What do you diehard TOS fans think of the new movie?

[trevanian]

Can't stand Battle Beyond The Stars...

Love Space Raiders

I really like SPACE RAIDERS (saw it in the theater twice), but it has Vince Edwards, which is enough to keep me from ever owning it in any form.

I give BATTLE the edge over it just due to Peppard, but I'd love to see a rough cut of it ... supposedly they shot all of Sayles' script, and it clocked close to 3hrs before Corman took out the scissors.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Did the original cut include Anarchists and Socialists coming in to unionize the Kelvans?

 

[Anticitizen]

Spoiler: various plot points

A larger problem is that TOS is about "strange new worlds" and "new life forms": the wonders of the universe. This movie has none of that. Nimoy's voiceover at the end of the film is totally incongruous with everything that comes before.

I felt the EXACT same way (that it felt incongruous).

 

[Brutal Strudel]

And rushed. I wanted to say "Lenny, slow down! Savor the words!"

Anyway, it should have been Pine.

 

[Lieut. Arex]

Spoiler: various plot points

A larger problem is that TOS is about "strange new worlds" and "new life forms": the wonders of the universe. This movie has none of that. Nimoy's voiceover at the end of the film is totally incongruous with everything that comes before.

I felt the EXACT same way (that it felt incongruous).

That element has been missing from practically all the films. Since TWoK there's been a drive to have a villain, a good/bad violent conflict. Only two films have an antagonist rather than a villain: TMP and TVH, which in many respects is a reworking of TMP with time travel and a eco-friendly message thrown in. The Abramsverse doesn't, to me, seem to be set up to deliver that kind of story, playing as it does to the, as George Will put it once, "I am bombarded, therefore I am" generation.

 

[trevanian]

Spoiler: various plot points

A larger problem is that TOS is about "strange new worlds" and "new life forms": the wonders of the universe. This movie has none of that. Nimoy's voiceover at the end of the film is totally incongruous with everything that comes before.

I felt the EXACT same way (that it felt incongruous).

That element has been missing from practically all the films. Since TWoK there's been a drive to have a villain, a good/bad violent conflict. Only two films have an antagonist rather than a villain: TMP and TVH, which in many respects is a reworking of TMP with time travel and a eco-friendly message thrown in.

Funny you divide them that way while omitting TFF; most people I know seem to think TFF suffers from not having a strong villain, what with Sybok softened into an understandable antagonist (not that there's anything wrong with that; rather the reverse.)

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Sybok--that is, Lawrence Luckinbill's fantastic performance of Sybok--is the one truly good thing in an otherwise execrable film.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

As much as I enjoyed this movie, all the glowing reviews tell me is that the mainstream still views SF as a bit of joke.

I think it's more that the mainstream doesn't view or evaluate sf as a genre with particular or peculiar values, but judges such films on the same basis as suspense thrillers, westerns (of a time), cop movies or adventure films. Taken on that basis, I think that Star Trek is a complete success and pretty clearly overshadows the other films this season that are competing for that mainstream "big movie" audience.

SF fans, a minority of filmgoers, are often looking for something more specific, a kind of intellectual or at least a certain flavor of stimulation of the imagination. There is no wide agreement even amongst fans as to what satisfies us in that regard but, somewhat after the manner of Damon Knight, we can recognize and point to it when we see it.

I doubt that it's happenstance that the most prominent negative review of Star Trek in the mainstream press was from Roger Ebert, whose bona fides as an sf fan are pretty solid.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

True dat.

(Jesus, all this agreeing is beginning to scare me!)

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

All this speaking reasonably is beginning to trouble me.

 

[Praetor]

I'm even fond of Eyes Wide Shut.

I shall pray for thee.

Sybok--that is, Lawrence Luckinbill's fantastic performance of Sybok--is the one truly good thing in an otherwise execrable film.

Eh, I still like the camaraderie between the big three. I didn't even mind Scotty/Uhura. Then again, I'm the one that likes "And the Children Shall Lead."

As much as I enjoyed this movie, all the glowing reviews tell me is that the mainstream still views SF as a bit of joke.

I think it's more that the mainstream doesn't view or evaluate sf as a genre with particular or peculiar values, but judges such films on the same basis as suspense thrillers, westerns (of a time), cop movies or adventure films. Taken on that basis, I think that Star Trek is a complete success and pretty clearly overshadows the other films this season that are competing for that mainstream "big movie" audience.

SF fans, a minority of filmgoers, are often looking for something more specific, a kind of intellectual or at least a certain flavor of stimulation of the imagination. There is no wide agreement even amongst fans as to what satisfies us in that regard but, somewhat after the manner of Damon Knight, we can recognize and point to it when we see it.

I doubt that it's happenstance that the most prominent negative review of Star Trek in the mainstream press was from Roger Ebert, whose bona fides as an sf fan are pretty solid.

Well said, good sir.

All this speaking reasonably is beginning to trouble me.

Ye gods, the civility!

 

[Cyrus]

I just watched 2001 last night myself. Saying "excellent movie" would be like saying that Citizen Kane is an excellent movie. I don't always agree with the conventional wisdom but it's spot-on with this one. But then, I rate several Kubrick films--A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, The Shining, Paths of Glory, Lolita--as near or outright masterpieces. I'm even fond of Eyes Wide Shut.

I loved every one of the Kubrick movies, he was one of a kind. My least favorite is probably The Shining, but that's mainly because I am not a big fan of horror movies. The most surprising was Barry Lyndon. I hadn't heard of that one but then I read an article that it was the most requested movie at some major revival theater. I never imagined that I would like a long ass movie with Ryan O'Neall playing the lead character but I enjoyed it very much.

 

[Lieut. Arex]

I felt the EXACT same way (that it felt incongruous).

That element has been missing from practically all the films. Since TWoK there's been a drive to have a villain, a good/bad violent conflict. Only two films have an antagonist rather than a villain: TMP and TVH, which in many respects is a reworking of TMP with time travel and a eco-friendly message thrown in.

Funny you divide them that way while omitting TFF; most people I know seem to think TFF suffers from not having a strong villain, what with Sybok softened into an understandable antagonist (not that there's anything wrong with that; rather the reverse.)

I started to include it and while Sybok is an antagonist, he's also a pawn of TFF's BBEG, the God-Who-Needs-A-Starship so I left it with the villain flicks. Still, though that being represents the final threat, Sybok is the principle mover of events in the film and it could easily be included on the list. TFF, while in my opinion a weak offering, certainly doesn't fall into line with the others featuring black hats and white hats shooting it out.

 

[trevanian]

I never imagined that I would like a long ass movie with Ryan O'Neall playing the lead character but I enjoyed it very much.

Even though I had seen the rest of his pics from KILLING on, I resisted it a long time ... now I fit that sentence of your post to a T ... it was a total surprise, and now I own it.

 

[USS Mariner]

As much as I enjoyed this movie, all the glowing reviews tell me is that the mainstream still views SF as a bit of joke.

I think it's more that the mainstream doesn't view or evaluate sf as a genre with particular or peculiar values, but judges such films on the same basis as suspense thrillers, westerns (of a time), cop movies or adventure films. Taken on that basis, I think that Star Trek is a complete success and pretty clearly overshadows the other films this season that are competing for that mainstream "big movie" audience.

SF fans, a minority of filmgoers, are often looking for something more specific, a kind of intellectual or at least a certain flavor of stimulation of the imagination. There is no wide agreement even amongst fans as to what satisfies us in that regard but, somewhat after the manner of Damon Knight, we can recognize and point to it when we see it.

I doubt that it's happenstance that the most prominent negative review of Star Trek in the mainstream press was from Roger Ebert, whose bona fides as an sf fan are pretty solid.

Personally, I thought the action in it was sub-par even compared to the competition, but it's much closer to mainstream expectations than the previous films, save for First Contact (which I'd rate far more poorly than this.)

On that basis, I concur, though I personally think that it could have been both visually and thematically interesting, but it is what it is.

All this speaking reasonably is beginning to trouble me.

Okay, this is proof that the world is ending...

...and somehow, I don't care anymore.

 

[Doug Otte]

I finally saw it over the weekend w/ a friend. I'll be 51 this year; he's about 53. We've both been fans of Trek since childhood.

I guess the opinion of both of us was: "meh..."

It definitely seemed geared toward adolescents, which is a good thing for renewing the life of the franchise. However, I just didn't enjoy it as much as any of the previous films. I've lived through many changes - from the original series, to the films, to TNG. I enjoyed DS9 but don't feel the urge to revisit it. I didn't enjoy Voyager or Ent at all.

The new film just didn't seem like Trek to me. The characters had the same names, but beyond that they were imposters. I've thought about the other elements - effects, gross distortion of the history of the Trek universe - but I keep coming back to the characters as the main thing that I couldn't swallow.

Doug

 

[Steven Of Nine]

As much as I enjoyed this movie, all the glowing reviews tell me is that the mainstream still views SF as a bit of joke.

Which is why 7 of the top 10 films of all time are Sci-fi or Fantasy?

1 Titanic
2 The Dark Knight
3 Star Wars
4 Shrek 2
5 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial
6 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace
7 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
8 Spider-Man
9 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
10 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

 

[Brutal Strudel]

How many of them are serious SF rather than popcorn/bubblegum sci-fi? I don't see a single goddamn one. (Maybe LotR--I don't care for epic fanatasy so I'm not a fair judge but Tolkien's literary reputation is secure.) But then, I don't see any intellectually or aesthetically demanding films on that list, either.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, if seven of the top ten all-time moneymakers are some kind of science fiction/fantasy, and they're all what you consider to be simplistic or "popcorn" fare - that right there gives you another good answer as to why mainstream critics and people in the industry don't take sf seriously: because people in general don't like the "serious" stuff nearly so much as they like the broader entertainments.

Certainly there's never been an "aesthetically or intellectually demanding" Star Trek movie to compare the current one to, unless one equates "demanding" with "unnecessarily tedious" - if one allows that meaning to the phrase, then ST:TMP might qualify.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

I have no argument with that. None whatsoever. Hell, I like popcorn too, I just don't take it seriously. (I addressed this point--in a way--in a post where I explained why I'll tolerate and even enjoy stuff in Bond movies that a true fan/expert like trevanian would choke on; it's in Warped9's thread that would not die, along with many other delightful tangents.)

For the record, I saw the movie for the third time last night and, for the third time, thoroughly enjoyed myself.