| Author |
 Topic  |
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
|
|
Conan The Westy 
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
 Posted - 05/05/2009 : 21:51:00
|
Gotta love the Onion.  |
 |
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 11:33:02
|
| I don't know... will I feel uncomfortable doing the Vulcan hand sign after this? I mean, people might get the wrong idea, you know? |
|
|
|
silly 
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
Posted - 05/06/2009 : 16:56:50
|
Here in America they are on the verge of outlawing handshakes (gotta stop the swine factory farm flu somehow) so the Vulcan thing may be what we all need to go to.
I can't wait. I may try and see a midnite show, even, something I haven't done since The Descent came out. |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 13:32:38
|
Just saw it and despite missing the first 5 minutes, really enjoyed it. Not only that I gave my dear wife the option of us both going to a chick flick (Ghosts of Girlfriends Past) and she chose the sci-fi offering. I truly married a pearl above price. 
|
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 14:02:51
|
OK good stuff first, because I always want something to be good, no matter how small.
So, big headline for - ta-da let's hear those trumpets! -
THE EFFECTS
Really, they are spectacular.  And, granted, I'm a total sucker for shots of nebulae and all that spacy stuff, don't care about accuracy just gimme more.
I managed to blag a seat for a trekkie pal as a treat. She totally loved it and said it was like meeting up with old friends. I'm glad she had a good time, I really am.
I am not now nor have ever been a trekkie so for me it was just a movie. Well, for me it was just a a bunch of boring  fillers between shots of spacy stuff, just gimme more. Boring characters portrayed by really blah actors - and no I don't think Chris Pine is a hunk - he looks like some gay bath-house twinkie with botox. As for Quinto, there's a way to interpret lack of emotion without acting like a chunk of granite. Of course, that would involve acting. Of which he ain't got it.
Ryder is what? 38 ... you L.A. beanbags have written her off already?! She's cast as Spock's mom with more wrinkles than I have!
The story is stupid and it's too boring to list all the anomalies and inconsistencies. The dialogue is risible. The action derivative. Harumph!
Earthlings will love this film and it will be a box-office wonderment. I'm off to the planet Cinema in the spacy stuff galaxy of the nebulae sector to lick my wounds.
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 18:50:48
|
Everybody can take a bow, J.J. Abrams in front of the line. I noticed some other TV people in the credits, including key members of the LOST crew.
After a tremendous pre-title sequence, it honors the old Trek without cramming it down your throat. Casting was dead-on throughout, especially Chris Pine, who managed to get inside Kirk without imitating Shatner [mostly], even though the character is used as a punching bag for most of the picture. Zachary Quinto can play Spock as long as he wants, so however the rest of his career goes, he'll always have that. Simon Pegg as Scotty was there for comic relief, and it he provided. Eric Bana is the growliest bad guy since Bad Hulk.
The story was simple enough to follow [except for one plot detail having to do with time, which threw me off, and I've been reading and editing sf a very long time]. What this picture brought was youth and energy, yet it was still fun to see one cast member from the original TV series. The important thing is that despite Baffy's professed unschooled nonchalance, it requires absolutely no Trek knowledge to resonate. What a great job by all concerned.
SPFX were up to ILM's usual quality, except that occasionally it was difficult to tell exactly where specific people or vessels were in relation to the conflict. One particularly icky creature leads us to that historic TV character.
I'm a fan of the original series and enjoyed the first two or three movies, up to and including the whales. Besides that, I've never watched any other TREK material, on TV or in the movies. I think this picture will do what was intended: it rejuvenates the franchise.
EDIT: Baffy, you've obviously never seen Quinto on HEROES either, or you wouldn't accuse him of lacking range. It's the part that holds fast to one note -- and besides, I saw a lot of stuff bubbling underneath! |
Edited by - randall on 05/08/2009 18:55:54 |
|
|
|
damalc 
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 19:10:47
|
it may not seem like fitting Mother's Day activity but i'll be in the theater for this on Sunday.
my mom is such a trekkie, she can identify shows from the original series seconds after hearing the obligatory: "Captain's log, stardate: ..."
they used to show re-runs from the original series on Sunday mornings and my sister (she's another story) would get almost fighting mad because we would always be late to church.
more later.
side note: it looks like sci-fi prequels are becoming the rage. think we'll be getting others? 2001? Alien? Blade Runner? Highlander? |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 19:28:02
|
dammy, I think your mom's gonna enjoy, big-time. If it's not too much trouble, please report back!
And, to your point, like BATMAN, I think the only way to re-start the franchise *is* to re-boot. I still don't understand how they worked the classic TV character into the story [I'm being coy only because I recognize not too many peeps have seen this one yet], but I let it go in the spirit of fun, as I predict most will. |
Edited by - randall on 05/08/2009 19:30:15 |
|
|
|
silly
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 20:20:41
|
Terminator: Salvation has it both ways. It's showing the end before the beginning. And also the beginning before the end. It's a post-apocalyptic prequel.
Time travel in movies, I don't care how important it is to the plot or how well explained, always messes with my head. I just have to kinda go with it. 
|
|
|
|
Cheese_Ed 
"The Provolone Ranger"
|
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 20:46:03
|
I'm in the Baffy camp. It's pretty.. and pretty lame.
I had zero interest or investment in any of these characters.
And the time thing is more than a minor distraction, it doesn't make any sense.
Sorry I returned to the theater after a year off for this. |
|
|
|
damalc
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 22:51:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by silly
Terminator: Salvation has it both ways. It's showing the end before the beginning. And also the beginning before the end. It's a post-apocalyptic prequel.
Time travel in movies, I don't care how important it is to the plot or how well explained, always messes with my head. I just have to kinda go with it.
i'm never satisfied with time-travel films. the possibilities with that capablity just leave me with more questions.
|
Edited by - damalc on 05/08/2009 22:57:38 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 07:22:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by randall
EDIT: Baffy, you've obviously never seen Quinto on HEROES either, or you wouldn't accuse him of lacking range. It's the part that holds fast to one note -- and besides, I saw a lot of stuff bubbling underneath!
Okay, I haven't seen this movie yet, but I do watch HEROES and know Quinto well. His character there is precisely the opposite of Spock - overly emotional to the point of insanity. He does do the controlled and then explosive rage pretty well. But, you must admit, it isn't the type of role that lets you stretch yourself too much as an actor.
The question with his Spock is, how well does he show the inner conflict between logic and emotion that he said he was trying to do with the part? His Sylar on Heroes should have helped him with this, somewhat. |
|
|
|
duh
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 15:37:45
|
First, baffy's comment filled me with dismay. Then I read Randall's, and am refilled with hopeful anticipation for when this film will be available on DVD.
I am a Trek fan, though not a "Trekkie." The only parts of the franchise that I haven't cared for were the very bad first film and the TV series 'Enterprise.' |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 05/09/2009 : 21:14:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cheese_Ed
And the time thing is more than a minor distraction, it doesn't make any sense.
A minor distraction to me because I hadn't had the time to think it through, and of course there was no professor at a blackboard during the film. I simply noted that it made my virtual horse buck a little and I couldn't discern every detail of the thru-explanation while I was sitting in the theater, but I trusted that there was one, and guess what: it turns out there is!
Re "doesn't make any sense": to the best of my -- and your -- knowledge, time travel is impossible, except the 24/hr/day forward-only kind. Reminds me of my friends who hate Broadway musicals because whenever the story stops to let someone sing, it's so unrealistic. Fair enough, but they have no problem when a "hobbit" puts on a "magic ring" that makes him frickin invisible...Peter Jackson made that as realistic as hell!
I'm not putting this stuff down. I love fantasy too. But once somebody travels through time, please quit looking for logic. Just listen to what the storyteller tells you, and see if you can buy it for the duration of the story. Maybe not. But "makes no sense" has to refer to the world s/he's set up before you, not what you already thought before you entered the theater. The STAR TREK time travel gag makes sense to me now within the context of the story: just as much, and no more, than [as?] "phasers" and "warp drive" do. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Star Trek
