8

4/8/2009 10:50:25 PM

I really hate the trend of remakes where they cast young, fresh, new actors in the roles. They result is a douched up movie. Either get real actors or don't do a remake at all.


Worst case, this movie ends up being like The O.C. in space with $150 mill explosions.

4/8/2009 11:17:24 PM

Quote :

"The audience thought they were going to see star trek II and 10 minutes of footage from the new movie. Instead they got to see the entire new movie."

I'll bet someone was pissed about not getting to see part 2, aka the only good one.

[Edited on April 9, 2009 at 8:39 AM. Reason : unless they showed them both in their entiretly.]

4/9/2009 8:39:07 AM

They were probably pissed until leonard nimoy came out holding the film canister or whatever. They did a pretty good job too, apparently they started II and after a few minutes the film melted away/"malfunctioned".

4/9/2009 9:36:27 AM

It's a bold move to show a bunch of hardcore Trek geeks the movie without them expecting it. They must be really confident in their product.

4/9/2009 11:35:34 AM

And from most of the reviews stemming from that it went over very well, so I'm excited.

[Edited on April 9, 2009 at 11:45 AM. Reason : ^and yeah, they were so confident pre-screening apparently they were already planning the sequel.]

4/9/2009 11:45:04 AM

IMAX is going to be showing this movie


its going to sell out the first few days at least so buy your tickets early if you want to see it opening weekend

4/28/2009 4:34:43 PM

Quote :

"I really hate the trend of remakes where they cast young, fresh, new actors in the roles. They result is a douched up movie. Either get real actors or don't do a remake at all."

because Shatner and Nimoy are such great actors

[Edited on April 28, 2009 at 4:37 PM. Reason : .]

4/28/2009 4:37:44 PM

yes, the batman remakes were really douchey as well.

4/28/2009 7:05:22 PM

Quote :

"And from most of the reviews stemming from that it went over very well, so I'm excited."

Example? I see some dubious shit on metacritic. I'm also very very suspicious of this movie being any good.

Quote :

"yes, the batman remakes were really douchey as well."

Christian Bale, Michael Caine, and Liam Neeson are hardly "young fresh" actors. And it wasn't directed by the fucking writer from Lost.

[Edited on April 29, 2009 at 9:06 AM. Reason : .]

4/29/2009 9:00:05 AM

I would be more down with this movie if it was not for all this time travel non-sense. Nimoy meets young kirk? STFU. It was this kind of shit that killed Enterprise.

4/29/2009 10:19:06 AM

I dunno what yall are smoking.

If this re-imagining is half as good as the new batmans, it will be fantastic.

4/29/2009 10:35:53 AM

^^ You missed the fourth movie didn't you?

[Edited on April 29, 2009 at 10:37 AM. Reason : .]

4/29/2009 10:37:23 AM

the 4th one was a comedy.

4/29/2009 10:59:44 AM

Talage, the 4th one did not use time travel as an excuse to pull familiar actors back into the story line so that fanboys could get a nut off.

Its really a mother fucking cheat. "You never have to give up on seeing Nimoy as spock again because we can just do some time travel hocus pocus to pull it off." This shit is straight out of bad comic book story arcs. Like when Booster Gold is able to go back in time and save the Blue Beetle. Or they are able to bring Hal Jordan back as the Green Lantern. Weeeeak.

4/29/2009 11:05:39 AM

And another thing!

Why can't they just focus on the story of Spock and Kirk comming into their own? Like there isnt enough material there!? For fucks sake people. We dont need a time-traveling super villian to enjoy shit.

Ditto on Enterprise. Humanity's first independent steps out into the universe and the political struggle with the Vulcans isn't enough for good TV? WTF!!!!

4/29/2009 11:12:34 AM

^agree 100%

4/29/2009 11:37:35 AM

I don't know much about the plot of this movie (really nothing) but I think that time travel gimmicks in movies usually ruin things for me. Sad to hear that may be a factor in this movie. other wise I'm excited for this movie and hope its good.

The only Star Trek I really like though is TNG.

4/29/2009 12:06:44 PM

Don't like half the Star Trek movies revolve around time travel?

4/29/2009 12:09:10 PM

4 does.
generations does to a degree.
first contact does.

4/29/2009 12:23:22 PM

Time travel is a very regular plot device in Star Trek. I guess there's nothing wrong with using time travel, but it's a very difficult thing to pull off just right. The main problem is that it's hard for it to not collapse into a deus ex machina, and thus introduces a means for lazy, uninspired storytelling to take place.

The other problem is that Star Trek perpetually uses it, to the point that it has become the de facto deus ex machina. Members of the main cast are about to die? Let's travel back in time and prevent them from getting into trouble! Enterprise just got set up the bomb? Go back to an earlier time when it still exists! Your timeline has been hopelessly ass-raped? No problem, simply go to a parallel universe (which, if you think about it, is really just another form of time travel) where everything is still ok!

But the deeper issue is that Star Trek has fallen into the trap that many shows fall into; it wants to maintain the status quo. It's always the same main characters, it's always the same problems over and over again (how many fucking times have the holodeck and transporters malfunctioned?), it's almost always the same enemies that the main characters are able to defeat over and over again despite their power level being over 9000. The main characters never actually overcome any challenges, never actually grow or change, and never gain or lose anything. This constant need to make sure that the show remains familiar is what leads to the perpetual pushing of the reset button, and time travel is primarily what lets the writers do that.

There's a lot more I could say, but I'm getting off topic.

[Edited on April 29, 2009 at 12:36 PM. Reason : should've proof-read this shit first]

4/29/2009 12:32:56 PM

lack of ds9 movie makes me sad

4/29/2009 12:58:49 PM

Star Trek doesn't regularly use Time Travel.

Enterprise regularly used time travel.

But that show was a fucking fail the minute Scott Bakula was named captain anyway.

4/29/2009 1:19:30 PM

I'll admit, I was disappointed when I learned this movie would feature a new ego-maniacal villan and time travel.

4/29/2009 1:26:18 PM

Hey! Watch the Scott Bakula trashing here! I've never seen an episode of Enterprise in my life, but my Quantum Leap DVD collection would like to have a word with you.

I purposely avoided Enterprise after the abortions of Voyager and (to a lesser extent) Deep Space Nine.

4/29/2009 1:36:32 PM

what are you talking about? voyager did suck, but deep space 9 is THE best trek series.

4/29/2009 1:47:51 PM

Quote :

"Star Trek doesn't regularly use Time Travel."

Bullshit. Granted that your statement is true for TOS, but its use became more and more frequent as the franchise got older and older, to the point that every other episode of Voyager involved time travel.

4/29/2009 1:51:03 PM

Quote :

"Granted that your statement is true for TOS, but its use became more and more frequent as the franchise got older and older"

On TOS didn't they just get stuck on Nazi Germany planets and 20s gangster planets instead of actually calling it time travel?

4/29/2009 2:04:30 PM

Quote :

"what are you talking about? voyager did suck, but deep space 9 is THE best trek series."

We should nerd fight about this more. Maybe DS9 was well written, but the acting was wooden and the characters were uninspiring.

4/29/2009 2:31:00 PM

^^The given explanation for the nazi thing was that someone from the federation violated the prime directive and taught the natives about nazism. And the chicago gangsters thing was the natives on that planet finding a federation book on the history of chicago or something. There was also another episode where they found two warring tribes; one for communism, and one for capitalism. The capitalism tribe even had an american flag and constitution. Kooky and campy, but not actually time travel.

There were a one or two time travel episodes, but overall TOS had outrageously unbelievable plots for the sake of philosophical exploration. Very few times, if any, was any sort of technobabble explanation given for why they ran into the situations that they did.

4/29/2009 2:44:18 PM

That sounds about right.

4/29/2009 2:47:28 PM

Like technobabble was limited only to the original series..that's what Star Trek is all about! Being nerdy, not being cool and hip. That's why I'm dubious of this Star Trek for the masses version.

4/29/2009 3:01:33 PM

heh, i dont know what you're talking about. Star Trek has always been cool

4/29/2009 3:07:12 PM

Kirk fucks the green chick - thus is cool.

/thread

4/29/2009 3:22:43 PM

Quote :

"This constant need to make sure that the show remains familiar is what leads to the perpetual pushing of the reset button, and time travel is primarily what lets the writers do that."

YES!!!!

Better than I could have said it.

The need to preserve the status quo and keep the show familiar ruined Enterprise and will ruin this movie.

4/29/2009 4:01:48 PM

Quote :

"Talage, the 4th one did not use time travel as an excuse to pull familiar actors back into the story line so that fanboys could get a nut off."

Well when you put it that way the time travel sounds a lot shittier.

4/29/2009 7:33:25 PM

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/

wow this is getting some good reviews.

4/29/2009 8:20:06 PM

I'll wait until there are more than 14 reviews, but I guess this is encouraging.

4/29/2009 8:23:10 PM

yeah usually good movies start at 100% then drop from there, but this is encouraging. i was going to be so disappointed if this sucked.

4/29/2009 8:24:45 PM

Read: http://www.scifimoviepage.com/star_trek-2009.html
(one of the reviews on rottentomatoes)

Here's some tidbits:

Quote :

"Star Trek may feature younger actors playing iconic figures from the original Star Trek series such as Spock, Captain Kirk, Scotty, et al, but long-time Star Trek fans had better forget everything they know about the intricate Star Trek universe."

Quote :

"The many liberties Abrams takes with these iconic characters are bound to infuriate anal trekkies."

Quote :

"Which brings us to our point: this is a Trek designed for people who don’t actually like Trek"

Quote :

"Long-time fans will probably be best served by a reciting a mantra that goes something like “this isn’t real Star Trek, but it doesn’t matter” while watching it."

Like I thought: Star Trek for the masses. Bleargh.

4/30/2009 9:38:15 AM

I'm realy starting to think they should have just done a reboot, like batman and james bond.

4/30/2009 9:44:34 AM

^ that's what Star Trek 11 is, my friend.

4/30/2009 11:29:30 AM

Then why does everyone (creators and fans) keep going on about cannon?

4/30/2009 11:40:55 AM

^ because Batman and the new Bond dealt with their subjects more seriously than the previous movies.

By current accounts, this new movie does the opposite with Star Trek.

4/30/2009 11:43:23 AM

^^

[Edited on April 30, 2009 at 11:46 AM. Reason : ]

4/30/2009 11:46:07 AM

Quote :

"Read: http://www.scifimoviepage.com/star_trek-2009.html (one of the reviews on rottentomatoes) Here's some tidbits:"

Then again that is only ONE review.

http://www.cinematical.com/2009/04/07/early-star-trek-reviews-seem-very-positive/

Quote :

""The big question on my mind right now as I type this is: "Was it Star Trek?" I'm still on the fence about this one. Parts of it definitely "felt" like Star Trek -- certainly much more than the later Next Generation films or heck, all of Voyager. Honestly, I think I need to see it again to make that judgement. But I gotta tell you, that's a personal call, and in the end it just doesn't matter -- this hard-core Trekkie still enjoyed the film. I'm glad I saw it, and I'll definitely go back to see it a second time. It's a rock-solid 3 out of 4 star movie for me." Reader Review, AICN "

Quote :

""It's a true reset to the franchise, and honors everything Roddenberry did with the original series, yet sets everything up for completely new stories. The characters we know and love are there, and some of the surprising casting worked amazingly well. Chris Pine does an outstanding job as a younger Kirk, paying homage to Shatner yet making the role completely his own. He's not alone; all the primary characters are revitalized. The chief complaint was not enough Simon Pegg time." Jenn Brown, Slackerwood"

Quote :

"Like I thought: Star Trek for the masses. Bleargh."

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.

4/30/2009 2:14:08 PM

Quote :

"I really hate the trend of remakes where they cast young, fresh, new actors in the roles. They result is a douched up movie."

You know what's worse? Using too many older, well-known actors that crowd up the screen. See Batman&Robin for details.

4/30/2009 2:27:03 PM

^exactly. The purpose was to appeal to a new audience and establish a new fan base, and from some reviews i've read they're still sticking true to old Star Trek fans too.

didn't know you were a trekky.

4/30/2009 3:28:15 PM

I don't usually trust reviews, but especially reviews where it's insinuated Voyager doesn't "feel like Star Trek"

*ducks*

But seriously, I love voyager. Way more than DS9, which I didn't really like at all. Don't know what to think about Enterprise really, haven't seen enough to judge.

4/30/2009 5:18:03 PM

Quote :

"I don't usually trust reviews"

sarcasm right? That's like saying, "i don't trust what people say". I mean it's fine to find out for yourself, but since the beginning of time critics have been an important part of any form of media. you can disagree with one reviewer, but you can't make a blanket statement saying, "you don't usually trust" all reviewers. that's like saying you don't trust anyone's opinion on the movie, so why would you discuss it in the first place?

i am a voyager fan though.

4/30/2009 6:24:20 PM