Star Trek 0.5 [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Star Trek 0.5



Worf101
05-15-2009, 05:46 AM
I guess you'd have to call it a prequel cause you see how they start out, at least in this version of reality. I don't want to give away any spoilers so I'll just talk about the film in general terms.

1. I loved it. As a guy who saw ST Original in "real time", I can say that this effin film rules. They get it right and the the story and character development drive the film NOT Special Effects.

2. Despite the cast being pimple faced kids they totally owned their characters.

3. Interesting that you see the bowels of the Enterprise and they look surprisingly "functional" for a change. There's pipes and pumps and stairs and junk. People die in copius amounts.

4. Sound was excellent. See this in Imax or on in the theatre. Small screen no good.. big screen GOOD.

5. I'll probably see it again this weekend, it's THAT good.

Da Worfster

PS, no Klingons though sigh...

Troy
05-15-2009, 08:22 AM
Yeah, like you, I grew up watching ST every day in reruns for years. EVERY day. 6:00, channel 2.

This was a pretty fun Coke and popcorn flick. Colorful and flashy.

Typical of JJ Abrams movies tho, its excessive and deeply flawed. You better leave your logic at the door when you see it.

Excellent casting. Yes, they all owned the characters for sure. Spock was always the most interesting character in the series because of the halfbreed inner conflict angle and they rode that aspect of his story hard, to good effect.

Without dropping spoilers, I'm not sure I like the way history was changed with the whole parallel timeline thing. Time travel in movies is always a cheap device, and the use of it in this one is particularly excessive because they used it so they can do whatever they want with these characters in future movies.

GMichael
05-15-2009, 09:04 AM
Just saw this yesterday and enjoyed it very much. There were a few "aww, come on" moments, but for the most part it hit the spot.
Maybe it was the theator I saw it in, but I wasn't impressed with the sound.
"This one time, you'll have to trust yorself."

topspeed
05-18-2009, 10:26 AM
Caught this yesterday, loved it! I was always a huge fan of the series and had models of the Enterprise, Klingon Warbird, and Galileo hanging from my ceiling when I was kid. This sucker was action from the word "Go" with a nice mixture of humor and tons of references to the old series. Very well done with the exception of what Troy alluded to. I have a hard time reconciling the conflicting "reality" of the movie with the history of the show, but realize the show is 40 years old and few people will recognize the deficiencies.

Definitely worth the time and money to see in a theater (especially when it's 106 outside and you have to stay inside anyway!)

Woochifer
05-18-2009, 12:44 PM
Caught this last night on the IMAX screen ... great movie! Up there with the best of the Trek movies (which for me are II and IV). It's also definitely a reboot for the series because it really ups the action sequences, and for better or worse is more rooted around the characters than any philosophical ideas or larger themes. More so than any other Trek movie since the original ST:TMP, this one felt like a big epic movie rather than an oversized TV episode. Big sets, lots of extras used in various scenes. It cost $130 million to make, and it shows on screen.

As others mentioned, the casting was great. While all of the main cast proceeded to take ownership of their characters, I thought that Karl Urban (Bones) really stood out. And Simon Pegg as Scotty was another inspired bit of casting.

Aside from a couple of gaping plot holes (the ice planet encounter, and the time travel redux), the movie moved really well and offered up enough nuggets for long-time fans, even while laying waste to much of the Star Trek canon as we know it. It will be weird to catch some of the previous Trek movies and episodes knowing that this movie and its planned sequels will delve off into an alternate timeline.

canuckle
05-18-2009, 10:45 PM
I will agree that it was good, with a few caveats:

1) The plot holes. There are just so many and they are soooooo ridiculous. "Hey, you've been here a few days and you're all of 25... I know you've never served a day of your life in Starfleet, but why don't we make you the captain of the flagship?"

2) I thought the ship was really fugly and it looked more like a refinery than a canon starship.

3) The destruction of certain planets. Awwwwwwwww :(

4) The overusage of coincidence such as one character accidentally bumping into another character after being thrown out of a spaceship travelling at warp and landing randomly in the middle of Hoth. Come on... that was just insulting.

The outstanding cast makes you forget about all of that though. They should have used more of Simon Pegg though since he was far and away the best character in the movie.

kexodusc
05-19-2009, 06:50 AM
I saw it and liked it. In terms of plotholes...meh, they're easy enough to reconcile considering the epic leaps of faith required to watch the rest of this sci-fi story. I don't sweat the small stuff. If it's entertaining, a plot-hole isn't a problem. If the movie sucks, they just add themselves to the list.

Funny, I remember a few months back these boards crapped on the use of pop-star, frosted-tipped actors, yet now their getting all the praise.

Still getting really sick of time travel in Star Trek movies. What is this the 4th time Star Trek has done time travel in a movie? That's too high a time-travel-to-movie-plot ratio. This time it wasn't as bad as the abomination that was First Contact but still..."Guys I gotta great idea for a Star Trek movie, let's go back in time..."

Still, they pulled it off with this one. So props to the new movie!

Feanor
05-19-2009, 06:56 AM
I will agree that it was good, with a few caveats:

1) The plot holes. There are just so many and they are soooooo ridiculous. "Hey, you've been here a few days and you're all of 25... I know you've never served a day of your life in Starfleet, but why don't we make you the captain of the flagship?"

...

Maybe that Enterprise is equiped with an "infinite improbability" drive. :smilewinkgrin:

3-LockBox
05-19-2009, 09:43 AM
I wished it was a full blown reboot. Either stick to the canon, or do something completely different. This time-travel thing is so old hat by now, and most writers aren't clever enough to make it work, let alone most directors. JJ Abrams promised to do things differently, and he succeeds a little, but he still tries to make this a passing of the baton movie of sorts. Abrams lack the attention span to make logical use of alternatative, interacting time-lines and high concepts.

You guys will drive yourselves crazy looking for, and pointing out plot holes. For one thing, you are expending energy that the writers did not. Second, if the storyline was coherent at all it represents a milsestone in Abrams career, or at least an accident. The guy just doesn't pay attention to continuity. Its very much a video game mentallity - plot devices only have to make sense in this scene, not the next. If we go to movies like this with the attitude we take when we go to an amusement park, then plots don't mean as much. The Back To The Future and Jurassic Park rides at Universal Studios don't make real plausible sense as far as what little plot is offered, but boy they sure are fun.

That being said, no ST movie is perfect when it comes to plots or use of sci-fi themes. The Motion Picture was the most sci-fi oriented and it usually winds up on the bottom of most people's list as fas as ST movies go. If we can accept cloaking devices and Genesis devices and holodecks, then I guess paralleled alternate realities shouldn't be too hard to swallow, as long as they're done well. This movie comes as close as any other modern movie.


I think it coulda been better. I think it was as good as it was because of the actors involved and inspite of the director. The cast still looks like an Aaron Spelling TV show, and Abrams has as firm a grasp on science fiction as Irwin Allen, but it was a good popcorn flick, provided you give it the passing glance and short-term memory it was intended for.

Check your logic at the door.

It's a swell ride.

Gerald Cooperberg
05-24-2009, 08:13 PM
This flick was a nightmare for anyone who takes even a slightly analytical approach to movie-watching. I understand that there's a large contingent of folks who strongly advocate the idea that movies are meant to be escapist and that we ought to check our disbelief and our politics with the teenaged walkie-talkie-jockey at the door. I get this. But for me, the amount of mental contortion that would've been needed to enjoy this one was just too great. Some recent blockbusters tweak their own integral excesses; Iron Man seems like a good recent example. This one just coasts on spectacle. I found myself groaning at almost every aesthetic aspect of it, but even more so, I found myself pretty insulted. This isn't the Next Generation world of Star Trek where complicated interstellar problems are solved by understanding, compassion, and critical thinking-- this is cowboy country. Yeah, that may be true to the series' origins in space westerns like The Forbidden Planet. So what? This is 2009, and heaven forbid that we shouldn't have acquired the skill by now to make our entertainment intelligent without sacrificing exhilaration. Intellectual obliteration is tossed off here so casually it's hard to even keep track; from low-level racial fear-mongering (somebody tell me that the Romulans aren't supposed to be codified arabs-- their ship looks like the inside of a cave, for ****'s sake) to back-handed misogyny masked as empowerment (much has been made of the fact that Uhuru plays a more pivotal role than ever before, but I can't overlook the fact that she's still in that ridiculous miniskirt or the way she offers her body up as the supreme reduction of woman as sexual object when she tells Spock that she's ready to do "anything [he] needs... anything"-- and don't get me started on the fact that Winona Ryder's character basically exists to birth Spock, send him out into the world as a man, and promptly die) to the idea, so maddeningly pervasive in summer blockbusters lately, that true human character is only understood in the crucible of violence (who'd ever want peace?). To anyone who loved this, you can keep it... the characters were never that beloved to me anyway. I just hope J.J. Abrams keeps his adrenaline syringe away from Jean-Luc Picard.

-Coop

thekid
05-25-2009, 04:52 PM
Saw it on Saturday with my son (his first Star Trek movie..) and we both loved it. The gathering of the tribe so to speak was predictable but still interesting. I wondering which way they are going to go with this group next-another movie or is JJ going to bring on a new TV series as lost says its farewell next year......

Worf101
05-26-2009, 05:14 AM
This flick was a nightmare for anyone who takes even a slightly analytical approach to movie-watching. I understand that there's a large contingent of folks who strongly advocate the idea that movies are meant to be escapist and that we ought to check our disbelief and our politics with the teenaged walkie-talkie-jockey at the door. I get this. But for me, the amount of mental contortion that would've been needed to enjoy this one was just too great. Some recent blockbusters tweak their own integral excesses; Iron Man seems like a good recent example. This one just coasts on spectacle. I found myself groaning at almost every aesthetic aspect of it, but even more so, I found myself pretty insulted. This isn't the Next Generation world of Star Trek where complicated interstellar problems are solved by understanding, compassion, and critical thinking-- this is cowboy country. Yeah, that may be true to the series' origins in space westerns like The Forbidden Planet. So what? This is 2009, and heaven forbid that we shouldn't have acquired the skill by now to make our entertainment intelligent without sacrificing exhilaration. Intellectual obliteration is tossed off here so casually it's hard to even keep track; from low-level racial fear-mongering (somebody tell me that the Romulans aren't supposed to be codified arabs-- their ship looks like the inside of a cave, for ****'s sake) to back-handed misogyny masked as empowerment (much has been made of the fact that Uhuru plays a more pivotal role than ever before, but I can't overlook the fact that she's still in that ridiculous miniskirt or the way she offers her body up as the supreme reduction of woman as sexual object when she tells Spock that she's ready to do "anything [he] needs... anything"-- and don't get me started on the fact that Winona Ryder's character basically exists to birth Spock, send him out into the world as a man, and promptly die) to the idea, so maddeningly pervasive in summer blockbusters lately, that true human character is only understood in the crucible of violence (who'd ever want peace?). To anyone who loved this, you can keep it... the characters were never that beloved to me anyway. I just hope J.J. Abrams keeps his adrenaline syringe away from Jean-Luc Picard.

-Coop
I can understand on an intellectual level all your points and arguements. And truth be told I agree with many of them but I enjoyed the film immensely in spite of these flaws. Yeah Uhuru is still half nekid all the time but the sight of her kissing Spock and obviously choosing him over the Space Cowboy is so pleasently jarring to my ST preconeptions and history that I was absolutely fascinated and charmed all at the same time. Yeah, the idea of a teenaged punk becoming captain of the Federation Flagship is a stretch but so what? It's a movie! Still it's good to hear other voices in this love fest. Keep em coming.

Da Worfster

GMichael
05-26-2009, 08:58 AM
Maybe that Enterprise is equiped with an "infinite improbability" drive. :smilewinkgrin:

Then they'd have to rename The Enterprise to The Heart of Gold.:hand:

3-LockBox
05-26-2009, 12:24 PM
It was a fun ride, but the core of the movie still bugs me...I refer even to my own signature. The idea that a young, unproven punk gets handed the reigns of anything based on the notion that he's...what? Ready? Because he has that hip, brash, badass attitude? Because if you "act like it" you are "it"...right?

Feanor
05-26-2009, 12:28 PM
It was a fun ride, but the core of the movie still bugs me...I refer even to my own signature. The idea that a young, unproven punk gets handed the reigns of anything based on the notion that he's...what? Ready? Because he has that hip, brash, badass attitude? Because if you "act like it" you are "it"...right?

That sort of thing bugs the hell out of me too. I guess we're just anal. :p

GMichael
05-26-2009, 12:48 PM
It was a fun ride, but the core of the movie still bugs me...I refer even to my own signature. The idea that a young, unproven punk gets handed the reigns of anything based on the notion that he's...what? Ready? Because he has that hip, brash, badass attitude? Because if you "act like it" you are "it"...right?

I laughed at that part of it too.
That and the part where old Spock had been stranded a few hours from an outpost that he didn't bother going to because he must have been waiting for Kirk to be tossed out an airlock and randomly land at that same very place. At an improbability factor of 10 to the power of 30,000 to 1 against, and falling. (see what you started Feanor?)

blackraven
05-26-2009, 09:05 PM
I give the movie 2.5 out of 4 stars. The plot was full of holes but it did change the time line of the Star Trek universe so that any future movies can take more liberty in changing events in Star Trek lore.

I thought the special effects were cheesy and in some instances not even as good as some of the recent TV versions.

Worf101
05-27-2009, 04:44 AM
It was a fun ride, but the core of the movie still bugs me...I refer even to my own signature. The idea that a young, unproven punk gets handed the reigns of anything based on the notion that he's...what? Ready? Because he has that hip, brash, badass attitude? Because if you "act like it" you are "it"...right?
When my son first came to live with me after 10 years of being a "hot house flower" surrounded by women, he always had excuses for why he failed to do this or that or that or this. When I was teaching him how to ride a bike I finally became so frustrated that I yelled at him (yeah I yell and hit too when he gets too full of himself)..

"talk less... do more!!!"

It's been my mantra with him ever since. He's a sophmore now, taking A.P. and honors courses, starts on the J.V. baseball team and can ride a bike tolerably well. My way isn't right for all people or all kids but it seems to have worked for him.

Da Worfster

Groundbeef
05-27-2009, 05:24 AM
When I was teaching him how to ride a bike I finally became so frustrated that I yelled at him (yeah I yell and hit too when he gets too full of himself)..

"talk less... do more!!!"

It's been my mantra with him ever since. He's a sophmore now, and can ride a bike tolerably well. My way isn't right for all people or all kids but it seems to have worked for him.
Da Worfster

You sound like a good dad. But I'm not sure if it was your lecture, or the fact that you were wearing your Romulan getup when you were teaching him to ride that did the trick!

Worf101
05-27-2009, 09:18 AM
You sound like a good dad. But I'm not sure if it was your lecture, or the fact that you were wearing your Romulan getup when you were teaching him to ride that did the trick!
You call me a Romual one more time and I'm gonna....:mad5: :mad5: :mad5:

Da Worfster

3-LockBox
05-27-2009, 01:10 PM
Its a proven fact...a lot of young men need to have their asses kicked every now and then - that's just a fact!

and Worf is a Klingon and I'd hate to see what was left of the dude that called him Romulan to his face :lol:

Kam
06-02-2009, 07:38 AM
i'm on the camp that enjoyed it even with the flaws. the major one for me was just spock in the cave with kirk. i'm fine with the brash kid getting promoted to captain, with the time travel devices, etc.

although, and here i am thinking up answers, since Spock is from the future (FSpock), he would know that Kirk was sent to that planet and could 'logically' find out he'd be close to the base, since that was where Kirk met Scotty, and FSpock would know this too so.... could have been scanning the skies to see where Kirk landed and then just hustled over to that area. Then the reveal in the cave was just for dramatic effect, once all the 'grunt deduction' work had been done. but i digress...

The way the kid came on the bridge at the end and started talking to Bones, with JUST that nice hint of 'shatner-kirk' in him... freakin' great. :)

Kevio
06-02-2009, 09:11 AM
The cool thing about using time travel in plotlines is that in introduces and element of omnipotence and can make the ridiculous possible even plausible. I think it was used effectively here. I think it was used masterfully in 12 Monkeys.

Kam
06-02-2009, 02:14 PM
side digression on the star trek topic... did anyone catch the Family Guy where Stewie kidnaps The Next Generation cast from the Star Trek convention?

Patrick Stewart is one funny guy. And to see him beyond hysterical, check out his cameo in Extras.