RE: New Star Trek movie

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: New Star Trek movie

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: New Star Trek movie

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/17/2009 5:32:44 PM

Posts: 1247
Joined: 9/20/2007
Status: offline

Random thoughts, with **** Possible Spoilers *****

I put a lot of work into not hearing anything about the movie (and that was tough with two Spocks on stage at the Las Vegas Star Trek convention last summer!), and it paid off. Had I heard all the changes without seeing them, I'd have never liked this movie. I finally saw it yesterday... as an origininal airing trekkie (I still think Trekkers are insecure Trekkies). I liked it and enjoyed it. It was a "fun" movie loosely based on TOS. But I do have mixed feelings in that it effectively negates all the TV series and preceeding movies.

As was mentioned, this movie was not Roddenberry's Star Trek. But I do have to give them credit for going with the alternate timeline. It's the only thing they really could've done. They changed everything, but didn't "stomp" on it as Enterprise did.

While I didn't understand the refinery look either. My only real problem was with the Bridge "viewscreen off" effect. It was disconcerting on a subconscious level (much like living in the second story of a bulding and finding your wall gone one morning).

For characterizations I agree with the above... McCoy-in-rant-mode was the closest. He obviously studied the "historical documents." Scotty rang true to a younger version of that character completely to me (they never hid that Scotty was a partier and "character" when not deep in his tech manuals... "it's green!").

I think the next movie will really tell if it's going to fly as an ongoing deal... that's when people are going to have more material to really start nit-picking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
just lost the plot with all the spin offs. I didn't watch one episode of Enterprise or Babylon 5 nor Deep Space 9. The only one I kind of got on with was Voyager and even then, it just seemed a spin off.

Whoah, sorry man but lumping Babylon 5 in there with the rest is practically a crime. B5 is not a Star Trek spin-off, though you could argue that DS9 was a B5 spin-off. Anyway, if you haven't seen a single episode of B5 rent the DVD collection and watch at least Seasons 1-4 and then report back. Ok, you've got your assignment.

B5 and DS9 are far too close in concepts to not be from the same basic blueprint. But, I loved each of them.

B5 was a good show (Londo for President!), but the season 4 story acceleration in light of impending cancellation, only to get a 5th year hurt them very badly for that 5th year (uh, what do we do now?). B5 may be very tough to get through the first couple of years for those who need perfect special effects. It's worth the effort.

But I also think that DS9 was the most TOS-like in spirit and turned out to be my second favorite Trek (and that is from one who dismissed it and hated it when it aired... "WTF... To Boldly Sit?!?!"). (TOS was marketed to TV executives as "Wagon Train to the Stars" whereas DS9 was actually modeled as "The Rifleman in Space")

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 91

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/17/2009 6:18:09 PM

Capt. Harlock

Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

O.K. -- I saw it. Nicely paced, and I can't complain about the special effects. But the plot was just wrong.

Without giving spoilers, it's interesting to see how many franchises are being "rebooted": Batman, James Bond, etc. But there is a debt owed to the artist's original vision. Some things you just don't change. More, all stories depend on the willing suspension of disbelief in the audience -- and I didn't believe it.

If I'm showing my age, so be it. But that ain't my Star Trek.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to E)

Post #: 92

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/17/2009 6:30:00 PM

Mobius

Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper
Having watched the film I left with mixed feelings. In general I enjoyed the movie but I did feel that it had now become a buffy the vampire slayer teen movie, not a grown ups movie. Letting kids run the newest ship in the fleet etc.... good grief. Kept expecting Hannah Montana to enter the bridge...

Yeah, you'd think they pull some veteran warriors out of retirement before they give the kids the keys to the Porsche. We all know what risky business that is.

(in reply to PunkReaper)

Post #: 93

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/17/2009 6:44:08 PM

Posts: 1247
Joined: 9/20/2007
Status: offline

****** SPOILER *******

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

O.K. -- I saw it. Nicely paced, and I can't complain about the special effects. But the plot was just wrong.

Without giving spoilers, it's interesting to see how many franchises are being "rebooted": Batman, James Bond, etc. But there is a debt owed to the artist's original vision. Some things you just don't change. More, all stories depend on the willing suspension of disbelief in the audience -- and I didn't believe it.

If I'm showing my age, so be it. But that ain't my Star Trek.

No, it isn't our Star Trek. It was an alternate timeline. I am curious, what did you find was against the "artist's original vision?"

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)

Post #: 94

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/17/2009 6:55:23 PM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

Regardless of your everyones thoughts of the film...when you see The Enterprise...WOW! She always was a beaut! Almost brought a tear to my eye seeing that baby again.

(in reply to E)

Post #: 95

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/17/2009 6:58:56 PM

Mobius

Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: E
No, it isn't our Star Trek. It was an alternate timeline. I am curious, what did you find was against the "artist's original vision?"

Wasn't there something called a Prime Directive? Not to interferes in the natural development a civilization? Yet going back in time and changing events potentially changes the natural development of all civilizations.

Who does really discover transparent aluminum?

(in reply to E)

Post #: 96

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/17/2009 7:11:44 PM

ShadowB

Posts: 86
Joined: 8/14/2004
From: Buenos Aires
Status: offline

I saw and liked the movie as well. The apparent "make it an alternate timeline so I can do whatever I want" approach of the director can be frowned upon at first, but then you've to realize that, while it gives the creative team greater freedom, they also have the responsibility to maintain a reasonable amount of things unchanged. And as far as I'm concerned, they've been fairly responsible so far.

Things (spoilers ahead, not that it's necessary to warn at this point) that shocked me some:

- The building relationship between Spock and Uhura: surprising, but not necessarily wrong or out of place.
- Phasers look more like energy bolts than beams: small shock, bolts are neither better nor worse.
- The meeting of young and old Spocks: completely unnecessary, from my point of view. Old Spock insisted Kirk didn't mention anything about him to his younger self, yet he later casually runs into himself and gives mostly unnecessary advice (the meat of it was the deal with emotions, but young Spock would've learnt about it with Uhura).
- The destruction of Vulcan and Kirk's new past: the former might've been going overboard a bit, but honestly I know little about their original backgrounds.

Also, there's something to be said about character development. Some people complain about the attitudes of certain characters, like Uhura and Kirk, but one has to consider they're still young and therefore haven't lived through enough to act exactly like their older, TOS counterparts. Uhura's only beginning to build her respect towards Kirk, and he's just out of his earlier, rebellious lifestyle.

You can't just turn characters into someone they'll be in 15-20 years over the course of a single movie (in which they spend barely around a week in the Enterprise). My (obvious) guess is we'll see them getting more and more similar to the TOS characters in the sequels. Nothing wrong with a gradual evolution/change.

(in reply to E)

Post #: 97

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/17/2009 7:57:16 PM

Posts: 1247
Joined: 9/20/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

ORIGINAL: E
No, it isn't our Star Trek. It was an alternate timeline. I am curious, what did you find was against the "artist's original vision?"

Wasn't there something called a Prime Directive? Not to interferes in the natural development a civilization? Yet going back in time and changing events potentially changes the natural development of all civilizations.

Who does really discover transparent aluminum?

I don't understand what the Prime Directive has to do with the movie in question. Nor how it relates to even the question I posed? The bad guys didn't pledge allegiance to the Prime Directive. Not to mention the alternation of the timeline, by the bad buys, occurred before the birth of key characters. But had the good guys been the one's to go against it in the movie, you need only watch some TOS to realize they almost always threw it aside (although sometimes they'd give it the nod and rationalize doing so).

(in reply to Mobius)

Post #: 98

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/17/2009 8:23:10 PM

Posts: 1247
Joined: 9/20/2007
Status: offline

***** COMPLETE SPOILERS ***********

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShadowB

I saw and liked the movie as well. The apparent "make it an alternate timeline so I can do whatever I want" approach of the director can be frowned upon at first, but then you've to realize that, while it gives the creative team greater freedom, they also have the responsibility to maintain a reasonable amount of things unchanged. And as far as I'm concerned, they've been fairly responsible so far.

I agree. And in younger years, I was a fierce devotee of the sanctity of TOS. I think it the only safe way to play it. As I said, they did change everything, but didn't "stomp" on it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShadowB
Things (spoilers ahead, not that it's necessary to warn at this point) that shocked me some:

- The building relationship between Spock and Uhura: surprising, but not necessarily wrong or out of place.

I sort of complained of this to my wife on the way home, thinking it was unnecessary. But she pointed out she thought they were showing how emotional Spock used to be, prior to TOS-Spock. And as most of us have seen The Cage (ooh, cool flowers!), I can agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShadowB
- The meeting of young and old Spocks: completely unnecessary, from my point of view.

Beyond old fashioned torch passing, I think it was done to accelerate the movie timeline. Getting the Kirk/Spock friendship jump started. (heck the whole movie was to accelerate the timeline and get to where the series was, albeit with a now completely different history).

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShadowB
Old Spock insisted Kirk didn't mention anything about him to his younger self, yet he later casually runs into himself and gives mostly unnecessary advice (the meat of it was the deal with emotions, but young Spock would've learnt about it with Uhura).

I think continuity was there. When he insisted, he was in an ice cave and may not have known what had happened in the movie. By the time he meets himself, he realizes the timeline is already FUBAR. (although OUR Spock would've figured out a way to fix it).

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShadowB
Also, there's something to be said about character development. Some people complain about the attitudes of certain characters, like Uhura and Kirk, but one has to consider they're still young and therefore haven't lived through enough to act exactly like their older, TOS counterparts. Uhura's only beginning to build her respect towards Kirk, and he's just out of his earlier, rebellious lifestyle.

Actually, that is exactly why Scotty worked for me. TOS always implied he was a character and a partier when not nose diving into technical manuals. I thought the movie hit a completely believable characterization of a young Scotty (albeit one with too many fingers).

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShadowB
You can't just turn characters into someone they'll be in 15-20 years over the course of a single movie (in which they spend barely around a week in the Enterprise).

And yet, they pretty much tried to. *grin*

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShadowB
My (obvious) guess is we'll see them getting more and more similar to the TOS characters in the sequels. Nothing wrong with a gradual evolution/change.

Time will tell where they're going with it. As a tradeoff, they did rather well overall. (no way everyone was going to get everything they wanted out of this). Having supported the movie overall, I still seem to have a need to load up my undiluted or re-engineered TOS DVD's and see what the kid from Gentle Ben is up to...

(in reply to ShadowB)

Post #: 99

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/17/2009 9:28:56 PM

Capt. Harlock

Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

quote:

No, it isn't our Star Trek. It was an alternate timeline. I am curious, what did you find was against the "artist's original vision?"

*** SPOILER ALERT ***

1) The slaughter of six billion sentients without an attempt to fix the timeline. In all other time-travel episodes of Star Trek, no effort is spared to restore things to the way they were or should be.

2) The re-invention of Kirk as a punk with no discipline. (e.g. He did NOT have the right to destroy a classic Corvette.)

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to E)

Post #: 100

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/17/2009 9:31:40 PM

Capt. Harlock

Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

quote:

I don't understand what the Prime Directive has to do with the movie in question. Nor how it relates to even the question I posed?

BTW, The Prime Directive *only* applies to civilizations that have not yet developed faster-than-light space travel.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to E)

Post #: 101

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/17/2009 10:28:48 PM

Posts: 1247
Joined: 9/20/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

No, it isn't our Star Trek. It was an alternate timeline. I am curious, what did you find was against the "artist's original vision?"

*** SPOILER ALERT ***

1) The slaughter of six billion sentients without an attempt to fix the timeline. In all other time-travel episodes of Star Trek, no effort is spared to restore things to the way they were or should be.

1) Bad guy kills, good guys stop him. I'm okay with that for matching the artist's original vision.
2) Timeline... how do you know that isn't/wasn't/wouldn't be the natural order of time? Time paradoxes are tricky animals at best. (How do we know he didn't invent transparent aluminum?)
3) Aspects of quite alot of elements in every movie after STTMP have been documented as not being in line with the artist's original vision. If one adhere's closely to that argument, one should reject Star Trek II-XI.
4) I am reminded of a story where characters in an alternate timeline argue with the heroes, that restoring the timeline is not in their own best interest because they and everyone they know, will no longer exist. Except for Spock & bad guys (see my post above re Spock), this was the right and only timeline for every single character. Actually, at some point the timeline may've become irreversable and made itself part of Spock's memory.... *ack* time paradoxes... you can't win, you can't lose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock
2) The re-invention of Kirk as a punk with no discipline. (e.g. He did NOT have the right to destroy a classic Corvette.)

Which episodes alluded to anything different? He didn't have a right to steal and destroy the (real) Enterprise either. Would it be that surprising he could steal something for immature reasons as a what, 12 year old kid?. While that may not be mine and isn't your interpretation of a possible young Kirk in an alternate timeline, I don't see anything against GR's vision of Kirk's un-alternated timeline youth either. The undisciplined youth is turned around by military service and becomes a hero is an old and not invalid storyline.

Us old farts suffer from "fill-in-the-blank-itus." We've filled in many blanks with our imaginations or filled them in with non-cannon material from books for so long, they've become personal "canon" and we auto-reject any other interpretation. We rail against it, but often fail to step back and realize, there really was nothing that said it wasn't so (methinks I am speaking mainly to myself in this paragraph!).

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)

Post #: 102

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/18/2009 8:35:21 PM

Capt. Harlock

Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

quote:

He didn't have a right to steal and destroy the (real) Enterprise either.

Not entirely correct. Go back and review "The Search For Spock". Reasons are given. ("The needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many".)

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to E)

Post #: 103

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/19/2009 12:58:30 AM

Posts: 1247
Joined: 9/20/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

He didn't have a right to steal and destroy the (real) Enterprise either.

Not entirely correct. Go back and review "The Search For Spock". Reasons are given. ("The needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many".)

That was emotion/loyalty, not a valid reason. Had it been a valid reason, he wouldn't have been rifted in IV (and of course the reason that is all that happened to him is because he saved the whales, I mean the Earth before facing the whalesong, I mean music *grin*).

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)

Post #: 104

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/19/2009 8:36:12 AM

Southernland

Posts: 2283
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

5 out of 11�

~Liked Spock (old and new)
~Like Bones, Uhuru, Chekov and Kumar� (LOL) sorry Sulu
~Disliked Scotty, didn't need to be (ie shouldn't have been Pegg)� He was a distraction.� go and kill some Zombies for godsake!
~Disliked the little ewok thingy attached to Scotty
~Disliked the water theme park aka Scotty's appearence on the enterprise
~Liked the whole alt future/present concept
~Liked the drill and the exterior of the romulan ship
~Loved the guy in the red jumpsuit dying�� LOL� as soon as he jumped...
~Got really confused over when they were inside/outside the romulan ship aka the game of frogger between levels
~Felt the setup between youg kirk A..wipe and super Kirk�space cadet was whiplash fast
~Always hate that in space (so far as space fleets are concerned) there is an up and a down... lets face it with no real points of reference wouldn't you fly your ship "upside down" just to be different?
~Liked the aliens on the whole, except the green chick and the afore mentioned Ewok.
~er okay wasn't super impressed by the "monsters' on the iceball either.� was sure the second one was a baby cloverfeild*
~Liked Intro, birth and death etc
~Liked the Spock Uhuru relationship

Rollover below for spoiler

*Startrek vs the Cloverfeild Monster you saw it here first!

< Message edited by Southern_land -- 5/19/2009 8:37:00 AM >

(in reply to E)

Post #: 105

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/19/2009 11:56:24 AM

Joram

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShadowB

I saw and liked the movie as well. The apparent "make it an alternate timeline so I can do whatever I want" approach of the director can be frowned upon at first, but then you've to realize that, while it gives the creative team greater freedom, they also have the responsibility to maintain a reasonable amount of things unchanged. And as far as I'm concerned, they've been fairly responsible so far.

Things (spoilers ahead, not that it's necessary to warn at this point) that shocked me some:

- The building relationship between Spock and Uhura: surprising, but not necessarily wrong or out of place.
- Phasers look more like energy bolts than beams: small shock, bolts are neither better nor worse.
- The meeting of young and old Spocks: completely unnecessary, from my point of view. Old Spock insisted Kirk didn't mention anything about him to his younger self, yet he later casually runs into himself and gives mostly unnecessary advice (the meat of it was the deal with emotions, but young Spock would've learnt about it with Uhura).
- The destruction of Vulcan and Kirk's new past: the former might've been going overboard a bit, but honestly I know little about their original backgrounds.

Also, there's something to be said about character development. Some people complain about the attitudes of certain characters, like Uhura and Kirk, but one has to consider they're still young and therefore haven't lived through enough to act exactly like their older, TOS counterparts. Uhura's only beginning to build her respect towards Kirk, and he's just out of his earlier, rebellious lifestyle.

You can't just turn characters into someone they'll be in 15-20 years over the course of a single movie (in which they spend barely around a week in the Enterprise). My (obvious) guess is we'll see them getting more and more similar to the TOS characters in the sequels. Nothing wrong with a gradual evolution/change.

Spoilers - blah blah blah - if you've read this far without reading the spoilers already, I'd be amazed!

Anyway. I wasn't a big fan of the movie though there were parts I liked. McCoy was brilliant I thought and nearly saved the movie for me . I especially disliked the whole Uhuru and Spock thing. It was just way too, i don't know the exact word, contrived maybe. It's like she thought, hey your planet just blew up, let's kiss!!

(in reply to ShadowB)

Post #: 106

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/19/2009 3:17:00 PM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joram
Spoilers - blah blah blah - if you've read this far without reading the spoilers already, I'd be amazed!
...I especially disliked the whole Uhuru and Spock thing. It was just way too, i don't know the exact word, contrived maybe. It's like she thought, hey your planet just blew up, let's kiss!!

That's exactly what I thought!! Completely pointless and would be considered bad taste irl.

(in reply to Joram)

Post #: 107

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/19/2009 3:49:36 PM

Mobius

Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

Spoilers!

Speaking of contrived.
What about the whole - "Spock you are too emotionally compromised to command as Nemo killed your mother. You want to cooly follow the orders of rejoining the fleet."
Kirk on the other hand just wants to go against those orders and get Nemo, the #$@! that killed his father.

(in reply to Joram)

Post #: 108

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/20/2009 12:37:07 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Spoilers!

Speaking of contrived.
What about the whole - "Spock you are too emotionally compromised to command as Nemo killed your mother. You want to cooly follow the orders of rejoining the fleet."
Kirk on the other hand just wants to go against those orders and get Nemo, the #$@! that killed his father.

don't know, kind of disagree

Spock wasn't following orders, that was his idea

but on the other hand, Kirk didn't even know his father, so how much emotion did he have, about it

my issue, would be, how as a mineing ship that is not all that much in the furture, be so much better then "major" combat Fleets, heck of a lot of firepower for a ship that wasn't a combat Ship

_____________________________

(in reply to Mobius)

Post #: 109

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/20/2009 5:31:18 PM

hadberz

Posts: 1629
Joined: 5/11/2000
From: Moncks Corner, SC
Status: offline

If I understand correctly the prequel comics fill in the "how did that happen" blanks. Overall I thought the movie was pretty good, not the Star Trek I know, but close enough.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/10/17/exclusive-details-on-star-trek-movie-prequel-comic-series/

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 110

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/20/2009 8:32:10 PM

Capt. Harlock

Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

quote:

Overall I thought the movie was pretty good, not the Star Trek I know, but close enough.

"Close enough"? Consider, among many points, this one: the TOS episode "Journey to Babel" now cannot happen.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to hadberz)

Post #: 111

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/20/2009 8:51:28 PM

Posts: 1247
Joined: 9/20/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

Overall I thought the movie was pretty good, not the Star Trek I know, but close enough.

"Close enough"? Consider, among many points, this one: the TOS episode "Journey to Babel" now cannot happen.

...And now poor Spock will never have his brain stolen!

"'Brain' and 'brain,' what is 'brain'?"

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)

Post #: 112

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/20/2009 10:15:11 PM

AcePylut

Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

Here you go...

Every TOS episode...

http://www.joost.com/3a3rsl0/t/Star-Trek-The-Original-Series

You simply can NOT beat the "going to an alternate universe" special effects of "Mirror Mirror"

_____________________________

(in reply to E)

Post #: 113

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/20/2009 10:39:49 PM

PunkReaper

Posts: 1085
Joined: 8/23/2006
From: England
Status: offline

full episodes or just clips?

(in reply to AcePylut)

Post #: 114

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/20/2009 11:31:51 PM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

I don't really understand what the fuss is about. I was brought up with the original series always sitting down with the rest of the family to watch Kirk and his mob go where no man has gone before. I didn't get into TNG or any of the others and I thought the film was not only good, I thought the characters were well placed and did a good job of portraying who they were meant to portray...little things like Jim Kirk at the end coming onto the Bridge and saying "Bones"....just the way Shatner said it...and then there was Kirk sitting on the captains chair, leg crossed over the other, like Shatner himself done. I liked the fact they changed Spock by showing his human side...something that I always thought was missing in tos. Bones was excellent and Scotty was a nutter, just like he always was.

As usual there were some dodgy bits, like the aforementioned sexual assault on Spock after his sudden and mamoth loss! WTF??

I not only enjoyed it, I thought, regardless of the alternate universe mumbo jumbo, that it was fairly faithful to the original characters.

< Message edited by JudgeDredd -- 5/21/2009 10:40:00 PM >

(in reply to PunkReaper)

Post #: 115

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/21/2009 9:03:18 PM

MVMASOFT.COM

Posts: 2
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

I wonder what would happen if someone would try to deconstruct Warhammer 40000 like this.
A game for 12 year old kiddies.

_____________________________

MVMASOFT.COM
530-554-4835

(in reply to RedArgo)

Post #: 116

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/23/2009 11:31:42 AM

ilovestrategy

Posts: 3611
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

I just saw it. I liked it. And I've been watching Star Trek since the early 70's.

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to MVMASOFT.COM)

Post #: 117

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/26/2009 8:24:21 PM

battleground

Posts: 104
Joined: 4/26/2009
Status: offline

being brought up on star trek (and 2001) i enjoyed it greatly. my only concern was the refinery look of the interior of the ship which is totally at odds with the exterior. it appears filmed in some type of powerplant with simple consoles just placed around it. i don't think a starship will have concrete floors. I think all the actors got their characters spot on. too bad no Flanagan at the academy hounding Kirk!
Tim

(in reply to ilovestrategy)

Post #: 118

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/26/2009 8:34:50 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

"Finigan"

_____________________________

(in reply to battleground)

Post #: 119

RE: New Star Trek movie - 5/26/2009 8:39:35 PM

Arctic Blast

Posts: 1168
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

Finally got a chance to see this over the weekend...really liked it! My only complaint was the preview for the horrid looking GI Joe movie, which took my inner child behind the woodshed and beat the living crap out of him.

_____________________________

Meditation on inevitable death should be performed daily.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 120