Advertisement
Lot's of fun. This should be the standard of what people call "popcorn movies."
I can't believe though that anything else this summer is going to be this good.
Live long and prosper!
I can't believe though that anything else this summer is going to be this good.
Live long and prosper!
posted by:
|
Los Angeles
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Star Trek
Fri, May 8, 2009 - 8:54 AMNow *thats* the kind of review I'm lookin' for! -
-
Re: Star Trek
Fri, May 8, 2009 - 10:13 AMErrors in Ebert's Review:
I was shocked to see that Ebert gave the film a very low review. And some of his criticism is in accurate. I get into it below.
****SPOILERS ALET SPOILER ALERT******
****SPOILERS ALET SPOILER ALERT******
"Time travel as we all know, is impossible in the sense it happens here, but many things are possible in this film. Anyone with the slightest notion of what a black hole is, or how it behaves, will find the black holes in “Star Trek” hilarious. "
Who cares? Fair enough on the black hole but again, who cares?
"The logic is also a little puzzling when Scotty can beam people into another ship in outer space, but they have to physically parachute to land on a platform in the air from which the Romulans are drilling a hole to the Earth’s core. "
Specifically, the Romulans were blocking the ability to transport/beam at this juncture in the store. So it's not puzzling at all.
"After they land there, they fight with two Romulan guards, using ... fists and swords?"
Well, maybe firing weapons could draw attention, or for the Romulans, cause some serious damage to their device. There was a specific reason for this, which I forget and will have to look into when I see it again. Cause I am definitely seeing it again.
"The platform is suspended from Arthur C. Clark’s “space elevator,” but instead of fullerenes, the cable is made of metallic chunks the size of refrigerators." I don't understand this, particularly the Arthur C. Clark reference, at all.
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Fri, May 8, 2009 - 12:07 PMAll of his big complaints are what most Star Trek fans found so endearing in the original series. Sounds like this movie keeps true to the old school. There is a time to overanalyze...Star Trek ain't one of those times. For God's sake man (in best Kirk voice) -
-
Re: Star Trek
Fri, May 8, 2009 - 6:50 PMMy roommate said she thinks it looks good. I told her I think so too. I will most def see this at some point. I just saw the previoew on tv a week or two ago for the first time and was a bit surprised. I cant imagine anything bearing the Star Trek name sucking. : ) -
-
Re: Star Trek
Sun, May 24, 2009 - 8:54 PMreally, cause I tried giving some of the older (but not oldest) stuff a watch, and they do suck. but this one is quite entertaining.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Fri, May 8, 2009 - 10:16 AMThis MAY be a reason why I enjoyed this movie:
When ever the preview came on in a theater, I would walk out until it was over. Whenever the commercial came on during the NBA playoffs I'd mute it and look away.
I didn't know that any of the biggish name actors were in it. AND I didn't recognize Eric Bana. Turns out he can act! Who knew??? -
-
Re: Star Trek
Fri, May 8, 2009 - 10:01 PMgeek that i am you know i had to spend the afternoon at the famous grand lake theatre checking out this flick. i would give it 4.5 outta 5 stars. i loved the portrayal of bones, scotty, and sulu. the idea of time travel is explored and has the biggest effect on kirk and spock. spock's character is a little different than what i am used to. . .but i still liked the film and thought they did justice to roddenberry's legacy. -
-
Re: Star Trek
Fri, May 8, 2009 - 11:59 PMI saw it twice today (sort of a long story).
We had a few issues with it. The black hole issues, as discussed, and some of the time travel issues were problematic to my (literal-minded, scientifically-oriented) family.
Most of the characters were dead on. The mannerisms, speech patterns, and characteristics were EXACTLY right for people who would grow into the characters we know and love. With one major exception, to us - Uhura and her relationship with the person I don't want to name (I want to avoid giving spoilers). We were also not pleased with some of the more obvious anomalies and discrepancies from TOS. (Although, to be fair, not all of them would be known to more temperate geeks. We're hardcore geeks.)
We thought the special effects were brilliantly done, absolutely seamless. Casting was spot-on. And the plot, while a little far-fetched, worked very well for these characters and the movie's idea of a rebooting of TOS.
I gave it a 10/10. I think my father gave it a 9 (he had trouble following some of the fast cuts, so didn't get some of the action sequences). Mum doesn't rate movies, but from our discussions I think she'd have given it a 9.5 or 10. :) -
-
Re: Star Trek
Sun, May 10, 2009 - 8:39 AMSpeaking over here from the decidely non sfi-fi geek seats, but as someone who grew up as a kid on the original crew's exploits, i thought it was outstanding entertainment. I really loved that they stayed true to the character's personalities and pulled in plenty of insider jokes, zingers and back story allusions. It made me smile. I also loved that in spite of the first rate action sequences it was suitably campy, as the original series was. About the only knocks i could give it would the blatant mugging of StarshipTroopers and the barely veiled comparisons of Vulcans to the original Israelis. The implied lecture took away from the rest of the film's vibe for me. All tolled, I'd happily give it a 4.75/5. Dont wait till this comes out on DVD.
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Sun, May 10, 2009 - 4:56 PMThe Original Series (thought so, but had to check). -
-
Re: Star Trek
Sun, May 10, 2009 - 9:25 PMThanks John.
************SPOILERS************
To Dragon:
How does the new Star Trek movie have discrepancies with the TOS?
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Mon, May 11, 2009 - 10:55 AMIf this film were assessed purely on its own merits, it would be correctly regarded as just another vapid, special-effects-laden action movie. It was a big flashy waste of time that leveraged the Star Trek heritage to try to salvage a mediocre plot and extraordinarily shallow characterizations.
I noticed that with each new appearance of a familiar face, my theater cohort would applaud approvingly. They were responding to the mere fact of these characters being in the film, not any quality within the film itself. No one applauded any aspect of the story.
Regarding Ebert's review, he has a habit of writing careless and free-form reviews for films he regards as trivial. He free associates about minor plot points, clearly signaling his disregard. I think that's what was going on here, and I have to say I have the same response. It's impossible for me to take this dumb, pretty film seriously.
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Mon, May 11, 2009 - 3:14 PMThe movie is called Star Trek.
If there were no legacy of Star Trek this movie would not exist. The script wouldn't exist, the characters wouldn't exist etc. To say that "if the movie were to stand on it's own" completely ignores that fact that the movie can not stand on it's own. It's not an option.
If you hate or disregard all things Star Trek, fine, understandably this movie is not for you. But to say that the movie can't stand on it's own is a dishonest cut down. This film does not live in a vacuum and never will.
My girlfriend probably will not like it, but that won't stop me from seeing it again with her (after I take mom to it!). She probably wouldn't have liked Watchmen either if she didn't work on it. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Star Trek
Mon, May 11, 2009 - 4:31 PMI gotta disagree with you there, Pink.
For my money, Casino Royale is a great movie whether you're committed to the Bond franchise or not. The Dark Knight -- great movie, whether or not you saw the other 5 Batman films. Star Trek II, one of the greatest science fiction movies ever made. Why? Because it had a fabulous and ingenuous story, and it went right into the depths of its characters and made them live.
This new Star Trek is trafficking in those roles without trying to fill the shoes. It adds nothing to the Star Trek universe we already know, and gives no meaningful perspective on its characters.
Kirk's daddy issues don't say anything significant about his character ... it's just a shorthand, a crib in the screenplay saying "character development here". But it's not adequately developed to produce any real payoff -- they're just going through the motions.
I thought the whole movie was like that -- just going through the motions. Big explosions, check .... Live Long and Prosper, check .... -
-
Re: Star Trek
Mon, May 11, 2009 - 4:49 PMSee, we felt it to be the first of a trilogy. The characters are set up here. The main story might be set up in the next, and then the big showdown in the third.
Since I have a dim recollection of reading that the cast was signed for two more, this made sense to us.
-
Re: Star Trek
Mon, May 11, 2009 - 9:44 PMI'm going to have to agree with Barnaby (as unpopular as that opinion seems to be).
I don't think the characters where anywhere near "spot on" (except for Karl Urban maybe).
And no, I'm not a fanboy, nor am I a lamenting TOS "purist". I simply don't think J.J. Abrams was ever interested in making an accurate Star Trek origin movie (whatever the eff that means). Because he doesn't have to be accurate, and he knows it. He just has to know how to cash the checks. The mere idea of an origin movie, and amazing special effects is good enough for most movie goers (as barnaby's applauding theater cohort attests to), and to make it sell well & give it a 95% pure rating in Rotten Tomatoes.
I remember the countless interviews with J.J. Abrams where he almost takes some sort of sick pleasure in stating over and over again on how he's not a Star Trek fan and never was.
How could I possibly enjoy a Star Trek movie directed by a guy who seems almost proud that he's not a Star Trek fan? Or when the two actors who play Spock & Kirk proudly boast in print & television interviews that they watched next to no Star Trek in their lives?
Just because most people have? Ridiculous. -
-
Re: Star Trek
Mon, May 11, 2009 - 9:49 PMA male co-worker that is in his late 40's said he saw it last weekend and that it's the best movie he's seen all year.
BOINK!!!
-
Re: Star Trek
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 11:43 AMIt's not an origin movie. It's an alternative reality.
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 12:21 PM4 of the other 5 Batman films have nothing to do with Dark Knight, thank goodness, and to further that I wish that all copies of the Tim Burton Batman's were destroyed and unavailable. In addition, the TV show Batman has nothing to do with Dark Knight. That film does not fit into the trajectory of Batman as a comic, TV show or any of the other movies really.
That's a fine way to make a movie that might appeal to a mass audience but a lame way to make a movie out of a serial.
Dark Knight and Casino Royale re-imagine those franchises and do not build on the work that came before. Not so the case with Star Trek II: Wrath of Kahn. The characters in that film were developed over years with the Star Trek series, and I don't think that film would exist in a vacuum.
What I like about the new Star Trek is that it fits itself into the Star Trek canon and not merely discarding previous iterations. Finally someone has taken what comics did a long time ago (crisis on infinite earth) and made it work seamlessly into a film. It allows alternative interpretations of events and character relationships (something fan fiction has done for a long time - even though that usually involves a romantic relationship between Kirk and Spock), does not dismiss what went before it, and really re-boots the franchise for several more films.
But the bottom line is that the reason that you don't like it is precisely the reason that I do like it.
I also liked all the pastiche in the new Star Trek like the Wrath of Kahn story elements and some other stuff that I forget right now exactly what it was. Another reason to see it again.
-
-
Next on Fox; When Film Aficionados Attack!!!
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 1:24 PMDont get me wrong, I'm enjoying the hell out of the back and forth.
Pass the popcorn!
-
Re: Star Trek
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 3:32 PMI don't mind the series reboot or the changes of characterization -- what I mind is that the plot was perfunctory, the characters were shallow, and the film was largely a runway for the old, beloved icons to show up and wave. With big explosions.
If you liked the story, more power to you. No one says Star Trek 11 has to be Citizen Kane, but I'd like a little more from J. J. Abrams. -
-
Re: Star Trek
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 11:48 PMFair enought B.
My friend who is NOT Star Trek knowledgeable at all liked the film a lot. We agreed during that SPECTACULAR performance by the Lakers that it was better than Iron Man.
So there! -
-
Re: Star Trek
Wed, May 13, 2009 - 8:26 AMMy roommate came home last night loving Star Trek. She never saw any of the previous movies and said she had seen maybe one or two episodes of the TV show. Purely through cultural osmosis she was vaguely familiar with the characters.
Find me some people NOT familiar with the old movies and TV show who don't like this thing. (Caveat, they have to have a minimal amount of appreciation for fantasy.)
-
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 6:37 PM<<even though that usually involves a romantic relationship between Kirk and Spock>>
lmao
effing hilarious dude -
-
Re: Star Trek
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 7:23 PMThey were so gay for each other. Even though Spock only spwned like every 9 or 12 years or something? Actually I think it was just love. Kirk was so hot shirtless with basket showing. But not as hot as Robert Conrad in Wild West. Mmmmmmm BABY!!! -
-
Re: Star Trek
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 7:30 PM -
-
ALSO:
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 7:32 PM -
-
Re: ALSO:
Wed, May 13, 2009 - 9:20 AM -
-
Re: ALSO:
Wed, May 13, 2009 - 10:19 AMI don't know where I got this, but this is one of those rare moments when it is applicable:
frankenstein.com/mp3/Star_Trek.mp3
it's only 2 minutes long and funny.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 11:50 PMWhy do you think Bones is so jealous of Spock all the time?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Mon, May 11, 2009 - 4:35 PMWe found a few.
*******************spoilers!!*****************
1) Uhura is just too pushy. She was never submissive, per se, in TOS but neither was she quite that aggressive.
2) Chekhov joined the crew of the Enterprise during the second season. Hence, cute as he is here, he shouldn't be here.
3) Amanda dies in the movie, but showed up in an episode of TOS (which takes place after the movie) and three of the earlier movies.
4) Bones is (roughly) the same height as Spock in the movie; in TOS, he's several inches shorter. This one is not a biggie, but it jumped right out at both of us.
I think there was at least one more that Mum and I found, but I can't remember it. Please also know that I'm not saying that the movie is -worse- because of these discrepancies. We (Mum and I) are purists and we'd prefer everything to conform to what we already know. We'll also manage to see anomalies wherever they exist. It's just the way we are. :) (It's also what makes me good at my job!) -
-
Re: Star Trek
Mon, May 11, 2009 - 4:39 PM*********** spoilers ************
Hey Dragon, you might want to revisit the whole "alternate timeline" aspect of the film. They're heading into a different future -- that explains the premature appearance of Chekov (Sulu too), Amanda's death, and, uh, the destruction of Vulcan ....
Agreed they may have overdone it with the Uhura overhaul. Obviously they feel a little bad for having made the black woman on the bridge into the outer space operator.
That said, I saw a very moving interview with Nichol Nichols, where she said she was planning on quitting the show, feeling like her character wasn't given enough to do. She stayed on after receiving a letter from Martin Luther King (!) asking her to tough it out, saying it was making a difference to the youngsters to have her up there in space. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Star Trek
Mon, May 11, 2009 - 4:53 PM>> See, we felt it to be the first of a trilogy. The characters are set up here.
Well ... if that's the case, then why did they spend so much screen time establishing characters who are already very well known?
I know I'm going to be in the minority here ... all of my friends thought it was great. .... :) I'm glad for any of y'all who had a good time.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Mon, May 11, 2009 - 8:49 PMSPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!! GEEK ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------
'm sad about amanda's death. in this version spock and sarek have a closer relationship so thats nice.
i'm really ambivalent about the spock/uhuru thang
i remember reading something many years ago saying that kirk and uhura did meet in the academy, and kirk wanted her to be the "next notch on his bedpost" and she turned him down. :)
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Star Trek
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 9:34 AMSpoiler......
My son gave it a solid "wow....awesome.....except for that kissing part." "Green girls are GROSS"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The spock/uhura thing I never saw coming -
-
Re: Star Trek
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 8:59 PMI have heard objections to this movie on many levels, from the jerky camera shots to the Federation being depicted as "Socialist". For me the problem was mounting discrepancies.
There are many discrepancies between TOS and the movie, but I think we're supposed to check them at the door because it's an alternate universe, ie: what would happen with that Spock singularity thing. Each discrepancy got under my skin, but eventually I enjoyed the movie so much, I didn't care. It totally rocked.
My main discrepancy was Karl Urban as Bones. This bothered me a) because he's supposed to be significantly older than Kirk, and b) not so hot as Urban (drool). But apparently the actor really, really studied his role, because he had the mannerisms down ultra pat. It was a pleasure to watch.
In the end, they probably could have thrown Einstein and Dr. Who in there and I wouldn't have cared. And I will probably see it a few more times in the theatre, and then buy it.
I have to say I am thrilled to have TOS back in any form. I never cared for the Second Generation or any of the other permutations. -
-
Re: Star Trek
Tue, May 12, 2009 - 11:47 PM" Federation being depicted as "Socialist"."
Ha ahah ahahhahah ahhahhha haha
That's the funniest thing ever.
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Wed, May 13, 2009 - 9:18 AMOf course the Federation is Socialist -- it's a moneyless state. In "First Contact" Picard explains that people don't work for money in the Federation, they work to better themselves and to make a contribution.
Now the thing that I really hate about Star Fleet is that it's a Humanitarian Armada. Stoopid humanitarians, wasting tax payers' latinum to help aliens.
-
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Fri, May 15, 2009 - 10:42 PMActually, DS9 was my favorite of the variations. Only truly different Star Trek. Lots more disreputable characters.
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Wed, May 13, 2009 - 5:06 PM<< because it's an alternate universe>.
Boy you said it. It sure is. -
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Thu, May 14, 2009 - 1:58 PM****SPOILERS ALERT SPOILER ALERT******
****SPOILERS ALERT SPOILER ALERT******
(As if everyone hasn't seen this damn thing by now)
Was not expecting Vulcan make out sessions - rowr. Really dug the newly empowered Urhura.
Really enjoyed this - I have to agree with Pink, I think this is going to be THE action adventure film to beat this summer.
Keith Urban - wow, what a perfect casting job. How the hell did they find a modern, cranky Jimmy Stewart?
Anybody else notice the little Shatner swagger at the very end of the movie?
I was laughing watching the last black hole appear, saying to my husband, hmmmm - they should probably warp away from that thing pretty darn quick... -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Star Trek
Thu, May 14, 2009 - 4:29 PM<< I think this is going to be THE action adventure film to beat this summer. >>
We'll see. I'm a geek for Terminator the way you all seem to be Trekkies. I'm giddy for next weekend. Hopefully we'll have an embarrassment of riches on our hands! -
-
Re: Star Trek
Thu, May 14, 2009 - 9:22 PMAmazing film. I am not even a die-hard Trekker, but I was in awe and cheering throughout this film. Great casting, directing, plot and special effects. Each actor made each character his/her own. The 2 and a half hour film flew by.
I want to see it again! -
-
Re: Star Trek
Thu, May 14, 2009 - 10:23 PMfingers crossed for Terminator. I'm also not a trekkie - I just thought it was completely entertaining. -
-
Re: Star Trek
Sat, May 16, 2009 - 1:28 AMI think I may be more of a Trekkie than I thought I was.
Time and time again I saw our original characters being played out by these kids.
It put a smile on my face for much of the movie.
Spock with his percentages, and raising eyebrow.
Kirks smirks.
Bones the drama queen.
Scotty giving it all she's got
Sulu's confidence
It was a real treat!
I don't recall the Spock and Uhuru thing.
Was this new?
I'm may need to see this a few more times to wrap my head around the story.
Bravo to JJ
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Sat, May 16, 2009 - 8:53 AMI believe the was one tv episode wear humans with god like powers forced spock and uhura to be make love in the tamest sense with each other. -
-
Re: Star Trek
Sun, May 17, 2009 - 4:06 PM*Plato's Stepchildren* was the name of the episode. the pairings in that episode were kirk/uhura, and christine/spock.
some tv stations refused to show this episode because there was an interracial couple involved. (gotta remember this was the '60's) the pairing of christine/spock was bittersweet because she had a huge crush on spock during all 3 seasons. -
-
Re: Star Trek
Sun, May 17, 2009 - 11:12 PMThe kiss between Kirk and Uhura in *Plato's Stepchildren* was the first interracial kiss in the history of television.
This movie kicked so much ass. And, it was fun!
I think I'm going to love T4, but I don't think it's going to be FUN.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Star Trek
Thu, May 28, 2009 - 10:59 AM<<Keith Urban - wow, what a perfect casting job. How the hell did they find a modern, cranky Jimmy Stewart? >>
Maybe they approached Keith at the Country Music Awards or Grand Ole Opry?
*laughing/ducking*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Fri, May 15, 2009 - 10:50 PMOK. Finally got out to see it. Given that this is an alternate reality story (because I hate to think that all the original characters had done was wiped clean and this is a do-over), this is a great story. I liked the younger second echelon characters - Scotty, Chekov, Bones. Thought they read true as younger selves. The villain was not that menacing, but it wasn't really about him. These were good, funny performances. Effects were great. Didn't really expect a lot of depth. This is Star Trek, not Hamlet. -
-
Re: Star Trek
Tue, May 26, 2009 - 8:30 PMLoved it! I've never been a trekkie, but I enjoyed the first TV seasons of Star Trek and this prequel lived up to everything I could have expected. SPOILERS: Even the Captain was like the now old guy but decidedly a better actor. And having Spock as himself in two time dimensions with the original was brilliant!
-
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Wed, May 27, 2009 - 10:08 AMThen i guess you don't know the meaning of the word! -
-
Re: Star Trek
Wed, May 27, 2009 - 11:17 AM<<Then i guess you don't know the meaning of the word! >>
neither does J.J. Abrams but it didn't stop him.....
BOY is it certainly not a prequel. Not to Star Trek anyway.
It'd be a terrific prequel for The Hills, 90210 or Gossip Girl, though. -
-
Re: Star Trek
Wed, May 27, 2009 - 4:40 PM<<
It'd be a terrific prequel for The Hills, 90210 or Gossip Girl, though. >>
It would only set those shows up for disappointment and failure if used that way.
i mean not one of the shows you mentioned has people being instantly incinerated in a rocket furnace being used to drill into a planet for the purpose of destroying it and killing all 6 billion people living on it after a death-defying jump by spacesuits from orbit leading to an action packed fight scene taking place on a dangerous and precarious platform hundreds of miles above the surface.
Or anything that can compare. -
-
Re: Star Trek
Wed, May 27, 2009 - 5:03 PM<< i mean not one of the shows you mentioned has people being instantly incinerated in a rocket furnace>>
I know. I wish.
-
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Thu, May 28, 2009 - 10:05 AMPrequels are books or movies that explain what happened before the already-established story, such as the last three turkeys released by Lucas in the Star Wars universe.
**SPOILER**
This movie takes place after everything else produced re the Star Trek universe: it may be a reboot, but it also includes an ancient Spock, who is at least 180. Therefore, it is no prequel. -
-
Re: Star Trek
Thu, May 28, 2009 - 10:54 AMIf you have time travel, I suppose its hard to define what a prequel would be. "Already-established" doesn't necessarily stay established. This was more like a parallel-quel. Whatever you call it, I thought it was a great solution to the problem of wanting to use TOS universe without having to be completely "faithful" to it. Some "purists" may be upset, but it allows more freedom.
-
-
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Wed, May 27, 2009 - 3:30 PMWhat does J.J. Abrams have to do with it? It's clearly the prequel to the original series that my friends and i enjoyed some 40 years ago.
-
-
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Wed, June 24, 2009 - 9:02 PMI was underwhelmed by Star Trek. Didn't hate it. Just a very lukewarm reaction. Surprised by such uniform praise from critics. My feelings were somewhere between Anthony Lane's and Roger Ebert's. Very ordinary story line. Some very poor acting (e.g. from the actor playing Bones). Very paint by the numbers rebel motif by the young Kirk character. (in trouble with the law, hits on all the girls, gets into bar fights, blah blah blah). Some "What the fuck?" implausible moments. Biggest one for me was...
SPOILER
older Spock lying to young Kirk about not telling about older Spock just so that they can become friends (or whatever). Given how such information may have been necessary to convince young Spock, old Spock is going to risk the destruction of Earth and the entire Federation just to set his younger self up for a bromance with Kirk? Come on.
Or why did they need to dig a hole into the center of a planet? Set the black hole anywhere near and that should have been fine. After all, that's how old Spock sucked up the supernova. Why did the rules change, other than to slow things down to allow for rescue by the protagonists.
And "evacuate the planet" when they have a couple minutes? Huh?
And there were a few other science and technology sillinesses.
Action sequences were OK but forgettable.
Probably one of the better of the Star Trek films, but that's damning with faint praise.
By far the best thing about the film was young Spock, but even he seemed a bit out of character (too emotional) compared to what we know of the old Spock. And the ease by which Kirk got Spock to blow his cool and give up command was ridiculous. Lazy writing. -
-
Re: Star Trek
Wed, June 24, 2009 - 11:17 PMGreat points ron
Although I was entertained at times, I couldn't help but feel disappointed.
I thought Eric Bana did a great job as Nero
Spock and Uhura in a "relationship"? Yeah right.
Every time I saw Sulu -- couldn't help but think of harold and Kumar
Hated the actor that played Checkov. Horrible.
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Fri, June 26, 2009 - 8:51 AM"I thought Eric Bana did a great job as Nero "
True. He's always good
"Spock and Uhura in a "relationship"? Yeah right. "
Right. Implausibly out of character
"Hated the actor that played Checkov. Horrible. "
Me too
-
-
-
Re: Star Trek
Thu, June 25, 2009 - 9:08 PMI'll just add my two cents. I am not a film snob or anything like that, I just like good sci-fi movies. And this was one of the best, I have seen in a whole. Call me crazy, but I also thought the casting was genius. -
-
Re: Star Trek
Fri, June 26, 2009 - 2:18 AMI *can* get behind that, but I'll post this song anywho.
www.youtube.com/watch
I loved it. We're in for a trilogy, right? Can't wait!
-
