Jump to content


Photo

General Trek Movie Discussion & Review Thread


  • Please log in to reply
165 replies to this topic

#121 Trek Forever

Trek Forever

    Action figure anonymous member

  • Members
  • 68 posts

Posted 14 May 2009 - 08:47 PM

3 times for me and I loved it!!

#122 Cpt. Phil T. Berns

Cpt. Phil T. Berns

    Master of the pre order.

  • Members
  • 432 posts
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Props, uniforms, 9" clothed figures

Posted 15 May 2009 - 05:42 AM

QUOTE (DavAnthony @ May 14 2009, 06:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In the glitz factor it was #1 but for substance, cohesiveness and merit it rated right above Star Trek V.


It's funny you should say that. Because Star Trek V flopped because it missed the glitz factor. That movie had all the substance, cohesiveness and merit you could want in a Star Trek movie (Does God exist, is he just a fragment of our imagination or is he just an alien we don't understand?) ST:V had the best story (and the closest story to a TOS episode) of all the Star Trek movies but failed to be a hit because it was badly told (bad effects, untried director.) Even with all it's flaws, it has always been my favorite Trek movie, untill this new movie came along.

#123 DavAnthony

DavAnthony

    Rick & Pat know me by name.

  • Members
  • 389 posts

Posted 15 May 2009 - 09:37 PM

roflmao.gif
http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded
roflmao.gif

#124 slayerone76

slayerone76

    Guinan's love slave!

  • Members
  • 2,718 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Georgetown, TX
  • Interests:Stately playboy by day ... profitable pimp by night. I like to watch movies, listen to music, go out ... friends ... food ... all the essentials of life.

Posted 17 May 2009 - 08:23 PM

QUOTE (DavAnthony @ May 15 2009, 10:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>


LMAO Our future is indeed bright!

#125 A Chimpanzee & 2 Trainees

A Chimpanzee & 2 Trainees

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 710 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Hampshire

Posted 17 May 2009 - 09:40 PM

This is supposed to be the spoiler free zone, so I won't say much, but I just saw it last night.... 4/10 as an action movie. 2/10 as a Star Trek movie. I never really thought of myself as a purist, but I guess that I am... Funny thing is, I don't really object to the cast. I think they did, by and large, a really nice job with what they were given. I particularly liked Simon Pegg's take on Scotty and Karl Urban's McCoy. Spock was handled not quite as well, but still quite capably.

I'm trying to be vague, but just in case.... POSSIBLE PLOT SPOILERS BELOW THIS LINE...



My biggest complaint with it is all the amazing coincidences and movie cliches:

The USS Kelvin incident happening during labor.
Just HAPPENING to run into Spock Prime.
The Galaxy Quest-like monster.
Just HAPPENING to run into Scotty
Oh yes, of course! That's the equation!! After seeing it for 10 seconds...
Why was he on a planet with stuff that could eat him instead of thrown in the brig? ... somebody 'd have a lot of explaining to do if he died.
More ships designed with chasms and suspended platforms?
The one inept guard (all I could think of was Austin Powers)
NOBODY ELSE on a ship crawling with security guards has hand-to-hand combat training?
Spock's apparent romance seems quite unethical to me on many levels, considering his position before the crisis.
Spock Prime's ship obviously has weapons, yet he's captured without even a struggle?
Spock Prime knows that he's in another timeline, so how does he know who he is (or is not, for that matter) supposed to serve with?
Chekov is 17 and a commissioned officer? A junior one, but still.... did he join the academy at 13 or something, or are they letting 1st year freshmen on this ship?
Why are there seemingly no seasoned officers on this ship besides Pike and Spock? And if that's not so, why would Kirk be named first officer?
2 main characters and a guy we never heard of.... I wonder who lives and who dies?

I thought Spock Prime was shoehorned into the plot, as was time travel to make it happen.
I know .. I'm one of THOSE... the obsessive nit-pickers, and maybe I am just thnking too much about it... individually I can dismiss them... it's not like other Star Trek movies didn't have them, but I don't remember the movie really relying on them so much in order for the plot to go forward. Collectively, it all just piled up to really drag down the movie for me.

#126 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 18 May 2009 - 03:57 AM

You have many of the same question I found myself asking.

As a purely fun action movie I actually rated it higher.

#127 VulcanFanatic

VulcanFanatic

    Leonard Nimoy fan

  • Members
  • 3,164 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern North Carolina

Posted 18 May 2009 - 04:46 AM

Chimp i understand exactly what you mean about those amazing coincidences and all. Abrams was apparently targeting an audience that wouldnt catch those things that we long time fans see right off. He was out to reinvigorate this franchise, that means draw more people in so that they can make more money than in the past and keep the cash cow producing for a long time to come. Most people out there that see movies DON'T think that much, so this is a perfect movie for them. I like the movie, but it doesnt stand up to much scrutiny when logic is applied to it. It is a very Illogical movie, but still fun.

#128 Commodore Kor'Tar

Commodore Kor'Tar

    The Great Tribble Hunter

  • Members
  • 2,415 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:U.S.S. Kahless NCC-76108 AKA Fort Worth TX
  • Interests:Playmates figures and ships (90s era), Art Asylum and DST figures and ships , Galoob figures and micro machines .

Posted 18 May 2009 - 04:55 AM

L...Lo...Logic? What is this Logic you speak of? tongue.gif


QUOTE (VulcanFanatic @ May 18 2009, 05:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Chimp i understand exactly what you mean about those amazing coincidences and all. Abrams was apparently targeting an audience that wouldnt catch those things that we long time fans see right off. He was out to reinvigorate this franchise, that means draw more people in so that they can make more money than in the past and keep the cash cow producing for a long time to come. Most people out there that see movies DON'T think that much, so this is a perfect movie for them. I like the movie, but it doesnt stand up to much scrutiny when logic is applied to it. It is a very Illogical movie, but still fun.



#129 FHC

FHC

    Owner

  • Owner
  • 4,495 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 May 2009 - 05:51 AM

Did you guys know that Gene Roddenberry really really wanted to do a ST movie where Kirk and Spock went back in time and were the shooters on the grassy knoll? Shatner talks about it in his book. Now you want to talk about a movie that would have been, rather, ah, the words escape me, not watchable.

#130 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 18 May 2009 - 07:25 AM

Yeah. No way Kirk & Spock would pull the trigger on JFK...


Reptilian Xindi... now that's a real straight shooter!

#131 A Chimpanzee & 2 Trainees

A Chimpanzee & 2 Trainees

    I can stop I just don't want to.

  • Members
  • 710 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Hampshire

Posted 18 May 2009 - 09:50 AM

QUOTE (FHC @ May 18 2009, 07:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Did you guys know that Gene Roddenberry really really wanted to do a ST movie where Kirk and Spock went back in time and were the shooters on the grassy knoll? Shatner talks about it in his book. Now you want to talk about a movie that would have been, rather, ah, the words escape me, not watchable.


Really? ... I mean... REALLY? Well, we can't have good ideas all of the time, but that's astoundingly bad.

Is this going to be one of those "he has to die to preserve the timeline" things? Star Trek II: "Knoll on the Edge of a Plaza" ...

[edit] actually, now that I think about it... Didn't Quantum Leap do essentially this same idea? Sam leaped into Lee Oswald and then leaped into a bodyguard just before he would've pulled the trigger and saved the First Lady.

#132 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,426 posts

Posted 18 May 2009 - 11:51 AM

QUOTE (Cpt. Phil T. Berns @ May 14 2009, 03:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If you're looking for deep meanings and something philosophical to ponder upon, go and watch the TNG DVDs over and over. This new movie is what Star Trek was meant to be!

QUOTE (Cpt. Phil T. Berns @ May 15 2009, 06:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's funny you should say that. Because Star Trek V flopped because it missed the glitz factor. That movie had all the substance, cohesiveness and merit you could want in a Star Trek movie (Does God exist, is he just a fragment of our imagination or is he just an alien we don't understand?) ST:V had the best story (and the closest story to a TOS episode) of all the Star Trek movies but failed to be a hit because it was badly told (bad effects, untried director.) Even with all it's flaws, it has always been my favorite Trek movie, untill this new movie came along.


You lose me a bit with these two posts...on the one hand it sounds like you are acknowledging that TOS was usually about deeper meanings or philosophical questions, when you say that ST:V was your favorite movie because it provided that. But then earlier you said that this new movie, which you openly acknowledge is devoid of such depth, is "what Star Trek was meant to be"... How is this not completely contradictory?

I agree with you about Star Trek V, it was always one of my favorite movies too because it still had this true Trek exploration/philosophizing spirit underneath all the flaws with the questions about religion -- and it pained me to see other fans ridiculing it so harshly. The fact that that is what I am looking for in a Star Trek movie is precisely what caused this movie to appear hollow to me, and not truly like the Star Trek I grew to love.

QUOTE (Thomas E. Johnson @ May 14 2009, 02:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As for the issue of giving the viewer something deep to think about, there was stuff about destiny, and overcoming diffrences in there, but I think they intentionally designed this movie to be an emotional event, with thrills and chills and character moments, in order to get everyone familiar with this new/old universe again, and end the film on a feel good note. The deep thinking stuff I'm sure they saved for the sequel.


I do see "destiny" in the mix, but I do not personally think that theme belongs in Star Trek. How many times were we instead shown the more scientific argument -- that you are entirely a product of your environment? Picard, in Tapestry. Picard again in Nemesis. Those two off the top of my head. Add in the fact that Gene did not believe in superstition (or religion) and wanted humanity to be freed from it in his vision of the future. Fate/destiny is superstition -- implication that there is some meaning to events that is beyond our grasp or that "the hand of fate" (some unseen force) is controlling things. Belief that one's actions are sanctioned by a greater force is partly what leads to religion & war, and this is what Gene imagined we would overcome. As far as overcoming differences, you can find that theme in just about any drama aimed at adolescents and children...no need for a science fiction setting to explore that.

I do hope you are right, that they saved the "deep thinking" for the sequel. Unfortunately, even if they had this as their intent originally, the runaway success seems like it will cause Paramount to demand for more of the same, lest they disrupt this new found formula for profit.

#133 Whirlygig

Whirlygig

    Dances with Toys

  • Members
  • 1,426 posts

Posted 18 May 2009 - 11:58 AM

QUOTE (A Chimpanzee & 2 Trainees @ May 18 2009, 10:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
[edit] actually, now that I think about it... Didn't Quantum Leap do essentially this same idea? Sam leaped into Lee Oswald and then leaped into a bodyguard just before he would've pulled the trigger and saved the First Lady.

Off-topic alert... The British sci-fi/comedy series Red Dwarf also explored this idea, in its own interesting way...they accidentally prevented JFK's death, discovered that it would alter the future quite negatively (surely an homage/reference to City on the Edge), and then concocted the plan to explain all this to JFK himself and convince him to shoot himself from the grassy knoll. http://en.wikipedia....i/Tikka_to_Ride

#134 knightone

knightone

    If I don't have it, It's on preorder.

  • Members
  • 2,235 posts

Posted 18 May 2009 - 01:12 PM

I think the JFK story might actually have been a great idea. The sacrifice would probably have to have been made for a greater good and the emotional turmoil they would have had to go through to deal with having to commit such an action. It would have actually been a nice character study as well as a philosophical look at the need to commit one morally questionable act to, perhaps, prevent even more morally reprehensible results. A real "shades of grey" type scenario that would have carried a lot of deeper meanings as well as providing a, possibly, great emotional impact.

#135 VulcanFanatic

VulcanFanatic

    Leonard Nimoy fan

  • Members
  • 3,164 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern North Carolina

Posted 18 May 2009 - 03:27 PM

Kirk and Spock shooting JFK would have been too controversial to make. Even if the story had JFK actually being some Alien who was going to destroy the world unless Kirk and Spock took him out it would be too much negativity for a Star Trek movie to withstand i think.

#136 FHC

FHC

    Owner

  • Owner
  • 4,495 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 May 2009 - 05:31 PM

Well The Shat man's book says that Gene brought it up and fought for it at least three times. I think that the last time was when he heard that The Voyage Home was a time travel story.

#137 neoworx

neoworx

    Knows the way to Eden

  • Members
  • 127 posts

Posted 18 May 2009 - 08:44 PM

QUOTE (Cpt. Phil T. Berns @ May 15 2009, 07:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's funny you should say that. Because Star Trek V flopped because it missed the glitz factor. That movie had all the substance, cohesiveness and merit you could want in a Star Trek movie (Does God exist, is he just a fragment of our imagination or is he just an alien we don't understand?) ST:V had the best story (and the closest story to a TOS episode) of all the Star Trek movies but failed to be a hit because it was badly told (bad effects, untried director.) Even with all it's flaws, it has always been my favorite Trek movie, untill this new movie came along.


Say WHAT?!? Gee, Cap'n Phil, I'll just have to respectfully disagree with that one. ST5 didn't flop because it lacked "The Glitz Factor". It flopped because it totally sucked, in most people's opinion (including mine). Better FX would have certainly helped, but it would have just been a different level of suckiness. To each his own.

As for the new movie, I have moved my review to the other movie thread.

#138 TheHSBR

TheHSBR

    Mirror Universe Moderator

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, IL
  • Interests:This will be quite the list...Star Trek, Star Wars, wrestling, He-Man, comic books, GI Joe, video games, and most of all collecting action figures!

Posted 18 May 2009 - 09:01 PM

QUOTE (neoworx @ May 18 2009, 09:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Say WHAT?!? Gee, Cap'n Phil, I'll just have to respectfully disagree with that one. ST5 didn't flop because it lacked "The Glitz Factor". It flopped because it totally sucked, in most people's opinion (including mine). Better FX would have certainly helped, but it would have just been a different level of suckiness. To each his own.

As for the new movie, I agree with a lot of things posted previously. I saw it for the second time on Wednesday. I hoped I would like it better the second time. I didn't.

That's not to say that I didn't like it, because I did. What's odd is that the stuff I thought I'd have the most trouble with -- new actors playing my old favorite characters as well as the "timeline reset"

#139 The_Donster

The_Donster

    If I don't have it, It's on preorder.

  • Members
  • 2,198 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ferenginar
  • Interests:OMG!! Clearly my hobby is getting away from me at the moment if anyone remembers the pics of my collection on the old AA forum. While mine isn't as focused as Mark's, it's start to rival his, lol. Long answer short, too many to narrow down.

Posted 18 May 2009 - 10:32 PM

^^Speaking of which, hasn't enough time passed that we can merge the 2 threads together? The movie came out 2 weeks ago and the next thing folks will probable be talking about is the new Terminator movie that comes out on Friday. Because of my lawn being out of control, I didn't get a chance to watch it again at IMAX and hope I still can next Saturday. Not to diverge the topic too far off course, but I liked ST V and can never understand all the hubbub about it.

#140 neoworx

neoworx

    Knows the way to Eden

  • Members
  • 127 posts

Posted 18 May 2009 - 10:54 PM

QUOTE (TheHSBR @ May 18 2009, 11:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There is a spoiler thread here http://www.trektoy.c...?showtopic=2758 where you can talk till your hearts content


Thanks




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users