Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Open Thread: ‘Star Trek’

akagiredsun1 - May 7th, 2009 at 10:07 pm

Loved it! I've been looking forward to this one, and I wasn't disappointed. For years I've had to tell people that I USED to like an old show called Star Trek. Now I can say I'm still a fan.

The characters were great crossovers, and the storyline was really well executed. I hope it does well, the makers deserve much credit for revitalizing a franchise I thought was pretty much dead.

Annnnd… as a rare treat, there's another layer on content JUST for the fans of the old shows. You will chuckle at e"w"ery connotation.

ed3206 - May 7th, 2009 at 10:08 pm

Loved the original and all its incarnations. Understood the wish to reboot. This rarely works out. This time…it DID. Can't wait to see it again…and again…and again.

sqt - May 7th, 2009 at 10:24 pm

I'm so sad. I won't be able to see it this weekend. I'm so envious of all the lucky people who've gotten to see it. I'm glad it's getting good reviews though. Something to look forward to.

Silverbolt - May 7th, 2009 at 10:29 pm

So I just got back from seeing the new Star Trek. I have to say that it was fantastic! For me, it was also very bittersweet. See, of all the pop culture things my dad taught me to love as I grew up, Star Trek was his very favorite. Some of my fondest memories are of going to see the various Trek films with my dad in the theater. The first one I was old enough to see during its first run was Star Trek IV. We had watched the prior films at home on video, but my dad took our family to see it at a drive-in theater in Hattiesburg, MS. That whole experience was so cool, it is etched into my memory. This was the first Trek film since then that I've seen without my dad.

When the Enterprise appeared on screen for the first time, I had a giant smile on my face and a huge lump in my throat. When the familiar theme music finally hit my ears (I won't say when), I was smiling and crying at the same time. I will be forever grateful to my dad for passing on his love of Star Trek to me. Because of him, I was able to enjoy all the little nods to the past that the writers included. I know some purists probably hate the idea of new actors playing the old roles, but I think my dad would have loved the way it was done. There was just something magical about seeing those characters being assembled on the bridge of the Enterprise for the very first time. It was radically new while simultaneously being incredibly respectful of decades of legacy Trek has built.

I know it seems a little silly for me to be all emotional over a sci-fi movie, but I just can't help it. The chair next to me felt incredibly empty without my dad there to smile with me at the jokes, the action, the characters' interactions, etc. After it was over, we would have dissected it and gone over our favorite parts and lines long into the night. I will always miss that. I do think he would have loved it, though. I certainly did. If you're lucky enough to still have your dad around, do yourself a favor. Find something you love to do together, and go do it. I wish I still could. God doesn't promise us the next breath much less the next day. So go take advantage of it! And go see the new Star Trek. My dad would've liked that.

Pops, this one was for you.

j luttrell - May 7th, 2009 at 11:05 pm

old spock dies.
kronos destroyed.
shatner DOES make cameo.

saved you 10 dollars, no thanks necessary.

BPT (Australia) - May 7th, 2009 at 11:50 pm

So Spock and Obama are victims of persecution, as opposed to my relatives who fought the Nazis? Good call media.

Boy, being a community organizer sounds tough. Did Obambi fight in the trenchers? Or wrestle aliens? Now, there’s a story for the faithful.

Dreadmore - May 7th, 2009 at 11:53 pm

AMAZING!!!!

JRG3 - May 7th, 2009 at 11:54 pm

The baton has been passed, a new timeline has been set! Keep 'em coming!
I saw the film this evening and it was, IMO, an excellent bit of space action/adventure entertainment. A pure popcorn movie. No politics, no moralizing. The portrayals are energetic, bright, and refreshing. The story moved along briskly. Kirk's troubled beginnings were believeable but unfortunate. The same with Spock's childhood. I like much more the way they treated Pike in this movie versus the television series. The acting was excellent. The reference to Archer and other bits of consistency to the existing universe are much appreciated. Scotty and Chekov were a surprise, both excellent actors in character. How Bones gets his nickname is clever. The use of Majel Barrett as the voice of the computer was touching as was the dedication at the end. The effects were excellent. The soundtrack, both old and new, tied together the Star Trek universes nicely. The Spock Uhuru relationship was a little bit odd. Watching Leonard Nimoy was such a classy nostalgic touch. The film received a standing ovation. I just wish there had been an easter egg.

Brisco_County - May 8th, 2009 at 1:43 am

After a late viewing and a few drinks at the bar, I think I’m capable of processing it all and putting my thoughts down.

First, I’ll say that the writing and directing is what Star Trek has needed since part II. It was after part II that Paramount kept all production within the family, which suffocated inspiration. Not that Nimoy was a bad director, but he wasn’t Nick Meyer– Shatner even less so.

This new movie brings the vision and inspiration that the previous ones lack, but at a steep price that I'm still having a hard time reconciling.

*SPOILERS*

Essentially, this movie does what comic book series do all the time. It launches an alternate, re-imagined storyline, like Spiderman and Amazing Spiderman, or X-Men and Uncanny X-men. But doing this with Star Trek reduces the significance of the original movies. This means that The Wrath of Khan didn’t happen. Bringing Spock back from the dead didn’t happen. Nor did Tribbles, saving the whales, or searching for God with Sybok—though that last one is a welcome trade. This is what I and probably millions of other Star Trek fans will have a difficult time justifying, along with the disappointment of this not being an origins movie about the Kirk, Spock, and Bones that we grew up watching. We'll still never see how those guys met and formed their relationships.

But what do we get in return? We get science fiction entertainment that Star Trek movies haven’t delivered since 1984 or maybe 1991. We get art direction that smartly incorporates technology and is somewhat stylistically referential to 1950’s sci-fi art, which was always suited for Star Trek movies but never exploited. We also get a new movie that taps into the chemistry of the original cast with a renewed energy. Even though they might not ever achieve what Shatner, Nimoy, or Kelley created on screen, they easily outclass the staleness and boredom of the Next Generation and its spinoffs.

Is this new Star Trek universe worth the price of casting aside the original mythology? So far, I'm not sure, but it’s earning its acceptance. The actors adequately channeled the characters. J.J. Abrams provided humor without insulting the audiences’ intelligence. The writers covered their tracks around the parallel universes and they properly tied together loose ends. And plus, the new Kirk is believable and he’s not trying to impersonate William Shatner like Brandon Routh did with Christopher Reeves in Superman Returns. Chris Pine owns the character and gives us a satisfactory interpretation.

Despite my discomfort with the timeline, I can't help but appreciate this movie. I’m going to try not to bother myself with conflicting loyalty, because what I saw tonight was a good sci-fi movie that is delivering satisfaction where others haven’t been able to in a long time.

MovieBob - May 8th, 2009 at 2:01 am

Thoroughly average and overall so-so. Bad script as expected from the "Transformers" guys, full of lame coincidence and trite formula – it's basically just "Top Gun" recast with young Star Trek characters. Looks great, action scenes well staged, music good, script just fails constantly. New Scotty and Bones steal whole movie. Uhura massively dissapointing and not given enough to do. New Kirk is wooden, stiff and one-note – drags all his scenes down. Foundations are there for growth into respectable franchise, but needs MASSIVE help in the script and acting departments.

Growltiger - May 8th, 2009 at 3:56 am

Haven't seen the film yet — will today if spouse and I can get in this afternoon — but your comment intrigues on many levels.

"So Spock and Obama are victims of persecution…"

Spock was Vulcan Royalty, the son of an Ambassador; Obama probably got affirmative actioned all the way through Harvard. We won't know because his SATS and LSATS won't be released.

"…as opposed to my relatives who fought the Nazis?"

The anti-Semitism of the SOCIALIST Nazis (Nazi stands for National Socialist Party) is alive and well in every area of the Left with the exception of the "useful idiots" (like those in Hollywood) who spread the gospel without understanding what it's really saying.

"Good call media."

Spock is a genius compared to the rest of the Enterprise crew. Kirk is more "emotional", less rational, a little more innovative. Spock goes on "pure logic". Isn't that what the media sycophants are trying to convince us re Obama?

Spock is a member of a superior race (Vulcans). For fifteen years, Obama was a member of an Afro-Centric "church" which teaches Africans are the "sun people" and whites are inferior "ice people".

Look how Obama talks down to the unwashed masses; the "superior" tone he takes on; the refusal to be questioned even by his sycophants who probably won't ask him anything tougher to answer than "how did you get to be so wonderful". This bozo isn't called "The One" or "The Messiah" for nothing. He thinks he is!

A.Far - May 8th, 2009 at 4:09 am

I am a fan of the original. I hope this new Franchise will bring in some spark of individualism (beside the bridge crew members). I always gagged on the "good" for the majority according to Spock and Kirk's whims. I hope the Kumbyaas are kept to a minimum.

Ronnie - May 8th, 2009 at 4:15 am

Why does the Alien ship look like a draw full of cutlery and scissors held togeather with duct tape?

Bubba - May 8th, 2009 at 4:32 am

Never be embarassed to be a Trekkie. Never.

I'm hoping the new movie's good, but even if it isn't — or if even if I don't see as canonical and "real" — I can always tell people that I'm a fan of The Original Series and especially Deep Space Nine, that I really enjoy the books that "relaunch" and continue the story of DS9, and that I even have a soft spot of Star Trek comics.

About the comics, I will say this: any Trekkie who likes the movie MUST track down a comic-book prequel mini-series called Countdown, already in comic book stores in four issues and a single, trade-paperback collection. The comic book sets up the movie, by tying it to the post-Nemesis actions of a particular Vulcan ambassador, a retired Starfleet captain named Picard, an android, and a son of Mogh.

Bubba - May 8th, 2009 at 4:36 am

Hey, NRO readers, does anyone know if Jonah Goldberg has posted his thoughts on the new movie yet?

TrekFan1982 - May 8th, 2009 at 4:41 am

Do you think that Leonard Nimoy after seeing the relationship that the new spock enjoys with Uhura, he was thinking: "Wish I was hittin' that back in the 60's!"

Loved the movie, probably my second or third favorite overall, a very good beginning to hopefully many more to come. I laughed out loud the first time Scotty said: "I'm givin' her all I got captain!"

If you're curious #1 is still Wrath of Khan, #2 is Undiscovered Country

Edit: A new member here, love the site. The 1982 in my username is a reference to the year WOK was released, the first Star Trek movie I was able to drive myself to with my friends, been doing it ever since.

Sharon Ferguson - May 8th, 2009 at 5:01 am

So…do my hubby and I take our 15 yr old daughter who is a ST skeptic to the new movie as her first real exposure to Kirk/Spock/McCoy/Enterprise…or do we wait until she has seen TOS in Blu-ray glory?

Vincent Wong - May 8th, 2009 at 5:05 am

I hated every single Abrams venture, every single one of 'em, I didn't think much of the casting decisions in this new Trek and the visual style of the film, as seen from trailers, irked me.

But none of those mattered because Star Trek ROCKED!

It totally immersed me into its universe and I walked out of the cinema feeling I got every cents worth out of my ticket. And that's what a summer movie is all about.

NCC - May 8th, 2009 at 5:23 am

As a Trek fan from the first episode in 1966 on, I Iiked this film a lot.

Fabio Escobar - May 8th, 2009 at 5:27 am

I can't say enough about the film…I saw it with my fiancee, who knows nothing of Trek. I am a huge fan. Her reaction: Excellent movie…deep, entertaining, not trite, no attempt to be cheaply contemporary (with a possible reference to waterboarding), very good dialogue.

My reaction: I respect the changes to the timeline, especially seeing as how often it has changed in episodes. I will "miss" Spock's mother, in a way. The idea of Spock growing into his Federation role without her is a bit odd.

Fabio Escobar - May 8th, 2009 at 5:28 am

More reaction…

A lot about the new universe is odd…but it's not dull. It's got what the old ones had: intriguing characters who come pre-packaged with fascinating personalities and who can be played adequately — perhaps even excellently — by these actors. Joaquin Quinto is an excellent Vulcan — his portrayal of Spock's internal contradictions is wholly consistent with the Spock we knew in the first 8 or 10 episodes of the original series (recall how emotive that Spock was versus the way he ended up in seasons 2 and 3).

I found Bones a bit too overwritten. I didn't mind the bit about his nickname origins (clever, as another poster said), but I thought the "I'm a doctor…" line was gratuitous.

Fabio Escobar - May 8th, 2009 at 5:28 am

More…

Kirk was well-played. I have no complaints about this actor whatsoever. He owns the character now, as far as I'm concerned. I love Shatner and always will, but this Kirk is still James Tiberius of Iowa.

Chekov was great…perfect casting. The "fencing" reference with Sulu was incredibly clever and — for an old fan — satisfyingly obscure. That was one cool sword he pulled out of his suit, too.

I thought Olson's death was a bit of a bummer. I liked that character immediately, and it was kind of neat that the director was willing to give a throw-away character a couple of cool lines and then kill him off. Roddenberry never did that — his doomed ensigns were always flatlined and wooden.

Abrams has shown an incredible grasp of the essence of the Roddenberry universe. The new cast can now go on to script a universe in which the Roddenberrian-utopian vision still plays out, but not without a struggle.

Friday Friends Open Thread | Caffeinated Thoughts - May 8th, 2009 at 6:38 am

[...] Picture HT: Big Hollywood [...]

Jack - May 8th, 2009 at 5:50 am

Your wrong, and why even comment here if you dont want to see it, what a child

Chuck - May 8th, 2009 at 6:09 am

I saw it with my oldest son last night, who had only seen a few episodes of the original series, and he loved it (and had no trouble following the story) – that audience applauded loudly at the end. As a fan who saw the original series when it aired in the '60s, I enjoyed it a lot, too – it was fresh enough to stand on its own, but had enough references (and reverence for) the original stories. As we discussed it afterward, I thought about the idea that this essentially wipes out all the other Star Trek: TOS shows, but when you think about it, it doesn't really *have* to change anything – it's mostly backstory elements that were changed (the fate of Kirk's father, that sort of thing) – everything else can play out just as it did on the original show and the movies afterward.

MikeTee - May 8th, 2009 at 6:18 am

What the hell is that picture on the poster?

syn - May 8th, 2009 at 6:24 am

Are the tickets free?

Hollywood promised to help President Obama spread their wealth around so when are we going to get our money?

Rick - May 8th, 2009 at 6:34 am

I never really got hooked onto the "Star Trek" movement. This despite a childhood friend being a fanatic Trekkie – and despite the fact that I like the "Quantum Leap" TV series. I've heard that there are classical Gnostic philosophy influences in "Star Trek," so I may brush up on Ireneaus before checking out the movie.

Think Again - May 8th, 2009 at 6:39 am

I'll probably end up seeing the movie, but I liked Star Trek so much more before it went "culturally mainstream". Same with comic books.

Hammerjack - May 8th, 2009 at 6:44 am

Yep–he's got a full-length article on it rather than just a blog post:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWQ0MDkzYTVj...

I detect a love/hate, "Enemy Within" style battle brewing in Jonah over this one…

ryukyu - May 8th, 2009 at 6:50 am

I bid 40 quatloos on the newcomer!

Rick - May 8th, 2009 at 6:51 am

Jackass.

Joe - May 8th, 2009 at 6:53 am

Long time Trek fan here – my son's middle name is Tiberius – and eventhough it felt weird watching new actors and how Kirk gets command felt a little forced I loved this movie.

One thing I love the most is that it plants the seed for new trekkers to explore the old series. What was the Vulcan that survived like? What was the alternate Spock -feels weird saying that- like when he was young? How is a Kirk who knew his father different?

The movie sets a new path and makes the old fully relevant again.

Rick - May 8th, 2009 at 6:55 am

What's with you guys? I thought this was a site for conservatives who realize the importance of media. As JJ Abrams told Entertainment Weekly who also tried to make this film political, work on Star Trek began three years ago. We are always harping that Hollywood needs to make films about heroes again. There are none greater than Kirk, Spock and the crew of the Enterprise.

Rick - May 8th, 2009 at 7:01 am

Definitely take her to this movie. I think the male leads will be very appealing to teenage girls. And the characters are so consistent with their original incarnations that it will be very easy for her to relate to them when she views TOS.

Rick - May 8th, 2009 at 7:05 am

Man you guys are boring. I get it. I can't stand Obama either. But let us enjoy a stupid nerdly chat about Star Trek without thinking about that knucklehead and the rest of the dolts in his party.

Stephen Tilson - May 8th, 2009 at 7:21 am

Agree. The new movie is a "gateway" to the old series, for kids who aren't forgiving of bad special effects and antiquated production design on a show that despite its later success was basically made on a shoestring. (OTOH, the remasters have decent visual fx, and I plan to pick up the blu-ray myself later this weekend.)

Then, once she's hooked, let her see the originals. Especially if she harbors any affection for the 60's, as that series is definitely a product of its time.

Bubba - May 8th, 2009 at 8:20 am

Thanks! It's interesting that Jonah lists Star Trek IV and VI as two of the (many) poor Trek films and even states that every TOS movie but Wrath of Khan sucked, and it's even more interesting that he didn't list Star Trek X (Nemesis), which I *HAVE* to assume was an omission. I'm a Niner (a DS9 fan, first and always), so his stabs at DS9's mirror universe episodes sting, but I'll admit that that's the one part of the show that indisputably got monotonically worse as the show went on: the first mirror universe episode was great, and each one progressively lost a little shine, until we finally made everything nearly perfectly bad by having a Ferengi-centric episode, when those are very, VERY hit-and-miss.

Bubba - May 8th, 2009 at 8:21 am

Jonah's point about the relative cohesion of the Trek universe — and its explicit attempts to be cohesive, where Enterprise was (supposed to be) an actual prequel rather than a reboot in a new continuity — is right on. A reason for the franchise's success is the fact that any television series, movie, book, or comic book has its ultimate roots in the original show with Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley. You can pick which areas you focus on me — for me, it's TOS, DS9, DS9 books, and the comics — but it's all one big tapestry. For other franchises, like James Bond or Batman, you're really picking between continuities rather than corners of one giant continuity. (The closest exception is Grant Morrison's run in the Batman comics, which apparently presumes that "it all happened" from 1939 on, but even that ignores and even MUST ignore the ultimately irreconilable events of The Animated Series, the Burton-Schumacher films, and the Nolan films.)

Bubba - May 8th, 2009 at 8:22 am

…Recently Trek novels and comics have introduced "Myriad Universes" to introduce "what-if?" stories that don't fit in the two universes — the regular and the mirror — of Trek continuity. It looks like this movie is another branch in another continuity, so as much as I may enjoy it, I'll probably never take to it as authentic.

On the subject, he points to an article by "JPod" that's worth reading too:

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles...

Brisco_County - May 8th, 2009 at 8:25 am

Agreed on Uhura, but not Kirk. Do you think Shatner was less wooden?

Also agreed on lame coincidences, but not on the Top Gun comparison. Top Gun doesn't own the idea of an elite training academy for young people.

I'd like to know what kind of formula writing you saw, too. I saw cliche's (how many times do we have to see Kirk hanging from a steep drop?), but not formula so much.

Brisco_County - May 8th, 2009 at 8:26 am

It looked more like a squid.

Mutnodjmet - May 8th, 2009 at 8:56 am

Is it OK to take my 7 1/2 year old son to see? To give you some perspective, I am OK with him seeing general science fiction mayhem (e.g., "Star Wars III, "Raiders of the Lost Ark", all previous Star Trek films). I just don't want to have to explain what Kirk is doing with the green alien woman to him just yet. Any guidance would be deeply appreciated.

The Great Satan™ - May 8th, 2009 at 9:00 am

Great comment.

Confessor - May 8th, 2009 at 9:06 am

I just hope to God that if they plan to use episodes of the original series as fodder for movies ( as has been done in the past), they avoid a remake of "City on the Edge of Forever." Writer Harlan Ellison has whined about how Roddenberry basically gutted the original teleplay to no end, wihch would make you think Ellison wrote the actual 10 Commandments and that Roddenberry had them rewritten. No reason to give Ellison more ammo in his weaponry of whining.

NCC - May 8th, 2009 at 9:14 am

"Are the tickets free? "

No. That's not till the 24th century.

CgntvDssdnt - May 8th, 2009 at 9:36 am

True or False: groups such as the Borg or the Dominion illustrate Trek's position that collectivism is inherently bad or evil?

CgntvDssdnt - May 8th, 2009 at 9:37 am

"Roddenberry never did that — his doomed ensigns were always flatlined and wooden. "

I thought the "throw-away" character was given due in the 1st movie: "Star Trek: The Motion Picture".

Dreadmore - May 8th, 2009 at 9:46 am

looks like you didnt see the film.

Dreadmore - May 8th, 2009 at 9:48 am

the Enterprise at warp

Dreadmore - May 8th, 2009 at 9:49 am

you should just sit and stew in your own juice, you more comfortable there

Dreadmore - May 8th, 2009 at 9:51 am

nothing graphic, you could cover his eyes for 10 seconds.

Dreadmore - May 8th, 2009 at 9:54 am

the best Star Trek movie to date!

Gordon_Winslow - May 8th, 2009 at 9:56 am

I liked the movie as a standalone, but really wish they hadn't wiped the entire timeline out.

And are there canyons in Iowa?

Think Again - May 8th, 2009 at 10:09 am

Well there you go. Next!

Fireflyfan - May 8th, 2009 at 10:14 am

Fast, fun and thoroughly enjoyable. As a ST fan from the old series, I was curious about how this movie would capture all that has gone before. Wow! This movie beautfiully traced the years back to the beginning. All of the characters were believable. Uhura is hot! I found this new look at Star Trek to be worth the wait and worth looking at again and again.

Mutnodjmet - May 8th, 2009 at 10:24 am

Thanks for the heads-up. I think this is what I am going to do.

CgntvDssdnt - May 8th, 2009 at 10:25 am

I see a lot of people up in arms about how "young" the characters are. I don't have a problem with it. I mean: James T. Kirk was a 20-something at some point in time. There can be no doubt that those years of his life must have profoundly influenced him to be the character we've known later in is life… and same for all the characters.

I'm quickly becoming a fan of JJ Abrams. I think his *thing* has a lot to do with telling stories about characters' transformation. "Fringe" is basically like X-files, but with the twist that the main characters are more directly connected to the phemonenon that each episode features. The ride we go on in the story arch is the transformational journey of the character. Maybe Trekkies are used to seeing the same Kirk in each movie etc. But better story telling requires more! On this token… I would bet that JJ Abraham's favorite arc in the movies was what happened to Spock (and Bones) between movies 2-4.

CgntvDssdnt - May 8th, 2009 at 10:26 am

Why? Because things look more "alien" when they are counter intuitive or hard for us to understand.

Rip_Ford - May 8th, 2009 at 10:39 am

Just got back from seeing it. I'd put the new movie in the middle of the pack. It's not as good as the even numbered TOS movies or "First Contact" but better than the rest.

Except for Chekov I liked the characterizations for the most part. McCoy's rant about how dangerous space was had me wondering why he'd even become a doctor much less joined Starfleet. I mean, if I was afraid of catching some terrible disease I probably wouldn't go into a profession that would expose me to lots of different diseases.

As is the case with everything I've ever seen by Abrams, the story itself doesn't hold up under the slightest scrutiny. The basic plot is decent but the actually implementation of the story just doesn't work. Prime example, they acknowledge that Nero has the faster ship yet somehow they beat him to Earth despite wasting a lot of time heading off to rendezvous with the rest of the fleet while Nero heads directly to Earth. I could easily go on at length about story problems. There's just way too much stupid stuff that happens without making any sense.

Hepcat - May 8th, 2009 at 10:44 am

Great reboot to a dead series. It really needed a fresh breath of air.

I read two posts that lamented the death of the original time line, that we'll never see wrath of khan, tribbles, etc etc. I want to point out that this new divergent time line could very well include all of the stories…or not. Depends. If anything the writers of the new stories can pretty much pick and choose whatever they want.

RKBailey - May 8th, 2009 at 11:06 am

Really like it. Loved the whole cast.

Pine played Kirk with the right amount of brashness and humor.

Zoe Saldana… well… She distracted me every scene she was in. What a beauty.

Urban WAS McCoy. He owned his character better than anyone.

I thought I was going to have a hard time separating Zachary Quinto from Sylar, but it took only moment before I saw him as Spock.

There needed to be more of Mr. Pegg. I need more Scotty!

I watched the whole movie with a smile on my face that was occasionally broken with laughter. I love that they can follow their own story line with the sequels due to it being an alternate time line. I am looking forward to more.

NeoConJedi - May 8th, 2009 at 11:21 am

I really liked this film, but I'd still put it at third or fourth on my list.

The film just felt that — while securing the basic dynamics of the characters and environment — the outright escapist approach to it robbed it of that unique Star Trek subtext. That level just beneath the surface, where your imagination runs wild, was definitely a casualty of this reboot.

While J.J. Abrams may not be best suited for a more cerebral Trek, he and his crew embraced their ideas, and went at them full speed. Acting with such bravery and confidence gave the film weight, which countered the lack of subtext.

That being said, I can't wait to see Klingons and Andorans — maybe even Borg and the Q.

k8blujay - May 8th, 2009 at 11:24 am

I want to know how in the crap Obama can be likened to Spock…. the only thing that I can think of is that they are both mixed "races"…. :/ Obama is not logical if he thinks using empathy and Obama would rather be empathetic over logical anyday of the week….

Ok, mini rant over… I saw the article on the front page and thought I would post it here… and no I didn't read any of the other comments.

Rick - May 8th, 2009 at 11:28 am

As a old foggie, I was a teen when the original came out. I have seen all the original TV series, all the different movies and also all the spin offs like DS9, TNG, Enterprise, and Voyager. I must admit this movie has tied the past with the future very nicely including the Pilot with Captain Pike. This one will in itself become a classic!

NCC - May 8th, 2009 at 11:29 am

"And are there canyons in Iowa? "

I wondered about this too. It must have been from the pre– First Contact nuclear war. Apparently Montana fared a bit better than Iowa.

Sotarr The Wizard - May 8th, 2009 at 11:45 am

Yes, and who thought Priceline would survive to the 23rd Century, much less retain Shatner as a spokesman ???

(evil grin)

maatkare - May 8th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

So why no review? No critic screenings for Big Hollywood? Debbie Schlussel's review beats John Notle's? Extremely illogical.

The Great Satan™ - May 8th, 2009 at 12:25 pm

===I want to know how in the crap Obama can be likened to Spock…. the only thing that I can think of is that they are both mixed "races"..===

It's the ears.

Hammerjack - May 8th, 2009 at 12:54 pm

Oh, it's a given that any Ferengi-centric episode will send a bloke into spasms of suckitude. For some reason, none of the Next Gen-DS9-Voyager-Enterprise could write funny without cringe-inducing results–and let's face it, the Ferengi were always played for laffs. Oh, the pain that was "Profit and Lace"!

Hammerjack - May 8th, 2009 at 12:56 pm

Probably because the continuity became so top-heavy that it was hard to come up with a story that didn't contradict something that came before. Ron Moore complained about that during his days on DS9, that they were slaves to continuity. It'll be kinda nice to see the results now that we have a clean slate.

Pinbot - May 8th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

I really enjoyed it. I'm not a hard-core Trekker, but enjoyed the original series. I never liked the Next Gen, because frankly, it had way too many diplomatic solutions for my taste. This movie has lots of fist fights and no diplomacy! All the supporting characters were great. I especially liked Bones. Your favorites from the old series will probably still be your favorites in the movie. They kept everybody true to the original concept.

There were two points in the movie, where I had a hard time suspending my disbelief. Both can be easily explained away if you accept the idea that the Federation is somewhat naive of the real threats in the universe, so I guess it's o.k. I fully expected the movie to be filled with moments of "Aw, come on now!" That was not the case. It's very easy to enjoy. I think only the bitterest old Trekkers will have nits to pick here. It's simultaneously a new adventure and a loving tribute. Go see it!

Aesop - May 8th, 2009 at 1:50 pm

1) This being the 11th Star Trek, the odd ones officially no longer suck.
Even if you aren't a Star Trek fan, see this movie. In the theatre. It's that good.

2) The effects and sound track are the awesome. If you have the opportunity to do this in IMAX, I heartily recommend it.
(As one online reviewer wrote: "Space sure got LOUD.")

3) There's a new James T. Kirk in the galaxy. And HE TOTALLY KICKS ASS.

4) The other actors filling all the other familiar roles were excellent as well.

5) I liked how they rebooted the entire basis for the series. It satisfied, wasn't klunky, and set up following episodes nicely.
If this effort is any indication of what to expect, I look forward to another 10 Star Trek movies.

My rating: Warp 10

Aesop - May 8th, 2009 at 1:54 pm

That was a stone quarry.

And yes, there are quarries in Iowa.

akagiredsun1 - May 8th, 2009 at 2:22 pm

No no no, don't get me wrong, it was never a case of embarassment… more like a feeling the franchise was circling the drain. Glad to say now it definitely isn't. It's not canon for sure, but they cover that in the course of the movie. Even a regimented accuraccy-buff will accept the new direction.

I'll have to look into that comic book series, sounds interesting!

k8blujay - May 8th, 2009 at 2:25 pm

That is awesome… Now I see the resemblance… *lol*

El_Gordo - May 8th, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Slander. Say what you will about the MovieBob but he takes his movies seriously.

El_Gordo - May 8th, 2009 at 2:30 pm

That´s dirty Trekkie slander. Say what you will about the MovieBob but he takes his movies seriously.

JamesHudnall - May 8th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

Just saw it. I loved it. It was everything I hoped it would be. The actors were on the money. The film had the right degree of heart, humor and tons of action. This is the kind of Star Trek movie I always wanted to see. It visually captures the grandeur of space and the future, but it has the down to earth feel that the character's relationships provide. And it is full of references to the old stuff to make it feel right.

Gordon_Winslow - May 8th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

Thanks for the clarification! That was bugging me.

StanH - May 8th, 2009 at 2:48 pm

Nice post, you're a good guy!

JRG3 - May 8th, 2009 at 3:11 pm

This version of NCC-1701 is one sexy beast.

section9 - May 8th, 2009 at 3:32 pm

Saw it last night and was thoroughly entertained. Abrams knows how to make an entertaining movie about iconic characters for the Mass Audience.

He scored. Haters can go service Dr. Manhattan, if you know what I mean.

Growltiger - May 8th, 2009 at 4:12 pm

Just got back. AWESOME! MAGNIFICENT MOVIE! I'm usually the Contrarian. Hate most of the films everyone else likes (Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, Star Wars). THIS MOVIE I LOVED!

Time for me to eat not just one crow but a flock of them. When I saw Zachary Quinto was going to play Spock, I thought he looked more like those creatures from "Galaxy Quest" than a Vulcan. He CONVINCED ME he was Spock. I never thought anyone could play Bones like DeForrest Kelly, but Karl Urban was superb. He stole every scene he was in. Chekov was weak and his accent so thick, he was difficult to understand. Plus he was too young. Scotty had too few lines but delivered every one well. He needed a bigger part.

I didn't like Uhura at all. In her youth, Nichele NIchols was absolutely show stoppingly beautiful — they should have cast a prettier Uhura. Furthermore, she was a little too snotty to be believable. And what's with the romance between (SPOILER deleted). Huh? Nichele's Uhura was the consummate professional. ALWAYS. She wouldn't be tonguing guys in the airlock. Look for Wynona Ryder as Spock's mother!

Chris Pine's Kirk was okay but too much of a jackass. Most of the time he seemed to be playing Shatner playing Kirk. Plus he kept getting the crap beat out of him. He was TOO YOUNG to be given command of a starship. It was like giving a naval ensign the command of an Aircraft carrier. No way, Jose!

The weaknesses in H'wood these days is either writing or casting. This film was cast well but the writing left holes big enough to drive the Enterprise through. Time Travel is hard to write and, in this case, unnecessary.
They could have told the same story without the time travel aspect which was confusing. And what's with the Romulan space ship? It looked like a flying feather. Eric Bana made a great villain.

Aetius - May 8th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

Quinto by far gives the best performance. Whereas Urban just does a Bones imitation, Quinto gets the opportunity to completely re-imagine Spock, a human Spock as opposed to a Vulcan Spock, and he seriously delivers. Pegg as Scotty is given some very broad material and makes it work. He steals most of his scenes.

Sharon Ferguson - May 8th, 2009 at 4:51 pm

Agree with you totally about Uhura…I really didnt like her at all.

but wasnt Kirk supposed to have been one of the youngest captains in Starfleet?? I would imagine that at the urging of Pike that the powers that existed were able to grant him captain-ship…

I loved Chekov!! I loved that he seemd to have a more active part in the goings on…and was able to flex his muscles in a way that I dont remember the Original Chekov doing.

red923 - May 8th, 2009 at 4:55 pm

Definitely. it's very young adult friendly. the one "sexy" scene that i had reservations about from the trailers was very brief and turned into a comedy piece. i think your daughter will love this and will swoon over more than one cast member (i know I did) .

red923 - May 8th, 2009 at 5:03 pm

this little chickie loved, LOVED this movie. i had no expectations going into it, and it blew me away. jj abrams is the man. i thought all of the new leads did a great job, especially Pine and Quinto, but really, i loved them all – sulu, chekhov, scotty (and loved Deep Roy as the little alien friend of Scotty!). Uhura was the weakest, but she didn't ruin it for me. The two characters i didn't care for – the green girl (although i felt it was a sly homage to Star Wars, as well as a few other visuals that also seemed to be Star Wars influenced), and Winona Ryder (something about her voice makes me mental). Special effects – awesome! Story – Fun! If the other summer blockbusters are even half as good as this movie we are in for a ride!! Woo hoo!

PerfectTommy - May 8th, 2009 at 6:45 pm

Okay, I admit that I'm old enough that I saw Star Wars in the theater. I saw the trailer a few months before it came out and thought it looked lame (I thought the Chewbacca make-up looked lame, not nearly as good as the Planet of the Apes make-up.) I was SO VERY WRONG. And I hated the trailers for this Star Trek film. Again I was SO VERY WRONG. This film works well.

Oh, if you didn't notice the first time, or haven't seen the film, note the color of Olsen's parachute.

We went out afterward an bought all four of the Burger King Star Trek glasses.

Des_ - May 8th, 2009 at 7:40 pm

I thought it was a brilliant adaption of the Star Trek universe. The acting was good, the action was great (other than the bar fight), and it was the best time-travel plot I've seen (although it would be nice if they didn't pull that out again for a decade or two). My only complaint would be that it could have used an extra 15 or 20 minutes of Kirk at Starfleet. They had an opportunity to really flesh out what made him so superior to his classmates, but skipped it in favor of a failed sex scene and a barely-adequate side-swipe of the infamous Kobayashi Maru incident that made Kirk famous in that lore. I thought there was more Nimoy than necessary, but it wasn't as bad as Kirk being thrust into the TNG movie.

It was also nice that they didn't rehash the lame tact of destroying the Enterprise (that's happened in what, 8 movies now?). That ship's been rebuilt more times than Hef's girlfriend.

Des_ - May 8th, 2009 at 7:49 pm

I agree about McCoy. He seemed to be the only one doing an impersonation of the original characters instead of just acting. I keep hearing people say how great he was, but to me he was incredibly forced versus Pegg, who was brilliant as Scotty. I really liked Pine as Kirk, and thought he did a good job of showing the arrogance and fearlessness that made him so cool. They could have gone a little deeper into his character, but it's nothing that couldn't be fleshed out in future movies. This is going to make as much as all the other ones combined, so I'm guessing it's safe to say we'll be seeing a sequel.

Chad - May 8th, 2009 at 7:52 pm

It was from mining, material for the Enterprise.

Chad - May 8th, 2009 at 8:05 pm

Kirk was always said to be the youngest Starship captain. Shatner was somewhere around 35 in TOS. I figure we start TOS 5 or so years after the possibility that is the current movie. Pine is , what? 28? It could work. However. Pike's possible sentimental reverence for Kirk's dad lead him to promote Kirk to 1st officer here. As he thought no one was getting out of this. what the hell. Give Kirk the same chance as his dad and "Do better." Because Kirk's dad died at the hands of Nero, Kirk got the Enterprise seemingly faster. But I just say, he got it at the right time, only differently.

red923 - May 8th, 2009 at 9:04 pm

Redshirt!

maatkare - May 8th, 2009 at 9:16 pm

It's the Enterprise going into Warp drive, silly!

maatkare - May 8th, 2009 at 9:31 pm

The green girl was an homage to the original show, the pilot, I believe, where some irresistible green slave girls attempt to seduce the captain–Pike.

maatkare - May 8th, 2009 at 9:31 pm

Wonderful film! Gave me the warm fuzzies with all the winks to the past, and established a strong cast for future adventures. Quinto was superb, but I loved the many 'group' shots on the bridge where all of the main cast were strategically grouped together.

John Drake - May 8th, 2009 at 9:49 pm

Meh.

And again, meh.

Summer blockbuster, okay. This is the sort of mindless crap the masses love. Star Trek? No.

Rose - May 8th, 2009 at 10:03 pm

My impression is that the original timeline still does exist. When Nero travelled back in time, he created a new, alternate timeline. The prime timeline continued and continues. The new timeline is now separate. Neither timeline negates the other.

Go to trekmovie.com and look for an interview with Star Trek co-writer Bob Orci with TrekMovie.com's Anthony Pascale in December 2008. He explains how time travel creates a new timeline without destroying the original timeline. So Khan and Tribbles and Spock's resurrection still did happen. But now there's a new timeline with unlimited possibilities.

Rose - May 8th, 2009 at 10:08 pm

Olson was the first "red shirt" of the new Star Trek universe!

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Open Thread: ‘Star Trek’

129898161 CommentsOpen+Thread%3A+%27Star+Trek%272009-05-08+05%3A40%3A19Big+Hollywood

Advertisement

Featured

The Politics of 'Star Trek': 'Patterns of Force'

Advertisement

Archives

Links

Open Thread: ‘Star Trek’

129898161 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fbighollywood.breitbart.com%2Fbighollywood%2F2009%2F05%2F07%2Fopen-thread-star-trek%2FOpen+Thread%3A+%27Star+Trek%272009-05-08+05%3A40%3A19Big+Hollywoodhttp%3A%2F%2Fbighollywood.breitbart.com%2F%3Fp%3D129898

Advertisement

Featured

The Politics of 'Star Trek': 'Patterns of Force'

Advertisement

Archives

Links

129898161 CommentsOpen+Thread%3A+%27Star+Trek%272009-05-08+05%3A40%3A19Big+Hollywood