Star Trek (2009) - Opens May 8th

[Cyrus]

What is 'reboto with a reboot'?

ebert really slammed Star Trek, for reasons I thought it might be lacking.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090506/REVIEWS/905069997

Again, what is the story behind this star trek? If it's simply how they got together, that's pretty uninteresting and not very star treky.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not telling.

And that was a reboot without a reboot.

 

[junglebeast]

I went out and saw it tonight. I knew it couldn't be quite as good as I was hearing, but I wasn't expecting to be let down as much as I was.

If you liked Transformers, The Dark Knight, or Iron Man then you're in luck, because this is just more of the same.

This movie is not about exploring new worlds or boldly going where no man has gone before. It follows a cookie cutter plot that is artificially epic. The goal is to save the world from evil aliens from the future.

From the opening scene, you see the enterprise holding its own in a fight against a spaceship from the future that has about the same scale ratio as the Earth to the Sun. Reminds of me Battlestar Galactica when there are bombs exploding over the entire surface of the ship and nobody seems to care.

This is really just another movie about time travel that was botched, because they don't stick to their rules of time travel; by going back in time, it creates a parallel universe that changes the future, but half of the people from the original future remember events from the parallel future! Pathetic.

Also, there's a ship stuck half way inside a black hole just chilling out for about 2 minutes...not being torn to shreds or anything. In fact they are chatting over the radio to another ship offering to help them get out of the black hole, as if it were a ditch on the side of the road. Next scene, the enterprise is falling into the black hole and going at max warp speed it can't escape. But fear not! Shooting some torpedo's behind it allows the ship to ride the shock wave out of the black hole, because shock waves in space obviously can propel a ship faster than a warp drive...not.

The acting is not great. The accents are annoying. The characters all look uncanny. This is not a revival of Star Trek...it's just more 2009 Hollywood ******** with a big ticket logo.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Funny, I didn't like any of the movies that you mentioned.

Besides that, you seemed intent on being cynical.

 

[Evo]

Great reviews guys. When you get good reviews from trekkies, come one, you know who you are ;), you can't get a stronger endorsement than that.

 

[junglebeast]

Besides that, you seemed intent on being cynical.

Heh, well I was just joking before. To be quite honest I feel like this is probably the worst Star Trek movie ever made. They took the name only, and left out everything that made the name famous.

 

[MATLABdude]

Did anyone notice how they have gone from a world of distinctively soft hardware, if you will, in the old Trek universe, to a much more industrial look? This struck me as a fundamental change.

I thought the old bridge looked a lot more industrial than the new one (which looks, well, sort of Mac-ish, fused with a rougher version of the TNG display panels--there was a term in the Star Trek TNG Technical Manual, but I forget what it was called). Then again, my idea of industrial is 50s-60s instrument panels with lots of light-up buttons, so take that as you will.

I suspect that you're referring to engineering though. I really liked how engineering was much more full and packed with an entire physical plant and the workings needed to support 400ish crewmembers and their missions. If parts of engineering look like a brewery, that's probably because it was a brewery: Budweiser's (explaining the quid-pro-quo with the Budweiser Classics that Uhura orders!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_(film)#Filming

While the little things have been refreshed and modernized from the original, overall, things haven't changed so drastically. You still have the stations where they're supposed to be (no Spock scope, at least, none that I recognized), the overall theme, the levers and slide switches at various stations, and the captain's chair was instantly recognizable--even if it got less clunky and more ergonomic.

 

[OmCheeto]

What is 'reboto with a reboot'?

ebert really slammed Star Trek, for reasons I thought it might be lacking.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090506/REVIEWS/905069997

Again, what is the story behind this star trek? If it's simply how they got together, that's pretty uninteresting and not very star treky.

Between Ebert's review and Junglebeast's synopsis, you pretty much know everything that happens in the movie.

As Anton Yelchin mentioned in his http://www.reelzchannel.com/trailer-clips/32374/anton-yelchin-on-star-trek-movie" with Leonard Maltin, they didn't want to alienate the old trekkies, nor bore kids with a bunch of rehashed Menagerie blah blah blah.

I felt the intertwining of the old and new worked very well.

I'm not sure someone not familiar with the original series would be comfortable in an audience full of trekkies though. Our incessant snickering at the "ah-ha!" moments would probably have them thinking to themselves; "That wasn't even remotely funny. Why are all these old people laughing about someone getting a divorce?"

 

[Cyrus]

Why is it no one can answer my very simple question? What were the hard 'star trek' questions this movie posed? They reallyyy need another movie with captain picard and the TNG crew. That was probably the most sucessful series of star trek made. The new ones are junk, and I am too young for the original ones.

Take the guy who did batman (the first one), add the TNG crew = great movie.

Notice TNG was great and didn't need CGI. That should instantly tell you something.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why is it no one can answer my very simple question? What were the hard 'star trek' questions this movie posed?

How can we reboot the series without rebooting the series?

 

[OmCheeto]

"Star Trek" beams up $72.5 million in first weekend
Mon May 11, 2009 3:55am BST
By Steve Gorman
LOS ANGELES http://uk.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUKTRE5491IW20090511"

The $130 million film ranks among the best reviewed movies of the year, and one of the most well-received by critics of all the "Star Trek" pictures.

...

Despite early pre-release tracking data showing weak anticipation levels, the film seems to have won over both older "Trekkie" fans of the franchise and younger moviegoers on whom financial success depends, Paramount executive Don Harris said.

"The way this film is being received ... it looks like the movie will play long and prosper," he said.

Financial success depends on younger moviegoers?
Bah! I'm getting my 4 Star Trek Burger King glasses tomorrow...

 

[Cyrus]

How can we reboot the series without rebooting the series?

Stop saying that, I don't know what it means!

 

[junglebeast]

Why is it no one can answer my very simple question? What were the hard 'star trek' questions this movie posed? They reallyyy need another movie with captain picard and the TNG crew. That was probably the most sucessful series of star trek made. The new ones are junk, and I am too young for the original ones.

Take the guy who did batman (the first one), add the TNG crew = great movie.

Notice TNG was great and didn't need CGI. That should instantly tell you something.

There are no such moral dilemmas; the aliens are just purely evil and prefer to die rather than negotiate with humans. Like I said, it's not star trek anymore. It's more like Star Wars episode 1.

I agree with you, the Next generation was probably the best. I also liked Deep Space 9 a lot. Everything after that sucked. However, my favorite star trek's were the movies they made for the big screen involving the first-generation crew.

 

[Cyrus]

See, now that's a futuristic bridge:

http://z.about.com/d/detroit/1/0/2/8/-/-/star-trek-006.jpg

This looks like star wars, not star trek. And they all look wayyyyyyyyyyy too young.

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2009-03/45742879.jpg

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Stop saying that, I don't know what it means!

On the serious side, in my mind there was the question of how to keep it Trek without completely violating the existing framework. I think Star Trek Enterprise [TV series] is a good example of the fact that you can never go home - as it stood, you couldn't go back in time and make it work. There are far too many constraints if the series is to retain any consistency. And one of the key features of Star Trek is the consistency. The fans demand it. Alternatively, if we go too far forward in time, the plots are driven to be more and more abstract. If we stick to the near future, we are still limited by the existing framework.

So, how you do you tap into the existing framework but remove the constraints that limit the range of plots that are possible, and still keep it Trek? I think the solution chosen was the best of all options. While I enjoyed the story in its own right, what I really loved was the solution that allows us to reintroduce all of the familiar characters and still make it all plausible, while removing most, and this is key, but not all of the constraints - the reboot without a reboot. It seems clear to me that the writers and producer were serious about maintaining the integrity of the Trek Multiverse. [Am I the first to use that term?]. If done well, it could allow for almost an infinite series of interplays between new and old storylines. That is the sort of thing that hardcore trekkies eat up.

For a trekkie, it is the difference between being "Star Trek", and just a new series having the same name.

Late edit

 

[Janus]

Apparently, Star Trek made $72.5 million on opening weekend. Not a bad showing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

See, now that's a futuristic bridge:

http://z.about.com/d/detroit/1/0/2/8/-/-/star-trek-006.jpg

[/URL]

To me that looks like something from the 1980's.

This looks like star wars, not star trek. And they all look wayyyyyyyyyyy too young.

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2009-03/45742879.jpg

Get used to it. It gets worse as you get older. But for a real comparison, look at the early ST TOS episodes. Even the early episodes of TNG were filled with kids playing on the bridge.

 

[hypatia]

I'm going to see it at I-Max this Saturday. My Mothers day gift from my son. I'm really getting geeked about going.

 

[mheslep]

These reviews are not helpful at all. I love TNG becuase every episode had good plots and moral dilemas. Should we violate the prime directive? Data wants to have human emotions. Learning about lost civilizations. Traveling through time sinks in the past/present. Meeting Q and being set to parts of the universe that would take years to get to (even by warp standards).

What's the plot here? It has always been the plot in TNG that made it such an amazing series. (The best, IMO). It worries me that no one has talked about the plot. What do I get walking out of this movie once it's over? What does it question about our humanity? These are the questions that made star trek, star trek. I don't care about fancy CGI space ships.

Yes, others feel just as you do Cyus:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film

...If I wanted to see young attractive people doing exciting things I'd go watch sports...

Wait for the DVD, per ONN it will have two hours dedicated to interplanetary diplomacy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm going to see it at I-Max this Saturday. My Mothers day gift from my son. I'm really getting geeked about going.

Cool!

 

[Cyrus]

To me that looks like something from the 1980's.



Get used to it. It gets worse as you get older. But for a real comparison, look at the early ST TOS episodes. Even the early episodes of TNG were filled with kids playing on the bridge.

What are you talking about, Captain Picard had gray hair in every episode...the cast of TNG was def. NOT as young as this cast, not even close.

 

[Cyrus]

Yes, others feel just as you do Cyus:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film


Wait for the DVD, per ONN it will have two hours dedicated to interplanetary diplomacy.

Ha.ha.ha...someone already posted this link.

Edit: Wait, that was you. I saw it the first time...

 

[chroot]

I saw it the other night, and I was (kinda) disappointed as well.

The characters are decent, and the CGI is outstanding. The plot is pretty thin, though. It's basically an extremely one-dimensional battle between good and evil, with novice kids manning the controls while coming of age -- a storyline which has been beaten to death. It fits right in with the Terminator and Transformer franchises. Even worse, many plot elements seem tossed in simply to justify yet another futuristic CGI action scene.

I did enjoy the much more realistic, mechanical rendering of the ships, though. The TNG series never showed any real machines -- no real wires or pumps or bulkheads, just glass panels with light-up buttons. Perhaps that was done to suggest that the technology was so advanced as to be unrecognizable, but I think it was probably done just to save enormous production cost.

I got pretty annoyed with the lighting. The bridge is probably the most inhospitable place to work I've ever seen. It's literally covered with dozens or hundreds of super-bright point light sources pointing in every direction. It would drive anyone nuts in ten minutes flat. Even worse, they constantly exaggerate the "shininess" of the whole film by putting huge, distracting CGI lens flares in virtually every shot. I find it hard to believe that cinematographers in the 24th century would not know how to use lens hoods. Much of the film is shot with these faux-amateur techniques (camera shake, hunting, etc.), probably borrowed from Battlestar Galactica, where they are used in much gentler ways. The techniques are simply overused here, to the point of being outright annoying.

Overall, it's one of the most enjoyable movies released this year, but I would not pay to see it again.

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

TNG cast, adults.

http://mymediahype.com/blog/wp-content/themes/onyxportal/images/top/startrek.jpg

Star Trek movie cast, kids.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

TNG cast, adults.

Sure, if you look at the cast from the seventh season.

Try this.

or here
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3162740736/ch0001464

And I remember that Deanna had this really cute knee-sock thing going.

 

[Cyrus]

Sure, if you look at the cast from the seventh season.

Try this.

or here
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3162740736/ch0001464

And I remember that Deanna had this really cute knee-sock thing going.

Please, you are looking at riker. He wasn't the captain. Jean luke was older even back then. In the current movie, its the captain that's young, along with everyone else. Plus, data is a robot, so he isn't any younger or older. Fail.

Edit: Are you kidding me? Even in the imdb link riker isn't half as young looking as in this movie!

 

[Janus]

To me that looks like something from the 1980's.

Or at least what someone in the 80's thought a futuristic bridge would look like. But that's the point, you have to play to the audience. An 80's audience would likely be uncomfortable with a real futuristic bridge.

It reminds me of a story I heard about an actor that tried to wear an mustache style that was authentic to the time period he was supposed to be in, and all the audience could do is snicker at what they thought of as a strange mustache.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What are you talking about, Captain Picard had gray hair in every episode...the cast of TNG was def. NOT as young as this cast, not even close.

That may be true, but we are talking about Kirk here. He was barely more than a kid when he started in both universes. In this one, he was due to wait three more years for a commission.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Or at least what someone in the 80's thought a futuristic bridge would look like. But that's the point, you have to play to the audience. An 80's audience would likely be uncomfortable with a real futuristic bridge.

It reminds me of a story I heard about an actor that tried to wear an mustache style that was authentic to the time period he was supposed to be in, and all the audience could do is snicker at what they thought of as a strange mustache.

Yep. That gets back to what I was saying about going too far into the future. In fact, already Trek falls behind what we might expect for HMIs [human-machine interfaces]. You have to talk to the computer, or even worse, push touch pads? How quaint. Surely it will all be thought controlled!

One thing that used to kill me in TNG was how Deanna and Beverly liked to do 1980's style aerobics in 80's style leotards.

The first series is so far behind in computer technology that it becomes laughable. In fact it struck me one day that in many respects, young people wouldn't even understand why it seemed so futuristic at the time.

 

[Cyrus]

Yep. That gets back to what I was saying about going too far into the future. In fact, already Trek falls behind what we might expect for HMIs [human-machine interfaces]. You have to talk to the computer, or even worse, push touch pads? How quaint. Surely it will all be thought controlled!

One thing that used to kill me in TNG was how Deanna and Beverly liked to do 1980's style aerobics in 80's style leotards.

The first series is so far behind in computer technology that it becomes laughable. In fact it struck me one day that in many respects, young people wouldn't even understand why it seemed so futuristic at the time.

Yeah, when I saw one episode of TOS, kirk was like, "let me use my space radio phone, it has no wires". I was like...WTF. Then he got into his "automobile" and "drove" to his "space" "ship" after punching in his password to a "computer".

I don't know about what you said though. The movie 2001 was 10x better than star trek TOS.

In fact, the set looks a LOT like star trek TNG!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't know about what you said though. The movie 2001 was 10x better than star trek TOS.

In fact, the set looks a LOT like star trek TNG!

Um, 2001 was supposed to have taken place in 2001, IIRC.

 

[Cyrus]

Um, 2001 was supposed to have taken place in 2001, IIRC.

And it was a lot more futuristic than star trek, in some ways.

 

[slider142]

Yeah, when I saw one episode of TOS, kirk was like, "let me use my space radio phone, it has no wires". I was like...WTF. Then he got into his "automobile" and "drove" to his "space" "ship" after punching in his password to a "computer".

I'm just curious. What episode was this? It was repeatedly shown in the series that Kirk had no idea how to operate automobiles.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And it was a lot more futuristic than star trek, in some ways.

They also got most of it wrong. But the point was that 2001 presented the world of 2001 from the perspective of 1965 or so. In TNG we were talking about 2350 [or something] as viewed from 1987. So I don't see what one has to do with the other.

While I too loved the movie, 2001, it is not the kind of material that could keep an audience for long. That is what I see as the paradox of good sci-fi for the theater or television: We are limited by the need for a broad appeal.

My newest favorite sci-fi movie is Primer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_(film)

but it would never carry a large audience.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm just curious. What episode was this? It was repeatedly shown in the series that Kirk had no idea how to operate automobiles.

I was trying to make Ivan feel old by making things from the future everday.

 

[Huckleberry]

My newest favorite sci-fi movie is Primer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_(film)

but it would never carry a large audience.

I saw that movie on netflix instant play. Feels like something that was shot by a bunch of kids with an awesome idea and no budget. I loved it.

I agree with Cyrus that the cast of the new movie looks too young. It was like they just walk onto this new ship and take charge. Kids in space! I was expecting Spicoli to enter the scene any second and yell 'Surf's up dudes! Woah!'

I enjoyed it, but I don't have the enthusiasm for it that some do. Great CGI. I didn't know space was so colorful.

 

[Janus]

I don't know about what you said though. The movie 2001 was 10x better than star trek TOS.

This is a little bit a of an unfair comparison, You're talking about a film with a 10.5 million dollar budget, compared to to a TV show shot at $185,000 an episode(A smaller budget than "Mission Impossible", which was filming next door. There were times when Star Trek literally went through MI's trash to find things to use as props or set decoration). Add in the fact that each episode only had a lead time of a few weeks from start of shooting until air time, and 2001 took 28 months for the same thing.

Of course to be fair, we should use the production time and costs of the Star Trek pilot (where they had to build everything from scratch.). But even then, 2001 cost 17 times as much and took 16 times longer to make.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I saw that movie on netflix instant play. Feels like something that was shot by a bunch of kids with an awesome idea and no budget. I loved it.

If you haven't seen it yet, you should checkout The Man From Earth. But do yourself a favor and do not look at any plot summaries ahead of time.

Seriously, I can understand all of the objections. I guess for me it was more about the direction the series would take. I have high hopes.

It is noteworthy that many of the canned plots alluded to earlier were first canned on Star Trek. This points to what I see as another problem for sci-fi: It is increasingly difficult to think of new and more exotic ideas. While they can always play to the dramas and moral dilemmas, exotic new ideas [for the screen] are the hallmark of Trek.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is noteworthy that many of the canned plots alluded to earlier were first canned on Star Trek. This points to what I see as another problem for sci-fi: It is increasingly difficult to think of new and more exotic ideas. While they can always play to the dramas and moral dilemmas, exotic new ideas [for the screen] are the hallmark of Trek.

They need to quit it with the time travel thing. Its getting really really old.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

They need to quit it with the time travel thing. Its getting really really old.

Yeah, well, the first time that chronometer wheel began rolling backwards on the Enterprise, it was quite a moment.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I saw that movie on netflix instant play. Feels like something that was shot by a bunch of kids with an awesome idea and no budget. I loved it.

Note also:
Grand Jury Prize, Sundance Film Festival in 2004[18]
Alfred P. Sloan Prize for films dealing with science and technology, the 2004 Sundance Film Festival[18]
Best Writer/Director (Shane Carruth) at the Nantucket Film Festival in 2004[19]
Best Feature at the London International Festival of Science Fiction in 2005[20]
wiki

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Note also:
Grand Jury Prize, Sundance Film Festival in 2004[18]
Alfred P. Sloan Prize for films dealing with science and technology, the 2004 Sundance Film Festival[18]
Best Writer/Director (Shane Carruth) at the Nantucket Film Festival in 2004[19]
Best Feature at the London International Festival of Science Fiction in 2005[20]
wiki

I'm going to watch it myself. The synopsis I read sounded great.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm going to watch it myself. The synopsis I read sounded great.

Like Huckleberry, I ran across it on Netflix. What a great surprise! It is probably the most worthy treatment of the subject of time travel [from a logical point of view] that you will ever see in a movie.

 

[OmCheeto]

Like Huckleberry, I ran across it on Netflix. What a great surprise! It is probably the most worthy treatment of the subject of time travel [from a logical point of view] that you will ever see in a movie.

I used to think the following movie did a wonderful job of explaining time travel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A9miqKm0aB0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A9miqKm0aB0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

But then again, I think I was 6 years old when I first saw it.

"What are the people like? Ahhhhhh. mmmm... The shape of things to come. It's lovely Yvette Mew Mew."

 

[Cyrus]

Ugh, I just saw it today. Can I have my money back?

 

[Redbelly98]

Saw. Liked it. Never watched 1 episode of Star Trek. Never watched a single Trek movie before this one.

Then I definitely suggest watching Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That will explain some references in the new movie that you missed.

Hey, I was tutoring one of my math students earlier this week, a 9th grader. We had both seen Star Trek last weekend, and I mentioned how cool it was that they had Leonard Nimoy in the movie. Her response was, "who's Leonard Nimoy?"

 

[slider142]

Also watch "The Naked Time" from the original series for another reference. Heck, watch all three seasons.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Then I definitely suggest watching Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That will explain some references in the new movie that you missed.

Hey, I was tutoring one of my math students earlier this week, a 9th grader. We had both seen Star Trek last weekend, and I mentioned how cool it was that they had Leonard Nimoy in the movie. Her response was, "who's Leonard Nimoy?"

She was only about two years old when the last Trek movie came out. Spock's ears are almost old enough to be her grandparents.

 

[Ouabache]

I know that one reviewer lamented the fact that the score didn't make use of the original series theme until the very end, but I thought its use was pitch perfect.
Up to that point, they were doing an "origin" story. It wasn't until then that all the set pieces reached their familiar positions from the TV series. So it was appropriate to wait to use the series theme until then.

Did you notice whenever an elder Vulcan was conveying words of wisdom or encouragement, Chinese http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huqin" ).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Did you notice whenever an elder Vulcan was conveying words of wisdom or encouragement, Chinese http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huqin" ).

When you pay attention to the score of any film you will often find it a bit cheesy in several places. I have been recently watching Babylon 5 and found myself shaking my head alot.