Star Trek SPOILER thread.

[Jammrock]

One of the things I like a bout vacation is that the local theaters at my in-laws have $5 movies during weekdays and matinées. Basically letting my wife and I see a movie for half price, so we tend to catch up on movies while on vacation.

Movie #1 was Star Trek, and I must say I liked it a lot. I am by no means a Star Trek purist, but I am a fan of the show. And actually more of a TGN fan than TOS.

Anywho, the only thing that really annoyed me was the shaky cam. Whoever thought shaky cam was a bright idea needs to be shot, and all action movie cinematographers and directors who employ it in the future should be taken into a backlot and beaten. I am so over shaky cam it can ruin an otherwise good movie for me.

Storywise I thought the beginning was a bit choppy, but they did squeeze a lot into a couple of hours so I can forgive that. I actually enjoyed the "less than perfect" enterprise with the giant water cooling system and pipes running everywhere. It gave the movie more a speculative fiction feel than space opera, which in my opinion works better for a series like Star Trek. The cast and acting I thought was very good overall. The Spock and Kirk picks were spot on, but I liked the new Scotty best

Overall I'd give it 3.5 stars out of 5. -1 star for shaky cam, -0.25 stars for choppy story telling and -0.25 stars for being a wee bit too over the top and cheesy at parts.

[KRSESQ]

Relax it's all geek fun.

Kevin

[Lizzard[MPE]]

god this thread is thoroughly depressing.get a grip, its just a movie!

[cjolley]

Using cardboard warp engines!

[KRSESQ]

I am waiting for the "Back in the original series the Enterprise had to fly uphill through cosmic storms to reach it's destination". Both ways.

Backwards!

Kevin

[IM_Riktar]

Of course, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was a bit spotty also. So maybe the next film will be better.

Kevin

Damn! I read through all the posts to make sure I could make the very point you made.

I felt the same way about the first ST motion picture. Not enough plot, too many effects. Then along came "The Wrath of Kahn" and I was hooked all over again.

Frankly I don't see how else they could have re-introduced the franchise without doing some time paradox stuff in the script. Just think how many fans can relax and just enjoy the script potential without having to concern themselves with ST "historical" facts.

What is going to be just as fun as watching the forthcoming movies is listening to the "old" fans telling the "new" fans how much tougher it was in the original timeline.

I am waiting for the "Back in the original series the Enterprise had to fly uphill through cosmic storms to reach it's destination". Both ways.

[KRSESQ]

Don't get me wrong. It wasn't a bad movie. I just thought something important was missing. It seemed to lack the spirit of the original, call it joie de vivre or optimism or internal consistancy or what have you. Some of the characterizations didn't quite ring true (Uhura abandoning her station to play snuggle-bunnies with Spock on the transport pad just before a crucial mission? Come on!). But the most jarring thing was the blatent product placement. Uhura rattling off a string of name-brand alcoholic beverages in the bar was silly enough (though marginally acceptable). But does anyone actually believe Nokia is going to be building communicators 300 years from now? Let alone using that same goofy ringtone?

Of course, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was a bit spotty also. So maybe the next film will be better.

Kevin

[Umfriend]

haven't seen it yet and from what I read here, I'll wait till its get broadcast on the tele.

I recognize that sci-fi (and fantasy for that matter) is prone to plot holes. It is (should say "maybe" as I have not seen it yet) a matter of ambition. If the ambition is to make it as plot-hole-less as possible, to stay true to what Trek was then it may not be that good. If the ambition is to make shitloads of money, well, then you should name chocolate pasta star trek given how well it sells. My take is the ambition of most movie-productions nowadays is more in line with the latter.

But he, I thought Matrices II & III where shit too.

[KRSESQ]

You are absolutely correct. It's less a problem of the SF in question and more a problem of the mass entertainment industry. Harlan Ellison may be a whiney egotistical blowhard, but he was spot-on when he characterized 99 percent of television as crap, and 99 percent of what passes for scifi on television as crap (though often very entertaining crap). Television production (and film production too) is a meat grinder. Everything gets dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. The same writers may write for half a dozen different shows, so a set number of plot devices end up getting repeated ad nauseum. Star Trek was never immune, of course, despite Roddenberry's best intentions.

So it's natural for hard-core junkies to get a little starved for the good stuff, and disappointing when something much-hyped fails to deliver for any reason. I guess the best any of us can do is just sit back and enjoy what we can.

Kevin

[Kruzin]

That's true. It's also something Roddenberry battled against in every episode when he was producer. He NEVER accepted the excuse "so what? It's just science fiction." Plot holes signify sloppy, lazy writing, regardless of genre. As I said before, Star Trek deserves better.

Kevin

If you look for them , every sci-fi series ever written had plot holes.
All the Star Treks have em. All the Star Wars have em. All the Star Gates have em. The Matrix series had em. The Harry Potters had em. The Road Warriors had em in handfulls. What didn't? Even X-files had em if you looked hard enough. Stop looking for holes, and have some fun.

Gotta look past the plot holes and just enjoy the flics...

[KRSESQ]

Went and saw it again Friday night.

Still loved it.

I'm something of a 'purist', but if you wanna look for holes in the plot, there are plenty in every episode of every incarnation. Hell, it's FICTION.

That's true. It's also something Roddenberry battled against in every episode when he was producer. He NEVER accepted the excuse "so what? It's just science fiction." Plot holes signify sloppy, lazy writing, regardless of genre. As I said before, Star Trek deserves better.

Kevin

[lowlifecat]

be thankful it isn't like the last 2 or 3 seasons of Andromeda. THOSE are plot holes, everything else seems like plot pinholes in comparison.

[Kruzin]

Went and saw it again Friday night.

Still loved it.

I'm something of a 'purist', but if you wanna look for holes in the plot, there are plenty in every episode of every incarnation. Hell, it's FICTION. Even TOS has plot holes from week to week. TNG, DS9, Vgr, and enterprise was full of em (not to mention every movie ever made).

Ignore the plot holes, and enjoy it for what it is...a damn good movie

[KRSESQ]

Actually I desperately WANTED to like it despite my misgivings. When you think about it, there's really no direction Star Trek can go anymore except back to the beginning. But yes, I definitely am a purist.

I just think that Trek deserves a bit more dignity than the last few films (this one included) have allowed it. This one was full of plot holes you could fly a starship through (way too many to explain away with "alternate timeline" BS). The writers seemed to think "let's just cram as much non-stop, don't-let-them-catch-their-breath action onto the screen as we can fit into 127 minutes. No one will notice." Well, I noticed.

Kevin

[Fat Tone]

...The set design left a lot to be desired...Kevin

I have to admit that I wondered why on earth they had desklamps on the helm!


Were you in a bad mood when you saw it? Are you an ultra-purist and 'defender of the faith' when it comes to Star Trek?