Star Trek (2009)

[ReRushed]

Star Trek is an excellent movie! It works on almost every level, but what impressed me most was the comedy, not only is it a fun movie, it's a funny movie. I've read some bad reviews and I just don't understand them because the movie works as entertainment and when you peel it away you find the themes of friendship, family, loyalty and destiny that work on a much deeper level. It's action packed and the casting was as close to perfect as you can hope. I'm definitely seeing in the theater for a second time.

[Disco]

The Onion Report

 

You may enjoy this report on the movie from The Onion.

 

Love to all

 

Disco

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (Disco @ May 11 2009, 01:56 PM)

The Onion Report You may enjoy this report on the movie from The Onion. Love to all Disco

Dude, read the other thread!

 

http://www.therushforum.com/index.php?showtopic=48073

[rushgoober]

Very cool interview with Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine (Spock & Kirk) from the new Star Trek on an interview in New Zealand:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BS-60fGjHc (Part 1)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5AbzhGS0HY&feature=related (Part 2)

[naturalsciences101]

"You don't know what you're doing, Spock. You're out of your Vulcan mind."

 

 

That's an instant classic. No doubt.

 

 

 

 

 

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (naturalsciences101 @ May 11 2009, 08:16 PM)

"You don't know what you're doing, Spock. You're out of your Vulcan mind." That's an instant classic. No doubt.

you think THAT line will become classic? what, like people will start using it the way they do live long and prosper or something? jeez, i wouldn't even have remembered that line if you hadn't pointed it out.

 

are you out of your Vulcan mind?

[CygXanTor]

QUOTE (naturalsciences101 @ May 11 2009, 10:16 PM)

"You don't know what you're doing, Spock. You're out of your Vulcan mind." That's an instant classic. No doubt.

That line is already a classic from TOS, along with McCoy's famous "I'm a doctor, not a ...(fill in the blank)..." routine.

[goose]

QUOTE (CygXanTor @ May 12 2009, 10:01 AM)

QUOTE (naturalsciences101 @ May 11 2009, 10:16 PM) "You don't know what you're doing, Spock.  You're out of your Vulcan mind." That's an instant classic.  No doubt. That line is already a classic from TOS, along with McCoy's famous "I'm a doctor, not a ...(fill in the blank)..." routine. From 1966!   From mcCoy, I always liked... "I'm trying to thank you, you pointed-eared hobgoblin! "

[CygXanTor]

QUOTE (goose @ May 12 2009, 01:32 PM)

QUOTE (CygXanTor @ May 12 2009, 10:01 AM) QUOTE (naturalsciences101 @ May 11 2009, 10:16 PM) "You don't know what you're doing, Spock.  You're out of your Vulcan mind." That's an instant classic.  No doubt. That line is already a classic from TOS, along with McCoy's famous "I'm a doctor, not a ...(fill in the blank)..." routine. From 1966!   From mcCoy, I always liked... "I'm trying to thank you, you pointed-eared hobgoblin! "

Edited May 12, 2009 by CygXanTor

[CygXanTor]

Actually, I believe the quote from TOS was (McCoy) "Are you out of your Vulcan mind?" ....Ep. 14 "The Galileo 7" first aired on NBC on Jan. 5, 1967.

"The following program is brought to you in Living Color on NBC..." (that was SUCH a big deal back then! Ooooooh, Color TV....LOL)

Edited May 12, 2009 by CygXanTor

[The Owl]

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892

 

 

 

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (The Owl @ May 13 2009, 06:59 PM)

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892

 

Yeah, like Star Wars is sooo original!

 

See:

 

The works of Joseph Campbell

The Hidden Fortress

Star Trek

[SiriusRushFan]

Just got back from seeing it in IMAX! Good stuff there folks! The only thing that kinda burnt me out a bit was Spock and Uhura, WTF was that!?!? LOL

 

I mean damn, in TOS Nurse Chapel was always secretly hot for Spock and I think he 'sorta' liked her too but we never heard anything about him and Uhura way back then so, I guess they tried to sneak that one in on us. I didn't like the mini romance myself. The movie itself , the Spock n Uhura combo, uh

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (SiriusRushFan @ May 13 2009, 10:10 PM)

Just got back from seeing it in IMAX! Good stuff there folks! The only thing that kinda burnt me out a bit was Spock and Uhura, WTF was that!?!? LOL I mean damn, in TOS Nurse Chapel was always secretly hot for Spock and I think he 'sorta' liked her too but we never heard anything about him and Uhura way back then so, I guess they tried to sneak that one in on us. I didn't like the mini romance myself. The movie itself , the Spock n Uhura combo, uh

I like the Spock/Uhura hook-up! I enjoyed seeing how the timeline got screwed up!

[CygXanTor]

Damn, I wish you guys hadn't done that! Star Trek and Star Wars are two sides of the same coin. Star Wars is a fantasy/adventure story that uses elements of sci-fi, Star Trek is a sci-fi series that uses elements of fantasy/adventure...That's how I explain the difference to those who still don't get it...Live long and prosper... May The Force be with you... Edited May 14, 2009 by CygXanTor

[Jack Aubrey]

QUOTE (ReRushed @ May 13 2009, 06:12 PM)

QUOTE (The Owl @ May 13 2009, 06:59 PM) http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892   Yeah, like Star Wars is sooo original!   See:   The works of Joseph Campbell The Hidden Fortress Star Trek 'Star Wars' did indeed build upon concepts presented in all of those works (except I'd maintain that 'Star Trek' showed Lucas how not to do it, but I digress) but what it did was take those concepts and present them in an original way.

[Alex]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ May 14 2009, 07:01 PM)

QUOTE (ReRushed @ May 13 2009, 06:12 PM) QUOTE (The Owl @ May 13 2009, 06:59 PM) http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892   Yeah, like Star Wars is sooo original!   See:   The works of Joseph Campbell The Hidden Fortress Star Trek 'Star Wars' did indeed build upon concepts presented in all of those works (except I'd maintain that 'Star Trek' showed Lucas how not to do it, but I digress) but what it did was take those concepts and present them in an original way. Star Wars rules.

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ May 14 2009, 08:01 PM)

QUOTE (ReRushed @ May 13 2009, 06:12 PM) QUOTE (The Owl @ May 13 2009, 06:59 PM) http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892   Yeah, like Star Wars is sooo original!   See:   The works of Joseph Campbell The Hidden Fortress Star Trek 'Star Wars' did indeed build upon concepts presented in all of those works (except I'd maintain that 'Star Trek' showed Lucas how not to do it, but I digress) but what it did was take those concepts and present them in an original way. Star Wars is as entertaining as a movie can be, but do you really think it's done in an original way? It's an exciting and entertaining movie, but original?   Personally, I like Star Trek better, but I fully admit and acknowledge that the new film used Star Wars as a template. Action and characters over plot and story.

[vital signz]

Spoilers below:

 

 

 

Well, I am happy to see the numerous positive reviews here. I for one saw it and was a bit disappointed in the story line. I loved the CGI, loved the casting I must say. All except Chekov---they made him into this supergenius 17 year old when on TOS he was a mere navigator. I think he overacted his accent, and his lines should have gone to Spock or Scotty.

 

The whole thing with Leonard Nimoy smacked a bit too close to Lost and Fringe for me...I mean what in the hell are JJ Abrams and Damon Lindelof doing? Are they so obsessed with time travel and the space-time continuum that every thing they touch as of late must go that way?

 

I believe if they had left out Nimoy, and kept it solid with respect to a grand early adventure in one time period it would have been just fine, and I think they also should have made Kirk's character a bit more admirable. He was a drunken womanizer with good instincts according to this storyline, instead of the exemplary cadet that outshined the rest of them all in TOS.

 

All in all for me a 6 out of 10 for storyline, I could give it a 6.5 of 10 overall helped out by the wonderful effects and the nostalgia factor.

 

Nice job with the casting, man could they have used a better script IMHO!

 

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (vital signz @ May 17 2009, 08:51 AM)

Spoilers below: Well, I am happy to see the numerous positive reviews here. I for one saw it and was a bit disappointed in the story line. I loved the CGI, loved the casting I must say. All except Chekov---they made him into this supergenius 17 year old when on TOS he was a mere navigator. I think he overacted his accent, and his lines should have gone to Spock or Scotty. The whole thing with Leonard Nimoy smacked a bit too close to Lost and Fringe for me...I mean what in the hell are JJ Abrams and Damon Lindelof doing? Are they so obsessed with time travel and the space-time continuum that every thing they touch as of late must go that way? I believe if they had left out Nimoy, and kept it solid with respect to a grand early adventure in one time period it would have been just fine, and I think they also should have made Kirk's character a bit more admirable. He was a drunken womanizer with good instincts according to this storyline, instead of the exemplary cadet that outshined the rest of them all in TOS. All in all for me a 6 out of 10 for storyline, I could give it a 6.5 of 10 overall helped out by the wonderful effects and the nostalgia factor. Nice job with the casting, man could they have used a better script IMHO!

You have to have to remember, the movie started shooting when the writer's strike happened. They couldn't do any re-writes during the filming, at all. So, the script had to go as is.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (vital signz @ May 17 2009, 05:51 AM)

and I think they also should have made Kirk's character a bit more admirable. He was a drunken womanizer with good instincts according to this storyline, instead of the exemplary cadet that outshined the rest of them all in TOS.

Keep in mind that in the alternate reality of this story, Kirk grew up without a father, which made him more rebellious and angry and damaged and lost, so his character was bound to be a bit more extreme and unstable. I think the whole point was that he WAS less stable and more unhinged, but his natural abilities were still there, and they came out when they were needed.

[Mandalorian Hunter]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 17 2009, 01:57 PM)

QUOTE (vital signz @ May 17 2009, 05:51 AM) and I think they also should have made Kirk's character a bit more admirable.  He was a drunken womanizer with good instincts according to this storyline, instead of the exemplary cadet that outshined the rest of them all in TOS. Keep in mind that in the alternate reality of this story, Kirk grew up without a father, which made him more rebellious and angry and damaged and lost, so his character was bound to be a bit more extreme and unstable. I think the whole point was that he WAS less stable and more unhinged, but his natural abilities were still there, and they came out when they were needed. Exactly.   People are forgetting that this crew in this film will probably not go on to have the same adventures as the original TOS storyline crew, and thus the natures of the TOS crew and those of this will not be the same.

[naturalsciences101]

QUOTE (naturalsciences101 @ May 10 2009, 09:03 PM)

I think they did a very solid job on all fronts. Just one grievance, and it applies to the Star Wars movies as well. I think it's a bad idea to employ film actors who are very much associated with other realms of film. With a Sci-Fi movie, you are trying to establish and maintain a 'believable' alternate universe. You are meant to lose yourself in this universe for a two hour clip. But, when you bring in an actor that is very much tied to another genre, like Comedy or Horror, it totally kills the illusion that the film-maker is trying to establish. From my perspective, this kind of move will completely remove me from this other-world illusion and will quickly re-ground me in our mundane reality. For instance, when Samuel L. Jackson was used in Star Wars. This actor has been so ridiculously rooted in these Shoot-Em-Up Gangster roles, that when you take him out of that universe and place him in a Sci-Fi Epic, as in the role of a Jedi, it totally destroys the illusion that the film-maker is trying to establish. In this new Star Trek, it was the use of 'Harold' from Harold & Kumar in the role of Zulu that killed it for me. As soon as I saw him I began to laugh. And, I shouldn't be laughing because it's not a comedy. But, their choice of actor is what destroyed the illusion. In contrast to this, the guy from Heroes in the role of Spock wasn't a distraction in the least. He basically plays the same stoic character on that show as he did in the Star Trek film. So, the viewer isn't uprooted from this other-world. But, on a whole, I'd rather see a whole cast of unknowns, or barely-knows in a film like this. I think it makes sense.

I think what I mentioned above here is worth dredging up once more...Just to see if there are any others here who's viewing experience is also greatly effected by casting choices....Does the film company's choice of an actor significantly effect how deeply you disappear into a movie's storyline. Can a bad choice totally destroy the film-maker's illusion for you?

 

 

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (naturalsciences101 @ May 17 2009, 05:48 PM)

QUOTE (naturalsciences101 @ May 10 2009, 09:03 PM) I think they did a very solid job on all fronts.  Just one grievance, and it applies to the Star Wars movies as well.  I think it's a bad idea to employ film actors who are very much associated with other realms of film.  With a Sci-Fi movie, you are trying to establish and maintain a 'believable' alternate universe.  You are meant to lose yourself in this universe for a two hour clip.  But, when you bring in an actor that is very much tied to another genre, like Comedy or Horror, it totally kills the illusion that the film-maker is trying to establish.  From my perspective, this kind of move will completely remove me from this other-world illusion and will quickly re-ground me in our mundane reality.  For instance, when Samuel L. Jackson was used in Star Wars.  This actor has been so ridiculously rooted in these Shoot-Em-Up Gangster roles, that when you take him out of that universe and place him in a Sci-Fi Epic, as in the role of a Jedi, it totally destroys the illusion that the film-maker is trying to establish.  In this new Star Trek, it was the use of 'Harold' from Harold & Kumar in the role of Zulu that killed it for me.  As soon as I saw him I began to laugh.  And, I shouldn't be laughing because it's not a comedy.  But, their choice of actor is what destroyed the illusion.  In contrast to this, the guy from Heroes in the role of Spock wasn't a distraction in the least.  He basically plays the same stoic character on that show as he did in the Star Trek film.  So, the viewer isn't uprooted from this other-world.  But, on a whole, I'd rather see a whole cast of unknowns, or barely-knows in a film like this.  I think it makes sense. I think what I mentioned above here is worth dredging up once more...Just to see if there are any others here who's viewing experience is also greatly effected by casting choices....Does the film company's choice of an actor significantly effect how deeply you disappear into a movie's storyline. Can a bad choice totally destroy the film-maker's illusion for you? I wasn't bothered in any way by casting choices of familiar actors from other genres in Star Trek. If an actor/actress is good, they should be convincing of the role they're playing. I'm sure at some point in the past this phenomena has bothered me, but I can't think of any specifics at the mo.

[treeduck]

I've seen it, I liked it.

 

One thing I didn't like though was the jittery-all-over-the place camera work and editing during the action scenes, particularly the fight scenes. You just can't see what the hell's happening at times.

 

The woman playing Uhura is hot!