[Movie] Star Trek (2009)

Originally Posted by Soluzar

my own standards

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuggggggggghhh

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by wvlfpvp

See, my problem with DS9 is that it was pretty horrid to start with

The trick with DS9 is that all of the first season was "hard sci-fi" - all high concept stuff. There was an episode about people not being able to communicate and another one about endless war and so on. It was probably the closest to the original series as the spin-offs ever got.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

DS9 rules, haters get the fuck out

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by LeHah

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuggggggggghhh

???

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:

Originally Posted by wvlfpvp

See, my problem with DS9 is that it was pretty horrid to start with,

I don't recall it ever being that bad. The worst episode of DS9 is still better than (to pull a random example) The Naked Now (TNG 1x03) and much of the rest of TNG's early output, which was often mediocre and occasionally abysmal. It had at least some interesting characters.

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by LeHah

The trick with DS9 is that all of the first season was "hard sci-fi" - all high concept stuff. There was an episode about people not being able to communicate and another one about endless war and so on. It was probably the closest to the original series as the spin-offs ever got.

Maybe I missed all that stuff, what with being 10 at the time of first season. I have never had an issue with "hard-sci" at all; I enjoy being thrown in to something and having little or no explanation of the technology that's being used. It's neat to see it implemented.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Oh so you were 10. I guess there weren't enough space anomalies to hold your attention.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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:

• A lot about the Romulans, especially the art design and their impromptu ascension from lowly miners to arch-baddies felt eerily reminiscent of the train-wreck that was Nemesis, as if the filmmakers wanted a do-over. Luckily it works a whole lot better this time.
• Nimoy's Spock (dubbed "Spock Prime" in the credits) never quite reaches the same larger-than-live gravity he had in the older films.
• Giacchino's delivers a decent score, but it gets a little too repetitive and overblown towards the end.
• Red matter? Uhh...

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by GB

Simon Pegg's performance just makes me miss James Doohan, though.

That's a bad sign...

Most amazing jew boots

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

That's a bad sign...

Why? Pretty hard to fuck up when you're meant to have a shitty scottish accent.

I was just saying I miss Doohan.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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."

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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:

Originally Posted by Blue Falcon

And man, as someone who actually enjoys Trek for more than pewpew lasers I must say I weep for the future of the franchise.

There is hardly any 'pewpew lasers' in this thing, it's just that the 'pewpew laser' sequences in this film were fucking cool.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

Originally Posted by OmagnusPrime

If you want those exact characters that behave in exact ways and end up doing exact things in time, go watch the original series.

I think its more the worry that the result of this movie is that the previous material is going to be dismissed, no matter how good it was. Its not a really tangible idea since Star Trek exists in books and DVDs and a shit-storm of material that would require a DeLorean equipt with a Mr Fusion to undo ...

...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.

Originally Posted by OmagnusPrime

And I got to say, this line is completely misleading bullshit: There is hardly any 'pewpew lasers' in this thing, it's just that the 'pewpew laser' sequences in this film were fucking cool.

Well, heres the thing. On one hand, Gene Roddenberry created a series that was not about laser gun fights, but to tool out moral questions. As time went on, we found that Roddenberry was just a giant numbskull who hated Star Trek 2 (and was correct in that Star Trek 4 was actually a personal nose-thumbing) and had no idea what his show was about anymore.

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.

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

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by LeHah

Destruction of this type, on this scale is much more insidious than anything anyone ever tried to unsuccessfully pin on George Lucas prequels.

You seem to be fairly confident it's going to destroy your precious Star Trek before you've even seen the film here LeHah. I fully expect to see you ranting back here after you've gone to confirm you hate it at the cinema.

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).

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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:

There's a much more personal level to this film, since it's entirely about the people

While I understand why this might be said, I'd argue that almost all of the interaction of the crew was either painted with such huge, overblown strokes that it came off as laughable; involved wacky hijinks more appropriate for scoobs and the gang; or was just an echo of the more heartfelt original cast spoken through catchphrases.

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.

FELIPE NO

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, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by sprouticus

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.

Because we are dealing with the same kind of people what, when Final Fantasy: Advent Children came out, the masses that hated it were all deep seeded fanboys that hate the idea of the very thing they understand most in life is touched in some way.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by sprouticus

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.

Before the film's release, die-hard Trekkies who regarded the film's premise as total iconoclasm could only base their campaign of bitching on trailers, posters, interviews and the like. Now that the film's out, they can't competently whine about it without having seen it, because that'd be hypocritical. So, to save face, they're all going to watch it despite having already decided two years ago that there's no way it could be anything other than a wretched affront to their precious childhood memories, utterly devoid of any merit whatsoever.

Logic!

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