posted
I still can't believe Simon Pegg is going to be Scotty, hopefully that will add some humor to the film.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: It's actually freaking me out how good the reviews are. I haven't seen a speck of negativity anywhere yet.
Has JJ replaced the critics with podpeople? Or is the movie really that good?
I'm not seeing any high profile reviews just yet. No major newspapers, etc. They might have released the movie to friendly critics looking for a poster quote- but on the other hand, it has almost the same release day as Wolverine, which has no reviews yet. I've seen Wolverine, and it's not very good, so who knows.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've seen Wolverine, and it's not very good, so who knows.
That's a generous take on the steaming piece of excrement known as Wolverine. In fact, that movie does a disservice to steaming pieces of excrement. I generally do not dislike movies with such vitriol, I can usually find something interesting or turn off my brain or find some redeeming quality because I just don't like to be that negative, but that movie is the worst thing I have seen in at 10 years. We are talking Battlefield Earth bad...
About Star Trek: I know many Trekkers who are already angry at the film, whether it be because clearly Kirk knows how to drive a car in the movie but didn't in the Original Series or whatever, but for me, I can not wait to see this one. It sort of reminds me of the Bond movies, the old ones with Connery or Moore are fine for what they are, but they are clearly dated and stale in many places compared to the new, slick and shiny Bond movies with Craig or Brosnan. The Original Series is great for what it is, but for me, The Next Generation, Enterprise, and Deep Space Nine are better. If they can update the new series like they have with Bond, then I am all for that, and thus, I am quite excited about this new movie.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was nothing wrong with the basic idea of next generation as a film franchise. They just relied on pretty bad writing for two out of the four films they made. I mean, seriously, you're going to spend 100 million buck on a film and you end up with Nemesis? Really?? That's just cynical.
I think most trekkers are upset because as a rule, retconning is not done overtly, and no role in Star Trek that I know of has ever been completely recast.
That and, seriously, Kirk takes over the ship as a cadet?? You couldn't perhaps cast a 35 year old and put in some back story about Kirk's disaffected attitude to service?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Since the London premiere there have been glowing reviews in at least three of the broadsheet British newspapers (Times, Telegraph, Guardian), let alone the tabloids which I don't read.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I snagged tickets to the Irish premier on Tuesday Ill let you know if its just good publicity or worth a watch!!!
Posts: 243 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That and, seriously, Kirk takes over the ship as a cadet?? You couldn't perhaps cast a 35 year old and put in some back story about Kirk's disaffected attitude to service?
DS9 made a pretty good case for this in "Valiant."
It was a totally different set of circumstances from the sound of things, and in the end they failed rather and for the most part paid with their lives, but I think it was a great character driven episode where you see what arrogance and ego can do, and how they can get you killed. Jake Sisko plays a great dissenting voice, and Nog really shows you the dangers of mob mentality and wanting to fit in rather than letting reason rule (and you plainly see where his better angels get shouted down).
So at least there's precedent in mainline ST canon.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"new, slick and shiny Bond movies with Craig or Brosnan."
Not that I think the older Bonds are much better, but this bothers me tremendously. Forget story and character, this seems to be saying, all I want is car chases and explosions with the occasional hot girl. Bring on the bling.
I'll take stale old fashioned Kirk and Picard over Star Trek 90210 any day. I did read a semi-negative review that said it was a fun summer flick, but forgettable. The more positive reviews I read the less I want to watch this movie as a Star Trek fan because of exactly what is positive in the reviews. The least they could have done is have an actor play Kirk who doesn't look like they need to work out in the gym. Kirk wasn't a thin wafer pretty boy. Every one of those actors look way too young for the positions they have been put in. I know the story explains that, but I am not buying the story or a ticket.
In response to a comment I know I will get: yes, I am going to go back and watch my old Star Trek copies and forget this mess was ever done.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, the casting was Transformersesque "teen audience" pandering. How many actors can you remember who's first major film role was their best? Maybe there are lots, but somehow I doubt it. I doubt there are a lot of great first performances (or even 2nd or 3rds) that are much good- and a lot of this cast hasn't seen the light of day in any great movies. Just imagine a bunch of suits sitting around, figuring out how to sell the most tickets to the most people... this is the first Star Trek movie, or Star Trek anything, that's been cast solely for that purpose.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I'll take stale old fashioned Kirk and Picard over Star Trek 90210 any day.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: In response to a comment I know I will get: yes, I am going to go back and watch my old Star Trek copies and forget this mess was ever done.
Despite the fact that I am fairly certain that me agreeing with you -- on anything -- is a sign of the apocalypse, I do. 100%.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually pretty excited about the new movie.
I'm a pretty big Star Trek fan, and I'm excited about the direction that this movie is taking, but I can see how some fans would be disappointed with this.
You’ve said that when you were a kid, you always preferred Star Wars to Star Trek. Why? Star Wars was about a character everyone could relate to—the average kid, who started out as a farm boy, suddenly called to adventure. And it was this massive, exciting, fast-paced, thrilling spectacle where he ended up meeting people who changed his life forever, and became this hero. I never really felt like I was Kirk; I never really connected with Spock. So for me, it was a no-brainer.
The first scene of the trailer takes place in Iowa. There’s no clue that it’s even sci-fi until we see the hover bike. It seems like you’re trying to ground this story in a reality people can relate to. I think the thing about Star Wars that’s undeniable is that it’s “a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away,” and Star Trek is us. The idea that it’s connected to us, and our future, is an important component. “To boldly go where no man has gone before”—it’s kind of a funny little cliché. But the idea of a diverse group of humans and other species working together bravely, going places that are unknown and actually terrifying, not to destroy or own them but to explore, is…
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not that I think the older Bonds are much better, but this bothers me tremendously. Forget story and character, this seems to be saying, all I want is car chases and explosions with the occasional hot girl. Bring on the bling.
What's wrong with that? When I watch Bond I don't expect some deep philosophical meaning or significant character development, I simply expect something entertaining and fun. For two hours, I turn off my brain and forget about politics and philosophy, and I revel in the fun that is the movie. It's the same reason I love the movie Transformers and even the Mummy films, I just love the fun that is those movies. You are correct, all I want from those movies is a cool car chase or a large explosion and maybe even some manufactured drama, and I don't think there is a darn thing wrong with that.
Furthermore, my point about old versus new was not that the new Bonds lose story or character versus the old Bonds, my point was that the ideas, special effects, and film-making in the new Bond movies make them shinier and more enjoyable to watch as compared to the old ones. The reason I would take Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Enterprise over the Original Series is because TOS just seems old and outdated.
I don't think the new movie is going to be Star Trek 90210, but I think this debate speaks to the larger failures of science fiction, both as a fandom and through television shows and movies. There is an intellectual elitism that turns many off many to sci-fi, whether that's on television or movies, and it is pervasive in the community at large. There are alot of people who watch shows like 90210, and I think deriding them is not the best argument to make. We can deride shows like 90210 all we want, but 90210 will be on TV next year and shows like Terminator and Dollhouse probably won't. That is the reality that the sci-fi fan faces, and I think that they only have themselves to blame.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: There is an intellectual elitism that turns many off many to sci-fi, whether that's on television or movies, and it is pervasive in the community at large.
Piffle.
Expecting plots to be coherent and consistent and not pap is hardly intellectual elitism.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
im looking forward to this and hope they reboot the franchise.
IP: Logged |
quote:There is an intellectual elitism that turns many off many to sci-fi...
Science Fiction shows are some of the longest running shows ever. Doctor Who and the Star Trek 'franchise' have withstood the test of time and have attracted wide audience (albeit intelligent ones) since they first aired.
Nothing in science fiction is so intellectual or difficult to comprehend that the average person couldn't get some purely social enjoyment out of it. You don't have to understand the science-- most of the time there is no actual science to understand.
Most small boys love Science Fiction. By rights, any of those small boys can be brought up to appreciate not only very simplistic Science Fiction like Star Wars and Transformers, but to make that leap at some point in their adolescence to more the marginally more complex and laid-back Star Trek.
That said, I'm reading the mostly positive (all Fresh, but some are edging Fresh) Rotten Tomatoes reviews with growing amazement, considering how terribly mediocre Fringe and ultimately Lost were. Is it possible that Abrams has actually not only made a good film but has also managed to make a Star Trek film?
I admit I'm very reluctant to feel excited about this film. When I first heard about it I knew what I would do with this film (just like I knew what I would have done with Enterprise, which had excessive potential as well) but did not expect Abrams do be able to capture that, given the level of his work.
But Abrams didn't write it, and perhaps that made all the difference.
But I dislike the "it isn't like nerdy old science fiction" as much as anyone can. If they would stop saying that, perhaps I would find it easier to bring myself to build up the courage to see it.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: There is an intellectual elitism that turns many off many to sci-fi, whether that's on television or movies, and it is pervasive in the community at large.
Piffle.
Expecting plots to be coherent and consistent and not pap is hardly intellectual elitism.
To some people (OS :cough: C) the mere act of having standards seems to qualify as intellectual elitism. Of course, if you're not an intellectual elitist, you're a moral elitist, so what's the point of name calling?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: There is an intellectual elitism that turns many off many to sci-fi, whether that's on television or movies, and it is pervasive in the community at large.
Piffle.
Expecting plots to be coherent and consistent and not pap is hardly intellectual elitism.
To some people (OS :cough: C) the mere act of having standards seems to qualify as intellectual elitism. Of course, if you're not an intellectual elitist, you're a moral elitist, so what's the point of name calling?
Orincoro do you spend your days angry with Mr. Card to the point that if a suitable opportunity comes up to harangue him, you feel unable to resist alot of the time?
Mr. Card of all people respects the concept of artistic standards. It's the intent of the message that often galls him. Take Happy Feet, I doubt Mr. Card was angry that the art department took quite a bit of time to cleanly and beautifully animate the characters in the movie. I also doubt he was upset that there was a multiplicity of messages some subtle some overt in the plot. What bothered him seems to be the condescending nature and smugness of that message as it is conveyed to the audience, and more especially children, as their powers of discernment are still being developed.
Ironically I've read several writings of Mr. Card defending science fiction as being unable to get a foothold in schools and colleges because "intellectual elites" don't recognize the great offerings of the genre, and simply dismiss it all. It's why I had difficulty persuading my brother to read Masterpieces of Science Fiction, because he assumed it would be lots of stories similar to Star Trek and Star Wars.
There's a fantastic depth to science fiction that most people do not see, and part of the reason is that they are told that "science fiction = nerd reading." It's like romance novels for socially awkward men, who don't want to live in this reality. I'd say if you took the best science fiction writers, they easily stand up to the best English literature has to offer.
I will confess though that I am not too knowledgeable about science fiction writers of any quality in today's world, besides Mr. Card of course.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: There is an intellectual elitism that turns many off many to sci-fi, whether that's on television or movies, and it is pervasive in the community at large.
Piffle.
Expecting plots to be coherent and consistent and not pap is hardly intellectual elitism.
To some people (OS :cough: C) the mere act of having standards seems to qualify as intellectual elitism. Of course, if you're not an intellectual elitist, you're a moral elitist, so what's the point of name calling?
posted
"It's the same reason I love the movie Transformers and even the Mummy films," is not helping. The thing is that the Star Trek movie franchise isn't really that deep, but it at least has something to say. Not to mention the characters are treated as people that grow rather than stagnant action heroes that save the day and run off with the girl.
I like the kinds of movies you refer to as well. Its just that I like OTHER kinds of movies that are more than that. It seems there are far less of those nowadays (even those with "deeper" meanings end up with cliche' rather than something to think about) to the point I don't go to the movies or even rarely rent them. Funny thing with your 90210 example is that Star Trek has lasted for almost 40 years in one way or another and syndication many places where that teen drama can be found on soap channel. They did a remake that, I believe, tanked.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Orincoro do you spend your days angry with Mr. Card to the point that if a suitable opportunity comes up to harangue him, you feel unable to resist alot of the time?"
Yes. I spend my days finding small ways to show my disappointments and inadequacies in life. The spear-head of this effort is here on Hatrack. I try, every day, to find something negative to inject into the minds of others who I hope and pray will listen to me, and feel worse about their lives.
But I see now, now that you have referred to someone I criticized as "Mr." mirroring the lack of respect I show, that I am wrong. Thank you- you have changed my life. I no longer wish for darkness and despair. I see now that the world is full of light and possibility. I now hope for a better tomorrow. I now believe in Jesus, and I have a personal relationship with Christ himself.
Or it was just a meaningless jab. Either way.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro: Could you do me the decency of perhaps putting more of your considerable powers of thought into your response? I've noticed that you have a tendency to be mean, you've even acknowledged that this is the case. I suppose there isn't much point asking you to cut it back, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to suck on it.
I refer to Orson Scott Card as Mr. Card in all my posts regarding him. It's the title that suits me best when talking about him. My use of Mr. was in no way a rhetorical device.
I didn't say you are a miserable person all the time and that is why you act out, but you seem to be so angry with Mr. Card that you have nothing but hatred when he comes up. I'd rather you stayed in hatrack but why frequent a forum that will inevitably remind you of such a frustrating person and hence color your discourse so negatively?
Either get over your frustration with Mr. Card or don't keep putting yourself through this by coming here.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
When were the days I used to use "Uncle" in my reference/reverence? of Mr Card... *sigh* Don't remember why I made the switch, maybe when I graduated from High School...
Orinoro I see your Injection of Misery and Raise you breaking their souls into bitter broken vases of emotional heartbreak and anguish which they in turn take out on others.
*tongue in cheek though it would be awesome*
IP: Logged |
quote:"It's the same reason I love the movie Transformers and even the Mummy films," is not helping. The thing is that the Star Trek movie franchise isn't really that deep, but it at least has something to say. Not to mention the characters are treated as people that grow rather than stagnant action heroes that save the day and run off with the girl.
Believe it or not, so do the Mummy movies and Transformers, especially Transformers which maintains a humanistic optimism mixed in with the "pap". I guess my point is that we can't look down on other kinds of movies simply because we don't think they live up to our own intellectual standards nor can we look down on the people who watch and enjoy movies like The Mummy or television like 90210 or even Gossip Girl. I haven't seen 90210 since maybe 1990 and I have no idea what it could possibly be about these days, but I do know two important things about the show itself. One, there are many who watch the show, and two, there are those who would use this show and the subsequent "teen pandering" as a manner to put down other types of entertainment and people. Thus, I think it *is* about intellectual elitism, though it is not when we seek coherent and cohesive story and great character development, when it involves how we look at the people who watch what we would call "pap", judge them, and use that judgment to paint other forms of art.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I saw Star Trek last night at the Irish premier. And it....rocked.
I think it has the makings of a smash hit. More than enough geek talk and in jokes to appease the fans and theres enough action to keep even non Trekies happy.
The movie has a good, solid plot that doesnt really have any acts but rather seems to sprint through to the end!
And the cast! Absolutly perfect casting. No one stands out as a bad choice at all. Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Karl Urban as Kirk, Spock and Bones are particularly excellent.
Those worring about retconning will be happy to know the changes are very well explained within the Trek verse and fit nicely in with pre-existing canon. But there are A LOT of changes. (Though without giving anything away there is one event in particular which could have massive repercussions in relation to one of the other series.)
My one small problem with the movie, though only a minor one, is that the movie was almost too funny. I can understand studio execs wanting to push the laughs but it was the one thing, to me anyway, that didnt really fit in with the Star Trek feel as a whole.
Overall I would give it a solid A. Trek fans should rush to see this one and even non Trek fans will really enjoy themslves!
Posts: 243 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's my present to myself for graduating from college..I'm going out to dinner and a movie to see Star Trek.
Well, the present is really dinner and a movie with my husband...it's just that I chose Star Trek as the movie.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My one small problem with the movie, though only a minor one, is that the movie was almost too funny. I can understand studio execs wanting to push the laughs but it was the one thing, to me anyway, that didnt really fit in with the Star Trek feel as a whole.
I've heard this elsewhere, and I don't understand it at all. The original series was hilarious. Even the most serious episodes had humor. Arguably the most dramatic episode was "City on the Edge of Forever," and there were some pretty funny moments in it:
Kirk: He caught his head in a mechanical... rice picker...
Kirk: Well, we'll steal from the rich and give back to the poor later.
McCoy: You know, I've convinced myself that this is all in a cordrazine hallucination. But, I've decided you're not.
Kirk: You were actually enjoying my predicament back there. At times, you seem quite human. Spock: Captain, I hardly believe that insults are within your prerogative as my commanding officer. Capt. Kirk: Sorry.
Spock: I am endeavoring, ma'am, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bear skins.
Remember, this is the series that gave us tribbles, famous Russian everythings, Harvey Mudd, and Star Trek IV. The fact that the new movie is funny makes me even more eager to see it.
Also, Nimoy loves it. I got to hear him speak at the FX con a few weeks ago and wrote about it here.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except for the lack of swearing, the way the dialogue in TOS works is much like the way sailors speak to each other, with "inside" jokes, light insults, smart-aleckyness, technical language, and necessary information in one conversation.
I think one major problem with Star Trek is that it is too glib. Compared to TOS, how often was humor used in the other series' and the other movies, except by comic relief (like the Ferengi)?
One of the best scenes in Star Trek is the tequila scene from First Contact.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: More than enough geek talk and in jokes to appease the fans and theres enough action to keep even non Trekies happy.
The part I've been worried about is the action. In the trailers and commercials, it looks like they used a lot of shakey camera work. Were the action scenes hard to see?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: More than enough geek talk and in jokes to appease the fans and theres enough action to keep even non Trekies happy.
The part I've been worried about is the action. In the trailers and commercials, it looks like they used a lot of shakey camera work. Were the action scenes hard to see?
This review briefly mentions his take on the shaky camera action, but that's just one man's opinion.
quote:The space battles still have the feel of submarines, just with more ‘splosions, lasers, shaking cameras, stumbling and falling around. By the way, this is an example of good CGI. The futuristic things going on in the backgrounds look like they are part of the world.
The film brings familiarity to the extraordinary world that may have alienated some people in its most hardcore form. In this case, the shaky cam style is okay because it’s familiar. It’s bringing this story of a distant future with the sensibility of the distant past into a familiar storytelling mechanism. And it’s awesome, but to be a little bit more pretentious, the tilted angles make the ship look more dynamic and flowing, and the light flaring at the camera feel like the Enterprise is giving off real energy.
Which works as long as you look at the car from the precise angle that all of the photos of it are taken from. I'd love to see some picture of it from other angles, but there don't seem to be any to be had online.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
My one small problem with the movie, though only a minor one, is that the movie was almost too funny. I can understand studio execs wanting to push the laughs but it was the one thing, to me anyway, that didnt really fit in with the Star Trek feel as a whole.
I'm not too sure about that. One thing the "re-mastered" edition of TOS has made clear is that a lot of side jokes and funny character bits have always been included in the show, but tended to be edited down in the syndicated versions.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, my wife and I have tickets for opening night and I am excited to see it. I am more excited than I used to be, since I was very skeptical previously. Rotten Tomatoes still has it at 98% after 46 reviews, so I think this has gone beyond just pre-release hype.
The one rotten review mainly complains that the movie is too much like a TV show (which contradicts the epic feel that a few other reviewers have described) and that it appeals to the teenage-boy eye-candy, action, and sex mentality. He compared it to the new Wolverine (though he admitted Wolverine was worse), which I have yet to hear anything good about, except that Hugh Jackman did a good job with what he had to work with.
Anyway, I will let you all know what I think of it after this Friday night!
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm totally stoked to see this tomorrow.... I've always been a big Trek fan and I'm glad to see it being rebooted. There's plenty of stories told in the universe we're all familiar with and it grew stale, and I'm happy they're taking a different approach with it. Can't wait.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to try and see this tomorrow as well. I didn't think I would be, but now I suddenly find that I'm actually quite excited about it. Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't come out in CZR until the 8th I think... anyway I have work and pub night to go to, so no star trek until friday. I'm definitely going though, just deciding whether I should take the long tram ride to Depo Hostivar to sit in the stadium seating at the shiny multiplex.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I can't even go into why until this becomes a spoiler thread. That's not to say I didn't have a couple of issues with it. But it didn't stomp all over, and then spit on, the TV series I grew up watching.
I was expecting Quinto to be great and he was - he caught the mannerisms perfectly - but because of various events in the story, the character of Spock felt really off in a few scenes. You just have to remember that he really is a different person now - but there are a few moments which seemed somewhat disconcerting.
I wasn't expecting much from Chris Pine - but he has great comic timing and that charmingly goofy, totally foolhardy thing that makes Kirk so human and likable.
But the person I was most amazed by was Karl Urban. His Bones is dead on, snarkily perfect, and his voice is so well matched (especially considering that he's a Kiwi) with DeForest Kelly's. He's just right.
As for the others, Scotty's enthusiasm makes up for his lack of screen time, Sulu gets to be cool and heroic (but then, he nearly always was), Chekov is still the baby of the crew, and Uhura gets to be a lot more demanding and esteemed than she ever got to be in the original line up.
It's a gorgeous send off for Nimoy, too. He blows everyone out of the water in every scene he's in.
All the way through, every few minutes, there's another huge shout out to Trek history. Hardly any of these moments feels forced - if you didn't know what they meant, you wouldn't even notice they were there. It adds a lot of depth to the universe which has been changed so much - like looking through a broken window at a familiar room.
The time travel, and the rules behind it (not the actual process, which is pure handwavium) make a lot of sense. If you've seen The Sarah Connor Chronicles, you know how it works. They successfully explain all the changes to the timeline - although it seems very much as if the original timeline is trying to re-establish itself, and ultimately can't.
Because of the story structure, it ends just at the point where everything really begins - and I was left wanting to see what happens next...
It's a good movie. Actually, really, very good.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seconding everything Bella just said. Holy crap, this is a good movie.
My one major criticism is that there is a HUGE coincidence (two coincidences actually) in the middle of the movie that doesn't follow logically from the time travel shenanigans. I take issue with using "destiny" or "fate" causing things to happen for the sake of making them happen.
I also spent most of the movie being disappointed with the music - it basically didn't reflect the Star Trek musical style at all. But they fix all that in the credits. I would have orchestrated the movie a differently but I guess I can't complain. (A huge pet peeve of mine is movies based on old movies - in particular movies where Nostalgia is a huge part of the movie experience - that change the music completely.)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
i loved it. reviews have made it sound fun but i was surprised by how fun it actually was. it was really in no way a serious sci-fi film but an action-comedy. i was most surprised by how funny it was, which is really a mark of how well the film was written, cast, and directed. and the cast was perfect. pine is a far better actor than shatner and makes a great kirk, and quinto and urban were also excellent. and really, so was everyone else. my biggest complaint is that the film could have been longer to flesh out the characters a little more, but despite being balls to the wall throughout it had some very nice character moments, especially at the beginning and with kirk/bones and kirk/spock. leonard nimoy was also incredibly well utilized and despite worrying about the time travel aspect i thought it was really well done
i could really go on and on about how great the whole thing was. now that the setup is complete i hope they can explore some more serious sci-fi ideas in the next film, but i do hope it retains the sense of fun this one had. i can't imagine there will be a better film this summer and i hope it rakes in an absolute ton of cash
Posts: 326 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Ill let you know if its just good publicity or worth a watch!!!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
