posted
I certainly understand that it's hard for me to have an objective opinion on the Star Trek movie. I've loved (nearly) everything "Trek" since I was tiny. But my cousin, a college baseball playing uber-jock recently approached me. He'd loved the movie, and was asking me questions --- cautiously --- about Star Trek in general. I've gotten the same response from several people at work.
So, how about it? Is the consensus the same? Are a lot of non-trekkies enjoying the movie?
It seems to me that most of the critics who panned it were VERY familiar with Star Trek. Roger Ebert, one of the film's biggest critics, has been notorious at giving good reviews to Star Trek. But he rated the new movie on par with Star Trek V (needless to say, below every other Trek movie). I'm sure he just wanted to be the "naysayer", but still.
Hopefully it won't just draw in a new generation of fans, but fans from every generation who'd never given Trek a chance.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I took my three girls yesterday, ages 16, 11, and almost-9. The 16 year old thought Kirk was cute but was very confused. My 11 year old, however, loved it and asked tons of questions and wanted to know if we could find some Star Trek episodes on TV for her to watch. I'm going to DVR some TNG for her.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The New Yorker review of this movie acted as a perfect demonstration of all the habits that the new yorker film reviews have that make them suck.
Not because it was overly negative, but because the writers absolutely love to pad the pages with superfluous descriptions of the plot points that turn the damn thing into a spoiler, and then they layer that with a sort of pretentious, looking-down-their-nose, yawning casual air of "and, yes, I suppose that movie was, how you hoi polloi say, ah, fun, if you're into that sort of thing, I suppose, mhah."
Ebert's review is annoying too. I just keep watching him fall off the wagon and other reviewers such as Nathan Rabin begin to take the lead in quality review.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're sure Ebert just wanted to be the naysayer? You're really that convinced that the movie is so good that if people don't like it, it's only because they're pretending?
quote:Not because it was overly negative, but because the writers absolutely love to pad the pages with superfluous descriptions of the plot points that turn the damn thing into a spoiler, and then they layer that with a sort of pretentious, looking-down-their-nose, yawning casual air of "and, yes, I suppose that movie was, how you hoi polloi say, ah, fun, if you're into that sort of thing, I suppose, mhah."
Ebert's review seems overly fixated on the incorrect science. Which is odd to me, given the plot and writing issues. But Ebert is just a man with an opinion.
Both of the above mentioned reviews liked the movie considerably more than I did. They say all kinds of nice things.
EDIT: As for the actual question of the thread, non-Trekkies love this film to pieces. Everyone seems to.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I took my three girls yesterday, ages 16, 11, and almost-9. The 16 year old thought Kirk was cute but was very confused. My 11 year old, however, loved it and asked tons of questions and wanted to know if we could find some Star Trek episodes on TV for her to watch. I'm going to DVR some TNG for her.
posted
My brothers girlfriend saw it with me and she thought it was a fantastic movie, and this from somebody who is not a fan of sci-fi.
She's been watching Firefly with my brother as well and greatly enjoys it. The indoctrination is nearly complete. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didnt care for it. The first twenty mintutes bored me, the pace is too fast imo, the music was bleh, and there are a lot of scenes or transitions that were too convenient (the was kirk ran into spock being the worst one.
Spoiler:
He gets chased by a giant monster straight into where spock is camping out.
The later half was exciting enough for me not to regret, but I basically watch everything.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You should really leave a much bigger space between the word spoiler and the actual spoiler so that people who haven't seen the movie have an opportunity to move past it without actually reading the spoiler. Just a suggestion. Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Ebert's review seems overly fixated on the incorrect science. Which is odd to me, given the plot and writing issues. But Ebert is just a man with an opinion.
Actually, I thought Ebert's point was that the incorrect science has never mattered to Star Trek (true) and that this has been okay because Star Trek has always really been about character interactions and moral questions (true) and that this movie didn't have any of that good stuff (true) as it was concerned entirely with narrative housekeeping (true). Admittedly, I'm a Trekkie, but I agree with every last bit of that. I thought his review was right on the money.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
