Star Trek 09

[TheArsenal]

Well. It was Ok. Just watched it recently. It was flashy and exiting but I guess I saw this type of plot before. Im no treckie but I prefer the older movies. I guess I felt much more real emotion there. I felt like those where real people. 09 had characters, just "run of the mill" characters in my opinion. The thing is recapturing Kirk is hard. Almost impossible now. Its one of those things that can only be achieved through years and years of knowing that person until you become him. instead they followed an....OK route. Its what I call "Spiced Characters". Their not exactly stock, just that thier characteristics have been increased in order to hide the fact that the characters are caricatures of thier originals.

Characters are built when they have time just to chat. Just to sit, talk.

But two things bug me:

Treckies: It doesnt suck. Star Treck is going the mainstream direction. I dont like it either. But this direction isnt that bad. Star Treck will still remain as before. It rewrites the history so much that just pretend its a different story wholewise. Its not like that Spock is now a clone in the original series. Its been unharmed.

Anti Treckies: This is for those that make those annoying cartoons showing people that dislike this movie as stupid and one sided. Ironic isnt it? Because I can make one sided cartoons too:

"Poor Treckie. This is SO much cooler! It has Boobs, and explosions and one dimensional villains! Who needs "New Stories" or "Intellectually challenging plots" when we have Boobs!"

See? Its not that hard.


Your opinions?

Edit: Mine is that Star Trek cannot be made again. People just want to watch splosions these days (This was always true). There is just less people that want Star trek nowdays.

[Ravens_cry]

It's spelled Trek for one, unless you're making a pun. But yeah, Nero was a terrible villain. The enemy ship was ugly and and looked nothing like any Romulan vessel ever. It also didn't look like anything the Borg came up with either. I felt frankly nauseous during the space battles, all turns and swoops and oh gods! What happened to the ballet of the mass battles of Deep Space 9?
The Enterprise herself had little internal consistency. One minute they are running past a factory from the white, piercing bright clean room of the bridge to the blue and red water slide of engineering. Even the orignal series made all Enterprise sets everything feel at least somewhat like it was the same vessel with lighting and style cues, and was done even better in The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. What kind of film makers are they calling themselves? All in all, the best thing I can say is I am glad I saw it so I didn't have to see it again.

[Asheram]

Frankly, I think this was just about the best possible way to make a re-boot if you think of the challenges. They had to make a movie that'd both old old generation of viewers would enjoy as well as the new younger generation.

This movie showed all the characters at their best and what more can you ask for?

[TheArsenal]

Frankly, I think this was just about the best possible way to make a re-boot if you think of the challenges. They had to make a movie that'd both old old generation of viewers would enjoy as well as the new younger generation.

This movie showed all the characters at their best and what more can you ask for?

Yeah. In terms of Success "Action" is the way to go. But I dont find much older gen stuff. Replace a few parts and this becomes a different movie entirly.

I would make it about a entirely different crew of an different ship. And I would do it slower, and about decisions.

[Ravens_cry]

What kind of chain of command makes a young, recently disciplined, stowaway cadet, command of a weapon of mass destruction?
Because that is what the Enterprise has the capability to be.
The whole chain of events were one big, whaa. . .? And don't get me started on Spocks mothers death.
Checkov, what happened there?

[Gnoman]

What kind of chain of command makes a young, recently disciplined, stowaway cadet, command of a weapon of mass destruction?


One that just had all their brand-new heavy cruisers, probably with some of the highest ranking officers in the fleet aboard, wiped out by an enemy that the young, recently disciplined, stowaway cadet managed to defeat when there was nobody else standing between the Earth and destruction?

It makes a lot more sense than Picard keeping the Enterprise after The Best of Both Worlds.

One thing I really liked about the movie was the design of the Kelvin. It's the destroyer class layout from Star Fleet Battles, which was great to see.

[KillianHawkeye]

And don't get me started on Spocks mothers death.
Checkov, what happened there?

Hey, you know how they always stand real still when they get beamed up? Yeah, there's a reason for that. It doesn't work so well with moving targets.

And I know he beamed Kirk and Sulu up when they were falling, but they were falling side by side at the same rate and it still took him over a minute to lock on. He just wasn't able to do the same for Spock's mom when she fell because everyone else was still just standing, and he didn't have time to adjust for her movement in any case.

[Ravens_cry]

Hey, you know how they always stand real still when they get beamed up? Yeah, there's a reason for that. It doesn't work so well with moving targets.

And I know he beamed Kirk and Sulu up when they were falling, but they were falling side by side at the same rate and it still took him over a minute to lock on. He just wasn't able to do the same for Spock's mom when she fell because everyone else was still just standing, and he didn't have time to adjust for her movement in any case.
They were still moving targets in relation to the ground, the very same problem with Spocks mother. Also, the beam up seemed to take a hell lot longer to actually happen with their beam up then, again with Kirk and Sulu once lock on was achieved, long enough for the cliff face to fall. It just added u[p to make the whole thing feel contrived to me.

One that just had all their brand-new heavy cruisers, probably with some of the highest ranking officers in the fleet aboard, wiped out by an enemy that the young, recently disciplined, stowaway cadet managed to defeat when there was nobody else standing between the Earth and destruction?


No, no, this was before the ship actually won, after he badgered Spock into showing some emotion over the loss of his mother and his homeworld.

[Mauve Shirt]

I really enjoy this movie, but then I've always been able to forgive a movie some plot holes and silliness in return for giving me characters I like, and I liked their versions of Bones, Scotty and Checkov.

[Gnoman]

No, no, this was before the ship actually won, after he badgered Spock into showing some emotion over the loss of his mother and his homeworld.

Ah. I thought you were referring to the permanent emplacement at the end. It's very simple. Kirk was either the only cadet aboard in the Command Track, or the closest to graduation, which would make him the most senior Command crew aboard, which is who the regulations specify command devolves to. The ship had few regular officers aboard in the first place, which is why they had cadets pressed into service. Most of the cadets were in technical or scientific fields, and Kirk was being punished for cheating on creatively passing his final exam.

[vp21ct]

You know, here's something I don't get.

I've been a trekkie since, well, since I can remember. I grew up watching TNG, TOS, DS9, (bits of) Voyager, Enterprise.

The thing is, I can find good things to say about, pretty much every incarnation of trek. Period. Even ST:V.

But this movie ranks above much of Star Trek, in my opinion. I genuinly enjoyed it and welcome it as a new addition to the Star Trek universe.

One thing in particular that I liked is just how much of a retelling of the story of the Wrath of Khan it is, but without actually stealing anything from that movie.

The Villain's (Khan, Nero) family, as well as many of the people he knew are killed by some accident, and declare revenge on the person whom they feel are responsible for those deaths (Kirk, Spock).

They are delayed in their revenge for some time, but then are given the opportunity to act on it. The hero must go up against them in an almost impossible situation, but manages to succeed by his wits and his understanding of his enemies motivations. (Kirk lours Khan into the Mutara Nebula, and there is able to defeat him. Kirk lours Nero away from earth using spock as bait, then destroys the Narrada with the Jellyfish/Redmatter)

A signifigant sacrifice is made in each instances, though at varrying points in the movie (Spock, the planet Vulcan).

Basically, while it borrows elements, it remains it's own plot and it's own story, and is very enriched and, in my mind, very trek, because of that.

I think that the important thing to consider here is that every generation has had their own version of trek, and each time it's been different in some way. TNG wasn't TOS, DS9 wasn't TNG, Voyager wasn't DS9, ENT wasn't Voyager (Once ENT finally found out what it wanted to be, that is), and nuTrek isn't going to be any of those things. We really don't know what it's going to be, but you know what?

I have every ounce of confidence that it's going to be... something beautiful.

[kamikasei]

Fun movie. Some plot elements were stupid, overly silly, or unnecessary, and I think they'd have been better off just saying (in the film or elsewhere) "this is a new continuity, don't assume previous canon holds" than trying for a worst-of-both-worlds solution where they're still going to be inconsistent with a bunch of what was established in other shows anyway, but my only real objection to the movie is that I really wish they hadn't put Uhura in a romantic relationship with someone in a position of power over her.

No, no, this was before the ship actually won, after he badgered Spock into showing some emotion over the loss of his mother and his homeworld.
Pike specifically made him Spock's second in command. Not that that's a whole lot better, but it does fall under "Starfleet doesn't act much like a real military" rather than "whaaa...?" territory.

[Ravens_cry]

Pike specifically made him Spock's second in command. Not that that's a whole lot better, but it does fall under "Starfleet doesn't act much like a real military" rather than "whaaa...?" territory.
It's almost as "whaa . . .?" as putting a child who disobeys orders at the helm of a starship.:smallamused:
edit:
I wish I could be as hopeful as you, vp21ct.

[vp21ct]

It's almost as "whaa . . .?" as putting a child who disobeys orders at the helm of a starship.:smallamused:

eh... I get the feeling that Pike would have supported Kirk's 'creative' problem solving, recognized that for what it was, and thus put the guy who scored highest in all command level tests, save the one he 'creatively solved', and decided (correctly) that he was the person with the right stuff to solve things if they got so bad that even Spock couldn't solve them.

[Obrysii]

The worst part for me?

The ship just isn't epic. It just looks modern and shiny, but it has no epicness to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j5aRKZq7vU&feature=related watch this and tell me at 2:01 you don't get chills.

The ship is just that amazing, and the new one? Just doesn't do it.

[vp21ct]

Ok. I'm just going to put this out here, right now.

If you don't like something about the new movie, like the ship, or the plot, or whatever. Please don't make broad, sweeping generalizations like saying "It isn't ___". The correct way to say it would be "It don't think it's ____" or, "It's not ____ in my opinion."

I know, it's a pesky little nit pick, but it's something that buts the crap out of me every time I hear it. As a fan of the new movie, I hate it when people tell me that the new ship is 'ugly' or 'not the enterprise' like it's an empirical fact.

[Obrysii]

I know, it's a pesky little nit pick, but it's something that buts the crap out of me every time I hear it. As a fan of the new movie, I hate it when people tell me that the new ship is 'ugly' or 'not the enterprise' like it's an empirical fact.

To me, it is.

I think it's the score. There's no beautiful score with which it is introduced. The ship isn't really a character in this film, just a setting.

In the old movies especially, the Enterprise is most certainly a character - the crew love her. She's gotten a bit old, even with the refit, but you call tell that Kirk, especially, loves his ship.

"They gave her back to me," he says in TMP.

In the new one? The ship is big, and shiny, and powerful - and that's it. No "personality" - nothing. It's just there. Big, shiny, plastic.

It might be the CGI, but the alternate-reality Enterprise has no soul.

[vp21ct]

But it isn't.

You cite, the score, but to me the Score was absolutely perfect, it was grand, it was epic. I loved it. The new Enterprise feels much the same to me as the new actors do, like it's inheriting the role, but taking it's own soul into the part. Is it different? Yes, totally.

But I still love it. Really, I went out and bought a model of it, and I'll often find myself just staring at it and admiring it much the same as I do any of my other models. In STO, I have deliberately modelled my Tier 2 cruiser to resemble it as closely as possible.

EDIT: And this enterprise is very much a character, to me, as well. I definetly get the same feeling of 'young, and needs to prove itself' as I do from the rest of the characters.

[Obrysii]

But it isn't.

And so, like everything in this thread, it is opinion.

I am allowed to voice an opinion, right? And if so - the new Enterprise, to me, lacks the soul and pure epic that the Constitution-refit one has. To me, it is the soullessness of CGI that likely does it - and the lack of a beautiful introduction score like we see in TMP.

[thompur]

What kind of chain of command makes a young, recently disciplined, stowaway cadet, command of a weapon of mass destruction?
Because that is what the Enterprise has the capability to be.
The whole chain of events were one big, whaa. . .? And don't get me started on Spocks mothers death.
Checkov, what happened there?

"Young" is a relative term. For the bulk of the movie, Kirk is 29 years old. 'Wait! On what does he base this heretofor un-revealed fact?' I hear you cry. Well, it has been established in previous Star Trek continuity that Kirk is 12 years older than Chekov.(for proof, watch the classic episode The Deadly Years) We Know in the '09 movie that Chekov is 17. Therefore, ipsofacto, Kirk is 29. {Yes, I am a Classic Trek Geek}

[Gnoman]

He may be graduating from the Academy late, but 29 is young to be in command of a dingy, let alone a state-of-the-art heavy cruiser. (In fact, at some point he was stated at getting Enterprise at 30 in the original timeline, and setting a record for that which continued until the 24th century.)

[Obrysii]

Another thing sort of weird?

I understand that the ship tech is higher because of the alternate reality, but why does going to Warp speed look more like its entering hyperspace than engaging warp, like all the movies and shows from TMP-on show?

[vp21ct]

Another thing sort of weird?

I understand that the ship tech is higher because of the alternate reality, but why does going to Warp speed look more like its entering hyperspace than engaging warp, like all the movies and shows from TMP-on show?

The Warp Effect, much like the Phaser effect, has always been evolving. And if you look closely, it actually is the 'streatch' effect, still. But it's spead up alot

I personally like it, it's distinct from the 'Hyperspace' effect, but also feels alot more like the ship is 'going from relative 0ft/sec to 200x Lightspeed in less than a half-second' than the old effect.

[Ravens_cry]

vp21ct, you obviously enjoyed this movie, and that is great, I am glad someone could.
However, a reboot implies a new direction and frankly, besides even the technical problems with this movie, the nauseatingly swooping space combat, the terrible incoherency in set design for places that are supposed to be a single location, I just plain do not like this direction. Star Trek at its best in my opinion has never been about the violence. In fact, I would go so far to say it mostly sucks at it. It is when it asks questions ,explores social issues and idea, that is when Star Trek shines for me.
It told me of a man, an elderly man, who had always put his career first, never had time for a family or love, who gets a chance at one thanks to the bottle thrown out into the void.
It told me of trying to learn to communicate with a race that spoke in references.
It told me of the hideous endgame of a struggle between two races that to our eyes were basically identical, and the horrifying consequences of their hatred for each other.
It told me of a young man having to cope with the injury from a terrible war and learning to rejoin reality.
It told me of an artificial being's unrequited love for a woman half artificial herself.
Yes, it could be hammy ,preachy, and just plain bad, and some of the violence was pretty darn good, see my comment about the ballet that was the massed fleet battles in DS9, but, for me at least, it was never Star Treks heart.

[kamikasei]

I am concerned by the possibility that any future movies in the franchise will simply be sci-fi action films, but look at your list. All but one of the items on it are from the shows, not the movies. I'd say that III, IV, VI, First Contact, can all be compared to the 09 film on Big Message terms without 09 coming off badly. The sequel could stand to be a bit less flashy and a bit more thoughtful, but it strikes me as rather unfair to condemn a single movie for not being everything Star Trek as a whole has ever been, when the previous films didn't do that either.

[vp21ct]

But that's literally comparing apples to oranges.

Out of 11 Star Trek movies, Only 4 of them were driven by something beyond 'violence'. Star Trek: TMP, Star Trek III, Star Trek IV, and Star Trek V. Of those two, 2 of them are rated as being in the lower half of the Star Trek movies. Another is considered Mediocre at best, and one is considered in the upper half.

The Simple fact is that Star Trek the series is different from Star Trek the movies. The highest Rated Star Trek movies are First Contact and Wrath of Khan, both of them actually much more violent than this film.

[Ravens_cry]

I am concerned by the possibility that any future movies in the franchise will simply be sci-fi action films, but look at your list. All but one of the items on it are from the shows, not the movies. I'd say that III, IV, VI, First Contact, can all be compared to the 09 film on Big Message terms without 09 coming off badly. The sequel could stand to be a bit less flashy and a bit more thoughtful, but it strikes me as rather unfair to condemn a single movie for not being everything Star Trek as a whole has ever been, when the previous films didn't do that either.
What is a Reboot? It basically a kind of pilot, an advertisement, saying "This is where Star Trek is going to go if this movie makes us enough cash." which makes it unlikely that any sequel will be "less flashy and a bit more thoughtful".
Actually all my examples were meant to be from the shows.

[kamikasei]

What is a Reboot? It basically a kind of pilot, an advertisement, saying "This is where Star Trek is going to go if this movie makes us enough cash." which makes it unlikely that any sequel will be "less flashy and a bit more thoughtful".
I prefer to take an optimistic view.

Actually all my examples were meant to be from the shows.
Oh, "The Inner Light", not Generations. Okay, so... the movies aren't the heart of Star Trek. This is not a revelation.

[Ravens_cry]

I prefer to take an optimistic view.
Like I said to vp21ct, I am glad you can do that.


Oh, "The Inner Light", not Generations. Okay, so... the movies aren't the heart of Star Trek. This is not a revelation.
Yes, but this is supposed to be where it is going now, a new continuity. If there is another series, this is what will be like. You're optimistic about it, I am pessimistic, and I guess we are going to have to leave it at that.

[Gnoman]

But that's literally comparing apples to oranges.

Out of 11 Star Trek movies, Only 4 of them were driven by something beyond 'violence'. Star Trek: TMP, Star Trek III, Star Trek IV, and Star Trek V. Of those two, 2 of them are rated as being in the lower half of the Star Trek movies. Another is considered Mediocre at best, and one is considered in the upper half.

Interestingly, except for V, where they sit is almost never universally agreed on.


The Simple fact is that Star Trek the series is different from Star Trek the movies. The highest Rated Star Trek movies are First Contact and Wrath of Khan, both of them actually much more violent than this film.


You could add Insurrection to the movies that aren't about combat. Sure, there's fighting in it, but it's primarily a philosophical movie.

[kamikasei]

Yes, but this is supposed to be where it is going now, a new continuity. If there is another series, this is what will be like. You're optimistic about it, I am pessimistic, and I guess we are going to have to leave it at that.
That reasoning simply doesn't hold. You're faulting the movie for things it has in common with previous movies, then saying that those perceived faults will be shared by any series spun off from this in a way that previous movies did not resemble the shows they came from. Such an assumption simply isn't warranted, optimism and pessimism aside. Not to mention, none of this bears on the quality or entertainment value of the movie itself.

A more likely concern, and what worries me, is that the success of this movie means we may never get another series at all for the forseeable future, and Trek will be stuck in a movie mode that isn't really a comfortable home for it. That'd be a shame, as I think the franchise would be better served by a series with higher production values and writing quality than previous installments than by a series of movies all trying to fit something in to a two-hour runtime, but I think that of most large franchises and don't really expect it.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, here is hoping. I want to explore strange new worlds again, to seek out new life and new civilisations, to boldly go . . .well, you know the rest.:smallsmile:

[The Big Dice]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j5aRKZq7vU&feature=related watch this and tell me at 2:01 you don't get chills.

The ship is just that amazing, and the new one? Just doesn't do it.
That's not epic. It's pure pornography :smallbiggrin:

the refitted Enterprise NCC 1701 was a bite-the-back-of-your-hand-pretty ship, though. And to be honest, I think more science fiction movies these days should spend a bit of screen time showing off the ship.

People get all up in arms claiming that TMP was slow, it was dull and it was boring. But, after thinking like that, I went back and watched it after years of TNG, DS9 and Voyager. And I had an epiphany.

TMP is probably the best of the movies.

Sure, Wrath of Khan is made of awesome and First Contact has the Borg doing Borg stuff. But ST:TMP is TV Star Trek taken onto the big screen and extended. All the elements that would later go on to define TNG are right there. In many ways, it watches like a TNG multi part story.

That's not to say that the '09 movie was bad. It was just made to a different set of expectations. In the 70s and 80s, people wanted the characters in movies to be put through the mangle. They wanted to see them suffer and then make a comeback. It's everywhere from Rocky to Star Wars and Star Trek is no exception.

But now, people don't want to see character. Or rather, producers don't think that's what people want to see. Instead, they give us spectacle. We get to see people having personality rather than being characters.

It's a subtle difference, but if you do a back to back viewing of TMP and then the '09 movie, you'll see what I mean.

[TheArsenal]

Im going on a little tangent to say what I think is the heart of Star Trek:

Conflicting Choices.

The Shows and movies are all about making the right choice. In addition there is alot of hidden meaning in all of it:

Generaly the show favors Brain over Brawn, but makes sure that both get fair treatment.

A constant in the show was Klingons Vs Vulcans.

The Vulcans represent knowledge, Rationalism, and withheld emotion. They have good/Bad

The Klingons Represent Honour, Savage inner basic fealings, and greed. While generaly shown that savagery is bad, it shows that basic fealings can drive a race a long way.


The TNG had the idea of choice alot more:

The Crystaline entity, the Indian people.

It also had the idea of Plauge as the main villain. Unthinking, destroying plauge

The Romulans Represented imperialism, and how it effected them

Star Trek 2: Represents Life, Death, and revenge

On The Revenge scale you will notice that Khan is the one who kills himself. He was given a second chance, but wasted it. It is symbolized how his crew is all cavemen esque to represent raw basic hatred, and revenge.
It also raises the question of whether or not everybody was worthy of mercy.
On a Character level, the death of Spock.
On a plot level: Kirks Son, and The Genisis

Star Treck 3: Represents Death, Life, and that humans can destroy even when trying to bring life.


Star Trek 4: Represents Communication, and the logic of "Who watches the watchers?" Or "There might be more to the things we dominate than we think.

And my main Problem with the New Movie is that it had pretty much none of the above.

[vp21ct]

*Snip*

Now, I think that's hardly fair.

Spock's lost his entire planet. I don't know about yout, but that's a pretty big sucker punch right into the gut. Loosing his mother ontop of that is just yet another one.

If I had to put my finger on where the choice was in this movie, I'd have to say that it was a matter of trust. For both Kirk and Spock, it there was a decision to actually trust this person who they knew almost nothing about, but whom destiny apparently said that they should trust. This despite the fact that their lives, up until that point, had told them to be stingy with their trust.

Another thing that I have to point out about this movie, is the fact that it's very Meta with it's 'allegory'. The whole thing is actually an allegory referencing itself. All of the characters, right down to the ship itself, are new and unproven, much like this movie, and need to show that they can pull off a monstrously prodigal task (pleasing the fanbase). The Trust issue is yet another self referencing meta-allegory, It's basically putting it out that this is Star Trek now, and the fans need to Trust this new team that they've got this, and that they're going to take this on the right path.

This may or may not be intentional, but I like it!

[VanBuren]

Interestingly, except for V, where they sit is almost never universally agreed on.



You could add Insurrection to the movies that aren't about combat. Sure, there's fighting in it, but it's primarily a philosophical movie.

The difference is that First Contact and Wrath of Khan were good. Insurrection... not so much.

[TheArsenal]

The difference is that First Contact and Wrath of Khan were good. Insurrection... not so much.

No. It wasnt. Plot holes, ANGRY PICARD, and a Borg Queen.

I dont find it a hard choice: "Work together or die". Its not like they where mortal enemies. (Hell that would be awesome. Two Powerful Rival Families and the Enterprise in the middle).

And I dont want action (An Action based story) in my Trek, MAKE YOUR OWN DAM SERIES! It could be made very well. Its like:

Casablanka: WITH EXPLOSIVE ACTION MEGA BOMBS! If they make a great story, good. But its not casablanka.


Edit: But its mostly indifferent to me.

[KillianHawkeye]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j5aRKZq7vU&feature=related watch this and tell me at 2:01 you don't get chills.

The ship is just that amazing, and the new one? Just doesn't do it.

That 5 minute scene where they do nothing but fly around the ship?? Maybe some yawns, but no chills here.



The new ship is supposed to be shiny, because it is brand new! And the only part of the ship that felt like a different place was the engineering section. Everything else blended together very nicely.

[Leliel]

-9 has no themes about choice-

...Excuse me?

Did the whole "revenge vs. justice" just fly over your skull?

As for me, I'm still very young, and I watched the old series and such before the movie.

And you know what?

I thought the movie ruled!

So it's an action flick. Big deal, so is Die Hard, and that has a lot of character drama too.

So, maybe it's my own taste, maybe it's because I don't have the encumbrance of nostalgia clogging my views, maybe I really don't have the ability to sort out good movies from bad-which isn't that unlikely, since I only developed it relatively recently.

But, I don't think it's the last, given how the critics seem to agree with me. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_%28film%29#Reception)

And really..."Even if it's good, it's bad, because they changed things?"

Do you know how much that myopic, incoherent excuse for logic gets up my craw?

If you're going to use that, you're obviously not the great authority on film you think you are.

"Bias". Look it up.

[Derthric]

I am glad you enjoyed the movie and I do hope that for people for whom this was the first exposure to it are intrigued and go find the great stuff that came before it.

I apologize for adding some vitriol here but I have to express it.

I just have a more negative reaction to people saying that I should like it, or I should not think negatively about it because so many others loved it. And that sticks in my craw so much more than anything in the movie actually did. I know it was well received but I just didn't like it. To me it just felt like generic by the numbers popcorn fluff and that is fine. But I kept Trek as something I expected more from and in that sense I was most disappointed (though I do admit its not as dissappointing as the TNG Movies). My reaction was no different to it than Transformers or Iron Man 2, entertaining but really not pushing the bounds of storytelling or anything remarkable. But please don't ask me to like something just because others do, I have my reasons and you have yours. And honestly I liked what it was, and then they changed it and I like it less not because of the change but the result. Since when are we not allowed to like things less than we did before? People did it to TNG when compared to the Original Series and DS9 compared to TNG and so on and so forth. You like what you like and I will like what I like they don't have to fit together. I hope the rest of what they make you find enjoyable and worthwhile I am going to move on to something else.

[Gnoman]

Insurrection... not so much.

Here, we have to disagree. I consider Insurrection it be the best TNG film.

[Sillycomic]

I agree the movie was mostly popcorn fluff, but I don't think that makes it a bad movie. There are some good movies out there that are popcorn fluff. Terminator 2 and True Lies come to mind.

These movies aren't art, they aren't going to change the world with whatever philosophy you can find between the explosions, but they make for a good ride.

There's nothing wrong with a spectacle movie if it's done right.

[Leliel]

I agree the movie was mostly popcorn fluff, but I don't think that makes it a bad movie. There are some good movies out there that are popcorn fluff. Terminator 2 and True Lies come to mind.

These movies aren't art, they aren't going to change the world with whatever philosophy you can find between the explosions, but they make for a good ride.

There's nothing wrong with a spectacle movie if it's done right.

Finally!

Reasonable criticism!

And Derthric-I wasn't saying you were wrong, and I can understand the sentiment.

It's just that when people claim the actual quality of a movie is irrelevant that sets me off. No True Scotsman, much?

[Lord Seth]

Obligatory RedLetterMedia link (http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-trek/star-trek-09/).

[Derthric]

Finally!

Reasonable criticism!

And Derthric-I wasn't saying you were wrong, and I can understand the sentiment.

It's just that when people claim the actual quality of a movie is irrelevant that sets me off. No True Scotsman, much?

Wasn't aimed at you, just referencing what you said about "they changed it...". I get all up in arms about people shrugging off criticism or dislike solely because it seems to be frothing-at-the-mouth fandumb. But was more of a general "I have an opinion too" not a direct response to you.

And there is nothing wrong with Popcorn Fluff, never meant to imply otherwise. I'm a sucker for it, just not in this case.

[TheArsenal]

Im fine with disaproval, but dont aim it at me. I HATE Star wars episode 123 and am willing to defend every point TO THE DEATH!

But with this movie? Not so much. It wasnt bad, I just didnt like it because I found that it was an action movie.



...Excuse me?

Did the whole "revenge vs. justice" just fly over your skull?

No, I just thought it was very weak compared to the others


As for me, I'm still very young, and I watched the old series and such before the movie.

And you know what?

I thought the movie ruled!

Fine. I Didnt. Where did I say "DONT LIKE THIS MOVIE!"


So it's an action flick. Big deal, so is Die Hard, and that has a lot of character drama too.

I didnt like the characters.


So, maybe it's my own taste, maybe it's because I don't have the encumbrance of nostalgia clogging my views,

THIS is what bugs me in your criticizm. I just like slower, more thoughtfull movies.



But, I don't think it's the last, given how the critics seem to agree with me. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_%28film%29#Reception)



Critics love Avatar, Good Explosions will always win out. And besides your telling me that If I dislike a movie yet another majority likes it Im just a stupid head?



And really..."Even if it's good, it's bad, because they changed things?"

Because its not a thoughtfull movie like my favourite star treck movies, That I wish they would have followed at least a bit.

How about:

DIE HARD 5: PEOTRY READING!

Its not that its bad, just wanted explosions and cool action. So just vice versa: Action aint bad, just I hoped for more


Do you know how much that myopic, incoherent excuse for logic gets up my craw?

You know how critizing ME gets in my craw?


If you're going to use that, you're obviously not the great authority on film you think you are.

"Bias". Look it up.

:smallannoyed:

"Opinion" look it up. You just Criticized, ME. My opinions, and then called me biased.

[KillianHawkeye]

I just have a more negative reaction to people saying that I should like it, or I should not think negatively about it because so many others loved it. And that sticks in my craw so much more than anything in the movie actually did. I know it was well received but I just didn't like it. To me it just felt like generic by the numbers popcorn fluff and that is fine. But I kept Trek as something I expected more from and in that sense I was most disappointed (though I do admit its not as dissappointing as the TNG Movies). My reaction was no different to it than Transformers or Iron Man 2, entertaining but really not pushing the bounds of storytelling or anything remarkable. But please don't ask me to like something just because others do, I have my reasons and you have yours. And honestly I liked what it was, and then they changed it and I like it less not because of the change but the result. Since when are we not allowed to like things less than we did before? People did it to TNG when compared to the Original Series and DS9 compared to TNG and so on and so forth. You like what you like and I will like what I like they don't have to fit together. I hope the rest of what they make you find enjoyable and worthwhile I am going to move on to something else.

Nobody is telling you what to like. Honestly, I don't care at all whether you liked it or not.

I'm just tired of people complaining because "they changed the continuity" or "it doesn't feel like MY Star Trek" or "blah blah blah." Please, people, just get over yourselves. You don't OWN Star Trek. Trek, like everything, continues to change and grow. So the new Star Trek brought something a little bit different to the table? GOOD! That's what things are supposed to do. If it never changed, it would become stale and boring and pointless.

These days, films and TV series need to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, because competition is through the roof and the only thing that matters at the end of the day is sales. Nobody is spending millions of dollars on an art pic. They're need to make a profit and if they need to put in explosions to do it, they will. Get used to it, because that's not going away anytime soon. Personally, I hate when a movie has camera shots that are all shaky and so close you can't really tell what's going on, but I guess the intensity makes people feel like they're part of the action. That style isn't going to change, and I don't waste my time complaining about it.

Also, people need to stop arguing about things that are purely opinions! Nobody is right, and we're never going to come to a conclusion that everyone is happy with. It's just stupid and tedious. :smallsigh:

[chiasaur11]

Boss movie. Hope the sequel is good. Karl Urban is amazing in this.

I covered everything?

[KillianHawkeye]

Boss movie. Hope the sequel is good. Karl Urban is amazing in this.

I covered everything?

Karl Urban is amazing in everything. :smallamused:

[The Big Dice]

Karl Urban is amazing in everything. :smallamused:

He's going to be Dredd in the upcoming movie of the same name. This gives me hope that we can finally put the Stallone thing out of our heads once and for all.

[TheArsenal]

He's going to be Dredd in the upcoming movie of the same name. This gives me hope that we can finally put the Stallone thing out of our heads once and for all.

Yu kiddn ? "IAM THELAW!, IAmDEDD!

[Yora]

Edit: Mine is that Star Trek cannot be made again. People just want to watch splosions these days (This was always true). There is just less people that want Star trek nowdays.
Sure it can be made. The difficult part is getting money from the investors while at the same time someone else wants that money to make a movie bout splosions.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Critics love Avatar, Good Explosions will always win out. And besides your telling me that If I dislike a movie yet another majority likes it Im just a stupid head?
Avatar is Dances With Wolves set in space. How can you not love it?

Anyway. I've never seen an episode of Star Trek. Ever. Really enjoyed the movie though.

[Ravens_cry]

Avatar is Dances With Wolves set in space. How can you not love it?

Because it's Dances with Wolves set in space with Super Special Awesome Mare-ii Soo Space Elves.


Anyway. I've never seen an episode of Star Trek. Ever. Really enjoyed the movie though.
Then I guess it's doing its job, bringing new people into Star Trek and that is not a bad thing.
I just wished it had been more then an action movie.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Then I guess it's doing its job, bringing new people into Star Trek and that is not a bad thing, I just wished it had been more then an action movie.

Well, since the 1st movie was popular, maybe hte sequel ill have a chnace to make it more... whatever you're looking for.

[TheArsenal]

Well, since the 1st movie was popular, maybe hte sequel ill have a chnace to make it more... whatever you're looking for.

Thoughtfull? Conflicting?

But again I repeat:

I didnt hate the movie. I just wanted more.

[vp21ct]

@ People who didn't like the movie: I can understand why you guys would be defensive about your opinion on it. But the simple fact is that sooo many trekies who share that opinion take that Opinion and consider it empircal fact that those of us who did like the movie tend to get defensive of our position as well.

Apologies if that shines through a bit much.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, since the 1st movie was popular, maybe hte sequel ill have a chnace to make it more... whatever you're looking for.
What am I looking for? I am looking for science fiction. Science fiction, thoughtful science fiction, asks questions. You don't see that much, especially in movies, and even in Star Trek it was rarely done well, but when it was, it was something special.

[TheArsenal]

@ People who didn't like the movie: I can understand why you guys would be defensive about your opinion on it. But the simple fact is that sooo many trekies who share that opinion take that Opinion and consider it empircal fact that those of us who did like the movie tend to get defensive of our position as well.

Apologies if that shines through a bit much.

I understand. I repeat: Have fun. Enjoy the movie, I didn't like it. I'm biased.

[Leliel]

I understand. I repeat: Have fun. Enjoy the movie, I didn't like it. I'm biased.

Hey, I'm sorry!

Don't rub it in!

[TheArsenal]

Hey, I'm sorry!

Don't rub it in!

Rub Rub Rub.....Sorry. =P.

Anyway I end on a note: The Action was great.

[Raistlin1040]

Everyone in this thread needs to chill the hell out.

The movie was pretty good. It had some flaws, like being overblown and too big in scope, making it feel more like Star Wars than Star Trek.

TOS? Pretty good. It had some flaws, like horrible special effects and costumes, and some of the hammiest acting I've ever seen on television.

Seems like a pretty good version to me. To everyone who is championing the various series as some kind of philosophic genius, I disagree. I've only seen TOS and TNG and only a handful of the movies, so maybe I don't have the complete picture. The series have done some great thing (first interracial kiss, IIRC, in the original), and made some brilliant points about society. There are also moments like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1eFdUSnaQM). Take everything in stride, folks.

[The Glyphstone]

Don't forget Spock's Brain.

[Ravens_cry]

Time to break out the metaphor, analogy, and parable.
Let's say you go to a certain restaurant. Quite a few times, the food is not to your liking or just plain bad, but sometimes, it is just right, bold and intriguing, innovative even, the kind of food you remember fondly.
Now let's say you have been going quite a few years and the bad moments, common enough already, have started to crowd out the ones you love, the ones that make this restaurant special to you. It falls flat where it once soared and growing stale and repetitive.
Now let's say the restaurant is in danger of closing forever, leaving you with only your memories of the good times.
Then, just when all hope was lost, the restaurant announces a grand reopening under new management and new staff.
You're a bit wary, but hopeful. Will they be able to give you what you loved, yet revitalized and fresh? You excitedly attend the reopening and you find . . .it's not what you hoped. In fact, it tastes a lot of other food you have had elsewhere.
Oh, it's all right, though not without its flaws, but it's nothing you can not get elsewhere.
While they do not reflect the feelings of several others here, including Trekkies of far more seniority then I, I hope they explain how I felt about the movie and why I was disappointed. Yes, Spocks Brain was bad, really, bad. But The City on the Edge of Forever was good, really, really good.

[KillianHawkeye]

I'm biased.

Don't worry, everyone is biased.

[The Big Dice]

Don't forget Spock's Brain.

I've spent years trying to do just that...

[Yora]

Now we all lost the brain.