Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Nessa on May 05, 2009, 03:44:12 PM
-
http://www.timewastersguide.com/review/1689/Star-Trek
-
Awesome review Nessa!
I'm looking forward to seeing this movie, being a big fan of J.J. and all. I'm pretty much in the minority for that though, but I've enjoyed almost everything he's done.
And what a cast! I'd see it just for Simon Pegg and Karl Urban, two of my favorite actors.
-
The Brothers Gibb reviewed it, I just post them. They also did the Battle for Terra and the State of Play reviews. They do a good job.
-
The Brothers Gibb reviewed it, I just post them. They also did the Battle for Terra and the State of Play reviews. They do a good job.
Hmm, well thank you for posting it and thumbs up to them for doing it. :)
I think I'm going to wait a week or two after it's released to see it. Just to let it die down a little before I go. :D
-
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film
-
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film
Ah the Onion. The one stop shop for all things witty and sarcastic. :)
They certainly hit the nail on the head though.
-
I am incredibly excited to see this movie on Friday. :D
Also, I love the Onion. That's good stuff.
-
LMAO, that review FTW
Anyone going to try to catch like a midnight showing of the movie on Thursday?
-
I have a friend who is going to try to come down from college on Friday. Probably gonna see it with him.
-
"Moving on now, an elderly black woman is still following President Obama around and shedding a single tear whenever he does anything"
Best quote of the year--LOL
I think I've got my new sig.
-
I lke the guy who was really disappointed that the story made sense. How dare they? I have got to go see this now.
-
I saw it today, and it was genuinely awesome. I loved every minute of it. There's a ton to like about it! Go see it good right away. This is a very, very good movie. I can't remember the last new movie that I enjoyed as much as this one.
-
Ya, I think it'll probably be the best movie they put out this year. Maybe Sylar will win the Oscar for best acting :D
In all seriousness though, I'd say it was easily the best Star Trek movie that's been made.
-
In fairness, Erik, it doesn't have much competition in that department.
Okay, yes, I just outed myself - I am emphatically NOT a Trek fan. And...I loved this movie. It succeeds brilliantly despite its heritage.
Even as someone who doesn't like Star Trek, I picked up most of the references and in-jokes, too. They're so much a part of our culture that I absorbed them by osmosis, just from being an American.
It also pointed out how truly awesome the Star Trek universe can be when they ditch all the campy stupidness.
Spoilers: (highlight to see)
I wish there was some effort to explain what the heck "red matter" is, beyond just "magic black-hole juice". I also wasn't clear on why they had to drill at all, let alone down to a planet's core, to destroy a planet with it. Seems like a black hole would be equally devastating on the surface as it would be at the core.
And...how could a supernova possibly threaten an entire galaxy? And how would turning the supernova into a black hole have saved the Romulan home world?
Yeah, there's still a lot of stupid crap in there. But there was enough pure awesomeness too that it hardly matters. :-)
-
As a movie, this was a tightly made, well directy brilliantly acted and technically super film. As a Star Trek major motion picture it sucked. Why? Simple, RetCon is made of a fierce kind of suck. It is simple bad business to alienated your core consumer group, in order to pick up a slightly larger consumer base. Never dump the repeat customer.
This was the same major screw up and business blunder that produced Highlander II. Again a good movie that should have been done as a stand alone instead of part of an existing franchise.
The only way they'll be able to keep making money with Trek, is if they have the sense to make a sequel that somehow restores the familiar time line.
And for the record, I'm not a trekkie either, although my ex is.
-
I went and saw it last night. I think it is an absolutely wonderful movie, aside from the few things that Ryos pointed out. Silly logic, it ruins everything.
Anyone else notice that Spok's eyebrow is pierced?
-
I have to disagree with Renoard. The old timeline was the way they stopped making money.
We just got back from the movie and loved it. Yeah, okay, there were a couple things that didn't make sense, but I can easily forgive them because of what else we got.
-
Well I'm just back from seeing it and I have to say it was brilliant. I'm not a fan of star trek, in fact I have always hated it but if this is the way star trek continues I will happily change my opinion.
-
OK, there were definitely some things that were silly. Scotty in the water—but those tubes were constructed of transparent aluminum purely for tensile strength, right? Monster on ice planet—that other monster was a better meal, and it chased for too long. Some other things nonsensical—this planet is in the Vulcan system? It should have had some Vulcans on it. The first thing you do when you go out from your planet is colonize your own star system—asteroid belts, moons, space stations, etc. There should be millions.
I can forgive the problems because so much was done so well. Also, becoming a fan of Stargate and a few other series that don't take themselves too seriously has made me more forgiving.
-
I absolutely love the Stargate series. SG-1 was the best, but Atlantis was good too.
-
I agree with the issues you cite Ookla, but there is another huge one. With Vulcans as gypsies with no home planet, the Federation is far less likely to survive. In fact some closer to the Empire of Earth is far more likely. That doesn't even begin to account for the fact that destroying Vulcan creates a huge shift in the balance of power such that Romulus and Kronos are both in good position to wipe Earth from the star map.
Why does any of that matter? Because it doesn't just mean a slight shift in history to allow more creativity. It means a completely different story with no possible link to anything that was done previously. In fact, trying to link into anything remotely resembling next gen, would cause so many problems it would just demand more unrestrained retcon ever few years. This is the thing that makes comics and "graphic novels" so hard for mainstream audiences to take seriously. As it spreads and Roddenberry's "Bible" is further ignored, the newly gained fans will walk away in disgust and they'll have already lost the die hard Trekkies.
-
Haven't seen it yet, but isn't it an alternate time-line? Since it is an alternate time-line, it doesn't have to match up with all of the crap that was put out a decade or more ago. In reality, doing an alternate "history" of Star Trek is a smart move considering that all of the previous series were filled with inconsistencies. You get to ignore all of the garbage movies that were commercial and critical flops and do your own thing. Now you get to see how these characters would react and grow in a new and exciting way in different circumstances. So yeah, the "Bible" doesn't really matter other than giving us a small reference point to say "Oh yeah, this is Star Trek."
Another thing to consider is the future life of the franchise. By making it younger, and by going alternate time-line, you get to start fresh and grab the attention of a new audience that will end up being the franchise's fiscal support over the next several decades. Realistically, the "core" group Star Trek followers isn't that high anymore. The big convention only has 10K people attend. If that core group of people won't make you any money (which it hadn't been doing for years), you need to get a bigger and fresher audience - and then you need to give them something new to chew on.
-
There is a little bit of retconning, but it's mostly an alternate history due to time travel, and that's something that happens in Star Trek all the time. There is no reason to force it to link up to the old Star Trek universe, because it's not the old Star Trek universe.
I think you're overestimating the military importance of Vulcans in the Federation. They were never a huge influence on the balance of power. And if you look at it another way, having Future Spock there can put the Federation decades ahead of where it was supposed to be scientifically, so there goes your power shift.
Look, I was a diehard Trekker. And I died hard because of exactly what Bookstore Guy said. The previous series were filled with inconsistencies. I stopped watching Star Trek regularly when Janeway and Paris went past Warp 10 and mutated into amphibians and had little amphibians. That was absolute garbage and ignored that people went past Warp 10 several times earlier in the series.
Star Trek already lost almost all of its diehard fans. Have you looked in a bookstore recently and seen how the shelf of Star Trek books compares in size to the shelf of Star Wars books and to what the multiple shelves of Star Trek books used to look like 10 years ago? There is next to nothing nowadays. The fandom has significantly dried up. It is time for something new. This movie is giving us what we all want, Star Trek that doesn't suck.
-
Look, I was a diehard Trekker. And I died hard because of exactly what Bookstore Guy said.
that was quite clever, Ookla, I applaud you. also the fact that you said Trekker confirms your past diehard-ness.
another thing this does is give the series future potential. i was reading an article that talked about Kahn in this alternate universe. how might he be changed? how might the Kahn vs Kirk relationship change? for once, Star Trek will not be limited by the absurdities of the past series and movies.
now the "boldly go where no man has gone before" statement actually MEANS something.
-
As for that, it meant something when each of those series were created.
-
But it felt like lip-service to me. Now I am excited by a blank future free of stereotypes.
-
Hey, I loved the original Star Trek and Next Gen, and I think they meant it when they said that line. And remember that they're still part of the history of the new alternate universe, through Spock who came from far in the future.
It's not a blank slate because it's an alternate universe. It's the kind of alternate universe that's a divergent timeline. The starting point still stands the same.
I do hope they can avoid the absurdities though.
-
exactly. PART of the history. i was a big fan of TNG also - the TV series anyway. i didn't care for DS9 or Voyager (ack) or Enterprise. I think those series lost the wonder we felt with the first series and TNG. as an alternate time-line, they get to conveniently pick and choose their future direction. yay for no Voyage Home. i just love that they have given themselves a ton of freedom to alter the general public perceptions of the franchise. Personally, I would love to see the galaxy a bit more war-torn. a little grittier if you get my meaning.
-
Well I like the idea for that grittier universe, but the only attempts that were ever made at it were Space 1999 (talk about ridiculous pseudo science) and that series, I can't remember the name. That was a take off or starship troupers. Thing is both bombed. The average viewer likes the pap-and-pulp approach that Roddenbury and Blish initiated. Why else would 2.5 Men make me smile so often?
Come to think of it, even Babylon 5 was a warmed over Trek format. Sort of DS9 meets Blade Runner. Now there's an idea. A Blade runner series. Oh yeah they did one in South Africa and the Sci Fi killed it. Notice how any show that promotes rugged individualists who sucessfully fight big government and loss of Civil Rights gets canceled?
And you call Dystopia fiction. pshaw!
:D
-
Renoard, you need to watch the new Battlestar Galactica (well, "new" isn't super accurate anymore, now that the series ended). It's existence, quality, and popularity are the best answer to every critique you've leveled at SF throughout this thread.
By the way, I just saw the new Trek and I loved it. It was wildly, almost painfully faithful to all the Star Trek stories that have gone before, and yet at the same time threw all of that out and started over. I was really kind of stunned at how good it was, and how well it did what it needed to do. I can't wait to see what they do next.
-
Fell,
I love Scifi (Sci Fi as in the overcommercialized and under critical network), but TV has never produced very much in the way of Sci Fi. Hollywood thinks that Sci Fantasy, like Trek with the mythical particle for every occasion. Again I like Sci Fantasy, but you can only take so much of the same thing. Now, Galatica was grittier than some, and the acting was superb. But they made their share of errors. They did fall prey to many of the same mistakes I cited.
The big question, What is Kara Thrace, was never answered. The whole issue of biological or machine on the android Cylons, they contradicted themselves from one episode to the next.
Somehow, while ships need to make short extra-spacial "jumps" to get from one sector to the next, the core dump of a Cylon can get to the resurrection ship without a jump engine. Noone can get things perfect, I wouldn't expect them to. But they really did a submachine gun to fire the magic bullets, much like Bab5 and Star Trek did.
It was a good series, however.
-
I was referring more to the public reception than to the science, but I'm pretty sure we're talking about different things by now. Don't worry about it.
-
Ah, yeah I did misinterpret where you were going. Public reception of Galatica was good, indeed. Course counting Syndication, Trek is the series everyone loves to scorn, but noone is unaware of.
-
Personally, I don't see how changing the timeline is going to screw things up really. There aren't ever going to be any other Next Gen movies, Voyager Movies, or DS9 Movies, so for me, the old history doesn't matter.
The history was screwed up, wrong and bad anyway. They were forced to redo the history all of the time, I mean, didn't Kahn take over in like 1990?
We'll probably end up getting another 2 or 3 Star Trek movies with these actors, then they'll trying something else.
-
I suppose I'm just too simplistic as to see the implications but I see no problem with the alternate reality. It doesn't negate the other timeline, it exists alongside it as I'm sure millions upon millions of other realities do. I'm really excited to see what new adventures take place! I watched Star Trek 3 times and it jumped to my second favorite movie after I saw it the first time ;D
-
My biggest problem with this movie was Uhura kissing Spock. Ick, ick, ew. And she did it in the creepiest way possible. "Oh, Spock, now that you're emotionally vulnerable from having your mother die right before your eyes, let me steal a smooch."
-
My biggest problem with this movie was Uhura kissing Spock. Ick, ick, ew. And she did it in the creepiest way possible. "Oh, Spock, now that you're emotionally vulnerable from having your mother die right before your eyes, let me steal a smooch."
I'm pretty sure they were already dating, and she was trying to comfort him. At least, that's how I took it.
-
That's how I took it as well, especially after one of the scenes before it when he mentions he didn't want to assign her to Enterprise because it might be mistaken for favoritism.
-
Sygy's take that it was predatory, "this is my man," and yours that it had president seem both to be true. They were dating, and she took that moment to further undermine his emotional state by introducing sexuality into a battle, and his grief."
-
I'm with ryos. I don't think there was anything manipulative in her intent.
-
I'm going to run a Star Trek themed Mafia game now! I love this movie ;D
-
I love it too! It's in the cheap theatre's now in Rexburg, so it only costs 2 or 3 dollars depending on what night you go. I really wanted to go last night, but none of roommates wanted to see it....It was very sad, and it was the same thing tonight....They're apparently not Trek fans, which I wasn't either until this movie. It won me over. I love it SO much...
-
The whole Uhura/Spock thing did take some getting used to ...
I thought Zachary Quinto did a great job though. The acting all around was good; especially liked Simon Pegg as Scotty. Prompted me to go out and rent "Run Fat Boy, Run", a fun little British indie (?) flick staring him, Hank Azaria, and Thandie Newton.
-
So I am going to necro this thread because I finally saw the movie last night. It was good, and I loved every minute of it, except for that one pesky logic flaw... I'm surprised nobody has pointed it out yet. Right before the crew launches the assault on the romulans near the end, they are planning on the bridge, and then Spock says, "I will go aboard and attempt to steal back the red matter . . ."
How did Spock know the red matter was stolen? He knew nothing about the technology, didn't know it was federation, didn't know it was brought back in time, especially didn't know it was stolen; he didn't know anything about it (as evidenced by his comments when he boarded the vessel with Kirk later). I'm okay with hokey technology and suspended disbelief, but logic flaws in movies bug me.
-
cynic, I noticed that too. there were a few other small, but egregious, logic flaws in it as well. But all in all, I appreciated the movie alot more than I expected to. Frankly, as a long long long time Star Trek fan, I thought the movie would out and out stink. And I am now looking forward to the sequel.
-
I saw this about a week ago. It marks the first time I've ever been particularly interested in Star Trek, though I've seen several Next Generation Episodes, lots of Voyageur, the occasional OST and DSN and several of the films.
So, I liked the film. I think it's an improvement, generally, in the franchise. I've actually started going through and watching OST because the new film has finally piqued my curiosity somewhat.