# Star Trek Movie



## ccbor (May 27, 2003)

Just back from the show.

I was speechless after the show because all throughout I kept saying amazing!!
IMHO the show was a smash hit.

Oh and I will buy the model kit now.

Hope you all like it, like Tranya.

Bor


----------



## cireskul (Jul 16, 2006)

After watching Star Trek 6, the final voyager of the original crew, I was sad. I would not see any new adventures for Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the crew. I felt Old.

After this movie I felt Young. I had witnessed a birth. The characters Live again. Yah its different, yah the set could be less......now. but Star Trek Lives, that is what matters. Now anything is possible,again.:thumbsup:


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

cireskul said:


> After this movie I felt Young.


Sounds as though someone showed you something that made you feel ... young, as when the world was new!



Looks like I'm going to see it on Saturday. Pretty rare for me to see a movie that soon into release these days. I'm making a special effort.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## cireskul (Jul 16, 2006)

Bingo!


----------



## halcyon_daze (Jan 6, 2004)

Just got back myself, and the WOW! factor is definitely there. I think that JJ Abrams has successfully taken up the torch with this film, insofar as the continuation of the franchise is concerned.


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

Oh My God!!!!! I Just Saw The Best Movie Ever!!!!!!!!!!! 
:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:


Incredible work by all. So many cool Trek moments. WOW!! :thumbsup:

Todd <--One seriously happy Trek camper


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

Amazing work. The characters are there!!! A little different, but they are there!!
Awesome work by Abrams and Co.
I love all the tiny nods to past Treks. I'm sure I missed a bunch of them. 
Approach this movie with an open mind and you will be amazed. The people who wrote this script understand and KNOW Trek inside and out.
Very cool!
Now, anything is possible!!


----------



## starlifter (Nov 26, 2008)

sorry folks. entertaining and i enjoyed the cast BUT an abomination towards everything that is star trek. this isn't minor deviation from canon, it's a complete re-write. as an action movie it was fun. as a star trek film I spent much of the film thinking to myself, this is b.s. 

tomorrow is the opening for real so I propose not to give any spoilers and let everyone judge for themselves. On monday or so I'll be happy to debate some of the 'new' directions JJ has decided to take this crew. 

oh, one little tweak though. we all know kirk ends up as captain of the enterprise. If only I had known you can go from 3rd year cadet straight to captain though, my own military career may have been more successful.


----------



## halcyon_daze (Jan 6, 2004)

This film won't win over many of the more purist-minded, that's for sure.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Enjoyed it thoroughly. Didn't know Kirk would actually make Captain, but I see your point.

I rarely say that a film is worth multiple viewings, but I'd want to see this 2 to 3 times. There's a lot there to absorb.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Was in the mall today and only a handfull of people waiting in line for the special early show...What the____ is going on? I fully expected Harry Potter style lines around the corner-mega blockbuster-eye popping-I can wait till the fever dies down reaction. I dearly hope our fair city isn't an example of how this film does or sadly 'R.I.P. Star Trek !"


----------



## halcyon_daze (Jan 6, 2004)

Ductapeforever said:


> Was in the mall today and only a handfull of people waiting in line for the special early show...What the____ is going on? I fully expected Harry Potter style lines around the corner-mega blockbuster-eye popping-I can wait till the fever dies down reaction. I dearly hope our fair city isn't an example of how this film does or sadly 'R.I.P. Star Trek !"


Same here. It was nothing like when the various Star Wars movies came out.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

My review is up on my blog. Just click here.


----------



## halcyon_daze (Jan 6, 2004)

Captain April said:


> My review is up on my blog. Just click here.


Good points about the film.

The political blather in the commentary below your review is another matter, but we won't go there. ;-)


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Still no interest from me. I have read enough now to know this wasn't made for fans like me.


----------



## starlifter (Nov 26, 2008)

Captain April said:


> My review is up on my blog. Just click here.


couldn't agree more sir......also, don't know about you but my biggest B.S. moment came with spock and uhura in the turbolift. YGTBFKM..........


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Cap, you've said what I thought. Cessna, you too. It's time we old Trekkers take our leave, as the world no longer cares about canon or faithfulness to a story. In all the reviews I've read so far this morning (Friday), it appears that either Paramount has paid off a whole lot of critics, or no one cares anymore about Star Trek.

Since I get flamed for my lack of excitement about this movie, I'm signing off. You folks that wanted this, go ahead and enjoy it. I'm out.

Larry


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

I saw it, WORST TREK EVER


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Captain April said:


> My review is up on my blog. Just click here.


I got to the fourth paragraph and gave up. It reminds me a whole lot of a David Merriman article. You didn't go in to the movie with anything resembling an open mind. Most everything I read was what you've posted here long before you knew any details about the movie. 

I've still not seen it but have every intention of doing so next week when I get up to Louisville for WonderFest. The few negatives I've read were from folks at various forums who were already bagging on the movie well before the first releases of information came out beyond a vague plot summary. _I'm_ not detered in the least because almost every bit of complaining I've read has sounded like Fan Boy Angst. It rather reminds me of some of the things I said about "Enterprise" before it aired before I got to thinking that I need to keep an open mind.... 

No insult intended to anyone who's seen it and doesn't like it. Like those giving their opinion on the movie, I'm just giving my thoughts on what some folks have said here and elsewhere on DaNet.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Captain April said:


> My review is up on my blog. Just click here.


Yea, no surprises there.


----------



## SamwiseVT (Apr 30, 2009)

I went and saw it last night. I must say it was quite amazing. I was so surprised to see how many people were going to my theater to see it - they only started with 2 early showings (7 and 950) then added 4 more.
My only complaint was the score; I didn't like it all that much because to me it didn't sound like Trek, but aside from that it was wonderful.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> I got to the fourth paragraph and gave up. It reminds me a whole lot of a David Merriman article. You didn't go in to the movie with anything resembling an open mind. Most everything I read was what you've posted here long before you knew any details about the movie.


BINGO 

IMHO, this was a review from a disappointed old school fan who did not get to see his classic Trek on screen.


----------



## Vaderman (Nov 2, 2002)

You know, as Trek fans shouldn't we embrace IDIC? Just because it is not the 1960's Star Trek, it is still Star Trek, just in a new incarnation.

If you did not like the movie, that is your right and opinion and I respect that. You will be in the minority I think. The fact is that the movie executes very well and will relaunch the Star Trek franchise for old and new fans. To see my 7 year old cheer and do the Vulcan salute after the move was just awesome.

Scorr


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Enjoyed it very much!
I could live without the "brewery look" for engineering and the Galaxy Quest "Chompers" moment in said engineering.

I thought it was a pretty ballsy move with what happens to one of the founding member planets.

and hints of the "spock/uhura" stuff was there in the original series, if you cared to see it.

and that's my two cents. Those who are open to it, need no more convincing. Those who are closed to it, no amount of convincing will ever be enough.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

This may be a Trek for a new generation but I like to think I'm young enough at heart to keep an open mind and give it a chance to renew my sense of wonder. Trek lives !


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Vaderman said:


> You know, as Trek fans shouldn't we embrace IDIC? Just because it is not the 1960's Star Trek, it is still Star Trek, just in a new incarnation.
> 
> If you did not like the movie, that is your right and opinion and I respect that. You will be in the minority I think. The fact is that the movie executes very well and will relaunch the Star Trek franchise for old and new fans. To see my 7 year old cheer and do the Vulcan salute after the move was just awesome.
> 
> Scorr



I read the detailed storylines from different sources now. 
Sadly it doesn't have what I need from a film that is based on the Original Series. I was very against Hollywood redoing the original series/characters to begin with. Do a new crew at least. 

But I left an out, if they captured what TOS meant to me, I would reconsider. I have seen and read enough to know they failed to do that for me. 

Those are special characters to me, the series was very special to me for specific reasons.

I don't see any reason I would be happy with the Abrams version of that.

Another crew and era. I probably would have been able to enjoy the Abrams film. 


My only hope now is Trek returns to TV in a way that I can appreciate.



I hope people can respect that thinking.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Cessna,

Thank you for your reasoned response.
Can you tell me specifically what you would like to see to "capture TOS"

if it is a thematic or essence issue, maybe I can help by telling you if i saw that or not. 

If it is an issue of cosmetics or casting, then that's cast in stone at this point and ther'e no point going down that road


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Cessna,
> 
> Thank you for your reasoned response.
> Can you tell me specifically what you would like to see to "capture TOS"
> ...



Please excuse my long windedness on this. I have had like forty years to think about it. LOL

I think the original series developed a following because of it's intellectual engagement of viewers. If it hadn't been able to do that, it would have ended up like Lost in Space and never created a franchise. 

It appealed to a lot of nerds for lack of a better word. 
And I don't mean live in the basement types, though they are there of course. I mean the nerds that end up flying on space shuttles and engineering our modern marvels. 


Character driven of course, action and FX yes, exciting, hot chicks sure, even shlocky silly stuff, but there was the engagement of the mind too. And TOS covered a lot of ground there, often with deep meaning on many topics. As many of the series did at times. That doesn't mean boring either. 


For me, the hook was all there in the mission statement at the beginning of every episode. It is the primary and core meaning of the original series to me. 


Space: The final frontier
These are the voyages of the Starship, Enterprise
Its 5 year mission
To explore strange new worlds
To seek out new life and new civilizations
To boldly go where no man has gone before



Space: The final frontier = trailblazing, pioneering and charting the unknown. 

Starship Enterprise = A crew aboard a spacecraft, united in the mission.

Five year mission = Dedication to exploration, it is THE reason they are out there.

Explore strange new worlds = both out in space and within humanity

New life and new civilizations = show us the fantastic and never seen before, and humanitys potential as well. New human civilizations, better then today.

Boldy = Taking great risks for great reward. The reward of knowledge.


The optimistic vision that the future is worth living for and worth building even if we today are not going to be the ones to enjoy it. 



Nichelle Nichols told a story about going to Roddenberry back then and I am paraphrasing heavily here.....


ahhh I get what your doing now...
your teaching people without them knowing it.

Gene: Yes, you got it.


"I do not think it irresponsible to portray even the direst futures; if we are to avoid them, we must understand that they are possible. But where are the alternatives? Where are the dreams that motivate and inspire? Where are the visions of hopeful futures, of times when technology is a tool for human well-being and not a gun on hair trigger pointed at our heads? Our children long for realistic maps of a future they (and we) can be proud of. Where are the cartographers of human purpose?" -Carl Sagan





Now yeah, most of the films were not about that, and many episodes were not about that. 

And I can forgive that considerably, when I was following the fates of some of my favorite characters. 


But if your rebooting TOS, I really needed that mental hook for it be worth using the original characters and settings. 
Chucking canon into the black hole didn't help endear me to the new film much either. I don't see why that was necessary.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

They've also painted themselves into a corner with this thing.

Think about it. They destroyed Vulcan. What do they do for an encore? Go in search of God?

Oh, wait, that's been done. And it didn't turn out well.


----------



## TOS Maniac (Jun 26, 2006)

Hmm...I disagree with Cessna in one respect only. I DO plan on seeing this new iteration of Star Trek. And I'm sure that I'll like it ...for what it is. But it's not Star Trek as envisioned by Gene Roddenberry.
My worst pang of dismay came with the most recent blurry, jumbled, LOUD, rock n roll commercial...you know.."this is NOT your father's "Star Trek" 

ugh

looks like the copy should have read 'This is NOT your thinking man's "Star Trek"

Star Trek was never about eye banging, bone jarring action and optical effects. It was never breakneck, ocd generation slam slam slam paced. The optical effects in an average episode took up about 3 minutes of screen time. Action sequences happened in the story, but episodes were not built solely around them.

Star Trek was about ideas.
Star Trek was about stories. not "plot" or "concept"...STORIES
Star Trek was about the CHARACTERS
This was all achieved by an enormously talented pool of Writers,Producers,Actors, and directors/artists/craftsmen.
Especially the writers.
Thank God that the original series was on a shoestring budget. It forced them to work that much harder crafting the words. It showed.
It forced them to work that much harder, period.
This is what Star Trek was and is about:
(and this is written totally from memory)

"I wish I were on a long sea voyage somewhere.
Not too much deck tennis, no frantic dancing ... and no responsibilities.
Why me?
I look around that bridge and I see the men waiting for me to make the next move...
..and Bones?

What if I'm wrong?"

* * * 

"You deliberately STOPPED ME, Jim! I could have saved her! DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU JUST DID?"
"He knows, Doctor...He knows."

* * *

"You can't run off to Vulcan against StarFleet orders, Why they'll bust you back to..'
"And I cant let Spock die, can I bones? And he Will. I owe him my life a dozen times over. Isn't that WORTH a carreer?
He's my FRIEND."

"They say there's no devil Jim, but there is...right out of hell. I saw it!"
"Matt..where is your crew?"

"On the third planet!"
"There is NO third planet!"

"....Don't you think I know that? ...there WAS...but not anymore! They called me..they BEGGED me for help....four hundred of 'em! ...I couldn't! ....I couldn't.... I couldn't"


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

LGFugate said:


> It's time we old Trekkers take our leave, as the world no longer cares about canon or faithfulness to a story. In all the reviews I've read so far this morning (Friday), it appears that either Paramount has paid off a whole lot of critics, or no one cares anymore about Star Trek.


The "world" never _did_ care about "canon". Nothing has changed there. But I suspect a whole lot more people are going to care about Star Trek after seeing this movie than ever have before. I know it's the first ST property in about 15 years I've had any interest in seeing - and I'm not alone by a long shot.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

I can't help thinking I must not be the true dedicated hardcore fan I always thought I was because I'm VERY excited by this and I KNOW I will love it. I suppose I have to give up my lifelong TOS fan badge and club membership if I come away from tomorrow thinking this is the best Star Trek ever.

tGel63 -- you went into it PLANNING to hate it, you hated it before you saw it, so naturally you came away hating it after working so hard to make sure your hate was justified. In other words, you never had any intention of giving it a chance, so of course it failed for you. What makes me smile about that is YOU STILL PAID TO SEE IT. All Paramount will see is another ticket sold. Thank you!


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Roguepink said:


> I can't help thinking I must not be the true dedicated hardcore fan I always thought I was because I'm VERY excited by this and I KNOW I will love it.


One can very well have an undying love for TOS and love the new incarnation of Trek as well.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Hi Folks for those of you who enjoyed this film than thats great.I watched it and couldn't get into it but I did try.I'm not saying its a bad film but different things appeal to different people.I still love Trek though,Guy Schlicter


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Captain April said:


> My review is up on my blog. Just click here.


So what *did* you think about Sliders Trek aka STINO. I didn't get a
clear picture from your review.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

'This is NOT your thinking man's "Star Trek"

You nailed it for me in one sentence. 



"They used to say if man could fly, he'd have wings. But he did fly. He discovered he had to. Do you wish that the first Apollo mission hadn't reached the moon, or that we hadn't gone on to Mars, and then to the nearest star? That's like saying that you wished you still operated with scalpels and sewed your patients up with catgut like your great great great great grandfather used to. I'm in command. I could order this. But I'm not because Doctor McCoy is right in pointing out the enormous danger potential in any contact with life and intelligence as fantastically advanced as this. But I must point out that the possibilities, the potential for knowledge and advancement is equally great. Risk... Risk is our business. That's what this starship is all about. That's why we're aboard her." -Kirk


That just drives it home for me everytime.


----------



## starlifter (Nov 26, 2008)

as i said before, as a straight action movie and for those whom are new to the franchise - this is a winner. While it sounds like I'm overreacting though, I think this whole reboot is somewhat of an insult to all that came before it. Was it necessary to create a new timeline? was that the only way to show how this crew got together, what their first battle would be? I've read Nimoy's books on how he fought to maintain the essence of his character - yet in this movie spock likes to fight and kiss women. I find it hard to believe they needed to 'start over'. JJ Abrams (who admits he was never a trek fan) has basically told all who have worked on this franchise to date - you didn't know what you were doing.

some I went to the theatre with immediately speculated they will fix the timeline in the next film. I disagree. It's done. This is a new reality. Time will tell if JJ is correct.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

Captain April said:


> My review is up on my blog. Just click here.



....But did you like the movie?


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

Hey Rouge, I DIDN'T pay smartguy! My friend manages the local Showcase Cinema. Don't pay for what movies I see. YOUR WELCOME


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

There is a huge difference between Star Trek movies and Star Trek TV. All of the movies (except for the two space probe films) involve an evil villian that the crew has to stop, thwart or otherwise destroy. Think about it. 
The TV versions of Trek allowed the writers to delve into thought provoking topics such as war, superpowers, social issues, etc in science fiction metaphor so to speak. 
As a weekly TV series, it can deal with issues. As a movie, it needs to be an exciting blockbuster. This is nothing new. Don't compare the original series with this movie. Compare this movie to the original series cast films. Just my humble opinion! (And a hope to see Trek on TV again some day.)


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

starlifter said:


> JJ Abrams (who admits he was never a trek fan) has basically told all who have worked on this franchise to date - you didn't know what you were doing.


Yea, that's what he did.

Man does Shatner's words ring ever so true.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

TGel63 said:


> Hey Rouge, I DIDN'T pay smartguy! My friend manages the local Showcase Cinema. Don't pay for what movies I see. YOUR WELCOME


Figured it would be something like that. Worth the shot anyway. Still, you are not disputing the rest of my statement?


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

mikephys said:


> The TV versions of Trek allowed the writers to delve into thought provoking topics such as war, superpowers, social issues, etc in science fiction metaphor so to speak.
> As a weekly TV series, it can deal with issues. As a movie, it needs to be an exciting blockbuster. This is nothing new. Don't compare the original series with this movie. Compare this movie to the original series cast films. Just my humble opinion! (And a hope to see Trek on TV again some day.)


There is truth to that. There have been stories done really well for TV that could have been made as good movies, but many could not. They could have made "The Best of Both Worlds" work as a feature film, but they certainly wouldn't follow it with something like "Family." And you'd definitely never see "The Inner Light" as a feature film.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

I was holding off adding my 2 cents worth... not that any one cares about my opinion... I actually care quite a bit about it... anyway... 

I don't want to contribute to any negative ranting... but I personally came away kind of 50/50 luke warm overall, but enjoyed it. I went with my wife and some of our friends... that don't give a rat's butt about Star Trek and I was excited by the fact that they actually enjoyed the movie and LIKED the characters!

The Enterprise looked darned sweet up there on that screen.

The casting, and acting were excellent.

The effects were very well done.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT following!!!!!!

BUT... and it is a HUGE but... I am annoyed at only 3 years passing... and suddenly Kirk finds himself a rookie made first officer and at the end of only one adventure... is captain... COME ON... that beats on my willingness to suspend disbelief and lays a foundation that is at least a little shaky...

but other than that... it was a great ride. I think they did a great job of establishing the character attributes of each character.

B+


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

mikephys said:


> There is a huge difference between Star Trek movies and Star Trek TV. All of the movies (except for the two space probe films) involve an evil villian that the crew has to stop, thwart or otherwise destroy. Think about it.
> The TV versions of Trek allowed the writers to delve into thought provoking topics such as war, superpowers, social issues, etc in science fiction metaphor so to speak.
> As a weekly TV series, it can deal with issues. As a movie, it needs to be an exciting blockbuster. This is nothing new. Don't compare the original series with this movie. Compare this movie to the original series cast films. Just my humble opinion! (And a hope to see Trek on TV again some day.)



I agree greatly that the movies have been off Trek message far more often then not. But again, love of the characters fates kept me watching. 


It's all a little bit like 1989 Batman for me. 

I knew my Bat lore bigtime as a longtime comic reader, That movie came out and I was very disappointed. But it was soooooo popular. People thought I was nuts who were not comic readers. 
And yes it was a good movie in many ways, but it wasn't a good Batman movie if you know what I mean. 


I had to wait for Batman Begins to come out later for that. (Mask of the Phantasm too)


I wanted a "Trek Begins". Get back to the basics if your doing TOS era again. 


Capture the soul of the series and I would overlook lots of non canon things. 
Even recasting the original characters I probably could get passed. But that is hard one for me.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Yes, it's a double edges sword.

you want action? you get First Contact or Wrath of Khan
you want thought provoking? you get The Motion Picture ot Insurrection

Cessna. a lot of your points are are in the movie. Sure, it suffers what ALL origin stories suffer. The proof is in what they do with the sequel.

The film is all about the characters and what drives them. the profound aspects of friendship and sacrifice is the the single motivating force behind Spock Prime's actions.

as for Kirk's rapid acension? never underestimate the power of a guardian angel. In this case Pike. What? you don't think he's got any pull with the brass? or even Spock prime?

Or is it only Shatner's kirk that deserves to have strings pulled for him (T'Pau of Vulcan, anyone?) or being "busted" down to Capt. in ST4?

It's amazing what saving the planet will do for your resume


----------



## starlifter (Nov 26, 2008)

Raist3001 said:


> Yea, that's what he did.
> 
> Man does Shatner's words ring ever so true.


now now, I hope you aren't telling some of us to 'get a life'.....:thumbsup:


----------



## Kanaan (Jan 27, 2007)

Raist3001 said:


> One can very well have an undying love for TOS and love the new incarnation of Trek as well.


THANK YOU, Raist3001! You are so right!

I love these people who engage in the debate of how awful this Trek movie is based on...their own experience after seeing it??? 

NO, based on OTHER PEOPLE's opinions!

For those who fall into that category, oh yes, please stay home and a leave a seat in the theatre for those with an open mind and the ability to think for themselves.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Kanaan said:


> THANK YOU, Raist3001! You are so right!
> 
> I love these people who engage in the debate of how awful this Trek movie is based on...their own experience after seeing it???
> 
> ...


It is not their opinions, it is the plot descriptions that I (speaking for myself only), don't like.

If something smells like a bad and looks like a bad, I don''t have to put it in my 
mouth, 'just to be sure''. If that is your definition of 'open minded' (by the way
that is a phrase liberals try to use to shut down debate with anyone who disagrees
with them), then no thanks.


----------



## Kanaan (Jan 27, 2007)

No, that isn't my definition of open minded, nor was I referring to you specifically. So by your definition, ONLY liberals use the phrase open-minded? Wow.

I'm no liberal but one need not be a liberal to give a movie chance with one's own eyes. That's all we're talking about here is a movie. However, if one is going to hurl political labels at me over a Star Trek movie, that's when I bail out of the discussion. I'm reminded of Rep. David Wu's "Klingons in the White House". After laughing my @$$ off at him, I could only shake my head in disgust. No thanks. Please leave your politics in the air lock.

As for debate, I welcome open debate on anything. Of course, it helps when both parties actually have first hand experience on the subject.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Not touching the political crap. Keep it to the voting booth where it counts.


----------



## AJ-1701 (May 10, 2008)

Vaderman said:


> You know, as Trek fans shouldn't we embrace IDIC? Just because it is not the 1960's Star Trek, it is still Star Trek, just in a new incarnation.
> 
> If you did not like the movie, that is your right and opinion and I respect that. You will be in the minority I think. The fact is that the movie executes very well and will relaunch the Star Trek franchise for old and new fans. To see my 7 year old cheer and do the Vulcan salute after the move was just awesome.
> 
> Scorr


Your right Vaderman :thumbsup: As my wife Sandy (who is no trekkie) said when we left to go to the after movie party... "it was good... it was differant but it was still Star Trek!!" She wasn't really dissapointed she just and seemed a bit bemused when I laughed and replied "Exactly". IMHO JJ came darn close to getting it there. Not 100% but for this old fan I'll live happily with the short falls. But what I thought was good is that we were able to talk about it on equal terms as fan and non fan.

Cheers,

Alec.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Edge said:


> It is not their opinions, it is the plot descriptions that I (speaking for myself only), don't like.
> 
> If something smells like a bad and looks like a bad, I don''t have to put it in my
> mouth, 'just to be sure''. If that is your definition of 'open minded' (by the way
> ...


Let me remind you - and everyone else - of the top four points in the TOS of these forums, since so many folks seem to be forgetting them of late: 


> *1. Treat everyone with respect. While we all may not agree with what everyone's opinion, many people come here to get different opinions. Because someone does not agree with you does not mean you should get nasty with them. Treat others with respect and you will earn everyone’s respect in return. *
> 
> 
> *2. We will not tolerate vulgar language, NO exceptions! Not even words with letters XXXXed out. If you have to X out a word then you already know it is bad.* We have many younger people that visit here and we want to keep this a place where everyone is welcome and comfortable.
> ...


I've highlighted the three main points that seem to be beyond some folks' capabilities to remember. I have no problems w/folks not liking the movie nor having a high opinion of said movie. However, you post your opinion, don't think that others who disagree might not say such - just like folks seem to think that they have to post negative opinions on a subject just because other people are posting positive things....


----------



## Kanaan (Jan 27, 2007)

Griff, you're absolutely right and I'll be the first to apologize if I upset anyone. My only intention was to say "Hey, give the movie a chance before you knock it." Let's get back to having fun, people!


----------



## stowe (May 29, 2003)

OK just saw it. First thought, I'm glad the way they handled the cannon aspect (not the Star Trek I grew up with).

I think it will bring new life to Trek.


But one thing still bugs me....the ENTERPRISE is Soooo U-G-L-Y!!!!!!!:freak:

And some of the interiors were unbelivable...as in yea right! Is that Main engeering or the water/sewage treatment plant!?

there my 2cents worth:wave:


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

The only one of those I was in any violation of was the mention of politics, as the 
original poster was using a juvenille tactic to try and shut down debate.

If you enjoyed the movie, great. Don't disparrage others because they don't.


----------



## Mr. Canoehead (Jun 12, 2006)

I gotta say I thought it was great! 

Reboot yes definatly but I think Abrams and co. did awsome job casting these roles, Kirk was a young Kirk, not a young Shatner but Kirk. I did find myself at moments looking at Spock and seeing Sylar but I think that's just from my recent full dose of Hero's. McCoy was definatly McCoy, yea I think they nailed him pretty good.

Didn't like Sarak though they could have done better with him.

I found myself enjoying alot of the references they made with the characters that only trekies would catch, Sulu with his sword, Pike and his wheelchair.

I loved how they intoduced Spock to Kirk, that was awsome! 

Kobiashi Mauro<---Doubt I spelled it right... did you notice the kingon ships... 

***SPOILER*** Was the bug that Nero put into Pikes mouth the same from STII?

I want a phaser from the movie

Was there families on the Kelvin or was Kirks mom an officer?

I liked the movie but..

I always though Spock was more Vulcan than Human when he met Kirk and it was his friendship with Kirk that brought out the human in him and while it could be said that the destruction of Vulcan would bring out his emotions, seeing the spectical in the turbolift kinda left me a little disapointed. there really was no point to that scene, infact when it comes out on bluray I'll probably deleate that scene. Also Kirk did look to get promoted rather fast but it may be that he just erned the captain title for that sole mission, guess I;ll have to wait till the sequal to find out... I really hope that Abrams allows more of a gradual progression to how the crew of the Enterprise gets together as a crew, not just slaped together and rushed in one movie.

So thems my thoughts on the movie all & all I liked it, I will see it again I will buy it and I will buy a model of the new ship(s) that come out... I did like Spocks ship hope a model comes out of that ship.

Great Flick 3.5/4


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Griff, I have been plenty civil. Just tell me you're not trying to shut down debate and I will continue to be civil. Not necessarily PATIENT with illogical arguments, but civil nonetheless.

I seeing it tomorrow in IMAX. I'm seeing it with my girlfriend who is as much a Trek geek as me (she likes to costueme as a Trill... the spots DO go all the way down!). If I had a costume to wear, I would wear it there. MAN am I excited to see something NEW and FRESH from Star Trek.

You know, unlike Enterpoop the lame. Preachy, stale, recycled, and we all know about the finale (AAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!). And please DON'T get me started on Voyager. Those are "true" Star Trek and THEY SUCK.


----------



## stowe (May 29, 2003)

Hey Guys,

I think many of you are missing the point here. 

Those are NOT the charactors we all know and love, it's an alternate universe with very different people, as explained in the film. 

Given that I think they did a decent job of capturing the feel of many of the cast we know (Especialy McCoy) but added a new depth to the charactors.

The Charactors here did NOT go through the life expierences of the origional, ie Kirk on a colony planet when he was young, and having a brother Sam....alot of you missed that:wave: Guess thats not going to happen now.

Hope that helps clear the air a little.


----------



## Kanaan (Jan 27, 2007)

Edge said:


> The only one of those I was in any violation of was the mention of politics, as the
> original poster was using a juvenille tactic to try and shut down debate.
> 
> If you enjoyed the movie, great. Don't disparrage others because they don't.


You missed my point completely. I disparaged no one for disliking the movie. I merely wonder how people can dislike a movie they did not take the time to actually see, merely based their opinion from reading the posting of those who DID see the movie or merely read the plot online somewhere.

I would never, ever shut down debate. As I said, I welcome it. But this argument could go on ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I'm going to back to working on my kitbash while watching STTMP. Have a good night, all!

Juvenille? Me? Wow, and I thought I was merely feeling young...as when the world was new....


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Sorry, bad day. 

Just talked to my bestest friend who saw it on Thursday. Said, if you forget it's suppose to be Trek,
it's an enjoyable movie. (note to self: cut him out of my will. j/k.)


----------



## Kanaan (Jan 27, 2007)

Roguepink said:


> Griff, I have been plenty civil. Just tell me you're not trying to shut down debate and I will continue to be civil. Not necessarily PATIENT with illogical arguments, but civil nonetheless.
> 
> I seeing it tomorrow in IMAX. I'm seeing it with my girlfriend who is as much a Trek geek as me (she likes to costueme as a Trill... the spots DO go all the way down!). If I had a costume to wear, I would wear it there. MAN am I excited to see something NEW and FRESH from Star Trek.
> 
> You know, unlike Enterpoop the lame. Preachy, stale, recycled, and we all know about the finale (AAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!). And please DON'T get me started on Voyager. Those are "true" Star Trek and THEY SUCK.


Agreed. IMHO, DS9 was the last great Trek on TV.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Well,...I saw it today. No feeling of magic and wonder. Characterizations forced. Soundtrack, ...what soundtrack? New Enterprise was just plain awful, engineering looked like a gas refinery. Bridge, too bright and shiny. Sulu sword sequence jumped the shark.
My vote: thumbs down! Oh, by the way, my friend paid for me...why do I still feel cheated?


----------



## SamwiseVT (Apr 30, 2009)

People seem to like be liking the engineering sections of the ship. I have to say that this surprises me, especially since the engine room we see in every other ship is decidedly unrealistic. When you get down to the guts of any ship, even the most luxurious cruise ships, yachts, and even aircraft, you see how it really works. The engine room in any other Trek is too pastoral; it doesn't capture the essence of "this is what keeps her afloat." Where are all the pipes and conduits?
I applaud JJ, because he understands this and added that level of realism; it might have been filmed at an industrial location, but it really worked as passing for the guts of the ship.


----------



## jwrjr (Oct 31, 2003)

Disclaimer: I have not seen this movie. That being said, from what I have heard from someone who has seen it and what I read on this thread, I come to a conclusion. That is that if you judge this film on its own, it is an entertaining movie. If you compare it with the 60's TV series you will be disappointed. If you consider that many who will see it will not have even been born when the original series was on TV (first run, anyway), making it entertaining may be more important than making it canon.


----------



## Vaderman (Nov 2, 2002)

Mr. Canoehead said:


> I gotta say I thought it was great!
> 
> Reboot yes definatly but I think Abrams and co. did awsome job casting these roles, Kirk was a young Kirk, not a young Shatner but Kirk. I did find myself at moments looking at Spock and seeing Sylar but I think that's just from my recent full dose of Hero's. McCoy was definatly McCoy, yea I think they nailed him pretty good.
> 
> ...


And what about the other salute to STII- TWOK. In this movie we see Pine/Kirk eating an apple when he beats the Kobiashi Maru. In TWOK, we see Shatner/Kirk eating an apple when he explains to Saavik how he beat it. Nice touch.

Scott


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

My apologies for breaking the TOS by saying c**p. I don't need to say more as this really is the wrong place for it.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

I liked it, and thought for a two hour movie that covers a LOT of ground and information, it moved really quickly, especially in the first half. The acting was pretty good for the most part, especially Urban's Mccoy and Greenwood's Pike.

As much as I'm tired of Trek time travel plotlines, I thought the "alternate timeline" plot worked pretty well in the case. I bought the movie's idea the attack on the Kelvin would alter all our favorite character's lives, but they would still pretty much end up where they were destined to be.

I've read a lot of complaints about Kirk going from a third year cadet to Captain. I dunno, it made sense to me. First, he gets essentially a battle field promotion to First Officer, then saves the planet after the acting captain can't handle the job. It wasn't that much of a stretch to me to imagine you'd get a pretty cool reward for single handedly saving your ship, Captain, _and_ the planet.

There were things that didn't work for me, I didn't buy that the acting captain would relinquish his command and walk off the bridge, it seemed totally offbase for that character. And the scene with Scotty and the coolant tubes was pretty bad, ditto his ewok-ian assistant.

But all in all, I really enjoyed the movie (especially the first half) and would definately see another film by JJ with this crew. And while I'd still say _Wrath of Khan_ was the best Trek film, this is the most exciting & fun one so far, and more enjoyable than all of the other ST movies.


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Just a thought about canon and alternate time: JJ Abrams has given a classic and beloved cast of characters a clean slate. Anything they do from here on out need not be compared to and against any TOS episodes. These characters, certainly THE MOST BELOVED OF ALL STAR TREK, are now free to explore new stories without delicately dancing around 79 episodes of the past.

Thankfully this means we can pretend Spock's Brain, Plato's Stepchildren, and That Which Survives NO LONGER EXIST. Sadly, it also means, in this universe, powerful stories such as Amok Time and The City on the Edge of Forever will not happen. But they DID happen and I can still watch them anytime I like.

But the point is that JJ is now free to... excuse me... Boldly Go where No Trek has Gone Before.

Is this all that great? Possibly, but it really depends where he goes from here. I will see the movie in a few hours and then come back with specific comments. I don't care about casting, sets, style, or hardware. But will Star Trek still talk about The Human Condition? Honestly, my favorite of the Next Gen movies was Insurrection BECUASE it talked about things like revenge, vanity, aging, youth, love and reconciliation, NONE of which make for great operatic shoot-em-up space drama. In fact, Insurrection failed when it tried to do space battles. Leave that to Star Wars, okay?


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

I'm headed out soon to see a digital screening; just about five-and-a-half hours to go! Going with my wife, my brother and sister-in-law.

We'll see what my wife thinks; she likes sci-fi in general and some of the later _Trek_s. She likes the characters from TOS, but doesn't really care for the series itself because she thinks it looks so dated. Not long ago, I sat down to watch "Balance of Terror" on the DVD; when the Romulan BoP came on the screen, she _laughed_ and said, "You've got to be kidding me." She thought it looked like a flying saucer with wings. And this was the remastered version.

We both saw Zachary Quinto and Leonard Nimoy together on Jimmy Fallon's show* last night -- they were an entertaining pair.

*Man, is he ever nervous on the air! I remember that Conan O'Brien was that way when he started; I wonder if Fallon will calm down and find his groove eventually as well.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

I loved it. Great pacing, awesome character moments for all the main characters, and tons of little easter eggs thrown in just for the fans. I'm still in disbelief today that they managed to pull off a Star Trek blockbuster while still remaining so faithful to the nearly 50-year-old source material. 

Oh, and for the haters, it's on its way to a $70 million plus opening weekend, so my guess is that you will have stuff to gripe about for many years to come. 

:hat:


----------



## Fury3 (Jan 18, 2003)

*We had fun!*

I posted this in the "movie" section too.


A friend of mine, one of 29 years, drove from Washington DC to North East Ohio for a visit and to especially see this movie with me. We both saw the The Wrath of Khan in the theater together some 27 years ago. We're both avid Trek fans while I may be a more rabid one with building starship models and having a few toys at the at of tender age of 44. He, my lovely girlfriend who is not a fan whatsoever and I saw this movie at the 11:40 showing this morning. The movie was big, it was loud and moved at a great pace. The villain, well, not enough time on him in my opinion but the charactors, our beloved characters were represented pretty well. Chekov being the only one I kinda winced at, but still he had his moments. Pine was a great Kirk and Spock or the Spocks were both enjoyable too. We all like the character moments but only Trekkies would get all the little nods to the TOS and they were abundant. We all loved McCoy and Scotty, Uhura was smart and hot and Sulu again got the short shrift but he had a good moment or two also. Now the ship, no it's not your father's Enterprise and the engineering set was...ehh... not what I thought it should look like but hell, it's a movie and when the ship was in motion, in warp, firing phasers or taking damage I was happy to think of it as THE USS ENTERPRISE of this new take on things. I loved the old show, most of the movies, got 'em all on disk and still enjoy 'em all from time to time. This movie, this reboot didn't disappoint me. The girlfriend loved it (Probrably Pine more) and my buddy's going to see again very soon and I'll probrably catch an afternoon matinee once more too. I can't wait to build a model of the ship and I'd be proud to put it right next to my 18" AMT Enterprise. See this movie and judge for yourself, it's good fun and it's the only new Star Trek that's around. 

Brian


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Roguepink said:


> But the point is that JJ is now free to... excuse me... Boldly Go where No Trek has Gone Before.


While I agree with your points, I think the real genius of JJ Abrams "alternate timeline" gimmick is they can also go back to where Trek _has_ gone before, do it differently or with a twist, and maybe even do it better. The _Enterprise_ can still encounter The Doomsday Machine,The Gorn, The Tholians, etc, etc. There's a lot of stuff that would be cool to see, and that would probably benefit from modern FX and writing.


----------



## derric1968 (Jun 13, 2003)

Krako said:


> and tons of little easter eggs thrown in just for the fans.


Saw it. Loved it.

I'll have to watch it again to catch all the nods to the fans. There was a lot going on in the movie. I did, however, notice that the actor that played the Vulcan Science Minister was the same actor that played the Klingon Commander of the prison planet in Star Trek VI. I'll definitely be picking this up on Blu-ray when it comes out.

The movie feels very much like part one of a bigger story. I look forward to part two!

Oh, and I want to see more of those other starships that warped off to Vulcan with the Enterprise. Very cool designs!


----------



## derric1968 (Jun 13, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> While I agree with your points, I think the real genius of JJ Abrams "alternate timeline" gimmick is they can also go back to where Trek _has_ gone before, do it differently or with a twist, and maybe even do it better. The _Enterprise_ can still encounter The Doomsday Machine,The Gorn, The Tholians, etc, etc. There's a lot of stuff that would be cool to see, and that would probably benefit from modern FX and writing.


And don't forget that the S.S Botany Bay is still out there somewhere...


----------



## JT1 (Nov 11, 2006)

I went to see it with an open mind.

After watching Trek for 40 years, I had come to the conclusion that IMHO TOS really was the best of all the series.

Given the age of the actors that are still alive, obviously if I wanted to see new stories of my favorite version of Trek, I'd have to make some allowances.

I thought the movies started positively. I was a little alarmed at the "azteced refit" looking craft that was built before Kirks birth (I never really embraced the NX-01 either).

But as the movie progessed, I started to get more and more annoyed.

I liked Chris Pine's Kirk, Pike, and I thought the new Spock, McCoy and Uhuru were great as well, until...

While the concept of Spock and Uhuru being a couple doesn't bother me, as referenced early in the thread, there were hints in TOS. BUT the open displays of emotion, in front of Kirk for example, really knocked me back in my seat. I found it jarring and it almost took me out of the movie.

The new Mr. Scott, Checkov and the engineering section continued my increasing dismay.

The other disturbing thing was Spock prime. I just saw Leonard Nimoy in person at the Cherry Hill convention a couple of years ago and thought he looked young (well for his age) and vibrant. I don't know if they were trying to make him look like a really old Vulcan, or if he really looks that old now, but whatever the case it made me feel the passing of time, and really made me sad.

Oh and I really missed Matt Jeffiries baby... I'd love to see what that could look like with that special effects budget.

I wonder if Whoopi will be on "The View" on Monday, or if she will be walking around somewhere mumbling that something is wrong..


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> I've read a lot of complaints about Kirk going from a third year cadet to Captain. I dunno, it made sense to me. First, he gets essentially a battle field promotion to First Officer, then saves the planet after the acting captain can't handle the job. It wasn't that much of a stretch to me to imagine you'd get a pretty cool reward for single handedly saving your ship, Captain, _and_ the planet.


Problem: Field commissions only last as long as the emergency or conflict. Once that's over, the commission goes buh-bye and you're back to whatever rank you were when it all started.

Little Jimmy Kirk may have performed brilliantly in the crisis, but once all was said and done, he went right back to a third year cadet under academic suspension. His performance may be enough to forgive his fudging the Kobayashi Maru test, but an immediate commission, promotion six grades in rank, and command of the fleet's newest ship, ahead of how many experienced and qualified officers?

That's not Star Trek, it's Power Rangers.


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

The fast promotion is quite a stretch. However, he didn't need to save the world in order to get out of "fudging" the Kobayashi Maru test. In the original timeline, he got a commendation for original thinking if memory serves.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The path they were going down this time showed that those in charge were not in a very forgiving mood.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Captain April said:


> Problem: Field commissions only last as long as the emergency or conflict. Once that's over, the commission goes buh-bye and you're back to whatever rank you were when it all started.
> 
> Little Jimmy Kirk may have performed brilliantly in the crisis, but once all was said and done, he went right back to a third year cadet under academic suspension. His performance may be enough to forgive his fudging the Kobayashi Maru test, but an immediate commission, promotion six grades in rank, and command of the fleet's newest ship, ahead of how many experienced and qualified officers?
> 
> That's not Star Trek, it's Power Rangers.


I seem to recall Nixon promoting all three of the all-Navy crew of Apollo 12 to Captains during their flight, that was just for going to the moon. I'd imagine the rewards for saving the planet might even be greater. And yes, while battlefield promotions are usually tempory, there are plenty of examples in military history where people did retain their rank afterwards or were even further promoted for exceptional valor and merit.

Since one guy saving the planet would be a whooly unprecedented event, I'm not sure why you feel so confident that Abrams is so wrong about how the reward system and chain of command at a fictional Intergalactic Organization would work when someone saves the planet. Or why you are so right.


----------



## Gunstar1 (Mar 1, 2007)

Hee Hee!

This is definitely one of the more entertaining threads.

I plan on seeing this in a couple weeks with my brother (whose brand new TMP refit smoothie was unfortunately proven unfit for REAL flight by a very young version of myself  I've been apologizing for about 26 years now) but until then I will enjoy all your comments.....

I'm in the purist camp myself but, like the Star Wars prequels and Indy IV, I will go into the theater to be entertained rather than let myself get too depressed about the fact that it seems to be, like so many movies these days, a remake (I know, I know, it's an "original" story) of something that many are fond of and will feel pain by seeing their old friend assimilated by modern-era hollywood tactics. 

As far as the purity and essence of Star Trek, "the human adventure" (both in terms of potential and as reflection of the contemporary human condition) was most apparently the driving force in TOS and TNG shows, and scattered throughout the original movies, but mostly and near-perfectly in Star Trek The Motion Picture. As far as Roddenberry's vision summed up, a couple of poignant quotes - based on previews and reviews, I'm not expecting any resonance of this in the new movie:

"We witnessed a birth... possibly a next step in our evolution."
_- Spock, at the end of Star Trek The Motion Picture_

"For that one fraction of a second, you were open to options you had never considered. THAT is the exploration that awaits you: not mapping stars and studying nebulae, but charting the unknown possibilities... of existence."
_- Q, at the end of TNG series finale "All Good Things..."
_

THE HUMAN ADVENTURE IS JUST BEGINNING


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

I enjoyed the movie. Watching it was a good use of my time.

And that's all that counts, since time is all we have. We can choose to grouse about the art direction and make comparisons to a forty-plus-year-old TV show or twentieth-century military conventions, or we can go out and have some fun.


----------



## deadmanincfan (Mar 11, 2008)

Well said, Steve! Ahmo have my fun next week! :woohoo:


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

I saw the movie for the first time today myself, with 3 of my friends from our local club and two of my daughters. My son and other daughter caught a showing at a different location and time than my group.

We ALL thought the movie was great! Even my youngest daughter- who really only has a passing interest in things _Trek_ - announced that she "officially liked the movie and would see it again" - which is a considerable achievement! My other two daughters had an emotional reaction just from the _first five minutes alone_; the whole _USS Kelvin _sequence, especially going to the end of that sequence.

Now, I found it hard to fathom that given the events of Nero's incurrsion into the timeline of _Trek_ would radically change the technology of the ships we saw. His actions also made it hard for me to believe that the crew was in alternate timeline; it smacked more of a change to the timeline instead. In spite of my not seeing that relationship and if the powers-that-be wish to call it an alternate timeline with the original timeline somehow left intact, then so be it. 

Characters: I think that the actors chosen fit their roles well. Quinto nailed Spock, both in looks and I believe character; Urban IS McCoy (right down to that accent!!) and Greenwood was a total [email protected]$$ Pike!

I'm not minimizing the other characters, however. I thought that they were quite believable. My biggest concern going into the movie was with how Chekov would be "explained"- however, the story made his presence believeable and the actor (forgotten his name!) did a fine job, IMO.

SFX- holy crap. AMAZING! The space scenes were incredibily well done and I have nothing to really nitpick about that. It was as technically perfect as could be imagined. I still wonder how the _Enterprise_ was launched from the planet surface though. Clearly, it wasn't important to the movie plot- and that's all right.

About really the only nit I have was the ship interiors; particularly of the _Kelvin_ off-bridge and the engineering spaces of the _Enterprise_ itself. That was the ony thing that I thought did not aesthetically match up with the ship exteriors in any meaningfull way. We don't know for sure if spaceships of the future will resemble factories on the inside. This is really the only area where I thought the production designs really fell down. The best Engineering room -again, IMO- was with the Refit. As much as I like the TOS engineering room, it was too.... non-descript (for lack of a better description; I have a headache and it's WAY too late for me right now...) in terms of function.

WHile I had some concerns going into the movie, given how there were aspects of the entire production that were clearly decisions by the production regarding certain aesthetic choices, I went in with an open mind to see how everything fit together within the confines of this one movie. The movie is well-crafted and the pacing just keeps going from one scene to the next. It was hard to believe that this movie was over 2 hours long! Couldn't have pulled it as well if it was any shorter.

Do I miss the original _Enterprise_? Sure do; she's as iconic as they come. But I think that this new ship is a worthy addition of all the ships named _Enterprise_.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Gunstar1 said:


> ..... I'm not expecting any resonance of this in the new movie........



The most important part of the Trek formula was left out. 
And it's a huge hit anyways.

Kinda sucks because they obviously have the delivery system, but failed to take risk and put in the meaningful payload.......

[ame=http://s261.photobucket.com/albums/ii44/CessnaDriver/?action=view&current=kirk_risk.flv]







[/ame]


There was no need to call the film Star Trek.
Rename the characters, change the ship.
Could have been any action adventure in space.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

*Blockbuster on this one for me....*

First of all, I'm not a die hard "trekkie" and could not give a wet fart about adherence to cannon but.....

1. When I read review after review that talks about how the plot sucks but how the wonderful director turned the sucky plot into genius, I have to puke. If they are going to invest all this money, couldn't they have invested in a plot?

2. I got burned with the last [2] ST movie(s) in the theaters.

3. Maybe I am getting old, but I have seen space ships blow up on the screwed before -- want to see some plot.

4. How about a little believeability. Roddenberry talks about that in the original "Making of" book (Only to dispense with it in STTNG -- Will Robinson anyone?) Just read the comments in this thread and how ridiculous everyting sounds. Even Horatio Hornblower (and certainly not Jack Aubrey) went from midshipmen to Captains. It just doesn't happen.

5. The trailers suck.

6. No one builds roads that lead over the edge of the grand canyon.

It will be interesting to see how the film does. However, I point out that in spite of all the raves here. Star Trek did less business, by far, than then more story driven X-Men did last week. 

ST has the advantage of not having a big movie coming out next week. Next week "Angels and Demons" is the biggest on the calendar. The DaVinci Code movie was not nearly as big as the mindless book it was based on. Terminator comes out the following week though.


----------



## AJ-1701 (May 10, 2008)

bigjimslade said:


> 5. The trailers suck.
> 
> 6. No one builds roads that lead over the edge of the grand canyon.
> 
> ...


True there were parts of the film that were a bit odd and in a couple of places a little disterbing for me but I mostly can take them as such and as for the trailers suck... Most trailers are terminal spoilers or just edit cuttings that have no cohesion any way So I pretty much agree there.

As for No6... It was a quarrie with a locked gate he smashed thru... so there' no logic to that statement.

Try this link for how the film is doing... Star Trek has been out for 4 days and already its taken more than half of what Xmen has taken in over a week...
http://boxoffice.com/numbers/

Cheers,

Alec. :wave:


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

bigjimslade said:


> However, I point out that in spite of all the raves here. Star Trek did less business, by far, than then more story driven X-Men did last week.


Star Trek was never expected to do the same volume of sales as Wolverine. In fact, it was projected to make between $50 and $60 million during its opening weekend. That it is now projected to make $70 million or more during its opening weekend means it is overperforming.

And, if you thought Wolverine has a better story than Star Trek, you've got very different criteria for quality writing than most do.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

bigjimslade said:


> 4. How about a little believeability. Roddenberry talks about that in the original "Making of" book (Only to dispense with it in STTNG -- Will Robinson anyone?) Just read the comments in this thread and how ridiculous everyting sounds. Even Horatio Hornblower (and certainly not Jack Aubrey) went from midshipmen to Captains. It just doesn't happen.


How many times did Horatio Hornblower or Jack Aubrey save the planet from a alien from the future that was using a huge frikkin' laser beam to drill to the Earth's core? Because otherwise, it seems like a pretty flimsy apples vs oranges argument.

Also, didn't Jack Aubrey give command of his ship to a one-armed 12 year-old in the _Master and Commander _movie?


----------



## jsnmech18 (Sep 26, 2006)

Yes, yes. I hated the movie because the trailers sucked, the Enterprise was the wrong color and shape, Chekov was too young and mostly because JJ Abrams looks goofy in glasses....


Unfrigginbelievable. I hate being a fan with goofs constantly sucking the life and fun out of everything in some desperate attempt to hold onto a memory.
If it's that bad, get out of Trek and leave it to the grown ups. Stop acting like a bunch of whiny children. Are you guys that upset that this movie is doing better in a two hour movie, what all previous Treks did in countless hours of tv?
None of the plot devices or sub plots is all that different that what has already been done, yet it doesn't suck, unless you're a closed minded infant.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

jsnmech18 said:


> Yes, yes. I hated the movie because the trailers sucked, the Enterprise was the wrong color and shape, Chekov was too young and mostly because JJ Abrams looks goofy in glasses....
> 
> 
> Unfrigginbelievable. I hate being a fan with goofs constantly sucking the life and fun out of everything in some desperate attempt to hold onto a memory.
> ...


A bit harsh, but I couldn't agree more!


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

bigjimslade said:


> First of all, I'm not a die hard "trekkie" and could not give a wet fart about adherence to cannon but.....
> 
> 1. When I read review after review that talks about how the plot sucks but how the wonderful director turned the sucky plot into genius, I have to puke. If they are going to invest all this money, couldn't they have invested in a plot?
> 
> ...



Review after review of how the plot sucks? Can you PLEASE NAME ONE PROFESSIONAL REVIEW THAT STATES 'the plot sucks'? ONE? O-N-E?????
This movie has the most positive reviews of ANY SCIENCE FICTION FILM SINCE 1977. I


----------



## JT1 (Nov 11, 2006)

Did Leonard Nimoy say it best?

http://www.hulu.com/watch/72444/saturday-night-live-update-feature-star-trek


----------



## derric1968 (Jun 13, 2003)

JT1 said:


> Did Leonard Nimoy say it best?
> 
> http://www.hulu.com/watch/72444/saturday-night-live-update-feature-star-trek


That is freakin' hilarious!!!!

Oh, and maybe Wolverine made more money in its opening weekend, but let's not forget that even when you adjust for inflation, this is BY FAR the biggest opening weekend for a Trek film EVER.

http://boxoffice.com/featured_stories/2009/05/the-history-of-trek.php

So, Paramount is obviously bringing in new fans, which was precisely the point to begin with.

By the way, those Burger King "Kingon" commercials are also rather amusing.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

JT1 said:


> Did Leonard Nimoy say it best?
> 
> http://www.hulu.com/watch/72444/saturday-night-live-update-feature-star-trek



Leonard Nimoy is a very wise man, I couldn't agree more:thumbsup:

Thanks for posting that, I meant to watch SNL last night to see if they did anything about Trek, but forgot.



> The other disturbing thing was Spock prime. I just saw Leonard Nimoy in person at the Cherry Hill convention a couple of years ago and thought he looked young (well for his age) and vibrant. I don't know if they were trying to make him look like a really old Vulcan, or if he really looks that old now, but whatever the case it made me feel the passing of time, and really made me sad.


Based on how he looks in the live SNL clip, I'm guessing they decided to make Spock look and sound older in the film. He looks much younger on the SNL clip, and doesn't have that annoying "denture whistle" he had in the film.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

jsnmech18,

Personal attacks or flaming will not be tolerated. Read your terms of service, and check your attitude at the homepage. Everyone needs to play nice in our sandbox.


----------



## Fury3 (Jan 18, 2003)

*Now that was Funny!*



JT1 said:


> Did Leonard Nimoy say it best?
> 
> http://www.hulu.com/watch/72444/saturday-night-live-update-feature-star-trek


You gotta have a good sense of humor to appreciate this one!


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Wolverine was on more screens, and also DROPPED on Sunday due to bad word of mouth, something I seriously doubt Trek will do--Trek is performing over expectations. Wolverine dropped 78% this weekend, it is barely making money now--Star Trek will have much better legs and I can pretty much guarantee it will make more money over the long haul. It's also one of the best-reviewed movies of the year.

Abrams' Star Trek is a success, which means we can look forward to years of the same bitter dead-enders spitting venom over it. This film captured Spock better than ANY of the previous films in my opinion--I felt like I was watching the series I grew up with this time. Star Trek is about CHARACTER. It's great that it sometimes has good science, it's great that it has a cool Enterprise design, it's great that it sometimes has strong social content and speeches about freedom and love. Those do not have to be in EVERY Star Trek story, but insight into the CHARACTERS does--and this movie delivered that in spades. If your mind exploded and the movie "jumped the shark" for you during the ELEVATOR SCENE, I would submit that you are part of the problem of why Star Trek has been boring and flat for years now. Watch the development of the Spock character in the early part of the series, pay attention to what happens in the movie, and then tell me that scene doesn't work for the character of Spock. So if you don't like any surprises or DRAMA I can understand perfectly well why you would hate this movie.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

OK, everyone. Take a deep breath and remember this one simple phrase: it's only a movie! No matter what other say about it that goes against how you feel, there's no need to hurl insults at other members, even in a general fashion. 

*jsnmech18 -* re-read the Help/TOS section. Attacks against other members - even general comments - aren't allowed. You've never gone out of your way to make attacks like this before, so can only figure that you're feeling some serious frustration about comments of others - something that I can understand up to a point. However, that doesn't excuse the attacks.


----------



## jsnmech18 (Sep 26, 2006)

Sorry gents.
After reading multiple threads on multiple boards from the same group of folks, I got a tad perturbed. If the idea was to make a movie that would appeal to Trek fans and non-Trek fans, JJ succeeded wildly.

I've been watching Trek for 30 years, grew up on TOS reruns with Dad and TNG in it's first run etc..etc. I was just as harsh a critic of the time travel/alternate time line plot, redesign of Enterprise and *gasp* someone other than the Shat as Kirk? Who dares tamper with my Star Trek?!? JJ and I'm glad he did.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Just saw it for the second time. Packed theater for a 1:20 PM matinee. 

This movie was even better on the second viewing! It just works on so many levels. I think this one is like Wrath of Khan in that it will never get old, no matter how many times you see it.

Applause from the audience at the end. Oh, and i overheard a great many positive comments as I walked out of the theater. People really liked it. And when I exited the theater... a huge line for the next showing.

This movie is a *hit*. *Big time*. 

It's kinda sad that some of the people who should be enjoying this renaissance the most are the ones who are most against it.

Nimoy said it best, indeed.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

I just got back from seeing the new film with much trepidation...

It's not Star Trek, at least not how I've come to know it. I know that will wind up becoming what Trek will be from this point on though. In some ways, I'm fine with it, but it just feels weird watching something with the Trek name on it that doesn't feel like it has a connection to the rest of it. I know that at the age of 48, I'm not in the target demographic and being a longtime Trek fan basically means I have two strikes against me.

There were small bits and pieces of it that I liked, but not enough to string them together and like the film as an overall experience. I feel like I did after seeing Indiana Jones IV, only more so.

My biggest gripes are with the general production design and the photography. The shaky-cam photography made some action scenes almost unintelligible. I did however, like the costumes used on the Kelvin and the "space jump" suits worn by Kirk and Sulu. I didn't see any ships that I would want to build a model of and the sets were largely forgettable.

The highlights of the film were mostly in terms of performances. Karl Urban was most definitely one of the standouts along with those of Bruce Greenwood as Pike and to some extent, both Pine as Kirk and and Qunto as Spock. Of course, seeing Leonard Nimoy in a Trek film was a plus - by the time he appeared, I'd given up hope on the film entirely. The worst bits for me were those with Anton Yelchin as Chekov and Simon Pegg as Scotty. I love Pegg - he's a terrific actor and a very funny guy in his own right, I just don't think that he was the best choice for this particular role. As for Yelchin, it's obvious that he can do a Russian accent, but the rest of it...not so much.

I know that the film is going to be successful and it's going to make Paramount/CBS a lot of money. That's what they wanted, they wanted a "tentpole" film to secure them for the summer and they got it. If money is the determining factor, then it looks like they've struck gold.

I know that it may not sound like it, but I'm glad that there's a large group of people enjoying the film. As I've said before, I don't think that I'd like the idea of seeing yet another Trek film tank like the last one did. I thought that we'd never see another one, yet here we are.

I still have 40 years worth of Trek material to keep me happy and I'm comfortable in that respect. Trek doesn't need me to keep it going. I will however, continue to actively support the fan produced Trek efforts. Fan series such as New Voyages/Phase II and Hidden Frontier keep me pretty sated in terms of getting my Trek fix. Someone earlier on mentioned folks having issues seeing other actors taking issue seeing familiar characters being played by unfamiliar actors, which has not been my problem in this case. Since I've been watching New Voyages, I've seen all the major roles in TOS played by other actors - one or two by more than one actor due to unexpected cast changes.

I guess that I'm just one of those older Trek fans watching the franchise pass me by.... If that's how I'll be characterized by how I feel, so be it.

Bryan


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Krako said:


> Nimoy said it best, indeed.



Nimoy violates the terms of service by swearing and casting attacks. Everyone who has endorsed what he says, participates in same violations.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Bryan, I think you've hit it on the nail head. Most of us were wide eyed kids when Trek graced our parents TV sets. We grew up with Trek near and dear to our hearts. Change is sometimes difficult...but necessary." Fair winds, Star Trek, however, and wherever you may roam...boldly Go!"


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

I was skeptical of all the other incarnations of Trek, but I ended up accepting them and liking them, though for different reasons. This new Trek will be no exception.



Model Man said:


> Nimoy violates the terms of service by swearing and casting attacks. Everyone who has endorsed what he says, participates in same violations.


Yes, Mr. Nimoy enjoys privileges the rest of us do not, but his words contain a certain logic. In other words loosen up boys! :thumbsup:

IMHO


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Model Man said:


> Nimoy violates the terms of service by swearing and casting attacks. Everyone who has endorsed what he says, participates in same violations.


Are you serious? I mean, really... that's whiny.

Oh, and as for the old-timer argument... I've been watching Trek since '73. I think that earns me "old trekker" status too. Star Trek isn't passing anyone by. It's reinventing itself for the now, just as it's done at least twice before. 

Ductape... Nice picture with Mr. Doohan. When I met him, he tried to pick up on my girlfriend. Priceless memory.


----------



## Kanaan (Jan 27, 2007)

JeffG said:


> A bit harsh, but I couldn't agree more!


Ditto. While a bit too harsh, still, some of the vehement negativity toward the film is disturbing. 

Honestly, as a well-adjusted fan of TOS for 32 years, the only three things that I could nit pick in this film were:

1. Nero did not get enough development. He barely had any screen time and seemed two dimensional.

I was afraid that Nero and his crew were going to be as uninteresting as Shinzon and the Remans in Nemesis. They were a little better than that but not by much. Nero could have had more depth.

2. The Spock-Uhura romance came out of nowhere and was a bit inappropriate while on duty on the transporter pad before Kirk and Spock beamed over to Nero's ship. Spock showing public display of affection?!? While on duty?! Naaaah, it was out of character no matter how angry and grieving he was over the loss of his mother, even his planet. 

I could definitely agree with Spock losing his control and beating up Kirk when Kirk taunted him on the bridge. Yes, I bought that because Kirk was really pulling no punches with his verbal assault (intentionally, of course because the older Spock told him to do it!) esp. with the "you don't care about your mother" jab after she just died a few hours before. That was well played.

3. Why is it anymore that many of the fight scenes in SF movies happen in these chasms with narrow bridges and catwalks that most of the time, have no hand rails?

Think Cloud City in Empire Strikes Back, or the lightsabre duel at the end of Star Wars Episode I, even Dr. Who with the space Titanic had a perilous bridge that went over a chasm inside the ship. It seems a bit overdone by now. I guess on Nero's ship, there is a chasm that the drill is stored in when not in use but enough already!

Otherwise, the cast was great! Karl Urban as McCoy was a pleasant and enjoyable surprise as was Simon Pegg's Scotty. YES, I like Simon Pegg's Scotty! Seems I'm in the minority on that but I don't care. 

Bruce Greenwood as Pike was an excellent choice (I've been a Greenwood fan since Nowhere Man) and I like the Admiral's uniform that he wore at the end of the film, very reminiscent of Kirk's Admiral uniform in The Motion Picture. I liked the bold, sarcastic Uhura. And the fact that Sulu got some sword time was nice but that was about all he got.

The fact that Kirk was eating an apple during his retake of the Kobayashi Maru was a nice homage to Wrath of Khan which I believe someone here mentioned previously. 

The new Chekov made me cringe when he first opened his mouth but I got used to him quickly, esp. when he was running down the hall, chanting "I can do this! I can do this!" when he beamed up Sulu and Kirk during free fall. That was great.

The Orion girl was a nice touch, too....:thumbsup: I'm going back next Saturday with a different group to see it again!


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

I have not seen it yet (see it tuesday) but I plan to go see it with an open mind, and make my own decision. 

I go into it knowing it is not the star trek I have known in the past, even though it has the same characters.. it is new and fresh, allowing trek to be sent in a new direction.

Once I see the movie I will decide if I feel it is a positive direction, which Trek much needs, or a negative direction, which will send Trek farther into the twisting nether.


----------



## Kanaan (Jan 27, 2007)

Model Man said:


> Nimoy violates the terms of service by swearing and casting attacks. Everyone who has endorsed what he says, participates in same violations.


Uhhhhhmmmmm, wow, ok, not sure how to take this. Are you referring to terms of service as a great actor who portrayed an equally great character that we all have been looking up to for 43 years?

Did Shatner also violate said terms when he commanded the inner-circle of fandom to "get a life!" on SNL in the 80s?

Then I guess I'm violatin', yo!


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

JT1 said:


> Did Leonard Nimoy say it best?
> 
> http://www.hulu.com/watch/72444/saturday-night-live-update-feature-star-trek


BWAAAA-ha-ha-ha!!!! Nimoy still rawks.

psst... Galaxy Quest was making fun of us.


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

*My thoughts...*

Hmmm...

Not TOO shabby. I take back my initial thoughts that J.J. Abrams didn't know what he was doing. A SOLID movie overall. Basically, the Mirror ST:TMP...past the point of active and to the point of HYPERactive. They actually needed more quiet points for us and the characters to rest & catch up...

Other thoughts (Spoilers included...so BEWARE!!):

• Well. THAT was impressive. A Death Star attack in reverse. Goodbye, Vulcan...(See ya, wouldn't want to BE ya...!) At least they saved about 10,000 Vulcans, so Spock won't be hornin' in on Kal-El's status of 'Last Son of...' 

There'll be no All-Vulcan Intrepid in THIS reality.
(Speaking of which: 9 billion Vulcans die...how is it Spock didn't react as he did in the ep with the Intrepid?)

• I'm sorry, I STILL think it's silly... Building the U.S.S. Abrams (excuse me...*koff* Enterprise) on the ground...and never showing us the launch.

•The iBridge doesn't look QUITE as bad in action but is STILL WAAAYYY too big and WAAAYYY too WHITE.

• Engineering looks like the illegitimate child of a Schlitz brewery and a nuclear reactor. (*"Enterprise...Powered by Budweiser!"*)  :drunk:

• How is it the Kelvin had at LEAST 800 people aboard? Enterprise-D had 1,016...and that was _with_ families...Then again, Winona Kirk was preggers on board...Hmmm...How big is the 'Abrams'? 1,000? What's the NEW alternate E-D gonna carry? 10,000?

Someone has their scales screwy.

• They're launching pods out airlocks now? Wha?

• Kirk is still attracted to anything female that's breathing...even if she's green...(The MORE things change...)

• Spock seemed to get almost as randy as Kirk regarding Uhura. To me, I was surprised, as it seemed to come from nowhere. (WERE there hints of this attraction in the OS? Where?)

• Sarek has removed the...tent pole...from up his rear. He's not quite as disdainful of humanity as I thought. He worked a bit better, IMHO, BECAUSE of that.

• The 'parent death parallels' I thought were interesting for Kirk & Spock.

• Spock is a lucky Vulcan. He CAN be in two places at once now...I just wonder how Sarek will handle this...

•*I'm STILL not happy with the MASSIVE redesign of the Old Gray Lady for no good reason...but she doesn't look TOO bad in action.
Her coming up through Saturn's rings was kinda cool, though.

• What's with the multiple, teeny-tiny warp cores?!

• I was happy to see Admiral Pike was confined to a normal-type wheelchair...and not the black burn box from the OS. I WOULD like to see them USE him well in future installments.

• Quinto needs a bit more seasoning to make Spock his own. He's still...off, somehow.

• Pine is fine as Kirk.

• Urban, Saldana, Pegg, Yelchin, & Cho are fine as the rest of the 'Magnificent Seven'. I agree with the statements alluding to him channeling De Kelley.

• *I'm sorry, but they've GOT to fix Engineering!* I can deal with the iBridge, Sickbay (Not to shabby, BTW), but the 'distillery and water turbines' look has GOT to go. We need something AT LEAST resembling the warp core in the NX-01...(They seemed to nod at Enterprise's Capt. Archer, so the NX-01 may still be in...for now.)

• I also was jolted out of it with Kirk's sudden, radical promotion to Captain.

• I wish they had KEPT Pike as captain for a movie or two, and had the 'Magnificent 7' slowly coming to the Abrams (err...'Enterprise'), instead of EVERYONE being dumped on board simultaneously.

I wish them well on the sequel...May they take their time and do it WELL...and do it RIGHT.

This Super-Soldier gives it two shield ricochets... :wave:

Be well, all.
Greg


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Krako said:


> Are you serious? I mean, really... that's whiny..


Personal insults now? *Nice!*

Really, the vehemence is overwhelming. All movie related threads, especially ones like this posted in the _wrong area entirely_ need to be locked off and die. 

There are people here who hate/dislike the movie. There are more people here who *hate* the people who hate/dislike the movie.

(Personally, I've watched it four times now.)


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

OK, that's it. You guys are just getting so immature it's insane! This poking and prodding at each other stops now! You know who you are that are doing this stuff and if you're not doing it, I'm not directing a single comment at you so don't be paranoid.

This thread is locked and unless Rob/Carson Dyle allows. *Otherwise, NO MORE TREK MOVIE THREADS here at the SciFi Modeling forum. * I have no problems w/Carson Dyle overrding me on that. *Anyone else who starts a thread will be subject to possible BAN.* 


*jsnmech18,* thank you for being mature enough to apologize to the whole forum. That's very adult of you to admit you were wrong and make the apology.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I felt the need to address this directly as I didn't catch it prior to writing my post above. 



Model Man said:


> Personal insults now? *Nice!*
> 
> Really, the vehemence is overwhelming. All movie related threads, especially ones like this posted in the _wrong area entirely_ need to be locked off and die.


As Rob/Carson Dyle has mentioned several times, Off Topic posts are oft-times allowed so long as they're not numerous. The topic of this new Trek Movie has come up several times now, as you know. I commend Rob on allowing these things to be posted and continue so long as they don't get silly and immature - as this thread has now gotten.


> There are people here who hate/dislike the movie. There are more people here who *hate* the people who hate/dislike the movie.


And then there are people who have left _me_ with the impression that they're out to continue stirring the pot, as well....


----------

