The Star Trek Movie

  • dh__

    Posts: 143

    May 20, 2009 12:06 AM GMT
    Ok I'm by no means a major star trek fan. I may have seen a few episodes when i was 10. But i saw this movie and am hooked. love the writing they did for this movie, they way they choose to recreate the story yet keep in classic motifs, i thought the casting was amazingly done, etc etc. So for those major fans and those that have never even seen the show, tell me
    am i just geeking out, or was this really that great? what did you guys think of it all?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2009 2:43 AM GMT
    It was pretty great, lotsa fun. Unfortunately, the writing forgot to discuss Gene Roddenberry's vision of a bright future due to humanity's maturing enough to decide never to go to nuclear war. That was why Gene created STAR TREK in the first place: to show a more shining example of a hopeful future, rather than the typical, cynical, post-Apocalyptic future that so many other science fiction writers shove down our throats.
  • drakutis

    Posts: 586

    May 20, 2009 2:56 AM GMT
    BUT (LOL), because Spock and Nero went back in time, they created an alternate reality and changed the destiny of the characters, allowing for a total rewrite of the past which couldn't be undone! LOVED THE MOVIE!!! I'm going to see it a third time in Imax!
  • triniboy

    Posts: 305

    May 20, 2009 3:00 AM GMT
    The movie was a spectacular introduction for new fans and a treasure trove for the true Trekkies (I refuse to fucking call myself a "Trekker").
    Since when did you have to start being PC about being a fan of something?!? *gag*
  • silverfox

    Posts: 3178

    May 20, 2009 3:21 AM GMT
    This was my favorite movie in a long long time and yes.....see it in IMAX if you can.

    I can't wait for the sequel!
  • DrewT

    Posts: 1327

    May 20, 2009 3:30 AM GMT
    I thought it was a good movie. Definitely going to have to see it again and get it when it comes out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2009 4:26 AM GMT
    Trekkie, Trekker, Trekkette... I couldn't care less what they call me. I'm a fan of STAR TREK and am glad that there will be more to look forward to!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2009 5:01 AM GMT
    two thumbs upicon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2009 5:14 AM GMT
    I'm sure I'll be dodging more than a few shoes for saying this, but I really liked the movie...but not because it was Star Trek. As previously stated, it was polished, well casted, and had a fantastic soundtrack. The action was intense but hardly overdone, the acting was excellent (except for a few overdone moments by Bones), the special effects absolutely incredible.

    But, to me, it wasn't really Star Trek.

    I can't tell if it was the comparable overabundance of action, the blatant exchange of practicality for dramatic flair, or both. Star Trek was always about the politics and dynamics of first contact, and Kirk was always the upstanding officer. Mr. Perfect, so to speak. It is this supposed perfection - inspired much by his father - that is what made the revelation that he cheated on the Kobayashi-Maru so subtley ironic. In the new movie, this irony was completely shattered by the smug douche-baggery of the modern Kirk. There were no politics, only starships exploding and an irrationally angry Romulan. A Romulan, btw, flying a mining ship that is about as much NOT what one would imagine a mining ship to look like as it ever could be (I like the big tendrils on the front) equipped with a single drill and, for lack of a better word, an inexplicabley massive pit in the center. The bridge seemed to consist of little more than a few platforms and lots of space. In few words, flashy and inarguably Star Wars-y.

    This is not to say I didn't love the film... it was most entertaining, and I will definitely be acquiring my hi-def copy upon release, BUT ... I feel like I like it for all the wrong reasons. I like it because it was an awesome, Star Trek-themed, action sci-fi, not because it was actually Star Trek.

    Just my $.02 icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2009 6:08 AM GMT
    mtown_nerd saidI'm sure I'll be dodging more than a few shoes for saying this, but I really liked the movie...but not because it was Star Trek. As previously stated, it was polished, well casted, and had a fantastic soundtrack. The action was intense but hardly overdone, the acting was excellent (except for a few overdone moments by Bones), the special effects absolutely incredible.

    But, to me, it wasn't really Star Trek.

    I can't tell if it was the comparable overabundance of action, the blatant exchange of practicality for dramatic flair, or both. Star Trek was always about the politics and dynamics of first contact, and Kirk was always the upstanding officer. Mr. Perfect, so to speak. It is this supposed perfection - inspired much by his father - that is what made the revelation that he cheated on the Kobayashi-Maru so subtley ironic. In the new movie, this irony was completely shattered by the smug douche-baggery of the modern Kirk. There were no politics, only starships exploding and an irrationally angry Romulan. A Romulan, btw, flying a mining ship that is about as much NOT what one would imagine a mining ship to look like as it ever could be (I like the big tendrils on the front) equipped with a single drill and, for lack of a better word, an inexplicabley massive pit in the center. The bridge seemed to consist of little more than a few platforms and lots of space. In few words, flashy and inarguably Star Wars-y.

    This is not to say I didn't love the film... it was most entertaining, and I will definitely be acquiring my hi-def copy upon release, BUT ... I feel like I like it for all the wrong reasons. I like it because it was an awesome, Star Trek-themed, action sci-fi, not because it was actually Star Trek.

    Just my $.02 icon_smile.gif


    Actually, I think you said it very well! It was fun, flashy, and certainly better than STAR TREK: NEMESIS. But it lacked some of the depth and soul that Roddenberry was so well known for in the Original Series, or The Next Generation.

    I guess I'm on the fence about that, although it was a hell of a roller-coaster ride.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2009 6:12 AM GMT
    I love si-fi and this is at the top of my list to see. So I am on my way this weekend!!

    I also love Star Wars
  • junknemesis

    Posts: 682

    May 20, 2009 6:15 AM GMT
    I loved the movie. I think it was an awesome introduction into a remake of the series. And te new Spock, well... I want.
  • dh__

    Posts: 143

    May 20, 2009 7:21 AM GMT
    mtown_nerd saidI'm sure I'll be dodging more than a few shoes for saying this, but I really liked the movie...but not because it was Star Trek. As previously stated, it was polished, well casted, and had a fantastic soundtrack. The action was intense but hardly overdone, the acting was excellent (except for a few overdone moments by Bones), the special effects absolutely incredible.

    But, to me, it wasn't really Star Trek.

    I can't tell if it was the comparable overabundance of action, the blatant exchange of practicality for dramatic flair, or both. Star Trek was always about the politics and dynamics of first contact, and Kirk was always the upstanding officer. Mr. Perfect, so to speak. It is this supposed perfection - inspired much by his father - that is what made the revelation that he cheated on the Kobayashi-Maru so subtley ironic. In the new movie, this irony was completely shattered by the smug douche-baggery of the modern Kirk. There were no politics, only starships exploding and an irrationally angry Romulan. A Romulan, btw, flying a mining ship that is about as much NOT what one would imagine a mining ship to look like as it ever could be (I like the big tendrils on the front) equipped with a single drill and, for lack of a better word, an inexplicabley massive pit in the center. The bridge seemed to consist of little more than a few platforms and lots of space. In few words, flashy and inarguably Star Wars-y.

    This is not to say I didn't love the film... it was most entertaining, and I will definitely be acquiring my hi-def copy upon release, BUT ... I feel like I like it for all the wrong reasons. I like it because it was an awesome, Star Trek-themed, action sci-fi, not because it was actually Star Trek.

    Just my $.02 icon_smile.gif

    I can understand what you mean. but I think that is actually what made it so much better. they didn't try to recreate what's already been done. they gave the audience for a clean slate. incorporating the old classic with a new twist.
    love the two cents btw. great comment
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    May 20, 2009 7:24 AM GMT
    The Department of Temporal Investigations in the Federation would have corrected the events that took place in the new Star Trek movie. It's specifically designed to correct for deviations in the timeline that would alter the federation or that of it's citizens so drastically. The Federation has ships that exist outside of space-time that monitor the timeline for incursions and then correct them.
    For example the USS Relativity was a Federation timeship that was involved in a Voyager episode to stop Voyager from being destroyed in the past by a rogue time agent.
    http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/USS_Relativity
    USS_Relativity.jpg

    Can see part of the episode here:


    I haven't seen it yet, partly because the idea of another time travel plot is boring, it has just been used too much in Star Trek and sci-fi in general. Twice already in two previous Trek movies right?. And it has been used many many of times in the different t.v. Trek series! It's just too convenient of a plot device. Either everything goes back to normal in the end, which makes the whole story useless to begin with, or it's about an altered timeline which destroys continuity.

    Also the idea of the Trek franchise being reboot bothers me because it doesn't sound like they tried to keep the idea of Gene Roddenberry going, like it's just a movie marketing scheme and not much else. Continuity is important or don't call it Star Trek. What is the point of it but to sell out the history of the franchise?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2009 2:52 PM GMT
    Ok, saw movie twice. Enjoyed!

    one question: scene of Chris Pine (Kirk) in his briefs; was that all him or did he have a sock in his briefs? Was totally hot!
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    May 20, 2009 3:00 PM GMT
    hombrehombre saidOk, saw movie twice. Enjoyed!

    one question: scene of Chris Pine (Kirk) in his briefs; was that all him or did he have a sock in his briefs? Was totally hot!
    u noticed that also, hey? yeh, he IS a cutie! icon_cool.gif
  • treader

    Posts: 238

    May 20, 2009 3:54 PM GMT
    I saw the movie on IMAX and I liked it a lot. I'm a long time Star Trek fan. Having other actors play the familiar roles of the original cast bugged me initially but it won me over. I'm not sure how the movie will hold up with time. Having the Romulans speak as street thugs really bothered me. They're aliens - not a street gang. Still the movie's pacing and look was great.

    Having said that, I sort wish that this new alternative reality was a new TV show rather a movie. Waiting two/three years for another story is a long time. I think Star Trek works best as a TV series where you can highlight different characters and explore different themes.

    >Continuity is important or don't call it Star Trek. What is the point of it but
    > to sell out the history of the franchise?

    There's plenty of contradictions throughout all of the series. Obviously they wanted to create a different but familiar path. It's not a bad compromise. What type of movie would you have done? You can't do the original cast. Next Gen has passed its time. No one remembers Deep Space Nine. It's a little late to make a Voyager movie. Enterprise wasn't that successful. What option is left? Yes, continuity is important but I don't want a show where everything is defined. The film created a new start. Let's see where they take it.

    > scene of Chris Pine (Kirk) in his briefs; was that all him or did he have a
    > sock in his briefs? Was totally hot!

    I don't think that it was a sock. icon_biggrin.gif Why weren't more shirts torn or ripped off during this film?? Damn, that futurist fabric! icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2009 4:47 PM GMT
    I want to do dirty things to the actor who played Chekov
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    May 20, 2009 4:49 PM GMT
    I really liked the movie. It had it's flaws to be sure, but overall it was good.

    Kirk's daddy was HOT!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2009 12:19 AM GMT
    hombrehombre saidOk, saw movie twice. Enjoyed!

    one question: scene of Chris Pine (Kirk) in his briefs; was that all him or did he have a sock in his briefs? Was totally hot!


    He's gonna be huge icon_wink.gif

    I genuinely loved the movie. Didn't really want to see it that much, but it's probably my movie of the year.

  • TallGWMvballe...

    Posts: 1925

    May 21, 2009 3:48 PM GMT
    I saw it TWICE now!

    Once with a non Sci fi lover and once with a full on Trekie who is 27 by the way,

    I loved it for many reasons. Yes I had some difficulty that the Romulan ship said to be a mining vessel was so greatly armed and a few other things but the story held up OK.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2009 4:07 PM GMT
    Think y'all might like this. It's REALLY funny!

    http://www.hulu.com/watch/72444/saturday-night-live-update-feature-star-trek#s-p1-st-i3
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2009 4:27 PM GMT
    Lost_And_Found said
    hombrehombre saidOk, saw movie twice. Enjoyed!

    one question: scene of Chris Pine (Kirk) in his briefs; was that all him or did he have a sock in his briefs? Was totally hot!


    He's gonna be huge icon_wink.gif

    I genuinely loved the movie. Didn't really want to see it that much, but it's probably my movie of the year.



    haha, only on this site people pay attention to these details icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2009 4:56 PM GMT
    Fun movie; great work creating character continuity--probably the most challenging thing they had to do. But the plot seemed pretty thin to me. Red matter? Time travel? I dunno. Give me Khan any day.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2009 5:24 PM GMT
    The movie was well made: great effects and everything, the acting was ok, although we get these movies with young actors acting as teenagers.
    Also, I think the movie has some problematic aspects: once again, we have the bad-ass white jockish boy (Kirk, with such a bad skin) from Iowa (WTF?) but with a good heart, making the rules blahblahblah and being rewarded at the end. He has the instinct, while the one who represents the intellect, Mr Spock, is replaced by the former. I don't know, maybe Mr Spock was punished symbolically for having an interacial relationship...
    And, oh, so funny the "Russian" guy, with that funny "Russian" accent, hohoho, subtle.