1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Star Trek, in theaters 5/7/09

Discussion in 'The Movies' started by Steve615, Jan 21, 2008.

  1. May 9, 2009 #81 of 175

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    I just saw it today, AWESOME movie, I really enjoyed it, best one yet. I came out feeling all pumped up and excited. :D

    BTW, can we get the 2 threads combined?
  2. May 10, 2009 #82 of 175
    Chris Blount

    Chris Blount Creator of DBSTalk Staff Member Administrator DBSTalk Gold Club

    Jun 22, 2001
    Possible Spoilers ahead:

    Not a bad movie. Looks like a good "reboot" for the franchise.

    Did anyone else get the apple eating joke while Kirk was taking the Kobayashi Maru test? My son and I were laughing our butts off while everyone else in the theater sat wondering why. I like the references to the old stories. Pretty funny.

    Two things I'm kind of disappointed with:

    1. This movie pretty much looks like all the other action movies these days. I personally am getting real tired of the "shaky camera" syndrome going on in Hollywood. Why don't they just keep the dang camera still!!!

    2. Kind of disappointed with the music score. The Star Trek movies have always been known for their sweeping and majestic scores. The score for this film sounds too much like the Batman movies of the late 80's and 90's.

    Other than that, a very fun movie and worth a look. I like the direction it might go. They could actually re-tell some of the classic stories in a different way. Remember, the Doomsday Machine is still out there somewhere. :)
  3. May 10, 2009 #83 of 175

    LarryFlowers New Member

    Sep 22, 2006
    Star Trek posted a record breaking $8.3M just for IMax Theaters in it's opening weekend. The record had been held by the "Dark Knight" at $6.3M.

    The IMax money contributed to a weekend estimated domestic take of $76.5M, leaving Paramount execs grinning ear to ear. The Studio had estimated a $50M take for the weekend.

    Apparently another good indicator of ongoing success for the movie is that Saturday's take beat Friday's.

  4. May 10, 2009 #84 of 175

    koji68 Icon

    Jun 21, 2004
    *** May contain spoilers ****

    I liked the movie but the reset left me disenchanted. I had no read anything about it purposely so I kept waiting until the end for them to find a way to restore the time line. Seems like a cheap trick so they don't have to maintain continuity but the continuity of the universe is what kept the core fans happy.

    I liked Dr. McCoy and Scotty characters very much. There were many details for the core fan that were awesome. Like the explanation of the "Bones" nickname. Or the red shirt doing what red shirts do.

    To me it was like eating a nice meal and finish with a nasty desert that spoils the whole thing.

    I won't be following this new time line if new movies come out. I won't run to the theater or buy the DVDs. To me it has even spoiled the existing time line that was destroyed with this movie. :mad: :(
  5. May 10, 2009 #85 of 175
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I don't know about ruining things...

    On TNG Data's Head is something like 200+ years older than his body because he went back in time and got his head blown off and buried, then reattached to his body again in the future.

    On Voyager Harry Kim was killed, but his duplicate (from some kind of magic duplicating nebula) came over before the alternate Voyager was destroyed.

    On DS9, Chief O'Brien died in the future but his future self (who somehow didn't have the radiation poison that killed his past self) went back in time and assumed his life.

    I guess what I'm saying is, there's a long list of in-continuity things that I'd point to before I'd consider a reboot that actually acknowledges altered timeline as ruination.
  6. May 10, 2009 #86 of 175

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    I liked it alot. I hope they make another one. Im not a Trekie but found this movie to be very good. I will probably watch it in theaters again.
  7. May 11, 2009 #87 of 175

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    I went in with rather low expectations. I was all set to REALLY *NOT* like this movie. Fortunately, the once scene that I couldn't stand was at the beginning and there was lots of good stuff to help me forget it. When I get this on Blu-Ray, I'm going to want to rip it to my server and edit out that one wretched scene.

    I have a few minor quibbles, and one moderate quibble, about the movie but the bottom line is that I *enjoyed* it and feel like it was NOT money wasted.
  8. May 11, 2009 #88 of 175
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    Jun 18, 2006
    After years of anticipation, my friends and family finally stepped into the theatre on May 9, 2009, to do something we thought we would never have the pleasure of doing again: watch a Star Trek film. Oh, for sure we expected there to be such a film, but we didn't expect it to be a pleasure. The last two were unmitigated turkeys, and it had been 13 years since the last watchable one.

    I'll presume by now that everyone knows that this is a total reboot, the first for the franchise. Unlike other bankable properties like Batman or Bond, this series has striven to take its continuity quite seriously. Ever since its second TV incarnation as Star Trek:The Next Generation, the series has moved away from its roots as a well-intentioned drama limited by its television budget into sprawling, epic technology-filled movies that have increasingly required a dual major in Klingon studies and warp-field theory to understand.

    For the lifelong fan like me, that's a reward for over forty years of adherence to the Prime Directive. It's quite a burden for the ever-growing segment of the population that wasn't born when the series debuted in 1966. It's made Trek inaccessible for that holy grail of market research, those aged 18-34, who were born at least six years after the first show went off the air.

    No, this is not your father's Star Trek, the ads tell you up front. This latest film compares to the earlier efforts the same way Red Bull compares to Scotch. It's fast, frenetic, and demanding, in a way that no Trek film never has been. It's a thrill-ride, 2009-style, and if you've never seen a Trek film before, worry not; you can learn everything you need to just by sitting next to a geek for five minutes.

    Most of the argument about this film comes from those who now feel that their lives spent arguing Trek minutiae are now invalid, because this film ignores anything that gets in the way of the plot. Still, those who feel left out have failed to notice the literally hundreds of ways that devotion to the Trek canon has been rewarded. Whole lines of dialogue are lifted from the old series and movies; easter eggs abound from beginning to end. Watch the first scene and you'll be reminded of the first scene from Star Trek II:The Wrath of Khan, and watch the last scene to see Admiral Pike in a wheelchair wearing a decent copy of Admiral Kirk's uniform from Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Even JJ Abrams' loving exterior flybys of the Enterprise remind you of similar shots used (and reused) in the first three Trek films.

    The film offers one more olive branch to old-school Trekkers like myself; instead of simply rebooting as was done to Bond and Batman, there's a reason things have changed. If all that's not enough to help the old men like me embrace this film, I don't know what is. I know there are those who would have seen the canon slavishly adhered to, but let's leave the Federation for a moment... this is a film that had to make $350 million to break even. The last one made about $45 million. Paramount had no reason to make such a grand film to satisfy an aging population of Treknophiles.

    By now, you've all read enough reviews to know the basic plot points, so I'll skip that and simply answer the two questions I've been asked over and over: Is it Trek enough for you, and is it any good?

    Yes, it's Trek enough for me. Trek is optimism, and fun, and good humor. I know there have been some very dark bits of Trek, but in the end, Trek has always been about having a good time in a world that is better and fairer than ours. And yes, it's good. Astonishingly good in fact. Aside from a few clumsy bits that I can only attribute to Mr. Abrams style as a filmmaker, it's actually very good. It's demanding as a film, requires your attention and presumes you're smart enough to follow without a ton of exposition. The characters are fun and although there's not a huge amount of growth in most of them, they're easy to get to know and like.

    Of course, no film is perfect and I must reluctantly add a few complaints. First is as I said, there's not a huge amount of emotional growth in most of the characters. The only character who experiences pain and sacrifice is the one who shows very little emotion. While Zachary Quinto does an excellent job conveying this pain subtly, this film has nowhere near the heart of Star Trek II for example.

    I must also show my age in writing that this film moves so darn fast, it's a bit hard to keep up. Dialogue has been pared down in favor of long effects sequences that are riveting but still decrease the connection between audience and characters.

    Overall, I applaud this latest film. I'm ok with the "old canon" continuing while this "new canon" starts. I can make room in my heart for both. To end with a quote from classic Trek, "Sorta gets you right here. Or in your case, Spock, right here." (thumps hip with fist.)

    Now, when's the next one coming out?
  9. May 11, 2009 #89 of 175

    paulman182 Hall Of Fame

    Aug 4, 2006
    Excellent review, Stuart. I didn't see the new movie this weekend but probably will at some point.

    The first six Star Trek films are really the only movies I watch repeatedly. I do feel some sadness because those adventures now will never "really" happen, but the new movie is evidently so good and so true to the best of the spirit of Star Trek, that the sadness is overcome by the simple fact that we're seeing new, good Star Trek again.

    And as you pointed out, most of us thought that would never "really" happen, either.
  10. May 11, 2009 #90 of 175

    Fontano Godfather

    Feb 7, 2008

    But they WILL/DID happen.
    Just not in this timeline / parallel universe that we are currently watching.

    All that has changed is that we are not watching the same timeline.
    And when you think about it, when you combine all the series together, with all the time travel arcs, we really have been watching a splintered timeline branch.

    It hasn't been a straight line.

    Going back to Doc Brown's explanation of timelines, the Star Trek timeline went off on a tangent many many times, never to return to the exact same one.

    Even one of the GREATEST Star Trek movies IV The Voyage Home, RADICALLY changed the timeline, we just didn't know the full eventual outcome of that timeline. They go back in time, pick up a whale and bring it back to the future to change things. Not to mention all the other things that happened in that particular movie.

    Look at all the times in the Trek experience time travel was involved, and it always had some sort of impact and changed the timeline.
  11. May 11, 2009 #91 of 175

    LarryFlowers New Member

    Sep 22, 2006
    Stuart... I couldn't have put it better myself...

    I know there are some Trekkers out there who will complain and to them I have to say...

    tlhap Dung 'oH

  12. May 11, 2009 #92 of 175
    Chris Blount

    Chris Blount Creator of DBSTalk Staff Member Administrator DBSTalk Gold Club

    Jun 22, 2001
    Good review Stuart.

    I am of the opinion that there is plenty of room for a new Star Trek franchise. The old one played out well and will always exist for those who wish to enjoy it.

    This "new" Star Trek will not only re-energize the series but also bring in more followers.

    When I get to feeling reluctant about accepting the new Star Trek, I think of the line spoke by Kirk in Star Trek III: "Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant". :)
  13. May 11, 2009 #93 of 175

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    Sep 16, 2003
    I was asked about problems with canon in this movie. I replied "I defer the question to Captain James R. Kirk of the United Earth Space Probe Agency." :)
  14. May 11, 2009 #94 of 175

    coldsteel Hall Of Fame

    Mar 29, 2007
    Mark, I think I saw on Zap2it that they're already working on a sequel.
  15. May 11, 2009 #95 of 175
    Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Jan 24, 2007
    Ah, "Tomorrow is Yesterday". One of my top five.

    I don't think the "R" was anywhere beyond "Where No Man Has Gone Before"...was it?

  16. May 11, 2009 #96 of 175

    dreadlk Hall Of Fame

    Sep 18, 2007
    None of the things you mentioned had any effect on the time line. Data's head sat in an undiscovered Collapsed Mine for 100's of years until it was found in TNG timeline.
    All the other examples you gave also had ZERO effect on the time line.

    The problem with Star Trek 11 is that they have made sure to change the timeline in a Major way, so that anything is now possible.

    Gene Roddenberry said that Star Trek is a optimistic Story of the Future. Many people have tried to destroy that because a bright optimistic future is "Boring". Luckily those people have always failed because the FAN base punished them for deviating from Roddenberry’s vision.

    So to counter the studio executives devised a Plan to make sure that whatever they created would be so big that the die hard Trekker Fan base would have to be silent while the rest of the public was handing out resounding applause.

    Just look at how much money they have spent promoting this Movie, it's probably more than they spent on the last four movies combined.

    I liked the movie but I am really worried about where this will all go to next, I fear that in 5 years from now we may be seeing a new Star Trek universe in both movies and new TV series that has nothing to do with Roddenberry’s vision of the future but just another Dark Gloomy vision like so many other Sci-Fi shows.

  17. May 11, 2009 #97 of 175
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    Jun 18, 2006
    Look, Roddenberry's vision was a great one, but there does come a point where it has to be more than that. The TV series already went through a dark and gloomy period and a lot of people didn't have a problem with that.

    I think the mistake would be thinking that Roddenberry's vision was the only thing there was. If that were true Trek would die... it almost did before this film was started.

    As for the purists who want to choose to ignore the new canon, I say fine. There's a lot of established canon to keep them going. However, this new film is a great way to introduce millions more people to the idea of a better, brighter future filled with tolerance and dedicated to learning. What better vision is there than that?
  18. May 11, 2009 #98 of 175

    Drew2k New Member

    Aug 16, 2006
    I'm skipping all discussion to post that I just printed tickets for the 9:05 PM showing tonight in the Director's Hall at my local Island 16! It's not IMAX, but it is stadium style reserved seating and does have wait service at the push of a button. ;)

    Can't wait to join in on the discussion!
  19. May 11, 2009 #99 of 175

    dreadlk Hall Of Fame

    Sep 18, 2007

    You have plenty of shows out there that are already"More than that" for example Terminator gives another vision of the future, so does a few dozen other series and movies. Point is, why has Roddenberry's vision lasted so long while other have faded? Why go out and Destroy it when you can just as easily go and make a Brand new show based on something else! Not that they have destroyed the Trek vision yet, but it's whats coming next that I fear.

    Stuart I loved the movie but I think the Destroying of V* added nothing to the Movie, it could have been any other Planet and once you added the words "Earth is Next" you would have had the same impact! JJ and the Studio only killed V* so that they had a blank slate to change everything else in the future movies.

    There is this very annoying assumption dloating around that you had to change the time line to make the movie be good! I see nothing in this movie that benefited from the timeline being changed! Please let me know of a scene in the Movie that gained something by it? Kirks Father as far as the shows are concerned was never even mentioned so his outcome could have been exactly what we saw in ST-11.

    Pike, who cared!

    Soo little is known about Young Kirk and Spock (Geeky books not included) that they could have easily made three movies of this same caliber without changing the Timeline.

  20. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I left out one of the Granddaddy timescrews of them all...

    In "Yesterday's Enterprise" a ship from the past comes to the future... Everything is immediately changed, and the Enterprise is a warship and Tasha Yar is no longer dead!

    So... the episode ends with the out-of-time ship going back to the past BUT taking Tasha Yar with them...

    Somehow the should-be-dead Tasha is alive in the past, mates with a Romulan, and has a daughter that comes back and plagues the Enterprise crew again later.

    I'd have to say that one pretty much altered the timestream.

    I'm all about continuity and credibility... but this particular new movie was essentially designed to offshoot an alternate reality, so I find it hard to complain about that unless the movie was awful.

Share This Page