[Movie] Star Trek (2009)

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

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:

I thought it was great. It definitely had that Abrams/Lindelof thing going on throughout, and although I wasn't really sure sure how well it'd work in the context of Star Trek, there weren't any really stylistically fucked moments that come to mind. Aside from the lens flares.

It's not a prequel and it's not a reboot - although I suppose you could consider it bits of both in some respects. The time travel was handled decently, and there's definitely potential for expansion on this new setting. I actually felt like I'd just watched a pilot for a new TV series upon leaving the cinema.

Does it feel like Star Trek? I'm not really qualified to judge, but from what little I've seen, I'd say... Sort of. It's not got the same air about it as any of the eps or films I've seen (again, I reiterate: not many), but it's probably the most fun I've ever had watching a Trek flick.

The only things I didn't enjoy:

- Karl Urban's stiff portrayal of Bones - I get that the character's supposed to be stern, professional and all matter-of-fact-ish, but I didn't really feel it.
- Everything in the ice planet sequence right up until the cave scene was just what. Kirk being a dumbfuck and wandering across the snowfield was irksome. Kirk getting chased by a CGI beastie that wouldn't look out of place in Pitch Black/Riddick was a different kind of frustrating altogether.
- Kirk was a douche for most of the film.
- 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.
- Lens flares oh god what

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 was speaking idiomatically.

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:

-Zachary Quinto made an excellent Spock.
-Simon Pegg, though a bit over the top for Scotty, was still enjoyable.
-Fitting in an awesome number of classic Trek cliches.

Cons and Plot Holes:

-Why is Kirk's wife on the Kelvin? Families, especially pregnant members, weren't aboard starships until TNG.
-Why is all of Starfleet in some other sector, and why does the Federation staff all the remaining ships (including their flagship) seemingly completely with newly graduated cadets?
-The whole having to stand still to beam up thing. Standing still 5 seconds in the confinement beam is completely bogus. Just have Amanda crushed by a rock if you're that set on killing her.
-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?
-Promoting Cadet Kirk all the way to Captain at the end, meanwhile Spock gets nothing.

Impression:

Would it have been that hard to write a sequel without completely invalidating just about the entire Star Trek universe (except for Enterprise)? When Amanda died and Vulcan blew up, I kept expecting some time travel mumbo-jumbo to put everything back the way it was supposed to be, but instead they blow up the Romulan ship and "The End". At least Captain Pike doesn't end in a beeping chair for the rest of his life (at least not yet).

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

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).

Originally Posted by nuttyturnip

Impression:

Would it have been that hard to write a sequel without completely invalidating just about the entire Star Trek universe (except for Enterprise)? When Amanda died and Vulcan blew up, I kept expecting some time travel mumbo-jumbo to put everything back the way it was supposed to be, but instead they blow up the Romulan ship and "The End". At least Captain Pike doesn't end in a beeping chair for the rest of his life (at least not yet).

Spoiler:

This was my main disappointment with the movie, aside from U-whore-a the Cling-on. It creates the possibility of this paradox, ASSUMING nothing else about the timeline changes:

• tra-la-la Spock gives his katra to McCoy, then dies (ST2)
• oops, Vulcan is gone, so where can they hold their ceremony?
• Spock can't make promise to Romulans to help save Romulus
• Nero has no vendetta against Spock in the first place, so he doesn't destroy Vulcan
• Spoiler:

  

Even then, IF Spock's katra gets returned to him but on some other planet, yadda yadda yadda, don't you think Spock OF ALL PEOPLE would have the brains to keep Romulus from being destroyed in the future again?

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

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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Skexis

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Skexis

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

How am I doing that? Contrary to how my post might have looked, I actually did enjoy the movie, it just could have been much better.

Oh, and Dopefish reminded me of how much I hated the Uhura thing.

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

Originally Posted by KrelEN

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.

This. I just got back from seeing this too, and I have to say, despite not being a Trekkie, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I can't really nitpick, except for one 'small' detail that basically broke the movie near the end. I didn't SEE it resolved, but maybe I missed something.

Spoiler:

...Wasn't there a gigantic black hole left above Earth? That's kind of a dealbreaker for me. Unless of course the warpcore exploding somehow took care of that... but I don't see how. Either way, it wasn't really explained.

Also. Zachary Quinto and Leonard Nimoy as Spock and Spock' were awesome.

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

Originally Posted by Sousuke

Spoiler:

...Wasn't there a gigantic black hole left above Earth? That's kind of a dealbreaker for me. Unless of course the warpcore exploding somehow took care of that... but I don't see how. Either way, it wasn't really explained.

Also. Zachary Quinto and Leonard Nimoy as Spock and Spock' were awesome.

Spoiler:

The drill got started working, then Spock shot it off. After that, I'm assuming...again with the assuming...that Nero's ship is far away enough that this black hole and the warp-core destruction occur far away from Earth. I forget if there was that much distance between the ship and Earth, though...

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

Spoiler:

The drill got started working, then Spock shot it off. After that, I'm assuming...again with the assuming...that Nero's ship is far away enough that this black hole and the warp-core destruction occur far away from Earth. I forget if there was that much distance between the ship and Earth, though...

You guys skipped the part where

Spoiler:

Spock went into warp and Nero abandoned Earth's destruction to chase him for who knows how long of a distance. I mean I am not sure how far Vulcan is from Earth, but that trip didn't seem to take long at all, so this black hole is probably pretty far away... as in not even near our solar system.

I mean I could be wrong at seeing that, but I seem to remember it pretty clearly. Then again, I was high.

FELIPE NO

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:

That's time travel stories for you. I'm not really sure what's more believable, that Spock vanishes Marty McFly-style once Vulcan is gone or just lives on as a paradox. Messing with the timestream could also create a different, independent iteration of it, that is, if it was possible at all.

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

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, unlike you apparently, I have to see a movie in order to form an insightful opinion on it.

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:

It did a lot of things right - great casting (aside from Chekov, who was terrible. And I don't know what to make of Uhura but I think that was more the screenplay than the actress), great SFX, interesting premise and a lot of cute continuity jokes.

However, there are some... bumps in the road. The opening was impossibly cloying. YOUR FATHER WENT DOWN WITH HIS SHIP SAVING HIS SON AND WIFE AND HUNDREDS OF OTHER PEOPLE came across as just a bunch of cliches put together with a potato masher (the food preparing device, not a german grenade) and served up with a giant helping of THIS IS A TRAILER THIS IS A TRAILER THIS IS A TRAILER sense of editing and pace and all that.

The camerawork was awful. It looked like someone was in college and decided to make his film interesting, he was going to use a bunch of obtuse wideangle lenses and then shake the camera a lot. The camera shake effect is awful, and Star Trek is probably the second worst one I've ever seen after the third Bourne movie (or Gladiator?). Also, the fight on the giant laser drill was ... impossibly stupid. Why does the asian guy come with a foldable katana? I'm sure theres some Asian social groups out there vaugely offended by this.

Something that *should* have worked - the destruction of Vulcan - came off as in bad taste. As a friend put it, it was as if JJ Abrams decided to say "Hey, lets give this some weight by... HAVING A HOLOCAUST." It just came off as, well, almost in poor taste. The concept isn't bad but the execution was.

As for the directing... lets just say I didn't need fucking Alias references in my Star Trek movie, goddamn it.

Rating: 3 Stars

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Because, unlike you apparently, I have to see a movie in order to form an insightful opinion on it.

There's a joke about you thinking your opinion is important somewhere in here but I just can't find the right words for it.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Spoiler:

Why does the asian guy come with a foldable katana? I'm sure theres some Asian social groups out there vaugely offended by this.

Spoiler:

The actor himself said he was concerned about an Korean-American portraying a Japanese-American. If Asians don't care about that, they probably won't be worried about trifles like assuming an Asian guy knows some sort of martial arts.

(Also, I giggled at the thought of Sulu knowing karate. Thanks Futurama.)

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

Originally Posted by sprouticus

There's a joke about you thinking your opinion is important somewhere in here but I just can't find the right words for it.

So you can't bother seeing something to pass judgement on it... and you can't bother finding a joke when its right in front of you? Your back must hurt from carrying around that much stupid.

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

Spoiler:

The actor himself said he was concerned about an Korean-American portraying a Japanese-American. If Asians don't care about that, they probably won't be worried about trifles like assuming an Asian guy knows some sort of martial arts.

(Also, I giggled at the thought of Sulu knowing karate. Thanks Futurama.)

I don't disagree at the sentiment. But ... would you send Chekov down with a fucking mail-order bride or Scotty down with a bottle of bourbon?

Spoiler:

(Also - what was with Scotty being "hungry" all the time? Are they attempting to supplant the idea that Scotty isn't a drunk anymore? :\)

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

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:

So if I understand this statement correctly, you are not thrilled with the idea that this movie went ahead and, instead of tarnishing the original story, the original Star Trek universe by trying to create some backstory to the original Captain Kirk and probably pissing off hundreds of thousands of Trekkies, Paramount instead came up with a plausible, but highly unlikely scenario so that they could preserve the Original Star Trek Universe while at the same time giving people unfamiliar with Star Trek a chance to jump in and see what all the hub bub is about?

I saw this yesterday, and I enjoyed it. I have only seen a handful of original Trek episodes and only watched a few of the movies and yet I could still, from a casual viewers standpoint, see the original cast channeled through this movie. This, of course, makes me the worst kind of scum in a lot of trekkies eyes, but so be it.

Don't take this as an insult Dopefish, but the kind of thinking that says 'Oh they just threw away 40 years of story' is the kind of closed mindedness and disrespect to the original series that you see in any sort of fanboyism whenever someone tries something new with a franchise. The original series is NOT going to disappear in the real world. You can still find the original Star Trek anywhere. This movie is NOT going to erase everyone's mind of what the original Star Trek was, and if anything, could sweep in a higher interest from outside sources to the original series.

But, I know how some fanboyism goes. Trekkies see Star Trek as their own little world, their safe place, and they don't want outsiders coming in, or messing around with it. It's understandable, but childish and selfish.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Grail

Spoiler:

So if I understand this statement correctly, you are not thrilled with the idea that this movie went ahead and, instead of tarnishing the original story, the original Star Trek universe by trying to create some backstory to the original Captain Kirk and probably pissing off hundreds of thousands of Trekkies, Paramount instead came up with a plausible, but highly unlikely scenario so that they could preserve the Original Star Trek Universe while at the same time giving people unfamiliar with Star Trek a chance to jump in and see what all the hub bub is about?

I saw this yesterday, and I enjoyed it. I have only seen a handful of original Trek episodes and only watched a few of the movies and yet I could still, from a casual viewers standpoint, see the original cast channeled through this movie. This, of course, makes me the worst kind of scum in a lot of trekkies eyes, but so be it.

Don't take this as an insult Dopefish, but the kind of thinking that says 'Oh they just threw away 40 years of story' is the kind of closed mindedness and disrespect to the original series that you see in any sort of fanboyism whenever someone tries something new with a franchise. The original series is NOT going to disappear in the real world. You can still find the original Star Trek anywhere. This movie is NOT going to erase everyone's mind of what the original Star Trek was, and if anything, could sweep in a higher interest from outside sources to the original series.

But, I know how some fanboyism goes. Trekkies see Star Trek as their own little world, their safe place, and they don't want outsiders coming in, or messing around with it. It's understandable, but childish and selfish.

Spoiler:

I really don't think I'm being the sort of person who's dead-set against this brave new world J.J. Abrams has made for us. Otherwise, I wouldn't have given the movie a 9/10 and I'd probably be dissed off the board after some über-nerdy tirade bashing every little plot point and making Sprout and LeHah's little bitch-fest seem like two cats standing in place, swatting at each other for a minute. Long story short, I like how Skexis put it and after sleeping on it I can't be bothered with the situation.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Spoiler:

(Also - what was with Scotty being "hungry" all the time? Are they attempting to supplant the idea that Scotty isn't a drunk anymore? :\)

Spoiler:

Define "all the time". I only got the impression from the first meeting that he was hungry a lot.

Besides, how else is he going to become the portly Scotty we all know and love?

YouTube Video

(GAWD with the complex tagging)

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Grail

Spoiler:

So if I understand this statement correctly, you are not thrilled with the idea that this movie went ahead and, instead of tarnishing the original story, the original Star Trek universe by trying to create some backstory to the original Captain Kirk and probably pissing off hundreds of thousands of Trekkies, Paramount instead came up with a plausible, but highly unlikely scenario so that they could preserve the Original Star Trek Universe while at the same time giving people unfamiliar with Star Trek a chance to jump in and see what all the hub bub is about?

If I may interject?

Spoiler:

I think what everyone is worried about is that this new timeline - however good it may be - is going to supplant the last 30 years of block-building we've gotten from 10 movies and 25 seasons of TV shows. Part of me feels that this new series "killed" TNG stuff (as if Nemesis didn't do that already?) and I realize thats just me being me. Theres a hesitancy to let go, especially that this movie was "more successful" than the other ones and its a totally different animal with its faster pace and less emphasis on plot (though that could be more having to do with it being an introduction movie), so I'm willing to wait and see what the sequel is like before praising it or damning it like everyone else.

I just don't like the ST I grew up with being ousted for some newcomers. Its off-putting.

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

Define "all the time". I only got the impression from the first meeting that he was hungry a lot.

Well, the TOS series had him constantly drinking. In fact, thats how he defeated someone who hijacked the Enterprise once. So this whole other approach seemed weird and a little glib to me? Not that they can't change things but changing an alcholic to a "hurr hurr hurr foods" slant seems dumb.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by LeHah

So you can't bother seeing something to pass judgement on it... and you can't bother finding a joke when its right in front of you? Your back must hurt from carrying around that much stupid.

I actually saw the movie yesterday morning and thought it was an absolute blast from start to finish, with very few glaring flaws to be found. With the exception of a few baffling things (the Beastie Boys song and Nokia product placement), I think Abrams knocked it out of the park.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by sprouticus

I actually saw the movie yesterday morning and thought it was an absolute blast from start to finish, with very few glaring flaws to be found. With the exception of a few baffling things (the Beastie Boys song and Nokia product placement), I think Abrams knocked it out of the park.

Thats nice for you. I happen to disagree. The end.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Well, the TOS series had him constantly drinking. In fact, thats how he defeated someone who hijacked the Enterprise once. So this whole other approach seemed weird and a little glib to me? Not that they can't change things but changing an alcholic to a "hurr hurr hurr foods" slant seems dumb.

I didn't watch much of TOS so I missed this plot point.

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.

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

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

I didn't watch much of TOS so I missed this plot point.

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

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