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

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-01-2009, 08:46 AM
starwarsrcks's Avatar
starwarsrcks starwarsrcks is offline
Vice Admiral
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 3,062

what was it about the story that you really don't like can you tell me

Space is disease and dangerous wrapped in darkness and silence-Leonard Bones McCoy
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 08:51 AM
mmoore's Avatar
mmoore mmoore is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: OKUSA
Posts: 1,973

Originally Posted by fan1158 View Post
How do I get my money back? And how do I let Paramount know that I thought this was such a stinker that I won't be buying my kids any of the toys they are pushing , or the unhealthy meals at BK to get the cheap glasses? I won't be buying it on Blu Ray and I don't care if I ever see another thing to do with Star Trek again. That's how bad this was. And it wasn't the costumes or the ugly redesign of the ship. It was the awful story that JJ cooked up.
If you didn't ask for your money back at the theater, it's too late. You paid to see the movie and you saw it.

Now all you can do is not pay to see it again (a concept some complainers have yet to grasp ).
"Are you out of your Vulcan mind?"
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 10:05 AM
Samuel Samuel is offline
Vice Admiral
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,883

Originally Posted by fan1158 View Post
How do I get my money back?

As for Shatner no actor is %100 cool all the time. Even Brando made some groaners at times and I think he is one of the best. Actually... his persona would probably be too big but some of his earlier characters would make interesting Trek additions.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 02:03 PM
GeorgeIV GeorgeIV is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7

I saw it opening night. I really thought it was very good other than when Vulcan got destroyed,that disappointed me.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 12:20 AM
ScottyMcNot ScottyMcNot is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 5

As I reflect back on the movie, I am wondering now "What movie did some of you really see?" It does not seem to be the same movie that I saw.

As for time travel, the time keeps on travelling.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 01:15 PM
n0pr1m3d1r3ct1v3 n0pr1m3d1r3ct1v3 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2

Hi. I finally saw Star Trek the reboot movie with my girlfriend. She liked it but she's not a Trekkie. While I do admire the director and writers for choosing an alternative timestream to explain away the original series, I did feel that two core premises were missing from this movie:

1) no reference to the Prime Directive anywhere. I thought we scientist types finally won when reason conquered fear and brute force enabling us to populate other worlds, create a Federation and explore the universe. This movie focused strictly on getting a group of people together, hashing out who is in charge temporarily and holding hands long enough to fight one bad guy to the death. why not just hire Jason Bourne? What about helping each other? What about preventing a catastrophe from repeating itself?
2) unrealistic examples of science everywhere. Isn't sci-fi supposed to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers to consider the possibilities? There were so many errors related to space travel, time travel, blowing up planets, astronomy, fighting each other hand to hand, strange creatures or with ships, viewing planetary explosions, etc. that it is hard to appreciate anything in the story. I didn't walk away thinking , "Wow! My future is gonna be cool!" I thought, "Jeez! Did these guys (director and writers) sleep through high school science classes?"
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 01:31 PM
Samuel Samuel is offline
Vice Admiral
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,883

Quite a first post. Moving on...

Lets see, the DVD will be out in a few months. I will be keeping an eye out to see if there are any complainers picking out the movies faults... after they spent more money to buy the DVD.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 02:11 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078

Originally Posted by Samuel View Post
Yes. Thats what happens when we use scifi to open up limitless possibilities. The ones we dont like in addition to the ones we do. The whole bruhaha is because someone chose to explore it against some peoples insistance that he dont. People who accepted as fact that that the world was flat might as well have been mad at Columbus. Quite a few didnt even want him to explore the possibity. Luckily others did.
Too true!!

I find it strange that now Star Trek is back in genuine unexplored territory (and we actually CAN go where no one has gone before again), it's a disgrace apparently.

'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'

courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 12:58 AM
PoorPorthos PoorPorthos is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3

Having been to the movies last monday, I saw Star Trek and must say I was rather dissapointed. The disspointment wasn't due to this being a bad movie. It was, in fact, quite an entertaining sci-fi action flick, but it was hardly more than that. To make matters worse, I thought I hadn't paid for an entertaining sci-fi action flick, rather a younger, redesigned version of the original series. Having said that, I also wasn't quite sure what to expect, since restarting the original series never seemed like a good idea, to me. (Especially as a large part of the viewer audience have never heard or seen the TOS people, but nearly everybody know TNG, DS9 and/or VOY.)

But, it isn't what I deem to be a 'good idea' that has any influence on the powers that continue the Star Trek franchise, so I won't ramble on about that. I'll just share my opinion..

First of all, let me state that I'm very happy to see the writers of the movie went for an alertnate universe point of view. Had they tried to completely redefine TOS, then a very upset 'FUUUUUUUUUUU--' would've been all my fellow cinema-goers would've heard, after which I would have been taken away by paramedics, foaming from the mouth. This also gave the writers a lot of liberties with writing the story, and it shows. There's quite a few radical decisions that I irked at when seeing them on screen. One of them being the destruction of Vulcan. Other things that I disliked were young Spock's increased emotional behaviour (though his emotions in the very first young Spock scene makes sense), the main nemesis' and their motivations and what happens after the defeat of the main nemesis. (I can probably think up more, but these are the ones that spring to mind first.) Having said this, I must point out that I liked the mindmeld scene a lot. Plotwise it was very well done.

Having said one or two irky things regarding the story, there's more in regards of the design and visuals. First of; shaky cam. Nobody ever liked the retarded invention and it only made people sick. The dumbass who thought this was a nice 'technique' needs to be phasered and phasered again, preferrably on a higher setting. There's nothing 'cool' about it. It might (potentially, perhaps, maybe, possibly, etc.) work in realism series or movies, but not in a movie set in the 23rd century, discussing space ships that travel at warp and whatnot.

Second is the design of it all; I had already seen the surgical looking bridge in the trailers but waited with my final judgement until I had seen the movie. Once having seen it on screen, I can only say that McCoy needs to spend more time on the bridge, since it looks more like a hospital, anyway. The only shot we saw of sickbay was after an attack, and then it was all grey, blue and yellow, filled with debris and casualties. Sure, you can't crack all the design based on the bridge, but it certainly isn't what I'd expect from a starship. The rest of the starship also looks either more like a surgical environment or like an industrial complex. (Really, I understand why the water purification complex looked like he way it did, but the engine room?) It simply didn't look right. I also don't like the new Enterprise design. Sure, it needed to be redesigned, since you can't take the studio design from the 60's and expect it to look good in this day and age. But it was a wee bit over the top, if you ask me. The basic shapes or the ship were fine, they simply needed tuning and some more detail. We didn't need the warp nacelles to be modified into some clay-mation variant of the Enterprise. However, to compensate; I do like the saucer (primary hull?) and the defelector array.

Other design elements varied; I liked the props (nice phaser guns, nice hypospray predecessor), I hated the enemy ships (and what is it with Romulans and huge battleships? They compensating for something?), disliked the Starfleet design (especially since it was very inconsistent) and found Spock Prime's singularity spaceship to look more like something from Star Wars than Star Trek. (And while that is a very entertaining franchise, Star Trek its design should be miles away from theirs.)

Moving on, the visuals were nice and there definitely were some nice visual effects space shots. You can definitely see a lot of time was spent in post production and it paid off. Anyone saying Star Trek has crappy visuals needs to suck up some Niodine radiation. However, the visual effects are SO different from all the different Star Trek incarnations that, despite keeping in mind that this is a 'redesigned' Star Trek, it simply doesn't look like Trek. And I'm specifically referring to all the super close-ups of detail shots, the flares and glares and the surprising density of nebula's and other environmental effects in space. All in all, it didn't look a whole lot like Trek, visually. Still, it did look pretty. The warp effect looked good and there was one very memorable (though plotwise useless) scene where the Enterprise ascended from either a nebula or the atmosphere of Titan (one of Saturn's moons). Very pretty.

From the visual effects my last stop is with the characters and the actors who portrayed them.

Starting with Kirk: acting was good, but the writers really messed him up. Sure, alternate universe brings alternate nurture brings a different character. But he was just too impulse driven, too arrogant and not self-reflecting enough. One might argue that he aged into the Kirk we grew up with, but I simply found him to be a wee bit too deviant. The actor definitely gave his best, though.

Spock: I kept wondering when he started splicing open heads to obtain other people's their special Hero powers. I just had a hard time seeing that actor as Spock. He played his role well, but again, the writers made this character too deviant from the original, even if this is an alternate reality. (This is something that continues, so I won't bother repeating it.) Older Spock needs no explanation; good character, Marahrishi-like acting.

Uhuru seemed a bit more emotional, but that makes sense, as she's younger. One of the best characters by the writers, if you ask me. The actress was pretty decent, too. (Though she should gain a few pounds. So skinny. Totally unrelated, though.)

McCoy: good character, but I couldn't quite see the actor as him and found his acting a tad bit overdone. Good call by the writers, bad casting.

Chekov and Sulu: both were good calls I think. Nice fitting characters and good acting. John Cho was far better than I expected him to be. (I wasn't sure he could act seriously enough, as I've only seen him in comedies.) I also found Chekov's accent jokes to be nice. (I was one of the few, from what I understand! )

Scotty: actor Simon Pegg can do very little wrong with me, since I've seen most of his work. I reckon he's an excellent actor, though I was doubtful about him playing a Scotsman. In the end, he pulled Scotty off admirably. Good accent, too. (Note: actual Scots may disagree.) Only nitpick here is with the writers; he seems too exuberant. Scotty is jolly (when the ship's not falling apart) and excited but it was a little bit too much.

Lastly Captain Spike: Good character (but that's much easier, since Spike never had much of an established character as opposed to the others) and good acting.

Oh, and the sound effects and music; yeah, sound effects were nice (I noticed the one Tribble reference immediately) and music was OK. Aren't too fond of the soundtrack, but it certainly has *something*. (And that something is positive, in case you're wondering..)

Soooo, that was pretty much my opinion of the movie. As a non-Trekkie I'd give it a 3.5/5, but as a Trekkie I'm afraid it sticks on 3/5. It's a nice popcorn flick, but I won't buy the DVD. (And I won't buy it to point out science mistakes. It's sci-fi, after all! Only thing that I found odd was ships flying into black holes and not being torn to pieces.)
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 04:11 AM
Clancy_s's Avatar
Clancy_s Clancy_s is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 179

Captain Spike I know who you mean of course, but wheee! space!vampires

(the Starfleet officer in question was Pike...)

eta: mostly TOS fan from 20 years ago, so a very imprecise memory of it. Never watched enough of TNG, DS9 to follow what was going on and unlike TOS you needed to know.

Loved this, will be buying the DVD.
Reply With Quote

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 03:41 PM.

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.