DVD Talk
Star Trek XI (Abrams, 2009) - Part 2 [Archive] - Page 3 - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Star Trek XI (Abrams, 2009) - Part 2


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

The Cow
04-28-09, 06:21 PM
This reviewers thoughts are what I feared.
http://www.scifimoviepage.com/star_trek-2009.html

Still sounds good to me :up:

(fear not.. they can still slingshot around the Sun to go back in time and grab a pregnant whale and save the Earth someday, with a reborn Spock - He did too much LDS ya know...)

lordwow
04-28-09, 06:29 PM
Still sounds good to me :up:

(fear not.. they can still slingshot around the Sun to go back in time and grab a pregnant whale and save the Earth someday, with a reborn Spock - He did too much LDS ya know...)

I hated that. You know in the original timeline Earth got destroyed right?

Shannon Nutt
04-28-09, 06:36 PM
The scifimoviepage review totally misrepresents Pine as Kirk:

He's NOT drunk in the bar scene...he's never drunk in the movie. Plus, Pine not doing a Shatner impersonation is one of the BEST choices he could have made...he IS Kirk without doing the role like Shatner did it. In many ways, Pine's Kirk is much more fun to watch than Quinto's Spock, because Pine is doing "his own thing" while Quinto is pretty much doing Nimoy. And bland? That reminds me of the old Variety review of the series where they called Shatner "wooden". Pine's a lot of things, but his Jim Kirk isn't bland.

Solid Snake
04-28-09, 06:59 PM
I hated that. You know in the original timeline Earth got destroyed right?

So people bitching about how their fucking up ST should shut up? I'm cool w/ that...finally something to stop their bitching (or continue irregardless). It's a good film so far from what they say...boo hoo.

Supermallet
04-28-09, 07:34 PM
Also.
"It's funny how people try to use the intentions of dead people whom they never met in an attempt to justify their opinions."

Wrong I have met him and a great many number of other trek related people. And you know as well as I do he'd be rolling over in his grave about this. But as others pointed out he was always at issue with what his vision was for it.

I'm not saying it won't be a good movie. That's not my point at all. From the sound of it , it's gonna be great. But is it Trek, I wonder.


It is absolutely Trek. As long as you can accept that new actors are playing these characters, I can't see how you will walk out disappointed. It's that good.

Deep_lurk
04-28-09, 11:37 PM
Still sounds good to me :up:

(fear not.. they can still slingshot around the Sun to go back in time and grab a pregnant whale and save the Earth someday, with a reborn Spock - He did too much LDS ya know...)

Spock is a Mormon?

harrydoyle
04-29-09, 09:09 AM
It is absolutely Trek. As long as you can accept that new actors are playing these characters, I can't see how you will walk out disappointed. It's that good.

Yeah, they after all, are only characters. But maybe it's just me, I never have much trouble distinguishing a person from a role.

grip
04-29-09, 11:59 AM
This reviewers thoughts are what I feared.
http://www.scifimoviepage.com/star_trek-2009.html



Ah...yeah im sure it is....


"The many liberties Abrams takes with these iconic characters are bound to infuriate anal trekkies."

Groucho
04-29-09, 12:02 PM
Spock is a Mormon?It saddens me to have to explain this, but The Cow was making a winking reference to a joke in Star Trek IV.

DVD Josh
04-29-09, 12:17 PM
Wrong I have met him and a great many number of other trek related people. And you know as well as I do he'd be rolling over in his grave about this. But as others pointed out he was always at issue with what his vision was for it.


Sure you did, and you would all listen to your SACDs and watch laserdiscs and talk about the good times.

Bandoman
04-29-09, 12:37 PM
It saddens me to have to explain this, but The Cow was making a winking reference to a joke in Star Trek IV.

Don't be disheartened, Groucho. Now that Trek is reaching out to a new audience, we can expect to see people in these threads who don't even know the Reliant's prefix code.

stinkeye
04-29-09, 12:45 PM
Don't be disheartened, Groucho. Now that Trek is reaching out to a new audience, we can expect to see people in these threads who don't even know the Reliant's prefix code.

You're assuming he hasn't changed the combination. He's quite intelligent.

Bandoman
04-29-09, 01:00 PM
:lol:

:up:

pinata242
04-29-09, 01:03 PM
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h142/joelh2000/Fun/ogre.jpg

Supermallet
04-29-09, 02:56 PM
:lol:

:up:

I second this.

hdtv00
04-29-09, 03:06 PM
Sure you did, and you would all listen to your SACDs and watch laserdiscs and talk about the good times.

Believe what you want, %#&$ #$# and your pointless post.

The Bus
04-29-09, 03:32 PM
Don't be disheartened, Groucho. Now that Trek is reaching out to a new audience, we can expect to see people in these threads who don't even know the Reliant's prefix code.

:wave: I don't know what you nerds are talking about but the 'splosions in the trailer are enough for me.

hasslein
04-29-09, 04:08 PM
The main issue I take is Captain Kirk was cool, and Abrams (from what I see in the teasers) turned him into a poser (on his motorcycle) and an abysmal attempt to make him cool, eg. the horrendous line he uses on Uhura, (paraphrasing from the teaser I saw last night,) "What's your name, I'm gonna guess, oh that's what I would have guessed." Hardy f'ing har. UGH...

Chew
04-29-09, 09:10 PM
Anyone who watched Lost tonight mind telling me exactly who the announcer said was the director? It certainly didn't sound like JJ Abrams. More like Jim Jebramson or something. :lol:

superdeluxe
04-29-09, 09:10 PM
You are right, it is going to suck.

Red Dog
04-30-09, 09:48 AM
Anyone who watched Lost tonight

That was one bizarre sneak peek.

superdeluxe
04-30-09, 10:29 AM
Broadcast Film Critics gives Star Trek 93/100. and its critic choice award.

For comparison, Slumdog millionaire got 92/100, and Dark Knight got 96/100

http://www.bfca.org/movie/movie.php?id=2766%20bts

Deftones
04-30-09, 10:48 AM
Anyone who watched Lost tonight mind telling me exactly who the announcer said was the director? It certainly didn't sound like JJ Abrams. More like Jim Jebramson or something. :lol:


Sounded like JJ Abrams to me. :shrug:

Chew
04-30-09, 11:30 AM
I rewinded it like three times: It didn't sound like JJ Abrams. Might be a different announcer depending on the time zone?

buckee1
04-30-09, 11:50 AM
You're assuming he hasn't changed the combination. He's quite intelligent.

How do we know he'll keep his word? 16309 btw.

Sean O'Hara
04-30-09, 12:07 PM
Broadcast Film Critics gives Star Trek 93/100. and its critic choice award.


Well, if Gene Shalit and Ben Lyons like it, it must be fantastic.

Bandoman
04-30-09, 12:59 PM
Where does Michael Medved stand on this movie? Is it morally ok?

Artman
04-30-09, 01:48 PM
Where does Michael Medved stand on this movie? Is it morally ok?

I'm a daily listener, I'll let ya know :)

Red Dog
04-30-09, 01:49 PM
Broadcast Film Critics gives Star Trek 93/100. and its critic choice award.

For comparison, Slumdog millionaire got 92/100, and Dark Knight got 96/100

http://www.bfca.org/movie/movie.php?id=2766%20bts


Now I'm more confused than ever.

Shannon Nutt
04-30-09, 03:16 PM
The main issue I take is Captain Kirk was cool, and Abrams (from what I see in the teasers) turned him into a poser (on his motorcycle) and an abysmal attempt to make him cool, eg. the horrendous line he uses on Uhura, (paraphrasing from the teaser I saw last night,) "What's your name, I'm gonna guess, oh that's what I would have guessed." Hardy f'ing har. UGH...

Trust me, Pine's Kirk is the very definition of cool. It's a star-making performance, if you'll pardon the pun. It's exactly the way I envisioned a young Kirk would be like.

BJacks
04-30-09, 03:19 PM
I went in not expecting much, and it did surpass my expectations. It's a fun film that whips through the running time. It looks and feels like a summer blockbuster which is a good thing for what it is.

riley_dude
04-30-09, 03:56 PM
That was one bizarre sneak peek.

Loved how the Enterprise zipped out of the Lost credits.
Monster scene was ok.

Groucho
04-30-09, 04:00 PM
Where does Michael Medved stand on this movie? Is it morally ok?At one point in the film, Kirk says "I hate Christians AND the military." He then turns to the audience and shouts "And so should YOU!!!"

Superboy
04-30-09, 04:18 PM
Hrm. I want to see the movie, but my expectations aren't high. Not because I don't think it'll be a good movie, I'm sure it's going to be great, it's just that I don't know quite what to expect.

A lot of Trekkies have a problem with Star Trek going mainstream. I honestly don't have a problem with it, because every time it happened, it was because the franchise needed to make a necessary leap in quality. TNG was horrible when it stuck to the formula of TOS. It really shined when it was trying to reach the general populace. DS9 had really good ratings, beating out other sci-fi shows at the time and other nerd staples like Buffy, and that show deviated from the original series premise the most. Voyager and Enterprise sucked because they got stuck recycling the past and were only great when they tried to do something new.

superdeluxe
04-30-09, 04:39 PM
Exactly, DS9 was much different than TOS and TNG, I think that is why I liked it so much.

Shannon Nutt
04-30-09, 05:18 PM
I would say this STAR TREK movie "goes mainstream" in the same ways STAR TREK IV went mainstream - that is to say, it's much more "accessible," to the casual and non-fans, but it's also still very much "Star Trek". Minus the humpback whales, of course.

So if you hated The Voyage Home, you'll probably hate this. If you thought that movie was a delight, you'll be greatly pleased with the new film.

chris_sc77
04-30-09, 05:36 PM
At one point in the film, Kirk says "I hate Christians AND the military." He then turns to the audience and shouts "And so should YOU!!!"

Well now I do wanna see this movie...

superdeluxe
04-30-09, 07:05 PM
http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs035.snc1/3279_76279888715_7774903715_1795483_2707229_n.jpg

Superboy
04-30-09, 10:38 PM
I would say this STAR TREK movie "goes mainstream" in the same ways STAR TREK IV went mainstream - that is to say, it's much more "accessible," to the casual and non-fans, but it's also still very much "Star Trek". Minus the humpback whales, of course.

So if you hated The Voyage Home, you'll probably hate this. If you thought that movie was a delight, you'll be greatly pleased with the new film.

Star Trek VI was pretty mainstream too. You don't have to watch the previous movies to understand why Kirk hates Klingons (it's explained briefly)... or why the Federation distrusts them so much. They're aliens.

riley_dude
04-30-09, 11:37 PM
Rebooting a Classic
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20246950_20263258_20275802,00.html

For a while now, the Star Trek franchise has been stuck in neutral. After years of drifting in space, leaking gassy TV flops (Enterprise) and noxious features (Nemesis), the Star Trek brand had ossified into a pop culture punchline.

dave94
05-01-09, 12:02 AM
Just got back from a radio station free preview....It was AWESOME! I think most avid fans will be pleasantly surprised at just what a great time they're having while watching it.

Seriously, while not being a huge Trek fan, I still went in without any high expectations; and yet I found myself totally buying into this new take on it, and was reminded of all the things that made me like the t.v. and previous movie installments. (well, SOME of them)

I think I speak for the entire audience tonight, both Trekkies and not, in saying that we're ready to see what comes next! Give it a chance, y'all, and this may very well be the best of this year's summer crop. Early to say, I know, but I thought it was that good.

Supermallet
05-01-09, 12:43 AM
I agree. This film is so well done that I will be shocked if something better comes out this year. It would take something on the level of the Dark Knight to top Star Trek.

flagstone
05-01-09, 07:59 AM
Loved how the Enterprise zipped out of the Lost credits.
Monster scene was ok.

This is the first non-trailer clip I've seen for the film, and the thing that got me was the score - I don't know if it holds up throughout, but at least for that scene, the retro-style music cues were great.

Chew
05-01-09, 08:32 AM
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2009-04-30-star-trek-abrams_N.htm) has an good article on the movie.

Here's the one line that has me concerned now:

The new film could come up short in terms of demand for a sequel — even if it succeeds well beyond anything Star Trek has done before, Poland says.

Given the $130-150m budget, I'm guessing it might need well over $200m domestic to be considered a "hit".

0073735963
05-01-09, 11:57 AM
I am so pumped for this movie, especially after those who have seen it provided their thoughts (unlike Wolverine which I'm now skipping at least this weekend over all the bad reviews). I'm registered (and my wife, friends, etc) to win tickets to a screening tomorrow, we find out today if we were chosen. Usually the theater lets you know ahead of time when they will be giving out screening passes and you just go and pick them up, but for this one you had to register for a drawing...ugh...I want to see this movie now :-P. Fallback will be seeing it in IMAX at 7pm on the 7th...

lordwow
05-01-09, 12:25 PM
It doesn't really need to be a hit, they've already greenlit the sequel haven't they?

riley_dude
05-01-09, 02:37 PM
Checked for the BK glassed today. They start Monday.

Breakfast with Girls
05-01-09, 03:45 PM
At one point in the film, Kirk says "I hate Christians AND the military." He then turns to the audience and shouts "And so should YOU!!!"rotfl

Iron_Giant
05-01-09, 08:03 PM
I am flying to San Fran Bay Area to see it with 3 of my best friends. What a great way to renew friendships: Spending time with 3 men and their wives/kids for my Birthday - then go see a great movie.

Live long and prosper

RobLutter
05-02-09, 03:03 PM
Having already seen the film once (I was at the Austin premiere) I still can't get how awesome it was out of my mind and I am eagerly anticipating seeing the first show on Thursday and again on Saturday with my girlfriend.

It is DAMN good.

Note on the end credits music: that's about IT for classic Star Trek music. The entire score of the film is entirely new it looks forward much more than it looks back... not to say it's bad... it's one of those soundtracks that goes so perfectly with what's going on screen that you barely notice that it's there.

If you're in the Austin area, the Alamo Drafthouse has some interesting film food and beverage pairings for Star Trek showings they just announced like...

Romulan Ale (from Star Trek II)
Klingon Blood Wine (from 'Enterprise')
Rakatajino Coffee (from DS9)
Picard's Earl Grey Tea (From TNG)
Plomeek Soup (from TOS)
Kirk's Ego Booster (T-bone Steak, corn and "McCoy's" baked beans from Star Trek V)

http://blog.originalalamo.com/2009/04/30/its-summer-set-phasers-for-stunning/

Supermallet
05-02-09, 03:22 PM
There are a few Trek music cues in the score throughout the film, but they're used subtly.

Goldberg74
05-02-09, 04:31 PM
In the Lost special sneak peek... did anyone else think that...

... the second creature that ate the bird creature had too many similarities to the creature from Cloverfield?

Artman
05-02-09, 04:41 PM
Been listening to the score... it aint Star Wars that's for sure. Actually the soundtrack is pretty weak, 45 minutes, short tracks except for the last one. A couple main themes but I didn't find a lot of depth to it.

Artman
05-02-09, 04:44 PM
In the Lost special sneak peek... did anyone else think that...

... the second creature that ate the bird creature had too many similarities to the creature from Cloverfield?

Yeah, it's the same concept artist that designed it actually. Most of us at work are in agreement the red creature just doesn't look like it should live there. But I don't really know the Star Trek universe, is that just how it rolls?

lordwow
05-02-09, 05:40 PM
Non-humanoid creatures in Star Trek are fairly rare, and nothing like that has been seen on the shows as far as I recall.

Shannon Nutt
05-02-09, 07:48 PM
Non-humanoid creatures in Star Trek are fairly rare, and nothing like that has been seen on the shows as far as I recall.

The Naked Time, This Side of Paradise, The Devil In The Dark, The City On The Edge Of Forever, Operation Annihilate, Obsession, The Trouble With Tribbles, The Gamesters of Triskelion, The Immunity Syndrome, Return To Tomorrow, and The Lights of Zetar all featured non-humanoid aliens to one degree or another. And that's just from TOS.

The only reason we haven't seen anything like the giant monster in the new Trek movie has more to do with budget than anything else. But we did have the Horta, which is about the best a low budget 60s TV series could do. :)

lordwow
05-02-09, 08:04 PM
I would be willing to bet that between all the series, the humanoid to non-humanoid ratio of aliens/creatures is like 20:1

Supermallet
05-03-09, 05:02 AM
Given that Star Trek was about character more than spectacle, it makes sense to have humanoid aliens instead of giant monsters like in that clip.

And I think the first monster was meant to be a throwback to the guard dogs in Star Trek VI.

Matthew Chmiel
05-03-09, 09:38 PM
For all the bitching and moaning about the giant monsters, the scene in question is the only scene where any of the characters encounter gigantic aliens.

The scene in question takes place after Spock (who is acting as captain) kicks Kirk off the Enterprise for wanting to go back to fight Nero rather than inform the Starfleet. When Kirk lands on the ice planet, he encounters two giant monsters before being rescued by a specific person I will not mention due to spoiling even more.

Long story short, this is the best film in the series since Khan.

Abrams has complete respect for the franchise and makes it more in-tune with the original series, just with a lot more money put into it. There are things I would've wanted more from. For example, Kirk and Spock take up a majority of the film; but I would've loved to seen more participation from the rest of the gang especially with the film's inspired casting. It could've also used a lot more action (the film's only real action set piece comes during the finale), but for an establishing film within a new franchise, I loved it. It's like the Batman Begins of the Trek universe.

I also loved the way Abrams handled that the film is a reboot. The adventures the fans are used to are still existent and canon, just in another dimension of time.

Supermallet
05-04-09, 02:02 AM
Given the storyline, it makes sense to focus on Spock and Kirk in this one. And we got enough of the rest of the cast that we cared about them (except Scotty, you can never have enough Simon Pegg).

Matthew Chmiel
05-04-09, 01:30 PM
Given the storyline, it makes sense to focus on Spock and Kirk in this one. And we got enough of the rest of the cast that we cared about them (except Scotty, you can never have enough Simon Pegg).
Agreed, but I would've loved to seen more of Cho, Pegg and Urban.

Supermallet
05-04-09, 04:38 PM
Cho had the least to do by far. I can't wait to see the sequel, which will hopefully broaden the scope to encompass the whole cast more completely. Especially Pegg and Urban.

lordwow
05-04-09, 07:18 PM
Boston Globe review came out today, 4 stars (out of 4). They've given it front page treatment naming it "The best prequel ever":

http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2009/05/05/a_fresh_frontier/

zoomgirl
05-04-09, 09:38 PM
I just got back from watching this at the Regal on 42nd Street in Manhattan. I really thought they did a good job. I got advance screening tickets and took my sister. I am more of a casual fan, while she is a fangirl. We both enjoyed it and she LOVED how they put a lot of classic Star Trek lines in the movie ( I was able to recognize them as well) I feel the casting was well done, the action and special effects were good and while sometimes storylines in Sci Fi can lose me I had no trouble following along.
I think you guys are gonna enjoy it!

purplechoe
05-04-09, 10:13 PM
Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film

thelwig14
05-04-09, 11:40 PM
Just got back from the Austin aintitcool Imax screening.

I do not like Star Trek. I think it is excellent in concept, terrible in execution. I only enjoyed Khan and parts of Spock.

But...I thought this was borderline flawless. One of the Top 20 movies I have ever seen. Not only was it entertaining and an amazing reboot, it was also very funny.

SkipKassidy
05-05-09, 12:55 AM
Just came from a screening in Houston.

Simply put, Star Trek is the reason we love movies in the first place.

Sitting in the theater, it was like being a kid again. I was never a fan of Star Trek, having only seen a few films, but I remember the movies I loved as a kid. Indiana Jones. The Goonies. Stuff like that. Star Trek is a movie that makes me proud of loving movies. It has action, comedy, drama. The casting job is perfect.

davidh777
05-05-09, 01:46 AM
Saw it. Loved it.

GenPion
05-05-09, 02:57 AM
I can't frakkin' wait to see this movie.

Superboy
05-05-09, 07:37 AM
Cho had the least to do by far. I can't wait to see the sequel, which will hopefully broaden the scope to encompass the whole cast more completely. Especially Pegg and Urban.

Don't bet on it. Scotty got more screen time in his TNG cameo than almost the entire TOS episodes and the movies put together. He was a minor character at best.

McCoy, however, feels criminally underutilized. As far as characterization goes, he was spot on.

Loved this movie. Felt the tone was perfect. Loved the special effects, set design, cinematography, acting, script, and how little they used treknobabble (they use "beam" more often than "transport").

I don't know why some reviewers were complaining about the story being fractious and whatnot, because it was really easy to follow. A good script really made things flow well.

My only complaint is that if you divide the movie into three acts, the second act is by far the weakest when it should have been the strongest. It starts off with a bang, and builds tremendous momentum, then the movie slows down (but doesn't grind to a complete stop), before things start picking up again.

Star Trek is exciting again. It's fun, it's adventurous, and it harkens back to that swashbuckling feel of TWOK (something that Nemesis tried so desperately to copy, but failed).

I bought nachos and a soda and from the opening moments they were untouched throughout the whole movie.

superdeluxe
05-05-09, 07:51 AM
The anticipation of this movie is making me go bonkers

superdeluxe
05-05-09, 07:53 AM
saw this over at trekbbs:

"This film is fucking brilliant!!! Sorry it took me a while to post this but I wet myself and was sick down my t-shirt because I was so excited and in love with this fucking movie which is brilliant. Did I say it was brilliant? I feel like a huge weight has been lifted off my shoulders and my faith in Science Fiction cinema has been restored. In your face Jar Jar you idiotic nonsense fucksmack. Live long and prosper all the fucking way I say!!! Oh god I can't stop crying! I have to call Mike!"

Tim Bisley (North London Science Fiction Review)

lol :D

Chew
05-05-09, 08:13 AM
The anticipation of this movie is making me go bonkers

+1

At this point, I'm almost afraid my expectations are too high.

RichC2
05-05-09, 08:17 AM
Negative review (2.5 / 4) from AP: http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.ap.org/review-star-trek-bold-but-with-some-trouble-ap

Namely, there was a plot point they didn't like so despite excellent execution it isn't a good movie. What sucks is thats the review that will be printed in a lot of newspapers, not that it will make a huge different :D

cactusoly
05-05-09, 08:27 AM
Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film

This was hilarious

Xander
05-05-09, 08:56 AM
I'm totally stealing the word fucksmack. :lol:

Still super pumped to see this. Glad to see some positive reviews. :)

superdeluxe
05-05-09, 09:14 AM
Negative review (2.5 / 4) from AP: http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.ap.org/review-star-trek-bold-but-with-some-trouble-ap

Namely, there was a plot point they didn't like so despite excellent execution it isn't a good movie. What sucks is thats the review that will be printed in a lot of newspapers, not that it will make a huge different :D

even the best movies in the world you get reviews like this.

Kal-El
05-05-09, 11:27 AM
+1

At this point, I'm almost afraid my expectations are too high.

+1 (or would that be 2?)

Then again, I thought the same thing about TDK, and came out blown away by it. I just want to see this already.

GenPion
05-05-09, 11:34 AM
+1 (or would that be 2?)

Then again, I thought the same thing about TDK, and came out blown away by it. I just want to see this already.

+3. I can't wait till Thursday... but, alas, I have to.

Am I the only one that went into The Dark Knight with no expectations? And I was one of the biggest fans of Batman Begins. I was there opening night (for both films actually) and as a fan of both Batman and Christopher Nolan. But I wasn't really expecting anything in particular from The Dark Knight, but I knew what I hoped for it to be. I tried not having expectations because I wanted to be surprised. And the film that was made was absolutely the kind of Batman film (in theme, tone, and execution) that I had wanted my entire life of Bat-fandom.

For Star Trek, my expectations are high because of all this positive word of mouth already starting, but I'm trying to keep expectations in check. Somehow though I'm not sure if that will happen. I am absolutely pumped about seeing this. It doesn't help that I am a diehard fan of J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof either...

Supermallet
05-05-09, 12:14 PM
Saw it for a third time last night. Just as gripping and entertaining as the first two viewings. I can't wait to see how a sold out opening night audience reacts to this.

superdeluxe
05-05-09, 12:24 PM
I would have watched this opening night, but I really wanted to experience this in Imax.

Does anyone know if some of the scenes will be different compared to Imax and regular theater?

mdc3000
05-05-09, 12:31 PM
Saw it for a third time last night. Just as gripping and entertaining as the first two viewings. I can't wait to see how a sold out opening night audience reacts to this.

THREE TIMES!!!!??? As if I wasn't jealous enough of all these people seeing it early - fuck. Is it Thursday yet?

pinata242
05-05-09, 12:35 PM
Saw it for a third time last night.

I'm going 7pm Thursday night. Debating taking my 8 year-old to it. She likes going to the movies and is pretty open to liking whatever she sees even with no context.

That said, do you think it would be worth the cost of a ticket to bring her on a school night? I'm sure she'd enjoy it, but not as much as she will Transformers 2 and Harry Potter.

superdeluxe
05-05-09, 12:43 PM
Rotten Tomatoes update:

25/25

8.0/10 (its average rating has gone up .4 I think)

Metacritic:

89/100

Chew
05-05-09, 01:03 PM
Saw it for a third time last night.

Grrrrrr :mad::lol:

Supermallet
05-05-09, 01:07 PM
I'm going 7pm Thursday night. Debating taking my 8 year-old to it. She likes going to the movies and is pretty open to liking whatever she sees even with no context.

That said, do you think it would be worth the cost of a ticket to bring her on a school night? I'm sure she'd enjoy it, but not as much as she will Transformers 2 and Harry Potter.

I think she'd enjoy it, sure. It's a crowd pleaser, no doubt about it. Not as geared towards kids as Harry Potter, obviously, but if she enjoys summer blockbusters in general then she should take to this.

superdeluxe
05-05-09, 01:07 PM
A good article from Rueters:

"Star Trek" aims to stun fans
Tue May 5, 2009 10:50am EDT
By Frank Simons

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - When director J.J. Abrams dreamed up the new "Star Trek" movie, he took the prologue to the original television series to mind, and at least one key person approves -- Mr. Logical himself, Spock.

For new "Trekkies" -- and there will likely be many when the movie debuts in U.S. theaters on Friday -- the 1960s TV show started with a prologue about the voyages of the starship Enterprise and its crew that would "boldly go where no (one) has gone before" in the "final frontier" of space.

To reignite the franchise that spawned five TV series and 10 movies over roughly 40 years, Abrams has done exactly that -- gone where no other "Star Trek" storyteller had gone before -- with a tale of how Captain James T. Kirk, Dr. "Bones" McCoy and the Vulcan Mr. Spock came to be shipmates.

But changing the "canon" -- events and characters that shape "Star Trek" lore -- could leave legions of old "Trekkies" thinking Abrams had done something "highly illogical," as Spock might have once said. Old Spock Leonard Nimoy begs to differ.

"Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae," Nimoy told Reuters. "Open your mind! Be a 'Star Trek' fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'."

Where will audiences be taken? Backward is the way ahead.

They will learn confident Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) was a brawling bad boy from Iowa who joins the Star Fleet Academy, and beats the impossible "no win" simulator test that was dreamed up by the young and "logical" Spock (Zachary Quinto).

Together with crew mates McCoy, Nyota Uhura, Hikaru Sulu, Pavel Chekov and engineer Scotty, they board the Enterprise as young men and women on their first adventure in space.

The film, produced by Viacom Inc's Paramount pictures, moves at warp speed as the crew engages the villain Nero (Eric Bana) who has an eye for evil.

'GREAT JOB,' SAYS SPOCK

Nimoy, 78, is the only actor from the original TV series and "Star Trek" movies to also claim a role in the new film, playing Spock Prime, who helps set in motion the new future.

He heaped praise on the 31-year-old Quinto for taking Spock in a new direction as he first despises Kirk then grows to have a grudging respect for the man that will become his captain.

"I couldn't have improved on what he did," Nimoy said. "He did a great job, a great job, and I admire his choices."

After more than 40 years, Nimoy seems to have reached a comfort level with the character from whom he once wanted to distance himself. Nimoy even wrote one book called "I Am Not Spock", but later followed it with, "I Am Spock".

Nimoy was "ready to play the wise old character that hands down some help and philosophy to the young people", he said. "Settled, resolved, comfortable ... The Spock I played in this movie is pretty much me. Pretty much where I am in my life."

Whether fans settle for the new "Star Trek" awaits Friday's debut, but among comments at www.trekspace.org was this from Ben J Grimm: "I simply REFUSE to support ParaMOUND in their DEGRADATION of my beloved STAR TREK."

So "Grimm" may be disappointed in early reviews because "Star Trek" is winning raves. At review aggregator rottentomatoes.com, the movie rates a 100 percent positive.

The Hollywood Reporter says "all the familiar characters are instantly identifiable, the film gives Paramount Pictures a new lease of life on its franchise."

davidh777
05-05-09, 01:36 PM
+1

At this point, I'm almost afraid my expectations are too high.

I was the same so I avoided reviews (and this thread) so I wouldn't get myself too amped up. But it completely lived up to what my expectations would have been.

N2DVD
05-05-09, 04:16 PM
Negative review (2.5 / 4) from AP: http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.ap.org/review-star-trek-bold-but-with-some-trouble-ap

Namely, there was a plot point they didn't like so despite excellent execution it isn't a good movie. What sucks is thats the review that will be printed in a lot of newspapers, not that it will make a huge different :D

But Rotten Tomatoes still counted it as fresh...

riotinmyskull
05-05-09, 04:19 PM
all these postive reviews have made me extremely anxious to see this.

superdeluxe
05-05-09, 04:34 PM
But Rotten Tomatoes still counted it as fresh...

Rottentomatoes is kind of strange about that sometimes, I would suppose a 2.5/4 is 62%, RT deems anything over 60% as fresh

superdeluxe
05-05-09, 05:01 PM
I wonder if the Daily News likes it or not:

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/9774/nydn.jpg

RichC2
05-05-09, 05:05 PM
Good question, they seem a bit undecided.

Tracer Bullet
05-05-09, 05:28 PM
I wonder what time I should get to the theater to get on line for a 7PM show Thursday?

OldBoy
05-05-09, 05:32 PM
i am one who loves the movies, but never ever got into any of the series' including the original. most of the theatrical productions have that certain quality that i admire in sci-fi movies. there are certain scenes in so many that i just love even if i don't love the entire movie as a whole.

OldBoy
05-05-09, 05:33 PM
I wonder if the Daily News likes it or not:

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/9774/nydn.jpg

WTF????????????????????

Joba Chamberlain's mom was arrested?

Nick Danger
05-05-09, 05:54 PM
I saw a little bit of Abrams on Charlie Rose. He basically said that he, unlike the earlier Star Trek movies, was going to do it right.

Making Spock the creator of the Kobayashi Maru training simulation is a lot like those old comic books where Superboy and Batboy rode bicycles together. It's just wrong. An unbeatable exercise would have been created by a sneaky old guy with a good understanding of human psychology, not a cadet from Vulcan.

lordwow
05-05-09, 06:07 PM
Isn't Spock an instructor at the academy?

superdeluxe
05-05-09, 06:31 PM
I wonder what time I should get to the theater to get on line for a 7PM show Thursday?

Do you need to be first? somewhere in the middle or what?

Nick Danger
05-05-09, 06:58 PM
Isn't Spock an instructor at the academy?

I don't know. I haven't paid much attention to the movie.

If he is, while Kirk is still a cadet, shouldn't he be much higher ranked than Kirk by the time Kirk is captain of the Enterprise, instead of just being Kirk's first officer?

Or maybe the Academy uses people who don't quite have what it takes.

lordwow
05-05-09, 06:59 PM
If he is, while Kirk is still a cadet, shouldn't he be much higher ranked than Kirk by the time Kirk is captain of the Enterprise, instead of just being Kirk's first officer?


I'm pretty sure he is, and he does.

hasslein
05-05-09, 07:07 PM
I'm not surprised by the reviews. Isn't Abrams the spawn of writers from Variety or the Hollywood Reporter?

Solid Snake
05-05-09, 07:20 PM
Do you need to be first? somewhere in the middle or what?

I'd go at the latest 1 1/2hrs before the showing for a good seat. 2 hrs to be safe.

superdeluxe
05-05-09, 07:39 PM
I'd go at the latest 1 1/2hrs before the showing for a good seat. 2 hrs to be safe.

exactly. Our favorite seats are usually the first row up..where they have areas below for the handicapped seats (We call these the 'rail' seats). This way you can put your feet up on the 'rail' instead of having them squished in.

superdeluxe
05-05-09, 07:40 PM
I'm not surprised by the reviews. Isn't Abrams the spawn of writers from Variety or the Hollywood Reporter?

That would make sense if the variety and the hollywood reporter was the only publications that were going ga-ga over star trek.

Tracer Bullet
05-05-09, 07:57 PM
Do you need to be first? somewhere in the middle or what?

I just want a good seat in the middle.

cranberries fan
05-05-09, 10:03 PM
I just want a good seat in the middle.


Dam right on that I hate any seat outside of the middle of the screen!

Matthew Chmiel
05-05-09, 10:59 PM
When I went to the advance screening on Saturday morning, I got to the theater two hours before it started. The line at that point was about 50-60 people deep and I ended up having to sit on the side.

I have passes to see it in IMAX tomorrow night for 7pm. I am going to leave work around 4pm to hopefully get to the theater around 4:30-5pm. The theater in question have half the seats raised (stadium seating) so you get a perfect view of the screen while the other half are on the floor (blah).

hasslein
05-05-09, 11:05 PM
That would make sense if the variety and the hollywood reporter was the only publications that were going ga-ga over star trek.

Well, I'm sure they have friends. I admit I'm biased because I think Abrams is a tool...

Another irritation is that Dr. McCoy, who is very much a southern (Georgia) character, is played by an Aussie... I think Karl Urban(that's his name?) was fantastic as Julius Caesar on Xena, but he's not Dr. McCoy.... Gary Sinise would have been my choice.

Matthew Chmiel
05-05-09, 11:18 PM
Another irritation is that Dr. McCoy, who is very much a southern (Georgia) character, is played by an Aussie... I think Karl Urban(that's his name?) was fantastic as Julius Caesar on Xena, but he's not Dr. McCoy.... Gary Sinise would have been my choice.
Did you see the movie?

Because I did and Urban is easily the most inspired casting of the entire flick and he nails McCoy. As I mentioned earlier, I wish we got to see more of him during the two hours.

tanman
05-05-09, 11:29 PM
Did you see the movie?

Because I did and Urban is easily the most inspired casting of the entire flick and he nails McCoy. As I mentioned earlier, I wish we got to see more of him during the two hours.

Yeah...I haven't seen it yet but just realized that he is Eomer.Totally didn't realize it.

Draven
05-05-09, 11:32 PM
Another irritation is that Dr. McCoy, who is very much a southern (Georgia) character, is played by an Aussie... I think Karl Urban(that's his name?) was fantastic as Julius Caesar on Xena, but he's not Dr. McCoy.... Gary Sinise would have been my choice.

Thank god you weren't in charge of casting.

Supermallet
05-06-09, 12:19 AM
I don't know. I haven't paid much attention to the movie.

If he is, while Kirk is still a cadet, shouldn't he be much higher ranked than Kirk by the time Kirk is captain of the Enterprise, instead of just being Kirk's first officer?

Or maybe the Academy uses people who don't quite have what it takes.

If you must know:

Spock is a commander by the time Kirk is a cadet. According to a line in the film, they say that he has "programmed" the Kobayashi Maru test for four years. I'm not sure if this means he created it or is just the current administrator. He is Captain Pike's first officer. After being attacked by Nero, who takes Pike hostage, Spock is promoted to acting captain of the Enterprise, while Kirk is promoted to first officer.

hasslein
05-06-09, 12:24 AM
Thank god you weren't in charge of casting.

C'mon. Gary Sinise has got a lot of DeForest Kelley in him. The look, the drawl, and McCoy is Kirk's senior by over a decade.

Supermallet
05-06-09, 12:32 AM
Karl Urban was perfect as McCoy.

Gunde
05-06-09, 01:46 AM
Wow to the reviews this thing is getting. Still 100% at RT

Superboy
05-06-09, 03:22 AM
I'm pretty sure he is, and he does.

Yes, he does.

Superboy
05-06-09, 03:58 AM
C'mon. Gary Sinise has got a lot of DeForest Kelley in him. The look, the drawl, and McCoy is Kirk's senior by over a decade.

And his cantankerous demeanor. LIEUUUUTEEEEENNNNNANT DAAAAAAAAAAANNNN!!!!!!!

Mr. Salty
05-06-09, 05:33 AM
Another irritation is that Dr. McCoy, who is very much a southern (Georgia) character, is played by an Aussie...
He's from New Zealand actually, not Australia.

C'mon. Gary Sinise has got a lot of DeForest Kelley in him. The look, the drawl, and McCoy is Kirk's senior by over a decade.

For god's sake, Gary Sinise is 54 years old. That's 10 years older than DeForest Kelley was in TOS.

Peacebone
05-06-09, 08:45 AM
Just about 30 hours til I see this! Can't wait :)

Mopower
05-06-09, 08:50 AM
C'mon. Gary Sinise has got a lot of DeForest Kelley in him. The look, the drawl, and McCoy is Kirk's senior by over a decade.

Gary Sinise would be a good choice if this movie was being made in 1999.

superdeluxe
05-06-09, 09:55 AM
RT update: 38/38 7.9/10

Metacritic: 94/100 (#8 all time) based on 8 reviews (most likely only 20-30 more reviews left)

islandclaws
05-06-09, 10:38 AM
Just got my tickets for Thurs. 7pm in IMAX. I'm pumped.

Wolf359
05-06-09, 11:15 AM
Imax is sold out for Thursday and Friday night... :(

Anyone familiar with Cinemark's new XD-3 screens? I wonder if it would be comparable to seeing it Imax. They are charging just as much anyways....

thelwig14
05-06-09, 11:38 AM
Did you see the movie?

Because I did and Urban is easily the most inspired casting of the entire flick and he nails McCoy. As I mentioned earlier, I wish we got to see more of him during the two hours.

Exactly.

If they were handed out grades, Urban scored the best. Hard to believe it was from a guy who many said couldn't act (or do anything other than the roles he had done previously).

superdeluxe
05-06-09, 11:41 AM
RT update: 42/42 back to 8.0/10

Draven
05-06-09, 11:48 AM
C'mon. Gary Sinise has got a lot of DeForest Kelley in him. The look, the drawl, and McCoy is Kirk's senior by over a decade.

The whole point of this is NOT to just recast the original actors. It's to recast the original ROLES. I don't want a new Kirk that has all of Shatner's pregnant pauses, or a McCoy that just channels DeForest Kelley.

If that's what you want...just watch the TOS and the movies. Personally, I'm TIRED of those actors and interpretations. I want to see something fresh and new, and it sounds like this movie has that in spades.

Oh, and watch spoilers in here please. I've already read a few things I wish I hadn't. Remember that the movie isn't out yet.

Chew
05-06-09, 12:06 PM
oh, and watch spoilers in here please. I've already read a few things i wish i hadn't. Remember that the movie isn't out yet.

+1

The Bus
05-06-09, 12:36 PM
Oh, and watch spoilers in here please. I've already read a few things I wish I hadn't. Remember that the movie isn't out yet.

Yes. This is not the reviews thread.

riotinmyskull
05-06-09, 12:43 PM
another positive review: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40994

Grain
05-06-09, 12:47 PM
I'm going to a special screening that Paramount is hosting tonight, the actor who players Capt Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) is going to be there. Should be fun, whether I'll enjoy the film itself as much as the OS, is doubtful as Shatner doesn't even have a cameo!

Yavin
05-06-09, 12:57 PM
I'm going to a special screening that Paramount is hosting tonight, the actor who players Capt Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) is going to be there. Should be fun, whether I'll enjoy the film itself as much as the OS, is doubtful as Shatner doesn't even have a cameo!

Is that a Toronto screening?

superdeluxe
05-06-09, 01:02 PM
Star Trek vet and geek wil wheaton's thoughts:

http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2009/05/if-all-reboots-were-done-this-well-we-geeks-would-never-worry-about-reboots.html


Speaking both as a member of the Star Trek family, and as a fan of what we do, I can tell you that it is fucking incredible. As I said on Twitter: Star Trek has been reborn, and it is SPECTACULAR.


The story is such a perfect Star Trek story, the cast is pitch-perfect, the visuals are brilliant, and the sound design will blow your mind. I loved it so much, I wanted to watch it again RIGHT AWAY as soon as it ended, and I hope they do eleven movies with this cast and creative team.

Grain
05-06-09, 01:32 PM
Is that a Toronto screening?

Calgary.

hasslein
05-06-09, 01:50 PM
The whole point of this is NOT to just recast the original actors. It's to recast the original ROLES. I don't want a new Kirk that has all of Shatner's pregnant pauses, or a McCoy that just channels DeForest Kelley.

If that's what you want...just watch the TOS and the movies. Personally, I'm TIRED of those actors and interpretations. I want to see something fresh and new, and it sounds like this movie has that in spades.


Well, what I really want is Kevin Pollack as Kirk in a parody like the Brady Bunch movie. But that's another story.

Supermallet
05-06-09, 02:18 PM
Star Trek vet and geek wil wheaton's thoughts:

http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2009/05/if-all-reboots-were-done-this-well-we-geeks-would-never-worry-about-reboots.html

That's exactly how I felt. Walking out of it I just wanted to see it again that very minute, and also see the sequel immediately.

lordwow
05-06-09, 03:04 PM
First really negative review:

http://www.nypress.com/article-19758-where-young-boys-have-gone-before.html


The “energy” is nostalgic.While visually distinct from the cardboard-and-Styrofoam TV episodes, Abrams’ swish pans and light glares are far from the dazzlingly tactile Minority Report. Battle scenes don’t develop or vary; it’s remote-control entertainment. Anyone who accepts this doesn’t respect Eisenstein and Peckinpah’s formal/spiritual innovations and will probably never understand Spielberg’s genre transformation.They’re settling for Abrams’ idiot savantry; he’s TV’s Fincher, not an artist. (Only fanboys will enjoy how Zoe Saldana’s heavy-breathing Uhura’s wet, noisy kisses on Spock audibly blur into Nero sloshing through intergalactic puddles.)

Uhhh what.

RichC2
05-06-09, 03:15 PM
Armond White is an oddball, I think intentionally, he slammed The Departed and praised War (w/ Jet Li) as the movie Scorscese was too afraid too make. He slams Star Trek and praised Mission to Mars as a classic.

Ebert gave Star Trek a negative review as well (2.5 / 4), but his makes a little more sense.

I thought about these things during “Star Trek” because I could not help myself. I understand the Star Trek science has never been intended as plausible. I understand this is not science fiction but an Ark movie using a starship. I understand that the character types are as familiar as your favorite slippers. But the franchise has become much of a muchness. The new movie essentially intends to reboot the franchise with younger characters and carry on as before. The movie deals with narrative housekeeping. Perhaps the next one will engage these characters in a more challenging and devious story, one more about testing their personalities than re-establishing them. In the meantime, you want space opera, you got it.

pinata242
05-06-09, 03:16 PM
Point of that review is "I don't like Abrams".

Bandoman
05-06-09, 03:33 PM
[spoiler ] Spock is HALF HUMAN! [spoiler/]

hapgilmore
05-06-09, 03:40 PM
Another reason to believe Ebert sucks now

Giantrobo
05-06-09, 03:44 PM
[spoiler ] Spock is HALF HUMAN! [spoiler/]

You Bastard!!!! :grunt:

riotinmyskull
05-06-09, 03:48 PM
Another reason to believe Ebert sucks now

wrong.

Artman
05-06-09, 03:54 PM
Another reason to believe Ebert sucks now

Nah, he's always been this way... he critiques based on his expectations for each film it seems, or how he thinks it should be done. It's pretty aggravating, esp in cases like this where you'd think at least a marginal 3 stars would be warranted.... but he writes so well I still enjoy checking his site every wk.

Supermallet
05-06-09, 04:35 PM
[spoiler ] Spock is HALF HUMAN! [spoiler/]

Fascinating.

JesseCuster
05-06-09, 04:53 PM
I've always thought Roger Ebert is a very bright fellow and a good critic but like one of the above posters mentioned, he goes into some films with profound preconceptions. And in some weird way, though the movie may from any objective perspective deserve this, he gives them that as a review almost like he's punishing the film for not being what he wished it to be. Reading his whole review, it seemed like he wanted a 2 hour episode of TOS with the same archaic production values from back then. He wants a story exploring philosophical issues or issues of science like a TOS episode but doesn't seem to pick up on the pragmatic need of a reboot to...reboot. I remember he gave the first Spider-Man film, which by any objective opinion wasn't perfect but was a finely executed first chapter in the series, 2 stars. And I read the review several times and all I could find as real criticism was the cgi Spidey didn't realistic enough for his tastes. Sometimes you just have to scratch your head and go wtf Roger?

mhg83
05-06-09, 06:28 PM
Star Trek's Warp Drive: Not Impossible (http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20090506/sc_space/startrekswarpdrivenotimpossible)

pretty neat article

Superboy
05-06-09, 08:11 PM
I hate how nitpicky Ebert is when it comes to science fiction movies. He's always talking about how implausible everything is. If he paid more attention to how well the movie was made and how interesting the characters are, he'd have more fun watching them. He sounds almost like a disgruntled trekkie. And i'm sure they're going to have loads of fun criticizing this movie.

If i have one small criticism of the storyline....

I really don't know why they bothered with the whole parallel time line thing. It's not like they're ever going back to the original series (unless they make Star Trek XII: So Very Tired) or even the TNG era. They should have just ran with the story, and it was obvious enough they were brushing everything aside anyway.

The great thing about this movie is that people who haven't seen or cared about Star Trek before will now see what all the fuss was about. Having a nice update like this will certainly boost the franchise. At least it's not going the way of Star Wars, just singing the same song over again.

lordwow
05-06-09, 08:22 PM
I have some friends going to see this as essentially Trek virgins. I can't wait to show them TWOK after this. People are going to be dying to get their hands on the other movies after this I think. Hopefully they remember to skip TMP.

Zen Peckinpah
05-06-09, 08:26 PM
Lest we forget:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zTv_CItiEuY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zTv_CItiEuY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

"WOW-EE! Where's your big red suit and beard, Santa? You just gave THEM a gift!" :lol:

The other great one was when Ebert enjoyed Home Alone 3, Siskel (justifiably) resented him, and then Ebert accused him of liking Starship Troopers.

mdc3000
05-06-09, 09:46 PM
I hate how nitpicky Ebert is when it comes to science fiction movies not directed by Alex Proyas.

Fixed.

Ronnie Dobbs
05-06-09, 10:24 PM
I saw the movie tonight in Imax. Abrams is cool enough to put a Beastie Boys song in a Star Trek movie and its not weird. Thats all I gotta say.

lordwow
05-06-09, 10:29 PM
Ebert is generally clueless when it comes to genre films. That guy from the New York Press, wasn't he the first to give Dark Knight a bad review too? :lol:

You're dead on:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight/?critic=columns&sortby=rotten&name_order=asc&view=#contentReviews

RichC2
05-06-09, 10:40 PM
Fixed.

You forgot the "* Not counting I, Robot"

NoirFan
05-06-09, 10:45 PM
That guy from the New York Press, wasn't he the first to give Dark Knight a bad review too? :lol:

Armond White is one of the worst critics in the biz. In 2004, he listed Mr. 3000 as one of the ten best films of the year.

Supermallet
05-06-09, 11:23 PM
If i have one small criticism of the storyline....

I really don't know why they bothered with the whole parallel time line thing. It's not like they're ever going back to the original series (unless they make Star Trek XII: So Very Tired) or even the TNG era. They should have just ran with the story, and it was obvious enough they were brushing everything aside anyway.

But doing it with the alternate timeline wouldn't allow for the inclusion of Leonard Nimoy, and I feel like his presence there solidifies how this truly is a passing of the torch.

musick
05-07-09, 12:14 AM
I hate how nitpicky Ebert is when it comes to science fiction movies. He's always talking about how implausible everything is. If he paid more attention to how well the movie was made and how interesting the characters are, he'd have more fun watching them. He sounds almost like a disgruntled trekkie.

you don't say........

Star Trek (2009) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_half_tan_matte.gif

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gif

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gif

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_half_tan_matte.gif

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gif

Star Trek: First Contact (1996) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_half_tan_matte.gif

Star Trek: Generations (1994) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gif

Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gif

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gif

JesseCuster
05-07-09, 12:30 AM
you don't say........

Star Trek (2009) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_half_tan_matte.gif

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gif

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gif

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_half_tan_matte.gif

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gif

Star Trek: First Contact (1996) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_half_tan_matte.gif

Star Trek: Generations (1994) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gif

Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gif

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gifhttp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/graphics/redstar_matte_tan_transp.gif

So in Ebert's book Star Trek is only marginally better than Generations and Final Frontier? Ooooookay.

BTW, I remember reading stories about a young Ebert getting up at junkets for Bonnie and Clyde and The Wild Bunch, looking around and basically saying, hey you dumbasses, this is a brilliant, visionary film. Not in any way comparing Star Trek to those two masterpieces but some of Ebert's reviews over the last 10 years or so make me want to weep. He has slipped lately.

jeffkjoe
05-07-09, 02:16 AM
I saw this today, and I have to say:

Wrath of Khan now has an equal, and that is this movie.

riotinmyskull
05-07-09, 03:49 AM
I saw the movie tonight in Imax. Abrams is cool enough to put a Beastie Boys song in a Star Trek movie and its not weird. Thats all I gotta say.

you're joking right?

Ronnie Dobbs
05-07-09, 04:36 AM
you're joking right?

nope. most of the people who were at the screening were in their twenties and all applauded when "sabotage" played.

Jaymole
05-07-09, 06:53 AM
Armond White is one of the worst critics in the biz. In 2004, he listed Mr. 3000 as one of the ten best films of the year.

I would go even farther and say he is THE WORST critic in the biz...why he has a job is beyond me. I don't think I ever made it completely through one of his reviews.

RocShemp
05-07-09, 07:49 AM
Crap. I just found out it got delayed in Puerto Rico until the 14th. :(

Tracer Bullet
05-07-09, 08:28 AM
It's going to be a long work day today...

dan30oly
05-07-09, 08:39 AM
nope. most of the people who were at the screening were in their twenties and all applauded when "sabotage" played.

That sucks. I really hate the beastie boys :(

RichC2
05-07-09, 08:51 AM
That sucks. I really hate the beastie boys :(

Then you're in luck since it's apparently a short sequence. And us fans are in luck because yeah, that's a kickass song (not so sure how well it fits in the movie but a kickass song no less.)

Sean O'Hara
05-07-09, 09:34 AM
I hate how nitpicky Ebert is when it comes to science fiction movies. He's always talking about how implausible everything is. If he paid more attention to how well the movie was made and how interesting the characters are, he'd have more fun watching them. He sounds almost like a disgruntled trekkie. And i'm sure they're going to have loads of fun criticizing this movie.


Heaven forbid someone have higher expectations than CGI explosions.

Sean O'Hara
05-07-09, 09:37 AM
nope. most of the people who were at the screening were in their twenties and all applauded when "sabotage" played.

This is why I hate Abrams.

hapgilmore
05-07-09, 09:48 AM
wrong.

You agree with a guy who gives 3 stars to Mummy 3 and The Happening? He sucks now, just face it.

mdc3000
05-07-09, 11:24 AM
Anyone doubting if Ebert sucks now or not only need read his review of GARFIELD. Ebert sucks now ;)

hapgilmore
05-07-09, 11:26 AM
^ Thank you

Ronnie Dobbs
05-07-09, 11:38 AM
This is why I hate Abrams.

JJ Abrams has really never let me down. I've never really seen the old Star Trek movies but I saw part of the one with the whale. They were really boring.

hapgilmore
05-07-09, 11:45 AM
Ebert gave Next Day Air 3 stars...again, he sucks. (maybe it is actually good, but better than Star TreK? I find that very hard to believe)

Sean O'Hara
05-07-09, 11:59 AM
So NuTrek already has fanboys who hate any critic who dares suggest that this isn't the Kewlest Movie EVAR!

outcastja
05-07-09, 12:07 PM
So NuTrek already has fanboys who hate any critic who dares suggest that this isn't the Kewlest Movie EVAR!

It's this year's Dark Knight, however, I don't hear them pushing for Best Picture nominations, so that's something.

superdeluxe
05-07-09, 12:11 PM
91% Of Online Ticket Sales For 'Star Trek'
That the latest from big online ticket seller Fandango which also reports that Star Trek has sold out hundreds of opening weekend showtimes across the country, including showtimes in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Charlotte, San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego, Fresno, Seattle, Denver, Dallas, Houston, Colorado Springs, Indianapolis, Nashville, and Portland, Oregon. Fandango says its Star Trek ticket sales are far outpacing the site’s sales for X-Men Origins: Wolverine at the same point in that film’s sales cycle.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/91-of-online-ticket-sales-for-star-trek/

Solid Snake
05-07-09, 12:18 PM
Going to go see it tonight at 7pm. On Digital..that's my first..and seems appropiate I thinik.

jjcool
05-07-09, 12:21 PM
Really looking forward to seeing this. With the overwhelmingly positive reviews, I expect to see the lamers come out of the woodwork because they think it is cool to bash the movie.

superdeluxe
05-07-09, 12:26 PM
Box office predictions:

BoxofficeGuru:

The franchise indeed will be reborn. Bursting into more than 3,800 theaters, Star Trek might open to about $71M over the Friday-to-Sunday period and $74M including Thursday night sales.

Draven
05-07-09, 12:38 PM
So NuTrek already has fanboys who hate any critic who dares suggest that this isn't the Kewlest Movie EVAR!

Normally I would agree with you, but when it seems like 90% of the critics are saying it's great, a negative review sticks out a lot more. You have to wonder if they are being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

superdeluxe
05-07-09, 01:07 PM
For those seeing Star Trek in Seattle at the Imax on saturday:

Saturday, May 9, 2009 - 10:00 AM to Midnight (Pacific Time)
Pacific Science Center's, Boeing IMAX Theater
200 2nd Ave North
Seattle, WA 98109 USA
206.443.2850

This Saturday, the Boeing IMAX Theater at Pacific Science Center is hosting an Exhibition of Star Trek Legacy (for Xbox360), celebrating the premiere weekend of the new film STAR TREK in IMAX. This theater holds the Largest indoor cinema screen in Washington State!

Pacific Science Center visitors and IMAX ticket holders will have an opportunity to fly a star ship of their choice, side by side, with some of the highest ranking Star Trek Legacy players on XboxLive. While waiting in line to see STAR TREK in IMAX, these epic space battles will be projected onto video screens for the entire audience to witness. It doesn't matter if you have never even played the game before. Some of the top ranked players in the world, will be on hand, live and in person, to demonstrate their skills, give game hints and tips, or just help folks who want to see what it's like to fly the USS Enterprise for the first time.

Live too far away? No problem!
Join us on XboxLive between 10:00 AM and Midnight (Pacific Time) on Saturday, May 9th where you will find us under "Multiplayer/Player Match". You will have the satisfaction of knowing that hundreds of people in Seattle are watching you demonstrate your own Star Trek Legacy skills.


Special Guests Appearing Live and In Person:

XxXTC
Quite well known in the on-line community, XxXTC is one of the most prolific forum contributors, always answering people's questions, sharing hints, opinions, and advice. He is currently ranked fifth in the world on the "Death Match/Ranked Match" leaderboard.

LASER I V A N
Currently ranked Number-One in the world on the "Death Match/True Skill" leaderboard, LASER IVAN is one of the four Central contributors to the (Borg) Collective Fleet. This is the same LASER IVAN who performs live laser light shows such as Laser Floyd: Dark Side of the Moon, Laser Daft Punk, and many others, every Friday & Saturday night at the Seattle Laser Dome (just not on this Saturday).

O of 1
Though he doesn't play as often, Zero has maintained a fairly high rank on the "Death Match/True Skill" leaderboeard. Technically he is the founder of the (Borg) Collective Fleet on XboxLive. Some of Zero's most notable battlefield achievements have occurred in completely different Star Trek related games, such as Star Fleet Battles, and Star Fleet Command. If you see him around sometime, ask him about "The Black Fleet".



We hope to see you on Saturday!

RichC2
05-07-09, 01:09 PM
It's this year's Dark Knight, however, I don't hear them pushing for Best Picture nominations, so that's something.

The advertisement had it right I think, it's this year's Iron Man. Hopefully it isn't as forgettable (in that "fun, but forgettable" sense.)

superdeluxe
05-07-09, 01:10 PM
The advertisement had it right I think, it's this year's Iron Man.

I think that is fair. I hope it has great legs.

Rottentomatoes update:

94 percent
102/109
8/10 rating
26/28 top critics fresh

Defiant1
05-07-09, 01:49 PM
I saw it last night at a preview screening and loved it. Everything just fired on all cylinders. Very crowd pleasing (loud round of applause at the end) with a pretty much perfect mix of action, drama and humour. I thought it was very respectful to Old Trek while proudly blazing its own trail for the future.

Cardiac161
05-07-09, 02:08 PM
I saw the preview screening last night as well. Not a Trek fan and I have only seen the 4 Star Trek original films. I was expecting this new film to be some sort of Star Trek 90210 considering the young cast but was unexpectedly blown away by how engaging the film was. Abrams certainly paid homage to the old movies and added much needed energy and amazing action sequences.

Patrick_N
05-07-09, 02:49 PM
So in Ebert's book Star Trek is only marginally better than Generations and Final Frontier? Ooooookay.

BTW, I remember reading stories about a young Ebert getting up at junkets for Bonnie and Clyde and The Wild Bunch, looking around and basically saying, hey you dumbasses, this is a brilliant, visionary film. Not in any way comparing Star Trek to those two masterpieces but some of Ebert's reviews over the last 10 years or so make me want to weep. He has slipped lately.

I just watched the movie today and thought it was good. I read Eberts review afterwards and pretty much agreed with what he said.

To me the movie was a fun ride but there was nothing there that I haven't seen many times before. What I consider this movie to be is a nice restart of the franchise and a chance to get some really good movies in the future.

Best thing about the movie might be the casting choices, except for maybe Winona, that was a very odd choice.

And that freaky alien on the ice planet looked like a cousin of the thing from Cloverfield. Also, I was expecting Kirk to find a lightsaber in that cave...

Supermallet
05-07-09, 02:54 PM
For those seeing Star Trek in Seattle at the Imax on saturday:

Star Trek Legacy sucked hard, despite having the voices of all the captains.

OldBoy
05-07-09, 02:57 PM
just curious, but how come no one wants to use the Reviews Thread?

lordwow
05-07-09, 02:58 PM
Pacific Science Center visitors and IMAX ticket holders will have an opportunity to fly a star ship of their choice, side by side, with some of the highest ranking Star Trek Legacy players on XboxLive.

I'm pretty sure I'm one of hte highest ranking Legacy players on XBL, since there's about 3 of us.

RichC2
05-07-09, 02:58 PM
just curious, but how come no one wants to use the Reviews Thread?

It's still pre-release rambling and Review threads these days are full of spoilers, then when you complain about the spoilers you get bitched out.

I'm sure people will switch over once they've seen the movie.

OldBoy
05-07-09, 03:01 PM
It's still pre-release rambling and Review threads these days are full of spoilers, then when you complain about the spoilers you get bitched out.

I'm sure people will switch over once they've seen the movie.

i know, but there have been a few who saw pre-screenings up there and posted here and then wading through gets tedious to see what they thought. no biggie.

superdeluxe
05-07-09, 03:02 PM
just curious, but how come no one wants to use the Reviews Thread?

Dunno, maybe this thread is more active? I haven't seen the movie yet, that is why I haven't posted my review in there.

superdeluxe
05-07-09, 03:04 PM
The canon debate rages across the trekverse. But I always under the impression that official canon is what is released by who ever owns the property.

Supermallet
05-07-09, 03:17 PM
I'd love to know how anyone could say this violates canon, given that it's an alternate timeline.

shadowhawk2020
05-07-09, 03:23 PM
Going to see it tonight at the IMAX at Kennedy Space Center! I can't stop smiling

lordwow
05-07-09, 03:33 PM
I'd love to know how anyone could say this violates canon, given that it's an alternate timeline.
Ya, it's sort of like arguing Tasha Yar was dead and couldn't possibly have been on-board the Enterprise-D when it came across the Enterprise-C.

superdeluxe
05-07-09, 03:35 PM
I'd love to know how anyone could say this violates canon, given that it's an alternate timeline.

Maybe people just trying to stir the pot? Who knows...Like this guy:

trekfan1: 'Brandon Gray from Boxofficemojo Predicted a 230m total for ST'
trekfan2: 'Those numbers would be rather disappointing. '

Some people just want any reason to bash ST. In this case..230m domestic is a failure.

Supermallet
05-07-09, 03:37 PM
I think people are blinded when they see the kind of grosses that Dark Knight and Spider-Man 3 do. That's not the norm, but people think it is.

jjcool
05-07-09, 03:42 PM
just curious, but how come no one wants to use the Reviews Thread?

Because there is already a thread for the new Star Trek film.

OldBoy
05-07-09, 04:19 PM
Because there is already a thread for the new Star Trek film.

ohhhhh :doh:

slop101
05-07-09, 04:37 PM
And so the first F-bomb dropped in the Star Trek universe belongs to... The Beastie Boys!

lamphorn
05-07-09, 05:43 PM
I just watched the movie today and thought it was good. I read Eberts review afterwards and pretty much agreed with what he said.

To me the movie was a fun ride but there was nothing there that I haven't seen many times before. What I consider this movie to be is a nice restart of the franchise and a chance to get some really good movies in the future.

Best thing about the movie might be the casting choices, except for maybe Winona, that was a very odd choice.

And that freaky alien on the ice planet looked like a cousin of the thing from Cloverfield. Also, I was expecting Kirk to find a lightsaber in that cave...
I'm seeing this tomorrow morning, and I'm really looking forward to it.

That said, Ebert has a really good point in that Star Trek has stopped being sci-fi and has turned into James Bond, that is the same story told over and over again.

In this case, they keep remaking Wrath of Khan- charismatic Shakespeare-quoting villain wants to kill Captain Kirk (or Picard) out of some twisted revenge motive. I mean, they even destroyed the point of the Borg by giving them an eloquent charismatic revenge-seeking Queen to go after Picard and Data. It's becoming like the Batman movies. When a new Trek is coming, the only question is which classically trained scenery-chewing actor will play the villain. If you ever watched to old shows or the Next Generation, there were episodes like that AS WELL AS interesting episodes with sci-fi or philosophical themes. The movies, with the exception of parts 1 and 4 have failed to capture that aspect of the show.

They also are rehashing the tired Rick Berman twist on that story that has the villain traveling to the past to kill his enemies when they're not expecting it. This was the plot of First Contact and virtually the entire Enterprise series. One senses that the biggest influence on Star Trek's producers for the last 7 or 8 years is The Terminator.
Again, I fully expect to enjoy this movie as a fun airheaded summer action film, but really hope that at some point they make a Star Trek that is philosophically provocative science fiction. They haven't done that since The Next Generation went off the air.

hdtv00
05-07-09, 05:57 PM
I'd love to know how anyone could say this violates canon, given that it's an alternate timeline.

I for one am pissed that it's just a lazy cheap gimmick. Why did it have to be an alt reality at all.

Well back later leaving to go see it. Rreport back later

Supermallet
05-07-09, 05:57 PM
Lamphorn, have you seen the new movie? I agree that Nero is the latest in a long line of Khan clones, but at least in this one he's going after Spock, not Kirk.

Also, the time travelling aspect of it is an accident in this case, not intentional.

hdtv00: The alternate timeline angle was necessary to allow the filmmakers the latitude to make the film as they saw fit without worrying about staying slavishly true to an established canon. Had they made it solely a prequel, it would not have been nearly as interesting as it is.

lamphorn
05-07-09, 06:13 PM
Lamphorn, have you seen the new movie? I agree that Nero is the latest in a long line of Khan clones, but at least in this one he's going after Spock, not Kirk.
As I wrote in my post, I'm seeing it tomorrow. What you mention (and should have spoiler-warned) is a distinction without a difference.

Also, the time travelling aspect of it is an accident in this case, not intentional.
Another distinction without a difference.

The alternate timeline angle was necessary to allow the filmmakers the latitude to make the film as they saw fit without worrying about staying slavishly true to an established canon. Had they made it solely a prequel, it would not have been nearly as interesting as it is.
That is a legitimate reason, but that formed the entire basis of Enterprise, and was the plot of First Contact. The Old Series and Next Generation actually bothered to create a variety of plots and ideas... the movies are just the same story rehashed and repackaged over and over.

Why bother to reboot the Kirk Trek if they're just going to keep remaking Wrath of Khan??

I know it sounds like I'm bashing, but I'm really not and honestly am very excited to see this movie... I'm just being hard on them because I'd like to see them take this franchise into some edgy philosophical territory like the shows instead of just following the tired summer blockbuster formula every time out.

slop101
05-07-09, 06:57 PM
Also, the time travelling aspect of it is an accident in this case, not intentional.
That makes it even worse.

I think the miracle here is how JJ was able to take a shit script (and let's not kid ourselves, the script is pure crap, packed with conveniences, contrivances and all sorts of hackneyed bullshit, on top of being just plain dumb and lazy) and turn it into something not just watchable, but thoroughly enjoyable, cinematic and not nearly as dumb as what he had to work with - credit also goes to the wonderful cast.

Supermallet
05-07-09, 07:01 PM
I have a feeling the future films will branch out, or at least I hope they will. Here the goal is to reboot, and it's something that the film does splendidly.

lamphorn
05-07-09, 07:33 PM
I have a feeling the future films will branch out, or at least I hope they will. Here the goal is to reboot, and it's something that the film does splendidly.
Gonna see it in the Arclight Cinerama dome in L.A. tomorrow morning. Can't wait. Hope you're right about them branching out. It can only happen if they make the decision to go with a Fall or Christmas release sometime. Make it a "prestige" Oscar-bait film with a complex script and brilliant acting (I've heard this cast is very good). As long as they see it as a summer tentpole franchise, they will stick pretty strictly to spaceships blowing each other up for 2 hours. I seriously doubt they can resist that temptation.

Supermallet
05-07-09, 07:42 PM
Well, the sequel has been greenlit from what I've heard, so we'll see what we will see.

Travis McClain
05-07-09, 09:40 PM
I don't want to be a continuity cop, but having actually just seen the film I can say there is a major problem with the new timeline. My 13 year old cousin had never seen any Trek prior to this movie tonight. No episodes of any series, no movies, nothing. She is, let's be honest, the real target demographic of this film--not her 30 year old cousin.

She loved the movie (great). But now, if she becomes interested enough to want to watch anything made before this movie, she'll have some potentially alienating questions to ask/answer. I won't get into the particulars, but it leaves the new audience really wondering just what sense to make of reconciling this film with everything else.

All that aside, I tried to take it just as a movie. It was intense, it was fun, it was something that Trek hasn't been in a while: exciting. The production aesthetics were clearly unique in the franchise, and yet the movie was unmistakably Star Trek. Pine, Quinto, Urban and Saldana were all great, and it was a genuine treat seeing Leonard Nimoy back as Ambassador Spock.

I still don't believe that this was the story that needed to be told, though. If they wanted to play in the TOS-era, fine; I just don't see why the plot had to include completely negating the rest of the franchise. So, yes, I say the premise was lazy and unnecessarily destructive...but the execution was exhilarating!

jjcool
05-07-09, 10:17 PM
ohhhhh :doh:

Ask a stupid question...

SIUmark
05-08-09, 12:08 AM
I went to the 8:30pm show Thurs nite and I really enjoyed it.

Ron G
05-08-09, 12:44 AM
I have a feeling the future films will branch out, or at least I hope they will. Here the goal is to reboot, and it's something that the film does splendidly.

So does Paramount pay you to come here and tout this rather mediocre film?

Travis McClain
05-08-09, 12:47 AM
So does Paramount pay you to come here and tout this rather mediocre film?

That seems a bit harsh. Not caring for the movie doesn't mean that someone else being excited about it is a corporate shill.

Boba Fett
05-08-09, 12:48 AM
Just got back from an early showing. Absolutely fantastic film. Ebert's 2.5/4 review shows either he didn't care about the movie or is having trouble following films in general. He mixes up a major scene and his plot hole is explained clearly in the film.

For me this is likely the high mark of the summer, save for 'Harry Potter.' As a hardcore TOS fan, I'm all for future films from this cast and crew. 5/5

Sean O'Hara
05-08-09, 12:49 AM
I'd love to know how anyone could say this violates canon, given that it's an alternate timeline.

Well for one thing, Voyager established that in the far future the Federation has a division devoted to maintaining historical integrity. Their ships exist outside the timeline, so they aren't affected by people changing history. Yet where are they in the movie ...?

For another, Enterprise takes place long before the timelines diverge, so there are tons of things the movie could contradict there. Not to mention all the aspects of the 21st and 22nd Centuries that have been established throughout the other series.

Jedi Master 33
05-08-09, 12:55 AM
So does Paramount pay you to come here and tout this rather mediocre film?
Shut up. Everyone has their own opinion and if you can't deal with that, leave.



Movies was great. 5/5. Best Trek movie since First Contct.

Ron G
05-08-09, 12:56 AM
That seems a bit harsh. Not caring for the movie doesn't mean that someone else being excited about it is a corporate shill.

It does when this guy is trying to sell this film harder than the guy at Enterprise was trying to sell me a rental upgrade yesterday.

Ron G
05-08-09, 12:58 AM
Shut up. Everyone has their own opinion and if you can't deal with that, leave.



Movies was great. 5/5. Best Trek movie since First Contct.

Throw that advice right back at you.

I give it a 2/5. It had its moments, but it was pretty much just a generic action film with characters who happened to bear some resemblance to those in the original Star Trek series.

People are allowed to have negative opinions, and to express them. Free speech isn't just about everyone agreeing with one another.

Jedi Master 33
05-08-09, 01:11 AM
Throw that advice right back at you.



Umm no, Please refer me to the post where I or someone else said you could not have a differing opinion. But just because you didn't like the movie still does not give the right to insult someone who loved it.

hdtv00
05-08-09, 02:55 AM
How many stars ***1/2 out of 5 mostly because of the story having issues.

Longer rant with spoilers in review thread if you're curious.

Supermallet
05-08-09, 03:17 AM
I don't want to be a continuity cop, but having actually just seen the film I can say there is a major problem with the new timeline. My 13 year old cousin had never seen any Trek prior to this movie tonight. No episodes of any series, no movies, nothing. She is, let's be honest, the real target demographic of this film--not her 30 year old cousin.

Could you put the continuity problems you had in spoiler tags so we can read them? I'm curious.

I still don't believe that this was the story that needed to be told, though. If they wanted to play in the TOS-era, fine; I just don't see why the plot had to include completely negating the rest of the franchise. So, yes, I say the premise was lazy and unnecessarily destructive...but the execution was exhilarating!

This film doesn't negate the rest of the franchise. As has been said, this is an alternate timeline. The other timeline still exists, we're just now focused on this newly created timeline.

In practical terms, I don't think we'll see another film or TV show in the old Trek universe for a long time, but at the rate things were going we weren't going to see anything in the old Trek universe anyway.

Sean O'Hara
05-08-09, 09:33 AM
Shut up. Everyone has their own opinion and if you can't deal with that, leave.



Movies was great. 5/5. Best Trek movie since First Contct.

Best film since Die Hard in Space, which completely neutered the Borg as villains and contained a huge continuity violation?

MBoyd
05-08-09, 10:14 AM
Count me in for another 5/5 stars!

Perfect summer film. Star Trek is saved.

iggystar
05-08-09, 10:44 AM
I for one am pissed that it's just a lazy cheap gimmick. Why did it have to be an alt reality at all.

Well back later leaving to go see it. Rreport back later


Because Trek nerds like me will nitpick every aspect when Abrams deviates from canon. I have the Trek encyclopedia, so I'm hardcore. It was a great fix, IMO.

I'm OK with it, that way I can relax and let Abrams do his thing while loving all of the great aspects of Trek, which he's going to respect in his overall treatment of the material. Otherwise he'll have no room for any creative license at all.

Zen Peckinpah
05-08-09, 10:47 AM
Same here, it's a fucking blast. Wrath of Khan is still the Trek to beat, but it's a perfect start to the summer and easily in the top 3 Trek installments ever. Chris Pine's Kirk is swag-tastic in a new variation from Shatner. Quinto, Urban, and Pegg all nail their characters exactly. Eric Bana chewing scenery as if there's a whole pack of Bubblicious in his mouth. And Nimoy...absolutely awesome to see him again.

superdeluxe
05-08-09, 11:16 AM
Rotten Tomatoes getting better:

176 fresh/8 rotten
up to 96%

Artman
05-08-09, 11:26 AM
Liked it... 3.5/4 stars I guess. Just a few nitpicks here and there, but other than that it was fun. Am I converted and going to go watch all the other movies? Probably not, but definitely a fan of this new (hopefully) set of films.

Travis McClain
05-08-09, 01:01 PM
Could you put the continuity problems you had in spoiler tags so we can read them? I'm curious.

Upon reflection, I've decided that I was hasty in my irritation of continuity. I accept that the only connection to the 1964-2005 continuity is Ambassador Spock, and that the 2009-forward timeline is separate. No big deal. But, as I mentioned in my earlier post, I still worry about how new fans are going to reconcile the differences.

Because now if I show my cousin Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, she's going to wonder how Vulcan and Amanda exist again.

Now, because this is a new timeline, fans need not be concerned with anything that happened in the old timeline. It would have been like, if at the end of "Mirror, Mirror," they decided to stay with the I.S.S. Enterprise crew for the duration of the original series instead of coming back to the U.S.S. Enterprise we had already followed. For once, we went through the looking glass...and stayed there.

It's actually more of a business concern I have than a fan-of-the-story concern. And, yes, since the franchise's market viability impacts whether or not I get more stories out of it, I do have some small stake in whether or not my cousin gets into the franchise.

In practical terms, I don't think we'll see another film or TV show in the old Trek universe for a long time, but at the rate things were going we weren't going to see anything in the old Trek universe anyway.

A good point, and one with which I agree.

Because Trek nerds like me will nitpick every aspect when Abrams deviates from canon. I have the Trek encyclopedia, so I'm hardcore. It was a great fix, IMO.

I'm OK with it, that way I can relax and let Abrams do his thing while loving all of the great aspects of Trek, which he's going to respect in his overall treatment of the material. Otherwise he'll have no room for any creative license at all.

This idea that the franchise left no one any room to tell any new story is absolute bunk. It's Star Trek for crying out loud! The whole mantra of the franchise is to explore strange, new worlds. At its heart, the franchise uses fictitious civilizations as a mirror for our own contemporary world and its issues. So long as we have issues (and God knows we have at least as many now as we had in the 1960s when the franchise was born), there exists a potential allegory to be told.

Simply put, there is absolutely no story that anyone could have wanted to tell (outside of fan fiction) that could not have been accommodated by the established continuity.

Think about this: They allegedly wanted to tell the story of Kirk & Spock's early days, and that was the whole point of this movie. But, because they tampered with the timeline...they didn't! They told the story of another timeline's Kirk & Spock's early days.

This lengthy post shouldn't be construed as me bashing the movie; I, in fact, loved it from start to finish. I just feel that this notion of having to break free from the past in order to tell an interesting story is rubbish. The only thing about breaking free from the past that this story required...was its own purpose of breaking free from the past.

superdeluxe
05-08-09, 01:40 PM
Majority of Star Trek showings at Seattle's Imax is sold out for today and the weekend:

Sold out

may 8th: 12pm, 2:45pm, 5:30pm, 8:15pm, 11pm
may 9th: 1pm, 3:45pm, 6:30pm, 9:15pm
may 10th:1pm, 3:45pm, 6:30pm

MBoyd
05-08-09, 01:45 PM
At one of the Plano Cinemark's there is an XD digital theater (http://www.bigscreen.com/journal.php?id=1453). I wonder if it's worth the $12 ticket price?

Supermallet
05-08-09, 02:02 PM
Upon reflection, I've decided that I was hasty in my irritation of continuity. I accept that the only connection to the 1964-2005 continuity is Ambassador Spock, and that the 2009-forward timeline is separate. No big deal. But, as I mentioned in my earlier post, I still worry about how new fans are going to reconcile the differences.

Because now if I show my cousin Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, she's going to wonder how Vulcan and Amanda exist again.

I feel like you would be able to explain alternate timelines to most people. Or you could just say it's a different version.

Now, because this is a new timeline, fans need not be concerned with anything that happened in the old timeline. It would have been like, if at the end of "Mirror, Mirror," they decided to stay with the I.S.S. Enterprise crew for the duration of the original series instead of coming back to the U.S.S. Enterprise we had already followed. For once, we went through the looking glass...and stayed there.

It's actually more of a business concern I have than a fan-of-the-story concern. And, yes, since the franchise's market viability impacts whether or not I get more stories out of it, I do have some small stake in whether or not my cousin gets into the franchise.

But that is the point. The franchise as it was wasn't gaining too many new fans, and was in fact losing the interest of old fans. If we see several movies (and who knows, maybe a TV series or two) come out of this Trek, then that is where the business is. It won't matter if your cousin has seen The Voyage Home in order for her to see Star Trek XII or XXII.

On the flipside of this argument, I don't think you're giving people enough credit. The fact that there is a scene where Spock flatly lays out that this film is not in the same universe as old Trek means a lot of people will understand that the currently existing Trek materials are separate. But because they had so much fun in this movie, they may go seek out those other materials and become big fans of TOS and TNG, etc. So it is much better for business than what they've been doing since Enterprise went off the air--nothing at all.

This idea that the franchise left no one any room to tell any new story is absolute bunk. It's Star Trek for crying out loud! The whole mantra of the franchise is to explore strange, new worlds. At its heart, the franchise uses fictitious civilizations as a mirror for our own contemporary world and its issues. So long as we have issues (and God knows we have at least as many now as we had in the 1960s when the franchise was born), there exists a potential allegory to be told.

Simply put, there is absolutely no story that anyone could have wanted to tell (outside of fan fiction) that could not have been accommodated by the established continuity.

Well, the writers of DS9, to many fans one of the best Trek series, said continuity was a pretty big burden on their storytelling, and they were telling stories that all took place after established events occurred. Imagine how difficult it must be, then, for someone writing a prequel, knowing there is a whole laundry list of details they can't contradict.

I find it funny how many people here say it's a cop out to cite the difficulty of matching a story up with established continuity (not pointing a finger at you, Min, as you've actually been willing to participate in a reasoned, interesting discussion). I wonder how many of them are actually writers and have tried to make a new and original story that stays within the rigid guidelines of over 40 years of continuity?

Think about this: They allegedly wanted to tell the story of Kirk & Spock's early days, and that was the whole point of this movie. But, because they tampered with the timeline...they didn't! They told the story of another timeline's Kirk & Spock's early days.

This lengthy post shouldn't be construed as me bashing the movie; I, in fact, loved it from start to finish. I just feel that this notion of having to break free from the past in order to tell an interesting story is rubbish. The only thing about breaking free from the past that this story required...was its own purpose of breaking free from the past.

Look, here's the problem with prequels, and not just Star Trek. The audience knows exactly what is going to happen. How can you create dramatic tension when you know who lives, who dies, who gets disfigured, who has a kid, etc? There would be no stakes if this were a straight prequel, because we'd know that any characters who appear in TOS would not die, and that anyone who didn't appear in TOS would be killed or written out. And then, on top of that, there'd be the need to slavishly adhere to continuity or face the wrath of hordes of angry Trekkies. It's a no-win scenario that even Kirk couldn't have gotten out of. I'd much rather see an alternate timeline where anything can and does happen versus a movie that perfectly tied into TOS.

superdeluxe
05-08-09, 02:08 PM
At one of the Plano Cinemark's there is an XD digital theater (http://www.bigscreen.com/journal.php?id=1453). I wonder if it's worth the $12 ticket price?


Considering that most regular theaters now run around 10-11$ I would say yes.

GCS
05-08-09, 02:11 PM
Guys if you have a Visa Signature card and you can buy your tickets through Fandango there is a discount deal available for B1G1 Free.

Check fatwallet and search fandango for the info.

Worked for me this AM. $8 for me and the wife, I was very happy (but I still would have paid full price x 2 to see this as it was actually worth it).

Can't wait to get the BR and crank it up at home on 1080p!!

Greg

lordwow
05-08-09, 03:31 PM
http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/08/star-trek-brings-in-7-million-thursday-night/

A big Thursday
Star Trek’s early shows on Thursday night were a hit, with Variety reporting it brought in $7M from the 7PM-midnight shows. To put that in context, last May Paramount opened Iron Man with some early Thursday shows and it brought in a bit over $4M, but went on to rake in a total of $98 Million for its opening weekend, and went on to be the the second highest grossing film of the year with $318 Million domestically. Also last weekend Wolverine kicked off its huge weekend with $4M from just midnight shows on Thursday (although Wolverine played in 6.5% more theaters than Trek).

Jason
05-08-09, 04:56 PM
I was going to catch it tonight at a local theater, but it's only showing on one(!) screen. It'll be too crowded for me.

Travis McClain
05-08-09, 05:00 PM
The franchise as it was wasn't gaining too many new fans, and was in fact losing the interest of old fans. [snip] It won't matter if your cousin has seen The Voyage Home in order for her to see Star Trek XII or XXII.

A great point, and I definitely agree. But for the time being, this one film is all there is for new fans. See, just as one argument holds that a prequel is devoid of any real stakes, the consequence of a reboot is it renders other continuities meaningless. Sure, From Russia with Love is still my favorite James Bond movie, but it doesn't "count" in the Daniel Craig era. Bond is a bit different, because continuity was never as big an issue, but it still makes watching earlier outings less relevant.

...because they had so much fun in this movie, they may go seek out those other materials and become big fans of TOS and TNG, etc. So it is much better for business than what they've been doing since Enterprise went off the air--nothing at all.

Since I'm in favor of more Trek, and because I love the new movie, I'm signing off on this perspective, with the caveat I be able to revise my position based on future projects.

Well, the writers of DS9, to many fans one of the best Trek series, said continuity was a pretty big burden on their storytelling, and they were telling stories that all took place after established events occurred. Imagine how difficult it must be, then, for someone writing a prequel, knowing there is a whole laundry list of details they can't contradict.

You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger fan of DS9 than me; I maintain it is the best of the spinoffs and one of the ten best TV shows of all time. Still, while I don't know personally what story plans were declared off-limits for them over the seven seasons, I think they did a magnificent job of playing in the Trek sandbox. They took unimportant TNG guest species (Bajorans and Cardassians), created the Dominion and managed to exist largely outside the established parameters of Trek storytelling conventions while having great impact on the franchise. By doing so, they established that they were part of the franchise, while doing their own thing.

I find it funny how many people here say it's a cop out to cite the difficulty of matching a story up with established continuity (not pointing a finger at you, Min, as you've actually been willing to participate in a reasoned, interesting discussion).

Thanks; I try!

I wonder how many of them are actually writers and have tried to make a new and original story that stays within the rigid guidelines of over 40 years of continuity?

I'm not a professional writer, but I've enjoyed writing pieces of fiction here and there over the years just as a hobby. I know there are fans who will freak out if Janice Rand's cabin number changes from one episode to the next and I'm not one of them. My degree is in history (in large part, something I was spurred onto by my interest in continuity, which I learned from Star Trek). Strangely, I have no problem with Hollywood movie versions of historical events using artistic license, so long as the essence of the people and events are retained.

In regards to Trek, for instance, I love the look of the Abrams Enterprise interior and don't care that it looks far more advanced than that of the Enterprise-E. It may not be Matt Jeffries's design, but it is unquestionably the Enterprise. The essence was retained. Storywise, I think they did an astounding job retaining the essence of characters created by other writers and actors decades ago.

I don't even have a problem with the Spock/Uhura relationship; I think there were intimations to that in the original series anyway, and thought it really added to the Kirk/Spock rivalry.

Look, here's the problem with prequels, and not just Star Trek. The audience knows exactly what is going to happen. How can you create dramatic tension when you know who lives, who dies, who gets disfigured, who has a kid, etc? There would be no stakes if this were a straight prequel, because we'd know that any characters who appear in TOS would not die, and that anyone who didn't appear in TOS would be killed or written out.

But that's largely true of episodic TV, too, and yet we still watch week after week, knowing that Captain Kirk will win the fight and that Scotty will get the warp engines back online in the nick of time. I know, I know; movies are different. And, in truth, I think Star Trek is far better suited to TV than to movies anyway. The best Trek stories are not large-scale action pieces; they're thought-provocative looks at social issues.

And then, on top of that, there'd be the need to slavishly adhere to continuity or face the wrath of hordes of angry Trekkies. It's a no-win scenario that even Kirk couldn't have gotten out of. I'd much rather see an alternate timeline where anything can and does happen versus a movie that perfectly tied into TOS.

I'm not convinced that there's really as much restrictive continuity as everyone has made there out to be. I mean, in most episodes we only learn one obscure tidbit about each character; the rest of the episode is just going through the motions of investigating and either conniving or fighting the way to victory (and/or escape). For instance, there's nothing about "The Trouble with Tribbles" that restricts anything, except that Captain Kirk doesn't know what Quatrotriticale is. I can't imagine the circumstances under which that's prohibitive to a story worth telling.

I think there comes a point where someone has to ask whether the story they're wanting to tell needs to be part of an existing franchise or not. If you want to tell a story about a secret agent that's a lesbian, for instance, then don't try to make it a James Bond story. Just tell the lesbian spy story as its own thing. It's not as though science-fiction is a narrow field; you can do pretty much anything storywise, so long as it 1) makes sense and is compelling and 2) adheres to its own established guidelines. (For the record, I think the new movie meets both criteria.)

Ultimately, Star Trek should make us reflect on our own world. This is really the only thing I can say about the new movie that really fails. Sure, there's a message of cooperation buried in there, but that's depicted as a personal relationship issue; not one of social policy.

Supermallet
05-08-09, 05:12 PM
Min, thanks for the reply. This is how I would love to see all debates happen on this forum. I will respond, but for now I have to run errands.

Travis McClain
05-08-09, 05:20 PM
Min, thanks for the reply. This is how I would love to see all debates happen on this forum. I will respond, but for now I have to run errands.

Thanks. It takes two to tango, though, so be sure to pat your own back, too. And, while I'm thinking about it, I hope more of the post-movie discussions are like ours has been rather than the "I hated it"/"It was awesome" variety that contribute nothing relevant. Star Trek has got us talking about the franchise again in a meaningful way, and that in and of itself is quite an accomplishment for J.J. Abrams's movie.

Incidentally, I was leery of the project when I heard Orci & Kurtzman wrote it because I thought entirely too much of M:i:III rehashed scenes from other recent spy movies. Then I was pleased by their work on Transformers so I got hopeful. I have to say, I am far more impressed by their work on Star Trek than I thought I was going to be.

TGM
05-08-09, 05:28 PM
if Star Trek becomes more of a "main stream" sort of thing, how long before we start seeing this out on the street?

http://www.toplessrobot.com/startrekcorset.jpg

:drool:

Patman
05-08-09, 06:23 PM
Beam me up, Scotty!

Jon2
05-08-09, 10:45 PM
if Star Trek becomes more of a "main stream" sort of thing, how long before we start seeing this out on the street?

http://www.toplessrobot.com/startrekcorset.jpg

:drool:

Oh yeah! I'd like to see more of that... I mean her.

Actually, original ST fans (those who watched TOS when it first aired) know that ST was always "main stream," even if the "main stream" didn't know it.

Before the advent of demographics, there was a survey taken of ST fans from all walks of "main stream" life, from professionals of every type to blue-collar workers, adults, students, etc., etc.

The only commonality?

Star Trek.

hasslein
05-09-09, 12:36 AM
Did you see the movie?

Because I did and Urban is easily the most inspired casting of the entire flick and he nails McCoy. As I mentioned earlier, I wish we got to see more of him during the two hours.

In his first scene, I started to agree with you, but as the film went on, I stand by my miscast statement... He should have had the Romulan role. Great actor, not McCoy....

Ron G
05-09-09, 12:43 AM
Umm no, Please refer me to the post where I or someone else said you could not have a differing opinion. But just because you didn't like the movie still does not give the right to insult someone who loved it.


Then don't tell me to shut up. Do you understand how this works?

Bandit03
05-09-09, 09:02 AM
But because they had so much fun in this movie, they may go seek out those other materials and become big fans of TOS and TNG, etc. So it is much better for business than what they've been doing since Enterprise went off the air--nothing at all.



I have never been a fan of the movies or the show; with that said, I absolutely loved this new movie. I'm going to give the old flicks another shot, but honestly I don't expect my opinion about them to change. The reason I say that is because it seemed like every channel yesterday was playing old Trek movies/shows and I watched a little of them. As I watched them I said to myself that this is not the Trek I just saw :(.

I am still in the mood for more Trek and I'm going to watch the previous movies again, in fact I have a couple coming from Netflix right now, and I'm just going to watch them with an open mind and hope for the best.

skiblet
05-09-09, 12:15 PM
I saw this yesterday at our towns brand new IMAX theathr and let me tell you

this movie was so good, and so badly needed, that it nearly brought tears to my eyes. I felt like FINALLY they have done this franchise justice, and also made one of the best sci-fi films in years. The casting is great, it is packed full of action, a great story, wit, charm, and some of the best most ridiculous space scenes - the space battles are absolutely breathtaking - i was so blown away at the first 10 min space fight scene that i got teary eyed as i watched it, and on a 40 ft high IMAX digital screen with 14,000 watt surround system. The sound was earthshattering, razor sharp, and completely immersive.

Even if you dont give 2 shits about star trek, go see it -, this film is fantastic, and you are likely to fall head over heels in love with star trek lore all over again if your a casual fan (like me). Im not a huge TOS fan, im more of a TNG fan, but still loved the homage they paid to the flavor and the character of the original series-

Directors, pay attention - this is how its done. This film just stomped all over every sci fi film effort of the last 3-5 years in my opinion.

I might go again today

MBoyd
05-09-09, 12:53 PM
I just went on Twitter and searched for Star Trek. There are so many postings from people going to see the movie or twittering about it. And it was refreshing every few seconds with 20-40 new postings. Crazy. Paramount have to love that.

lordwow
05-09-09, 02:38 PM
http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/09/star-trek-on-track-for-70m-weekend-in-us-intl-looks-good-too/

A big Friday
According to studio estimates, Star Trek brought in an impressive $24M on Friday. Add in the what it made from 7:00-midnight screenings and the film’s total cume stands at $31M through 29 hours. Most prediction services now expect the movie to surpass $70M for the four-day frame. Here’s a round-up of those predictions:
* Nikki Finke (Deadline Hollywood Daily): $72-75M
* Steve Mason (Big Hollywood / Slash Film): $76.68M
* Box Office.com: $75M


For reference, Nemesis brought in 40m in it's ENTIRE RUN. And First Contact had the largest opening weekend at 30.7M (49.9M adjusted for inflation)

Ven
05-09-09, 02:51 PM
Took the family to the $6 11:30 AM show today. My son who was not a fan wants to see it again. My daughter still not a fan. Wife liked it. As an old fan I thought it was great.

gpatrick900
05-09-09, 04:06 PM
Upon reflection, I've decided that I was hasty in my irritation of continuity. I accept that the only connection to the 1964-2005 continuity is Ambassador Spock, and that the 2009-forward timeline is separate. No big deal. But, as I mentioned in my earlier post, I still worry about how new fans are going to reconcile the differences.

Because now if I show my cousin Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, she's going to wonder how Vulcan and Amanda exist again.

Now, because this is a new timeline, fans need not be concerned with anything that happened in the old timeline. It would have been like, if at the end of "Mirror, Mirror," they decided to stay with the I.S.S. Enterprise crew for the duration of the original series instead of coming back to the U.S.S. Enterprise we had already followed. For once, we went through the looking glass...and stayed there.

It's actually more of a business concern I have than a fan-of-the-story concern. And, yes, since the franchise's market viability impacts whether or not I get more stories out of it, I do have some small stake in whether or not my cousin gets into the franchise.



A good point, and one with which I agree.



This idea that the franchise left no one any room to tell any new story is absolute bunk. It's Star Trek for crying out loud! The whole mantra of the franchise is to explore strange, new worlds. At its heart, the franchise uses fictitious civilizations as a mirror for our own contemporary world and its issues. So long as we have issues (and God knows we have at least as many now as we had in the 1960s when the franchise was born), there exists a potential allegory to be told.

Simply put, there is absolutely no story that anyone could have wanted to tell (outside of fan fiction) that could not have been accommodated by the established continuity.

Think about this: They allegedly wanted to tell the story of Kirk & Spock's early days, and that was the whole point of this movie. But, because they tampered with the timeline...they didn't! They told the story of another timeline's Kirk & Spock's early days.

That what ticks fans when the do stuff like that, that is why I will not go see the movie or watch it on DVD. Abrams did say they are working on a new movie that is based on the old shows. I hope he just didnt just say that, to get older people to stop complaining.

I watch the Tv Guide channel special on Star Trek movie. They had extended previews. None of the movie previews shown didn't interest me in the least. I really do not think Gene Roddenberry would approve.

The movie in my opinion was not made for the older generation. It was made for people who don't like star trek and It was also made for the younger crowd.