| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 05/12/2009 : 16:11:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by silly
Okay, I think I get what you're saying now.
Inconsistencies within the film itself; not just that this film takes liberty with 23rd century science as we will know it. 
Maybe it's just eddys in the space-time continuum?
Eddy's caught in the space-time continuum?  Hey, someone call Eddy's mom!
|
 |
|
|
RockGolf 
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 16:51:14
|
| What's that, Lassie? Eddy's fallen into a black hole? |
|
|
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
|
Posted - 05/14/2009 : 11:39:48
|
Spoilers!!
Pah!! The time travel thing was a little silly and i don't know enough of Kirk's childhood to realise what was different there so it was very nice of (old) Spock to fill us in that Kirk has always talkied highly of him.
So a question, do they have to go around and basically Trek encountering their old foes, i.e. the Tribbles and Khan etc.?
And if they do why don't they just give (old) Spock a call and ask him how to deal with it?
Doesn't this make their life so much easier?
OK Time quibbles over with.
I loved the movie, the leads were great especially Karl Urban who was perfect as Dr. McCoy.
"I don't need a Doctor, I am a Doctor!"
It was funny, exciting, spectacular, and yes a little complicated.
A lovely touch that the third character (Olsen?) who goes parachuting with Sulu and Kirk is pretty much head to toe in red thus sealing his fate.
All good fun.
|
|
|
|
Chris C
"Four words, never backwards."
|
Posted - 05/17/2009 : 17:52:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
I liked it a lot. I've got nothing to explain: I liked it a whole lot. 
Me too, and Mrs C and babybear. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 05/28/2009 : 17:13:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cheese_Ed
quote:
Originally posted by randall
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.
Agreed, and there are probably a hundred different justifications that people have written about the time travel in this movie, so I haven't done any homework on it. But it seems to me that the time travel in this film flies in the face of the nature of time travel as it was already established in the Star Trek universe. This whole alternate universe thing bothers me, probably because it feels like a simple means of getting a re-boot and endless sequels to line the pockets. They could have just have easily made a true prequel, but then they couldn't add all the titilation - like Spock humping Uhura across the galaxy. To me a re-boot devalues all the great (and mediocre) work that has gone into the Trek timeline as we know it.
Thoughts on having a similar conversation with a friend who just now saw STAR TREK:
It's interesting, and somewhat dismaying, when you learn the rather prosaic origins of your major memories. Not just Santa or the Easter Bunny, but also "Kryptonite" [radio's Superman, Bud Collyer, demanded a vacation, but the show was so popular that the producers couldn't bear to turn the money spigot off: hence, "Supes" was trapped by this new stuff and could only emit groans for a couple weeks until Collyer returned] and "transporters" [STAR TREK couldn't afford the visual fx for spaceship landings on different planets every week, so it paid for just one optical effect that could be used over and over again]. |
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 05/29/2009 : 10:32:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cheese_Ed
Agreed, and there are probably a hundred different justifications that people have written about the time travel in this movie, so I haven't done any homework on it. But it seems to me that the time travel in this film flies in the face of the nature of time travel as it was already established in the Star Trek universe. This whole alternate universe thing bothers me, probably because it feels like a simple means of getting a re-boot and endless sequels to line the pockets.
Not sure where I get this from (probably that TNG episode where Data's head turns up in an excavation in San Fran), but I always thought the Star Trek theory on time travel was that changing the past would affect the future you came from. If this is the case then I don't see the new film as going against this- it's kicked off an alternative future rather than some theory of multi-verses or something.
Whilst I don't like the idea of rewriting Trek history, if it has to be done I think this is probably the most respectful (and clever) way they could have gone about it, especially as it's the original Spock that's largely responsible for the change happening.
quote:
They could have just have easily made a true prequel, but then they couldn't add all the titilation - like Spock humping Uhura across the galaxy. To me a re-boot devalues all the great (and mediocre) work that has gone into the Trek timeline as we know it.
Unfortunately, they've already kind of tried a prequel- Enterprise... and it died on it's arse, being the only series (original aside) not to make it to the syndication-friendly 7 seasons. I don't think you can blame studio heads for thinking they should try a different tack. I'd rather have alternate future Trek (and it being with J J Abrams is the icing and the cherry and the sprinkles on the cake) than no Trek at all, which is where it was looked to be headed. |
|
|
|
Cheese_Ed
"The Provolone Ranger"
|
Posted - 05/29/2009 : 19:06:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Not sure where I get this from (probably that TNG episode where Data's head turns up in an excavation in San Fran), but I always thought the Star Trek theory on time travel was that changing the past would affect the future you came from. If this is the case then I don't see the new film as going against this- it's kicked off an alternative future rather than some theory of multi-verses or something.
So this isn't just an alternate timeline, it is now THE timeline? Then how does old Spock have a memory of how things were different when he was young? If your theory is correct it really drives my point home about shitting on Trek history. Abrams isn't saying look at what could have been, he's saying screw Roddenberry, I'm going to do it right this time with 100% more CGI aliens, jokes, sexy time, lens flare, canyons in Iowa, and warp speed transport.
quote:
Whilst I don't like the idea of rewriting Trek history, if it has to be done ...
It didn't HAVE to be done, though.
quote:
Unfortunately, they've already kind of tried a prequel- Enterprise... and it died on it's arse, being the only series (original aside) not to make it to the syndication-friendly 7 seasons. I don't think you can blame studio heads for thinking they should try a different tack. I'd rather have alternate future Trek (and it being with J J Abrams is the icing and the cherry and the sprinkles on the cake) than no Trek at all, which is where it was looked to be headed.
I mean a Spock, Kirk, etc. prequel. Never watched it, but I assume they played no part. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 06/02/2009 : 01:57:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cheese_Ed
If your theory is correct it really drives my point home about shitting on Trek history. Abrams isn't saying look at what could have been, he's saying screw Roddenberry, I'm going to do it right this time with 100% more CGI aliens, jokes, sexy time, lens flare, canyons in Iowa, and warp speed transport.
I could be wrong here but wasn't the original Star Trek largely about Kirk schtupping his way around the universe? The "sexy time" thing is no more Abrams than it is Roddenberry, albeit more flesh in this day and age. Also I'm presuming the only reason the TV series didn't use CGI was because they didn't have the time/ budget/ technology to do it then- the effects on the TV shows were still pretty cutting edge for their time however. Fair point about the jokes though- I didn't like how they seem to be making Scotty this comedy character with a wacky alien sidekick.
quote:
quote:
Whilst I don't like the idea of rewriting Trek history, if it has to be done ...
It didn't HAVE to be done, though.
It's impossible to say one way or another on this. Would another Star Trek film that stuck to Trek lore have pulled in the punters like this has? Going off the depreciating number on the previous installments it's tempting to say not but we'll never know really.
quote:
quote:
Unfortunately, they've already kind of tried a prequel- Enterprise... and it died on it's arse, being the only series (original aside) not to make it to the syndication-friendly 7 seasons. I don't think you can blame studio heads for thinking they should try a different tack. I'd rather have alternate future Trek (and it being with J J Abrams is the icing and the cherry and the sprinkles on the cake) than no Trek at all, which is where it was looked to be headed.
I mean a Spock, Kirk, etc. prequel. Never watched it, but I assume they played no part.
Well, it was kind of the prequel to Kirk and co. so this was like the absolute prequel if you will.
I don't know- I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that moving forwards in the classic Trek timeline wasn't getting the audiences in and neither was moving backwards. So they went sideways instead and it seems to have largely worked... whether those of us who fondly remember the previous films and TV series like it or not. |
|
|
|
Wheelz
"FWFR%u2019ing like it%u2019s 1999"
|
Posted - 06/15/2009 : 14:25:19
|
Finally got to see it this weekend... LOVED IT! So did Mrs. Wheelz.
I don't really get all the complaints about "altering the Star Trek universe" and what not. All those TOS episodes and original-cast movies are still there, whenever you want to watch them. They haven't changed. This film features different actors playing the same characters, and so what? Just look at Batman, James Bond, Superman... Those characters are just as iconic as Kirk and Spock, and there's never been all this righteous indignation over recasting those roles. You may prefer Keaton over Bale, Connery over Craig, Reeve over Routh, or Shatner over Pine, and I won't argue with you. But I would argue if you tried to tell me that nobody was allowed to play Batman after Adam West.
As for the admittedly silly time-travel bit and the implausible coincidences... My feeling is that if you're picking apart a movie - any movie - over stuff like that, it just means that you weren't engaged enough in the story and characters to let it go and enjoy the ride. So that makes it a valid criticism, I suppose, but one I don't happen to agree with in this case. I was totally into the film the whole way, so I was able to buy what it was selling and get on with enjoying it. Which I did.
|
|
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 01:08:18
|
Another nod to the negative from me I'm afraid. I just thought it was... boring. That must be the worst thing a summer blockbuster can be, surely? I'm not a huge Trek fan - although I did watch a lot of the Next Generation when I was a teenager and enjoyed that cast a lot. I'm of the mind that Terminator 4 was heaps more enjoyable than this - I certainly didn't expect that.
I had issues with the way the story was going from early on; and was bothered that all the major characters had stepped exactly into their established roles in two seconds flat even though they were all fresh out of the academy (I get the reason why - just thought it was lazy writing). The time travel/alternate universe stuff was disappointing as well - as if someone couldn't have come up with a decent screenplay that just allowed the characters to develop without messing around with past and future and alternate versions of characters. It all felt forced and redundant. Nimoy was a touch of class though in an otherwise underpar acted film.
I didn't feel like the cast brought much to the table at all - everyone was two dimensional thanks to a really really lousy script depemding too much on existing knowledge. Chris Pine wasn't good or interesting enough to lead the movie, Quinto is a good actor but generally only had one job to do - get really angry once in two hours and that was about it, Karl Urban was a waste of time (and on the bridge an extraordinary amount of time for a chief medical officer), Pegg was there for the laughs and... wasn't funny at all. I like Bruce Greenwood in most things, so he was fine, Winona Ryder and Ben Cross were a bit embarrassing, ditto Eric Bana (talk about a rollercoaster career - he's done shit to great and back again several times over).
I had the feeling the fairly full screening I saw it with felt much the same way as I did - every in joke, quote and past reference was met with relative indifference. I got a lot of the references, I just didn't enjoy them. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 06/17/2009 : 01:47:35
|
Star Trek
I found it much better than I would have expected (except that I had heard of good reviews). It was weeks ago and I still feel satisfied.
The characters were lovingly matched (physically and in terms of personalities) but not caricatured. (I'm not a Star Trek fan, but have seen plenty over the years.) The time thing worked for me very well -- I thought it was a highly satisfactory method of rebooting. It wasn't presented as clearly as it might have been but I found it coherent.
On the downside, I tend to zone out in fight scenes, especially if vehicles are involved. I cannot tell what is where or on which side. The ones here were no better or worse than equivalent ones.
I may have to remove one of my reviews, as I now don't agree with the sentiment behind it. 5/5 |
|
|
|
rabid kazook 
"Pushing the antelope"
|
Posted - 06/19/2009 : 20:46:51
|
I got late to the screening on purpose to ditch the (usually cliche) protagonist's "growing up" plot, and from
about the bar brawl (when I got in) to the ice planet I had a tremendously brilliant time. It was a "wow" to "woooow, so mesmerizingly woooow! And wow to that!
Then it was rather obvious that after the "ice planet" they were just planning " to shut the movie down" with all really impactful stuff done (- your usual "last third"), so I was caught up with the usual "please, please, please--- lazy writers don't mess it more, mess it, it, it, more, it... " It could have been a nicer sight of a last third. Nonetheless it was one of the best experiences in the filmouting.
I really wish I could make such a movie, design and mastermind the visuals, effects, sounds in it... the writing I could probably do better, though.
On my return home, I was caught in the thoughts of this theory that this shifty movie basically took the similary monumental action, effects, music, etc. of Star Wars movies, and at the end it didn't really matter if the characters were Enterprise spaceship crew, Vulcans, Romulans or of any other sci-fi universe - it could've been a "Dune" universe and it would have been still (with these kind of movie-making) a really brilliant experience of a movie.
You probably sense that I'm not a fan of Star Trek per se. I found it always slow, always short of "giving a real experience". For me this movie had it better.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Star Trek
