and film, you need to go back to school. (As an aside - what made you think that posting my own write-up was a good idea? Did you bother to read the explanation? Or did you just go AHA I REMEMBER WHEN HE WROTE SOMETHING LIKE THIS BEFORE AND ITS A MATCHING SET AND I WILL BE CALLED CLEVER FOR NOTICING.) I should not have to explain this to you - you are a film grad, are you not? Why is it that a failed art major can have higher deductive reasoning than you in a subject that you have a degree in? Why must you act this stupid? Why must I constantly correct you in things which you are accredited in? Here is where we separate beast from man - and please don't take this as a personal affront Sprout, even though I know you will - the huge difference between when I write about something and when you write about something is that when I do it, its an attempt to circumvent the clever aspects of my person in an attempt to make an argument for a discussion while you go right for being clever to create an argument that should otherwise not exist. So please, please, save your words for someone a little younger than you who just got beaned in the head with a lighting scaffold. The rest of us are getting a little too old to babysit those of you with asperger's syndrome. |
Quote:
|
Holy fuck Lehah, can you split that into a couple of posts so I can prop it more please.
|
Quote:
also lehah, cool post bro. |
Quote:
LeHah as THE POPE Sprout as THE KID The pope comes to New York and goes to Saint Pats. The masses are lining the streets, with flags and banners, all cheering for their religious icon. The limo pulls up and the pope walks out in his long, flowing purple robes, gently waving to the crowd as he walks up the stairs. A little Puerto Rican kid from 54th street sneaks in between the balustrades and gets right next to the Pope as hes walking up the stairs. "Hey man, you the Pope?" says this little kid in a thick accent. "Yes, my son - I am the pope." "Fuck you." Everyone stands, shocked. The pope looks down at the kid as he furrows his brow, "Excuse me? I'm the POPE. I rule one of the vastest dynasties of faith the world has ever known. I am the head of a sovereign religious nation under the True Lord. We have more money than most countries in the world - people in Africa starve so they can send us nickles every week. Water supplies in the Middle East are bad in the poorest areas because they pay tithe to me daily! We have so much money, we can never possibly use it all! I am one of the most powerful men who walk the Earth in this modern age! Fuck me? FUCK YOU!" |
Laughing so hard because of that post + DOG.
|
Quote:
I guess that's a good thing though, if it means I'll like this one. We're going this weekend, I think. |
Quote:
Unless you are one of those types who experience physical pain when the Star Trek canon is violated, you'll like Abrams's Star Trek. |
Quote:
One of the "problems" with Star Trek time travel is that its almost never, ever done right. Like the time Sisko and Bashir went "back in time" to the ... early 21st century? First off - the show was made in the mid-1990s and it still *looks that way*. I'm not even talking about the obvious "lower" production value, you have a guy walking around with a fedora like he's Joey from DeGrassi. Star Trek IV got it right in that it was "timely". Its suppose to be painful and dated. Duh. Get with the joke, man. |
I saw Star Trek yesterday. I've never seen a Star Trek film before, hence I have no frame of reference for what I'm about to say but certainly compared to the series it didn't "feel" like Star Trek. That's not to say I didn't enjoy myself (I did, quite a lot actually). In fact it's rekindled my interest in the franchise, and I'd like to start from scratch. I wonder how long it will be before I find the remake to be blasphemy.
|
Now that we've seen the toys, lets see what Abrams does with them before we damn him.
I would perfer if he leaned more toward the "morality play" situations of yore. Time will tell. |
Quote:
:erm: |
Quote:
Couldn't tell you why that just popped into my head just now, but it did. |
Well I saw this tonight, and being a huge Trekkie as a kid, I liked it. But then I hated it at the same time. I think they got the characters down pretty well, (I actually enjoyed Chekov a little; a bit on the annoying side. Let's not talk about Uhura.), but the plot was awful. Believable, but I guess I'm a canonfag that is too disturbed that they messed with canon so much.
Spoiler:
Kinda mad that there were no Klingons, though I guess Romulans were the enemy and having Klingons at this point would be too much to handle. (Romulans suck though.) |
WICTOR WICTOR
|
Quote:
(A good example being that one episode in Voyager where the viewer is led to assume the vantage point of a clone crew who think they are the real deal, only to die miserably and then the *real* crew comes along nonethewiser of their doppleganger's ghastly experience... and the show continues on as if nothing happened.) Vulcan and the rest of the canon remain untouched and preserved and Abrahms gets to introduce Trek to (from the looks of things) millions of people who previously had a deep aversion to getting involved in all this nerd business. |
I think blowing up Vulcan (what, we're not using spoiler tags anymore?) isn't a bad bit of storytelling. The peaceful society being blown up by a... warlike... giant... death machine... has never been done before in a ... science fiction... franch--
Shit. |
Quote:
I'm calling the new franchise Ultimate Star Trek. |
I find it refreshing to see a bad post get dissed for once.
I'm calling it Ultimate Diss Works. |
Quote:
|
Ultimate Joke Misunderstanding
|
Ultimate Really Bad Joke
|
I don't see why it's such a terrible comparison, honestly.
|
Well, there's a difference between being so true it's funny and so true it's depressing.
|
Quote:
Anyway, just referring to what I'm projecting as a similarity with the dichotomy between Uncanny X-Men and Ultimate X-Men. I think Pangalin knows what I mean. I foresee a lot of potentially arbitrarily contrived differences from the main continuity. Sulu's probably gay and stuff. (Art imitating life.) Nevertheless I'm sure the fresh take will be enjoyable. |
Quote:
|
I watched the movie at summer about 3 months ago. It was actually quite enjoyable, at least the effects were good (and Uhura), so now I wait for it to come on dvd at december.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.