Abrams Commits To Direct

[mswood]

Dennis wrote:

---

Oh, the "vaccination reaction" with Kirk's hands.

I thought the gag alone was just kind of funny - Bones's attitude and dialogue made the scene one of my favorites, though.

HATED IT. Just can't say it enough. When it happened I literally cringed, dunked down afraid all my friends I bribed to the movie were going to be laughing at me.

[Kelso]

I have never met anyone in real life who didn't love that sequence.

[J. Allen]

Dennis wrote:

---

This is not a bad place to window shop, really.

Indeed. They have one in every size.

Kelso wrote:

---

I have never met anyone in real life who didn't love that sequence.

When that scene happened, the audience roared with laughter in every instance that I saw the movie.

[FarStrider]

The Stig wrote:

---

The science was certainly dumber than usual...

I REALLY don't know where this idea comes from that Star Trek science was EVER "smart" but every time I see someone repeat it, I have to laugh. Don't make me bust out all of the stupid science in the WoK. . . or SfS. . . or TOS, even. . . . and just because TNG threw around terms like "tachyon" and "polarity" and "chronotons" doesn't mean it was scientific, it just meant the writers cribbed some terms from a physics textbook, or made up something that sounded "sciency". . .seriously folks, if you are looking at Star Trek because of the science, instead of for the characters or stories, then that's sorta sad. . . (and laughable ).

The Stig wrote:

---

but what really grabbed me is just how much of a love letter Trek '09 was to Trek '66. From the way that the Enterprise was introduced, to the faithful uniforms to the way that the light fell on Pike's face when he sat down in the captain's chair the same way that it did for Shatner all those years ago, it was amazing how much of TOS was referenced and utilized for the new movie.

This, however, I totally agree with. This was basically the whole point of this movie: it's a love letter to the TOS. I'm also really glad that someone else picked up on the bar of light across Pike's eyes when he sat down for the first time. . . it was one of my favorite callbacks to the original show. . .


~FS

[malchya]

The vaccination reaction recieved mixed reviews from the audience when I saw the film in the theater. About 2/3rds of the viewers laughed out loud. About half of the remaining third really didn't react at all and the rest of us (myself and my daughter included) cringed at it. It just seemed overdone, played too much for a quick guffaw. Didn't spoil my enjoyment of the movie, though. (Only the brewery came close to that!)

[MacLeod]

I'd rather wait for a good film, rather than have a film rushed out. Besides even if it comes out in 2012, we might have to wait until 2016 for the next film.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Kelso wrote:

---

I have never met anyone in real life who didn't love that sequence.

Pretty much, yeah.

Of course, IRL none of the friends I see movies with and only a couple of family members are trekkies.

[Sean Aaron]

FarStrider wrote:

---

just because TNG threw around terms like "tachyon" and "polarity" and "chronotons" doesn't mean it was scientific, it just meant the writers cribbed some terms from a physics textbook, or made up something that sounded "sciency"

Actually they did consult with scientists on the show from time to time so no need to run too far in the opposite direction.

It is just a tv show, though...

[Gojira]

mswood wrote:

---

HATED IT. Just can't say it enough. When it happened I literally cringed, dunked down afraid all my friends I bribed to the movie were going to be laughing at me.

It was funny without being campy and it was a nice contrast to the excitement of the moment of Kirk trying to confirm that Vulcan was under attack.

[Sean Aaron]

Space Therapist wrote:

---

It was funny without being campy and it was a nice contrast to the excitement of the moment of Kirk trying to confirm that Vulcan was under attack.

I also thought that sequence was pretty funny and well-paced.

[Ryan8bit]

Sean Aaron wrote:

---

Actually they did consult with scientists on the show from time to time so no need to run too far in the opposite direction.

It is just a tv show, though...

And they supposedly had a consultant for this movie too. In a couple areas she either didn't do her job or the writers just ignored her.

Dennis wrote:

---

If your question is meant to be "what's the difference in the rate of supply of new product between failure and success" then the answer is: you're getting a new movie, period. Failure = no new Trek, at all.

I think his point was that Nemesis and Enterprise were a failure, meaning that success can come at any moment. If JJ's trek had failed, there would be someone else there to try. It wouldn't just go away forever.

[SPCTRE]

Space Therapist wrote:

---

I am glad JJ's back to direct. Really looking forward to this movie.

This.

[Garak]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Your join date is 2004. What the hell have you been doing here?

Waiting for better Trek. What have you been doing here aside from asking silly questions?

[Nerys Myk]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

And they supposedly had a consultant for this movie too. In a couple areas she either didn't do her job or the writers just ignored her.
.

That's why they're called "consultants". Their suggestions/advice can be ingored if it interfers with the story or the visual drama. Thats true of pretty much any movie, be it a biopic or a SF action blockbuster.

[Agenda]

Red Matter is no more ridonkulous than the Genesis Device. Neither is travelling through time through a black hole. In fact, if anything, these things are more realistic.