Star Trek discussion (Spoilers!)

What did you think of Star Trek?

  • Total voters
    34
My dad grew up with Star Trek. He watched each episode of the original series as it aired on television... He's not a trekker in the sense that he's hunted down every episode of every following series, but he's seen all the movies, and sometimes tells me what Spock might say when I need advice for something or another.

And he loved it. Absolutely and totally. He acknowledged it wasn't the original, but said that was a good thing, and that he could definitely see bits of Shatner in Pine's characterization. He had me double-check and make sure the cast was signed on for more. He says he's going back to see it this week.

Why can't people just not enjoy a movie for themselves, rather than try to pretend like all fans of TOS are completely hating this movie? Or that because they didn't like it, it somehow isn't Star Trek?
 
I completely agree with skotti and DSF. If ALL (Or even most) fans of the original series hated the movie, then yes, they'd have a legitimate complaint. But, there are some of us who grew up watching Trek (And I did. My mom is a Trekker and I became one because of her, watching reruns of TOS and watching TNG as it came on) that think the new movie is not only a great movie, but a fine Trek movie.

I keep hearing how it's nothing like Trek when there are episodes that had a similar feel to the movie, spread across pretty much all five series.
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen this yet, but I can understand how someone can't enjoy the film by accepting new actors to old character, Just a set perception they can't shake. But to dismiss the movie entirely or say to people that liked it that

Joe Kalicki said:
You guys are out of your ****ing minds.
Click to expand...

based on that very limited set perspective doesn't quite work in a movie criticism. Based on that and the overwhelming positive reviews (seriously Kalicki is the only guy I heard say anything negative about the film) I can't find his arguments to have any validation.

But that's just me.
 
Last edited:
I really, really enjoyed this. Also, I'm not a Trekkie even remotely, so I could watch this without having to compare it to the original show in any way.

It was a lot of fun. Not entirely brainless, but not boring either - that perfect mix of action and emotion. The actors were all great - I especially liked Urban and Pegg (though I could have done with more scenes for the latter). I also rather liked the guy who played Chekov, his accent was rockin'.

All in all, a very good film. The few quibbles I have with the pace (it felt rushed in parts, especially at the end), the lack of screentime for anyone not named Kirk or Spock (something I can sort of understand given this is an origin movie), and an oddly unsatisfying villain (he felt underdevloped but wasn't, which is weird) don't detract from the film as a whole in any marked way.

Like I said, can't compare this to the original Trek in any of its incarnations, much less TOS specifically, but I will say that my mom is a huge Trek fan and loved it, so take that for what it's worth.

I'd give it about an 8/10.
 
Langsta said:
Why can't everybody just be happy that they finally made a great Star Trek movie
Click to expand...

Well, from what I understand, there have been several great Star Trek movies.

But yeah, I thought Star Trek was pretty awesome.
 
Doublehex said:
Well, from what I understand, there have been several great Star Trek movies.
Click to expand...

Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home, The Undiscovered Country and First Contact.

And really, you need to be a Trek fan to appreciate those. TVH and FC might be able to get a non-fan interested, but not nearly as much as Star Trek '09 can.
 
Fine, then.

Why can't everybody just be happy that they made a truly kickass Star Trek movie?
 
I guess everybody missed the part where I said that I really liked the movie.



And Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country are better.
 
Joe Kalicki said:
I guess everybody missed the part where I said that I really liked the movie.
Click to expand...

What? No you didn't. You only gave it 3 stars. You think it's just average man. Anything below PERFECT = BAD. You crazy? You hated it. Admit it man!

Okay, jokes aside.

There are some flaws I see in Star Trek, mostly on Nero. What we got was a really good base, but he just wasn't fleshed out enough. He really did need more screen time.
 
Doublehex said:
What? No you didn't. You only gave it 3 stars. You think it's just average man. Anything below PERFECT = BAD. You crazy? You hated it. Admit it man!

Okay, jokes aside.

There are some flaws I see in Star Trek, mostly on Nero. What we got was a really good base, but he just wasn't fleshed out enough. He really did need more screen time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he was about as cardboard as a villain could be. And the bizarre way he slipped into casual speech patterns when talking to Pike over the viewscreen made no sense.



Also, one of the most dramatic parts of the movie, when Kirk realizes the person who killed his dad was alive and on the attack, was played for laughs and slapstick. Weird.
 
Leonard Nimoy said on Saturday Night Live last night one of the most hilarious things I've heard in a while.

Nimoy: "If the original Trek fans don't like this because it's new..."
Seth Meyers: "You would find it illogical!"
Nimoy: "No, it would mean they are dickheads."

Spock said dick.
 
Joe, my biggest gripe with what you said was that it wasn't Trek and that any true fan of the series could see that. And when you basically called everyone ****ing nuts for what we were saying about the movie. It kills me that people put Star Trek on a pedestal. I mean, hell, you could say that DS9, VOY, or ENT weren't Trek either citing various shifts in theme and tone.

The movie wasn't perfect. I wasn't a fan of Nero. And I probably would have preferred it if they had just completely rebooted it instead of trying to make it an alternate timeline. I mean, why bother keeping Enterprise in continuity? Why bother trying to tie it in to the old timeline at all?

I still loved it and I still thought it was a fine Trek movie.
 
Last edited:
Lynx said:
Joe, my biggest gripe with what you said was that it wasn't Trek and that any true fan of the series could see that. And when you basically called everyone ****ing nuts for what we were saying about the movie. It kills me that people put Star Trek on a pedestal. I mean, hell, you could say that DS9, VOY, or ENT weren't Trek either citing various shifts in theme and tone.

The movie wasn't perfect. I wasn't a fan of Nero. And I probably would have preferred it if they had just completely rebooted it instead of trying to make it an alternate timeline. I mean, why bother keeping Enterprise in continuity? Why bother trying to tie it in to the old timeline at all?

I still loved it and I still thought it was a fine Trek movie.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about any true fan of the series being able to see anything. I did complain that new fans are basically telling old fans they're stupid for questioning the new movie.

And my "****ing nuts" wasn't even a Star Trek-specific comment, it was a comment about giving what's a pretty standard action movie with some flaws the absolute highest rating you could give something.
 
Joe Kalicki said:
I never said anything about any true fan of the series being able to see anything. I did complain that new fans are basically telling old fans they're stupid for questioning the new movie.

And my "****ing nuts" wasn't even a Star Trek-specific comment, it was a comment about giving what's a pretty standard action movie with some flaws the absolute highest rating you could give something.
Click to expand...

You're right, you didn't. Gothamite insinuated it and I lumped you two together. My apologies.

However, you consistently say this isn't Star Trek. I'm really curious why you say that. You say that it was clearly good guy vs bad guy. Well. . .isn't that what Wrath of Khan was? Khan was clearly the villain. He was pissed at Kirk for something that really wasn't his fault. This movie was the same thing, just replace Khan and Kirk with Nero and Spock.
 
Lynx said:
You're right, you didn't. Gothamite insinuated it and I lumped you two together. My apologies.

However, you consistently say this isn't Star Trek. I'm really curious why you say that. You say that it was clearly good guy vs bad guy. Well. . .isn't that what Wrath of Khan was? Khan was clearly the villain. He was pissed at Kirk for something that really wasn't his fault. This movie was the same thing, just replace Khan and Kirk with Nero and Spock.
Click to expand...

Khan and Kirk had clearly defined roles, but there was so much more going on in that movie. Accepting responsibility for past mistakes, with Kirk paying for his punishment of Khan and meeting his son, a whole bunch of family stuff, friendship, the morality of genesis, the needs of the many versus the needs of the few, it was pretty deep.

This new movie was just "stop the bad guy."
 
Joe Kalicki said:
Khan and Kirk had clearly defined roles, but there was so much more going on in that movie. Accepting responsibility for past mistakes, with Kirk paying for his punishment of Khan and meeting his son, a whole bunch of family stuff, friendship, the morality of genesis, the needs of the many versus the needs of the few, it was pretty deep.

This new movie was just "stop the bad guy."
Click to expand...

Now you're just being stupid. This movie didn't just have "one thing going on."

It had the Kirk/Spock dynamic, Spock's Vulcan/human heritage dilemma, etc., not to mention setting up the entire Enterprise crew. Let's see....Kirk is forced to accept responsibility and take on his destiny as captain of the Enterprise, a "whole bunch of family stuff" occurs with Spock, friendship between Kirk and Spock....and even if Nero was underdeveloped, his history with old Spock still gives the movie depth. And old Spock is forced to watch his planet be destroyed by a black hole. And the first scene is pretty emotional and evokes the classic Superman scene. Not to mention, this movie has much more comic relief / is not as serious.

So don't you dare say that this movie is just "stop the bad guy."
 
Last edited:
Langsta said:
Now you're just being stupid. This movie didn't just have "one thing going on."

It had the Kirk/Spock dynamic, Spock's Vulcan/human heritage dilemma, etc., not to mention setting up the entire Enterprise crew. Let's see....Kirk is forced to accept responsibility and take on his destiny as captain of the Enterprise, a "whole bunch of family stuff" occurs with Spock, friendship between Kirk and Spock....and even if Nero was underdeveloped, his history with old Spock still gives the movie depth. And old Spock is forced to watch his planet be destroyed by a black hole.

So don't you dare say that this movie is just "stop the bad guy."
Click to expand...

All that stuff was underdeveloped or pushed to the background for action and jokes and more action. See my example a few posts up.

So, I do dare to say the movie was just ''Stop the bad guy," because that's all it was.

Which is fine, it was a good movie, but it is a massive shift in tone from previous Star Trek, and the fact that I can't even discuss it without riling everybody up is pretty interesting.

"Don't you dare." Hilarious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top