Saw it yesterday.
Two hours of my life were wasted.
Save time and money folks.
Don't go.
David
Two hours of my life were wasted.
Save time and money folks.
Don't go.
David
STAR TREK the Movie
- Thread starter David in Boston
- Start date
It's not that easy.
I have to go. My kid wants to see it. End ol discussion.
I have to go. My kid wants to see it. End ol discussion.
I think I might go anyway as I generally like to judge these types of things for myself.
I saw it yesterday and thought just the opposite. It was 2 hours well spent with my son. We both loved the movie, but as they say YMMV.
I took my daughter to see it yesterday and we enjoyed it. I thought the plot 'melded' well with the original TV series.
- Thread starter
- #6
Did you say plot?
What plot? I thought it was Swiss Cheese. It had so many holes in it.
It amazes me how Hollywood makes movies from bad scripts.
I think I need to see a John Wayne western to experience a storyline that I can follow.
David
I am a big fan of the original TV series and confess to being a bit disappointed in the new movie. Story line was pretty good, and the new Spock was also good. The new Captain Kirk was the embodiment of testosterone without intelligence. Not a total loss, but certainly not great.
I've been kind of leery of going myself. What was most disappointing about it in your mind? Is it worth seeing?
I have been afraid of seeing it too.
After my own anticipation to see "The Day The Earth Stood Still" I am afraid to see any thing that is a rehash of a classic.
I may brave seeing it next weekend, I just hope it's not another waste of my money.
After my own anticipation to see "The Day The Earth Stood Still" I am afraid to see any thing that is a rehash of a classic.
I may brave seeing it next weekend, I just hope it's not another waste of my money.
It was pretty good, but really overused the time travel gimmick. The "alternate timeline" wasn't needed - the recent BSG series successfully rebooted that franchise without it. But the first time travel incident could be excused. What is not excusable is the second time travel incident involving TOS Spock, and his subsequent meddling around with the plot. Not that it wasn't nice to see him, but his character wasn't needed to advance the plot, and this meddling seriously weakened the development of the other three major characters he came in contact with.
I have been afraid of seeing it too.
After my own anticipation to see "The Day The Earth Stood Still" I am afraid to see any thing that is a rehash of a classic.
I may brave seeing it next weekend, I just hope it's not another waste of my money.
I didn't go see "The Day The Earth Stood Still" nor will I ever see it. The trailers were enough to scare off whatever curiosity was there.
I may also brave seeing "Star Trek" though. That's what I did with Wolverine. Thankfully it wasn't too bad, although what they did with Deadpool was inexcusable. Who's bright idea was it the silence the Merc with a Mouth?!?!
My son and I discussed this thread at dinner. His official 15yr old response was "That movie was awesome". My brother in law has no desire to see the movie because it does not have Bill Shatner in it. The original Kirk suffered from pausenia and method acting. Change is sometimes good my friend. I plan to take SWMBO next weekend.
I liked it a lot. The wife liked it a lot. The boys both loved it.
Sure there were some plot holes, but that's Trek...and the holes I had to swallow in this flick weren't any bigger than some of the ones that have gone before.
The recast crew was very good...Karl Urban nailed McCoy, and the others were all good enough or better than good enough. The portrayal of Kirk as a young hothead with unpolished but brilliant instincts as a commander worked for me. Same for Spock, I can see him being less in control of his human half when he starts out his career, but I think that was overplayed.
The villain was lackluster, but serviceable. I'm hoping that the Mr. Scott character loses the pet creature and becomes something more than a comedian in the next flick.
The time travel gimmick with the "altered destiny" reason to ignore established Trek history was a little convoluted, but I can see why they did it. I just wish they'd written in a "and that's why time travel won't work anymore" component so the writers won't be tempted to use a time travel plot out for a long time.
The thing that I feared most didn't happen...I never felt like it was an excuse to showcase CGI stuff. The character interaction was good, and it seemed like there was the spark of some chemistry between Quinto, Pine and Urban that was what made TOS tick with Nimoy, Shatner and Kelley.
The best TOS delivered the morality play as side served with a main course of good story. I hated the heavy handed lecturing of TNG, so it was nice to see this movie stay away from that. I'd like to think the next flick will be a little deeper on the character interaction, but they had to spend a lot of time on introductions in this one, so I can live with what they did.
The more I mull this new "Star Trek" over the more it grows on me. I'm a TOS purist, but 1966 was a long time ago. Buck Rodgers was forty years before TOS, and another forty has passed since the original five year mission. What worked in 1929 would not work in the Sixties, and a most of the stuff that was thrown in to "Star Trek" of 2009 was done to make it work for wider audience.
It wasn't my idea of perfect, but listening to my two kids heatedly arguing the coolness factor of Kirk vs. Spock was extremely gratifying.
Sure there were some plot holes, but that's Trek...and the holes I had to swallow in this flick weren't any bigger than some of the ones that have gone before.
The recast crew was very good...Karl Urban nailed McCoy, and the others were all good enough or better than good enough. The portrayal of Kirk as a young hothead with unpolished but brilliant instincts as a commander worked for me. Same for Spock, I can see him being less in control of his human half when he starts out his career, but I think that was overplayed.
The villain was lackluster, but serviceable. I'm hoping that the Mr. Scott character loses the pet creature and becomes something more than a comedian in the next flick.
The time travel gimmick with the "altered destiny" reason to ignore established Trek history was a little convoluted, but I can see why they did it. I just wish they'd written in a "and that's why time travel won't work anymore" component so the writers won't be tempted to use a time travel plot out for a long time.
The thing that I feared most didn't happen...I never felt like it was an excuse to showcase CGI stuff. The character interaction was good, and it seemed like there was the spark of some chemistry between Quinto, Pine and Urban that was what made TOS tick with Nimoy, Shatner and Kelley.
The best TOS delivered the morality play as side served with a main course of good story. I hated the heavy handed lecturing of TNG, so it was nice to see this movie stay away from that. I'd like to think the next flick will be a little deeper on the character interaction, but they had to spend a lot of time on introductions in this one, so I can live with what they did.
The more I mull this new "Star Trek" over the more it grows on me. I'm a TOS purist, but 1966 was a long time ago. Buck Rodgers was forty years before TOS, and another forty has passed since the original five year mission. What worked in 1929 would not work in the Sixties, and a most of the stuff that was thrown in to "Star Trek" of 2009 was done to make it work for wider audience.
It wasn't my idea of perfect, but listening to my two kids heatedly arguing the coolness factor of Kirk vs. Spock was extremely gratifying.
Last edited:
i loved it, i went to the cinema, and the 2 hours the movie lasted wizzed by, i didnt want to leave my seat,
My wife and I really enjoyed it. It wasn't perfect but there were some good references to the old series that made me laugh. However, YMMV.
Saw this last night and i liked it a lot, at the very least it is not one of the CGI heavy crap that Hollywood makes.
This is going to be a tough one for me. I'm not a Star Trek purest, but I really enjoy the original series quite a bit. In fact, it's probably one of my favorite shows. I'm going to see the new movie, but the original is going to be hard to top.
I thoroughly enjoyed it. I felt the time travel is overplayed, but it made sense as a way to ignore canon. McCoy couldn't have been much better. Spock and Kirk were played a little different than I would have like, story-wise. But I still thought it was fun, which is the point.
Took the wife and kids to see it yesterday and as a whole, we all had fun with it.
Casting was pretty good for just about all the main players except Kirk. I just didn't get Kirk out of that kid.
Someone just explain to me how a bunch of young Starfleet graduates get assigned to the Enterprise AND are all on the bridge from the beginning?!?
It kind of felt like Star Trek 90210....
Casting was pretty good for just about all the main players except Kirk. I just didn't get Kirk out of that kid.
Someone just explain to me how a bunch of young Starfleet graduates get assigned to the Enterprise AND are all on the bridge from the beginning?!?
It kind of felt like Star Trek 90210....
Similar threads
