New Star Trek movie

[JudgeDredd]

Well, now I think I'm understanding what to expect, I can change my perception and see it for what it may be...if I didn't understand, or hear about it, I would've been going looking for a GR Star Trek and would've been very disappointed.
 
I'll let you know when I see it.

[Fred98]

I saw it last night . Great movie!
 
 

[Tophat1815]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Well, now I think I'm understanding what to expect, I can change my perception and see it for what it may be...if I didn't understand, or hear about it, I would've been going looking for a GR Star Trek and would've been very disappointed.

I'll let you know when I see it.

I was predisposed also to not like the film,but I actually got off my butt and saw it before rendering judgment. Its a very good and enjoyable movie but at least see it.....ackkkk,never mind.

I pointed out to a rather rigid trek fan this going back into the past and altering things in TOS,Next gen,DS9 and Enterprise not just once or twice but multiple times each. Not to mention the alternate universe of bearded Spock fame. Nah,the naysayers give out highfalootin noise to obfuscate the fact they just don't like change.

And if people can't see the drive,ambition and ego in this Kirk that rivals the Shat then they missed the boat.

Now finish and get AE out the door so i can go back to pondering my pbm turns and not interact with the public. I do too much of that on a daily basis and its depressing as hell.

[AcePylut]

If you wanna watch "Random space movie", then it was decent.

If you want to watch "Star Trek", you'll be disappointed. 
 
 
Berman and Braga should just close the loop and rename their sci-fi creation "Time Trek", because that's the only plot device they have, time travel.
 
I didn't like the movie for a variety of reasons, namely, I wanted to see Star trek, and what they did with the Kobayashi Maru simulation was a major disappointment.

[Mobius]

Saw it today. Best ST production-wise ever. ST lost me at the Next Gen and Deep SP9. This movie was good and the characters were great. Maybe a little too James T.Kirk = James Dean at the beginning but who in this day remembers James Dean? I want to see these guys in another ST movie.

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Marc von Martial

ORIGINAL: Doggie

None of you have ever seen a naked girl, right?

No, but I have seen Captain Jean-Luc Picard naked, does that count?

I don't think I would be telling people about that

just got home from seeing it, it was pretty good

[www.pjstemplates.com]

Some have seen the movie already, something called pre-screening. They say it's better than some TNG era movies, namely Nemesis. Review by Jarmo Puskala (in english)

[JudgeDredd]

***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***


Just got back and I have to say, I was pleased. I think they've done ok. I think the characters are on the money, and the ship! I love the Enterprise. (except what is with the refinery look?).

There were some things in it that were "touch and go", but on the whole it was a good jb as far as I was concerned. McCoy was on the money as was Kirk. Scotty needs some work although not a bad innings from Pegg and the way they changed Spock (showing his human side) was fine by me...I always wondered why they only ever showed his Vulcan side if he was half human.

I was also glad to see some weaponry on the Enterprise at last...and some shields!!

I was never really a fan of TNG being as whilst that was a hit I was in the Army and didn't watch much in the way of TV. After that, I (or they) just lost the plot with all the spin offs. I didn't watch one episode of Enterprise or Babylon 5 nor Deep Space 9. The only one I kind of got on with was Voyager and even then, it just seemed a spin off.

I was curious as to how they think that's the way to run a Starship though...Uhura talking to the Captain like that? Messing with the acting Captain?? please!!??? Not really.

I was very pleased with it. Looking forward to more. [&o] [&o]

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
just lost the plot with all the spin offs. I didn't watch one episode of Enterprise or Babylon 5 nor Deep Space 9. The only one I kind of got on with was Voyager and even then, it just seemed a spin off.

Whoah, sorry man but lumping Babylon 5 in there with the rest is practically a crime. B5 is not a Star Trek spin-off, though you could argue that DS9 was a B5 spin-off. Anyway, if you haven't seen a single episode of B5 rent the DVD collection and watch at least Seasons 1-4 and then report back. Ok, you've got your assignment. [;)]

[PunkReaper]

Having watched the film I left with mixed feelings. In general I enjoyed the movie but I did feel that it had now become a buffy the vampire slayer teen movie, not a grown ups movie. Letting kids run the newest ship in the fleet etc.... good grief. Kept expecting Hannah Montana to enter the bridge...[8|]

[E]

Random thoughts, with **** Possible Spoilers *****

I put a lot of work into not hearing anything about the movie (and that was tough with two Spocks on stage at the Las Vegas Star Trek convention last summer!), and it paid off. Had I heard all the changes without seeing them, I'd have never liked this movie. I finally saw it yesterday... as an origininal airing trekkie (I still think Trekkers are insecure Trekkies). I liked it and enjoyed it. It was a "fun" movie loosely based on TOS. But I do have mixed feelings in that it effectively negates all the TV series and preceeding movies.

As was mentioned, this movie was not Roddenberry's Star Trek. But I do have to give them credit for going with the alternate timeline. It's the only thing they really could've done. They changed everything, but didn't "stomp" on it as Enterprise did.

While I didn't understand the refinery look either. My only real problem was with the Bridge "viewscreen off" effect. It was disconcerting on a subconscious level (much like living in the second story of a bulding and finding your wall gone one morning).

For characterizations I agree with the above... McCoy-in-rant-mode was the closest. He obviously studied the "historical documents." Scotty rang true to a younger version of that character completely to me (they never hid that Scotty was a partier and "character" when not deep in his tech manuals... "it's green!").

I think the next movie will really tell if it's going to fly as an ongoing deal... that's when people are going to have more material to really start nit-picking.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
just lost the plot with all the spin offs. I didn't watch one episode of Enterprise or Babylon 5 nor Deep Space 9. The only one I kind of got on with was Voyager and even then, it just seemed a spin off.

Whoah, sorry man but lumping Babylon 5 in there with the rest is practically a crime. B5 is not a Star Trek spin-off, though you could argue that DS9 was a B5 spin-off. Anyway, if you haven't seen a single episode of B5 rent the DVD collection and watch at least Seasons 1-4 and then report back. Ok, you've got your assignment. [;)]

B5 and DS9 are far too close in concepts to not be from the same basic blueprint. But, I loved each of them.

B5 was a good show (Londo for President!), but the season 4 story acceleration in light of impending cancellation, only to get a 5th year hurt them very badly for that 5th year (uh, what do we do now?). B5 may be very tough to get through the first couple of years for those who need perfect special effects. It's worth the effort.

But I also think that DS9 was the most TOS-like in spirit and turned out to be my second favorite Trek (and that is from one who dismissed it and hated it when it aired... "WTF... To Boldly Sit?!?!"). (TOS was marketed to TV executives as "Wagon Train to the Stars" whereas DS9 was actually modeled as "The Rifleman in Space")

[Capt. Harlock]

O.K. -- I saw it. Nicely paced, and I can't complain about the special effects. But the plot was just wrong.

Without giving spoilers, it's interesting to see how many franchises are being "rebooted": Batman, James Bond, etc. But there is a debt owed to the artist's original vision. Some things you just don't change. More, all stories depend on the willing suspension of disbelief in the audience -- and I didn't believe it.

If I'm showing my age, so be it. But that ain't my Star Trek.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper
Having watched the film I left with mixed feelings. In general I enjoyed the movie but I did feel that it had now become a buffy the vampire slayer teen movie, not a grown ups movie. Letting kids run the newest ship in the fleet etc.... good grief. Kept expecting Hannah Montana to enter the bridge...[8|]

Yeah, you'd think they pull some veteran warriors out of retirement before they give the kids the keys to the Porsche. We all know what risky business that is.

[E]

****** SPOILER *******

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

O.K. -- I saw it. Nicely paced, and I can't complain about the special effects. But the plot was just wrong.

Without giving spoilers, it's interesting to see how many franchises are being "rebooted": Batman, James Bond, etc. But there is a debt owed to the artist's original vision. Some things you just don't change. More, all stories depend on the willing suspension of disbelief in the audience -- and I didn't believe it.

If I'm showing my age, so be it. But that ain't my Star Trek.

No, it isn't our Star Trek. It was an alternate timeline. I am curious, what did you find was against the "artist's original vision?"

[JudgeDredd]

Regardless of your everyones thoughts of the film...when you see The Enterprise...WOW! She always was a beaut! Almost brought a tear to my eye seeing that baby again.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: E
No, it isn't our Star Trek. It was an alternate timeline. I am curious, what did you find was against the "artist's original vision?"

Wasn't there something called a Prime Directive? Not to interferes in the natural development a civilization? Yet going back in time and changing events potentially changes the natural development of all civilizations.

Who does really discover transparent aluminum?

[ShadowB]

I saw and liked the movie as well. The apparent "make it an alternate timeline so I can do whatever I want" approach of the director can be frowned upon at first, but then you've to realize that, while it gives the creative team greater freedom, they also have the responsibility to maintain a reasonable amount of things unchanged. And as far as I'm concerned, they've been fairly responsible so far.

Things (spoilers ahead, not that it's necessary to warn at this point) that shocked me some:

- The building relationship between Spock and Uhura: surprising, but not necessarily wrong or out of place.
- Phasers look more like energy bolts than beams: small shock, bolts are neither better nor worse.
- The meeting of young and old Spocks: completely unnecessary, from my point of view. Old Spock insisted Kirk didn't mention anything about him to his younger self, yet he later casually runs into himself and gives mostly unnecessary advice (the meat of it was the deal with emotions, but young Spock would've learnt about it with Uhura).
- The destruction of Vulcan and Kirk's new past: the former might've been going overboard a bit, but honestly I know little about their original backgrounds.

Also, there's something to be said about character development. Some people complain about the attitudes of certain characters, like Uhura and Kirk, but one has to consider they're still young and therefore haven't lived through enough to act exactly like their older, TOS counterparts. Uhura's only beginning to build her respect towards Kirk, and he's just out of his earlier, rebellious lifestyle.

You can't just turn characters into someone they'll be in 15-20 years over the course of a single movie (in which they spend barely around a week in the Enterprise). My (obvious) guess is we'll see them getting more and more similar to the TOS characters in the sequels. Nothing wrong with a gradual evolution/change.

[E]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: E
No, it isn't our Star Trek. It was an alternate timeline. I am curious, what did you find was against the "artist's original vision?"

Wasn't there something called a Prime Directive? Not to interferes in the natural development a civilization? Yet going back in time and changing events potentially changes the natural development of all civilizations.

Who does really discover transparent aluminum?

I don't understand what the Prime Directive has to do with the movie in question. Nor how it relates to even the question I posed? The bad guys didn't pledge allegiance to the Prime Directive. Not to mention the alternation of the timeline, by the bad buys, occurred before the birth of key characters. But had the good guys been the one's to go against it in the movie, you need only watch some TOS to realize they almost always threw it aside (although sometimes they'd give it the nod and rationalize doing so).

[E]

***** COMPLETE SPOILERS ***********

ORIGINAL: ShadowB

I saw and liked the movie as well. The apparent "make it an alternate timeline so I can do whatever I want" approach of the director can be frowned upon at first, but then you've to realize that, while it gives the creative team greater freedom, they also have the responsibility to maintain a reasonable amount of things unchanged. And as far as I'm concerned, they've been fairly responsible so far.

I agree. And in younger years, I was a fierce devotee of the sanctity of TOS. I think it the only safe way to play it. As I said, they did change everything, but didn't "stomp" on it.

ORIGINAL: ShadowB
Things (spoilers ahead, not that it's necessary to warn at this point) that shocked me some:

- The building relationship between Spock and Uhura: surprising, but not necessarily wrong or out of place.

I sort of complained of this to my wife on the way home, thinking it was unnecessary. But she pointed out she thought they were showing how emotional Spock used to be, prior to TOS-Spock. And as most of us have seen The Cage (ooh, cool flowers!), I can agree.

ORIGINAL: ShadowB
- The meeting of young and old Spocks: completely unnecessary, from my point of view.

Beyond old fashioned torch passing, I think it was done to accelerate the movie timeline. Getting the Kirk/Spock friendship jump started. (heck the whole movie was to accelerate the timeline and get to where the series was, albeit with a now completely different history).

ORIGINAL: ShadowB
Old Spock insisted Kirk didn't mention anything about him to his younger self, yet he later casually runs into himself and gives mostly unnecessary advice (the meat of it was the deal with emotions, but young Spock would've learnt about it with Uhura).

I think continuity was there. When he insisted, he was in an ice cave and may not have known what had happened in the movie. By the time he meets himself, he realizes the timeline is already FUBAR. (although OUR Spock would've figured out a way to fix it).

ORIGINAL: ShadowB
Also, there's something to be said about character development. Some people complain about the attitudes of certain characters, like Uhura and Kirk, but one has to consider they're still young and therefore haven't lived through enough to act exactly like their older, TOS counterparts. Uhura's only beginning to build her respect towards Kirk, and he's just out of his earlier, rebellious lifestyle.

Actually, that is exactly why Scotty worked for me. TOS always implied he was a character and a partier when not nose diving into technical manuals. I thought the movie hit a completely believable characterization of a young Scotty (albeit one with too many fingers).

ORIGINAL: ShadowB
You can't just turn characters into someone they'll be in 15-20 years over the course of a single movie (in which they spend barely around a week in the Enterprise).

And yet, they pretty much tried to. *grin*

ORIGINAL: ShadowB
My (obvious) guess is we'll see them getting more and more similar to the TOS characters in the sequels. Nothing wrong with a gradual evolution/change.

Time will tell where they're going with it. As a tradeoff, they did rather well overall. (no way everyone was going to get everything they wanted out of this). Having supported the movie overall, I still seem to have a need to load up my undiluted or re-engineered TOS DVD's and see what the kid from Gentle Ben is up to...

[Capt. Harlock]

No, it isn't our Star Trek. It was an alternate timeline. I am curious, what did you find was against the "artist's original vision?"

*** SPOILER ALERT ***

1) The slaughter of six billion sentients without an attempt to fix the timeline. In all other time-travel episodes of Star Trek, no effort is spared to restore things to the way they were or should be.

2) The re-invention of Kirk as a punk with no discipline. (e.g. He did NOT have the right to destroy a classic Corvette.)