I’ve not gone to see it yet, but I like being the topic starter for awesome movies and I’m hearing only good things from Star Trek nerds and n00bs alike.
I’ve only seen the trailers, but it looks like crap so far. I have low expectations.
I never watched the shows and have only seen like one of the movies but overall it was decent. There was some questionable statements but i think the idea behind them was better than the questionable (from what I’ve heard) ideas of the original. one of the better movies ive seen this year
I watched the original series when it was new. I even had a plastic phaser that shot little plastic disks. Kirk rules.
I just saw it. It was pretty good to me. Kirk’s badass.
Scott Holleran thought it was disappointing. I’ve never been a fan of the series, and have only really watched a few episodes of Deep Space 9; however, I do plan to go see the movie. Just a good excuse to go to the theater, which I haven’t been to in a while.
Scott Holleran thought it was disappointing. I’ve never been a fan of the series, and have only really watched a few episodes of Deep Space 9; however, I do plan to go see the movie. Just a good excuse to go to the theater, which I haven’t been to in a while.
<_<
What a silly review.
THE MOVIE WAS AMAZING.
Can you tell us a bit more?
<_<
What a silly review.
THE MOVIE WAS AMAZING.
Can you tell us a bit more?
There was amazing little bad philosophy on display. Even young Spock’s opportunity to “stick his foot in it” from our perspective fails to be viciously evil. He is in a Vulcan school and gets to say something about “morally praiseworthy, but not obligatory”. Old Spock says something about not being self-serving at the end of the movie, but it is not a plot moment. Everybody else is busily pursuing values, achieving things, and showing off how goddamn excellent they are.
I think all the actors fit their roles well. I am amazed that Eomer from Lord of the Rings and Bones can be the same person. The villain is a revenge motivated sadist and nihilist, in other words a totally boring 2-d caricature. But that’s just the script, not the actor. Fortunately he is not the center of the film but given as background.
Pacing was blisteringly fast. Even the dialog had a lot of people talking over each other just to make things snappy. Lots of humor was scattered through the movie when people weren’t blowing up or being somber Vulcans. I saw the movie in IMAX. Much of the space battle action was shot zoomed-in, and there was a lot of detail to see and the visual effects were uniformly excellent. The finale (as in fireworks finale) though spent so great a proportion of the time zoomed in on exploding ship parts it was hard to get a sense of the action.
I intend to see it again. The big thing I take away from this movie is that Star Trek now has lusty, passionate characters and not politically correct technocrats. Yay!
There was amazing little bad philosophy on display. Even young Spock’s opportunity to “stick his foot in it” from our perspective fails to be viciously evil. He is in a Vulcan school and gets to say something about “morally praiseworthy, but not obligatory”. Old Spock says something about not being self-serving at the end of the movie, but it is not a plot moment.
The only problem I had was when Old Spock said “Put aside logic and for once do what you feel is right.”, but then I realized that this wasn’t a matter of ethics per se, it was about what Spock wanted to do with his own life, not what some duty told him to do. Then he says “You will always be a child of two worlds, and fully capable of deciding your own destiny. The question you face is: which path will you choose?”. So all in all, the philosophy of the movie isn’t that bad.
Now some people have said “It didn’t have a great plot”. Personally I think the plot was fine, but what they’re missing is that the movie was character-driven, which makes sense when you understand that the entire purpose of the movie was to re-introduce the characters we’ve known and loved for 40 years. While they weren’t able to flesh out every single character (which they didn’t need to), they did a great job with a 2-hour movie. Next movie will most likely have a better plot, because the characters won’t need introduction.
The action sequences were spot-on, the actors’ performances were great (Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy was an epic win), and overall the beauty of the film has beaten anything I’ve seen in a while.
In The Art of Fiction by Miss Rand, she states that multiple conflicts are very important to the plot. Spock vs. Kirk, The federation vs. Romulans, Spock vs. Logic to name a few. The intensity of each struggle made me an instant trekie.
However, the star trek society is very confusing. I don’t know where star fleet gets the money to fund their operations. Also, are Vulcans objectivists? Their motto is: live long and prosper.
In The Art of Fiction by Miss Rand, she states that multiple conflicts are very important to the plot. Spock vs. Kirk, The federation vs. Romulans, Spock vs. Logic to name a few. The intensity of each struggle made me an instant trekie.
No she doesn’t, in fact she cautions against trying to cram too complicated of a plot into a shorter story. Multi-layered conflicts are great, but you can write a novel that focuses on a single major conflict if you like.
Unfortunately, the way Rodenberry wrote them, Vulcans are Socialists: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” is what Spock utters to Kirk as his reason for dying in The Wrath of Kahn.
In The Art of Fiction by Miss Rand, she states that multiple conflicts are very important to the plot. Spock vs. Kirk, The federation vs. Romulans, Spock vs. Logic to name a few. The intensity of each struggle made me an instant trekie.
However, the star trek society is very confusing. I don’t know where star fleet gets the money to fund their operations. Also, are Vulcans objectivists? Their motto is: live long and prosper.
One thing I find personally annoying is the absurdly unrealistic postmodern “realism” of constantly subverting authority. In Firefly, if you disobey the captain, you (literally) get shoved out an airlock. That’s a bunch of outlaw pirates. How is it that a quasi-military ship like the Enterprise is ruled democratically, with no real consequences for disobeying orders?
Warning! Spoilers abound!
I can’t remember the last time I was in a film that kept you at a sprinting pace for two hours. Star Trek was a great science fiction show, and the beginnings of a new series (more likely a trilogy) of movies.
There is so much right with this film that I can completely ignore anything that is wrong with it. A lot of other reviews will talk about how the engineering set looks cheap, or how there was gratuitous use of lens flare, or how Chekov’s accent might be too strong. The great thing about this movie, is that none of that matters, and none of that detracts from the best Star Trek film ever, for fans or non-fans.
Some people have said that this is just making Star Trek a run of the mill action film. I completely disagree. Transformers was just an action film, it was not “about” anything profound. This was different, this was about personal character growth, and learning how and why people can meet their full potential. The two main characters in the film, Kirk and Spock, are both clearly competent but both held back by both the death of a father figure for Kirk, and the death of the mother figure for Spock as well as the absence and coldness of his father. Kirk learns that he can overcome circumstances to be a true leader, and Spock begins to truly balance his Vulcan-Human elements to learn that what he always knew was not a defect truly is his greatest strength.
The supporting characters all shine. We all knew Nichelle Nichols, George Takei, and Walter Koening were class actors, but their characters did always reflect that, sometimes reduced to being cliche stereotypes (which was still progressive for the 1960’s.) Here, though, every character is someone who you care about and who you want the future movies to tell you more about. Uhura is confident and brilliant, but also has a clear feminine side which is not submissive. Sulu is more of an action hero here but that is still a huge step up from just piloting the ship. Chekov is a brilliant wunderkind whose services are invaluable. Scotty is humorous (like the original) and a miracle worker, literally. While McCoy did not get top billing the way Kirk and Spock did, he is clearly not only an important part of the “troika” but also has a much stronger relationship to Kirk.
Finally, the Spock-Uhura romance is not only a brilliant new idea, but also a great homage to how it was meant to be Spock who would have the first inter-racial kiss on TV in “Plato’s Stepchildren” before it was changed to Kirk. The movie is full of brilliant new ideas and is no longer constrained by canon dictating the look, feel, or plot of the movie. From now on, every consequence matters, and from now on, the directors and writers of the TV show can make the 23rd century look like the future.
This movie may not be overloaded with themes and morals the way “The Wrath of Khan” or “The Undiscovered Country” were, but it still has a Star Trek sensibility about the greatness for human (and alien) achievement and that timeless sense that the Characters really will “boldy go where no man has gone before.” This film has been a long time coming, and the franchise is better for it.
The fact that the ship is called the enterprise shows that the writers didn’t understand politics and history.
Spoilers ahead.
I loved how the movie made a point of shoving aside the silly deterministic idea of a ‘time paradox’ if a past person meets his future self. The movie also seemed to be less about attempting to keep in with ‘the rules’ of your typical time travel story and they just did whatever they needed to do to get the job done. I liked it.
However, the star trek society is very confusing. I don’t know where star fleet gets the money to fund their operations.
It’s a centralized bureaucracy. Star Fleet handles interstellar trade, resource exploration, base construction, ship construction, transportation, communication, energy, research, education, …
Personally I don’t know why someone would join Star Fleet. The only reason I could think of is that you get some priviliges, i.e. “more stuff”.
I think the federation is something like the “Alliance” from Firefly/Serenity.
Also, are Vulcans objectivists?
No.
Warning! Spoilers abound!
I can’t remember the last time I was in a film that kept you at a sprinting pace for two hours. Star Trek was a great science fiction show, and the beginnings of a new series (more likely a trilogy) of movies.
You put it very well and saved me some typing.
The fact that the ship is called the enterprise shows that the writers didn’t understand politics and history.
How so? There’s always an Enterprise, yes? Isn’t it usually a fleet flagship? I know the current one is an aircraft carrier.