Master Index of Archived Threads


Star Trek (2009)

*****

1 votes

****1/2

0 votes

****

4 votes

***1/2

6 votes

***

2 votes

**1/2

0 votes

**

0 votes

*1/2

0 votes

*

0 votes

1/2

0 votes

Nymr83 May 10 2009 12:08 AM

not to be confused with [u:uotfl7t2]Star Trek: The Motion Picture[/u:uotfl7t2] i saw it earlier today and it was a decent movie in its own right but not such a good part of the star trek universe.

dgwphotography May 11 2009 08:11 AM

I have to see this movie again.. It had some nice touches - nods to trek of the past, and some great little inside jokes (I particularly loved Kirk eating an apple while retaking the Kobyashi Maru test). However, when the movie was over, I was like, "That's it?" I don;t know if I liked some of the ways they totally destroyed cannon, and I felt the movie was a little rushed, and more time could have been spent fleshing out some of the characters, particularly Nero. Overall, 3 1/2 photon torpedoes

Willets Point May 14 2009 06:29 PM

Better than I expected and decent overall. Would have done better to have had fewer 'splosions and more depth to the story and characters. I actually think that a sequel with this cast will be a better movie now that they've gotten past all the cutesy origin story stuff.

dgwphotography May 16 2009 05:37 PM

After I saw this the first time, I compared it to eating chocolate - it tastes sweet going down, but afterwards, you realize it was nothing but empty calories... Is Star trek a great movie? Hardly. J.J. Abrams really needs to lighten up on the hand held cam - it takes away from the beautiful sets, and detracts from the depth of more than one scene. He also needs to lighten up on the lens flare - they were entirely too distracting.... That being said, as a movie that had to span a large setting, this was an excellent kick off to what is hopefully a long run of movies. I thought Scotty and Checkov were a touch over the top, but the rest of the cast was pitch-perfect. While this was a reboot, with some MAJOR changes in the Trek universe, Abrams handled Trek with the touch of someone who got it; that we as Trek fans are a different breed, that we care deeply for these characters, and that not just anyone could handle this. There were some great touches that let us know he was truly paying attention: The tribble in the background of one scene; Kirk munching on an apple while retaking the Kobyashi Maru test; "Are you out of your Vulcan mind?"; 'I'm a doctor, not a physicist"; the list goes on and on... the fact is, Abrams got it, and this franchise is in very capable hands.

soupcan May 17 2009 06:09 AM

I saw it yesterday and liked it (3.5 stars), but I'm really a casual fan. Although I am familiar with the Shatner, Nimoy series I prefer TNG over than the original. Why was Kirk eating an apple during that scene significant?

SteveJRogers May 17 2009 07:34 AM

soupcan wrote: I saw it yesterday and liked it (3.5 stars), but I'm really a casual fan. Although I am familiar with the Shatner, Nimoy series I prefer TNG over than the original. Why was Kirk eating an apple during that scene significant? The Kobayashi Maru is a key plot element in The Wrath of Kahn. The start of the movie has Saavick, Kristie Alley, taking the test, and failing. We learn during the film that Kirk is the only person to ever beat the test, with a unique final solution. When Kirk, Saavick and McCoy beam on board the station where Carol Marcus and David Marcus have a Genesis prototype garden, filled with fresh on the vine fruit, Saavick finally has the conversation with Kirk about how Kirk ultimately beat the test. As Kirk is biting into an apple he explains that he did in fact cheat because he "hates to lose."

dgwphotography May 17 2009 08:06 AM

SteveJRogers wrote: soupcan wrote: I saw it yesterday and liked it (3.5 stars), but I'm really a casual fan. Although I am familiar with the Shatner, Nimoy series I prefer TNG over than the original. Why was Kirk eating an apple during that scene significant? The Kobayashi Maru is a key plot element in The Wrath of Kahn. The start of the movie has Saavick, Kristie Alley, taking the test, and failing. We learn during the film that Kirk is the only person to ever beat the test, with a unique final solution. When Kirk, Saavick and McCoy beam on board the station where Carol Marcus and David Marcus have a Genesis prototype garden, filled with fresh on the vine fruit, Saavick finally has the conversation with Kirk about how Kirk ultimately beat the test. As Kirk is biting into an apple he explains that he did in fact cheat because he "hates to lose." Jeez, Steve - you could at least get the quote right... He didn't say he cheated because he hates to lose... He got a commendation for original thinking, because, he "doesn't believe in the no-win scenario". This was actually a funny bit, because they said he had never faced death before... Two words - Edith Keeler.

SteveJRogers May 17 2009 08:28 AM

Uh-oh. I guess my punishment is to watch the entire second season of TNG?

Willets Point May 17 2009 05:47 PM

Iubitul wrote: This was actually a funny bit, because they said he had never faced death before... Two words - Edith Keeler. Not to mention Gary Mitchell or Sam Kirk.

Edgy MD May 17 2009 08:58 PM

I don't think it was meant to suggest that nobody he cared about ever died.

RealityChuck May 20 2009 08:26 AM

It was solid entertainment, and fun to see the versions of the characters. Not the worst ST film, but not the best, either.

The Second Spitter May 25 2009 12:22 AM

Rarely does my impression of a film change after I form my initial opinion. I don't know why, but after initially being quite partial to this film, I found my opinion deteriorated rapidly. Perhaps what bothers me the most is the writers' attempts to fill-in the largish plot holes in the script with gratuitous "fanboy" references.

Nymr83 May 27 2009 07:48 AM

RealityChuck wrote: Not the worst ST film, but not the best, either. "not the worst ST film" isn't saying much considering that i could shoot a better movie than Star Trek V on home video with a few klingon halloween masks and a toy phaser.

The Second Spitter May 27 2009 08:23 AM

Nymr83 wrote: "not the worst ST film" isn't saying much considering that i could shoot a better movie than Star Trek V on home video with a few klingon halloween masks and a toy phaser. Hahahahahahaha! Classic.

Willets Point May 27 2009 01:27 PM

Star Trek V is better than most people give it credit for, until the end. A movie where they set out to find God is bound to failure. Find God and however they represent Him in film is going to be underwhelming. Don't find God (as happens in the movie) and there's no satisfying resolution at all.

metsmarathon Jun 12 2009 07:40 AM

reading this helped me understand the backstory on the motivation of nero. i didn't really grasp enough of hte details on spocks failed mission as they were rushing through it in the film. not that i still fully get nero's conviction that spock should be held singularly responsible, but it definitely helps. saw the movie yesterday. really liked it. wasn't terribly deep, but still very entertaining. most importantly, there was nothing that necessarily troubled me. and jj abrams did the whole time travel thing reasonably well without creating too much of a cornucopia of disturbing concepts. the wifey liked it too, which is a pretty good compliment considering how she typically doesnt care for either sci fi or actiony things, and she's got virtually no star trek knowledge, proving that you didnt need to know the back story to enjoy the film.

Nymr83 Jun 12 2009 07:50 AM

most importantly, there was nothing that necessarily troubled me. 1. Nimoy (i'll use the actor's name to avoid confusion about which Spock i'm talking about) travels back in time 2. Nimoy is exiled to a remote planet by Nero 3. Nimoy somehow knows that Scotty is on that planet at the time and where 4. Despite this knowledge, Nimoy hangs out in a cave for awhile 5. Kirk is exiled to the planet as well 6. Nimoy magically finds Kirk, who he had no way to know or even reason to suspect was coming Since there was no way that Nimoy could know Kirk wascoming, why the heck was he hanging out in some cold cave if he already knew where to find Scotty?

Edgy MD Jun 12 2009 08:16 AM

metsmarathon wrote: the wifey liked it too, which is a pretty good compliment considering how she typically doesnt care for either sci fi or actiony things, and she's got virtually no star trek knowledge, proving that you didnt need to know the back story to enjoy the film. Pregnant chicks often evince a previously unknown craving for empty calories.

metsmarathon Jun 12 2009 08:16 AM

well, ok. aside from that. happy coincidences happen all the time. and the planet was literally just destroyed. i'll give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that he's a little broken up about the whole thing and hasn't yet gotten the chance to start walking over. but yeah, right. i forgot about that part.

dgwphotography Jun 12 2009 11:35 AM

Nymr83 wrote: 3. Nimoy somehow knows that Scotty is on that planet at the time and where 4. Despite this knowledge, Nimoy hangs out in a cave for awhile Since there was no way that Nimoy could know Kirk wascoming, why the heck was he hanging out in some cold cave if he already knew where to find Scotty? Nope - he only knew that a Federation base was there - he was surprised that Scotty was there

Nymr83 Jun 12 2009 01:17 PM

i got the impression that he knew scotty was there and went looking for him, but even if he just knew of the base my point still stands, that he "waited" for kirk despite having no reason to wait for kirk or anyone else for that matter.

dgwphotography Jun 12 2009 06:40 PM

I thought that, too. However, his not wanting to pollute the timeline anymore could come into play here...

Vic Sage Jun 15 2009 09:52 AM

the plot makes almost no sense, but its focus on character and relationships, while providing just enough action and incident to maintain interest, was a welcome respite from standard characterless, plot-driven, smashup Hollywood summer pix.

Valadius Aug 02 2009 08:11 AM

I LOVED this movie. I saw it in theaters five times, I thought it was so good. I'd been anxiously awaiting it in theaters for two years, and was not disappointed in the least. EVERYTHING was spot-on.

Nymr83 Aug 02 2009 08:24 AM

Valadius wrote: I LOVED this movie. I saw it in theaters five times, I thought it was so good. I'd been anxiously awaiting it in theaters for two years, and was not disappointed in the least. EVERYTHING was spot-on. everything was spot on? really? you didn't think the new enterprise bridge was the ugliest P.O.S. ever? nevermind that the changes in the timeline between the time the Kelvin was destroyed and the time Nero attacked Vulcan should have been pretty minor, which gives no explanation for why the supposedly constituion-class Enterprise would look so different, but the thing is just UGLY.

Valadius Aug 02 2009 08:29 AM

I will admit that the first time I saw the movie, I walked from the theater back to my apartment muttering to myself the whole way, wondering why J.J. would BOTH destroy Vulcan and kill Amanda. I felt that one would have been fine, but two was overkill. As for the Enterprise bridge, I didn't mind it. I thought it was way too white, and the lens flares didn't help on such a white bridge, but the bridge did need some kind of update. 21st-century audiences with their iPhones aren't going to buy hard-candy buttons anymore.

Fman99 Dec 15 2009 02:04 PM Re: Star Trek (2009)

Just watched this today. I liked it. Nothing remarkable, but good popcorn chewing entertainment. But Leonard Nimoy needs some new dentures. I kept waiting for his teeth to come flying out and start chattering on the ground a la "Beetlejuice."

Edgy MD Jan 30 2010 07:22 PM Re: Star Trek (2009)

Yeah, good tone and stuff, but more plot holes than Blackburn Lancashire. They steal the whole revenge drama from Wrath of Khan, but this guy's bloodlust seems a lot sillier. If he's stumbled back in time, he can undo the disaster. Even if he's too bonkers to conclude that there's better things he can do with his time than hunt Spock, you'd think over a quarter of a century that enough members of his crew would have thought better and crept up on him from behind. I can accept Khan's crew following him into his madness. Why not? They've got nothing left. But this trenchcoat mafia dropout? No way. And how'd he get his hands on one of Khan's crawfish, anyhow? Anyway, the plot turning this into an altenative timeline from the original series? A brilliant stroke allowing them to bring back the characters, give them adventures, but liberate the producers from having to fret over reconciling with the details of the series. The notion that the core crew all managed to find their way onto the Enterprise anyhow in this alternative timeline, well, it's a stretch, but what do I know about parallel universes? Nuttin'. That's what.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 08 2011 02:20 PM Re: Star Trek (2009)

Just saw this the other day. I enjoyed it well enough. Gave it three stars. I'm not by any stretch a Star Trek fan. I used to watch the original series on Channel 11 when I was a kid, so I'm familiar with the characters, and I saw the first movie or two, but that's about it.