Spoiler-ific Movie Discussion Thread
#181
Posted 17 July 2009 - 02:30 PM
#182
Posted 17 July 2009 - 06:35 PM
It could be like the Mirror Universe, which is basically the same thing as this reboot... but a universe where many more things have been changed.
#183
Posted 17 July 2009 - 08:04 PM
#184
Posted 18 July 2009 - 05:02 AM
I went to it once with a friend. And we came out of it and both said the same thing. It was fun. we felt like we got our moneys worth, but we had seen that movie before... then (I think it was FHC) posted that you tube video where they show it's basically the same thing as Star Wars Ep IV! Funny stuff, but like I said, it showed that they were basically the same movie. I'm not angry or sad by what they did. Apathetic I think is the right word. The movie just didn't make me care that much short of being entertained for the 2 hours it did so. As a result, I've not been compelled to purchase any of the movie merchandise.
When it comes out on DVD I'll watch it again, and maybe more viewings will make it catch on with me.
#185
Posted 18 July 2009 - 07:53 AM
Well, its complicated to answer that. As long as i disconnect this movie from the Star Trek franchise i have known and loved for pretty much my entire life, i say that i like the new movie. To reconnect it, i am appalled pretty much by the treatment of Vulcan and the rest of the proper timeline, pretty much just throwing it all out the window to make another Star Wars prequel series of never ending monsters, action and blowing up sh*t. If it hadnt been for this alternate timeline, and throwing Canon out the airlock i think it could have been so much better. The actors did a pretty decent job, i can even deal with redesign of the Enterprise, but redesigning the whole timeline, which pretty much changes everything in the TOS, i cannot forgive. Its a travesty.
#186
Posted 18 July 2009 - 06:34 PM
#187
Posted 18 July 2009 - 08:15 PM
For 100 to 125 years you still have Romulus and without a strong Vulcan ally. Imagine the shift of power now!
#188
Posted 18 July 2009 - 09:27 PM
But there still are enough Vulcan's left to keep the civilization and knowledge/heritage alive and going. In one interview the writers said that they couldn't fathom every Vulcan always being on the Planet Vulcan all the time, and that there should be a lot of "off worlders," that would have been spared, and the 10,000 person survival number that Spock stated in his log wouldn't have applied to them.
Here is an interesting thought! With the destruction of Vulcan, what if a large number of surviving Vulcan's migrate to Romulus! Despite the deep philosophical rifts that now exist between the 2 cultures, the Romulans are still the closest relatives the Vulcan's have to turn to for support. I can imagine a lot of social commentary stories that could be drawn from real world events with that scenario.
#189
Posted 19 July 2009 - 05:14 AM
ha! Sorry Sybeck1... I know that reads wrong, and that's my fault. I ment to refer to the original universe, which, lost the Romulan home world and Spock 'Prime'.
But yes, now, I think you do have a real power shift.
#190
Posted 20 July 2009 - 03:12 PM
BUT, they have now wiped out all the years (10+?) and missions that happened while Captain Pike was captain of the Enterprise. All the people we saw in the original pilot (the 1st doctor, the crew, Number One, etc.) never met. Also, the second tv pilot crew is gone. Whatever happened to Kirk's best friend Gary Mitchell? All messed up now.
Not a big deal, but frankly the second movie may actually do more damage to the "timeline" if they try to bring in Khan, or any other of the 1st season storylines. By doing that they will be throwing out a good 10-15 years of "established" Prime timeline history. That would be a big mistake. The 2nd story needs to be fresh. Not a rehash. And we need to see the building of the original 12 Constellation class ships.
I wish instead of (or in addition to) a movie they would do three or four 2-3 hour tv miniseries a year. Or even a new tv show. Too many stories to tell in this new universe to have to wait three years.
#191
Posted 15 September 2009 - 04:22 AM
I'm kinda wondering how you would have felt is they decided NOT to incorporate the old Spock and his timeline. If they had done a complete reboot as they should have. Incorporating the old timeline and the old Spock was only an attempt to sattisfy the existing fanbase.
I'm actually very happy we won't see new shows or movies set in the old timeline anymore. I loved TOS, I loved the TOS-cast movies, I liked DS9 and ENT and I even enjoyed VOY. But it was over 40 years of continuity that killed Star Trek. Going on in the existing timeline would have been suicide. And tying the timelines together with the old Spock was a good idea even though it wasn't necessary.
Watching this new movie, I had the feeling my life was starting over. That my youth was back and that it wasn't restricted by what I have seen after my youth. A fresh start in a familiar universe. That's the closest thing there is to getting a second life. I loved it and I'm longing for sequels and spinoffs (as long as they don't make anothet 70 year jump into the future!)
#192
Posted 20 September 2009 - 09:16 AM
I originally liked the chemistry and dialog between Quinto and Pine, and the second showing just re-enforced that this is really what makes this movie shine for me.
For me, McCoy is an integral part of the Spock/Kirk relationship. The movie does develop the Kirk and Spock characters well, but I was a bit slighted that McCoy didn't get the same kind of treatment. The second showing re-enforced that for me, but Urban does a bang up job.
After seeing it a second time, I think it was a mistake to add Spock "Prime". It added very little IMO.
Nero is still a poorly developed character here. His motivations are completely irrational. He blames Spock Prime, Vulcan and the Federation for the loss of his homeworld, which was caused by the supernova... you know the one that Spock Prime was trying to stop with the red matter? He knows that Spock got there too late... so why not make using the red matter on the star that will go nova in 70 years the priority? Once the future of Romulus is secured you can go on a your revenge rampage!
I still find the science in this "Science Fiction film" to be more fiction then science. The biggest issue is the whole need to drill a hole in a planet to toss the red matter in! Hello! Spock Prime didn't have to do that when he used it to control the Nova!
In the end I still found it fun. It was just as fun the second time as it was the 1st, but I don't think my opinion really changed much.
I'm a sci-fi fan because a good science fiction movie uses science to enable story telling in a manner that is introspective of humanity or some aspect of the human condition. The question I have to ask is does this movie have anything to offer in that respect. And, I will say after seeing it a second time I think it does. My original issue though was that I don't think the questions involved here really required the use of Science to enable the story. You don't need time travel, or warp speed or red matter or any of that to tell the story of the start of the friendship between two men. So in that respect I still think the movie failed.
Ah heck... other people have written it before me, so I can just quote them!
A movie can be considered bad science fiction if the plot of the movie depends on the violation of any of the following principles.
The science in the movie contradicts itself. The science in the movie contradicts known scientific principles without explanation and doesn't follow popular science fiction conventions.
The science in the movie does not follow accepted science fiction conventions without explaining why.
The characters in the movie are unable to draw obvious conclusions based on the scientific knowledge available to them.
Good science fiction movies follow these principles.
The technology in the movie extrapolates from but does not violate known scientific principles. This of course is hard science fiction.
When known scientific principles are violated the movie explains why and how.
When known scientific principles are violated without explanation the movie follows popular science fiction conventions.
I generally agree with this sentiment, and I do think the science of the movie not only contradicts it's self (e.g. the way the red matter is handled) but also with known science w/o explaining adequately "why".
I have to agree... Prime Spock really wasn't necessary in this movie.
Really? has CBS said that they won't ever ever ever make a new TV series based on the original universe? I think the book is wide open on this...
This I disagree with. Yes there are continuity issues even with-in the Star Trek Cannon! Heck I was watching the episode of TNG the other day where the "Joined" Trill race was introduced. They completely changed them and the rules of "Joining" when they re-introduced them in DS9! Some of the best episodes of Star Trek ENT where the ones where Manny Coto actually explained continuity issues! The word was that Manny delighted in researching and finding ways to "Fix" the problems. I say a good writer can work with most anything and still write a compelling and fun script.
So the question I have is... why not make another 70 jump?! If its required to advance the story would you really mind? Why is it ok once,but not twice?
#193
Posted 20 September 2009 - 04:39 PM
The incorporation of Leonard Nimoy and his Character of the Original Spock is what warmed me up to the movie way before it was released. If Leonard Nimoy's Spock was not in the movie i would probably have still seen the movie but with much less enthusiasm. Now that i think about it, i almost wish Leonard Nimoy wasnt in this movie, because his presence on it ties it to the original TOS and that keeps me from being able to dismiss the abomination of the destruction of Vulcan as just something that happened in this movie, and not really connected to the original series universe. I still like the movie, but it still makes me sad to see what they have done to our beloved Star Trek universe. I hope the next movie will redeem this one.
#194
Posted 22 September 2009 - 09:41 AM
Sounds like somebody's being nurtured through his mid-life crisis! Well, just as well since movies are cheaper than sports cars.
#195
Posted 22 September 2009 - 10:48 AM
But my main point being- it's an alternate universe, no ifs, ands or buts about it!
#196
Posted 22 September 2009 - 06:31 PM
And some people just get old and cranky.
#197
Posted 23 September 2009 - 05:02 AM
Anyhoo, I think it's really obvious that we're not dealing anymore with the old Trek universe. Whatever, our opinions might be about the destruction of Romulus of the old one and the destruction of Vulcan in the new one (a bad move IMO), it's clear this is going to be an altered timeline. Personally, I think the desruction of both planets was an attempt to make a bold statement about changes, but was probably a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Any new fans that this movie may have attracted who might be loyal enough to stick around for thesequel won't care about the decimation of two of Trek's most iconic races in either timeline, but I do get tired of correcting people who assume Romulus no longer exists in the new one because, of course, Nero goes back in time! thereby laying one of the biggest plotholes evey seen in Trek movie history: thusly, why does Nero not simply go back in time to prevent the destruction of Romulus and and kill Spock in the original post-Nemesis era? Don't bother to answer that because it's all about a young new TOS cast which won't apply in the late 23rd century. But it's still lame and makes Nero the dorkiest villain in the Trek pantheon. However, it doesn't rule out Romulans making an appearance in later movies ~ as long as somebody can get them right for a change.
#198
Posted 24 September 2009 - 03:20 AM
As far as the next movie goes, Abrams and the other members of his Trek Team stated in another recent interview that was posted on Trekmovie.com that the sequel will be an "allegory" to present day world problems, Like the best of Trek's past episodes and movies were, and will be a "lot deeper" than the current movie, which was designed to get old fans back, and gather new fans, without turning them off by hitting them with a really "cerebral" thinking person's story.
#199
Posted 24 September 2009 - 04:02 AM
#200
Posted 24 September 2009 - 04:10 AM
Then that would apply to about 85% of all movies. There isn't time to explain all the details in a movie (nore should it be attempted), and many details are ment for the viewer to imply with their own mind.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users