Ok, I thought that we should have an official thread to contain all our comments AFTER seeing the movie. The Trek 11 thread is long, and if we have a new thread we can freely talk here after we see the movie. WARNING - don't come back to this thread until you see the movie, unless you don't care about spoilers or seeing people's reactions before you see the film. Try to keep your posts after seeing the movie and comments in this thread. That way we don't have to spoiler tag everything. I will sticky this thread so it will stay near the top of the board.
First! :D
It's different, but I like different!
All the important things are there, in my opinion.
Go there, you have to see for yourself! :)
Quote from: cosmonaut on May 06, 2009, 02:44:31 PM
First! :D
It's different, but I like different!
All the important things are there, in my opinion.
Go there, you have to see for yourself! :)
Glad you liked it!
Quote from: cosmonaut on May 06, 2009, 02:44:31 PM
First! :D
It's different, but I like different!
All the important things are there, in my opinion.
Go there, you have to see for yourself! :)
Interesting....say more.
You know TOS and you have certain expectations - about the characters, about character-interaction, about the story. The movie acknowledges TOS but plays with these expectations. I enjoy how everyone has to struggle to find his/her place, there are some things that will surprise you.
This future isn't a tidy and antiseptic utopia, which I needed a bit to get used to. The windows are dirty, the engine room reminds me of present-day ships, but this all generates realism and was well worth it.
I don't see a problem with the actors, the characters or the story. This are the right people doing the things that have to be done in a good Star Trek movie. You care for the characters and the movie doesn't rely on special effects, as it should be.
I don't know why, but it wasn't as breathtaking as The Dark Knight. But it's a close enough. Maybe it has something to do with it being an origin story? Looking forward to the next one!
I presently say 9 out of 10.
Quote from: cosmonaut on May 06, 2009, 07:30:51 PM
You know TOS and you have certain expectations - about the characters, about character-interaction, about the story. The movie acknowledges TOS but plays with these expectations. I enjoy how everyone has to struggle to find his/her place, there are some things that will surprise you.
This future isn't a tidy and antiseptic utopia, which I needed a bit to get used to. The windows are dirty, the engine room reminds me of present-day ships, but this all generates realism and was well worth it.
I don't see a problem with the actors, the characters or the story. This are the right people doing the things that have to be done in a good Star Trek movie. You care for the characters and the movie doesn't rely on special effects, as it should be.
I don't know why, but it wasn't as breathtaking as The Dark Knight. But it's a close enough. Maybe it has something to do with it being an origin story? Looking forward to the next one!
I presently say 9 out of 10.
What did you think about the planet that died? I was impressed at them actually doing it.
Quote from: Just X on May 06, 2009, 08:53:21 PM
What did you think about the planet that died? I was impressed at them actually doing it.
Didn't see that coming. I am impressed, too. It makes it very clear that there is real jeopardy and "what has happened will happen again" is the motto of another series and not a given. Makes things more interesting, and they were right, this is not a prequel.
It's a new time line! Everyone is free to sort things out. I've decided to pretend only the good episodes and movies of Trek are going to happen again! :)
Quote from: cosmonaut on May 06, 2009, 07:30:51 PM
You know TOS and you have certain expectations - about the characters, about character-interaction, about the story. The movie acknowledges TOS but plays with these expectations. I enjoy how everyone has to struggle to find his/her place, there are some things that will surprise you.
This future isn't a tidy and antiseptic utopia, which I needed a bit to get used to. The windows are dirty, the engine room reminds me of present-day ships, but this all generates realism and was well worth it.
I don't see a problem with the actors, the characters or the story. This are the right people doing the things that have to be done in a good Star Trek movie. You care for the characters and the movie doesn't rely on special effects, as it should be.
I don't know why, but it wasn't as breathtaking as The Dark Knight. But it's a close enough. Maybe it has something to do with it being an origin story? Looking forward to the next one!
I presently say 9 out of 10.
Well said, I think you make some excellent points.
It was an amazing film well done to Karl Urban he did an awesome job (as did the whole cast) i walked out of the movie and i didn't know what to say for about two hours.
If this is just a taste of what we are going to get in the next two films then I think star trek as a franchise could be on the up.
The shots of the space battles were amazing, as they were in star trek the motion picture you get an amazing sense of scale.
Just came out. Sitting at train station with kell. We loved it, love it. Not too keen on the spock and uhura thing but you know there you go. Better report tomorrow with a photo of the waffle on boys going to the cinema. I nearly cried with glee.
Just got back from watching the movie, all I can think to say is awesome! I absolutley loved it.
As a fairly new trekkie this is the yard stick I needed to be able to follow Trek as closely as I do other franchises such as Star Wars. With all the old movies, OS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise it was a bit daunting knowing where to start (I have managed all the films, DS9 and most of Voyager so far). Now I can watch these new films knowing anything can happen (but I can still start to catch up on the classic stuff in between films :thumbsup).
As for the film, I thought the cast were terrific I especially liked Chris Pine's portrayal of Kirk and look forward to seeing how the friendships develop in the coming films between Kirk, Spock and Bones.
I too was a little thrown by the Uhura Spock thing, but hey I am strapped in and ready for the ride!
Welldone JJ, welldone :cheers
Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on May 07, 2009, 01:23:48 PM
Just came out. Sitting at train station with kell. We loved it, love it. Not too keen on the spock and uhura thing but you know there you go. Better report tomorrow with a photo of the waffle on boys going to the cinema. I nearly cried with glee.
I thought about that too, but she always had a thing for Spock. I'm glad he got her this time.
Ok back home now so can write a bit clearly. I so loved this film, the experience of seeing it a imax is well worth the exra money though they kept us waiting abit long for my liking. It was good to see people dressed up (unusual for us brits) and one chap got a prize. The screen was great although during the ice planet bit it looked a bit dirty but thats the cinemas problem. How excellent was the cast, everyone was great and hats off to Chris Pine he did a great job and is Kirk. Loved the end when he called Bones 'Bones Buckle Up' so Kirk. karl Urban stood out for me, he nailed Bones. Quinto was excellent and i knew he would be. The actress playing was Uhure did her job very well and made the part a lot bigger. the actors playing Chekov and Sulu were top notch and my man peggy pulled a blinder with Scotty, lets see more of him in the next film.
All in all a blinder. (Oh and i love the engine room, great stuff)
Below is a picture of the Waffle On boys on the way to the cinema.
Seen it. Liked it. Don't know what else to say!
I need to breathe for a bit and take it all in. I'll b back when I'm more coherent!
Just saw the new Star Trek here in the U.k. and i must say that (as a die hard Trekker) i think this movie is the greatest film ever.
I am not disappointed on how they bridge the Universe we know to the 2.0 universe. It is handles with such care and respect that older fans will appreciate that the writers do not dismiss us but they also respect those who never knew Trek like us and show it to be a worth while franchise.
I think im rambling. It's 2:30 in the morning and im going to sleep. Stand proud Trek fans. J.J. Abrams is a great man for this.
"Live Long and Propser" - :vulcan
P.S. - YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS IN IMAX. I KNOW I WILL.
Already have thread for this.. going to merge...
Where to begin. Actually, I don't think I will write a lot tonight. But, be rest assured, I really, really liked the movie - a lot. As a couple of others have said, I think they pulled off a very interesting thing. Kind of a whole new Trek universe to explore and get to know without taking anything away from the one we have watched for 40 years. Being a Sci-Fi series allowed them to do this in a very elegant way. As I was sitting waiting for it to start talking to my old friend Rob about it, we were talking about all the "reboots" we have had over the last several years. The interesting thing is none of those really try to integrate the past with the new. Think of Batman, James Bond, etc., all of them just kind of "start over." They did that with Trek, but also hung on to the past too.
I loved the cast - all around excellent jobs by everyone and they all looked very comfortable in their roles. The look is very different from the Trek we know, but that's ok. While watching it, there were times it didn't seem much like "Trek" at all. The feel and look made it new and a bit strange actually.
Well, I guess I did write a bit. I'll have much more to write soon and say about it on the vidcast this coming weekend. I'm going to try and see it once more before I record my thoughts.
Anyway, go see it soon everyone. See it with a bit of a crowd if you can and bring some friends. They will enjoy it!
What was the biggest shocker to you Rico?
Quote from: Just X on May 07, 2009, 07:18:53 PM
What was the biggest shocker to you Rico?
Well, I knew a bit more than maybe I had been letting on and/or had deduced a few things. I guess the biggest thing I didn't know as much about was the Spock/Uhura thing. But you know, I kind of like it. After seeing Spock alone for so many years and struggling with his emotions it was kind of nice to see this. I'd like to see that explored more in the future. I want to read the book and see what background on stuff will be in there.
How about you? Or did you know the whole movie pretty much before going in?
I knew pretty much everything before seeing it. Nothing was shocking and I LOVED it!
There were so many little touches and nods to Trek of the past in it - loved all that. It will make all the Trekkies smile. Did you hear the Tribble when they met up with Scotty?
WOW. This was a very satisfying film. I'm still soaking it in, but I think I can safely say that this is easily the BEST Trek film I've seen since Wrath Of Kahn. It felt like watching the birth of a legend. Kudos to JJ- He pulled it off!
There was a very mixed crowd at my viewing, and I was pleasantly surprised to see many of the younger audience members; folks I wouldn't peg as Trek fans, getting engrossed in the film and cheering and laughing at all the right parts. At the same time, there were plenty of respectful nods to the older Trek fans; quite a few "in" jokes that garnered many appreciative reactions. Abrahms has created a film that doesn't betray what has come before, while at the same time is easily accessible to casual movie goers.
I enjoyed every cast member; they all slipped into these iconic roles like they were slipping on a comfortable pair of slippers. It fit just right!
There were quite a few moments that were so spot-on, it nearly gave me goosebumps. Chief among these: pretty much everything involving McCoy interacting with either Spock or Kirk. The dynamic between the trio was captured perfectly.
I wonder if anyone else felt a little deja vous seeing [spoiler] Pike in the chair at the end there? I couldn't help but think of Pike in the TOS- minus the disfigurement, of course. [/spoiler]
The effects in this film were amazing! As the Kelvin flew by at the beginning, It felt like I was looking through a window at an actual starship flying past. The scale, power, and complexity of the ships was conveyed in an incredibly effective manner. And the Enterprise: Pure gold. Seeing the ship in action was a joy. :)
I plan on seeing this movie again tomorrow. I can't wait!
Quote from: Rico on May 07, 2009, 07:40:00 PM
There were so many little touches and nods to Trek of the past in it - loved all that. It will make all the Trekkies smile. Did you hear the Tribble when they met up with Scotty?
I missed that; I was kind of distracted by Scotty's sidekick. Wait.. now I'm remembering.. There was an odd sound after Kirk closed the door to the facilitly. I'll keep an ear out for it when I watch it again tomorrow!
I just remembered a question I had- Was the kid walking along during the car scene someone significant? I remember Kirk calling out his name, but I couldn't make it out.
Quote from: wraith1701 on May 07, 2009, 08:00:37 PM
I just remembered a question I had- QuoteWas the kid walking along during the car scene someone significant? I remember Kirk calling out his name, but I couldn't make it out.
That's Kirk's brother. Or at least that's my guess.
Ok - NOW, I can read some reviews. Here's a little sampling....
Some of today's positive reviews from top critics:
* New York Times "The spirit of adventure and embrace of rationality that define the show are in full swing"
* LA Times: "sci-fi epic mind-melds Roddenberry's vision with J.J. Abrams' sense of entertainment: epic storytelling and ramped-up action"
* USA Today: "an energetic sci-fi extravaganza, with spectacular action sequences and nifty visuals. "
* NPR: "the point of a reboot isn't really to tell a tale; it's to ensure that the underlying enterprise can go on. Abrams has done that, for sure,"
* Time: "a real family film, relatively light on the violence and funny without being overly crude" [link includes video interview with JJ Abrams]
Just got back and I'll post my full review tomorrow when I have a keyboard with all the keys on it (laptop a victim of my two year olds prying fingers) but I will say now I LOVED EVERY SECOND OF IT...AWESOME!!!
This is my first post on this forum and the fact that it is on the movie seems very appropriate. The movie was just plain great. It has enough of the old Star Trek spirit to keep us old time Trekkers happy, while it also has a lot of newness in the form of special effects and high energy action to keep most non-Trekker type movie fans in their seats with their eyes glued to the screen.
The movie opened up with a bang (almost literally) and didn't really stop (aside from some much needed rest stops for the audience) until the final credits rolled. The special effects were amazing. The writing was terrific, with a lot of memorable lines ("my usual salutation would be particularly self-serving"). And the secondary characters got some really neat stuff to do.
All the actors did a great job recreating the essence of their characters. As everyone else has mentioned (and anyone who sees the movie will mention) Karl Urban was especially great at channeling Deforest Kelly's Leonard McCoy. Chris Pine certainly nailed the cocky take charge attitude of the James T. Kirk we all know and love. Zachary Quinto was so good at being Spock that my wife actually forgot for a moment that he wasn't Leonard Nimoy. The other actors did as well with their characters which gave the movie a brand new but familiar feel.
Speaking of Leonard Nimoy, it was a brilliant idea to have him in the movie. He bridges the gap between the Trek we know and this new alternate reality. The movie doesn't break cannon, it just starts a new line of it. In this new cannon, Kirk and company look to become even bigger legends than they were in the original cannon universe.
All in all, it was a great movie that Trekkers and non-Trekkers (my wife for instance) will love.
Well, what can I say!
Really enjoyed the movie. I went in knowing it would be different but it was different in a great way.
The pros:
The characters / actors were fantastic, especially the main 3 Kirk, Spock, Bones.
Good story setting up things for the franchise, action, comedy and character moments.
Brilliant special effects, not traditional Trek but still amazing.
Could have done without:
The darn Nokia plug, very annoying.
We can say without any doubt that this movie is 100% a reboot, nevermind what JJ and others were implying for months that the story 'would explain things'. Not a problem for me, I understand that tese are modern times and everything they did worked very well. The story and the new time line work nicely and will allow the writers to do absolutely anything and I am excited to see what will be different in this universe and what they can do with it.
It's a great time for Trek! ;D
Wow. Great movie.
Great movie. Not what I expected, and very fun!
We had a great time tonight. The IMAX was pretty packed and I met some really nice folks. I interviewed them for the Take Him With You podcast, AND we took video for the TSF video show too! It will be very fun!
What did I like about the movie?
The look, the music, the actors, the plot, the action... need I go on?
I had no problems with the way it was done. It was very fun to see the origins of these characters that I have come to know and love. And the way it opened up the Trek universe made me very excited about the direction that things could go.
So much better than I expected. I am very happy about it.
Great movie.. did I say that? :)
(http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs011.snc1/2909_1060447472547_1266722612_30139489_2616220_n.jpg)
(http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs011.snc1/2909_1060447352544_1266722612_30139486_1876673_n.jpg)
I thought the movie was brilliant. I saw it twice tonight (once regular, once IMAX at the same theater). It was amazing and with so many 'nods' to what came before. The audience really appreciated everything we saw. I am SO PUMPED about this movie!
Some thoughts:
- New ship? Outstanding!!!!! I got no problems at all with it other than the inside of engineering and below decks show too many pipes and duct work. I prefer a sleeker look.
- Kirk making out with the Orion cadet. Hmmm... interesting. I did not think we had any Orions in Starfleet given that the Orion Syndicate were mostly smugglers. Is this a nod to a possible RetCon based upon the episode in Enterprise?
- The whole 'alternate timeline'/Back to the Future explanation satisfied the reboot well enough. Since Spock/Nero changed the past, that means nothing that we know in the past 40 years of Trek has happened. Only the latest series Enterprise remains unaffected by the timeline change. This gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want because there are no more continuity issues.
- I also like the fact that basically Sarek has given Spock 'permission' to explore his human side. So it is now okay for him to have storylines that explore his relationship wth Uhura, his feelings, etc. (I noticed that Bones did call for Nurse Chapel who was offscreen so I guess Chapel will not be a love interest in this timeline, just Uhura)
- We saw our first 'redshirt' death when the engineer died in the matter stream of the drill. He was wearing a red jump suit...
- Mr. Greg Grunberg as the StepDad over the Nokia phone! Nuff said!
- I think Vulcans as the endangered species is an awesome twist. This could be an ongoing plot through the movies (new series?) and leaves room for Spock/Nimoy to reprise his role anytime he wishes. I wonder if Sarak will marry Perrin again...
- I thought the Kobiyashi Maru reprogramming was weak. The way Kirk talked about it in Wrath of Kahn, I guess I was expecting something a little more dramatic in his altered simulation...
- Did anyone else see Spock giving Scotty the algorithm for Trans Warp beaming as being very similar to the scene in Star Trek IV when Scotty gave the engineer the schematic for Transparent Alumnium? I thought for sure Scotty was going to say "So I invented the thing?"
Overall, I just LOVED this movie! My family loved the movie! My daughters say they are now Trek fans! I want MORE!!!
-Rick
It was frakkin' awesome! Loved the way Chris Pine channeled Bill Shatner's Kirk a few times, like when he entered the bridge saying, "Bones!", etc.
Nitpick:
The phasers are no longer "beam weapons" per se, but machine-gun like pulses, which was great, but i miss the old style beams..why not have both? Also, the bridge sounds,door-swish,etc. were a cool homage, but wanted more. Didn't much like all the white and glass of bridge and hallways, but we. a great achievement and looking for more!!
Ya know you wanna see what you'd look like in the movie...
http://www.trekyourself.com/ (http://www.trekyourself.com/)
Sounds like everyone is really enjoying it a lot. Glad to hear that. There is one thing I want to point out and hopefully clear up. With regards to certain things happening in the movie in a certain way such as: the Kobayashi Maru scene, Kirk with the Orion girl, Spock and Uhura, the new look of things, etc. EVERYTHING in this movie can and is different than things we know from past Trek (especially TOS). When Nero came back and the Kelvin was destroyed, Kirk lost his father, etc. it set a chain of events into motion that altered not just Kirk's life, but those around him, Starfleet and so on. This is truly an alternate timeline now. Hope that helps.
As far as it being a reboot - it isn't. It's an alternate telling of the same basic story. I know this is a fine line, but because they integrated the older Spock in, used time travel to create a new time branch, I don't find that it's truly a reboot. A reboot to me would have been like they have done with Batman, James Bond, etc. They just walk in and start over. If this movie just showed us a young Kirk and Spock fighting some bad guy named Nero then yeah, it would really be a reboot because they wouldn't be trying to make things sort of fit together.
I came out feeling there are two timelines going on. The one we see from this movie and the one that was TOS, then TNG, etc. At least that's my take on all of it.
I agree, this is what I meant as i said it's not a prequel. It doesn't lead to TOS.
Yep - exactly. Just watch the first couple of minutes of this interview with the writers of the film. They say almost exactly what I said above (and I even watched this interview after I wrote the above stuff). Heck, they even use the same examples I give like Batman and Bond as being not what they did with Trek. Good stuff.
Alex Kurtzman & Bob Orci Interview - Star Trek (http://vimeo.com/4468368)
Right, I've absorbed enough to feed back a bit, but I think I pretty much agree with most of what's already been said.
Having read the comics up front, I was pretty prepared for the route the story was taking and appreciate the fact that they've gone to the trouble of tying the new in the with old. The comics carried the story well, but the use of Nimoy in the film really sealed it for me. We're on a divergant time line. TOS still happened...just somewhere else. I can live with that.
On the character front, McCoy bore the strongest similarity to the 'original' for me while Scotty was the weakest. I'm not sure what I think on Spock and Kirk. They were obviously different but they were portrayed well enough that I didn't need to question the differences. I guess I mean that with McCoy I could shut my eyes and believe it was De Kelley. With Kirk and Spock I couldn't shut my eyes but the spirit of the character was there. With Scotty...Hmmmm, I'm not sure what to say. He seemed just a little wrong and was playing it far, far too comedically.
Having said McCoy was 'closest' to the original, I also felt he had the least reason to be there. Getting the 'Bones' nickname established was good but the whole sequence with Kirk getting the fat hands and tongue, while funny, felt just a little contrived as if it had been put in place only to give McCoy a reason to have some lines. It's only a small gripe though.
One clever move was the fact that Nero had appeared 25 years in the 'past' from Kirk's time. That gave scope to change just about anything and a convenient handle to hang every difference on. Much more believable than arriving there to find everything already different.
Some bullets:
- Giving Chekov an access code with 'Victor Victor' in it was just plain funny.
- We had Scott "Giving it all she's got.."
- The whole 'You lied' sequence at the end was very remeniscent of ST 6.
- Loved the tribble in the background.
- Didn't like the reference to Klingon warbirds (has that term ever been used for Klingons?)
- Pike in the chair was very 'Menagerie'.
- Didn't like the sheer number of pipes etc in engineering but I would also argue that TOS et al was probably a little too 'clean' in the engine department.
- Spock's final greeting made me laugh - 'Live long and Prosper' being seen as too self-serving.
- Paul McGillion's cameo was nice though I think he would have been a better Mongomery Scott than Pegg.
- 'Old' Spock's greeting to Kirk in the Ice Cave and the genuine warmth showed there worked well.
- Spock's 'Not really' when Kirk proposed that Spock should appreciate that rescuing Nero was the 'logical' thing to do was brilliant and I could feel the character had settled. (I guess having Nimoy around does no harm when learning to play Spock).
- Spock's rejection of the Science Academy dur to racist statements worked for me.
The whole destruction of Vulcan was a very interesting twist and may make for some interesting future stories. A large stabilising element within the Federation has been removed which may lead to some interesting future stories. Nimoy also had a much larger part than I had envisioned which only added to the strenght of the film.
The one thing that confused me, and about the only negative I can take from the film at the moment, was the fact that they went out and crewed the fleet with cadets. I'm assuming that they were used simply to bolster numbers on the ships rather than staff them fully but the fact that they took on standard duty uniforms and ranks seemed odd. Did I miss something there?
There were times when I was thinking 'Hang on, this is Star Trek!'. That didn't mean I wasn't enjoying it, but I had dropped out of ST mode.
Overall, I loved the film - enough action to keep me engaged and enough familiarity that I felt the alternate time line to be believable.
Roll on the next installment!
Not really reading this thread yet, but I just wanted to post this here for posterity.
Thanks Joe - good idea. Just a reminder, I hope that all those that have seen the movie (and those that see it soon) will send in a video for the podcast this weekend. Some great comments folks and I'd love to have you on the show, saying them yourself!
Saw the movie last night, and over all enjoyed it. A lot of the points Mike (Feathers) made was things I noted as well.
I had been steering clear over any spoilers for the past few months, so a lot of this plot was a surprise to me. My brother gave me a quick break down of the comics on the way to the movie, so I had some background going into the movie on that.
For the first part of the movie, I was trying figure out how it all fit in with the other Trek. Once they got to the point where they had explained that when Nero had arrived, and at that point the timeline was changed, I was able to put those thoughts aside.
I really liked Zachary Quinto as Spock, the way he portrayed the character was exactly the way I was expecting it, I thought he did a great job, and probably my favorite of the new cast. The Spock -Uhura relationship was new to me, but once they got to the point where they explained the new timeline, I was not as hung up on it. Part of me shed a tear for the Old Timeline Nurse Chappel though :'( . It took me a bit to warm up to McCoy, early on, I did not really care for the character, as it just felt like a character with a lot of McCoy one liners. but midway through the movie, I felt he really grew into the character, and looking forward to what they do with him in the next movie. I think I will really like Kirk, and looking more towards the next movie to get a real Idea of him as a captain, since for the majority of this movie he wasn't. Sulu and Chekov I thought did a good job, and pretty much as I expected, Chekov young with a lot of energy, and Sulu being the steady and cool helmsman (even if he made a mistake at the start ;D ) . Scotty, I am not so sure on, I felt there was a bit to much comedy in the character, and pretty much every scene he was in was comic relief. I am hoping in the next movie they tone him down a bit. I was not really surprised that they elevated Uhura's character in the sense that she stood out more. With her being the only female lead cast member, I expected they would give her more screen time. It will be interesting to see how her relationship with Spock will affect the Kirk - Spock friendship, if Spock will draw on her like Kirk does with McCoy.
The one thing that did not really sit to well with me in the movie was the rapid promotion of a lot of these characters to their positions. Even if it was an alternate timeline, it still picked at me a bit that Kirk could go from a Cadet that was not even assigned to a ship to the Captain in such short time. Maybe it is nitpicking, but how does a person with no command experience get to captain a ship. He has no experience to draw upon, and just felt like a big leap for me, even given the circumstances. I must admit that sat in my head the entire movie. I felt that way with a few of the other characters as well in how quickly they got their positions. I know it is a movie, and I should put that aside, but I am not sure if that is something I will ever be fully happy with. I am looking forward to the next movie, as I really do want to see this Kirk as the actual Captain of the ship.
I enjoyed the movie a lot, and I get what they did with resetting the timeline. They are free now to do what they want in the Universe and they do not impact what has happened in the other series and movies. That was evident with the destruction of Vulcan. But part of me shed a tear for the past timeline walking out of the theatre. It felt like I was saying goodbye to a friend of 40 years. It will be interesting to see how they handle the Star Trek property going forward, and what they will do with the two timelines. I wonder with the Novels, if they will have to classify them somehow to what timeline they fall into.
I theatre I saw it in was about 2/3 full, so sounds like a lot of the rest of you, in that it was not completely full. I think that might be that a lot of people still thought the movie was opening on Friday. A bit of a sour note, the movie stopped for us right at the end during Spock's talk, so we never got to see the ending credits. There must have been an issue with the projector, as they got it going a few minutes later, but no sound and near the end of the credits. The theatre did give us a free movie pass for the mistake, so that made up for it, but I think I will want to go again to see it all the way through.
The downside to having the 'two' timelines is that future movies, books, comics, etc will now have to identify which timeline they are covering. I am not sure if having the two timelines is good for the fandom in the long-term or not because I think we need to embrace the new timeline in order to get Paramount and the powers that be reason to make more movies. They are certainly not going to make more movies in the original timeline.
I am such a Trek fanatic from the 60s. I love everything about it, starting from the Roddenberry premise of the show and the future it portrays. My fear is that the original timeline is going to end up the venue for fanfic and books but will likely wane as the new generation of Trek fans 'vote with their wallets' for the new timeline. This will be especially true if this movie makes a ton of money and its sequel does equally well.
Is having a combined fandom in the one timeline a better investment to ensure Trek's future? I don't know. It just seems if they try to keep two timelines going, it is diluting the available resources in creativity and funding for the franchise as a whole.
Thoughts?
-Rick
So now that Vulcans are homeless (Jen's words), I was thinking...
Okay so Carol Marcus invents the Genesis Device in this timeline but this time her son does not use protomatter because he knew who his father was from Day One and had no inner insecurities driving him to make that bad decision.
So what do they do? They program the Genesis Device to recreate VULCAN!
Oh and BTW: With only ten thousand or so Vulcans left (offworld, on ships, etc.), what does this mean for those who enter Pon Farr? They cannot return to their ancestral lands. Many will no longer have living spouses (perhaps that breaks the 'bonding' so no Pon Farr...). This might be there first challenge once they establish this new colony.
-Rick
Did anyhone say "Oh no they didn't" when Nero introduced the organism from Ceti Alpha Five but said it was from a different planet and is digested rather than being placed in the ear?
I kinda felt like they should have either followed the canon on that detail to the letter (in terms of how it worked) or have come up with a totally different approach to extracting the information (like using the Romulan interogation techniques they used on Geordi in TNG)...
Just my two cents.
-Rick
I agree. Longer term it's going to be hard to service both timelines in the areas of books etc and could well be confusing but I don't think we're looking at a xoheeen long term view here. I think we've seen 'what needs to be done' to get Trek back in theatres (not my words). What follows from this is yet to be determined.
I'd hate this to spell the complete death of what's come before but in the terms we're discussing it is quite possible. Time will tell.
I like the recreation of Vulcan via Genesis idea...
I think as we have had no more tng , voyager, ds9 films then i think we can safely say that time line is now finished as far as franchise goes. Enterprise is before the film so that is in either time line. I think it's best to maybe even think of it as a parallel universe.
here is my take.
The timeline has been changed so many times that there is no correct timeline.
This timeline seems to be a continuation of Enterprise and Enterprise is a result of First Contact.
Then it is changed again by the entry of Nero making something New.
I like it and find it pretty easy to understand. It also isnt the first time trek has made more than one timeline work.
We have the TV/movie timeline. Then the books and then the shatnerverse.
I know what you guys are saying but frankly, this is how things seem to go these days. It was unlikely we were going to get another movie from the TNG crew/cast. As far as DS9 or Voyager, doubtful too. So we have this timeline of movies - for now. Like I mentioned on last week's podcast, as far as a new TV series, it's hard to tell what they may do at this point. Could go a lot of ways.
One thing that might be kind of cool in the future would be to see some type of combined cast movie. Sort of like they did in Generations. JJ has said he'd still love to have Shatner in another movie. So. lots to consider.
Yeah that works.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not shedding tears for the old era particularly but as I grew up with it all I'll look back with a certain nostalgia. From what I saw last night though I can also look forward with some excitement.
The old era isn't gone, it's all still there. Again, this is just a new take on things to enjoy.
Okay well I've had a night to sleep on it now and I can focus my thoughts a little more to write my impressions of the new Star Trek movie. Just writing those words is something I honestly wasn't sure I'd ever get to do again..."new Trek movie." Now I feel almost 100% sure we'll see at least one if not several more follow ups to this movie. I'll say right off again how much I loved it. I was so impressed how all of my expectations (and I had some serious expectations) were surpassed. This group of actors and filmmakers were treading on as close to holy ground as you can get in Hollywood these days, and they really pulled it off.
The beginning of the movie was so moving and generated real emotions. I was a bit confused at first, trying to figure out what time period we were in, because the technology didn't give it away at all. It wasn't until I realized that we were looking at George Kirk that it became clear. I thought it was a brilliant decision to begin this new franchise with the birth of Kirk. The writers and Abrams hit every note perfectly in this scene, and the actors really sold it. Maybe it has something to do with being a father myself, and just having so recently witnessed the birth of my third child, but I felt genuine despair for the plight of George Kirk and really felt the heroic nature of his actions much more keenly because I know how desperate I would have been to find any other option or solution.
I loved the introduction of Spock as a child too. Those Vulcan kids were so mean, I almost stood up and cheered when young Spock stood up for his parents and fought back. These scenes, with the young actors showing us the formative years of Kirk and Spock, took so much pressure off of the new cast, because they were so effective setting up their characters. They did a great job cementing in our minds the brashness and F-the-world attitude of Kirk and the conflicted duality in Spock. One of the many changes I really didn't mind seeing was a more supportive relationship between Spock and Sarek. For a cold stoic race like the Vulcan the scenes between Spock and his father were surprisingly heartfelt. It feels good to give Spock somewhat of a break in that respect.
I really don't know about the whole Spock/Uhura pairing though. During my screening, someone actually yelled at the screen during their scene on the transporter pad "What the *bleep* is this?" I have to admit I felt like yelling too. In fact, I remember during the big reveal of their relationship in the turbolift, when Uhura asks Spock, "Just tell me what you need," my exact thought was "Spock must be thinking he needs you to get your freaking hands off of his ears." I can't help but think it is just a mistake to involve these two in this way. Couldn't they continue to develop Uhura in a more interesting manner than simply to be a love interest of one of the big three? In our timeline it took Spock almost a century to come to terms with and truly accept his human side as a part of him. Are Abrams and crew going to just toss that basic character conflict right out the window for Spock now? It seems that way, if he is going to let human females put their lips all over him in front of his captain and crewmates. I think Spock's fruitless struggle to maintain his Vulcan way of life in spite of his human heritage is a fundamental element of his character and it only makes sense to resolve it in the manner in which the original timeline did, after a lifetime of study, meditation, and experience.
Leonard Nimoy did such a great job. Even if he hadn't been so public saying how much he enjoyed working on this movie, you could see it so clearly in every iota of his performance. He is in the movie for the perfect amount of time, too, and every line and scene he has is wonderful and sublime. It's so great that old Spock finally gets a chance to say goodbye to his friend Kirk. One of the hugest problems I had with Kirk's death in Generations, and I had many problems with the way that was done, was that his death seemed so empty and meaningless without Spock there to say his farewell. It's a gaping hole in the story of those two characters and I felt we got a chance to see it happen, even if it was with Chris Pine playing the role. He seems like such a nice man, Leonard Nimoy, and he is definitely near the top of my list of people I would love to share a meal with one day.
I have to chime in for a sec regarding Ric's comments about this not being a reboot. I think we are treading too close to the fine line of semantics here. New cast, new history with canon tossed out the window, right down to the title itself, simply Star Trek, this has reboot written all over it. I think there is nothing wrong with that, as long as it is done right and with respect to the source material. They certainly did that. There were tons of nods and funny little moments that are going to fly right over the heads of people that aren't fans of the series and movies. Many of them were already mentioned here, but another one that immediately hit me was Kirk banging his forhead on the bulkhead of the transport ship, bringing me back to Scotty's big comedy moment in Final Frontier.
My biggest concern about Star Trek was that the franchise was going to take the direction that it seems the Terminator: Salvation reboot is going. Did everyone see the trailer for that movie, in big bold letters across the whole screen, "FORGET THE PAST." What balls on them. Sorry, McG, I loved the original Terminator movies (well only really 1 and 2)and I don't want to forget them. Those three words totally turned me off to that movie, and I doubt I will even go see it now. They could have done that here, with Trek as well, but they didn't. They showed respect for what has gone before and given us tons of great material to look forward to as the series continues. Well done!
I meant to say. The new take on the phasers was a surprise and I did have a bit of trouble working out who was firing what colour pulse at who but I counter that with finally seeing a shuttle bay built to a sensible scale for the ship.
I've always had a problem with the size o the shuttles against the size of the bays (when viewed externally) and felt none of the series ever quite got it right. With this ship and the internal display with the shuttles stacked to the side, it seemed to male sense to me. Whether the internal schematics of the ship would support such a large bay, of course I don't know.
I'm of the opinion that it's 100% a reboot but they tried to play it down becuase they were worried. Like I said, no problem for me at all as I am open minded and I am looking forward to it but there are a few changes that make it fall into this category for me.
If you disregard the effects and technology there are still a few changes the plot doesn't cover.
* Romulans are known to be of Vulcan ancestry. (OK this one could be explained by the plot if 25 years ago Nero made it known he was Romulan and the Federation went looking for answers to the Romulan Empire.)
* Stardates are now actual dates! The pre TOS date was given as 2250 something and when Spock enquired to the computer of Old Spock's ship it says it was created in Stardate 2387 point something. This is a BIG change.
* Nokia still exists? So commercial business and money still exist in this Federation. I could handle this but Nokia?
These are just a few off the top of my head but there are a few others that poeple have mentioned already as well.
Yeah, I was just thinking about the dates thing in the car (about 5 minutes ago). I'm not clued up on stardates but what I heard felt wrong - I'd missed the date from Spock's ship though.
I could actually live with different dates in the different timeline as I'm not wedded to the arrival of Nero being the one event that spawned this timeline. It accounts for a number of the differences, sure, but it doesn't have to be the cause of it. I think Enterprise used proper dates so if one timeline carried on in that manner and the TOS timeline didn't then fine.
This doesn't explain Spock's ship though.
Again guys...
- Nero goes back in time.
-- Kelvin gone - this timeline now altered. (Other timeline still in tact - continues.)
--- Everything changes - some to a big degree, some less. So ship weapons, Stardates, the bridge, people, the Federation, all of it is different.
That's the explanation for all of it.
That's what I said - I just used more words :)
I think the way the whole altered timeline explanation works is actually a very, very elegant solution to the whole 'reboot' problem and it's been handled magnificently.
Even Spock's ship from the old timeline using 'new' stardates could be glossed over using some form of 'computer interface update'. Trek has got away with far worse in the past.
Quote from: Rico on May 08, 2009, 11:19:26 AM
Again guys...
- Nero goes back in time.
-- Kelvin gone - this timeline now altered. (Other timeline still in tact - continues.)
--- Everything changes - some to a big degree, some less. So ship weapons, Stardates, the bridge, people, the Federation, all of it is different.
That's the explanation for all of it.
Still don't think the arrival of Nero is enough to make ALL of these changes happen and I think it was a mistake of the producers to keep insisting the plot and the divergent timeline would explain it all away. I don't think it does but at the same time I don't think it needs too. I can accept that things look and work differently. Besides, the Kelvin ALREADY looked more advanced than any TOS era ship (nevermind a ship that was in service 25 years before the launch of the Enterprise!) BEFORE Nero even got there.
Quote from: Feathers on May 08, 2009, 11:23:10 AM
That's what I said - I just used more words :)
I think the way the whole altered timeline explanation works is actually a very, very elegant solution to the whole 'reboot' problem and it's been handled magnificently.
Even Spock's ship from the old timeline using 'new' stardates could be glossed over using some form of 'computer interface update'. Trek has got away with far worse in the past.
In my opinion we are supposed to accept these changes (the technology, the weapons, the stardates) as if that's they way it always was, it makes the most sense. The only thing the timeline plot can explain away is they personal history changes of the characters etc and it works very well.
As I said earlier, it depends on when the timelines diverged.
They could have diverged 100 years before and simply been running in parallel. Nero's arrival simply added some further, gross level, changes to those already existing differences.
Dan and Mike - you should listen and watch some of the interviews with the writers and JJ. They confirm what I am saying. They mention they tried very hard to not just erase everything from the last 40 years. This is a new, parallel universe. With some things the same and some different.
I know this thread has a spoiler alert on it...But I'm adding one to my post again. SPOILERS! Skip my post if you don't want to read about them.
Angela and I went to the theater in her hometown to watch the movie last night. First, the high schoolers running the joint forgot to start the projector on time. LOL! We had to go tell them it was ten after!
There were only 10 people in the theater with us (including our husbands)!!!! What in the heck!? I couldn't believe there were so few people.
We brought our OS tricorders and held them up like lighters at a rock concert with the lights and sound effects blaring when the film started. We didn't care if the six other people were annoyed. We had waited a long time for that movie. :D
I applauded when "STAR TREK" rolled across the screen. It was a lonely clap joined by no one. :(
Angela cried at the beginning of the film. We cheered when Sulu kicked butt...there were many scenes when we cheered aloud. Again, just us and our spouses seemed to enjoy it.
Over all we loved the movie. Let me make that VERY clear before your read my picky remarks.
Pros:
I loved the casting. I was doubtful of the actor playing Kirk until I actually saw him in the role. Excellent job...all of them...and it didn't even bother me that Kirk's eyes were blue instead of brown. :D
Wynona Ryder was great. I was very displeased with her casting in this movie when I first learned she would play Spock's mother. But for the short time she was on film...I believed she WAS Amanda and I grieved with Spock and Sarek when she died.
Uhura and Spock surprised me, but I bought it. But it made me wonder about what would happen with Saavik in the future.
I loved the scenes with Kirk and McCoy. EXCELLENT acting. I believed they were Kirk and Bones. Especially the scene where Jim has the reaction to the drug. Hi-Larious!
Angela and I laughed aloud at the end when Jim entered the bridge and said, "BONES!" That was DEAD ON KIRK!
I loved the scene where Scotty says, "I LOVE THIS SHIP!"
I totally caught that Pike in the wheel chair parallel. Very nice.
Just a few things bugged me...and some are picky fan observations and others are simply visceral reactions.
Scotty's little "monkey alien pal" bothered me. He was cute but at the same time...out of place some how. It was funny when he tried to follow Scotty onto the transporter pad. But I was afraid they were about to enter Jar Jar territory for a while there.
The plot raised a few flags for me. Why would it be a surprise that a sun was going to go supernova? Isn't that something that our scientists can basically predict now? They know how old our sun is. I've seen documentaries that have said how long it will live until it burns out. Wouldn't that be something Romulan scientists would know at LEAST hundreds of years in advance? Or I'm I confusing something?
Spock was going to save Romulus by forming a black hole? ...how was that going to work? I found myself wishing I had a rewind button so I could listen to him explain all of the details to young Spock, again.
When Old Spock was too late to save Romulus...why would he activate the red matter in the sun after Romulus's destruction? The system was dead anyway. It seemed like a convenient plot device used only to move Old Spock into the past. But David, my non-geek husband, made a good point. His suggestion was that Spock was attempting to buy time to save the survivors other planets in the system...I took that to mean "Remus". I gave him some geek points for that and a kiss for the heck of it.
Where was T'Kuht? Vulcan's sister planet. I didn't see it in the movie when Vulcan was destroyed. http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/548862 (http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/548862)
The visceral reaction I had occurred during the destruction of Vulcan. Surprised? LOL. I thought, "okay, the timeline will be corrected at some point in the movie and Vulcan will be saved." When I realized that wasn't going to happen I was very quiet for the rest of the movie. Not because I didn't like the film, but because I was upset... So JJ was successful at eliciting an emotional reaction from me. That is the mark of a good story...even if I think parts are flawed.
After thinking more about it, I decided that the events of this movie can still be corrected. I think that's the reason one planet was destroyed in the past (Vulcan) and one was destroyed in the future (Romulus). The story is set up so that Trek history can be corrected if it serves the story. Brilliant!
Here's how:
Old Spock told his younger self that he was too late to save Romulus. Now Spock has foreknowledge. Theoretically, if young Spock survives in the alternate timeline, he can save Romulus as an old man BEFORE it is destroyed again. Thus preventing the "ticked off miner dude" from exacting his revenge in the past on Vulcan. Yes the crazy tattoo Romulan died in the past, but his parents are still alive because, in the past, Romulus still exists. He can be born again and plague the future once more. Spock can show up on time save Romulus or he can warn Romulus about the Supernova early. They can use the technology developed in TNG to save try to save the sun of another planet. I forgot which episode that was, or what the end result was. I know...bad geek.
Anyway. I can say now I like the outcome of film because I have worked out the correction. :D I prefer happy endings I guess.
There is no need to correct "the timeline." There are just now two. Also, many of your questions Jen about the supernova, the black hole, Romulus, etc. were explained in the prequel comic. You shouldn't have to read it to know what's going on, but you might want to check it out. One part of the movie I felt was a bit weak was explaining all this to the audience.
Quote from: Rico on May 08, 2009, 12:35:10 PM
There is no need to correct "the timeline." There are just now two. Also, many of your questions Jen about the supernova, the black hole, Romulus, etc. were explained in the prequel comic. You shouldn't have to read it to know what's going on, but you might want to check it out. One part of the movie I felt was a bit weak was explaining all this to the audience.
There's no need...but it would make me
feel better. :D All I'm saying is that it is possible to do so if someone wanted to come in after JJ and do something different...the door has been left open. ;)
Quote from: Rico on May 08, 2009, 12:30:06 PM
Dan and Mike - you should listen and watch some of the interviews with the writers and JJ. They confirm what I am saying. They mention they tried very hard to not just erase everything from the last 40 years. This is a new, parallel universe. With some things the same and some different.
Oh yeah I know that is what they said but after watching the film I don't think they should have tried to explain it because it doesn't work. In my opinion it works so much better to just say 'this is how it is', a modern take on Trek without trying to shoehorn in an explanation for the visual technological changes.
Of course it it their film and if they say that Nero is the cause then he is the cause.
Saw Star Trek last night with my wife, Alison. We both thought it was excellent. All the cast were great, especially Karl Urban who played a great "Bones" . It was good to hear all the "catch phrases", just to remind us old Trekkies of the original series. But it was still fresh enough to entice non-trek fans to see the movie. We are defefinately going to see it gain, and I might read the comic prequel to so that the "red matter" explaination make more sense. Roll on Trek 2. Also can't wait for this weeks podcast Rico!
I just saw the new movie and it was awesome! Everyone in the movie did an excellent job! There are so many great things about this movie. I can't even put into words. I'm going to have to see it again. The one thing I can say is that Karl Urban is truly a Star Trek fan. His protrayal of Dr. McCoy is spot on. Great movie! It has moved in to second place on my Star Trek movie list.
I was thought I came to the parallel timeline conclusion on my own as a way to make myself accept the outcome of the movie. I said, "I'm just going to believe this is the timeline where Dianna and Worf are married. :D Had no idea that JJ laid this out in an interview. Yeah Rico, I agree, some things should have been a little clearer in the movie. I did not know that was the actual case. I wish it was more evident. I just thought they were just scrapping the history of Trek and Starting over. Again...I did not watch any interviews or read the comics to avoid spoilers.
Oh, I forgot to add this earlier: I loved the red cadet uniforms. They looked cool. Just by chance I saw this image on a forum today and it made me smile. The post had nothing to do with Star Trek. :D
Good old Zap Brannigan.
In the prequel comic series, it was explained that the supernova was going to travel into large inhabited areas of Federation space, not just within the Romulan Empire. Vulcan was going to be in the path of the blast. So one of the motivations of Spock was to make sure the supernova was contained so that it did not reach Vulcan.
Nero was upset because the Vulcan High Council dragged their feet on approving the mission to save Remus so by the time that cool ship (built by Geordi by the way) was outfitted with the red matter and flown to Romulus, it was too late to save it. Had the High Council acted more quickly, Spock could have saved both planets. Nero say the delay as a way of destroying Romulus while preserving Vulcan.
-Rick
Hmm i said parallel universe earlier and i too had not seen any interviews with the writers (still haven't actually) or read the comics, though that is because the sellers here in the UK are still awaiting stock. Mad isn't it. Thinking about it now a good 24 hours later I'm still buzzing from the film and for me, they did the nest thing, get a parallel universe going and that way their is still TOS but we can now have brand new stories without worrying too much about old Trek. I can't wait to go back to the cinema and watch it again this time looking out for even more sneaky back ground stuff.
I'm still waiting for my pre-film comic book and then i'll kow what happened befor the film.
PS, did i say how fracking great this film is. Oh yeah, erm ITS AWESOME!!!!!!
Just got back and have recorded my video, so I want to let that speak for me. A very funny observation: I went to the 12:00 noon show at a local theater by myself. There were maybe 20 people there, including a number of middle ages men, alone, who clearly, like me, snuck out of work to see it! LOL!!!!!!
Rico, can you send me that info for your upload server again?
Same info to upload as last time should still work. It's listed in the member only section. This thread: http://www.treksinscifi.com/forum/index.php?topic=5584.0 (http://www.treksinscifi.com/forum/index.php?topic=5584.0)
Quote from: Dangelus on May 08, 2009, 12:48:10 PM
Quote from: Rico on May 08, 2009, 12:30:06 PM
Dan and Mike - you should listen and watch some of the interviews with the writers and JJ. They confirm what I am saying. They mention they tried very hard to not just erase everything from the last 40 years. This is a new, parallel universe. With some things the same and some different.
Oh yeah I know that is what they said but after watching the film I don't think they should have tried to explain it because it doesn't work. In my opinion it works so much better to just say 'this is how it is', a modern take on Trek without trying to shoehorn in an explanation for the visual technological changes.
Of course it it their film and if they say that Nero is the cause then he is the cause.
Just saw it again, and I'm going to fix everything for you.
Nero arrives and nukes George. Starfleet finds the debris and the remains of the missiles. This discovery and reverse engineering allows starfleet to progress in ways and looks that would not have happened were it not for Nero. This new enterprise was designed to be the flagship of the fleet and at the same time, there are a lot of survivors giving their feedback on what Nero's ship looked like and what they saw it do. Starfleet tries to design something that will survive an encounter with a ship like that in the future.
Thus we get an easy explanation for the look change.
If you want more, see Star Trek Enterprise. The look of that ship was changed because of the Enterprise E. Now you add those changes in with the new Romulan threat and you get a new enterprise that really ROCK!
I know people are going to say that there are two timelines now, but that's nothing new. There has always been multiple timelines in the history of trek, we just usually only focus on one of them where there are billions. Spock returning created a new timeline, but the old timeline continues on. There is also a timeline out there in where time travel never existed ever. Infinite diversity in infinite combination.
I'm just curious and selfishly a that, but I want to know how these changes affect me.
I had such a great day yesterday! We have a student interaction period on Thursday afternoons and I threw a big Star Trek party! I got the kids a bunch of food and we played Star Trek Scene It! They wanted it to be me against all of them since they knew I would win...LOL! We just put it on party play and had fun shouting out the answers. At 9:40pm, I was sitting in a theatre that only had around 30 people watching the new film...I know that I live in a small town, but COME ON! Where the heck was everybody?! I plan on seeing it in IMAX this weekend and hope that it is really crowded. The good news is that everyone seemed to really enjoy the movie...we were a small but appreciative crowd.
I, too, cried during the opening scene as Kirk sacrificed himself to save his family. As glad as I was that he got to hear his son cry and got to name him, it was so incredibly heartbreaking. Thank goodness I had a tissue in my pocket, because I really did not expect to cry during this film! I did get a little misty again at the dedication to Gene and Majel at the end of the credits. All that I could think about was that poor Rod is younger than I am and both his parents are gone. It's very sad, but I digress.
On a related note, I really appreciated that Jim Kirk learned from Spock Prime that his alternate timeline counterpart knew his father. That one moment seemed to give him solace knowing that his father had lived. This moment in the film also made it incredibly obvious that we are dealing with an alternate timeline and not a prequel at all. I avoided ALL spoilers for this movie—no comics, interviews, articles, etc.—so I knew nothing going in. I thought the parallel universe was completely obvious in the storytelling, so I'm not sure why some people find it confusing.
Frankly, I hate time travel stories. They annoy me as being a cheap way to hit reset. It always seemed like lazy writing to me, but this movie completely works for me! There are some things in this film that would have really bothered me had it been a "prequel," but it wasn't, so I could go with the flow and enjoy the movie as something completely new yet familiar.
I loved that the secondary cast had more to do in this movie...especially Sulu's fight scene and the fact that he saved Kirk...and then Kirk attempted to save him...and then Chekov saved them both! I also humbly disagree with those of you who think Pegg's Scotty was over the top. He is simply capitalizing on the comical elements that were present in our beloved Scotty! I loved when he was fishing for a compliment after beaming Kirk, Spock and Pike on board. He had some great lines and I would love to see him featured more in the next film. I could have done without his little friend showing up on the Enterprise at the end, though.
Okay, this is huge, so I better wrap it up. Briefly: I was annoyed when I heard Winona Ryder was in the cast, but she did a good job. My husband didn't even recognize her. Loved when Spock called out to his father and Spock Prime turned around and said, "I am not our father." Could have done without an Orion in Starfleet Academy. Even with the exposition from his childhood and Sarek's permission, I thought Quinto's Spock was too emotional. I can live with the Spock/Uhura pairing since it is an alternate universe...but in front of the captain...COME ON! Seriously!
Okay, I'm done! For now.
Quote from: Chrystabel on May 08, 2009, 03:13:04 PM
I can live with the Spock/Uhura pairing since it is an alternate universe...but in front of the captain...COME ON! Seriously!
Okay, I'm done! For now.
the only think I'll disagree with is the in front of the captain line. Spock was Captain and let his XO take over because he wasn't 100% That didn't make Kirk, still an academy kid of higher rank than Spock. Also Spock just lost his mother and did not think that he was coming back. I think kissing your woman goodbye isn't too out of character in the front of a guy who's your XO and you don't like him.
Edit: Also, you have to remember that up until a few minutes before that, Spock did not know that it was allowed for a Vulcan to be in love. He had just received his father's blessing not only to have emotion, but to know that even full vulcans could fall under the sway of love. As a half vulcan, he can only take their word that their emotional control is this great thing.
How did everyone feel about Kirk playing The Beastie Boys on his step-dad's car stereo? Personally, I liked it. :)
That would have been a golden oldie. :)
Without saying too much about it yet, I think it would have been interesting had they killed off Nimoy's Spock.
Quote from: moyer777 on May 08, 2009, 05:02:29 PM
That would have been a golden oldie. :)
Yep. I guess Kirk has a taste for the old classics. :)
Quote from: Bryancd on May 08, 2009, 05:02:41 PM
Without saying too much about it yet, I think it would have been interesting had they killed off Nimoy's Spock.
I don't know, man. I got choked up with Spock's mom dying, and she was only on the screen for like 5 seconds. The death of Spock would have been too much of a downer for me.
Quote from: wraith1701 on May 08, 2009, 05:06:26 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 08, 2009, 05:02:41 PM
Without saying too much about it yet, I think it would have been interesting had they killed off Nimoy's Spock.
I don't know, man. I got choked up with Spock's mom dying, and she was only on the screen for like 5 seconds. The death of Spock would have been too much of a downer for me.
Yeah, I don't see anything that would have been gained by offing old Spock. given the way that most stories about the future end, you would have expected him to die. I like that it wasn't a pointless Generations death.
Quote from: Just X on May 08, 2009, 05:17:49 PM
Quote from: wraith1701 on May 08, 2009, 05:06:26 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 08, 2009, 05:02:41 PM
Without saying too much about it yet, I think it would have been interesting had they killed off Nimoy's Spock.
I don't know, man. I got choked up with Spock's mom dying, and she was only on the screen for like 5 seconds. The death of Spock would have been too much of a downer for me.
Yeah, I don't see anything that would have been gained by offing old Spock. given the way that most stories about the future end, you would have expected him to die. I like that it wasn't a pointless Generations death.
I feel that Spock's presence in the entire film was a bit pointless and that his continuing in this timeline is more of a distraction. Let the new characters BE new characters. After the performances I saw today, they deserve it. They don't NEED any connection to the past. It would have been a stronger film as a complete BSG reboot, IMO. I bought into that cast way before Nimoy showed up. This film didn't need ANY connection to TOS at all.
I just got home from see the movie and I really enjoyed it. I went with a fellow Trekkie, but I believe that non-trekkies can enjoy this movie too. Apart from the one liners that fans of TOS series and the movies love, this movie stands alone, meaning that you do not need to know the Star Trek dogma before watching the movie. As for Nimoy being in the movie at the end. I believe that he is basically telling the younger Spock that he is getting out of the way, but leaving him with the knowledge that Kirk is a friend that will stick with him to the very end.
Without Spock, or someone from the future to make sense of Nero's motivation, this entire storyline would have had to be scraped. But besides the practical implications of Spock not being in the movie, I think Spock was necessary to provide Kirk with the reasons and motivations to become the captain of the Enterprise and to consider cultivating a relationship with Spock (who he would have likely continued to see as an adversary).
I think this movie was enhanced with Spock Prime's presence. Could they have written a movie without him? Sure. Would we have gone to see it? Sure. Would it have gotten the same amount of press coverage and interest from people? Probably not. And that interest and media attention is going to play a big part in why this movie will do well at the box office. And that assures us future movies.
Quote from: Bryancd on May 08, 2009, 05:46:31 PM
Quote from: Just X on May 08, 2009, 05:17:49 PM
Quote from: wraith1701 on May 08, 2009, 05:06:26 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 08, 2009, 05:02:41 PM
Without saying too much about it yet, I think it would have been interesting had they killed off Nimoy's Spock.
I don't know, man. I got choked up with Spock's mom dying, and she was only on the screen for like 5 seconds. The death of Spock would have been too much of a downer for me.
Yeah, I don't see anything that would have been gained by offing old Spock. given the way that most stories about the future end, you would have expected him to die. I like that it wasn't a pointless Generations death.
I feel that Spock's presence in the entire film was a bit pointless and that his continuing in this timeline is more of a distraction. Let the new characters BE new characters. After the performances I saw today, they deserve it. They don't NEED any connection to the past. It would have been a stronger film as a complete BSG reboot, IMO. I bought into that cast way before Nimoy showed up. This film didn't need ANY connection to TOS at all.
Wow! Where is Bryan and what have you done with him? He would never speak that way of TOS Spock.
I think that Spock was needed because he cut though the red tape of drawing Spock and Kirk together. By giving Kirk a hint of the future, he gave him someone to believe in and did the same for Young Spock. He was the egg in a very meaty meatloaf. A binding agent that was necessary to not only reduce cooking time, but ensure moisture ... or something like that. It make the story and the frienship building faster than it would have of he wasn't there.
I loved it!!!!! I thought McCoy and Scottie were hilarious. In my mind this really opens up things for more and different stories. With only about 10,000 vulcans how strong are they going to be and what kind of an influence will they have now. It going to be interesting to see where we boldy go now.
I think the new Trek movie is the exact opposite of Star Trek the Motion Picture.
STtMP had a weak story but a beautiful soundtrack. Star Trek on the other hand had a great story but an anemic soundtrack. And I must confess I am not a real fan of the new ship... It doesn't do a thing for me. :sleep
But it was fun, everyone seemed to have a real chemistry on screen. And it was surprisingly funny, I had not expected that at all. After enduring Cloverfield I had real trepidations about JJ doing Trek, but I am happy with the outcome. I look forward to the next two movies.
And I am still holding out hope that this will spark interest in a Star Trek TV series. Since the Trek universe is now all screwed up thanks to the new alternate timeline writers have free rein to do whatever they wish. I have always wanted a Trek anthology TV series hosted by Q, now maybe that will be possible. :ohbaby
I downloaded and played the soundtrack several times before seeing the movie, and I also thought it was less than say a Jerry Goldsmith. But hearing it with 12000 watts in a full IMAX theatre was tremendously better, since you could hear the music and see the context on the big screen. Now I think the music really matched. SOO, I am going to do an entry on the music and Michael Giacchino for Rico's videocast. I call dibs on that!
After the movie the six of us street neighbors who saw it together had a group hug! So I guess that counts as a feel good movie.
Wife didn't like the Spock-Uhura connection - I liked it (new directions).
Wondering what the right number of days is before seeing it again?
Vartok
Quote from: Just X on May 08, 2009, 06:03:14 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 08, 2009, 05:46:31 PM
Quote from: Just X on May 08, 2009, 05:17:49 PM
Quote from: wraith1701 on May 08, 2009, 05:06:26 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 08, 2009, 05:02:41 PM
Without saying too much about it yet, I think it would have been interesting had they killed off Nimoy's Spock.
I don't know, man. I got choked up with Spock's mom dying, and she was only on the screen for like 5 seconds. The death of Spock would have been too much of a downer for me.
Yeah, I don't see anything that would have been gained by offing old Spock. given the way that most stories about the future end, you would have expected him to die. I like that it wasn't a pointless Generations death.
I feel that Spock's presence in the entire film was a bit pointless and that his continuing in this timeline is more of a distraction. Let the new characters BE new characters. After the performances I saw today, they deserve it. They don't NEED any connection to the past. It would have been a stronger film as a complete BSG reboot, IMO. I bought into that cast way before Nimoy showed up. This film didn't need ANY connection to TOS at all.
Wow! Where is Bryan and what have you done with him? He would never speak that way of TOS Spock.
I think that Spock was needed because he cut though the red tape of drawing Spock and Kirk together. By giving Kirk a hint of the future, he gave him someone to believe in and did the same for Young Spock. He was the egg in a very meaty meatloaf. A binding agent that was necessary to not only reduce cooking time, but ensure moisture ... or something like that. It make the story and the friendship building faster than it would have of he wasn't there.
LOL! Wait until you hear my video review! The character development which was occurring was perfect, there was no need for a Spock "glue" to bind them. If anything, the conflict between Kirk and Spock was filled with tension and drama. If you are going to reboot a series, and despite all the equivocating being done here in this thread desperately trying to justify the time travel story, this film really is a reboot, than let your characters and story rule the day.
I totally agree that it's a reboot. I also totally disagree that it's a reboot. Go figure. While it has elements that would classify it as a reboot, it has elements that would classify it as a true sequel to previous films and stories.
I think that it's it a reboot that doesn't toss away the old history, but uses it and the rules of the show to create a new direction. We have all seen trek episodes where travel in time changes the current time or the past. What we haven't seen is what happens if the federation wasn't johnny on the spot and there to fix it. The didn't fix it this time and what we now have is a story that has a self correcting timeline. It is an Oroborus. In the future Spock can choose to save the Romulans on time and the prevent Nero coming back. That would also prevent Spock coming back to warn himself and Kirk of the future troubles. So we have a closed timeline that will cycle through old and New TOS until someone decides to jump off the wacky ride. It makes the past and future adventures of the Crew of the ships called Enterprise immortals. Their stories will continue forever with only those outside of the group moving forward in time.
Or something like that.
I am not implying it was bad... Just that it was 'Program music', in other words it had no legs. It works well in the background during the movie but is not something you would desire to hear on its own.
I listened to it while at work to prime myself for the movie, but it literally disappeared into the background. I did not hear anything that reached out and grabbed me until 2/3rds of the way through the soundtrack, it was Nemos Death Experience. Usually there are recurring themes for characters within a soundtrack but nothing really stood out for me. And unlike other Trek films no one was leaving the theater afterwards whistling or humming the theme, in fact I doubt anyone can even remember it.
Soundtracks have always been a passion for me because when I was 'a wee lad' the only way to relive a movie was to play the soundtrack and close your eyes. There was no cable TV or VCR's back then, so I became a collector of soundtracks and really came to admire the work and artistry of some of them.
Good music either makes you 'feel' something, or 'takes' you somewhere. And an artist can do BOTH.
So while the soundtrack was effective, it did not 'take' me anywhere nor did it make me 'feel' anything. Now that I have a visual context for it that may change however. I guess all I am truly saying at this point is I do not envision people going about their daily chores whistling the new Start Trek theme, it is no Indiana Jones, or Harry Potter. :blush
Please don't flame me... ;D
Truth is I totally agree with you about the music! It works with the movie, not much as a standalone. We'll see if I change my mind by Sunday night. Thing is, Michael Giacchino CAN compose music that is very hummable viz a viz his prior work. Stay tuned.
V
PS. I don't think it would ever be appropriate to flame anyone over their music likes - it's personal and what you like. Thankfully there is so much variety to chose from!
*Randomly pops in* Hehe!
I loved the film. It started out so dark and emotional and kept that emotion through the film. The randomness of deaths, the heartbreak that was felt, etc. It made me feel it too. I love when a film can do that too me. :vulcan Quinto made an excellent Spock, all of them were good. I can't wait to see the movies that come out of this, and the huge box office number it tallies. Live long and Prosper! *giggles* "Good luck"
Question: the big trench in the middle of Iowa that boy-kirk drove into... was that from when those aliens attacked Earth in Enterprise (tv series)? Chris
Quote from: globeTrekker on May 08, 2009, 08:25:41 PM
Question: the big trench in the middle of Iowa that boy-kirk drove into... was that from when those aliens attacked Earth in Enterprise (tv series)? Chris
Didn't they just destroy parts of Florida?
Quote from: globeTrekker on May 08, 2009, 08:25:41 PM
Question: the big trench in the middle of Iowa that boy-kirk drove into... was that from when those aliens attacked Earth in Enterprise (tv series)? Chris
I'm going to say that the big trench is a strip mine. Probably the source of some of the metal used in the construction of the Enterprise or other starships created there. If you note the huge things in the background, we can assume that the metals had to be gathered from somewhere.
You guys are probably right; would have been a cool tie in tho.
It was a reboot X, they just didn't have the courage to trust the cast to pull it off and they did just that. Edit out the time travel story and this film can stand on it's own.
...now, don't get me started on the engineering section! I understand trying to save $ by shooting on existing locations, but all the below decks made zero sense. They completely lacked any sense of vision and scale, I mean did you really watch those scenes thinking they could even FIT into the secondary hull?! And what were all those vats and pipes for? And yet these people have warp, transporter, and most difficult of all, artificial gravity capabliity. Come on JJ, spend the $ to make a real set.
Okay, here goes...Overall, I loved the movie! The actors, the dialogue, the relationships were all spot on. I'm not sure how I feel about this "alternate universe" idea though. I could live with that, but the deal breaker for me was the destruction of Vulcan. What??? You just can't DO that. That really upset me. Even though I liked the movie in so many ways, it has just negated ALL of the other series' and movies. :shootgun:
Quote from: Bryancd on May 08, 2009, 09:00:57 PM
It was a reboot X, they just didn't have the courage to trust the cast to pull it off and they did just that. Edit out the time travel story and this film can stand on it's own.
...now, don't get me started on the engineering section! I understand trying to save $ by shooting on existing locations, but all the below decks made zero sense. They completely lacked any sense of vision and scale, I mean did you really watch those scenes thinking they could even FIT into the secondary hull?! And what were all those vats and pipes for? And yet these people have warp, transporter, and most difficult of all, artificial gravity capabliity. Come on JJ, spend the $ to make a real set.
The vast were anti-mater storage tanks. the water was part of a cooling system. The engineering section was very much like the engineering section of a nuclear vessel (which starfleet ships also use for power). I think it worked. When I saw it and the scale I immediately thought it was a future version of the Titanic's massive engineering section. take for instance when they ejected the core ... there were a lot of parts being ejected, more than likely the many vats that we saw. Yeah, it's not something we've seen before and it did look a bit gritty, but it sort of worked if you compare it to a sailing ship. The cabins and bridge look shiny, but the engineering sections and the lower decks can be a bit grimy.
Quote from: Just X on May 08, 2009, 03:11:49 PM
Quote from: Dangelus on May 08, 2009, 12:48:10 PM
Quote from: Rico on May 08, 2009, 12:30:06 PM
Dan and Mike - you should listen and watch some of the interviews with the writers and JJ. They confirm what I am saying. They mention they tried very hard to not just erase everything from the last 40 years. This is a new, parallel universe. With some things the same and some different.
Oh yeah I know that is what they said but after watching the film I don't think they should have tried to explain it because it doesn't work. In my opinion it works so much better to just say 'this is how it is', a modern take on Trek without trying to shoehorn in an explanation for the visual technological changes.
Of course it it their film and if they say that Nero is the cause then he is the cause.
Just saw it again, and I'm going to fix everything for you.
Nero arrives and nukes George. Starfleet finds the debris and the remains of the missiles. This discovery and reverse engineering allows starfleet to progress in ways and looks that would not have happened were it not for Nero. This new enterprise was designed to be the flagship of the fleet and at the same time, there are a lot of survivors giving their feedback on what Nero's ship looked like and what they saw it do. Starfleet tries to design something that will survive an encounter with a ship like that in the future.
Thus we get an easy explanation for the look change.
If you want more, see Star Trek Enterprise. The look of that ship was changed because of the Enterprise E. Now you add those changes in with the new Romulan threat and you get a new enterprise that really ROCK!
I know people are going to say that there are two timelines now, but that's nothing new. There has always been multiple timelines in the history of trek, we just usually only focus on one of them where there are billions. Spock returning created a new timeline, but the old timeline continues on. There is also a timeline out there in where time travel never existed ever. Infinite diversity in infinite combination.
I'm just curious and selfishly a that, but I want to know how these changes affect me.
The Kelvin was already advanced at the beginning of the film. When I saw it I thought we were still in the 24th century! It looked so advanced and the uniforms were reminiscent of the TNG finale 'All Good Things'. Because of what the producers have been saying I was expecting an on screen explanation to these changes but I came to realise that it wasn't going to happen since the changes were already there BEFORE the timeline was altered. These changes are part of the 'reboot' that the producers were concerned would upset fans so I believe they tried to tie them into the plot but it just doesn't work.
I'm not going to keep going on about it because everybody has the right to their opinion and as I said I have no issue with the changes and I accept them as part of a modern take on Trek. I just wish JJ and Co had come clean at the beginning because the movie is excellent. Many of the changes are there to open up Trek to a larger audience, such as real dates for stardates, using the 'Enterprise Delta' for the Starfleet insignia etc.
Quote from: Dangelus on May 08, 2009, 11:16:20 PM
I'm not going to keep going on about it because everybody has the right to their opinion and as I said I have no issue with the changes and I accept them as part of a modern take on Trek. I just wish JJ and Co had come clean at the beginning because the movie is excellent. Many of the changes are there to open up Trek to a larger audience, such as real dates for stardates, using the 'Enterprise Delta' for the Starfleet insignia etc.
Did you factor in the timeline changes that were caused by Enterprise? Either via First Contact or from their own time altering travels? I tied some of the changes to enterprise and some of them to the results of the timeline changes from Nero. When they mentioned Archer, that opened the door and put the enterprise time line changes into play.
I know people have some issues with Enterprise, but I think that if we assume that ship designs were influenced by Cochrane and other's experiences with the E and the technology recovered from the borg in later episodes, we can put together a very valid reason why things were already changing before they started changing again.
I think that people see time as a straight line and time travel as changes and branches in that timeline. I'm not a scientist, but I see time like a river. A nice smooth river or a waterfall. Time travel is a bunch of rocks tossed into that river all at once. Time is still going it's same direction, but the currents under the surface (the individual timelines) are shifted and altered. Some of these ripples are stronger than others and some aren't, but when ripples hit each other, new ripples are made. Similar timelines are sometimes merged together unnoticed as events in the deep past don't affect the current future. New timelines are split off from existing ones, the path not taken becoming the one that was taken. (Long explination huh?)
In the end, all of these timeline will at some point collapse when time ends.
For me the movie made perfect sense because I expected there to be changes from the time travel that came before it. Kind of like the observation influenced particles in Quantum physics.
Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc#lq-lq2-hq)
Every action has a re-action. Every corner turned decides your day. Being a Dr Who fan the whole time line thing is fairly simply. You're right time doesn't flow in a straight line for any individual but that's where the parallel universe situation comes in. For every decision you make starts a different line. Turn left from Dr Who was a example of that. She turned left instead of right so all the things that we originally saw didn't happen so the time line changed. But you can look at it from the parallel point of view and as soon as she turned left the parallel started and you thits have two scenarios. Does that make sense. Anyway i thought it was a great decision to do that in the film. And i loved engineering. I'm an engineer and there is nothing better than seeing machinery, tanks and coolant systemsx to make a ship run. The titanic referece is great.
WOW.......WOW.....WOW!
Saw the movie tonight (well last night technically) and we all LOVED IT. It is 2:15 in the morning so I am not really sure how coherent I will be or how long I will type but I will give a few random thoughts whilst trying not to be too repetitive.
**Thought the story was brilliant insofar as they used the Trek universe to explain (reboot if you will) the Trek universe. I am not sure it could have been accomplished as well any other way.
**Loved the actors portrayal of the main characters. Agree with most everyone about Karl Urban. From the minute he came on screen from his "seat in the bathroom with no windows"...I believed he was McCoy. The others did a fantastic job as well with Spock being the biggest surprise for me as he was definitely embracing the human emotions more than he ever has previously.
**I did not feel Scotty was over the top at all and I loved every scene with Simon Pegg in it.
**Loved the design of the new ship. I loved the fact that engineering looked....well... like an engine room. Although I must say regarding some comments regarding the vats....Honest to God when I first saw them the wiseass in me thought something like "Oh that must be where they they make the beer for Ten Forward".....And before anyone says it...I know.
**Also with the new ship.....is the bridge on the lower end of the saucer section? Has it always been? It seemed like it was in the one fly-by shot.
** Were my brother-in-law and I the only ones who absolutely LOVED the Kobiyashi-Maru test. That was, oddly enough, the first time that I thought....."Yep, that's Kirk"
"Charge Weapons"
"The Klingon's shields are still up"
"Are they?"
**Choked up twice....George Kirk's death (also because I am a father) and the death of Vulcan...which TOTALLY BLEW ME AWAY! My bro-in-law and I both looked at each other and said holy crap they destroyed VULCAN!?!?!?!?
**Spock Prime....AWESOME....in every scene. The cave scene with Kirk being my favorite.
Finally, the only thing I personally would have changed would have been to have Chris Pine say the "opening" to the Trek series a the end of the movie rather than Nimoy. I thought that would have been the perfect ending to the movie.
OK so that was longer than I thought.....time for bed.......and glad I can visit this thread now..;.officially
Quote from: Just X on May 08, 2009, 09:46:58 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 08, 2009, 09:00:57 PM
It was a reboot X, they just didn't have the courage to trust the cast to pull it off and they did just that. Edit out the time travel story and this film can stand on it's own.
...now, don't get me started on the engineering section! I understand trying to save $ by shooting on existing locations, but all the below decks made zero sense. They completely lacked any sense of vision and scale, I mean did you really watch those scenes thinking they could even FIT into the secondary hull?! And what were all those vats and pipes for? And yet these people have warp, transporter, and most difficult of all, artificial gravity capabliity. Come on JJ, spend the $ to make a real set.
The vast were anti-mater storage tanks. the water was part of a cooling system. The engineering section was very much like the engineering section of a nuclear vessel (which starfleet ships also use for power). I think it worked. When I saw it and the scale I immediately thought it was a future version of the Titanic's massive engineering section. take for instance when they ejected the core ... there were a lot of parts being ejected, more than likely the many vats that we saw. Yeah, it's not something we've seen before and it did look a bit gritty, but it sort of worked if you compare it to a sailing ship. The cabins and bridge look shiny, but the engineering sections and the lower decks can be a bit grimy.
Oh, I understand where they were going, but it looked too much like a factory and not at all like the inside of a spaceship designed like the Enterprise. In the long shot's, the area was so huge it can't be reconciled with the size of the secondary hull. There's no getting around that but I think it's a small issue.
Now, getting back to how we could have done without the whole Spock story, the whole ice planet scene which was just a contrivance to have Kirk and Spock meet. I had a hard time accepting Spock would eject Kirk from the ship rather than just put him in the brig and have him crash land on a hostile planet 14 kilometers from the closest base! That whole sequence could have been changed if you drop the Spock story and have another reason for Kirk to go down and find Scotty.
Darth Gaos, the bridge was located on top, 2 decks lower than on the original Enterprise.
One other thing to keep in mind about this movie with regards to the look. JJ and his team have stated that they wanted to create a version of Trek that might have been made in the present day, if Gene Roddenberry had the film effects and computer tech we have now. So that is one of the reasons for the updated look to things.
Oh, and Bryan there was no way in hell they were going to do a total reboot and erase 40 years of Trek. That would have even made me upset (and you know I'm on JJ's payroll). I thought what they did was very elegant and well thought out. And I personally thought having Leonard Nimoy in it was perfect. The movie for me had a lot more emotional resonance with him there. To someone who has never seen Trek - yeah none of this really mattered. But by putting it in, they were able to mainly satisfy the fans that have watched every episode and those also new to the whole thing.
Quote from: Just X on May 09, 2009, 12:06:19 AM
Quote from: Dangelus on May 08, 2009, 11:16:20 PM
I'm not going to keep going on about it because everybody has the right to their opinion and as I said I have no issue with the changes and I accept them as part of a modern take on Trek. I just wish JJ and Co had come clean at the beginning because the movie is excellent. Many of the changes are there to open up Trek to a larger audience, such as real dates for stardates, using the 'Enterprise Delta' for the Starfleet insignia etc.
Did you factor in the timeline changes that were caused by Enterprise? Either via First Contact or from their own time altering travels? I tied some of the changes to enterprise and some of them to the results of the timeline changes from Nero. When they mentioned Archer, that opened the door and put the enterprise time line changes into play.
I know people have some issues with Enterprise, but I think that if we assume that ship designs were influenced by Cochrane and other's experiences with the E and the technology recovered from the borg in later episodes, we can put together a very valid reason why things were already changing before they started changing again.
It's a great idea and I'd love it if that was tied into this somehow. Of course I'm just basing my thoughts on what I've seen in this movie and what we have been told about it. What fan's like us do best is to speculate and 'fill in the gaps' and I'm sure we will see fan based stories start to appear trying to address this.
Quote from: Rico on May 09, 2009, 06:50:55 AM
One other thing to keep in mind about this movie with regards to the look. JJ and his team have stated that they wanted to create a version of Trek that might have been made in the present day, if Gene Roddenberry had the film effects and computer tech we have now. So that is one of the reasons for the updated look to things.
This is spot on. This is what I mean, that the changes are just updates that don't need explaining. ;D
The explaining is needed for older fans - in general. They need to know 40 years of watching a franchise just didn't get erased in a two hour movie.
Let me make another comparison. The Amazing Spider-Man comic about a year ago wiped out most of Peter's history. He kind of had to make a deal with the devil. So everything is now different for him. And I personally hated the idea and haven't been able to enjoy the comic since. Now in the world of comics things could certainly change back again, but I felt it was a very cheap thing to do to the long time fans. Unlike when they just did 'another new Spidey comic' called "Ultimate Spider-Man." This is Peter in sort of a new timeline, alternate story. Great idea and I love the book. But I was always able to also still enjoy the Spider-Man I grew up with too. But now that's gone. Anyway, kind of a long analogy, but I think this is why it was important to not simple just rewrite everything in "Star Trek."
Most certainly explaining is necessary and in this case outside of the context of movie, such as the comment you made about JJ wanting to make Trek as if Roddenberry was making it today. This is exactly what he did.
The plot has no bearing on these changes but because of what has been said about it before we got to see it many expected it to address them.
If you think it's compliacted now, wait until the next movie when we most likely will see Klingons!
I wonder what they will look like? :klingon?
Hey guys! Saw the movie last night and loved it! So cool! And Chris Pine is quite handsome! And I was happy that they still kept the old stuff around. Loved seeing Nimoy - he was great as Spock again. :)
I already want to see it again! hehe
Klingons need to look like TNG Klingons in my opinion.
As for the TOS Klingons -- 'We do not speak of it!'
-Rick
I saw the movie and really liked it. The movie captures the essence of Star Trek, from TOS through Enterprise.
Can't wait until the next Star Trek movie!
Kevin
Quote from: RickPeete on May 09, 2009, 09:45:19 AM
Klingons need to look like TNG Klingons in my opinion.
As for the TOS Klingons -- 'We do not speak of it!'
-Rick
Of course they will, though they shouldn't really... ;)
BTW that scene with Nero and the masked Klingons never made it into the movie did it? Or did I miss it?
I wonder if the Klingon battle will make it onto the DVD! Now that would be great!
This movie makes me desperately want to take my simm into this new universe! Hehe it's so interesting with the slight changes. Idk this movie has me wanting to try it. :cheering
Quote from: Dangelus on May 09, 2009, 10:02:24 AM
Quote from: RickPeete on May 09, 2009, 09:45:19 AM
Klingons need to look like TNG Klingons in my opinion.
As for the TOS Klingons -- 'We do not speak of it!'
-Rick
Of course they will, though they shouldn't really... ;)
BTW that scene with Nero and the masked Klingons never made it into the movie did it? Or did I miss it?
I wonder if the Klingon battle will make it onto the DVD! Now that would be great!
Of course they should! When Gene had them done for the movies, he said that they were supposed to have always looked like that and when you saw them in TOS, imagine them as the movie version. I think trials and tribulations messed that up, but it was recorrected in enterprise and led to two types of Klingons existing.
I think we could have either and it would still work.
I loved the movie! But they destroyed Vulcan!!! :-\ All I have to say is that they had better make a sequel or else a lot of what has happened in Roddenberry's Star Trek doesn't make sense...
P.S. I LOVED seeing Leonard Nemoy!!! The whole audience was cheering when they saw him! You could really tell that a lot of us in the audience were trekkies because we all were laughing and cheering whenever one of the characters said their trademark phrases
:vulcan Live Long and Prosper :vulcan
Quote from: Alice Baker on May 09, 2009, 10:56:29 AM
This movie makes me desperately want to take my simm into this new universe! Hehe it's so interesting with the slight changes. Idk this movie has me wanting to try it. :cheering
Slight changes? I'd think there would be far more than slight changes. Several episodes wouldn't exist as written as would a movie or two.
I doubt any would happen the same way. They have started their 5 year mission 10 years early!
No, there was no way they weren't going to connect the two universes using Spock and it was well enough done, BUT I still contend that the film could have easily stood without it. And this is coming from someone who was not happy about the whole idea of this film in the first place! I had bought in 100% before Spock even showed up and found the whole exposition parts with him to be confusing and slowed the movie's pacing down a lot.
I agree. I liked having Spock cross over into this and I think I prefer it this way but it would have worked without him (as I suspect we'd have seen if Nimoy had said No)..
Quote from: stardustnhs on May 09, 2009, 11:16:45 AM
I loved the movie! But they destroyed Vulcan!!! :-\ All I have to say is that they had better make a sequel or else a lot of what has happened in Roddenberry's Star Trek doesn't make sense...
P.S. I LOVED seeing Leonard Nemoy!!! The whole audience was cheering when they saw him! You could really tell that a lot of us in the audience were trekkies because we all were laughing and cheering whenever one of the characters said their trademark phrases
:vulcan Live Long and Prosper :vulcan
It doesn't need to make sense because it's something new. A change in the timeline. I'm more shocked that Amanda died and Pike was wounded before the Cage. Kirk was 25 when he became captain in the new timeline. 31 in the old one. A lot has changed. He will have seven extra years in the big chair getting experience before he even before he would have started on the Enterprise.
Quote from: Just X on May 09, 2009, 11:18:13 AM
Quote from: Alice Baker on May 09, 2009, 10:56:29 AM
This movie makes me desperately want to take my simm into this new universe! Hehe it's so interesting with the slight changes. Idk this movie has me wanting to try it. :cheering
Slight changes? I'd think there would be far more than slight changes. Several episodes wouldn't exist as written as would a movie or two.
lol Yea see even more reasons to jump in.
Quote from: Bryancd on May 09, 2009, 11:31:34 AM
No, there was no way they weren't going to connect the two universes using Spock and it was well enough done, BUT I still contend that the film could have easily stood without it. And this is coming from someone who was not happy about the whole idea of this film in the first place! I had bought in 100% before Spock even showed up and found the whole exposition parts with him to be confusing and slowed the movie's pacing down a lot.
I agree the film could have stood on it's own without the time travel / 2 universe thing in terms of quality. The acting, special effects and story are all there. There are two problems that the producers had that having this plot device solves.
The first is that the actors are pretty young so to keep it as canonical as possible it has to be set around the time of the construction of the Enterprise. We all know Kirk would not be on the Enterprise at this stage and some other characters would not be there perhaps so something would have to engineer them all being there, hence a change in the timeline.
The second is that without timeline interference they really could not stray too far from the established 'facts' of TOS history, really tying there hands in terms of future plots / events.
The time travel / alternate universe plot device is the best thing they could have done to get this new 'era' of Trek kick started but that is not to say that it could not have been done better. The Nero side of the story was definitely the weakest in my opinion.
I guess I'm in the minority here. I wanted this movie to be great but the logic of what happened in the story proved to be too much of a problem to me. Overall, it was a good entertaining movie. Here are my points.
- Spock having a relationship with Uhura goes against everything we know about him. He is a Vulcan first and foremost and would not show emotion to another in front of the rest of the crew unless here were married as shown by Sarek and Amanda. Remember how he did not want the crew to see him in The Naked Time.
- The destruction of Vulcan - what was the point of that? A plot element for no really good reason.
- Nero's anger - would he really be that upset that Spock and the Vulcan's were late in a humanitarian mission? Vulcan and the Federation did not cause the supernova.
- Nero and the other Romulans looked more like a biker gang than Romulans. Eric Bana sounded like he was from NYC more than having a classically trained voice. Why else would Khan and Chang be considered to of the best villains in two of the best movies?
- Crew promotions - was there no one else on the Enterprise who would have more seniority and experience who would be more deserving of being promoted to captain than Kirk at this point in time. To go from cadet to Captain in the space of a few days is unbelievable. The same goes for the rest of the TOS crew. Kirk served for years on the Farragut as mentioned in Obsession. He had to earn the big chair.
- Kirk gives Sulu and order. He says yes. What happened to Aye, Sir? (very minor point but it stuck with me)
- Where was Kirk's older brother Sam during the evacuation of the Kelvin?
- Delta Vega - there was no point to having monsters chasing Kirk other than to show off some cgi and then having Spock scare the monster away with a torch - pretty dumb. Delta Vega was where Kirk tried to maroon Gary Mitchell, it wasn't an ice planet like Rura Penthe from Trek 6.
- Spock strangling Kirk - no one even tried to physically stop him. They all waited around from Sarek to say something. That wouldn't happen anywhere.
- Spock not wanting Kirk to offer to help Nero. If this happened while Nimoy was playing Spock in the series he would have said - Spock would never had said that.
- I loved the excitement of the opening.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture finally had everyone in their proper places at the end of the movie. I felt hope that now they could get started with great stories again. I hope the same to be true in this case. How great to have a Wrath of Khan quality story coming up next.
Here's my ranking order of all the films:
1. #2 Wrath of Khan
2. #6 Undiscovered Country
3. #4 The Voyage Home
4. #8 First Contact
5. #3 The Search for Spock
6. #11 Star Trek (this one)
7. #7 Generations
8. #1 The Motion Picture
9. #10 Nemesis
10. #9 Insurrection
11. #5 The FInal Frontier (sorry Mr. Shatner)
Again, we are dancing around the point, trying to make the round peg go in the square hole, trying to have our TOS cake and eat it too. BSG was able to completely remove it's self from the originalcanon while retaining certain qualities of story and character that made it compelling. I know, it's a TV series, it has none of the depth of canon that Trek does, but stay with me. A lot of you are arguing that they "had" to do this or "had" to do that. I felt that way during the entire lead into this film. However, after seeing it, I suddenly realized the just plain didn't need to do any of that. Every sci-fi forum is arguing the whole canon thing and no on seems to be taking a step back and realizing that the new characters, ship, universe, while familiar, have a unique twist that I for one find refreshing. Go back and watch this film and really just focus on everything prior to Spocks arrival. Imagine Nero is a crazy Romulan with a grudge. Let go of the whole time travel story. I did and it was an amazing movie with names and places I knew but had nothing to do with what I had known before.
Now, just to be clear, I loved seeing Nimoy and the time travel story did not detract from my overall love of the film. It's just that as it went on, I realized it it could have been gone entirely and this was still a great movie. So many seem to feel the need to justify the TOS connection, but I don't. Everyone seems to agree though, that it was the weakest part of the film.
Starbase:
I thought I would take a shot at responding to your points from my perspective of the movie and my own musings...
Quote from: starbase on May 09, 2009, 04:04:14 PM
Spock having a relationship with Uhura goes against everything we know about him. He is a Vulcan first and foremost and would not show emotion to another in front of the rest of the crew unless here were married as shown by Sarek and Amanda. Remember how he did not want the crew to see him in The Naked Time.
Spock has shown emotions often during the history of Trek. While I agree his relationship with Uhura was a surprise, I would submit that his assigning her to the Farragut was his attempt at keeping it a private matter. I would also suggest that having a Human mother would make his interest in a Human female not so unusual. It is a common belief that men are attracted to women who exhibit traits they value in their mothers.
As for public displays of emotion, this usually happens when he is under considerable stress or foreign influence which, I suggest, is exactly what is happening in the movie. Having your mother and your entire planet destroyed was the catalyst that led to his being unable to control the torrent of emotions within him (emotionally compromised). And I would submit that looking for comfort from Uhura would not be unreasonable (although displaying it in front of Kirk was a bit much).
Quote from: starbase on May 09, 2009, 04:04:14 PM
The destruction of Vulcan - what was the point of that? A plot element for no really good reason.
The entire focus of the plot centers around Nero's need for revenge against not just Spock but the Vulcan High Council who initially declined to help avert the supernova near Romulus. (This was information only found in the prequel comic series but nonetheless offers the explanation for Nero's actions.) And, in order for this new timeline to be demonstrated as 'different', what better way than to have Vulcans cast in a very different position in the universe than orphans without a home.
Quote from: starbase on May 09, 2009, 04:04:14 PM
Nero's anger - would he really be that upset that Spock and the Vulcan's were late in a humanitarian mission? Vulcan and the Federation did not cause the supernova.
Again, the prequel comic series offers the explanation/backstory for Nero's mental state. There are available for download if you have an iPhone or iPod Touch. He is mad at all Vulcans, not just Spock. Anger is not logical and he is not thinking clearly. My thought on this was more along the lines of 'Why destroy the only planet with access to Red Matter?' Even in this timeline, it is likely that the same star will go supernova and now it won't be possible to prevent it.
Quote from: starbase on May 09, 2009, 04:04:14 PM
Nero and the other Romulans looked more like a biker gang than Romulans. Eric Bana sounded like he was from NYC more than having a classically trained voice. Why else would Khan and Chang be considered to of the best villains in two of the best movies?
Nero came from a different planet within the Romulan Empire and not the capital planet of Romulus. Romulans (like Remans) do not all look alike. Besides, have you seen how miners look here in the USA? They hardly look like white collar workers. So I would expect the same for miners in the Empire (or prisoners on Rura Pente). The Romulans we are used to seeing are in their military so, of course, they will look more uniform, clean, orderly, and disciplined.
Quote from: starbase on May 09, 2009, 04:04:14 PM
Crew promotions - was there no one else on the Enterprise who would have more seniority and experience who would be more deserving of being promoted to captain than Kirk at this point in time. To go from cadet to Captain in the space of a few days is unbelievable. The same goes for the rest of the TOS crew. Kirk served for years on the Farragut as mentioned in Obsession. He had to earn the big chair.
I have to agree with you on this point. But then, we would have no Star Trek story if the main characters were working below decks the whole movie.
If I were to attempt RetCon here, I would suggest that Captain Pike was purposefully putting Kirk in a situation where he would be able to rise to the occasion and become the officer he believed Kirk to be -- 'I dare you to do better'. (Basically that is what happened to George Kirk) And remember that Pike said Kirk scored 'off the charts' in aptitude testing so maybe he knows something that the audience does not with regard to Kirk's instincts/abilities.
Quote from: starbase on May 09, 2009, 04:04:14 PM
Where was Kirk's older brother Sam during the evacuation of the Kelvin?
I would assume that his older brother was what, 10 years old at that time? He was probably on Earth with George Kirk's brother's family or his Grandpa Jim's family, or something. The Kelvin was not a family ship like the Enterprise-D.
Quote from: starbase on May 09, 2009, 04:04:14 PM
Delta Vega - there was no point to having monsters chasing Kirk other than to show off some cgi and then having Spock scare the monster away with a torch - pretty dumb. Delta Vega was where Kirk tried to maroon Gary Mitchell, it wasn't an ice planet like Rura Penthe from Trek 6.
Agreed. Delta Vega was the planet in "Where No Man has gone Before". But, as we know on our own planet, you can have Antartica conditions in one area and the Sahara desert on the other. I am not sure they categorized the 'entire' planet as ice covered. But even with that caveat, I would agree that they should have used a different name because Delta Vega was not near Vulcan in that episode.
Quote from: starbase on May 09, 2009, 04:04:14 PM
Spock strangling Kirk - no one even tried to physically stop him. They all waited around from Sarek to say something. That wouldn't happen anywhere.
It would have taken probably three people to subdue Spock (remembering the episode when he saw the Medusan). Remember how strong Vulcans are?
But I chalk it up to 'it was important to set up the next scene' because we needed Sarek to give Spock permission to grieve, accept having emotions, and to show he loved his son (something that did not happen in Trek until Sarek came down with Bendei Syndrome in TNG.
Quote from: starbase on May 09, 2009, 04:04:14 PM
Spock not wanting Kirk to offer to help Nero. If this happened while Nimoy was playing Spock in the series he would have said - Spock would never had said that.
I would have to agree with you on this point. But again, Spock was 'emotionally compromised' at the time. I remember in The Voyage Home, Sarek saying to the Kohlinar Master "My logic is uncertain where my son is concerned". So Vulcans are allowed to be vulnerable....
Okay, so that's all I can think of. But I would suggest you go see the movie again. Allow yourself to suspend belief and just enjoy the movie for the movie's sake. I think there is much to appreciate.
I have to give this move a B+ ( 4 out of 5 stars). The only ST movie, I don't really like is "The Final Frontier".
All the movies have some excellent scenes/lines in them.
Kevin
Starbase, I was going to give you a point by point reason on each of the flaws you saw, but decided that Bryan has a point. I have another idea.
Alternate timeline.
Not just an alternate timeline, but Nero and Spock weren't just thrown backwards in time. They were thrown back and to the left. There is the Enterprise mirror universe episodes that actually set this up better. When the Defiant was sucked away, it ended up backward in time and in an alternate universe.
So going in the universe wasn't the TOS universe we would expect. Uniforms were already different. Ships were different. Our, for lack of a better word, Nero and Spock got tossed backwards into their universe.
Now to hit some of your points
- Delta Vega was an easter egg for the fans and not the same delta vega. Infinite number of planets, some might be named the same.
- Spock was emotional and he kissed his woman good bye on what he thought was a suicide mission. Kirk was NOT the captain. He was Acting Captain because Spock, who was of higher rank, relieved himself of command. Notice how he never gave Spock any orders? Spock was off the clock.
- We don't know and can more than likely assume that there was no George Kirk in this universe unless otherwise stated.
- Crew promotions - If saving your planet from imminent destruction and being the only ship to out think the enemy doesn't earn you a HUGH promotion, what does? He proved that he was the best because he was the ONLY one that saw beyond his own nose. He was the ONLY one to even notice the threat. That insight also saved the culture of Vulcan and it is not unknown for someone in a military to get a field commission and then it later stick.
-Spock not wanting to save Nero. I thought that was pretty well established. Half human that has been finally allowed to admit to his emotions. The guy killed his mother, vulcan relatives, and his planet then went after his mother's planet. That would piss me off.
- Nero's anger. He watched his pregnant wife burn, Nuff said. Spock promised that he would help and he failed, but he did use the stuff that Nero mined to save his own world. Hmm ... yeah ... that's a good enough reason for me.
One last point. I watched Wrath of Khan before seeing this one and this one, to me is better. Khan was great in it's day, but pretty slow by today's standards. Also it had as many, if not more, issues as you pointed out with the new one? Khan blaming Kirk because a planet moved? Starfleet forgetting that another planet was in the system? Should I go on?
@ RickPeete- Very well said. :thumbsup
All I can add is that in this film, Spock is a lot younger than when we see him in The Naked Time. Remember The Menagerie/The Cage? The young Spock depicted in those episodes was a lot more emotionally expressive than the older, seasoned Spock of TOS.
Also, while all of the characters are essentially the same, different circumstances & events in this timeline result in them being slightly different from their counterparts in the "Trek Prime" timeline. TOS Spock had a much more adversarial relationship with his father than he does in the new film. Not to mention the fact that in this reality, Spock has just witnessed his world and his mother murdered right before his eyes. I think that these factors help explain the slight differences in his behavior.
Quote from: Just X on May 09, 2009, 05:40:52 PM
One last point. I watched Wrath of Khan before seeing this one and this one, to me is better. Khan was great in it's day, but pretty slow by today's standards. Also it had as many, if not more, issues as you pointed out with the new one? Khan blaming Kirk because a planet moved? Starfleet forgetting that another planet was in the system? Should I go on?
No, please, to attempt to compare continuity issues between TWOK and this film are absurd, X. I respect your opinion, but respectfully, I disagree with you in the extreme. Did you even see TWOK in theaters? Were you old enough to have experienced TOS as the ONLY Star Trek you could even imagine? To say TWOK is slow is based purely on a more contemporary, hyper visual aesthetic, I'm sorry. When TWOK came out in 1982, it was an amazing film with superb pacing, acting, and direction and I would put that quality against anything out today, this film included. You have no idea what that film was like when it was released. It was to this day, the PERFECT Star Trek film. Through your eyes it may seem different now, but to those of us that lived it and have seen everything since, nothing comes close.
Again, love you man, but that comment can not stand without challenge.
Quote from: Bryancd on May 09, 2009, 06:05:47 PM
Quote from: Just X on May 09, 2009, 05:40:52 PM
One last point. I watched Wrath of Khan before seeing this one and this one, to me is better. Khan was great in it's day, but pretty slow by today's standards. Also it had as many, if not more, issues as you pointed out with the new one? Khan blaming Kirk because a planet moved? Starfleet forgetting that another planet was in the system? Should I go on?
No, please, to attempt to compare continuity issues between TWOK and this film are absurd, X. I respect your opinion, but respectfully, I disagree with you in the extreme. Did you even see TWOK in theaters? Were you old enough to have experienced TOS as the ONLY Star Trek you could even imagine? To say TWOK is slow is based purely on a more contemporary, hyper visual aesthetic, I'm sorry. When TWOK came out in 1982, it was an amazing film with superb pacing, acting, and direction and I would put that quality against anything out today, this film included. You have no idea what that film was like when it was released. It was to this day, the PERFECT Star Trek film. Through your eyes it may seem different now, but to those of us that lived it and have seen everything since, nothing comes close.
Again, love you man, but that comment can not stand without challenge.
Indeed, I remember how exciting that movie was when it came out. It was a very different world then, nothing like the ADD world the kids of today are growing up in...
As Rico has put it time and again. Star Trek is a reflection the culture in which it is written, and I think that pretty well sums it up!
TWOK was an excellent movie. Great plot. Great villain. Well produced and directed. I still love watching that movie! And I remember how 'sweet it was' after being disappointed by the first Trek movie which I felt was just an upgrade to The Changeling.
I have not decided where the new Trek movie fits in my movie rankings but it is definitely in the top three along with TWOK and First Contact.
The Voyage Home is fourth -- I love its character work and the writing -- with the comedy so well threaded throughout the story.
Then comes the Undiscovered Country which I enjoyed but did not think its writing was nearly as solid as the four aforementioned. But it was a wonderful send-off for the original series cast.
Yes, i don't want to OT this thread with a TWOK debate, but I just couldn't let that stand. My bad, let's stick to the new movie, X and I can debate in another thread. :boxing
Quote from: Bryancd on May 09, 2009, 06:44:05 PM
Yes, i don't want to OT this thread with a TWOK debate, but I just couldn't let that stand. My bad, let's stick to the new movie, X and I can debate in another thread. :boxing
Yeah, let's not debate. That's why I prefaced it with my opinion. It was a great movie, but I never thought it was the best. Before this one came out, I favored Undiscovered country. Watching the Trek special on History HD right now and my wife without any prompting rate the new one was her top, followed by undiscovered country, and then TWOK. I'm not trying to take from TWOK at all, but for me, I got more enjoyment out of XI, then undiscovered country, then TWOK. I've had the pleasure of seeing them all on the big screen, but there was just more love in Undiscovered Country for me. So let's not debate, but on terms of sheer enjoyment where would you put the movies?
There was one think about this movie that I never got with TOS. TOS told me how cool Kirk was and not someone that you should mess with. XI SHOWED me why he has that reputation. XI showed me that he was a Genius that didn't need to rely on spock, but they accent the strengths of the other. I think that's why this stands out. TOS showed me that Kirk can be kind of tricky, but they never showed how brilliant he could be. They never let him cut loose and rival Spock in IQ. He was more of a trickster than a prodigy and this changed that for me. If this was the Kirk I first saw then Kirk would have been my favorite captain instead of Sisko. Now after only a little time of viewing him, he's a damned close second to Sisko.
This is an exact copy of the large blog post I wrote about the movie. I was that passionate.
Well first of all I have to admit to originally being a heavy critic when I heard that they were making a Star Trek prequel movie. The franchise was already in its death throes and I really thought this was going to be the straw that broke the camels back. I mean, here was JJ Abrahms who readily admitted that he wasn't a big fan of Star Trek and he was going to "re-imagine" the longest running sci-fi franchise in the world. The alarm bells started ringing, I didn't want this to
happen. "Let me remember Kirk as The Shat played him" I cried. "Don'tmess with the timeline" I moaned. I really was against this from the time the rumours started about prequels long ago. But I should have had a little more faith in JJ Abrahms, after all, I do enjoy most of his other work.
So I went into the cinema with my pre-booked tickets in hand, a little nervous but very excited indeed. I had booked the first showing of the day to go with my buddy Andy who is also a little bit of a Star Trek fan (when I rented a room at his house we would sit back with a few beers and smokes and watch TNG all night)
The movie starts off at a very fast pace and is the best opening of any of the previous Trek movies (although Nemesis still ranks up there). Straight away I was gripped. I was transfixed as I sat looking at this new version of Star Trek. "Shiny" I thought. The Abrahms influence was obvious very early on, I have to admit to nearly choking up at the first scene. It reminded me of the more poignant moments from "Lost", it was tough but I held it together. That first scene
featured George Kirk, Jims Dad, saving eight hundred people from certain death by launching a kamikazee attack on a gigantic enemy. Truly emotional stuff. And this is all before the titles roll. The legend "Star Trek" comes on screen, the chills run down my back and the hairs on my body stand on end.....I was sold.
I'm not going to go through the whole movie scene by scene but I will tell you my thoughts in general. I thought the new actors were all brilliant, every one of them nailed their characters perfectly with special mention to Carl Urban who plays Dr McCoy "Leonard H".
Chris Pine as Kirk? Well this was one of my biggest doubts before I saw the movie. Before this film, only one actor had ever played "Captain James Tiberius Kirk" and I was one of those naysayers who wanted history to remain that way. Unlike the characters of Doctor Who or James Bond or many other fictional heroes, the role of Captain Kirk belonged to one person, it seemed such a pity to change that. However, Chris Pine put my mind at ease within a few minutes of appearing on the screen. When he sat on the Captains chair spread-eagled like that he looked perfect.
Zachary Quinto was always going to be perfect as Spock, the guy was born to play him. The similarities are spooky. Quinto brought an emotional side to Spock that I can't ever remember seeing before and this divergence from what I have known to be Spock all these years was actually very welcome (he is half human after all).
Uhura- Oh Man, Uhura is just so gorgeous and I believe Miss Saldana has a lot to offer the role in the future. I found the relationship between herself and Spock quite interesting (again I don't remember seeing this in any of the original series, I may be wrong though). Sulu was a lot of fun and his fight scenes were well choreographed, I hope to see much more of him in the future. As for Scotty and Chekhov, I need to see more of them in action, in particular Anton Yelchin who needs to tone down the Russian accent and Simon Pegg who needs to develop his Scottish accent.
The story was satisfactory. Time travel is always a tricky subject to deal with but the whole issue in this movie was that the time-line we all knew and loved has changed forever. Abrahms has shown his genius by wiping the slate clean and starting afresh. No longer can we expect our heroes to win through every time and survive the movie, if JJ can destroy both Vulcan and Romulus, then surely he can kill off a main character.
The action scenes were incredible, the whole film (over two hours) was very fast paced and the CGI was well executed. The Enterprise was beautiful and I particularly liked the nacelles, i loved the new "chunky" look to them. This was another concern I had before seeing it but all was fine. I noticed a small homage to "The Motion Picture", when Kirk sees NCC 1701 for the first time in space dock although they didn't linger for ten bloody minutes.
I also think they were successful in the whole look of the movie. It was always going to be tough to make it look good for us die-hard Trekkies. Back in the sixties it was all about primary colours and little flicky switches. How would they manage to make it look modern yet lead us to believe that these events occurred before "Nemesis?" This I thought, would be the highest hurdle, but yet again Abrahms has delivered the goods.
In fact this film was so well made that I only had two VERY small criticisms and they were two scenes that they really could have done without. When Kirk was stranded on the ice moon. Then this monster comes out from nowhere and it just threw me. Totally out of place and unnecessary in my opinion. And when Scotty was sucked through the pipes, again this was silly and not funny although the initial beaming into the wrong place was pretty good actually. But to be fair, along with Chekhovs anoying accent, these were the only minus points and to be honest, after the second viewing Chekhovs accent bothered me less.
So to sum up.This film is bloody fantastic. It should appeal to both die-hard Trekkies and newcomers alike. Go on, all those people who have hammered Star Trek in the past should really go and see this. Even the lovely lady Sarah (my gorgeous missus) has expressed a very small interest in seeing it ( I wonder If Chris Pine has anything to do with this). JJ Abrahms has made Star Trek cool and he has breathed life back into a previously dying franchise. I believe for the next ten years, these fine new actors are going to be very busy reprising their new roles and will become household names just like their predecessors.
Mr Abrahms, I thank you for giving us this gift and I humbly apologise for ever doubting your genius.
And Mr Lucas?? This is how a prequel movie should be made.
Great comments Tim! I think for myself I have pretty much explained my thoughts on how I feel about the movie. I'm not going to get into a back and forth here with regards to everything being said. Everyone is entitled to their own informed opinion. But, I will make my thoughts very clear on the vidcast this weekend and I urge anyone who hasn't sent in a video yet to do so. Now is your chance to make your voice heard and reach a lot more people than just the forum folks - if you would like that.
Anyway, glad to see everyone so passionate about the movie. That's a good thing. And I'm sure I can count on everyone to keep things respectful of each other's viewpoints.
Well said Rico.
I must also recommend the soundtrack. I bought it from itunes yesterday and after seeing the movie, it works so well. Track three "Labour of Love" and track four "Enterprising Young Men" really are beautiful pieces. They throw you right back into the movie and they brought back all the emotion. JJ Abrahms seems to use Michael Giacchino so well. As with "Lost" they work perfectly together. Track three is used when George Kirk is flying the Kelvin into Neros ship and you get the exterior view of the ship disintegrating and Kirk Senior hearing the cries of baby Kirk. I tell you mate, I nearly cried like a baby myself and I have almost done the same during "Lost". This scene reminded me so much of that show. Go get the soundtrack and I defy anyone to hear those two tracks and not to make out "That there is something in my eye" LOL :'(
Quote from: Trekkygeek on May 10, 2009, 04:42:45 AM
In fact this film was so well made that I only had two VERY small criticisms and they were two scenes that they really could have done without. When Kirk was stranded on the ice moon. Then this monster comes out from nowhere and it just threw me. Totally out of place and unnecessary in my opinion. And when Scotty was sucked through the pipes, again this was silly and not funny although the initial beaming into the wrong place was pretty good actually.
Exactly these two scenes bothered me, too! Very good points in your review, I totally agree! :)
Well I saw it last night and was blown away. I was trying as hard as possible to go in with my regular low expectations despite the hype, unfortunately, this ended up being impossible. I walked in expecting to be wowed. I was.
This is the first time in as long as I can remember that a movie lived up to the hype surrounding it. My already high expectations were met and exceeded. I won't reiterate details that have already been mentioned.
Only a few observations:
I NEVER and I mean NEVER get emotional watching movies, the beginning sequence with Kirk's birth and George's sacrifice got me misty eyed. It was powerful.
I loved all the casting, there was no one I would have replaced with someone else. Remember way back when we had heard Kirk would be played by Matt Damon? I think that would have been a disaster.
I like how they made Chekhov a sort of young prodigy. I don't remember that from TOS. I think his quirky personality goes well with being a sort of geek of the future.
"All I've got left are my bones" Enough said. He was awesome.
As a fan (as all of us are) I LOVED all the little Easter eggs for us. One thing no one mentioned that I picked up on was Scotty talking about his trans-warp beaming test on "Admiral Archer's prized Beagle". Did Scotty kill Porthos? :)
With regard to Kirk's promotion, I'll follow up. No, the main fleet was not hit, but that entire task force that was sent to meet Nero was destroyed along with their crews. My assumption is that there is now a lot of gaps to fill up in the starfleet ranks.
Kirk was given a battlefield commission and position. He proved himself in it. There are many stories from the world wars where kids in their early 20s end up as Colonels running entire regiments because of attrition in the ranks.
In a perfect world, the military is a pure meritocracy. Those that are most deserving get promoted the quickest. Sure, it's a big jump, but Kirk did a big thing. I'm not saying it makes perfect sense, or that it is perfectly logical, but it has been known to happen.
All in all, sure, there are nitpicky little things wrong with the movie. That is to be expected, even citizen Kane is not a perfect film. But I was completely blown away. My wife was completely blown away. She is not one to see movies more then once (in fact she despises it) but when I mentioned I'd love to see this movie again sometime this week in IMAX she was game to see it again.
A+, 2 thumbs up, 100%, I don't know how else to say it. Trek is back with a vengeance.
yesterday, I was headed out when my brother in law and one of our mutual friends pulled up. Here is a brief summary of that conversation.
Rick (Yes another one): Hey Chris, did you happen to see the new Star Trek movie. I know that you're a Star Trekker.
Me: Yeah. I loved it.
Rick: Greg (my bro in law) and I saw it last night. I've never liked trek, I'm not a Star trekker like you, but I loved it! It's been .. I don't know how long since I saw a really good movie at the movies. This was a really good movie. I don't know if it messed things up for you, but this was MY movie. As a Star Trekker were you upset about the changes that were suposed to happen?
Me: Nope. (This is where I smile to myself and think of my daughter quoting the care bears: Sharing is Caring) I loved the movie. it didn't take anything from what I loved in the past and I think I'm going to love where this leads.
Rick: I want to go see it again.
Me: Yeah, it's like that huh?
Background: Rick is a ex-marine police officer that likes to debate instead of drink. Greg is a sci-fi fan and fireman but never really future stuff that deep.
Both are sold. The movie is a success.
A have another friend that has been a trek fan since he could remember. He loves the new movie, but had one complaint. He couldn't find a message. He like the idea of trek always leaving you with a message and he didn't think revenge was a good message.
For me, the message was simple: I always have been and ever shall be your friend.
The universe turned itself upside down and those words still rang true.
Quote from: Just X on May 10, 2009, 08:30:13 AMA have another friend that has been a trek fan since he could remember. He loves the new movie, but had one complaint. He couldn't find a message. He like the idea of trek always leaving you with a message and he didn't think revenge was a good message.
For me, the message was simple: I always have been and ever shall be your friend.
The universe turned itself upside down and those words still rang true.
Lots of messages, that's why this movie is great. Yours is a good one, mine was a bit less literal:
No matter what obstacles you encounter in life and no matter where you end up, a person always maintains the capacity to go above and beyond and do something great.
I saw it yesterday with my Trekkie friend and our non-trekkie wives. They had as much fun as we did. And my wife thinks McCoy is a hottie...go figure :-)
It was a half filled Imax at 10:15am on a Saturday, but the lines were there when we were leaving.
I have to say, this is probably one of the best movies, in general, I have ever seen. Forget my Trek bias, it was just a solid work, by JJ and all involved. Wow, talk about grabbing the audience by the collar from the start and never letting go.
I had no issues at all with the actors, the Tech, the feel...it was great. Our wives understood completely why Nero was after Spock, although the new/alternate timeline took some explaining.
But for me, an unabashed original series zealot, what I was most impressed with was how much the movie not only felt like Star Trek, but how after about 30 minutes, the characters were who they were. Not once did I make comparisons, or think of the original actors. I love them all, but the new cast sold me.....each and every one. And I thought Chekov had the confident air about him, much the way Walter always played it. And the accent was perfect.
I was so engrossed in the movie, I just didnt have time for anything other than to sit there and try not to miss a thing.
I stopped drinking fluids about an hour before bed the night before.....no way was I making a potty break in mid movie :-P
Well said Tim and Kirk-Fu. What amazed me were the things which I thought would bug me but didn't do to the quality of the portrayls, similar and yet different. The scene with young Kirk and the Corvette bugged me when it appeared in the trailer but in the movie in it's entirety and with the Beatsie Boys Sabotage rocking, it really worked. The bar room scene with Kirk hitting on Uhura I though was going to be too Top Gun, but it wasn't.
And as an addendum to my previous post, my comment about being a TOS zealot is spot on. While I enjoyed the other shows, it has, and always will be about the Original.
Thats why im not really ever going to make any comparisons between this new movie and any of the others, even those with the TOS crew.
This movie is the 'Original Series' for a new generation. They will get a chance to love characters that I loved, without all the canon dragging it down. Hopefully it will peak their curiosity and they will look into what we have all enjoyed for years. My kids watch TOS with me, including my 4yo. So Star Trek is something that has an appeal, beyond tech and characters. I dont even think it is as much the 'messages' that we all talk about. I can generally do without message media. Im a smart guy, grew up fairly normal. My opinions and beliefs are mine. Im not interested in JJ Abrams, or Gene Roddenberrys opinion on social issues. But, I do appreciate when they make me think. And thats what I feel Star Trek has always done. Dont preach to me, just give me something to think about, or relate to.
Bryancd, same here on the vette. We cringed when we saw that in the trailer. But man, what a kick that was. And (little)Kirk had the half scared, half cocky thing going. Perfect.
Bryan you made an excellent point there mate. I remember when I saw Kirk in the Corvette on the trailer I thought "Oh No here we go,the ol'troubled kid routine", but It came across in the movie very well. After seeing the opening scene I guess you could understand why he turned out to be the way he is.
A point that Billybob made. That first scene really was powerful and my eyes were certainly blurred. I read on Twitter from one of my buddies that she cried during the film. This was before I had seen it and I wondered how It could make her cry. After all, this was the first film with these actors, we hadn't seen them before, I never thought this film could affect me in the same way as "Generations" did. When Picard is telling Troi about the death of his brother and nephew, I teared up at that scene, but I had had years of seeing these actors playing these characters and felt some kind of attatchment to them. But this film contained newbies.
But that first scene just hit me and I think it was the fact you were seeing how Kirk was born and the tragedy that surrounded it, and with Giacchinos music it was just perfect. I do wonder though if Non-Trekkies had the same response. I mean, we know the Trek universe (or thought we did) and we know the Kirk character.
The sequence was enhanced by that phone call he receives in the 'vette from what I think was his uncle or other relative who's care he was in. Sounded like not a lot of love lost there. I also like the premise that McCoy was leaving Earth after also losing everything in a divorce. You can see how that commonality could create a bond between them and eventually the loner Vulcan in Spock. Somehow I recall in TOS that McCoy had a similar background story which I don't remember if it was ever expressed on screen or was something I had read.
Here is a great image of all three Enterprises, TOS, Refit, and new movie. The scale is likely pretty close. Now, look at the secondary hulls and tell me that you can still imagin that vast, open engineering area we see on the inside crammed into that slender bit of nothing!!! :wacko I understand if it doesn't bother you, but you have to admit it's proportion is all wrong.
Yeah, I can. If they take out some decks for the pipes, three stories still seems VAST and that's only 3 stories. Say that it's 5 stories and closer near the dish. We know they landed in engineering, but we don't know the part. What if engineering doesn't have floors at the normal spacing. The pretty is saved for the saucer where people live and the gritty is in the engineering section where you don't have to be pretty.
Quote from: Bryancd on May 10, 2009, 01:36:25 PM
The sequence was enhanced by that phone call he receives in the 'vette from what I think was his uncle or other relative who's care he was in. Sounded like not a lot of love lost there. I also like the premise that McCoy was leaving Earth after also losing everything in a divorce. You can see how that commonality could create a bond between them and eventually the loner Vulcan in Spock. Somehow I recall in TOS that McCoy had a similar background story which I don't remember if it was ever expressed on screen or was something I had read.
In TOS we find out that he was a great starfleet doc, but his wife left him.
Quote from: Just X on May 10, 2009, 01:53:35 PM
Yeah, I can. If they take out some decks for the pipes, three stories still seems VAST and that's only 3 stories. Say that it's 5 stories and closer near the dish. We know they landed in engineering, but we don't know the part. What if engineering doesn't have floors at the normal spacing. The pretty is saved for the saucer where people live and the gritty is in the engineering section where you don't have to be pretty.
At least 5 stories high but it's more the depth I am talking about. In the long shots, you can see waaay back to a far wall that's not even the start of the shuttle deck. I love sci-fi ships, still build models to this day. It's stuff like this that always bugs me in any production where I can't reconcile scale properly. :confused
Quote from: Just X on May 10, 2009, 01:54:35 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 10, 2009, 01:36:25 PM
The sequence was enhanced by that phone call he receives in the 'vette from what I think was his uncle or other relative who's care he was in. Sounded like not a lot of love lost there. I also like the premise that McCoy was leaving Earth after also losing everything in a divorce. You can see how that commonality could create a bond between them and eventually the loner Vulcan in Spock. Somehow I recall in TOS that McCoy had a similar background story which I don't remember if it was ever expressed on screen or was something I had read.
In TOS we find out that he was a great starfleet doc, but his wife left him.
That's right, that's what I recalled.
Quote from: Bryancd on May 10, 2009, 02:26:02 PM
Quote from: Just X on May 10, 2009, 01:53:35 PM
Yeah, I can. If they take out some decks for the pipes, three stories still seems VAST and that's only 3 stories. Say that it's 5 stories and closer near the dish. We know they landed in engineering, but we don't know the part. What if engineering doesn't have floors at the normal spacing. The pretty is saved for the saucer where people live and the gritty is in the engineering section where you don't have to be pretty.
At least 5 stories high but it's more the depth I am talking about. In the long shots, you can see waaay back to a far wall that's not even the start of the shuttle deck. I love sci-fi ships, still build models to this day. It's stuff like this that always bugs me in any production where I can't reconcile scale properly. :confused
that was my main complaint about the Defiant. They didn't know her actual size.
Hey all! This is my first time posting since I just got back fro Star Trek. It was amazing! The first part when the Kelvin is being attacked and the crew person gets sucked out into space and then everything is silent made me gasp. I never thought throughout the movie 'that's not Spock or that's not McCoy.' I didn't know what those six pop-up launchers were on the Kelvin. Photon launchers? Point defense? All the catch phrases were there but I don't remember "Beam me up Scotty." I loved McCoy calling for Nurse Chapel, Scotty's pet Tribble (Don't feed that thing!), The Orion cadet (she was part of the destroyed fleet so I guess she's dead 'sigh') McCoy repeatedly injecting Kirk (it looks like it hurts!) and Uhura being more then a secretary. Spock basically telling the Vulcan Science Institute were to stick their acceptance letter.
My friend was annoyed with all the pipes on the Enterprise but it made sense to me. If they are water distribution, coolant distribution, power conduits you would want them to be easily accessible so they can be changed "on the fly" without having to crawl awkwardly through a jefferies tube.
He also didn't like the Phasers that physically switch from stun to kill and that they are not beam weapons. "Star Trek is about beam weapons! Either on the ships or in your hand!" Again it makes more sense to me to have bolts. Beams take a lot of time and energy, I can get off 10 bolts for your one beam and can do it with half the power. He said "But the beam will do much more damage." To which I countered, I only need one bolt to destroy one of Nero's missiles and one bolt to kill a Romulan, your beams would have doomed Spock and Kirk on Nero's ship and would have been unable to destroy all of the missiles headed to Spocks timeship.
Although I liked the physical switch of the phasers, but are there only two setting now?
He also hated all of the warp cores the Enterprise had. Again I thought this made sense. If one is going to blow, and you have to eject it, wouldn't it be better to have five more to count on rather than have no warp drive at all?
Some things did bug me.
Aliens were too generic and not on the screen enough. The alien doctor helping Kirk's mom looked like something that could be done on a home PC.
Kirk's Kobayashi Maru test. I always thought he did it because it was a point of pride that he didn't like to lose, but he was acting like a cocky jerk.
What they did to Vulcan really shook me. I mean REALLY shook me. I had no idea I would be affected so. In some Trek book I read there was a joke about a news service called the Free Vulcan Gazette which advocated that the Vulcans should be running everything because they were so enlightened, logical and intelligent, and the joke was, "Well the case could be made..." I mean, arguably the cornerstone of the Federation, is gone??!!! Oh, well. At least this is an alternate reality.
I know that in space you can't always report back and get orders so I can see Pike's "on the fly" promotion of Kirk, but afterwards? He was only just out of the academy! Oh, well. It must have been due to his heroics or something.
Otherwise a great movie! I heard from someone that the next movie will be a remake of a classic episode. Maybe Mirror Mirror or City on the Edge of Forever or even (I hope) Space Seed. That would be cool.
Quote from: Just X on May 10, 2009, 02:59:57 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 10, 2009, 02:26:02 PM
Quote from: Just X on May 10, 2009, 01:53:35 PM
Yeah, I can. If they take out some decks for the pipes, three stories still seems VAST and that's only 3 stories. Say that it's 5 stories and closer near the dish. We know they landed in engineering, but we don't know the part. What if engineering doesn't have floors at the normal spacing. The pretty is saved for the saucer where people live and the gritty is in the engineering section where you don't have to be pretty.
At least 5 stories high but it's more the depth I am talking about. In the long shots, you can see waaay back to a far wall that's not even the start of the shuttle deck. I love sci-fi ships, still build models to this day. It's stuff like this that always bugs me in any production where I can't reconcile scale properly. :confused
that was my main complaint about the Defiant. They didn't know her actual size.
Good point, although with the Defiant, I will give them props for the very small corridor and cabins when they did show them, it was a small (sorry Worf!) cramped ship.
Also, no one told me that I would need sunglasses for this movie. :)
Quote from: DontcallmePigboy on May 10, 2009, 03:18:14 PM
Also, no one told me that I would need sunglasses for this movie. :)
LOL! Yes, lens flare is the new blue/green over developed transfer look popular a few years ago in movie's. That and the shaky cam! Welcome to the forums!
Welcome Pigboy. I highly doubt they would do some type of remake episode for the next movie. I personally would have a very big problem with that idea for many reasons.
What Rico said. I want to see something new. A war with the Klingons who try to invade at the apparent weakness of the Federation would be nice.
Oh, there is just so much potential for the next film to explore. I would love to see some old elements like Klingons, but this is fertile ground to really go where no Trek has gone before!
Hi guys! I contributed some of my thoughts about the new movie to Rico's videocast but I thought I would also post here for anyone who may not see it but reads the message boards.
First off let me say that my wife and I saw it twice on Saturday! Not because we wanted to but because right at the end and climax of the film when Scotty ejects the warp core the projector went dark. At first we thought it was intentional and for dramatic effect but then we realized there was a problem. They got it working right at the very final scene with the two Spocks and then the credits rolled. Boy were we pissed! Of all the films I have ever wanted to see why did it have to happen at Star Trek and right at the climax? >:( The theater was good about it though and gave everyone a free pass to see it again as we exited. So my wife and I went back a couple hours later and saw it again. I paid for it though because my back and tailbone hurt from sitting for 5 hours in not so comfortable seats.
In general I have to say that I was very impressed with the film and thought it was amazing! The very opening sequence drew me in immediately. I thought the sacrifice of George Kirk while his wife was giving birth to his son was poignant and moving. From the tone set in the first five minutes I knew then the film was going to be quite good.
I really liked the small cuts from Iowa to Vulcan as we see young Kirk and Spock and then their older selves. It told a story without belaboring anything. I did have one problem with the barroom scene with Kirk when Uhura says that she thought all farm boys did was have sex with animals. Was a reference to bestiality really necessary? I would not want my young son or daughter thinking about and possibly acting out sex with animals because this film plants a seed in a young persons mind. It wasn't funny, in my opinion, and really shows the moral depravity Orci and Kurtzman can stoop to. They seem to love these kind of sexual references in their work. The Transformers film really did not need the masturbation thing in it either but this scene goes more toward outright depravity. Outside of that I have very little problem with the writing.
The cast was mostly superb! I thought Urban nailed McCoy on the head. I was not so impressed with Chris Pine as Kirk though as he reminded me too much in his voice, dialog and mannerisms of Ben Browder's character on SG-1 and I found that slightly distracting. Quinto as Spock was quite wonderful even though he portrays a more emotional Spock than we are used to. Zoe Saldana is quite sexy and lovely to look at on screen. I hope the future films give her a little better part to play. Simon Pegg as Scotty was hilarious. Not really much like the Scotty we know but I can live with that. John Cho was fabulous and I really enjoyed the sword fight scene on the drill platform. And Bruce Greenwood as Pike was outstanding. I hope he is in the next film as well.
The special effects were all well done. The film overall had the look and feel of a Star Trek film.
The film did seem to lack a moral compass though. I can't quite put my finger on what it lacks but even though the film was extremely enjoyable as mindless "entertainment" it really is not very intellectually stimulating, which has always been one of my joys about watching Star Trek.
I would and have recommended the film to anyone. Whether they like or know about Star Trek this film is completely accessible to the uninitiated and yet there is enough Trekisms to keep the average fan happy. Two thumbs way up!
Kevin
Quote from: Rico on May 10, 2009, 03:23:40 PM
Welcome Pigboy. I highly doubt they would do some type of remake episode for the next movie. I personally would have a very big problem with that idea for many reasons.
DON'T CALL ME THAT!! Just kidding. Thanks.
Maybe not an exact remake. They'll do it J.J. style. Just like the crew were "destined" to be put together, even in an alternate timeline, they will be put in similar situations and meet similar characters as the ones we know and love now.
Quinto's Spock might look good in a goatee.
Quote from: Just X on May 10, 2009, 03:31:53 PM
What Rico said. I want to see something new. A war with the Klingons who try to invade at the apparent weakness of the Federation would be nice.
Cool! And maybe Morgan Freeman can play the Organian that forces a treaty down both sides throats.
Quote from: Bryancd on May 10, 2009, 03:19:44 PM
Quote from: DontcallmePigboy on May 10, 2009, 03:18:14 PM
Also, no one told me that I would need sunglasses for this movie. :)
LOL! Yes, lens flare is the new blue/green over developed transfer look popular a few years ago in movie's. That and the shaky cam! Welcome to the forums!
Thanks for the welcome. I pointed this out to one of my friends who just saw it and he said I ruined the movie for him. :-\
It's a bit distracting but not THAT bad!
Quote from: Bryancd on May 10, 2009, 03:44:37 PM
Oh, there is just so much potential for the next film to explore. I would love to see some old elements like Klingons, but this is fertile ground to really go where no Trek has gone before!
I too would really like to see the Klingons as the focus of the next film but they need to be more badass and dangerous than they ever have been before!
Kevin
A lot to like and a few nits to pick:
I may be wrong, but I think Paramount studio has closed the door on the "Trek Classic" timeline. If to fill movie theatre seats is the ultimate goal, then the only logical coarse would be to make a product with more mass appeal.
Could be the studio believes that to revisit the original timeline that has run out of gas would be the kiss of death.
I like the sizzle sound of the phaser hit, that's something new - "little balls of light" indeed!
Why does the ship's engine room have visible spinning blades of death? Must have been a nod to Galaxy Quest.
What was the top speed warp speed they achieved - 4? It should fly faster on the next refit when they get rid of those mud guards and fender skirts
Call me old fashioned but, I liked the interior of the Kelvin with the visible antenna on the bridge.
I totally bought in on the crew, of course they are not carbon copies and now they seem a little more human, especially Spock.
The up angled camera shots of Scotty used near the end of the movie where most effective. Made him look a little heavier and I could better see the resemblance to James Doohan.
Oh yeah, and I like this thread, mulling everything over here makes for a better movie experience
Davekill:
Thanks for reminding me about the issue regarding warp speed. I was a little surprised that the Enterprise was limited to Warp 4 when Archer's NX Series Enterprise could travel at that speed. I would have expected the flagship of the Federation to be at least able to travel at Warp 7 like in the original timeline. It would still allow the Narada to be faster (I would assume it could reach Warp 8 or 9).
The other thing were the shields. They did not appear to do a good job of deflecting anything. Lots of physical 'hits' to the ship. Now that is probably because the Narada had Borg-enhanced weaponry so perhaps I will give them a break on that nitpick.
Well, maybe you are right. The next movie may have Enterprise with a refit to improve its weapons, speed, and shields given the encounter with the Narada and whatever analysis they were able to make from sensor logs of the battle.
I am pretty sure that Spock's ship was 'not' a time ship. It just went through the black hole along with the Narada. The ship was built by Geordi LaForge as a science vessel that was designed to be able to withstand tremendous gravitational stress and could therefore get close enough to the sun to deploy the red matter device.
I need to re-read that prequel comic...
To bad about Porthos. 'sniff'
No it wasn't a time ship. The time tavel was triggered by the singularity created by the red matter. With regard to Porthos, I doubt it was the Porthos we saw in Enterprise. Unless dog lifespans increased dramatically, it may have been Porthos 2 or 3.
I loved that they gave a nod to Enterprise the series, though. I was afriad they would just dismiss it and move on.
Quote from: Jaames on May 10, 2009, 07:05:04 PM
I loved that they gave a nod to Enterprise the series, though. I was afriad they would just dismiss it and move on.
Me too!
I'd like to see a tie-in with Archer and the Enterprise series in the next movie. I think it's still the "New Treks" pre-federation past. Those episodes more closely resemble this new movie than any other Trek series - though I lost interest in Voyager after season 3 (sorry Kenny).
a couple more points to ponder:
No transfer of computer bridge command?
Was Delta Vega a moon of Vulcan in this movie? Old Spock sure had a great view of the destruction of his home wold from where he was morooned.
I really liked the DNA/voice print match that gave young Spock command of the Vulcan future craft. Would have been better if it had phaser beam weapons.
This new cast is young enough to play their rolls for 7 more years.
and
This must be an alternate timeline, everyone knows that Uhura always had a thing for Scotty.
This is my opinion on what should have been Spock's love interest in STXI: Instead of Uhura, I think that they should have casted a Nurse Chapel. In TOS, there was always an awkwardness between Chapel and Spock. I believe that if at the end of the movie he decided to take the Vulcan path and dumped Chapel, that it would have explained the awkwardness from TOS and they still could have shown the human side of Spock with his love life. I realize that they weren't super worried about continuity with this movie, but in my opinion it would have made more sense to a Trekkie like myself. It also would have explained something that was never really explored in TOS. There are so few Vulcans left in the new timeline that it makes more sense for Spock to choose a Vulcan path and sacrifice his love life.
I loved the movie but further disappointments were:
1. No trademark Captain Kirk dropkick. (all that fighting and not one goofy single leg drop kick?)
2. No trademark "He's dead Jim" (that I can remember)
3. Shaky cam (I despise shaky cam, I'd rather see what's going on in the movie)
All in all, these 4 things make me give the new movie a 9.9/10 instead of a perfect 10. I can live with that :P
Multi-page topic on the movie going. Moving this over. Welcome.
There was a Nurse Chapel in the film. McCoy called out for her to assist him in the transporter room. But my guess is that they wanted to show that this relationship between Spock and Uhure was in place prior to their assignment to the Enterprise. Hence his assigning her to the Farragut originally.
I've been reading all of your posts and I think I've come to the conclusion that I'm a bit slow on the up take... Did everyone except me know this was an alternate timeline and not just a timline hick up story?? In every instance of Star Trek that we have seen thus far, the timeline is corrected...I've been trained by Trek to expect this. The only 'permanent' alternate history we witness is in the Mirror Universe, but now there is an alternate timeline in addition to other universes?
Yes, I will freely admit I was confused at first. It wasn't obvious to me and I was surprised that it wasn't corrected at the end of the film. You may revoke my geek card. :blush
As I said before, I loved the film...I just didn't expect the curve ball. To me, Kirk learning his that his counterpart knew his father, did not indicate that he was occupying a parallel timeline but a defunct timeline...one in need of correction. Thus the confusion. I get it now and I like it now that I know that everything that occurred in the television series was not systematically erased by JJ. :)
He: "I've been fact checking, and Vulcan..."
Me: "Yes, Vulcan is fine in the Star Trek series!"
He: "I always expected them to travel back and save it!"
Me: "SO DID I!"
I didn't want to know what is going to happen in the movie and stayed away from spoilers, so I only knew it involved time travel. But I never expected JJ to go back to TOS, so although I thought they would save Vulcan, I was aware (at least on a subconscious level) that this time line would not be fixed.
Towards the end of the film I kept thinking "Well when are they going to set the timeline strait?" Then I'd think, "Well why would they do that, likely alienate all their newcomer fans by making all that we just watch having never actually happened.
Really at the end though I thought the film was absolutely fantastic, it wasn't the alternate timeline thing that had me a ify on it as a Star Trek film.
Quote from: Jen on May 10, 2009, 09:55:47 PM
I've been reading all of your posts and I think I've come to the conclusion that I'm a bit slow on the up take... Did everyone except me know this was an alternate timeline and not just a timline hick up story?? In every instance of Star Trek that we have seen thus far, the timeline is corrected...I've been trained by Trek to expect this. The only 'permanent' alternate history we witness is in the Mirror Universe, but now there is an alternate timeline in addition to other universes?
Yes, I will freely admit I was confused at first. It wasn't obvious to me and I was surprised that it wasn't corrected at the end of the film. You may revoke my geek card. :blush
As I said before, I loved the film...I just didn't expect the curve ball. To me, Kirk learning his that his counterpart knew his father, did not indicate that he was occupying a parallel timeline but a defunct timeline...one in need of correction. Thus the confusion. I get it now and I like it now that I know that everything that occurred in the television series was not systematically erased by JJ. :)
Jen, you're right, essentially this could have been done as a timeline 'hiccup' story but in this case they needed it to be a permanent alternate timeline for the new franchise so they are not tied down to previous canon.
If you imagine this movie as a TV episode then they would have found to correct things at the end like they have done countless times on the TV show like you said.
Some have even speculated that it may have been done to create two different Trek 'universes' because of the rights split between Paramount (for movies) and CBS (for TV shows). This could mean that CBS could continue to create Trek TV shows from the 'prime' universe while the 'alternate' movie franchise did it's own thing. I could live with that, but I suspect the main reason for the timeline split was not to upset the hardcore fans who think JJ was re-writing 40 years of Trek 'history'.
Quote from: Jen on May 10, 2009, 09:55:47 PM
You may revoke my geek card. :blush
[Jaames revokes Jen's geek card]
Jen: :hate
Jaames: :smilie_nono:
Jen: :old_bash:
Jaames: :wacko [Hands back geek card]
Quote from: Dangelus on May 10, 2009, 11:49:12 PM
Some have even speculated that it may have been done to create two different Trek 'universes' because of the rights split between Paramount (for movies) and CBS (for TV shows). This could mean that CBS could continue to create Trek TV shows from the 'prime' universe while the 'alternate' movie franchise did it's own thing. I could live with that, but I suspect the main reason for the timeline split was not to upset the hardcore fans who think JJ was re-writing 40 years of Trek 'history'.
I think it was handled brilliantly. I loved it. The "alternate" timeline is a stroke of genius, not because we haven't seen it before, but because we HAVE seen it before and not had it fully explored as a reality and a consequence of time travel. Plus, as was mentioned, it doesn't piss off the fans. I can't wait for more. This is officially the FIRST movie I have EVER seen twice in the theater. I think I'll go again tomorrow!
Quote from: Jaames on May 10, 2009, 11:56:53 PM
Jaames: :wacko [Hands back geek card]
Yes, she is 5' 8'' and has a black belt! And now carefully back off, don't look straight in her eyes! :D
Quote from: Jen on May 10, 2009, 09:55:47 PM
I've been reading all of your posts and I think I've come to the conclusion that I'm a bit slow on the up take... Did everyone except me know this was an alternate timeline and not just a timline hick up story?? In every instance of Star Trek that we have seen thus far, the timeline is corrected...I've been trained by Trek to expect this. The only 'permanent' alternate history we witness is in the Mirror Universe, but now there is an alternate timeline in addition to other universes?
Yes, I will freely admit I was confused at first. It wasn't obvious to me and I was surprised that it wasn't corrected at the end of the film. You may revoke my geek card. :blush
As I said before, I loved the film...I just didn't expect the curve ball. To me, Kirk learning his that his counterpart knew his father, did not indicate that he was occupying a parallel timeline but a defunct timeline...one in need of correction. Thus the confusion. I get it now and I like it now that I know that everything that occurred in the television series was not systematically erased by JJ. :)
It's not a mistake on your part Jen. there is this little mentioned rule in time travel that every time you do it, you create an alternate timeline. When you "fix" things, you just go back to a time line where things are how you changed them back. Trek was good at doing that, this time they did it as well, but to "account" for the preexisting changes you can go the alternate timeline theory or you can just say that it's the same timeline, but other changes earlier in the time line caused the visual changes.
For me personally, I see it as a descendant of the Enterprise time line and the old time line from the perspective of the characters that we did watch on tv has been made defunct.
This new time line is the "right" and prime time line and the TOS time line is one that might have happened in another life.
So, you aren't wrong.
Look at it like this: It's an alternate time line because it wasn't fixed by the end.
It's the "Back to the Future" syndrome - or difference. It's either always one timeline and things change in the future as you alter the past, or it's a million different timelines. Each time something happens or a decision is made, a new branch is created. The last episode of "Fringe" covered this rather well. Yes, in Trek most of the time they have used the "Back to the Future" style of things. But, they really couldn't do that here. If they did, all 40 years of Trek would have to be dealt with. It was much easier to just make a new timeline. Much easier. Keeps everyone happy and now they can do ANYTHING. Destroy Vulcan, even kill a main character if they want in another movie. Everything is possible now. Because it's all new. It was a good solution for things.
Absolutely! The potential for the future is huge...up to and including anothe forty years of history to be built on the new foundations. I don't want to say it's a masterstroke of writing, but it is.
It feels like we've got a whole sack load of new toys to play with but still have all the old ones sitting in the cupboard to bring out and use when we want to.
I was a naysayer - as time went on, more in a devil's advocate way rather than being serious about it. I liked it more than I expected, and things I expected would bother me did not. It was other things like time travel & using the same aliens over again that bothered me most.
Oddly, my favorite part of the movie was the weird alien monster thing that chased Kirk. I think its time we meet intelligent Federation member races that look like that. Tatoos & head makeup do not an alien make for me anymore.
Nit picks: Transporter technology would not let someone beam inside water tubes placed over cheese factory equipment. Voice recognition is able to translate alien races, but not Chekov's Russian accent?
So I'd give this probably an 8 out of 10 rating even though a lot of little things bothered me. I am ever so glad that people welding Enterprise panels with arc welders was left out. :)
Do I think this captured Roddenberry's Vision & direction? No... but I think he would have given it his blessing & enjoyed it as good entertainment as I did. My favorite character was McCoy. Scotty was played BETTER than James Doohan did in my opinion. Kirk was a bit too criminalistic, & would never have been promoted that quickly given the examples in the film.
Don't be too serious about what Trek should be, and let yourself be entertained, and you will have a good time.
I'm listening to a bunch of podcast reviews about the movie today. One thing people are bringing up I didn't think of but it's cool:
They really expand the role of communications officer here. They really made Uhura up to be just as good if not better then Hoshi Sato skill wise. She's a great linguist, transcoding signals, etc etc. I'm very happy that they made Uhura much more then the space receptionist.
I've only made it thru page 4 on this thread, but I have to get back to work, so I apologize if these things have been addressed - just ignore me.
I've gone twice so far, and I love the movie! My one problem, and it's a small one, is that the Romulans don't look like Romulans.
The two biggest complaints I've heard were
1. Spock Prime's arrival taking 25 years, even though he was right behind Nero. I'm sure that can be explained away with relativistic physics surrounding black holes and gravity wells. It's been a long time since I was in cosmology class, but I do remember that time dialation is a super tricky thing.
2. The promotion of all of the cadets so quickly. Remember that ALL of the other cadets were killed immediately after arriving at Vulcan, and the primary fleet is nowhere to be found. So in addition to Vulcans down being an "endangered species", Starfleet is very depleted. It's not a perfect explanation, but I can suspend my disbelief for it.
Quote from: Ktrek on May 10, 2009, 04:01:50 PM
I was not so impressed with Chris Pine as Kirk though as he reminded me too much in his voice, dialog and mannerisms of Ben Browder's character on SG-1 and I found that slightly distracting. Quinto as Spock was quite wonderful even though he portrays a more emotional Spock than we are used to. Zoe Saldana is quite sexy and lovely to look at on screen. I hope the future films give her a little better part to play. Simon Pegg as Scotty was hilarious.
I kept getting flashes on Ben Browder, too! I'm glad someone else saw it.
And I'm now in love with Simon Pegg.
I was very skeptical of Simon Pegg (a comedic actor?!?) as scotty, but I have to admit that he was great.
I was thinking about the movie further.
Kirk's father saved over 800 lives? They must really pack them on those starships. What was the number of crew members on the Kelvin
Is "old" Spock stuck in this reality now? Is he going to help re-populate the Vulcan species.
Quote from: DontcallmePigboy on May 11, 2009, 04:56:41 PM
Is "old" Spock stuck in this reality now? Is he going to help re-populate the Vulcan species.
Yep, that's the impression that I got.
http://www.screendaily.com/news/star-trek-rules-international-roost-with-355m-overseas-launch/5000931.article (http://www.screendaily.com/news/star-trek-rules-international-roost-with-355m-overseas-launch/5000931.article)
Quote from: Ktrek on May 10, 2009, 04:01:50 PM
I really liked the small cuts from Iowa to Vulcan as we see young Kirk and Spock and then their older selves. It told a story without belaboring anything. I did have one problem with the barroom scene with Kirk when Uhura says that she thought all farm boys did was have sex with animals. Was a reference to bestiality really necessary? I would not want my young son or daughter thinking about and possibly acting out sex with animals because this film plants a seed in a young persons mind.
Kevin
kevin, I thought about this for a few days and decided that I had absolutely no problem with the scene and still plan on taking my 5 year old to see the movie. I think the reason that I didn't have a problem is because I've seen women who didn't want to be hit on toss out even more harsh lines in night clubs and bars. I didn't see this as something negative or bad, but something that happens in the here and now when men refuse to take no for an answer. It felt real to me.
I also think that if this plants any sort of seed for anyone to want to test out sex with farm animals, then they had issues long before seeing the movie. I think that expect that to happen is kind of like blaming movie violence or rock music for someone being violent in real life. No, that not a good analogy. To me it's like saying that people talking about violence or sex on screen is planting seeds for someone to go off and have sex with green aliens or phaser people. I think that most people are a little more balanced than that and those that aren't shouldn't blame movies for how they act.
Saw the movie again on IMAX after school...loved it even more the 2nd time! I honestly don't remember the last time...strike that...the last movie I saw more than two times in the theatre was LOTR. Okay, how about...I don't recall ever going to a movie by myself! I had no problem going to this movie by myself today, and I know I'll see it again in the next couple of weeks.
Loved, loved, LOVED the nod to Admiral Archer's prize winning beagle...bad Scotty!
Quote from: Just X on May 11, 2009, 10:14:17 PM
I also think that if this plants any sort of seed for anyone to want to test out sex with farm animals, then they had issues long before seeing the movie. I think that expect that to happen is kind of like blaming movie violence or rock music for someone being violent in real life. No, that not a good analogy. To me it's like saying that people talking about violence or sex on screen is planting seeds for someone to go off and have sex with green aliens or phaser people. I think that most people are a little more balanced than that and those that aren't shouldn't blame movies for how they act.
I see exactly what you are saying but for me this crosses a line of "decency" because bestiality is an unacceptable and immoral form of sexual expression. I think the writers could have found a way to get their point across without stooping to such crudeness. I wonder how you would treat it if you had a ten year old daughter or son asking what sex with animals is? I think you might feel different. Your five year old, although I think is waaaaaaaay too young to be taking to this film, would likely not even catch it or have any questions about it but a child in puberty? I just think it was uncalled for, absolutely unnecessary to the story, and morally irresponsible of the authors. They know full well that there are going to be young people in the audience and I just think it speaks a whole lot as to Orci and Kurtzman's character. In other words...not much there.
Kevin
Quote from: Ktrek on May 11, 2009, 11:23:47 PM
They know full well that there are going to be young people in the audience and I just think it speaks a whole lot as to Orci and Kurtzman's character. In other words...not much there.
Interesting deduction, I have to say.
It's not like they are advertising it, and it's a PG 13 movie. So if you bring your 10 year old, you just have to do some explaining. Blame the parents, if you have to.
This sentence fits very well to the intention to make the future less clean, and I have serious doubts any kids will be damaged. I bet that critter in Pikes head will leave a longer lasting impression.
I have to agree. It's a throwaway line. Even guys who DO take no for an answer (myself included!) have been on the receiving end of much harsher and much more offensive rebuttals from ladies at the bar. To me it helped to make the scene believable.
Also I have to agree. The movie is rated PG-13. That was a PG-13 appropriate reference.
Like others have said, the movie is PG-13. The bar line is a joke. Many, many worse things are said in bars. For me it fits and works. What I think is interesting that killing hundreds of people, destroying a whole planet, torturing someone, not that big a deal. But making a joke about sex with animals - that's too far? Just my viewpoint.
I think you're underestimating kids around 10-13. A friend of mine teaches 7th grade math in rural Connecticut, and 5 of her students got pregnant last year. 5 seventh graders! And I'll admit that I remember being aware of "immoral sexual acts" in elementary school. And that's not something you can blame on parenting or television - I was raised by a PhD in Theology and a Theological Educator, and I wasn't even allowed to watch "Bewitched" growing up. Kids learn these things from their fellow students long before they even let on to their parents what's going on. In fact, I was recently recounting a story from high school, in which I admitted to my father that I was often offered marajuana in the girls' bathroom. He was shocked, and I had to explain that those encounters *began* in the 6th grade.
Also, I'll also admit that I've said worse things in a bar - although, I'm not proud of it.
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying? Are you saying a line in a movie is going to make someone go out and do what they say? If that is the case, that person has some problems. Also, again the movie is PG-13. Oh, and I'm very well aware of teen or even younger pregnancy with young girls. My wife is a teacher and I was one as well.
Also, I will say as a parent it is up to you what values you teach your children. I disagree with your comment about not blaming how children behave on parenting. By the time they get to school much of their basic value system has been set. It is up to you to have a rapport with your kids and mutual respect so that they are comfortable coming to you about things. This takes time and work. Something that sadly many parents are not willing to provide.
I'm saying exactly the opposite. That a line in a movie is NOT going to make people go out and do what it says. I'm on your side, Rico.
Any earlier post went on the assumption that kids aren't aware of "sex with animals" around middle school age. Basically, assuming that pubescent children and completely naive. They're not. If your children go to public school, Star Trek will not be the first place they hear a joke about "sex with animals".
My comment about parenting was not general statement, but specific to my case. That I was just as aware of all of my friends growing up, and my parents did everything in their power to sheild me from "immoral" things. So I guess the general conclusion that comes from the specific case is that you can't sheild your children from everything. They probably know more than you think they do.
I wasn't quite sure. Yeah, I've seen a lot of people try to shield kids for perhaps too long. I'm not saying take a ten year old to an R movie, but at some point they need to start making their own choices. My younger son (who is now 18) always jokes about how I wouldn't let him watch "24" when he was younger and now he does watch. I said watching Jack Bauer torture another bad guy is probably not the best thing for even an 11-12 year old to watch. Plus frankly I didn't think overall the show would appeal to him.
Anyway - spun way off topic now. I want to go to see "Star Trek" again - soon. Only once so far - I'm slacking!
Come on Rico! Just once? I am shocked! :)
LOL!
Quote from: RickPeete on May 12, 2009, 07:49:44 AM
Come on Rico! Just once? I am shocked! :)
LOL!
Yeah - I know! I'm hanging my head in shame right now! ;)
I was hoping to be able to see an IMAX showing but the IMAX in Dallas only shows dates to Thursday. So, I assume that something else will be playing this weekend and I can't get there during a weeknight.
Kevin
I'm going to try and get back and see it again this week. One thing I notice watching the film for the first time was that the second time we see Nero, his left ear tip has been cut off. I realize now that the cut scene where Nero is captured by the Klingon's he likely had his ear mauled off!
I'm heading to a wedding in Montreal this weekend so I think I may end up seeing it Sunday evening with my dad.
Quote from: Bryancd on May 12, 2009, 08:52:10 AM
I'm going to try and get back and see it again this week. One thing I notice watching the film for the first time was that the second time we see Nero, his left ear tip has been cut off. I realize now that the cut scene where Nero is captured by the Klingon's he likely had his ear mauled off!
Not only is it cut off, there is scaring that wraps about part of his head. it look like he got either hit with a spiked chain or pushed into something with a lot of spikes.
As a birthday treat I'm going to see it for a third time on Tuesday. I have only been to see a movie more than once at the cinema and that was Braveheart all those years ago.
I have set a precedent with this movie. Not only have I already seen it twice, but both viewings were on the same day... and I'm going again. I really didn't ecpect this to happen. I haven't even seen any of the other Trek movies twice at the cinemas. Go figure THAT one out. :wacko
Your beating me Tim!
I dare say you'll catch up.
I have to say mate, you had faith in Abrams from the very beginning and you assured us that everything was going to be cool. Whereas I was always doubtful and thought this was going to crush the franchise to dust.
I think this is maybe why I have had such a reaction to this movie. All my doubts were washed away and I look forward my kids growing up with fantastic Trek movies. (in another four movies, my little'uns will be old enough to go to the cinema to see it with their geeky dad.) javascript:void(0);
Trust me, I was very happy it all turned out well. I knew he could make a good movie and he seemed to have surrounded himself with people who cared about Trek. But you never completely know until it's all finished. You know what, I actually think the next film could be even better!
The movie was brilliant. I still say the initial movie stills as well as the first trailer were very unsettling. I was more irritated by the universal fawning and lack of a quality, critical discussion, so I took it upon myself to be the voice in the wilderness. I still say if some of you thought that initial stuff was FABULOUS and without criticism, Hollywood has nothing to worry about in it's future! ::)
Quote from: Bryancd on May 12, 2009, 05:07:54 PM
The movie was brilliant. I still say the initial movie stills as well as the first trailer were very unsettling. I was more irritated by the universal fawning and lack of a quality, critical discussion, so I took it upon myself to be the voice in the wilderness. I still say if some of you thought that initial stuff was FABULOUS and without criticism, Hollywood has nothing to worry about in it's future! ::)
So what you're saying is that even thought we were right, we were wrong? And even though you were wrong, you were right?
Quote from: Just X on May 12, 2009, 05:12:24 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 12, 2009, 05:07:54 PM
The movie was brilliant. I still say the initial movie stills as well as the first trailer were very unsettling. I was more irritated by the universal fawning and lack of a quality, critical discussion, so I took it upon myself to be the voice in the wilderness. I still say if some of you thought that initial stuff was FABULOUS and without criticism, Hollywood has nothing to worry about in it's future! ::)
So what you're saying is that even thought we were right, we were wrong? And even though you were wrong, you were right?
Yep. :biggrin
Come on, some of that stuff didn't look all that great. The bridge worked but could have been much better. Don't get me started on Engineering... :old_bash:
I have heard a lot of complaints about the look of engineering. I have to say it didn't affect me one way or the other but my buddy absolutely loved it. He thought that's exactly how engineering always should have looked.
It's playing in IMAX here in Vegas through the end of next week. I think I am going to go Friday morning to see it in the IMAX format, I may never forgive my self if I don't.
I'm going to try and see it a big screen on Friday as well. We have an IMAX here in Tempe, but I prefer a more traditional theater with an almost IMAX sized screen and awesome sound.
Just realized I never posted my thoughts on the New Trek... this is from my blog.
Well it was released four days prior but I was finally able to see the new Star Trek movie. I have been excited to see this movie since I heard the were making it but as the date got closer and excitement did not build like it had with other Star Trek films.
This was a re-boot of the series. Going back to the Kirk era and using all new actors. I was never a huge fan of the TOS (The Original Series) era so maybe that is why I wasn't uber excited to see this. I mean I saw previews and it looked like an AWESOME action movie but it didn't feel like Star Trek.. at least not the Star Trek I grew up on. So I did not see it opening night but knew I wanted to see it opening weekend because most of my friends would have seen it before me and I didn't want to be spoiled. Well spoilers happened and I found out about a few key moments.. oh well.
So on Sunday Harry and I sat there in the packed theater and waited to see JJ's version of our beloved Star Trek Universe. When it was over I was EXTREMELY EXCITED and LOVED every moment of this new Trek. I like that they created an alternate timeline instead of a erasing the forty years of Trek history. This opened up the storyline for anything to happen and boy did it. Planets blowing up, unexpected folks hooking up and things being slightly tweaked.
All the actors were fantastic. (going to use their characters names instead of actors names) Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Sulu were spot on. Scotty, Bones and Chekov stood out. Scotty was funny and refreshing, Bones was played perfectly, and Chekov was cute, funny and smart.
I liked the story, how they tied in the original Trek universe and I loved seeing Leonard Nimoy as old Spock.
SFX were AWESOME, music was great and the overall movie was fun and entertaining. Of course not everything was perfect but those little things that bothered me were way over shadowed by the cool things that I loved.
I swore I was not going to buy the new Star Trek action figures.. but as I was getting into the car I turned to Harry and said.. "CRAP!! Now I have to buy the figures."
I can't wait for the next Trek film.
Coming back to a couple of things...
I wasn't overjoyed by Scotty's little green friend and the fact that he got onto the E at the end means that he's probably along for the ride in future too.
The other thing I haven't worked out yet is how Archer and Scott would have overlapped in time for the whole 'prize beagle' event to have happened. I thought Enterprise was supposed to be 100 years before TOS and even allowing that this story shaves seven years off of Kirk's rise to Captain, that's still 93 years after Enterprise putting Archer at, what? 135?
Having said all that...I'd rather the Archer reference was in rather than than out so I'm happy they did it. I just can't make the maths work.
You're right about the time gap:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Star_Trek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Star_Trek)
Maybe Archer and his Beagle successfully reproduced? ;)
Quote from: Feathers on May 13, 2009, 03:35:06 AM
Coming back to a couple of things...
I wasn't overjoyed by Scotty's little green friend and the fact that he got onto the E at the end means that he's probably along for the ride in future too.
The other thing I haven't worked out yet is how Archer and Scott would have overlapped in time for the whole 'prize beagle' event to have happened. I thought Enterprise was supposed to be 100 years before TOS and even allowing that this story shaves seven years off of Kirk's rise to Captain, that's still 93 years after Enterprise putting Archer at, what? 135?
Having said all that...I'd rather the Archer reference was in rather than than out so I'm happy they did it. I just can't make the maths work.
Did you forget that Bones was in the first episode of TNG?
And Spock even made it post-TNG, but for a dog it would be a very, very long time.
A clone-dog, maybe?
Quote from: Just X on May 13, 2009, 03:48:03 AM
Did you forget that Bones was in the first episode of TNG?
You're right X, I did forget that and I guess the time gaps are more or less the same but that was 100 years further in the future so the med tech then may have progressed a bit more.
Mind you, we didn't have Archer in the film itself and no one said when the test occurred so I guess it not too much of a stretch. Thanks for clearing that up :)
Quote from: cosmonaut on May 13, 2009, 03:52:34 AM
And Spock even made it post-TNG, but for a dog it would be a very, very long time.
A clone-dog, maybe?
They said his prized beagle ... I'm thinking that he bred Porthos on returning to earth and this might be one of Porthos' line. Thus making it prized.
What I found most interesting about that line was that they said Admiral Archer. According to some sources, Archer dies in 2245 and held ambassador, chief of starfleet, and President of the Federation titles. ( His file in the mirror universe). Given this this is another alternate timeline, Enterprise is launched in 2245 in the normal verse and 2258 in the new universe and we can see that there are even more differences under the surfaces.
We might be able to assume that perhaps this Admiral was in the fleet longer and given their tech, there could have been some problems with the first fleet and forced them crew to light speed and time dilation a few times in their career. They would be older, but not physically.
I think there are a lot of places where we can if it in. If it helps, the writers did mean Jonathan Archer when they wrote it, but didn't specify Porthos.
It's a reboot, they have a tremendous amount of leeway in terms of incorporating familiar, canonical names, places, and events without having to adhere slavishly to a timeline previously established. The mental gymnastics are amusing and fun for fans, but I think there is a point we just need to go with it. :)
Besides, as that line was delivered post-timeline alteration, all previous dates are suspect. Myabe Archer was born later, maybe the NX-01 was launched later, who knows! I loke that they brought in the name without having to justify it's use.
Not that I disagree with you Bryan, but I was under the impression the timeline divergence happened 25 years before when Nero came through the singularity.
This is cool. The writers describe what they had written for Shatner/Kirk in the new movie. Might have been interesting. A few spoilers for the movie so I put it in this thread.
http://www.mtv.com/videos/movies/380509/what-would-shatners-star-trek-scene-have-been-like.jhtml (http://www.mtv.com/videos/movies/380509/what-would-shatners-star-trek-scene-have-been-like.jhtml)
Quote from: Bryancd on May 13, 2009, 05:18:12 AM
It's a reboot, they have a tremendous amount of leeway in terms of incorporating familiar, canonical names, places, and events without having to adhere slavishly to a timeline previously established. The mental gymnastics are amusing and fun for fans, but I think there is a point we just need to go with it. :)
Besides, as that line was delivered post-timeline alteration, all previous dates are suspect. Myabe Archer was born later, maybe the NX-01 was launched later, who knows! I loke that they brought in the name without having to justify it's use.
Yeah, I agree with this. While some people see the movie as an alternate timeline created by the arrival of Nero, some can see it as ... switching rail road tracks.
There are enough differences at the beginning, including the way they use Stardates and the Starfleet Delta to suggest that Spock didn't go backwards in HIS timeline, but backwards into ANOTHER timeline. So it's double altered.
Quote from: Just X on May 13, 2009, 05:11:51 AM
I think there are a lot of places where we can if it in. If it helps, the writers did mean Jonathan Archer when they wrote it, but didn't specify Porthos.
Yes, this helps. Thought I'd like to see a captain of the Enterprise who had children and grandchildren.
Quote from: Bryancd on May 13, 2009, 05:18:12 AM
Besides, as that line was delivered post-timeline alteration, all previous dates are suspect. Maybe Archer was born later, maybe the NX-01 was launched later, who knows!
Well, movie time line was altered the day Kirk was born. Everything further in the past like NX-01 dates should be fine - but they had that temporal cold war. I don't know: Was, for example, the pilot of Enterprise still accurate by the end of the series?
Quote from: billybob476 on May 13, 2009, 05:41:59 AM
Not that I disagree with you Bryan, but I was under the impression the timeline divergence happened 25 years before when Nero came through the singularity.
Oh, I see what you are saying, yes, that's true. Again, I like that they feel they can bring in the familiar without ahereing to a timeline which may otherwise preclude it. We all seem to agree that is one of the stregnths of this whole premise.
Quote from: Feathers on May 13, 2009, 03:35:06 AM
The other thing I haven't worked out yet is how Archer and Scott would have overlapped in time for the whole 'prize beagle' event to have happened. I thought Enterprise was supposed to be 100 years before TOS and even allowing that this story shaves seven years off of Kirk's rise to Captain, that's still 93 years after Enterprise putting Archer at, what? 135?
Having said all that...I'd rather the Archer reference was in rather than than out so I'm happy they did it. I just can't make the maths work.
Do we know for a fact that it's Johnathan Archer? What if it's his son and like others have said a decedent of Porthos.
That's true as well, Kenny, but I would think this was a little wink to fan's of "Enterprise" and wasn't given that much thought.
Okay folks, I know I said in my video that I was taking my wife to see it that night, but that didn't pan out (she decided she wanted to see Wolverine instead, which couldn't hold a candle compared to Star Trek [in my humble opionion], neither of us really liked it that much). So we are going to go see Trek on Friday.
Here is my question for those of you who have seen it on IMAX: I am dying to see it on IMAX before it's gone, but for her first time seeing it, will she miss too much on IMAX? Will she be overwhelmed by it? Or will she be blown away?
I have the same question, because I might be taking Lynn and my older son this coming Friday too. Anyone seen it both ways yet?
Quote from: cosmonaut on May 13, 2009, 05:48:13 AM
Quote from: Just X on May 13, 2009, 05:11:51 AM
I think there are a lot of places where we can if it in. If it helps, the writers did mean Jonathan Archer when they wrote it, but didn't specify Porthos.
Yes, this helps. Thought I'd like to see a captain of the Enterprise who had children and grandchildren.
Quote from: Bryancd on May 13, 2009, 05:18:12 AM
Besides, as that line was delivered post-timeline alteration, all previous dates are suspect. Maybe Archer was born later, maybe the NX-01 was launched later, who knows!
Well, movie time line was altered the day Kirk was born. Everything further in the past like NX-01 dates should be fine - but they had that temporal cold war. I don't know: Was, for example, the pilot of Enterprise still accurate by the end of the series?
Kirk had a few kids. Garrett had a kid. I still think that Wesley is Picard's love child.
Quote from: StarTrekFanatic5 on May 13, 2009, 07:36:42 AM
Quote from: Feathers on May 13, 2009, 03:35:06 AM
The other thing I haven't worked out yet is how Archer and Scott would have overlapped in time for the whole 'prize beagle' event to have happened. I thought Enterprise was supposed to be 100 years before TOS and even allowing that this story shaves seven years off of Kirk's rise to Captain, that's still 93 years after Enterprise putting Archer at, what? 135?
Having said all that...I'd rather the Archer reference was in rather than than out so I'm happy they did it. I just can't make the maths work.
Do we know for a fact that it's Johnathan Archer? What if it's his son and like others have said a decedent of Porthos.
Yeah the writers said it was a reference to Jonathan Archer as a nod to the fans. the beagle just wasn't porthos.
Quote from: Just X on May 13, 2009, 08:35:41 AM
Yeah the writers said it was a reference to Jonathan Archer as a nod to the fans. the beagle just wasn't porthos.
I'm sure the line must have been to D'Artagnan by then.
Quote from: Jaames on May 13, 2009, 08:42:34 AM
Quote from: Just X on May 13, 2009, 08:35:41 AM
Yeah the writers said it was a reference to Jonathan Archer as a nod to the fans. the beagle just wasn't porthos.
I'm sure the line must have been to D'Artagnan by then.
So in the mirror universe Prothos should have been named CARDINAL RICHELIEU!
Quote from: Just X on May 13, 2009, 08:33:47 AM
Kirk had a few kids. Garrett had a kid. I still think that Wesley is Picard's love child.
Yes, Kirk had a son. For a whole movie. :(
But this is going off topic, I guess the other kids appear in the novels.
Quote from: billybob476 on May 13, 2009, 08:48:31 AM
So in the mirror universe Prothos should have been named CARDINAL RICHELIEU!
*lol*
Edit: I was hooked to that 80s toon Dogtainan and the Muskehounds. *blush*
Okay, I've started into the book and how can I put this? I'm not that far in and it's already just as good if not better than the movie because we're getting insights that we didn't see in the movie.
I'm loving it.
Heading out to see the movie again today! And I am planning on picking up the book as well, X.
Think of it as a director's cut ... there are a bunch of "extended scenes" that rock in what they bring to the characters.
Saw this yesterday, thought it was funny. Minor spoilers for Trek (and Star Wars if you haven't seen it :D)
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892 (http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892)
Quote from: Bryancd on May 13, 2009, 02:18:58 PM
Heading out to see the movie again today! And I am planning on picking up the book as well, X.
Oh wow, the novelization is by Alan Dean Foster. I enjoy his work, this is on my list!
I was listening to Star Wars Action News with Arnie and Marjorie and Arnie had an interesting thing to say I thought. There seem to be cycles of Star Wars and Trek. First it was TOS Trek, syndication, then the original Star Wars movies came along and kind of pushed Trek out of the "spotlight" a bit. Then after the SW OT, Trek kind of took over again with TNG, big movies, more series, etc. until it kind of faded a bit and then the SW prequels came around. Now with the big new Trek movie and SW only having the cartoon series, Trek seems to be in front again. I know Arnie didn't mean any of this as a competition (he is a fan of both), but I thought it was interesting. Maybe there is only room for one big Sci-Fi thing with "Star" in the title being on top at one time. In any case, I thought it was an interesting discussion.
I heard that too and I tend to agree with him. I think the relationship is that these are the two major sci fi 'fandom' franchises. Yes, there are Browncoats, BSG fans, etc etc but they don't compare to the numbers of Trekkies/Terkkers and Star Wars fans.
It seems like only one powerhouse can be in front at any given time. Maybe if/when the Star Wars live action series comes out Star Wars will take the lead again.
Quote from: billybob476 on May 14, 2009, 06:01:17 AM
I think the relationship is that these are the two major sci fi 'fandom' franchises. Yes, there are Browncoats, BSG fans, etc etc but they don't compare to the numbers of Trekkies/Terkkers and Star Wars fans.
Only two?!? Heelllloooo, StarGATE anyone??? :smilie_nono:
You're forgetting there's a Holy Trinity of Sci-Fi my friend: STARtrek :vulcan /STARwars :vaderxmas /STARgate :tealc.
Much as I want to agree with you Jaames, I don't think Stargate's ever had quite the level of following enjoyed by the big two Star-series.
I'll have to pick up the ST book too...from memory, I think I read the Nemesis novelisation before I saw the film. Not the case this time!
I'm a big Stargate fan too, and I don't mean to turn this into a contest or anything, but honestly - STAR TREK and STAR WARS are the big boys. While I'd love to see them do another big, Stargate film, I think for now they will be direct to DVD.
I just found the whole ebbs and flow of Trek and Wars interesting. You know what I'm really hoping is that George Lucas will loosen the reins to Star Wars and lets some hot new director and writers take a crack at a new set of movies in a few years. Something serious, gritty and dark. Like we have gotten in some of the EU novels. It could be awesome. I bet he is looking at Abrams Trek film and scratching his beard and saying, "I wonder if,...." (see below for proof)
Quote from: Rico on May 14, 2009, 08:10:10 AM
I'm a big Stargate fan too, and I don't mean to turn this into a contest or anything, but honestly - STAR TREK and STAR WARS are the big boys. While I'd love to see them do another big, Stargate film, I think for now they will be direct to DVD.
They are definitely going to stay direct to DVD for a while, MGM isn't willing to gamble on Stargate's mass audience box office appeal, which I agree is not in the same league as Star Wars and Star Trek (speaking strickly of movies).
But Stargate SG-1 ran for 10 years, no Trek ever made it past 7 years. Plus there's 5 years of Stargate Atlantis and now Stargate Universe will be carrying the Sci-Fi torch for a while (strickly speaking TV). But this is probably a discussion for another thread. :offtopic
It's funny as the only time the two franchises really went head to head was 1982-1983 with TWOK and RoTJ in theaters around the same time. I don't recall there being a real battle, though RoTJ was the much bigger event. In regards to film, Star Wars is and will always be the bigger franchise for obvious reasons.
Saw the movie again last night and it's still awesome. Amazing how the scene where they are evacuating the Kelvin and Kirk is on the bridge is so BSG! Even the music witht he sound of battle turned way down, the camera work, it was identical to what we have seen so many times in Galactica. Nice homage.
Quote from: Rico on May 14, 2009, 08:10:10 AM
You know what I'm really hoping is that George Lucas will loosen the reins to Star Wars and lets some hot new director and writers take a crack at a new set of movies in a few years. Something serious, gritty and dark. Like we have gotten in some of the EU novels. It could be awesome. I bet he is looking at Abrams Trek film and scratching his beard and saying, "I wonder if,...." (see below for proof)
That would be great. I did enjoy the prequels (to a certain degree) but I think his storytelling is getting a little long in the tooth (just look at Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). There are so many fantastic stories out there to be told and he is stuck in the Clone Wars. We've had an animated clone wars series that went 2 seasons (right?), then an animated clone wars movie, another animated clone wars series, and now a live-action clone wars series?!? Come on!
Who's for a Star Wars
Thrawn trilogy of movies? :metallica:
Quote from: Rico on May 13, 2009, 05:45:41 AM
This is cool. The writers describe what they had written for Shatner/Kirk in the new movie. Might have been interesting. A few spoilers for the movie so I put it in this thread.
http://www.mtv.com/videos/movies/380509/what-would-shatners-star-trek-scene-have-been-like.jhtml (http://www.mtv.com/videos/movies/380509/what-would-shatners-star-trek-scene-have-been-like.jhtml)
That would have been totally awesome. I wonder if Shatner would have agreed to that kind of a cameo appearance. Closing the movie with a scene like that and having Shatner's voice doing the classic opening before the end credits would surely have been worth a mil or two yeah?
Quote from: Jobydrone4of20 on May 14, 2009, 09:30:05 AM
That would have been totally awesome. I wonder if Shatner would have agreed to that kind of a cameo appearance. Closing the movie with a scene like that and having Shatner's voice doing the classic opening before the end credits would surely have been worth a mil or two yeah?
According to interviews that JJ has done, they did approach Shatner with this, but he wasn't interested in any kind of cameo role.
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Shatner-Calls-JJ-Abrams-A-Liar-10240.html (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Shatner-Calls-JJ-Abrams-A-Liar-10240.html)
http://www.moviesonline.ca/neobrass/movienews_15558.html (http://www.moviesonline.ca/neobrass/movienews_15558.html)
http://www.slashfilm.com/2007/10/19/william-shatner-strikes-back-i-dont-do-cameos/ (http://www.slashfilm.com/2007/10/19/william-shatner-strikes-back-i-dont-do-cameos/)
I've mentioned it before, but the story from Shatner himself is that a ton of rumors were flying but he was never officially offered a part in the movie. If you listen to the writers, even though they wrote a little scene for him they decided it wasn't the right way to go so they never offered it to him. He may have just turned it down anyway if they did offer it to him. Frankly, I think the movie works fine the way it is.
Quote from: Rico on May 14, 2009, 10:08:09 AM
Frankly, I think the movie works fine the way it is.
Yes of course it does, I totally agree. It is kind of sad though in latter day Star Trek (following Generations and excluding the Shatnerverse novels) that poor Shatner's JTK is still left rotting under a pile of rocks on Veridian III while Nimoy's Spock, Doohan's Scotty, Takei's Sulu, and Kelley's Bones all have suitable epilogues to their epic stories. It would have been really nice to have seen Shatner in this movie, even for just a short scene or voice over. And the way his scene was described by the writers could have been so perfect, and just what Shatner's Kirk needs to close out his canonical history...a way to say his final goodbye to his best friend, and by extension, all of us as well.
That might have been a step too far although I guess the voice over at the end would have worked without any overriding story reason.
I hate to say it...but I didn't miss his presence at all, and I love all things Shat. I think what the writers were considering sounds ok, but I could have done without retro Spock as well, so that's where my thinking go's.
I realized watching it again last night why Nero killed the Kelvin's Capt. so fast. He had just arrived throught the black hole and had just witnessed the destruction of Romulus and he was P.O.'d!
I don't think it's a matter of missing "The Shat" so much as it would have been a final nice touch in a movie that had quite a few of those. That it couldn't have been arranged is sad but understandable.
I liked the way they intended to include him, with that last birthday message to original Spock.
Unrelated clip, do I have to pick _one_?
<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1910892&fullscreen=1" width="640" height="360" ><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"/><param name="AllowScriptAccess" value="true"/><param name="movie" quality="best" value="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1910892&fullscreen=1"/><embed src="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1910892&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="640" height="360" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><div style="padding:5px 0; text-align:center; width:640px;">Watch My Favorite Movie (Star Trek vs. Star Wars) (http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892) on CollegeHumor (http://www.collegehumor.com/)</div>
(Don't know why the embed code shows, sorry!)
Quote from: vavu2001 on May 15, 2009, 07:42:38 AM
I don't think it's a matter of missing "The Shat" so much as it would have been a final nice touch in a movie that had quite a few of those. That it couldn't have been arranged is sad but understandable.
yeah, but you should only get one final last touch.
Undiscovered Country was a good final last touch.
Then Generation pops up and Kirk is shoehorned into the movie only to be killed.
Spock fit into this movie and Kirk didn't. In my opinion, they should have left Kirk's fate unspoken and not bothered with bringing him back for generations.
It's also why I, who also loves all things shat, think that it's better that he wasn't in this.
Do you know what they had in mind for a Shatner cameo? I think it would have worked.
http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/12/shatner-cameo-scene-revealed-monday-box-office-tos-stars-talk-st09-more-tidbits/ (http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/12/shatner-cameo-scene-revealed-monday-box-office-tos-stars-talk-st09-more-tidbits/)
I agree with not having Shatner. It would have been a little too much and would have overshadowed the "new" crew with having too many of the "old" crew there.
I'm off to see it again in IMAX with my parents. They are fans of TOS and TNG so I'm hoping they like it.
Has anyone else listened to Confused Matthew's review yet?
Star Trek Movie Review by Confused Matthew and Stand In Stan part 1 (Spoilers) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsI7Mhu1G94#lq-lq2-hq)
I think he is funny sometimes and brings up good points in his other reviews, but this one I didn't agree with. :mad2:
This was, pretty much, the review that trashed the movie the most. :thumbsdown :smilie_bleh:
here is an odd question: James Cawley said he was going to be in the movie. Did anyone see him?
Quote from: Just X on May 15, 2009, 04:29:27 PM
here is an odd question: James Cawley said he was going to be in the movie. Did anyone see him?
Wow, that's right. Lot's of crowd and cadet scenes as well as plenty of background Enterprise crew. JJ moves the camera around so fast it's hard to discern anyone in the background...that and the lense flare. :)
OK, this was a Wrath of Khan type film but wasn't as good as Wrath of Khan. I like #4 with the whales better than WoK.
I admit I went in expecting not to like it based on the trailers but actually it was kind of fun in a no brainer kind of way.
A real Wrath of the Menagerie with two Spocks from different times and a Capt. Pike.
I am a SCIENCE Fiction fan not a Star Trek fan and I am inclined toward HARD SF. So this RED MATTER business is somewhat annoying.
Think about it: Ambassador Spock dropped this RED MATTER into a star to destroy it. He did not have to drill a hole into the star. So why do the Romulans have to drill a hole into the core of a measly planet to destroy it with Red Matter? They aren't even consistent with their pseudo-science. :old_bash:
It was still better than the last 3 Star Wars movies. Or was it the first 3? These time dilation prequels have me all confused. :orc
psik
Quote from: psikeyhackr on May 15, 2009, 07:43:26 PM
OK, this was a Wrath of Khan type film but wasn't as good as Wrath of Khan. I like #4 with the whales better than WoK.
I admit I went in expecting not to like it based on the trailers but actually it was kind of fun in a no brainer kind of way.
A real Wrath of the Menagerie with two Spocks from different times and a Capt. Pike.
I am a SCIENCE Fiction fan not a Star Trek fan and I am inclined toward HARD SF. So this RED MATTER business is somewhat annoying.
Think about it: Ambassador Spock dropped this RED MATTER into a star to destroy it. He did not have to drill a hole into the star. So why do the Romulans have to drill a hole into the core of a measly planet to destroy it with Red Matter? They aren't even consistent with their pseudo-science. :old_bash:
It was still better than the last 3 Star Wars movies. Or was it the first 3? These time dilation prequels have me all confused. :orc
psik
Maybe you just missed something because it made perfect sense to me. It creates a brief black hole. Drop it on the surface and you do a lot of damage, but drop it in the middle and the planet collapses in on itself. Also, Ambassador Spock didn't destroy a star. He destroyed a supernova which is a big explosion. The black hole is negative force to the big explosion and thus causes it to stop it's expansion.
I think your going in expecting not to like it might have caused you to miss a few things. If the Red matter is heat activated, that could be another reason why planetary cores and exploding stars allow it to work. The same goes for exploding ships. If the amount of heat is in direct relation to the strength of the negative force it would also explain how there are varied reactions based on the environment where the red matter was released.
I just saw the movie. Was it a good movie? You bet your ass! Was it Star Trek? Not so much. I didn't get that magic that comes with Star Trek from it. I also got annoyed by the product placement of the Nokia phone and the Budweisers (and the reference to a shot of "Jack"). It didn't seem to fit in with Star Trek. Sure it's logical (sorry, had to) to assume the brands could last that long in the future, but come on. Also, in TNG most of us Trekkers were under the impression that the Federation made contact with Cardassia shortly before TNG happened. Why was Uhura ordering a Cardassian drink?
Quote from: psikeyhackr on May 15, 2009, 07:43:26 PM
Think about it: Ambassador Spock dropped this RED MATTER into a star to destroy it. He did not have to drill a hole into the star. So why do the Romulans have to drill a hole into the core of a measly planet to destroy it with Red Matter? They aren't even consistent with their pseudo-science. :old_bash:
I was under the impression that Red Matter needs to ignite to create the black hole. That's why they need to drill into the planet so it ignites from the heat of the planet core. I thought Red Matter was a plot device and pretty stupid as well.
Quote from: Scott on May 15, 2009, 09:16:34 PM
I just saw the movie. Was it a good movie? You bet your ass! Was it Star Trek? Not so much. I didn't get that magic that comes with Star Trek from it. I also got annoyed by the product placement of the Nokia phone and the Budweisers (and the reference to a shot of "Jack"). It didn't seem to fit in with Star Trek. Sure it's logical (sorry, had to) to assume the brands could last that long in the future, but come on. Also, in TNG most of us Trekkers were under the impression that the Federation made contact with Cardassia shortly before TNG happened. Why was Uhura ordering a Cardassian drink?
I'm guessing that after the destruction of the Kelvin by an unknown, super-advanced ship, the Federation took a much more active role in finding out about its neighbors. So, in this universe, the Federation discovered the Cardassians a lot sooner than they did in the "Trek-Prime" universe.
Cawley was in the movie. I didn't see it, but he posted a cameraphone pic that someone took of his appearance. It's quick. His hair is slicked back.
I like the idea they had for Shatner's appearance. Especially where it would just be his voice over scenes of Chris Pine, I don't think it would've overshadowed the new players.
Not that the movie suffered for lack of The Shat and he probably wouldn't have done it, but it would've been nice.
Took Lynn last night and she really enjoyed it. She was a bit reluctant to go at first, but she is happy she did. She liked the new actors a lot and she got almost all the little "inside Trek" lines and references. She even understood the whole alternate timeline thing. I think she's a closet geek!
QuoteAlso, Ambassador Spock didn't destroy a star. He destroyed a supernova which is a big explosion. The black hole is negative force to the big explosion and thus causes it to stop it's expansion.
A supernova is a BIG STAR EXPLODING. You cannot separate the explosion from the star. A normal star is a continuous steady explosion that doesn't come apart because of its huge gravity. It goes nova because of running out of hydrogen fuel and collapsing due to gravity producing so much pressure it can fuse higher elements. That is the trouble with pseudo-science fiction, trying to rationalize how it could possibly work in relation to REAL SCIENCE. The only thing to do is turn the brain off.
Check out the Antares Trilogy for a plausible story involving a nova.
http://3mpub.com/mccollum/sfaz-04g.htm (http://3mpub.com/mccollum/sfaz-04g.htm)
http://hardsf.org/ReviAntT.htm (http://hardsf.org/ReviAntT.htm)
psik
This is why it's called Science Fiction - not science. I mean come on folks - Warp speed, transporters, time travel, etc. It's FICTION.
Well, in all fairness to real "science", we do all do seem ready to accept a lot of the "fiction". Warp speed is a lot to swallow but the one I also muse over that never seems to bother anyone else is artificial gravity, even on ships as small as shuttle craft. Now that's an impressive leap of technological faith!
Quote from: Rico on May 16, 2009, 06:27:58 AM
This is why it's called Science Fiction - not science. I mean come on folks - Warp speed, transporters, time travel, etc. It's FICTION.
LOL Good point Rico! One my wife made as well when I was discussing the thread with her. transporters, mind melds, Transwarp transporters, warp speed, time travel, artificial gravity (thank bry), and humanoid aliens, but a line gets drawn with Red matter?
Yep - it's the story about the characters, etc. that matters most - at least for me.
I'm hoping the book might expand somewhat on what exactly Red Matter is. I don't recall hearing about it ever before in Str Trek lore. I assume it was part of the comic, but I haven't read that yet.
Quote from: psikeyhackr on May 16, 2009, 05:49:12 AM
QuoteAlso, Ambassador Spock didn't destroy a star. He destroyed a supernova which is a big explosion. The black hole is negative force to the big explosion and thus causes it to stop it's expansion.
A supernova is a BIG STAR EXPLODING. You cannot separate the explosion from the star. A normal star is a continuous steady explosion that doesn't come apart because of its huge gravity. It goes nova because of running out of hydrogen fuel and collapsing due to gravity producing so much pressure it can fuse higher elements. That is the trouble with pseudo-science fiction, trying to rationalize how it could possibly work in relation to REAL SCIENCE. The only thing to do is turn the brain off.
Check out the Antares Trilogy for a plausible story involving a nova.
http://3mpub.com/mccollum/sfaz-04g.htm (http://3mpub.com/mccollum/sfaz-04g.htm)
http://hardsf.org/ReviAntT.htm (http://hardsf.org/ReviAntT.htm)
psik
This is where you and I differ. I don't see a star as an explosion ... science doesn't either. Exploding is blowing things aparts. Stars produce energy from fusion .. or squeezing things together.
In fact, science calls a star ... not an explosion, but luminous ball of plasma held together by gravity. Nova and super nova are the explosions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Nova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Nova)
So, as I said before. He destroyed a super nova and not a star. There are vastly different things going on there.
Quote from: Bryancd on May 16, 2009, 07:20:47 AM
I'm hoping the book might expand somewhat on what exactly Red Matter is. I don't recall hearing about it ever before in Str Trek lore. I assume it was part of the comic, but I haven't read that yet.
It's a plot device. It's what's left over from Rembaldi's experiments. Like Trillithium, it's something to move the story. It creates singularities. Why? No clue, but I would assume that if you can build your own blackhole, you can use that as a step into building a wormhole. Or copying the drives of the Romulan Birds of Prey. That's another thing that we gloss over. Artificial blackholes powering the Romulan ships.
I decided to let them slide on red matter because they have over 40 years of other things that I've accepted with little explanation.
It might have been cool if they had used the Omega particle instead. Would have been a nice tie in.
Quote from: Dan M on May 16, 2009, 04:34:36 AM
Cawley was in the movie. I didn't see it, but he posted a cameraphone pic that someone took of his appearance. It's quick. His hair is slicked back.
Just got back from my second viewing and I saw him this time.
After Kirk ascends to the captaincy, Chekov comes up with an idea to get aboard Nero's vessel. As Chekov rushes over to show Kirk the plan, he nearly runs into a crewman walking across the bridge in the opposite direction. That's Cawley. Blink and you'll miss him.
Has anyone found R2 yet? He's in the movie too
Not me, and I was looking for R2.
I knew the new Enterprise was bigger than the old one but WTF!?!
Yeah - I saw that too a day or two ago. Kind of cool - in a way I guess. Not sure why they wanted it so much bigger though.
I wonder how it works when compared against shuttle craft size? We've seen the number they pack in the hanger deck. Would that really be possible with a ship the size of the original.
One of my bug bears of all Trek series has been the scaling of the shuttles against the mother ship. Maybe they've actually calculated it correctly this time.
Any idea how big a crew his ship has?
I think the new ship has about 1000 - 1100 crew. Remember the Kelvin had about 800.
That is an interesting comparison of the ships. Maybe after the destruction of the Kelvin, the engineers decided to make more powerful ships? :P But it does make sense with the amount of shuttles they seemed to pack in. The ship really was beautiful, nice bridge... interesting engineering (liked the industrial look, but where was the shot of the warp core?).
Did you do a double take when Pike mentioned that George Kirk had saved 800 lives too? I sure did, I thought the Kelvin was only a light cruiser since it had a smaller secondary hull and only one warp engine. So that was my first clue that the scale of things were going to be radically different...
That image has been dissected on both TrekMovie.com and TrekBBS, and the size is suspect.
Hey guy's that scale chart is NOT accurate. The primary hull of the new Enterprise is nearly identical in size to that of the refit from TMP. You can tell by the number of windows in profile view. You can also get a sense of the similar scale in the scene where the shuttle flies over the top and drops down to the shuttle bay. The bay itself has a lot of dimensional tell's as well. If this was for real, the ship would have a crew of 2000+. Also the scale for the Battlestar is way too short, it should be well over 1200 meters. The joker who made this didn't even try to cale down the windows! LOL! The new E is the same size as the old E, no question.
....of course this absurd size would explain the silly, massive Engineering section, but I digress. :)
Thank You, I thought it was a little outrageous...
I figured where else to get answers but here, and so I posted it. It just didn't feel right...
I didn't remember seeing any Viper hangerbays in the Enterprise. :D
I mean come on, according to that chart the engines alone are bigger than the old Enterprise!
Well, those engines are silly big... ;)
Again, a I have seen the Galactica estimate to be as high as 1400+ meters. That's almost a MILE. No, this is a bit of fantasy. It showed up over at the Replica Prop Forum last week and was dismissed as fan boy none sense. :)
Quote from: Feathers on May 16, 2009, 03:44:39 PM
I wonder how it works when compared against shuttle craft size? We've seen the number they pack in the hanger deck. Would that really be possible with a ship the size of the original.
One of my bug bears of all Trek series has been the scaling of the shuttles against the mother ship. Maybe they've actually calculated it correctly this time.
Any idea how big a crew his ship has?
The problem there, Mike, is that we see into the shuttle bay in the film. It clearly takes up all the space we see in the tapered back part of the secondary hull. This is why I have such a problem with the interior shots of Engineering. It's inconceivable they could fit all we see in the interior wide shots into the space we see on the exterior shots. :wallbash:
And how convienient that the water tubes are clear so we could see poor Scotty being whisked away! :laugh:
Quote from: Omra on May 16, 2009, 05:04:37 PM
And how convienient that the water tubes are clear so we could see poor Scotty being whisked away! :laugh:
Well, of course! It's the coolant for the blah, blah, blah (convenient set piece for silly action sequence), blah! Go back a few pages in this thread to hear some sweet justifications for what amounts to no more than a lazy plot device!
I Just looked over the size of the ship on the web and it's 3000 feet
http://www.postmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=63930E9D02644EC9A127AF67602DA756&nm=E-Newsletters&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=C0928902C93D4F8682FB2117F7DD841F (http://www.postmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=63930E9D02644EC9A127AF67602DA756&nm=E-Newsletters&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=C0928902C93D4F8682FB2117F7DD841F)
If you compare it to the size of the shuttles, that makes sense.
Quote from: Just X on May 16, 2009, 05:34:44 PM
I Just looked over the size of the ship on the web and it's 3000 feet
http://www.postmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=63930E9D02644EC9A127AF67602DA756&nm=E-Newsletters&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=C0928902C93D4F8682FB2117F7DD841F (http://www.postmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=63930E9D02644EC9A127AF67602DA756&nm=E-Newsletters&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=C0928902C93D4F8682FB2117F7DD841F)
If you compare it to the size of the shuttles, that makes sense.
So that would make it longer than both the Galaxy Class and the Sovereign Class. I don't think so. I also don't think that JJ had ANY idea how big the Enterprise really is. The refit was just over 1000 feet long. Nothing in the film would indicate that the new ship is 3x as long. Again, the size of a window on a deck is the best tell.
Quote from: Bryancd on May 16, 2009, 06:01:33 PM
Quote from: Just X on May 16, 2009, 05:34:44 PM
I Just looked over the size of the ship on the web and it's 3000 feet
http://www.postmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=63930E9D02644EC9A127AF67602DA756&nm=E-Newsletters&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=C0928902C93D4F8682FB2117F7DD841F (http://www.postmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=63930E9D02644EC9A127AF67602DA756&nm=E-Newsletters&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=C0928902C93D4F8682FB2117F7DD841F)
If you compare it to the size of the shuttles, that makes sense.
So that would make it longer than both the Galaxy Class and the Sovereign Class. I don't think so. I also don't think that JJ had ANY idea how big the Enterprise really is. The refit was just over 1000 feet long. Nothing in the film would indicate that the new ship is 3x as long. Again, the size of a window on a deck is the best tell.
Except for the fact that the guys at ILM designed it with the 2000 foot scale in mind. I think if you figure out the size of the shuttle and compare it to the beauty shot, you'll be at that mark.
Remember bryan, alternate universe.
Also this ship is build AFTER the run into Nero. Surviviors would more than likely tell how big the ship was and want some help.
here is another point of reference. the Kelvin had 800 survivors. If we say that it was the entire crew and compare it to a ship in the other universe, then we would have the Ambassador class which is 525 meters.
A runabout in non-movie is 23 meters and only holds 4 crew.
Maybe in the rush to get it's most powerful ship out, they didn't mind the size. Later on, I think that they could make smaller ships as the technology used becomes smaller.
This is WACK!
According to the Starship Dimension site (Which I love):
Constitution- 289m
Enterprise Refit- 305m
Galaxy- 643m
Sovereign- 685
If the Buzzlightyear Enterprize is now a whopping 914 meters according to ILM that makes it almost as big as the freakin' ANDROMEDA!!!! That ain't right... I need a drink...
Just found something else:
http://www.experience-the-enterprise.com/ww/ (http://www.experience-the-enterprise.com/ww/)
The following specifications can be found during the Enterprise Tour:
Class: Constitution class ship. Type: Heavy Cruiser. Registry: NCC-1701. Designer: W. Matt Jeffries [sic]. Construction Site: Starfleet Division, San Francisco Fleet Yards. Overall Mass: 495,000 metric tonnes. Length: 2500 feet. Saucer Diameter: 1100 feet. Ship Height: 625 feet
In addition, according to the tour, the bridge is located on A Deck and the sickbay on G Deck. The stated crew size is 1100.
[edit] Size
Despite various structural similarities to the original movie Enterprise, multiple sources close to production provide much greater figures:
* A very precise length of 2379.75 feet (725.35 meters) is stated in a Gizmodo blog entry. A note of thanks is given to "David B. from Bad Robot Productions".
* ILM model supervisor Bruce Holcomb states that the Enterprise is "2000 feet [600 meters]" long in an interview for Studio Daily.
* The Post Magazine article 'Star Trek' Returns gives an overall length of "3,000 feet [900 meters]".
* The following specifications can be found during the Enterprise Tour:
o Length: 2500 feet [760 meters].
o Saucer Diameter: 1100 feet [340 meters].
o Ship Height: 625 feet [190 meters].
It's not a question of alternate universes, just post a pic of the fron tof the new Enterprise from the trailer and one from TMP. They are nearly identical in scale. Your post above clearly indicates that no one who is quoted has any idea. It's actually very amusing. :)
Quote from: Bryancd on May 16, 2009, 06:41:43 PM
It's not a question of alternate universes, just post a pic of the fron tof the new Enterprise from the trailer and one from TMP. They are nearly identical in scale. Your post above clearly indicates that no one who is quoted has any idea. It's actually very amusing. :)
Except that they are all saying it's massive and larger than the old 1701
I think that you might be confusing look with scale. there is nothing to show the scale of the new one because we don't know the size of things. I'm sure that someone will come along and do some calculations of Kirk looking at the ship versus the distance to the ship and it's reported height at some point.
More likely they will realize that they have no consensus an just make one up! Just post a pic, I don't have time right now.
So I am guessing that JJ loves to have things HUGE in his movies, and so he just threw a number at them, and now everyone who works for him is having to scramble around try to make this ridiculously large number seem feasible.
If the 900 meter number is correct that makes it almost 3 times the size of the Enterprise refit.
If the 600 meter number is correct that makes it over twice the size of the original Enterprise.
If the 725.35 meter number is correct then the pic I posted is correct and the Enterprise is crewed by giants!!!! :jawdrop
Crewed by giants? Did you notice how high those hallways were?
The windows on the Enterprise are almost the size of missle bays on the Galactica, look at the pic. The little tiny port that shot out the pod Kirk was in is almost the size of a hanger bay on the Galactica. :unsure
Like I said before 'it is whack'...
Nerd alert. ;)
As much as I WANT the new Enterprise to be at least close to the size of the old Connie, I'm afraid that it is most likely a GIGANTI-Prise. Yesterday, I attended a Sci-Fi model & collecting convention called Wonderfest. One of the guests was John Eaves, who worked in the conceptual design department of JJ's new film. When asked about the size of the new ship, he referred to the Gizmodo size chart listed earlier, and insinuated that the size listed there is close to accurate.
For better or worse, it seems as though the new Enterprise is about the length of a Trek-Prime Sovereign-Class Starship. Interviews with folks who work for Bad Robot give numbers ranging from 600 to 900 meters long.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this.
Like just about everything else, I guess the new size can be rationalized. Maybe the run-in with the Narada convinced Starfleet that there was some truly scary sh*t out there in space, and spurred them on to build the ships on a larger scale.
As for the windows-- Looking at comparisons, If you assume that the windows are the same size as those on a Galaxy or Sovereign class, they match up.
What I'd really like is for something definitive to be published-- Maybe a cross-section book or something. As hard as the large size is to swallow, my biggest issue is not having a concrete number to go by.
Quote from: Omra on May 16, 2009, 07:56:06 PM
The windows on the Enterprise are almost the size of missle bays on the Galactica, look at the pic. The little tiny port that shot out the pod Kirk was in is almost the size of a hanger bay on the Galactica. :unsure
Like I said before 'it is whack'...
Are you comparing to the original Galactica or to the reimagined? The rule of thumb is: Reimagined is about twice as big as original! ;)
Here you go, pick your poison!
Can... not... resist...
*blurts-out*
Oh boys, it's not the length, it's diameter and technic that counts!
Sorry, sorry, sorry. sorry, sorry!
I haven't read the book yet, but maybe some of this is cleared up in the novel (which I did just get from Ktrek - thanks Kevin!).
Oh, and back to the movie - Obama talks Trek:
And the last movie you saw?
Now, movies I've been doing OK [with] because it turns out we got this nice theater on the ground floor of my house ... So Star Trek, we saw this weekend, which I thought was good. Everybody was saying I was Spock, so I figured I should check it out and—[the president makes the Vulcan salute with his hand].
Very good.
Yes, absolutely.
Did you watch that when you were growing up?
I used to love Star Trek. You know, Star Trek was ahead of its time. There was a whole—the special effects weren't real good, but the storylines were always evocative, you know, there was a little commentary and a little pop philosophy for a 10-year-old to absorb.
A lot of U.N. stuff.
Yes, exactly, right.
I bet no one will ask Gordon Brown if he's seen it...or if they do they'll be more interested if he claimed it on expenses.
So the President knows the Vulcan salute. Is this a good thing?
It's been known a long time that the President is a Trek fan, and also reads comics too. I like it!
I think Pike is sitting in the wheelchair because his brain (the part controlling motor functions) was damaged as they took that animal out. Or he simply was weak and couldn't walk around.
And about black holes, they need a certain amount of mass, only bigger stars become one. I think black holes with lesser mass just dissolve (at least the ones created by CERN). So the first one Spock created might still be a black hole, but I doubt Vulcan or Neros vessel have enough mass.
(I'm so nerdy.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Classification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Classification)
"Micro – (also mini black holes) have masses much less than that of a star. (...) The theory of Hawking radiation predicts that such black holes will evaporate in bright flashes of gamma radiation."
What did I say? Nerdy.
Interesting. I was assuming the entry holes would stay around but maybe not.
I think the holes out of which the ships came into the new universe probably weren't black holes but simply exit points of some sort so I didn't expect those to stay. The supernova black hole in the Prime universe is one I'd expect to stay simply from the sheer amount of mass it's swallowed.
Quote from: Rico on May 17, 2009, 05:39:19 AM
I haven't read the book yet, but maybe some of this is cleared up in the novel (which I did just get from Ktrek - thanks Kevin!).
I just started reading the book last night!
Quote from: Bryancd on May 17, 2009, 12:14:19 PM
Quote from: Rico on May 17, 2009, 05:39:19 AM
I haven't read the book yet, but maybe some of this is cleared up in the novel (which I did just get from Ktrek - thanks Kevin!).
I just started reading the book last night!
I finished it in like three hours of reading. What do you think so far?
I read a night before bed, so only get two chapters before I fall asleep. I'm only at the attack on the Kelvin, but I like it so far!
Usually I am tempted to jump into discussions about specifications and the minutae of things 'Trek', but on this point, let me say simply:
"Maybe the new Enterprise IS as big as they say. Perhaps Starfleet engineers figured out later that building ships that large was neither efficient nor necessary given the amount of resources (in both personnel, materials, and antimatter) they required. They got smarter and put 'more into less space' -- just like we do today with our current technologies (e.g. old style tape recorders to today's iPods)."
RetCon Complete.
I'd like to throw a question to everyone who is reading the book: If you were JJ Abrams and you had to pick just one scene to depict the period between Kirk's birth and his old-enough-to-join-the-academy age, why pick him thrashing his stepfather vintage car? Do you think it was really the best choice?
Quote from: RicSantiago on May 20, 2009, 07:26:56 AM
I'd like to throw a question to everyone who is reading the book: If you were JJ Abrams and you had to pick just one scene to depict the period between Kirk's birth and his old-enough-to-join-the-academy age, why pick him thrashing his stepfather vintage car? Do you think it was really the best choice?
In regards to the book, the only additional young Kirk scene occurs just before he steals the Corvette. He is washing it and we hear of an argument between his older brother Sam and his step-ftaher. Sam comes out and is tell's Jim he is leaving and walks off down the road. This prompts Jim to jump in the Corvette and take off. So from the book, there wasn't really any additional chioce for that element.
As to the film, I think the scene works ok for what JJ was trying to impart.
Quote from: Bryancd on May 20, 2009, 08:13:02 AM
As to the film, I think the scene works ok for what JJ was trying to impart.
When we saw the trailer, the telephonic conversation with the "uncle" wasnt there, so I did not get that the intention was to destroy the car. I thought Kirk didnt see the cliff before too late to brake. Maybe silly of me.
But for a person who didnt see the trailer, when seeing the film: was it clear enough that the "uncle" was the stepfather and that Kirk was doing that to destroy the car as an act of revolt against the car owner? Was it clear enough?
The subtext I got from seeing the whole scene in the theater was that his home life in Iowa was troubled and he was acting out directly against the person on the phone. I did get the impression it was a step-father and that he wasn't very caring for Kirk.
I'm just reading the book now, and it is really great. It's really too bad they couldn't have made the movie 5 hours. :)
Quote from: RicSantiago on May 20, 2009, 08:26:36 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 20, 2009, 08:13:02 AM
As to the film, I think the scene works ok for what JJ was trying to impart.
When we saw the trailer, the telephonic conversation with the "uncle" wasnt there, so I did not get that the intention was to destroy the car. I thought Kirk didnt see the cliff before too late to brake. Maybe silly of me.
But for a person who didnt see the trailer, when seeing the film: was it clear enough that the "uncle" was the stepfather and that Kirk was doing that to destroy the car as an act of revolt against the car owner? Was it clear enough?
In the book, for me, it was a little more to it than him just destroying to car. I think that he was trying to keep his father's car away from someone that was trying to sell it from under them. When he saw the canyon, he decided it was better to destroy it than let this jerk sell it. It wasn't the step-father's to get rid of.
Quote from: Just X on May 20, 2009, 09:50:53 AM
Quote from: RicSantiago on May 20, 2009, 08:26:36 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 20, 2009, 08:13:02 AM
As to the film, I think the scene works ok for what JJ was trying to impart.
When we saw the trailer, the telephonic conversation with the "uncle" wasnt there, so I did not get that the intention was to destroy the car. I thought Kirk didnt see the cliff before too late to brake. Maybe silly of me.
But for a person who didnt see the trailer, when seeing the film: was it clear enough that the "uncle" was the stepfather and that Kirk was doing that to destroy the car as an act of revolt against the car owner? Was it clear enough?
In the book, for me, it was a little more to it than him just destroying to car. I think that he was trying to keep his father's car away from someone that was trying to sell it from under them. When he saw the canyon, he decided it was better to destroy it than let this jerk sell it. It wasn't the step-father's to get rid of.
That adds a ton more subtext to the scene knowing this. It makes the whole action much more meaningful
Quote from: Just X on May 20, 2009, 09:50:53 AM
Quote from: RicSantiago on May 20, 2009, 08:26:36 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 20, 2009, 08:13:02 AM
As to the film, I think the scene works ok for what JJ was trying to impart.
When we saw the trailer, the telephonic conversation with the "uncle" wasnt there, so I did not get that the intention was to destroy the car. I thought Kirk didnt see the cliff before too late to brake. Maybe silly of me.
But for a person who didnt see the trailer, when seeing the film: was it clear enough that the "uncle" was the stepfather and that Kirk was doing that to destroy the car as an act of revolt against the car owner? Was it clear enough?
In the book, for me, it was a little more to it than him just destroying to car. I think that he was trying to keep his father's car away from someone that was trying to sell it from under them. When he saw the canyon, he decided it was better to destroy it than let this jerk sell it. It wasn't the step-father's to get rid of.
Yes, but that wasn't made clear in the movie, and that is what Ric is asking.
I love this one-
http://www.current.com/e/http://current.com/items/90029658_death-star-destroys-enterprise.htm (http://www.current.com/e/http://current.com/items/90029658_death-star-destroys-enterprise.htm)
;D
This is kinda funny too-
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film)
;)
This one is for HawkeyeMeds-
Scottish Sobriety Test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNn-6FzTimY#lq-lq2-hq)
:thumbsup
You're right Bry, it wasn't made clear who he was talking to, but I think the way that he spoke to Jim suggested there was some trouble between them.
Quote from: Omra on May 20, 2009, 06:32:09 PM
I love this one-
http://www.current.com/e/http://current.com/items/90029658_death-star-destroys-enterprise.htm (http://www.current.com/e/http://current.com/items/90029658_death-star-destroys-enterprise.htm)
;D
This is kinda funny too-
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film)
;)
This one is for HawkeyeMeds-
Scottish Sobriety Test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNn-6FzTimY#lq-lq2-hq)
:thumbsup
very funny
Ok, finally saw what all the fuss is about. These guys studied TOS - Kirk, Spock and McCoy were all played extremely well. The scene near the end with Kirk standing in front of the chair was just perfect. Uhura was the only one that didn't seem like a good fit - she was ok but MAN she like DIGS Spock. As Sheldon would say "Buhzinga" !! I know this was an alternate reality where apparently they throw paradoxes out the window :D. I almost expected Marty McFly to show up with Spock the Younger/Spock the Elder talking about messing up the space-time continuum. Kirk has a very strong grip - especially when hanging on to ledges. Did anyone else notice Dr. Beckett's (Atlantis) small scene? Pegg was good as Scotty - a little bit too roguish but good. Again, the whole alternate reality allowed some play with the characters and events. I half expected Pike to get injured but I was ok with him surviing although that slug thing - I covered my eyes. :D Some of visuals - I wish they had zoomed out a bit on some of the heavier action sequences. Was the Olsen tragedy like an "Ode to the Red Shirt"?
Unfortunately, there was a group of drunken slobs who seemed to think this was Mystery Science Theatre 3000 - low point of the outing. I just want to pull out my phaser on its highest setting.
I give it a 3 out of 4.
What I don't get about the "eels" Nero uses is that they are clearly the eels from Ceti Aplha V and yet Nero calls them something else. Why?
Quote from: Bryancd on May 21, 2009, 07:06:56 PM
What I don't get about the "eels" Nero uses is that they are clearly the eels from Ceti Aplha V and yet Nero calls them something else. Why?
But they're not. I saw the movie right after I saw TWOK, while they seem similar, they aren't. They have some similarities to their loko but they are not identical. It's also not like Trek hasn't had things look exactly like something else and not be the same.
Quote from: markinro on May 21, 2009, 07:02:23 PM
Did anyone else notice Dr. Beckett's (Atlantis) small scene?
Yes although I think I'd seen that already somewhere (spoiler thread?). He'd apparently gone in for Scotty at the behest of the SGA fans (I think his parents are Scots) and had gained the public support of James Doohan's son for the role too.
He obviously didn't get it but they called him back for the marshalling scene in the shuttle hanger.
Quote from: markinro on May 21, 2009, 07:02:23 PM
Was the Olsen tragedy like an "Ode to the Red Shirt"?
I thought so.
Quote from: Just X on May 21, 2009, 08:53:39 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 21, 2009, 07:06:56 PM
What I don't get about the "eels" Nero uses is that they are clearly the eels from Ceti Aplha V and yet Nero calls them something else. Why?
But they're not. I saw the movie right after I saw TWOK, while they seem similar, they aren't. They have some similarities to their loko but they are not identical. It's also not like Trek hasn't had things look exactly like something else and not be the same.
Please, Chris. They are VERY similar in look, the movie one's are more sreamlined and animated, and they do the same thing excpet they crwal throught he mouth. In the Star Trek fanboy world, fine they are different. In the real world, the writters created a plot device with remarkable similaritites to something used. Why not come up with a new McGuffin? Why make it ALMOST like a Ceti Ell, but not? Just make it a Ceti Eel as a nice nod to TWOK and move on.
Well, I saw the movie in IMAX last night and the "eel" things Nero uses look more like a crayfish to me and not really like the flat thing Khan used (different color, body shape, etc.). Yeah, obviously a very similar tool they are using for the plot but I can see why they didn't make it a ceti eel. It's doubtful the Romulans would even know about Ceti Eels or even have them. Not even sure why they had these things on board a Romulan mining ship. Frankly, I thought that whole sequence was weak. Why not just torture Pike or mind meld with him? Seems like a much more simple answer.
Yeah. Weak and unnecessary.
I can accept that they might have wanted a nod to TWOK but the film would have been better without, particularly as they never paid off on the things. You saw them go in but you never got any follow-up (other than the ship entering Earth orbit I guess).
Speaking of things on the Romulan ship...did we ever figure out what was with all the water? Was the ship getting old? Was it a byproduct of the borg technology integrated in?
Quote from: Feathers on May 22, 2009, 06:15:02 AM
Yeah. Weak and unnecessary.
I can accept that they might have wanted a nod to TWOK but the film would have been better without, particularly as they never paid off on the things. You saw them go in but you never got any follow-up (other than the ship entering Earth orbit I guess).
There was quite a few nods to TOS and the other movies
1. Kirk getting Spock ticked off reminded me of the TOS episode with the spores.
2. Spock with his mother reminded me of the same scenes in Voyage
3. Size of Nero's ship reminded me of Vejur
4. Uhura with Spock - completely unique to this movie :D. Ok, maybe briefly the TOS episode with the people who had telekensis powers. Didn't Uhura first lie down with Spock before going to Kirk?
This one is for HawkeyeMeds-
Scottish Sobriety Test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNn-6FzTimY#lq-lq2-hq)
:thumbsup
[/quote]
LOL ha ha ha
Quote from: billybob476 on May 22, 2009, 06:22:57 AM
Speaking of things on the Romulan ship...did we ever figure out what was with all the water? Was the ship getting old? Was it a byproduct of the borg technology integrated in?
I thought it might have been because the ship was a big drill, and drills need coolant anw water.
Quote from: HawkeyeMeds on May 22, 2009, 09:36:21 AM
Quote from: billybob476 on May 22, 2009, 06:22:57 AM
Speaking of things on the Romulan ship...did we ever figure out what was with all the water? Was the ship getting old? Was it a byproduct of the borg technology integrated in?
I thought it might have been because the ship was a big drill, and drills need coolant anw water.
It was only in that one scene with Pike, right? Thought maybe it was a home for the little darlin' brain clamping leeches.
Quote from: Rico on May 22, 2009, 06:04:36 AM
Well, I saw the movie in IMAX last night and the "eel" things Nero uses look more like a crayfish to me and not really like the flat thing Khan used (different color, body shape, etc.). Yeah, obviously a very similar tool they are using for the plot but I can see why they didn't make it a ceti eel. It's doubtful the Romulans would even know about Ceti Eels or even have them. Not even sure why they had these things on board a Romulan mining ship. Frankly, I thought that whole sequence was weak. Why not just torture Pike or mind meld with him? Seems like a much more simple answer.
Romulans aren't telepaths like Vulcans, which it probably why the go with torture instead of mental abilities. I don't think that we've ever seen a Romulan telepath on screen. that's probably why T'pol in enterprise could use their mind ship and they needed the white andorians to drive it otherwise.
Another good point about the eels that is Ceti is a tropical paradise right now. Several decades away from becoming a wasteland. So they would have no reason to fly into federation space and go to the tropical planet to search down eels that they don't know exist or what they can do.
Having them as something different makes it easier.
Quote from: Just X on May 22, 2009, 11:00:08 AM
Having them as something different makes it easier.
Having them not at all makes it easier. Having a creature with long front mandibles, a body and tail, that enters through an orifice and causes the subject to become susceptible to suggestion and not having it be the same thing from another movie doesn't seem to make it easier, either.
They could have just injected him with something.
Granted, it could have been done a million different ways, but then it wouldn't be a tribute.
Quote from: Just X on May 22, 2009, 11:45:13 AM
Granted, it could have been done a million different ways, but then it wouldn't be a tribute.
But that just it, Chris. It wasn't a tribute at the end as they felt the need to make some slight changes. Just go for it! Stick it in his ear! That's a tribute and would have been a great scene! What, do they have to pay royalties to the Ceti Alpha Eel Union?! :)
Quote from: Bryancd on May 22, 2009, 11:48:48 AM
Quote from: Just X on May 22, 2009, 11:45:13 AM
Granted, it could have been done a million different ways, but then it wouldn't be a tribute.
But that just it, Chris. It wasn't a tribute at the end as they felt the need to make some slight changes. Just go for it! Stick it in his ear! That's a tribute and would have been a great scene! What, do they have to pay royalties to the Ceti Alpha Eel Union?! :)
Bryan, as someone on JJ's secret payroll I must put a stop to all this questioning of Mr. Abrams' intentions. :)
Quote from: billybob476 on May 22, 2009, 11:54:21 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 22, 2009, 11:48:48 AM
Quote from: Just X on May 22, 2009, 11:45:13 AM
Granted, it could have been done a million different ways, but then it wouldn't be a tribute.
But that just it, Chris. It wasn't a tribute at the end as they felt the need to make some slight changes. Just go for it! Stick it in his ear! That's a tribute and would have been a great scene! What, do they have to pay royalties to the Ceti Alpha Eel Union?! :)
Bryan, as someone on JJ's secret payroll I must put a stop to all this questioning of Mr. Abrams' intentions. :)
Do me a favor and ask your boss how long he thinks the damn Enterprise is upposed to be as he clearly has no idea!!!! ;)
He says it's as long as you want it to be ;)
Quote from: billybob476 on May 22, 2009, 11:59:21 AM
He says it's as long as you want it to be ;)
BA-DUM-DA!!!! Thank you I'm here all week! Try the fish! Polar Lights announced the new plastic model kit at Wonderfest. The New Movie Enterprise kit will be 11 inches, and is 2500th scale - in the film it's a massive 2,375 feet.
Quote from: billybob476 on May 22, 2009, 06:22:57 AM
Speaking of things on the Romulan ship...did we ever figure out what was with all the water? Was the ship getting old? Was it a byproduct of the borg technology integrated in?
Romulans are lousy plumbers, that is why they stopped at the Klingon Prison planet. To borrow a plunger and a snake, but negotiations went south.... You know how those Klingons can be...;)
Nero Rooter?
Just went to Toys R Us on my lunch and got all nine 6" Star Trek figures.. I couldn't resist... I'll posts pictures when I get home.
I'll be getting that model kit. Very nice. Thanks for posting the picture, Bryan!
George has been inspired by the new Star Trek and has announced he will be doing a REBOOT of Star Wars!
Orlando Bloom has signed on as the NEW LUKE! ;D
Has anyone noticed that the theme music in the movie has some striking similarities to the theme from the Mission To Mars movie? I was listening to the soundtrack tnis morning and was suddenly reminded of the Missoin to Mars movie.
Vartok, I am curious if you have noticed this?
-Rick
Just saw the movie finally. Ranks up there as one of the best movie experiences of my life. I absolutely loved the movie. My wife who has never watched anything Star Trek also really liked the movie. I actually had tears running down my face at the beginning when Kirk's dad dies, man that scene got to me. Casting was perfect. Simon Pegg was amazing. Chirs Pine, perfect. Karl Urban Perfect. Quinto was really good, but not Leonard Nimoy. I love Nimoy as Spock. My favorite character. But I do like Quinto and can't wait to see where he takes the character. This movie made me so happy I can't stop smiling. J.J. Abrams is the man! Long live Star Trek.
*sends virtual 'high-five' to SPOCKFAN* Nice. I'm glad you enjoyed it; it really is an awesome film. :)
Here's a really great resource for the new ships in the film. http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/stxi_ships.htm (http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/stxi_ships.htm)
They are firmly in line with the new Enterprise just being a tiny bit bigger than the old, movie refit version. Making it about 295m. Read on:
1) The new Enterprise was designed by Ryan Church and built into a CGI model at ILM.
2) Compared to the pilot version (2254-2264) and the largely identical original Constitution class as it appeared in TOS (2264-2268) the changes to the re-imagined "Star Trek XI" vessel are substantial. Its proportions are roughly similar, retaining the basic saucer-neck-engineering-nacelle configuration. The secondary hull and the "organic" nacelles are totally new. The saucer is essentially the same as the one of the TMP refit, and hence different than the somewhat smaller one of the TOS Enterprise. Some of its details such as the windows and the three stripes on the edge even seem to be identical. The bridge dome is a bit like in TMP and very different than on the TOS model.
3) The locations for the ship seen in the film are: bridge, sickbay, crew quarters, corridors, engineering and the transporter room. The playful interior of the bridge is nothing like in TOS but like a generic 24th century bridge. Other rooms have been totally restyled as well. The corridors now have round cross-sections. The interior of the engineering section looks like a 20th century industrial complex. There are largely no recognizable decks in this section, and much of the volume is filled with a maze of water pipes. This is very different than on any other Federation ship of any era, and it begs the question whether the huge filming set (an actual waterworks as it seems) would fit into the engineering hull at all. In a similar fashion, the shuttlebay may be too small for the many bulky (ca. 14m long) new shuttles, which are stacked in some sort of shelves on two levels on either side of the shuttlebay. Here the shuttlebay looks like it is some 50m across, but that has to be a scaling error.
4) Since the new Enterprise is different because history has been altered, there is no need for an in-universe justification why it doesn't look like the TOS ship. There is no need to make the design fit in any fashion. Still, it is true that the re-imagination would be somewhat plausible as a predecessor of the Enterprise refit of 2271 mainly because of the saucer, but only as a direct predecessor. It would be very odd to build a new ship in 2258 with features that the refit would have as late as in 2271, only to regress to a more basic style for just five years between 2264 and 2269. There is no explanation as to why the saucer is like the one of TMP. It would have been a nice twist if Spock had arrived earlier and had given the plans of this ship to Starfleet. But up to the point when the Narada shows up above Vulcan no one in the Federation is even aware that history has been altered.
5) Comparing my preliminary side view with that of the other two Enterprises, I obtain a length of 295m for the new ship. We can take for granted that the height of the saucer is the same as on the Enterprise refit with its very similar saucer shape. There is still an uncertainty of a couple of meters until orthographic views are available that are exactly to scale. In any case the occasional rumors that the ship has to be bigger are untrue. There are "official" but absolutely ludicrous length figures of 2300ft to 3000ft afloat, which would turn the Enterprise into a monster bigger than a Galaxy class! This is allegedly because the CGI was scaled to this size. But even if the VFX team really had to scale up the ship (such as to squeeze in the way too many shuttles), the basic deck structure, the window size and the diameter of the hatch in the neck from where Kirk's escape pod was launched are definite proof that it can't be much longer than 300m. Every possible other detail pointing to a larger size would have to be reinterpreted in an adequate fashion to fit with the overwhelming evidence of a 300m ship. More about the scaling issue.
6) The Enterprise is being built on the ground, in teenage Kirk's neighborhood in Riverside, Iowa. This is in contrast to everything we knew about ship construction so far. (The ship that Kirk sees in Iowa is indeed the Enterprise. The "1701" is visible as the shuttle passes by the warp engines.)
7) The official movie site at startrekmovie.com tells us that the new Enterprise belongs to the Constitution class, just as in the original universe. There is no canon confirmation in the movie itself, however. The Enterprise may just as well be the first of her class.
See the original Constitution class.
Hey, I posted this back on page 21! These are all the points I was trying to make, especially the one about Kirks pod when it's ejected really gives a nice idea of scale. Unfortunately, I think they are going to try and jam the 2300 foot number down our throats despite what we saw on screen. That new model kit will be 11 inches, and is 2500th scale - in the film that would make it 2,375 feet.
I saw your pictures Bryan, but this one is a little different, with more detail so I posted it. As far as the model kit, just change that scale number to about 1070th scale or round it off to 1/1000th scale and it works to match the 302m number.
Quote from: Rico on May 25, 2009, 06:16:25 AM
I saw your pictures Bryan, but this one is a little different, with more detail so I posted it. As far as the model kit, just change that scale number to about 1070th scale or round it off to 1/1000th scale and it works to match the 302m number.
I know, but REL over at the RPF confirmed with the Polar Light rep the scale of the new kit and the size of the model.
Quote from: Bryancd on May 25, 2009, 06:21:36 AM
Quote from: Rico on May 25, 2009, 06:16:25 AM
I saw your pictures Bryan, but this one is a little different, with more detail so I posted it. As far as the model kit, just change that scale number to about 1070th scale or round it off to 1/1000th scale and it works to match the 302m number.
I know, but REL over at the RPF confirmed with the Polar Light rep the scale of the new kit and the size of the model.
That doesn't make it accurate. He's just feeding back what he's been told.
Quote from: Rico on May 25, 2009, 06:44:12 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 25, 2009, 06:21:36 AM
Quote from: Rico on May 25, 2009, 06:16:25 AM
I saw your pictures Bryan, but this one is a little different, with more detail so I posted it. As far as the model kit, just change that scale number to about 1070th scale or round it off to 1/1000th scale and it works to match the 302m number.
I know, but REL over at the RPF confirmed with the Polar Light rep the scale of the new kit and the size of the model.
That doesn't make it accurate. He's just feeding back what he's been told.
Here, here, I'm with you on that! You're preaching to the choir, brother! I hope they do scale it down to fit that chart, although it then really does make what we saw on screen confusing in regards to the interior.
What was the last line Leonard Nimoy says at the end of the movie when he is standing on that balcony? And what did it mean?
Quote from: Rico on May 25, 2009, 06:44:12 AM
Quote from: Bryancd on May 25, 2009, 06:21:36 AM
Quote from: Rico on May 25, 2009, 06:16:25 AM
I saw your pictures Bryan, but this one is a little different, with more detail so I posted it. As far as the model kit, just change that scale number to about 1070th scale or round it off to 1/1000th scale and it works to match the 302m number.
I know, but REL over at the RPF confirmed with the Polar Light rep the scale of the new kit and the size of the model.
That doesn't make it accurate. He's just feeding back what he's been told.
True. I spoke with the Polar Lights/Round 2 Rep at wonderfest as well. The kit hasn't even been mastered yet; all they had to show was a mock-up of box-art to advertise that they had purchased the rights. I believe the statement that they are planning on casting a 11 to 12 inch kit, since that is a popular and economical size for most modelers. The scale issue is something they can change & pin down once the kit is ready for production. They can decide later what scale to label it-- 1/2500, 1/1000, or possibly, non-scale.
Quote from: SPOCKFAN on May 26, 2009, 08:37:37 AM
What was the last line Leonard Nimoy says at the end of the movie when he is standing on that balcony? And what did it mean?
I think he said "Thrusters on 'full'. I interpreted it as a sort of nostalgic 'bon-voyage' to Young Spock & the crew of the Enterprise.
Quote from: wraith1701 on May 26, 2009, 09:00:02 AM
Quote from: SPOCKFAN on May 26, 2009, 08:37:37 AM
What was the last line Leonard Nimoy says at the end of the movie when he is standing on that balcony? And what did it mean?
I think he said "Thrusters on 'full'. I interpreted it as a sort of nostalgic 'bon-voyage' to Young Spock & the crew of the Enterprise.
Is that what he said? I don't recall that.
Quote from: Bryancd on May 26, 2009, 11:07:04 AM
Quote from: wraith1701 on May 26, 2009, 09:00:02 AM
Quote from: SPOCKFAN on May 26, 2009, 08:37:37 AM
What was the last line Leonard Nimoy says at the end of the movie when he is standing on that balcony? And what did it mean?
I think he said "Thrusters on 'full'. I interpreted it as a sort of nostalgic 'bon-voyage' to Young Spock & the crew of the Enterprise.
Is that what he said? I don't recall that.
Right after Kirk receives his award and is promoted to captain, the camera pans up to 'old' Spock, who is watching the ceremony from a balcony. He looks down introspectively, and says quietly, "Thrusters on full". We are supposed to interpret this moment as a peek at Spock reminiscing on the old times he had as a friend of Kirk and member of the Enterprise.
This impression is driven home by the immediate cut to the next scene, which shows Sulu at the helm saying "..Thrusters on full; ready for warp, Captain".
Ahhh, that's right, I remember thinking how Spock on the balconey reminded me of the series finale of Enterprise with Ricker and Troi watching that ceremony. :ohmy
Quote from: Bryancd on May 26, 2009, 12:13:05 PM
Ahhh, that's right, I remember thinking how Spock on the balconey reminded me of the series finale of Enterprise with Ricker and Troi watching that ceremony. :ohmy
LOL That's an insult to the movie!!! :D
I thought Enterprise was OK, but I agree; the finale was pretty rushed & lame. In contrast, I liked the moment with Spock on the balcony, and the way it led into the final scene on the bridge. I thought it was a very effective 'pass the baton' kind of moment.
On another note; I saw some promising news regarding a definitive resolution to the Enterprise size issue (from trekmovie dot com)-
BOOK NEWS - Haynes Enterprise Manual announced
In a bit of a surprising announcement, Simon and Schuster (parent company of Pocket Books) is teaming up with Haynes (yes, the company who makes the automotive manuals) to produce a the "Haynes Enterprise Manual" for the new Enterprise featured in J. J. Abrams' "Star Trek" feature film. According to a press release from CPLG (the rights marketing agency for Star Trek in Europe) the Haynes Guide will be
"...the ultimate guide to the Enterprise, applying its famous 'step-by-step' approach of stripping the ship down to its essentials and reassembling it with detailed illustrations."http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/20/library-computer-star-trek-mere-anarchy-review-haynes-enterprise-manual-announced/ (http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/20/library-computer-star-trek-mere-anarchy-review-haynes-enterprise-manual-announced/)
What a strange idea. I'd love to see what they make of it.
Quote from: wraith1701 on May 26, 2009, 01:03:04 PM
"...the ultimate guide to the Enterprise, applying its famous ’step-by-step’ approach of stripping the ship down to its essentials and reassembling it with detailed illustrations."[/i]
http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/20/library-computer-star-trek-mere-anarchy-review-haynes-enterprise-manual-announced/ (http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/20/library-computer-star-trek-mere-anarchy-review-haynes-enterprise-manual-announced/)
I am envisioning the Enterprise up on blocks in some bad neighborhood...;)
:vulcan
Well I saw the movie last week and I must say I am pretty impressed. I simply loved it eventhough I saw it on my computer.
Because of the swine flu, all movie premieres were pushed back and Trek XI will premiere next week.
But for what it's worth I loved it. I still have to see it in all it's glory, but for now, I loved it so very much.
At first I was shocked to see they used Pike instead of Archer or even mention Archer. They didn't.
I wasn't sure why, but then I read somewhere that this Trek film is in another time line or alternate reality.
Not sure if it's a franchise reboot, like the new Bond movies. Do you guys know anything of this?
I was also shocked to see a romance between Uhura and Spock.
Oh and Vulcan is gone now???
Man I need to see it once again.
Anyway, I loved it.
Quote from: Chief on May 28, 2009, 04:12:21 PM
...At first I was shocked to see they used Pike instead of Archer or even mention Archer. They didn't.
I wasn't sure why, but then I read somewhere that this Trek film is in another time line or alternate reality.
Hola Chief! Actually, Archer is mentioned in the film. Scotty explains that the reason he has been exiled on the ice-planet is because of a transporter accident involving Admiral Archer's dog. ;)
Given the time difference between Enterprise and TOS I'd have been really surprised if they'd used Archer since he would have been well into his hundreds by then. Pike made a lot more sense to me.
I loved the movie. I thought this gave Trek the fresh air it despretely needed.
I was thinking about the movie today. The blackhole swallows up the Romulan ship and transports them back in time. That is more like the properties of a wormhole. Scientists theorize that wormholes can not only tunnel through space, but time as well. If that is the case, then the supernova energy or radiation is also being sent into the past. Is that what causes the space lightning?
And if that's the case, where are the Romulans being sent next?
Quote from: Scott on May 29, 2009, 05:04:03 PM
And if that's the case, where are the Romulans being sent next?
Sent next? Ahh, if you mean at the end they were destroyed. The Narada is breaking up as it's sucked in.
Yea ok, but the wreckage has to go somewhere. :P
Quote from: Scott on May 29, 2009, 05:58:14 PM
Yea ok, but the wreckage has to go somewhere. :P
Maybe. Between Spock's ship slamming into it, the Enterprise blasting it and the forces ripping it apart, I don't think there was going to be much left. Just tiny "little wee bits" - as Scotty would say!
Quote from: Scott on May 29, 2009, 05:58:14 PM
Yea ok, but the wreckage has to go somewhere. :P
No it doesn't. It gets compressed into the blackhole. Just because the first blackhole shifted them in time doesn't mean the last one would do it as well.
Maybe red-matter-made-black-hole + universe-destroying-supernova = time portal?
and red-matter-made-black-hole + nothing/regular-space/nero's ship = just a regular black hole?
I went last week for the third time. That's 3 times with 3 different people (or groups of people). And it gets even better every time. I'm trying to do my part to get those numbers up and bring people who aren't your typical Star Trek fans. The first time was my father and my friend, all Trekkers, and we, of course, loved it.
The second time was me, my wife, my mother in law and father in law, and a co-worker and her husband. Everyone loved it, except my wife and her father, they thought it was "ok". :jawdrop
I almost passed out when they said that, which would have been bad since I was driving at the time. (Yes, I've looked into divorce proceedings, but it's just too expensive, so I've decided to give her a second chance ;D ...Actually she semi redeemed herself last night, My DVD's of The Guild came and she watched the first few episodes with me and LOVED it)... [Just for the record, I'm kidding, I adore my wife, geek or not :wub]
And the third time was with another co-worker who said it was awesome and waaaayyy better than he expected it to be.
I'm trying to get one of my best friends to go with me, but he absolutely refuses. He loves Star Wars, but has never liked Star Trek, in fact he's always hated Star Trek. I've tried everything, but I think this calls for desperate measures... I'm going to have to pay for him... :-\
Make a deal with your friend. Tell him if he doesn't like the movie, you will then pay him back for his ticket. I don't see how he can not enjoy it.
Quote from: Rico on June 03, 2009, 09:11:12 AM
Make a deal with your friend. Tell him if he doesn't like the movie, you will then pay him back for his ticket. I don't see how he can not enjoy it.
Yeah, I might try that, but this is one stubborn son of a gun. He'll probably say he didn't like no matter what since he fought it so hard. He's not the type to readily admit he was absolutely wrong.
Had a mildly funny moment at work today. A woman was telling me about how cool the new Star Trek movie was, and how much she liked the 'guy with the ears, 'Dr. Spock''. :D
Say, has anyone done the warp calculations on the trip to Vulcan? It seems they got there awful fast.
Quote from: Bryancd on June 03, 2009, 04:57:06 PM
Say, has anyone done the warp calculations on the trip to Vulcan? It seems they got there awful fast.
Someone had mentioned this before, but time did pass on the ship, there just wasn't a clock for us to see how much. When Kirk got up in sick bay, Bones had already been changed to his new uniform. we also don't know what warp scale this new universe is using yet. From the looks of the effects, I would say that they were more in hyper space or slipstream like environments than the normal warp effect we are used to.
Quote from: Just X on June 03, 2009, 05:03:36 PM
Quote from: Bryancd on June 03, 2009, 04:57:06 PM
Say, has anyone done the warp calculations on the trip to Vulcan? It seems they got there awful fast.
Someone had mentioned this before, but time did pass on the ship, there just wasn't a clock for us to see how much. When Kirk got up in sick bay, Bones had already been changed to his new uniform. we also don't know what warp scale this new universe is using yet. From the looks of the effects, I would say that they were more in hyper space or slipstream like environments than the normal warp effect we are used to.
Honestly, I don't think they really gave it much thought, which is ok. There are a few fanboy things which JJ clearly didn't give a lot of thought too, but I get that. My answer to my question is not a single person on the staff made any effort to figure out how long a 16 light year trip would take at whatever warp.
One thing to keep in mind is there is a tricky thing in film/tv called camera cuts. My point is, anytime the camera cuts away time can go by. A minute, an hour, etc. The movie isn't like the TV show "24" that tries to operate in one-to-one real time. All I am saying is, it's hard to say exactly how long the trip took. We are only seeing what they want us to see on screen.
I am now reminded of something in "Revenge of the Sith." Padme announces she is pregnant near the start of the film, and two hours later - boom - twins! Even though it hardly looks like much time passes.
We expect MORE from Star Trek. :)
OK, here is new Enterprise scaling I can live with...
How big is that?
450 meters. Here is a quote from the guy who posted this at HobbyTalk forums:
"The 34" model that was given away for the Star Trek ARG game is 1/350 scale. It was also displayed at the arclight in Hollywood...I got to see it in person. So we know for sure that the ship is much closer to the TMP refit. They built it using the ILM specs."
The longer secondary hull makes a lot of sense considering how much space the shuttle bay takes up. From what I can see it'd basically only contain that and engineering.
Quote from: billybob476 on June 06, 2009, 05:25:20 AM
The longer secondary hull makes a lot of sense considering how much space the shuttle bay takes up. From what I can see it'd basically only contain that and engineering.
Yep. And watching the film again, I get the impression that sickbay is located in the neck between the Primary & Secondary. When the Enterprise first encounters the Narada at Vulcan, one of the torpedoes hits the neck, and is immediately followed by a shot of sickbay getting shredded by flame & shrapnel.
Man; I REALLY NEED some blueprints. Like YESTERDAY. :-\
Quote from: Bryancd on June 05, 2009, 04:39:59 PM
OK, here is new Enterprise scaling I can live with...
it like the ship took some steroids
I just watched the movie again (4th or 5th time I think) and a concern I had came to mind during the scene where "old" Spock meets Kirk for the first time. They share a mind meld to make it easier for Spock to relay the events that led up to the events of the movie. Now I'm not sure if anyone really knows how the mind meld works entirely, and maybe I am misunderstanding, but does anyone else see the potential problems for young Kirk to have access to all the knowledge and experiences of old Spock, including their history together, the results of all their future missions, and the details of his own death?
The simple answer is, old Spock only related what was needed. Not all the past details, but just mainly about Nero and that situation.
I figured there was a simple explanation like that. I remember thinking the first time I saw it, that if Nimoy was going to provide a voice over explaining the whole situation, which took about thirty seconds screen time, what was the point of the mind meld anyway? He could have just explained it all without the trauma and weirdness of a meld. I guess the writers would have had to find another opportunity to drop in a mind meld somewhere, though, or Vulcan fans would have cried.
Quote from: Jobydrone4of20 on June 09, 2009, 10:47:23 AM
I figured there was a simple explanation like that. I remember thinking the first time I saw it, that if Nimoy was going to provide a voice over explaining the whole situation, which took about thirty seconds screen time, what was the point of the mind meld anyway? He could have just explained it all without the trauma and weirdness of a meld. I guess the writers would have had to find another opportunity to drop in a mind meld somewhere, though, or Vulcan fans would have cried.
Any loon could say that they came from the future. The meld was there to confirm the validity of Spock's words. He shared those memories with Kirk to prove that they happened.
More From ILM on Enterprise dimensions-
◦shuttle: 30 feet long ( handled by ILM) [*9m long*]
◦Enterprise: 2,357 feet long (ILM) [*about 718m long*]
◦Narada 5 miles long + drill cable also 5 miles (ILM) [*8,046.72m long*]
For reference,
Excelsior Class- 467 meters
Galaxy Class- 642 meters
Sovereign Class- 685 meters
Source Link: CLICK For Full Article @ Trekmovie dot com (http://trekmovie.com/2009/06/09/new-details-on-star-trek-vfx-ship-sizes-revealed/)
Quote from: wraith1701 on June 10, 2009, 06:36:11 AM
More From ILM on Enterprise dimensions-
◦shuttle: 30 feet long ( handled by ILM) [*9m long*]
◦Enterprise: 2,357 feet long (ILM) [*about 718m long*]
◦Narada 5 miles long + drill cable also 5 miles (ILM) [*8,046.72m long*]
For reference,
Excelsior Class- 467 meters
Galaxy Class- 642 meters
Sovereign Class- 685 meters
Source Link: CLICK For Full Article @ Trekmovie dot com (http://trekmovie.com/2009/06/09/new-details-on-star-trek-vfx-ship-sizes-revealed/)
Oh Lord. :wacko
Bryan's head is going to explode now.
LOL! Hey, if you go look at Rico's pic of the day and click on te article where ILM makes this "claim", check out the image of Kirk on his bike looking at the E under construction. You can see the silhouette of two peopel standing below the forward torpedo launcher. That image was what the guy used to scale the ship in my pic a few pages back, which made the ship more like 450 meters! ILM can't even get this right!
Maybe the ship is inflatable and they blew it up bigger later on! LOL!!! Bottom line is it's just one of those movie goofs that will live on forever. I don't have a big problem with it.
Quote from: Rico on June 10, 2009, 07:32:57 AM
Maybe the ship is inflatable and they blew it up bigger later on! LOL!!!
Best answer yet!!! :roflmao
I loved the movie, except for destroying Vulcan. I understand this is an alternate timeline, and I'm starting to accept it a little better, but still....it's Vulcan!
The acting was great. I appreciated all of the "nods" to the original series/cast. The only actor I couldn't quite "get" was Simon Pegg as Scotty. Maybe because he had so little screen time.
I felt the same way about the destruction of Vulcan. It was just too harsh. Absolutely loved the film though. Came out of it buzzed and the buzz kept up for the rest of the day.
Quote from: dataskatt on June 10, 2009, 06:20:05 PM
I loved the movie, except for destroying Vulcan. I understand this is an alternate timeline, and I'm starting to accept it a little better, but still....it's Vulcan!
...an that's exactly why they did it. To get people to react like that. If [Unknown planet 7] was destroyed t wouldn't have mattered to us.
Quote from: billybob476 on June 11, 2009, 04:34:02 AM
Quote from: dataskatt on June 10, 2009, 06:20:05 PM
I loved the movie, except for destroying Vulcan. I understand this is an alternate timeline, and I'm starting to accept it a little better, but still....it's Vulcan!
...an that's exactly why they did it. To get people to react like that. If [Unknown planet 7] was destroyed t wouldn't have mattered to us.
...also creates a whole new and interesting dynamic for the Vulcan race we have never explored before. Vulcan's as an endangered species, good stuff and full of potential story telling.
Some comment about boldly going where no-one has gone before springs to mind!
FINALLY they own up to the error! This was posted over at the RPF:
"According to an interview with ILM in the latest Cinefex issue the new Enterprise was DESIGNED and RENDERED to be 1200 feet long or "slightly larger then the TOS Enterprise". Subsequent INTERNAL decisions prompted the 'revised' scales posted by 'official sources' AFTER the movie was released. All this BS about it always being INTENDED to be 2500 feet long is just that...revisionist BS.
Also, the licensees were told when they were getting their licenses (and it even said this on some of the prototype packaging) that the 'E' at 11 inches was 1/1000th scale and the 34" was understood to be roughly 1/350th and designed to compliment the MR CLASSIC E.
All of this retroactive resizing is nothing more then the fans having a better attention to detail then the creators. "
See, that makes sense and I hope that JJ get's the $$ to make a proper Engineering room to bring the scale back down to what it should have been. That one cheap effort to have a brewery double for a set, which was lame, caused all of this! I knew that was nothing but trouble! :)
I hate to say this Bryan but in the "scale" of things it really does not matter!
I and millions of other viewers could really care less about the scale. It's so nitpicky it drives me crazy! I suppose we should also argue on how the inside of the tardis can look so much bigger than on the original Dr. Who series?
Kevin
I'm with you on this one Kevin. It doesn't matter that much. The movie audience certainly doesn't care. Only the hardcore fans will debate this scale/size thing. Regardless of a few of the internal sets, I always felt the ship seemed just a little bigger than the refit Enterprise. And it wasn't a question of money from what I have heard. They tried to use a few location type sets to make the ship feel a bit more "real."
Well, get over it boys, it matters to me. :smilie_bleh:
Quote from: Bryancd on June 18, 2009, 06:26:41 PM
Well, get over it boys. I am hardcore.
Oh - come on Bryan, I think I know that by now. ;)
I was just saying that I don't really care much about this "size thing" anymore.
At least they acknowledge it! A lot of people for whom the actual ship is one of the characters feel the same way i do. It took nothing away from the movie and it's awesomeness, but as a model builder and a huge "ship" fan, it's part of what makes sci-fi great for ME. I do think it was budget restraints which had them film engineering where they did, but we will likely never know the truth..or we will see a new engineering room in the next film.
So Kevin, don't be critical of what I love about Trek and I will pay you the same courtesy.
Quote from: Bryancd on June 18, 2009, 06:33:55 PM
So Kevin, don't be critical of what I love about Trek and I will pay you the same courtesy.
Not to point out the obvious, but aren't you the one being critical about what you love about Trek and Kevin saying that it doesn't matter? I don't think he was at all critical. Unless that makes me now being critical about Kevin not being critical...
For me, it is a bit nitpicky and one of those things that all the other fans get lumped into being because of the vocal few. I see it as really a whole lot of nothing. there are severl dozen other things that were changed between scripting and shooting, but because they were not included, it doesn't make it canon. Hell they could have want the ship to be exactly the size of the original, but that wasn't shown and it didn't make canon. You can debate it all day, but unless they blow up the enterprise and come up with a smaller size between movies, you're going to have upset fans that are complaining about how they changed the size of the ship without explanation.
Bottom line is that they gave a size that is bigger than some people expected. Regardless of how they intended it to be, that's not how it ended up and short of a blown up ship, they can't fix it without seeming silly or giving into people that have WAY too much time on their hand in attempting to scale a ship based on the average human size of a guy that was seen in a distant frame.
Imagine if we put all that effort in to doing something like solve global warming, cancer, or many of those social ills that we need to over come so that we can have a part of the future that Gene imagined.
The vocal few saved Star Trek from cancellation after the second season, so I will be vocal. Funny how someone who spends a massive amount of time describing a fictional ship, even uniform designs for an RPG is now saying fans get too nitpicky! "Imagine if we put all that effort in to doing something like solve global warming, cancer, or many of those social ills that we need to over come so that we can have a part of the future that Gene imagined.
Pot, allow me to introduce you to kettle! LOL!
Quote from: Bryancd on June 18, 2009, 07:30:21 PM
The vocal few saved Star Trek from cancellation after the second season, so I will be vocal. Funny how someone who spends a massive amount of time describing a fictional ship, even uniform designs for an RPG is now saying fans get too nitpicky! "Imagine if we put all that effort in to doing something like solve global warming, cancer, or many of those social ills that we need to over come so that we can have a part of the future that Gene imagined.
Pot, allow me to introduce you to kettle! LOL!
Which is exactly my point! While I do like to have that information handy, you'll never find me debating if they got it right or not. If they say it's X then I use X. I'm not going to argue about how Y would be better than X because Y is close to A.
Also, it really wasn't that massive of a time sink. Maybe four hours of research and writing for the ship. For the uniforms, that was done with a quick control-C and control-P combo that took all of 15 seconds at the most.
I will agree that having information for my fantasy is cool, but I'm not going to fight with the people that made it on how they were right or wrong.
I'm also not saying that you shouldn't be vocal. Even if I did, that wouldn't change anything. Everyone likes their way of seeing things. If I saw a problem, I'd even comment, but I'm not going to go out of my way to find one, that's just not my thing.
Sure I could say that they didn't even know the size of the Defiant and the scale changed depending on the episode, but I like the ship and I never felt a burning need to have a perfect size declared for it. It didn't take away from my enjoying the story. Also, when I bought the model, that didn't take away anything either because I wasn't ever planning on adding to scale figures in my tiny Defiant and it's wasn't like the fleet of models were ever produced where every ship could be in scale with those around them.
As I always say, everyone is entitled to their informed opinion. That said, I find it interesting that some latched on to this size thing as much as they have. I always thought the Enterprise being primarily assembled in an Iowa cornfield was always going to be one of the biggest issues the longtime fans had. Anyway, feel free to let your views known. Just keep in mind not everyone may agree.
It doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the film at all, I never even noticed it, but like I mentioned earlier, part of my fandom revolves around the ships, they are like characters onto themselves to me. I also like to build models and like to have different models in the same scale to appreciate the size of ships in relation to each other. Following the film, when they began to make these comments and posting those images a few pages back, it seemed like crazy talk and I was determined to figure out the truth behind what happened if I could. I am satisfied now in this explanation.
This is a funny one:
That's a pretty darn accurate breakdown! But I think the primary hull is a bit too big. What scale is that? -hehe ;)
Quote from: Rico on June 19, 2009, 07:36:20 AM
That's a pretty darn accurate breakdown! But I think the primary hull is a bit too big. What scale is that? -hehe ;)
LOL!!!!!!! :roflmao
I think it's considered "1 / purple" scale.
Quote from: Bryancd on June 19, 2009, 05:34:28 AM
It doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the film at all, I never even noticed it, but like I mentioned earlier, part of my fandom revolves around the ships, they are like characters onto themselves to me. I also like to build models and like to have different models in the same scale to appreciate the size of ships in relation to each other. Following the film, when they began to make these comments and posting those images a few pages back, it seemed like crazy talk and I was determined to figure out the truth behind what happened if I could. I am satisfied now in this explanation.
I can understand this, but at the same time, I have yet to find in all my years of searching a collection of models where all the ones that I want are at the same scale. Defiant and Borg Cube are two that stick out. I'd also like the Narada, but again, I don't see that one being made to a universal scale. After I accepted that it was never going to happen, I starting collecting them more because of the lines of each ship than how they fit with each other.
I do however understand where you are coming from.
My only question now is what scale do you use? The scale that they had "intended" or the one that they decided to make the official one?
Quote from: Just X on June 19, 2009, 08:48:57 AM
My only question now is what scale do you use? The scale that they had "intended" or the one that they decided to make the official one?
Well, there is a vast collection of 1/1000 scale Star Trek ships available in kit form from companies like Polar lights or resin fan made kits of other ships. I think Eric builds 1/1000 a lot. I have a number of those, the various Enterprise, Klingon, and Romulan. For Star Wars I like the Revell Easy Kit ships which are all about 1/72 scale, similar to the FineMolds kits.
So the answer to the question is you can collect whatever scale you like, it's just some scales have much more offerings than others and clearly you have to have much smaller scales for the bigger capital ships. For this new Enterprise, I would love to see a 1/350 scale version which would be in scale with the Polar lights Refit and the MR TOS E. That would look awesome together but would be IMPOSSIBLE IF they insisted that the new E was 2000+ feet in size. That would make it over 5 feet long. See my issue? It should be the same size, they made it look the same size in the movie, and then said no it isn't, and now are equivocating. It's frustrating.
Couldn't they just make a 1/600 scale or something like that? Problem solved.
I would just like to see a scale that takes the largest ship, say the Narada now and the cube then. Make it a reasonable size and then scale everything else down to work with that. If Micro machines can make trek ships, I'm sure they could have been used the make a scale shuttle craft. The I would be on board for something like that.
Scale has been an ongoing problem for many, many years. Not just in ships and models, but toys in general. Talk to some action figure collectors sometime - or car hobby folks. Add to this multiple companies doing different versions, sizes, etc., it all gets a bit nuts.
I vote everything 1:1 scale from now on!
Quote from: Rico on June 19, 2009, 09:19:39 AM
Couldn't they just make a 1/600 scale or something like that? Problem solved.
They do, 1/750. That's the scale that the AMT TOS E, Klingon Cruiser, Refit E were all built in. perfect size, about 11-12" long and in scale. Now if they stuck to the ginormous new E scale, that this would be 3x as big as those kits. I would love for them to make the new E in 1/750 as well, but to do so they need to acknowledge the size is smaller int he film! It's a vicious circle!!!
Quote from: Rico on June 19, 2009, 07:36:20 AM
That's a pretty darn accurate breakdown! But I think the primary hull is a bit too big. What scale is that? -hehe ;)
Good one Rico! LOL
Kevin
Here's a very cool video featuring scenes from the movie.
♥~2009 Star Trek - Kirk/Uhura/Spock - Lost In Life~♥ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo8Kwq82cnM#ws-lq-lq2-hq-vhq-hd)