Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Jul 18, 2025 11:20 am



Reply to topic  [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 Star Trek 

What grade would you give this film?
A 69%  69%  [ 34 ]
B 22%  22%  [ 11 ]
C 6%  6%  [ 3 ]
D 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
F 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
Total votes : 49

 Star Trek 
Author Message
Top Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:01 am
Posts: 5264
Location: Wakanda
Post Re: Star Trek
Great reboot to the franchise, just wish it was 30 minutes longer so they could have developed the characters a little better, I was hoping to get a mini background story for each of the main characters. Great action sequences and visual effects.
B+

Summer's going to fun this year.


Thu May 14, 2009 2:14 pm
Profile
Extraordinary

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm
Posts: 15197
Location: Planet Xatar
Post Re: Star Trek
Groucho wrote:
Bradley Witherberry wrote:
{Watch this and tell me that hype has nothing to do with any undeserved success this movie accumulates. This one's pure bait and switch.}


Yeah, and 96% of all those critics who always fall for the hype just proves your point. :roll:

That comment displays an uncharacteristic benightedness for you, Groucho.

Isn't it odd that many critics work for the same overarching corporations that produce movies? What a strange coincidence, huh?

However, this is not a random occurence - - the critics play a key part in crafting the hype for these too-big-to-fail blockbusters. Viewers are literally programmed with their response to the movie before they even see it. I often see the exact wording of movie promotional material parroted back in reviews here at KJ.

Marketing psychology/propoganda has reached an extremely sophisticated level in our society. So much so, that it has become invisible to most people. One of the master strokes of the new hype is that it is so integrated into what people mistakenly think of as their free will - - their opinions have been stolen, and it's an inside job. So, of course, they then balk at any suggestion that they are no longer thinking for themselves. The number one symptom of hypenosis is denial. It's insidious.


Thu May 14, 2009 2:38 pm
Profile
The Lubitsch Touch
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 11019
Post Re: Star Trek
You're approaching DP07 levels of of paranoia and incomprehensibility. Just FYI.

_________________
k


Last edited by Johnny Dollar on Thu May 14, 2009 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu May 14, 2009 3:17 pm
Profile
loyalfromlondon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:31 pm
Posts: 19697
Location: ville-marie
Post Re: Star Trek
jean valjean wrote:
You're approaching DIB levels of of paranoia and incomprehensibility. Just FYI.

You mean DP07.

_________________
Magic Mike wrote:
zwackerm wrote:
If John Wick 2 even makes 30 million I will eat 1,000 shoes.


Same.


Algren wrote:
I don't think. I predict. ;)


Thu May 14, 2009 7:26 pm
Profile
The Lubitsch Touch
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:48 pm
Posts: 11019
Post Re: Star Trek
Oops. Yeah. That's what I meant. I will change it accordingly.

_________________
k


Thu May 14, 2009 7:27 pm
Profile
Forum General

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:01 am
Posts: 8684
Post Re: Star Trek
Groucho wrote:
Grill wrote:

On 2 above, if that didn't happen he wouldn't have found old Spock as he wouldn't have gone into the tunnel and would have walked straight by, going to the space base.


Nah, there are other ways they could have met. He could have met Spock at the base. Why was Spock sitting in a cave anyway? Why didn't he go to the base? That would be logical. Or the storm could have gotten worse, forcing Kirk in there.

It just seemed to be a "We can't go five minutes without some action" add on.


well it is an action movie! and what, is Kirk supposed to walk in while Spock sits there drinking coffee? That can be discussed in every movie, why it happened and what could have happened.

Also maybe Spock didn't know there was a base there??? He is not a computer like Data and he was only put there to watch Vulcan get destroyed. And then maybe he was in the cave just thinking? Remember he didn't know Kirk came back.


Thu May 14, 2009 7:50 pm
Profile
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:30 pm
Posts: 12096
Location: Stroudsburg, PA
Post Re: Star Trek
Grill wrote:
Groucho wrote:
Grill wrote:

On 2 above, if that didn't happen he wouldn't have found old Spock as he wouldn't have gone into the tunnel and would have walked straight by, going to the space base.


Nah, there are other ways they could have met. He could have met Spock at the base. Why was Spock sitting in a cave anyway? Why didn't he go to the base? That would be logical. Or the storm could have gotten worse, forcing Kirk in there.

It just seemed to be a "We can't go five minutes without some action" add on.


well it is an action movie! and what, is Kirk supposed to walk in while Spock sits there drinking coffee? That can be discussed in every movie, why it happened and what could have happened.

Also maybe Spock didn't know there was a base there??? He is not a computer like Data and he was only put there to watch Vulcan get destroyed. And then maybe he was in the cave just thinking? Remember he didn't know Kirk came back.


Maybe if the CGI was better it wouldn't have bothered me as much. It just seemed so needless to the plot...

_________________
Buy my books! http://michaelaventrella.com


Image


Thu May 14, 2009 10:30 pm
Profile WWW
loyalfromlondon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:31 pm
Posts: 19697
Location: ville-marie
Post Re: Star Trek
Groucho wrote:
1. Too much hand held camera. I really hate it when the camera jiggles around. I shouldn't be noticing the camera movement. Come on, you spent how many millions on this film and you can't buy a tripod?

Yeah, because handheld camera movement is clearly due to the production not being able to afford a tripod.

Anyways, this is really good, and so visually stimulating that you don't even notice (or care) that they're making a mess of the canon and the characters. It doesn't really matter, though; this is 21st century Star Trek, with a whole new timeline, and the old tropes are tired and overused. The film pays enough tribute to the original series to start a new franchise successfully, I think, and in that sense it's as good as Casino Royale or Batman Begins - perhaps even better, because it's light and fun and not tied down by dark character psychology.

That said, I wasn't sold on their explanation of the alternate timeline - it's similar to this latest season of Lost with how amateurish and rudimentary the time travel is utilized. This is Star Trek, for crying out loud! I'm sure they could've come up with something a little more... sophisticated?

Still, it's way better than Iron Man (which really had only one thing going for it) and most of the other blockbusters from last year. I had a blast. Can't wait for the sequel.

_________________
Magic Mike wrote:
zwackerm wrote:
If John Wick 2 even makes 30 million I will eat 1,000 shoes.


Same.


Algren wrote:
I don't think. I predict. ;)


Thu May 14, 2009 10:36 pm
Profile
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 9:12 am
Posts: 3139
Post Re: Star Trek
Bradley Witherberry wrote:
That comment displays an uncharacteristic benightedness for you, Groucho.

Isn't it odd that many critics work for the same overarching corporations that produce movies? What a strange coincidence, huh?

However, this is not a random occurence - - the critics play a key part in crafting the hype for these too-big-to-fail blockbusters. Viewers are literally programmed with their response to the movie before they even see it. I often see the exact wording of movie promotional material parroted back in reviews here at KJ.

Marketing psychology/propoganda has reached an extremely sophisticated level in our society. So much so, that it has become invisible to most people. One of the master strokes of the new hype is that it is so integrated into what people mistakenly think of as their free will - - their opinions have been stolen, and it's an inside job. So, of course, they then balk at any suggestion that they are no longer thinking for themselves. The number one symptom of hypenosis is denial. It's insidious.


Image


Fri May 15, 2009 1:03 am
Profile WWW
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:32 pm
Posts: 11289
Location: Germany
Post Re: Star Trek
Screenwriters explaining some plot points...

_________________
Image


Fri May 15, 2009 2:58 am
Profile
 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:01 pm
Posts: 6385
Post Re: Star Trek
Quote:
COINCIDENCE ON HOTH

The motherlode of the film’s many handy coincidences involves the banished Kirk conveniently running into Spock Prime (as the writers coined him early on) in his cave on Delta Vega. Much to my surprise and delight, even this jaw-dropping moment has an explanation! In the minds of the creators, the focus of the plot is that Nero’s destruction of the timeline has altered history to the point that the all important friendship of Kirk and Spock is now threatened. If these two don’t come together, the fabric of space and time itself is endangered (as we have witnessed by the universe itself being saved countless times over the last 40 years). Kirk “coincidentally” running into Spock Prime is an example of fate itself trying to bring these two together. That’s how important it is. In fact a line about this was included during Spock Prime’s mind-meld speech, but was removed at the last minute (the writers said this particular was labored over more than any other section of the script and they now regret not including the line about fate). While this doesn’t completely forgive a very hackneyed sequence, it does address the most egregious moment in the film and I appreciate that an attempt was made to address it. In the wake of criticism over this scene, perhaps the line will be restored for the DVD release. It would make a world of difference.


Come on now. That's garbage.

_________________
---!!---!!!!!!-11!!---!!---11---11!!!--!!--


Fri May 15, 2009 3:16 am
Profile WWW
Extraordinary

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm
Posts: 15197
Location: Planet Xatar
Post Re: Star Trek
Speevy wrote:
Image

jean valjean wrote:
You're approaching DP07 levels of of paranoia and incomprehensibility. Just FYI.

These type of responses are exactly what I was describing. Just FYI.


Fri May 15, 2009 3:25 am
Profile
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 9:12 am
Posts: 3139
Post Re: Star Trek
You might want to get checked out by a doctor Bradley, I fear you are already beginning to show symptoms of Alzheimer's. Good luck.


Fri May 15, 2009 3:29 am
Profile WWW
Extraordinary

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm
Posts: 15197
Location: Planet Xatar
Post Re: Star Trek
Speevy wrote:
You might want to get checked out by a doctor Bradley, I fear you are already beginning to show symptoms of Alzheimer's. Good luck.

QFT

I want this post on the record for all to see.

Ask yourself if you would write that about someone who's opinion you happen to disagree with...


Fri May 15, 2009 3:33 am
Profile
College Boy Z

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm
Posts: 36662
Post Re: Star Trek
First of all, I'd just like to state that reading through this thread and discovering that Nero was actually Eric Bana is absolutely mind-blowing. I had no. freakin'. idea.

Anyway, I generally hate Star Trek. The show (which my Dad was a big fan of - not "Trekkie" level, but he's just a fan of sci-fi stuff and watched the show a lot - so I was exposed to it a lot) and the movies all blow huge chunks.

So, that said...this was AWESOME.

***½


Sat May 16, 2009 12:30 am
Profile
---------
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:42 pm
Posts: 11808
Location: Kansas City, Kansas
Post Re: Star Trek
Can't say anything that hasn't already been said.

A-

Although... someone mentioned how the time traveling is similar to Lost. No way. This destroys the major rules of time, unless miraculously Spock does invent the black hole maker and follow the same path as old Spock. If he didn't, then the universe would explode as no one would be there to rescue Kirk from the monster or bring the crew up to speed on what the heck was going on and what to do.


Sat May 16, 2009 3:11 am
Profile
llegó a la casa vía marítima
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:53 pm
Posts: 6330
Location: la gran casa de la esquina
Post Re: Star Trek
It was pretty good, and this is coming from someone who's never even watched a Star Trek episode. The only things I knew where that there was a ship called the Enterprise, and a guy with pointy ears and a bad hairdo called Spock. Not OMFG AMAZING like the reviews say, or as good as Revenge of the Sith/Old Star Wars Trilogy, but it was still a very fun, visually spectacular and well-acted space adventure with enough emotion to match the action.

A-

_________________
.


Sat May 16, 2009 11:39 pm
Profile
Full Fledged Member

Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:38 am
Posts: 92
Post Re: Star Trek
The film was great. Far superior to any of the SW prequels


Sun May 17, 2009 8:33 pm
Profile
---------
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:42 pm
Posts: 11808
Location: Kansas City, Kansas
Post Re: Star Trek
Haha, I was reading a short overview of the movie which brought up a minor plot hole:

Quote:
Kirk, as a 10-year-old, takes a joyride in his guardian's vintage Corvette Sting Ray. (It'd have to be close to 300 years old, right?) He ignores admonitions to come home and, when a police officer spots the lad, Kirk floors it instead of pulling over. The chase concludes with the car hurtling off what must be Iowa's only cliff; Kirk leaps to safety just in time.

:thumbsup:


Mon May 18, 2009 2:44 am
Profile
Leader of the Pack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:35 am
Posts: 1526
Location: A better place
Post Re: Star Trek
Much better for me upon second viewing... A little note to my self for later is not to watch movies during finals; my mind is way too clouded and stressed.

But yeah, still not amazing, but definitely a very fun and engaging blockbuster, especially for those not very familiar with the series. I still think the film in general was a little too light hearted and the score was way overpowering, but thats nitpicking.

Up to a B+ from a B-.


Mon May 18, 2009 3:10 am
Profile
The Kramer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:36 am
Posts: 25427
Location: Classified
Post Re: Star Trek
MG Casey wrote:
Haha, I was reading a short overview of the movie which brought up a minor plot hole:

Quote:
Kirk, as a 10-year-old, takes a joyride in his guardian's vintage Corvette Sting Ray. (It'd have to be close to 300 years old, right?) He ignores admonitions to come home and, when a police officer spots the lad, Kirk floors it instead of pulling over. The chase concludes with the car hurtling off what must be Iowa's only cliff; Kirk leaps to safety just in time.

:thumbsup:

From the link that nazgul posted:
Quote:
Also, what the hell is a cliff like this doing in famously flat Iowa? Again, sharp eyes will see that the sign Kirk blows through reads “quarry” (i.e. a man-made pit).


I bet they loved explaining all their supposed plot holes to people.


Mon May 18, 2009 1:05 pm
Profile
Forum General

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:01 am
Posts: 8684
Post Re: Star Trek
Waker of Winds wrote:
It was pretty good, and this is coming from someone who's never even watched a Star Trek episode. The only things I knew where that there was a ship called the Enterprise, and a guy with pointy ears and a bad hairdo called Spock. Not OMFG AMAZING like the reviews say, or as good as Revenge of the Sith/Old Star Wars Trilogy, but it was still a very fun, visually spectacular and well-acted space adventure with enough emotion to match the action.

A-


Just pointing out that the above is without you knowing anything about Star Trek...so imagine if you knew about ST like you did with Old SW when you saw Sith above.


Mon May 18, 2009 1:48 pm
Profile
llegó a la casa vía marítima
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:53 pm
Posts: 6330
Location: la gran casa de la esquina
Post Re: Star Trek
I don't know, I still hated Phantom Menace even though I was a huge SW fan when I saw it.

_________________
.


Mon May 18, 2009 3:49 pm
Profile
Artie the One-Man Party

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 2:53 pm
Posts: 4632
Post Re: Star Trek
I just...don't know. It's a well-made film no doubt, the actors do a great job, but I just couldn't really get into the plot. Things are moving too fast, often dragging the audience along without providing much legitimate motivation or plausibility for why they are happening. The action and special effects are impressive enough to forget about the lack of plot at times, but ultimately it just left me feeling very unconnected to the events taking place. I can't care about an action scene when I'm still trying to figure out why it exists, and why the characters inhibiting it are acting in a certain manner. I grew tired of the score and jerky camera motion, and as decent as Bana was in his role, the character did absolutely nothing for me and was completely wasted.

All these negative comments aside, I was entertained for 2+ hours, laughed at much of the comedy, and ultimately grew fond of a franchise I never had held much interest in. I look forward to the next installment, but now that this picture has guaranteed a sequel will be huge, I hope the filmmakers are a little more daring and innovative in how they structure their movie.


Mon May 18, 2009 10:42 pm
Profile
llegó a la casa vía marítima
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:53 pm
Posts: 6330
Location: la gran casa de la esquina
Post Re: Star Trek
^ I feel somewhat similarly about the plot. The whole time travel thing seemed a little odd.

_________________
.


Mon May 18, 2009 11:26 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.