Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Star Trek Movie - SPOILERS - (was forum=21)Follow

#1 May 08 2009 at 2:18 AM Rating: Decent
****
7,718 posts
So I saw it tonight.


Was actually pretty good.

The whole time travel thing was hokey but let them diverge from the canon to make the movie how they wanted.

Otherwise the whole Romulan thing wouldn't have worked I guess.

Spock and Uhura as a thing was funny especially since Kirk was trying to pull in early on.

Leonard Nimoy being in it was a very pleasant surprise. Almost as much as Winona Ryder being Spock's mom.

I liked the assembling of Kirk's crew in a piecemeal fashion. Very well done.

When they attacked Earth and only Kirk's ship was there to help me and my friends were very much amazed. Seriously, like we wouldn't have some defenses.

Kirk did get beat up a bit to much, he should have been kicking more **** and there could have been some more riveting dialog and character development but overall a good movie.

They will definitely make another one if this weekends gate is good and I would for sure see it.


edit: added spoilers to the title just in case the blacked out |spoiler| text wasn't enough

Edited, May 8th 2009 6:54am by Horsemouth
____________________________
Hellbanned

idiggory wrote:
Drinking at home. But I could probably stand to get laid.
#2 May 08 2009 at 2:36 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,367 posts
Are those proper spoilers?

Would you give it a thumb up or down?
____________________________
"WHEN PASSENGER OF FOOT HEAVE IN SIGHT, TOOTLE THE HORN. TRUMPET HIM MELODIOUSLY AT FIRST, BUT IF HE STILL OBSTACLES YOUR PASSAGE THEN TOOTLE HIM WITH VIGOUR."
Armory
[wowsig]2225867[/wowsig]
#3 May 08 2009 at 2:43 AM Rating: Excellent
I see a nice Father / Son movie coming up this weekend.... that, some raid snacks, and down some raid bosses together, and the weekend will be perfect.
____________________________
Wahu - Disc Priest (main)
Get an Authenticator!!
#4 May 08 2009 at 2:53 AM Rating: Decent
****
7,718 posts
Quote:
Would you give it a thumb up or down?


I would for sure give it thumbs up.
____________________________
Hellbanned

idiggory wrote:
Drinking at home. But I could probably stand to get laid.
#5 May 08 2009 at 3:11 AM Rating: Good
***
1,175 posts
I had a ticket for my local theater this evening at the very first show on their new IMAX screen. They had some new theater bugs, started about 20 mins late and because of that, I got a free ticket to see any future IMAX showing! They'll be showing Transformers in IMAX, along with Harry Potter and Night at the Museum.

Anyway, I have a two word review for Star Trek and it's not a spoiler - BAD @$$. See it in IMAX if you can!
#6 May 08 2009 at 3:12 AM Rating: Good
*
170 posts
Quote:
Would you give it a thumb up or down?


I was truly shocked, this morning's paper reviewed it and gave it four stars!


Z
____________________________
What, me worry? Me have mana!
#7 May 08 2009 at 3:14 AM Rating: Good
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Holy wrong forum, batman?

I'd ask an admin to move it to Movie,TV, Anime, Music.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#8 May 08 2009 at 3:16 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
876 posts
My guild leader went to the 12AM premiere at his local theater. I was quite jealous but I intend to see this movie the first chance I get.

I haven't been much of a trekkie (or trekker whichever) but slowly I have started to get hooked on it. Should be a good movie to get new people interested in the series.
____________________________
This is my signature, there are many like it but this one is mine.
__________________________________________________________________

Byntre Level 80 Nightelf Rogue
#9 May 08 2009 at 5:14 AM Rating: Good
Must see this... Must feed Star... Trek... HOMGZ I NEED THE STAR TREK NOW!

I grew up a trekkie and I'm not afraid to deny it. Over all. I still think Seven of Nine was the hottest person ever to be in any star trek show.
____________________________

(V)(;,,;)(V) Why not Zoidberg?
#10 May 08 2009 at 6:43 AM Rating: Good
Guru
**
503 posts
The One and Only ArexLovesPie wrote:
I still think Seven of Nine was the hottest person ever to be in any star trek show.
*nods* Kirk, Spock and Seven of Nine are the only character names I can come up with in regards to Star Trek. I don't watch it much and no I don't think Kirk and Spock are hot. -_-
____________________________
15 80s, I multibox.
#11 May 08 2009 at 7:08 AM Rating: Decent
LockeColeMA wrote:
Holy wrong forum, batman?

I'd ask an admin to move it to Movie,TV, Anime, Music.


yea, this so belongs in =5. There is already a thread there, but yea . . .
____________________________
Sandinmyeye | |Tsukaremashi*a |
#12 May 10 2009 at 12:02 PM Rating: Decent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,439 posts
azelia wrote:
*nods* Kirk, Spock and Seven of Nine are the only character names I can come up with in regards to Star Trek. I don't watch it much and no I don't think Kirk and Spock are hot. -_-


What? What about Scotty? Riker? Picard? Data? And I've never even heard of Seven of Nine.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#13 May 10 2009 at 2:27 PM Rating: Decent
*
50 posts
The new movie was great, especially being a fan from way back when.

Quote:
I still think Seven of Nine was the hottest person ever to be in any star trek show.


May not be a popular opinion as "Enterprise" didn't ever seem to do well, but, I always thought T'Pol was hot.

#14 May 10 2009 at 4:03 PM Rating: Excellent
I give it

Screenshot


Best movie in awhile, this summer is pretty packed with movies I want to see.
____________________________
Content Manager
torhead.com | teratome.com | twitter.com/fewyn
#15 May 10 2009 at 5:21 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
3,829 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
"Is it wrong for me to long for the simpler days of yesteryear when performers weren't so confusing? Jagger, Bowie...you KNEW they were women. But nowadays, this internationally ranked cheerleading coach just can't figure it out. Neil Patrick Harris? You confuse me. I HEAR you're ***, but there you are on my TV playing a normal, womanizing, cardigan-wearing straight. That's confusing. And then I heard a rumor you're not actually a doctor. So much sneaky *** deception!" --Sue's Corner
#16 May 10 2009 at 6:09 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
83 posts
Just to clarify the reason there was no earth defense's relates to the pat in the movie where captain pike was taken prisoner.
____________________________
Lightfoots lvl 80 Paladin
#17 May 10 2009 at 6:24 PM Rating: Decent
****
7,718 posts
Quote:
Just to clarify the reason there was no earth defense's relates to the pat in the movie where captain pike was taken prisoner.


I remembered that part but still you never leave the castle empty.
____________________________
Hellbanned

idiggory wrote:
Drinking at home. But I could probably stand to get laid.
#18 May 10 2009 at 10:36 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,439 posts
I didn't like that they created an alternate universe to The Original Series.

Sure, they can go ahead and sculpt the story in the sequels the way they want now, but it's not the same. The characters we know from the series and old movies continue on in their own dimension while this new storyline takes place in another one.

And I didn't like that the space scenes were so quick and violent. I only saw phaser beams being used twice or so, despite being a trademark weapon. The old movies had better spaceship fight scenes, but Abrams' succeeded in making the ships more solid and massive, though. You could feel the size of the ships as they entered and left warp, flew around and fired at each other.

That said, there are some pretty massive ******** moments to swallow. Like a mining vessel being able to fend off several Starfleet spaceships and the Earth being left completely defenseless in the process. And the Vulcans apparently have no planetary defenses, despite having been around for many years and having quite a number of known enemies.

And finally, I wish directors would get a grip and not keep on following in the footsteps of the later Bourne and Bond movies with their close-up melee combat scenes. Watching that **** on a bigass screen gave me a headache. Sure, handheld cameras are cool and all, but does the camera guy have to stand in the middle of the fight, trying to film both opponents at the same time while apparently suffering from a bad case of the shakes? And at one point two of the characters are firing their sidearms almost directly at the audience, resulting in some pretty amazing colors and blinking effects. It felt like my brain was about to curl up and die from the contrast.

As a sci-fi action movie, I'll give it good rating despite the ******** camera angles and the lack of proper spaceship fights. Special effects were in the top, so that's a very big plus. As a Star Trek movie, I'll give it less, because while it updates a very outdated and "old school" franchise, it didn't keep with the original storyline. They might as well have called it Star Fight and gone with a completely different cast, because I didn't bond with a single character - well, that's not true, I bonded with Nimoy - due to the whole "this is an alternate reality, omgz" plot.

For a prequel to work, you need to have some sort of relation to the following movies. Imagine if George Lucas had sat down and created A Phantom Menace with it taking place in a different reality where Anakin doesn't become Darth Vader. I wouldn't be able to bond with that either, because I've seen the old movies first and the newer movies should lead up to the old ones, not create new storylines.

It's also why I had a hard time accepting the new Batman and Bond movies. Didn't help that the Bond movies were absolute crap either.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#19 May 11 2009 at 6:51 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,879 posts
It was a decent enough action movie - I think the Onion summed it up best - http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film

Not being a Trekky I don't mind that they completely rewrote the canon to create a new Star Trek universe for them to exploit.

Now, just for fun, the geek argument -

Quote:
That said, there are some pretty massive bullsh*t moments to swallow. Like a mining vessel being able to fend off several Starfleet spaceships


Yes, how unrealistic that a ship with technology 100 years more advanced that was designed to strip mine planets could so easily destroy a bunch of ships that were only 5% of its size - you know, just how it'd be unrealistic that a modern battleship would be able to take out the entire British Royal Fleet from the year 1900.

As for the old space battles being more excited - lol - they were about as exciting as watching two mages stand toe to toe and then try to beat each other to death with Brewfest mugs.
#20 May 11 2009 at 8:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
1,225 posts
I came out of the movie and wondered a couple of things:

1) What happened to the black holes? You've got one in the neutral zone and one where Vulcan was so surely they'll destabilize the universe pretty quick?

2) Isn't it a bit daft to put the "don't let a phone ruin a movie" advert for Orange on just before the movie? I mean, the whole premise of the advert is that re-envisioning a movie is a bad idea and what's this Star Trek thing about? It's re-envisioning the whole Star Trek series - old characters, old timeline, new plot, new premise.

Apart from that, I loved it.
____________________________
Firelox

#21 May 11 2009 at 9:36 AM Rating: Decent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,439 posts
rusttle wrote:
Not being a Trekky I don't mind that they completely rewrote the canon to create a new Star Trek universe for them to exploit.


I'm not a Trekkie either, but I still think it's ******** when you make a prequel that takes place in another dimension. I mean, what the ****?

rusttle wrote:
Quote:
That said, there are some pretty massive bullsh*t moments to swallow. Like a mining vessel being able to fend off several Starfleet spaceships


Yes, how unrealistic that a ship with technology 100 years more advanced that was designed to strip mine planets could so easily destroy a bunch of ships that were only 5% of its size - you know, just how it'd be unrealistic that a modern battleship would be able to take out the entire British Royal Fleet from the year 1900.


There's a difference. The mining vessel isn't a battleship. And the mining vessel was attacking entire PLANETS.

Take this, put a guy with a gatling gun in it and send it 129 years back in time. Now, send it to attack a COUNTRY. I'm sure that despite it being a hundred years more advanced technologically, the country being attacked would deal with it rather fast, no?

The mining vessel in the movie is larger and I'm assuming it has more advanced shielding. That doesn't mean you can't use the brain a wee bit. They're able to beam through the shields and into the ship, right? Okay, beam a huge freakin' bomb into the ship and GTFO. Problem solved.

I'm sure whatever country our truck from earlier decided to attack would send a bomb of some kind against it. Let's see, what ******* did we possess in 1909? Dynamite was invented in 1866-67 by Nobel. I guess a stick of dynamite would just bounce right off that baby, huh? Hmm, in the 18th century the Howitzer cannon was invented. I wonder what a cannon capable of firing shots up to a mile would do to our truck.

rusttle wrote:
As for the old space battles being more excited - lol - they were about as exciting as watching two mages stand toe to toe and then try to beat each other to death with Brewfest mugs.


Didn't say they were more exciting, but they weren't so hectic and the camera guy didn't suffer from Parkinson's. You had time to notice the details, like in Star Wars. It gave it a feeling of being an actual fight. In the new movie, regardless of how much the shield is up, ships get blown to pieces. You see debris everywhere, decks are being ripped apart and some guy on the bridge still yells "Shields at 31%, Captain!" 31% what? 31% chance of working? Or does it only block 31% of the damage? How can a shield be at 31% when clearly the ship is being shot to ****?

Point is, I don't need to be bombarded with visual and audible stimuli for the entire duration of the battle scenes. If the shield is at 31%, it's okay to show that the phases go *pew* on the shield and bounce right off. I don't need debris and explosions to make the experience great. Less is sometimes more.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#22 May 11 2009 at 10:33 AM Rating: Good
****
7,718 posts
Mazra wrote:
rusttle wrote:
Not being a Trekky I don't mind that they completely rewrote the canon to create a new Star Trek universe for them to exploit.



I'm not a Trekkie either, but I still think it's bullsh*t when you make a prequel that takes place in another dimension. I mean, what the ****?


I agree more with rusttle on this. If they had gone with a strict Star Trek cannon approach it would have been to hard to folow for non-Trekkies and they also would have been too constrained it what they were allowed to do creatively with the movie.

Mazra wrote:
That said, there are some pretty massive bullsh*t moments to swallow. Like a mining vessel being able to fend off several Starfleet spaceships and the Earth being left completely defenseless in the process. And the Vulcans apparently have no planetary defenses, despite having been around for many years and having quite a number of known enemies.


I have to agree. Future tech aside I still find it hard to swallow.

As for the shields at 31%, in the older shows didn't that mean they still worked but the ship just kind of shook around a bit from the impact and the actors would hold on to something and act like they had seizures?

edit:quote failure

Edited, May 11th 2009 2:33pm by Horsemouth
____________________________
Hellbanned

idiggory wrote:
Drinking at home. But I could probably stand to get laid.
#23 May 11 2009 at 10:46 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,677 posts
Leodis wrote:
I came out of the movie and wondered a couple of things:

1) What happened to the black holes? You've got one in the neutral zone and one where Vulcan was so surely they'll destabilize the universe pretty quick?


Gravity's effect moves at the speed of light. It will destabilise the galaxy, sure, but Space is Big, and they'll have minimal effect at range, even after they reach there.
____________________________
Beohrn -- 85 druid
Brandmanen -- 85 Hunter

"Skill is a measure of how fast a player can turn experience into competence." -- Anedris, EJ forums
"The warrior acts, the fool reacts"

Please pardon the ego, it keeps getting stuck in doorways. I'm working on it.
#24 May 11 2009 at 10:49 AM Rating: Decent
Does it from behind...
*****
13,048 posts
Mazra wrote:
I wonder what a cannon capable of firing shots up to a mile would do to our truck.

Er, probably not much from a mile away. Would take a couple seconds (probably more than 5) for the shell to land; either the truck would have to be stationary, or it would have to not steer at all.

Were it closer, yeah; duh. Howitzers were generally used to break up troop formations and hit stationary objects, though. Because ground troops don't move at 40+ MPH.
____________________________
The·oph·a·ny (thē-ŏf'ə-nē)
An appearance of a god to a human; a divine manifestation.
Rogue Hunter
#25 May 11 2009 at 11:03 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,439 posts
Horsemouth wrote:
As for the shields at 31%, in the older shows didn't that mean they still worked but the ship just kind of shook around a bit from the impact and the actors would hold on to something and act like they had seizures?


Yes. It meant that the strength of the shield was at 31%. The charge on the battery, if you will. The more pressure was put on the shield, the more power it needed in order to hold, thus draining the shield "batteries" faster. Once it reached 0% the hull would take the pounding. In the movie you hear that the shield is still holding, because someone mentions that they won't be able to handle another hit, yet, the ship is already shot to pieces. Oh, great shield. I'm guessing they went for a sort of buffer approach where the shield absorbs some of the damage, meaning it can handle several hits instead of just one, but it still gets beat up.

Horsemouth wrote:
I agree more with rusttle on this. If they had gone with a strict Star Trek cannon approach it would have been to hard to folow for non-Trekkies and they also would have been too constrained it what they were allowed to do creatively with the movie.


Why use the Star Trek universe if they want to cater to the non-Trekkies? Strip the Star Trek theme and you've got your basic sci-fi movie. Kid has father issues due to father dying early, kid learns resonsibility, kid befriends former enemy. I mean, if you gave it a high school theme instead and slapped some cheesy songs on it, you could sell the rights to Disney Channel for big bucks.

In my opinion, this movie is a great sci-fi movie that someone dipped in the Star Trek theme bucket in order to sell it to the massive Star Trek fanbase out there. They might as well have called it Star Wars and claimed that it was the alternate reality of the events taking place in Episode 5, Return of the Empire. Would have made just as much sense to me. Ooh, the Empire invented a huge mining vessel that drills holes in planets in order to implode them with liquified Force.

If you haven't seen the old movies, or found the old movies dull, you probably wouldn't care. ****, if the movie had better special effects, you might just like it over the cheesy humor and mediocre acting in the original, but for a fan like me, it would make about as much sense as if they had called the movie Star Trek and claimed that it was an alternate reality of the events taking place before the television series.

In simpler words, if you've seen the show Lassie, imagine if someone redid the show, but used a pitbull terrier instead and justified it with alternate realities. Yeah.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#26 May 11 2009 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
****
7,718 posts
Quote:
this movie is a great sci-fi movie that someone dipped in the Star Trek theme bucket in order to sell it to the massive Star Trek fanbase out there


Plus since their is a large amount of existing thematic and conceptual work is all ready done the movie's creators don't have to do that either.

Hollywood doesn't really put much thought into movies Maz.
____________________________
Hellbanned

idiggory wrote:
Drinking at home. But I could probably stand to get laid.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)