Star Trek - **SPOILERS**

danger boy

way to many TV shows and movies right now use time travel/time shifting in their story lines.. = poor story line and lack of creative writing team.

Ron-P

Myself, I just sit back and enjoy the ride, I don't pay attention to all those faults like those you pointed out Darque, and why, you pointed out the reason yourself...

The following diminished my enjoyment of the film:

It's sci-fi, it's Star Trek, it's going to have lots of plot holes, issues, make-believe and that's exactly why I don't bother trying to apply logic to films like these, or any sci-fi film for that matter.

One thing I don't think they could have done any better, picking the cast. That cast and how they mimicked the TOS crew was absolutely amazing.

I just hope the next two films are as good as this one, if so, that will make for one seriously amazing trilogy.

danger boy

i wonder how much time there will be between the next movies? like one every other year or every 5 yrs. etc?

DarqueKnight

Ron-P wrote: »

Myself, I just sit back and enjoy the ride, I don't pay attention to all those faults like those you pointed out Darque, and why, you pointed out the reason yourself...

It's sci-fi, it's Star Trek, it's going to have lots of plot holes, issues, make-believe and that's exactly why I don't bother trying to apply logic to films like these, or any sci-fi film for that matter.

I can't help but pay attention because they draw you in with the pretense of a serious science fiction film then beat you over the head with stupidity.

I don't go into an entertainment event expecting reality. I know it's make believe, but I expect whatever I am watching to stay within context. If I am watching a roadrunner cartoon, I expect that Wiley Coyote will survive point blank dynamite explosions, 1000 foot Grand Canyon falls and having 20 ton boulders fall on his head. If I'm watching a live action film about normal, non-super powered human beings, I don't expect to be asked to believe that these humans could survive the type of abuse endured by Wiley Coyote.

If I go to a music concert, I get annoyed if the performers start stripping on stage. If I wanted to see a strip show, I'd go to a strip club.

In the case of this film, the Grand Canyon size plot holes were unnecessary and took away from what had the potential for a great film. For example, instead of two starship captains gallantly and nobly sacrificing themselves for their crew, Nero could have just battered the Kelvin and Enterprise until shields were down and then beamed the captains off their ships.

It had already been established in the earlier films that warp drive cannot be safely engaged within a solar system, so why repeatedly do it here?

To me, this film is more like an over the top parody or satire than a serious addition to the ST franchise. In which case, if it had been billed as a parody, then my annoyance at the plot holes would be moot and the craziness, up to and including Scotty's excessive buffoonery, could actually be considered to be enhancements for comedic effect.

DarqueKnight

Keiko wrote: »

The thought occurred to me that this would make an excellent new series for TV.

If they are going to make the sequels with the same satirical flavor as this first movie, then I agree that this would be an excellent "dumbed down" television series.:)

Jstas

Wow. Buncha overly critical nerds.

Oh and DarqueKnight, you spelled Romulan wrong.


I saw this last night. While yeah, it was goofy with the time travel twist and contradicted itself with Spock meeting Spock not changing the space-time continuum and all that malarkey but Nero zapping Vulcan does...yeah, bit of a gaping plot hole there. However, aside from the abandonment of the Star Trek story lines laid down by Roddenberry, the movie stands alone on it's own merits. If you watch the movie keeping the original Star Trek story lines in mind, it will frustrate you to no end. It's difficult not to do that either since they allude to it several times in the movie itself. But, if you step back and watch the movie for the movie itself, it is quite entertaining. Of course it has its own plot problems without the original Star Trek issues coming in to play. But then again, watching sci-fi does require a bit of a suspension in belief in reality.

Overall though, I'd say go see it. Go see it in the theater too and find a DTS or other Digital theater because there were surround effects all over the place in that movie theater! Should be a good buy for a home theater too when it comes out.

Vdr1973

I really enjoyed it as A stand alone movie. And as far as TNG Ithink its more of a generational thing, being 35 I liked it alot better than the original wheras my father prefers Kirk and Spock to Pickard or Janeway.During several parts of the movie all my wife and I said was that we couldnt wait to view this movie at home.

Ron Temple

I enjoyed the movie, but I lean more toward DKs problems with the overall plot than any changes in ST canon. I liked the new actors, the effects were good, the story moved along, but this was a generic ST movie and not the strongest, IMO. I've never thought that ST movies ever touched the sense of wonder Star Wars engendered in their first 3 (4,5 & 6). Aside from the nostalgia tweaks and the reboot, this one came across as fairly juvenile in the concept department. After all the hype I was expecting more. I was a teenager when TOS aired and loved it. The following series got less and less entertaining, though TNG was pretty good. The movies were pretty good to tired and corny. This one will get the franchise started again, but I hope they improve on it.

I also got bothered by Kirk's phaser getting knocked out of his hand constantly and his repeatedly getting his **** kicked ending in hanging over empty space. Come on use some imagination...plus only 1 redshirt bit the dust...what's up with that :eek:.

DarqueKnight

Keiko wrote: »

I'm glad I don't have your ability to pick things apart DK.

It comes in handy in my line of work.;)

Keiko wrote: »

I went into this simply for the entertainment value.

As did I. However, I was expecting to be entertained by a serious sci-fi film and not a situation comedy.;)

Keiko wrote: »

The story was good and the ride was fun. I had few laughs.

Of course you did, as did I. It was a sitcom.

I'm not saying I didn't enjoy ST, I just would have enjoyed it more if it had been accurately promoted as a sitcom/parody type movie or if they had done a more competent job with the writing if they wanted to be taken seriously. It is sort of like going to dinner at a nice restaurant and then the restaurant manager comes out and says the entire kitchen staff called in sick, but dinner is on the house and they have ordered catering from the local Burger King. I like free food and I like Burger King...but everything in its place.;)

DarqueKnight

Jstas wrote: »

Wow. Buncha overly critical nerds.

I assume you were being "tongue-in-cheek" with this statement as we were no more critical and "nerdy" than you were in your Wolverine review here. Some excerpts:

Jstas wrote: »

I saw this and as a movie goer, I give it about a B+. It was fun although a tad on the confusing side with some plot holes that were not really glaring but hard to fill in.

As a comic book fan, C- at best. Mainly because those plot holes stem from the screen writers taking artistic license on the back stories and abilities of the various mutants in the film.

Jstas wrote: »

More plot holes are a MASSIVE gap in the history and Wolverine did not fight in the wars with Sabretooth.

Jstas wrote: »

Lots of holes and missing parts. Kind of disappointing in that respect. The Wolverine story was a good movie all by itself without being chopped up for a screenplay.

I have yet to see Wolverine, but plan to do so this week. Since my knowledge of X-Men canon is shallow, I expect that I will be able to enjoy this even with all the plot holes and deviations from canon you discussed in detail in your review. Thanks.:)

Jstas wrote: »

Oh and DarqueKnight, you spelled Romulan wrong.

Thanks for catching that. I'd go back and correct that if I could. I Hope I won't get kicked out of the Star Trek Interstellar Fanboy Club for that small error.:o

CaligulaPolk

I DID NOT READ OR PEEK!!! JUST HIT REPLY FAST!!!!! I will be reading this thread after I SEE STAR TREK (open closed captioned) on tuesday night, I Am really looking forward to see this movie. Im spock fan.

Live long and prosper!

Ron-P

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I was expecting to be entertained by a serious sci-fi film and not a situation comedy.;)

There's the problem, never ever take Star Trek seriously, no matter how it is promoted. But even the trailers hinted to this being just like all the other Treks before it, fun, light-hearted, comedic, plenty of plot holes...etc.

cheddar

Well, I suppose new trek takes place in a reality where there is no uss relativity and the temporal prime directive got thrown under the bus. One thing we know about trek 'verse is there are plenty of ways to go back in time and change things. Since they've gone this route, I hope they stay in this alternate mirror, mirror reality and don't get all braxton at some point.

Also, did any one else notice that the new phaser/torpedo sounds are very 80s, video game like? Although I sort of like the shotgun warp effect, the battle sounds might get annoying after awhile. Whenever somebody yelled, "Fire everything!", I half expected a camera pan to reveal space invaders tucked into the corner of the bridge...

DarqueKnight

Ron-P wrote: »

There's the problem, never ever take Star Trek seriously, no matter how it is promoted.

Thank's for the advice. I'll try not to get so worked up about a mere movie in the future. I didn't know they were just entertainment and weren't meant to be taken seriously. Accordingly, since they are "just entertainment", that absolves them from being discussed with regard to their quality of writing, acting performances, technical execution, etc.:rolleyes:

Ron-P wrote: »

But even the trailers hinted to this being just like all the other Treks before it, fun, light-hearted, comedic, plenty of plot holes...etc.

There was nothing overall light-hearted, or comedic about "Wrath of Khan", "The Search For Spock", "Nemesis", "Generations" or the first movie in the series, "ST:The Motion Picture". Sure, there were moments of comic relief scattered throughout, but the tone of these movies was very dark and serious overall, particularly "Wrath of Khan", which I, and many others, consider to be the best of the Trek movies. I do agree that they were fun, within the context of serious sci-fi films.

DarqueKnight

"The Voyage Home" is the only ST movie, prior to the current one, that I would consider "fun, light-hearted, and comedic". Also similar to the current movie, it is also more of that time travel drivel.:(

I would have preferred a cameo by Freddie Kruger or Michael from the Halloween movies.:)

Bass_Pedal

Coming out if this movie I was quite surprised. After all the critical praise and favorable public response I was expecting a lot more, or at least a lot different. I avoided reading this thread until today as it is labeled SPOILER, but after going through it, I have to say DK is right on the money. It's obvious he is a big fan of the franchise, I am too, so I won't beat the dead horse of inaccuracies and non-Trek like content. However, there is more to be said here. When my girlfriend asked me what I thought of the movie, I paused for a second and then responded, “it was kind of like anti-Trek” I said. Then I added, “actually it was more like Attention Deficit Disorder Trek” I think it's here where I had the biggest issue. Watching this movie was like watching so may other CGI driven action films produced in the last 15 years or so. Non-stop action, so much so that they only stop for the tiniest amount of exposition and a couple of one liners, then they're right back into the next action set-piece. This is fine for a standard action flick, but that's not what you expect in Star Trek. A week ago I asked my Girlfriend to sit down with me and watch “Wrath of Khan” about a third of the way through the movie she looked over at me and asked: “Are you seriously enjoying this? It's so slow!” Do I even need to tell you that she loved this new ST movie... of course she did. After saying all this, I think there is one important point to acknowledge, Star Trek, the way that long time fans know and love it, is no longer financially viable. The franchise was dead until this resurrection. In the end, old time Trekkie's will have to get used to the fact that in order for an expensive SI-FI flick to be produced, the kids are going to have to go and see it. In other words, it's ADD Trek from now on...

cheddar

...the jason bourneing of the movies...everything from 007 to star trek has to have someone trying to knock someone's head off with their fists every ten minutes or so or they think they'll lose their audience...

Ron Temple

This is from AVS forum...an online movie critic and very apropo

So, what I'm getting from 37 pages of this thread, is that basically The Onion was right.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film?utm_source=a-section
__________________
Joshua Zyber
Critic, High-Def Digest
Contributor, Home Theater Magazine
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Ron-P

DarqueKnight wrote: »

There was nothing overall light-hearted, or comedic about "Wrath of Khan", "The Search For Spock", "Nemesis", "Generations" or the first movie in the series, "ST:The Motion Picture". Sure, there were moments of comic relief scattered throughout, but the tone of these movies was very dark and serious overall, particularly "Wrath of Khan", which I, and many others, consider to be the best of the Trek movies. I do agree that they were fun, within the context of serious sci-fi films.

To you they weren't, to me they were very much everything I stated above, all the Star Trek films were nothing but. There's no way I will ever view Star Trek as serious Sci-fi, it's just too campy.

joeparaski

One thing I absolutely could not stand with this movie was the way the fight scenes were shot....all blurry and the camera is all over the place....artsy fartsy I suppose.

Joe

DarqueKnight

If you had attention deficit disorder you would have liked the jiggly wiggly darting-all-over-the-place camera work.

CaligulaPolk

CaligulaPolk wrote: »

I DID NOT READ OR PEEK!!! JUST HIT REPLY FAST!!!!! I will be reading this thread after I SEE STAR TREK (open closed captioned) on tuesday night, I Am really looking forward to see this movie. Im spock fan.

Live long and prosper!

WOW!!! I just saw it tonight, im very impressed, and i liked how the story are related to Enterprise NX-01, captain Archer. Dont mess with romulans!!

roygrady

Really enjoyed this, very well done imo.

John30_30

fatchowmein wrote: »

The Spock/Uhura thing works for me. She fell for her instructor which was implied by him not wanting to show favoritism so he did not initially assign her to the Enterprise. Only after she confronted him did he change the assignment. I'm glad they did not bog the storyline down by going into depth about it. SMOKIN hot chick dates brainy guy instead of a rebel like Kirk which frees up Kirk to romp with every female in the universe.

I like the time travel/reboot. This was a dead, billion dollar franchise that had such little hope that Paramount sold all of the Star Trek props via Christies auction. If JJ Abrams went with a prequel like the Enterprise TV series, we would see a Star Trek tombstone right next to Star Wars 1, 2, and 3. Now, unencumbered by all the TV shows, movies, video games, and books, they can do whatever they want.

Finally, I got my rapid fire phaser. NCC1701D fired so slowly I'm surprise anybody ever got hit.

Is it me or did you guys notice what an awesome job ILM did with the f/x compared to Revenge of the Sith?

Maybe JJ will redo Star Wars 1, 2, and 3...

We really enjoyed it. My wife said she remembers Uhuru I always making these sidelong glances at Spock I in the original series.
I thought this was just a hella sincere tribute, making the effort to include all the little things like the way young Kirk bashes his forehead on the header and slouches in the Captain's chair like its his alone.

I didn't realize that Gene Roddenberry's widow, the late Majel Barrett-Roddenberry did the Starfleet computer voice part in this one. That and Nimoy's cameo really made it special imho.

obieone

I didn't see the flick, and based on DK's assessment, I probably won't. 'Time Travel' in this movie is TOTALLY unneccesary, and shows pure laziness towards development.
IIRC, this was supposed to explain the beginnings of the Enterprise crew.
Limitless possibilities, and they just 'F'ed it up. But, what else is new!
Sorry, but I'm a purist.

DarqueKnight

obieone wrote: »

Sorry, but I'm a purist.

Then it is best you skip this one because you will leave feeling violated. However, if you can lower your expectations to what you would expect from a Roadrunner cartoon, then you will enjoy this film.:)

Speaking of Roadrunner, the Romulan captain's vengeful fixation on capturing old Spock was reminiscent of Wiley Coyote's fixation on capturing the Roadrunner. That bit about the Romulans sitting and waiting in the same spot for 25 years until old Spock exited the time portal/black hole was a bit much.

Ron-P

obieone wrote: »

I didn't see the flick, and based on DK's assessment, I probably won't. 'Time Travel' in this movie is TOTALLY unneccesary, and shows pure laziness towards development.
IIRC, this was supposed to explain the beginnings of the Enterprise crew.
Limitless possibilities, and they just 'F'ed it up. But, what else is new!
Sorry, but I'm a purist.

A purist, I'm far from but I could swear that previous Star Trek films used time travel.

DarqueKnight

Ron-P wrote: »

A purist, I'm far from but I could swear that previous Star Trek films used time travel.

You are correct. Four of the 11 feature films and 5 of the 79 original series episodes were based on time travel.

A complete listing of the franchise's time travel episodes can be found here.

obieone

Eh, I've been hating Hollywood now for 3+ years.
All I'm saying, is that they didn't NEED to involve time travel to explain the beginning of the crew. When they used TT in previous episodes/ movies, they were pertinent to the story line. I just don't see WHY they had to do it here?
Even though I never saw the last Indy Jones film, the fact that they introduced aliens, is tantamount to the 'rape' that South Park alluded to:D

TNRabbit