Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Yeah i had a problem with that, wouldn't boring a several meter wide hole through the entire core cause a volcanic eruption as well? Unless Vulcan has a solid core...

Ampoliros wrote:Yeah i had a problem with that, wouldn't boring a several meter wide hole through the entire core cause a volcanic eruption as well? Unless Vulcan has a solid core...

I'd expect a planet with the name "Vulcan" to have at least one VOLCANO.

The idea that they had to dig a hole for the bomb to get to the center of the planet in was garbage too - a black hole starting on the surface, or even in bloody orbit, would do the trick nicely.

That would have made the movie muuuuuch shorter though...

A Thing of Eternity wrote:The idea that they had to dig a hole for the bomb to get to the center of the planet in was garbage too - a black hole starting on the surface, or even in bloody orbit, would do the trick nicely.

That would have made the movie muuuuuch shorter though...

...And you would not need a giant Romulan mining ship armed to the teeth by Edward's scissorshands...

Fuck the Warbirds, Romulans should have built a shit load of those...

I want to yell at so many people "OMG STAR TREK HAS NEVER MADE ANY GODDAMN SENSE, ESPECIALLY LATELY. JUST SHUT UP AND ENJOY IT, IT'S FUN!"

Yeah, but it was Star Trek nonsense. Now that's ruined with J.J. Fucking "Oy, I'm the Second Coming!" Abrams' bullshit "I know better so let's reboot!"

Feh.

Usually I hate J.J. Abrams, but somehow I didn't hate this.

I mean, I would have liked it if DS9 and Voyager, and especially Enterprise had made more sense, but after Enterprise, I gave up on the series ever making sense again, so I just enjoyed the movie as a "what if".

I really liked the Birth of Kirk bit at the beginning. ALOT.

Absolutely HATED the Kirk-takes a joyride-and-blasts-Beastie-Boys scene.

Young Spock reminded me of DANE COOK for some reason.

Old Spock came across as an old gay man hoping his adopted son sticks with the home team, and was really pathetic.

Checkov was some kid doing a BORAT impression.

Engineering looked like a boiler room.

Uhura and Spock?

That villian... possible contender for Vaguest Bad Guy award.

Bones was great, thought a bit forced. The origin of his nickname... ugh.

Nope. No Sir. I did not like this movie. Had high hopes though.

I didn't like it either. Thought it had good sfx and acting, but the plot didn't make much sense and the movie gave no reason to care at all about the characters except that we should care they are the "original" crew members of Enterprise. I also only found the opening attack the best part of the movie. The only surprise, to me at least, was that Vulcan was destroyed and time-travel wasn't used to undo that.

-TheDisgruntledTleszer

I think the introduction of Spock and Scotty was really crap...and who was that midget stuck with Scotty ?!

Overall, i was please, because my expectations were low...but this is really a new Trek for a new generation, not for me...

I feel fucking old, like Kirk did in Wrath of Khan...

I think i would have like a reboot, 100 years in the future, but after Nemesis...

Nemesis ... ugh. (KJA wrote that one, right?) Utter cream of the crap.

SandChigger wrote:Nemesis ... ugh. (KJA wrote that one, right?) Utter cream of the crap.

IIRC, Rick Berman wrote that one...he did to Trek (with Enterprise) what KJA did to Dune so...

Rakis wrote:

SandChigger wrote:Nemesis ... ugh. (KJA wrote that one, right?) Utter cream of the crap.

IIRC, Rick Berman wrote that one...he did to Trek (with Enterprise) what KJA did to Dune so...

fo realz, dawg.

came across a great quote while reading some other Trek stuff. It comes from someone pondering how Nero's Mining Ship was so bad-ass. (If'n you've read the prequel-graphic novel "Countdown" you'll know its because the Romulans put it in a shake n bake with their best new weapons and a borg nano virus, making the ship the first half-elf cyborg.)

But without that knowledge, the poster had this to say:

They must have some mean ass rocks in the Romulan empire.

Ampoliros wrote:came across a great quote while reading some other Trek stuff. It comes from someone pondering how Nero's Mining Ship was so bad-ass. (If'n you've read the prequel-graphic novel "Countdown" you'll know its because the Romulans put it in a shake n bake with their best new weapons and a borg nano virus, making the ship the first half-elf cyborg.)

But without that knowledge, the poster had this to say:

They must have some mean ass rocks in the Romulan empire.

Love it.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

GamePlayer wrote: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.

There are types of Supernovas that it can easily sterilize a galaxy. Like some events of gamma ray bursts related to the death of very massive stars. These events are between the most violent in the universe. So, I don't think the movie was too wrong about that.

Lisan Al-Gaib wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

GamePlayer wrote: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.

There are types of Supernovas that it can easily sterilize a galaxy. Like some events of gamma ray bursts related to the death of very massive stars. These events are between the most violent in the universe. So, I don't think the movie was too wrong about that.

Well, it's trek, you know...everything is a threat to the galaxy when James T. Kirk is around...

Maybe they should just kill Kirk...the Galaxy would be safer...

Why don't we just take a hint from orald and kill Abrams and the entire cast of the new movie?

Show the little bastard what REBOOT can really mean.

SandChigger wrote:Why don't we just take a hint from orald and kill Abrams and the entire cast of the new movie?

Show the little bastard what REBOOT can really mean.

Meh...

Kill Paramount too... just to be sure...

I don't really care that the new Star Trek movie is a reboot or the effect it has upon established Trek canon. I think they did the right thing in making this movie just 100% fluff and went for entertainment as the driving priority. J.J. Abrams is just a crowd-pleaser director anyway. He's got his finger on the current pulse of popular culture, so he was the right man with the right idea at the right time. But the movie didn't grab me the way other, smarter films do and I'm not enticed to get "into Trek" via this film.

The new Star Trek movie was an enjoyable diversion in what has so far been a very dry summer at the theatre, but nothing more than that. I won't be buying the DVD to slavishly re-watch it. It's just not the kind of movie with any deep subtext worth examining further, or any masterful dialog of which you can't get enough, or an amazing performance that is like watching art in motion. But having said that, the new Star Trek movie should make for a good choice of last resort when I'm in a social situation in which the group is debating what to watch from a friend's extensive, albeit wanting DVD collection (turns up nose). Given the options I am typically cornered with ("So, should we all watch Transformers or Spider-Man 3?"), Star Trek should make for a good compromise selection

Just watched the movie today.

No thanks...

Points for the casting, but the story wasn't good.
Time travel for the nth freaking time and one of the old characters showing up.
Bads guys in the same crappy dark type of outfits, yet the ultra invincible ship.
Busy little miner during those 25 years wasn't he...
(I actually was ready to walk out of the theatre which I've only done twice in my life.)
Sure, the movie was just for entertainment, but the whole time travel bit is over done and obviously srewing with the original only so they could reboot the franchise.


(Now that I give this some more thought before hitting submit, as I listened to the words of the mission of the Enterprise at the end of the movie, I thought that was what the movie should've been about, keeping the original Roddenberry spirit. I walked away from the movie with any personal interest in Star Trek about as done and withered as the old Spock in the movie.)

Was it time travel? If so how did Spock Sr. remember things that didn't happen? I thought that they went into a parallel universe with time moving at a slower rate (not that that's much better...).

GamePlayer wrote:Given the options I am typically cornered with ("So, should we all watch Transformers or Spider-Man 3?)

My gawd, man, you're ... strong. Me, faced with that kind of shit, I'd tap into former magical powers and make my head explode like a McDune proto-BG bimbomb.

SadisticCynic wrote:Was it time travel? If so how did Spock Sr. remember things that didn't happen? I thought that they went into a parallel universe with time moving at a slower rate (not that that's much better...).

Ah, the Michael Crichton Timeline approach to time travel.

Isn't it kind of assumed that a traveler is immune to any changes caused in the time line? Trick is to just keep moving.