Author Topic: Going to see Star Trek tonight (Read 5006 times)

jclements · « **on:** May 07, 2009, 04:00:12 PM »

Our Studio Movie Grill has early showings tonight starting at 7. We're on the way now!

jclements · « **Reply #1 on:** May 07, 2009, 07:44:15 PM »

Wow, I can't believe I'm saying this, but the movie was really, really entertaining. My entire family loved it! What a great way to start the summer movie season. Now for Night at the Museum 2, the new Pixar movie, and Harry Potter 6!

What other summer blockbusters are you looking forward to?

LeeAnne151 · « **Reply #2 on:** May 08, 2009, 10:27:50 AM »

Please tell me it doesn't mess with the established Star Trek time line/universe too much....

I am planning on seeing it and Sex And The City II which isn't even filming yet. I don't go to the movies much.

Bartman · « **Reply #3 on:** May 16, 2009, 12:03:28 AM »

It's a piece of shit. I don't even want to talk about it with anyone because it is so disappointing. It is a parody or, more accurately, a mockery of what has come before.

Bart

LeeAnne151 · « **Reply #4 on:** May 16, 2009, 12:49:14 PM »

Damn, I was afraid of that. Unfortunately it is hugely popular so there will likely be sequels and maybe a series.

Bartman · « **Reply #5 on:** May 16, 2009, 06:16:32 PM »

Yes, the damage they did in 2 hours was major. I have never been so disturbed by a movie and I cannot even begin to verbalize how horrid is was for me to watch. Ten minutes in and I was already squirming in my seat at what was going on. I'm in the minority though, but take comfort in the fact that Gene Roddenberry would not have approved of this movie. He always said, "Star Trek is about moving forward, not backwards" and there were no prequels when he was alive. They should have respected that.

Bart

LeeAnne151 · « **Reply #6 on:** May 17, 2009, 04:12:09 PM »

I thought I would hate ST: Enterprise and never watched it until recently but I was surprised and didn't hate it.

I just borrowed the entire first season of ST:TNG from the library, some of those early episodes were clunkers! I was disgusted that it wasn't Kirk, Spock and crew and never watched when it first aired.

Bartman · « **Reply #7 on:** May 17, 2009, 05:27:20 PM »

The new one is 90% action/adventure with things going boom every few minutes. Lots of bad acting that mocks the original cast and tons of one liners and gags that do nothing for the story, just give people something to laugh at. Nothing that suggests Star Trek is here except the names. If you changed the names and the Trek symbols you would not walk out of the theatre saying, "that was a Star Trek story." It's designed to squeeze more money from the Trek story and to do that they had to aim for the ADD movie going crowd that can't sit through 20 minutes of story/character development without getting bored. It worked so we'll get more of the same.

Enterprise, at least, did a reasonable job of keeping everything intact with the history. We get the ever popular "alternate timeline" plot to excuse what they did for this movie. I will not see it a second time and will not go to the next one. I would rather just forget it ever happened and remember Trek for what it was not what they turned it into.

Bart

LeeAnne151 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 17, 2009, 05:44:50 PM »

I'm so sorry. I hope I don't feel as you do after seeing it.....

Bartman · « **Reply #9 on:** May 17, 2009, 05:49:05 PM »

I'm in the minority so you may well like it just fine. I am looking forward to your review.

Bart

Joyce · « **Reply #10 on:** May 17, 2009, 05:49:51 PM »

All I have heard is rave reviews.

Bart is the only negative review I have heard so far.

Joyce · « **Reply #11 on:** May 17, 2009, 05:50:39 PM »

Jessica, we can't wait to see the new Night At The Museum too!

LeeAnne151 · « **Reply #12 on:** May 17, 2009, 05:52:01 PM »

I finally saw the first Night At The Museum, I really liked it. I'm not a Ben Stiller fan most of the time but I thought it was really good.

jclements · « **Reply #13 on:** May 17, 2009, 07:14:01 PM »

We recently won tickets to a Fort Worth Museum and IMAX at a school fundraiser. They'll be having Night at the Museum 2 in the museum IMAX this month. I think it will be even funner to see it in a museum!

A lot of original ST fans are upset about this movie. I went to see quite a few of them in the '80s. The main one I remember is where they enter a Klingon ship in magnetic boots and there is pink blood floating around that looks like it escaped from a lava lamp. So anyway, I can identify the main characters, but don't know much more than that. For me, it was quite entertaining.

Bartman · « **Reply #14 on:** May 17, 2009, 08:06:41 PM »

Quote from: Joyce on May 17, 2009, 05:49:51 PM

All I have heard is rave reviews.
Bart is the only negative review I have heard so far.

You're not looking hard enough. I've read a few already on different boards. I know we're in the minority and not expecting to change anyone's mind.

Bart

Joyce · « **Reply #15 on:** May 17, 2009, 08:17:27 PM »

After what I've been through Bart, I don't go looking for negativity, or choose to be negative.

I don't go through life unhappy, angry and disatisfied that things didn't go quite my way, or weren't entertaining enough.

I go through life like it's a privilege to be alive and to be healthy and happy, and live life to its fullest.

So nope, won't go looking for the few negative reviews that are out there.

Cuz I know there are always 'picklepusses' out there where NOTHING makes them happy.

Timgod · « **Reply #16 on:** May 17, 2009, 08:39:23 PM »

I've been a trekkie since I was about 5. Seen everything to death.
Still love it.
The move takes some poetic license but after all, many of the originals have passed on and the others are pretty old.
This give the franchise a chance at a continued life.
It was a rollercoaster ride. Action from start to finish but there was character development, just not in the way you thought it should necessarily have played out.
For Nimoy to be a part of it shows that there is something in the direction they were going.
It gained an entire new audience for the franchise because it is a blockbuster. That is the one thing the other movies had going against them is that they did not reach the mainstream.
Majel Barret gave the director all of Gene's material for two years to study before she passed away.
To say that it goes against what Gene believed is incorrect. She still had veto power over his intellectual property.

Go see it with an open mind and enjoy the ride.

Tim

Bartman · « **Reply #17 on:** May 17, 2009, 08:47:14 PM »

You assume an awful lot about what makes people happy or not. It's a movie. It didn't entertain me. No different than any other person who has an opinion about a movie. I didn't expect it to "go my way". I didn't write it. I don't expect to convince anyone to "unlike" it either.

My point is, there are plenty of negative reviews so, while the minority, they are out there. 50% of the posts on the Roddenberry site are negative so that is a big chunk of the overall fan base represented. It's not a popularity contest between who liked it and who didn't.

To assume all diehard Trek fans would all be jumping up and down about this movie is a little much. Even those that eat anything with the name "Star Trek" on it find this one hard to stomach. JJ said no one should think much about the movie while watching it. He's right. There is nothing there that warrants any intellectual discussion afterwards. It's just another modern day action flick.

I don't have the time or the desire to write a book about why I didn't like it and why it isn't Star Trek. Suffice to say, it does not represent Gene Roddenberry's vision and I can say that because in many interviews he has said Star Trek looks forward and not back and that is the reason there was no prequeal movies or TV shows while he was alive. I've also heard it from one of his personal friends that Gene would never support a Trek of this kind.

Bart

Bartman · « **Reply #18 on:** May 17, 2009, 08:58:40 PM »

No, it is not incorret to say that. She did not write Trek. She had the rights to it and the Roddenberry family stood to make millions from this so of course she supported it. It doesn't change the fact that Gene always said, "No Prequeals" and killed the "Starfleet Academy" movie that was to be the "reboot" of the time. Always forward was his vision and that is why Next Generation was 79 years later than TOS. Forward, not back.

Star Trek has never been an "action adventure". By all means reboot it. I have no problem with that. Don't tear down everything in the process though. It isn't neccessary to have had a good "action" Trek movie. Battlestar Galactica did a nice reboot without inflicting a ton of damage on the original.

And I disagree about the character developement unless you are referring to trying to squeeze in every line ever uttered on the original series to induce laughter. There wasn't time for characters between lens flares, things blowing up, camera shaking so bad that you can't tell what is going on and sight gags. This isn't Star Wars, but that is what they made. Even had the death star!

I did go in with an open mind. I fully expected to love it. The second the Nokia product placement showed up I knew there would be problems.

Enjoy a second and third time. Really, I don't mind.

Bart

Quote from: Timgod on May 17, 2009, 08:39:23 PM

I've been a trekkie since I was about 5. Seen everything to death.
Still love it.
The move takes some poetic license but after all, many of the originals have passed on and the others are pretty old.
This give the franchise a chance at a continued life.
It was a rollercoaster ride. Action from start to finish but there was character development, just not in the way you thought it should necessarily have played out.
For Nimoy to be a part of it shows that there is something in the direction they were going.
It gained an entire new audience for the franchise because it is a blockbuster. That is the one thing the other movies had going against them is that they did not reach the mainstream.
Majel Barret gave the director all of Gene's material for two years to study before she passed away.
To say that it goes against what Gene believed is incorrect. She still had veto power over his intellectual property.

Go see it with an open mind and enjoy the ride.

Tim

JimMcD in SVAZ · « **Reply #19 on:** May 17, 2009, 09:59:30 PM »

I don't know anything about Roddenbury's vision. Nor do I know anything about fusion, fission, or black holes. But I do know that I spent $6 and enjoyed the heck of it. I was never a Trekkie, but thoroughly enjoyed the TV series. So, I guess if you're a purist -- don't pay to see the movie. If you want to see a light-hearted, action-packed prequel to the TV series, spend your money, buy the popcorn, sit back, and have a good time.

Bartman · « **Reply #20 on:** May 17, 2009, 10:28:23 PM »

That is my point. The diehard purist fans, such as myself, do not like this movie. It isn't canon so should not be called "Star Trek". If you are looking for the popcorn action flick and don't know the difference between a phaser and a warp core have at it!

Bart

Joyce · « **Reply #21 on:** May 18, 2009, 05:00:52 AM »

Blanket statement immediately are false. 'The diehard purist fans ... do not like this movie.'
My brother is a diehard Trekkie purist and can watch every episode, knows every line, mouthing the dialogues as each character speaks.
He LOVED the movie and plans on buying it as soon as it's available.

He's already quoting lines.

Bartman · « **Reply #22 on:** May 18, 2009, 06:58:40 AM »

Joyce can you ever read something and take it for what it is?

Of course when I say "diehard purist fans such as myself do not like this movie" there are going to be exceptions. That is a given. I shouldn't need to say, "Diehard purist fans such as myself do not like this movie except for a specific percentage that satistcially will still like it." for someone to figure that out.

Geez.

Interesting on another board the number of people who love it, but are worried that the next one is going to be more of the same thing, that being, all action, but little story and little character development. They are thinking they will never see the character driven episodes now which was the corner stone of good Trek. The cracks are starting to show after the first week and what is being revealed is that Trek isn't underneath the shinny wrapper.

Bart

Jerry · « **Reply #23 on:** May 18, 2009, 07:09:19 AM »

Just saw the "Reader" with kate Winslet. A great film with an unusual topic.

No car crashes, no explosions or shootings. I had no idea how great Ms Winslet was.

If you want a film you will think about the next day, do see it

Joyce · « **Reply #24 on:** May 18, 2009, 07:13:10 AM »

Geez Bart... can you ever watch a movie and take it for what it is?

I took everything you said for what it is....NEGATIVE.

I don't like Star Trek..I found the episodes boring...too much character jabbering and not enough action...
and seemed to be made for nitwits who need everything explained SLOOOW as if to a retard, too campy for me, like Barney.

And the egos of the characters and the male chauvanism...for goodness sake...made me gag.
'Course my brother loved it.

If this movie (and any sequels) has more action and less 'campy' lipservice...YAY!

Joyce · « **Reply #25 on:** May 18, 2009, 07:16:05 AM »

Jerry, I like those kind of movies too...and long as they are intellectual, non sexist and thought provoking.

Bartman · « **Reply #26 on:** May 18, 2009, 07:24:15 AM »

Quote from: Joyce on May 18, 2009, 07:13:10 AM

Geez Bart... can you ever watch a movie and take it for what it is?

I took everything you said for what it is....NEGATIVE.

I don't like Star Trek..I found the episodes boring...too much character jabbering and not enough action...
and seemed to be made for nitwits who need everything explained SLOOOW as if to a retard, too campy for me, like Barney.
And the egos of the characters and the male chauvanism...for goodness sake...made me gag.
'Course my brother loved it.

If this movie (and any sequels) has more action and less 'campy' lipservice...YAY!

Since I am giving it a NEGATIVE review then you have read what I said correct.

Star Trek is not "blowing things up". It's not action adventure either. If you want that then watch Star Wars, 'cause Trek isn't for you. It is the the deep character arcs and commentary on the human condition that is Star Trek. This movie had none of that.

Bart

jw · « **Reply #27 on:** May 18, 2009, 08:36:51 AM »

This is all too funny to read

My DH loves the original Star Treks and must record them so he can watch them over and over

I always found them to be kind of silly and referred to them as Stir Crazy instead of Star Trek when he watched them......... but I do sometimes find myself sitting there watching out of the corner of my eye

Joyce · « **Reply #28 on:** May 18, 2009, 08:47:39 AM »

They were silly...campy...like I said in a previous post. How anyone could take them seriously is beyond me.

And even funnier...

...Star Trek not being an Action Adventure...what does the intro to each episode say?

"Space... the Final Frontier.
These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise.
Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds;
to seek out new life and new civilizations;
to boldly go where no man has gone before."

(note: no woman mentioned...more sexism)

How can you do that without action, without adventure? Not possible in reality.
You can't explore a galaxy without action and adventure.

Of course, one is titled to have a differing OPINION...even if it has no grip on reality.

Oh yeah, and they never blew things up on the old Star Treks? ....

jclements · « **Reply #29 on:** May 18, 2009, 11:13:55 AM »

It may be action adventure, but was done very well... Not like other action adventure movies. Rottentomatoes.com compiles nationwide reviews of movies and it's not often that a movie gets above 85%. Star trek has 95%!!!!