Star Trek (2009)

[Lady Serenity]

I cannot wait to see this one despite being huge Star Wars fan

[Vexx]

I'm going to treat this like I've treated the Sherlock Holmes incarnations and re-interpretations over the decades... we'll give it a chance and see if they can tell a story.

The critical part I wonder about is if they can recreate the Spock/Kirk/McCoy verbal philosophical banter that the original cast evoked.

[KimmyChan]

It's out in May in cinemas here up and down the UK and is bound to be a huge summer hit

[stubby42]

I just got back from it, I'm litterally buzzing from seeing it I'm probably going to watch it again tommorow.

Its the first star trek movie where I feel cool about seeing it a star trek movie.

I've been a fan of the show for a long time but I was never into the first series (I've never watched it) I grew up on deep space 9 and voyager.

This star trek movie is incredibly far removed from them, to give you an idea just how far removed it is from the latter serries (cant make comment on the first) they manage to fit in sabotage by the beastie boys.

Dont worry it works, the whole film is amazing.

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

Yeah I saw it yesterday. It was really really good. While not *strictly* cannon they did it in such a way that it fits into overall story well enough. It was really quite well done and those unfamiliar with Star Trek or who never had interest in it before would be able to watch it quite easily. All the original series characters are there and the by-play was pretty entertaining as well as their history. In fact the actors portrayal of each character was done well, Zachary Quinto nailed Spock imo. It was good to see Lenard Nimoy again as well. Although Bones' line of "Dammit I'm a doctor, not a physicist" did seem kind of odd, but still made me smile. As did Scotty's lines later on. I'm pretty sure they got all the one-liners the characters are famous for in there somewhere and most wouldn't pick up on them unless you had prior knowledge of them.

Anyway. definitely worth seeing, even if you were a fan of the series or not.

[Ithekro]

If that was an "odd numbered film" I wonder what the new "even numbered" films are going to be like?

They hit just about every single line they possibly could and made it fit. They also did some other things that were subtile but homeagey enough to amuse me (the apple Kirk is eating for instance was a nice touch for the origination of that scene in the lore).

There were a few wonky things involved...but this is Star Trek. Most find a why to work anyway and are easily forgiven.


The only line I don't remember hearing was "He's dead, Jim". That might have been said...I just don't remember hearing it.

[TrueKnight]

any other comments whether praise or criticism from fans of the series? friends told me the movie was awesome but they're not exactly star trek fans. I'm definitely going to see it soon but am a bit skeptical about it so will appreciate views from the audiences who are fans of the series and had seen it in order to set my expectations lol... Because at rotten tomatoes the movie currently is also a big hit and overwhelmingly awesome.

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

[Ithekro]

I've watched Star Trek for a long time. This movie is just fine. It is a little more action packed than the other Star Trek films, but then this is the first time they've used a younger cast ("The Motion Picture" was made when the whole cast was in their late 30s or early 40s, and the Next Generation movies were made after the entire cast had been doing Star Trek for over seven years) so the actors themselves could put more energy into the action like some of the early "action" episodes of Star Trek when the cast was younger.

They hit most every plot point they could, and almost every one-liner they could. They even add some more good one-liners. While a few things are clearly a lot different than it once was, most can be explained away quite easily while others are kind of in the realm of "okay, that's different". Most can be explained away as things that have happened in the last 40 years that means that certain things can't really happen as they did in the orignal show (such as the Enterprise being built in San Francisco Naval Yards (Hunter's Point)...which now is getting homes built over it, (and the city is heavy anti-Navy politically) so it is unlikely that there will ever be a naval yard there again...even for Starfleet...so it gets moved to someplace you could build a huge ship that doesn't need to be floated out to sea....) Or making the technology match more of what we have today pushed two or three steps beyond what is on the drawing boards, much like in the late 60s how stuff they used then was sometimes considered high tech but is today considered almost common.

The timeline is a bit wonky, but whenever you get into Star Trek, time can get wonky with alternate dimentions, multiple timelines, transporter accidents, whatever. A few of the old stories they couldn't do as they did originally anymore for one reason or another. But the stage is set. If this does well, we may see more of this version of Star Trek in the future, though I don't know if we will ever see another TV series based on this film. They could do it, but then why would the actors want to when they can do movies?

And for once the Enterprise isn't "the only ship in the quadrant". This is StarFLEET. When there is an emergency, the Fleet goes into action, not just one ship that happens to be a few hours away from the problem area. Especially if the emergency ships come out from Earth. I liked that.

[TinyRedLeaf]

[Overheard in the ticket queue]

Guy A: Wow, Star Trek is selling out fast. I didn't know it was so popular.

Guy B: I'm surprised too. I've always been more of a Star Wars fan. Star Trek is a bit too sterile to me, no offence to those Trekkies out there.

===========================

I was prepared to hate this film. Not because I'm a Trekkie, mind you. In fact, far from it. Like many other people, I've always found Star Trek a bit too "sterile" for my tastes. Even the "sexier" casts of TNG and various Star Trek spinoffs never really managed to capture my interest, while I've always found the original series to be, well, a tad dry. But I did enjoy the movies starring the original crew, especially Wrath of Khan. If you ask me, I personally find the uniforms worn in the first few movies to be the smartest-looking in the entire franchise. And the original crew had a chemistry which the best of TNG never really did have, in my opinion.

No, I was prepared to hate this film because of J. J. Abrams. I have a love-hate affair with his productions. I liked Felicity, but I never quite saw the point of Lost and Heroes, and I resent how those two latter series got as popular as they did. So, when I heard that Abrams had admitted to not being a great fan of Star Trek, I wondered, "Then why the heck did you take up the project? Just so you could inject some 'much-needed' sex appeal to a respected series?"

Well, I watched the movie, and you know what?

Star Trek isn't sterile any more. And, much as I hate to admit it, I concede that the franchise is now much better off because of it.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The timeline is a bit wonky, but whenever you get into Star Trek, time can get wonky with alternate dimentions, multiple timelines, transporter accidents, whatever. A few of the old stories they couldn't do as they did originally anymore for one reason or another. But the stage is set. If this does well, we may see more of this version of Star Trek in the future, though I don't know if we will ever see another TV series based on this film.

In addition to the above, I thought it might be of interest to make one further point: Abram's Star Trek has rebooted the franchise in much the same way that Chris Nolan's Batman Begins restarted the legend of the Dark Knight. Due to some wonky science involving black holes and the "many-worlds interpretation" of quantum mechanics, the "future" of the entire franchise, as we know it, has been irreversibly changed.

That is to say, Star Trek (2009) is not so much a prequel as it is a brand new adventure that launches the USS Enterprise into brave new worlds, boldy going where no man has gone before.

May its crew live long and prosper.

[Vexx]

I've a minor engineer's irritation with the Enterprise being built ON THE GROUND (almost every science fiction motif has starships being built in Earth orbit or farther out - in lunar orbit using lunar materials from a heavily industrialized Moon). The guides to the original series (ST:TOS) basically assumed a "Space Dock" where she had been built (later shown in the movies). The connection to the San Francisco navy shipyards was considered purely bureaucratic (the dockyards being in space but managed from SFO).

The Enterprise wasn't even supposed to able to land on a planet (hence the need for transporters). But whatever...

San Francisco has always had a strong military connection dating from settlement days through WW2 and after --- they still have the September Navy celebration with the Blue Angels doing their routine over the bay and many ships docked for people to visit. Visits to San Francisco in the Star Trek stories show that was where the StarFleet Academy was based as well as being an important diplomatic entry and meeting port.

This is 200 years from now.... things evolve, but hey the Golden Gate Bridge is still there.

So far *everyone* I know who has been a "trek" fan since The Beginning Of Time has been mostly very happy with their experience of this film.

[GuidoHunter_Toki]

This film is a super-charged version of Star Trek; action-packed, big visuals, dramatic story points and great character moments. The visuals are spectacular, the action is first rate and the world finely detailed. All of this would be for naught if the characters were not up to scratch and for the most part they are. Chris Pine manages to embody Captain Kirk. You see the character in him, just as with Zachary Quinto as Spock. Karl Urban is, in my opinion, the most successful as Dr. McCoy, managing to create some of the great touches that made the character so great. The writers cleverly used Leonard Nimoy’s character as the elder Spock in a scenario that allows this film to serve as both a sequel and a prequel at the same time, thereby avoiding the trap of adhering to the franchise’s continuity.

All around an enjoyable movie.

[Vinak]

great movie! 10/10

Spoiler for movie:

I just wish it wasn't one of them "reboots" or an "alternate reality" as they try to explain in the movie. but that is just personal preference.

[Ithekro]

Having the whole ship build on the surface does seem very odd. The authors suggested that it was so that the ship's artificial gravity could be tuned correctly to Earth Standard gavity. However there as been suggested in other older material that the saucer section of the Enterprise was built on land (in a dock at Hunter's Point) originally, while the secondary hull was built in orbit. The saucer could land (the drawing even have the landing struts on them), but only for emergency use since the ship could not reattach itself to the secondary hull without a starbase and spacedock support.

As for San Francisco. They might still have Fleet Week, but it is purely for city revenue. The City Council is very much against having the military in their city these days. On the other hand there really isn't any naval bases of any real size between San Diego and Pudget Sound anymore. At last none that really support any warships. Time may change this...since it is well over two hunderd years from now. Though I like the thought that Starfleet Headquarters could be based around the new Lucasfilm complex in San Francisco.

For future Star Trek, I do wonder just what the Fleet is doing. Seven or eight starships of various sizes I believe can be seen. I wonder just how other materials will handle these changes verses what has come before.

I would note that the "history section" of the new Star Trek Online game mentions the "incident" involving Spock in the "normal" Next Generation (post-Nemesis) timeline and then continues onwards.

[Tommy]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I've a minor engineer's irritation with the Enterprise being built ON THE GROUND (almost every science fiction motif has starships being built in Earth orbit or farther out - in lunar orbit using lunar materials from a heavily industrialized Moon). The guides to the original series (ST:TOS) basically assumed a "Space Dock" where she had been built (later shown in the movies). The connection to the San Francisco navy shipyards was considered purely bureaucratic (the dockyards being in space but managed from SFO).

The Enterprise wasn't even supposed to able to land on a planet (hence the need for transporters). But whatever...

San Francisco has always had a strong military connection dating from settlement days through WW2 and after --- they still have the September Navy celebration with the Blue Angels doing their routine over the bay and many ships docked for people to visit. Visits to San Francisco in the Star Trek stories show that was where the StarFleet Academy was based as well as being an important diplomatic entry and meeting port.

This is 200 years from now.... things evolve, but hey the Golden Gate Bridge is still there.

So far *everyone* I know who has been a "trek" fan since The Beginning Of Time has been mostly very happy with their experience of this film.

Crazy... I call myself somewhat of a causal fan of the series with basic knowledge of the characters and ST universe in general, but you really put it in perspective about how hardcore some viewers are about technicalities. I guess thats what makes this movie so great though, it appeals to the everybody and the hardcore fans have generally been forgiving of it's technical flaws.

[LoweGear]

Well, if they can still have Nokia 200 years from now... that's what I call brand power

I would say ALOT of things about the new movie, but the one that I want to say the most: This is the first Star Trek movie that I can watch without making me feel like my Trekkie geek power levels are OVER 9000, and yet still be the best damn Trek movie ever.

[thr]

I'm still wondering about all the extremely positive reviews that this movie has garnered so far. "Star Trek" is mediocrity in its purest form. A bland, generic movie that is so utterly boring that I can't bring myself to either love or hate it. Also, the nausea-inducing handheld camera would've been right at home in a Michael Bay movie. It's pretty sad that only Nimoy's short appearances elevated this movie to a whole new level for a short time. Strip this movie of its "Star Trek" title and you're left with a B-Movie with a big budget.

5 out of 10

PS: I hope this is not the beginning of the end of Michael Giacchino's career. His score is really bad compared to Goldsmith's, Horner's, Rosenman's & Eidelman's.

[Ithekro]

Well considering the age of the car, that Nokia could have been very old as well. (Would that be considered "classical music" by 2250?)

Positive reviews for a Star Trek film are very rare. The other ten films didn't get these kinds of reviews.

On the other hand, a "high budget B movie" is exactly what Star Trek would go far given the nature of the original series production quality. It wears the shoe it was designed to wear.

[TinyRedLeaf]

The problem with the other 10 films was that they relied heavily on an audience's prior knowledge of the entire franchise. In a way, most of them were fanboy films, created by fans for other fans. So, it's not surprising that people who weren't already Trekkies usually avoided them.

This particular movie, on the other hand, bills itself as the "prequel" that establishes the background of all the original characters. Therefore, it's less daunting for a general audience. That, plus the fact that it does indeed offer a good mix of action, sex appeal and Trekkie references, makes it a box office winner unlike all its predecessors.

[sa547]

It's now on my Must Watch list.

Call it anything, but on the strength of the trailer this ST is better than before, its sci-fi "cheesiness" is what makes it work, and the reworking might be the high-strength tonic this TV classic needs.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by thr

I'm still wondering about all the extremely positive reviews that this movie has garnered so far. "Star Trek" is mediocrity in its purest form. A bland, generic movie that is so utterly boring that I can't bring myself to either love or hate it. Also, the nausea-inducing handheld camera would've been right at home in a Michael Bay movie. It's pretty sad that only Nimoy's short appearances elevated this movie to a whole new level for a short time. Strip this movie of its "Star Trek" title and you're left with a B-Movie with a big budget.

Star Trek is and has always been "science POP fiction" -- originally pitched as "Wagon Train" in space (DS9 was "Gunsmoke" in space). It achieved the status it got because it was far more cerebral than 99% of what else was available in popular entertainment (outside of maybe the original Twilight Zone series). Sure, I can beat ST to death easily with piles of excellent science fiction.... but seems like no one is filming those properties for some strange reason.

Besides, there's a lot of great "B" science fiction films out there... (e.g. Forbidden Planet).