Star Trek 2009
- Thread starter HovitosKing
- Start date
Nurhachi1991
Well-known member
jamesdude said:
Damnit Man! What do you think?
Nurhachi1991
Well-known member
jamesdude said:Dammit I figure they may have changed things dammit!
Damnit man I'm a doctor not a bricklayer!!!!
sandiegojones
New member
Goonie said:
I have to agree with you there. I have always been a Star Wars guy. I grew up with it and loved it more than any film (I went to film school because of SW!). I even "accepted" the prequels, but this really opened my eyes.
I only ever really watched the original Star Trek show when I was in high school and when I was up after 11:00 pm (that's when I came on in LA). I liked it and had seen most of the movies (up to First Contact), but I never could watch the new TV shows (especially Voyager and Deep Space Nine) and didn't really have an attachment to the show like I did with Star Wars. I think I avoided Trek mostly because some of the fans are really weird (even more so than SW).
This move though was everything I could have hoped for. It retained the cool and the camp from the 60's show and was funny and even emotional right from the beginning. It was modern and retro at the same time and at it's core was about the characters. This Trek set up the rise of Jim Kirk and Spock in the first 20 minutes yet provided more motivation for the characters than any of the three of the SW prequels were able to muster.
The special effects were better than any of the SW prequels too, which says a lot since Lucas' effects company did the FX work!
The casting was great too. I see now how much potential was squandered with SW after seeing this film. My only criticism is that this series needs a major villain. Eric Bana was good, but not really a threat worthy of the USS Enterprise crew. Since they've altered the Trek universe, perhaps an old adversary can return?
KAAHHHHNNNNNN!!!!!!!
sandiegojones
New member
I didn't really question it. I always felt Scotty was a bit of a comic relief so when he was cast I didn't think much of it. Cho didn't scream "comic" to me either. I know he's famous for "MILF" but he seemed a good fit.jamesdude said:
I did have a hard time with Kal Penn in Superman Returns!
Nurhachi1991
Well-known member
W00T!!! I got the Spock figure at Burger king today
Now All I need Is MCcoy and I will have my 3 favorite characters on my desk!
Now All I need Is MCcoy and I will have my 3 favorite characters on my desk!
sandiegojones
New member
caats said:
I think I already pointed out that ILM did both? There's nothing in Star Trek that ILM couldn't have done in SW Episode II or III. It's the art direction and FX supervision that is the difference maker.
Looks like I could be right about a sequel!
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1611063/story.jhtml
Last edited:
Mike00spy
Well-known member
WillKill4Food said:
Because you then eliminate the ability to surprise the audience. There is no real jeopardy to any of the characters if you go this route- you already know when certain characters would die, or which ones CANT die.
Remember how Nero used his weapon and the effects that followed his use? Yeah, that wouldn't have been possible if you slavishly follow the canon.
Star Wars ran into this problem during Episodes 1-3. You already knew Obi Wan, Anakin, Amidala (at least until she gave birth), Yoda, and Palentine wouldnt die. You knew that every Jedi used would die. Just one of the many problems those films had.
WillKill4Food
New member
Spoilers:
| But still, I felt robbed because I was seeing an alternate reality and not the real story. And, it just seemed that they only used the time-traveling plot to bring Spock into the story. Besides, most in the audience weren't really imagining any peril anyway, and if any of the main characters had died, the resulting outcry would sink future films, most likely. |
Goonie
New member
When two science fiction universes collide:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2s2SI8vWgdI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2s2SI8vWgdI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2s2SI8vWgdI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2s2SI8vWgdI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Niteshade007
New member
I saw it, and I have to say I enjoyed it. I have never seen an episode of any Star Trek though. Also, the film had some problems
But like I said, it was enjoyable despite not being a Trekkie.
| The time travel thing was a bit confusing. I think it could have been explained a bit better. Obviously, you don't want to beat the audience over the head with it, but some clarification on certain points would be nice. Zoe Saldana's character was completely wasted in this film. She starts off fine, and even gets set up as the love interest for Kirk. But then, without any real explanation, she's kissing Spock. No romantic build-up or anything, just making out in an elevator. Winona Ryder's death was kind of idiotic. I mean, it hardly takes them any time at all to beam characters, yet when the world is crumbling around them, it suddenly requires a countdown. Seriously? I had a hard time taking Sulu seriously. I kept going "he's Harold!" And, like Zoe, they had him start off strong, then disappear. Poor character development across the board. |
But like I said, it was enjoyable despite not being a Trekkie.
sandiegojones
New member
Niteshade007 said:
I thought it was explained enough. They've done this in 2 prior films and a few episodes so it wasn't something that surprised me.
| What made this so different was that someone else traveling through time changed the characters history and that there was no reset button. |
Niteshade007 said:
I was surprised by this at first too, but again this is a different take. Also, there is a scene before she is assigned to the Enterprise by Spock that gives this away, but it is in no way obvious until they have their
| elevator scene. |
Niteshade007 said:
Well, I think they made an attempt to make it somewhat more realistic and dramatic. It also gave Spock a moment to show his human half. In the scene where
| Sulu and Kirk are falling from the giant drill and Chekov needs to lock onto them manually to beam them up |
| Spock's mother |
Niteshade007 said:
I thought there was sufficient character development given that this is really a Kirk & Spock film. I think all of the subsequent characters were given their moment to shine in a way that was consistent with the original series.
Last edited:
DocWhiskey
Well-known member
I prefer my "Star" to be wars and I know next to nothing about Star trek other then the main characters, some terms, some quotes, and a few plot outlines of the previous films. I've never seen an episode of any Star Trek series or film besides this one. But I must say I REALLY enjoyed this movie. It had great action and great visuals. I wasn't a big fan of the use of the beastie boys song at the beginning though. Just seems...weird. I wish they would've delved more into Eric Bana's character a little more also. But overall I loved it, and it IS this year's Iron Man.
I wonder what the die hard Trekkies think of it?
I wonder what the die hard Trekkies think of it?
i have to disagree that there was no build up to Spock and Uhura. there was the scene about "favoritism" and then also quite a few times of them making eye contact or Uhura showing obvious care for him before the elevator.
I kinda see what you mean with Ryder's death. but they made it clear everytime they beamed someone that they had to keep still. but yeah, i hear you on the countdown.
i disagree totally on Sulu. mainly cause it's not the movie's fault you can't separate the characters. and the character development was the strongest part of the movie. every main character had their moment to shine. the flick was more character driven than plot driven. the only one who didn't really get development was Nero. but i was fine with that cause it's the crew i care about. i think they did a great job juggling all the characters.
I kinda see what you mean with Ryder's death. but they made it clear everytime they beamed someone that they had to keep still. but yeah, i hear you on the countdown.
i disagree totally on Sulu. mainly cause it's not the movie's fault you can't separate the characters. and the character development was the strongest part of the movie. every main character had their moment to shine. the flick was more character driven than plot driven. the only one who didn't really get development was Nero. but i was fine with that cause it's the crew i care about. i think they did a great job juggling all the characters.
|ZiR|
New member
The alternate time line idea seemed overly convoluted and reminded me of the Lost In Space movie from the '90s. And not in a good way! But I'm guessing they opened up an alt. time line so that they could start a new TV series without infringing on the canon of the original show(s)? Right? I dunno.
I did like it, though. A lot more than I thought I would. I got to see it with my Trekkie friend too, which was cool. He liked it. One of his complaints was that the interior of the ship -- like where Scotty worked -- was "unfinished" looking. Boy, what. How the heck is the deep interior of a spaceship supposed to look?
I did like it, though. A lot more than I thought I would. I got to see it with my Trekkie friend too, which was cool. He liked it. One of his complaints was that the interior of the ship -- like where Scotty worked -- was "unfinished" looking. Boy, what. How the heck is the deep interior of a spaceship supposed to look?