Official I WATCHED TREK thread

POSTED BY: LincolnZ
UPDATED: Monday, May 18, 2009 11:06
VIEWED: 17337
PAGE 3 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

CHINDI

Saturday, May 9, 2009 11:05 PM

LOVED IT! a great popcorn movie for the summer. Enjoyable, engaging and entertaining.

I concur with all that has been said above, but I had to add my "thumbs up". I thought it was a nice homage to TOS and you saw the shadows of who the characters would become, without being slavish or a parody.

Urban was really spot on as Bones.. and Pine was believable as Kirk (loved the opening sequence where a preteen Kirk goes joyriding...)

It was indeed full of humor.. and ITA it was the Star Trek kind- not smarmy or patronizing.

I credit Abrams and the writers for creating a movie where you CARE about the characters. There is action and all those fx that we expect, but if you don't care about the characters it is just noise... but here, you care about these folks and THAT is what makes it a cut above.

I enjoyed it and will see again (if only for the Tribble... missed that...) and beacuse it was fun.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Saturday, May 9, 2009 11:45 PM

If you listen closely to the background when Kirk and Scotty are speaking you will hear it cooing. It is on the desk in a cage behind Scotty.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Yes We Did!

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

HKCAVALIER

Sunday, May 10, 2009 1:28 AM

I have a question that in the bazillion reviews I've read has yet to be answered. Does this movie have any of the poetic, non-mystical optimism of TOS? Or have they grittied it up, conflicted it up, sexed and boozed and aggroed it up? Is the 23rd century something still to aspire to, or is it just more of the same? Do we reach?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SEBA

Sunday, May 10, 2009 2:57 AM

I agree that they missed an opportunity to create some sort of moral or philosophical statement somewhere in the film that would really live up to Roddenberry's vision and legacy. If they'd spent a little less time focusing on visual effects and space combat I think they could have pulled it off. I feel like there was room for one in the conflict between Spock/Vulcan and Nero/Romulus.

Ebert got it right: "The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action."

That said, it was an "introductory" film and I'll hold out hope that they'll nail it with the sequel.

In many respects, it was typical "bang, crash!" Hollywood, which was disappointing. That said, it was a particularly good "bang, crash!" Hollywood action film.

SEBA

Sunday, May 10, 2009 3:38 AM

I'm also not feeling the new Enterprise design. Everything's too close together and bulky looking on the outside and looks too good on the inside...

...it makes little sense to redesign it in the context of the film. It's a bit of a stretch to assume that the timeline altering events of the Kelvin led to a different Enterprise from what we knew throughout TOS.

They could have easily made it look "better" and more detailed than the original model without making major changes.

I do love that they recreated the original sounds of the ship -- essential to its character and charm.

ZEROKIRYU

Sunday, May 10, 2009 4:08 AM

Everything I loved about it has already been said here, so I'll just say that I agree.

I quite enjoyed it, and so did my grandad who's a big Trek fan from way back.

SEBA

Sunday, May 10, 2009 4:16 AM

Ultimately, though, I'll be happy with what I can get, like Serenity. Who'd have imagined that we'd be getting big-screen classic Star Trek again, with the "real" Star Trek crew set during their prime period?

ASARIAN

Sunday, May 10, 2009 4:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Seba:

Ebert got it right: "The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action."

True. But the Gene Roddenberry times didn't exactly spell 'wonder years,' either. At the surface there's the pretence, almost, of open exploration. But, throughout the years, I've been largely turned off by Gene Roddenberry's work, when one day I realized that, underneath, less benign forces are at work, most notably that of intolerance. Take Star Trek, TNG, for instance. At first, Captain Picard has a fond dislike of children. But gradually you see him shift to nice suburban conformity. And by the time 'Generations' aired, when Picard enters the Nexus, he has gone a full 180 on the matter: he's now living out a perfect white picket-fence, 2.4 children-loving dream. Don't get me wrong, I like children just fine. :) But I despise the subliminal intolerance of it all: there's no room to be different. That, sadly, was Gene Roddenberry's real message. And one which became insufferable in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, when Kirk flat-out tells Spock that everyone is human (!), a remark Spock finds rather insulting, and rightly so!

At least this new Star Trek flic breaks with that annoying Disney-style attempt to indoctrinate its viewers. Equality is very good. But greater than this even, I deem your right to be different. That, I believe, is the true Undiscovered Country: tolerance. And this Star Trek is definitely different. No more listening to Counselor Troi's pedantic psychobabble, or indulging Data in his witless exploration of humanity (now, come to think of it, there's a nauseating message of conformity if I ever saw one). This crew is hot (in all meanings of the word): they're a wild bunch; they rock; they're attractive (the women, at least; can't speak for the men). They're simply 'on.' And they are themselves, faults and all.

All-in-all, not discounting what Gene Roddenberry had done for us, but yes, maybe it's really time for his era of intolerance to die with the past.

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

NCBROWNCOAT

Sunday, May 10, 2009 4:23 AM

I saw it early this evening and really enjoyed it except for the quick cuts during the action sequences that have become standard in movies today. It made me want some dramamine.

Chris Pine did a good job and I agree if he'd mimicked Shat it would have been a farce. He reminded me of a young Brad Pitt, not tremendously good looking but still easy on the eyes.

The other actors lead by Zachery Quinto were marvelous. They invoked the classic characters without being clones of the originals.

I'm eagerly awaiting the Blu-Ray DVD so I can watch it again.

http://fireflyfaninnc.livejournal.com/

SEBA

Sunday, May 10, 2009 4:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by asarian:
True. But the Gene Roddenberry times didn't exactly spell 'wonder years,' either. At the surface there's the pretence, almost, of open exploration. But, throughout the years, I've been largely turned off by Gene Roddenberry's work, when one day I realized that, underneath, less benign forces are at work, most notably that of intolerance.

I was somewhat taken aback by your comments initially, but I think I see where you're going now. I don't believe that anyone would argue that Roddenberry did more, or tried to do more, than just about anyone to bring the notion of equality and tolerance to TV fiction in the matters of race or sex, but I can see that ideologies that deviated from those of Roddenberry or the utopian federation were probably less than favored, those sort of areas occupied by our beloved Browncoats.

Star Trek, in a away, sort of became the socialist's science fiction story while Firefly became the libertarian/anarchist alternative. I enjoy both series and think they tell stories from opposite perspectives that are worth telling and exploring, and I find it fascinating that they could easily exist in the same universe (well, if Firefly had aliens anyway).

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE