• 62 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Edited by thomasnash (641 posts) -
@jasonr86 said:


Well, none of the Star Trek movies have offered the philosophical side of Star Trek. So why is it now, with this movie, does this reaction come out? As for the references the writers are in a real hard position of writing to multiple types of Trek fans as well as a new audience. The references are their way of nodding to the hardcore fans. They were there so that the newly set up universe with a slightly tilted view of what we as fans already know happened could both feel old and new. I think it was handled well. I can understand why others wouldn't. But the vitriolic language seems nuts to me. I mean at worst I can't see someone seeing this film exactly for what it is rather than what it isn't as anything worse then average.

That's actually a really good point that I hadn't considered before, partly because my point of reference has always been the series and not the films (which I haven't watched very many of, and don't have a huge amount of fondness for).

To be fair (to myself) I did think it about the first Abrams movie was well, although it was less about the lack of philosophising and more that the general "feel" of the ship and world were changed in fairly drastic ways, and I actually thought they redressed that in a lot of ways in this one so there you go.

#52 Posted by Little_Socrates (5834 posts) -

I felt like someone was trying to write a really interesting character-driven story about Kirk's fears, insecurities, and nigh-on nervous breakdown on the very, very outskirts of this movie, alongside a good reflection on the Kirk/Spock relationship. Unfortunately, it resolved neatly without ever digging deep because it was too busy being a kind of bland action movie with lots of good one-liners. It also failed to have any real "characters" beyond Kirk/Spock, expecting me to still care about Chekhov and Bones because they were in the '09 movie (and hey! What a miscalculation to give Bones practically no screentime despite constantly referring to Kirk's fucked up vitals and combat scenarios while giving loads to the totally boring Chekhov?)

It was fine. The acting was mostly quite good, but the material wasn't. I wish it were way, way better, and I'm glad it wasn't worse. Someone needs to take away J.J. Abrams's blockbuster card so that he only has the money to do banter, because he's really, really good at that. For reference, when you take away J.J.'s mammoth budget, he can make something as great as Super 8, which was certainly not made on a song, but was a far better movie than either of his Star Treks.

#53 Posted by EuanDewar (5141 posts) -


#54 Edited by EXTomar (5024 posts) -

It could be said the problems with Star Trek The Motion Picture was that it was faithful to ideals of the series. :)

This movie just cements for me the reasons why I dislike Abrams and his perchance for creating mystery when there is no need for it. The whole plot with Admiral Peter Wellers is kind of nonsense which warps Cumberbatch's character just to create motivation for him to attack the Federation/get the Federation to chase him. It is like Abrams plays with the material but doesn't really know or care about the source material which makes it feel "fanfic".

Oh well...I can only imaging how loopy the next Star Wars movies are going to be: The (new?) Jedi council will have SCERETS. DANGEROUS SECRETS. Oh wait the secret was actually nonsense but here is a light saber fight with some references to old stuff.

ps. People say Shatner was hammy in Wrath of Khan while ignoring Montalban. Both seemed to be chewing up the scenes where they were in...

#55 Posted by TooWalrus (13319 posts) -

It was fuckin' good stuff. I don't have any particular nostalgia for the old Star Trek, so I don't have any nerd rage to let out. Sorry guys- I went to the movie and had a good time.

#56 Edited by AssInAss (3040 posts) -

MovieBob didn't like it and what he says in his spoiler-filled video review is pretty damning if this movie is trying to actively compare itself to Wrath of Khan. It's kind of obvious JJ Abrams doesn't care for Star Trek, he's admitted to, but it also comes across in these reboots.

#57 Edited by JasonR86 (9999 posts) -

@extomar said:

It could be said the problems with Star Trek The Motion Picture was that it was faithful to ideals of the series. :)

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't say that myself.

#58 Posted by Sackmanjones (5175 posts) -

@demoskinos: couldn't agree more about the Kirk stuff.

I really wanted to believe that they went for it and killed him, truly establishing a very different universe but then the shot of Bones next to the hair ball thing (apologizes for forgetting the name) and I instantly knew oh this is the part where the thing moces and we save Kirk. That part and the part where Kahn falls for the obvious torpedo trick are really the two biggest pitfalls for me.

Everything else I enjoyed immensely and my goodness was it just a beautiful film to look at. The warp speed sequences were shot to god damn perfection. Anyway, I've seen all of TNG and I can see how this could turn old Trekkie fans off as Star Trek is more of methodical than say a Star Wars. But for a film I think it's fine to have a conflict with good action, what we need is a new tv series even though we all know that is probably close to impossible at this point in time. Overall I thought it was a pretty great film and Benedict Cumberbatch is one hell of a villain.

From this film i think it shows if anyone can bring back Star Wars it's Mr. Abrams.

#59 Posted by Kraznor (1608 posts) -

@jasonr86: " As someone not as enamored with the Star Trek feature films in general"

I copped to that in my original reply. The films aren't what I like about Star Trek. I guess the difference here is this isn't the big-screen specials of a pre-existing TV show, they are an orphan without a larger TV universe backing them. So the only stuff they have to pull from is the one film that preceded it and, by interdimensional ret-conning, the world of the Star Trek feature films of old (particularly Wrath of Khan in this case). So the resulting film feels really shallow in ways the other films didn't because they had the benefit of having history to build off of. If there was a weekly TV show with this cast in the intervening years maybe I'd find a silly action adventure more tolerable as I'd have tons of other material to delve into that is more to my liking. But on its own, it feels like a waste of time to me.

#60 Posted by JasonR86 (9999 posts) -


I guess I just don't understand dude. I mean this entire new version of the franchise is based off of taking the old universe and looking at it from a new, alternate angle. That's why all of the main characters are largely the same but with different characteristics. That's kind of the whole point of these new movies. They wouldn't exist without that prior history to rely on. So this film made references to Star Trek 2 just like this film and the last film referenced the old universe through their characters.

If you don't like that that's fine but it's not like that's an invalid way to take the movie franchise. You just happen to not like it. As for the other films, I just don't buy that they were any less shallow then this movie. How many times did they retread old ground in those movies? Plus, the original series movies totally changed the tone and some of the characters compared to the show. The original films kind of stand alone separate from the show.

#61 Edited by Kraznor (1608 posts) -

@jasonr86: I can't suss out the logic completely, I just know I was kind of grossed out by it. It struck me as an extremely uncreative way to tell a story, one completely based on a pre-existing work. A remix, instead of an original song. When it references old things, it only comes across as pandering to me. It thinks its paying tribute when it seems more like mocking somehow. Its a slight tonal anomaly I just found off-putting. You didn't, that's fine. They exist, I have to deal with that fact, but I will continue to shake my head disdainfully if they continue doing it like they have been.

#62 Posted by kishinfoulux (2766 posts) -

Saw it myself today. Really liked the first one and greatly enjoyed this one as well. Not a Star Trek fan so I don't give a fuck if they're butchering things or not (actually it's kind of funny seeing the actual fans get all bent out of shape about it).

Cumberbatch was pretty damn great. Needed more Karl Urban. He's in that Paul Rudd area for me, where I pretty much enjoy him in anything, even though he'll never be a major star.

#63 Posted by Whitestripes09 (501 posts) -

I loved it. I grew up with Star Trek around me since my dad is a pretty hard core fan of the whole series. I, myself never really dug deep into Star Trek lore so I don't really know what is getting screwed up, but I think that from a stand point of understanding what Roddenberry vision was, makes me feel that J.J. Abrams understood it as well and did the series justice with this newest movie.

It's kind of ridiculous/funny how the fans reacted to this whole movie... Half of the arguments I hear are just about the Enterprise rising out of the ocean and how "that can't happen!".

#64 Edited by Intro (1247 posts) -

Awesome fucking movie.