Been to see the New Star Trek film today
11 May 2009, 10:15 PM
#33
Ok film but not a Star Trek film IMHO. Also, the interior of the Enterprise really hacked me off - where the matter/anti-matter reactor? Why is it suddenly a steam ship? Why was a planet of significant importance destroyed and then basically not really mentioned despite the fact it flies in the fact of all future star trek programs. If they elect to hide behind a 'this is an alternative universe' line then that is super-lame. I could go on tbh.
More plot holes than 'Generations' !
11 May 2009, 11:26 PM
#34
Twatful
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Grew up and don't drive Scoobs anymore!
Posts: 9,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok film but not a Star Trek film IMHO. Also, the interior of the Enterprise really hacked me off - where the matter/anti-matter reactor? Why is it suddenly a steam ship? Why was a planet of significant importance destroyed and then basically not really mentioned despite the fact it flies in the fact of all future star trek programs. If they elect to hide behind a 'this is an alternative universe' line then that is super-lame. I could go on tbh.
12 May 2009, 11:59 AM
#35
Scooby Regular
On the contrary, I think the whole idea of not simply creating a history piece to tie in with the first Star Trek TV series was masterful. had they done so, everyone would have been picking holes in the entire film.
This way, whilst the characterisation was IMO, very good, the producers were not tied (and to a greater extent) limited by what had gone before.
It also paves the way for sequels, that can take a different turn to all the previous movies, as Kirk and his crew develop together.
Some great one liners too.
All in, gets top marks from me
This way, whilst the characterisation was IMO, very good, the producers were not tied (and to a greater extent) limited by what had gone before.
It also paves the way for sequels, that can take a different turn to all the previous movies, as Kirk and his crew develop together.
Some great one liners too.
All in, gets top marks from me
12 May 2009, 04:13 PM
#36
Saw it today with the wife, both enjoyed it.
I agree with the posts above that I think it's quite clever that they have "erased the future" if you know what I mean. Gives them free reign over future movies without being tied into the rest of the Star Trek movies/series.
Liked the cast too.
Have to admit, the engine room/engineering surprised me!
I agree with the posts above that I think it's quite clever that they have "erased the future" if you know what I mean. Gives them free reign over future movies without being tied into the rest of the Star Trek movies/series.
Liked the cast too.
Have to admit, the engine room/engineering surprised me!
12 May 2009, 05:19 PM
#37
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it was wise to reboot. Had they pandered to older star trek too much, the trekies would have been all over it, picking on every single plot hole, discrepancy, continuity error, who would win a fist fight between captain Kirk Jr and Captain Kirk Senior etc...
12 May 2009, 08:56 PM
#39
On the contrary, I think the whole idea of not simply creating a history piece to tie in with the first Star Trek TV series was masterful. had they done so, everyone would have been picking holes in the entire film.
This way, whilst the characterisation was IMO, very good, the producers were not tied (and to a greater extent) limited by what had gone before.
It also paves the way for sequels, that can take a different turn to all the previous movies, as Kirk and his crew develop together.
Some great one liners too.
All in, gets top marks from me
This way, whilst the characterisation was IMO, very good, the producers were not tied (and to a greater extent) limited by what had gone before.
It also paves the way for sequels, that can take a different turn to all the previous movies, as Kirk and his crew develop together.
Some great one liners too.
All in, gets top marks from me
It's not a case of being 'tied' or 'limited' by what has gone before, actually a case of remaining faithfull to what comes after ! (based on the events of every series and movie apart from 'Enterprise' being set after the events in the new movie)
12 May 2009, 09:32 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the posts above that I think it's quite clever that they have "erased the future" if you know what I mean. Gives them free reign over future movies without being tied into the rest of the Star Trek movies/series.
12 May 2009, 09:41 PM
#41
I think it's the exact opposite. It's like a giant slap in the face to everyone that has diligently sat through and enjoyed the next generation, ds9 and voyager. It's basically like saying..."dear fan, did you enjoy the many episodes of next gen, ds9 and voyager?.....oh you did....well sorry, but none of those stories happen, nae luck!"
Oh well, never mind eh?
It's all make believe anyway
Last edited by SirFozzalot; 12 May 2009 at 09:44 PM.
12 May 2009, 11:36 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree, it was simply epic. Really, really miss it and I think the best thing about it is that in the last few series the implications were for the whole quadrant as opposed to just one ship and it's crew.
12 May 2009, 11:52 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Location: N Ireland
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well I'm an old git and have loved Star Trek from series 1 and the only version I didn't like was DS9 cos it was a spacestation. Not on the Enterprise and boldly going etc........
Saw the new film with the wife a non Trekker and both totally enjoyed it
The Bones guy really nailed it - or the writers did - once he spoke he couldn't stop.
Sorry DS9 fans
Saw the new film with the wife a non Trekker and both totally enjoyed it
The Bones guy really nailed it - or the writers did - once he spoke he couldn't stop.
Sorry DS9 fans
13 May 2009, 12:18 AM
#46
13 May 2009, 11:14 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure tbh as said above its a bit empty of substance and the enterprise was made out of a dairy?
Scotty's alien monkey friend was interesting though, and lucky kirk just happens to bump into spock on a random planet.
The plot is a bit turd, but that is the JJ Abrams way - style over substance at all costs IMO
Scotty's alien monkey friend was interesting though, and lucky kirk just happens to bump into spock on a random planet.
The plot is a bit turd, but that is the JJ Abrams way - style over substance at all costs IMO
14 May 2009, 12:12 AM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and lucky kirk just happens to bump into spock on a random planet.
14 May 2009, 07:47 AM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saxo, it's a film lol. if kirk wandered off, got lost/eaten by those things, that's half a wasted film ! It's got to happen really
I saw it last night BIG at the IMAX and I loved it. I've seen every star trek episode: tos, tng, ds9 and voyager and i thought they nailed kirk, bones and spock. chekov still has me ???, but he wasn't too bad.
top marks for keeping shatner out of it!
i also agree with the remarks on the enterprise tech - all slightly off. iirc, didn't they hold onto handles to make the elevator tubes go?
I saw it last night BIG at the IMAX and I loved it. I've seen every star trek episode: tos, tng, ds9 and voyager and i thought they nailed kirk, bones and spock. chekov still has me ???, but he wasn't too bad.
top marks for keeping shatner out of it!
i also agree with the remarks on the enterprise tech - all slightly off. iirc, didn't they hold onto handles to make the elevator tubes go?
14 May 2009, 08:03 AM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saxo, it's a film lol. if kirk wandered off, got lost/eaten by those things, that's half a wasted film ! It's got to happen really
14 May 2009, 08:30 AM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw the film last night, thought it was very good. Forget about ST NG / DS9 / V and E, it more relates to how the original ST came about. The mannerisms of the original cast, are well reproduced, from how Kirk talks / walks, to even how Spok talks. Scotty was a bit of a let down though, I dont think Simon Pegg truely represented Scotty correctly. Infact, I found him annoying and outclassed by the other actors.
Overall, a good film, although its hard to see Spok as Spok and not Sylar.
SBK
Overall, a good film, although its hard to see Spok as Spok and not Sylar.
SBK
14 May 2009, 09:27 AM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Zed Ess Won Hay Tee
Posts: 21,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14 May 2009, 10:10 AM
#57
Scooby Regular
I think it's the exact opposite. It's like a giant slap in the face to everyone that has diligently sat through and enjoyed the next generation, ds9 and voyager. It's basically like saying..."dear fan, did you enjoy the many episodes of next gen, ds9 and voyager?.....oh you did....well sorry, but none of those stories happen, nae luck!"
If we park the fact that its all just made up anyway, the point is that the stories to which you refer did happen, hence the inclusion of "old" Spock.
Are you struggling with the concept of the alternate reality created when the Romulan ship went back in time and changed events?
God knows how you coped with back to the future
Last edited by Devildog; 14 May 2009 at 10:23 AM.
14 May 2009, 10:22 AM
#58
Scooby Regular
True, but they could have made it a little more plausible. For example, perhaps he arrives and uses his communicator to contact the outpost who then beams him in. We get a kirk-eye view as he re-materialises and old spock is standing waiting for him. No need for a monster fight scene as it was pointless and unrealistic anyway. That thing would have munched him in 2 seconds flat!
Ok.
1, Its not meant to be "plausible". For one, earth still exists, and we know from all the eco experts that can't possibly happen due to climate change
2, Kirk always fought the monsters in pointless and unrealistic fight scenes on hostile planets in the original star trek (and that's what this is meant to be about) and got away. Its classic original series material.
3, Kirks character portrays uncanny good fortune and judgement. Always has. In your suggested version, no opportunity for the fight scene.
4, Spock was always going to set Kirk's landing point near to the outpost, not on the other side of the planet where he would surely die. He made it hard for him, but not impossible, otherwise its hardly punishment.
5, you think too much. Its a movie. the original series (again, which is what this is based upon) was full of plot holes and conveniences. Its entertainment. Not L Ron Hubbard.
Last edited by Devildog; 14 May 2009 at 10:24 AM.
14 May 2009, 01:00 PM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kenny,
If we park the fact that its all just made up anyway, the point is that the stories to which you refer did happen, hence the inclusion of "old" Spock.
Are you struggling with the concept of the alternate reality created when the Romulan ship went back in time and changed events?
God knows how you coped with back to the future
If we park the fact that its all just made up anyway, the point is that the stories to which you refer did happen, hence the inclusion of "old" Spock.
Are you struggling with the concept of the alternate reality created when the Romulan ship went back in time and changed events?
God knows how you coped with back to the future
What I fear they will do next is run a series of stories/films over the next few years where basically the entire star trek universe will be completely different. No more warp reactors and technobable...oh no, we'll have steam powered ships with lots of valves to turn, etc. No more will the ships primarily be ships of peace and exploration....oh no, when they fire there will be mad phaser fire and missile/torpedo fire from all over the ship because they are 'action' ships. In short they will make it darker and grittier to attract a new breed of viewers when, tbh, star trek IMHO was never envisaged to be like your Babylon 5's, etc.
It just has a totally different feel to it. Generally in star trek when a ship opens fire it's a few scathing lances of phaser fire and a few bursts of torpedo's. Even if there are many ships exchanging fire this allows the viewer to capture and appreciate the size (and grace) of what are supposed to be exceptionally large vessels. I mean, a Galaxy Glass starship is supposed to be nearly a kilometre long! In this new film it seemed like any time someone opened fire there was 20+ projectiles and continuous frantic streams of phaser fire. This, and the camera angles, made everything seem less graceful and smaller.
This is about as frantic as it should ever be IMHO. The viewer is given time to appreciate the design, relative size and manoeuvrability of each ship and each shot appears targeted, thought out and powerful. If this was done in the style of this new film there would be 1000x more 'shots' fired and it would just be a clutter of action. As a case and point you can see in this vid that the birds of prey and defiant are more involved in the action with tighter manoeuvers and more frequent fire. The larger ships (warbird, vorch'a class and galaxy class) move slower, with more grace and more considered fire.
Last edited by LG John; 14 May 2009 at 01:04 PM.
14 May 2009, 01:38 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
No I'm not struggling with the concept at all, I just think using an 'alternate reality' is a cop out. It was good to have some episodes in TOS, Enterprise and DS9 that occasionally dipped into the alternate reality (where humans are called terrans) but what they seem to be doing here is setting this new reality (where vulcan is destroyed) as the reality and that everything picard, sisco and janeway experienced is an alternate to that. That's a slap in the face where you've subscribed to the reality portrayed through the storylines of TNG, DS9 and VOY.
What I fear they will do next is run a series of stories/films over the next few years where basically the entire star trek universe will be completely different. No more warp reactors and technobable...oh no, we'll have steam powered ships with lots of valves to turn, etc. No more will the ships primarily be ships of peace and exploration....oh no, when they fire there will be mad phaser fire and missile/torpedo fire from all over the ship because they are 'action' ships. In short they will make it darker and grittier to attract a new breed of viewers when, tbh, star trek IMHO was never envisaged to be like your Babylon 5's, etc.
It just has a totally different feel to it. Generally in star trek when a ship opens fire it's a few scathing lances of phaser fire and a few bursts of torpedo's. Even if there are many ships exchanging fire this allows the viewer to capture and appreciate the size (and grace) of what are supposed to be exceptionally large vessels. I mean, a Galaxy Glass starship is supposed to be nearly a kilometre long! In this new film it seemed like any time someone opened fire there was 20+ projectiles and continuous frantic streams of phaser fire. This, and the camera angles, made everything seem less graceful and smaller.
This is about as frantic as it should ever be IMHO. The viewer is given time to appreciate the design, relative size and manoeuvrability of each ship and each shot appears targeted, thought out and powerful. If this was done in the style of this new film there would be 1000x more 'shots' fired and it would just be a clutter of action. As a case and point you can see in this vid that the birds of prey and defiant are more involved in the action with tighter manoeuvers and more frequent fire. The larger ships (warbird, vorch'a class and galaxy class) move slower, with more grace and more considered fire.
What I fear they will do next is run a series of stories/films over the next few years where basically the entire star trek universe will be completely different. No more warp reactors and technobable...oh no, we'll have steam powered ships with lots of valves to turn, etc. No more will the ships primarily be ships of peace and exploration....oh no, when they fire there will be mad phaser fire and missile/torpedo fire from all over the ship because they are 'action' ships. In short they will make it darker and grittier to attract a new breed of viewers when, tbh, star trek IMHO was never envisaged to be like your Babylon 5's, etc.
It just has a totally different feel to it. Generally in star trek when a ship opens fire it's a few scathing lances of phaser fire and a few bursts of torpedo's. Even if there are many ships exchanging fire this allows the viewer to capture and appreciate the size (and grace) of what are supposed to be exceptionally large vessels. I mean, a Galaxy Glass starship is supposed to be nearly a kilometre long! In this new film it seemed like any time someone opened fire there was 20+ projectiles and continuous frantic streams of phaser fire. This, and the camera angles, made everything seem less graceful and smaller.
This is about as frantic as it should ever be IMHO. The viewer is given time to appreciate the design, relative size and manoeuvrability of each ship and each shot appears targeted, thought out and powerful. If this was done in the style of this new film there would be 1000x more 'shots' fired and it would just be a clutter of action. As a case and point you can see in this vid that the birds of prey and defiant are more involved in the action with tighter manoeuvers and more frequent fire. The larger ships (warbird, vorch'a class and galaxy class) move slower, with more grace and more considered fire.