[Movie] Star Trek (2009)

Originally Posted by LeHah

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/By_Any_Other_Name_(episode)

I BELIEVED YOU, JEEZ

(o scotty u)

I was speaking idiomatically.

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."

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Araes

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."

I agree completely. As much as I want the next movie to acknowledge that the original timeline continues to exist and flourish seperate from this new one - I also know that in doing that would be really goddamned dumb.

The movie made 76 million this weekend. Pretty impressive numbers.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Sousuke

You know what, Jessy, I think that's it. You've successfully closed the plot hole.

I close a lot of holes. What of it!?

Most amazing jew boots

"Close" makes it sound like you walk around with a sewing kit in your pocket. I think you mean "fill".

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I meant close.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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:

The moment where they're plummeting towards Vulcan and this happens was probably the worst use of this.

On the other hand, there were things that had me giggling (in a good way):
- Spock doing the Picard Maneuver.
- The red shirt. Oh my god, the red shirt.
- The fact that Spock Prime was essentially piloting the USS Make Shit Up with the whole "let's use a black whole to stop a supernova." Then we should bounce the graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish.

I was also wondering at the beginning going "WHAT THE FUCK HUGE FUCKING RETCONS"; thankfully, they didn't go the standard "hey let's go through time and fix this" angle like I was expecting. Yeah, it negates pretty much everything that's come before, but that's sorta to be expected with a reboot.

Oh, and I haven't seen any comments about how Bones did a fantastic job with keeping DeForest Kelly's speech patterns and rhythms and it was great. None of the other actors really did that. I'm guessing that was intentional.

Finally: how does Uhura being in a relationship with Spock (oh yeah, also kissing him) make her a whore? Sure, she wasn't drawn as well as the others, but.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

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

So if you know absolutely nothing about Star Trek, will this movie be enjoyable as a generic sci-fi action flick?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by quazi

So if you know absolutely nothing about Star Trek, will this movie be enjoyable as a generic sci-fi action flick?

Yes, I would say you would enjoy it. It actually might be a better movie if you have no idea of the previous incarnations. Actually, it might get you interested in the other stuff (The movies at least) after watching this movie, just to understand some of the references.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by nuttyturnip

-Correct me if I'm wrong, but stopping a supernova by creating a black hole is insanely stupid. Wouldn't a black hole be much worse, what with radiation emissions and immense gravitation pull?

At a distance, black holes have the same gravitational effects as would something of the same mass. (In this case, the star going supernova and the black hole would have nearly the same mass. Because the star is most of the mass of the black hole.) It is only when you are close to the event horizon that there is an apparent difference.

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.

FELIPE NO

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

YouTube Video

Most amazing jew boots

Ok, I just found out that Tyler Perry was in the movie. I'm downgrading my opinion accordingly.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by quazi

So if you know absolutely nothing about Star Trek, will this movie be enjoyable as a generic sci-fi action flick?

Yes.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

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.

Judging from what I've seen so far, the more you like Star Trek the less you like the movie. At least if Colonel Whinypants and Lehah are any sign.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

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

Originally Posted by Tentacle Rapist

Judging from what I've seen so far, the more you like Star Trek the less you like the movie. At least if Colonel Whinypants and Lehah are any sign.

If its any consolation to your empty reaction to my post - my dislikes with the film are firmly centered on the film and not the Star Trek aspect to it.

How ya doing, buddy?

For the record, I didn't even read your post.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Tentacle Rapist

For the record, I didn't even read your post.

You could date sprout with that level of "head in the sand" mentality!

FELIPE NO

Not like I did it out of spite, I just didn't see it.

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

His journal entry sure as hell didn't hate on it, so how did you know he hated on it?

(hated on hated on)

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Edit your post all you like.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by LeHah

You could date sprout with that level of "head in the sand" mentality!

I can't seem to recall an example of my "head in the sand mentality" considering I saw Star Trek, but something is coming back to me now... Something from late February...

Originally Posted by LeHah's Journal

Loathesome In Its Own Deliciousness: Why I Refuse To See Watchmen

Watchmen is coming out in a week and I am standing firm on refusing to see it. The reasons are many but the chief one is - unsurprisingly - Alan Moore is against it. His reasons for being cynical are many and are for good reason. Moore is, above all else, a bearded, scary looking man and an intelligent writer.

The first problem right out of the gate is that everything he's written and seen adapted to film has been complete and utter shit. League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which started off as a literary device using classic science fiction characters like Captain Nemo, Allan Quatermain and Doctor Kemp in a Justice League team-up, was boiled down to a bad mish-mash Die Hard wanna-be that is best remembered for Sean Connery punching director Stephen Norrington while making the movie. I have no doubt that many, many people wanted to follow Connery's act, after seeing the film.

From Hell, Moore's heavily researched (if historically imperfect) drama about the murders of Jack The Ripper, was given a serious go-around in Hollywood. The result was a movie that had almost nothing to do with the story; while the movie its self isn't the exceeding awfulness that details League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, it also could've been a Jack The Ripper movie separate from the original source material if they were going to deviate that far from Moore's story. The only things that remained were some character names, and the title. Why? Who the hell knows.

I refuse to even discuss the levels of awful that V For Vendetta was butchered and boxed into. There is not a fire in Hell hot enough to burn that movie away and if someone reading this actually enjoys or agrees with that film, I'm never going to talk well of you ever again.

And now here we are with Watchmen. Long considered the best material the entire history of comics has ever come up with, Alan Moore has expressed great regret in the aftermath of its release. "Why can't comics be fun again?" he lamented in an interview. And he's right - between Watchmen and Frank Miller's own epic The Dark Knight Returns, the 1980s were suddenly inundated with darker, more realistic story lines across the industry. We're still reaping the supposed benefits to this day - but for every Spider-Man: Kraven's Last Hunt we end up with a Spawn, a Dark Knight Strikes Back and a WildC.A.T.S..

First of all - the concept of making the film is faulty on that singular idea alone. Four hundred and sixteen pages of very detailed comics does not translate into a one hundred and sixty-three minute film - especially so if the film is using the comic to storyboard the visuals. The idea that one can remove large chunks of material (particularly the ending, in this case) from a story and still be considered valid is idiotic alone. Terry Gilliam attempted to make the comic into a miniseries twice - and both times failed, though the second time seems to have been more of a budgetary and effects reason than expressed interest. Robin Williams was even approached to play Rorschach, which if you think on it a bit and consider the man's reigned-in roles with Good Will Hunting and What Dreams May Come would probably have been a good choice.

Instead, we're given the director (Zach Snyder) who made 300, another woefully overrated schlock not-so-epic based after a Frank Miller comic of the same name. I will not attempt to compare Miller and Moore in terms of writing style, but Miller is a repeat Hollywood veteran: he wrote (and then had butchered by the industry) both Robocop sequels and wrote-directed The Spirit last summer which was universally panned by every person who say it. Considering I've not actually talked to anyone who saw it, we must live in a huge universe or the all of the showings were very, very empty.

But Miller wants to be part of that world. Moore does not. Moore *hates* Hollywood and everything it stands for; he's gone so far as to have his name removed from all the films his material has been adapted into. Can anyone blame him - everything he does is taken out of context and reshaped into something that sells instead of speaks.

Moore calls Watchmen "inherently unfilmable", which is not too far from the truth in some aspects. At the risk of sounding glib, the comic is drawn in a way to mimic movement, depth and scale in the way a film camera does. However, translating that to an actual camera and actual live-action characters ruins the depth, scale and intent that Moore and artist Dave Gibbons created. Its not suppose to be a movie-on-page nor is it suppose to be made literal with live actors (or any actors, arguably), its suppose to be an experience-made-larger. This is a very subtle but important part of why the movie is a failure from the beginning - the intent of the film is inherently not the intent of the story at all.

It could be said that the movie comes at the best possible time - while we're still in the fallout of The Dark Knight. I won't go into why I think that movie was the biggest pile of shit-shoveled, self-aware, pseudo-intellectual garbage any human or group of humans has ever defecated into existence - even my original journal entry on the film pales to the wanton vitriol of hate I feel toward it - but the fact is that the two films deserve each other. The Dark Knight with its smarmy exposition rants and college freshmen discussion on chaos with Snyder's misconception of the political agenda behind Watchmen's statement of "If there's a God, he must be American" goes together in a bad "smart for stupids" intellectual misunderstanding.

The end of it is this: If the author of your favorite novel said that the movie adaptation was against his wishes, that it was wrong to exist at all, that it had nothing to do with him or her and that they wish it never existed - who would you side with? The writer? Or the studio system and its hack director?

I guess it's easier to talk out of your ass when your mouth is filled with so much SAND.



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

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.

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

Originally Posted by sprouticus

I can't seem to recall an example of my "head in the sand mentality" considering I saw Star Trek, but something is coming back to me now... Something from late February...

Aww, look at him try to think.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.