Star-Trek

[Concord]

My wife and I loved it.

Nice Reboot.

It's got the makings of a good thing here if they do it right.

 

[DallasEast]

I too went an hour before the movie started and thought they'd be sold out. I was even more shocked when he lady at the window told me only 5 tickets had been sold. By the time the movie started, there were maybe 20 people in theater which I thought was strange.

I grew up on Star Trek and here's my take but don't read if you don't like some spoilers:

This movie is going to be extremely popular with the younger "new" Star Trek audience. As a sci-fi movie taking away the historical aspects of the characters, it's a must see film; great specal effects and action. But as an "old timer" Star Trek fan, I thought it fell short developing the characters and the plot, as it got very confusing at times. Too bad because it was a missed oportunity for JJ Abrams. The first half hour of the movie was absolutely unreal in its intensity, special effects and story telling as it started to develop Kirk's character and that theme carried over in the second half hour as the other chracters were introduced. From there things leveled out and in some cases, got a little silly with Spock and Uhura (what the hell was that and why was it necessary for the film?).

Other headscratchers: The fleet's flagship being manned by a rookie crew who hadn't even completed the academy? The universe is threatened by an oversized mining ship that's armed to the teeth? The villain blames Spock for not being able to stop a supernova from destroying his planet? I could go on and on but you get the idea. It's a weak plot.

This movie won't win an Acadamy Award for best picture but if you want a night of good entertainment with your kids, go see it.

I had a long reply set up, but lost it. Darn it. :bang2: Hopefully I won't lose a shorter version this time.

I agree about Uhura's, Sulu's and Chekov's character development, especially Pavel's, but disagree about Kirk's and Spock's. They were solid in my opinion. McCoy's and Scotty's could have been better, but I'm okay with how they were presented. Taking into account of the movie's time contrasts, I think that Abrams' did a very good job, although not great or fantastic, with the reintroduction of the original series' characters.

I thought that the plot was very solid from start to finish.

Abrams' deserves a two big thumbs up in my book for the Spock/Uhura scenes. He's reinventing a half-human/half-Vulcan character which will explore that duality to the extreme. It drew a huge 'wow' from me and a big laugh too. He's laying the basis for the reinvention of Star Trek and that character twist is truly necessary for the newer generation of fans to accept the movies/shows which will follow this one.

Here's a few explanations without giving away TOO many spoilers ( :crossed: ):

• The explanation behind supplementing Academy cadets into the ship crews of not only the Enterprise, but also other ships docked in orbit, was explained with the subplot of Starfleet deploying the majority of the fleet--along with the seasoned officers and crews--to deal with the coming threat.
• Nero himself explained that he outfitted the mining ship to enact his revenge. The key here is when the technology to upgrade his ship came from.
• Spock corroborated Nero's account. Speaking with Kirk, Spock recited the plan which he presented to the Romulan Council for eliminating the supernova threat. Abrams assumes that 24th century communication (which has established for viewers in ST:THG and DS9) for Romulan citizens is advanced enough to make them all aware of that plan.

Again, I disagree. The plot was solid, but it will not appeal very much with more mainstream/non-Trek fans--so I do agree with you about how popular the film will eventually be for some moviegoers and film critics. It's a good movie, but I would recommend that ticket buyers go in with an open mind and even possibly catch some of J.J. Abrams' previous work--like Mission Impossible III and Cloverfield--beforehand. I really do believe that his film will spark a lot of renewed interest in the Star Trek franchise for newer fans.

 

[Tusan_Homichi]

In case anyone was wondering, it did $7 million Thursday night and $24 million Friday. So, there's a good chance it'll crack $50+ million over the weekend.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Better than the Wrath of Kahn?

No, at least in my opinion.

WOK was much truer to Roddenberry's vision of Trek than this most recent Trek film, which is also a good movie in its own right.

However, people who have spent most of their lives ambivalent towards Trek aren't likely to give two shakes about Roddenberry's vision. They will be far more dazzled by and receptive to this new film -- a reality I can accept and even respect.

WOK was a smart sci-fi action picture that tackled complex themes such as loss, sacrifice, and death in a substantive way. This new Trek film is a very good action picture with the most modern special effects available.

It's a good movie, but nothing beats WOK.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

that was a good movie, to be sure. but this is just a great movie overall. funny, suspensefull...i HATE heights and there's one scene in particular were i had to keep holding my breathe.

great movie. hard to compare to the older movies, but so far i'd put it as the best.

Nothing beats WOK.

You're dead to me. :

 

[TheCount]

Saw it with the fiance and we both loved it, being the closet-geek she is, she actually knows more about the mytology than I do. A friend of ours is a big Trekkie and thought it was just okay.

 

[Achozen]

Not much of a Star Trek fan, but I liked it.

Green Chick > *

 

[YosemiteSam]

Saw it Saturday. Execellent. I love the way it's setup to create more movies with the new cast.

 

[joseephuss]

I liked it. I am not a Trekkie. Never watched more than a handful of any of the newer series and the ones I did see I found uninteresting. Still I watched several of the movies once they reached cable and enjoyed a few of them. I don't think any of them were truly good movies except for Wrath of Kahn.

This new one was very entertaining. I am a simple person. The part I liked the most is that when the ships fired weapons they actually fired a lot of weapons. It was not a single blast here or there. It was what one would truly expect from a star ship engaged in battle. Guns were a blazing.

 

[theogt]

What a fantastic movie.

I'm now a Trekkie.

 

[DallasEast]

Just my opinion, but Abrams wasn't seeking to "out do" any of the previous movies which evolved from both the original series and its sequel. Instead, he's trying to re-energize the Star Trek series with this film.

If my folks can be believed, I began watching the original series during its final season at age three. While I wouldn't call myself a Trekkie, I am most definitely a Trekker.

From my own viewpoint, Star Trek should not be compared with any of the previous films. Both the classic and animated series gave birth to The Motion Picture, The Wrath of Khan, The Seach For Spock, The Voyage Home, The Final Frontier and The Undiscovered Country--while the sequel birthed Generations, First Contact, Insurrection :thumbdo: and Nemesis.

These films emphasize what Star Trek has become--which is, with respect, old. The tried and true formula which pushed the films onto the big screen had long since peaked with First Contact. The time for injecting new blood and vision into the Star Trek franchise had long since elapsed. Quite frankly, there is no greater example than the Enterprise series for illustrating just how new material wasn't cutting it any more for television either (And no. I loved Voyager, so I'm not including it with the decline ).

Star Trek has returned Gene Roddenberry's vision back to its roots--back to where it began and that's where my comparison begins and ends. Abrams is no Roddenberry, but he does grasp much of what made Star Trek initially appealed to fans forty years ago. While his film doesn't match Roddenberry's landmark creation, Abrams has gotten off to a heck of a good start by re-infusing Roddenberry's "morality play" methodology.

That's the real basis of Star Trek's appeal for so many for so long and I am so happy that someone has finally attempted to take Roddenberry's mantle--albeit that it may be for one movie only.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

we got DE all wound up too

 

[CowboyMike]

What a fantastic movie.

I'm now a Trekkie.

Welcome. You have been assimilated.

Remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

Risk... is your business. That's what this starship is all about.

May you live long and prosper.

 

[TheCount]

I'm excited to see what happens with the next movie, he had a lot laid out already as far as what to do with this first movie, where the series goes next should be interesting.

I wish someone would have done the Star Wars prequels other than Lucas, that's for sure. Maybe after he's dead we'll finally see another good Star Wars movie.

 

[MrMom]

There were definitely some plot holes and things that took me out of the experience, but I had a great time overall.

Now for Terminator Salvation, which I'm sure will have just as many plot holes, but I'm hyped for it.

 

[theogt]

In Bruges was a great movie -- probably Farrell's best, though I liked Tigerland a lot.

 

[kristie]

saw with my husband. loved it.

 

[YosemiteSam]

saw with my husband. loved it.

My wife wouldn't step foot near a Star Trek movie. Although, when Revenge of the Sith came out for some odd reason she offered to go to this movie with me. Of course, I haven't lived that day down since.

 

[Duane]

In Bruges was a great movie -- probably Farrell's best, though I liked Tigerland a lot.

Very funny movie but too much graphic violence for my taste.

 

[mldardy]

Very funny movie but too much graphic violence for my taste.

Yeah especially at the end. Some of that stuff is crazy.