Gerben42 Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Anyone seen the new Star Trek movie already? If so, is it as bad as this video suggests? http://franksworld.com/blog/archive/2009/05/05/11477.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 My wife just informed me this morning that we will be seeing this soon. I love the Onion's review. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I'm going to see it on Saturday afternoon The reviews that I have seen suggest that 1. It's very good2. It has enough departures from the cannon that fanatics will hate it I'm hoping that this will be a good summer for blockbusters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I've already purchased my tickets for the first Lima, Ohio, showing and expect it to be good. The one thing I don't get is how on earth I keep reading that purists will/might have a problem with it. I cannot imagine how. I mean, first of all, purists seems to accept an entire species turning from basically southern European into wildly-ridged mammoth-headed aliens in a generation. More importantly, however, the "alternative reality" concept is prolific in Star Trek story lines. If you had the Federation become evil and the Romulans the new heroes, that would be fine. If you had Spock become a metrosexual with extreme emotional breakdowns and no touch with logic at all, that would work, seeing as you could easily explain it as a serious reaction to what his Father had, that this was genetic, and that Spock's human side made it worse. I mean, what can't you do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 "More importantly, however, the "alternative reality" concept is prolific in Star Trek story lines. If you had the Federation become evil and the Romulans the new heroes, that would be fine. If you had Spock become a metrosexual with extreme emotional breakdowns and no touch with logic at all, that would work, seeing as you could easily explain it as a serious reaction to what his Father had, that this was genetic, and that Spock's human side made it worse. I mean, what can't you do? " Can someone translate this please? I take it Star Trek is a movie or something about something called a metrosexual who has an emotional breakdown? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 "More importantly, however, the "alternative reality" concept is prolific in Star Trek story lines. If you had the Federation become evil and the Romulans the new heroes, that would be fine. If you had Spock become a metrosexual with extreme emotional breakdowns and no touch with logic at all, that would work, seeing as you could easily explain it as a serious reaction to what his Father had, that this was genetic, and that Spock's human side made it worse. I mean, what can't you do? " Can someone translate this please? I take it Star Trek is a movie or something about something called a metrosexual who has an emotional breakdown? The translation is just that the Star Trek TV series (and movies) have a lot of inconsistencies if examined closely. Certain aliens changed appearance substantially (mostly due to larger budgets and better special effects). Certain things about the time line don't exactly work out. Obviously, the above statement is true of a lot of TV series (try working out the ages of the characters in Friday Night Lights). However, Star Trek has legions of fans who are very particular about the "history" of the show and get very upset if the new movie seems inconsistent with the story-line on the various TV series (or prior movies). This is despite the fact that the existing story-line is not all that self-consistent. It's been suggested that while the new film is very good on its own merits, it will lead to a fair number of these complaints from the die-hard fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 star trek does lend itself to consistent time lines imo... the tv shows did that fairly well, given the difference in video technology when the original was made... the movies have no excuse not to follow the "history" more closely... yeah, i guess i'm a purist in that sense... i'll watch this one and probably enjoy it, but will also notice the discrepancies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 star trek does lend itself to consistent time lines imo... the tv shows did that fairly well, given the difference in video technology when the original was made... the movies have no excuse not to follow the "history" more closely... yeah, i guess i'm a purist in that sense... i'll watch this one and probably enjoy it, but will also notice the discrepancies Talking about confusing wow ok. I saw Wolverine the other day and at the very end of the movie which by the way was bad, the Captain from Star Trek showed up. Not sure if the timelines are mixed up or what. Anyway I just hope there is no alien bashing since it seems Adam says there are aliens in the movie. "The translation is just that the Star Trek TV series (and movies) have a lot of inconsistencies if examined closely. Certain aliens changed appearance substantially" Someone told me that there are alot of first contact rules with aliens but they are very confusing. In general there was something called the Prime Directive?They were not suppose to mess around with alien cultures but did all the time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 The movie has 117 positive and only 8 negative reviews on rotten-tomatoes. That is a very high 94%. It also has an average rating of 8/10 from the critics which is also very, very high. (To put in perspective Monsters vs. Aliens had 72% but only 6.4/10 and State of Play had 85%, but most people thought it was only ok, so it only had 6.9/10 - really badly reviewed movies like Wolverine were only 36% and 5.1/10). Also, about continuity, there is the fact that (spoilers from review ahead): the movie is consistent with the star trek canon, while changing from it, by explaining that the main villain is messing with the time line. Which means they can go in a new direction by it being an alternate time line without it actually breaking with the traditional canon I'm off to see it in IMAX tomorrow afternoon and am looking forward to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 I saw Wolverine last week. It was okay as "mindless entertainment", but not what I'd call a good movie. I'm hoping Star Trek will be better. And yes, I'm looking forward to it. The Prime Directive was (is, will be?) intended to prevent a relatively advanced civilization (the Federation) from screwing up the development of less advanced civilizations. Didn't stop Kirk (and others) from interfering though. Of course, sometimes he had an excuse, as when the Klingons went in and supported one side of a conflict with advanced technology. The change in appearance of Klingons (in particular) over the years was due primarily to a change in the available costuming technology. Robert Heinlein wrote Starship Troopers in 1952. It was a controversial, but very interesting (to me, anyway, and to a lot of other science fiction fans) book. When Paul Verhoeven directed the 1997 movie version of the story, he completely mangled Heinlein's ideas. It did, however, receive at least one Academy Award nomination (for Visual Effects), and several lesser awards or nominations. When I first saw it, I went in expecting to see a movie adaptation of Heinlein's book. What I saw was an action film which really had nothing in common with Heinlein's ideas. I hated it. So did a lot of other people. Ginny Heinlein, the author's widow, reputedly said, after seeing it, that "it sucks". I dunno. I wasn't there. She was an outspoken woman, I understand, but that particular term doesn't seem to me like one she would have used, from what little I know of her. But anyway, the point is that SF, particularly in movies, often sacrifices quality story for action and special effects. A shame really, but there it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Robert Heinlein wrote Starship Troopers in 1952. It was a controversial, but very interesting (to me, anyway, and to a lot of other science fiction fans) book. When Paul Verhoeven directed the 1997 movie version of the story, he completely mangled Heinlein's ideas. It did, however, receive at least one Academy Award nomination (for Visual Effects), and several lesser awards or nominations. When I first saw it, I went in expecting to see a movie adaptation of Heinlein's book. What I saw was an action film which really had nothing in common with Heinlein's ideas. I hated it. So did a lot of other people. Ginny Heinlein, the author's widow, reputedly said, after seeing it, that "it sucks". I dunno. I wasn't there. She was an outspoken woman, I understand, but that particular term doesn't seem to me like one she would have used, from what little I know of her. But anyway, the point is that SF, particularly in movies, often sacrifices quality story for action and special effects. A shame really, but there it is. I know others who felt that way too. But as someone who wasn't expecting a straight adaptation of Heinlein's book (I didn't read the book until later), I really loved the movie Starship Troopers. It is a great campy B-movie (I loved the little "do you want to know more?" clips). I don't think Star Trek will be the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted May 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 But anyway, the point is that SF, particularly in movies, often sacrifices quality story for action and special effects. A shame really, but there it is. I'm just thinking"War of the Worlds" (H.G.Wells meets Tom Cruise - sigh)etc. "The Time Machine" (also H.G. Wells) was a surprising exception to the rule. I'm still hoping for Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy on the big screen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Saw it last night. Very much enjoyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Saw it last night. Very much enjoyed. there weren't too many klingon heads and romulan/vulcan ears causing distractions? my favorites are the orion women :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 The division of my company that I'm in is taking us to see it next Friday. I don't usually go out to movies (I don't think I've been in a theatre in at least 3 years, I generally wait for things to show up on cable, record them, and occasionally get around to watching them), but I'll do this for the group experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 I'm off to see it in IMAX tomorrow afternoon and am looking forward to it.How was the IMAX production? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 I'm off to see it in IMAX tomorrow afternoon and am looking forward to it.How was the IMAX production? Quite good; however, very, very, very loud. I thought the movie was quite good, but maybe not quite as good as it had been reviewed. I look forward to the sequels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 I saw the new movie last night. For the most part, I really like it. In particular, I thought that the casting was great. The producers did a really good job finding actors who could capture the essence of the original stars. My major complaint had to do with the a relatively minor part of the film. I thought that the Kobayashi Maru simulation was very sloppy. I expected something much more subtle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Tell them to use Matlab for their monte carlo simulations in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Tell them to use Matlab for their monte carlo simulations in the future. I wasn't annoyed by the math or the science...I learned long long ago, not to complain about the math or the science in Star Trek. What I found annoying was Kirk's lack of subtlety... I expected more from him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Tell them to use Matlab for their monte carlo simulations in the future. I wasn't annoyed by the math or the science...I learned long long ago, not to complain about the math or the science in Star Trek. What I found annoying was Kirk's lack of subtlety... I expected more from him. I agree somewhat. I mean, I can appreciate that Kirk would have some sort of cocky humor to his delivery of the stunt. However, I also thought it should have a tad more subtlety. Not terrible, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Robert Heinlein wrote Starship Troopers in 1952. It was a controversial, but very interesting (to me, anyway, and to a lot of other science fiction fans) book.It's a sermon with a plot attached. You probably have a different look on it than I, as a former career Navy man. Certainly, Harry Harrison had a different look on it than most. I'm not saying it's a bad book, here - it's just if you try to read it just as a story, you're going to be screaming at it, unless he's preaching to the choir.When Paul Verhoeven directed the 1997 movie version of the story, he completely mangled Heinlein's ideas. ... I hated it. So did a lot of other people. Ginny Heinlein, the author's widow, reputedly said, after seeing it, that "it sucks". I dunno. I wasn't there. She was an outspoken woman, I understand, but that particular term doesn't seem to me like one she would have used, from what little I know of her.The best comment I have seen about the movie is "based on the back cover of a book by Heinlein." I'm told, however, if you don't actually know the book, it's a pretty good action movie. Unfortunately, I know the book, and I read it again every couple of years to see if I still disagree with it as violently as I used to.But anyway, the point is that SF, particularly in movies, often sacrifices quality story for action and special effects. A shame really, but there it is.You should read this guy's articles - among other things, he has an article that talks specifically about "why do SF movie adaptations suck?" - and a lot of his argument is that by and large, all book adaptations "suck" the same way, there's not much you can do about it because of the translation, it's just that SFnals are almost 100% "read the book, and care", which makes us different from everybody else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 "Sermon" is a bit strong, I think. Certainly it's an opinion, and a strong reaction to things that were going on at the time. I agree the movie isn't a bad action flick, if you can get past the fact that Verhoeven used the book basically to promote his own view of "militarism", colored I think at least in part by his experiences as a child under the Nazis. I'll take a look at those articles when I get the time. Saw Star Trek today. Good movie. I enjoyed it. Well, except for the bit about the midshipman at the Academy going from a Board of Review that looks likely to get him kicked out for cheating to Captain (jumping at least half a dozen ranks) of the Fleet Flagship in one adventure. I'd call that baloney, but other than that, pretty good fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonottawa Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 I saw it on Friday. First 3/4 or so was great. The last 1/4 was awful. Still, worth seeing. Another good flick that just came out on DVD is Taken. Saw it tonight and enjoyed it as much as Star Trek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.