What's keeping me out of the theatre....

[Tikkun]

You know you're going to see it, Warped9. You're going to be way too curious, especially when you start seeing the postings of people raving about it.

It's still "Star Trek"... resistance is futile.

I'll only see it as a download. My hard earned cash is too little and too precious to throw away.

I don't think you'll have too long to wait, either... if you're hooked up with torrents, that is.


Btw, I liked your take on Court Martial. When I was a kid, I didn't care for it... as an adult, I see the complexity that you noted. The writing for this episode was first rate and I believe most of the actors did a great job with the material they were given. My only gripe, though small, is Finney's insufferable illogic. I know he was torqued in the head, but frankly to get that far in Starfleet, you'd have to have much more of your act together. Camping out on board was a big mistake. I'd have thought he would have escaped to the surface somehow. We've seen plenty of times where someone makes unauthorized use of the transporter... or perhaps he could have feined a head injury that could account for his delirium, a side effect of the ion storm turbulence. In any case... an A+ intellectual TOS episode.

I like the episode as well, but it's not a favorite. Maybe I'll have to rewatch it. The thoughtful streak in Trek was what drew me in as well - but then there were a few ghastly episodes. Some might name Spock's Brain, or The Omega Glory.

I'm gonna see this, but I'll see it in fanzine mode. I'm prepared to see someone's AU universe, and see if i enjoy it. It may be Jean Lorrah, Jaqueline Lichtenberg, or Chantelle - but it will be an interesting view and I may well like to play with a few bits (I like to write).

 

[Captain Robert April]

Saw it tonight via a free pass for a press screening.

Suffice it to say that I was massively underwhelmed. Plot contrivances and cringe inducing dialogue abound, amidst big, grand "Look at me!" shots of the new ship.

I'm glad I didn't pay for it. Had more fun at the Pro Bass Shop earlier in the day.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Plot contrivances and cringe inducing dialogue abound, amidst big, grand "Look at me!" shots of the new ship.

Sounds like Trek!

I'm a bit worried that the trailers seem Nemesis-esque but I'm hoping for the best.

 

[Warped9]

Of course one's opinion is going to be strongly influenced by expecttions and what you bring into the cinema with you.

I applaud the producers for being honest about going the restart route. That certainly clears the air in terms of continuity and sidesteps the arguments of where this is supposed to fit in and/or claiming that this is "how it all began." Regardless of whether one likes the film or not there are enough evident changes from what we know of TOS that it certainly isn't how it could have all begun.

The first reviews for here in Toronto are out this morning and they're generally positive. That said I'm still not going because whether it's good or not they've changed too many things too much for my taste. My perspective is akin to how I feel about TWoK and the followup films. TWoK changed too many things too much for my liking that jar me out of enjoying what was otherwise a decent, energetic yarn.

But even the positive reviews are telling me something significant. I'm getting the message that there's lots of action, lots of decent eye candy, lots of energy and little intelligence in that much seems convoluted and contrived. It doesn't help that Toronto Star critic Peter Howell ends of dissing TOS anyway in the end. Now Roger Ebert's review (online) comes across as much more specific about elements of the film and how they work...or not.

I don't need an origin story, particularly an evidently contrived one. I don't buy the "destiny" angle where all these characters are the same age starting out. I don't buy the idea of an antagonist wanting to kill Kirk to change the future because for all his influence Kirk really doesn't make that much difference in the grander scheme of things in regards to the Romulans. Now change the outcome of the Earth/Romulan war of the 22nd century and maybe you have something there, timeline wise. It's also interesting how they've changed Kirk's youthful character and switched it with Picard's. WNMHGB and "Shoreleave" established the younger Kirk as a serious young student who evidently learn to come out of his shell as he aged while Picard was established as something of a rabble rouser who became more serious as he got older. The new film also apparently caters to the caricature of Kirk (in the eyes of many) rather than a more nuanced person we can see in TOS--that is if you can grasp the subtext behind the character's words and actions. Watch TOS and you can see that Kirk is more than just impulsive action. He'd have to be to have reached his position and to earn the respect and loyalty of those he leads.

And while it my seem incredibly trivial and shallow to some out there I really hate what they did to the Enterprise. Why couldn't they just tweak a wonderful landmark design in SF hardware rather than conjure a distorted thing that looks like it was drawn by a four year old? And I still think that constructed on the ground in Iowa idea is pure bullshit stupidity.

I will say I'd bend some if I scored a pass like CRA did. As is I'll still wait for a download or TV broadcast.

 

[Nardpuncher]

Of course one's opinion is going to be strongly influenced by expecttions and what you bring into the cinema with you.

I applaud the producers for being honest about going the restart route. That certainly clears the air in terms of continuity and sidesteps the arguments of where this is supposed to fit in and/or claiming that this is "how it all began." Regardless of whether one likes the film or not there are enough evident changes from what we know of TOS that it certainly isn't how it could have all begun.

The first reviews for here in Toronto are out this morning and they're generally positive. That said I'm still not going because whether it's good or not they've changed too many things too much for my taste. My perspective is akin to how I feel about TWoK and the followup films. TWoK changed too many things too much for my liking that jar me out of enjoying what was otherwise a decent, energetic yarn.

But even the positive reviews are telling me something significant. I'm getting the message that there's lots of action, lots of decent eye candy, lots of energy and little intelligence in that much seems convoluted and contrived. It doesn't help that Toronto Star critic Peter Howell ends of dissing TOS anyway in the end. Now Roger Ebert's review (online) comes across as much more specific about elements of the film and how they work...or not.

I don't need an origin story, particularly an evidently contrived one. I don't buy the "destiny" angle where all these characters are the same age starting out. I don't buy the idea of an antagonist wanting to kill Kirk to change the future because for all his influence Kirk really doesn't make that much difference in the grander scheme of things in regards to the Romulans. Now change the outcome of the Earth/Romulan war of the 22nd century and maybe you have something there, timeline wise. It's also interesting how they've changed Kirk's youthful character and switched it with Picard's. WNMHGB and "Shoreleave" established the younger Kirk as a serious young student who evidently learn to come out of his shell as he aged while Picard was established as something of a rabble rouser who became more serious as he got older. The new film also apparently caters to the caricature of Kirk (in the eyes of many) rather than a more nuanced person we can see in TOS--that is if you can grasp the subtext behind the character's words and actions. Watch TOS and you can see that Kirk is more than just impulsive action. He'd have to be to have reached his position and to earn the respect and loyalty of those he leads.

And while it my seem incredibly trivial and shallow to some out there I really hate what they did to the Enterprise. Why couldn't they just tweak a wonderful landmark design in SF hardware rather than conjure a distorted thing that looks like it was drawn by a four year old? And I still think that constructed on the ground in Iowa idea is pure bullshit stupidity.

I will say I'd bend some if I scored a pass like CRA did. As is I'll still wait for a download or TV broadcast.

You said earlier that you liked what was done with the james Bond and Batman franchises. I must say that I think you'll be happy with the new Trek movie.
I'm 35 years-old and have been a fan for 24 years. I'm not the kind to get overly excited about a movie anymore. I don't get my expectations up or anything like that.
For this movie, I never posted anything here after a trailer was released with that "AWESOME!!!!!!!' or anything like that. I was one of those guys that said the new ship looked a bit odd and that the bridge was too white and all but was generally looking forward to the new movie...but none of that counting-the-days stuff.

I saw the movie last night and had a grand, wonderful time. I'm pretty sure all the people that helped make the TV show what it was would want a long-time fan such as yourself to see it too.

 

[Forbin]

Well, depending on what else i have to get accomplished next week during my week off, I'll consider taking the wife to see it with the free passes I got from work.

 

[Warped9]

You said earlier that you liked what was done with the james Bond and Batman franchises. I must say that I think you'll be happy with the new Trek movie.

A great thing about what was done with Bond and Batman is that they brought the characters back to what they should be. My impression is that isn't what they've done with Trek XI. They've made an action flick for the summer without much of the intelligence of the series. And the intelligence is a big factor for me--it's half of what TOS was.

 

[Gary7]

Saw it tonight via a free pass for a press screening.

Suffice it to say that I was massively underwhelmed. Plot contrivances and cringe inducing dialogue abound, amidst big, grand "Look at me!" shots of the new ship.

I'm glad I didn't pay for it. Had more fun at the Pro Bass Shop earlier in the day.

So, could you objectively say that the "hype" surrounding the whole production, both in general media and overly enthusiastic fans on the Internet, might have influenced your expectations? Or could you step back and say, face value, that this was a genuine disappointment?

 

[Brutal Strudel]

You said earlier that you liked what was done with the james Bond and Batman franchises. I must say that I think you'll be happy with the new Trek movie.

A great thing about what was done with Bond and Batman is that they brought the characters back to what they should be. My impression is that isn't what they've done with Trek XI. They've made an action flick for the summer without much of the intelligence of the series. And the intelligence is a big factor for me--it's half of what TOS was.

Yeah, that's how I see it. Abrams has said that he was never a huge fan of Trek, it was "talky." Well, that's what I liked about it--drama tends to be talky and Trek was drama first, action/adventure second. Star Wars--which I enjoy (I actually liked the second and third prequels)--is just the opposite.

NuTrek looks to be the inverse of NuBSG: where the latter took a dumb action show and remade it in the image of the best tv dramas of its age, the former is taking a show made in the image of the best tv dramas of its age and remaking it as a dumb (but not, I trust, quite as dumb as oldBSG or even Star Wars) summer action film. But, done well, I can live with that--it's not the ideal, but I can live it.

(And let's face it, for all that, TOS was always two parts Buster Crabbe and one part Shakespeare. It's just that a little Shakespeare goes a long way.)

Personally, though, I'm psyched: I have tix for the 7:00 show tonight. Actually managed to get a leggy (and busty, I might add) co-worker to go with me. (I teach high school English, she teaches history and sociology.) We went to this blighted hell-hole of a school together back in the eighties--I joked, as she handed me her phone number, that 20 years ago, I would have been walking on air, then said "Ah, who am I kiddin', I'm walking on air right now."

That's one smooth talkin' nerd right there, that is.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

So now that I've seen it, I find my prediction was spot-on: actually, it may well be a little dumber than Star Wars--the middle four, at least. But, as an example of a fun, dumb action flick, it's quite good and I enjoyed it. As an example of Star Trek, it is awful, just awful. My colleague, a casual fan of the 24th century stuff primarily, absolutely loved it, however, and it cast a very pleasant penumbra over the drinks afterward.

It ain't Star Trek, though. In its own way, it is as much of a parody as Galaxy Quest. I like Galaxy Quest, but that ain't Star Trek, either.

 

[trevanian]

You said earlier that you liked what was done with the james Bond and Batman franchises. I must say that I think you'll be happy with the new Trek movie.

A great thing about what was done with Bond and Batman is that they brought the characters back to what they should be.

Folks say that about JB and BAT, but man, I really KNOW the Bond character, in print and film, and nothing in CASINO ROYALE is Bond character, except the torture scene. NOTHING. Playing grim and stupid is not as bad as silly and stupid (moore era), but still WAY off target.

I don't know anything about BatComics, but I loved BEGINS (and TDK too.) Maybe possessing a little information is a bad thing when it comes to being able to appreciate reboots.

Part of what made Trek work in past films was the charm of seeing the actors in their shtick. They weren't working with fantastic material, but they had their chemistry. That wasn't ever going to be something others would replace, so I guess they had to come up with pyrotechnics (lens flares, Bay-isms) to compensate, but that ain't an equivalent to what they don't have. So why would I see it? GQ at least had some sense of purpose and history that seems joltingly absent from the clips of abramstrek.

At least they didn't build the PROTECTOR in a crater on their homeworld.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

No, they built it in Iowa.

 

[Gary7]

So now that I've seen it, I find my prediction was spot-on: actually, it may well be a little dumber than Star Wars--the middle four, at least. But, as an example of a fun, dumb action flick, it's quite good and I enjoyed it. As an example of Star Trek, it is awful, just awful. My colleague, a casual fan of the 24th century stuff primarily, absolutely loved it, however, and it cast a very pleasant penumbra over the drinks afterward.

It ain't Star Trek, though. In its own way, it is as much of a parody as Galaxy Quest. I like Galaxy Quest, but that ain't Star Trek, either.

That makes sense to me... given all the distortions. And y'know, Nimoy is no "expert" on Star Trek. He happens to be the actor who played Spock. But like many other sci-fi actors, he hasn't studied canon and nitpicked it. So, he plugged it in his interview... and naturally, because he is a part of it.

And Cawley... well, he was there. I imagine watching it being filmed must be very impressive. (James Cawley met with Abrams and essentially creamed in his pants over having the chance to talk at length with him and see some scenes filmed--he was impressed with Abrams and felt sure this is going to be a great movie). But that's a small glimpse. After all has been digitally captured and put through the editing, the result can be quite different.

As some have said in other threads and other forums... these days Hollywood is churning out crap laced with eye candy CGI. Once you get past the pretty wrapper, things start to stink.

 

[Masao]

I will say I'd bend some if I scored a pass like CRA did.

Would you go see it if I sent you 5 bucks?

I'd rather you'd be upset on the basis of actually seeing the movie than on second-hand information.

 

[Warped9]

^^ Thanks for the offer, but in Canada it'll cost me $9.75 to see it.

And then there is transit, goodies and compensation for pain and mental distress.

I can wait for the download, which shouldn't be too long since the film has already screened in Australia a week or so ago.

 

[trevanian]

^^ Thanks for the offer, but in Canada it'll cost me $9.75 to see it.

And then there is transit, goodies and compensation for pain and mental distress.

I can wait for the download, which shouldn't be too long since the film has already screened in Australia a week or so ago.

Not only that, but there are probably moments where you're gonna need to shut the movie off to curse and stomp around, and it is hard to do that in a theater unless you're the projectionist. Another reason I am fine waiting for somebody to provide a copy that I will not pay a cent for.

 

[Warped9]

^^ Thanks for the offer, but in Canada it'll cost me $9.75 to see it.

And then there is transit, goodies and compensation for pain and mental distress.

I can wait for the download, which shouldn't be too long since the film has already screened in Australia a week or so ago.

Not only that, but there are probably moments where you're gonna need to shut the movie off to curse and stomp around, and it is hard to do that in a theater unless you're the projectionist. Another reason I am fine waiting for somebody to provide a copy that I will not pay a cent for.

True.

 

[MANT!]

Per Rotton Tomato's website..
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sta...rek_is_the_best_reviewed_wide_release_of_2009

It boldly goes where no Trek has gone before. This new Trek will live long and prosper. No matter what clichés they may use, there's no getting around the critics' main point: JJ Abrams' Star Trek is stirring mainstream entertainment, and breathes new life into the moribund franchise. It's an origin story, one that tells the tale of how Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto) became, well, Kirk and Spock. The pundits say Abrams' action-packed, visually remarkable take on such venerable material will reward both fans and newcomers alike, and sets an impressive new course for one of pop culture's most enduring series. Not only is Star Trek Certified Fresh, it's the best-reviewed wide release of the year. To top it all off, it's the best-reviewed entry in the Star Trek franchise to date.

It is looking like the THE film of the summer..

I'll be there tomorrow....

 

[Vance]

What's keeping me out of the theatre is that I do not, in any way, shape, or form, want to be associated with the fanbase of this movie that I've seen. I am, honestly, disgusted by them.

Since the DVD is only a few months away, I'll probably get the movie then, where I don't have to deal with anyone telling me how much this grade-B action flick is going to 'own me' and 'make me its bitch'.

 

[USS Mariner]

I'll admit that this probably is a decent film, and just as much a part of "Star Trek" as everything else we gotten since 1964, but yeah, the hardcore "lovers" of this thing are just as ass-headed as those who claim it's the Anti-Christ.

If any Trek film deserves that title, it's a toss-up between FC and GEN, and neither had the level of positive reaction that this movie has at the moment, so there's obviously something working in it.

Hell, if Jackman's pecs couldn't save Wolverine from the shitcan, no amount of PR (especially one that makes the '03 "Iraqapalooza" look like something from a garage band) could do the same if this film really was that level of suck.

Of course, given my harted for FC and it's warm reception from the general audience, my standards are a bit different...

...but I adore Robocop to the grave, so who knows?