# The new Star Trek movie is...



## Mallus (Apr 24, 2009)

... ridiculously entertaining. 

I caught a free sneak preview in Philly last night, but I'm surely going to pay money to see it again. It's the best summer movie in years. The pace is terrific without being dizzying mess and the actors _really_ nail their roles (Pine as Kirk is great. No, really, great). The brilliant effects, sound design, production values are just icing on the cake.  

In fact, as of right now, I'm thinking it's the best of the Star Trek films, period.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Apr 24, 2009)

Jim, I'm a doctor not a movie critic!  

I am looking foward to seeing it, it looks great from the teasers.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 24, 2009)

Hand of Evil said:


> Jim, I'm a doctor not a movie critic!



Ah... the road(s) not taken. Sometimes I wish I were I doctor or a movie critic. Or both!



> I am looking forward to seeing it, it looks great from the teasers.



Honestly, it's _better_ than the trailer. And how many films can you say that about these days?


----------



## Hand of Evil (Apr 24, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Honestly, it's _better_ than the trailer. And how many films can you say that about these days?



Little or none as most will do 
1) show a major plot point 
2) the whole story in highlights 
3) market the movie as a genre it is not (comedy vs action, horror vs comedy vs action, date flick vs action vs comedy vs horror, sci-fi vs all, etc...)
4) market the movie to a different age group / demographic 
5) all the above


----------



## Jack7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I'm glad to hear this about the film Mal.
I figured they'd do a good job.

Even my wife, who is rarely a fan of anything sci-fi/fantasy/comic bookish (she likes Batman and Wolverine and that's about it), wants me to take her to see this.

She thinks Uhura and Kirk will throw down, and keeps talking 'bout how they'd make a cute couple. She's black and I'm white so I think there is a bit of not so subtle undertones in her expressed desires. Still, I think the gal they have playing Uhura is a looker, course the original was too.

I'm hoping they'll make more of a tough SOB outta McCoy (I always thought a guy from the South who looked and talked like McCoy did, not to mention picked fights with Spock all the time would have been a tough SOB as a young man) and I'm interested to see what they will do with Spock too (also a tough SOB), who was one of my favorite fictional characters back in the sixties.

So I'm glad to hear you found it a good film.


----------



## Rl'Halsinor (Apr 24, 2009)

Thanks Mallus for your review.  Being a major fan of Trek, especially TOS, I am am cautious of anything to do with TOS especially since the original has such great characters.  

Do you think the director and script are respectful of Roddenbury's roots/concepts?  Does Abrams "get" Trek?  After seeing what Berman and Braga (the BB Boys) had done trying to create Trek in their own image I am suspicious to say the least.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 24, 2009)

Jack7 said:


> Still, I think the gal they have playing Uhura is a looker, course the original was too.



Zoe Saldana looks fabulous as Uhura, and she does great with the screen time she has. And there is _some_ romance... remarkably, it's handled well and induces no prolonged period of groaning. 



> I'm hoping they'll make more of a tough SOB outta McCoy...



I don't know if I'd call McCoy a real tough SOB, but he comes close to stealing every scene where he has a line.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 24, 2009)

Rl'Halsinor said:


> Do you think the director and script are respectful of Roddenbury's roots/concepts? Does Abrams "get" Trek?



They totally get the spirit and characters of the original, particularly Kirk, Spock and McCoy. What they don't get, or, to be fair, even attempt, is a foray into more cerebral, idea-oriented scifi. 

This is Star Trek in pure blockbuster mode, paced and shot better than any previous Trek film (make that better than almost any other SF film) with the cast doing the neat trick of making the characters seem simultaneously familiar and new. The characters really _live_. It's a joyous movie. Really, joyous.

(of course I say this as a life-long Star Trek fan, so suspicions of my objectivity would be well founded)


----------



## Jack7 (Apr 24, 2009)

> remarkably, it's handled well and induces no prolonged period of groaning




When handled well there should be a prolonged period of groaning. Can't have everything though I reckon. 




> I don't know if I'd call McCoy a real tough SOB, but he comes close to stealing every scene where he has a line.




Well now, that's a start.




> It's a joyous movie. Really, joyous.




Yeah Mall, _but whaddya really think of it?_


----------



## Mark (Apr 24, 2009)

How much "shaky" cam, you lucky bastard?


----------



## Merlin's Shadow (Apr 25, 2009)

Mallus said:


> In fact, as of right now, I'm thinking it's the best of the Star Trek films, period.




Better than _The Wrath of Khan_? I'm skeptical.


----------



## SkidAce (Apr 25, 2009)

He obviously meant every other Star Trek movie except Wrath of Khan


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 25, 2009)

Hey, quick question, Mallus...

Star Trek is "Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content."

I've got a 9-year-old and a 10-year-old who would both like to go see the movie.  PG-13 "sci-fi action and violence" isn't a real problem, but "brief sexual content" could be.  Could you give a quick run down of what that sexual content involves?


----------



## Mallus (Apr 26, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> Could you give a quick run down of what that sexual content involves?



It's nothing, really. You see a bit of it in the trailer, Kirk and a what turns out to be an Orion cadet in bed. They're interrupted, the lights come on to reveal both are dressed in their underwear, and the scene turns comedic after that...

Should be fine for children.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 26, 2009)

SkidAce said:


> He obviously meant every other Star Trek movie except Wrath of Khan



No, I meant it was the best Star Trek film, better than Khan. Then again, I say that now, who knows if the new film will stand the test of time.

The Wrath of Khan, for all it's strengths, was a relatively small film made on the cheap. The new film is the opposite of that.


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 26, 2009)

Mallus said:


> It's nothing, really. You see a bit of it in the trailer, Kirk and a what turns out to be an Orion cadet in bed. They're interrupted, the lights come on to reveal both are dressed in their underwear, and the scene turns comedic after that...
> 
> Should be fine for children.




Cool.  Thanks.


----------



## megamania (Apr 26, 2009)

Not a huge trek fan but these comments make me want to consider the movie.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 26, 2009)

Mark said:


> How much "shaky" cam, you lucky bastard?



Hey Mark... sorry I missed this.

I don't recall a lot of shaky cam, it's not Cloverfield in space. There is a lot of really interesting, fluid camerawork, plus some well-designed effects shots that go a long way toward changing the visual "vocabulary" of Trek: the ships designs are familiar, the way their used/framed in the shots are not.


----------



## Jack7 (Apr 26, 2009)

> It's nothing, really. You see a bit of it in the trailer, Kirk and a what turns out to be an Orion cadet in bed.




The wife isn't gonna like that. So I ain't gonna tell her.


----------



## Mark (Apr 26, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Hey Mark... sorry I missed this.
> 
> I don't recall a lot of shaky cam, it's not Cloverfield in space. There is a lot of really interesting, fluid camerawork, plus some well-designed effects shots that go a long way toward changing the visual "vocabulary" of Trek: the ships designs are familiar, the way their used/framed in the shots are not.





Thanks.  That's all I needed to hear.  I have a feeling I'm going to like this film a great deal.


----------



## SkidAce (Apr 26, 2009)

Mallus said:


> No, I meant it was the best Star Trek film, better than Khan. Then again, I say that now, who knows if the new film will stand the test of time.
> 
> The Wrath of Khan, for all it's strengths, was a relatively small film made on the cheap. The new film is the opposite of that.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 27, 2009)

SkidAce said:


>



Why the sad face? Blockbuster Star Trek is a good thing (particularly when it means a talented bunch of people are going to be given large sums of money to make more...).


----------



## EricNoah (Apr 27, 2009)

I think the real test is going to be  -- how does it work for the uninitiated, the non-fan?


----------



## Jasperak (Apr 29, 2009)

Do I see an edition war brewing here? 

WoK  v. This reboot 

I hope the movie does well, but seriously, better than this:


----------



## Viking Bastard (Apr 30, 2009)

I saw it tonight and it was awesome. Absolutely.

My roommate (who hates Star Trek but was really curious what JJ would do with it) and my girlfriend (who hasn't seen any Trek before other than a few DS9 episodes as a kid) both loved it.

But I'm a little sad at the thought that we probably won't see anything more set in the old timeline. But so be it, at least the new timeline starts off with a bang!


----------



## Merlin's Shadow (Apr 30, 2009)

Mallus said:


> The Wrath of Khan, for all it's strengths, was a relatively small film made on the cheap. The new film is the opposite of that.




I can understand different people liking different things (even if they are wrong ), but I don't understand this reason. Lots of outstanding movies are "relatively small made on the cheap." Lots of money is not a indicator of quality (*coughMichaelBaycough*).


----------



## Mallus (May 1, 2009)

Merlin's Shadow said:


> Lots of outstanding movies are "relatively small made on the cheap."



Sure. _Casablanca_ is my all-time favorite film, and it also happens to be a small film, made on the cheap, with a cast of studio contract players. 



> Lots of money is not a indicator of quality (*coughMichaelBaycough*).



Of course not. But that wasn't what I was saying. Or at least what I meant .

A big budget enables higher productions values and a larger scale. The new Star Trek is just _bigger_ than Khan, more of a spectacle. That alone doesn't make it a better film. However, the new Trek was made by a very talented group of people, who really made the most out of the $150,000,000 or so dollars they were given to work with.

Put another way... when you're making a sci-fi adventure movie about exploring strange, new worlds and having thrilling spaceship battles in orbit around them, a bigger budget sure doesn't _hurt_, all other thing being equal.


----------



## Mallus (May 1, 2009)

Viking Bastard said:


> I saw it tonight and it was awesome.



Glad you liked it!

In an unrelated note: how are things in Iceland these days? My wife and I vacationed there last year and fell in the love with the place. I have fond memories of the Blue Lagoon (and the lamb dinner I got in Reykjavik the last night we were there). It pains us to think that the country is going through some tough times.


----------



## Piratecat (May 1, 2009)

Mallus said:


> In an unrelated note: how are things in Iceland these days? My wife and I vacationed there last year and fell in the love with the place. I have fond memories of the Blue Lagoon (and the lamb dinner I got in Reykjavik the last night we were there). It pains us to think that the country is going through some tough times.



I'll echo this, especially since it's been nine freakin' years since I got to meet you, VB. How are you guys doing?


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 2, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> I'll echo this, especially since it's been nine freakin' years since I got to meet you, VB. How are you guys doing?




Well, the times, they are interesting.

The economy is down the tubes, but really, it's not as if we'll be starving or anything. On paper everyone is bankrupt (including me and I didn't own anything), but it'll reset itself in a couple of years.

But it has also given icelandic society a good kicking in the arse and made us rethink how things have traditionally been done here.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (May 2, 2009)

megamania said:


> Not a huge trek fan but these comments make me want to consider the movie.




Me either.  Seen a dozen Voyager episodes and mostly liked them, other than that not much exposure.  My fiancee loves star trek, and it looks like it will at least be a good action movie if the plot/characters don't grab me, so I'll give it a chance.  Also, I saw John Cho in the preview clip, whom I know to be a really good and funny actor from Off Centre (as well as Harold and Kumar), so that appeals to me, too.

[sblock]Typing this made me want to look up Off Centre on wikipedia and checking out the cast, wow.... I didn't even notice that Euan from Off Centre was Krod Mandoon![/sblock]


----------



## Ambrus (May 3, 2009)

My girlfriend was lucky enough to get passes for us to an early screening on Saturday morning. I have to say, it lives up to the hype and surpassed my expectations. Fresh new actors in established roles, dynamic action and a fun plot make for a great movie. My favorite aspect is that, in one way or another, the movie seems to reward longtime fans by covering pretty much all of the TOS' well known cannon touchstones, often with amusing twists, all without dwelling on them overlong. A great balancing act. I couldn't stop grinning throughout the whole thing. Big thumbs up! 

Now I have to fight the urge to post my favorite plot points here...


----------



## EricNoah (May 5, 2009)

It's doing well on Rotten Tomatoes so far (100% with 22 reviews though only a few "top" reviews are in).  Star Trek Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes 

And after reading some articles and looking at some trailers, I found myself watching Star Trek: The Motion Picture (though I also found myself fast forwarding through a lot of it - it is glacially paced).  Despite the cheese and not-so-special effects, the moments between Spock and Kirk were surprisingly touching, moreso than I had remembered.  I'm looking forward to seeing that develop anew in the new version (and sequels if we're lucky).


----------



## qstor (May 5, 2009)

Mark said:


> Thanks.  That's all I needed to hear.  I have a feeling I'm going to like this film a great deal.




I'm skeptical of what I've seen especially since I've seen comments about an "alternate timeline" I think they've fudged some dates too. Kirk was 15 when the Enterprise launched. Does he just ride his motorbike to the shipyards and see it?? I think for follow up they've backed themselves in to a corner with the alternate timeline.

As much as I hate saying it I'd prefer a Romulon war movie rather than this.

I don't think Trek is Battlestar Galactica. I love that new series but way too much has been done for a re-boot. Abrams could have done a modern Trek movie. Dominion War, the Titan or something with a big buget. The big budget alone doesn't make Trek. I liked Trek 1 and loved the Wrath of Khan. I don't think the alternate timeline will get me.

Mike


----------



## Pbartender (May 5, 2009)

qstor said:


> Abrams could have done a modern Trek movie. Dominion War, the Titan or something with a big buget.




You know...  I'm a pretty big Trek fan, but I stopped going to Star Trek movies about 15 years ago, because they couldn't stop making exactly the sort of movie you're talking about.  Had they made another one this year, I wouldn't bother to go see it...  I don't need to pay that much money at the movie theater just to see an extra long episode of TNG or Voyager or Enterprise.    Blecch.

This movie, however I've been waiting to see for the last six months.  Hell, even my wife and kids are excited about it.


----------



## Mallus (May 5, 2009)

qstor said:


> I don't think the alternate timeline will get me.



Let me ask you this: are a few chronological details more important to you than the characters? Because the brilliance of the film is the way it reminds the audience _why_ Kirk, Spock and McCoy (et al) are beloved characters in the first place.


----------



## Mallus (May 5, 2009)

EricNoah said:


> Despite the cheese and not-so-special effects, the moments between Spock and Kirk were surprisingly touching, moreso than I had remembered.



I have the director's cut of ST:TMP on DVD. It's a good film. It's Trek in a stately and thoughtful mode, more 2001 than Star Wars. 

The new one is definitely more Star Wars (but with better characters!).


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 5, 2009)

See to me Trek isn't big budget action movies. Trek has been about exploring human  society and motivations. If people like big budget action movies there are plenty to choose from, why does Trek need to be one of them.


----------



## Pbartender (May 5, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Let me ask you this: are a few chronological details more important to you than the characters? Because the brilliance of the film is the way it reminds the audience _why_ Kirk, Spock and McCoy (et al) are beloved characters in the first place.




It suddenly occurs to me that any Trek fan being upset about an "alternate timeline" in the movie is the height of hypocrisy.

 

If any sci-fi franchise is ripe for "rebooting", it'd be Star Trek...  Mainly because alternate timelines and parallel universes are already such a well established plot device within the series.


----------



## Mallus (May 5, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> It suddenly occurs to me that any Trek fan being upset about an "alternate timeline" in the movie is the height of hypocrisy.



Exactly. 

Whenever a Trekkie complains about an alternate timeline, a man with a beard in the Mirror universe cries!


----------



## Mallus (May 5, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> See to me Trek isn't big budget action movies.



This is only because ST:TMP was a commercial failure and the studio scaled back their plans for the franchise (until quite recently). 



> Trek has been about exploring human society and motivations.



True, but it's also about several winning sets of characters, none better than the original, who met the challenges of a dangerous universe with commingled optimism, humanism, smarts and chutzpah. The new film does this part well. 



> If people like big budget action movies there are plenty to choose from, why does Trek need to be one of them.



My feeling is so long as they get the characters right, by all means make an action-packed big-budget Trek film (hint: they just did!).


----------



## Pbartender (May 5, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> See to me Trek isn't big budget action movies. Trek has been about exploring human  society and motivations.




Why can't it be both?


----------



## Pbartender (May 5, 2009)

By the by...

J. J. Abrams was on the Colbert Report last night.


----------



## Blastin (May 6, 2009)

Question for those who have seen it: The only way I will get to go this weekend is if I drag the younglings along (4yo and 6yo). Anything too horrid? They love all the star wars movies/superhero movies so big action is not a problem.


----------



## Panthanas (May 6, 2009)

Blastin said:


> Question for those who have seen it: The only way I will get to go this weekend is if I drag the younglings along (4yo and 6yo). Anything too horrid? They love all the star wars movies/superhero movies so big action is not a problem.





I'm in the same boat, with about the same age range.  

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Mallus (May 6, 2009)

Blastin said:


> Question for those who have seen it: The only way I will get to go this weekend is if I drag the younglings along (4yo and 6yo). Anything too horrid?



It's a _very_ tame PG-13. Fist fights, phaser shootouts, explosions, a (quick) stabbing or two. The 'brief sexual content' is a scene between Kirk and an Orion cadet, both in their underwear. Oh, and we get to see James T. Kirk being born, in a non-graphic but awesomely appropriate sequence.

Come to think of it, I can't believe this film got the same rating as The Dark Knight. Further evidence that the MPAA ratings board is staffed by crazy people...


----------



## Jack7 (May 6, 2009)

Me, personally, I've been a big fan of the original series since the first airing.
Probably one of the few television series I've ever been a fan of. 

But I really could care less about the timelines and that kind of thing. I just want it to be like the original series in the depth of the storylines, and in the interesting character development.

I also don't want to see the original ship as far as how the bridge looked and that kind of thing. That was back in the sixties, it would look ridiculous nowadays. Yes, she was beautiful lady back then, and always has been, but hairstyles and dress modes change. Just make her long of leg, and give her a bright star to steer her by.

As for when Kirk did what or when Khan led the new eugenics movement, to me, well, hell, that's all just fiction anyways. It's not like it's a fact to argue over. It's just a fictional paradigm about a less than probable future. If something better comes along then I'm not married to it or nothing.

Better she be true to me than true to the past.


----------



## Blastin (May 6, 2009)

mallus, thanks for the answer. Sounds like we should be fine.


----------



## Thanee (May 6, 2009)

Awesome Movie! 

Hopefully they will make a few sequels following up on the (slightly) new storyline. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## DonTadow (May 7, 2009)

Eh, I've been waffling and after hearing Abrams last interview I've decided not to see it. I have no doubt it is going ot be anamazing movie, full of the stuff i like in summer movies.  But, like he said, he didn't make a trek movie.  He made a movie he would want to see.  And I can't possibly support a movie that kills off every character I love about the current universe.  (or i guess old universe now).  

I'm with the person wh osaid startrek was always about good storyteling, and I've yet to hear anything that sounds like a new story. This sounds like a retred of First Contact with explosions.  

Evel being goes back in time.  Being has weaponry more powerful than the current time line.  Enterprise crew beats them.


----------



## DonTadow (May 7, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> It suddenly occurs to me that any Trek fan being upset about an "alternate timeline" in the movie is the height of hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> If any sci-fi franchise is ripe for "rebooting", it'd be Star Trek...  Mainly because alternate timelines and parallel universes are already such a well established plot device within the series.



I've seen this argument, I've also read the one where there are all these indiscreptencies (which is more of a lack of focus by script editor than a continuity issue).

The problem is is that the official star trek timeline is what it is, and what hte movie is producing is some non important timeline that doesn't lead to the awesome TNG or Deepspace nine.  

I would have loved to see an actual origin movie made , if he wants to play with what happened before they got on television fine, but crapping on everything that Roddenberry wrote as (it never happened this time in my new real universe).  Well that is just aweful.


----------



## EricNoah (May 7, 2009)

At the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, as the credits started rolling, I turned to my wife and said, "See?  This is why I like this stuff" and she totally got it.  I have a feeling I'm going to get to have the same exchange with her this weekend when I see this film.


----------



## Morrus (May 7, 2009)

EricNoah said:


> At the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, as the credits started rolling, I turned to my wife and said, "See?  This is why I like this stuff" and she totally got it.  I have a feeling I'm going to get to have the same exchange with her this weekend when I see this film.




Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the LotR movies reinforced Sharon's existing beliefs.  And those beliefs weren't positive!


----------



## Pbartender (May 7, 2009)

DonTadow said:


> I've seen this argument...




It wasn't an argument.  It was a joke.

Not unlike the time I went to see the opening midnight showing of Star Wars Episode I dressed up in a purposefully poor imitation of a Star Trek Starfleet "redshirt" uniform.

I'm still trying to decide whether I should borrow my son's Darth Vader costume for tomorrow night.


----------



## Mallus (May 7, 2009)

DonTadow said:


> I have no doubt it is going ot be anamazing movie, full of the stuff i like in summer movies.  But, like he said, he didn't make a trek movie.



He made an amazing summer movie about James T. Kirk, Mr. Spock, and Leonard "Bones" McCoy (really capturing the essence of the characters). How can than _not_ be a Trek movie?  



> I'm with the person wh osaid startrek was always about good storyteling, and I've yet to hear anything that sounds like a new story.



It isn't original, but it is good. 



> This sounds like a retred of First Contact with explosions.



It's very different from First Contact (and better, IMNSHO).


----------



## Mallus (May 7, 2009)

Morrus said:


> Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the LotR movies reinforced Sharon's existing beliefs.  And those beliefs weren't positive!



My wife had the same response...


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 7, 2009)

Mallus said:


> He made an amazing summer movie about James T. Kirk, Mr. Spock, and Leonard "Bones" McCoy (really capturing the essence of the characters). How can than _not_ be a Trek movie?




It makes it a big budget piece of fanfiction. Star Trek isn't just about the characters, it is about humanity. The characters are just there to be a sounding board for whatever piece of humanity is being explored.


----------



## DonTadow (May 7, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> It makes it a big budget piece of fanfiction. Star Trek isn't just about the characters, it is about humanity. The characters are just there to be a sounding board for whatever piece of humanity is being explored.



Even if it's kirk exploring Uhura? 

This would be like Monte Cooke coming into my game as a player.  Monte's a great writer, d&D player and DM I'm betting with a popular reputation and knows what he's doing.  But if he came into my universe sat at the table and said ok, 
"Ok i don't know anything about your world and how you run it, and i don['t care.  I'm introducing a Tiefling/avoral hybrid race whose part wizard and part fighter, he rides in a "green" hovercraft that runs on grass and walks on rollerscates, "

I'd have serious concerns.  If he were to explain to me, its ok because he's from an alternate dimension, I still would have problems with it.  I really wantedto go see this movie with my dad this weekend, but this week's tirade of Abrham interviews has left me disgusted.  He loves saying, thisis not a trek movie, i don't like star trek, this movie is everything the other star trek movies wasn't.  

I have to take offense to it. He has annoyed me to the point I can't even enjoy the convuluted Lost anymore.


----------



## Pbartender (May 7, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> It makes it a big budget piece of fanfiction. Star Trek isn't just about the characters, it is about humanity. The characters are just there to be a sounding board for whatever piece of humanity is being explored.




How do you know a piece of humanity isn't being explored in the new movie?

Like I asked above, why can't the movie be both?  Does being a big budget action movie necessarily mean that you can't have well-developed characters deep philosophical undertones in the plot?


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 7, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> It makes it a big budget piece of fanfiction. Star Trek isn't just about the characters, it is about humanity. The characters are just there to be a sounding board for whatever piece of humanity is being explored.



Have you seen the film yet? At least I haven't, so I can't really comment on that.

But the "exploring humanity" issue is one that really blossomed during TNG. TNG addressed a lot of themes in a very forward fashion (for its time), TOS was much less about sending a message - the biggest message there was the crew itself, that a coloured officer, an alien, a Japanese and a Russian worked together.

TOS focused a lot more on the characters and how they did work as a crew. TNG was the step afterwards - assuming a working Federation and starting to explore other things and starting the diplomacy and peace approach.

Kirk blew up stuff good. And Wrath of Khan wasn't about humanity, it was about the characters - Kirk and Khan. And one of the best TOS episodes, Balance of Terror, was about a duel between Kirk and the Romulan commander. And from the trailer, I'd say the film is definitely in-vibe with TOS - not so much TNG, but Kirk was no Picard.

EDIT: Also, there is no "humanity" as a single entity. Every exploration of character is an exploration of humanity, varied as the characters are. It's in the characters where we see what decisions we as humans make. If this is done well, if they nailed the Kirk, Spock, McCoy et al. well, then they have represented a lot of things, how alpha males function, the conflict between our ratio and emotions.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## mmu1 (May 7, 2009)

You know, reading some of these discussions about the new Trek movie has made me realize something:

If I liked Star Trek, it was _despite_ all the things many "hardcore" fans are so passionate about, not because of them. 

I grew up with TNG and DS9 (the original series was just too campy, old and low budget to really register with me - I'd probably have liked it if I'd seen it as a ten year old, but alas...) and for me, it was only worth watching when they broke away from cornball moralizing by people in silly pajamas standing around an awful-looking low budget set, and had the characters actually _do_ something. Preferably something involving spaceships, and explosions...


----------



## Mallus (May 7, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> The characters are just there to be a sounding board for whatever piece of humanity is being explored.



Whatever gave you the idea that this isn't happening in the new film?

I said the new movie really captures the essence of the original characters. The original characters were so good and resonant and enduring exactly because of their humanity, because of how they spoke about the human condition.

Should I have been more clear?

Capturing the original characters = exploring the human condition.

How can have successful characters that _don't_ do that. It's a requirement.

edit: I wouldn't be heaping kudos on a glorified piece of fan fiction. At least I _think_ I wouldn't...


----------



## Mallus (May 7, 2009)

DonTadow said:


> I really wantedto go see this movie with my dad this weekend, but this week's tirade of Abrham interviews has left me disgusted.



I suppose what Abrams said in interviews is more important than the actual _film_ he made.



> He loves saying, thisis not a trek movie, i don't like star trek, this movie is everything the other star trek movies wasn't.



He's lying. Wait, he's marketing. Wait, they're the same thing.

The film is remarkably faithful to the original. You'll note I'm not the only person saying this. 



> I have to take offense to it.



That's silly. At least wait until you see the finished product before you get offended by it.  Listen, if your dad's an old time Trek fan, I could think of no nicer way to spend some time this weekend than seeing the new movie.


----------



## Mallus (May 7, 2009)

Lord Tirian said:


> And Wrath of Khan wasn't about humanity, it was about the characters - Kirk and Khan



It was about humanity via the travails of Kirk and Khan; the desire for revenge, the fear of aging and impotence, the response(s) to loss. 

Isn't that how fiction works? Individual characters used to comment on/elucidate/explore the human condition.


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 7, 2009)

This is definately the most Trek-like Trek since the end of DS9. I captures the essence of the original perfectly, but updated for modern times. Just like TNG and DS9 did and ENT failed horribly at* (and VOY didn't even try).

The TNG movies tried very hard to combine classic Trekalities with action movie tropes, but aside from First Contact, which is among my favorites, they failed. The new movie tackles humanity in very much the same way the TOS movies did, through the trio of Kirk, Spock and Bones and their different reactions to the universe.

I was quite apprehensive at the idea of a reboot, but over time I have become excited at the idea of a Star Trek multiverse. May the universe hopping ShatnerKirk/PineKirk slashfiction commence!

* At least until the much superior last season.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 7, 2009)

Lord Tirian said:


> Have you seen the film yet? At least I haven't, so I can't really comment on that.
> 
> But the "exploring humanity" issue is one that really blossomed during TNG. TNG addressed a lot of themes in a very forward fashion (for its time), TOS was much less about sending a message - the biggest message there was the crew itself, that a coloured officer, an alien, a Japanese and a Russian worked together.
> 
> ...




Lets see what kind of episodes there where that were more about exploring humanity than action, for example TOS had

Where No Man Has Gone Before: A look at what happens when someone is given absolute power

The Enemy Within: Looks at the multiple sides of an individual

Mudd's Women: What is beauty

Miri: What is civilization and what happens without it.

Dagger of the Mind: Whats acceptable punishment for criminals, and what makes us human

The Menagerie: When is it ok to disobey orders and for what reasons.

Balance of Terror: How far people will go in war.

Shore Leave: How our preconceptions effect our own reality.

This is just the first half of season one. I will agree that TNG picked up where TOS left off, but TOS and Roddenberry were all about exploring humanity as was TNG. TOS just had to layer that message under more common tropes in order for the networks to show it at all. While it may seem trivial to us, the Kirk/Uhura kiss in Plato's Stepchildren was the first Interracial kiss on TV and quite scandalous at the time and would never have been allowed except for the cloaking it had in Sci-Fi. While Let that Be Your Last Battlefield dealt with the American race relations  and the folly of prejudice.


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 7, 2009)

As for the dating issues someone brought up:



Spoiler



The timelines diverge 25 years before the movie's main timeframe, at Kirk's birth. The Enterprise is constructed a decade later and Christopher Pike is the ship's first commander, not Robert April as in the original universe.



I expected the movie to try to shoehorn the film's plot into the established timeline and just use the timetravel angle to explain whatever inconsistencies that were bound to come up (minor wrinkles in the timeline, etc.) but the movie makes it very clear right from the start, that no, everything you knew is off the table and we're starting anew.


----------



## Mallus (May 7, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> This is just the first half of season one.



Thanks for reminding me how good the 1st season was. TOS Season 1 on Blu-ray just arrived from Amazon. It's going to be taunting me all afternoon until I get it home. 

Also, I'd summarize the new movie in the terms you did like this:

How does a child honor the parent? How does a child of mixed heritage honor both when they are in conflict? These questions would be perfectly at home in classical Greek drama. 

It's not _just_ a big blockbuster, you know.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 7, 2009)

By the way, here is the Newsweek take Has Star Trek Lost Its Moral Relevance? | Newsweek Entertainment: Movies | Newsweek.com


----------



## Mallus (May 7, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> By the way, here is the Newsweek take Has Star Trek Lost Its Moral Relevance? | Newsweek Entertainment: Movies | Newsweek.com



The article makes a valid point, but it's a little early to decry the loss of Trek's moral relevance after a single film which also bore the burden of restarting a moribund franchise. This was not the time for preachy-Trek (and yes, I _like_ preachy-Trek). Let's see what happens over the course of the next few movies. 

Also, the article neglects to mention some of the best-loved episodes were free of any allegorical or inquisitive content, like when Kirk and Co. bamboozle some wily space gangsters on Chicago IV, or how one of the better movies was a comedy about saving the whales. 

And let's collectively pray the new films never descend to the levels of moral and cultural relevance displayed in "The Way to Eden"...


----------



## SilentJay (May 7, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> It makes it a big budget piece of fanfiction. Star Trek isn't just about the characters, it is about humanity. The characters are just there to be a sounding board for whatever piece of humanity is being explored.




The themes of the film, without spoilers, are:

1. How we must set aside personal and cultural differences in order to solve our problems.
2. How personal responsibility not only affects the one, it affects those around them, and that in order to succeed we need to take ownership of our lives.
3. That while cheating may seem to be the easiest and most attractive way to solve an issue, it usually leads to unexpected consequences that end up making the situation worse.  (Okay, this is anti-Trek, as Kirk was all about the cheating.)

Edit: there are other themes to the film, but these are both the most obvious and the ones that don't involve spoilers.

So, in other words, the film is a sounding board for an exploration of the human condition.  It also happens to be a slam-bang summer action movie.


----------



## EricNoah (May 7, 2009)

Just an FYI that I am jealous of all of you who are going to get to go tonight.  While I'm free, Mrs. Noah is not, and I want this to be a "date movie" so ... maybe tomorrow night, maybe a matinee on the weekend.  Have fun!


----------



## Pbartender (May 8, 2009)

EricNoah said:


> Just an FYI that I am jealous of all of you who are going to get to go tonight.  While I'm free, Mrs. Noah is not, and I want this to be a "date movie" so ... maybe tomorrow night, maybe a matinee on the weekend.  Have fun!




Same here...  I could be twenty minutes into the movie already, if it weren't for the fact that its a school night (the kids can't stay out that late), and my wife leaves to work the midnight shift in half an hour.

Looks like it'll probably be an early matinee on Saturday for us.


----------



## Firebeetle (May 8, 2009)

Star Trek finally gets it right. In a movie that manages to surpass Wrath of Kahn, Star Trek reinvents itself for a new millennium. Everything is done perfectly, nothing is overdone. This movie does not pander to fans, yet does nothing to alienate them. It takes the strength of the long Trek history and uses that to provide a power to storytelling that is not possible otherwise.  For the long term fan and for the complete Trek neophyte this is an enjoyable film. 

A.) Characters are nailed first time. Performances are perfect and the characters are emotional, especially Spock as it turns out (which is somehow more in character than ever, you'll have to see it.)Uhura seems like a person for the first time.

B.) Everything makes perfect sense. Nothing is too elaborate, abstract, or unbelievable. No confusing, expository monologues to explain little plot miracles. Everything has perfect continuity within the movie.

C.) Complete surprises. Just when you think you know how it's going to go down, you don't. The movie completely pulled the rug out from under me. Failure is possible in this Star Trek, and the consequences are grievous.

D.) Bad ass. Kirk shows damage from numerous fisticuffs throughout the movie. Spock dishes a serious ass kicking, and phasers are definitely set on kill (whoa!)

E.) Incredible visuals. This movie does not try to look like a TV show. Lots of handheld shots, and you never see the bridge in a way that makes you think "soundstage". Special effects are perfect, my supersensitive CG alarm only went off once. 

A must see movie. Don't wait, go now

For those griping that you don't get to see another increasingl crappy TNG movie, shovel it already you ingrates. We've just been handed back our favorite show, smack dab in our laps, and you have the singular audacity to complain. You'll have to endure new fans of all ages. Try not to be snotty or condescending to them, OK?

For non-complainers, Trek is back and ready for more. This movie rocks the house and I'm sure we can expect more. The big question for me was "What's next?"


----------



## FunkBGR (May 8, 2009)

It's good. 

I'm a TNG fan, but know some of the original series. I went with three guys from my gaming group, and we all thought it was pretty awesome. 

We loved that it kept pace with itself, and had some really hilarious moments. The characters are amazing, and everybody really gets a chance to shine.


----------



## Pbartender (May 8, 2009)

Firebeetle said:


> Lots of handheld shots...




That's just about the only thing that worries me...  The handheld shaky-cam gimmick has its place in movies if it's used right, but it can be overdone so easily.


----------



## Umbran (May 8, 2009)

Just got back from seeing a matinee.  I enjoyed the movie.

However, I don't feel this will successfully "reboot the franchise", like folks are talking about.  This movie was akin to the oft-seen emergency room scene, where they bring down the defibrillator paddles and shout , "Clear!"

The movie will not keep the heart of the franchise running.  A series of movies will not do so, for one simple reason: inadequate screen time to develop characters.

This movie was filled with loads of fun action, and I had a ball watching it.  But the characters were seen in little snippets, most of it left to implication.  Old fans can fill in the gaps for themselves, I suppose.  But overall, we will not come to love these new versions of the characters based on a couple hours of movie every two or three years.  

We came to love the originals through 79 hour-long episodes.  A three-movie deal may give us the equivalent of what?  Six episodes?  Spread over as many years?

That won't do it.  They need to move to a weekly format, even the 13-episode season style that's starting to get some traction.  Alternate seasons of TV with movies, and you have something.  With movies alone, we will rapidly lose interest in the characters.  Anyone can do big explosions with digital effects these days.  That isn't what makes a franchise really special.


----------



## EricNoah (May 8, 2009)

Very interesting points about how much media a potential audience of newbies might need to have access to in order to sustain interest.  

On the other hand, Star Wars (the original trilogy) managed to do ok with three movies.  This is of course a very different situation. 

I wonder if other material (say, a novel line, or a graphic novel line or even a good video game) that is not filmed might help fill the time and interest during the years between films.  Or does that just split the "general audience" who might not be willing to invest their time this way away from the "fan audience" who would?  

How about 2 years of 1 min and 30 second "webisodes" every week?    (Just kidding - Ick!)


----------



## Mark (May 8, 2009)

I've watched all ST while it was on and enjoyed the movies, too (mostly).  This new movie has tanscended the mire that has become the franchise and fandom double-punch of doom.  It was great and I hope they make some sequels, and maybe even a high-budget, limited episode series for one of the cable movie channels.  As to its moral compass and relevance, I can not think of a better way to kickstart the franchise than with a message of friendship.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 8, 2009)

EricNoah said:


> On the other hand, Star Wars (the original trilogy) managed to do ok with three movies.  This is of course a very different situation.




The original Star Wars film made the equivalent of 1 billion dollars (adjusted for inflation) in just its initial run in 1977. As good of a film as this might be there is no way it will come even close to those numbers. That kind of cultural acceptance is what made Star Wars what it is today.


----------



## frog (May 9, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> Hey, quick question, Mallus...
> 
> Star Trek is "Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content."
> 
> I've got a 9-year-old and a 10-year-old who would both like to go see the movie.  PG-13 "sci-fi action and violence" isn't a real problem, but "brief sexual content" could be.  Could you give a quick run down of what that sexual content involves?




If I had to hazard a guess...it was for the "F-bomb" in the lyrics to the Beastie Boys "Sabotage" song that was played during a particular scene. I think that does an "automatic PG-13" for it. While I didn't notice it at all during the movie, subsequent commentary on various message boards seems to indicate that was part of the lyrics.


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> The movie will not keep the heart of the franchise running.  A series of movies will not do so, for one simple reason: inadequate screen time to develop characters.




There has been talk of there being a new TV show to accompany the film series if the movie is successful. Nothing is certain, green-lit or anything, but Paramount is said to want to catch the momentum if interest keeps up.

Bryan Fuller (Dead Like Me, Pushing Daisies) allegedly made a treatment and has been heavily campaigning for the role showrunner, but his new two year contract with Heroes may have slain that.

This is all biz rumours, of course, except for Bryan Fuller campaigning.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 9, 2009)

Viking Bastard said:


> There has been talk of there being a new TV show to accompany the film series if the movie is successful. Nothing is certain, green-lit or anything, but Paramount is said to want to catch the momentum if interest keeps up.




While I believe the odds are _heavily_ against it, I'd _love_ to see that happen. A brand new Star Trek series, a new five-year mission of the original Enterprise? Yes, please, sign me right up. 

But only if they can keep the cast from the movie, and that's one reason I don't see it happening. I can't see Karl Urban or Simon Pegg signing up as regulars in a TV series.


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 9, 2009)

Ah, none of the rumour talk has assumed that the series would use the movie cast or feature Kirk, Spock etc.


----------



## Umbran (May 9, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> While I believe the odds are _heavily_ against it, I'd _love_ to see that happen.




Same here.  This is what I think could reboot the franchise, and actually keep it vital.



> I can't see Karl Urban or Simon Pegg signing up as regulars in a TV series.




I dunno.  A steady paycheck in one of the highest-profile series ever?  Might be tempting.  

Imagine it as a Witchblade-style 13 episode season, with a well-focused story arc.  One of those a year, a movie every other year.  Still time left over to do other projects, too....

It'd be a sweet deal, I think.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 9, 2009)

Viking Bastard said:


> Ah, none of the rumour talk has assumed that the series would use the movie cast or feature Kirk, Spock etc.




Well, I've been saying I'd love to see that since before I even knew about the rumor, so it's all good. 

So what _are_ the rumors suggesting, then? Because frankly, at this point, Star Trek has _just_ been reinvigorated after several moribund series. I'd hate to see them pile on too much, too soon. I won't say it's _impossible_, but I think doing another series that's _not_ about Kirk, Spock, et al at this juncture is _far_ more likely to damage the franchise than to advance it.


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 9, 2009)

They're not saying much other than same timeframe, different ship and probably not until 2011 — very preliminary, nothing definite, just talk.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 9, 2009)

Viking Bastard said:


> They're not saying much other than same timeframe, different ship




That's kinda what I figured. And I'm just not sold. As I said, they've just reinvigorated Star Trek--and Star Trek, at its core and for most people, is still the Enterprise boldly going.

The notion of using this huge movie to reinvigorate the franchise using Kirk and crew, only to turn around and give us another series that's "kinda" Trek but not... It rubs me the wrong way on a number of levels, and I don't think it'd do the franchise itself any favors.

I'm willing to be proved wrong, as both a Trek fan and more general fan of good sci-fi on TV. But that's where I am right now. I'd rather see Trek focus on Kirk and the Enterprise to the exclusion of all else, for a good long while, before they risk branching out again.


----------



## EricNoah (May 9, 2009)

I posted my reactions in the other thread, but wanted to add that when I went to a 7:15 showing this evening the theater was only about half full (though I think it was showing on three screens in the multiplex), so that surprised me. 

On the way out I heard some (maybe) high school aged guys saying it was their first Trek and they enjoyed it, so that was cool.


----------



## DonTadow (May 9, 2009)

So i very very angrily must say i liked the movie and that it fits perfectly in with continuity, to the point where the universe was obviously fixing itself.  



Spoiler



My guess is that one day the old spock will use hte Genesis machine bring his planet and people back to life, thus ffixing things enough for none of the old timelines to be hurt.  In the mean time, this series will go on like a brand new series


----------



## frankthedm (May 9, 2009)

The movie was great. Though young, the cast choices functioned very well, blurring lines of homage and parody. Glad they ditched a good amount of the morality messages that weighed down TOS.

The red beast looks like it leaped out of a Wayne Barlowe painting. Quite cool.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 9, 2009)

DonTadow said:


> So i very very angrily must say i liked the movie...




Heh.  It's not everyone who can go from bleak "This must not come to pass" rage, to "I liked it".  Congratulations 

Were there aspects in particular that managed to turn you around?

-Hyp.


----------



## DonTadow (May 9, 2009)

Hypersmurf said:


> Heh.  It's not everyone who can go from bleak "This must not come to pass" rage, to "I liked it".  Congratulations
> 
> Were there aspects in particular that managed to turn you around?
> 
> -Hyp.



I hated the direction.  I don't think Abrhams can direct his way out of a paper bag.  Shakey cam is all he seems capable of doing to relay action in a scene.  That said, I think he's a very good writer.



Spoiler



About 3/4 way through the movie i wasn't impressed.  Possibly because of all the coincidences.  And then, when spock took the chair, i said to myself... ok now i get it.  This movie is about destiny, about how things are meant to happen and that the universe makes sure it happens.  And then I started to enjoy it.  In the end I liked how it fit in a box right into contniuity.

At the end, i started loathing Nemesis, and how terrible they were with their own continuity in the star trek universe.  This movie seemed to at least try while Nemesis did not.  

Looking at Star Trek as both a sequel and prequel it works for me.  How many origins of Wolverine and batman have we seen.  So as an origin of the original cast I am cool with it.  I can see every single epsiode of TOS coming after this movie.


----------



## Darrell (May 9, 2009)

DonTadow, I have to say, I loved the movie; but I seem to have gotten exactly the opposite feel out of it.  I saw it as necessary change to get out from under the thumb of the old continuity.



Spoiler



Watching Nero's ship be destroyed by the black hole, I saw the last vestiges of the entire past 'canon' (with the exception of 'old' Spock, who's apparently heading for the Vulcan colony) being erased.  

The way I read it, new movies featuring the new cast are the future, and they're no longer tightly bound to any continuity established by past TV shows or movies.  In fact, _ST III_ is already changed, in that Spock cannot be returned to Vulcan (and even if we say that Spock's body and mind were reunited on the 'colony' Vulcan, Amanda won't be there to give him advice at the outset of _ST IV_). 

The divergent timeline means that 'real world' matters can be written into the 'Trek world' situations, as well.  Say, for instance, Karl Urban decides not to return after the next sequel.  McCoy might be killed off, transferred to another ship, reassigned to a Starbase, or whatever; and a new doctor brought in.  Nothing is set in stone anymore, and that, in my opinion, is a very good thing.



Regards,
Darrell


----------



## DonTadow (May 9, 2009)

Darrell said:


> DonTadow, I have to say, I loved the movie; but I seem to have gotten exactly the opposite feel out of it.  I saw it as necessary change to get out from under the thumb of the old continuity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



But the key to this movie is how destiny happens regardless.  It migh t be someone else giving advice and it might be him returning the the colony but it does happen.  If one thing abram did say was that it doesn't neccessary mess with the continuity, and that's a good thing.  Whether you like it or not, star trek has a history and, as tng and deepspace nine proved, can be skillfully written with or, as htis movie proved, can be skillfully written around. 

The one thing I liked was that those who stayed with enterprise, this was explained, time will fix itself. Unless the universe is so screwed up like with the opposite universe .  

I don't think the "thumb" of cannon is what tanked Nemiesis and Insserection.  It was the horrid of writing. Things will still lead to tng and deeps space nine, and all of those old stories will still happen, but now their will be new ones to set time right.  True peoplemight die, some might live, but the important events that time is set on will occur. In the car ride home, I thought about a scenerio where this enterprise could encounter the borg or have fight to the death with the klingons or for that matter that prison planet could have been where worf's grand father was stationed or any number of things.


----------



## DonTadow (May 9, 2009)

frog said:


> If I had to hazard a guess...it was for the "F-bomb" in the lyrics to the Beastie Boys "Sabotage" song that was played during a particular scene. I think that does an "automatic PG-13" for it. While I didn't notice it at all during the movie, subsequent commentary on various message boards seems to indicate that was part of the lyrics.



Nah, it was definitely the silhouette of kirk and the green chick because it looked like they were having sex for a brief second until the lights came on and you found ut they were just in their skimpies. (thus the briefness).  Also in that scenes Uhura begins to strip which is the focus of the camera.


----------



## Pbartender (May 9, 2009)

DonTadow said:


> But the key to this movie is how destiny happens regardless.  It migh t be someone else giving advice and it might be him returning the the colony but it does happen.




It reminds of the idea of "temporal inertia" that you run across now and again in science fiction...  

The idea is that any given event in time has a certain amount of "inertia", depending on how significant that event is to the timeline.  Small events, like what you ate for breakfast or what shirt you wear today, have little inertia--they are easy to change and have practically no effect on future events.  Big events however, like assassination of Julius Ceasar or the attack on Pearl Harbor, have a lot of inertia--they are very diffcult to change and will have a BIG impact on subsequant history if you do manage to change them.

It's a sort of pseudo-scientific version of destiny that works well in the context of Star Trek.


----------



## Umbran (May 9, 2009)

DonTadow said:


> So i very very angrily must say i liked the movie and that it fits perfectly in with continuity, to the point where the universe was obviously fixing itself.




There is a simpler solution than the one you propose:



Spoiler



Given the highly unstable nature of the results of the Genesis Device, I doubt Spock will use that - he's already said he's found a colony world.

As for the temporal issues, this is nicely set up.
Either:
1)This really is an completely alternate timeline.  Many-Worlds-style, the old timeline still exists, and if they want to play in it, they can.  This is the most likely, as the current situation is highly paradoxical.  With Vulcan destroyed, the Vulcan Science Academy cannot build the ship that tries to save Romulus.  So, the reason and method for Nero's time travel does not exist in the new continuity.

Or:
2)Spock writes down everything he knows about the original continuity, and the deviation from original timeline (which is considerable).  Assume that while there's been changes in Federation development, the stars themselves don't give a hoot - Romulus will still be destroyed in this timeline.  In 120-someodd years, they either stop that from happening, or evacuate Romulus in time, so that Nero has no reason to go back in time and cause the branching.  This results in a temporary 120+ year loop of divergent continuity they can play in until they decide (if ever) to restore the original.

As for temporal inertia - I find it... extremely hard to believe that Kirk/Spock/Enterprise has more inertia than several _billions_ of people lost on Vulcan.  Nero's actions can destroy a world, but the crew has too much inertia to disrupt?  I don't buy that.

And let us not get into the Temporal Prime Directive.  Things get messy


----------



## DonTadow (May 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> There is a simpler solution than the one you propose:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



This is starting to look like an FBI report on alien life.  

But, the intertia thing proved true the entire movie.  The coincidences were noted slighly by the old spock and during the conversation with the new spock.  Also note the several people in the movie who told kirk how important he is (including nero, old spock and captain pike).  Kirk is a fixed intertia point, more important than romulus.  I say that because you see 6 billion people on one planet, i see trillions of people kirk saved across the universe including the entire federation ten to twenty times over.  

 By the time we get to that point in history, history would have fixed it so there is a science vessal with spock and nero.  And whether you like hte temperal directive or not, if this is the star trek universe we must believe that the timeline stays in tact.  I'm 100 percent sure that nero's ship would have been destroyed immediately.


----------



## kenmarable (May 9, 2009)

Blastin said:


> Question for those who have seen it: The only way I will get to go this weekend is if I drag the younglings along (4yo and 6yo). Anything too horrid? They love all the star wars movies/superhero movies so big action is not a problem.



I have found this site *extremely* useful in deciding what movies are ok with kids.

It gives a 0 to 10 rating of sex, violence, and language, plus lists actual incidents. That can be a bit spoilery, although it typically sticks with basic descriptions "A man is crushed under a crumbling stone statue (we see the man disappear underneath)." rather than getting into any story stuff. (Oh, and don't worry, the link above only goes to the home page, not the Star Trek detail page.)

For sex, yeah, as they said it's just a couple making out in their underwear. For violence, there's no blood or anything like that, but it can be a bit intense. Like you get a real feel for "hull breach" like they haven't shown before with someone clinging to a bulkhead screaming then suddenly being sucked into a silent vacuum bouncing off a phaser array. And several insta-deaths "man + column of flame = man gone" sort of stuff.

But if they are fine with that kind of action, go for it. A family we know brought their 6 & 8 year olds and they loved it. After seeing it, we're thinking of taking our kids now (but are debating our youngest since she gets really worried in stressful action sequences).


----------



## Ed_Laprade (May 9, 2009)

I liked it. Didn't think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but entertaining and definitely Trek. What worries me is that they do have a font of knowledge, not just for history (some of which might not be affected by these events, being too far away), but science and engineering as well. So there *should* be plenty of changes coming up fast in the new timeline. But I'm willing to bet that they don't.


----------



## Richards (May 10, 2009)

True, Ed, but failing to take into account the ramifications of such technological advances is part and parcel of the Star Trek universe that goes all the way back to the original series' episodes...otherwise the Enterprise would have stocked up on that drink-it-and-you-move-really-fast water and be able to make near-instantaneous repairs during every battle, and all landing parties would get a dose of that super-strength telekinesis serum that Bones devised in "Plato's Stepchildren."  

Likewise, I'm fairly certain that the fact that this current Enterprise and crew have the ability to 



Spoiler



transport people and items onto a ship traveling at warp speed from astronomical distances away


 will not translate into the Federation 



Spoiler



transporting hydrogen bombs with short-fuse timers into enemy Klingon vessels during times of war from several solar systems away


 any time soon.

Johnathan


----------



## Ed_Laprade (May 10, 2009)

Richards said:


> True, Ed, but failing to take into account the ramifications of such technological advances is part and parcel of the Star Trek universe that goes all the way back to the original series' episodes...otherwise the Enterprise would have stocked up on that drink-it-and-you-move-really-fast water and be able to make near-instantaneous repairs during every battle, and all landing parties would get a dose of that super-strength telekinesis serum that Bones devised in "Plato's Stepchildren."
> 
> Likewise, I'm fairly certain that the fact that this current Enterprise and crew have the ability to
> 
> ...



All so true.  (And let's not forget the Andromedans fix of the ship that would have allowed extra-galactic travel.) Which is why I often wonder why so many fans howl about 'continuity'. They never *had* any!


----------



## Umbran (May 10, 2009)

DonTadow said:


> This is starting to look like an FBI report on alien life.




Yes, but that's just because 



Spoiler



Redacted for security reasons



I am going to fork this into a spoiler-filled spectacular for discussions of the plot and such, okay, folks?


----------



## horacethegrey (May 10, 2009)

Wow. I thoroughly enjoyed that. 

This new _Trek _has some real energy to it. Something the franchise has been lacking since _The Voyage Home_. In fact, without the familiar characters, starships, and all the familiar locales, I'd say this was a different scifi franchise altogether. 

But while the direction and pacing may not feel like classic _Star Trek_, it's still _Trek _through and through, primarily because of the familiar faces and actors who brilliantly portray them. Everyone in the cast was great, but special kudos ought to be given to Zachary Quinto for his dead on portrayal of Spock. Honestly, it was like seeing Leonard Nimoy in the role again (and he was in the freaking film too damnit! ). Quinto played the part true to the character without it feeling like an impression. And additional shout outs must be given to Chris Pine (for his young and cocky Kirk), and Karl Urban (for his hilarious portrayal of McCoy, though I'm a bit peeved he didn't get much screentime, I want more Bones damnit!). 

I don't give a damn if this is an [sblock]alternate reality[/sblock]. I'm not gonna bitch like some hardcore Trekkies over such a minor quibble. JJ Abrams has made me a believer again. Let's hope the new 5 year mission of the Enterprise will deliver more fine films like this.


----------



## Pbartender (May 11, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> The original Star Wars film made the equivalent of 1 billion dollars (adjusted for inflation) in just its initial run in 1977. As good of a film as this might be there is no way it will come even close to those numbers. That kind of cultural acceptance is what made Star Wars what it is today.




I was curious about this assertion, so I looked it up...

_Star Wars: A New Hope_ made the equivalent of 1.1 billion dollars in the U.S. (adjusted for inflation) over its entire lifetime as a movie (32 years).  It's first weekend was more along the lines of 70 million, adjusted for inflation.

_Star Trek_ made 76 million during its opening weekend, so its in the same league...  And its twice as much as any other Trek movie (_First Contact_ made about 30 million in its opening weekend).


----------



## Umbran (May 11, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> _Star Wars: A New Hope_ made the equivalent of 1.1 billion dollars in the U.S. (adjusted for inflation) over its entire lifetime as a movie (32 years).  It's first weekend was more along the lines of 70 million, adjusted for inflation.
> 
> _Star Trek_ made 76 million during its opening weekend, so its in the same league...  And its twice as much as any other Trek movie (_First Contact_ made about 30 million in its opening weekend).




Careful about that comparison.  Back in 1977, the release and viewing pattern was notably different.  "Opening weekend" was not usually such a big deal, and a decent movie usually remained in theaters for far longer.  So, while the $ amounts might seem in the same ballpark, in a relative sense it may be that Star Wars had a *huge* opening weekend, while the new Trek is merely good.


----------



## Pbartender (May 11, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Careful about that comparison.




I wasn't the one who started the comparison.  

But you're right, and so a better comparison...

Other, more recent movies, that have made betwee 70 and 80 million on their opening weekends:

*Star Wars Ep. II: Attack of the Clones*  	$80,027,814
*I am Legend* 	$77,211,321
*Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix* 	$77,108,414
*The Da Vinci Code* 	$77,073,388
*The Simpsons Movie* 	$74,036,787
*Austin Powers in Goldmember* 	$73,071,188
*The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King* 	$72,629,713
*Star Trek* 	$72,500,000
*The Lost World: Jurassic Park* 	$72,132,785
*Fast & Furious* 	$70,950,500
*300* 	$70,885,301
*The Transformers* 	$70,502,384
*The Incredibles* 	$70,467,623
*Finding Nemo* 	$70,251,710

(And I know the number for Star Trek is lower than what I previously reported...  It depends on whether or not you include Thursday evening's ticket sales or not.)


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 11, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Careful about that comparison.  Back in 1977, the release and viewing pattern was notably different.  "Opening weekend" was not usually such a big deal, and a decent movie usually remained in theaters for far longer.  So, while the $ amounts might seem in the same ballpark, in a relative sense it may be that Star Wars had a *huge* opening weekend, while the new Trek is merely good.




As an example of this difference Star Wars spent 22 weeks (non-consecutive) as the number 1 movie in 1977-1978.

I am not sure if Star Trek will remain number 1 next week against Angels & Demons, and it am fairly confident that it will fall by the following week when Terminator: Salvation opens the following week. By mid-summer I expect that most people will have forgotten the the new Trek for the most part.


----------



## Mallus (May 12, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> I am not sure if Star Trek will remain number 1 next week against Angels & Demons, and it am fairly confident that it will fall by the following week when Terminator: Salvation opens the following week.



Almost certainly. The real question is how big the drop-offs will be, and how long it lasts at the theaters. All signs currently point to "a long time by today's standards".



> By mid-summer I expect that most people will have forgotten the the new Trek for the most part.



Well, I'll probably have stopped raving about it by then . But seriously, it's going to be one of 2009's biggest films, and it's already a big story for having exceeded expectations, both critically and financially, and guaranteed the continuation of the franchise on the silver screen.


----------



## shilsen (May 12, 2009)

The new Star Trek movie is ... mediocre.

I saw it yesterday and while I'm pleased that the franchise is getting a decent reboot and hoping that it will produce better movies soon, this one was just average for me. I was entertained, but at least half the entertainment came from the movie's references to what we know of Star Trek rather than from the movie itself. Of course, that's probably the point, but I think it's possible to have that and for the movie to stand on its own merits too, and the latter it (for me) failed to do. Plot, characterization, etc all required you to know a fair bit about Star Trek for it to work, and even so didn't work that well for me. When it comes to space s/f movies, I'd put something like Serenity miles ahead of it. Much tighter and better done, and able to work for someone completely unaware of the Firefly series as well as for someone who knows and loves everything Joss Wheedon has done.

I'd also have liked it to be at least a little cerebral rather than primarily focused on the action (none of which was particularly noteworthy). And the primary non-action element, the bromance of Kirk and Spock, came across to me as a little forced. One of the things I liked about Star Trek TOS was the way it pushed boundaries and actually had some consideration for how a society, ethics, humanity, morality, etc might be different in a future world. Unfortunately, when you reboot a story from the 1960s to the 21st century and don't change enough, it looks horribly dated. For example, the presence of Uhura and other women on the bridge in TOS (despite the stupid uniform) was a majorly progressive move. But having Zoe Saldana reprise the character without updating anything (and they brought back the damn mini-skirt) just makes it seem horribly backwards now.

But I should quit here. In short, I thought it was okay. And wish it was much better.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 12, 2009)

Just saw it and thought it was pretty decent.

Now, first thing's first - the idea that it was better than Wrath of Khan is hilarious! (Heavens, it wasn't even as good as Undiscovered Country, AFAIC). That's a load of nonsense. I suspect such statements are simply the result of a desperate happiness to see some form of Star Trek - any Star Trek! - back in the theater combined with... "over-enthusiasm"... thanks to very effective carpet-bombing marketing and a dash of uber special effects that we've never seen in a ST movie before.

But it's still an enjoyable movie. Sure, there are a load of flaws. It had that absolutely ty trope of 



Spoiler



time travel


, so it already started off on the wrong foot and had to claw it's way back from that. That twit Abrams love of the shakey-cam was also detrimental to the movie (I chuckle when I see that thread/Onion headline about the movie being "watchable". Heh... hardly, with that craphole cam!) Also, unfortunately, the music was very weak - the weakest of all ST movies. Very unfortunate. Giacchino should go back/stick to TV and video games. And the villain... oh the lame, lame villain. It was Star Trek: Nemesis all over again. What's up with doing bad Romulans? (The way he was played, Jason Statham could have been in that role instead of Bana... hell, Statham would probably have been _better_. *rolleyes*)

But thankfully the whole pathetic villain thing was ancillary. It was about the characters - and the characters were great, thanks to them doing a mix of good and bad impressions of the original actors. Karl Urban as McCoy was an absolute dream each and every time he appeared on screen, and really made the movie. Sure, the whole 



Spoiler



Uhura/Spock relationship was creepy and uncomfortable


, but the rest was great. Unfortunately, not a lot of it stood on its own - they were only funny due to knowledge of the original series.

The best thing was the tight, focused storyline. This was very much appreciated. The pacing was fantastic, and most of the scenes were valuable to the movie as a whole (well, except the ice monster scene, which was completely unneeded and kind of in the way). But otherwise, good.

So, not too bad at all: 8/10. I don't know how it'll hold up to repeated viewings, though... I know right now I have little desire to see it again, at least for a while.

Edit: Oh yeah - 



Spoiler



Nimoy


 being in the movie was silly and unneeded. It was the best choice for him to appear out of the others, I guess, but really... if you're going to make a reboot, then _make a damn reboot_! Half-way is a copout.


----------



## Mallus (May 12, 2009)

Arnwyn said:


> Now, first thing's first - the idea that it was better than Wrath of Khan is hilarious!



Laugh it up, furball (oops, wrong franchise). 



> I suspect such statements are simply the result of a desperate happiness to see some form of Star Trek - any Star Trek! - back in the theater combined with... "over-enthusiasm"... thanks to very effective carpet-bombing marketing and a dash of uber special effects that we've never seen in a ST movie before.



Can we leave the analysis for the film, please? 

It's fun to debate a film's merits, or lack of, as the case may be. But when you start speculating as to _why_ other people responded to a film the way they did, you set sail for that undiscovered country where you sound like a yutz. Getting in someone else's head is notoriously hard, and people's responses to art are complicated. You kinda have to take them at their word, if there's going to be any discussion at all. At the very least you should focus on the objective, and limit the critiques to the work itself.

Insinuating that people are advertising dupes, desperate, or easily captivated by shiny (exploding) things, isn't helpful. Also, it makes _you_ look like a crank.

BTW, I loved the film because I think they got the characters right. It's as simple as that. Though I admit the special effects were nice and shiny...


----------



## Mallus (May 12, 2009)

shilsen said:


> The new Star Trek movie is ... mediocre.



You're wrong! 

Now that I got that out of my system...



> One of the things I liked about Star Trek TOS was the way it pushed boundaries and actually had some consideration for how a society, ethics, humanity, morality, etc might be different in a future world.



That's fair, but remember that TOS did this inconsistently, and some of it's best-loved episodes didn't engage in that kind of speculation cf. "Balance of Terror" (a WWII submarine duel, in space), "A Piece of the Action" (a gangster comedy, in space), or even "The Wrath of Khan" (a story about coming to grips with middle age, coupled with a WWII submarine duel and  Moby Dick, in space). Some people seem to be faulting the new film for not doing everything Star Trek did during the course of its run (or several runs).



> ...(despite the stupid uniform)...



Your irrational objection to women in miniskirts and boots is duly noted, shil. 



> But having Zoe Saldana reprise the character without updating anything (and they brought back the damn mini-skirt) just makes it seem horribly backwards now.



I think you're forgetting what the portrayal of Uhura was like in TOS (I've been watching the Season 1 Blu-ray). She's a deferential receptionist in space. The new version is a top-flight linguist and, more importantly, a more rounded character. There's more to the character of Uhura in the new film that there is in a whole season of TOS. I'd say that qualifies as 'updating'. 



> In short, I thought it was okay.



Despite this, you're still invited over for an afternoon of cocktails and Kirk I'm planning for the near future.


----------



## shilsen (May 12, 2009)

Mallus said:


> You're wrong!




I was waiting for you to say that 



> That's fair, but remember that TOS did this inconsistently, and some of it's best-loved episodes didn't engage in that kind of speculation cf. "Balance of Terror" (a WWII submarine duel, in space), "A Piece of the Action" (a gangster comedy, in space), or even "The Wrath of Khan" (a story about coming to grips with middle age, coupled with a WWII submarine duel and  Moby Dick, in space). Some people seem to be faulting the new film for not doing everything Star Trek did during the course of its run (or several runs).




True, but I don't think it's asking too much to ask the movie to be at least a little thoughtful, which I really didn't find it to be at all. And that's something I'd ask of it anyway, irrespective of the original series, because I really don't expect or want a really faithful rendition of the original. I suspect that's one of the major variations between your expectation/desire of it and mine, hence the difference in opinion. After all, as you said



> BTW, I loved the film because I think they got the characters right. It's as simple as that.




For me, getting the characters right really wasn't enough (I'm also not convinced they got Spock right, but that's another matter) for me to really like it. That would help me enjoy the movie, and it did, but for me to consider it to be really good, the movie had to stand on its own merits too.   



> Your irrational objection to women in miniskirts and boots is duly noted, shil.




Heh. I just like there to be a little more to women than looking pretty (or men, for that matter). In this movie, there wasn't. 



> I think you're forgetting what the portrayal of Uhura was like in TOS (I've been watching the Season 1 Blu-ray). She's a deferential receptionist in space. The new version is a top-flight linguist and, more importantly, a more rounded character. There's more to the character of Uhura in the new film that there is in a whole season of TOS. I'd say that qualifies as 'updating'.




I'll agree about Uhura in TOS, but having a woman (especially a woman of color) doing any job on the bridge was a big step forward when TOS came out. And I didn't see any real updating here. Uhura in this movie does absolutely nothing useful, besides translating a little Romulan. She's also apparently a shoulder for Spock to cry on and something for Kirk to eye and grope, but that's hardly what I'd consider a well-rounded character. Sure, a couple of characters say she's really good at her job, but she actually does nothing, so the character references are meaningless. Admittedly she does more than Bones, whose usefulness apparently ends once he gets Kirk on the Enterprise, but that's not saying much.  

BTW, for a damn good take on the one-sided treatment of gender in the movie, check out the Warp Factor Sex review on the Guardian. 



> Despite this, you're still invited over for an afternoon of cocktails and Kirk I'm planning for the near future.




Thanks. Just don't make me watch the movie again. Which is a very easy way for me to judge whether I really like a movie or not. I was thinking today that I'd happily watch The Wrath of Khan again, and I've already seen it thrice. But the new Star Trek? Nope.


----------



## Mallus (May 12, 2009)

shilsen said:


> I was waiting for you to say that



I was waiting for me to say it too!



> True, but I don't think it's asking too much to ask the movie to be at least a little thoughtful, which I really didn't find it to be at all.



It wasn't. Then again, I never found Trek to be particularly thoughtful (or, rather, I found it thoughtful and dumb in equal measure, with lots of punching).



> I suspect that's one of the major variations between your expectation/desire of it and mine.



To be honest, I'm not sure what my expectations were. All I can say is that I left the theater beaming (pun un... never mind), feeling the film reminded me of everything (mostly) I liked about Star Trek in the first place.



> ...(I'm also not convinced they got Spock right, but that's another matter)...



They replaced Spock's irony and loneliness with barely-concealed anger. I liked it. It seemed a viable interpretation of the character.



> Uhura in this movie does absolutely nothing useful, besides translating a little Romulan. She's also apparently a shoulder for Spock to cry on and something for Kirk to eye and grope, but that's hardly what I'd consider a well-rounded character.



What would have been an acceptable display of her competencies? Also, I don't buy that her being compassionate to Spock somehow reduces the character. It humanizes both of them. Needing to refrain from showing a woman being compassionate is just as ugly artifact of gender stereotyping.



> Sure, a couple of characters say she's really good at her job, but she actually does nothing, so the character references are meaningless.



Well, nothing aside from translating a plot-critical bit and standing up to a James T. Kirk  pickup line (without hectoring or lecturing).



> Just don't make me watch the movie again.



Wouldn't dream of it. I'll be screening 1st season TOS: "Space Seed", "City on the Edge of Forever", just the classics.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 12, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Laugh it up, furball (oops, wrong franchise).




But there were Kzinti in the semi-canonical cartoon series.



Mallus said:


> Insinuating that people are advertising dupes, desperate, or easily captivated by shiny (exploding) things, isn't helpful. Also, it makes _you_ look like a crank.




But the Hollywood studios regularly assume that people are advertising dupes, desperate, or easily captivated by shiny (exploding) things. We may disagree on whether we individually think this film falls in that category. But to think that people will fall for that type of thing doesn't make make someone a crank, it means they realize what the studio execs realize and profit from.


----------



## Arnwyn (May 12, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Can we leave the analysis for the film, please?



Long since covered in my post. Sorry if you somehow managed to get prematurely stalled.

But no need to worry yourself - I said I enjoyed it.


----------



## Mallus (May 12, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> But there were Kzinti in the semi-canonical cartoon series.



Right... Niven adapted "The Slaver Weapon". Why do I remember things like this? I could have more important things in my head...


----------



## Mallus (May 12, 2009)

Arnwyn said:


> Long since covered in my post. Sorry if you somehow managed to get prematurely stalled.



Did I miss the part of your post where took back the suggestion that people raving about the film were dupes?



> But no need to worry yourself - I said I enjoyed it.



Arn, I don't care if you enjoyed it. I cared that you suggested people raving about the film were dupes. Perhaps because I've been raving about it for several days now?  I sense a connection...


----------



## Arnwyn (May 12, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I cared that you suggested people raving about the film were dupes. Perhaps because I've been raving about it for several days now?  I sense a connection...



Whoops on your part, then.

I mentioned it, actually, based on that early preview that was shown somewhere in Texas (Dallas?), when Leonard Nimoy suddenly appeared and surprised everyone by showing the new movie instead of Wrath of Khan (which they were originally there for). It was featured in G4's Attack of the Show, actually, in an interesting interview (well, as interesting as Kevin Pereira can get! ), and he posed a very good question. Everyone was raving like a near lunatic about it, and Kevin suggested that maybe it was the *circumstances* that led to a somewhat... unobjective... view of the movie. The person they were interviewing denied it (unsurprisingly), but based on what he said, others said, and some footage, I think the evidence showed clearly otherwise. So yeah, I'll throw in a little harmless speculation on that, now that I've seen the movie for myself (couldn't before). 

I'm glad some people happened to have _enjoyed_ the new ST more than Wrath of Khan, though. (Even if it's not better. ) Ah, the internet. Sometimes it's tough for people to adequately express themselves.



> Did I miss the part of your post where took back the suggestion that people raving about the film were dupes?
> 
> Arn, I don't care if you enjoyed it.



But you should care that I enjoyed it, if you want your point (alternately: wild accusation) to make any sense whatsoever. I said I enjoyed it (8/10, no less!) - am I, therefore, accusing myself of being a dupe? Think hard.

You seem to be hung up on this. Maybe you shouldn't read/respond to my posts any more, as they clearly, to my eyes, bug you in some way and maybe you're taking some stuff personally. Sorry, in any case.

[/hijack]


----------



## Umbran (May 12, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> But the Hollywood studios regularly assume that people are advertising dupes, desperate, or easily captivated by shiny (exploding) things. We may disagree on whether we individually think this film falls in that category. But to think that people will fall for that type of thing doesn't make make someone a crank, it means they realize what the studio execs realize and profit from.




Realizing that people will have a greater tendency to like a thing with lots of flash, and the outright statement that strongly positive statements come from being brainwashed by marketing are qualitatively different.  One is noting the tendency of the market, the other is a direct accusation of lack of ability to control one's own mind - it rides rather too close to, "if you don't agree with me, you are stupid."

I was not terribly thrilled with it when it was said.  Nobody should expect the mods to tolerate any more similar suggestions in here.


----------



## Pbartender (May 12, 2009)

Arnwyn said:


> I'm glad some people happened to have _enjoyed_ the new ST more than Wrath of Khan, though. (Even if it's not better. ) Ah, the internet. Sometimes it's tough for people to adequately express themselves.




Certainly it is.

For my part on this particular point...

Of all the Star Trek movies, I think I enjoy _The Wrath of Khan_, _The Voyage Home_ and this most recent reboot all equally enough that I can only say that I like all the other Trek movies less.  At the same time though, I admit that I like all three of those movies for completely different reasons, and that it would be thoroughly unfair to compare them.


----------



## TwinBahamut (May 13, 2009)

Honestly, I never really watched any of the original Star Trek series or its movies, other than the first movie and the whale movie. I grew up watching occasional episodes of The Next Generation. I haven't seriously watched anything Star Trek related since.

I loved this movie. It was a lot of fun, and brought back just about everything I honestly liked about Star Trek, without many of the things that I didn't like.

I mean, I never even really remembered the doctor before this movie, and I completely forgot about the existence of Chekhov (I thought the new Chekhov was original to the movie at first), but in a way this movie introduced me to these characters in a new way for the first time, and I really enjoyed it.


----------



## shilsen (May 13, 2009)

Mallus said:


> It wasn't. Then again, I never found Trek to be particularly thoughtful (or, rather, I found it thoughtful and dumb in equal measure, with lots of punching).




Hah! Nice description. I just found this movie much higher on the dumb.



> To be honest, I'm not sure what my expectations were. All I can say is that I left the theater beaming (pun un... never mind), feeling the film reminded me of everything (mostly) I liked about Star Trek in the first place.




I think that's basically it for me. A lot of that stuff isn't what I liked about Star Trek, plus what I liked about Star Trek watching it in the 80s wouldn't do it for me in 2009.



> They replaced Spock's irony and loneliness with barely-concealed anger. I liked it. It seemed a viable interpretation of the character.




I think it's viable but it didn't do much for me. The 'original' Spock is actually one of the things from TOS that I'd have loved to see again. He was always my favorite character, by far. Kirk never did much for me, nor Bones.

The change to Spock also led to one of the things that I thought was a weakness of the movie - even though it tried to do the old logic (Spock) vs. emotion (Kirk) opposition/pairing, it didn't work because Spock wasn't really logical in the movie. One quick example - Spock originally doesn't want Uhura on the Enterprise because it may look like impropriety. The supposedly logical Vulcan is more concerned about appearances rather than the fact that she's competent? 



> What would have been an acceptable display of her competencies?




Actually having some major (no, the one in the movie doesn't do it for me) plot point being unraveled by her. Think of all the stuff done by female characters (including the ones who don't shoot stuff) on BSG, for example. Now there's a show which handles gender in the future well, and I'm probably spoiled by it because I want to see that kind of quality.



> Also, I don't buy that her being compassionate to Spock somehow reduces the character. It humanizes both of them. Needing to refrain from showing a woman being compassionate is just as ugly artifact of gender stereotyping.




You misunderstood me. I don't think there's anything wrong with showing a woman or a man being compassionate. I just didn't think her compassion (which was one of the few things setting her apart from the other characters) was enough to round her out, and I'd say the same if they had shown Bones expressing it. 



> Well, nothing aside from translating a plot-critical bit and standing up to a James T. Kirk  pickup line (without hectoring or lecturing).




As I said above, it didn't seem that crucial a plot point to me, esp. in comparison to the other stuff that happened in the movie. Her ignoring Kirk's pickup lines was something I liked, unsurprisingly. I'm actually looking forward to seeing if they do anything interesting with her romance with Spock.



> Wouldn't dream of it. I'll be screening 1st season TOS: "Space Seed", "City on the Edge of Forever", just the classics.




Sounds interesting. I've seen all of the 1st season, or most of it, but I never know/remember the episode names so I'm not sure which ones those are.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (May 13, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> Certainly it is.
> 
> For my part on this particular point...
> 
> Of all the Star Trek movies, I think I enjoy _The Wrath of Kahn_,



NGAAAAAAARGH!

It's _Khan_, not "Kahn"! This misspelling seems to be everywhere recently, and it's making me tear my hair out. Khan, Khan, KHAAAAAAAAAAAN! 



(Nothing personal with you, Pbartender; your post was just the straw that made my cup run over.  )


----------



## Pbartender (May 13, 2009)

Lurks-no-More said:


> NGAAAAAAARGH!
> 
> It's _Khan_, not "Kahn"! This misspelling seems to be everywhere recently, and it's making me tear my hair out. Khan, Khan, KHAAAAAAAAAAAN!
> 
> ...




Excuse my typo...  

It's an easy one to make, when you're typing fast.

EDIT:

Psst!  I fixed it just for you...


----------



## Umbran (May 13, 2009)

Lurks-no-More said:


> It's _Khan_, not "Kahn"!




But wait!  Imagine if it was Kahn!  "The Wrath of Kahn" (as in Madeline Kahn) - kind of like a cross between Blazing Saddles and Trek... and no, "Spaceballs" doesn't count!


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 13, 2009)

Umbran said:


> But wait!  Imagine if it was Kahn!  "The Wrath of Kahn" (as in Madeline Kahn) - kind of like a cross between Blazing Saddles and Trek... and no, "Spaceballs" doesn't count!




As long as there was still some Rich Corinthian Leather somewhere in the movie.


----------



## SkidAce (May 16, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Why the sad face? Blockbuster Star Trek is a good thing (particularly when it means a talented bunch of people are going to be given large sums of money to make more...).




You speak with wisdom, I was just still in shock.

On a serious note, I agree that a "bigger" film can be beneficial  to the franchise.  I do worry that sometimes mass appeal takes films or books or games into directions change the flavor from the originals.  But that is a risk we take with innovation.  So full speed ahead I say.


----------

