millenniumfalcon.com • View topic

It is currently May 1st 2025 2:04 pm

Star Trek XI Reviews

Forums • Arts • Film

Previous topic | Next topic

ETandElliott

Posted: May 2nd 2009 5:55 pm

Join: March 22nd 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 1493
Location: Deep Space Nine

• Star Wars 2009 Spoiler Thread

Star Trek Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes (thus far 100%)

[flash width=485 height=325]http://www.youtube.com/v/SHCz9YPHghc[/flash]
This boner-inducing commercial is making the rounds.

TrekMovie has got all kinds of updates and clips, including Scotty delivering a classic line in the engine room. Can not wait.

Profile Top

Topeka

Posted: May 2nd 2009 6:30 pm

Bush Pilot

Join: March 23rd 2005 3:46 pm
Posts: 1483

I've been watching the original Trek on Youtube. I think I've said before that I've never been a fan, but I'm getting pretty into this new movie. I might even go on opening night.

Profile Top

ETandElliott

Posted: May 2nd 2009 7:17 pm

Join: March 22nd 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 1493
Location: Deep Space Nine

Wow, thanks for the link. I love the internet.

Profile Top

darthpsychotic

Posted: May 6th 2009 9:10 am

darthpsychotic@gmail.com

Join: July 3rd 1971 6:59 pm
Posts: 4265

BELOW: Transporter Room, Bridge, Enterprise 2009 ($30 each)

ABOVE: Communicator, Tricorder, Phaser ($15 each)

Some of the film's merchandise by Playmates. Yesterday, I seen the new Enterprise 2009 and it is sorta growing on me.

Profile Top

Topeka

Posted: May 6th 2009 9:28 am

Bush Pilot

Join: March 23rd 2005 3:46 pm
Posts: 1483

Those action figures remind me how lucky we are that Hasbro does what they do with the Star Wars line. Were those sculpted before the movie was cast?

Profile Top

ETandElliott

Posted: May 7th 2009 7:03 pm

Join: March 22nd 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 1493
Location: Deep Space Nine

Well I enjoyed it. I thought the performances were great (including, I guess, what we barely saw of Scotty). The guy playing Bones is fantastic! I've seen/heard a lot of comments about the special effects. I'll be honest, it was all pretty routine stuff to my eyes. In this day and age it's becoming a chore to really impress me with visuals. Dug the guy playing Kirk. I felt the film may have been severely edited down to a 2 hour theatrical version.

A lot of thoughts right now. I'll chime in later.

Profile Top

Emperor's Prize

Posted: May 7th 2009 8:07 pm

Join: August 24th 2004 8:30 pm
Posts: 289
Location: The Empire State

I definitely liked it. From my full review:

[spoil]
[align=left]Mission: Accomplished.

If J.J. Abrams wanted to revitalize the Star Trek franchise and update its mythos for a new generation, then there’s no question that Star Trek is an unmitigated success. From start to finish there’s a sheen, a bravado, a sensibility that is quite unlike anything Star Trek has seen before. This is nothing short of a high-end, well-produced and crafted, Hollywood blockbuster. It’s fun, it’s funny, and it’s thoroughly entertaining. What the film isn’t, however, is “majestic.” This film goes for flash and flair over subtlety or reflection. It’s an important point because when previous incarnations of Star Trek were at their best, they nearly always incorporated some higher commentary on the human condition. That sensibility is traded for a more visceral character exploration. And action. And the difference may be a step too far for some Trek fans.

Otherwise, if you like big-budget action-adventure films, with a bit attitude thrown in, Star Trek should fit the bill just about as perfectly as you can get.[/align][/spoil]

Profile | Website Top

bearvomit

Posted: May 7th 2009 9:01 pm

Join: October 19th 2004 1:27 pm
Posts: 1703

so they took the nerd out completely? kinda liked all the tech speak and weird concepts. is it really dumbed down?

Profile Top

ETandElliott

Posted: May 7th 2009 9:34 pm

Join: March 22nd 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 1493
Location: Deep Space Nine

It definitely maintains the nerd edge. The time travel/alternate universe plot is, frankly, ridiculous and convoluted. Spock will have your mind going in circles once more with his techno-babble. Here's what I've gathered so far, although I'll need to see it a few more times of course.

Pros:

- Chris Pine as Kirk. Great!
- Zachary Quinto as 5 o'clock shadow-sporting Spock.
- Karl Urban as Bones. He may very well have been the best of the bunch, at least in terms of nailing the character.
- Zoe Saldana's body, especially legs.
- Anton Yelchin (never heard of him) as Chekov. Nailed the voice, I thought anyway.
- Simon Pegg as Scotty. He was hilarious and I wanted more of him.
- Aliens left and right (not just dudes with forehead bumps). Felt very different from past Trek in that regard.
- The humor.
- It's never boring. We're constantly moving and seeing new things. We don't hang around jefferies tubes running diagnostics talking about how Spot won't eat his feline supplements or some shit like that. However...

Cons:

- The pacing. Everything seemed to rush by at warp speed, leaving me under the impression that a great deal of film was deleted.
- Eric Bana's Nero character. His motivation just wasn't there for me. He could be entertaining to watch, however.
- The scene on the rig was kind of retarded. Sulu pulls out a sword (???) which is more bizarre in the film than it seemed in the trailer.
- Graphic violence at points that just felt out of place. I see no reason why the film required Sulu mauling guys and rocks crushing people.
- Honestly, the time travel/alternate universe storyline was convoluted and kind of terrible. I'll accept it in exchange for future movies with this cast.
- Vulcan being destroyed and Spock's mother (Winona Ryder, barely factoring in only two brief scenes) being killed off.
- Scotty is barely in the film, and there's a somewhat bogus scene where he's in a tube not unlike the fat kid in Willie Wonka.

Everything in between:

- Jon Cho as Sulu. I mean, he wasn't bad. But he didn't exactly come off as Sulu at all.
- Spock and Uhura together. I don't even know where that came from.
- Leonard Nimoy. Old Spock and Nero felt contrived. Old Spock conveniently shows up at various points and it comes off as a bit silly.
- Kirk being chased by Cloverfield monster on Hoth (some ass behind me had to blurt out the obvious similarity).
- The score. Okay at points, mediocre throughout. Where was the Goldsmith theme?
- Some of the set designs just did nothing for me.
- Little alien that follows Scotty around. Who/what the hell is that?
- The photography; too much shaky cam, such as the ridiculous use in the scene where Pike propositions Kirk in the bar. I also may recall some bullet time in there somewhere. The visual effects didn't do much for me.

Profile Top

Joe1138

Posted: May 7th 2009 11:06 pm

Join: April 20th 2004 11:57 pm
Posts: 523
Location: Southern California

*Spoilers*

The only thing I couldn't stand about the flick was the use of "Sabotage" during Kirk's joyride. I'm a Beastie's fan but boy was that song ever out of place in this flick. Pine was great, loved his "Bones!" aboard the bridge at the end. And yes, Zoe Saldana was hot as Uhura. IMAX was sold out tonight but I'm definitely going to try to catch it on the really big screen within the next week. This was a fun flick.

Quote:

- The score. Okay at points, mediocre throughout. Where was the Goldsmith theme?

I wasn't nuts about the score myself but I loved what Michael Giacchino did with the main theme.

EDIT: Does anyone know if there's an after credits scene? A bunch of people stayed during the end titles but I was in too much of a rush to get out of the theater.

Profile | Website Top

Emperor's Prize

Posted: May 8th 2009 2:47 am

Join: August 24th 2004 8:30 pm
Posts: 289
Location: The Empire State

bearvomit wrote:

so they took the nerd out completely??? I kinda liked all the tech speek and weird concepts. is it really dumbed down?

They didn't take the nerd out so much as they took out the soapbox -- Trek's typical philosophical/social/moral awareness commentary. As someone who appreciates stories that go that route, I missed it here. Also, there's still plenty of science fiction in the film, but it's more "fiction" than "science" (as in, Abrams wasn't all that worried about plausibility). As a result, the film edges a bit closer to fantasy than previous Trek. Neither of these changes were enough to "sabotage" the film or prevent me from thoroughly enjoying it. But for those expecting those elements to be there, they might be disappointed.

I agree with Joe about the score. It didn't do anything for me. There were some moving and/or impressive moments. But nothing iconic or truly memorable. Maybe after repeat viewings something will stand out, but for now it's rather bland (and I've listened to the Trek score CD a couple of times).

Profile | Website Top

Obi-Wan Starkiller

Posted: May 8th 2009 7:41 am

Join: March 15th 2005 9:39 am
Posts: 934
Location: Nashville, TN

Loved it. Caught the IMAX show last night and right now it is the movie to beat this summer. This is my kind of Star Trek. I can't wait to see where it goes next. I guess my only beef is they didn't really need the time travel/Spock Prime stuff at all. This could have just been the first adventure for Spock/Kirk and it would have been just as enjoyable. In any case, everything else is pitch perfect for me. Can't wait to see it again.

Profile Top

ETandElliott

Posted: May 8th 2009 7:48 am

Join: March 22nd 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 1493
Location: Deep Space Nine

Obi-Wan Starkiller wrote:

I guess my only beef is they didn't really need the time travel/Spock Prime stuff at all.

While I could have done without it, it's necessary to explain the changes to the canon in this timeline.

Also, there was nothing after the credits.

By the way, the film is largely derivative of Star Wars.

Profile Top

Chostomo

Posted: May 8th 2009 1:51 pm

Join: March 11th 2009 6:52 pm
Posts: 116

Damn it, Jim! I'm a doctor, not a time traveler!

Profile Top

darthpsychotic

Posted: May 8th 2009 6:03 pm

darthpsychotic@gmail.com

Join: July 3rd 1971 6:59 pm
Posts: 4265

Star Trek is already up on the torrent sites (demonoid)

and already up in the MF Film Forum. :funkymetal:

Profile Top

CoGro

Posted: May 8th 2009 10:04 pm

Join: October 12th 2004 9:34 pm
Posts: 2577
Location: Toronto, Canada

Just got back from it. I watched a lot of Next Generation when I was younger. I know a bit about Trek but I would never consider myself a fan. That being said this movie was great. It's definitely Trek for a new generation - though I think that it's less nerd sci-fi and more fantasy-adventure, which works better for me anyway.

For instance, I think Bones was played more as an homage to the original character, an impression that was almost sketch-comedy like, rather than something new. There's also a scene where new Kirk pokes a bit of fun at old Kirk (in the simulator). J.J. Abrams by his own admission isn't a Trekkie or a Trek fan, and I got the feeling he was poking fun at it throughout. ET alluded to it earlier, but there's all kinds of Star Wars in this show. Abrams IS a huge Star Wars fan and seeing Chris Pine as Kirk made me wish I could travel through a black hole and cast him as Anakin.

As far as the visuals went, I thought they were outstanding. I think most of us here have fairly high standards and we've seen it all before but this film had the least amount of glaring problems I've seen in some time. I think that's the highest compliment. There were a ton of FX shots, but all I could think about is how I wasn't distracted by most of them; instead they puled me in (the monster on Hoth was a little too CG for me. It didn't look like ILM either, mind you).

The film was at its strongest early, but it gets bogged down in a silly plot and some of the shit going on was contrived - i.e. Scotty being on Hoth? Old Spock? That kind of stuff comes off very silly to me and I had to remind myself that I was watching Trek so I should expect some dorky contrived plot.

Also, I know new Spock is getting a lot of love, and I thought the performance was good, but Nemoy's character is far more endearing a character. His voice is just timeless whereas new Spock is played like a calculator. I know that's the character, but Nemoy played his with a charm that made Spock popular. If this was the first incarnation of Spock, he wouldn't be as likable.

Profile Top

darthpsychotic

Posted: May 9th 2009 1:20 am

darthpsychotic@gmail.com

Join: July 3rd 1971 6:59 pm
Posts: 4265

Yeah I watched the bootleg. My excuse is that was 95F to 99F today. I enjoyed the film up until the transfer of power from Spock to Kirk happened. That and the constant beatdowns Pine's Kirk took killed the movie for me. Perhaps I should see the movie in the theater.

Profile Top

Topeka

Posted: May 9th 2009 2:38 am

Bush Pilot

Join: March 23rd 2005 3:46 pm
Posts: 1483

I saw it in the theater last night. I thought it was quite good, and the trailers are indicative of its overall feel. It has J.J. Abrams' signature all over it, and that's a good thing. MTV has an article on the Star Wars influence. A lot of the visual elements bore a striking similarity to Bioware's Mass Effect universe too.

Profile Top

ETandElliott

Posted: May 9th 2009 8:35 am

Join: March 22nd 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 1493
Location: Deep Space Nine

I've read a lot of negative reviews from Trekkies and for the most part I find myself agreeing with their assessments. It's clear the film was made by people who either didn't know the first thing about Star Trek as-is or just didn't care. That stupid bit on the rig where Sulu uses a sword just seemed to be a joke about that episode of TOS where a drunken Sulu goes on the bridge with a sword. Why the hell would they send him on an away mission with a sword as opposed to a phaser? They wouldn't. There's also a reference to Cardassians in the bar but I'm sure they wouldn't have encountered them at that point in continuity. Chekov's introduction where Pike doesn't get his name right and the computer won't recognize his accent was ridiculous and came off in bad spirit. Roddenberry's Trek wouldn't have had anything like that.

Profile Top

Joe1138

Posted: May 9th 2009 12:04 pm

Join: April 20th 2004 11:57 pm
Posts: 523
Location: Southern California

CoGro wrote:

It's definitely Trek for a new generation - though I think that it's less nerd sci-fi and more fantasy-adventure, which works better for me anyway.

Quote:

By the way, the film is largely derivative of Star Wars.

I used to joke that the only way anyone could get me to care about a new "Star Trek" was if they turned it into "Star Wars." Mission accomplished.

Quote:

Roddenberry's Trek wouldn't have had anything like that.

I definitely see where you're coming from, ET. At the same time, I can't deny the film works on its own merits. It may not be "Star Trek" in the traditional sense, but after the failures the franchise has suffered over the past decade or so maybe that's not such a bad thing.

Profile | Website Top

Emperor's Prize

Posted: May 9th 2009 12:23 pm

Join: August 24th 2004 8:30 pm
Posts: 289
Location: The Empire State

It isn't a bad thing at all because, quite simply, if anyone (like me) wants to relive Trek-as-it-was, there's the TOS, all of its feature films, TNG, all of its feature films, and DS9 (I haven't seen enough of Voyager or Enterprise to comment). The new film certainly isn't "classic" Star Trek, but I'm okay with that considering just how much "Classic Trek" is available on DVD (and Blu-Ray won't be far behind). Much of "Classic Trek" is timeless because of the universal human themes the stories touch upon -- and if you're looking for updated VFX, there's always those TOS re-dos that came out a couple of years ago.

Like any film, I'll knock it down a peg or two when it doesn't strive for something bigger than just action-adventure, but I'm not going to pine (no pun intended) for the old Trek just because the new one takes a very different approach.

Profile | Website Top

Obi-Wan Starkiller

Posted: May 9th 2009 12:33 pm

Join: March 15th 2005 9:39 am
Posts: 934
Location: Nashville, TN

I don't mind Trekkies not liking it because it doesn't have that Trek feel. I just don't want to hear the bitching about the alternate timeline. It's a reboot, get over it. Your TOS, TNG, DS9 and all that are still valid in the trekkie universe. If you don't like the thought of it being erased in this new timeline oh well. Just don't start ranting about that shit, like this guy from the tvsquad.com talkback:

Mike@TVSquad wrote:

Not surprising that someone who doesn't really like Trek doesn't mind its destruction... well... at least the destruction of 40+ years worth of material, characters, and stories.

This was a good movie, this was a kick to the balls for Trek.

I'm not being overly dramatic here or nerding out... the simple fact is that they traveled back in time within our timeline and irrevocably altered it. This movie wipes out every moment we've ever seen on Star Trek.

Consider this: In the TNG episode Yesterday's Enterprise, they weren't in some sort of alternate timeline... they were in our timeline as altered by the events of Narendra III. And the timeline at the beginning of the episode is still not the same as when the episode ends. Before that episode the universe they lived in had nobody named Sela. After those events, their universe did... meaning the universe they "returned to" wasn't the same one they "left". Which means that, even if they did something in future movies, we can never return to exactly the way things were... but even worse, this isn't like going from the normal timeline at the beginning of Yesterday's Enterprise to the somewhat normal one at the end... no... this movie was more like going from the awful reality where the Federation is losing, Tasha is alive, and Enterprise-C vanished and never helped the Klingon colony on Narendra III to the timeline at the end that seems restored.

Picard's choice in that episode was to destroy 23 years of history within his timeline to try to make things better... but in so doing, everything that happened in the interim was wiped clean. Gone. When Tasha and Enterprise-C return to the past the "alternate" where Enterprise is under attack and about to be destroyed ceases to exist.

Where we are now in the ST universe is exactly there... Spock and company just erased all ST we knew. Every last bit of it is gone.... as gone as the battleship Enterprise-D of Yesterday's Enterprise.

After all, here's a question to anyone that has seen this movie and is a Voyager fan:

Q. Given that Tuvok wasn't yet born before the events of this movie, what happens to him?

A. His parents are likely dead and he was obliterated from existence, never to exist.

Some people think this is just an alternate, having no impact on previous Trek... not true... what this movie did was like any other bottle episode where they create an alternate future only to return things to normal by the end, wiping out any meaningful changes.... It just happens that TOS, TMP, TWOK, TSFS, TVH, TNG, TFF, TUC, Gen, DS9, FC, Ins, VOY, Nemesis, and Enterprise were the alternates wiped away at the end of this "episode".

Sure, it gives JJ Abrams complete freedom... but at what cost?

Star Trek was the most vastly and fully realized fictional universe perhaps ever, but certainly since the Greeks came up with their mythology. And now it's all gone...

Profile Top

ETandElliott

Posted: May 9th 2009 1:33 pm

Join: March 22nd 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 1493
Location: Deep Space Nine

Silly. The more I think on the alternate timeline, it's just silly. Mirror universes and that sort of thing have been done to death in Star Trek. I thought it was done well (and definitively) in an episode of TNG called "Parallels", where Worf visits alternate quantum realities. Data postulates that anything that can happen does happen in infinite alternate realities. In some cases, the differences are minor. Data has blue eyes in one, for instance. In another case, Worf and Deanna Troi are married.

I know that at one point in the movie, Spock realizes that the universe has been altered. What I'm totally unclear about is what exactly is true to the original timeline at any given point. For instance, was Spock now always banging Uhura in his cadet years or is that a result of the altered timeline? What would the Kevlin being destroyed have to do with that event? It's convoluted and ridiculous. Frankly it all seems unnecessary. They could have just portrayed new adventures with the old crew without fucking everything up (although perhaps Engineering shouldn't look like a God damned distillery).

Profile Top

Emperor's Prize

Posted: May 9th 2009 1:45 pm

Join: August 24th 2004 8:30 pm
Posts: 289
Location: The Empire State

I thought that the "alternate reality" thing -- while technically unnecessary for the overall film -- was, perhaps, the most respectful thing the film did for the Trek franchise. Instead of simply ignoring or discounting everything in the original timeline -- TOS to TNG to DS9 to VOY, etc -- it tried to explain why the specific events in the film were so different (Nero's disruption of the past). The success of the film is that the characters stay true to their characteristics, despite the specifics. Uhura always had a thing for Spock in TOS. McCoy was always irked by Spock's logic. And so on. Kirk may be the most difficult to reconcile, but he still seems to inspire the same kind of loyalty and excellence from his crew.

And really, if you accept Data's notion that all possible realities exist simultaneously, nothing is "fucked up." What we're getting from Abrams is just another one of those possible realities -- no more or less valid than what we had up till now. Plus, it doesn't preclude some future storyteller from continuing the original timeline. And if not, there's still the DVDs to go back to.

Put simply, a lot of this hand wringing about the changing of the timeline is much ado about nothing.

Profile | Website Top

Raveers

Posted: May 9th 2009 1:58 pm

Fat Bastard

Join: September 27th 2005 8:01 pm
Posts: 1550
Location: In hell

Since I couldn't wait until next weekend to see it I decided to download the cam version from here. You know I've been out spoken against this movie from the start but I got to admit, I've been converted. I enjoyed it 100% and I definitely plan to go see it properly in the theaters next weekend for sure. The over use of the lens flare really bugged me as it was distracting in a lot of scenes. The redesign of the Enterprise to me still looks like garbage but seeing it in motion and from different angles maybe it's something I will get used to.

Profile Top

ETandElliott

Posted: May 9th 2009 2:39 pm

Join: March 22nd 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 1493
Location: Deep Space Nine

Emperor's Prize wrote:

And really, if you accept Data's notion that all possible realities exist simultaneously, nothing is "fucked up."

Worf was traveling through different realities after entering some kind of temporal hole in space and due to something in Geordi's VISOR. In the movie Star Trek, I took it that the timeline is altered because of the Kelvin's destruction in the opening scene. That's where things shift, mainly Kirk's universe as a result of his father's death. I'm still trying to figure out what effect this would have on the rest of the universe (from young Spock's angle, for instance, things shouldn't be too different). Apparently it changes how everything looks.

Profile Top

bearvomit

Posted: May 9th 2009 4:45 pm

Join: October 19th 2004 1:27 pm
Posts: 1703

I thought Vulcan gets distroyed in this? Wouldn't that change a great deal? Especially with the Romulan / Vulcan / Starfleet triangle? damn, I'm such a nerd.

Profile Top

ETandElliott

Posted: May 9th 2009 5:20 pm

Join: March 22nd 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 1493
Location: Deep Space Nine

Yeah it gets destroyed midway through, 20+ years after Nero arrives in the past.

Profile Top

bearvomit

Posted: May 9th 2009 9:47 pm

Join: October 19th 2004 1:27 pm
Posts: 1703

the movie was fantastic by the way. just watched the bootleg. it went by at warp speed and kicked all sorts of ass. I wouldn't mind seeing a new tv series done in the same action packed way.

Profile Top

Hade

Posted: May 9th 2009 9:53 pm

Join: November 14th 2003 6:06 am
Posts: 818

It was even worse than I feared. But like I've said before in this thread, Abrams told Paramount he wasn't a Star Trek fan. Paramount didn't care. They went for the money grab. But don’t fear, he’ll also say that a tangent timeline that was inexplicably exactly like the one altered here is still going along just fine. Therefore, Star Trek fans needn't worry. The galaxy that you knew and loved is still out there, alive and well.

ETAndElliot4Ever wrote:

They could have just portrayed new adventures with the old crew without fucking everything up.

Precisely. There was no need for this. Like Star Wars, the early years of these characters hadn't really been explored. When I first heard about this film I was very excited. Young Kirk and Spock. The possibilities seemed great. Then spoilers came out and I was shocked. More time travel. Alternate timelines. It's just laziness or bad writing. Take your pick.

Abrams wanted all of the perks that came with using these iconic characters so he could put asses in the seats, but he doesn't want the responsibility for handling them properly. That's disgraceful. So they come up with a big opening sequence to suck one in, basically allowing them to wipe the chalkboard clean. Then they proceed to do pretty much whatever they want from that moment on while still using the original crew and calling it Star Trek. It was shameful. :mad:

Profile Top

bearvomit

Posted: May 10th 2009 6:39 am

Join: October 19th 2004 1:27 pm
Posts: 1703

well it all seemed pretty forced. They were cramming a ton of info and characters into this story. Everyone had to have their little "moment". Like Checkov suddenly knows how to lock on and beam people up who are moving really quickly. And Sulu knows how to fight with swords. And Scotty has a little buddy and is grumpy. And Spock is emotional and ohura is hot and Kirk is a fighter. We get all these little scenes with a plot somehow wrapped around them. oh and throw in the Cloverfield monster too who's scared of a torch.

Damn it, why are you making me analyze a cool looking movie?

Profile Top

Obi-Wan Starkiller

Posted: May 10th 2009 6:50 am

Join: March 15th 2005 9:39 am
Posts: 934
Location: Nashville, TN

And again I just want to point out Star Trek, from 1966 forward, is a work of fiction. There is no real timeline at all. I still have to wonder what the big deal is for trekkies. Sometimes I think that if it is popular in the mainstream trekkies automatically cry foul. And lets make one thing clear right now: Paramount is out to make a profit. They don't go into the boardroom saying "Well we need to make a Star Trek movie. But who cares if it makes money as long as the small trekkie fanbase is happy". Lets look at the domestic box office totals for each of the Star Trek movies.

The Motion Picture - $82 Million
Wrath of Khan - $79 Million
Search for Spock - $76 Million
Voyage Home - $110 Million
Final Frontier - $52 Million
VI: UC - $75 Million
Generations - $76 Million
First Contact - $92 Million
Insurrection - $70 Million
Nemesis - $43 Million

See a pattern? First of all, the very first movie way back in 79 made more than either of the last two and made more than 5 of the last 6. When taking inflation over the last 30 years into the equation it is pretty ridiculous. The Star Trek is anything but a cash cow for Paramount. And there really is no reason for it other than they allowed the old Gene Roddenberry version of Star Trek to remain the focus. Even in the Next Generation movies. Don't you think it's sad that the new Star Trek by the end of the first weekend is possibly going to make more than 7 of the 10 Star Trek movies did in their entire theatrical run? Yeah, while hardcore trekkies are crying about alternate timelines this weekend, everyone else is asking why it couldn't be this great in the first place. Yeah maybe Khan is still the best ever (of course it was the first that Gene Roddenberry didn't have control AND the director had never seen an episode of Star Trek before taking the helm. Hmm...remind you of anyone?) but this new Star Trek is not far behind that. Too bad the hardcore trekkie fanbase can't see this.

Profile Top

Emperor's Prize

Posted: May 10th 2009 8:57 am

Join: August 24th 2004 8:30 pm
Posts: 289
Location: The Empire State

ETAndElliot4Ever wrote:

Well, if you accept the "Butterfly Effect" on any level (which you have to in order to accept the premise of "Parallels"), then it certainly makes sense for Nero's sudden appearance and destruction of a Federation Starship (along with the people who were killed and had to endure the traumatic event) to have a significant effect on Starfleet 20+ years down the road. About the only one who doesn't make sense is Chekov, seeing as how he was born after the timeline alteration. But it's not unrealistic to think that, with a new, unknown, deadly and mysterious threat lurking on its borders -- one which made short work of a Starship -- that Starfleet would alter its approach, leading to more rapid innovation, including design.

And considering Obi-Wan Starkiller's list, it's obvious that in order to make the general public care enough about Trek to go back to the theater for it, they needed a brand new, fresh approach. You can't tell me you'd want Rick Berman back at the helm. And this was, at the very least, an attempt to pay respects to what came before. Instead of simply ignoring all of Star Trek canon, the alternate reality is the film's acknowledgment that the original "timeline" was worthwhile in its own right. Was it completely necessary? No. But does it demonstrate reverence for everything that Star Trek was? Hell yeah. At the very least least, it demonstrates more respect than simply saying: "Fuck the old canon, we're gonna pretend it never happened."

A reboot is a reboot. This wasn't the Star Wars prequels which were meant to fit exactly into what came before. So what's the point of the hand wringing over the fact that they chose to pay an explicit homage to the original franchise? Seriously, there are plenty of ways to criticize the film -- relatively hollow thematic plot, weak villain, lensflare overkill, some cheesy humor, etc. -- that don't stem from "Trekkie Ire."

Profile | Website Top

ETandElliott

Posted: May 10th 2009 11:24 am

Join: March 22nd 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 1493
Location: Deep Space Nine

I'd also like to add that this is now the second film to feature the Romulans and do them NO justice whatsoever. They were one of the more interesting races in Star Trek: TNG.

Profile Top

Emperor's Prize

Posted: May 10th 2009 11:42 am

Join: August 24th 2004 8:30 pm
Posts: 289
Location: The Empire State

^ That I completely agree with. The best Romulan stories were always the ones with a bit of political and psychological intrigue. Nero and Shinzon just aren't decent characters, let alone decent villains. True, they are "rogue Romulans" but that doesn't make it any better. The difference being, of course, that the new flick is far and away better than Nemesis.

Profile | Website Top

sultan bey

Posted: May 11th 2009 3:41 am

Join: April 28th 2005 2:18 am
Posts: 154
Location: Dallas

I am happy to see a Trek movie getting such good reviews and making big money. I like hearing of good buzz in print and from friends of mine who saw it this past weekend. I was disappointed in the movie and had hoped for a different type story. But, I feel in the minority as I just checked rotten tomatoes and see it hold a 96% and most any dude I talk to has been won over.

I don’t see where the story itself is all so great but my main complaint is the idea that Nero’s time traveling changed the course of history. I don’t see where it’s necessary to make such drastic storyline changes (destruction of Vulcan) in the name of “back to basics” and “not your fathers Star Trek”. I kept waiting on them to somehow go back in time and keep Vulcan from imploding but it never came.

To me, seeing Kirk enter the Enterprise as a disgraced cadet who rises to captaincy during the voyage is dog crap. They bill the Enterprise as top ship and when Spock abandon’s his command, there is no other officer next in line to take command? I know, Pike made Kirk first officer, and that’s dumb as fuck also. I liked the Pike in the wheel chair more than this new guy. Why is knowing all a captain knows and flying off to the enemy ship to be captured and interrogated for info good captaining? And, what about Spock abandoning ship to go pick up the Vulcan brain trust and his momma? TOS Spock would never leave his post to do that and the TOS Vulcan Science Academy would back up it collective history somewhere else besides the brains of a few elder council members.

I did like the actor who played McCoy. He seemed to be in the spirit of things, as did the the guy playing Scotty. He was my only real surprise. From the preview trailers, I was groaning at his stupid comments such as, “I like this ship… its fun..” But the dude really pulled it out at the end and I felt that character. Chekhov, that was crap. Uhura was overused. Sulu was a spoof. Spock, they probably found the perfect dude to play him. I think he did a great job. Unfortunately, he wasn’t given enough to analyze and report on. The guy playing Kirk, I don’t know, is he cool enough to play this role?

One of my fav scenes was the exchange between the young Spock and the gaggle of Vulcans students who tease him for his human frailties.

I need to watch it a few more times, maybe I’ll feel differently, that happens sometimes.

Profile Top

Obi-Wan Starkiller

Posted: May 11th 2009 5:15 am

Join: March 15th 2005 9:39 am
Posts: 934
Location: Nashville, TN

sultan bey wrote:

The guy playing Kirk, I don’t know, is he cool enough to play this role?

I'm sorry I have to ask: What is with all the Shat love?

[flash width=400 height=326]http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-1476524610580803403&hl=en&fs=true[/flash]

Profile Top

sultan bey

Posted: May 11th 2009 7:25 pm

Join: April 28th 2005 2:18 am
Posts: 154
Location: Dallas

Obi-Wan Starkiller wrote:

I'm sorry I have to ask: What is with all the Shat love?

To My Brother Bill, The Only Man I Ever Loved, -Sultan Bey

Profile Top

bearvomit

Posted: May 11th 2009 8:02 pm

Join: October 19th 2004 1:27 pm
Posts: 1703

so is this the first Pg-13 movie to say "fuck" ? they didn't edit the Beastie Boys song Sabotage. says it clearly :lol:

This top 10 bit was actually really funny!

[flash width=425 height=350]http://www.youtube.com/v/kajHITRmJZM[/flash]

Ten lines never before said in Star Trek

Profile Top

darthpsychotic

Posted: May 13th 2009 9:53 pm

darthpsychotic@gmail.com

Join: July 3rd 1971 6:59 pm
Posts: 4265

[flash width=384 height=283]http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/4a0ba5b7f54f6472/4741e3c5156499a7/2e86c1ae/-cpid/2bbb8e5bb2bade3b[/flash]

Leonard Nimoy on SNL promoting Trek 2009

Profile Top

CoGro

Posted: May 14th 2009 10:39 am

Join: October 12th 2004 9:34 pm
Posts: 2577
Location: Toronto, Canada

Star Wars in Star Trek

Profile Top

Joe1138

Posted: May 14th 2009 10:50 am

Join: April 20th 2004 11:57 pm
Posts: 523
Location: Southern California

bearvomit wrote:

so is this the first Pg-13 movie to say "fuck" ? they didn't edit the Beastie Boys song Sabotage. says it clearly :lol:

I think you can get away with one "fuck" in a PG-13 flick as long as its use doesn't have a sexual connotation attached. Don't believe me? Check out Spielberg's "Catch Me If You Can."

EDIT: So I finally caught the flick in IMAX tonight in Irvine (the real IMAX, not the fake IMAX) and it's definitely the way to go. If it's playing in your neck of the woods in the format do not hesitate to check it out.

Profile | Website Top

ETandElliott

Posted: May 16th 2009 4:32 pm

Join: March 22nd 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 1493
Location: Deep Space Nine

CoGro wrote:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/982/982293p1.html

Star Wars in Star Trek

The phasers are now blasters.

Bad guy falls down bottomless pit at the end.

The guy who played Kirk's father was a crappy actor.

Profile Top

bearvomit

Posted: May 16th 2009 4:48 pm

Join: October 19th 2004 1:27 pm
Posts: 1703

it's now made $165 million worldwide. MTV did an interview with Abrams and says Kahn & Shatner might be in the next one. But it'd be a "different" Kahn since this timeline's version was never stranded on that planet for years. :whateva:

Profile Top

ETandElliott

Posted: May 16th 2009 6:37 pm

Join: March 22nd 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 1493
Location: Deep Space Nine

I don't want Khan. How about the Klingon Empire? Maybe in this alternate universe they'd be at war with the Federation.

Profile Top

bearvomit

Posted: May 16th 2009 7:22 pm

Join: October 19th 2004 1:27 pm
Posts: 1703

the klingons have been done to death. they need an original story with a new kick ass enemy. someone that would pose a personal threat to Kirk. Maybe a traitor in the ranks. I'm thinking Pike. It's assumed he still has that brain worm thing still inside him which could drive him mad. Either that or make a completely new alien.

Profile Top

Raveers

Posted: May 17th 2009 1:34 pm

Fat Bastard

Join: September 27th 2005 8:01 pm
Posts: 1550
Location: In hell

They need more movies with Romulans, and at least a bit better one than this. The Romulans did get screen time during TNG and DS9 but the few movies they been in they really haven't been up to much I guess.

Profile Top

CoGro

Posted: May 17th 2009 2:09 pm

Join: October 12th 2004 9:34 pm
Posts: 2577
Location: Toronto, Canada

CoGro wrote:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/982/982293p1.html

Star Wars in Star Trek

ETAndElliot4Ever wrote:

The phasers are now blasters.

Bad guy falls down bottomless pit at the end.

The guy who played Kirk's father was a crappy actor.

Sulu's expanding sword = lightsaber

Profile Top

ETandElliott

Posted: May 17th 2009 7:47 pm

Join: March 22nd 2005 11:53 pm
Posts: 1493
Location: Deep Space Nine

The Romulans are cool because they're like Vulcans gone bad with hardcore ships (stupidly re-designed in Nemesis), disruptor weapons and other technology. Plus, they're not aligned with anybody. I always liked the storylines with them, at least on TNG. I've thoroughly disliked their featuring in the movies. At this point it doesn't even matter since they're just going to blow up after the events of Nemesis. The peace talks or whatever was occurring with the Federation in that movie seem pretty moot at this point.

Profile Top

Cryostar

Posted: May 18th 2009 4:08 am

Join: May 2nd 2005 7:26 am
Posts: 1998
Location: Down the rabbit hole

I liked the new warbirds from Nemesis. They looked more raptor-like than the warbirds. Still would have liked to have seen more than just 2.

In regards to movies though, I love the Romulans, but I doubt they'd make a great movie. No one wants to see a trek movie that's mental and manipulative. They're not action villians, which is what they're trying to get hammered into the role for.

Profile | Website Top

Forums • Arts • Film