Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > So much for the Star Trek Movie

So much for the Star Trek Movie (Page 7)
Thread Tools
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Urbandale, IA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 09:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
Trek II is a classic for a reason. I think you were looking for CGI and got a good story.
Indeed - one of my favorite weekend-afternoon movie marathons to do is Trek II, III, IV.
( Last edited by Oneota; May 11, 2009 at 10:27 AM. )
"Yields a falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields a falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 11:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Just wanted to make sure you said Star Trek: Nemesis on purpose and didn't mean a different Star Trek movie altogether.
No, I really did mean Nemesis. I thought it was a good movie. The end was quite sad, and I enjoyed the story line a lot. I didn't realize until after I posted it that it got crap reviews...although it was against stiff competition, being released with Die Another Day and the second Harry Potter movie.

Originally Posted by dzp111 View Post
Spock does NOT kiss! (the scenes with him and Uhurou (don't know how to spell her name)) irked me. It just seemed wrong.
I agree, although I think that the whole Spock-kissing thing was supposed to be in the same vein as the whole Spock-fighting thing. It was showing that in his youth, Spock hadn't yet accomplished the complete embrace of pure logic, and still gave into his human side sometimes.

Question: The tv series 'Enterprise', is that before Kirk?
Dude. Enterprise was before the Federation of Planets even existed. It was before warp drive, holodecks, and transporter technology. Enterprise was the first ship of its kind.

Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
Seriously, I was going to say.... I remember Khan as having been one of the best movies EVER and held it in that esteem for many many years, but I rented it again recently to show someone how good Star Trek movies "used to be" and was quite shocked. It's just terrible by any modern standard. It's as hokey as those 50's movies that my mom says are so great. Makes me think that moviemaking has improved exponentially over the years and that even the lamest modern movie would be celebrated as a revolution in the history of film if released 20 or 30 years ago. For example, imagine if this new Star Trek movie had come out instead of "The Motion Picture" back in the 70's. Not just the geewhiz special effects (I still prefer analogue actually) but the way the story keeps moving along rather than the snail's pacing of the old one. Try watching Kahn again and you'll be amazed at how nothing happens for 15 minutes at a time again and again and how nobody says anything remotely intelligent at any point.
The plot is, indeed, good, but the special effects are way shittier than I remembered from when I was a kid.

Some of the acting is a little mediocre, too. It's still one of the best TOS-cast movies (personally, I prefer The Voyage Home, mostly for the lulz), but I liked this new one better, for sure.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 11:31 AM
 
The effects are SHITTY? Um, people are so spoiled by whiz-bang CGI.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
No, I really did mean Nemesis.
Just checking. It's my 3rd least liked Star Trek film, following Motionless Picture and Star Trek V.

Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
It was before warp drive, holodecks, and transporter technology. Enterprise was the first ship of its kind.
It's after warp drive. Enterprise is the second warp ship, after the Phoenix.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 12:23 PM
 
Wrath of Khan's Genesis Effect raised the bar for CGI. AFAIK, it was the first complete 3D CGI sequence in a major movie.

Remember, this movie was made 27 years ago. At that time, we were still using the Apple ][+.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 12:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
It's after warp drive. Enterprise is the second warp ship, after the Phoenix.
Enterprise was the first Warp 5 ship. There were lots of slower (warp one and two) ships between Enterprise and Phoenix.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 01:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I noticed and HATED product placements. Especially the Nokia placement. But I got over it because the rest of the film was awesome enough.
Seriously?? PRODUCT PLACEMENT??? In a film set far enough in the future that the companies/products featured will likely not exist-- if not because of the time factor, but certainly because of the Third World War we're supposed to have between now and 2063 according to Trek History.

Man... when I see the movie this weekend I'm going to be looking for the product placement now!
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 01:50 PM
 
Yeah, the product placement was quite jarring. However, it wasn't as jarring to me as Kirk's (first) promotion.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Yeah, the product placement was quite jarring. However, it wasn't as jarring to me as Kirk's (first) promotion.
So... what exactly does Nokia do in the 23rd century?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Person Man View Post
So... what exactly does Nokia do in the 23rd century?
They make…communicator thingies.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
Not flushing tradition. Khan has not aged as well as you think it has.
It hasn't? Must have aged quite a bit in 1 year, which was the last time I watched it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 02:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
They make…communicator thingies.
Oh, so the handheld communicators are made by Nokia?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 02:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
Dude. Enterprise was before the Federation of Planets even existed. It was before warp drive, holodecks, and transporter technology. Enterprise was the first ship of its kind.
No. there had been warp drive and transporter technology for a long time before the NX-01. In fact, Cochran built the first warp drive 100 years before, which is what led the Vulcans to make first contact.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 02:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
It's after warp drive. Enterprise is the second warp ship, after the Phoenix.
No. There had been many warp ships made by humans before the Enterprise NX-01, of all types and sizes. Enterprise was the first "warp 5" class ship, fast enough to make exploration feasible.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 02:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
No. There had been many warp ships made by humans before the Enterprise NX-01, of all types and sizes. Enterprise was the first "warp 5" class ship, fast enough to make exploration feasible.
Oh, right.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 05:10 PM
 
Pre-Enterprise class "delta" warp ship



You get a good view of them here, in the opening of the "mirror universe" episodes of Enterprise in formation with the bad NX-01.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 05:11 PM
 
Reminds me of a Bird of Prey.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 05:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Person Man View Post
Oh, so the handheld communicators are made by Nokia?
Not the ones used by the crew, but one in a car when Kirk is little.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 06:18 PM
 
So anyone think that the new Star Trek movie is the beginning of the Mirror Universe?
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 06:19 PM
 
That makes no sense.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 06:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar V View Post
That makes no sense.
Why doesn't it make sense? They state right off the bat that the new Star Trek movie takes place in an alternate dimension. Kirk's ego could get away from him and he could become Emperor Tiberius.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 06:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Why doesn't it make sense?
The idea of a mirror universe was an entire history full of evil instead of good.

Unless you're talking making **** up as we go. In which case, still no go unless you'd like take a nice fat dump on Roddenberry's idea of a positive future.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 06:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar V View Post
The idea of a mirror universe was an entire history full of evil instead of good.
It wasn't all evil. DS9 showed that many people in the mirror universe were just victims of circumstance. They were organizing a resistance against the Federation (or Empire, or whatever it's called.)

Originally Posted by Dakar V View Post
Unless you're talking making **** up as we go. In which case, still no go unless you'd like take a nice fat dump on Roddenberry's idea of a positive future.
Roddenberry's ideology was lost when he died and lost creative control over the show. The latest Star Trek film was completely removed from ideas established in TOS and earlier TNG.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 07:04 PM
 
My brother told me that Spock says the gender neutral version of the captain's creed, which pisses me off. Where no man has gone before at least specifies it's talking about humans, whereas "no one" could be talking about an alien race. Poorly thought out 1990s politically correct crap.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 07:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Roddenberry's ideology was lost when he died and lost creative control over the show. The latest Star Trek film was completely removed from ideas established in TOS and earlier TNG.
Completely removed? I thought Abrams did a very good job of keeping the core elements – like a diverse crew, and a hopeful future.

Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
My brother told me that Spock says the gender neutral version of the captain's creed, which pisses me off. Where no man has gone before at least specifies it's talking about humans, whereas "no one" could be talking about an alien race. Poorly thought out 1990s politically correct crap.
What's wrong with it possibly including alien races when the speaker himself is an alien?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 07:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
My brother told me that Spock says the gender neutral version of the captain's creed, which pisses me off. Where no man has gone before at least specifies it's talking about humans, whereas "no one" could be talking about an alien race. Poorly thought out 1990s politically correct crap.
What's wrong with going where nobody has gone before? The federation is several races so if I Vulcan federation officer went to a new place he doesn't get the street cred?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 07:20 PM
 
Well, that's true, it doesn't apply as much to Spock so I guess that's marginally okay, but usually it's a human captain saying it, and there's no question that it was changed for the sake of political correctness to a line that doesn't make as much sense for humans to say in relation to other life forms that most often got to those places first.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 07:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Um…yes. And yet a black hole failed to cause any damage whatsoever to two ships. That's what we were talking about. Like, two days ago. Now we're talking about Vulcan.
Keyword here is the MIDDLE.

A black hole opening in the centre of a planet tore it to shreds from the inside. The same would have happened if it had opened in the MIDDLE of a ship.

Obviously in a Trek universe a ship can pass through an already opened hole unharmed.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 07:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Well, that's true, it doesn't apply as much to Spock so I guess that's marginally okay, but usually it's a human captain saying it, and there's no question that it was changed for the sake of political correctness.
That's your opinion, but at least cite the correct decade, as it was changed in the 80s.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 07:26 PM
 
Sorry about that. I'm only a casual fan of the franchise.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 07:36 PM
 
The change to "no one" is all about inclusion, not PC. Think about all the prejudice dealt with in Undiscovered Country; the use of wording that can imply that it only means humans is not helpful and serves to alienate (excuse the pun) any non-human listener.

Kirk and Spock also made an important point about what it means to be "human." In Spock's quarters, Kirk says "everybody's human," to which Spock replies "I believe I am insulted," and Kirk goes on to explain that everybody (sentient species) is equivalent, whatever their species.

In the 1960s, Star Trek taught a huge audience that "race" was a poor choice of words for describing people with different color skin and such, when we're all humans. In the 1990s, they taught us to look beyond preconceptions yet again, and to judge based on actions, not appearance.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sudbury, ON
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 07:43 PM
 
Does anyone here recall any references that Vulcan had been destroyed, during or since TNG? Or during the original 60's series for that matter?

I'm not sure why that issue bothers me a bit... Maybe because they showed the planet a few times during Enterprise series and it was an awesome-looking planet.
.................................................. .................................................. ..................................www.DNCH.com

.................................................. .................................................. .......................www.daniel.poirier.com
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 07:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by dzp111 View Post
Does anyone here recall any references that Vulcan had been destroyed, during or since TNG? Or during the original 60's series for that matter?

I'm not sure why that issue bothers me a bit... Maybe because they showed the planet a few times during Enterprise series and it was an awesome-looking planet.
Alternative universe, dude. That was like the whole point of the movie.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 08:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by dzp111 View Post
Does anyone here recall any references that Vulcan had been destroyed, during or since TNG? Or during the original 60's series for that matter?

I'm not sure why that issue bothers me a bit... Maybe because they showed the planet a few times during Enterprise series and it was an awesome-looking planet.
That's where the altered time line comes into play. We are at the point where we could see an entirely new incarnation of the original series, because everything that happened after Nemo showed up in the past has diverged from the time line we are familiar with.

I think I've figured out what's bugging me the most about the movie. If Nemo wasn't a bad guy, just a work-a-day Romulan who lost his shiznit when he saw his planet destroyed, wouldn't it have made more sense for him to go directly to the nasty star in question and use his magic black hole maker? He could have waited the 25 years to get Spock's ship, saved his world and then could've given Spock a good beating for being a dumbass. But he destroys Vulcan instead. Hell, he could have saved his planet, then boned Spock's for messing up in the first place, if he was so inclined. Instead he seeks revenge for something that doesn't need to happen.

As I said, I've never been much of a fan, so I don't know, but is Romulus getting destroyed canon in the franchise?

And why is it that Abrams and his ilk feel the need to explain stuff that should be part of the story in comic books. I'm a grown-ass man, I haven't read a comic since I was a kid. And rarely then. My friend and I both wondered why a non-military mining ship would be so heavily armed that it could take out a fleet of Starfleet ships. How many people that went to this movie saw these comics and knew it was using Borg tech?
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 08:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Alternative universe, dude. That was like the whole point of the movie.
 


I thought it was a pretty good flick, and I'm an original TOS-rerun trekker. (FYI, trekkies are google-eyed fanatics; trekkers are the civilized, intellectual types who appreciate the show for the societal significance. Whatever.)

Again, it was pretty good, certainly better than 9/10 flicks I've seen in the past 10 years. I'll try to see it a couple more times before it leaves the big screen, and I haven't done that in a while.

It oversimplified some things, but was very enjoyable. I kept thinking "They're going to make A MILLION DOLLARS with this."

Simon Pegg gets short shrift as Scotty, but they'll fix that in sequels I'm sure. I like the filming of the engine room in a brewery, much more realistic this time. I went back and watched some of the others this weekend, and most of them are schlock. Fun, interesting in places, but just extended TNG episodes. This was a "big" picture, with all that implies.
( Last edited by finboy; May 11, 2009 at 08:09 PM. Reason: Wanted to see if spoiler tag worked.)
He can be fixed -- you can't.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 08:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post

Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
Seriously, I was going to say.... I remember Khan as having been one of the best movies EVER and held it in that esteem for many many years, but I rented it again recently to show someone how good Star Trek movies "used to be" and was quite shocked. It's just terrible by any modern standard. It's as hokey as those 50's movies that my mom says are so great. Makes me think that moviemaking has improved exponentially over the years and that even the lamest modern movie would be celebrated as a revolution in the history of film if released 20 or 30 years ago. For example, imagine if this new Star Trek movie had come out instead of "The Motion Picture" back in the 70's. Not just the geewhiz special effects (I still prefer analogue actually) but the way the story keeps moving along rather than the snail's pacing of the old one. Try watching Kahn again and you'll be amazed at how nothing happens for 15 minutes at a time again and again and how nobody says anything remotely intelligent at any point.
Trek II is a classic for a reason. I think you were looking for CGI and got a good story.
How can you quote every word I said and not read a word of it? I said I like real special effects better than CGI and I always considered it one of the best movies ever. Why act like I'm a teenager that was expecting something different? I'm just saying by todays standards it pretty much sucks and I don't even think that todays standards are that great. Gone With the Wind, Casablanca, and Lord of the Rings are even bigger classics and they suck WAY more than Kahn.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 08:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
The change to "no one" is all about inclusion, not PC. Think about all the prejudice dealt with in Undiscovered Country; the use of wording that can imply that it only means humans is not helpful and serves to alienate (excuse the pun) any non-human listener.

Kirk and Spock also made an important point about what it means to be "human." In Spock's quarters, Kirk says "everybody's human," to which Spock replies "I believe I am insulted," and Kirk goes on to explain that everybody (sentient species) is equivalent, whatever their species.
Then I suppose I have been misinterpreting the phrase all this time, and the Enterprise has largely not lived up to that standard, which would be to boldly go "where no sentient life has gone before."

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 08:42 PM
 
How come nobody has mentioned Kirk's giant swollen hands as the worst part of the movie?
Did everybody just block that out until now like I did?

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sudbury, ON
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 08:43 PM
 
.................................................. .................................................. ..................................www.DNCH.com

.................................................. .................................................. .......................www.daniel.poirier.com
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sudbury, ON
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 08:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
How come nobody has mentioned Kirk's giant swollen hands as the worst part of the movie?
Did everybody just block that out until now like I did?
I think that was meant as humorous.
.................................................. .................................................. ..................................www.DNCH.com

.................................................. .................................................. .......................www.daniel.poirier.com
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 08:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
How come nobody has mentioned Kirk's giant swollen hands as the worst part of the movie?
Because it wasn't. I can think of several things that bothered me more than that.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 09:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
How come nobody has mentioned Kirk's giant swollen hands as the worst part of the movie?
Did everybody just block that out until now like I did?
I thought it was dumb as well, but the plot holes bugged me more.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 09:35 PM
 
Finally saw it, so I should eat some crow about starting the thread in such a downer fashion (but I still say that photo sucks).

I enjoyed the movie a lot. I think the entire main crew is wonderfully cast.

The first 20 minutes or so bordered on brilliant.

I was expecting the rest to follow through, and it kind of didn't. I'm not saying it was bad past that point, but it took awhile for my expectations to get in line with what the movie was going to provide. I certainly wouldn't mind watching it again.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 10:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
No. there had been warp drive and transporter technology for a long time before the NX-01. In fact, Cochran built the first warp drive 100 years before, which is what led the Vulcans to make first contact.
I'll admit that I've only recently started watching Enterprise (BFF has all the Treks but TOS on DVD, so I've been borrowing them for monster marathons), but IIRC, didn't they always use shuttle crafts to go down to planets, because either transporter technology didn't exist or was still very rudimentary?

I think I may have been thinking of photon torpedoes when I wrote warp drive. I've seen First Contact.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 10:22 PM
 
They didn't use transporters very much because it scared them. However, the technology had been approved for people for quite some time.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 10:24 PM
 
Nice wrap-up of conflicts. I can't say I understand the whole timing of Nero/Spock Prime either, although it made sense at the time.

Also, there were several teary moments for me. Abrams did a good job at whipping up the emotions. None of the references to the original series were gratuitous.

 


OK, though, seriously, for those who've seen it, answer this please if you can:

 
( Last edited by finboy; May 11, 2009 at 10:31 PM. )
He can be fixed -- you can't.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 10:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
The effects are SHITTY? Um, people are so spoiled by whiz-bang CGI.
Not really. Jason and the Argonauts is one of my favorite movies in terms of special effects, because the effects were completely revolutionary for its time. The Wrath of Khan has pretty cheesy effects - they're about on par with special effects in TNG episodes, which isn't saying much - it just seems low-budget.

Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Yeah, the product placement was quite jarring. However, it wasn't as jarring to me as Kirk's (first) promotion.
I don't remember any product placement aside from the Nokia bit right at the beginning...
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 10:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
Not really. Jason and the Argonauts is one of my favorite movies in terms of special effects, because the effects were completely revolutionary for its time. The Wrath of Khan has pretty cheesy effects - they're about on par with special effects in TNG episodes, which isn't saying much - it just seems low-budget.
Yeah, that ILM just sucks....

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 10:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
I don't remember any product placement aside from the Nokia bit right at the beginning...
That's the one I was talking about.

---

P.S. Orion women are supposed to be sultry. The one in this movie was a total airhead, the antithesis of sultry. What gives? Maybe only the slave girls are sultry? Once they hit the middle class they become valley girls?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Near Antietam Creek
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2009, 11:11 PM
 
Uhura ordered two Buds at the bar.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:05 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2