Do you really think this movie is fast?

[Aike]

After having seen it four times, I don´t think it is that fast. For instance, The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum are faster movies.

You have to pay attention, experience and actually watch Star Trek -- not sit around talking to yourself about silly stuff like the timeline-- to understand it, but there is not one single scene where it is not easy to see what is going on. Even the scene where Pike shoots two Romulans is easy to follow if you are paying attention.

 

[Starbreaker]

I followed the entire movie. I actually had fun because I couldn't see the entire screen at once so I felt like I was really there. :thumbsup:

 

[Star Treks]

I think a lot of it has to do with what people will naturally compare it to - e.g. earlier Star Trek movies.

I took my girlfriend to see it. She'd never seen a Trek movie before, but she works at Blockbuster and before coming to the theater she threw on The Motion Picture to kind of get in a "Star Trek" mood.

She was shocked at the difference in style, how much more vibrant and active this new movie was, and I think that could be said (though with less contrast) for this movie in comparison to any of the earlier Trek films, even FC.

It's a fast-paced film... maybe not the fastest paced but plenty active.

 

[Michael]

Yeah, having seen it two times now, I think it is kind of fast. But I never thought it was too fast. I could follow the action all the time.

 

[miraclefan]

Too fast? I don't think so...but I was suprised how little time was spent at starfleet acadamy.

 

[tauntme]

Compared to other action movies, this film isn't fast at all. I could see clearly what was going on. Unless you're mentally disabled or just have bad eye sight, you shouldn't be confused at all.

 

[Zeppster]

It's faster than most if not all Trek movies, but it's not really all that fast. When I enjoy movies it seems to move faster to me.

 

[fresh]

fast, but not too fast
fast compared to older star treks at least.

 

[tomalak301]

I've seen it once, and yes it was very fast.

 

[Trippy]

Fast as in the time went by so fast because I was so drawn in!

Fast paced, yes, probably a little. Not a lot of time spent on exposition...just enough to catch the non-trekkie up, but Abrams assumes that his audience has come in with knowledge of the Roddenberry universe.

 

[EnsignRicky]

Four times, wow. It wasn't a bad movie, but there were times when I thought it wasn't fast enough.

 

[Rii]

Yeah, it's fast, a little too fast in places. It's less a coherent whole than a collection of set pieces tied together with string.

 

[CorporalClegg]

To me the problem was, when it needed to be fast it was too slow, when it needed to slow down for drama's sake, it was too fast.

 

[shapeshifter]

It felt about 1:50 minutes long.

 

[pookha]

really the pacing is interesting.
it goes sorta fast and then it slows as if to let you catch your breath.
for instance when enteprise reaches vulcan ... the whole thing isnt just one fast paced rush but it has some moments when things slow a little and then back into it.

and some things they let develop..
the whole scene

Spoiler: where

they lose amanda is allowed to slowly develop. and then it seems things just pause and linger for a moment.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Yes, the movie was way too fast.

At least, way too fast for 40 year old fanboys to wank off to the intricate design details of the USS Enterprise and thereby greatly disturbing the visitors in front of them with their icky shizzle.

So in that sense, it did make the movie more approachable to a general audience; seems to me Abrams succeeded.

Seriously: I don't think the movie was too fast. I don't think it was too slow, either. The emotional scenes had enough impact and the battles were chaotic enough.

 

[MichaelStivic]

On my first viewing (I've seen it twice now) I thought everything flew by extremely fast and I wished I had time to digest everything. But on my second viewing, since I wasn't as worried about missing something, I found it wasn't the flash it seemed at first sight. I loved the movie, absolutely loved it, but I know that when I see it again, the scenes that are going to get old are the fastest, most action-packed scenes and the scenes that I'll enjoy seeing again and again are the scenes where the focus is on the character interaction and dialogue.

I think that's the negative in having longish action sequences-- like man-to-man combat, those scenes are often the least interesting to re-watch while the dramatic elements are more enjoyable to see again and again.

 

[rtc61]

I wrote a review on Facebook about the new movie, and while I loved it, the pacing was my biggest beef. The film never gives you a chance to digest what's happening. Nero is almost one-dimensional because we never get enough time with him to fully understand his pain, or care. The thing is, I think adding a mere 10 minutes to the movie, just slowing it down a tad here and there, would have solved the problem.

 

[miraclefan]

I wrote a review on Facebook about the new movie, and while I loved it, the pacing was my biggest beef. The film never gives you a chance to digest what's happening. Nero is almost one-dimensional because we never get enough time with him to fully understand his pain, or care. The thing is, I think adding a mere 10 minutes to the movie, just slowing it down a tad here and there, would have solved the problem.

Agreed! I wanted more of Nero! I think he had less screen time then SHINZON!