The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

[mysticgeek]

@jazzstick:

The entire movie made me think! I kept thinking "Why is Hollywood using mall-core pretty boys in an attempt to make Star Trek trendy??"

Oh yeah ... the money.

[J. Allen]

jazzstick wrote:

---

Nimoy's acting was very very forced and this Spock was a bit out of Character!

Nimoy didn't think so.


J.

[jazzstick]

J. Allen wrote:

---

Nimoy didn't think so.


J.

So...?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

mysticgeek wrote:

---

I kept thinking "Why is Hollywood using mall-core pretty boys in an attempt to make Star Trek trendy??"

Because three-quarters of the "mall-core pretty" cast are better actors than the originals were, for starts.

[J. Allen]

jazzstick wrote:

---

So...?

Nothing. I just think he's far more authoritative in whether he got his own character right. Your mileage may vary.

J.

[Borgminister]

mysticgeek wrote:

---

@jazzstick:

The entire movie made me think! I kept thinking "Why is Hollywood using mall-core pretty boys in an attempt to make Star Trek trendy??"

Oh yeah ... the money.

Should they have used overweight octogenarians instead in an effort to lose money?

[cyberengland]

You know, this is like experiencing the legendary broken record yet again...
I remember when Leonard Nimoy was a guest on the Today show, and had a very
complimentary interview with Gene Shalit about the new Star Trek: The Motion
Picture. 24 hours later Shalit trashed the new movie. Yet the new movie went
on to make a load of money for its day...

I remember when Next Generation was about to debut, and the Trek fans and
critics and naysayers were saying "It's not Trek because there's no Kirk and
Spock and McCoy". It lasted more than twice as long as the original series,
and wasn't even on a network...

I remember when Deep Space Nine was about to debut, and the Trek fans and
critics and naysayers were saying "It's not Trek because it's not on a
starship, and is dark and moody". It lasted seven seasons and was also a hit
in syndication...

I remember when Generations was about to debut on the big screen, and there
was all this talk by the Trek fans and critics and naysayers about Kirk
dying, officially passing the torch to the Next Gen cast for movies, and
Trek fans saying that the movies would fail because there was no Kirk and
Spock and McCoy on the big screen...

I remember when Voyager was about to debut, and Trek fans and critics and
naysayers were calling it "Kirk Lite" and such because it was returning to
the concept of a starship on the frontier with no contact with Starfleet or
familiar planets. It lasted seven seasons and was often one of the top show
on the new UPN network...

I remember when Enterprise was about to debut, and the Trek fans and critics
and naysayers were saying that it would destroy canon by doing things that
contradicted history as filmed in all the preceding series and movies.
Having watched every episode and looking for such contradictions, I posit
that while canon may have been brushed against, there was no breaking of
canon. In fact, I really enjoyed it because aside from the novels there was
no "official" history of how the Federation was founded. I just wish UPN
would have given it more time because it was finally making its strides...

I remember the trashing Nemesis got. I believe that had the movie not opened
against James Bond, Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter at the same time, it
would have done so much better at the domestic box office. I also remember
reading reports that in other countries where it opened without this same
competition, it was number one outside the US.

Through all the decades I have experienced and witnessed constant bashing
and trashing of Star Trek, first in the media and then the Internet, I have
remained a fan. I ignore all the constant trashing and bashing by people who
have nothing better to do than say "it's a waste of money" or "it's not
Shatner" or fill-in-your-blank-of-choice. My wife and I had an incredible
time today at the theatre, and were completely and totally tied to the big
screen by the non-stop action, initial introductions of the Original Series
characters in this alternate timeline (which is so stated and explained
within the movie itself). This is one of those extremely rare movies that we
enjoyed so much that we will go back to the theatre AGAIN...

In my opinion, this movie is a sequel AND a reboot. Leonard Nimoy's Spock
brings with him the knowledge and memories of the original timeline to the
altered timeline counterparts of his crew. Because events in this movie are
indeed in contradiction to established canon, but established canon is
acknowledged, and at the end Nimoy's Spock is still a part of this new
timeline, both timelines logically must be intact. Who is to say that the
event that began this movie did not begin in a parellel universe (a la
"Mirror Mirror")?

Be logical, people. Enjoy the movie for what it is: a return to the Original
cast and crew to find themselves and become the team they are destined to
be... but in their OWN timeline and/or parallel universe.

[jazzstick]

J. Allen wrote:

---

Nothing. I just think he's far more authoritative in whether he got his own character right. Your mileage may vary.

J.

True but it still seemed forced! But then again your mileage may vary too!

[mysticgeek]

Borgminister wrote:

---

Should they have used overweight octogenarians instead in an effort to lose money?

You completely miss my sarcasm

[J. Allen]

jazzstick wrote:

---

True but it still seemed forced! But then again your mileage may vary too!

To be fair, I was also extremely excited to see Spock on the big screen. Nemesis had been my first Star Trek movie that I had seen in the theater (I've been a huge fan since I was 4, but always missed the movies while they were in theaters). So for me, it was just epic, epic, epic.

J.

[mysticgeek]

Yes Nimoy's performance was very forced and didn't fit in well imho

[Admiral Buzzkill]

mysticgeek wrote:

---

You completely miss my sarcasm

Or was unimpressed by it.

[Aragorn]

cyberengland wrote:

---

I remember when Voyager was about to debut, and Trek fans and critics and naysayers were calling it "Kirk Lite" and such because it was returning to the concept of a starship on the frontier with no contact with Starfleet or familiar planets. It lasted seven seasons and was often one of the top show on the new UPN network...

Voyager was Trek Lite and the only reason it lasted seven seasons was because it was on UPN's first seven seasons of existence. If Enterprise had come first, it would've lasted seven seasons and Voyager four.

[pookha]

mysticgeek wrote:

---

@jazzstick:

The entire movie made me think! I kept thinking "Why is Hollywood using mall-core pretty boys in an attempt to make Star Trek trendy??"

Oh yeah ... the money.

that they could act and capture the essence of the characters..

no that couldnt be it.

[mysticgeek]

Dennis wrote:

---

Or was unimpressed by it.

or frightened by it. Or void of all emotion over it.