Harry, I can't believe how great the new Star Trek movie is. Leaving the Drafthouse at just past midnight, I felt alive and invincible and in a state only truly great movies put me in. Walking past so many security guards, I had my suspicions that we wouldn't actually be watching Wrath of Khan. However, the shock of seeing Leonard Nimoy walking on stage after the film for Khan "broke" was almost too much. But, as he explained what we would really be watching, I started wondering if it was such a great idea gathering a room full of people expecting to celebrate the pinnacle of the Star Trek universe and pulling a bait and switch. It turns out it was. I'm glad they invited the comparison, because this movie bests Khan much the way Kirk did. There's a reason why this got moved from Christmas to summer. J.J. Abrams really did it. He has revitalized the franchise. He made a movie that is smart and funny and charming and thrilling and reverent and is totally accessible to people who previously thought Star Trek was not for them. I thought I was one of those people. While I enjoyed all of the even numbered Star Trek films until Nemesis, I never felt the desire to go back and watch the original series or Next Generation... until seeing this film. Now I just want to plunge head first into Star Trek and fill in all stories I missed out on by preferring Star Wars as a kid. I suddenly care more about Vulcans and Romulans and Star Fleet. This is the kind of movie that will inspire fervent devotion and love the way the original trilogy did. This is the kind of movie that the Star Wars prequels should have been. With this movie, the Trekkies have won the argument. Right now Star Trek is the most exciting Science Fiction franchise. And I never thought I'd say that. Stop worrying about the cast. They're perfect. Stop worrying about the director. He brought a visual flair the series has mostly lacked, without sacrificing the story. Stop worrying about whether it's canonical or not. There is a satisfying explanation to anything you think you might have a problem with. In fact, Just stop worrying, period. You've finally gotten the Star Trek movie that you've always wanted. Enjoy it. I know I will for years and years to come. -GAH!Now here's one from a long time Trekkie who isn't as enthusiastic, but seems to have enjoyed it, giving it a 3 out of 4 star review.
Hi Harry - Long time reader, first time e-mailer here. I was among the lucky ones at the Drafthouse tonight to see "Star Trek" (I can send you a picture of my signed poster if you need proof:-) I'm definitely what you'd call a hard-core Trekkie. I grew up in the 70's hooked on re-runs of the old show. I have strong memories of going to see "The Motion Picture" and "Wrath of Khan" in theaters. I remember borrowing my brother's copy of "The Entropy Effect" (the first Star Trek novel) as soon as he was done reading it. I still have my original ticket stub for "Search for Spock". In '91, I sat through a marathon of (then) all 5 movies, including "The Final Frontier". Well, you get the idea. Tonight, I was THRILLED to be going to see "Wrath of Kahn" on the big screen. I've lost count as to how many times I've seen "Kahn", but I'm sure it's well over 100. I even did my "Kahn Happy Dance" for my friend Tony before we headed down to South Lamar. We got there early and had reserved seats (thank you Tim!). It was going to be a good night. After the big buildup by Orci, Lindeloff, and Kurtzman about the new film, I was a bit confused as to why they didn't immediately show the 10 minutes of new footage, but instead jumped directly into "Kahn". That seemed odd -- why talk about the new movie, and then dive into the old one? It didn't matter -- the print of "Khan" looked gorgeous, so I didn't care. But then 3 or 4 minutes in the scratches started to appear. When the movie "melted", my heart sank. Thankfully, Mr. Leonard Nimoy himself suddenly appeared, and all was right with the universe. Honestly, I was almost in tears when Nimoy came out. He's one of my boyhood idols; I'm a professional computer programmer in part because of the influence Spock had on me as a kid. It was amazing to see and hear this legend in person. What a treat. So when he announced that we'd be seeing the new "Star Trek" movie in full, I figured, "Okay, let's do it". Let me be honest and mention right now that I've had extremely low expectations for the new "Star Trek" movie ever since I first heard about it. I'm a big fan of "Lost", but frankly J.J. Abrams' directing style has always seemed better suited for television than the big screen (see: MI-3). As a Trekkie (don't even bother tagging me a "Trekker" -- I grew up in the 70's dammit!), I've been following the progress of the new movie on AICN and TrekMovie.com. But it just didn't seem like I was going to enjoy it. The casting looked way wrong (almost a "90210 in space" feel), and the Enterprise being build on Earth!?!?! Please don't get me started. Some minor spoilers ahead: So what does a hard-core Trekkie think of the new movie? Well, I liked it. Much, much more than I thought I would. Sure, there are some definite issues from a "Starfleet" point of view (Kirk getting a battlefield promotion to First Officer when he hasn't even graduated the Academy? Scotty taking over the Transporter Room and Engineering 5 minutes after coming on board? Spock abandoning his post when Pike has been captured in order to rescue his parents? Seriously?) And then of course there's all the massive changes to the Star Trek continuity that take place due to that old deux ex machina of time travel. But you know what? There are so many good things in the film that it kinda didn't matter. The beginnings of the Kirk/Spock friendship are rock-solid. The acting was great (especially Karl Urban as McCoy). The script had some very funny moments, as well as some very thought-provoking scenes. The dialog was generally very well written. J.J. Abrams' directing was strong. The special effects were awesome and the battle scenes were cool. The sets were fantastic -- I loved all those M.C. Escher-esque pipes in Engineering (though I didn't care for "The Chompers" that almost got Scotty). But most importantly: The overall story seemed "plausible" to this Trekkie. Despite all the action and explosions, there was still a compelling story, with a compelling villain, strong characters, and a "logic" to the whole thing. And of course Leonard Nimoy's in it. Really, what more could you ask for? There are two or three "big knocks" I could shell at the film, mainly from a critic's standpoint. But really, why bother? It was fun, and enjoyable. I laughed at the funny parts, I got tense during some of the big action scenes, and I had good time. 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. Thanks for listening, and feel free to call me "The Horta".And another Drafthouse attendee who tinkled a little bit when Nimoy showed up on stage with a film can:
So you go in expecting to see a new print of The Wrath of Khan and you end up with projector burnout and Leonard Nimoy telling you that you're about to see the new Star Trek movie, and like that, you're on your way. And over three hours later, I feel like that was five minutes ago and that I have regressed to the age of 8 and that part of me has melted into a gooey geek like substance that's going to have a hell of hard time getting up for work in the morning. In short, tonight was incredibly awesome. Let me preface what will follow by stating that, while being a fan of Star Trek, I could not consider myself a hardcore Trek fan. I grew up on Captain Picard, and always viewed the original series as kind of an affable, goofy uncle. As I got older, it became clear though that while I preferred The Next Generation as a series, Star Trek movies were better. And in particular, it was that goofy sense of fun and earnest pathos that drew me to the films (Voyage Home is my favorite Star Trek movie, which largely reflects what I like about the series...that is the humor of the cast). So when I heard JJ Abrams was doing the new Trek movies, I was not up in arms, but I didn't think it was a great idea. I haven't particularly been a fan of Alias or Lost. And then Chris Pine was cast, and I was even more skeptical. I did not particularly appreciate his performance in Bottle Shock, rating it as one of the worst I saw last year. But the other casting choices were intriguing, and the preview had undeniably impressive visuals, so I deferred pre-judgement while not particularly feeling any real sense of enthusiasm. That is to say, I was at the screening tonight to see a new print of Khan (my second favorite Trek movie) not the ten minutes of footage from the new movie. Now...let me start by giving props to the two guys I had the most doubts about. JJ Abrams has created a stunningly beautiful sci-fi vision that pretty much raises the bar for any space film to follow. The design and look of the film is absolutely fantastic in every sense. This is essentially the main element that sets this particular outing in the Star Trek franchise apart from the others and will probably be the thing most talked about right off the bat. There are scenes in this movie you wish you could have rewound and watched over and over again, they are so incredibly gorgeous. And Chris Pine is perfect as a young Kirk setting the comedic tone of the film right from his first appearance as the adult Kirk. He knows when to command a scene and when to let his co-stars shine, and really this is a film with a pace dictated by his character's actions. And everyone else follows suit, and nails their roles to a 'T'. Urban, Quinto and Yelchin (Bones, Spock and Checkov) pretty much pick up where their predecessors left off while Pegg, Saldana and Cho (Scottie, Uhura and Sulu) approach their characters in ways that present new possibilities down the road. Essentially, you have a cast that appears well suited to the comedic banter of the original cast with JJ Abrams providing visual gravitas the original series never really had. And the combination creates a pretty heady mix. That's not to say there aren't any negatives. Bana's Nero is not given enough time to become the kind of villain that Montalban's Khan was, and much of his motivation is inferred rather than developed onscreen. I have to wonder if there's a longer cut floating around in dvd release land that might provide more nuance to that performance, but until then, what we're left with his a villain more symbolic than fully realized. The other criticism actually deals with one of the film's strengths, it's incredibly fast pace. On one hand, part of what works so well about the movie is that it feels like a cinematic roller coaster. On the other hand, the banter between the cast is so incredibly entertaining and the writing so strong, that you wish the film could have slowed down to enjoy itself a little more. Further, the fast pace of the film is part of the reason the film never quite reaches the slow burn emotional height of something like The Wrath of Khan, although that movie is name checked and reference more than once in this movie. Those criticisms aside, Star Trek accomplishes far more than I ever thought it would or could. This is on par with the Star Wars trilogy in terms of the big screen entertainment and sheer imagination on display. And while it doesn't pack the emotional punch that it could have, it does set itself up to do that in subsequent installments of the franchise. The talent involved appear to be more than up to the task, and hopefully the public will make it possible for them to do their thing with increasing freedom and confidence. With in my family, it's a well known anecdote that when my older brother was a kid, he would through his shoes at the screen of tv shows that excited him too much causing that show to be at least temporarily banned from the household. I have a feeling that this is the type of movie that would cause that kind of jubilant shoe throwing. It is one hell of a ride. If you use this review, call me Chaplinatemyshoe.And now one of the more in-depth looks at the film, which will wrap up this update. More to come as the Australian screening wraps up, I'm sure!
Folks, everything just works. The set, the story, the acting-- this is everything a Star Trek movie needs to have. You can tell that Abrams and Co. had a lot of freedom to break the mold. A freedom here that was never in the other ten movies or any of the series, one that allows you to see the fast moving, exciting battles from all angles (man, following the plasma torpedoes to their targets is a nice touch), to hear the word "bullshit" come from the type of guy that would call bullshit, and a freedom that, gosh, would put that golden oldie "Sabotage" by the Beastie Boys in a frickin' Star Trek film! Paramount made a great decision here, taking this valuable (but, admittedly, dying) property and throwing a Hail Mary. I hope, I really hope, that this appeals to a wide audience. It can, it SHOULD-- there's spaceship battles, giant monsters, laser gun battles, hot women, funny dialogue, everything that you can hope for in a summer movie. It just happens to be called Star Trek. At its' core, the film is a meditation on destiny. Things are different now, the timestream has been altered-- heck, there's even a conversation in the movie that ends with the phrase "an alternate reality!" But it's fate, it's destiny that these people should wind up together, that this group is truly greater than the sum of its' parts. All your major characters are given something to do. This is the Kirk and Spock show, to be sure, but Uhura, Bones, Sulu, Chekov and Scotty are all instrumental to the plot and have wonderful moments. Fundamentally, however, it is destiny. That Kirk should be the Captain of the Enterprise. That Spock should embrace his inner humanity while continuing to struggle with his Vulcan traditions. That he and Kirk are and always shall be friends. POSITIVES: The destruction of the USS Kelvin and the final moments of its' Captain. Spock as a youngster exhibiting his rage (and demonstrating that he's a Momma's boy at heart). Kirk stealing a car. Kirk in a barfight. His talk with Captain Pike. Our introduction to Bones aboard the shuttlecraft. Uhura's comforting of a crewmember who just lost a family member. The s The first redshirt death. The destruction of... well, you'll see. Chekov the transporter vhiz. Spock spazzing out. Nero using a familiar tool to pry some information. Spock-Nimoy's conversations with Kirk. Spock-Nimoy's conversation with Spock-Quinto (and his joke there at the end). Scotty... well, every moment with Scotty. NEGATIVES: * I read the Star Trek: Countdown comic book miniseries that acts as a prelude to this movie, so I knew what Nero's motives were going in. I'm not so certain it would be clear to general audiences, especially the reasons why Nero blames Spock for the future destruction of Romulus. * The hoops that had to be jumped through to make Kirk, still a cadet in Starfleet, the acting Captain of a starship were a bit much, but pretty minor overall. * I wish we could have spent more time with Mr. Nimoy. His meet-cute with Kirk was fun, but pretty random. * In general, I don't know if an audience unfamiliar with Star Trek will be able to follow EVERYTHING, but I do think they'll get the gist. * You know, we get cameos from a ton of aliens, but I'm not sure I saw a single Klingon. I guess they're saving that reinvention for the sequel. Some thoughts on the cast members. * Chris Pine as Kirk. Highly impressed. He doesn't have the faux-gravitas like Shatner, obviously, but that's a good thing. He comes off as precisely what the character should be-- an arrogant hotshot genius who's not afraid of anything, knows what he thinks is the right thing to do, and is typically right on. * Zachary Quinto as Spock. There's one problem with Quinto, and it's not his fault-- the voice. Nimoy's voice is so distinctive and so very much Spock, and even though Quinto is able to match the pacing and cadences, he's just genetically incapable of fully realizing the character. That said, he does as good a job anyone other than Leonard Nimoy can be expected to do. The script plays a great deal with Spock's duality and Quinto really nails it, especially the part where he rages out. * Zoe Saldana as Uhura. Man, they did a great job in writing this character and really gave her something to do other than answer distress calls. There's a scene, and I mentioned it above, where she's comforting someone who just lost someone very close to them, and it's really tender and genuine. * Bruce Greenwood as Pike. The father figure Kirk never had-- if that guy told me I needed to get my shit together, I'd sure listen to him. * Simon Pegg as Scotty. Goddamn, I wanted to retroactively place Scotty in every scene. Pegg's scene on the ice planet where he's been exiled and his desire for food was hilarious-- they'll have to throw some paunch on him for the sequels. * Karl Urban as Bones. Man, of all the actors, he really nailed the voice. He doesn't look much like Deforest Kelley, but he really pulls off the cantankerous mutter. I really hope that in the next one he gets just a little more to do-- the ideal Star Trek movie features Kirk, Spock and Bones as each others' equals, with different but vital roles. * John Cho as Hikaru Sulu. He doesn't get a tremendous amount of screen time (and as far as the recasting goes, looks and sounds least like his counterpart), but Sulu's got some good moments, especially in one particular action sequence. Never thought I'd see swordfighting and martial arts in a Star Trek movie, but it fits. * Anton Yelchin as Pavel Chekov. I don't recall much about Chekov's role in the original series, but they seem to have cast him in somewhat of a Wesley Crusher-esque wunderkind here. I suppose you'd have to be a pretty smart kid if you're 17 and on the bridge. * Eric Bana as Nero. Not a Khan level baddie, but pretty damn good. As I mentioned above, I'm not sure if his reasoning for blaming Spock is clearly explained, but regardless-- his contempt is palpable. Far better than a random Klingon passing through, an evil Federation Admiral, or, gag me, somebody's evil clone. In conclusion, people are going to really dig this movie. If you're a hardcore Trekkie you should dig the freshening up (but not disregard, understand) of the classic continuity. If you're a casual fan like myself then you'll be drawn in deeper and excited to see what's next. And if you're new to the concept or have generally not been interested in Star Trek... well, give it a shot. This is the rare example of a studio acting both in self-interest and in the interest of the fans-- they finally gave this property some respect and handed it to some of the best and brightest people in the industry who've knocked it out of the park. Give it a try, you won't be disappointed. If nothing else, know that it is certainly the best Star Trek film since First Contact, and definitely ranks up there with Khan. I'm really excited to see where the sequels will take us, and hopeful that this iteration of the series will, ahem, live long and prosper.Harry here with our only negative review we've received which came to my direct email box, but didn't catch till just a bit ago. I couldn't disagree stronger...
Heya Harry- The Human Burrito chiming in from just after tonight's sorta surprise screening of Star Trek here in Austin. Sorta surprise? Well, when you show up to see The Wrath of Khan and the place is crawling with Paramount suits, metal detector wands are being waved around, and you spot one of the writers....bull SHIT you're "only" seeing 10 minutes of the new Trek movie! This thing is going to SPLIT the fanbase. Or for fans like myself, it will be another beating of a long dead horse. Plenty of kids who eschew Trek are finding themselves curious about the hip, young, sexy, CG, ADHD Trek trailers, and they're going to gobble up this film aimed squarely at their demographic. Gotta have a juvenile product to get the kids, and that is sadly the world to describe it:juvenile. Sure, there's tons of little nods in there for Trek fans-why, there's even a Star Trek 5 reference, if you just didn't get enough warning signs about low hanging objects-but I think it's there more to twist the knife. AHEAD, SPOILER FACTOR 9! The general plot has been pretty well known-Romulans, time travel, etc. Turns out popular rumor was close but a bit off-no TOS reference in the time travel, no plot to kill Kirk, no Spock coming back to save Kirk. Instead we discover that in the late 24th century a sun suddenly goes supernova (science, what's that?) and is going to destroy THE ENTIRE GALAXY (science huhwhat?). In the most logical conclusion, Ambassador Spock and ONLY Spock can save the galaxy by....shooting a miniature black hole (triggered by red matter, whatever the hell that is) into the supernova. In the time between developing this black hole weapon and it's deployment, Romulus is destroyed, making villain Nero (Eric Bana) angry, and Spock wouldn't like him when he's angry. Spock, Nero, and Nero's mining ship (remember how stupid the endless elevator shaft with the bridge right through the middle of it was in Nemesis? wait until you get a load of this video game abortion) get sucked into the black hole and flung through time. Nero's grand scheme in the 23rd century is to prevent the destruction of Romulus by destroying Vulcan, Earth, and who knows what else with his own black hole gun and presumably ignoring the fact that a sun will still go supernova and destroy the entire galaxy. Naturally the only hope of saving the galaxy is in the hands of the new flagship of the Federation, the Enterprise and her intrepid crew: James T Kirk, perhaps the most scrutinized young cast member and the one with the heaviest weight on his shoulders. Trailers haven't given us much of young Kirk to go by, and here's why:Kirk is no where to be found. Sure, there's a brash bold cadet by the same name, but here he's written and played like Van Wilder or any other comedy film frat boy. Bumbling, goofy, inept with women, and willing to jam out to The Beastie Boys. No, that's not a joke. I hope you don't mind the Beastie Boys, since we hear the ENTIRETY of "Sabotage" during one scene. Also responsible for the vast majority of product placement tie ins. The man loves his name brand cellphone service providers, whiskey, and beer. Spock, already well received by fans when cast, does a great job. Our young Spock has some mommy issues, which we're introduced to early on when he's picked on by (Vulcan) bullies at (Vulcan) school who he ends up brawling with. Fanfic writers rejoice, though-there's plenty of Spock/Uhura action to be seen! Not that it's ever acknowledged in any way until we need a shot of them making out. Uhura, might as well write about her since I just mentioned her, is pretty much the same as always....minus updating her for the times! Gotta be sassy, complete with head bob! I'm sure if she weren't the only female star on the bridge, we might have gotten a "You go girl!" out of her. Bones, another instant hit among fans before shooting even commenced. I really have nothing to say here, perfect casting and writing. Scotty, yet another fanbase favored casting, makes the most of his limited screentime with his usual quips and odd midget sidekick. Yes. He has a "comical" sidekick now. I really have nothing negative to say about Scotty, either, though continuity nerds will have a shitfit with transwarp drive being perfected already. Sulu does not find any White Castles in space, stop making that reference already, it was not and remains not funny. Able to sword fight while doing backflips over the head of a Romulan. Chekov, the 17 year old video game ace who's joystick skills save the day when he has to manually lock on to moving objects for beaming. Wessel! Old Spock, what can you say....it's Leonard Nimoy. I don't blame him for delivering exposition like he's talking to a toddler-that's the writers' fault for all the hand holding and dumbing down of dialog. And of course, the real star of the show, The Enterprise. Did you think the new bridge was ugly? Did you notice the lack of any engineering photos? Well, you'll understand why. There isn't so much an engineering set as there is a chemical plant somewhere that got borrowed for a weekend. No big beautiful glowing warp core, nothin like that-it looks more like the interior of a Naval battleship. Sick bay looks like it was sponsored by Apple. The exterior design looks a little better in motion, but I still think it's a hideously misbalanced result of someone sniffing glue before using glue to assemble their own Enterprise model. Sadly, it's the best looking of this movie's Federation "stick a random number parts together in random places and call it a ship " design philosophy. I do appreciate that the effects have put some of the weight back into the starships, they'd gotten far too nimble later in Trek and it killed the nautical feel of those massive ships. It's undeniably a summer flick-big, loud, senseless, and ending with a sequel setup. If you're a continuity nerd, this movie basically erases all of Star Trek history....or makes a new "alternate reality" (a phrase used in the film) if you go by Back To The Future time travel rules. Much like Star Wars and Doctor Who, this long dormant property has been revived as an easy to digest, no gray area, spectacle fueled kids' program. With all the bad teen angst and focus on 80s style "kids know better" set up to get the grownups out of the picture and these cadets in charge of their own starship, I kept waiting for the movie to scream "You just don't understand!" at me. Ultimately I was bored-it's very cliche, and the writers talked a good game about wanting to make their own Wrath of Khan with a great villain who is motivated by revenge....but it takes a little more than wanting revenge to make a great villain, just as making a Star Trek movie takes more than writing a different scifi movie and slapping the Star Trek title on it. It's an odd numbered Star Trek movie, undeniably, and there are some slick nods in there, but I would advise anyone who is cautious to remain so. The Trek we knew and loved, the Trek we knew and were indifferent to, it's all gone now. It's in the hands of a man who lets us know just how much he doesn't like Star Trek and would rather make Star Wars. Bring your kids, they'll LOVE it.
April 7, 2009, 4:13 a.m. CST
April 7, 2009, 4:13 a.m. CST
April 7, 2009, 4:16 a.m. CST
...The Wolf Man is still #1 on my list!
April 7, 2009, 4:18 a.m. CST
I just want you to know that having sex with women is as good as they say it is.
April 7, 2009, 4:21 a.m. CST
and I am bummed, as I write this, that not 30 minutes away, at the sydney opera house, Star Trek is screening and I'm not there. I'm at home reading about as I watch the Biggest Loser. And yes, that's how i feel. I can't wait for this to be imprinting itself on my eyeballs.
April 7, 2009, 4:30 a.m. CST
There, I fucking said it.
April 7, 2009, 4:35 a.m. CST
8 days and counting..
April 7, 2009, 4:48 a.m. CST
Kurtzman and Orci have written a meditation on destiny? Oh my sides.
April 7, 2009, 4:52 a.m. CST
by Joker Gordon Levitt
April 7, 2009, 4:55 a.m. CST
Sorry. JJ Abrams doesn't float my boat.
April 7, 2009, 4:57 a.m. CST
They couldn't even be arsed to properly format some of the reviews. Cut'n'paste from the emails - that will do...<br> <br> Couldn't just spend 2 minutes getting rid of the line feeds!
April 7, 2009, 5:07 a.m. CST
by Grinning White Skull
Boy, we really needed this right now. In America and around the world. I'm not talking about just getting some classic Star Trek adventure with the characters. I'm talking about a REAL MOVIE EXPERIENCE. It's been so fallow for having a great time in theaters watching a movie for so long.
April 7, 2009, 5:16 a.m. CST
OK, I'm screaming like a girl (well, I am one)I am so excited and can't wait to see this film. Sigh - another 4 weeks before it releases.
April 7, 2009, 5:28 a.m. CST
G as in God damn how long do I have to wait to see this effin movie, I would give my first born chud baby if only it would somehow speed up time.
April 7, 2009, 5:33 a.m. CST
Nope. Not one bit.
April 7, 2009, 5:51 a.m. CST
by Bill Brasky
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE? How about adding FUCKING COMMAS EVERY ONCE IN A FUCKING WHILE?!?!?<p>This doesn't make you look cool and knowledgeable and hip and smart and all kinds of neat-o. This makes you look like a fucking dumbass. Go back and re-learn English. We use commas for a reason. Use them so that you don't sound stupid, boring, immature, and out of any new ideas.
April 7, 2009, 5:54 a.m. CST
by Bill Brasky
"Uhura....my Nubian Princess."
April 7, 2009, 6:10 a.m. CST
Ha ha ha ha ha. Serves him right. Mutual consent my arse!!!!
April 7, 2009, 6:35 a.m. CST
I have never seen such a collection of plants! I've already saved the html code, it's priceless!
April 7, 2009, 6:45 a.m. CST
More realistic reviews not tainted with 'golden shower effect' required...i find it odd we haven't really heard much about how the young fill out these famous characters convincingly..
April 7, 2009, 7:30 a.m. CST
and read some reviews from viewers that weren't calculatedly whipped into a frenzy by some clever marketing so that their enthusiasm for the EVENT informs their thoughts of the MOVIE...
April 7, 2009, 8:04 a.m. CST
by spud mcspud
When someone can come up with a better reason why they hate NEMESIS other than "Uh, it's the even-numbered one that didn't work," then I'll listen. Otherwise hating on NEMESIS is just following the fucking herd. WHAT DON'T YOU FUCKING LIKE ABOUT IT? GIMME A FUCKING ANSWER!<P> I'm quite psyched to see this movie, but in fairness there seems to ba e lot of "Ah, FUCK the originals, there's a NEW TREK IN TOWN!". Show some respect, fellas. There's a big backstory to all this, and there's no way you'll convince me this movie is BETTER than all of it - so show some respect. Enjoy the hell out of this (sounsd like the kind of space movie we WANT to see - in the same way SERENITY was) - I know I probably will, though still can't get Simon Pegg as Scotty straight in my head! - but let's save some goodwill for the originals, eh?
April 7, 2009, 8:08 a.m. CST
Why are they ALWAYS called out as plants. Can't a group of people just really love a good movie? It doesn't seem that far-fetched to me. I like plenty of movies, personally. I know you guys hate everything that ever came out after 1990, but get over yourselves. I really doubt the studios would even be able to cobble together coherent positive reviews. Get real.
April 7, 2009, 8:08 a.m. CST
I became convinced that many lazy reviewers would use the release of a Star Trek reboot to also restart Star Wars prequel bashing. I guess now we'll just wait to see if it ends up as a quote in an ad ("What the Star Wars prequels should have been! - Ben Lyons). I don't get people that seem (or have always been) incapable of liking both franchises but I'll admit to being a Star Wars kid much more than a Trekkie (but I still always liked Trek). The thing of it is that to me people never really started to bag on Star Wars until it took on Trekkie pop culture tentacles (costumed sillies, endless and mostly dubious tangential ancillary fiction, etc. etc.) and all the hyper-analysis that comes with that as baggage. In fact I've always felt that many of the disaffected or increasingly bored Trekkers migrated to Star Wars as a new primary fixation and applied their slightly 'different' mania to Star Wars and overtook it some time ago - forever changing the perception of Star Wars fandom. Sounds like this was fun though. Can't wait to see it.
April 7, 2009, 8:26 a.m. CST
April 7, 2009, 8:28 a.m. CST
by dr sauch
JJ can do no wrong. DRINK SOME HATERADE FAGGOTS!
April 7, 2009, 8:37 a.m. CST
by dr sauch
Instead of fat misanthropes who hate movies.
April 7, 2009, 8:49 a.m. CST
It followed KHAN a lot in its story beats, it introduced yet ANOTHER Soong android for plot conveniences, the emotion was lacking throughout and the villain didn't really feel all that threatening. NEMESIS is a silly film. The hand-to-hand combat between Riker and the Reman in the Enterprise utility areas was a waste of time. Call up to the bridge and get a lock on the ONLY Reman signal in the area and beam his ass to the brig! None of the threats seemed scary. And Picard was kind of sleep-walking through the story. I say again, NEMESIS was a flaccid, uninteresting, emotionless bore.
April 7, 2009, 8:56 a.m. CST
by Marko Ramius
If you are truly Star Trek fans, you will know that the original dedication plaque for the Enterprise NCC-1701 clearly says "San Francisco, Calif." on it. I am so sick and tired of you guys saying that the original Enterprise was not built on Earth. YES IT WAS!
April 7, 2009, 8:57 a.m. CST
by Marko Ramius
To Trekkies Having an Issue With the Enterprise Being Built on Earth.
April 7, 2009, 9:34 a.m. CST
Well, the above is certainly encouraging. I was all for not even bothering with this one, but it sounds like it's worth the time. I have to admit, the trailers did not have me thrilled, but real reviews... I think I might be hooked.
April 7, 2009, 9:44 a.m. CST
Reminds me of Cloverfield and Transformers....throw the geeks some Red Bull, a few industry folks, a surprise, an iconic Geek Gold actor and let the hyperbole and Geek Jizz flow....</p><p> As much as I want to believe ORCI hasn't fucked this up, as he has everything he has touched do far, I will await the reviews of less easily swayed reviewers.
April 7, 2009, 9:48 a.m. CST
I know it's so hard for people who don't go to the drafthouse to realize what a magical place it is. Normal movies one might refer to as 'shit' become cinematic events! I wonder what would happen if they screened the Wolverine rough cut there.
April 7, 2009, 9:51 a.m. CST
Nemesis is totally pimp. The only problems with it are really the stupid retcon of Picard never having hair when he was younger, and the fact that Data's emotion chip doesn't even warrant a single mention. But other than that? Big, phenomenal action, emotion-filled acting from Stewart and Hardy, and a fairly unusual plotline for Trek (cloning wasn't something they used as much as, say, TIME TRAVEL).
April 7, 2009, 10:06 a.m. CST
JJ, dude, there's this thing called a tripod. The concession stand needs to sell Dramamine.
April 7, 2009, 10:09 a.m. CST
The Semi Pro screening with Will Ferrel also springs to mind. People were underwhelmed and I think it showed. Most reactions were "it was pretty good." A celebrity in attendance does not guarantee a great screening and there's no way any movie could get the near-universal level of excitement and acclaim Star Trek got last night and will continue to get once more people see it. Most of the time I feel like there's a danger of hype hurting a movie, but not in this case. It really delivers.
April 7, 2009, 10:24 a.m. CST
I really hate to demonstrate my Trek geekness to this level, but the San Francisco Fleet Yards are NOT in San Francisco. The assumption by several sources is that the shore offices are in SF proper, although it is never specifically stated. The SF Fleet Yards are in Earth orbit, and the ones shown in Star Trek the Motion Picture.
April 7, 2009, 10:26 a.m. CST
Not the same type of event. You put several hundred hard core GEEKS into a theater...trot out a shiny new Star Trek movie and preface it with a visit from one of their last living Gods and you are all but guaranteed a Jizztasic review. Why do you think JJ and Co. did it this way? They aren't stupid..they know the audience...any plot holes, illogical scenes, and poor writing vanished before the movie even began.</p><p>I've said it before..I WANT to be WRONG. I've flamed Orci on here for months as due to his previous output I do not think he is capable of anything but popularist drivel and pissing Robots...but I'd like to be wrong.
April 7, 2009, 10:27 a.m. CST
I am not all that concerned about the cannon location of the original Enterprise construction. I AM interested in how they intend to realistically explain getting it up into orbit however, unless they just cop out by showing it on the ground and then up in space later with no explanation.
April 7, 2009, 10:30 a.m. CST
Seriously...I'll drive over the hill and pick up the tab; but I'm waiting till non-biased reviewers screen it, and I see it myself, till I pass final judgment.</p><p>But you still are not off the hook for Transformers, and what you have apparently done with the sequel.
April 7, 2009, 10:37 a.m. CST
Never having seen Kahn in theatres is really it. So much of today's audience (esp as evidenced on the internet) is completely joyless as moviegoers. It's not hard to understand why considering what they get but this default stance of hostility, skepticism and sensitivity never was in the way of things as it is anymore. If people don't like this movie when they see that's fine but it really doesn't invalidate what the people that really enjoyed themselves at this thing felt. Pretty cool that it can still be conjured if you ask me. Any more it feels dead and lost - especially around parts like these.
April 7, 2009, 10:42 a.m. CST
by Wyatt Wingfoot
Was the first Star Trek novel. Don't give a fuck what shitipedia or anybody else says.
April 7, 2009, 10:42 a.m. CST
you'll publish reviews for star trek
April 7, 2009, 10:43 a.m. CST
Get the Miracle Grow out again
April 7, 2009, 10:44 a.m. CST
But those reviews are bad. Not that the reviews are saying the movie is bad, but the reviews themselves are bad. <P> Reviewers: decide what your opinion of the movie is and then shape the review to support that opinion. Don't scatter shot chaotically, betraying your incoherent thinking.
April 7, 2009, 10:58 a.m. CST
The movie may be great, but Massa's review is a mess.
April 7, 2009, 11:31 a.m. CST
I'm no plant. CHUD gave it a very good review by damning it with faint praise by saying that it was an action-adventure film for the Masses. IOW, the CHUD reviewer wanted Nemesis or a film made for the Geeks and people who have a blowup doll at home. JJ not that stupid.
April 7, 2009, 2:57 p.m. CST
It'd take a lot to get me to go see a Star Trek movie. All I've ever seen throughout my life of Star Trek is a bunch of people standing around on a ship talking, getting out and wandering a planet, firing cheesy-cheap lasers and getting back into the ship to talk some more. <BR><BR> Boooooooooorrriiiiiiing.
April 7, 2009, 3:03 p.m. CST
WOW, the second reviewer needs to get laid!
April 7, 2009, 3:05 p.m. CST
I'm surprised I was able to write something as coherent as I did given it was 1:30 in the morning and I was still buzzing from the excitement of the movie. I understand the skepticism though. I felt it too before I saw this. If they had actually been up front about what they were screening, there's a pretty good chance I wouldn't have gone.
April 7, 2009, 3:33 p.m. CST
Funny that there's no dissenting opinions being run. WELL time for the old copy n paste. Chiming in from just after tonight's sorta surprise screening of Star Trek here in Austin. Sorta surprise? Well, when you show up to see The Wrath of Khan and the place is crawling with Paramount suits, metal detector wands are being waved around, and you spot one of the writers....bull SHIT you're "only" seeing 10 minutes of the new Trek movie! This thing is going to SPLIT the fanbase. Or for fans like myself, it will be another beating of a long dead horse. Plenty of kids who eschew Trek are finding themselves curious about the hip, young, sexy, CG, ADHD Trek trailers, and they're going to gobble up this film aimed squarely at their demographic. Gotta have a juvenile product to get the kids, and that is sadly the world to describe it:juvenile. Sure, there's tons of little nods in there for Trek fans-why, there's even a Star Trek 5 reference, if you just didn't get enough warning signs about low hanging objects-but I think it's there more to twist the knife. AHEAD, SPOILER FACTOR 9! The general plot has been pretty well known-Romulans, time travel, etc. Turns out popular rumor was close but a bit off-no TOS reference in the time travel, no plot to kill Kirk, no Spock coming back to save Kirk. Instead we discover that in the late 24th century a sun suddenly goes supernova (science, what's that?) and is going to destroy THE ENTIRE GALAXY (science huhwhat?). In the most logical conclusion, Ambassador Spock and ONLY Spock can save the galaxy by....shooting a miniature black hole (triggered by red matter, whatever the hell that is) into the supernova. In the time between developing this black hole weapon and it's deployment, Romulus is destroyed, making villain Nero (Eric Bana) angry, and Spock wouldn't like him when he's angry. Spock, Nero, and Nero's mining ship (remember how stupid the endless elevator shaft with the bridge right through the middle of it was in Nemesis? wait until you get a load of this video game abortion) get sucked into the black hole and flung through time. Nero's grand scheme in the 23rd century is to prevent the destruction of Romulus by destroying Vulcan, Earth, and who knows what else with his own black hole gun and presumably ignoring the fact that a sun will still go supernova and destroy the entire galaxy. Naturally the only hope of saving the galaxy is in the hands of the new flagship of the Federation, the Enterprise and her intrepid crew: James T Kirk, perhaps the most scrutinized young cast member and the one with the heaviest weight on his shoulders. Trailers haven't given us much of young Kirk to go by, and here's why:Kirk is no where to be found. Sure, there's a brash bold cadet by the same name, but here he's written and played like Van Wilder or any other comedy film frat boy. Bumbling, goofy, inept with women, and willing to jam out to The Beastie Boys. No, that's not a joke. I hope you don't mind the Beastie Boys, since we hear the ENTIRETY of "Sabotage" during one scene. Also responsible for the vast majority of product placement tie ins. The man loves his name brand cellphone service providers, whiskey, and beer. Spock, already well received by fans when cast, does a great job. Our young Spock has some mommy issues, which we're introduced to early on when he's picked on by (Vulcan) bullies at (Vulcan) school who he ends up brawling with. Fanfic writers rejoice, though-there's plenty of Spock/Uhura action to be seen! Not that it's ever acknowledged in any way until we need a shot of them making out. Uhura, might as well write about her since I just mentioned her, is pretty much the same as always....minus updating her for the times! Gotta be sassy, complete with head bob! I'm sure if she weren't the only female star on the bridge, we might have gotten a "You go girl!" out of her. Bones, another instant hit among fans before shooting even commenced. I really have nothing to say here, perfect casting and writing. Scotty, yet another fanbase favored casting, makes the most of his limited screentime with his usual quips and odd midget sidekick. Yes. He has a "comical" sidekick now. I really have nothing negative to say about Scotty, either, though continuity nerds will have a shitfit with transwarp drive being perfected already. Sulu does not find any White Castles in space, stop making that reference already, it was not and remains not funny. Able to sword fight while doing backflips over the head of a Romulan. Chekov, the 17 year old video game ace who's joystick skills save the day when he has to manually lock on to moving objects for beaming. Wessel! Old Spock, what can you say....it's Leonard Nimoy. I don't blame him for delivering exposition like he's talking to a toddler-that's the writers' fault for all the hand holding and dumbing down of dialog. And of course, the real star of the show, The Enterprise. Did you think the new bridge was ugly? Did you notice the lack of any engineering photos? Well, you'll understand why. There isn't so much an engineering set as there is a chemical plant somewhere that got borrowed for a weekend. No big beautiful glowing warp core, nothin like that-it looks more like the interior of a Naval battleship. Sick bay looks like it was sponsored by Apple. The exterior design looks a little better in motion, but I still think it's a hideously misbalanced result of someone sniffing glue before using glue to assemble their own Enterprise model. Sadly, it's the best looking of this movie's Federation "stick a random number parts together in random places and call it a ship " design philosophy. I do appreciate that the effects have put some of the weight back into the starships, they'd gotten far too nimble later in Trek and it killed the nautical feel of those massive ships. It's undeniably a summer flick-big, loud, senseless, and ending with a sequel setup. If you're a continuity nerd, this movie basically erases all of Star Trek history....or makes a new "alternate reality" (a phrase used in the film) if you go by Back To The Future time travel rules. Much like Star Wars and Doctor Who, this long dormant property has been revived as an easy to digest, no gray area, spectacle fueled kids' program. With all the bad teen angst and focus on 80s style "kids know better" set up to get the grownups out of the picture and these cadets in charge of their own starship, I kept waiting for the movie to scream "You just don't understand!" at me. Ultimately I was bored-it's very cliche, and the writers talked a good game about wanting to make their own Wrath of Khan with a great villain who is motivated by revenge....but it takes a little more than wanting revenge to make a great villain, just as making a Star Trek movie takes more than writing a different scifi movie and slapping the Star Trek title on it. It's an odd numbered Star Trek movie, undeniably, and there are some slick nods in there, but I would advise anyone who is cautious to remain so. The Trek we knew and loved, the Trek we knew and were indifferent to, it's all gone now. It's in the hands of a man who lets us know just how much he doesn't like Star Trek and would rather make Star Wars. Bring your kids, they'll LOVE it.
April 7, 2009, 3:34 p.m. CST
Anyone? Didn't want a big block of text.
April 7, 2009, 3:38 p.m. CST
Proving once again u can't say one positive thing about anything. Most transformers fans thought the movie was great, and the ones that didn't have stopped whining about it 2 yrs later. But on a positive point, at least u blamed orci for the movie and didn't jump on the loser bandwagon with all the people that blame bay, kudos dude...
April 7, 2009, 3:43 p.m. CST
by Bob Loblaw Law Blog
April 7, 2009, 3:47 p.m. CST
by Bob Loblaw Law Blog
I don't think so. Hardcore Trekkies are particularly hardcore when it comes to spelling character names, memorizing serial numbers, ship registry numbers, etc.
April 7, 2009, 3:47 p.m. CST
I was kinda skeptical to the fact that every review they posted was pretty much glowing. Regardless of your big block o' text, I read through it all. Nice to see a different persepective.
April 7, 2009, 3:51 p.m. CST
1) Sabotage is a great song so suck it if you have a problem with its use. 2) I don't think Nero's motivation was so much to save his planet as to destroy everyone else's. Just my take on that particular plot point. We probably disagree on a lot about the movie, especially the production design which was probably my favorite element. Also, why the hell would space ships move like big water based freighters?
April 7, 2009, 3:53 p.m. CST
Definitely not EVERYONE was pleased with this. It's not the worst movie ever made, but it's certainly not Trek. I almost did it again in the other thread until I spotted that wall o text. Dear Talkback designer, I have the 21st century web design on the phone, maybe you'd like to have a chat?
April 7, 2009, 3:56 p.m. CST
Well, regardless of my opinion on the shitstain that is Beastie Boys, it's ridiculously out of place. How would you have liked it if Limp Bizket started blaring during a light saber fight or the pod race in Episode 1? As for the ship's movement, if you think that a massive vehicle like the Enterprise should be zipping around like an XWing with a joystick...I don't really know what to say to you. Maybe you thought Star Destroyers hovering above a city was perfectly sensible and cool too.
April 7, 2009, 4:02 p.m. CST
by Marko Ramius
Thank you for the insight, I didn't realize that the consensus was the office was in California. I'm not trying to be difficult, but is there any reason why the original Enterprise dedication plaque has California specifically on it, and then the later ones have their specific construction yards, such as San Francisco Yards, or Utopia Planetia, etc? It would seem to me, if their plaque has San Francisco California, and not, San Francisco Yards, that the ship was built on Earth. Again, this is how it makes sense in my mind, I am not trying to be difficult.
April 7, 2009, 4:06 p.m. CST
It's well worth the read, and helped satisfy my need for a bit of badly needed perspective. I hope your post doesn't get deleted by the powers that be.
April 7, 2009, 4:10 p.m. CST
by Bob Loblaw Law Blog
Just remove the spaces between the "carrots" and the "p".
April 7, 2009, 4:14 p.m. CST
Thanks for the info, Bob. Now if I could just go back and edit that post. =/ <p>Excalibur, it reminded me an awful lot of flicks like Lost In Space, Phantom Menace, Fantastic Four where it's become so modernized stylized and "cool" that there's really not much semblance to what it is supposed to be based on. It's a serious problem that I have with a lot of things I love:sometimes it's time for something to DIE. Rather than that, though, they'll forge ahead with their ideas and stretch anything to make it work instead of just trying something new. If you want to break boundaries, why start in them?
April 7, 2009, 4:24 p.m. CST
I honestly wouldn't have minded if Phantom Menace had done something like the Sabotage chase scene if it had worked for me. Regarding the comparison to Lost in Space and Fantastic Four (not sure if I get the Phantom Menace parallels), I get them. I just think those movies had production design and details that failed for me whereas they didn't in this movie. I still don't get your comparison to ship freighter. Space ships and sea ships aren't really comparable, imo.
April 7, 2009, 4:31 p.m. CST
....would be to suggest that you look at an XWing and a Starfury side by side. They're both fast nimble little things that are more maneuverable than clunnking starships, but notice how many thrust nozzles are on the much more sensible Starfury. Late in Trek they had ships doing barrel roll backflips and ludicrous shit like that, and it'd take WAY more than a couple of number punches to coordinate the force needed to get something of that size to move like that. That's the whole point behind Trek not having little snub fighters like Star Wars, etc has-space travel ISN'T like flying a plane.
April 7, 2009, 4:37 p.m. CST
by spud mcspud
I was under the impression it was something a reviewer said as a comparison to what the scene resembled! Tell me they haven't stuck a 21st century song in a 23rd century movie! PLEASE!
April 7, 2009, 4:43 p.m. CST
...still, it is pointed out in the movie that the Enterprise is a new ship and therefore could be capable of maneuvering in ways previous ships were not capable of.
April 7, 2009, 4:44 p.m. CST
It's a 20th century song, and we live in the 21st century, so any music they put in the movie will be not from the 23rd century.
April 7, 2009, 4:55 p.m. CST
The ENTIRE goddamned song is the backing music to an action scene.
April 7, 2009, 5:18 p.m. CST
by spud mcspud
The whole point of SF movies is that you don't tie them into our present times unless its integral to the plot! I mean, unless it's in the Kirk bar room brawl scene (I'm in the UK - missed the Alamo screening - DAMMIT!) and it's 20th century music night, why the hell would this fit in the movie? That's why SF movies are usually almost all score and no songs - THEY DON'T FUCKING FIT! Unless a showrunner is going to fuck up his magnum opus by tying in a 20th century song to an unsatisfying and frankly nonsensical ending (yep, Ronald D Moore, I'm looking at YOU!) then it just don't fit. What next? Orion slave girl pole dancing to the Pussycat Dolls? "Dontcha wish your Vulcan was hot like me"?<P> Fuck this populist nonsense. They'll have fucking Paul Walker and Vin Diesel in the sequel next. THE TREK AND THE TRIBBULOUS. "I promised you a Warp Ten starship."<P> It's like a rollercoaster, reading these reviews. I was almost looking forwards to this movie, then I heard about the SABOTAGE thing. Fucking unbelievable.
April 7, 2009, 5:21 p.m. CST
Damon Lindelof, give us the flashback to the Black Rock dude... don't finish up season 6 without it dude.. I'm talking the high seas, swashbuckling, splashing waves, the starboard bow.. all of it dude. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. We need that kind of set location that's never been done before on LOST before the series concludes. You and Cuse owe us from the Libby backpeddle you did. Comeon now.
April 7, 2009, 5:27 p.m. CST
He plays in on the car radio as a kid when he's driving from the cops, so it's not like, 'Hey, let's just put a random Beastie Boys song on the soundtrack.'
April 7, 2009, 5:37 p.m. CST
Is the only thing I really had a problem, explained only by the fact that pre-teen Kirk is driving an "antique" and probably listening to some of that "old timey" music. My stomach sank when I heard it and I was afraid... But then the Spock sequence happened and everything worked and it just kept working. It's almost like it was put in there to remind us how bad it could potentially get and then just completely blow us away from there.
April 7, 2009, 5:42 p.m. CST
When was your review e-mailed in? These early reviews were posted at 4 AM. I stayed up until 3 working on mine (which doesn't necessarily show. I originally wrote a whole lot more and got into spoilers before I decided to scrap it) and sent it off before sleeping about 4 hours and heading into work.
April 7, 2009, 5:47 p.m. CST
Also, the first inkling of Spock's relationship is actually revealed when he tells her that placing her on the Enterprise would be "improper" and he didn't want to "show favoritism." I knew then that they were hooking up, as much as Spock can...
April 7, 2009, 6 p.m. CST
...is a classic. Stop bitching because it's not some prog-metal bullshit like you dorks like to listen to.
April 7, 2009, 6:03 p.m. CST
You would be SHOCKED how much of that sort of thing I see. Could be a dash of dyslexia, a consistent unchecked typo or simply a problem spelling. Though a diehard fan would be hard pressed to not know how to spell KHAN
April 7, 2009, 6:26 p.m. CST
and I'm old enough to have watched the TOS original run as child, and there really was nothing like it on TV. Anyone under, say, 40, can't even imagine. From the sound of it, they pull it off by not recreating everything the same way. And the alt-timeline doesn't bother me a whit. The only things that do (and I have only seen trailers) are the "buckle-up" line -- That's like someone saying Tally-Ho" now...who does, really? -- and the thing about young Kirk in the antique (geez, it's almost like someone stealing a chariot now, isn't it?) and listening to ancient music (I mean, I like classic music hundreds of years old, but...). Then again, not that different from Riker liking 20th century Jazz and Tom in Voyager liking 20th century everything. But the Steppenwolf "Magic Carpet Ride" in First Contact? That bugged me. Now had they gone obscure, like Nilsson's "Spaceman"...that would've been mighty cool.
April 7, 2009, 6:29 p.m. CST
so I can enjoy it as much as these guys.
April 7, 2009, 6:32 p.m. CST
This is good news!
April 7, 2009, 6:37 p.m. CST
but I will still go see this, it sounds fun. I fucking HATE the fucking Beastie Boys though. I can't listen to 20 seconds of their songs, let alone a full one. I might have to bring some headphones and my iPod for that one. maybe I'll play the finale music from Last of the Mohicans, that would be a fun one for a car chase.
April 7, 2009, 6:39 p.m. CST
It only takes something minor and potentially "throw-away" to fuck up a tentpole film. A Jamaican fop of an alien slipping in bantha poo-doo. A refrigerator surviving a nuclear blast. A "merc" without a mouth. The use of "Sabotage" in a film designed to appeal to the teen audience isn't really that much of a surprise; and truly hints at what the final product turned out to be. This WON'T be MY "Star Trek." It'll be for the kiddies - just like Paramount wanted.
April 7, 2009, 6:49 p.m. CST
I thought that as it was going on too, and the entire rest of the movie proved me wrong.
April 7, 2009, 7:01 p.m. CST
Man I like your review as it seems to be the first honest one I have read so far & it answers most of the worries I had with this movie (unfortunately). Please can you answer the following (and I am not bothered about spoilers either!!): 1: How big is Nimoy's role vs Shatner in Generations. I suspect much smaller based on what I have seen and heard. 2: Does Nimoy play the role as we remember him from ST6 or is he hopelessly out of touch like he was in TNG: Unification. 3: What happens to Old Spock at the end what is his fate to return to his own time or live in the 23rd century. 4: How bad is the score as I have not heard anyone praise it so I am worried it will be like the Berman era sonic wallpaper scores. Thanks In Advance.
April 7, 2009, 7:10 p.m. CST
Sulu: "Then there's no time to waste!!!!!!" <P> *Unzips pants*
April 7, 2009, 7:12 p.m. CST
So everyone else who enjoyed the movie isn't being honest? Are you determined to be disappointed? I'll answer your questions though 1) Smaller than Shatner's but he's still in it quite a bit 2) In my opinion he falls right back into Spock perfectly 3) Spock "Prime" remains in the forever altered time line but wants to help start a new Vulcan colony since the planet Vulcan was destroyed and there are only about 10,000 Vulcans left in the universe. 4) The score is good to great. And other people have praised it. It's not series redefining but it definitely more than rises to the occasion.
April 7, 2009, 7:18 p.m. CST
Plus some clips http://digg.com/d1nrMA
April 7, 2009, 7:30 p.m. CST
Thanks for this. Its not about people who enjoyed the movie are being honest or not. I think whenever people go to events like this they get over-enthusiastic and can only talk positive but most fans are wise enough to know that in this day and age decent movie(s) are hard to come by! 1 last question please can you confirm that the Warp VFX are as good as STMP and the movie ends with the Enterprise jumping to warp speed.
April 7, 2009, 7:49 p.m. CST
I personally think this movie is on a par with Raiders of the Lost Ark and the original Star Wars Trilogy as far as entertainment made by geeks that happens to have widestream appeal and stands the test of time. Leaving the screening I felt the way I did after seeing Return of the Jedi as a four year old. Remember when movies had the power just leave you happy and hyperactive and ready to line up to experience it again? For me, this was that movie.</p> On to your questions I think all the visual effects (as well the sound design) are the best they've ever been and the Warp effects are especially convincing. As far as the last shot, it shows the entire original crew assembled on the Enterprise (after Kirk is commissioned as Captain) and they are wearing the familiar uniforms and yes, I believe they do jump to warp speed. But honestly seeing Kirk in that gold shirt was basically where I mentally checked out from overstimulation. The credits rolled a few seconds later and nearly all of us rose to our feet and applauded for several minutes of credits.
April 7, 2009, 8:08 p.m. CST
by Bob Loblaw Law Blog
I could understand film geeks misspelling many things (i.e. the spelling of "Schwarzenegger," for example... ), but "KHAN" is right there in the movie title, countless articles, Star Trek books, etc. It's not one die-hard fans are going to typically get wrong.<p>Honestly, it would be like spelling Spock, Kirk or Sulu wrong. Now, misspelling Chekov or Uhura... perhaps a bit more understandable. :)
April 7, 2009, 10:06 p.m. CST
OK, a minor correction of sorts:I was irked by the Vulcan bullies as I thought-still do think-that it is illogical, but I have been informed that it fits canon as there was an episode of the animated series which mentions Spock having bully issues at school. Still out of place, I think. Now, to genrefanboy's questions: <p>1:I was surprised by how much time he has, actually. I expected maybe a 2 minute cameo, he actually gets a few scenes. Still only a few minutes, but he's in it more than Kirk's father.<p> 2:I can't say I entirely remember that TNG episode, frankly I'm not a big fan of most of TOS/TNG. A few episodes here and there stuck with me on TNG, and many DS9 episodes, I'm more a fan of the original crew movies. He definitely plays Spock a bit faster and emotionally, but everyone in the flick acts like they've just done a rail of coke anyway.<p> 3:Spoiler indeed! He sticks around in the 23rd century after his ship is destroyed. A ship containing a cubic fuckton of red matter, a mere drop of which is enough to create a planet consuming black hole, yet the Enterprise manages to outrun it.<p>4:An updated (faster paced) version of the original theme is used at the end of the movie. Other than that, big summer blockbuster broad strokes as usual. I think the days of a truly iconic score for movies have long since past. There's only so much music in the world...not that it's any excuse for Beastie Boys.
April 7, 2009, 10:38 p.m. CST
April 7, 2009, 10:43 p.m. CST
I'm sick and tired of Abrams being credited with the creation of Lost, it was created by Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse. Abrams was brought in after the fact to fine-tune their idea. People seriously need to stop crediting this guy as being the most creative film-maker in hollywood, I refer you to Mission Impossible 3. <p> However, I am hopeful for this movie. It looks very interesting and a fresh new take on an old idea isn't always a bad thing. However, from the reviews, it seems like Abrams is doing more about setting up actions scenes for his main characters, rather than explain motivation for the villain to start this action and conflict. Again I refer you to M:I3 when he never explains the deal with the Rabbits Foot. He just never seems to give a real motivation for his villains, which I think really ruins his storytelling capabilities.
April 7, 2009, 11:10 p.m. CST
This movie is the Star Trek equivalent of Starship Troopers. There are some shared details, but whereas the source material is more cerebral commentary (usually), the movie is ZOMG KIDS AND EXPLOSIONS FUCK YEAH.
April 8, 2009, 12:35 a.m. CST
I guess I need some sort of point of reference to science fiction, either in type or on film, that you actually do like. I thought Starship Troopers was pretty good too for what it was. I also don't see the approach of the filmmakers on either project being nearly the same at all. Abrams is far more direct in his approach than Verhoeven. And while I love Star Trek and TNG and to a certain extent DS9, I don't really view them as untouchably intellectual source materials. It's science fiction. The standard of literary or cinematic excellence is pretty damn low. Most sci-fi fans I know love movies that are truly shitty because they love the genre.
April 8, 2009, 1:25 a.m. CST
....they love the genre. They don't love quality, they love the genre, and will excuse any shit as long as it has spaceships or aliens. Myself, I don't buy into that, in film/music/art/women/anything. If it's not good on it's own, there's no excusing it. <p>I forgot to mention an important detail that has been nagging fans, including myself:How did the Enterprise, built on the ground, get into space?<p> Oh, right. They didn't bother with any of that "science" thing. Skip over it, that's the best way to sidestep any logic problems, the audience has already exchanged hands!<p>Regarding Starship Poopers, that's another case where it's so far removed and trying so desperately to imitate something else that they really should have just made it a new IP. I thought it was an awful adaptation of the book, not so much for being "inaccurate" but for wasting half a movie on teen drama bullshit that doesn't really play out and skipping over most of the book itself. Visually, I LOVE Starship Troopers, but that's all that it has going for it. Even the animated series was smarter than it was, AND did a great job of melding the movies/book together.
April 8, 2009, 1:26 a.m. CST
*exchanged hands/meant to type "the money has already exchanged hands"
April 8, 2009, 8:34 a.m. CST
Thanks again for your comments. I bought my tickets weeks ago and cannot get a refund but now wondering if I will even bother turning up on opening day!!! What bothers me more than somewhat are: 1: Leaving 2 Spocks in the 23rd century pretty much changes all Trek. And is a very lazy way to deal with it as they obviously destroy Spocks time ship in the 2nd trailer so he has no way to return. Terrible writing if true. 2: Destroying Vulcan is again a very poor choice to make and lazy writing. 3: They totally ignore canon & yet could not find a way to include Shatner. He was obviously never wanted for anything more than a 1 scene cameo but it sounds as though he did not miss much anyway! 4: This is obviously not a movie for Trek fans and is purely a rebooted Star Trek for the mainstream kiddie audiences who love dumb summer popcorn movies. Canon is not respected as the writers are using the BS framing device of an alternate timeline to reboot whatever they want.
April 8, 2009, 8:48 a.m. CST
I'm not one to scream "This IS or IS NOT Star Trek"-- because I have seen the basic ideas/themes being taken to many different directions, even within the continuity of TOS, TNG, Voyager, etc.... But what gets me excited in Star Trek, and what sets Star Trek apart from the other space-themed adventures out there, are the ideas rather than the action-- so I really appreciate TheHumanBurrito's take on the movie.<p> I mean, I can enjoy the Star Wars-type space adventures as much as the next guy, simply for the standard "stuff" of the genre (see movie version of Starship Troopers, etc.)-- but the Star Trek episodes which pulls a few "clever" ones (yes, I liked Star Trek: The Motion Picture) are ones which set me on a high, thinking about them for days on end. Generic space adventures put on the emphasis on "adventure" and generally don't cause (or even have enough sci-fi to allow) their fans to analyze them down to any great level of detail.<p> So thanks, TheHumanBurrito, I might check this movie out if I find myself with time to spare or wanting a movie-high. From yours and other reviews, it just doesn't sound like a "must-see ASAP" for me-- I can enjoyed Star Trek when it gets louder/faster, but that's not what I find memorable about it.
April 8, 2009, 9:32 a.m. CST
Excellent post. You and I are probably two of the handful of people who really enjoyed TMP. I love that movie BECAUSE it's slow-paced (admittedly ponderously so in places) and has a true sense of majesty and scale. I respect that movie because it came after Star Wars but didn't try to be loud and bombastic. It tried to be slow-paced and full of wonder. I'm not saying the film always achieves that and, like I said, it can be overly slow in places. But I still respect it for trying to be thoughtful and intelligent. This new Trek is going to make tons of cash because it looks to be loud, brash, foolish and flashy. And there really isn't anything wrong with that - it probably will be fun on some level and I'll undoubtedly see it. I just don't think this movie is Star Trek in the way that Star Trek used to try to be. But the unwashed masses will surely love it.
April 8, 2009, 11:07 a.m. CST
April 8, 2009, 11:13 a.m. CST
star trek is not about explosions or intergalactic politics... something the later Paramount series and movies did not understand. it is first and foremost about defining HUMANITY in the face of alien forces and the unknowns of the human psyche when faced with adversity vis a vis Kirk. a movie headlined by the original series CHARACTERS created by Roddenberry should strive for that area of discourse... every movie since STII has simply tried to match the VOLUME of Wrath of Khan instead of understanding what Star Trek is about. This movie honestly looks better than Abram's other crap like Cloverfield or MI or Finding Henry or whatever the frak that was.... best case scenario fun summer movie but it aint trek
April 8, 2009, 12:48 p.m. CST
April 8, 2009, 1:29 p.m. CST
...I mean, just look at the title. Right there. It says "Star Trek". Why do huge fans think that they own a property and have the ability to deem what 'is' and 'isn't'?
April 8, 2009, 1:53 p.m. CST
It is the best site for men to search for beautiful, sophisticated women, you will receive much more attention and get many more emails than other sites. And women will be very safe to meet talented and successful men because of our verification system.
April 8, 2009, 2:42 p.m. CST
I am embarrassed I even know this, but The Entropy Effect wasn't remotely close to being the first Star Trek novel. The first Star Trek Novel was "Spock Must Die" by James Blish, who also did the original series script-to-short-story conversions.
April 8, 2009, 4:27 p.m. CST
'Sci-Fi' meaning of course 'cowboys and indians in outer space.' E.g. Buck Rogers and Star Wars.
April 8, 2009, 8:45 p.m. CST
Thanks for the comment and support buddy. People are acting like I'm calling the THE WORST MOVIE EVER-and I'm not. It's simply not anything special beyond a 90 minute franchise snuff video with very generic scifi themes and nothing to say. It's smarter than Star Wars prequels, but that's not saying much, <p> I was watching The Undiscovered Country last night (my favorite of the Trek flicks, btw) and to me that nails what Trek is about:it's a scifi story that isn't solved with explosions and deus ex machina story devices, it has character definition and progression, it MAKES A STATEMENT. THAT is sci fi's greatest asset, the ability to be an artistic statement rather than a cool special effect. Trek 6 was about the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Russian empire...you're telling me that it would be impossible to reboot the Trek franchise without making social commentary? This flick felt to me like the guys had a few ideas that they REALLY liked for whatever reason (young Kirk stealing a car and driving it off a cliff) and just forced it together awkwardly, refusing to give up on it, because they couldn't do anything else with it or make it fit somewhere...and the young Kirk/car scene is a fine example. We jump from baby Kirk's birth to kid Kirk stealing a car to adult Kirk in a bar fight-that's the excuse for introducing us to his character? It doesn't really tell us anything about him, nor does it affect any of his later actions, nor is his delinquent status ever really touched on, just conveniently forgotten when it's time for him to become a leader.<p> I wish I'd thought of making a comment on this, also:JJ's has been outspoken for how much he loves Star Wars, there's another completely senseless moment in there which shows how desperately he'd rather shoot a light saber fight:Sulu lands on the platform with Kirk and whips out a little device....that unfolds into a full size sword. Gee a pocket sword so that they can duel in front of high technology, I guess having him whip out an actual light saber would create some copyright issues.<p> There's also no reason that this movie couldn't simply have been a NEXT Next Generation, with the cadet crew of the Enterprise G or whatever. I really hate bashing this flick, I'd love to gush about it, but I simply cannot nor can I allow the super fucking COOL factor of seeing is so early (with Spock!) affect my opinion of it.<p> It's a movie for the coooooool, XTREME generation, where everything has to be the biggest baddest most more powerful than anything else.
April 8, 2009, 9:34 p.m. CST
I am so sick and tired of people screaming "Plant!" every time someone actually enjoys a movie. Believe it or not, just because you've decided you won't like something doesn't mean everyone will agree with you. (Amazing idea, isn't it, that anyone could dare to disagree with your opinion? Grow the fuck up.)
April 8, 2009, 9:52 p.m. CST
Dude, they'll scream plant no matter what. I generally praised The Incredible Hulk and was labeled plant for it, despite giving an entire paragraph to tearing into what a terrible actress the dude from Aerosmith is. What kind of plant does that?
April 9, 2009, 11:39 a.m. CST
Thanks for your opinion. It's odd that few of these reviews mention the plot, Nimoy, Greenwood or how this film fits all of TREK -- I've read lots of hyperbolic, superficial gushing, and little else. The galaxy destroying sun-- presumably enabled by this red "protomatter" -- seems a bit much. Of course, the trailers showed little but explosions and action, anyway.
May 9, 2009, 4:46 p.m. CST
Also, a negative review is just as likely a result of a plant (from a competing studio) as is a positive one.
May 11, 2009, 9:02 a.m. CST
Terminex destroys all