Star Trek (2009)

[GamePlayer]

Just saw the film. The best way I could describe the film succinctly would be to call it wonderfully absurd.

The plot integrity is tenuous at best and the science is ludicrous, but you rarely give a crap because all the other cylinders in this engine are firing on full. The casting is near perfect, the characterizations are spot on, the acting is up to the challenge, the humor offers real laughs, the special effects are exciting and there is rarely a moment when you're not entertained. Intelligent movie making this is not, but Star Trek works as pure fluff entertainment; more Iron Man than The Dark Knight.

I will say that what the movie lacks in brains it makes up for with guts. The writers drag the characters through hell and don't let up. While the finale is satisfying, this is one Star Trek story that irrevocably shakes the foundation of it's own fictional universe. Same old Trek but new rules.

I'd give it a 4 out of 5. I know it's become cliche to compare every blockbuster to The Dark Knight, but the fact is Trek will be measured against that modern benchmark. It cannot take the crown, but Star Trek delivers as promised the best it can.

[Ampoliros]

/agree

I read the prequel graphic novel that came out, and wonderfully absurd is the best way to describe it as well.

I wouldn't consider Dark Knight as a benchmark of summer blockbusters, because I don't consider it to be in the same league as summer blockbusters. To do so would be unfair.

I suggested to my friends that the cast and crew from Galaxy Quest should play the Mirror Mirror versions of Kirk et al. in Trek (1)2.

[Mandy]

Just saw it, it was really great. Loved the humor, the acting, and the special effects were outrageous.

I didn't think The Dark Knight was that great. I'm not into comic book films in general though. Iron Man was pretty good, in a fun action film way. The new ST movie compares better to Iron Man than The Dark Knight.

[trang]

I give it 3 out of 5 lasguns... Entertaining for sure...Just to easily deconstructed and agreed wonderously absurd.

I had not known the casting, and was pleaseantly surprised by Scotty(shaun of the dead, Hot fuzz anyone?) wish he was introduced sooner in the film. Mccoy was perfect. JT Kirk? eh.
Harold and Kumar star as Sulu? eh. Sylar as Spock was fair.


It had a very "industrial" vs "smooth and Polish" feel, which I didnt like, and I felt a little claustrophobic by the cinematography. Everything was very "Close Up" in your face, just need to zoom out a tad.

Without ruining film... I went in hopeing for a complete release from the original storyline and the new crew embarking on the different. The anchoring of the logic of the film with the most famous vulcan of all time, lessoned the impact I think.

Overall thing that turned me off was the soundtrack, it was very weak, it did not grab me at all. The Opening score was hollow and distant, didnt even seem to match. 5 tv shows, 10 movies, and everyone of those had the music right, this film did not.

My two cents, look forward to discussion, though... on to terminator: salvation the 21st!!

Live long and Prosper!

[Spicelon]

Hmmm. GP, while I admit that I enjoyed Dark Knight immensely, I thought Batman Begins was easily the
better film. And yeah I don't think Dark Knight is going to have squat on this movie - benchmark my ass.
This movie has stirred up the proverbial hornets nest with all the Trek factions, in a way that the Batman
franchise just doesn't and can't equal. THAT will be what this film is judged against.

[Drunken Idaho]

Hmmm. GP, while I admit that I enjoyed Dark Knight immensely, I thought Batman Begins was easily the better film.

Agreed 100%! Batman Begins was solid. Iron Man was alright, but pathetic compared to the recent Batman films and even to The Watchmen.

That said, Star Trek was okay. I like how they've managed to reboot the series, while simultaneously keeping it nestled into the canonicity of the Star Trek everyone already knows. Now, they can have everything happen all over again but in new and exciting ways for blockbuster after blockbuster... Nimoy's little monologue at the end should have gone more like, "These are the voyages of starship Enterprise. Its five-picture deal with Paramount, to seek out new life and new civilizations..." Oh, and if you wanted to avoid spoilers, you probably shouldn't have read this paragraph...

Oh, and apparently they'll still be listening to the Beastie Boys in 400 years...

And what's with that stupid, ugly, climbing, little engineer guy? What a crazy, kooky, cute little character he is! That got old fast. Here's a scene from Star Trek 2: What Do The Enterprise And Toilet-Paper Have In Common?:

Scotty: Reight ceptain, way've go' a setuation weth the Warp Coils! Coode Red!
Rocky the Rockmoidian: Mee mee Murr Murr!
Scotty: Aye, it wes just Rocky! Get deoown from there!
Entire Crew Shrugging in Unison: Ro-cky!

And trang, I agree about the cinematography, a little overly crazy, but I didn't mind it too much.

I didn't care for Kirk or McCoy much at all. Kirk was just unremarkable, and Bones seemed too much to be trying to be Bones, yet failing most of the time. Although probably the funniest part would be the repeated injections. They'll need to work on that whole Jim-Bones-Spock thing for the the following films.

[Ampoliros]

And trang, I agree about the cinematography, a little overly crazy, but I didn't mind it too much.

Yeah I hate how some action films do this, where there is a big action scene and you have no idea whats going on because the camera is waaaay to close, or at very very odd angles. I feel like the director is attempting to show the chaos of being in battle, but thats not what we go to the movies for.

[Freakzilla]

Oh, and apparently they'll still be listening to the Beastie Boys in 400 years...

Was there ever a doubt?

[A Thing of Eternity]

Just saw the film. The best way I could describe the film succinctly would be to call it wonderfully absurd.

The plot integrity is tenuous at best and the science is ludicrous, but you rarely give a crap because all the other cylinders in this engine are firing on full. The casting is near perfect, the characterizations are spot on, the acting is up to the challenge, the humor offers real laughs, the special effects are exciting and there is rarely a moment when you're not entertained. Intelligent movie making this is not, but Star Trek works as pure fluff entertainment; more Iron Man than The Dark Knight.

I will say that what the movie lacks in brains it makes up for with guts. The writers drag the characters through hell and don't let up. While the finale is satisfying, this is one Star Trek story that irrevocably shakes the foundation of it's own fictional universe. Same old Trek but new rules.

I'd give it a 4 out of 5. I know it's become cliche to compare every blockbuster to The Dark Knight, but the fact is Trek will be measured against that modern benchmark. It cannot take the crown, but Star Trek delivers as promised the best it can.

SLIGHT SPOILER

I agree, the science (and science based plot, like the "super nova" somehow threatened the galaxy???? Whaaaaaaatt?) made me want to cry, but it was otherwise great.

[Robspierre]

Fucking Awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Abrams pulled it off, nuff said.

Rob

[loremaster]

Just saw the film. The best way I could describe the film succinctly would be to call it wonderfully absurd.

The plot integrity is tenuous at best and the science is ludicrous, but you rarely give a crap because all the other cylinders in this engine are firing on full. The casting is near perfect, the characterizations are spot on, the acting is up to the challenge, the humor offers real laughs, the special effects are exciting and there is rarely a moment when you're not entertained. Intelligent movie making this is not, but Star Trek works as pure fluff entertainment; more Iron Man than The Dark Knight.

I will say that what the movie lacks in brains it makes up for with guts. The writers drag the characters through hell and don't let up. While the finale is satisfying, this is one Star Trek story that irrevocably shakes the foundation of it's own fictional universe. Same old Trek but new rules.

I'd give it a 4 out of 5. I know it's become cliche to compare every blockbuster to The Dark Knight, but the fact is Trek will be measured against that modern benchmark. It cannot take the crown, but Star Trek delivers as promised the best it can.

SLIGHT SPOILER

I agree, the science (and science based plot, like the "super nova" somehow threatened the galaxy???? Whaaaaaaatt?) made me want to cry, but it was otherwise great.

bigger spoiler...














THAT bothered you more than time travel, or happily orbitting black holes?

heh.

[TheDukester]

I didn't think The Dark Knight was that great.

Seconded. It's not even the best movie in its own series, let alone some sort of gift to cinema.

It sure sold a few tickets, though, didn't it? Man, I almost can't believe some of the figures I've seen.

[GamePlayer]

This list is required reading

9 Silly Things About "Star Trek" We Can't Help But Laugh At

#2 is my fav

[A Thing of Eternity]

Just saw the film. The best way I could describe the film succinctly would be to call it wonderfully absurd.

The plot integrity is tenuous at best and the science is ludicrous, but you rarely give a crap because all the other cylinders in this engine are firing on full. The casting is near perfect, the characterizations are spot on, the acting is up to the challenge, the humor offers real laughs, the special effects are exciting and there is rarely a moment when you're not entertained. Intelligent movie making this is not, but Star Trek works as pure fluff entertainment; more Iron Man than The Dark Knight.

I will say that what the movie lacks in brains it makes up for with guts. The writers drag the characters through hell and don't let up. While the finale is satisfying, this is one Star Trek story that irrevocably shakes the foundation of it's own fictional universe. Same old Trek but new rules.

I'd give it a 4 out of 5. I know it's become cliche to compare every blockbuster to The Dark Knight, but the fact is Trek will be measured against that modern benchmark. It cannot take the crown, but Star Trek delivers as promised the best it can.

SLIGHT SPOILER

I agree, the science (and science based plot, like the "super nova" somehow threatened the galaxy???? Whaaaaaaatt?) made me want to cry, but it was otherwise great.

bigger spoiler...














THAT bothered you more than time travel, or happily orbitting black holes?

heh.

The time travel was bad, but it was necessary, and it is a well accepted motif in SF, and as such is forgivable, though timetravel SF remains one of my least loved types.

As for the happily orbiting black hole (I assume you mean orbiting earth as per an earlier comment), I could be wrong but I remember them warping away a few minutes before that all went down. I'm pretty sure that black hole is off in interstellar space.

[SandChigger]

I'm reading the "9 Silly Things" list and thinking, "Tyler Perry? Who dat?"

Oh ... the black crossdresser? Oh, jeez.

This sounds worse and worse the more I hear.

I'll still go see it, though.

[Rakis]

This list is required reading

9 Silly Things About "Star Trek" We Can't Help But Laugh At

#2 is my fav

The Cave of Coincidence...

Sounds like something in the new Dune books...

"The Sietch of inconsistencies..."

[SadisticCynic]

Ahh, Nostalgia...

Been a few years since I last watched a Star Trek movie. I just watched the new one and I thought it was fantastic. A few of the plot details are a little irksome but those are mostly science-related (what is red matter?).

Anyway, a good film.

Edit: Just found it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_matter...

[SandChigger]

That page is up for deletion (rightly so, given its limited significance), so here's the current version:

Red matter is a fictional substance that appears in J.J. Abrams' 2009 film Star Trek, which creates a stable black hole when it comes in contact with nuclear matter. As a mysterious liquid that can be used to create a weapon of mass destruction it is reminiscent of the mythical red mercury, purported to be necessary for the construction of nuclear weapons.

In the lead-in comic book Star Trek: Countdown the rare mineral decalithium is processed into red matter so that a black hole can be created to avert an impending natural disaster. In the movie, a small amount of red matter is used to destroy the planet Vulcan.

In the latter event, the gravitational pull of the planet had increased enough to endanger the orbiting Enterprise, which suggests the red matter added additional mass to the world, either by pulling such matter from another parallel universe or because the additional bulk was contained in the red matter, suspended in a matrix that neutralizes its gravity and inertia.

Ah, so they destroy Vulcan in the movie? So much for continuity, huh. And why they're calling this a reboot.

Ugh. The action sequences and CG better be plenty spectacular to cover up the BS.

[Mandy]

It's an alternate timeline, continuity is not necessary, lol.

[SandChigger]

Now why didn't BoBo Herbherb or Al-Kjaeda think of that simple solution?!

Oh yeah ... they have to be writing THE REAL DUNE CONTINUATION.

Yawn.

[trang]

yep its alternate timeline, Same crew, same type ship, different adventures, and they go out of their way to explain it. Not the thinking persons startrek for sure. Its face up to the fishbowl action sequences, to close for my tastes. I detested the effects for warp drive. Abrupt, uncontrolled, and noisy, made me think about a dirt track racing car.

[trang]

As for the "red matter" thinking, it works for the storyline I guess, but looking at it seemed kinda strange. It looks like the giant red ball in the Revlon cosmetic commercials. In the Ship with the field that has the ball suspended, the ball is the size of an 18 wheeler tire. Yet to accomplish the task of imploding a planet to make a gravity well, it only takes a seringe full. Talk about inconsistancy.

Think of it this way (if you even care to think about it at all, dont blame ya:) We are in a plant creating nuclear weapons... we need the key ingrediant, plutonium. Instead of someone bringing in the small amount like we have grown used to seeing, a guy in a dump truck backs in and dumps tons of plutonium on the floor and they just shovel a load into the weapon. Does that make sense?

Im just saying, if you can produce enough refined "red matter" from that imaginary decathaloninum or what ever it was, to store it in a giant red mass the size of a medicine ball, everyone would have that kind of weapon, and the galaxy would be a gravity well mine field. One planet gets pissed at another they just race to build the red matter missle that burrows to the core of opposition planet and we have two new hazards to navigation:)

Next movies are STAR TREK: REVLON RED BALL WARS!!!

Silly.

[SadisticCynic]

I was going to ask if continuity would suffer here, but I didn't want to be the one responsible...

Vulcan getting destroyed did seem weird to me because in one of the Star Trek movies Spock and McCoy go to Vulcan to get Spock's memory back (or something like that; I missed alot of the meaning behind things when I first watched Star Trek due to my general ignorance at that age plus I rarely got to see any of the episodes...).

As for the red matter, I kept waiting for even some sort of attempted explanation but none was forthcoming.

But again, nostalgia on full blast.

[Spicelon]

Just saw this yesterday, and I thought it was....really, really good. High octane from start to finish, and some really good channeling of the original cast by the new kids. However, I do have to scratch my head at the plot. I've said before this franchise was on life-support and needed a serious face lift, but the new timeline is pretty in-your-face to the core fan base.

How much you wanna bet that "Star Trek 15" will be about the convergence of the two timelines?

[GamePlayer]

Actually, I have a rather funny spin on the whole "red matter" plot hole.

My friend the Trekkie is also a geologist. She objected to the method they used to insert the red matter into the core of a planet. She said that a planet becomes more dense and experiences much greater pressure the further down you go. Once the Romulan drilling beam actually stopped, she said the "drilled corridor" they had created would instantly collapse in upon itself and it would be like the hole never existed. She used the analogy of a straw in a milkshake; once you remove the straw, the hole disappears.

I liked that one