Robert
Active Member
That's true. If they make him politically correct and they don't allow him to violate the prime directive any time he deems necessary then they can just call him Jean-Luc Picard.
-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
Star Trek
- Thread starter Anamnesis
- Start date
That's true. If they make him politically correct and they don't allow him to violate the prime directive any time he deems necessary then they can just call him Jean-Luc Picard.
abecedarian
Well-Known Member
:lol:
pontalba
Well-Known Member
Too true.
While there were some excellent threads in ST:NG, I could never feel the same way about it as TOS.
Robert
Active Member
Too true.
While there were some excellent threads in ST:NG, I could never feel the same way about it as TOS.
I like some of what they did with TNG, I just did't care for the characters. They seemed too cold or too sterile. Trying to like them was like trying to warm up to stainless steel in freezer. It just isn't going to happen.
shadforth
Member
I admit I was a bit dubious when originally hearing they were 'relaunching' the original Star Trek,but both the previews and critic's reviews were fairly mouth-watering! I never watched any of the spin-offs,and my son has only seen three or four episodes,but he seems more excited than I am! Any way,we're going to see it tomorrow morning.
speechless
New Member
OK, I'm not a trekker, though over the years I've probably seen most of the original series and movies, and bits and pieces of all the other series.
And I found the reimagined Star Trek both better and worse than I'd expected. I think the basic problem the movie has is that it doesn't know whether to be a prequel to the original series or a reboot for a new one; if you look at the more successful reboots of recent years (yer Spider-Mans, yer Battlestar Galacticas, both Batman franchises (discounting the non-Burton Burtons), and at least the first new Bond movie), one of the things you'll notice is that they usually wipe the slate clean and start over. Yes, there might be dozens of references for the fans of the old versions to enjoy (I loved Kirk's deadpan "Yeah... right" to a redshirt exclaiming how he couldn't wait to "kick some Romulan arse"), there might even be a few cameos for the old actors, but generally speaking the new versions stand on their own legs and tell their own story, acknowledge that it's a different age, not just by giving the characters different haircuts and use better special effects.
They do not, usually, have Adam West or Roger Moore running around like Yoda dispensing bits of wisdom, as Leonard Nimoy does here.
On the other hand, Star Trek '09 shares one problem with most of the other reboots; it's so focused on how the characters became what they are that they barely have time to be. And while I like that it focuses on the characters... do we need to see eight-year-old Spock getting bullied by his vulcan classmates? No, we do not, but the plot demands it. Like with, say, Iron Man you get the feeling that the story proper won't start until the next movie and all you saw in this movie (with its plot-for-plot's-sake and its Evil Alien 1A villain) was just a prologue setting up something else - and indeed, Star Trek ends on the classic opening line. To boldly go where no man has gone before... too bad they're all too aware that they have gone there before, and assume that the audience know where they are going next.
Taken together, it produces a curious effect; part loving homage, part brand-spanking new action movie where the actors try to imitate old characters that feel out of place among all the CGI effects. They belong to a different time period, and apart from some of the dialog and the simplistic plot, Star Trek '09 never really recaptures the wacky charm of the original. That said, the character interaction is good. Karl Urban is wonderfully over the top as McCoy ("Are you out of your fulcan' mind?!?"); Quinto's Emo Spock is pretty spot-on; and while he occasionally comes across as an insufferable brat, Pine's Kirk works better than I thought he would. There are scenes where he brings the same kind of calm insanity to the character that Shatner did, if considerably more lightweight.
Also, since when can Winona Ryder play a character who has a 25-ish-year-old son? Am I that old?!?
Also also,if you have a weapon that can produce a black hole... why bother drilling a hole to the planet's core to use it? Why not just, y'know, drop it on the ground?
Because, y'know, the original series was always so good about things like that. :roll:
All that said, whatever else Trek may or may not have been over the years, it was always entertaining. And Star Trek certainly entertains. After a slightly shaky start it keeps up the pace, delivers action and humour with many a character conflict. Kirk has sex with green-skinned women, Spock does the Vulcan neck pinch, Scottie beams people to and fro, and it gets the job done. Sure there's no real point to updating a series whose main selling point was its anachronistic charm, it's not like Star Trek has anything new to tell us these days. But hey, stuff blows up.
I completely agree. I thought the exact same thing: this movie felt like a prequel. By the time I felt the characters' personalities had been fully introduced, the movie was over. It was practically all about their backgrounds, which is fine, but for a first movie I felt it was too...well, I don't know the word.
That being said, I LOVED the movie. It was amazing. I never even watched Star Trek on TV but I still loved it
The Mythwriter
New Member
This is a very belated post, and I'm certainly not going to re-write a review I wrote for everyone I know, since they were all going to say, "Well, what did the Trekkie think?" I have to say it left me with mixed feelings. It payed great homage to the classics, it was fresh, looked amazing visually, and the acting was well cast. It even tried to maintain the classic formula, which has always been about exploring humanity's potential, and aspects of that were there, they tried. But the plot was mixed up, felt constructed and had holes all over the place.
I'll only name two issues I had... the Romulans barely resembled any Romulans I've ever seen, and the ship was just a blown-up version of the Scimitar from Nemesis. In fact, a lot of elements felt recycled from Nemesis. They were also preeetty shallow, and the motives were stretched. Basically, I felt they existed for plot, which disappointed me.
Second was the science. Yeah, I know, don't be the nerdy Trekkie who goes berserk over science fiction errors, but the older Treks always gave a nod to reality, and even had some believable, if not actually possible, explanations for the technologies. Barely anything of that sort for this one, and there was one huge screw up. So, a black hole has a few major theories, one, it has been suggested to be a time warp portal, which happens in XI. It's supposed to be a doomsday gravity well which obliterates all that enters it. That happens in XI. Wait, what? So... it conveniently oscillates between something that destroys planets and takes ships back in time. In fact, a block hole time warps Nero's ship and then one later crushes it. Which is it???
Ok I'm sorry I went on again for way too long. I just felt so much could have been better done. I felt more like I was watching Star Wars than Star Trek.
I'll only name two issues I had... the Romulans barely resembled any Romulans I've ever seen, and the ship was just a blown-up version of the Scimitar from Nemesis. In fact, a lot of elements felt recycled from Nemesis. They were also preeetty shallow, and the motives were stretched. Basically, I felt they existed for plot, which disappointed me.
Second was the science. Yeah, I know, don't be the nerdy Trekkie who goes berserk over science fiction errors, but the older Treks always gave a nod to reality, and even had some believable, if not actually possible, explanations for the technologies. Barely anything of that sort for this one, and there was one huge screw up. So, a black hole has a few major theories, one, it has been suggested to be a time warp portal, which happens in XI. It's supposed to be a doomsday gravity well which obliterates all that enters it. That happens in XI. Wait, what? So... it conveniently oscillates between something that destroys planets and takes ships back in time. In fact, a block hole time warps Nero's ship and then one later crushes it. Which is it???
Ok I'm sorry I went on again for way too long. I just felt so much could have been better done. I felt more like I was watching Star Wars than Star Trek.
CollegeGal09
New Member
I liked it and I can't wait for the next one.
Jez
New Member
Guess I'm in the minority on this one, I thought it sucked.
The plot was stupid and felt very secondary. Like an afterthought they sort of hacked together from old ST plots and figured the "woah, awesome" effects would distract us viewers from the ridiculous plot holes and jumps. I especially grew tired of the pointless plot digressions for the sole purpose of wowing us with CGI. Why are we wasting time from the main plot to watch Kirk get chased by a CGI space monster? Who cares? Unless the director was trying to be nice by providing a conveniently timed bathroom break, then I fail to see the point of scenes like this. The flashy pictures aren't that good, and even if they are, you're telling me you can't include them in a way that is relevant to the plot at large?
Everything up until the "crisis" began and they all boarded the Enterprise was boring, pointless, and could have been condensed in about five minutes of decent character development. The pacing was all over the place, and the beginning dragged on and on while the exciting parts were rushed over and too simply resolved. The humor of this Trek also didn't hold a candle to the humor of TOS. TOS was a subtle humor that worked well with the plot without diminishing the show. The humor in this movie, on the other hand, was stilted and cheapened the movie. Kirk as a spoiled brat wreaking a priceless Corvette? Not endearing.
The technology inconsistencies were also very annoying. I'm not one to quibble about technology and science in a sci-fi movie or show, but when they're standing around having sword fights when they have phasers in their pockets, I'm going to complain a bit. A movie that can't keep its technology straight and has something working in one scene and then suddenly not working in the next scene is a pet peeve of mine.
And as a pure Trekkie aside, I'm supposed to believe those were Romulans???
On a more positive note, the casting was actually pretty darn good.
The plot was stupid and felt very secondary. Like an afterthought they sort of hacked together from old ST plots and figured the "woah, awesome" effects would distract us viewers from the ridiculous plot holes and jumps. I especially grew tired of the pointless plot digressions for the sole purpose of wowing us with CGI. Why are we wasting time from the main plot to watch Kirk get chased by a CGI space monster? Who cares? Unless the director was trying to be nice by providing a conveniently timed bathroom break, then I fail to see the point of scenes like this. The flashy pictures aren't that good, and even if they are, you're telling me you can't include them in a way that is relevant to the plot at large?
Everything up until the "crisis" began and they all boarded the Enterprise was boring, pointless, and could have been condensed in about five minutes of decent character development. The pacing was all over the place, and the beginning dragged on and on while the exciting parts were rushed over and too simply resolved. The humor of this Trek also didn't hold a candle to the humor of TOS. TOS was a subtle humor that worked well with the plot without diminishing the show. The humor in this movie, on the other hand, was stilted and cheapened the movie. Kirk as a spoiled brat wreaking a priceless Corvette? Not endearing.
The technology inconsistencies were also very annoying. I'm not one to quibble about technology and science in a sci-fi movie or show, but when they're standing around having sword fights when they have phasers in their pockets, I'm going to complain a bit. A movie that can't keep its technology straight and has something working in one scene and then suddenly not working in the next scene is a pet peeve of mine.
And as a pure Trekkie aside, I'm supposed to believe those were Romulans???
On a more positive note, the casting was actually pretty darn good.
pontalba
Well-Known Member
LOL Well, there is something to what you say Jez, but....the ambiance of the characters was Original. I could believe that smart arse fellow as Kirk, right down to the bone. At first I was a bit skeptical about Spock, he did however grow on me. And all of a sudden I realized that the portrayal of this Spock was how I actually saw him in TOS. Now you must take into consideration my take on Kirk and Spock is colored by the um, 200 ST books I have.
Some of which show the "inner Spock". Plus remember that those books are approved by the "Official Star Trek Canon". So, TPTB approve of those emotional story lines involving Spock, and they also highlighted the deep friendship between Spock and Kirk, and the lengths they each would go to for each other. Natch McCoy is included in that. Now, regarding the Romulans. In TOS, there were two sets [for lack of a better word] of Romulans. The physically enhanced, and the Vulcan-like set. Romulans are genetically Vulcans...they are "rebels" that left Vulcan millennia ago when the Vulcans decided go to the peaceful route.
Yes, there were two sets of Klingons too.
But that's a whole 'nuther ball park. Plus...the guy they have for Scotty is absolutely Wonderful!