Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Jebobek
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:19 pm UTC
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Geohash graticule

Star Trek Movie (2009) - Spoilers Starting at Page 2

Postby Jebobek » Fri May 08, 2009 12:51 pm UTC

I went and saw the sneak preview last night, and I enjoyed it very much so. I'm not too huge on Star Trek canon, I'm sure some of it was busted via alternate timeline, but I had a whole lot of fun watching the movie. I think they did an excellent job casting and acting out the old characters.

Favorite Parts:
Spoiler:
Kirk banging green chick
Scotty Vs. Gremlin
Bones verbally owning guard to get Kirk on the ship
Sulu failing to enter warp
Leonard efffing Nimoy in general
Everyone in the theater knowing that the red shirt will immediately die
Last edited by Jebobek on Mon May 11, 2009 4:13 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Image

User avatar
headprogrammingczar
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Beaming you up

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby headprogrammingczar » Fri May 08, 2009 1:03 pm UTC

Going to go see it later today. Zachary Quinto as Spock is an amazing casting choice.
<quintopia> You're not crazy. you're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Weeks> You're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Cheese> I love you

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby natraj » Fri May 08, 2009 2:42 pm UTC

Oh, man, I went and saw a preview of it with a bunch of forumites last week or the week before or some time and it was great. Even if the entire time I kept waiting for Spock to eat someone's brain.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
Durinthal
Posts: 799
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:46 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Durinthal » Fri May 08, 2009 5:15 pm UTC

I was going to make a thread this morning but didn't get around to it.

Anyway, I saw it last night as well. There were a few parts I didn't like, some parts I loved, and overall I think it's a welcome breath of fresh air for the franchise. I hope they end up doing a TV series with this cast, but it's not likely.

Details:
Spoiler:
The Good:
- Leonard Nimoy passing the torch to the new crew. My wife believes Enterprise failed for, among other reasons, not having a main character from a prior series in the first episode.
- Silence in space if there's a person out there. Only hearing the breathing during the space jump was neat.
- All of the actors were spot-on with the characters.
- It seems like they made a list of all of the good parts of Star Trek and tried to use those while not directly copying them. Nero? An updated version of Khan, but you don't necessarily think about it at first.

The Bad:
- The relationship between Spock and Uhura. I don't like it, but I can't disapprove of it because the actors played it perfectly.

The Ugly:
- Scotty's gremlin friend.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby podbaydoor » Fri May 08, 2009 6:05 pm UTC

I know next to nothing about Star Trek: TOS (or in general besides the well-known bits in pop culture) and I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. The Trekkie fans I went with seemed to be very pleased as well. The actors all gave good account of themselves (except Eric Bana, which was disappointing).

TMI? Now I'm really, really craving some slash fiction between Chris Pine's Kirk and Zachary Quinto's Spock...
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
Clumpy
Posts: 1883
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:48 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Clumpy » Fri May 08, 2009 7:32 pm UTC

I've heard from both word-of-mouth and the critics this is great (which surprised me after a trailer I thought was pretty stupid), and that most of the fanboy criticism of the film can be chalked up to this.

User avatar
Jebobek
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:19 pm UTC
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Geohash graticule

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Jebobek » Fri May 08, 2009 8:09 pm UTC

Word is also going around that most of the cast have signed up for future movies, which is just gravy.

So looking back, my only major issue with the plot was
Spoiler:
Kirk running into old Spock on the same planet. Kirk was dropped off near the Starfleet facility, but Spock was dropped off simply to be in view of Vulcan. In fact, if Nero knew the facility was there he would have nuked it, unless he kept it there to keep Spock alive and trapped? The luck was just too high here. Luckily I had my gogogadget suspension of disbelief at the ready, but please lend me an explanation to their proximity if you have one.
Image

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby podbaydoor » Fri May 08, 2009 9:53 pm UTC

The only explanation I have is the same one I apply to Star Wars and any comic book movie ever - the handwave explanation. It's simple and easy: you wave your hands, and the plot holes magically disappear from your mind as you accept that Stuff Like This Happens.

Also, future movies in the Star Trek Reboot Universe = excellent.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

ElvetPuff
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:50 pm UTC

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby ElvetPuff » Fri May 08, 2009 11:10 pm UTC

I did enjoy the film, but I think there's a (quite deeply trekkie) plot hole:

Spoiler:
)
In Star Trek: Voyager there's an episode where a Federation 'Timeship' (USS Relativity) enters the past to try and stop the Voyager crew causing an event which destroys the Solar System. Why is it that it's possible for this to happen, but nothing similar occurs when all of Vulcan is unexpectedly destroyed in the past?

User avatar
Vieto
Posts: 1558
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:44 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Vieto » Sat May 09, 2009 12:44 am UTC

Maybe this is the original timeline, and not the time-travel modified time line.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby podbaydoor » Sat May 09, 2009 2:17 am UTC

Spoiler:
I think the idea was that when Nero destroyed the U.S.S. Kelvin and killed Kirk's father, he created a split at that point in the timeline that branched off and is totally different from the ST:TOS timeline. Alternate universes and all that. So the ST:TOS timeline still exists, but it is currently missing both Spock Prime and Nero, who have leaped via wormhole into the Abrams Star Trek timeline.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby frezik » Sat May 09, 2009 4:49 am UTC

Spoiler:
I'm conflicted about using an alternative universe as a reboot. It allows them to get rid of the sort of old baggage that often drags an ongoing franchise down, as well as potentially kill off characters that would otherwise have to survive. On the other hand, Star Trek has built up a pretty big mythos, which is actually the sort of complex system that geeks feed off of (see also: Middle Earth, Star Wars). Throwing a chunk of it away seems like a shame.

On a third hand, many events and character relationships have worked themselves out in similar ways. Kirk/Spock/McCoy still end up friends. Kirk is perhaps even more reckless than we remember, and still cheats the Kobayashi Maru. Pike still ends up in a wheelchair. This brings up the interesting possibility that, within the context of the story, the universe is self-correcting rather than being prone to a chaotic Butterfly Effect.

Enterprise also tried to explain away its canon-breaking events with the Temporal Cold War, but it felt like an excuse for hamfisted writing. They didn't make a clean break from the mythos the way this movie did, so they ended up keeping canon close in hand most of the time, but ignoring it much of the rest.

I think I might have also gone in expecting great and had to settle for merely good.

So I'm giving it a qualified thumbs up. Trek deserved to be released from the shackles of Berman and Braga, and I eagerly await to see what this group can do. If they felt that this could be best done with a series reboot, I'll come along for the ride for now.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Sat May 09, 2009 5:13 am UTC

So, I really enjoyed it. I went with seven people, two Trekkies, and we all loved it. I thought they did a good job of bringing those who weren't into the series up to speed, and those who were in the series got some continuity nods and quotes.

I have two minor complaints:
Spoiler:
The first is the Spock/Uhura (Nihota!) relationship. I was with my girlfriend, she whispers in my ear, "I think she likes him." I say, "No, that really wasn't in the show at all" right before they start kissing. So yeah. I guess it makes Spock a bit more human, but at the same time it really threw me for a loop. It worked within the movie, though.

The second is the reboot mechanic. My main problem with it is that it's one hell of a reboot. Batman Begins rebooted, what, four movies of canon? Five? This undoes forty years. It's still an interesting universe, and one I wouldn't mind seeing more of, but...TNG? DS9? VOY? They all just unhappened. As did TOS, of course, but that crew is still around. I mean, I guess technically they still happened, but now that this universe has gotten into the public eye, this will probably be the one new movies/TV shows get made in, which disappoints me.

On the other hand, it's new Trek, and it's good Trek. May there be many more.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Philwelch » Sat May 09, 2009 7:04 am UTC

Well, this is an alternate universe, so we still have the original universe over there, and you can watch it whenever you want.

I still think they could have done better by going to a new Enterprise in the future and restarting in the current continuity. That's what TNG was, after all, and TNG was every bit as successful and popular as the original. On the other hand, it was good to see the old characters.

It is good that Majel Barrett Roddenberry had one last chance to reprise her role as the computer voice.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
quintopia
Posts: 2906
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby quintopia » Sat May 09, 2009 7:18 am UTC

I'm happy it got rebooted. All I have to say about this film is: abso-fucking-lutely hi-fucking-larious. Who knew a Star Trek film could be a comedy?

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby aleflamedyud » Sat May 09, 2009 7:19 am UTC

This film was wonderful and awesome (I'm no Trekkie, though). It was also the worst film I've ever seen. It was the former because it was the latter.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Uber_Apple
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:07 am UTC

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Uber_Apple » Sat May 09, 2009 9:49 am UTC

I never seriously watched any of the show so for me as a standalone sci-fi film it was really good and it had almost everything a good one should: explosions, (implied) sex, laser weapons and unreasonably evil bad guys with random tattoos and scary coats. Im not sure how a star trek fan would react to the re-imagining of the show though?

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Hawknc » Sat May 09, 2009 10:38 am UTC

I don't know, but as a Star Wars fanboy, if someone remagined the movies in this way I'd squee with delight. I cannot stand the dogged devotion to canon to the point where it detracts from the quality of the film. I can't blame the filmmakers in the slightest for wanting to get away from the baggage of forty years of canon.

User avatar
the_bandersnatch
Actually not so frumious.
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:46 am UTC
Location: on a bed in a room inside a TV in a hotel room in a hotel on a Monopoly board

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby the_bandersnatch » Sat May 09, 2009 12:34 pm UTC

I went to a 00:30 showing on Thursday morning with 2 of my friends, one of whom is a Trekkie, one likes sci-fi in general and knows a bit about Trek, and my girlfriend, who isn't into sci-fi at all. We all really enjoyed it. I think the comedy really helped sell the film, and combined with the relentless action, the nods to the originals plus the actors being spot-on made it fantastic entertainment all round. I definitely recommend it.
In girum imus nocte, et consumimur igni

halbarad
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:49 am UTC

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby halbarad » Sat May 09, 2009 1:16 pm UTC

I went to see the film last night with a friend and enjoyed it a lot, we are both kind of fans of Star Trek, having watched it on and off for a number of years. The use of some of the old quotes from the original series was good and the general story plot was solid too.

One problem I had with it, which I pointed out to my friend was:

Spoiler:
They spelt "Trek" wrong at the start, it's supposed to be W-A-R-S

darwinwins
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: the bible belt (of death)
Contact:

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby darwinwins » Sat May 09, 2009 3:02 pm UTC

Durinthal wrote:I was going to make a thread this morning but didn't get around to it.

Anyway, I saw it last night as well. There were a few parts I didn't like, some parts I loved, and overall I think it's a welcome breath of fresh air for the franchise. I hope they end up doing a TV series with this cast, but it's not likely.

Details:
Spoiler:
The Good:
- Leonard Nimoy passing the torch to the new crew. My wife believes Enterprise failed for, among other reasons, not having a main character from a prior series in the first episode.
- Silence in space if there's a person out there. Only hearing the breathing during the space jump was neat.
- All of the actors were spot-on with the characters.
- It seems like they made a list of all of the good parts of Star Trek and tried to use those while not directly copying them. Nero? An updated version of Khan, but you don't necessarily think about it at first.

The Bad:
- The relationship between Spock and Uhura. I don't like it, but I can't disapprove of it because the actors played it perfectly.

The Ugly:
- Scotty's gremlin friend.
oh yeah i was totally going to start a thread on it, too!
:roll:
"if you only read the books that everyone else is reading, you can only think what everyone else is thinking. that's the world of hicks and slobs. " - haruki murakami

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Sat May 09, 2009 6:38 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:Well, this is an alternate universe, so we still have the original universe over there, and you can watch it whenever you want.

I still think they could have done better by going to a new Enterprise in the future and restarting in the current continuity. That's what TNG was, after all, and TNG was every bit as successful and popular as the original. On the other hand, it was good to see the old characters.

It is good that Majel Barrett Roddenberry had one last chance to reprise her role as the computer voice.

Yeah, I mean, I dunno. It's just like they said "Man, we've got to make a movie that manages to do justice to these forty years of history--screw it, reboot." It helps, in some ways. It clears out a lot of things that I freely admit hamper a long running series. On the other hand, this universe that's 140-ish years post-TOS, where Romulus was destroyed and Spock is on such excellent terms with the Romulans that they trust him to save their planet, I'd like to see what's going on there. Whatever happened with B4? Or all the other things in the Trek universe that were hanging out post-Nemesis?

I guess my disappointment isn't that this is somehow disrespectful to my TNG friends, rather, it's just that all the plotlines and worldbuilding that's been going on, we never get to see the payoff of it.

But, this movie was so enjoyable on its own, I can't begrudge it if they stick with this universe for current canon. It'll even give them an opportunity to do some things better, I guess.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8533
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Zohar » Sat May 09, 2009 7:22 pm UTC

I saw it. It was pretty good. It didn't feel very Star Trek-y. It felt like a homage to it at some points, a parody at others. Obviously major plot holes and some illogical stuff (the drilling seemed like an excuse to have more time). But I enjoyed it. I think I might get used to the crew in the next movie they do, then it wouldn't feel strange.

I heard JJ Abraams said the movie doesn't diverge from cannon too much. I suppose they could have made Scotty and Bones gay lovers, then it would have been more divergent...
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Sat May 09, 2009 7:36 pm UTC

The only thing that confused me is that nobody was surprised that Romulans looked like Vulcans, which was a plot point in Balance of Terror. But, I reasoned that this revelation had happened when Nero showed up and destroyed the Kelvin, and so was not worth mentioning. Really, I didn't notice many other issues. Once it became obvious to me that this was going to be a truly alternate timeline, rather than just a time-travel justified prequel, I realized that nearly any inconsistency is explained away.

Spoiler:
For the curious, it was a little while after Vulcan got black hole'd. I spent a few minutes afterwards thinking that there was going to be some time-mumbo-jumbo at the end that would revert the universe back to how it was, but dropped the idea.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Phen
Posts: 1184
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:50 pm UTC
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Phen » Sat May 09, 2009 10:13 pm UTC

I don't think I've ever seen an episode of Star Trek, save for bits and pieces, and I liked it. I have no idea how things are "supposed" to be, but I never really felt confused, besides about a bit in the end.
Spoiler:
Didn't they eject their power supply/cores to escape the black hole? How did they have any power left, then?

I have probably missed a dozen references, but I felt entertained. Now I just need to find out what the thing is about Kirk and Picard. Are they two different persons, what's the big deal? ...
Last edited by Phen on Sat May 09, 2009 10:28 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I'm a wizard. We know these things.

In war, one should seek to take and hold the high ground. From there, the enemy's movements are clearly visible, and he will struggle just to reach you, let alone fight you. High orbit is the highest ground there is.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Sat May 09, 2009 10:18 pm UTC

They're two completely different people. One of them is way cooler, but everyone is still trying to figure out which one, and I don't want to derail the thread.

Oh, and the "warp cores" only run the warp drive (faster than light).
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Phen
Posts: 1184
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:50 pm UTC
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Phen » Sat May 09, 2009 10:31 pm UTC

Ah, okay. I don't think they made that clear enough, but then again it did go rather quickly and maybe the translation wasn't accurate.
I'm a wizard. We know these things.

In war, one should seek to take and hold the high ground. From there, the enemy's movements are clearly visible, and he will struggle just to reach you, let alone fight you. High orbit is the highest ground there is.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Sat May 09, 2009 10:39 pm UTC

No, I watched it in English and I can understand how the warp-core part might have been a little confusing to non-Trekkers.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Phen
Posts: 1184
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:50 pm UTC
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Phen » Sat May 09, 2009 11:15 pm UTC

I watched it in english too, but I think I concentrated on the subtitles at that moment. Thought he said power cores, not warp. But it's not a big deal.
I'm a wizard. We know these things.

In war, one should seek to take and hold the high ground. From there, the enemy's movements are clearly visible, and he will struggle just to reach you, let alone fight you. High orbit is the highest ground there is.

User avatar
Gojoe
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:45 pm UTC
Location: New Zealand!!!

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Gojoe » Sun May 10, 2009 12:11 am UTC

I saw this a few days ago. (Thursday NZ time). I loved it. I was not a huge trek fan. I have seen sporadic episodes, know the characters OK etc. And again. I LOVED IT! If they do a spin off tv series, I would so watch it.

The problem with the Star Trek series, is a new person can not get into to it. It just has too much baggage. A reboot would be a good way to start getting new fans.
michaelandjimi wrote:Oh Mr Gojoe
I won't make fun of your mojo.
Though in this fora I serenade you
I really only do it to aid you.
*Various positive comments on your masculinity
That continue on into infinity*

Feeble accompanying guitar.

User avatar
MiB24601
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:13 pm UTC
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby MiB24601 » Sun May 10, 2009 2:12 am UTC

I saw it and I loved it.

Then I spent about an hour talking to a friend about just how much even the original series episodes are changed by this.
Then I spent about a ten minutes talking to a friend about the continuity errors that aren't taken care of through
Spoiler:
the whole changed timeline that started with the Kelvin's destruction.


Then, after those 70 minutes, I thought about it and I still loved the movie.

Because you know what, a movie should focus on the story first and foremost and on the extremely minor details second (actually, more like tenth for the extremely minor details).

Besides, the original series was less consistent within itself than this movie was to the original series.
"There's no point being grown-up if you can't be childish sometimes." - The Fourth Doctor, Doctor Who

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Philwelch » Sun May 10, 2009 4:02 am UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:On the other hand, this universe that's 140-ish years post-TOS, where Romulus was destroyed and Spock is on such excellent terms with the Romulans that they trust him to save their planet, I'd like to see what's going on there. Whatever happened with B4? Or all the other things in the Trek universe that were hanging out post-Nemesis?

I guess my disappointment isn't that this is somehow disrespectful to my TNG friends, rather, it's just that all the plotlines and worldbuilding that's been going on, we never get to see the payoff of it.


But a lot of that was so ridiculous I stopped caring. I mean, there's another Soong android? Another boring rehash of Khan (although, yeah, this movie has one of those too)?

The thing is, even though I care whether or not Bajor ever joined the Federation, or how Cardassia ended up rebuilding, or whether the Borg survived Janeway's time traveling adventures, fewer and fewer people care about that stuff as the continuity goes on. So you have to reboot—in this case, in a way that lets the previous timeline continue to exist.

Or you could just have a new generation. If you did that, you could just gloss over that stuff and say "Cardassia is part of the Federation, no one's seen a Q in centuries, and now that we're in this part of the universe, here are all the new races we get to meet." Which is why we didn't even see the Tholians or Gorn post-TOS until Enterprise degraded into fanservice: "oh, those races don't really matter, here's some Ferengi". Which sometimes doesn't work out so well.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

theSleepingMan
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:46 am UTC

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby theSleepingMan » Sun May 10, 2009 4:08 am UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:
Philwelch wrote:Well, this is an alternate universe, so we still have the original universe over there, and you can watch it whenever you want.

I still think they could have done better by going to a new Enterprise in the future and restarting in the current continuity. That's what TNG was, after all, and TNG was every bit as successful and popular as the original. On the other hand, it was good to see the old characters.

It is good that Majel Barrett Roddenberry had one last chance to reprise her role as the computer voice.

Yeah, I mean, I dunno. It's just like they said "Man, we've got to make a movie that manages to do justice to these forty years of history--screw it, reboot." It helps, in some ways. It clears out a lot of things that I freely admit hamper a long running series. On the other hand, this universe that's 140-ish years post-TOS, where Romulus was destroyed and Spock is on such excellent terms with the Romulans that they trust him to save their planet, I'd like to see what's going on there. Whatever happened with B4? Or all the other things in the Trek universe that were hanging out post-Nemesis?

I guess my disappointment isn't that this is somehow disrespectful to my TNG friends, rather, it's just that all the plotlines and worldbuilding that's been going on, we never get to see the payoff of it.

But, this movie was so enjoyable on its own, I can't begrudge it if they stick with this universe for current canon. It'll even give them an opportunity to do some things better, I guess.



Now sure if anyone's mentioned this yet, but this will explain a LOT of what happened between Spock and Nero

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek:_Countdown (Follow the links under "Issues".)
"Every one of us is precious in the cosmic perspective. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another."
____Carl Sagan____

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Sun May 10, 2009 4:09 am UTC

I suppose so. I see the logic, so it's not something I'm mad about. Just something worth noting.

EDIT: Incidentally, I had a dream last night in which Troi and Worf in a shuttlecraft convince help to come to Romulus earlier that it was going to, and so correct the timeline. My subconscious is a nerd.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
PhatPhungus
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:40 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby PhatPhungus » Sun May 10, 2009 5:24 am UTC

I very much enjoyed it.

I did wish that it had been a bit longer, and more focused on the characters. The plot to me seemed secondary to the character interactions, which I really enjoyed. The time travel was a bit silly, but what can you do.

Also, I thought that a lot of the aliens were very Star Warsy (green chick, the monsters on the ice planet reminded me of the always a bigger fish scene in episode 1).
__________
_____
__
_

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Sun May 10, 2009 5:29 am UTC

That green chick was an Orion girl. There's one in "The Cage", the first pilot of Star Trek. From, like, 1965. If you were any other man, I'd kill you where you stand.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8533
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Zohar » Sun May 10, 2009 9:54 am UTC

Oh yeah, I thought the Nokia commercial was blatant, obtrusive and ugly. I half-expected Spock to whip out a cellphone on Vulcan. The Budweiser commercial made slightly more sense and wasn't as obvious, but still - in a world with no corporations, I wonder how much those two companies had to pay to be plugged into the movie.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Hawknc » Sun May 10, 2009 11:50 am UTC

PhatPhungus wrote:the monsters on the ice planet reminded me of the always a bigger fish scene in episode 1

Ha, I said the same thing when I saw it. :D There's always a bigger...ice...monster...thing.

User avatar
Phen
Posts: 1184
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:50 pm UTC
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby Phen » Sun May 10, 2009 12:28 pm UTC

Hawknc wrote:
PhatPhungus wrote:the monsters on the ice planet reminded me of the always a bigger fish scene in episode 1

Ha, I said the same thing when I saw it. :D There's always a bigger...ice...monster...thing.

Me three. I was about to groan if another, bigger monster had shown up. :P
I'm a wizard. We know these things.

In war, one should seek to take and hold the high ground. From there, the enemy's movements are clearly visible, and he will struggle just to reach you, let alone fight you. High orbit is the highest ground there is.

User avatar
DreadArchon
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:29 pm UTC
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Star Trek, the Movie (2009)

Postby DreadArchon » Sun May 10, 2009 11:32 pm UTC

I saw it. It was okay.

Good:
  • Most of the movie. Seriously, there was a lot of good stuff there.
  • Simon Pegg
  • Spoiler:
    The dialog between Spock and Spock at the end. I loved that.

Bad:
  • The pacing. It was action-packed, but with pretty much the same amount of action in every scene. The whole movie felt monotonous to me.
  • " 'So we're in some sort of alternate universe?' 'Yes, whatever our destinies may have been, they have changed.' " Just in case we didn't notice.

Peccadilloes:
  • Kirk spends roughly two thirds of the movie hanging from ledges.
  • Federation planets apparently have no ground-to-space defenses. None.
  • Why not just plant charges on the giant cable? Did they shield the cable but not the drill?
  • Why not throw the Red Matter straight at the planet?
  • Why can't a computer assist you in beaming someone up?
  • Actually, does the future have any automation at all? It doesn't seem to.
  • Cracked's observations on transporter protocols seem especially appropriate here.
  • The ending leads me to believe that ramming someone with your warp drives would probably be more effective than the beginning showed.
  • "I need melee combat specialists. You look pretty Asian, come with me." (May not be an exact quote.)


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests