Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Star Trek (2009) Review Thread

2»

Comments

  • DragonSharkDragonShark Member UncommonPosts: 227
    Originally posted by ElGuappo


    Really all they wanted to do was find a way to ditch the myriad of varying quality Star Trek tv series, spin-offs and tie-ins and just be able to start from scratch. There's that much history, back story and future story that it just became a bit of Gordian Knot that, I would think, limited them hugely in what they wanted to do with the origins of these characters. So they slashed through it in one go; alternate reality. Everything's the same but, you know, different. Really, who cares?
    For the studios, how much of the likely huge box-office takings will be generated by Trek fans and how much will be generated by people who just want to be entertained by something they recognise but don't really care that much about?
    Because to those people, ditching the tv series and films is no more likely to ruin their viewing experience than the fact Chris Nolan didn't stay true to the original Batman tv series, let alone Burton's films or (spit, spit) Schumachers etc. Really, as far as the majority of cinema goers are concerned, who gives a toss as long as the movie entertains them for a couple of hours?
    So the 'alternate reality' storyline comes along that allows enough freedom to ditch the 'lore' but still keeps the characters and dynamics fairly true to what's expected. It also allows them to progress with their versions of these characters as all bets are off now. Plus, Scotty has an amusing alien sidekick in this version, which has to be a good thing, doesn't it?
    Eh? Eh? Oh.

    It's not a matter of staying true to the original. For all its ugliness, I don't mind the new Enterprise. I don't mind the new characters. I don't even mind Scotty's new Ewok sidekick.

    What I mind is the terrible writing. Make a couple more of these, and the interest of the average viewer will wane. Then the franchise will end. The only way for the franchise to survive will be to get back to the deeper stories that weren't about action sequences every five minutes.

  • AgtSmithAgtSmith Member Posts: 1,498
    Originally posted by DragonShark

    Originally posted by ElGuappo


    Really all they wanted to do was find a way to ditch the myriad of varying quality Star Trek tv series, spin-offs and tie-ins and just be able to start from scratch. There's that much history, back story and future story that it just became a bit of Gordian Knot that, I would think, limited them hugely in what they wanted to do with the origins of these characters. So they slashed through it in one go; alternate reality. Everything's the same but, you know, different. Really, who cares?
    For the studios, how much of the likely huge box-office takings will be generated by Trek fans and how much will be generated by people who just want to be entertained by something they recognise but don't really care that much about?
    Because to those people, ditching the tv series and films is no more likely to ruin their viewing experience than the fact Chris Nolan didn't stay true to the original Batman tv series, let alone Burton's films or (spit, spit) Schumachers etc. Really, as far as the majority of cinema goers are concerned, who gives a toss as long as the movie entertains them for a couple of hours?
    So the 'alternate reality' storyline comes along that allows enough freedom to ditch the 'lore' but still keeps the characters and dynamics fairly true to what's expected. It also allows them to progress with their versions of these characters as all bets are off now. Plus, Scotty has an amusing alien sidekick in this version, which has to be a good thing, doesn't it?
    Eh? Eh? Oh.

    It's not a matter of staying true to the original. For all its ugliness, I don't mind the new Enterprise. I don't mind the new characters. I don't even mind Scotty's new Ewok sidekick.

    What I mind is the terrible writing. Make a couple more of these, and the interest of the average viewer will wane. Then the franchise will end. The only way for the franchise to survive will be to get back to the deeper stories that weren't about action sequences every five minutes.

     

    Again well said.  The problem with JJ's ST is not really JJ's ST in and of itself, but seriously - is this lightweight action movie going to be the basis for 40 more years of Star Trek?  Seriously doubtful.  There are far, far, far more popular movies that never achieve what Star Trek did.  Star Trek become what it was precisely because it was unique even if sometimes niche.  Now ST is just another summer movie and while that is likely to earn a sequel and maybe a third if the second does OK it is hardly liekly to be anything but that just like any action type movie.

    --------------------------------
    Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
    Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD

  • ktanner3ktanner3 Member UncommonPosts: 4,061
    Originally posted by Scalebane


    Well i'm ready for the next one! woot.  and from what i've read they plan on releasing a 3rd and 4th one too!
    Hope they come out with a new T.V. series, that'll just make it all the more better!



     

    I can't wait either, because the surprise success of this movie will help the next one. A franchise movie's success on opening weekend is very much determined by the popularity of the last one.(See the diminishing returns of the Terminator franchise) The fact that this one did so well after the horrible taste that Nemesis left in  people's mouths is astounding. Nemesis was really bad. I remember attending that on opening weekend and the theater was barely half full. People just didn't care about Star Trek anymore After two weeks it was pulled from my local theater. On the other hand, I attended this latest one on the third weekend after it was released and it was jam packed with people from different age groups.

    Currently Playing: World of Warcraft

  • ktanner3ktanner3 Member UncommonPosts: 4,061
    Originally posted by ElGuappo


    Really all they wanted to do was find a way to ditch the myriad of varying quality Star Trek tv series, spin-offs and tie-ins and just be able to start from scratch. There's that much history, back story and future story that it just became a bit of Gordian Knot that, I would think, limited them hugely in what they wanted to do with the origins of these characters. So they slashed through it in one go; alternate reality. Everything's the same but, you know, different. Really, who cares?
    For the studios, how much of the likely huge box-office takings will be generated by Trek fans and how much will be generated by people who just want to be entertained by something they recognise but don't really care that much about?
    Because to those people, ditching the tv series and films is no more likely to ruin their viewing experience than the fact Chris Nolan didn't stay true to the original Batman tv series, let alone Burton's films or (spit, spit) Schumachers etc. Really, as far as the majority of cinema goers are concerned, who gives a toss as long as the movie entertains them for a couple of hours?
    So the 'alternate reality' storyline comes along that allows enough freedom to ditch the 'lore' but still keeps the characters and dynamics fairly true to what's expected. It also allows them to progress with their versions of these characters as all bets are off now. Plus, Scotty has an amusing alien sidekick in this version, which has to be a good thing, doesn't it?
    Eh? Eh? Oh.



     

    Well said. Star Trek had ceased being entertaining years ago. That's why no one went to see Nemesis and why the last series was cancelled after 4 seasons. This whole discussion reminds me of the James Bond fanbase that went ballistic when their beloved hero was going to be played by a man with blonde hair. Some were still not satisfied even after Casino Royale did so well because there was no Q, no moneypenny and none of the usual trappings that came with a James Bond flick. It didn't matter because Casino Royale brought more fans to the table and the ones that miss the old formulaic bonds have 20 movies that they can always rewatch.  So if some didn't like this movie and miss the old formula that couldn't pack a theater even on opening weekend, then they have 5 series and 10 movies they can always go back and watch.

    Currently Playing: World of Warcraft

  • ProfRedProfRed Member UncommonPosts: 3,494

    I really enjoyed it for what it was.  The only part I didn't like was the child Kirk riding his car off a cliff at the beginning. 

  • AgtSmithAgtSmith Member Posts: 1,498
    Originally posted by ktanner3
     
    Well said. Star Trek had ceased being entertaining years ago. That's why no one went to see Nemesis and why the last series was cancelled after 4 seasons. This whole discussion reminds me of the James Bond fanbase that went ballistic when their beloved hero was going to be played by a man with blonde hair. Some were still not satisfied even after Casino Royale did so well because there was no Q, no moneypenny and none of the usual trappings that came with a James Bond flick. It didn't matter because Casino Royale brought more fans to the table and the ones that miss the old formulaic bonds have 20 movies that they can always rewatch.  So if some didn't like this movie and miss the old formula that couldn't pack a theater even on opening weekend, then they have 5 series and 10 movies they can always go back and watch.

     

    You are correct on Bond - that was a great reboot and clearly for every fan alienated more where brought in and there core story served as a basis for mroe films.  But Casino Royale VS JJ ST is like comparing a Ford and a Ferrari so you cannot say JJ ST is on par with great reboots like Casino Royale.  Casino Royale did nearly $600 Mil WW, JJ St is looking to settle around $350 to maybe $360 Mill WW.  Hardly in the same category.  As I have said before, JJ ST box office performance wise has far, far more in common (allmost identical actually) with the franchise ending Wolverine than any of the franchise reboot films we have seen that where truly succesful.

    --------------------------------
    Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
    Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD

  • VrazuleVrazule Member Posts: 1,095

    How many times have they done the time travel motiff?  Three different movies and many times in all of the different series.  Solid C for lack of imagination.

    With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal

  • ToadmonkeyToadmonkey Member UncommonPosts: 84

    The movie was worth seeing.  However, I don't want to see this time line flourish.  I would prefer the "real" Roddenberry era continue........Not this reboot.

     

  • ktanner3ktanner3 Member UncommonPosts: 4,061
    Originally posted by MLecl0001


    I give the movia an A.  I grade movies on one criteria only, did I enjoy it?  That is the one and only question I ask myself at the end of the movie.  I dont give two craps about plot, special effects, writing, cinematography, photography, somethingelseography, director, actors, budget, or any other contrived crap people moan and complain about when they review movies.  I go to see movies to be entertained, not to think, if I wanted to think I would read a book or watch a documentary ( for example like the The Universe series on History Channel, love that series.)  But when it comes to movies I just want 1.5 to 2 hours of fun, just like my MMOs, but apparantly thats not what there made for anymore.  Apparantly movies have become like MMOs and they are just time sinks, who knows maybe movie studios will have us grinding lower level movies until we have enough points to see the uber epic movie.
     
    Any ways the movie was fun, I had fun, and when I first saw the enterprise in its new shiny high tech digital creation the first thought in my head was "I want one of those."



     

    Well said. My top priority as well is to be entertained and that hasn't happened from Star Trek in a long while.

    Currently Playing: World of Warcraft

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Member Posts: 1,832

    I enjoyed the movie....thought it was pretty well done. Then again I pretty much loathed all of TNG and DS9... so no great loss for me.

    I thought it could have been a little bit better written though.... some parts seemed just too contrived. Like how Kirk went straight from cadet to Captain of the flagship of the Fleet.

    I'm also not a big fan of the Time Travel motiff....although it obviously made sense for them to do it in this one.... gives them the freedom to make future movies/series without worrying about bumping into already established cannon.

     

     

     

     

  • grndzrogrndzro Member UncommonPosts: 1,158
    Originally posted by purewitz


    It has given me a new found respect for Star Trek. As a kid I gave up on Star Trek, when Next Generation and DS9 got canceled.

     

    They were both 7 year runs, that was what was planned, same with Voyager.

    Enterprise was cut short.

  • thexratedthexrated Member UncommonPosts: 1,368

    I have watched all series and movies, not because I am a huge Star Trek fan, but I am a scifi fan. A lot is forgiven by me, if  it is scifi.

    The new film was ok, so I gave it B with the poll. It did have some questionable plot points that makes it not A in my mind. Acting, effects and overal athmosphere were very good. 

     

    SPOILERS BELOW

     

    Without reviewing it more, there is one thing that I would change from the film that would make it a lot better in my eyes  - removing the scene where Kirk is chased by the giant red centipede. This scene and event before and after it just did not seem plausable. Kirk should have a better reason to be on that planet. They could have made Kirk use a tricorder to locate the humanoid presence near by and thus finding Spock instead of the rather questionable way it happened.

    "The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."

  • GrayGhost79GrayGhost79 Member UncommonPosts: 4,775

    I would have given the movie a B, while it was a very good movie on it's own there were a few things about it that were a bit off. However, the fact that they got Leonard Nimoy to be in it made it an A. Me and the wife both would have watched it for the simple fact Nimoy was in it lol. Which is one of the things we friggin hated about the season finale of Fringe ><, the very last episode they decided to bring out Nimoy and then end the season ><. Definetly looking forward to next season now though.

  • DragonSharkDragonShark Member UncommonPosts: 227
    Originally posted by GrayGhost79


    I would have given the movie a B, while it was a very good movie on it's own there were a few things about it that were a bit off. However, the fact that they got Leonard Nimoy to be in it made it an A. Me and the wife both would have watched it for the simple fact Nimoy was in it lol. Which is one of the things we friggin hated about the season finale of Fringe ><, the very last episode they decided to bring out Nimoy and then end the season ><. Definetly looking forward to next season now though.

    I thought the movie would have been better without Nimoy. He and the whole Romulans from the future arc were a mere contrivance to try and appeal to us old-time fans. To me, the entire thing fell flat, and the movie would have been better off just being a complete reboot.

  • FennrisFennris Member UncommonPosts: 275

    This is late but wth...

    They needed to tie the series to the movie.  Even just a nod from Nimoy was fairly required and it made the movie much better (IMO).

     

     

    spoiler space for those that still haven't seen it...

     

     

     

    Bad:

       The Romulan villain wasn't given screen time or credibility.  Sure Romulans have done plenty of experimentation with power drives using tech that is theoretically capable of destabilizing suns (quantum singularities could def do it) but they needed to explain that at some point.

       Kirk getting beat up 4 or 5 times... sometimes the fights weren't remotely fair, one time Kirk may have let himself lose, but random romulans??? c'mon...  He didn't win once without a weapon.

       The Kobyashi Maru scene - looked like a very bad simulator (and nothing like the one from STII).  They didn't do enough with that set design and there was no subtlety or style or satisfaction in Kirk's win.

    Good:

       Acting - the death of Kirk's father was very intense/tragic amongst all characters involved and it didn't go downhill after that.  Spok facing the Vulcan academy was pure Spok even without Nimoy.

       Humor - Spok telling Kirk to get out of the chair - I still crack up remembering that

       Battles - looked far more 'real' than any others in Star Trek.

       Fun - pacing kept things light and quick, the f/x made them look real and big, acting kept me believing (and not caring about some of the plot holes)

    I want MORE!  But no more Kirk getting his ass kicked - he was my #1 hero back when I was getting ready for Kindergarden and for a long time after...

    Edit: Grade A-

Sign In or Register to comment.