Author Topic: Star Trek 2009  (Read 6128 times)

Offline Beefcake

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2285
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #60 on: May 12, 2009, 02:18:20 AM »
Near the beginning, after the bar fight scene, Capt. Pike says something to Kirk about his scores being off the chart, hinting to me at least that he was damn smart just not really interested in joining.
Retired Bomber Dweeb - 71 "Eagle" Squadron RAF

Offline Serenity

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7313
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #61 on: May 12, 2009, 02:22:46 AM »
I've never really watched Star Trek (I'm a Star Wars guy, ISD Mk II FTW!!!) but my best friend is, and she dragged me, her boyfriend and his brother to see it friday night. It was actually fun to watch, and I loved seeing Simon Pegg as Scotty. I realized that Spock looks, sounds, and talks EXACTLY like a kid in my A.P. History class, which is kinda funny.

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #62 on: May 12, 2009, 07:44:07 AM »
Most of the complaining is done by a vocal minority (you); this thread is a perfect example of that. The new Star Trek movie is climbing the IMDB charts as we speak, and is now the #59 most popular movie ever. That's what counts. That's what makes money.

And Pearl Harbor made almost $450 million. So I guess the technical inaccuracies mean squat since money is all that matters.

 :rolleyes:
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline druski85

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1212
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #63 on: May 12, 2009, 08:16:45 AM »
Quasi-spoiler alert...even though this whole thread is :)

This may sound strange, but I enjoyed most aspects EXCEPT the plot of this movie.  I loved the throw backs to the original characters and their quirks. (particuarly Karl Urban as McCoy...awesome)  I felt like they did a great job encompassing the spirit of the original series.  The battles were both enticing and exciting, especially the first one.  Effects were of course pretty...which is nowadays standard I suppose. 
However the plot I thought was lacking in many, many ways.  Everything felt waaaay too coincidental and in a way, gimmicky.  Characters seemed shoved together by a weird twisting scheme which felt forced.  (Kirk meeting old Spock being the worst of the encounters) However, even this I could ignore, since after all I get to see my beloved characters coming of age and interacting for the first time with one another.

However, what I could not ignore was the decision to use the "alternate reality created through a black hole" plot "twist."  Basing the entire movie on the "alernate reality" concept and encompassing every cliche "I can't meet myself but I will anyway!" moment was really irritating.  I realize they did this in a few episodes over the course of the several shows, but of the movies I expect more.  As soon as you bring in time-travel of any sort you immediately discredit your entire plot and by extension every plot of every show or movie which became before.  You fall into the "terminator" cycle, wherein you may as well just keep going back 1 minute earlier than you did last time, in order to make everything "right."  Ugh.  Shame on you, writers. 

Anyway, in the end it is still worth seeing, no doubt.  Particuarly for those of us who enjoyed the original series...I really do think they did a good job with the characters.  See the movie, it is certainly worth it.  But this is not the epic which I was so desperately wanting.  Also, I completely agree Wrath of Khan is the best, followed perhaps by First Contact and the Undiscovered Country.

Offline druski85

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1212
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #64 on: May 12, 2009, 08:25:55 AM »
Now that my Star Trek review is done....

Seriously, you're comparing the butchering of Pearl Harbor to the butchering of Star Trek?  Lets flush this one out a bit.

Pearl Harbor: Real Event.  Over 2,000 people killed.  Pulled the United States into a global conflict which would re-shape the history of the 20th century.

Star Trek:  Fictional story/universe. 

End of argument.

Offline Tango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1421
      • http://www.simpilots.org/
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #65 on: May 12, 2009, 09:06:58 AM »
And Pearl Harbor made almost $450 million. So I guess the technical inaccuracies mean squat since money is all that matters.

 :rolleyes:

It flopped as well considering the amount of money they spent to make and market it.
Tango78
78th Razorbacks
Historical Air Combat Group

Offline Tango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1421
      • http://www.simpilots.org/
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #66 on: May 12, 2009, 09:12:07 AM »
However, what I could not ignore was the decision to use the "alternate reality created through a black hole" plot "twist."  Basing the entire movie on the "alernate reality" concept and encompassing every cliche "I can't meet myself but I will anyway!" moment was really irritating.  I realize they did this in a few episodes over the course of the several shows, but of the movies I expect more.  As soon as you bring in time-travel of any sort you immediately discredit your entire plot and by extension every plot of every show or movie which became before.  You fall into the "terminator" cycle, wherein you may as well just keep going back 1 minute earlier than you did last time, in order to make everything "right."  Ugh.  Shame on you, writers. 

Of course if you figure in that in Enterprise they had Federation time cops that went back in time to stop events like this from happening makes you wonder why they did this.

The REAL answer? Hollywood can't come up with any good original ideas that they simply rewrite the old ones. 
Tango78
78th Razorbacks
Historical Air Combat Group

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #67 on: May 12, 2009, 09:18:06 AM »
When I go to see a movie or turn on a TV program I don't just look at character, plot, pacing, action, SFX. I see the universe as a whole and its mythology. I LOVE mythology and seeing the way it affects everything else. And it's why it annoys me to no end seeing franchises toss that mythology into the dumpster. It's why the BSG remake pissed me off. They established this internal mythology, and then rather than resolve what it left hanging (as with most people, I don't acknowledge Galactica 80 as part of the "canon") they dumped it instead.

Tango,

I LOVED that episode.

Sisko: "It was the Enterprise!"

Cop #1: "Which one?"

Sisko: "The original."

Cop #2: "Oh... HIM...."

ROFL!
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #68 on: May 12, 2009, 09:27:34 AM »
Yeah, but you are a rare breed Saxman. Far too rare to make a noteworthy part of the demographics. Perhaps sad, but still true. There is a saying in Hollyweird: Movies made for fans do not work.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline APDrone

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3384
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #69 on: May 12, 2009, 09:33:46 AM »
*********** SPOILER ****************
*********** SPOILER ****************


Ok, Saxman.. what did you think about the skydiving scene where it was completely silent in the external view, except for the breathing ( reminiscent of Kubrik and 2001, A Space Odyssey ) ?  Then having sound when they entered the atmosphere and punched through the sound barrier.

I was impressed.  Seems like they got a little away from that with the battle scenes, though.. I guess I better go see it again to make sure..



AKDrone

Scenario "Masters of the Air" X.O. 100th Bombardment Group


Offline druski85

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1212
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #70 on: May 12, 2009, 11:33:41 AM »
Ok, Saxman.. what did you think about the skydiving scene where it was completely silent in the external view, except for the breathing ( reminiscent of Kubrik and 2001, A Space Odyssey ) ?  Then having sound when they entered the atmosphere and punched through the sound barrier.

I was impressed.  Seems like they got a little away from that with the battle scenes, though.. I guess I better go see it again to make sure..


I'm with you drone.  I think they did a good job with silence in multiple locations.  The first was the initial battle, when the female gets sucked out of the breach in the Kelvin.  You hear the "nooooo" scream until she leaves the atmosphere of the ship, then you just see all the chaos and weapons, but hear nothing at all.  The diving scene was another great one.  I feel like there was a third later on...but I don't recall where.

This is exactly what I mean though...I really enjoyed how the movie was made, but the plot was just unforgivable.  There was still too much fire and explosions, considering they are fighting in a vacuum :)  But hey I've yet to see a single sci-fi show/movie that pulls that one off.  (and no, there isn't THAT much O2 pouring out of the armor plates of the ships :) )

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #71 on: May 12, 2009, 11:38:50 AM »
There was still too much fire and explosions, considering they are fighting in a vacuum :)  But hey I've yet to see a single sci-fi show/movie that pulls that one off.  (and no, there isn't THAT much O2 pouring out of the armor plates of the ships :) )

And you know this how?
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline druski85

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1212
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #72 on: May 12, 2009, 11:45:44 AM »
And you know this how?

I suppose I don't.  Just doesn't really make any sense. 

In AH terms, that's like ripping out the self-sealing tank material and putting in a layer of explosive that detonates on kinetic impact.  No one (except maybe the A6M designers :) ) would design an airplane like that...why make a spaceship that way?  You would want your most explosive compounds (yes, concentrated O2 is quite volatile) safely hidden in the depths of the ship, I would think. 

Offline Chalenge

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15179
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #73 on: May 12, 2009, 11:56:06 AM »
The first was the initial battle, when the female gets sucked out of the breach in the Kelvin.

I think you mean 'blown out.'
If you like the Sick Puppy Custom Sound Pack the please consider contributing for future updates by sending a months dues to Hitech Creations for account "Chalenge." Every little bit helps.

Offline druski85

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1212
Re: Star Trek 2009
« Reply #74 on: May 12, 2009, 11:58:17 AM »
I think you mean 'blown out.'

I do, thanks  :aok  And not like the hair-cut on Long Island.

Equalizing pressure in a matter of seconds sure is fun.