RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,506
Posts: 5,511,407
Members: 25,136
Currently online: 455
Newest member: aprizan

TrekToday headlines

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

View Poll Results: Grade the movie...
Excellent 706 62.70%
Above Average 213 18.92%
Average 84 7.46%
Below Average 46 4.09%
Poor 77 6.84%
Voters: 1126. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 13 2009, 05:32 PM   #1651
George Bailey
The Revd's Oldman
 
George Bailey's Avatar
 
Location: Bob The Skutter
View George Bailey's Twitter Profile
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

indranee wrote: View Post
bullshit.

EDIT: dammit, Bob!!

I'm here to annoy.
__________________
You sit around here and you spin your little webs and you think the whole world revolves around you and your money. Well, it doesn't, Mr. Potter. In the whole vast configuration of things, I'd say you were nothing but a scurvy little spider!
George Bailey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2009, 06:06 PM   #1652
Ryan S
Ensign
 
Not great or good, it was terrible... and here is why in detail.

I know I am in the minority. My intent is not to just 'stir the pot'. I've enjoyed Star Trek as much as anyone, which is why I have such a strong opinion about this movie. So give me a chance and hear me out.

This post is an extension of a thread I started at Rotten Tomatoes ST XI forum, which to my surprise has some viewers agreeing with me. In response to recent feedback I'll do my best to balance this post but make no mistake about it, I believe this is one of the worst Start Trek films ever produced.

I understand and agree with the need for a 'reboot", but certainly not at the expense of everything the classic Start Trek meant. One poster on RT responded that I should not look at what was but what the new ST is and cited some examples. Frankly I don't care what it is because so much of what made this an enduring series has been stripped away.

Ask yourself this question: If they were trying to establish a Star Trek franchise today, not just another summer sequel, using this film as a base, would it last? I think the answer is clearly... NO!

No one will remember this film.

This is at best a visually appealing romp that unfortunately fails to capture (in fact it seems to purposely neglect) the essence of Gene Roddenberry's original themes. This movie is less of a reboot than an excuse to lure a built in Trekkie fan base into another over produced CGI fest that sacrifices substance for visual appeal.

I'll admit in some scenes it's beautifully rendered and it's something past ST films needed.JJ Abrams' cast (via the vehicles of the screenplay and script) for the most part fails to carry the weight of this story and, to this reviewer at least, certainly doesn't seem capable of shouldering Star Trek's long legacy.

The scenes are clipped and disjointed sacrificing continuity and pace. Instead the actors' conflicted and somewhat manic (and supposedly humorous) performances only seem to serve as a painful respite between each overproduced action sequence. I've always considered such cinematography as was used in this film as a lazy way to build suspense and drama where none clearly exists. I can't think of a better example in recent history.

I do not fault the actors as I'm of the opinion that several are truly talented. Feature films are a director's medium. The characters as they are portrayed in this film are mostly a joke.

Leonard Nimoy's performance, through no fault of his own, seems out of place. As the only actor who would have been capable of grounding this farce by lending his considerable on screen weight, it really is a shame that his character was not properly developed, but then again none of them really had a chance.

The characters seem lost between a the roles of comedians and vulnerable heroes. Really, a 'flagship' crewed almost solely by teenagers? Ok, Kirk, Spock and some of the other crew are in their mid to late twenties, but let's face it, in context they are almost completely unbelievable . In the past ST universe pitch battles were often fought strategically. The weight of the event powered through. Now it's a slugfest with all guns blazing until something blows up beautifully, more work for ILM I guess.

In a vain attempt to recapture the wit and humor of the classic series they've instead filled the feature mostly with cheap slapstick hammy jokes delivered at the most inappropriate times. The dialogue is lacking and under developed, enough said there.

The story delivers little in terms science fiction believability and therefore lacks the chance to provide the escapist experience that most great sci-fi easily conveys. This was a franchise that always prided itself on developing its' sci fi tech to weave the story together.

The use of tech in STXI to fill in for the lazy writing is shameful. In a attempt to match the current trend of creating a gritty and urgent feel at every turn JJ Abrams has instead taken a step away from giving this movie and the future of the franchise any sense of identity. Only viewers who haven't had the opportunity to view the best of Star Trek's previous features will be taken in by the illusion.

Yes, I know that Star Trek needs to move on. That Shatner, Nimoy and the rest of the original cast will never be seen on screen again. That TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and the TNG films weren't perfect. But it was always STAR TREK and for the most part you always knew it.

Overall this latest rendition of Star Trek disappoints and doesn't deserve the title of space epic or even a reboot. It should be forgotten. Give the franchise a rest and begin again with a properly themed screenplay and script. One can only hope that this is not the direction that this venerable franchise will take moving forward.
Ryan S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2009, 06:14 PM   #1653
KirkusOveractus
Captain
 
KirkusOveractus's Avatar
 
Location: Ambler, PA
Send a message via AIM to KirkusOveractus
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

Ryan-

Very well-written. However, I must disagree with you on one point: this film will be remembered. Remembered as what brought a dead property back to life.

And to address your last paragraph: this movie is well on its way to making $100 Million domestically. Unfortunately, this will be the direction the Trek movies from this point forward will take.
KirkusOveractus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2009, 06:16 PM   #1654
Squiggy Claus
Rampant Sexist
 
Squiggy Claus's Avatar
 
Location: Up Squiggy's Coal Chute.
View Squiggy Claus's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Squiggy Claus
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

Trekker4747 wrote: View Post
Squiggyfm wrote: View Post
That would never happen in a Star Trek movie, would it.
It's worth pointing out that Kirk gets that drink while in 1987 and further he makes an odd grimmace at it after drinking it.

Also: On the Admiral Archer and his dog thing.

There's no way it was *the* Archer and Porthos we know from Enterprise.

This movie takes place nearly 100 years after the events of "Enterprise." On the very edge of human-life, and that's being generous even given the expanded life expectancies in the 23c, and well beyond the edge of beagle life.
Here's a thought.

Maybe Porthos was stuffed and put in a museum and that's the "prize winning beagle" Scotty beamed into nothingness.

He never said that the dog was alive. I WIN AGAIN! I HAVE RESTORED ORDER TO CHAOS!

Return to your petty bickering.
__________________
ENOUGH OF THIS TURGID BASH WANKERY!
Squiggy Claus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2009, 06:18 PM   #1655
indranee
Vice Admiral
 
indranee's Avatar
 
Location: Warrrrrrrrrshington, DC
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

KirkusOveractus wrote: View Post
Ryan-

Very well-written. However, I must disagree with you on one point: this film will be remembered. Remembered as what brought a dead property back to life.

And to address your last paragraph: this movie is well on its way to making $100 Million domestically. Unfortunately, this will be the direction the Trek movies from this point forward will take.
it'll be making $100 million by tomorrow (Thursday). I'd say it's more than well on its way
indranee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2009, 06:26 PM   #1656
KirkusOveractus
Captain
 
KirkusOveractus's Avatar
 
Location: Ambler, PA
Send a message via AIM to KirkusOveractus
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

Squiggyfm wrote: View Post
Trekker4747 wrote: View Post
Squiggyfm wrote: View Post
That would never happen in a Star Trek movie, would it.
It's worth pointing out that Kirk gets that drink while in 1987 and further he makes an odd grimmace at it after drinking it.

Also: On the Admiral Archer and his dog thing.

There's no way it was *the* Archer and Porthos we know from Enterprise.

This movie takes place nearly 100 years after the events of "Enterprise." On the very edge of human-life, and that's being generous even given the expanded life expectancies in the 23c, and well beyond the edge of beagle life.
Here's a thought.

Maybe Porthos was stuffed and put in a museum and that's the "prize winning beagle" Scotty beamed into nothingness.

He never said that the dog was alive. I WIN AGAIN! I HAVE RESTORED ORDER TO CHAOS!

Return to your petty bickering.
Well, the original text written for "In A Mirror, Darkly" on ENT had on Archer's record that he died the day after the NCC-1701 launched (which he attended).

He could have been a Beagle breeder, and had several purebred prize-winners.
KirkusOveractus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2009, 06:39 PM   #1657
CommanderRaytas
Rear Admiral
 
CommanderRaytas's Avatar
 
Location: AT4W...WITH SCIENCE!!!!!
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

Squiggyfm wrote: View Post
Trekker4747 wrote: View Post
Squiggyfm wrote: View Post
That would never happen in a Star Trek movie, would it.
It's worth pointing out that Kirk gets that drink while in 1987 and further he makes an odd grimmace at it after drinking it.

Also: On the Admiral Archer and his dog thing.

There's no way it was *the* Archer and Porthos we know from Enterprise.

This movie takes place nearly 100 years after the events of "Enterprise." On the very edge of human-life, and that's being generous even given the expanded life expectancies in the 23c, and well beyond the edge of beagle life.
Here's a thought.

Maybe Porthos was stuffed and put in a museum and that's the "prize winning beagle" Scotty beamed into nothingness.

He never said that the dog was alive. I WIN AGAIN! I HAVE RESTORED ORDER TO CHAOS!

Return to your petty bickering.
Stop winning. I'm already busy worshipping Abrams. *sheesh*

__________________
It was a nice day ... AND THEN EVIL CAME!The Collected Works of Stephen King, condensed version
CommanderRaytas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2009, 06:41 PM   #1658
trampledamage
Clone
 
trampledamage's Avatar
 
Location: hitching a ride to Erebor
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

T'Bonz wrote: View Post
I don't think he ever realized that he was on an alternate timeline. He DID know he had gone back in time. In his mind, by wiping out ALL of the Federation planets (he said he would do this,) he would then have plenty of time (129 years in fact,) to get to Romulus and save them.

So in his mind, he would save his wife and unborn child and his planet, AND make Romulus a great power by knocking out their enemies.

The tragedy for him was that he was on an alternate timeline and he might not even have the wife/unborn child in this reality. Things changed the minute he came through that black hole. All of his revenge might have been for naught. I can't think that just saving Romulus would have been sufficient for him.


Thanks for posting this - I hadn't thought about it from that point of view. I'm so used to the whole "divergent time-lines" concept that I forgot that Nero might well think he can change the past and still have his future.

That makes his actions a lot more understandable.
__________________
Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence - Dr. McCoy

And he says that like it's a bad thing...
trampledamage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2009, 06:43 PM   #1659
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

I finally saw it last night and I have to say, overall I did like it.

I can usually turn my brain off with most things and let myself enjoy them, which was what I went in trying to do. I had already had my expectations lowered based on what a few close friends had said. After I'd learned the movie was being made, I was already wary of the idea of a prequel - ENT having soured me on the subject - but was a little happier when I realized it was a reboot in prequel's clothing. Then, I was a little annoyed that the production seemed to be trying to maintain ties to "old" Trek while still rebooting.

As the movie began, I was really awed by the majesty of the Kelvin streaking into the scene and I got (surprisingly) appropriately misty when Jim Kirk was born and the Kelvin exploded. I liked seeing the juxtaposition of Kirk and Spock's two different "paths" even if Kirk's path felt cliched. Anyway, I was hooked at the beginning, but from there it seemed to become really predictable, even cliched, even ignoring the surprisingly few things that red-flagged as gaffes/mistakes.

Generally, the characters felt to me like they could indeed be alternate versions of themselves. Kirk's meeting of Uhura, Pike, and McCoy worked okay for me. The way Kirk beat the Kobayashi Maru seemed... off, somehow. I think this was a missed opportunity to show us that nuKirk is more old Kirk than we might have expected, by having him beat it in a specifically Kirk-like way. (Have him reprogram to be able to bluff corbomite, for example.) But having Spock be the one who programmed the simulator was pretty interesting, even if it felt like an excuse to have Kirk and Spock hate each other. I'm not saying they should have liked each other from the start, however I'm not convinced a "mechanism" was really necessary to achieve this. Simply both being strong-willed individuals from two different cultures might have been enough.

From there on, it felt mostly like rehash for me. Everyone meeting everyone (even "Cupcake" coming back as a redshirt), the Enterprise being the ship on-scene, the mostly-cadet crew being recruited to pilot the new ships because the fleet was elsewhere, Prime Spock conveniently being on Delta Vega where Kirk was ejected... Scotty conveniently being there... Scotty's alien sidekick... having to go over to the Narada to actually physically fight Nero. This has all been done before in Trek. I'm not saying that's automatically a bad thing, but I guess I was expecting more "not your father's Trek." Some of the repeated lines were cringe-worthy.

The ending felt the most ridiculously contrived of all to me. Kirk being promoted to captain didn't bother me at the time, but the tone felt very tongue-in-cheek. I couldn't help but think of the ending of "Galaxy Quest" where the cast has a new TV show and they have their introductions. That's what the end of the film felt like to me, until the TOS music started playing. That saved it a bit. But the tone of this scene just felt way off.

Just watching it and not thinking about it, I did enjoy it. But thinking about it now, it feels like a nostalgic rehash of all the previous movies rolled up into one and dressed in TOS window dressing. So much of it felt just unnecessary and self-indulgent. In many ways, the dialog, sets, and production overall felt very generic. The bridge seemed like some actors in well-made Starfleet uniforms had gathered on a set left over from one of the Star Wars prequels. And while I'm not as upset as some about the production redesign, the design choices themselves in many areas felt off. The designs I liked the most came from the Kelvin and its interiors. I still dislike the Enterprise bridge interior. However, the remained of the interior of the Enterprise felt very real, like the inside of a real modern-day ship. In that regard, it's something of a double-edged sword... Trek has often walked the line between "recognizably believable" and sci-fi technology, but here the former seemed emphasized over the latter, appearance-wise, which was fine, just different.

I know that the franchise was due for a reboot, and Orci and Kurtzman did a relatively good job (at least as good a job as they were capable of) with what they were trying to do - I can't help but feel much of it was purposefully tongue-in-cheek, playing off our expectations of what the "Prime" crew was like compared to the cliches that were the nu-crew, while using those cliches (which might not appear as cliches to new viewers) to make the franchise broadly accessible for a new generation.

Overall, if this was the intent, I think it was a mistake. I think that trying to reboot the franchise while saying that this was just an altered timeline was a mistake. (As most know, I'm not a fan of "having your cake and eating it too." ) I'd have, in many ways, preferred a reboot with a critical eye to all the things that made classic Star Trek what it was, that in no way acknowledged TOS, beyond being a reboot of it. As it was, I think a few rewrites could have strongly helped this movie, though. I'm not sure how many it went through, but I don't think it was quite enough. Even a few revisions of simple details would have made me happier. A character writer should have been brought in to help flesh out the characters and dialog, in particular.

I'm reasonably sure that the franchise is no longer on life support thanks to this movie, but I've not yet decided if that's a good thing. For me, the movie was enjoyable, even above average, but not excellent. I'll rewatch it, and I'll still enjoy it. But it was far from perfect.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2009, 06:52 PM   #1660
Jim Steele
Vice Admiral
 
Jim Steele's Avatar
 
Location: Croydon
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

indranee wrote: View Post
bullshit.
Ok.
__________________
Ghost of TrekBBS past.
Jim Steele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2009, 07:22 PM   #1661
Jolantru
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

There's no way it was *the* Archer and Porthos we know from Enterprise.
Relax cupcake it was a joke.
Jolantru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2009, 07:25 PM   #1662
jamestyler
Commodore
 
jamestyler's Avatar
 
Location: jamestyler
View jamestyler's Twitter Profile Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to jamestyler
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

CommanderRaytas wrote: View Post
Stop winning. I'm already busy worshipping Abrams. *sheesh*

<fanboyoverreaction>Traitor!!!1</fanboyoverreaction>



Someone else made the same stuffed Porthos comment on a friends LJ - the thought amused me.
__________________
+ The Picard Maneuver | Serious stuff. Sexy spandex.
jamestyler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2009, 07:26 PM   #1663
Steven Of Nine
Commodore
 
Steven Of Nine's Avatar
 
Location: Waiting for the Worms.
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

Saw this opening matinee with the wife, and then took her and my daughter to see it, the next day. Enjoyed it both times. Rated it "excellent," although it would only get 90-95 if the grading was wider.

Lots of ridiculous stuff in there, but you know what, I've spent most of my life picking apart Star Trek, and for those above who had criticisms: nothing in your comments couldn't be applied to all your preferred versions.

Frankly, Abrams made a far better film than any of you could, and you don't have to pay: I paid, twice.

Great fun, looking forward to owning the DVD. Bring on part 2.
__________________
Washington, Washington, Twelve stories high made of radiation. The present beware, The future beware
He’s coming, He’s coming, He’s coming
Steven Of Nine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2009, 07:31 PM   #1664
Jim Steele
Vice Admiral
 
Jim Steele's Avatar
 
Location: Croydon
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

Frankly, Abrams made a far better film than any of you could
I don't get this attitude at all. I can't cook as well as Gordon Ramsay, but I know a shit sandwich tastes like shit.

Not that Trek 11 is wholly analagous to a shit sandwich. Just saying, it's absurd, and a total non argument to point out that a bunch of opinionated dudes on a Trek forum are incapable of directing a multi million dollar summer blockbuster. Doesn't make a negative view any less valid than a positive one. Is Joss Whedon the only person qualified enough to dislike a TV show?

A few posters were quite rightly complaining earlier on that some people can't seem to criticise the film without having a dig at, or insulting the intelligence of those who happened to enjoy it. Well, it goes both ways. Surely it's not hard to just accept that some folks simply didn't like the film as much as you did, without getting into a pissing match? Some people are even getting personal/hostile. It's insane.

It's just a fucking movie, people.
__________________
Ghost of TrekBBS past.
Jim Steele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2009, 07:36 PM   #1665
George Bailey
The Revd's Oldman
 
George Bailey's Avatar
 
Location: Bob The Skutter
View George Bailey's Twitter Profile
Re: The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

Jim Steele wrote: View Post
Frankly, Abrams made a far better film than any of you could
I don't get this attitude at all. I can't cook as well as Gordon Ramsay, but I know a shit sandwich tastes like shit.

Not that Trek 11 is wholly analagous to a shit sandwich. Just saying, it's absurd, and a total non argument to point out that a bunch of opinionated dudes on a Trek forum are incapable of directing a multi million dollar summer blockbuster. Doesn't make a negative view any less valid than a positive one.
Also, why credit it solely to JJ Abrams when he was the director, what about the writers, the actors, the editors, the DoP, etc etc.

Besides, I liked the film, but because I'm not a director/writer/producer I can't pick some nits?

It's just a fucking movie, people.
Heresy, burn him.
__________________
You sit around here and you spin your little webs and you think the whole world revolves around you and your money. Well, it doesn't, Mr. Potter. In the whole vast configuration of things, I'd say you were nothing but a scurvy little spider!
George Bailey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
grading & discussion, parallel star trek, vulcan

Thread Tools

Posting 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

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.