"STAR TREK" movie comments/reviews (spoilers)

Jobydrone · May 14, 2009, 11:45:09 AM

Quote from: Rico on May 14, 2009, 10:08:09 AM
Frankly, I think the movie works fine the way it is.

Yes of course it does, I totally agree. It is kind of sad though in latter day Star Trek (following Generations and excluding the Shatnerverse novels) that poor Shatner's JTK is still left rotting under a pile of rocks on Veridian III while Nimoy's Spock, Doohan's Scotty, Takei's Sulu, and Kelley's Bones all have suitable epilogues to their epic stories. It would have been really nice to have seen Shatner in this movie, even for just a short scene or voice over. And the way his scene was described by the writers could have been so perfect, and just what Shatner's Kirk needs to close out his canonical history...a way to say his final goodbye to his best friend, and by extension, all of us as well.

Feathers · May 14, 2009, 11:56:25 AM

That might have been a step too far although I guess the voice over at the end would have worked without any overriding story reason.

Bryancd · May 14, 2009, 12:03:30 PM

I hate to say it...but I didn't miss his presence at all, and I love all things Shat. I think what the writers were considering sounds ok, but I could have done without retro Spock as well, so that's where my thinking go's.
I realized watching it again last night why Nero killed the Kelvin's Capt. so fast. He had just arrived throught the black hole and had just witnessed the destruction of Romulus and he was P.O.'d!

vavu2001 · May 15, 2009, 07:42:38 AM

I don't think it's a matter of missing "The Shat" so much as it would have been a final nice touch in a movie that had quite a few of those. That it couldn't have been arranged is sad but understandable.

cosmonaut · May 15, 2009, 09:38:07 AM

I liked the way they intended to include him, with that last birthday message to original Spock.

Unrelated clip, do I have to pick _one_?

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1910892&fullscreen=1" width="640" height="360" ><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"/><param name="AllowScriptAccess" value="true"/><param name="movie" quality="best" value="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1910892&fullscreen=1"/><embed src="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1910892&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="640" height="360" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><div style="padding:5px 0; text-align:center; width:640px;">Watch My Favorite Movie (Star Trek vs. Star Wars) on CollegeHumor</div>
(Don't know why the embed code shows, sorry!)

X · May 15, 2009, 01:55:55 PM

Quote from: vavu2001 on May 15, 2009, 07:42:38 AM
I don't think it's a matter of missing "The Shat" so much as it would have been a final nice touch in a movie that had quite a few of those. That it couldn't have been arranged is sad but understandable.

yeah, but you should only get one final last touch.

Undiscovered Country was a good final last touch.

Then Generation pops up and Kirk is shoehorned into the movie only to be killed.

Spock fit into this movie and Kirk didn't. In my opinion, they should have left Kirk's fate unspoken and not bothered with bringing him back for generations.

It's also why I, who also loves all things shat, think that it's better that he wasn't in this.

cosmonaut · May 15, 2009, 02:39:12 PM

Do you know what they had in mind for a Shatner cameo? I think it would have worked.
http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/12/shatner-cameo-scene-revealed-monday-box-office-tos-stars-talk-st09-more-tidbits/

DontcallmePigboy · May 15, 2009, 03:52:27 PM

I agree with not having Shatner. It would have been a little too much and would have overshadowed the "new" crew with having too many of the "old" crew there.

I'm off to see it again in IMAX with my parents. They are fans of TOS and TNG so I'm hoping they like it.

DontcallmePigboy · May 15, 2009, 04:03:54 PM

Has anyone else listened to Confused Matthew's review yet?

Star Trek Movie Review by Confused Matthew and Stand In Stan part 1 (Spoilers)

I think he is funny sometimes and brings up good points in his other reviews, but this one I didn't agree with. :mad2:

This was, pretty much, the review that trashed the movie the most. :thumbsdown :smilie_bleh:

X · May 15, 2009, 04:29:27 PM

here is an odd question: James Cawley said he was going to be in the movie. Did anyone see him?

Bryancd · May 15, 2009, 05:12:28 PM

Quote from: Just X on May 15, 2009, 04:29:27 PM
here is an odd question: James Cawley said he was going to be in the movie. Did anyone see him?

Wow, that's right. Lot's of crowd and cadet scenes as well as plenty of background Enterprise crew. JJ moves the camera around so fast it's hard to discern anyone in the background...that and the lense flare. :)

psikeyhackr · May 15, 2009, 07:43:26 PM

OK, this was a Wrath of Khan type film but wasn't as good as Wrath of Khan. I like #4 with the whales better than WoK.

I admit I went in expecting not to like it based on the trailers but actually it was kind of fun in a no brainer kind of way.

A real Wrath of the Menagerie with two Spocks from different times and a Capt. Pike.

I am a SCIENCE Fiction fan not a Star Trek fan and I am inclined toward HARD SF. So this RED MATTER business is somewhat annoying.

Think about it: Ambassador Spock dropped this RED MATTER into a star to destroy it. He did not have to drill a hole into the star. So why do the Romulans have to drill a hole into the core of a measly planet to destroy it with Red Matter? They aren't even consistent with their pseudo-science. :old_bash:

It was still better than the last 3 Star Wars movies. Or was it the first 3? These time dilation prequels have me all confused. :orc

psik

X · May 15, 2009, 07:53:36 PM

Quote from: psikeyhackr on May 15, 2009, 07:43:26 PM
OK, this was a Wrath of Khan type film but wasn't as good as Wrath of Khan. I like #4 with the whales better than WoK.

I admit I went in expecting not to like it based on the trailers but actually it was kind of fun in a no brainer kind of way.

A real Wrath of the Menagerie with two Spocks from different times and a Capt. Pike.

I am a SCIENCE Fiction fan not a Star Trek fan and I am inclined toward HARD SF. So this RED MATTER business is somewhat annoying.

Think about it: Ambassador Spock dropped this RED MATTER into a star to destroy it. He did not have to drill a hole into the star. So why do the Romulans have to drill a hole into the core of a measly planet to destroy it with Red Matter? They aren't even consistent with their pseudo-science. :old_bash:

It was still better than the last 3 Star Wars movies. Or was it the first 3? These time dilation prequels have me all confused. :orc

psik

Maybe you just missed something because it made perfect sense to me. It creates a brief black hole. Drop it on the surface and you do a lot of damage, but drop it in the middle and the planet collapses in on itself. Also, Ambassador Spock didn't destroy a star. He destroyed a supernova which is a big explosion. The black hole is negative force to the big explosion and thus causes it to stop it's expansion.

I think your going in expecting not to like it might have caused you to miss a few things. If the Red matter is heat activated, that could be another reason why planetary cores and exploding stars allow it to work. The same goes for exploding ships. If the amount of heat is in direct relation to the strength of the negative force it would also explain how there are varied reactions based on the environment where the red matter was released.

Scott · May 15, 2009, 09:16:34 PM

I just saw the movie. Was it a good movie? You bet your ass! Was it Star Trek? Not so much. I didn't get that magic that comes with Star Trek from it. I also got annoyed by the product placement of the Nokia phone and the Budweisers (and the reference to a shot of "Jack"). It didn't seem to fit in with Star Trek. Sure it's logical (sorry, had to) to assume the brands could last that long in the future, but come on. Also, in TNG most of us Trekkers were under the impression that the Federation made contact with Cardassia shortly before TNG happened. Why was Uhura ordering a Cardassian drink?

Quote from: psikeyhackr on May 15, 2009, 07:43:26 PM
Think about it: Ambassador Spock dropped this RED MATTER into a star to destroy it. He did not have to drill a hole into the star. So why do the Romulans have to drill a hole into the core of a measly planet to destroy it with Red Matter? They aren't even consistent with their pseudo-science. :old_bash:

I was under the impression that Red Matter needs to ignite to create the black hole. That's why they need to drill into the planet so it ignites from the heat of the planet core. I thought Red Matter was a plot device and pretty stupid as well.

wraith1701 · May 16, 2009, 03:52:32 AM

Quote from: Scott on May 15, 2009, 09:16:34 PM
I just saw the movie. Was it a good movie? You bet your ass! Was it Star Trek? Not so much. I didn't get that magic that comes with Star Trek from it. I also got annoyed by the product placement of the Nokia phone and the Budweisers (and the reference to a shot of "Jack"). It didn't seem to fit in with Star Trek. Sure it's logical (sorry, had to) to assume the brands could last that long in the future, but come on. Also, in TNG most of us Trekkers were under the impression that the Federation made contact with Cardassia shortly before TNG happened. Why was Uhura ordering a Cardassian drink?

I'm guessing that after the destruction of the Kelvin by an unknown, super-advanced ship, the Federation took a much more active role in finding out about its neighbors. So, in this universe, the Federation discovered the Cardassians a lot sooner than they did in the "Trek-Prime" universe.