OTHER SCIENCE FICTION SERIES

New Trek early reports.

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 08:09
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8271
PAGE 1 of 2

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:34 AM

CHRISISALL


http://trekmovie.com/2009/02/25/abrams-pitches-star-trek-the-beginning
-in-korea
/

http://trekmovie.com/2009/02/25/abrams-pitches-star-trek-the-beginning
-in-korea
/

Basically, if the Shat is the ONLY Kirk for you, you'll prolly be better off avoiding it.
But if, like me, you can see your way to enjoying a new interpretation of Kirk & the Enterprise, you'll like it immensely.

*Waits patiently*


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:40 AM

RIPWASH


I'll be seeing it Friday night with a friend and a bunch of his Trekkie friends. He claims they're the type who just may dress up in costume. He asked me if I'd mind and I told him I'd been to a sci-fi convention or two, so it wouldn't bother me in the least.

I'm lookin' forward to it!

Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:42 AM

BYTEMITE


This movie scares me.

I have to say I was never a big fan of Star Trek in the first place, always found it a bit too grandiose.

But I'd really not like to see it reenvisioned as some sort of extreme edgy youth league version of the hard core sci fi that Star Trek represents. That's like... spitting on it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:43 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by RIPWash:


I'm lookin' forward to it!


Me too.
NO ONE is Shatner, but If I can see someone who is not Sean Connery as Bond, anything's possible.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:45 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
That's like... spitting on it.

Now, that's a mite rash, don't ya think?
I'll give you my review soon...


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:47 AM

BYTEMITE


I am outspoken on many opinions on many things, mostly to cover my butt if I'm wrong.

It probably is rash, but I'm just concerned.

Hope you enjoy it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:51 AM

JONGSSTRAW


43 years of "Rocket Man" Shatner will be hard to get over and accept the new, but I am going in full speed ahead.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:56 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Basically, if the Shat is the ONLY Kirk for you, you'll prolly be better off avoiding it.


But this is a YOUNG Kirk, so how could it even be Shatner ? I know, we watched the original when Kirk was youngER, but not THIS young. That's the trick about these prequels, as we're seeing characters before they became who we knew, later on in their lives. Or, as Kirk puts it...before his PAIN helped make him who he is, if you get my meaning.

Least, that's the attitude I'm taking w/ me into the movie. We'll see how good a job they did.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:57 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Or, as Kirk puts it...before his PAIN helped make him who he is, if you get my meaning.


Oh no- you don't actually like ST5, do you? Tell me it's not true...


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 8:03 AM

RIPWASH


This alone



almost killed Spock in my mind, but then again I DID listen to the Golden Throats tracks of Nimoy and Shatner back in college . . . so what could've been worse?

Actually, this little ditty grew on my BIG TIME. I would go to great lengths to find a file that is actually a decent video (clarity and whatnot, this one's a bit fuzzy no matter where you find it).

Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 8:08 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by RIPWash:
This alone



almost killed Spock in my mind,


This horrified me in particular re: Kirk...




The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 8:08 AM

OPPYH


Trekkies bash new Star Trek film:




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 8:09 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Or, as Kirk puts it...before his PAIN helped make him who he is, if you get my meaning.


Oh no- you don't actually like ST5, do you? Tell me it's not true...


The laughing Chrisisall



What ever you thought of the movie, ( no, I didn't care for it all that much ), Kirk did have a valid point. We NEED our pain. It defines us, makes us who we are.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 8:13 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
We NEED our pain. It defines us, makes us who we are.


That was all over-dramatic Shatner there.
Pain does not define me except as someone who got over it. I am defined by what I do & believe.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 8:18 AM

RIPWASH


How 'bout this one? LOL



Or there's a loverly version of "If I Had Hammer" by Nimoy.

Then there's this . . . surely you've heard this before





Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 8:23 AM

CHRISISALL


Any more links to unstable Trek-related songs will surely result in a force-chamber explosion releasing dangerous amounts of anti-matter onto this board....

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 8:28 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
But this is a YOUNG Kirk, so how could it even be Shatner ? I know, we watched the original when Kirk was youngER, but not THIS young. That's the trick about these prequels, as we're seeing characters before they became who we knew, later on in their lives. Or, as Kirk puts it...before his PAIN helped make him who he is, if you get my meaning.

Least, that's the attitude I'm taking w/ me into the movie. We'll see how good a job they did.





It'll be interesting to see how it pans out, since this isn't a strict "prequel" as we have come to know it. yet, it's not a full on reboot ala the Batman and Bond flicks of late.

I am excited for it, though. Looks pretty cool, and I'm jazzed by the reactions I've read so far.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:19 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


How isn't this a 'strict' prequel ? It's the life and times of James T. Kirk, before he was captain, yes ?







NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:28 AM

STORYMARK


Yes, but in an altered timeline. Here, he joins Starfleet later than in the current backstory, and becomes Captain earlier. He is not raised by his father, who now dies in the opening scene of this one, as Kirk is born. The changes to the design of the ship and such are not just aesthetic - Starfleet is more technologically advanced because of Nero (Bana) tampering with the timeline.

I know more of what's going to happen that will make it VERY clear that this is not a true prequel, and follows a different timeline, but I'll hold back on the spoilers for now.


This is why I'm saying it's more akin to reboots like Casino Royale - that was the early days of Bond - but not the SAME Bond. This will be early Kirk and crew, but a new version. Yet, since there is Old Spock coming into the plot from the Next Gen timeline, it's still not quite a full re-boot. It's a first of it's kind, an in-continuity reboot of a franchise.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:35 AM

CHRISISALL


Just saw the new Enterprise toy at Target (it was opened, so I got me a real good look), and I have to say it looks a lot better than the box cover, or publicity pix of the ship, for that matter.

Yeah, it'll be good.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 10:47 AM

KIRKULES


I've always been more of a Next Generation Trekkie, so messing with the time line doesn't bother me to much. I do however wish that they had waited and cloned Shatner for the role. I think he has proven with some of his recent work the he had the potential to be a great actor, and I think his clone deserved a shot at this part.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 1:59 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Wow. I did not know any of that. Been trying to not read up on it, and it seems I've missed out on some things. Should be interesting to see, if nothing else.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 9:07 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


My local theater has 7pm Thurs showing. I gotta wiggle out of a car club event to get there.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 4:58 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
It's a first of it's kind, an in-continuity reboot of a franchise.


Only from Trek.

*New favourite Trek movie list*

#1 TMP
#2 Voyage Home
#3 Undiscovered Country
#4 Wrath Of Khan/Search For Spock
#5 That, er...fifth one.



The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 5:35 AM

RIPWASH


I tried watching TMP again . . . . any OMG how insippedly boring! After 30 minutes, they were FINALLY leaving the space port - after I swear what seemed like a 10 minute tour of the outside of the Enterprise - and they try to go to warp speed and that gets mucked up. I was . . . . seriously . . . I couldn't stand any more. As much as I wanted to give it some slack, I just couldn't. Maybe I'll try again later. But . . . ugh.

Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 5:38 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by RIPWash:
Maybe I'll try again later. But . . . ugh.


Is that the Director's Edition with the new cuts? It moves faster than the theatrical or TV versions. But one thing I still hate is the transporter malfunction scene- it's just there for shock value & really slows down the flick IMO.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 5:40 AM

RIPWASH


It moves FASTER? How can that be?

Maybe I'll just jump right to WoK.

Mal: You think she'll hold together?
Zoë: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.
Mal: Could be bumpy.
Zoë: Always is

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 5:45 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by RIPWash:
It moves FASTER? How can that be?

Robert Wise added new FX & tightened it up- it comes in at a shorter running time.
Quote:



Maybe I'll just jump right to WoK.


Relax & enjoy a smooth ride before that one, dude.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 6:14 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Robert Wise added new FX & tightened it up- it comes in at a shorter running time.



Actually, while I agree it does play faster, due to new edits which help the pacing, the Director's Edition actually runs 4 minutes longer than the theatrical cut.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 6:25 AM

JONGSSTRAW


In TMP, is Commander Willard Decker (Stephen Collins) related to Commodore Matt Decker ( William Windom) from The Doomsday Machine? I haven't seen TMP in a long while so I forget if any relationship is mentioned.

For the record, I've always liked this movie a lot. A different feel to it for sure, and some slow parts, but overall very enjoyable.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 6:26 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
the Director's Edition actually runs 4 minutes longer than the theatrical cut.


You're right, I keep thinking 143 minutes, but that was the first tape release or something. The Director's is 132...


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 10:20 AM

MACBAKER


Got tickets for thursday night. Digital projection, on a mega screen (basically a iMax without the official certification).

Been a fan since TOS started airing in 67, and Paramount can kiss my ass with their "not your father's Star Trek" ads. Not only am I going, but I'm taking my kids!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 10:35 AM

IMNOTHERE


Quote:

Originally posted by RIPWash:
After 30 minutes, they were FINALLY leaving the space port - after I swear what seemed like a 10 minute tour of the outside of the Enterprise



It always looks to me as if The Slow Motion Picture was consciously trying to ape (hehe) 2001: A Space Odyssey, and present itself as a serious SF film (unlike that Saturday-morning-cinema Star Wars stuff).

Of course, the SFX director was Douglas Trumbull (2001, Silent Running, Close Encounters, Blade Runner... none of which are noted for their breakneck pace and goldfish-friendly attention span demands) - not sure if that is a cause or effect.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 10:46 AM

STORYMARK


And the film's director was Robert "The Day The Earth Stood Still(original recipe)" Wise.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 11:08 AM

IMNOTHERE


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
And the film's director was Robert "The Day The Earth Stood Still(original recipe)" Wise.



...so its probably no wonder that its a little slow-moving for modern eyes.

Ironic really, since the original Star Trek TV series was pretty innovative in its fast pace compared with other TV shows of the time (e.g. the Irwin Allen shows). ISTR one of the reasons for inventing the transporter was to keep the pace going (I'm sure I read that in "The Making of Star Trek" somewhere but the darned book doesn't have an index).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 7, 2009 7:31 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by MacBaker:
Not only am I going, but I'm taking my kids!


Me as well. Well, kid.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 7, 2009 8:17 AM

SUASOR


The other reason for the transporter was the low budget (they could not afford the transporter interior and exterior.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 7, 2009 8:29 AM

OPPYH


I don't want to harsh anyones buzz but the writing team of Roberto Orci, and Alex Kurtzman's biggest claim to fame has been The Transformers. now as a movie goes it was pretty good to look at, but the story...ughh!


They were also the main writers for the show Alias.
A show I would describe as lackluster at best.

Like I said, I'm looking forward to seeing Star Trek, but I'd be very surprised If I actually like it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 7, 2009 9:27 AM

STORYMARK


Michael Bay had a big hand in the story for Transformers, and I thought Alias was kick-ass (first 3 seasons, at least, before the network screwed it up). These guys also work on LOST and Fringe, and while I've yot to see Fringe it is the highest rated new show this year, and I love LOST. They also wrote M:I3, which I thought was the best of the series.

I'm not too concerned on that front.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 7, 2009 10:58 AM

MACBAKER


Quote:

Originally posted by OPPYH:
I don't want to harsh anyones buzz but the writing team of Roberto Orci, and Alex Kurtzman's biggest claim to fame has been The Transformers. now as a movie goes it was pretty good to look at, but the story...ughh!


They were also the main writers for the show Alias.
A show I would describe as lackluster at best.

Like I said, I'm looking forward to seeing Star Trek, but I'd be very surprised If I actually like it.



Didn't they write Mission Impossible III? Clearly the best of that series!

Can't blame them for Transformers. They managed to make it Michael Bay's most intellectual movie ever. Not saying much, but most Michael Bay movies will kill off brain cells faster than bathtub moonshine!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 7, 2009 6:01 PM

CALHOUN


Just got back from the new Trek movie.. I liked it!! nay.. I LIKED IT ALOT!!!

It stayed true enough to all the other Trek but it was more as well. My only real gripe was the space battle action scenes were too fast, phasers, photons and explosions all happening too fast to really see.

It definitely left me wanting more. Bring on the next one!!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 7, 2009 6:16 PM

STEAMER


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
In TMP, is Commander Willard Decker (Stephen Collins) related to Commodore Matt Decker ( William Windom) from The Doomsday Machine? I haven't seen TMP in a long while so I forget if any relationship is mentioned.



Yes, they were father and son - it was mentioned in several sources but not explicitly on screen. (I took it to heart a bit since TDM is my livelong favourite Trek episode ever.) If it was brought up on screen, the scene and/or the dialogue was deleted - but it would have been interesting if Decker Sr.'s death was referred to and then went on to shadow Kirk and Decker Jr. for the rest of the movie.

Hey, JewelStaiteFan....where was that Thurs 7pm showing of yours? There was one in my area, too. Small 'verse?

I liked the movie. I really liked the movie. I would have written it differently (and if I were J.J. I'd steer clear of Star Trek conventions for a while), but for the most part the characters were spot-on. Karl Urban, for one, has McCoy down cold. I had my issues with the story, but I thought the dialogue and the acting were brilliant. Of course you know the whole reason for

Select to view spoiler:


Nero skewering history and creating an alternate timeline

was just so the fat-asses at Paramount could make a whole new series of movies featuring the old gang with new faces - give them half a chance to milk it and they'll milk it to the 23rd century and beyond. :P



Serenity flies
At a hundred per
Is Wash nervous?
Tsai-bu-shr!
FIREFLY

Captain of the New England Browncoats
http://www.myspace.com/nebrowncoats

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 7, 2009 7:26 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Steamer:


Hey, JewelStaiteFan....where was that Thurs 7pm showing of yours? There was one in my area, too. Small 'verse?



Serenity flies
At a hundred per
Is Wash nervous?
Tsai-bu-shr!
FIREFLY

Captain of the New England Browncoats


My 7pm was at Tri-City Cinema, for Quinnesec, Kingsford, Iron Mountian MI. The theater had sound problems, I'll likely see it again in a better theater. I liked it, didn't have any problem with the story, they did a great job of tying all loose ends together from all the shows and films.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 7, 2009 7:46 PM

VECTREXER


Star Trek review! Will be scanning my ticket stub for a review update later. Here is what I wrote on the stub:
* Visual A
* Action C+
* Timing d
* Pacing F
* Plot D
* Plot is one big string of Star Trek clichés!
* Boring!
* Wait for the Video!
* Don't spend your $11.00. (Century Theaters, Daly City, CA)

The theater was in perfect form btw. Only the movie had issues.

I predict that Star Trek will not be a counted as a big win for this weekend.

Overall this "reboot" of Star Trek does not fulfill the promise of Star Trek as a series. Bleak outlook. Forced Comedy. Thoughtless and implausible action and plot development. Even for a cheesy SciFi flick.

Scene to scene the film appears as a collage rather than a montage. As to my rating the pacing as an F. The reason I give it this score is this. Most films give you a break in between the emotional sequences or the action sequences. There are scenes that act as interludes so that you can absorb or react to what you just saw. The interludes also allow you to come down from your highs so that you can react to and appreciate the next scenes presented. Neither JJ Abrams nor any of the editors understands this bit wisdom. Instead, they run up Star Trek to warp speed and leave it there as they zoom from one implausible scene to the next. The very height of poor directing and editing.

I rate Starship Troopers as more fun and enjoyable than Star Trek

Bits of advice. If you go to Star Trek then do two things.
1) Go to the IMAX showing to get the best visual possible.
2) (and do this no matter what) Get food for the movie. Your tongue and mouth will need to provide some distraction for your brain during this movie.
I rate Starship Troopers as more fun and enjoyable than Star Trek

Bits of advice. If you go to Star Trek then do two things.
1) Go to the IMAX showing to get the best visual possible.
2) (and do this no matter what) Get food for the movie. Your tongue and mouth will need to provide some distraction for your brain during this movie.

I've enjoyed the hell out of Star Trek for long time (30+ years). The producers can shove this version up their black hole.

As I mentioned above, this is one film that you can wait on for the video.


Serenity definitely kicks Star Treks' ass!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 7, 2009 8:40 PM

CALHOUN


Quote:

Vectrexer wrote:
Thursday, May 07, 2009 19:46
Star Trek review! Will be scanning my ticket stub for a review update later. Here is what I wrote on the stub:
* Visual A
* Action C+
* Timing d
* Pacing F
* Plot D
* Plot is one big string of Star Trek clichés!
* Boring!
* Wait for the Video!
* Don't spend your $11.00. (Century Theaters, Daly City, CA)

The theater was in perfect form btw. Only the movie had issues.

I predict that Star Trek will not be a counted as a big win for this weekend.

Overall this "reboot" of Star Trek does not fulfill the promise of Star Trek as a series. Bleak outlook. Forced Comedy. Thoughtless and implausible action and plot development. Even for a cheesy SciFi flick.

Scene to scene the film appears as a collage rather than a montage. As to my rating the pacing as an F. The reason I give it this score is this. Most films give you a break in between the emotional sequences or the action sequences. There are scenes that act as interludes so that you can absorb or react to what you just saw. The interludes also allow you to come down from your highs so that you can react to and appreciate the next scenes presented. Neither JJ Abrams nor any of the editors understands this bit wisdom. Instead, they run up Star Trek to warp speed and leave it there as they zoom from one implausible scene to the next. The very height of poor directing and editing.

I rate Starship Troopers as more fun and enjoyable than Star Trek

Bits of advice. If you go to Star Trek then do two things.
1) Go to the IMAX showing to get the best visual possible.
2) (and do this no matter what) Get food for the movie. Your tongue and mouth will need to provide some distraction for your brain during this movie.
I rate Starship Troopers as more fun and enjoyable than Star Trek

Bits of advice. If you go to Star Trek then do two things.
1) Go to the IMAX showing to get the best visual possible.
2) (and do this no matter what) Get food for the movie. Your tongue and mouth will need to provide some distraction for your brain during this movie.

I've enjoyed the hell out of Star Trek for long time (30+ years). The producers can shove this version up their black hole.

As I mentioned above, this is one film that you can wait on for the video.


Serenity definitely kicks Star Treks' ass!



You are entitled to your opinion of course, though it should be shoved inside that same black hole you spoke of..

as for editing.. your post needs a little of that.


as for editing.. your post needs a little of that.






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 7, 2009 8:47 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Vectrexer:
Star Trek review! Will be scanning my ticket stub for a review update later. Here is what I wrote on the stub:
* Visual A
* Action C+
* Timing d
* Pacing F
* Plot D
* Plot is one big string of Star Trek clichés!
* Boring!
* Wait for the Video!
* Don't spend your $11.00. (Century Theaters, Daly City, CA)

The theater was in perfect form btw. Only the movie had issues.

I predict that Star Trek will not be a counted as a big win for this weekend.

Overall this "reboot" of Star Trek does not fulfill the promise of Star Trek as a series. Bleak outlook. Forced Comedy. Thoughtless and implausible action and plot development. Even for a cheesy SciFi flick.

Scene to scene the film appears as a collage rather than a montage. As to my rating the pacing as an F. The reason I give it this score is this. Most films give you a break in between the emotional sequences or the action sequences. There are scenes that act as interludes so that you can absorb or react to what you just saw. The interludes also allow you to come down from your highs so that you can react to and appreciate the next scenes presented. Neither JJ Abrams nor any of the editors understands this bit wisdom. Instead, they run up Star Trek to warp speed and leave it there as they zoom from one implausible scene to the next. The very height of poor directing and editing.

I rate Starship Troopers as more fun and enjoyable than Star Trek

Bits of advice. If you go to Star Trek then do two things.
1) Go to the IMAX showing to get the best visual possible.
2) (and do this no matter what) Get food for the movie. Your tongue and mouth will need to provide some distraction for your brain during this movie.
I rate Starship Troopers as more fun and enjoyable than Star Trek

Bits of advice. If you go to Star Trek then do two things.
1) Go to the IMAX showing to get the best visual possible.
2) (and do this no matter what) Get food for the movie. Your tongue and mouth will need to provide some distraction for your brain during this movie.

I've enjoyed the hell out of Star Trek for long time (30+ years). The producers can shove this version up their black hole.

As I mentioned above, this is one film that you can wait on for the video.


Serenity definitely kicks Star Treks' ass!


i would disagree with all your conclusions.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 7, 2009 11:25 PM

MACBAKER


Quote:

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:

i would disagree with all your conclusions.



What she said! Other than the A for visuals, I couldn't agree less with your grades. Did you see the same movie? Did you even try to go in with an open mind?

Folks, spend your money seeing this on a big screen! Don't wait for the Blue-ray or the DVD. Preferably, see it in a iMax or mega screened theater, with digital projection!

I'm a nit-picky hardcore fan, old enough to remember Star Trek during it's first run on NBC in the late sixties. I went in with a cautious attitude about this "new" Star Trek.

I certainly didn't like certain design elements, like the ship, the "Apple Store" bridge set, and the chromed out props. Still don't love them, but the designs are slowly growing on me. Still think the Enterprise from ST:TMP is the best looking E ever!

Story; yeah there are some weak plot points, but overall no worse than other Trek movies of the past. The pacing was fast and it kept the story moving! I did like seeing these classic characters grow into their familiar positions. For a prequel movie, this seems to be the only one that has done it right.

Casting: Pine and Quinto are fine as Kirk and Spock. Quinto looks like a young Nimoy, but he brings his own style to the character, while still being Spock! Pine thankfully does not play Kirk like Shatner. I love the Shat, but no one can play the character his way, without it coming off as a parody. Pine does bring in some of Kirk's swagger and confidence, and he's got the chops to lead this franchise!

Zoe Saldana as Uhura gets to do far more than poor Nichelle ever got to do, and she VERY sexy in the role! Uhura is a brilliant woman who finally gets to do more than open hailing frequencies!

Karl Urban's performance as Bones is simply amazing! Any Deforest Fans (like myself) will be moved by how well he seems to channel Mr. Kelly.

John Cho is wonderful as Sulu. I love the "parking brake" scene, and Sulu gets a chance to kick ass too!

Simon Pegg as Scotty, is clearly there lighten the mood. His accent is dead on Scottish, and he treats the role with respect due Mr. Doohan's engineer.

The one sore spot for me was Yelchin's Chekov. His accent was so thick it hard to understand at times.

The supporting cast is brilliant. Bruce Greenwood as Pike is the perfect father figure, and he played the character with the same gentle but stern nature that Jeffery Hunter brought to the role.

Chris Hemsworth and Jennifer Morrison as Kirk's parents do fine with their brief roles, and Winona Ryder as Spock's human mother Amanda works better than I would have expected.

Ben Cross as Sarek was slightly disappointing, but only because Mark Lenard became the quintessential template for vulcans! Even an actor as good as Cross, seemed to have trouble filling those legendary shoes!

Eric Bana was also a bit of a disappointment, but only because he gets so little screen time. What I did see I liked. He plays Nero with a casual delivery that was almost Ledgeresque in how he made it look easy. This is not a typical over the top Trek villain.

Some have compared Nero to Shinzon in Nemesis! On the surface this seems correct. Yes, they both are from Romulus, and yes, they both have reasons for vengeance, but their styles are completely different. Shinzon was another in a long line of self important over the top villains. Nero is more subtle and contained, like a bomb that could blow at any time.

Lastly, Leonard Nimoy as Spock Prime. Yeah, he's showing is age. More so than even Shatner. Who cares! It was great to see him play Spock again, and his actions are pivotal to the whole movie and to this new time line.

Overall, this movie was one big amazing thrill ride! It delivered in so many ways. Is it perfect? No! Does it work? Yes!

If you can't get past the changes, and accept this version, then take it for what it is, an alternate reality. Ignore it, and keep watching the classic shows and movies.

I'll still watch the classic Trek, but I'll also look forward to the second movie in this new Star Trek franchise! I can't wait to see what happens next! After years of Picard, Janeway and Archer, it's great to see new stories about the original gang again!

Thanks JJ, not just for making Star Trek cool and relevant again, but for bringing back Kirk, Spock and McCoy!



I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 12:26 AM

CALHOUN


Well said Mac!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 1:29 AM

NAVYSEILS


I saw it last night and I can say that I was very impressed. I never got all that into star trek, but I've seen enough that I knew who everyone was, and in my opinion they did a pretty good job of bringing out a modern take on the classic series. If you're on the fence about it, I'm another vote for the crowd saying give it a shot.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 8, 2009 2:49 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Steamer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
In TMP, is Commander Willard Decker (Stephen Collins) related to Commodore Matt Decker ( William Windom) from The Doomsday Machine? I haven't seen TMP in a long while so I forget if any relationship is mentioned.



Yes, they were father and son - it was mentioned in several sources but not explicitly on screen. (I took it to heart a bit since TDM is my livelong favourite Trek episode ever.) If it was brought up on screen, the scene and/or the dialogue was deleted - but it would have been interesting if Decker Sr.'s death was referred to and then went on to shadow Kirk and Decker Jr. for the rest of the movie.


Thanks a lot for your response. For some reason I never really thought about their same names before, but the other night I watched Doomsday Machine, which I hadn't seen in a while. Really a superior episode.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Marvel / DC / Comic Thread
Mon, December 2, 2024 10:15 - 42 posts
**Any other Sci-fi shows worth a look??
Mon, December 2, 2024 07:18 - 41 posts
Are There New TV Shows This Fall You Must See?
Sun, December 1, 2024 08:51 - 111 posts
Old Movies You Thought Were Great but Disappointed You on Rewatch...
Sun, December 1, 2024 01:31 - 15 posts
Video Games to movie and tv series and other Cartoon / video game adaptions
Sat, November 30, 2024 14:08 - 102 posts
another dead year for Scifi tv Shows and Block Buster Cinema movies?
Fri, November 29, 2024 10:36 - 19 posts
The Animated Movie Thread: name your favourites
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:18 - 85 posts
Spin-off Worthy?
Tue, November 26, 2024 11:31 - 8 posts
Binge-worthy?
Fri, November 22, 2024 13:42 - 138 posts
Recommendations?
Fri, November 22, 2024 07:10 - 69 posts
Best movie of the 21st Century.
Mon, November 18, 2024 13:41 - 57 posts
I threw my hands up in despair and stormed out- movie and/or show moments with which we just couldn't deal...
Mon, November 18, 2024 13:38 - 141 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL