Star Trek

[stockslivevan]

[Blowfeld]

Chekhov was w-atrocious. Casting was better in some instances than others and a few aspects of the plot didn't make sense.

Fortunately, I think they got the casting of the two leads absolutely right, and that Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto nailed their characters perfectly. I liked Karl Urban as Bones a lot too. Not so sure about Simon Pegg as Scotty. One the one hand, he was nothing like the original Scotty (though I did give a fanboyish smile when he yelled "I'm giving her all she's got, Cap'n!" in classic Trek fashion). On the other hand, I'm a big fan of Pegg in general. For that reason, I'll be charitable and assume that the ropiness of his Scottish accent was a tribute to James Doohan.

Scotty was likeable in the Classic shows and now in this reboot. Pretty certain nobody producing or writing the new Trek paid heed to all the times he was in charge of the ship. I think impression of him used was formed in general by the outlandish yelling of those memorable lines and the comedy he brought to certain tense scenes as well. All that said I did enjoy Pegg as Scotty and right now I can not imagine someone else as Scotty.

Kirk was all wrong.

Spoiler

James T Kirk is more than just a man or a actor. He is a legend. Something Matt Damon recognised.

Chekhov needs to go.
Bones was possibly the best of the lot and most brilliantly cast.
Spock was good

Spoiler

but with the real Spock on stage I realised he would never hold a candle to Nimoy's Spock.

Sulu & Uhura were good as well.

Worst aspect of this movie for me was Nero.

Spoiler

He was no Borg Queen and no Kahn (Kahn!!!!)
Nero was a none threatening slash threatening villain with almost no menacing presence on the screen. It seems as if Star Trek has failed to escape the black hole that has been consuming the franchise for the last few movies. Namely no creative inspiration for the villains and no way to work what is creative about them in to the plot. The last few Trek movie have feature particularly weak villains and pitiful motivations behind their actions

.

Star Trek was enjoyable as a popcorn flick. Better than the last two Bond movies with that regard. The cast did work well together with one glaring exception. The plot was hit and miss. The main plot was introducing the Enterprise and her crew, this worked well (despite the Enterprise being on active duty for 10 years before the first shows with James T Kirk as captain). The secondary plot, the one that did not work well was the villains plot and explaining all of the contortions went thought to try and make a new faces playing the familiar crew acceptable.

Sadly Amok Time & The Menagerie are stories lost to us in this reboot.


Does anybody remember the name of the crew man that questions Spock's loyalty in the Balance of Terror? I had a notion maybe his name was used for the "red shirt" eager to fight a Romulan. The one who pops his shoot too late and is incinerated at the drill head.

[stockslivevan]

That guy's name was Stiles, the one in the new flick was someone else.

[FormerBondFan]

Worst aspect of this movie for me was Nero.

Spoiler

He was no Borg Queen and no Kahn (Kahn!!!!)
Nero was a none threatening slash threatening villain with almost no menacing presence on the screen. It seems as if Star Trek has failed to escape the black hole that has been consuming the franchise for the last few movies. Namely no creative inspiration for the villains and no way to work what is creative about them in to the plot. The last few Trek movie have feature particularly weak villains and pitiful motivations behind their actions

.

Nero's background is fully explained in this comic.



If I were you, I would check it out right away.

[Harvey Wallbanger]

New Kirk and Spock -SNL Weekend Update

Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Leonard Nimoy stop by-- http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/ ... k/1099561/

[stockslivevan]

Worst aspect of this movie for me was Nero.

Spoiler

He was no Borg Queen and no Kahn (Kahn!!!!)
Nero was a none threatening slash threatening villain with almost no menacing presence on the screen. It seems as if Star Trek has failed to escape the black hole that has been consuming the franchise for the last few movies. Namely no creative inspiration for the villains and no way to work what is creative about them in to the plot. The last few Trek movie have feature particularly weak villains and pitiful motivations behind their actions

.

Nero's background is fully explained in this comic.



If I were you, I would check it out right away.

From what I've heard, his backround on the comic doesn't really help much. And most of all, films should be competent enough to handle their characters alone, not rely on some comic book that most of the general audience isn't going to check out. If the film failed to present its characters, it fails.

[Kristatos]

From what I've heard, his backround on the comic doesn't really help much. And most of all, films should be competent enough to handle their characters alone, not rely on some comic book that most of the general audience isn't going to check out. If the film failed to present its characters, it fails.

This seems to be a widespread trend in movies, though, presenting background information in other media. I think The Blair Witch Project started it, putting necessary information on a website at a time when fewer people had Internet access than they do today, and the Matrix movies went crazy with it, scattering their mythology across websites, comics, DVDs and God knows what else. Since then, every franchise has to have an "extended universe". It's the law.

[Mazer Rackham]

A small bounce Star Trek beat the estimates and made $75.2million this weekend.

Paramount was originally projecting 80m weekend and at one time claimed 7m in previews and it looks like only 4m can be counted as previews, but it might explain where the extra 3m came from to bump the weekend up.

"This is not your father's Star Trek" line of the ad campaign, while accurate in its description of the movie itself for better or for worse, was not only puerile but unnecessarily insulting to the previous Star Trek incarnations and the audience base. One doesn't have to alienate the fans in order to broaden the appeal (even if most will take the abuse and still see the new movie anyway).

I agree in general with this. Although he went on to say that the Bond reboot didn't do the same thing, which is wrong becasue the reboot directly attacked and diminished the entire franchise before it. Primarily through Viral techniques and other studio marketing campaigns.

[Harvey Wallbanger]

Star Trek Meets Monty Python
[video][/video]

George Lucas not happy about the 'Star Trek' box office success
[video][/video]

[Blowfeld]

Worst aspect of this movie for me was Nero.

Spoiler

He was no Borg Queen and no Kahn (Kahn!!!!)
Nero was a none threatening slash threatening villain with almost no menacing presence on the screen. It seems as if Star Trek has failed to escape the black hole that has been consuming the franchise for the last few movies. Namely no creative inspiration for the villains and no way to work what is creative about them in to the plot. The last few Trek movie have feature particularly weak villains and pitiful motivations behind their actions

.

Nero's background is fully explained in this comic.



If I were you, I would check it out right away.

From what I've heard, his backround on the comic doesn't really help much. And most of all, films should be competent enough to handle their characters alone, not rely on some comic book that most of the general audience isn't going to check out. If the film failed to present its characters, it fails.

On the principals I agree with Socks. However I put in an order for the book.

[FormerBondFan]

Take a look at this:

http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/11/final-n ... an-begins/

[oscartheman]

http://www.sltrib.com/arts/ci_12308656? ... id=4871589

Growing up as a Trekkie, I was relentlessly teased to the point of my mental fragility today.

I was -- and still am -- a hard-core fan of the original series right down to my AMT model of the Enterprise, my life-size and keychain-size communicators, and my original copies of the Starfleet Technical Manual and Star Trek Concordance.

I know and adore the original "Star Trek." The new movie opening Friday is no "Star Trek."

At least it's not the "Star Trek" baby boomers know and love from the late 1960s. This is a bombastic, crazed version where stimulating the brain plays second fiddle to kick-starting the adrenal glands.

For non-Trekkies or even "Trek" haters, this is a "Star Trek" to
Favorite Star Trek film
Which of these six "Trek" films is your favorite?
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
Star Trek: Generations
Star Trek: First Contact
None of these
embrace. What warps into theater screens Friday is a reboot: The characters have the same names, the same mannerisms and repeat the same catchphrases. Yet for the most part, it doesn't capture the same spirit. This 2009 "Star Trek" by director J.J. Abrams (producer of "Lost" and "Fringe") is a "Trek" for the 21st century. It's Gene Roddenberry's vision with an extra coat of polish and an overdose of methamphetamine for today's ADD audiences.

It's thrilling, aggressive and loud, with plenty of galactic explosions and futuristic hanky-panky (Uhuru tends to be amorous in this version).

But while the actors inherit the names of James T. Kirk, Mr. Spock and the rest, most have a difficult time inhabiting their characters. Whenever
Advertisement
they spout off their trademark phrases (Spock's "Fascinating," or Scotty screaming "I'm giving it all she's got!"), it feels obligatory. The exception is Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy, who absolutely embodies the essence of the irascible Southern doctor.

Chris Pine's Capt. Kirk channels not Shatner, but Tom Cruise's patented cocky lead from "Top Gun" and "Days of Thunder," while Zachary Quinto conveys a much angrier Mr. Spock, who lacks any of the wry wit and gentleness of Leonard Nimoy's

original. Worst of all is Simon Pegg as chief engineer Scott, who simply plays him for lanky comic relief without a hint of the character's engineering brilliance.

Also missing is an engaging, thought-provoking science-fiction story, a trademark of the original "Trek" that employed some of the best-known writers of its day, including Harlan Ellison and Robert Bloch. Instead, we're handed a typical time-traveling jaunt through space without a sense of awe.

If Abrams wanted to change the original series that much, perhaps he and Paramount should have just created a whole new cast of characters. Capt. Kirk and his crew had their turn hopping around the galaxy, so why meddle with our fond memories of their original five-year


Admittedly, this is the "Star Trek" for everyone else. And as a popcorn summer blockbuster, it delivers. But it proves that when it comes to this admittedly stodgy, older-generation "Star Trek" fan, I would rather celebrate the original "Star Trek" for what it was, not hope for what it can be.

[FormerBondFan]

Nothing to do with Trek but has anyone seen this video?

[video][/video]

[katied]

LOL I've seen that before.George Takei for teh win . his visits to the Howard Stern show are always fun!

[Dr. No]

special weekend out of the memorial day holiday, we went to Angels and demons and Star trek.

I don't think anyone will have trouble with the level of violence in this movie. Technically a entire planet get wiped out as well as a few star ships but it nothing we haven't seen in movies before. like A new Hope.

It was a fun story and highly entertaining. I can see where fans of the Shatners trek may have a problmel. Hell i have problem with some of it and I more of a TNG and enterprise fan. Speaking of enterprise they gave it a nod with Scotty's being banned to the ice world because of an experiment he made with admiral Archer's prize beagle.

I However much i like it i can get over some of the glaring plot holes.

Spoiler

Spock marooned on the ice world with scotty done nothing while nero obliterates his home. He could have evacuated millions.

And why the hell did the star ships change so much? I would get it if spcok were there for 20 years trying to help them evolve to met the threat nreo would become,but out of the blu everything looks different because of one star ship bing destroyed. NO don't buy it.

The bets performance has to be Bones! He was the only one to truly embody the original character. The only thing i want to know about the guy playing the russian (i know his name but would butcher its spelling) is who did he sleep with to get the job?

[katied]

Anton Yelchin is the guy who played Chekov. He was absent from most of the ST premieres-he was already promoting Terminator Salvation.

[Kristatos]

Anton Yelchin is the guy who played Chekov. He was absent from most of the ST premieres-he was already promoting Terminator Salvation.

Sounds like another reason not to see that film.

[Dr. No]

Anton Yelchin is the guy who played Chekov. He was absent from most of the ST premieres-he was already promoting Terminator Salvation.

Sounds like another reason not to see that film.

Yep.
Most of the people in the new Trek were very good in being similar in some respects to the original actor or actors performance. He (Anton Yelchin) was way out of left field. I would actually avoid a movie with him in it just to avoid being reminded of his Chekov

[katied]

Actually, he comes by the accent naturally-he was born in Russia and came to the States when he was 6 months old. But the accent? Meh.

[Kristatos]

Actually, he comes by the accent naturally-he was born in Russia and came to the States when he was 6 months old. But the accent? Meh.

It wasn't so much his accent that I had a problem with. It was the fact that he looks about 12 years old.