5years today. kind of a milestone. what were your memories of seeing it 1st time on 8 May 2009? heres mine (adapted from 'Immediate reaction' thread in I-X forum): it was great seeing a full on big budget Trek film from a new team and was great having the original characters again (and Nimoy of course). of course it was strange seeing other actors playing the roles but then again a younger different actor had portrayed spock in Trek III so it helped think it was abit like that. i remember being abit underwhelmed by the ending however, from when Kirk and Spock beam on the narada - right up to the end when the Ent escapes the black hole. I thought it was too action orientated, typical of a Michael Bay action film complete with payoff oneliners, shootouts. i felt that when they go over to the Narada and aboard Spock Primes ship they were basically going into the ‘Prime Universe’ and messing about with Next Generation/Prime stuff, - so (as a fan) i was expecting abit more resolution on the prime universe/future (and especially Kirks as his upbringing got so screwed thanks to nero) and have it play more of a role in the conclusion. maybe I was just too old for loud explosions, shooting and fights and wanted something abit more substantial - I would’ve loved the end when I was a kid but now I wanted something deeper with more meaning, maybe even a twist (Ent going through the wormhole into the Prime Universe?) Also it took me a while afterwards to realise there was no Shatner cameo! couldn't Kirk 2.0 have at least seen an image of his older self on a Narada computer screen from Nero checking out Kirk Prime before he got his ass handed to him? But really there was nothing wrong with what they did and a good few trek eps and movies ended the same way with a big fist fight or space battle and saving the day ...and my misgivings regarding the lack of resolution on the Prime Universe/Shatner wouldn't be an issue for non fan moviegoers (anyway Neros 'I know your face from earths history....James T Kirk was a great man, but that was another life' was kind of a nod/resolution to Shat Kirk and the Prime timeline).
Mine's an odd one: I had avoided it in cinemas out of staunch loyalty to the original TOS, having thought that everything I'd heard leaked online about the plot was not to my taste. However, I then caught it later in the year on an 18 hour airplane flight from Australia to the United States, and I absolutely loved it. Maybe it was just low air pressure inside the cabin messing with my brain or something (), but I was so impressed, it won me over instantly. So much so in fact that when I touched down in LA, one of the first things I did was to seek out the DVD for my collection. In fact I was so enamoured of how well it handled itself, it actually enticed me to watch TOS through again from start to finish after having not seen it for a while as well. So despite my initial misgivings, the 2009 movie did ultimately win me over in the end!
Did you, by chance, purchase any of the in-flight alcohol, too? Kidding, of course. Anyway, my memories of 5 years ago are pretty fond. I also had some hesitations about the movie, but it'd been so long since the last one. Yet, it wasn't my idea to go on opening night, but rather two of my non-Trekkie friends, who hadn't watched since the occasional first-run TNG episodes. The trailers pumped them up, and it turns out that XI was a reintroduction to the franchise. There's also something to be said about the atmosphere of a theater, with all those other people watching with you. Like the rest of the audience, my friends gasped and laughed, cheered and mourned, but ultimately they clapped with the rest of the theater. I myself kept a keen ear: Ambassador Spock, Cardassians, and Admiral Archer's Beagle were all nice nods to Berman-era Trek, and I'm glad that the references were there, while simultaneously approving that it didn't override the story. Otherwise, there'd be no point to a reboot. And then the cast! I was so ready to bash them all for being upstarts, but they won me over. That the script gave each of the Big 7 something to do that was essential to the overall mission was incredibly important, since it gave them more to do than in much of TOS, plus it helped sell the idea that they really were portraying our old heroes. Sulu and McCoy could have done more, sure, but Urban and Quinto really brought it home, and Pine's "Kirkisms" were effortless and spot-on. The movie started with the risks of exploration, which was great. I just wish the movie ended with that (I'm somewhat disappointed that both Abrams' movies return to Earth, or at least the Sol System, for the climax). And that opening is one of the best prologues in movie history, Trek and otherwise. So all in all, I enjoyed the movie, but part of it was my friends and the audience. That's all part of the movie going experience.
God, I can't believe it has been five years. Time flies when you're having fun! When Star Trek (2009) was first released, I was pretty critical of it. Foaming at the mouth critical. It was actually embarrassing. Arguing in full rage at how J.J. Abrams had raped my childhood. But once the energy of those first few weeks died down I stepped back and re-evaluated the film, and while it still had some major flaws, I realized it wasn't very much different from the Star Trek that I grew up loving. That it was far more of a fun time than anything I had watched that was associated with Star Trek in nearly twenty years. Are there things that I would've done differently? Sure. But I think that Star Trek (2009) had its heart in the right place.
Doesn't it just! Tomorrow also happens to be the 1st anniversary of the UK release of Into Darkness. A year has already warped by.
I'll try to keep this brief. I made a few connections with employees at STTE before it closed and found out that one of them left Vegas and coincidentally moved near my hometown. He was able to get some passes from Paramount for a pre-screening they were holding and invited me, so I actually got to see it about a week and a half early (the last Saturday in April). It was departure from traditional Trek, but I embraced it and enjoyed it. Opening day, Star Trek: The Exhibition was on display near my hometown. I had been volunteering once or twice a month to work the exhibit. They had volunteers come in full-force for a special showing of the movie on the museum's domed IMAX screen. I again enjoyed the film, but the film itself was not designed for the domed IMAX experience (everything had an unnatural curve to it), which was a little disappointing. By the time STXI had completed its rounds in theaters, I ended up seeing it 6 or 8 times (I don't recall precisely). Once in a true IMAX, which was outstanding.
I loved it. All that was old and tired was new and fresh again. I had a bad back that was hurting a LOT by the end but I was having so much fun I didn't care. Loved the characters, loved the reimagined universe, loved how over-the-top everything was. I recall being gutpunched when Amanda died, but not thinking for a minute her or Vulcan would stay dead until the two Spocks were talking at the end. Also, it was HUGE to hear the elder Spock tell his younger self to "Put aside logic, do what feels right!" - an admission from Trek's most famous character that he didn't make the best choices in his own life.
I was entertained. It seemed to be a promising start for the new franchise. And yet... ... I vaguely felt like I'd been taken in for a round of Three Card Monte. The film, for example, moved so fast that you never really thought about the plot on the first viewing. For another example, the characters felt fun, but also reduced, not to their essences, but to their pop-cultural reflections (Kirk was no longer partly a space-age Hornblower, but a cocky horn-dog).
I thought it was a great movie, the opening scene was simply awesome, the choice of actors and their performances were pretty much spot on, I loved the colour, the goofy energy that runs throughout (both movies), the only things I didn't like were Nero, who was a pretty weak villain and the one in a million chance of Kirk bumping into Spock prime, and that's pretty much it. The whole thing just felt epic, yet fresh and exciting for new audiences especially, and the alternate timeline way of rebooting was and excellent solution too. In my opinion it's exactly what the franchise needed.
The real question I had about the crew wasn't how they would compare to the originals, as most of the crew was so poorly sketched out, anyway, if you didn't read "behind the scenes" stuff, or novels based on the characters, or whatever. But how do you get someone - anyone - to follow Shatner? He was so hammy and over-the-top, what performance could deliver Kirk to the screen without all of that and still evoke Kirk as Shatner played him? The credibility of the reboot really fell on Pine's shoulders and he did a surprisingly excellent job! Nimoy being in the movie supported and shielded the NuSpock, as he was basically giving his nod of approval, anyway. I was just grateful that Bones wasn't all loud and shit, like he was in the original series. I really hated how prone he was to flying off the handle. But the tonality of this film was absolutely right and it did what it set out to do: The crew was back, the fun was back and STAR TREK finally had a breakout movie.
Let's face it, Into Darkness pulled exactly the same trick - transwarp beaming? what the hell... BOOM Klingons! Khan! with a big gun! etc etc
how long after seeing it first time did it take for you to realise there was no Shatner? for me it was about an hour after seeing it..i guess I was trying to process everything until I suddenly realised 's**t...no shat!'
The first thing that struck me about it was how poorly it was made. There are so many scenes that require all the characters involved to be complete idiots in order for them to make any sense (for example, the scene where Kirk goes berserk and attacks security guards only to have Spock toss him in an escape pod). The plot was just such an incoherent mess. The second thing that struck me was how poor most of the actors' performances were (though I'm not sure how much of that is due to the actors being terrible themselves or just not being able to rise above the poor writing and directing).
You mean like when Kirk didn't raise the Enterprise shields in The Wrath of Khan or why the Borg didn't go back in time in the Delta Quadrant then go to Earth in First Contact? I thought they were actually pretty good. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I thought they were excellent, they got the big three pretty much bang on IMO, don't forget they had to emulate characters that had decades of history behind them, I know they were playing the characters earlier in their lives than when we'd seen them before, and they didn't have a great deal of scope to make the characters their own like a normal part would entail. Certain things were 'expected' of the characters.
But I don't agree that it represents anymore of an issue than every other plot contrivance that has littered Star Trek since its inception. I like the Abrams films. They are big and fun.
I'm not speaking of plot holes, I'm talking about all the scenes which require every character involved to be complete morons for them to work. Take the example I cited, when Kirk attacks the two security guards. After we've firmly established that his objective is to convince the crew, but particularly now-Captain Spock, to alter course and intercept Nero, and that Spock does not intend to do that, Kirk flips out and attacks the two security guards. How is this supposed to advance his objectives? Does he expect that the rest of the crew will witness him beating up the guards and come to the conclusion that his plan of action is therefore the correct one? The only explanation for that scene is that Kirk is a complete idiot. I wonder how anyone can watch that scene and then come to the conclusion that Chris Pine's Kirk is a perfect adaptation of William Shatner's. I don't recall the latter ever doing something quite like that. Things like that. On a vastly different level than anything we've seen in Star Trek before, on the big or small screen.
I remember thinking that, too, but after Soran, Ruafo, and Shinzon, I suppose I had been desensitized to weak Trek villains. I think Kirk's mistake of not raising the shields makes perfect sense pertaining to him (Kirk was arrogant and overconfident, which came back to haunt him a couple times in the movie), so I tend to think of it as a character-based fault rather than writer's convenience. But I agree with your point about plot contrivances in general, like all the times the Enterprises just happen to be the only ship in range, even if they're by Earth; another favorite is the coincidentally named Chekov's Gun, where a character experiences something at the start of the episode, but it turns out to be the solution to the problem 40 minutes later.
I think we can justify the decision in hindsight. But if the Enterprise raises shields, then there is simply no movie because the Enterprise obliterates the Reliant the moment the latter opens fire.