You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Star Trek *Possible Spoilers*

Posted: Fri, 8th May 2009, 2:20am

Post 1 of 134

Joecool1081

Force: 460 | Joined: 7th Oct 2006 | Posts: 221

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

Ok i just got back from an early showing of Star Trek and I have to say I thought it was amazing. The cast was perfect, and the special effects were incredible as well. J.J Abrams really knows how to make a great Star Trek film. If you have any questions about the movie just let me know and ill try to fill you in.
Posted: Fri, 8th May 2009, 2:48am

Post 2 of 134

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Actors were indeed PERFECT. Incredible acting all around.

Cinematography and special effects were off the freaking chart. Incredible work.

Music was genius. Just genius.

The story manages the impossible task of captivating both old fans and new ones, and brings everything into the new millennium while still feeling like Star Trek.


Quite possibly the best remake ever.
Posted: Fri, 8th May 2009, 3:29am

Post 3 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Completely agreed. Best movie of the year. No 'thus far' connotation; because my confidence in the movie's strength makes me doubt I'll find another as good as it in 2009.

The casting in particular came of as the greatest strength- but in, I can't really believe I'm saying this, a movie without any (at least noticeable) faults. Karl Urban does a fantastic job, yeah, but where the most weight is laid- and what came off the strongest to me- was Kirk and Spock and the relationship they built. In attempting to do the impossible- interject quasi-philosophical, time-traveling paradoxes to explain their friendship and create it out of loathing- the movie miraculously succeeds.

Nothing bad to say about this movie. Period.

Thrilling, humorous, and expertly, beautifully-executed in every field imaginable; be it cinematography, editing, acting, directing, production design, or composing (And my god...the music!)

It all worked in perfect harmony. I'd say more, but I'm still catching my breath and scratching my head; reeling my memory to see if I've ever seen a movie this genuinely fun and flawless whilst gasping for air. The film is absolutely breathtaking; quite literally.

As for other movies? None immediately come to memory. An easy addition to my top ten favorite movies of all time and sure to make it into the IMDb top 250. In its genre it excels, as a Star Trek film it excels, and even as a basic movie it reaches unexpected and jaw-dropping levels.

Forget Iron Man comparisons, forget The Dark Knight 'masterpiece' hype. No, Star Trek is something much more elevated. The blockbusters of 2008 pale in-comparison to this. Dare I say it: much better than the latter.

I say this rarely- very rarely: This movie is a modern masterpiece. Go see it immediately; then immediately again.

15/10 FIRE EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!
Posted: Fri, 8th May 2009, 3:34am

Post 4 of 134

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Atom...what happened to your avatar?

Haven't seen the movie yet, but these raving accounts make me want to see it again. A few nights ago, I saw Generations and it was total crap. So right now my view of Star Trek is a bit negative. Nevertheless, I want to see this movie.
Posted: Fri, 8th May 2009, 3:34am

Post 5 of 134

Joecool1081

Force: 460 | Joined: 7th Oct 2006 | Posts: 221

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Completely agreed. Best movie of the year. No 'thus far' connotation; because my confidence in the movie's strength makes me doubt I'll find another as good as it in 2009.

The casting in particular came of as the greatest strength- but in, I can't really believe I'm saying this, a movie without any (at least noticeable) faults. Karl Urban does a fantastic job, yeah, but where the most weight is laid- and what came off the strongest to me- was Kirk and Spock and the relationship they built. In attempting to do the impossible- interject quasi-philosophical, time-traveling paradoxes to explain their friendship and create it out of loathing- the movie miraculously succeeds.

Nothing bad to say about this movie. Period.

Thrilling, humorous, and expertly, beautifully-executed in every field imaginable; be it cinematography, editing, acting, directing, production design, or composing (And my god...the music!)

It all worked in perfect harmony. I'd say more, but I'm still catching my breath and scratching my head; reeling my memory to see if I've ever seen a movie this genuinely fun and flawless.

None immediately come to memory. An easy addition to my top ten favorite movies of all time and sure to make it into the IMDb top 250. In its genre it excels, as a Star Trek film it excels, and even as a basic movie it reaches unexpected and jaw-dropping levels.

Forget Iron Man comparisons, forget The Dark Knight 'masterpiece' hype. No, Star Trek is something much more elevated. Dare I say it: much better than the latter.

I say this rarely- very rarely: This movie is a modern masterpiece. Go see it immediately; then immediately again.

15/10
I agree with everything in this review you put in here, and the spock and kirk relationship was probably one of my favorite parts of the movie. Also i thought that Eric Bana as the villain Nero was awesome he really played it well, idk just some of the one liners that he had like when he wells "Fire Everything!!" it kinda gave me chills.
Posted: Fri, 8th May 2009, 3:57am

Post 6 of 134

The Strider

Force: 493 | Joined: 27th Jan 2008 | Posts: 230

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

It's as good as 'Star Wars' and 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'.

I. Kid. You. Not.
Posted: Fri, 8th May 2009, 5:11am

Post 7 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Absolutely, yeah. Eric Bana is a genuinely scary- but reality-grounded villain. He's menacing, but he's got weakness and a humorous edge to him. Very intriguing, convincing, and mysterious character; played by an almost unrecognizable but top-of-his-game Bana.

Nero was a great villain, and it really adds to the genius of the casting. No one character or actor completely overshadows another in the way of their caliber of acting. Instead, there's a sharp, witty edge that all of the actors deliver their lines on with equal tact, humor, gravitas, and brevity when necessary.

Terrific acting- I'd call it the standout of the movie- probably a surprise to people who think the likes of such 'young', pretty-boy actors can't act. But I won't call it the standout- this movie is too flawless, too equally-excellent in every department to warrant that.

And Richard III; what about my avatar? It hasn't changed in quite a while.
Posted: Fri, 8th May 2009, 8:06am

Post 8 of 134

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

So is Nero's character more interesting than just a silly "FIRE EVERYTHING!" type loon? Does he, in fact, turn out to be a "FIRE EVERYTHING, but carefully, and in a strategic manner" character, as Aculag posited?

I'm off to see it Sunday. Woot!
Posted: Fri, 8th May 2009, 11:52am

Post 9 of 134

Joecool1081

Force: 460 | Joined: 7th Oct 2006 | Posts: 221

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

So is Nero's character more interesting than just a silly "FIRE EVERYTHING!" type loon? Does he, in fact, turn out to be a "FIRE EVERYTHING, but carefully, and in a strategic manner" character, as Aculag posited?

I'm off to see it Sunday. Woot!
Haha yes his character is more interesting then a Fire Everything loon, i was just saying that was a cool line that he said in the movie
Posted: Fri, 8th May 2009, 4:12pm

Post 10 of 134

Riese

Force: 891 | Joined: 24th Feb 2002 | Posts: 199

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I saw it last night. Man what a great movie. Before going in I was a little speculative of the characters. But man was it good. Everything just blended together and the story was really good. The one thing that really did it for me was the character development and relationship development that they were able to concentrate on. This added so much more to the movie for me. Im going to hold off in proclaiming it the best movie of the summer. Although the bar has now been set really really high. I do want to know if they plan on making another with this same cast?
Posted: Fri, 8th May 2009, 7:43pm

Post 11 of 134

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Wow dude! Really freaking wow!
Everything... I mean everything about this flick rocked.
I like the alternate reality thing because they pretty much hit the reset button and get to start over with new adventures. I really dig how they worked Captain Pike into the story. Awesome flick guys. Really awesome flick.
Posted: Fri, 8th May 2009, 10:00pm

Post 12 of 134

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

So is Nero's character more interesting than just a silly "FIRE EVERYTHING!" type loon? Does he, in fact, turn out to be a "FIRE EVERYTHING, but carefully, and in a strategic manner" character, as Aculag posited?

I'm off to see it Sunday. Woot!
Well, he's crazy, but he has a reason to be. He's not, like, Q or anything. His strength comes from his future technology advantage, not so much his wits. I thought the FIRE EVERYTHING line was actually well used.
Posted: Fri, 8th May 2009, 10:34pm

Post 13 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The "FIRE EVERYTHING!" line was one of my favorite parts of the movie and I think the greatest addition to the trailer. But I've always said this. It's my ringtone and my sig, after all. smile

Particularly, yelling it in a desperate, angered voice made him appear less loony and more grounded; realistic. On the edge of things, he has the emotion Spock and Kirk ironically talk about: Fear. Nero becomes the shouting-and-spouting-everything villain only once he's become afraid; an emotion you don't always see mid-movie with bad guys. He wasn't completely civil, but he wasn't a complete oaf or brute- he was a person who knew where he had strength and played into it- like any other man would do.

And even more genius, because he was willing to 'go there', he could. I really bought it. Not a king, not a terrorist- just a makeshift captain of a mining ship. I really loved his character. He spoke formally at some points, saying "Hello, Christopher, how are you?" to Captain Pike in a very sly way; but at other points gave off a real mystique that made him unpredictable and scary.

And the mouth-full-of-cereal accent only really added to this. A terrific villain only as complex as required- but exceedingly satisfying and successful in the role. Bravo to Eric Bana, he plays a great baddie.
Posted: Sat, 9th May 2009, 12:11am

Post 14 of 134

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Going to see this in a couple of hours. Very much looking forward to it.
Posted: Sat, 9th May 2009, 12:51am

Post 15 of 134

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Greatest movie I have seen in a long, long time. From the opening second of the film, when we hear the familiar "pinging" sounds of a starship bridge, I was in heaven. The opening scene was outstanding... I even shed a tear at some point during the epic-ness of it all. Acting, music, effects... everything about this movie is perfect. Somehow, Abrams did the impossible in making Star Trek relevant to everyone, while staying true to everything that's come before. Brilliant.

The cast is outstanding... Chris Pine is awesome as Kirk, Zachary Quinto is different, but equally awesome as Spock, and Karl Urban just nails McCoy. He's definitely the strongest of the bunch. Sulu and Chekov are good, but they're the weakest. They may have used the Chekov accent joke a little too much, but seriously, everyone's perfect in their roles. Can't wait to see more of them.

The character development! I love the Kirk/Spock relationship. It's the core of the movie, and it's great to see how their friendship begins (at least, the way it begins in this alternate timeline). It was a great idea to have him struggle with his human/vulcan emotions, that culminated with him snapping, and attacking Kirk on the bridge.

Leonard Nimoy anchors the movie. I think the whole "alternate reality" is a genius idea, but the inclusion of Nimoy provides the perfect connection between old and new... I almost cried when he was introduced. And you've gotta love Kirk's reaction to him when they first meet.

There are so many smart in-jokes and tributes to the show, and movies. McCoy's "Dammit Jim!", Spock's "fascinating", etc. My favorite touch has to be Kirk munching on the apple as he cheats his way through the Kobyashi Maru test, just like did in the Genesis cave in "Khan" as he says "I don't like to lose".

Alright, I'm just incoherently rambling on here. I'll have my formal review up later... after I see it again and have time to settle my mind.

Right now though, I have to say it's definitely one of my favorite movies of all time, right up there with Star Wars. As a Star Trek movie, I'm not sure it beats Wrath of Khan... well... I guess it does.

Wow. That's all I can say. Since it's a reboot, I wasn't expecting anything close to what I just saw. Wow.

Atom wrote:

Go see it immediately; then immediately again.
Will do. Your first post is pretty much exactly what I would have said, but you beat me to it. And it is better than The Dark Knight. smile
Posted: Sat, 9th May 2009, 5:12am

Post 16 of 134

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Yep. Pretty great flick. I didn't think it was as flawless as Atom did, but that's to be expected.

Overall I was very entertained, and it's definitely the best Star Trek film in a LONG time.
Posted: Sat, 9th May 2009, 5:29am

Post 17 of 134

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Yeah definitely not perfect, as Atom states, but a damn fine ride. One of the best pure summer thrill rides I can remember in a long time.

I came out of the theater and couldn't keep from smiling. F**cking brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. No film has made me want to be a main character since... I can't even remember when. Maybe Spiderman (original one).

I will say, however, that Leonard Nemoy was definitely overused in this movie. He should have had just the one scene, maybe two. No more. It seemed too self referential and silly to me. ESPECIALLY his closing narration. Likewise, Eric Bana was not used ENOUGH. Gah his character was very good, they just didn't flesh him out well enough for me to find him truly menacing.
Posted: Sat, 9th May 2009, 6:29am

Post 18 of 134

Jrad

Force: 230 | Joined: 30th Apr 2005 | Posts: 478

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

This movie was defiantly a no holds barred adrenaline fueled thrill ride. Not once was I bored in the movie, and I got to see it in Imax too wink
Posted: Sat, 9th May 2009, 2:40pm

Post 19 of 134

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

I will say, however, that Leonard Nemoy was definitely overused in this movie. He should have had just the one scene, maybe two. No more. It seemed too self referential and silly to me. ESPECIALLY his closing narration. Likewise, Eric Bana was not used ENOUGH. Gah his character was very good, they just didn't flesh him out well enough for me to find him truly menacing.
Sorry... but you can never, ever overuse Leonard Nimoy. smile I think he was used perfectly... I love how it wasn't just a cameo, and that he had a major role in the story. Like I said, I think he keeps it from being a straight up reboot, showing that they are still faithful to the old Star Trek universe.

I think Eric Bana was used just right. He is a good villain... not as "smart" as past Trek villains, but he's just a normal guy where he came from. It's good they didn't feature him too much, because they needed to keep the attention on the the rest of the characters. It's their movie.
Posted: Sat, 9th May 2009, 11:33pm

Post 20 of 134

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Went to see it with a couple of friends tonight and we very much agreed that the film was exactly what the trailer made it out to be.

It's flashy, it's loud, it's hyperactive, it's fast, it's modern, it's in-your-face and dumbed down action without much charm, character or intelligence.
It does exactly what it set out to do. It dumbs down Star Trek for todays blockbuster generation in order to appeal to a wider audience, pumps up the production value and leaves out the heart and even more so, the mind of the series and it's exactly the film I would expect someone who isn't a Star Trek fan to make - and I bet it will be successful in it's task. It's also exactly the "story", if I'll be so bold as calling it that, a writer of the groundbreakingly intelligent Transformers screenplay would write.

There were things to like in this. Namely the fact that it was about time that Star Trek was given the money to properly produce a sci fi universe. The film was produced very nicely. I also really liked Karl Urban as McCoy, he appeared to be the only character in this movie that actually had some sort of character and the only one I liked really.
I also liked what Giacchino did with the music. But honestly, that's about it.

The worst thing was the ever-so-present hyperactive wobblycam. But, you need that today apparently, todays generation needs hypertension in order to not fall asleep or be bored I presume. The film had practically no story, it had a series of action scenes and sadly, left no room for real emotion or breath. The villain was hollow, the relationships meant nothing.
Which is the most shame as even weaker Star Trek movies do have stories with some interesting ethical or political dilemmas (like "insurrection"). This one didn't. It's an action film with the minimum of character and humour, nothing more, but also nothing less.

I have little doubt it will be one of the most financially successful Star Trek films though for me, it's one of the weakest entries to the series and makes me long for a more worthy end for the next generation crew.

So all in all, exactly what I expected, sadly.
Posted: Sat, 9th May 2009, 11:38pm

Post 21 of 134

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

jawajohnny wrote:

Sorry... but you can never, ever overuse Leonard Nimoy. smile
Nah, you can. And they did. The scene at the end where young and old Spock meet felt so forced and unnecessary. Spock made it clear that he didn't think young Spock should know about him, and Kirk agreed, and then they go and introduce them anyway for no reason.

That scene would have been so much more emotionally fulfilling had it been Spock's father who tells him to do what feels right and cast logic aside. Having it be old Spock was just a way to use a funny, self-referential line. Just felt a bit tacked-on, is all.

Oh, and Zachary Quinto is better as Spock than Nimoy. Just sayin.
Posted: Sat, 9th May 2009, 11:51pm

Post 22 of 134

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Yeah but old Spock told young Spock that he lied to Kirk about them not having to meet because of some paradox. He lied to Kirk and therein was the joke. Vulcans don't lie but old Spock did so it's like he in a way told young Spock not to be so uptight.
Make sense to you?
Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 12:07am

Post 23 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +4/-2

Although it's perhaps to be expected, I find your review to be incredibly unfair and rather insulting/condescending, Sollthar; if only because you characterize everything as fact ('it's loud', etc,).

I found, and I think many people will agree, the movie to have a particarly successful and noticeable amount of charm, heart, intellect, and wit- as well as humor. Like Iron Man, this is one of the strong points of it. I'm always rather sick of this dumbed-down business, as if you're better or more intelligent than the rest of us and that's why we like it and you don't. That's bullshit. Same with the handicam movement- just because you don't like it doesn't mean it must just be 'beneath you', for people who have shorter attention spans. I hate that, it's such an asshole-y assumption.

The matter of it is, I'm fine if you don't like the movie; you're completely entitled to your own opinion. But you cNnot characterize things as 'dumbed down', among other mocking adjectives, and think it's just the truth. You tell me this all the time.

Star Trek is a movie that is not simply explosion nor intellectual exposition. I think most would agree the films overwhelming success and praise- that putting it on a bordering 100% on RT- as being a product of it's ability to strike a satisfying, widely-accessible chord inbetween the two.

There's no need to be a film snob and insult the movies entertainment value just because you think from the surface it must be vacuous. Perhaps in the case of Transformers it was, but not here. In my opinion, this is a rather excellent movie.
Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 12:12am

Post 24 of 134

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

spydurhank wrote:

Yeah but old Spock told young Spock that he lied to Kirk about them not having to meet because of some paradox. He lied to Kirk and therein was the joke. Vulcans don't lie but old Spock did so it's like he in a way told young Spock not to be so uptight.
Make sense to you?
Dude, it's not that I don't understand what happened. It just wasn't relevant at all.

It doesn't matter that Vulcans don't lie, since Spock is half human. Spock's father was there all along. They easily could have used him instead, and the lesson Spock learns would have even more of an impact, since his father is pure Vulcan.

It was pointless for it to be Old Spock.

Edit: Also, I think Michael Giacchino is my favorite composer now, after Star Trek, Lost, and Fringe (And The Incredibles). There are some excellent themes in Star Trek. In the opening sequence, as George is dying, and Kirk is being born, and there's all this space clutter and explosions, the score is just breathtaking. It really stands out there, since there's no other sound, but the score is just excellent all around.

Last edited Sun, 10th May 2009, 1:31am; edited 3 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 1:23am

Post 25 of 134

The Strider

Force: 493 | Joined: 27th Jan 2008 | Posts: 230

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

A big misconception among 'Star Trek' fans is that the franchise is intended to be accurate science fiction. This is not true. Gene Roddenberry's intentions were two-fold: 1)Entertain 2)Tell moral parables. Not to present an Arthur C. Clarke novel on the big screen, or something of that sort. When the original 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture' was in production, Roddenberry did consult Isaac Asimov and other sci-fi writers as to their opinions on the plot; and arguably, the film suffered from a more cerebral approach. The charm of 'Trek' is not in the science, it's in the fiction, the story as defined by the characters. The film delivers on both the main points behind Roddenberry's creation. It's not brainless, and it's not heady, either, it's got something more important: heart. That's why it works. Though made with excellence in its time, the aforementioned 'ST: TMP' failed because it did not have that heart, though the philosophical themes were strong. If you fail to connect with your audience or transport them into a thrilling environment, all the intellectual value be damned, 'cause it's not going to save your film.
Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 1:58am

Post 26 of 134

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Solley - I can definitely see where you're coming from, and I agree that it's a heck of a lot more flashy, bigger, better produced, and more modern. I'm just wondering why you see that as inferior to 60s cheese, though? Seems odd to me that everybody over 30 is outraged at how big and cool everything is, insinuating that their smaller, slower movies of yesteryear were superior.

As I understand, the logic is that a slower pace gives you more time to take everything in and think about the scene... but isn't having a faster pace that forces you to make sense of what is going on all the time, in fact superior in terms of mental effort? When I watch something like Blade Runner, I'm just being presented scenes in a slower context, which forces you to analyze everything and makes it seem poetic. To get the same effect with something like Star Trek, you have to be faster, more concentrated, and listen to everything they are saying.

Take note that I'm not refuting your right to an opinion, I'm just looking for someone to clarify the viewpoint.
Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 2:58am

Post 27 of 134

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I haven't seen it, so pardon me if my two cents turn out to be counterfeits, but 1: flashy, big, etc. are not better nor worse in themselves. There may be those who found the original series a bit slow. Me for example. I liked the episodes I've seen, but it's hardly a gripping series. For my part, I think big and flashy are okay, considering ST is a action-based film and not a romance. 2: When a film was made doesn't make it better or worse. LOTR is huge-scale, very explosive and colossal, but does that make it bad? Heck, no. The one thing I think old movies usually score on is the plot. Old SW vs. new SW. Classic, if you will.
Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 4:47am

Post 28 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

I think the greatest, and fairest too, movie to equate this Star Trek to is Raiders of the Lost Ark; albeit in a faster and more modern pace. Perhaps, Sollthar, if you see it from that perspective you can better appreciate the film and not find such negative disdain in it. And I don't care what kind of flack I may get for saying so.

With this film I found myself in the same position as after Raiders, breathless and lost for words. I couldn't place a criticism or total summation on what I had just seen; couldn't find immediate faults or standout strengths- no, both movies just worked, worked in perfect harmony with all their smaller parts. Additionally they draw on the same strengths and characteristics- pulp entertainment value- humor, heart, and wit- a sampling of both intellect and action - an impeccable cast and lead(s) - success in all technical fields- and, on me at least, an implacable feeling of satisfaction and importance even without much dramatic exposition. I gather a lot of other people felt this way about Raiders, too, as it garnered a Best Picture nod the year after it came out. I won't assume or expect Star Trek to get a nod, and even if I would it would be far too bold and premature, but I think the effect is the same. They succeed and find near-flawlessness on the same grounds because of their equitable strengths and construction.

Oh, and this movie most certainly had heart. I can't for the life of me see, if you're to snub your nose at the intellect and wit of the movie, how you can also miss out on the clear endearing quality it held. The cleverness and character-development of the script and the excellent casting only exemplify this quality.


And, once more for appropriate measure this time if no other, I repeat:
Still hating everything, aren't we, Sollthar?
Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 7:14am

Post 29 of 134

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

pooky wrote:

I'm just wondering why you see that as inferior to 60s cheese, though?
I'm not. smile

I never was too much of a fan of classic Trek just because of that very 60's cheese. I saw about 9 or 10 episodes of the classic crew and their adventures and I'm mainly familiar with the Kirk-Crew from the movies.

The reason I like Star Trek has never been because it's produced well. Star Trek has it's great amount of cheese and all the series suffer from some terribly silly moments because they just didn't have the money to produce them right. Hence why I said that's a positive thing of this one: It finally has the money to be a properly produced film.
But I don't mind too much since most of the Star Trek episodes tell highly interesting stories with interesting characters.
The film had it tough to connect to me since I've never been a fan of Kirk and co, I've always been the Picard and guys - Trekkie. smile

Hence I'm currently rewatching Next Generation series and Deep Space Nine, which I both really really really like.

pooky wrote:

]Seems odd to me that everybody over 30 is outraged at how big and cool everything is, insinuating that their smaller, slower movies of yesteryear were superior.
We actually discussed the same thing after the movie yesterday and wondered if we're just getting old. We all agreed, to some degree, that's probably correct.
I'm pretty sure I would have loved the movie 10 years ago just because it had things that went boom. Thing is, it's today. And today I find it pretty weak.

And you're misunderstanding me if you believe the reason I don't like the film is because it's big and cool. It don't think it's big and cool at all really. Well... it's big alright, but I don't find it cool.
The older movies were definately slower and yes, I exactly liked that about them. They took time and didn't feel like the actors were told to talk very fast and run through the story in order not to bore people with emotion.

pooky wrote:

] but isn't having a faster pace that forces you to make sense of what is going on all the time, in fact superior in terms of mental effort?
I find, emotion needs time. The film spurred zero emotional response from me for any of the characters, apart from some laughs at some of it's humour. Which was a stronger point.
It was way too fast and flashy for that. I was mainly busy looking at everything that was happening on screen and had no time to reflect or dive into the characters. Plus, I often just really dropped out of the movie because of Mr. Wobblycam, who pretty much always kills film experiences for me.

pooky wrote:

]Take note that I'm not refuting your right to an opinion
I'm not surprised the film finds it's audience. It's definately aimed at a target audience of 14 to 25 I'd say and I can totally see how that target audience likes it.
I think Strider said it best. I didn't connect to that film one single bit.

I'd be curious to talk to you when you're over 30 and suddenly seem to lose connection to what the teen-crowd watches and goes OMGTHISISSOCOOL. There's a reason there's target audiences you know.

Or to evaluate in Roger Murtoughs words: I'm probably getting too old for this shit.

Edit: Just had a read at rotten tomatoes and found a review that reflects pretty much what I thought about it. And it has 80 comments of people mainly going "Go home and die!". Heh. Sometimes I really wonder how mankind made it that far when different opinions seem to be such a threat. biggrin
Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 8:07am

Post 30 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I think you're missing the notion that something can be both cool, loud, and fun and still retain an amount of emotional resonance and dramatic, cinematic worth; Sollthar.

It has nothing to do with attention spans or being overly-flashy in fear of being boring- it's trying, quite successfully, to be entertaining, and there's a big distinction between the two. I find it isn't that you're getting old, nor that we're too young or this generation is too stupid- it's simply a matter of tastes and trends changing; and you being a purist. You're mistaking wobblycam (again, a term I find incredibly rude/demeaning to those that do it well- this movie included) for a distraction/attention-getter.

While I believe, sure, it's partly this I think it's also the result of a century of cinematography. As the art and technology of filmmaking has grown, so have the techniques, and the ability to move the camera successfully through different shots is more-prominently used today, I believe, because it can be. In the past, should the technology have permitted it and it been easier than it was, I'm sure you too would've grown up with this technique being honed and loved and adopted it yourself. But, alas, you've deemed yourself the 'adult' who gets it, and no matter how old the rest of us get, you just keep tagging a higher age marker on when we'll 'get what you mean/think like you do'. You're a purist.

You can't help it, I'm sure, and it bothers you; I'm sure of this too. But don't discount something you don't like as either being the product of someone else's lack-of-attention or trends being too young for you to grasp. You simply don't like them; that's fine by itself.

The older movie 'The Fountainhead' touches on the theme of stylistic change and how it affects taste really well, if you've seen it, and I think it really is pertinent here.
Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 8:14am

Post 31 of 134

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

spydurhank wrote:

Yeah but old Spock told young Spock that he lied to Kirk about them not having to meet because of some paradox. He lied to Kirk and therein was the joke. Vulcans don't lie but old Spock did so it's like he in a way told young Spock not to be so uptight.
Make sense to you?
Dude, it's not that I don't understand what happened. It just wasn't relevant at all.

It doesn't matter that Vulcans don't lie, since Spock is half human. Spock's father was there all along. They easily could have used him instead, and the lesson Spock learns would have even more of an impact, since his father is pure Vulcan.

It was pointless for it to be Old Spock.

Edit: Also, I think Michael Giacchino is my favorite composer now, after Star Trek, Lost, and Fringe (And The Incredibles). There are some excellent themes in Star Trek. In the opening sequence, as George is dying, and Kirk is being born, and there's all this space clutter and explosions, the score is just breathtaking. It really stands out there, since there's no other sound, but the score is just excellent all around.


I understand why you feel that way and to a certain extent I agree but check this out if you will. Spock chose his Vulcan half, not his human half and always acted on that! He never let his emotions rule him unless it was by some alien or outside influence that he couldn't control. Yes or no!? And that's why it "does" matter whether Vulcans lie or not because they don't, so he didn't, Why!?... because he acted like a Vulcan and not a human! Do you still understand where I'm coming from?

Plus some kind of lesson was already learned because Spock's dad said to him that he married his mom out of logic but later told him that it was out of love! What does that tell you? Did you see that part!? His "pure" Vulcan dad did something out of emotion but to you it doesn't matter because Spock is half Vulcan. That was the lesson learned right there so why have his dad repeat himself to be redundant? So of course it makes sense for old Spock to tell his younger self to stop being such a tight ass because he already lived through all that crap and wants his younger self to have a more fulfilling life.

Old Spock was pretty much telling young Spock that he doesn't or shouldn't have to play by all the rules or act like other Vulcans do. In a sense saying don't be like everybody else, because time is short and in the end what really matters is family and friends. His dad already said that to him but to make it truly hit home so that he fully understands it, was if his older self said it too him. It made more of an "impact" as you put it.

Sorry dude. I'm not trying to rant or sound like I know what I'm talking about but I sometimes tend to over analyze things and read between the lines. Kinda like you'll see one thing but I'll see something totally different even though it's something really simple. I have me some father son issues so I call em like I see em.

That's why I feel that Old Spock was not overused but rather had something very important to contribute. I mean damn dude, Wouldn't you want to talk to yourself if you went back in time? I sure as hell would, and that's what they did in this flick and that's why I dig the use of older Spock because that means he cares about himself and his family and friends which confirms his human side. That's why Spock being older makes sense for him to tell his younger self to not be such a tool.

So it's either that and only show older Spock for that one scene but leave the audience hanging if we don't show him again and just leave it blank. Yeah that's exactly what I would do because that would be so damned cool. Oooh, lets see Nimoy in a one scene cameo and say screw it because the audience won't really care. Wow, can you hear my sarcasm?
Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 8:40am

Post 32 of 134

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

I think you're missing the notion that something can be both cool, loud, and fun and still retain an amount of emotional resonance and dramatic, cinematic worth; Sollthar.

It has nothing to do with attention spans or being overly-flashy in fear of being boring- it's trying, quite successfully, to be entertaining, and there's a big distinction between the two. I find it isn't that you're getting old, nor that we're too young or this generation is too stupid- it's simply a matter of tastes and trends changing; and you being a purist. You're mistaking wobblycam (again, a term I find incredibly rude/demeaning to those that do it well- this movie included) for a distraction/attention-getter.

While I believe, sure, it's partly this I think it's also the result of a century of cinematography. As the art and technology of filmmaking has grown, so have the techniques, and the ability to move the camera successfully through different shots is more-prominently used today, I believe, because it can be. In the past, should the technology have permitted it and it been easier than it was, I'm sure you too would've grown up with this technique being honed and loved and adopted it yourself. But, alas, you've deemed yourself the 'adult' who gets it, and no matter how old the rest of us get, you just keep tagging a higher age marker on when we'll 'get what you mean/think like you do'. You're a purist.

You can't help it, I'm sure, and it bothers you; I'm sure of this too. But don't discount something you don't like as either being the product of someone else's lack-of-attention or trends being too young for you to grasp. You simply don't like them; that's fine by itself.

The older movie 'The Fountainhead' touches on the theme of stylistic change and how it affects taste really well, if you've seen it, and I think it really is pertinent here.
I think this is your greatest post ever dude. Not because you're insulting anyone but because it brings up some very interesting points.

I do notice that now a days, a lot of older folks such as myself don't like "change" or the way certain things are done and that they should only be done in a certain way, otherwise they will never like them and are more than likely to let everyone know. There's nothing wrong with that of course "unless" you keep complaining about the very same thing about every, or rather every other movie that you watch.

In the end... Some folks will like something new and truly see it for what it is, while others will not. I myself have seen plenty of movies with a shaky cam or heard a singer that didn't hit all the right notes or have seen someones art that was total crap but that's no reason to be "that one guy at the other end of the bar that you see every night that does nothing but complain about everything else" I mean damn, who wants to be that old geezer anyway? Just because we get older doesn't mean we have to hate what the younger folks are into. Does it?

My grandmother used to do that all the freaking time. The difference is that If I think something is crap, I'll keep it to myself till someone talks some more crap, then I'll I feel it's okay for me to say something.

Good post Atom. It made me really rethink the way I normally think of things.
I still dislike all the Spidey and Xmen flicks though man. Bunch a cry babies. Who really wants to see Spidey and Wolverine ball their eyes out? Oh wait... You do!!! LOL biggrin
Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 10:15am

Post 33 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

First and foremost, careful with the double-posts and massive quotes there, spydurhank. If you've got more of a thought to add and nobody has written a post after you, you can click the edit button on the top right-hand corner of your post and add more to it. Additionally, quoting long lengths of text is dizzying. Maybe quote it and then delete all but the points you wish to talk/respond on. Not trying to play Mr. Etiquette, just suggestions- would make your posts clearer and more-inviting to read, I think.

spydurhank wrote:

"that one guy at the other end of the bar that you see every night that does nothing but complain about everything else" I mean damn, who wants to be that old geezer anyway?
As it would appear, quite obvious to me at least, Sollthar consistently would. wink

I still dislike all the Spidey and Xmen flicks though man. Bunch a cry babies. Who really wants to see Spidey and Wolverine ball their eyes out? Oh wait... You do!!! LOL biggrin
Now isn't that ironic? Here we have people talking about how kids these days/this generation can't take any depth or drama that is properly-timed and instead need explosions and such; and you're arguing with me because X-Men and Spidey had too much dramatic exposition for you and not enough action. Funny how things and tastes change around very particular edges, isn't it? biggrin
Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 1:41pm

Post 34 of 134

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I like a balance. For instance, in ST: Generations, Jean-Luc Picard started crying. What? Dude, this is supposed to be the tough, gritty captain of the Enterprise! My dad commented that Kirk would never have started crying. However, I don't like a movie that's just BANG after BANG after BOOM and random battles that don't contribute. LOTR(sorry if I keep bringing it up, but I find it the best), was a good balance: book and movie. There was constantly an air of things happening, but Tolkien didn't need a million skirmishes to keep things interesting. I think that's a very important element in a story. You need to connect with your character, and at the same time he can't be all wishy-washy like Picard in Generations. In LOTR, you feel like you know Aragorn, Frodo, and for me especially Samwise, without them constantly "balling" their eyes out.
Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 3:34pm

Post 35 of 134

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

spydurhank wrote:

but that's no reason to be "that one guy at the other end of the bar that you see every night that does nothing but complain about everything else"
I didn't really bother to read what atom wrote and just guess he's doing his usual "sollthar hates everything and is condescending-thing" and you pick up on it so I might be mistaken if I presume this is aimed at me. Apologies if it isn't.

To clear that up one last time: I don't mind if public opinion is A and mine is B. That has little influence in me having opinion B if that's what I feel like having. It doesn't bother me to have an unpopular opinion either, as having an opinion is not a pupolarity contest, despite the fact some people seem to try to turn it into one. Nor do I care if people share my opinion or not, each to his own. Welcome to disagree anyone who feels like it.

I also won't spend too much of time complaining about a bad Star Trek movie really, as I got more important things to do, but yes.
I thought this film was weak. Not the weakest in the series, but weak. It did nothing for me emotionally, I felt the story was weak and it was all effects and little to no heart and it threw too many lens flares at me and I did feel it. That's no general statement like "every film is bad" or "every loud and flashy blockbuster film is bad" (loved Iron Man, enjoyed Dark Knight, felt appropriately entertained by Wolverine, just to name a few), but rather that this one is just not a good movie for many reasons. And definately, a lot of other stuff released this year will be disappointments as well. (Terminator Salvation could be, I'll see about that)

So if your comments were picking up on the "sollthar hates everything" misguide, then be my guest really as that's so far off the truth I can't really be bothered to explain myself again. wink
If not, apologies for my misconception.

And that's that really. smile
Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 3:58pm

Post 36 of 134

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar, I definitely respect your opinion. However, I'm still a little puzzled that you thought it was just big, loud action with no heart. Surely, the movie was all about the heart, and characters. Sure, the effects have been improved, but the focus of the film remains on the characters.

I see where you're coming from with your "intelligent ideas" point. If there's a flaw to the film, it is that they don't include any kind of highly intelligent or moral ideas. I don't mind that however, because this is an origins story. The main goal of the film has to be to re-establish (or introduce) the original crew. Nothing in the film can overshadow the character development. So in the first one, they have to introduce the characters, and now in the next one, they can start to explore a more intelligent plot. It wouldn't make sense to do that in the first one. They would lose a lot of potential viewers if they used intelligent, philosophical ideas right off the bat.

Again, I respect your opinion about the action/wobblycam stuff, but I think it works much better in Star Trek than it does in any other film I've seen (including Transformers). The action/effects aren't too overwhelming... I think they stay true to the old Trek action formula... it's just more realistic now.

EDIT: I guess my overall point is that I'm pleasantly surprised at how great Star Trek is. Like you, Sollthar, I was expecting it to be loud, explosion-filled action without doing justice to the characters, much like Transformers. However, I find the film achieved greatness by having both great character development, AND excellent sound and visuals, all while remaining faithful to the original Star Trek.
Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 4:24pm

Post 37 of 134

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I respect your opinion too. That's completely okay if you felt the characters were there and liked them, that's what different opinions and viewpoints are for. smile
I just really didn't. I just saw one action scene chasing the next and the characters did nothing for me apart from making me giggle a few times because the dialogue was, in places, really well written.

In fact, I really didn't like Kirk in this film. He was a pretentious asshole and had none of the charm Shatners version had and his character development was entirely unbelievable for me. I just didn't buy it, at all. Maybe he's "supposed to be that way", fine, I just don't like it. Scotty was funny, but didn't do much. Chekov had a funny accent and that's all there was to him. Sulu didn't do anything at all (given, he doesn't do much in the other films either). Uhura was... I don't know, forgettable (the moment where they revealed the relationship between her and Spock was just weird). Nero was in fact just an angry "FIRE EVERYTHING" guy and Spock was somewhat alright. But he just didn't feel like Spock to me.

I really got the feeling they hurried through the movie and all talked really really fast in order to be done with the character exposition as fast as possible and go on with the next action scene.

As I said, the one I really enjoyed was McCoy. Aboard the crew, he was the only one I liked.

So for me, this was an action entry only (mind you, there's nothing wrong with action per se, Star Trek First Contact is by far my favorite of the bunch, but it also captures the heart of the series).


Thinking about it, I presume Mr Wobblycam had a lot to do with the fact I couldn't get into the characters as well. I'm entirely thrown out of a movie if the camera keeps doing wobbly and weird things that make me long for a "pause" button or someone to grab the cameraman and hold him still in order to actually pick up what's happening. I saw the film on a huge screen and was in row 6, so I nearly got a headache. smile
Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 5:37pm

Post 38 of 134

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Thanks Atom.
Na bro I wasn't knock'n on you. "Solthar" I had a small conversation with this older guy at a pub. We talked about agees and what people are into when they get "older" such as myself. I thought it was cool that someone brought up the same thing in this forum, Kinda creepy.

So anyway, This guy was like 40 years old but looked like he was 60, I'll be 37 in october, that's only a 3 year difference. Now I'm not saying that I look good for my age or that I looked better than the poor guy, nor did I say anything to him that would imply that. He asked for my age and I told him. So he narrows his eyes as if to hit me with heat vision, then goes and sits on a corner and turned into "that creepy guy that was complaining at the end of the bar" There's always a guy or girl like that at any bar or party... trust me on this.

Atom I slapped that last bit on there as a joke, ha, ha funny.
Yes I don't care too much for those movies because of the sob factor but that's just me, and there was plenty of drama and action in those flicks dude so I never said that I had an issue with that. I think you have me confused with someone else.

To make this as clear as I can. Just because I didn't like one or two things about those movies doesn't mean that I didn't like the rest of those movies or that I think they're bad. I'm just tired of seeing the same thing over and over. Parker turns into a two year old crying for his bottle, and Logan.... oh Logan. poor, poor Logan. Can't the bad guys just leave him be for a little while, at least till he learns how to defend himself. It's like they pick on him all the time. I just think that maybe they could make a more gritty "graphic novel" type of movie once in a while. It would be cool.
Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 7:19pm

Post 39 of 134

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Ah, gotcha! smile

You're a couple of years older then I am then (I'm 29).

Yeah, I know what you mean spydurhank. Age is a large factor when it comes down to a lot of things. People experience different things, value different things, expect different things and find different things important. I find that's a normal part of life. And to a certain degree, there will always be a difference between different generations. And by generations I'd say that a decade already makes a large impact.

I had this odd moment at my last class meeting where I met a girl again I went to school with 12 years ago. She immediately started working in a firm, I went on to study and have just recently finished. We're the same age. She was married, had a kid and just celebrated her 10 year anniversary at her company, having completed much of her professional career already. And there was I, basically just left school, no plan to get married any day soon and as far as kids go... I'm a kid myself still. There were HUUUUGE differences between our lifes and between the things that determined our lifes at the stage we're in. So it's not "just" the age as in the number of years you lived, it's also what you experienced so far were and where you're currently standing in your life that determines the subjects that matter to you.

But hey, 37 is far from being an "old geezer". Young at heart matters, is what they say. wink
Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 8:51pm

Post 40 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

I didn't really bother to read what atom wrote and just guess he's doing his usual "sollthar hates everything and is condescending-thing" and you pick up on it so I might be mistaken if I presume this is aimed at me. Apologies if it isn't.
Pretty much sums up why I have little respect for this opinion. Should anyone else care to notice, Sollthar's- quite rudely and disrespectfully- completely ignoring everything I say. Regardless of content, intent, subject, etc. If you had read my posts, Sollthar, you'd see that while I do believe you generally like to find distaste in most movies; I think our split opinion is largely a distinction based on how filmmaking techniques have changed and how every generation has a natural disliking for the different. Spydurhank furthered this statement. But you didn't care, because you didn't read any of my posts to begin with- and instead carried on the conversation blindly. And everyone's still wiping your ass for it.

How's that for healthy discussion?

Sollthar wrote:

So if your comments were picking up on the "sollthar hates everything" misguide, then be my guest really as that's so far off the truth I can't really be bothered to explain myself again
Oh is it, now?

Fuckk, what's the point? You ignore any and everything I put, admittedly, anyway.

Last edited Sun, 10th May 2009, 8:58pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 8:57pm

Post 41 of 134

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

Just got back from it - loved it. Great cast, charming and warm and witty combined with fantastic production values. Chris Pine impressed me in particular, as I wasn't expecting anybody to be able to fill Shatner's shoes so convincingly. Karl Urban was the real surprise though - perfect. The only casting note that didn't work for me was Simon Pegg, though I'm not sure why yet. Also great to see Sulu become a properly useful part of the crew!

There was too much action (though it was all great) and the film desperately needed to slow down and take a breather. With a bit more character and more depth to its ideas it would have taken it from a great fun Trek movie to a classic scifi movie.

Nero's motivation, for example, is fascinating. A little bit of doubt in there would have gone a long way - he's not a killer, after all, he's just seeking revenge that he sees as righteous. But killing a whole planet's population? It would have been good to see his actual reaction to doing that.

Similarly, the theme of 'what you could have been' should have been explored more, particularly with Kirk and Spock. And, in fact, Pike.

So yeah, hopefully in the next film they'll be able to slow down and introduce more ideas and delve in to the characters more. This is phenomenally confident start, though.

Oh, and the several 30+ year olds that I saw it with all loved it too. So I really don't think you can use the age card with this one, Sollthar.

Simple fact is that Star Trek is so huge and covers so much movies and TV series and styles that people draw wildly different things from it. So if you draw something specific from it that hasn't made it into the movie, it's going to disappoint. The movie seemed very much like the Star Trek I know and love - not all of it, but, then, the films and TV shows have all varied massively too. I wouldn't expect one single film to encompass everything that Star Trek is to me.

If, in 10 years, all of the JJ Abrams Star Trek movies are like this first one, then I'll be disappointed. But I hope they'll each be different in style, approach and ideas - much like the rest of Trek.

Edit: Oh, also, I think it's worth mentioning that I didn't notice any 'wobblecam'. Worth mentioning only because I'm normally one of those that complains about it (eg Bourne, Transformers etc). Didn't notice it at all in Star Trek.

Last edited Sun, 10th May 2009, 9:40pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 9:03pm

Post 42 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Spot-on, Tarn. I think the confidence this movie shows not only gives it the success and praise it is receiving as a standalone film; but lays the groundwork for an incredibly promising future of Star Trek films that can settle into different narrative and pacing styles as they are not to starting film for the reboot like this one was.

I don't think they will be better, per se, but certainly this movie succeeds in it's power to be wholly exhilarating, fun, and refreshing. You can't refresh with the same things on a sequel, I think, and that'll give the new franchise a chance to push more intellect into it- logically, of course.

This isn't to say, however, that this film didn't have it's own amount of intelligence, wit, or thought-provoking exposition. Surely, at least for me, the whole time paradox was a thinking man's plot device. I'd like to see things like this be built on in future films.

And look, quite rightfully so, Star Trek has moved into the IMDb Top 250. From #89 to 62 in one day, too.
Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 9:22pm

Post 43 of 134

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Wow, I really wish I could participate more in this conversation. There are so many interesting views here that I am drooling to debate about. But I can't 'cause I haven't seen the film yet.
Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 9:29pm

Post 44 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +2

Go shoot yourself in the head now for not already witnessing this movie's orgasmicness, Richard III. smile
Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 9:50pm

Post 45 of 134

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Really good points, Atom and Tarn.

Tarn wrote:

The only casting note that didn't work for me was Simon Pegg, though I'm not sure why yet.
For some of the more minor characters (as portrayed in this Star Trek), I think we're going to have to wait and see. Pine, Quinto, and Urban are fantastic... that much is certain. Uhura was pretty good as well. Chekov, Sulu, and Scotty weren't used nearly enough for me to form an opinion on. That's a problem with movies with a big cast... you can't develop all of them at once. In this film, Sulu, Chekov, and Scotty are pretty much relegated to the background and only used for comic relief.

Tarn wrote:

So yeah, hopefully in the next film they'll be able to slow down and introduce more ideas and delve in to the characters more. This is phenomenally confident start, though.
Yeah, that's how I think of this movie. It's very much an origins story, that sets up for the real deal, which will hopefully come in the sequels. It fantastically introduces the characters, and sets up for the five-year mission. See what I'm saying?

Atom wrote:

Go shoot yourself in the head now for not already witnessing this movie's orgasmicness, Richard III.
Do as he says, Richard III. Now. Then go see it. smile

Last edited Sun, 10th May 2009, 11:22pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 9:52pm

Post 46 of 134

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

bang

Now because of YOU, I can't see it. Ever. The maggots are already eating my eyes out.
Posted: Sun, 10th May 2009, 10:01pm

Post 47 of 134

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Go shoot yourself in the head now for not already witnessing this movie's orgasmicness, Richard III.
Classic Atom dude. biggrin
I remember watching the original series as a very little kid with my twin brother and my oldest sister. I was always in awe and suspense at the stuff that they came up with every week and looked forward to it.
It's cool to see how one little show spawned several movies and then other spin off series with their own movies and now this latest installment or evolution of that one little show. Simply amazing and it takes me way back.

I thought this movie had a nice mix of everything in it. I'm also not ashamed to say this but McCoy was my favorite in this movie. He totally pulled off the wide eyed paranoid rantings of the original McCoy that I remember. I can't say anything about the rest of the cast since we've never seen younger versions of them so we don't know what their personalities would be like. Either way it was awesome and I hope the next flick will be even better.
Posted: Mon, 11th May 2009, 12:10am

Post 48 of 134

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

It's horribly obvious that this movie is meant to set up other ones. That's why it's entirely character-focused and works to develop every relationship perfectly and in a satisfying way. The Nero stuff is secondary.

Now that everything is set up, though, watch out for the second one!

---

Like Tarn, I didn't notice the shaky cam at all the first time around. On the second watch, it was only obvious to me in the scene where Pike talks to Kirk in the bar, on Kirk's closeups. It felt really controlled, though.

I did notice the lens flares and such, and I LOVED those! It gives it a sort of futuristic feeling, and I think it's just really stylish. And, yes, it makes it less dull, in a sense, and keeps the bridge and such looking busy.
Posted: Mon, 11th May 2009, 12:14am

Post 49 of 134

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Not only was this film brilliant, it had that special something that makes a Sci-fi masterpiece what it is: a certain realism. Yes, time travel and creating black holes isn't something we consider "real" but the way this movie portrayed the future wasn't "I want sh!t to look cool"-esque, it was... visionary. And that's why I love Abrams so. Effing. Much. He's a visionary filmmaker.

It's the same visionary style used in 2001: A Space Odyssey and the show Babylon 5: while you know it's fiction, you have that small spark of hope that this could really happen in the future.

And then there's the ABSURD amount of throwaway detail that I have yearned for so much after Star Wars ended. God, Abrams, remake the prequels. Please. Oh, please. smile

I completely agree with everything Atom has to say about the movie.

"Cupcake: There are four of us and one of you!
Kirk: Then get some more guys and it'll be an even fight."

The casting, the acting, the cinematography, the effects, the everything. Stunning.

Pooky wrote:

I did notice the lens flares and such, and I LOVED those!
Watch Fringe! Abrams is involved in it, and it's pretty obvious he's got a lot to do with how it looks (and of course the insanely complex and brilliant storyline).

Last edited Mon, 11th May 2009, 12:24am; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 11th May 2009, 12:16am

Post 50 of 134

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

Now that everything is set up, though, watch out for the second one!
Exactly. Imagine what this cast and these writers could do without being restricted in any way. Although I heard they're considering all options for the sequel. Including Khan.

Fill wrote:

Watch Fringe! Abrams is involved in it, and it's pretty obvious he's got a lot to do with how it looks (and of course the insanely complex and brilliant storyline).
Excellent show. Some of the standalone, throwaway episodes aren't very good, but it makes up for it with the characters. John Noble is absolutely hilarious. And the main storyline is really intriguing. Can't wait for the season finale with Nimoy on Tuesday.
Posted: Mon, 11th May 2009, 12:37am

Post 51 of 134

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

jawajohnny wrote:

Exactly. Imagine what this cast and these writers could do without being restricted in any way. Although I heard they're considering all options for the sequel. Including Khan.
Cool! I liked Khan. Hopefully he will display a bit more of his superhuman strength than the last one, and his genius wasn't apparent either. Despite that, it was cool. I'm getting really interested now.
Posted: Mon, 11th May 2009, 12:40am

Post 52 of 134

The Strider

Force: 493 | Joined: 27th Jan 2008 | Posts: 230

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Abrams is producing, but is not set to direct, the forthcoming sequel. The only thing that motivated him to direct this previous feature was the script, so if Orci and Kurtzman can pull off another one that tickles his fancy, I'm sure he'll do it. This may, or may not, be a good thing. I think Abrams was pitch-perfect for the kind of story this film tells, but as I'd like to see a return to a slower burning narrative, he may not be right to direct. I think 'Trek' in general benefits from fresh blood, and if someone comes along that captures the same spirit but can bring their own talents to the table, I'm all for that. Don't think I'm belittling J.J. Abrams, though, he's an excellent, excellent storyteller.
Posted: Mon, 11th May 2009, 1:16am

Post 53 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

But guys, as Sollthar points out, these are the unintelligent hack writers of Transformers! How are they supposed to make a good script???

Oh, wait- they're two of the most currently sought-after writers in Hollywood. Star Trek proves why, too. If they're writing the sequel, the fantastic cast from this one is in it, and Abrams is producing (which he's proven can be just as potent and influential of a role, if not moreso, than directing) I'll gladly be back with seats to the first showing.

I'm glad others are acknowledging the strength and wit of the writing, Abrams included. JJ is an adult, Sollthar, and he seemed to like it. Move on, your hatorade awaits you. wink

And Pooky, I totally agree on the lens flares- although it's an artful touch I've noticed in all of Abrams' work- perhaps most-notably before Star Trek in M:I3. (And, well, you know my thoughts on that movie. smile ) The lens flares and flickers, which I thought from the scenes online and trailer might becoming annoying, really just added a sense of intricacy to the Enterprise and the bridge. It gave off the impression that this ship was in a constant state of movement and required careful orchestration; numerous people working at once to keep everything in perfect harmony. I really liked this- for a Star Wars fan/Star Trek-non-fan that was still somewhat initiated into the Trekkie universe already, I thought this was a really strong representation of what the ship really stood for: a community of people working together.

Last edited Mon, 11th May 2009, 1:22am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 11th May 2009, 1:20am

Post 54 of 134

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +2

Give it a rest, dude. Nobody's reading, and it's not because your arguments are no good, it's because you're like the annoying 6-year old cousin who keeps pulling your shirt and telling you that he wants you to play Nintendo with him. Go play it by yourself.

You don't need us to confirm your opinions for you to have them. I hope not, anyway.
Posted: Mon, 11th May 2009, 1:22am

Post 55 of 134

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Agreed. However right you may be Atom, I agree with Pooky.
Posted: Mon, 11th May 2009, 1:24am

Post 56 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Damn, you guys caught me in the middle of editing my post. Don't you hate it when that happens? smile
Posted: Mon, 11th May 2009, 2:52am

Post 57 of 134

The Strider

Force: 493 | Joined: 27th Jan 2008 | Posts: 230

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Though I think you could argue better, Atom, I tend to agree with your overall points.

I agree about the cinematography. The ship, for the first time, felt truly real and operational. You get the sense that there are people living and working on this thing, and outside, you see just how awe-inspiring and dangerous the environment really is. It's fantastic.

Well, the film had an awesome opening weekend ($76 million), not quite reaching 'Wolverine''s numbers, but strong enough to recoup most of the film's $125 million budget. Now that it's starting to dawn on people just how damn good it is, there should be enough word-of-mouth to give it legs over the summer. If this thing can hold its own against 'Angels & Demons', maybe it can last against 'Terminator' and 'Up'. Here's hoping it's a 'Taken'-like success, and keeps on truckin' far beyond expectations.
Posted: Mon, 11th May 2009, 4:51am

Post 58 of 134

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Tarn wrote:

Oh, and the several 30+ year olds that I saw it with all loved it too. So I really don't think you can use the age card with this one, Sollthar.
Heh, I wasn't trying to pull the "age card". With 96% positive we're quite obviously in the minority.
We just wondered about it since we went in a group of 6 and we all left with quite a "meh" impression of the movie. And our age concern was mainly aimed at "ourselves". As in, maybe "I'm too old to get it". razz

Imagine that. I also don't enjoy the Mummy Returns anymore.... tard

But I did read in a lot of interviews that opening Star Trek for todays generation is Abrams main intention. Given everybody loves it, he succeeded. Given we all didn't like it and that notion appears to be very much in line with what we didn't like, we're going to hold that against the film. Naturally. smile
So it's not aimed at todays generation in a "they're all idiots" kind of way, but held against Abrams and his two screenwriter pals
Plus, we had a large debate about todays blockbuster-formulas afterwards, so I was largely influenced by that when writing my review.

That doesn't change my impression though. It did feel like dumbed down action trek for me. But then again, a TV show probably let's you do much more things no one would want to watch in cinema. And I always felt the movies were weaker then the show even in their strong moments.

Tarn wrote:

The movie seemed very much like the Star Trek I know and love - not all of it, but, then, the films and TV shows have all varied massively too. I wouldn't expect one single film to encompass everything that Star Trek is to me.
Hm. Excellent point, I haven't considered that. Probably that had a lot to do with why I was disappointed with this film. Having just watched all seasons of TNG and DS9 (which are basically the only two of the 5 star trek series I like) I was probably too engaged in these Trek visions. And there was little of either of these in the movie.
I can very well imagine that being a reason for my disappointment too. Might give it another watch bearing that in mind.

And as I said, I was sitting in one of the further rows in the cinema with our hugest screen. So wobblying gets amplified a lot through that. Plus, I expect, since the movie never managed to pull me in, I had time to notice and get annoyed instead of being engaged by the story and characters.


Glad you liked it! Hopefully the next one will be better for me too now I have an impression what I'm getting into. I'll definately go see it in any case. There are far too few science-fiction movies out there nowadays...

Last edited Mon, 11th May 2009, 6:46am; edited 3 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 11th May 2009, 6:42am

Post 59 of 134

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Two things:

Sollthar does 'hate everything', but it's on the basis of taste/discernment and not so much 'general vitrol'. biggrin It is funny, though, that of the past 15+ films discussed on here, he hasn't been a fan.

That being said, I sympathize with one large point he has: the 'wobblecam'. No, it wasn't as ever-present at all as it is in other films, but it's here. So much so that, at one point during a conversation in the movie, I put my hands out in front of me, formed a box with my fingers, and proceeded to shake my arms, illustrating to the group I went with to the theatre my disdain with the shakiness of a dialogue scene. biggrin

However, this wasn't a big deal in the movie, but it was bad for a scene or two - bad not as in shaky-to-the-max-Bourne-style, but 'bad' as in "whoa, that looks unprofessionally shot". At least it wasn't as ever-present as the 'omg-horizontal-blue-octagonal-light-ray-always-on-the-screen' lighting. Although I do like that style, and enjoyed it especially in M:I3.

The artist formerly known as Really Big Gun wrote:

eight or so posts
Why are you still here? smile
Posted: Mon, 11th May 2009, 6:56am

Post 60 of 134

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +2

ben wrote:

Sollthar does 'hate everything'
Correction... I don't just hate everything... I hate...

Posted: Mon, 11th May 2009, 7:03am

Post 61 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Perhaps if Nero had instead yelled

"IHATEEVERYTHING!"

you would've liked it more. wink
Posted: Mon, 11th May 2009, 7:11am

Post 62 of 134

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

I loved the lighting, with all the dancing lens flares. It reminded me of Sunshine, another film whose visuals are utterly gorgeous. What it tends to do, I think, is meld the visual effects and live action stuff together so that they feel very much 'as one', which means that the film doesn't yo-yo between 'visual effects shot' and 'real shot'.

What this film had in spades was verisimilitude - something crucial to all fiction, but particularly important for sci-fi and fantasy works.

Another thing I forgot to mention is how glad I am that the writers finally jettisoned the awful technobabble that had progressively crept into Star Trek with Next Gen, DS9 and Voyager. While Next Gen and DS9 had some of the best storylines and ideas in the show's history, they also introduced some of the laziest aspects of Trek writing, through the 'made up science' plots.

Sollthar wrote:

And our age concern was mainly aimed at "ourselves". As in, maybe "I'm too old to get it". razz
Heh, I think you're doing older people a disservice here. wink I get what you mean, though, as there are lots of recent movies that I know I'd love if I was still 15.

I just don't think Star Trek is one of them. It may be primarily an action movie, but it still has some interesting concepts in the background. Sure, they're in the background, but they're still there. Similarly, it still portrays a society in which intellectual and spirital advancement is a priority, in which community and family is vital, in which working together and taking responsibility is the way forward. You don't get many brainless action blockbusters with those themes bubbling away in the background.

Imagine that. I also don't enjoy the Mummy Returns anymore.... tard
Then there is still hope. wink

Sounds a bit like me an Aliens. That used ot be one of my favourite films, then I watched it again when I was about 23 and thought it was rubbish. It's a strange feeling when opinions start altering as you develop as a person.

Hm. Excellent point, I haven't considered that. Probably that had a lot to do with why I was disappointed with this film. Having just watched all seasons of TNG and DS9 (which are basically the only two of the 5 star trek series I like) I was probably too engaged in these Trek visions. And there was little of either of these in the movie.
I can very well imagine that being a reason for my disappointment too. Might give it another watch bearing that in mind.
I think my real judgment of this new film can only really come after the sequels have been made. As I said earlier, if they are all like this first one, Abrams & co will have failed and missed the point entirely. But if the others having varying themes, styles and paces then there's nothing at all wrong with this one being a great fun actioner.
Posted: Mon, 11th May 2009, 7:40am

Post 63 of 134

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Some tastes do change concerning certain things as you get older I think.
I watched Blade runner a few nights ago for the hell of it, haven't watched it since I was a kid.... I actually watched it to make myself fall asleep because I have really bad insomnia. I figured that it would bore me to sleep but I was way, way wrong.

The things that they did back then with that movie, wow they totally amazed me because of the tech that they had back then. I'm glad I watched it. I didn't like everything about it but the parts that I did like were pretty bad-ass.
The matte paintings alone were beyond good and the whole futuristic feel was right on. I love me some tall ass futuristic buildings that reach the clouds. There's just something really awesome to me about that.

Kinda like that low orbit free fall into Vulcan. I drooled on my popcorn when that scene came on, then made my brother eat the popcorn. He didn't know that I drooled on it. biggrin JK.
Posted: Mon, 11th May 2009, 1:39pm

Post 64 of 134

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Hehehehe, this is something you guys might like:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film

oink
Posted: Mon, 11th May 2009, 7:01pm

Post 65 of 134

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Freaking funny dude!
Posted: Mon, 11th May 2009, 9:29pm

Post 66 of 134

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Yeah, the Onion is genius. I particularly like their moon landing poster in the store razz
Posted: Tue, 12th May 2009, 7:35pm

Post 67 of 134

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1611063/story.jhtml

Apparently, they've already started work on the sequel. At least, they have several ideas. I'm not sure I like the idea of them encountering villains we've seen before. How could they re-cast someone like Khan? Then again, they perfectly re-cast the entire original crew. So maybe it isn't such a bad idea?

What would you guys like to see in the sequel?
Posted: Tue, 12th May 2009, 9:07pm

Post 68 of 134

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

So long as it's got a reimagined version of Klingons, I'll be happy.
Posted: Tue, 12th May 2009, 10:20pm

Post 69 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Khan? With a voice like that? Only Antonio Banderas could do him justice. I'd love to see him as a villain, and Khan at that.
Posted: Tue, 12th May 2009, 11:56pm

Post 70 of 134

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I like Khan, but like I said I want more of his super-powered strength and speed and whatever, instead of him just picking up a dummy and dropping it again. His great brain wasn't really present either, I thought.
Posted: Wed, 13th May 2009, 1:01am

Post 71 of 134

The Strider

Force: 493 | Joined: 27th Jan 2008 | Posts: 230

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Ah, but Richard III, Khan wasn't cool because he had superior strength and intelligence, but because he was Ricardo Montalban. With a guy like that, he can just sit there and ooze menace, whilst spouting phrases such as: "He tasks me. He tasks me! and I shall have him! I'll chase him 'round the moons of Nibia and 'round the Antares Maelstrom and 'round Perdition's flames before I give him up!"

A new Khan, no matter how badass, would probably end up as just a pale imitation. I say, follow the success of Khan with another good villain from TOS. Perhaps a Klingon, such as Kang.
Posted: Wed, 13th May 2009, 1:17am

Post 72 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'm sorry Strider, but do you know who Antonio Banderas is?

"He tasks me.....he tasks me....." the menace and voice of the man alone, its likeness to Montalban, could sell me an updated Khan any day. smile
Posted: Wed, 13th May 2009, 1:33am

Post 73 of 134

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Uh, whatever Strider. I don't care about Ricardo Montalban, I care about getting as close as possible to the original Khan and making him a bit more menacing physically.
Posted: Wed, 13th May 2009, 1:50am

Post 74 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -2

Richard III wrote:

I don't care about Ricardo Montalban
To repeat from earlier: Go get a gun and shoot yourself in the head immediately. Ricardo Montalban is what made that movie what it is, perhaps single-handedly.

Ricardo Montalban doesn't play Khan, Khan plays Ricardo Montalban. The reason his super speed and strength wasn't as large or evident in Khan, if you're wondering, is because Montalban had suffered a horse trampling years earlier and slowly and painfully became completely paralyzed from the waist down. It became complete and permanent only a few years after the movie. This is why his torso is so ripped, yet his legs are covered in a blanket or coat most of the movie; and why he remains seated largely throughout it. Kind of an FDR-like trick.

So go kill yourself. Quickly.
Posted: Wed, 13th May 2009, 2:02am

Post 75 of 134

The Strider

Force: 493 | Joined: 27th Jan 2008 | Posts: 230

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

I'm sorry Strider, but do you know who Antonio Banderas is?

"He tasks me.....he tasks me....." the menace and voice of the man alone, its likeness to Montalban, could sell me an updated Khan any day. smile
No, I think you're right, he'd do an awesome Khan, but my point was, Ricard Montalban's performance would overshadow whoever fills the role. Of course, the same could be said of everybody from the original series cast, and this film proved that other people can do the roles justice.

I would like to see Banderas play Khan sometime, though, if not in a feature, then in a new TV series.
Posted: Wed, 13th May 2009, 3:29am

Post 76 of 134

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Killed myself already. Anyway, I'm out of ammo from all the other people in my life who have told me to kill myself.

If the actor can do a good impression of Khan OR Ricardo Montalban, whatever makes you happy, then I'll be happy. I'm not criticizing the fact that there were fewer displays of superpower, but I want more than before. I realize that their options were limited.
Posted: Wed, 13th May 2009, 7:23am

Post 77 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

It seems you missed the exaggeration and sarcasm in my post. Regardless, my point was that the power and intimidation from Khan- and the success of the movie- was from the performance, not the scripting of the powers he had. Additionally trying to point out- it would've been tasking for them to do more physical stuff; as Montalban was generally incapable of it.

Either way, just got back from seeing the movie in IMAX. (The 9:30 showing was sold out half an hour beforehand.....on a Tuesday. So I had to see it close to midnight.) It only got better with a second viewing, and I picked up on even more joke references to the original series. The IMAX aspect was particularly amazing.

So amazing in fact, this happened.
Posted: Wed, 13th May 2009, 7:54am

Post 78 of 134

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Sollthar wrote:


It's flashy, it's loud, it's hyperactive, it's fast, it's modern, it's in-your-face and dumbed down action without much charm, character or intelligence.
It does exactly what it set out to do. It dumbs down Star Trek for todays blockbuster generation in order to appeal to a wider audience, pumps up the production value and leaves out the heart and even more so, the mind of the series and it's exactly the film I would expect someone who isn't a Star Trek fan to make -
I'm absolutely perplexed as to how you're saying that Star Trek films were "intelligent" to begin with. And by "charm" you must have meant "camp".

Furthermore, I don't see any problem with pumping up the production value, as the previous Star Treks were seriously lacking in that department.

Also, "flashy", "loud", "hyperactive", "modern", etc.... I'm not really sure those words denote "Bad". I think it's safe to say that simply because a film doesn't mesh with an older, campier version of the series someone remembers doesn't mean it's actually worse.
Posted: Wed, 13th May 2009, 8:10am

Post 79 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -5

What does it matter, Bryce? Sollthar has horrible taste, he unevenly film snobs every movie people like, people kiss his ass for it anyway, and he condescends, condemns, or flat-out ignores anyone who disagrees with him.

Or has this not been evident?
Posted: Wed, 13th May 2009, 8:16am

Post 80 of 134

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Atom... This obsession with talking to or about me... Seriously.
I told you, I'm into girls... As much as those chubby cheeks of yours might be tempting. My heart belongs to someone else.

Get over it.

Last edited Wed, 13th May 2009, 10:07am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 13th May 2009, 8:30am

Post 81 of 134

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

Richard III wrote:

I don't care about Ricardo Montalban
Apologise, now.
Posted: Wed, 13th May 2009, 9:01am

Post 82 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Looking over the cast, it's interesting to see the process of how they came to the people they did. For instance, the character Ando from Heroes- who bears a striking resemblance to George Takei (not to mention worked with him on the show) and has the same presence, wanted to do the role of Sulu and was almost offered it before Quinto was cast and NBC wouldn't let itself lose two major characters from Heroes for several months. Kinda a shame there, but that led them to John Cho.

Additionally, Adrien Brody has the top pick for Spock (which, yeah, would've been pretty good/interesting I bet); but Zachary Quinto shaved his eyebrows for the audition and nailed it. Chris Pine's success was apparently attributed to his chemistry with Quinto, as the two apparently had worked out with eachother in the past. Like Karl Urban, who would'a thought? Apparently he auditioned just because he wanted to try his hand at comedy- and we all know how that turned out; overwhelmingly impressive.

Strange and funny, how such genius casting comes together seemingly by chance. Zoe Saldana and Simon Pegg were picked outright by Abrams, and while they're both great they don't compare to the former actors.

Like I said...........crazy how casting works out, isn't it?
Posted: Wed, 13th May 2009, 10:06am

Post 83 of 134

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Bryce wrote:

I'm absolutely perplexed as to how you're saying that Star Trek films were "intelligent" to begin with. And by "charm" you must have meant "camp".
Heh, I was probably more referring to the show then the films. Though I find Star Trek 6 to have very smart underlying political themes and the whole premise of the TNG and DS9 to be refreshingly philosophical / political. Though seeing how different our worldviews are, I'm not as perplexed we see different things in the show.

And the show as well as the movies is DEFINATELY campy - never said anything different. Incredibly campy more then a couple of times, actually.

I totally agree with you on the production values. This was indeed the best thing about the new Star Trek movie. It was the first one of all of them to have top notch production values!

Also, "flashy", "loud", "hyperactive", "modern", etc.... I'm not really sure those words denote "Bad".
You're absolutely right, it doesn't. Nor did I mean to imply that is a general rule, as much as certain people try to overgeneralize everything I say. smile

But in terms of this Star Trek movie, "flashy", "loud" and "hyperactive" are in fact the very things that made me not like it much.

Glad you and everyone else does. Though that does neither mean they're right nor I'm wrong. Just that different people have different interpretations and different tastes and in this case, mine's in the minority. I have no problem with that though.
Posted: Wed, 13th May 2009, 6:06pm

Post 84 of 134

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I thought the movie was a lot of fun. I had a great time watching it in the theater. It wasn't perfect, but it was definitely the best Star Trek movie that has come out in the last 5 years cool

One of my favorite parts was the red shirt guy getting incinerated. I was hoping there would be a red shirt reference and it was hilarious.
Posted: Wed, 13th May 2009, 8:19pm

Post 85 of 134

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Richard III wrote:

Uh, whatever Strider. I don't care about Ricardo Montalban, I care about getting as close as possible to the original Khan and making him a bit more menacing physically.

Richard III wrote:

If the actor can do a good impression of Khan OR Ricardo Montalban
Ricardo Montalban is Khan. That's all there is to it. He got to be physically menacing in the original series episode. In the movie, he was driven by vengeance... all he wanted to do was to find and kill Kirk. The point is that Khan's "superior intellect" is compromised by his need for revenge. In order to get his revenge, he has to commandeer a ship in order to find and destroy the Enterprise. There was no need for his superhuman strength... after all, a ship would be more powerful. And, like Atom said, Montalban would have been physically unable to do show any "superhuman strength". Montalban owns the role, but I actually wouldn't mind seeing Antonio Banderas give it a try. I'm not sure they should use him in the next film, but maybe we could see a young Khan in the third movie?
Posted: Thu, 14th May 2009, 1:39am

Post 86 of 134

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Yeah but here's the REAL question: if they redo Khan, should they give him a prominently bare chest, or not?

In my mind, the very essence of Khan is a huge bare chest with a head on top.
Posted: Thu, 14th May 2009, 8:02am

Post 87 of 134

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Maybe they shouldn't even bother with the head on top?
Posted: Thu, 14th May 2009, 1:21pm

Post 88 of 134

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Now that would rock.
Posted: Thu, 14th May 2009, 11:19pm

Post 89 of 134

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Just came back from it. Feelings similar to Aculag and less so Sollthar. I liked it but not as great as many are making out. First Contact is much better.

One issue I have is story and the lack of jeapordy to the characters. The time story device's use doesn't feel like it justifies the point of having it in the movie - not in the way First Contact did. Apart from enabling the use of Nimoy, it adds little to the plot. You could have had Nero's revenge storyline without it.

Characters and character development are not self contained, i.e. they're only significant if you already know about them. Scenes that do something different don't go far enough, e.g. Spock attacking Kirk. I felt to be really effective, the film needed to start off with some characters in totally different places than they're meant to be. If you take out the geektastic moments of seeing young actors acting like loved old actors, there isn't much to the film. Don't get me wrong, the cast were fantastic and Chris Pine especially, but I don't think Kurtzman and Orci pulled it out the bag. Joyriding in a car and then having a punch up in a bar, where he then gets recruited to the Starfleet, just don't go far enough imo in showing the impact of the loss of Kirk's father.
Posted: Thu, 14th May 2009, 11:44pm

Post 90 of 134

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Mellifluous wrote:

One issue I have is story and the lack of jeapordy to the characters. The time story device's use doesn't feel like it justifies the point of having it in the movie - not in the way First Contact did. Apart from enabling the use of Nimoy, it adds little to the plot. You could have had Nero's revenge storyline without it.
Uh, I think you may have forgotten the whole alternate-reality-where-the-characters-are-different thing, there.
Posted: Thu, 14th May 2009, 11:46pm

Post 91 of 134

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Mellifluous wrote:

The time story device's use doesn't feel like it justifies the point of having it in the movie - not in the way First Contact did. Apart from enabling the use of Nimoy, it adds little to the plot. You could have had Nero's revenge storyline without it.
Well, they needed the time-traveling in order to create a "second", or "alternate" reality. It's a way of rebooting Star Trek without actually wiping the old show/movies out of existence.

EDIT: I'd say First Contact is the fifth or sixth best Star Trek movie. "Star Trek", "Wrath of Khan", "Undiscovered Country", and "Voyage Home" all definitely rank ahead of it. Don't get me wrong though, cause it is a great film, with some great moments... "Assimilate this!"
Posted: Fri, 15th May 2009, 8:53am

Post 92 of 134

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

One issue that wasn't really covered is Spock Prime's reaction to now being marooned in this alternate timeline, out of time and disconnected from the people he knows.

As I said earlier, the film could happily have been 30 minutes longer with more character and time to explore the themes more deeply, but I'm still perfectly happy with the route they took, so long as every subsequent Star Trek film isn't 100% action.
Posted: Fri, 15th May 2009, 9:04am

Post 93 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

One issue that wasn't really covered is Spock Prime's reaction to now being marooned in this alternate timeline, out of time and disconnected from the people he knows.

As I said earlier, the film could happily have been 30 minutes longer with more character and time to explore the themes more deeply, but I'm still perfectly happy with the route they took, so long as every subsequent Star Trek film isn't 100% action.
J.J. Abrams has stated that a few scenes that play into how the timeline has affected things, like scenes with Kirk's stepfather, old Spock in the alternate reality, and Nero escaping prison, etc; were shot and could've been added to the movie and still kept it at a manageable runtime, but he felt it took away from the breathtaking pace of the film- one of it's considerable strengths and attributes to success- so he dropped them out.

As long as they push a tad more explanation into the next one, which would've been logical either way, I'm more than happy with the presentation and exploration of ideas in this one; like you said, Tarn.
Posted: Sun, 17th May 2009, 1:59pm

Post 94 of 134

bartman

Force: 400 | Joined: 6th Dec 2007 | Posts: 42

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I couldn't have said it better myself. Bang on with your assessment. My one word to describe it would be "mockery". There was no "Star Trek" in this movie at all.

Bart

Sollthar wrote:

Went to see it with a couple of friends tonight and we very much agreed that the film was exactly what the trailer made it out to be.

It's flashy, it's loud, it's hyperactive, it's fast, it's modern, it's in-your-face and dumbed down action without much charm, character or intelligence.
It does exactly what it set out to do. It dumbs down Star Trek for todays blockbuster generation in order to appeal to a wider audience, pumps up the production value and leaves out the heart and even more so, the mind of the series and it's exactly the film I would expect someone who isn't a Star Trek fan to make - and I bet it will be successful in it's task. It's also exactly the "story", if I'll be so bold as calling it that, a writer of the groundbreakingly intelligent Transformers screenplay would write.

There were things to like in this. Namely the fact that it was about time that Star Trek was given the money to properly produce a sci fi universe. The film was produced very nicely. I also really liked Karl Urban as McCoy, he appeared to be the only character in this movie that actually had some sort of character and the only one I liked really.
I also liked what Giacchino did with the music. But honestly, that's about it.

The worst thing was the ever-so-present hyperactive wobblycam. But, you need that today apparently, todays generation needs hypertension in order to not fall asleep or be bored I presume. The film had practically no story, it had a series of action scenes and sadly, left no room for real emotion or breath. The villain was hollow, the relationships meant nothing.
Which is the most shame as even weaker Star Trek movies do have stories with some interesting ethical or political dilemmas (like "insurrection"). This one didn't. It's an action film with the minimum of character and humour, nothing more, but also nothing less.

I have little doubt it will be one of the most financially successful Star Trek films though for me, it's one of the weakest entries to the series and makes me long for a more worthy end for the next generation crew.

So all in all, exactly what I expected, sadly.
Posted: Sun, 17th May 2009, 4:13pm

Post 95 of 134

The Strider

Force: 493 | Joined: 27th Jan 2008 | Posts: 230

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

*Sigh*
Posted: Sun, 17th May 2009, 5:08pm

Post 96 of 134

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

*pats strider on the back*

It's not so bad. You'll survive another lost soul, I'm sure.
Posted: Sun, 17th May 2009, 10:15pm

Post 97 of 134

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

bartman wrote:

I couldn't have said it better myself. Bang on with your assessment. My one word to describe it would be "mockery". There was no "Star Trek" in this movie at all.
I'm probably going to get marked down for this but...

Good. Star Trek has never appealed to me, and I found it to be very drawn out and boring. And, I know, that means I don't like 2001: A Space Odyssey, right? Sure, that was drawn out and boring too, but it was revolutionary. Star Trek never struck me as "revolutionary;" I always saw it as the side of SciFi that just wants to give out a story with out those crazy flashy effects! Damn those!

I think Sollthar is entitled to his opinion, and I'm not going to write a novel about it as Atom tends to do so. Actually, I think if I was in his position, I would agree with Sollthar. I'm sort of annoyed by people like James Cameron trying to create new technology for theaters because... well, I like films the way they are. smile I say we accept that people have different opinions from one another and shut the hell up.
Posted: Sun, 17th May 2009, 11:06pm

Post 98 of 134

The Strider

Force: 493 | Joined: 27th Jan 2008 | Posts: 230

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

*pats strider on the back*

It's not so bad. You'll survive another lost soul, I'm sure.
Hey! Get out of my personal space.
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 8:59am

Post 99 of 134

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

bartman wrote:

I couldn't have said it better myself. Bang on with your assessment. My one word to describe it would be "mockery". There was no "Star Trek" in this movie at all.
It's interesting how some people can swear that there's "no Star Trek in the movie at all", while other people (and I'm talking about lifelong fans from varying backgrounds) think it captures many aspects of Star Trek perfectly.

Obviously both cases can't really be true. smile

I think what it comes down to, as I said earlier, is that Trek has existed for decades and has taken in 6 TV series, 11 films and countless books/comics/etc. It's almost impossible to pin down exactly what Star Trek 'is', because it's no one single thing.

Therefore I stand by my comment that you can't expect a single film to encompass everything that Star Trek is about. But to say it "has no Star Trek at all" is to ignore a large part of what Trek has always been, I think.

Fill wrote:

I'm probably going to get marked down for this but...

Good. Star Trek has never appealed to me, and I found it to be very drawn out and boring.
As with my above point, I'm not sure you can generalise Star Trek in that way. Some Star Trek is slow paced and laborious. Some is fast paced and exciting. Some is poignant and moving, some is cerebral and fascinating. Some is extremely funny.

If people take Star Trek to be just one thing, then I can't help but think that they don't really understand Star Trek's potential.
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 2:17pm

Post 100 of 134

bartman

Force: 400 | Joined: 6th Dec 2007 | Posts: 42

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Well, there are the names and symbols that are the same. I'll give you that.

Most of the character traits shown were just examples of bad immitations of the originals and mostly played for the laughs. Just listen to the Chekov character for 2 seconds if you need an example.

You can eliminate all books and comics and anything else that didn't appear on screen since they aren't canon. That gets you closer to what "Trek is" since that only leaves the TV series and movies. Watch them again and then you can see why a lot of the diehard fans say this isn't Trek.

I've read a few threads on other boards that have taken an interesting turn after the first week. While a lot of people loved it they are now expressing concern that the next one will just be more of the same thing and there will never be another big character driven movie that is the cornerstone of Trek.

This tells me the cracks are showing and there was little substance under the shinny wrapper.

But, hey, if you loved it that's great.

Bart
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 2:33pm

Post 101 of 134

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

bartman wrote:

Well, there are the names and symbols that are the same. I'll give you that.

Most of the character traits shown were just examples of bad immitations of the originals and mostly played for the laughs. Just listen to the Chekov character for 2 seconds if you need an example.
Can you elaborate on that? The characters all seemed fairly intact to me and, in a few cases, played by far better actors than before. Chekov seemed fine to me, but then I can't say I've ever really got a sense of his 'character' from the previous movies. I always preferred Walter Koenig on Babylon 5, myself.

The only character I specifically didn't think was interpreted well was Scotty, who was played entirely for laughs. In the original he was comedic, but mainly due to his bluster and general stress levels. Having him pipe up with amusing Peggisms didn't really work for me. They were funny, but didn't fit.

That gets you closer to what "Trek is" since that only leaves the TV series and movies. Watch them again and then you can see why a lot of the diehard fans say this isn't Trek.
OK, but I still don't really understand how that defines what Trek 'is'.

Next Gen is vastly different to DS9. Voyager is vastly different. TOS is even more different. Enterprise is different again (although I've only seen a couple of episodes of that series). I've never seen the animated series but I imagine that's got its own flavour, too.

Then there's the movies, each of which have its own style. Voyage Home is a classic 80s 'out of time' comedy. Khan is Khan, of course. Final Frontier is ego-guff. Undiscovered Country is a great film blending action and politics and the idea of getting old. Then you've got the TNG movies, which are very different again, both from the original crew movies and from each other. Nemesis is vastly different to Insurrection, which is different to First Contact.

Which comes back to my original point, which is that you can't define Trek as being anything particularly specific. Trek has always been re-inventing itself, that's why it's lasted half a century.

I've read a few threads on other boards that have taken an interesting turn after the first week. While a lot of people loved it they are now expressing concern that the next one will just be more of the same thing and there will never be another big character driven movie that is the cornerstone of Trek.
Yeah, I said that exact same thing a few pages back if you have a read.

That's not a commentary on the quality of this one, though. It's a commentary on the nature of Trek itself, as I outlined above: always changing, always trying something new, always innovative. So if the movies from now on all kept to the same style and content as this one then, yeah, of course that would be a massive disappointment.

But that's a separate issue to the current movie itself.

This tells me the cracks are showing and there was little substance under the shinny wrapper.
I'd say it's more that those people understand that Trek is a giant thing with enormous depth and scope, which can be pretty much whatever it wants, and shouldn't be restricted to just one thing.

If all you want is for Trek to be one thing, then I'd say that's missing the point.

EDIT: I have no problem with you disliking the new movie, by the way. Most of Sollthar's reasoning for his negative opinion I understand completely, for example. I'm just not sure I understand the specific "It's not Trek!" argument, for the reasons stated above.

Last edited Mon, 18th May 2009, 2:44pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 2:36pm

Post 102 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Hmmmm, bartman.....

That's really rather unfair, deducing the character exposition in this movie to an equating of Chekov. Why? Because as was rather obvious, the movie directly made a point of using him as a bit of comedic relief by purposefully overdoing and over-caricaturing his character. I thought this was a great and subtle throwback to the camp of the original series- where characters were equally if not even more cheesy and silly.

The other characters, however, did not align with Chekov. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto, in my opinion, bring a very grounded sense of realism and depth to the characters of Kirk and Spock; and I think many would agree. Conversely, while the likes of Karl Urban's McCoy remain less multi-faceted........how could you not love him? He damn near nailed McCoy in essence without seeming overdone. His character, logically, had less build-up and therefore slightly less depth than the former- but his screentime with executed perfectly I felt like. It's rather upsetting you discount all the characters as pale imitations of the originals, as I'd gather it's really the other way around.

John Cho and Zoe Saldana as Sulu and Uhura, respectively, also tend to give great performances and demonstrate once more just how impeccably-casted this movie is. The reason we aren't discussing them more? Simply because there's too much good in the casting and acting to go around fully. And I haven't even touched on Simon Pegg.

I thought the greatest strength of the movie was in the wit of the writing (and how it tied back into the original series) and the excellence of the acting/casting choices.

I'd gather many, many people agree with me and would disagree with you on these points at the very least.
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 3:11pm

Post 103 of 134

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +2/-2

Atom wrote:


I'd gather many, many people agree with me and would disagree with you on these points at the very least.
Are you saying that because more people may agree with you, your opinion is more valid than bartmans? I don't think it's necessary to try and "disprove" all his points. You're not right, he's not wrong. He's not right, you're not wrong.


This movie can be analyzed and interpreted in a thousand different ways.
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 3:33pm

Post 104 of 134

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Well said, Gorion.

Atom - don't you think the world would be a bit boring if everyone agreed with you? Or would you genuinely prefer a world of Atom clones - male and female - that are all the same? razz

As for Chekov, I didn't actually find his character to be there for comic relief, or caricatured (unlike Scotty). He had a few amusing moments, but generally they gave him quite a lot to do, particularly during the Vulcan evacuation and skydive.
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 3:59pm

Post 105 of 134

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Tarn wrote:

It's interesting how some people can swear that there's "no Star Trek in the movie at all", while other people (and I'm talking about lifelong fans from varying backgrounds) think it captures many aspects of Star Trek perfectly.
Obviously both cases can't really be true.
I'd say it can both be true and you're giving the reason yourself. So many people watch so many different aspects of Star Trek, which eventually ends up for "Trek" being something different for each and everyone. Hence, when different people watch they same thing, they'll see different things - and eventually end up liking or disliking those things.

I wouldn't say the film wasn't a trek film, obviously it was. It didn't really look like the Star Trek I'm familiar with, but then again, as I've pointed out, that can be seen as a good thing or a bad thing - since many aspects of Star Trek look indeed quite goofy. smile
Though I can't say I'm much of a fan of this "industrial pipe design" and "lensflares all over the place" Trek either, but that's preference.

And good point indeed Gorion.
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 4:23pm

Post 106 of 134

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Sollthar wrote:

Tarn wrote:

It's interesting how some people can swear that there's "no Star Trek in the movie at all", while other people (and I'm talking about lifelong fans from varying backgrounds) think it captures many aspects of Star Trek perfectly.
Obviously both cases can't really be true.
I'd say it can both be true and you're giving the reason yourself. So many people watch so many different aspects of Star Trek, which eventually ends up for "Trek" being something different for each and everyone. Hence, when different people watch they same thing, they'll see different things - and eventually end up liking or disliking those things.
Good point, very true. So I suppose it's when people start claiming that their interpretation of Trek is the only interpretation of Trek, that there's some kind of universal truth to 'what is Trek', that I get a bit confused.
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 4:41pm

Post 107 of 134

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Tarn wrote:

So I suppose it's when people start claiming that their interpretation of Trek is the only interpretation of Trek, that there's some kind of universal truth to 'what is Trek', that I get a bit confused.
Not quite convinced that's really what people do, unless you're going into science semantics. So when someone says "X is a bad movie", which is said and written a lot, I doubt they're actually trying to put a universal truth to the line, but simply really mean to express that they didn't like it.

So I'd presume when bartman writes "there was no Star Trek in this movie" he simply means, what he sees as and likes about Star Trek, wasn't in there. Nothing more, nothing less.
Given, semantically, in a science essay written at university environment, the statement could be picked to pieces as being "unexact" and potentially "misleading" or even simply "wrong". But I'm not sure either is the case here myself. smile
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 6:35pm

Post 108 of 134

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Me in the Wolverine thread talking to Atom wrote:

Let's not kid ourselves. Usually when someone doesn't hold the same opinion as you, you beat it into the ground with that person.
Atom, you have proven the hell out of my point in this thread haha. Geez...

Anyways, I've seen it twice already and I love the movie. It's gotten mixed reviews in our circle of friends out here though. Some liked it, others didn't (Majority of us did). I really dug the visual style of everything in this film and the special effects looked photo real to me (which pulled me into the film even more so).

Can't wait for this on DVD or Blu Ray. I'd be really interested in see an extended cut.

p.s. I want that sword... You all know which one I'm talking about cool
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 6:51pm

Post 109 of 134

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I'd be really interested in see an extended cut.
Oh, will there be one? I'd be very interested in seeing that.
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 7:35pm

Post 110 of 134

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I know I'm getting in really late into the conversation, but I loved the film. Fantastic pacing, acting, music(!), and overall storyline. Brilliant, to say the least. The best film this year, I have to say. I thought the characters were fantastic. McCoy was spot on, while Zachary Quinto went a little independant when acting as spock. It wasn't as true to the first, but I couldn't help but liking it somewhat.. better. I was really surprised that the humor and dialog played out so well, considering you usually don't see that in many Sci-Fi Films. I'd even go as far to say that it was better then the Star Wars films.. wink
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 7:57pm

Post 111 of 134

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

CX3 wrote:

I'd be really interested in see an extended cut.
Absolutely. While I love the film, I'm also fairly certain that an extra 15-30 minutes of 'quiet time' would enhance it massively.

p.s. I want that sword... You all know which one I'm talking about cool
Yeah. That annoyed me, though, because it's exactly the same as a thing I've got in the book I'm writing. Damn them!
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 8:09pm

Post 112 of 134

bartman

Force: 400 | Joined: 6th Dec 2007 | Posts: 42

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

You can't really say that Star Trek is an action/adventure type of show. Yes, there are examples in the series and movies of the action/adventure but the main formula for Trek has always been the examination of the human character and the human condition. If you argue otherwise then I would argue that you really missed the point of Star Trek over the years.

That said, you have this offering which is all action/adventure. There is no little room left for character developement it is sad and there is zero anything about the human condition.

Hence, it is not Star Trek. It is some bastard child of Paramount and JJ looking to make more money at the Star Trek well. Well they did so they will be going back for more.

Let's say, for example that Transformers didn't really do that well at the box office so to appeal to the blue hair generation they decided to take out the robots. Wow, it really took off and all the seniors flocked to the theatres. Made a ton of money. But, it is Transformers anymore? Hmm, guess not.

So let's look at the next movie. What can you do? Can you remake City on the Edge of Forever? A classic example of Trek at it's best. Gee, probably not because there isn't much action/adventure going on there. Certainly not much CGI and nothing blowing up every two minutes. So, we can't do that and expect to make any money so that leaves us with more action/adventure/blowing shit up every two minutes.

At what number movie do people say, "you know, the action is great, but where are the stories that really made Star Trek and kept if alive for 40+ years? Boy, this really isn't Star Trek anymore is it?"

If you want Star Wars have Star Wars, if you want Star Trek have Star Trek, but please don't pretend to think that this movie represented the best of Trek because in the end it won't and 40 years from now TOS will still be the one that people talk about.

It was designed for maximum dollars from the crowd that has a short attention span and needs things going boom to stay with it. Nothing more. In retrospect I should have got up and left when Nokia showed up. I think I would have slept better afterwards not seeing it. Pity too, because I really wanted to like this reboot, but instead I am left with a bad taste in my mouth and no desire to see the next one at all.

Bart
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 8:25pm

Post 113 of 134

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

bartman wrote:


It was designed for maximum dollars from the crowd that has a short attention span and needs things going boom to stay with it. Nothing more.
Don't generalize like that. I always hear this complaint about movies today, and I don't think it's valid. It's easy to just say that, but it's a lot harder to successfully integrate good storytelling into a fast-paced action/adventure film such as this than it is into a slower moving old TV show. That takes more skill. The tone of the film called for it to be moving at a breakneck speed. There was constantly pressure on all the characters to do this or that NOW, or everyone would die - and therefore the film rocketed along at a very fast pace - to reflect this need. There's very little jeopardy if people just mosey along, and eventually get to where ever they're going. Where's the drama in that?

I think they did a remarkable job of integrating character development within the framework of the fast paced action. Anything relating to Spock's development, in particular, was great fun and interesting to watch. Granted, it's not the deepest character exploration of all time, but I think for this particular film, they really needed to focus on setting the world in order based on their new reality. Some character stuff came out of this obviously, but in order to re-establish this Trek as a popular franchise, there needed to be sacrificed.

Now that Trek is "popular", they can delve into more rich character development in upcoming installments, but they couldn't do it right out of the gate, or people would get lost in Trekkie Lore.

If you want more Trek at all, THIS is what the franchise needed, to keep it healthy and alive. Otherwise, if they kept going with their previous trends, the franchise would sputter off and die. If you'd rather stubbornly cling to the old stuff, then fine, go ahead. But this is Star Trek's second chance at popularity and continued life.
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 8:28pm

Post 114 of 134

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Thrawn wrote:

I'd even go as far to say that it was better then the Star Wars films.. wink
As a diehard, life-long Star Wars fan, I can tell you right now that it is better than all the Star Wars movies except for Episode IV. I can't believe I'm saying this, but it's true. smile

As for an extended/director's cut, I'm torn. Apparently, there were a lot of scenes cut because they didn't fit with the "pacing" of film, so I'm not sure if adding them back in would help or hurt the film. If they can add some more quiet, exposition type of scenes while remaining faithful to the fast pace, then I'm all for it. As long as it's a seamless branching Blu-ray, and I can choose which one to watch. *gets chills at the thought of owning Star Trek on Blu-ray* smile

EDIT: My thoughts exactly Evman. The first film had to be this way. Now that the characters and basic premise is established, the sequels can have more interesting plots and ideas. There's nothing wrong with having great character and plot development, and great visual effects (which I think the first one already has anyway).

Last edited Mon, 18th May 2009, 8:34pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 8:32pm

Post 115 of 134

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

jawajohnny wrote:



As a diehard, life-long Star Wars fan, I can tell you right now that it is better than all the Star Wars movies except for Episode IV. I can't believe I'm saying this, but it's true. smile

I'm sorry - if there's ONE Star Wars film that is unequivocally better than Star Trek, it's Empire Strikes Back. Although I still think the original three SWs films are better than Trek, it's definitely better than any of the prequels.
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 8:42pm

Post 116 of 134

bartman

Force: 400 | Joined: 6th Dec 2007 | Posts: 42

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Okay, so if this one was needed to "bring them in" then I dare them to remake "City on the Edge of Forever" as I mentioned and we'll see how that goes. After all, everyone will want to see a classic Trek won't they now? The catch is, it has to be character driven and exploring the human condition. Can't have any explosions or anything else of that nature.

Bet it doesn't make any money and number 3 is back to the new formula.

And, I stand by my statement that this movie was made to go after the dollars of the "blow it up" crowd. That was 90% of the talk at the bar afterwards. All about how this or that blew up real good. I guess that makes sense since that was 90% of the movie so what else to talk about?

Bart

edited to add I've only focused on the nature of the formula with this movie. I haven't even got started on the whole alternate reality crap as a way to destroy canon, but not really. That idea didn't fly well with Enterprise and still doesn't.
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 8:58pm

Post 117 of 134

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

I'm sorry - if there's ONE Star Wars film that is unequivocally better than Star Trek, it's Empire Strikes Back. Although I still think the original three SWs films are better than Trek, it's definitely better than any of the prequels.
Ah, I knew this would come up. I guess you're right, Empire Strikes Back is no doubt the better film. So Star Trek beats four of the Star Wars movies. Coming from a crazy Star Wars fan, that's still saying something. I guess I said that because I prefer "fun" movies over the darker stuff.
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 9:06pm

Post 118 of 134

bartman

Force: 400 | Joined: 6th Dec 2007 | Posts: 42

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

So if this would have been a classic Trek that was little action how would you feel about it? Still better than Star Wars?

Bart
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 9:18pm

Post 119 of 134

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Bartman... you've got to remember we're talking about Star Trek movies... not the show. Movies have to have stuff blowing up, you know, more excitement. All the "classic" Star Trek movies have this, except maybe Voyage Home, which made up for it with comedy. Movies and TV are two vastly different mediums.

And to answer your question... no, it wouldn't be better than most of the Star Wars movies. As great as "City on the Edge of Forever" is, it is absolutely, positively not as great as Star Wars. I'm not the kind of person who likes those short attention-span action films. I prefer the old stuff... in fact, I grew up watching all the old stuff with my dad. TOS is excellent, but I'd rather watch the movies, simply because they have higher production values, and combine that with everything that's great about Star Trek, plus good action. smile I dunno, this is hard for me to explain... it's just my personal tastes. smile
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 9:18pm

Post 120 of 134

The Strider

Force: 493 | Joined: 27th Jan 2008 | Posts: 230

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

I'm afraid that Star Trek is run by people who *gasp* want to be successful. And those people know that the action/adventure aspect of Trek (which is much more dominant than you seem to think, Bartman) is the most crowd-pleasing. And there is nothing wrong with that. This Trek reboot brings back the swashbuckling atmosphere that we haven't seen in a long, long time, and I think this is the best Trek in twenty years. To echo his majesty the Tarn, Trek is not one static thing, but a combination of many elements and styles. I don't mind if you don't like it, but to say this isn't Star Trek is really inaccurate. It'd be much more accurate to say, "This isn't my KIND of Star Trek."
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 9:26pm

Post 121 of 134

bartman

Force: 400 | Joined: 6th Dec 2007 | Posts: 42

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Actually, look again. Most of Trek is not action/adventure. Most is adventure, but action has always taken the back seat. Even Wrath of Kahn really only had a little bit of action, but was an excellent Trek that did manage to capture all that is Trek and a good example of why this movie doesn't do Trek justice.

In any event. I'm moving on since I can't undo seeing the movie and have better things to do than debate it's lack of merit any further. This has been interesting and much better than any discussion I've had with people who haven't ever seen Star Trek before, but suddenly are all knowing about it. Thanks for that.

Bart
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 9:38pm

Post 122 of 134

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +2

Bartman, I've seen a ton of Star Trek episodes from all series, and I still think you're full of yourself. You don't need to label others as foolish inferior beings that will only watch brainless movies full of explosions to state your own intelligence. In fact, doing that shows how shallow your view of the world really is: there's you and a few select people, and there's the other stupid people that don't understand anything.

You keep going on about how Star Trek is supposed to study the human condition, yet you also continually demonstrate how little you know of it.
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 10:22pm

Post 123 of 134

The Strider

Force: 493 | Joined: 27th Jan 2008 | Posts: 230

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

bartman wrote:

Actually, look again. Most of Trek is not action/adventure. Most is adventure, but action has always taken the back seat. Even Wrath of Kahn really only had a little bit of action, but was an excellent Trek that did manage to capture all that is Trek and a good example of why this movie doesn't do Trek justice.

You do realize I said action/adventure for a reason, right? I'm well aware that action is not the focus. Adventure, however, is the bulk, and the new film delivers this in spades.
Posted: Mon, 18th May 2009, 11:03pm

Post 124 of 134

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

bartman wrote:

This has been interesting and much better than any discussion I've had with people who haven't ever seen Star Trek before, but suddenly are all knowing about it. Thanks for that.
wall

We all have seen Star Trek before, and knew everything about it before seeing the new movie. I would be categorized as one of the "older" fans... not one of the new generation that's seeing Star Trek for the first time.
Posted: Tue, 19th May 2009, 2:08am

Post 125 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

First off: Pooky and Evman are both dead-on, concise, and make great points with their last couple of posts. +1, guys.

CX3 wrote:

Me in the Wolverine thread talking to Atom wrote:

Let's not kid ourselves. Usually when someone doesn't hold the same opinion as you, you beat it into the ground with that person.
Atom, you have proven the hell out of my point in this thread haha. Geez...
This simply isn't true, man. I've not beaten anything to the ground with any single person. In fact, I'd actually wager a lot of people liked my comments as the +1s dictate. Say what you will about Star Trek, but don't arbitrarily bring me up in the thread and then, as you'll probably do, just treat this like me continually being stubborn.

Now, you can say I'm defending some of the same points over and over, maybe, but in each of my comments I've tackled different things different people have said- and only to provoke healthy conversation about all this- and it's been quite enjoyable and interesting, too. Maybe I've frequented this thread more than others, but I've not nor intend to push my opinion against any single dissenting view. Multiple people have brought up points I either don't agree with or wish to question- and I've tried to do so in as concise and few thought-out posts as possible. With, well, the exception of Sollthar. (Because he just pushes my buttons, doesn't he. wink )

Geez, yourself...

And Bartman- you're just..............wrong. Not because you don't have valid points, but because you assume way too much about all of us and discount our opinions and merits because of it. Now, I've never been terribly into Star Trek, so I'll give you that, but many of the other users in this thread are; so please don't flagrantly slub it all off in such a high-and-mighty way. I've listed my thoughts on the 'made for a crack-and-boom-explosion-low-attention-span audience' mantra already, so for CX3s benefit I won't go further into that. smile
Posted: Tue, 19th May 2009, 2:14am

Post 126 of 134

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I think I need to say something:

JJ Abrams has ALWAYS paid as much attention to the story and characters as the special effects.

I know, I'm a fanboy of his, but it kills me to see people generalizing his work in the whizz-bang-- oh my god that looks so cool! category. Sure, Star Trek looked fantastic, but Abrams has always been deeply involved writing the work he produces/directs.

By the way, did anyone see the finale of Fringe? I shat my pants.
Posted: Tue, 19th May 2009, 2:26am

Post 127 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Also,

Gorion wrote:

Are you saying that because more people may agree with you, your opinion is more valid than bartmans?
No, and I think you're losing sight of what my overall post was about, man, and Tarn as well. I'm not one to say there's only one right way to look at things (although I like being right, yes)- but for bartman to state, essentially as fact, that the characters were shallow, pale imitations of the originals is just as much loaded with heresy; and I was trying to combat that. To converse this, I was simply saying that I think the majority of the people who've seen it would think the contrary- and because bartman's been basing things off of what 'trek fans' and the public, etc. think of the movie- it would seem to me the majority opinion has some importance to him. I was trying to reference this back his way- not only because I disagree, not only because I think I'm generally correct (I mean, I agree with my own opinion, doesn't everybody? smile ), but because it appeared and still does to me that bartman is trying to treat us, perhaps inadvertently, like an audience without merits or worth of opinion.

Noting that not one, not two, but lots of people think that the film does embody many of the TV series' original characters well isn't a point of taste or opinion, it's a point made to hopefully get bartman out of the mindset that his opinion is representative (and seemingly entirely correct in his eyes) of the majority and we're all just an inexperienced, un-trek-ucated minority. smile

And CX3, I agree with you on your other points and have seen some of the same reaction to the film. Just wanted to let ya know. wink
Posted: Tue, 19th May 2009, 3:55am

Post 128 of 134

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Fill wrote:

By the way, did anyone see the finale of Fringe? I shat my pants.
I sort of feel like watching that show, but I'm afraid that it'll leave me feeling empty and answerless like Lost. Does it actually go anywhere?
Posted: Tue, 19th May 2009, 5:27am

Post 129 of 134

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Same. I watched the first episode- saw too twisted and irresolute of a character and story arc building- and decided not to watch more. Plus it was too weird and X-Files-y for me; a show I never liked.
Posted: Tue, 19th May 2009, 8:41am

Post 130 of 134

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

bartman wrote:

Okay, so if this one was needed to "bring them in" then I dare them to remake "City on the Edge of Forever" as I mentioned and we'll see how that goes.
Heh, with Harlan on the warpath that could be a far trickier prospect than any of us comprehend. razz

The catch is, it has to be character driven and exploring the human condition. Can't have any explosions or anything else of that nature.
Character stuff and explosions aren't mutually exclusive.

And, I stand by my statement that this movie was made to go after the dollars of the "blow it up" crowd.
It was certainly made to appeal to a wider audience. As has been said, a wider audience needed to be found or Trek would have remained dead for 10 years, after the terrible mis-management of the Braga era, culminating in the appalling Enterprise and Nemesis.

Having said that, the movie was still vastly different to what I would categorise as the 'blow it up' movies of Michael Bay, Paul Anderson, Rob Cohen etc.

How many 'blow it up' movies have you seen in which characters espouse the virtues of education and intellectualism, or honour and comradeship and responsibility?

That was 90% of the talk at the bar afterwards. All about how this or that blew up real good. I guess that makes sense since that was 90% of the movie so what else to talk about?
I guess you went to a crappy bar.

Most of the 'bar talk' I had revolved almost entirely around characters.

- How it was good to see Chekov given some interesting, important scenes for once.
- The overt and casual racism Spock experienced as a child and while growing up (I think this might be what you were referring to as examining the human condition).
- The heroism of Kirk's father and how his death nearly destroyed Kirk but also inspired him, once Pike pointed him in the right direction.
- McCoy being...well, McCoy, and doing his own grumpy thing.
- Nero being more than just a Crazy Bad Guy, in that he was just an ordinary miner. He wasn't an empire building monarch or warlord etc. This wasn't explored as much as it should have been, but it was still an interesting theme.
- The loss of Spock's human mother and how that influenced the debate between his human and Vulcan sides.

Etc. While it was noted that the production values were awesome, most of our post-film chat focused entirely on character issues.

You see what you want to see in 'art', I guess.

jawajohnny wrote:

Bartman... you've got to remember we're talking about Star Trek movies... not the show. Movies have to have stuff blowing up, you know, more excitement. All the "classic" Star Trek movies have this, except maybe Voyage Home, which made up for it with comedy. Movies and TV are two vastly different mediums.
Yeah, this is a very important point, I think. The films have always been more action/adventure than the TV shows.

This has been interesting and much better than any discussion I've had with people who haven't ever seen Star Trek before, but suddenly are all knowing about it. Thanks for that.
Accusing people of not having seen Star Trek before just because they have a different view of it to you is a little dismissive.

Elitism within the fanbase is a sad thing.
Posted: Tue, 19th May 2009, 3:38pm

Post 131 of 134

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

jawajohnny wrote:

bartman wrote:

This has been interesting and much better than any discussion I've had with people who haven't ever seen Star Trek before, but suddenly are all knowing about it. Thanks for that.
wall

We all have seen Star Trek before, and knew everything about it before seeing the new movie. I would be categorized as one of the "older" fans... not one of the new generation that's seeing Star Trek for the first time.
Am I the only one who took this quote to mean that he is complimenting us compared to his other friends, who have never seen Star Trek?

Or did I miss something?
Posted: Tue, 19th May 2009, 7:27pm

Post 132 of 134

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

Fill wrote:

By the way, did anyone see the finale of Fringe? I shat my pants.
I sort of feel like watching that show, but I'm afraid that it'll leave me feeling empty and answerless like Lost. Does it actually go anywhere?
Fringe is awesome. It started out slow, and it did appear to be a lame X-Files rip off. But then, once the main storyline was put in place, it got really, really interesting. Right now, I'd say it's loads better than The X-Files. The characters have more depth than Mulder and Scully, and the plot is tighter, and more interesting. I find the parallel universe stuff is really fascinating. Every episode has a real intensity I haven't seen from other shows. Unlike Lost, it's real accessible to people who haven't seen every episode, even though they are following an in-depth plot. It's pretty clear that they have an end-game in mind, whereas The X-Files wound up faltering, never reaching a true conclusion. Anyone who hasn't seen the season finale has to do it now. Along with TSCC, it's the best finale I've seen... ever. The final minutes are just amazing. Only thing that didn't work was the "big reveal" of Leonard Nimoy. Everyone knew he had joined Fringe, so we all knew exactly whose face was in the shadows at that point. The final shot though, is just amazing. smile I'm glad Fox was smart enough to renew this. Now it's their only "good" show, since House and Bones appear to be slipping.

Evman wrote:

Am I the only one who took this quote to mean that he is complimenting us compared to his other friends, who have never seen Star Trek?

Or did I miss something?
Oh... I didn't read it like that before. Yeah, he actually could have been complimenting us. smile
Posted: Tue, 19th May 2009, 7:56pm

Post 133 of 134

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

Fill wrote:

By the way, did anyone see the finale of Fringe? I shat my pants.
I sort of feel like watching that show, but I'm afraid that it'll leave me feeling empty and answerless like Lost. Does it actually go anywhere?
No, it actually has answered a lot of questions since the show's beginning while keeping a very tight yet complex storyline. I'm in love with the characters- especially John Nobles' performance. And I totally agree with jawajohnny: the last shot of the finale is absolutely brilliant.

Oh, and did anybody know that Andrew Kramer from Videocopilot.net created the opening titling sequences for Star Trek and Fringe?
Posted: Wed, 27th May 2009, 7:40pm

Post 134 of 134

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

I have not written any review for Star Trek simply because I didn't think words could describe what I felt about that film. If they could, Atom has done a very good job of writing my exact thoughts on this film throughout this thread.

After 3 years of waiting for this film, re watching TNG, reading Memory Alpha, following the production and building expectations that were out of this world, it simply did not disappoint. In no way. I've read a lot about J.J. Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman, and Michael Giacchino in this thread (and they deserve all the praise they are getting), but I would like to give acknowledgment to Ben Burtt who blew my mind in the first scene when Kelvin was being destroyed and a woman yelling "Lieutenant!" was sucked into the soundless vacuum of space. After this scene Burtt just continued delivering his expected excellence all way to the credits.

This film truly deserves a lot of techie awards at the Oscars next year. To bad Avatar will snatch them all. neutral

Also this was my first film I saw in a fully digital theater. This was the best thing I could have done. It was like watching Blu-Ray...on a BIG screen. I now know what Lucas has been talking about since 2002. My second screening was at a regular theater and it simply could not compare.

EDIT:

Fill wrote:

By the way, did anyone see the finale of Fringe? I shat my pants.
And with good reason. I was running around the house like a 3 year old yelling "Fringe is AMAZING!" It was insane.