[Movie] Star Trek (2009)

Originally Posted by sprouticus

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?

Everyone loves Wrath of Khan, but the one closest to my heart has always been Undiscovered Country. It did for Star Trek what Rocky Balboa did for the Rocky series. Namely, it showed that the characters were getting older, but it allowed them to go out with some dignity.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by KrelEN

Spoiler:

- The CALL-HIM-JIM-I-LOVE-YOU-CRASH-BANG-WALLOP opening and subsequent adolescent carjacking scenes made me fear for the quality of the film as a whole. Not a good draw.

I will be addressing everyone here because I cannot be arsed to spoiler-quote everything ad infinitum. So, this is not all aimed at you specifically, KrelEN.

Spoiler:

You didn't like the best action sequence in the movie? Like, seriously, no argument, the opening was awesomesauce. How anyone can say they like Star Trek and not like the big naval battles/captain going down with his ship thing is beyond comprehension. When it's not moralizing, this is what Star Trek is about. The adolescent scene was silly, but combined with the early scenes of Spock it worked as a framing device for the rest of the movie. Showing Kirk and Spock at odds even before they ever meet was interesting, and it was over pretty quickly, so in terms of scripting, it got done what it needed to and didn't overstay the welcome.

Kirk's promotion comes as a bit of a surprise until you realize he has a fledgling Admiral and the entirety of Earth's population rooting for him. Warheroes get prrrrrrrromotions!

The black hole thing bothered me a bit, moreso the fact that they stuck around to shoot at something caught in a gravity well than the fact that they created the gravity well in the first place. But, it's Star Trek logic. It could be that once the red matter was expended, the rift was closed, or it could be that Kirk was simply gambling that it would be enough to do the job where the Enterprise clearly was not.

As the introduction to a conceivable new cast, this movie set out to establish who the people were. Bringing in a nemesis would be jumping the gun, and while it might be nice to imagine everybody getting together and coming up with a master plan it wouldn't have been likely in the context of the story, having all these fresh-faced cadets able to work as one machine. Instead, they hinted at what made each of these people special and why their ultimate voyages might be so successful.

Not sure what unexplained knowledge you mean, Araes, but it's obvious they went out of their way to appease people who would wonder why the movie was so different from the Star Trek they knew, and alternate timeline pretty much covers it. Omagnus went over this already, but carbon copy characters would do a disservice to the movie because it would only appeal to one type of person. It's a movie in broad strokes because it wants to appeal to a wider audience. Once they move on to a second or a third, they'll start giving the characters more specific obstacles to overcome. As IGN pointed out, for this first movie, the lynchpin is Kirk vs. Spock. Really, as it should be.

Also, Nutty, you are giving Trekkies a bad name, and that is some feat.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

Spoiler:

Unless, from some reason, he enjoys more the timeline that results from Romulus and Vulcan being gone. Which would be hard to grasp.

Spoiler:

Well, the idea with an alternate timeline is that it occurs beside the universe we know and love, so as soon as Nero went back in time, he entered universe B as opposed to universe A he had been living in. It's the Back to the Future explanation, where time is not linear, but radial.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

Spoiler:

Well, that's ONE theory, though that's the worst possible theory in my mind. I'm not thrilled with the idea of an entire 40-plus-year timeline being wiped out because Paramount wanted to make some more money off this franchise.

Spoiler:

But see, the theory goes that any number of given universes can exist at any given time, simultaneously. They actually had a TNG episode like it, where all Enterprises from all universes collided in universe prime, and Picard had to send them all back. They didn't disappear when he did it, they just went to their own separate universes. (Aside from one Enterprise that couldn't take being sent back to a universe where the war against the Borg was all but lost.) So nothing gets wiped out so much as set aside, if you can believe that.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?