Sunday, May 17, 2009

At the movies: Star Trek

It happened later than I wanted (when "wanted"="opening day matinee, or maybe one of those Thursday night premiere screenings"), but I finally got to see "Star Trek" today, and I liked it. A week after the movie opened, and has been dissected ad nauseum by Trekker and non-Trekker alike, I'm not sure what I have to add to the discussion, but I'll offer up a few thoughts after the jump, and anybody who wants to discuss the movie can feel free. Needless to say, this, as my TV reviews are, is being written from and for the perspective of someone who's already seen it, so if you care and somehow haven't (maybe, like me, it took you a while to coordinate a sitter), you may not want to read it. Spoilers coming up just as soon as I lament the fact that I'm probably the 8,000th guy on the Internet to make a "J.J. Abrams really loves glowing red spheres" joke...

I don't often applaud in the middle of a movie, but I was awfully tempted to at least give a polite golf clap after the scene where Spock explained that Nero might have changed the timeline, and all of their destinies. With that one scene, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (and/or Abrams himself, or Damon Lindelof, or whoever had an uncredited hand in it) cleverly managed to circumvent the obvious fanboy complaint about violating the continuity of the original series(*), and gave the film and its inevitable sequels a blank slate on which to work. Kirk is still Kirk (albeit with even more of a rebellious streak than he had originally, due to the earlier death of his father), Spock is still Spock (albeit a more tragic, Superman-esque figure than before due to the destruction of Vulcan, and also somehow Uhura's boyfriend), and the same seven characters are all together on the Enterprise (albeit at slightly younger ages than we first saw them together in the '60s). But Abrams and company are free to tell whatever stories they want about this crew without worrying about how to slot them in between "Dagger of the Mind" and "The Corbomite Maneuever," or if a joke Kirk makes about his brother Sam contradicts the events of "Operation: Annihilate!" And there were enough nods to the original series (the Tribble in Scotty's office, Pike winding up in a wheelchair) that I doubt this creative team is going to be interested in changing too many of the fundamentals.

(*) I imagine there are some die-hards out there who are now upset that the movie has in some way "invalidated" the original series, or the spin-offs, or the previous movies. And to that, all I can say is that the new movie didn't erase the previous stories from our existence. You can still watch "City on the Edge of Forever," or "Wrath of Khan," or "Unification" anytime you want. Hell, you can watch "Spock's Brain" or "Star Trek V" a few hundred times, though doing that might make you wish that Nero's ship had erased them from your DVD library.

As for this particular story about this crew, I enjoyed it. Sure, it was more action-oriented than the old series, but not dramatically more than many of the other movies with both Kirk and Picard. While a lot of people are fond of the way the various "Star Trek" series tackled big philosophical questions, those tended to work best in the short story format of a TV series. The "Star Trek" movies that attempted to do so (notably "The Motion Picture," "The Final Frontier" and "Insurrection") tended to feel flabby and clumsy, so I was okay with more action(**), since there was a lot of attention paid to characterization, particularly with Kirk and Spock.

(**) I should say, though, that while Abrams showed himself to be a very capable action director on "Alias" and with "Mission: Impossible III," I found his work on the "Trek" action to be a mixed bag. The editing of some sequences -- notably the sword fight on the space drill -- was choppier than I would have liked and didn't give a great sense of where the players were and what they were doing. On the other hand, the final space battle -- particularly the arrival of the Enterprise to help even the odds -- was quite nice.

I haven't always loved Zachary Quinto as Sylar on "Heroes," though it's hard to tell how much of that is on him and how much is on the bad writing, but he made a fine Spock. The hair and makeup do a lot of the heavy lifting, as does his resemblance to a young Nimoy (though the scene where Spock met Spock awkwardly pointed out that Quinto is several inches taller), but he did a nice job of showing Spock's struggle to keep his emotions in check, and was particularly good in the brawl with Kirk where he stopped keeping them in check. Nimoy took a couple of decades to really master the role (the Spock from "Wrath of Khan" onwards is a much more nuanced character than the one from the show), and Quinto has obviously learned from the master. I would say his Spock is a bit more smug than Nimoy's at this point, but it's more that his relationship with Kirk is closer to Spock 1.0's relationship with McCoy.

I had no experience with Chris Pine prior to this, but I was impressed. The very idea of doing a Muppet Babies version of "Star Trek" had me worried that the younger Kirk would seem like a lightweight -- a pretty-boy 21st century actor playing at being a classic tough guy -- but he had the charisma and enough old-fashioned grit to carry the role, as well as a Shatner-ian flair for the light comedy demands of the role.

Pine played particularly well off of Karl Urban's "Bones" McCoy. Urban was maybe the biggest head-scratcher of this cast to me, as I knew him entirely as an action type (on "Xena," and in "The Bourne Supremacy"), but he absolutely nailed McCoy. His performance probably came the closest of all seven actors to being an impression of the original actor, but it never crossed the line where it would have seemed like a hollow imitation. Urban just found a way to sound an awful lot like DeForest Kelley whie still giving a performance.

As for the rest of the supporting cast, I imagine George Takei, Walter Koenig and Nichelle Nichols were all grimacing at how their replacements got more to do in one film than they did for most of their combined TV/film runs. Making Chekhov into a boy genius gives the character some interesting shading (and also plays off how much younger Koenig looked than his co-stars), and Sulu got to save the day a couple of times. Uhura's main contribution was to be Spock's girlfriend ("Star Trek" is still a boys' fantasy first, I suppose), but I did like that the script and Zoe Saldana gave her a backbone and a history with Kirk that will allow her to have more meaningful, and tension-filled interaction with him in future films.

I was surprised it took the movie so long to introduce Scotty, but dammit if Simon Pegg didn't make every second count. Very funny, while still feeling like the Enterprise's miracle man.

Now, a lot of the movie is just about re-setting the universe and putting things in motion for future movies with this crew. But I liked the actors and how they worked with each other (and how Pine and Quinto worked with Nimoy), liked the look of things (the classic uniforms were changed just enough to feel right without seeming retro), and feel comfortable that the franchise is in good hands for now.

What did everybody else think?


Anonymous said...

I didn't mind that Quinto was visibly taller than Nimoy; I figure you shrink as you get older and Spock Prime is really old.

JamesTart said...

Pretty underwhelmed to be honest.

Can't disagree with your comments regarding the timeline change - it was pretty ingenious.

But as for the action and story - just one big meh really. Suffered from a complete lack of a compelling bad guy. Pine was decent though.

I thought this was going to be the project that changed my mind on Abrams...but no his, output is still a touch on the poor side.

Anonymous said...

Uhura, as a communications prodigy, will always have subtle contributions to the Enterprise's victories, no matter how important or significant they are. After all, it was her translation of a Klingonese broadcast that allowed Kirk to figure out they were about to run into a trap. And I believe her understanding of several Romulan dialects certainly helped carry them through. Information analysis and interpretation is not the most glamorous, obvious job in the game--that's just how it is.

However, I'd say that Uhura's strength of will (demonstrated in how she stood up to both Kirk and Spock) as well as her compassion will definitely give her major parts to play in films to come.

The Engineer said...

The fan boy in me was really irritated that scotty1.0 apparently invented the ability to 'warp beam' but that technology was lost by TNG, that Spock could see Vulcan from a planet you needed warp drive to get to (from vulcan), that the supernova that 'threatened the galaxy' would blow apart romulus, and that there is a drink called "Cardassian Sunrise" decades before the Cardassians were ever encountered.

Otto Man said...

Thought it was outstanding. Faithful enough to the original, but smart enough to carve out its own place.

And yes, Pegg's performance as Scotty was terrific.

Jason Henningson said...

I think the only thing that threw me was the Engineering scenes. While it seemed cool to have the inside of the ship seem so complex, it did make me feel like they simply dis a cheap decorating of a factory so to cut costs. Hopefully this will be rectified in future films.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with Anthony Lane of the New Yorker that I just want to see a regular episode of Batman, Spiderman, Star Trek without having to get the beginning back story. Can't we just have a good story that doesn't involve a threat to destroy all life as we know it?
And as for Star Trek in particular, isn't this the same story as Star Trek The Movie and Voyage Home where a super powerful bad-ass ship comes kicking ass and taking names?

Lane said...

I'm not enough of a fan boy to quibble about the details of the original cannon, I can say I really enjoyed the hell out of this movie. I took my dad, and we both loved it.

also, I Grok Spock (I know Alan, being a fellow SNL nerd growing up will get that).

Alan Sepinwall said...

And as for Star Trek in particular, isn't this the same story as Star Trek The Movie and Voyage Home where a super powerful bad-ass ship comes kicking ass and taking names?

Not really, in that the probes from those two movies were essentially faceless cosmic entities doing what they felt they were programmed to, while this was a more personal revenge story (more Khan, or Nemesis, I guess).

Anonymous said...

In the first space battle scene where a random individual is sucked into space, as we enter space it becomes absolutely silent. Too bad they didn't keep with that through the whole film.

Could have done without the car stealing scene. Too corny.

The opening segment concerning Kirk's bitch straddled the line for corniness. Kirk's father reminded me of Josh Hartnett.

The sword fighting scene was also pretty bad.

The movie picked up when we see them at the proper age.

I didn't quite understand Spock's and Uhura's relationship. Felt thrown together.

Despite being a little over the top I dug the movie. It was fun.

Anonymous said...

kirks birth not bitch

Synner_man said...

The great thing about the reboot is that it allows them to tell some of the same stories in a new way. We could see what happens if Kirk would encounter the Borg. The Doomsday Machine is still out there. And Khan is still out there, frozen on his ship and waiting to be revived with his crew of survivors from the Eugenics War.

Anonymous said...

I LOVED it. I was lots of fun with enough shout outs to these beloved characters to make me a little choked up at times, for instance when old Spock meets yound Kirk on the ice planet and says "I am, and ever shall be your friend." Also It the end when we hear Nimoy starting the iconic line,"Space, the final frontier.........."

I was annoyed with young Kirk while he was in the academy, screwing off, not taking it seriously, like with the Kobayashi Maru, and wondered how this arrogent, cocky kid would become the arrogant cocky Jim Kirk we know, who used these qualities to be a leader his crew believed in and a man you wanted to have your back. But as soon as the stakes here real and the consequences high, he clicked into the James Tiberious Kirk role.

The Spock/Uhura affair was surprising, but why not?

Loved seeing the Enterprise ride to the rescue. How many times, thru all the series + movies have I seen that and it still makes me smile:) And the Vulcun shuttles were way cool. Spocks response to it? "Fascinating".

And thankfully, not one mention of the bloody prime directive:)


Hugh Jee From Jersey said...

It was a clever way to set up future stories with the timeline being altered. When the scene came where Vulcan was destroyed (and Spock's mother along with it) I felt that the TRUE Trekkies would be in an armed revolt, with Abrams' house being stormed by villagers with pitchforks. But the ingenious timeline alteration gave future writers a whole new palate to draw from.

Purists will what? Superman, Batman, even James Bond have been many times were fictional characters (like Zorro) reinvented for a new generation?

The only scene that had me scratching my head looking for an explanation was when Spock met "Prime Spock" (as Nimoy's character was identified on the Star Trek website).... how does one living being become two, one old and one young? But as Stephen King has said in his primer on fiction "ON WRITING"...never try to explain the fantastic- just say "this is what happened".

Loved the movie... recommended for Trekkie and non Trekkie alike.

Doug S said...

I missed the tribble, but did see Slusho...

I was actually really impressed with Pine and could see the good parts of Shatner in his performance. I also liked Quinto, who I found beyond awful on heroes. I thought Pegg was underused, and hated his bumpy friend, who screamed Ewok and Jar-Jar at me in equal doses. The rest were fine - a future UN of mid-level characters and character actors. All in all a nice reboot, and people who have trouble with the continuity need to deal. Would you rather have a new franchise or not?

And boy, those folks at Bad Robot have a serious thing about time travel, don't they? Even Felicity had it.

floretbroccoli said...

I enjoyed it, too. My biggest quibble was that they didn't find a way to include Shatner. I don't know if the reason Abrams has given, that Kirk died in the last movie, is the truth, or they just couldn't come to an agreement, but it just felt wrong to have Old Spock, but no Old Kirk. There was a moment in Nimoy's last scene, that the camerawork led me to believe that they would go to the reverse shot, and Shatner would be there, saying something like, "let's go home, old friend." Alas, no.

John M said...

From a fanboy perspective - a mess. The 'ingenious' timeline change is a cheat - as John Podhoretz points out here, one that doesn't simply violate minor canonical points, but the spirit of the original show.

Apart from that philosophical point, the movie has gaping plot holes:

- Nero’s space-going dump truck catching a warp-enabled Vulcan Ferrari

- Spock Prime – the ‘needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one’ Spock; the Spock who got himself bbq’d by radiation in STII to save the ship – THAT guy – meekly hands over a medicineball sized hunk of red matter to Nero.

A few oz of this gunk snuffed out a supernova. So where’s the logic in our boy to giving up this galactic WMD to Real Bad Guys, instead of sacrificing himself?

- Speaking of the gallons of red goo - why? when all you need is a few oz to accomplish the mission, the rest is just waste and risk. Hardly logical.

As sci action adventure, entertaining. But I know Star Trek. Star Trek was a childhood companion of mine. And that movie, sir, was no Star Trek

Scotus said...

The thing that really bothered me about the film was Kirk's accession from cadet to captain at the end, skipping all those pesky other ranks in between. Not since Elvis received a black belt after one or two karate lessons has someone made such an impressive leap.

It would have been nice if Abrams and company had just been content having Kirk save the galaxy and graduate from the academy in this film, and saved the promotion for the sequel.

Anonymous said...

I loved it!
It was fun and full of action.
Urban and Pegg were the stars for me!

One thing really bugged me: the completely and immediate embrace of Kirk's cowboy diplomacy by Spock.
Specifically at the end, they offered Nero mercy only to cover their butts politically and then actually relished the fact they get to kill him. I hated that because it goes against all the ideals that Roddenberry and Star Trek represented.

Alan Sepinwall said...

My biggest quibble was that they didn't find a way to include Shatner. I don't know if the reason Abrams has given, that Kirk died in the last movie, is the truth, or they just couldn't come to an agreement, but it just felt wrong to have Old Spock, but no Old Kirk.

I think Abrams' reason is a fair one, but one of Ebert's letter-writers made a good point: why not let Shatner, not Nimoy, narrate the "Space: the final frontier..." bit at the end? Easy way to involve Old Kirk without having to bend the space-time continuum too far.

TxGowan said...

I'm gonna have to get my geek on for a second to counter The Engineer: The knowledge wasn't necessarily lost by TNG. Both Scotty and Spock are alive in TNG in the Prime Universe. Scotty could have invented it after the events of the TNG movies or it was just never mentioned/needed in those films.

As for the film itself, I didn't hate it, but I didn't love it like I kept hearing. I, too, felt like the car theft scene was completely useless. If you think too much about the plot, you will find many starship-sized holes. It wasn't as tightly plotted as I'd have expected from a JJ Abrahms project, but overall it was enjoyable.

My favorite line of the whole movie was "Out of the chair."

BigTed said...

I enjoyed the film a lot, in the sense that it was a fun afternoon at the movies. I liked the old show but I'm not a fanboy, and I thought the way they updated it was just fine. (With one exception... I thought Chris Pine came off as a typical fratboy hero from a million other action films. He actually made me miss the hambone gravitas of Shatner.)

One thing that's interesting, though... You take the original writer-producers of "Lost," and here there take on the physics of time travel is completely different? Does this mean the Lostaways really can change the past -- or at least create an alternate timeline? That would mean that instead of exploding the bomb, they could all just hang around for a few decades and tell their younger selves not to get on the stupid plane.

BigTed said...

...their take...

Matthew said...

When the big red ball appeared, I did indeed think "that's right, this is a JJ Abrams film", but then afterwards I struggled to remember where the big red ball thing comes from. Obviously Alias had lots and lots of big red balls of various sizes, but I can't think of any other examples, even though I've long viewed the giant red balls as an Abrams thing (rather than an Alias-specific thing). So in what other Abrams work has a giant red ball featured? Any suggestions?

My biggest quibble was that they didn't find a way to include Shatner. I don't know if the reason Abrams has given, that Kirk died in the last movie, is the truth, or they just couldn't come to an agreement, but it just felt wrong to have Old Spock, but no Old Kirk. Wouldn it have been nice to have Shatner in the film? Yes. But he died, end of story. If they somehow bring Shatner back to life, clearly older than he was when he died, then it would make no sense at all, would require spending time explaining how he came back to life, and for nothing other than a token appearance because it would have been nice.

Alan Sepinwall said...

You take the original writer-producers of "Lost," and here there take on the physics of time travel is completely different?

Keep in mind that Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman have nothing to do with the writing of Lost. Lindelof is the only guy involved who does, and I'm assuming his involvement in this script was more along the lines of polishing rather than structure.

Unknown said...

I loved it, but oh the plot holes.

Many of the big ones have already been pointed out but here is the one that got me.

Nero sees his planet destroyed by a supernova, blames Spock (?!? why ?!?) , gets sucked back 100whatever years in time and then decides to wait 25 years for Spock to show up.

No. Fracking. Way.

I real Romulan would have done two things. First, go to Romulus and let them know that their sun was going to go nova in 100whatever years. Second, use his 100+ years of superior technology to become Emperor of the Romulan Empire and conquer the Federation.

Alan Sepinwall said...

So in what other Abrams work has a giant red ball featured?

Wasn't there a red ball of some kind (maybe not giant, but glow-y) in MI:III?

MattB said...

I've never been a fan of Star Trek - too cheesy, and as most of the posts in this thread prove, too hardline on "this should happen" and "no, this character would just do this instead" - I liked this movie. It was a lot of fun without all of the annoying Trek baggage.

Beyond the red balls, how much did JJ Abrams love lens flares in this movie?

Ryan said...

I actually thought it reminded me of Lost for reasons beyond just the shared plot device of time-travel (even though Star Trek's version of time travel may work under different rules than Lost's): first, the Kirk v. Spock thing was kind of a "man of science/man of faith" thing. Second, was it me, or did Michael Giacchino just straight-up recycle some of the score from Lost?

Eldritch said...

I saw the movie this weekend myself. Enjoyed it and have no doubt that I'll see all its sequels.

I missed the tribble, but enjoyed the references to the old series (not to mention learning the origin of "Bones" nickname). The casting of "baby" Spock, Kirk and the others seemed right. I liked the new and improved Uhura. I found Chekov annoying and Scotty just a bit too thrilled.

It seemed strange to see Spock so openly emotional, but it's probably a good change. The Vulcans were never described as having no emotions, just having controlled them. Baby Spock may just spend more time struggling with them. (Pity Uhura waiting seven years between Pon Far's.)

I really wish the writers/producers wouldn't be so ignorant about astronomy. Supernovas don't threaten the galaxy. You can't see other planets with your naked eye that clearly. And more. Those things are as painfully wrong as putting John Wayne in a western which casts Apaches as bureaucrats who run Tuscon's city government.

I miss that it didn't attempt to work any sort of issues into the story. Issues don't have to be ending galactic hunger or interspecies inequality.

To me, the best Trek movie was the "Wrath of Kahn," in which Kirk deals with being 20 years older, confronting the consequences of his life choices, no family, a son who hates him, being promoted to a desk job. Not to mention, having so well cheating death his entire career, that he's unprepared to deal with the death of close friend. Without those issues, "Kahn" would have been the same kind of empty actioner this new movie is.

But the original Trek is some 40 years old, two generations old. Things change. Anne Rice re-invented the vampire; Ronald D. Moore re-invented "Battlestar Galactica." "The Next Generation" was a different Trek than the original series. Perhaps this is the kind of trek the newest generation needs.

I think I'll miss the old Trek. This new Trek is its own new creature.

Tell you what though, I really wish Hollywood would stop with the remakes. I'm getting tired of reinventing old things. One of the great things about the original Trek was that it was new and different than anything that came before. I'm ready again for something new.

HMM2 said...

The original Trek universe still exists, but in an alternate/parallel reality. That's why Spock has his memories of his dimension: It wasn't destroyed. In theory, the two realities could intersect in a future film.

ED said...

On one hand, I can agree that it is a genius reboot. But I do also feel like it is a little bit of a cheat. I'm torn. I do feel like it kind of invalidates the earlier stories a little bit. I'm not sure I'll be able to watch them in the same way. But I could also be overreacting.

The thing is, I loved the movie. I was thoroughly entertained every second. I am blown away by the spot on casting. I thought Pine, Quinto and Urban had their characters nailed. I mean they were perfect.

Anonymous said...

I'm not a "trekker" per se, but more a casual fan.

Anyway, I loved this movie. Thought it touched on the history and also was a good action flick on its own.

Alan, my question to you is, why not just tell your bosses that seeing the flick is part of your job and go during work hours, submit a voucher for mileage to the theatre and for popcorn and be done with it??


The CineManiac said...

I saw it today as well. althoughn it was my 2nd time and I felt it held up nicely on a 2nd viewing.
I think the cast did an amazing job and Loved Abram's direction. My ony real problem is the lense flares, which I noticed a lot more in the 2nd viewing. But about halfway through I stopped really noticing them, even thought they were still there.

Anonymous said...

such a great movie but look at what it spawned. :P

you should see this...spock would be so ashamed.. :P

jim treacher said...

Jim Henson's Starfleet Babies!

Pine was great in Smokin' Aces. I won't spoil it, but he really outacted Ben Affleck. (Sorry to damn you with such faint praise, Chris.)

Uhura was unexpectedly good. I especially liked that her hearing was so acute, she could hear Kirk's breathing when he was hiding under the Orion chick's bed.

Not since Elvis received a black belt after one or two karate lessons has someone made such an impressive leap.Yeah, but Elvis never saved the human race with a karate chop.

Specifically at the end, they offered Nero mercy only to cover their butts politically and then actually relished the fact they get to kill him. I hated that because it goes against all the ideals that Roddenberry and Star Trek represented.Er... remember when Nero killed Kirk's dad and Spock's whole planet?

One thing Trekkies tend to gloss over: Roddenberry was boring.

Nicole said...

Even though I am a Trekkie, I fully acknowledge that Paramount had beat this franchise into the ground starting with anything after Voyager, including the TNG movies after First Contact. While this movie was not perfect, it was a great shot in the arm, and I can live with the parallel universe because if I really want to reminisce about Shatner and Nimoy, I can buy the DVDs.

I was impressed with Pine especially since I had not really heard of him, and he captured the essence of Shatner without being a complete imitation. Quinto was also a good Spock, and had a harder task with the original as a comparison.

I was a bit annoyed that Uhura was the "girlfriend", but it's more than what Nichelle Nichols ever got, and there is hope that she has an expanded role in the sequel. Since there already was a Clifford the Red Ball in this one, Uhura might as well take on some Sydney Bristow kick ass ability.

Simon Pegg was of course excellent, and I really hope he is more prominent in the next movie.
I was impressed with the space battles in this movie, because they seem to be better than what has happened in any other Trek movie.

Eric Bana was probably the only blah thing about this film and so I hope there is a better villain in the next one.

The word verification seems to encapsulate this movie as compared to the previous Trek "fastr"

Anonymous said...

Scotus, I had that same quibble, about Kirk jumping ahead so many ranks. But two things made me feel better about it: 1. In the movie, almost all of the fleet was apparently lost, first at Vulcan, then at Earth. So Kirk is ascending so quickly to the captaincy at a time when probably a lot of young cadets are ascending much quicker than they ever thought they would, too.

2). We don't actually know how much time has elapsed since the battle. Pike is well enough to be present, for one, and the ship is fully repaired and ready to go again. So there could be enough time in there to allow for Kirk to graduate from the academy, at the very least.

The part I quibble with still is that there's just no way Starfleet promotes a green cadet to captain its flagship vessel, even with those two points.

Then again, the guy saved the entire planet, so... maybe that's an OK reward. ;)

Eldritch said...

kepkanation said...
I had that same quibble, about Kirk jumping ahead so many ranks... Then again, the guy saved the entire planet, so... maybe that's an OK reward.

Pike had said Kirk could graduate in 4 years and have a ship in 8. But he did prove himself in battle and save the world, so okay, they give him a ship early.

But then most of the old familiar crew were in his graduating class. To have them on the same ship with him, they'd have to promote the whole group of them over higher ranked and more experienced officers.

A bit of a stretch.

Craig Ranapia said...

I have to agree with Anthony Lane of the New Yorker that I just want to see a regular episode of Batman, Spiderman, Star Trek without having to get the beginning back Anthony Lane could complain about wasting his valuable time on cardboard cut-out, comic book bullcrap? :) Much as I love The New Yorker, I really wonder why Lane and Co. bother reviewing films that are so obviously beneath them. It's obbviously no pleasure for them, and endless condescension is no fun to read either.

The two members of the cast I actually felt very sorry for were Ben Cross and Wynona Ryder (three lines of eye-watering banality, hag-i-licious makeup, and her presence in her last secne was nonsensical except as a set up to be killed). Did they really need to be there?

MPH said...

I am a fan who's seen most of TNG and DS9 although certainly not at the level of "trekker".

I very much enjoyed the movie on its own merits, although one interesting thing for me was that I had read 3 of the 4 "prequel" comics. I don't usually do that but I heard it was cool on the iphone so I tried it (it was).

I have to say that having that back story helped make the movie make a lot more sense to the point where I don't think I would have understood the Nero/Spock issue at all without it.

OldDarth said...

It was FUN! Loved it.

As one who grew up with the original series in its initial network run seeing these characters given a new lease on life is awesome.

Bring on the further and new voyages of this iteration!

Heather said...

Loved the movie. I loved how enjoyable the entire cast was and how exciting the action was, even though I knew none of them were in any real peril (Sequels!). I did go "Really JJ? Really? Didn't we kinda go over time travel on Lost?" when they introduced the alternate timeline aspect, but accepted it and moved on. I guess it makes sense.

Jack said...

Oh People - there is a really good reason why Shatner wasnt involved in this...BC William Shatner has too big an ego to ever hand over a character, an iconic character he became famous for playing, to a virtually unknown actor in a franchise reboot that will invalidate all the stories he is know for! Nimoy loves all things Trek and was happy to do it...Shatner is mad someone else is now going to play the same character that made him famous, and maybe play him better. The entire time travel angle that allows them to ignore the old timeline? It means that everything Shatner's Kirk did as captain can NOW BE COMPLETELY IGNORED. For someone with an ego like Shatner, this did not sit well.

Sure he bitched and moaned about not being offered something to do in this reboot, but he WAS. He just didnt like the circumstances of what he was offered. JJ, Damon, and the like are too smart to get into a war of "he said she said" with the iconic Actor knowing if they start coming off as petty they wouldve lost the opening weekend fanbase.

Boston Legal is done. Let the Priceline Negotiator series on FX being.


Eldritch said...

Jack said...
Oh People - there is a really good reason why Shatner wasnt involved in this...BC William Shatner has too big an ego to ever hand over a character, an iconic character he became famous for playing....

I hadn't planned on saying anything, but I'm glad you did.

I've disliked shatner since he dissed his fans on "Saturday Night Live" years ago. How can I respect an actor who calls his fans idiots? And stories the other cast members have told about him haven't been flattering. His co-workers don's seem to like him.

Nimoy, on the other hand, has always had a reputation of being a gentleman.

Besides, had he been in the new film, the movie makers would have had to explain how he gained so much weight after his death in an earlier movie.

MizRacy said...

Let it be known that I'm a 23 year old female and I grew up on Star Trek. I remember hanging out with my uncles and watching reruns of the original, TNG and all the movies, but I was so young that I never really "got it" fully. After having virtually no contact with the Star Trek universe for several years, I was amazed by how much I remembered from my youth. I practically stood up and cheered when Scotty appeared and was absolutely enthralled by the whole cast. I received my degree in Theatre and am typically very tough on movies for either their lack of script integrity, failed technical aspects or poor acting. BUT I LOVED THIS MOVIE!!!

I, for one, can't wait to see more from J.J. Abrams and the rest of the U.S.S. Enterprise.

bombaygirl said...

Loved the movie...saw it on imax and it was phenomenal.

I cracked up (not a desired reaction) when the three parachuters went down to the drill and the red on died. Remember on the old Star Treks when the guy in red was always the one that died? "Johnson, you go stand over there" and then he'd get killed in some way or the other.