Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ghporter · May 7, 2009, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by starman

^^ I know that

. I'm just talking about the look of the pic specifically.

That picture was in the same style as a lot of "cast pictures" of the time. But these characters held the public's attention quite strongly, so the picture itself was a sensation too.

I remember seeing the picture in TV Guide when I was a kid, and how fantastic it was. Particularly since TV reception then was not nearly as great as cable has conditioned us to expect today. If you watch TOS episodes from the first batch of DVDs, you may note how relatively poorly the effects shots come through. That was just fine back then because of the combination of broadcast characteristics and resolution of TVs. Oh, and ST was one of the biggest reasons for color TV sales then too-and color TV tended to look much sharper than B&W.

SpaceMonkey · May 7, 2009, 11:03 AM

Wil Wheaton likes it.

starman · May 7, 2009, 11:04 AM

We had a color TV when Star Trek was on NBC, but I was still too young to understand a lot of it until it went into syndication.

starman · May 7, 2009, 11:05 AM

For you nerds with iPhones, I made Star Trek wallpapers.

http://starmike.deviantart.com/

Salty · May 7, 2009, 11:41 AM

I'm actually kinda frustrated, I have a date tonight and we'll probably end up seeing wolverine... I'd sooner see the new trek.

Chuckit · May 7, 2009, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

I'm actually kinda frustrated, I have a date tonight and we'll probably end up seeing wolverine... I'd sooner see the new trek.

Then go see Star Trek?

SpaceMonkey · May 7, 2009, 01:49 PM

Wolverine's probably a better date movie anyway. A couple of hairy, sweaty, lumberjack sort of guys going at it with sharp claws...yeah, I can see that.

subego · May 7, 2009, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

I remember seeing the picture in TV Guide when I was a kid, and how fantastic it was.

Dammit! I was so going to say "I wonder where that picture came from? It looks like a TV Guide cover or something."

Chuckit · May 7, 2009, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Wolverine's probably a better date movie anyway. A couple of hairy, sweaty, lumberjack sort of guys going at it with sharp claws...yeah, I can see that.

It's a better date movie only in that you won't regret missing what's on screen if you're making out through it.

Eug · May 7, 2009, 10:20 PM

Well, I was a bit disappointed. It was OK, but seemed to be missing something.

Awesome effects, but the story makes no sense, the villain isn't very interesting, and I was hoping for less slapstick. I'm optimistic, but as restart movies, I preferred Batman Begins and Casino Royale.

OTOH, my GF loved the movie.

starman · May 7, 2009, 10:26 PM

F'n time travel films.

Ok, Spock, things are screwed up? Get back in your ship, go around the sun at warp 10, fix the mistake, problem solved.

Another nitpick: the Kobiyashi Maru. Kirk was so nonchalant about it. Whips out an APPLE? /facepalm.

It was a good idea, could have been better.

- - e r i k - - · May 7, 2009, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Another nitpick: the Kobiyashi Maru. Kirk was so nonchalant about it. Whips out an APPLE? /facepalm.

Uhm yeah, he cheated the test. Of course he was nonchalant about it!

The Apple is a direct reference to when he retells the story in The Wrath Of Khan

Pick your nitpicks more wisely next time!

starman · May 7, 2009, 10:44 PM

Sorry, no. He didn't even try. Also, he got reamed by Starfleet for doing it. Where was the "commendation for original thinking"? Yeah, I got the apple but the whole thing seemed poorly done.

Oh, right...alternate timeline

Eug · May 7, 2009, 10:57 PM

Big nitpick: The story was bad.

I like how Kirk gets dropped on some remote frozen planet yet somehow ends up in exiled old Spock's cave, and then Spock fights off a badass mean 50-foot alien crustacean with with just a torch. And then they go pick up mathematical physicist Scotty and his pet ewok, who just happen to live nearby, with a functional warp speed transporter.

starman · May 7, 2009, 11:16 PM

^^ that

Andrew Stephens · May 8, 2009, 04:27 AM

Well that was pretty meh.

Cast were great, effect pretty good, Quinto and Pegg were stand out, knowing winks to TOS and movies all present and correct but an emotional content of zero.

Lotta people died in the film (billions on Vulcan) but no real emotional kick. Some sense of doom would have been nice. Kirk on ice planet/Spock/Scotty/transporter co-incidence was stupid. Timescales seemed off. 2 minutes to Vulcan but ages fannying around before heading back to earth.

I bet JJ was wetting himself writing the Spock/Uhura stuff. Came right out of the blue but felt like it was put there just to give the hard cores a massive coronary!

Should have been more menace with the Romulan ship vs the fleet. The TV series did it better vs the Borg.

In short, whizz bang, laugh, gee, wow. No feelings in it.

mrtew · May 8, 2009, 06:42 AM

There were never any feelings in TOS were there. The movies had some fake feeling but the show was totally sterile, no? I think that's why guys were cool with it but it did nothing for girls.

starman · May 8, 2009, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by mrtew

There were never any feelings in TOS were there. The movies had some fake feeling but the show was totally sterile, no? I think that's why guys were cool with it but it did nothing for girls.

Yes, there were. Why do you think so many people loved the show? Without emotion it would have fallen into obscurity like Lost in Space.

ghporter · May 8, 2009, 08:17 AM

TOS had very STRONG emotional content. Every episode had some sort of emotional hook, whether it was "it's headed for Earth and we have to stop it!" or "Awww, Scotty's in love." If you watched the show for its story content, you'd have picked that up despite the very contemporary styling and fashions.

Headed out to see the movie this afternoon. I think I'll enjoy it. But I think a lot of people who posted here having not liked it are just a bit jaded by all sorts of other "blockbuster" type films. Hint: it ain't supposed to be "art," and it ain't supposed to be Michael Bey, it's supposed to be Star Trek, a genre unto itself.

Eug · May 8, 2009, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Headed out to see the movie this afternoon. I think I'll enjoy it. But I think a lot of people who posted here having not liked it are just a bit jaded by all sorts of other "blockbuster" type films. Hint: it ain't supposed to be "art," and it ain't supposed to be Michael Bey, it's supposed to be Star Trek, a genre unto itself.

It was the same writers as Transformers, which I guess explains the nonsense story line.

Then again, I loved Transformers... except for the nonsense story line that is.

scottiB · May 8, 2009, 09:35 AM

My wife (a graphic design professor): J.J. Abrams and his f**cking Futura.

Hawkeye_a · 02:52 PM

I enjoyed it. It was new while being a great homage to the original series. The story was no more convoluted that any other sci-fi, the script was spot on, the humor was not too much,the sfx were top notch, and the casting was great imo. I wasnt expecting this movie to be as good as it was, in fact i was expecting a travesty to the original series(the only ST series that i have actually watched to date).... luckily, i was pleasantly surprised. I did miss Sulu's accent.

Im not a huge star trek fan, so im not prone to picking on the smallest of flaws. And as far as prequels go, it is by far the best one in recent memory.

What i like most, was the non stop action..... they didnt spend huge chunks of time on specific character building, it was just worked into the main plot. Go watch it in theater.

Cheers

Eug · May 8, 2009, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

I did miss Sulu's accent.

And as far as prequels go, it is by far the best one in recent memory.

I preferred Casino Royale and Batman Begins.

scottiB · May 8, 2009, 01:25 PM

<pedant>BB and CR are "reboots" or "reimaginings" not prequels. ST took us to where the band got together--something not yet shown in TOS or films.</pedant>

starman · May 8, 2009, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by scottiB

<pedant>BB and CR are "reboots" or "reimaginings" not prequels. ST took us to where the band got together--something not yet shown in TOS or films.</pedant>

But...

Did so in an alternate timeline.

Hawkeye_a · May 8, 2009, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

George Takei's accent i guess

Goldfinger · May 8, 2009, 03:04 PM

I went to see it yesterday. In a word: awesome. Much better than expected.

scottiB · May 8, 2009, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by starman

But...

Did so in an alternate timeline.

Even so,

If Nero was not a part of of the plot, and there was no time travel,

it still would be a prequel with a side of reboot--which I'd call this one, too.

analogue SPRINKLES · May 8, 2009, 06:49 PM

I really liked the look of the movie and the characters were great. The story was pretty bad though.

If I understand correctly from this point on it is an alternate reality and everything we saw in all the other series is irrelevant as Vulcan was never destroyed which is a huge change in the timeline.

I was expecting a big reset button at the end but I am almost more disappointed that there wasn't one.

The dumbest moment for me was how both Kirk and Spock are both stranded in the exact same spot on a planet?!! What are the odds of that!?

The sets were awesome except some of the lower decks like engineering just looked like a beer brewery with lasers shining on them.

Bridge and spaceshots were tiiiiiight!

Chuckit · May 8, 2009, 08:10 PM

Yeah, I was surprised at the lack of reset button too, especially since black holes are apparently magic and they had one handy at the end.

It seems like a lot of people were bugged by the coincidence of meeting Scotty, but Simon Pegg was freakin' brilliant, so I didn't mind.

ghporter · May 8, 2009, 09:12 PM

I liked it a lot. I loved the look, I liked the way they changed phasers to be pulse weapons instead of continuous beams, and I liked the industrial look of spaces like Engineering.

I thought the story worked well. Remember, this is a movie based on a 60s TV show. While it could and often did bring up real social issues, it almost always told good, if somewhat simplified stories.

The handy black hole creating "red matter" seemed like the bestest buzzword I've seen in years.

They had this stuff handy because Spock Prime was going to use it to contain the nasty supernova, remember? But since the supernova went too fast and destroyed Romulus, Nero blamed Spock for it, and captured him later, obtaining the red matter. That story feature worked quite well-at least as well as "trilithium" from Generations.

I noticed and HATED product placements. Especially the Nokia placement. But I got over it because the rest of the film was awesome enough.

Simon Pegg was GREAT as Scott. Meeting him where they did was a bit odd, (and the place didn't look at all like I wish it had), but he more than made up for it. I liked Cho too; a bit of humility, a bit of wicked blade work, and some badass flying. (And what's the stuff about George Takai's accent? He had a fairly deep voice in TOS, but no real accent that I recalled. Nichell Nichols had a fairly distinctive accent then, but Zoë Saldana did a very straight "Generic American" accent in the film and nobody complained about hers.

One thing I want to gripe about: we only hear about Nurse Chapel, but we never see her. In fact, Uhura is the ONLY female primary cast member. What's up with that?

Overall, this is one I need to see again, in part because it was going so fast that I KNOW I missed some stuff.

Dakar V · May 8, 2009, 09:33 PM

I give it 4 out of 5 disgusted sighs.

Shaddim · May 9, 2009, 12:53 AM

Bloody fantastic.

4.5/5

Chuckit · May 9, 2009, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

And what's the stuff about George Takai's accent? He had a fairly deep voice in TOS, but no real accent that I recalled.

He had a very distinct way of speaking. I used to imitate it, and my voice has never been deep enough to imitate Takei. I think it's more of a cadence thing?

analogue SPRINKLES · May 9, 2009, 02:43 AM

I missed something in the plot. When they went through the black hole they arrived right when Kirk was born. They then took 25 years doing what exactly?

Chuckit · May 9, 2009, 02:55 AM

Waiting for Spock to grow up, I think.

Hawkeye_a · May 9, 2009, 08:08 AM

Or just looking for Spock the whole time ? That being said, didnt the baddies exile the old spock(Nemoy) to watch ? so why wait for the young Spock ?

Oneota · May 9, 2009, 08:37 AM

Okay, so holy crap that was a good movie. Let me start off by saying that I was a pretty hard-core trekkie from middle school through college (I was in Jr. High/Sr. High during most of DS9's run, and watched the Enterprise premier with college buddies my Junior year, if that gives you a date context). So I'm familiar with the Trek canon.

On the one hand, I friggin' loved this movie and will probably see it again in theaters. On the other hand, it does raise some issues about canon, no doubt. I mean, it's not like we were ever going to see another TNG-based movie, nor one based on DS9 or Voyager, so the fact that those story lines are effectively erased from the canon's timeline isn't the end of the world. Except, well, I guess it kind of is the end of their world. You know? From now on, whenever I watch a TNG or DS9 episode, in the back of my mind, it'll be like "yeah, except this didn't happen in the 'real' timeline because that crazy friggin' Romulan erased this timeline."
I'm just not sure yet how I feel about that.

ghporter · May 9, 2009, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Waiting for Spock to grow up, I think.

No, waiting for him to SHOW up. Remember they showed Pike the picture of Spock Prime's ship...

ghporter · May 9, 2009, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Oneota

Okay, so holy crap that was a good movie. Let me start off by saying that I was a pretty hard-core trekkie from middle school through college (I was in Jr. High/Sr. High during most of DS9's run, and watched the Enterprise premier with college buddies my Junior year, if that gives you a date context). So I'm familiar with the Trek canon.

On the one hand, I friggin' loved this movie and will probably see it again in theaters. On the other hand, it does raise some issues about canon, no doubt. I mean, it's not like we were ever going to see another TNG-based movie, nor one based on DS9 or Voyager, so the fact that those story lines are effectively erased from the canon's timeline isn't the end of the world. Except, well, I guess it kind of is the end of their world. You know? From now on, whenever I watch a TNG or DS9 episode, in the back of my mind, it'll be like "yeah, except this didn't happen in the 'real' timeline because that crazy friggin' Romulan erased this timeline."
I'm just not sure yet how I feel about that.

You missed the point that in this film they are in a completely NEW timeline, so they haven't erased anything-just taken Spock Prime out of his original time and looped him back 129 years. They even discuss it on the bridge at one point; they are part of an alternate reality that started on Kirk's birthday when Nero's ship showed up.

I agree that the movie was great, but with Star Trek, you must have an open mind for every possibility.

Wiskedjak · May 9, 2009, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Oneota

On the one hand, I friggin' loved this movie and will probably see it again in theaters. On the other hand, it does raise some issues about canon, no doubt. I mean, it's not like we were ever going to see another TNG-based movie, nor one based on DS9 or Voyager, so the fact that those story lines are effectively erased from the canon's timeline isn't the end of the world. Except, well, I guess it kind of is the end of their world. You know? From now on, whenever I watch a TNG or DS9 episode, in the back of my mind, it'll be like "yeah, except this didn't happen in the 'real' timeline because that crazy friggin' Romulan erased this timeline."
I'm just not sure yet how I feel about that.

To hell with canon. I think canon, the older one gets, hurts a story more than helps it. The amount of baggage a writer must contend with in the Star Trek universe is insane. I, for one, am glad they opted to start from scratch.

Oneota · 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

You missed the point that in this film they are in a completely NEW timeline, so they haven't erased anything-just taken Spock Prime out of his original time and looped him back 129 years. They even discuss it on the bridge at one point; they are part of an alternate reality that started on Kirk's birthday when Nero's ship showed up.

I agree that the movie was great, but with Star Trek, you must have an open mind for every possibility.

I guess I hadn't thought of it that way (but it's not a bad way to look at it) -- every time they do something with time in Star Trek, they always go to so much trouble to "maintain the timeline" and put things back the way they were that I guess I tend to think of there just being the one "reality."

Of course, the reason that the characters go to so much effort at timeline preservation is that it's their own timeline they're preserving. These people had no experience with that other timeline, so I guess the only one who really has any reason to want to put things back would be Spock Prime, and he seemed pretty resigned to his current situation.

If I were the type to go to conventions, I think the next one would certainly be interesting -- watching everyone try to reconcile what just happened to their universe.

Wiskedjak · May 9, 2009, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES

The dumbest moment for me was how both Kirk and Spock are both stranded in the exact same spot on a planet?!! What are the odds of that!?

Ya, that was the only bit that really bothered me. I'm glad, though, that they didn't have a reset button at the end.

Wiskedjak · May 9, 2009, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Oneota

If I were the type to go to conventions, I think the next one would certainly be interesting -- watching everyone try to reconcile what just happened to their universe.

Why reconcile? It's not like all of the Star Trek episodes up to this date have been erased from existence.

Oneota · May 9, 2009, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Why reconcile? It's not like all of the Star Trek episodes up to this date have been erased from existence.

Yeah, I realize that it's not like everyone's DVD collections disappear into a puff of smoke while they're at the theater. But it will undoubtedly spur conversations much like the one we're having now, only geekier. Some people don't like having their imaginary universes messed with, you know.

ghporter · May 9, 2009, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES

The dumbest moment for me was how both Kirk and Spock are both stranded in the exact same spot on a planet?!! What are the odds of that!?

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Ya, that was the only bit that really bothered me. I'm glad, though, that they didn't have a reset button at the end.

Ummm... Nero stranded Spock Prime where he could watch "the show," and Spock (young) had Kirk dumped immediately AFTER that "show". Timing, not coincidence, and mostly on the young Spock's part.

Eug · 12:25 PM

Because of the proximity of the ice planet to Vulcan, I can almost forgive the coincidence there. It might have been less jarring if they had said that there weren't many other places to go on the planet.

What I don't get is if Spock knew the Federation base was there, why didn't he go there to do something about the impending doom? Then when he finally decides to go to the base it happens to be Scotty there (with an ewok) with the transwarp transporter, that actually works. And, it's a machine that future-Spock knows about because Scotty the theoretical physicist had already invented it in the other timeline?

I know many people don't care but it just really annoyed me. Too bad, because I enjoyed the first half of the movie much more.

However, perhaps I'll see it again if it shows up locally in Imax. The second time I'll know the plot is idiotic and hopefully won't care as much.

PS. I can't believe I'm posting this from a dimsum restaurant, on my iPhone over 3G no less. Back when I saw (my favourite Star Trek movie) Wrath of Khan for the first time, who would have thought it would be so soon? The future is here. Now I just need a transporter.

analogue SPRINKLES · May 9, 2009, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Ummm... Nero stranded Spock Prime where he could watch "the show," and Spock (young) had Kirk dumped immediately AFTER that "show". Timing, not coincidence, and mostly on the young Spock's part.

Well Nero just dumped him on a planet that could see vulcan, he didn't drop him off at the only observation platform on the planet. I don't see how young spock would know his counterpart from the future was down there and dropped kirk off 1k from the same spot.

That and the 25 years of searching for spock really bugged me.

I read and article interviewing the writers and they said they purposely wanted to have a new timeline to start fresh. Good idea I guess as the problems with prequels you know when everyone dies and all important events so there isn't much surprise.

This way things can go much different such as Tuvok from Voyager probably never was born (Thankfully) and neither was Kirstie Alley vulcan character from ST2.

There will also be much more major changes as the dominion war from DS9 could be lost because no romulans to side against them to things we can never think of as Vulcan was a major player in the Federation.

I guess this is a good thing I am just so used to that re-set button with any time travel and I rather liked Vulcan so it is a bit of a shock the the geek system.

Gonna see it again in IMAX on Tues. Can't wait!

Oneota · May 9, 2009, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES

There will also be much more major changes as the dominion war from DS9 could be lost because no romulans to side against them to things we can never think of as Vulcan was a major player in the Federation.

Actually, if I understood it properly, Romulus was destroyed in Spock Prime's timeline, about 10-ish years after the events of Nemesis (TNG was supposed to be around 80 years after TOS, and Nemesis was about 10-15 years after TNG ended, then the 30 years between the end of TOS and the original 6 movies). So in the timeline we're in now, Vulcan is gone, but Romulus should still be present and okay.

ghporter · May 9, 2009, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES

Well Nero just dumped him on a planet that could see vulcan, he didn't drop him off at the only observation platform on the planet. I don't see how young spock would know his counterpart from the future was down there and dropped kirk off 1k from the same spot.

Valid points, but I think it just turned out to be the "most convenient spot" for both stranders.

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES

There will also be much more major changes as the dominion war from DS9 could be lost because no romulans to side against them to things we can never think of as Vulcan was a major player in the Federation.

Who said "no Romulans?" Nero and his bunch are gone, but he was explicitly operating separate from the empire. There should still be both Romulus and Remus just where they were. And maybe the Federation can actually prevent that supernova in the future from doing what it did to Nero's time...

Lots of possibilities, but nothing deleted the Romulans as a race. What this film does, in essence, is just give us a link into an alternate timeline by having "our" Spock involuntarily moved into it. There have been countless alternate timelines created in Star Trek; we simply have a connection to one that the writers can now write new and different stories in.