The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Did you see the movie? Post SPOILER FREE reviews & thoughts here
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #211  
Old 05-21-2009, 01:08 PM
T'Pau's Avatar
T'Pau T'Pau is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 63
Default

Yes I saw the movie. And yes I loved it. There was so much in it for TOS fans. I'm genuinely surprised at the nay-sayers, but to each his own. I thought the casting and direction were just superb, and it was a thrill-ride all the way through. Can't wait to see it again!
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 05-21-2009, 02:03 PM
TamarinaDC TamarinaDC is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 33
Default All of these whining TOS people need to DROP IT!

Dear God, each time I read a "true fan" post where they're weeping and wailing about how it's not "their" Trek, and how they just watched Trek die, I want to whack them with a brick. IT WAS NEVER "YOUR TREK" TO BEGIN WITH!!! Look, we live in an age of DVD's- TOS will always be there for you, Shatner and Spock will always be young and fit, you can over look just how silly and contrived the last 2 seasons were, whatever. You can read all the novels, see all the original series movies- it's all still there! For those of us who loved TOS and the sequels (and yes, we did love it just as much as you, and don't you dare say otherwise) and who also find that we love the new timeline, leave us in peace! You never have to enter this timeline if you don't want to- you can keep to TOS. But let us enjoy this new vision without the gnashing of teeth.
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 05-23-2009, 03:34 PM
Stargazer Stargazer is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 12
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TamarinaDC View Post
Dear God, each time I read a "true fan" post where they're weeping and wailing about how it's not "their" Trek, and how they just watched Trek die, I want to whack them with a brick. IT WAS NEVER "YOUR TREK" TO BEGIN WITH!!! Look, we live in an age of DVD's- TOS will always be there for you, Shatner and Spock will always be young and fit, you can over look just how silly and contrived the last 2 seasons were, whatever. You can read all the novels, see all the original series movies- it's all still there! For those of us who loved TOS and the sequels (and yes, we did love it just as much as you, and don't you dare say otherwise) and who also find that we love the new timeline, leave us in peace! You never have to enter this timeline if you don't want to- you can keep to TOS. But let us enjoy this new vision without the gnashing of teeth.
Thank you TamarinaDC for saying that.
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 05-23-2009, 05:42 PM
mmoore's Avatar
mmoore mmoore is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: OKUSA
Posts: 1,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TamarinaDC View Post
Dear God, each time I read a "true fan" post where they're weeping and wailing about how it's not "their" Trek, and how they just watched Trek die, I want to whack them with a brick. IT WAS NEVER "YOUR TREK" TO BEGIN WITH!!! Look, we live in an age of DVD's- TOS will always be there for you, Shatner and Spock will always be young and fit, you can over look just how silly and contrived the last 2 seasons were, whatever. You can read all the novels, see all the original series movies- it's all still there! For those of us who loved TOS and the sequels (and yes, we did love it just as much as you, and don't you dare say otherwise) and who also find that we love the new timeline, leave us in peace! You never have to enter this timeline if you don't want to- you can keep to TOS. But let us enjoy this new vision without the gnashing of teeth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stargazer View Post
Thank you TamarinaDC for saying that.
It's just too bad that it's had to be repeated approximately 1,771,561 times since this forum opened--nearly a year and a half before the release.
__________________
"Are you out of your Vulcan mind?"
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 05-23-2009, 09:11 PM
Tiberius1964's Avatar
Tiberius1964 Tiberius1964 is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 181
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fanSince1968 View Post
...Is this the direction that Star Trek will be taking now?

...I don't know where to begin, or even have the words to state how extremely disappointed I am. They've taken my trusted friend and stripped him of his mind and of his meaning.

If this is the direction that Star Trek is headed, then my trusted friend has died. It's tough to watch something you love die.

Again, I don't mean to offend anyone and hope no one takes my comments the wrong way.
Fan, on some levels I can agree with you that the new movie is not the Star Trek that aired in the 1960s. When I think of the differences between ToS and this movie, I think principally of the character of Kirk. think of the scene in "Balance of Terror", when Kirk says to McCoy, "I see all those people on the bridge, waiting for me to make the next move...and Bones? What if I'm wrong?"

The Kirk in this movie could never have a moment like that.

And yet...I gotta say that in some ways, that it doesn't matter. ToS always had some episodes that were pure action/adventure; others that were pure comedy. You can't always have drama and social relevancy or eventually people will get tired (except for Law & Order fans - no disrespect intended).

So Abrams may have front-loaded a bunch of action to make his planned 3-movie run more accessible and to build a larger initial audience...I'm okay with that. I would like to see, in the upcoming movies, some deeper characterization and a story that isn't so "lightweight" in its approach (although I would not disagree with anyone who says that Abrams blows up Vulcan - how can that be lightweight?). But it's always possible that Abrams will not try for anything like that...and so what, as long as he makes good movies about interesting characters.

Bottom line...Trek has boldly gone where other franchises have gone before. Bond has been played by Connery, Niven, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig. Holmes has been played by Rathbone, Brett, Christopher Plummer, Christopher Lee, Matt Frewer, Edward Woodward, Michael Pennington, Peter Cushing, Tom Baker (shouldn't he have the Doctor?), Nicol Williamson, Roger Moore, Stewart Granger (opposite William Shatner), John Barrymore and a host of others. Batman has been played by Adam West, George Clooney, Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, and Christian Bale (and voiced by Kevin Conroy, Rino Romano and Deirdrich Bader) and a bunch of others.

So there's nothing saying that only Shatner can play Kirk; only Nimoy can play Spock.

Also, Batman and Superman have gone through many incarnations, when they reflected the tenor of the times - Adam West's Batman was campy and irreverent in the 60s; Frank Miller's Batman was grim and hard in the 80s, a sensibility that has carried on for 30 years now, with Batman TAS and its offspring and the Nolan-verse Batman.

So who is to say that Abrams is not allowed to make a Trek that is more action packed, less dramatic and less socially relevant? Certainly not I. And if he does, I will judge what he does on how well he does it on its own merits; not on how well he makes Trek based on the old TV show.

As Roger Ebert says, it's not what the movie is about, but how it is about it, that determines whether it is good or not.

But, if you and other purists can't put the canon aside, I will certainly respect that and wish you well.
__________________
Tiberius1964
"Having is not so pleasurable a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 05-23-2009, 09:13 PM
Tiberius1964's Avatar
Tiberius1964 Tiberius1964 is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 181
Default One tiny thing it would have been nice if Abrams had put in...

...would have been at the end. Just before Kirk gets his promotion, if StarFleet had announced they'd considered their decision about Kirk's malfeasance with the Kobayashi Maru test, and decided to give him a commendation for original thinking. Then, promote him to Captain.
__________________
Tiberius1964
"Having is not so pleasurable a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."

Last edited by Tiberius1964 : 05-23-2009 at 09:14 PM. Reason: grammar
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 05-25-2009, 04:12 PM
libbycove libbycove is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1
Default movie critique

For the diehard Star Trek fans this movie will be a huge disappointment. It is not Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. It is a totally different direction than they are used to watching.it will help revive a dying franchise and get the younger science fiction, action and Star Wars audience watching the franchise. And as we all know that's where the money is all of us old die hard Star Trek fans are not the ones that generate box office profits.

If you are willing to get past your old prejudices and accept that this is a new generation the movie is worth watching.

I have to agree that I thought it was way too fast-paced. However, most movie audiences today demand fast-paced movies. They don't have the patience for it plot driven movie.

I thought all of the actors did an okay job on playing the roles. I have to agree with you on Scotty I'm unsure of how I liked that part. I I thought that the actors who played both Scotty and Chekov were overplaying their accents.

I think they've created some problems with the destruction of Valcun. I don't know how they will justify that.Because all of the series have talked about the planet Valcun existence. I think another problem they created is with the implied relationship between Uhura and Spock.I do like the fact that they gave Scotty and Uhura a broader role to play. Nicole Nichols and james doohan were underused.

As far as the ship I think parts of it were just right and other parts looked way too it advanced. I also did not like the phasers as they did not resemble any of the other Star Trek ships weapons. The other problem I saw was the transporter. The transporter beam was totally wrong. you would have thought they could've at least managed to get that special effect right.The transporter has been used throughout all of the series.

This is not Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek however, people who have not grown up with Star Trek will enjoy it and it probably will revise the series.I have even heard people who like Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek enjoy this
movie.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 05-25-2009, 08:03 PM
StephS StephS is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1
Default

I liked it enough to see it twice.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 05-25-2009, 11:39 PM
lonstar70 lonstar70 is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by libbycove View Post
For the diehard Star Trek fans this movie will be a huge disappointment. It is not Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. It is a totally different direction than they are used to watching.it will help revive a dying franchise and get the younger science fiction, action and Star Wars audience watching the franchise. And as we all know that's where the money is all of us old die hard Star Trek fans are not the ones that generate box office profits.

If you are willing to get past your old prejudices and accept that this is a new generation the movie is worth watching.

I have to agree that I thought it was way too fast-paced. However, most movie audiences today demand fast-paced movies. They don't have the patience for it plot driven movie.

I thought all of the actors did an okay job on playing the roles. I have to agree with you on Scotty I'm unsure of how I liked that part. I I thought that the actors who played both Scotty and Chekov were overplaying their accents.

I think they've created some problems with the destruction of Valcun. I don't know how they will justify that.Because all of the series have talked about the planet Valcun existence. I think another problem they created is with the implied relationship between Uhura and Spock.I do like the fact that they gave Scotty and Uhura a broader role to play. Nicole Nichols and james doohan were underused.

As far as the ship I think parts of it were just right and other parts looked way too it advanced. I also did not like the phasers as they did not resemble any of the other Star Trek ships weapons. The other problem I saw was the transporter. The transporter beam was totally wrong. you would have thought they could've at least managed to get that special effect right.The transporter has been used throughout all of the series.

This is not Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek however, people who have not grown up with Star Trek will enjoy it and it probably will revise the series.I have even heard people who like Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek enjoy this
movie.
So what exactly was Gene's direction for Star Trek? TOS had many war like battles and conflicts were in the storied. PLENTY! This was utopia? BS. Like any business, he threw in plenty of space battles and conflict. You people who think every episode was hearts and flowers are deluded. Even when he did STNG, it was full of conflict. He knew the scripts could not be borinig, go back and watch TOS. Lot's of conflict. Get over it.
__________________
Captain Kirk to the Enterprise in "The Naked Time":

"I'll never lose you!"
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 05-26-2009, 10:09 AM
ScottyMcNot ScottyMcNot is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 5
Default

I thought the movie was alright. I mean the scenes could have focus on other nameless faceless cadet graduates, sitting in the audience - perhaps like you and all the people in the therater, but the story was about being assigned to the newest flagship of the fleet - the Enterprise, or not. I enjoyed the first meeting between McCoy and Kirk and the trip up to the Enterprise. What is the first thing McCoy always does with people? Gives them a phsychological kind of test. The only thing I did not like for the most part was the sound effects going over the top sometimes like the bar scene. Otherwise parts of the Enterprise were strange and also early and before TOS ships even. The rest of time travel science fiction as really no one knows and it is just opinions they stick in. Before it was using a star as in Star Trek IV with the whales and now - a wormhole blackhole whatever it was. And the interaction between the characters all of them trying to compete against the other in some instances but getting along and agreeing with them also in other instances. A bunch of cadet graduates going out into space. The Vulcan planet seemed more like Planet Earth then perhaps where they found to live on the one people are used to as Planet Vulcan. Not sure about that, but could have been. In all it was not about cloning, or a nexus or v-jer, or the earlier madman - Khan. And although the Enterprise's bridge was different and other parts, the time period of the movie was also different than the other TV episodes. So, I will wait until it comes out on DVD and view it again.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:19 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.