Star Trek (2009)

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 18 2009, 01:32 PM)

The woman playing Uhura is hot!

Oh my God, yes!

[treeduck]

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

He basically plays the same stoic character on that show as he did in the Star Trek film.

Those characters are nothing alike, one's a half human/vulcan with a highly scientific mind who hardly shows any emotion, the other one is a callous superpowered murderer who laughs and scowls in equal measure.

[plowe70]

QUOTE (vital signz @ May 17 2009, 07:51 AM)

Spoilers below: 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.

Yes. Chekov was terrible. That accent was way over the top and obviously fake. The original Chekov didn't show up until until I believe the second season of TOS. I wish they would have saved him until the sequal and put a little more concern into developing that character properly.

[The Owl]

I did go and see this movie...

 

I can admit that I have never watched an episode of any of the Star Trek series, or any of the movies....

 

But I have to admit I did enjoy the film... easy to follow, very entertaining.

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (The Owl @ May 18 2009, 06:28 PM)

I can admit that I have never watched an episode of any of the Star Trek series, or any of the movies....

Oh, btw, the landlord of your cave called - apparently you owe some back rent.

[Sark]

It was an entertaining summer popcorn movie for me. I must say though, I had to laugh about casting the guy who played Harold as Zulu. I couldn't help but think, "Set your course for White Castle, maximum warp!"

[ReRushed]

People!!!! It's Sulu, no Zulu!

[Ya_Big_Tree]

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 18 2009, 03:38 PM)

QUOTE (naturalsciences101 @ May 10 2009, 09:03 PM) He basically plays the same stoic character on that show as he did in the Star Trek film. You obviously don't watch "Heroes" do you.   Sylar is NOTHING like Spock. You're prolly just upset that you didn't get to be chosen to play Spock and therefore are ripping on a guy who actually did a pretty decent job.

[Ya_Big_Tree]

QUOTE (ReRushed @ May 19 2009, 09:00 AM)

People!!!! It's Sulu, no Zulu!

I was just about to comment... THANK YOU!

[The Owl]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 19 2009, 05:18 AM)

QUOTE (The Owl @ May 18 2009, 06:28 PM) I can admit that I have never watched an episode of any of the Star Trek series, or any of the movies.... Oh, btw, the landlord of your cave called - apparently you owe some back rent. LOL....   I have never been a trekkie... but the new movie did own.

[Jack Aubrey]

QUOTE (Ya_Big_Tree @ May 19 2009, 09:06 AM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 18 2009, 03:38 PM) QUOTE (naturalsciences101 @ May 10 2009, 09:03 PM) He basically plays the same stoic character on that show as he did in the Star Trek film. You obviously don't watch "Heroes" do you.   Sylar is NOTHING like Spock. You're prolly just upset that you didn't get to be chosen to play Spock and therefore are ripping on a guy who actually did a pretty decent job.   And with that, YBT has thrown down the gauntlet! Will Treeduck pick it up? Stay tuned!

[Presto-digitation]

I liked it quite well, although I'm not a fan of any incarnation of the series. I know just enough about the characters from some TV episodes and two of the orignal movie series (as well as general pop culture knowledge) to not be a complete idiot about the characters, so maybe that helped? Not sure. Anyhow, it was all good fun, spectacular effects, and I enjoyed the character takes by the new actors -- especially Kirk, Spock, and Scotty. Bones bordered on parody at times, but I still enjoyed him.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ May 20 2009, 06:12 AM)

QUOTE (Ya_Big_Tree @ May 19 2009, 09:06 AM) QUOTE (treeduck @ May 18 2009, 03:38 PM) QUOTE (naturalsciences101 @ May 10 2009, 09:03 PM) He basically plays the same stoic character on that show as he did in the Star Trek film. You obviously don't watch "Heroes" do you.   Sylar is NOTHING like Spock. You're prolly just upset that you didn't get to be chosen to play Spock and therefore are ripping on a guy who actually did a pretty decent job.   And with that, YBT has thrown down the gauntlet! Will Treeduck pick it up? Stay tuned! I think you need to read the original post Jack and if you do you'll see that the post she's referring to wasn't made by me, she just quoted my name without my own reply included; the reply I made to the same post which was made by Naturalscience...

[naturalsciences101]

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 18 2009, 03:38 PM)

QUOTE (naturalsciences101 @ May 10 2009, 09:03 PM) He basically plays the same stoic character on that show as he did in the Star Trek film. Those characters are nothing alike, one's a half human/vulcan with a highly scientific mind who hardly shows any emotion, the other one is a callous superpowered murderer who laughs and scowls in equal measure. I assume that you're kidding, friend. Both characters are absolutely 'stoic', meaning 'expressionless'. I've never seen that actor break a smile or laugh anywherst. And, I assuming that it was his gig on Heroes that landed him the Spock part.

Edited May 21, 2009 by naturalsciences101

[naturalsciences101]

QUOTE (Ya_Big_Tree @ May 19 2009, 09:06 AM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 18 2009, 03:38 PM) QUOTE (naturalsciences101 @ May 10 2009, 09:03 PM) He basically plays the same stoic character on that show as he did in the Star Trek film. You obviously don't watch "Heroes" do you.   Sylar is NOTHING like Spock. You're prolly just upset that you didn't get to be chosen to play Spock and therefore are ripping on a guy who actually did a pretty decent job. Did you actually read my post or are you looking to have a go at someone.? There's a massive similiarity in both characters...and that is the their expressionless nature. I watched the first season of Heroes, nothing after that. And, it wasn't that actor I had the problem with. My post says that I'm cool with that guy. It was Harold and Kumar that totally took me out of the realm of Sci-Fi and landed me in a modern comedy.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (naturalsciences101 @ May 20 2009, 07:07 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 18 2009, 03:38 PM) QUOTE (naturalsciences101 @ May 10 2009, 09:03 PM) He basically plays the same stoic character on that show as he did in the Star Trek film. Those characters are nothing alike, one's a half human/vulcan with a highly scientific mind who hardly shows any emotion, the other one is a callous superpowered murderer who laughs and scowls in equal measure. I assume that you're kidding, friend. Both characters are absolutely 'stoic', meaning 'expressionless'. I've never seen that actor break a smile or laugh anywherst. And, I assuming that it was his gig on Heroes that landed him the Spock part. You've not watched Heroes properly then...

[Jack Aubrey]

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 20 2009, 06:16 PM)

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ May 20 2009, 06:12 AM) QUOTE (Ya_Big_Tree @ May 19 2009, 09:06 AM) QUOTE (treeduck @ May 18 2009, 03:38 PM) QUOTE (naturalsciences101 @ May 10 2009, 09:03 PM) He basically plays the same stoic character on that show as he did in the Star Trek film. You obviously don't watch "Heroes" do you.   Sylar is NOTHING like Spock. You're prolly just upset that you didn't get to be chosen to play Spock and therefore are ripping on a guy who actually did a pretty decent job.   And with that, YBT has thrown down the gauntlet! Will Treeduck pick it up? Stay tuned! I think you need to read the original post Jack and if you do you'll see that the post she's referring to wasn't made by me, she just quoted my name without my own reply included; the reply I made to the same post which was made by Naturalscience...   DAMN, I screwed it up! OK, just sub NatSci's name for TD's in my post. No sense in completely negating a good joke.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Jack Aubrey

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 20 2009, 11:56 PM)

QUOTE (naturalsciences101 @ May 20 2009, 07:07 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ May 18 2009, 03:38 PM) QUOTE (naturalsciences101 @ May 10 2009, 09:03 PM) He basically plays the same stoic character on that show as he did in the Star Trek film. Those characters are nothing alike, one's a half human/vulcan with a highly scientific mind who hardly shows any emotion, the other one is a callous superpowered murderer who laughs and scowls in equal measure. I assume that you're kidding, friend. Both characters are absolutely 'stoic', meaning 'expressionless'. I've never seen that actor break a smile or laugh anywherst. And, I assuming that it was his gig on Heroes that landed him the Spock part. You've not watched Heroes properly then...   Sylar is often stoic, but not always - there are many instances of him pretending to be someone he isn't in order to get what he wanted, and in those cases he often shows plenty of emotion, and he's insane, so even at other times there's a mad glint in his eyes. I honestly thought his rendition of Spock was an enormous change of character for him than his Sylar role. It was also one of the highest high points in the movie - Zachary Quinto's version of Spock was mesmerizing.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 21 2009, 08:35 AM)

Zachary Quinto's version of Spock was mesmerizing.

He was good and I was satisfied but he's still not as good as Nimoy...

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 21 2009, 03:35 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 21 2009, 08:35 AM) Zachary Quinto's version of Spock was mesmerizing. He was good and I was satisfied but he's still not as good as Nimoy... I wouldn't even try to compare the two, but I believe he was more than up to the task.

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 22 2009, 01:03 AM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ May 21 2009, 03:35 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 21 2009, 08:35 AM) Zachary Quinto's version of Spock was mesmerizing. He was good and I was satisfied but he's still not as good as Nimoy... I wouldn't even try to compare the two, but I believe he was more than up to the task. I think the entire cast was up to the task. I've been a Star Trek fan for as long as I can remember and I still can't believe how good the new cast is. No, they'll never replace the original cast, but they'll probably take the characters to different heights.

[CygXanTor]

The fact that a few known actors are playing these classic characters doesn't bother me at all. As actors it's their job to be convincing in any role they play. No member of this cast failed to do that, IMO.

[naturalsciences101]

The SNL News Update segment featureing Quinto, Pine and Nimoy.

 

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/vid...id=nbceditorial

 

 

[naturalsciences101]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 17 2009, 08:57 AM)

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. Let me try and get this straight, Sporto. I thought that it was the intervention of Nero that caused the divergence in the flow of time and history. About an hour into the film, I thought Spock explains this to us. But, you're saying what exactly here? You're saying that in the alternate reality of this alternate storyline, Kirk grows up without a father. So, I assume that in the Shatner version, the Kirk character is NOT deprived of a Pop. So, what causes the loss of his father in this movie's opening scene? Is the opening of the movie meant to be the divergence point, the fork in the road, Sporto?

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (naturalsciences101 @ May 24 2009, 11:07 PM)

QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 17 2009, 08:57 AM) 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. Let me try and get this straight, Sporto. I thought that it was the intervention of Nero that caused the divergence in the flow of time and history. About an hour into the film, I thought Spock explains this to us. But, you're saying what exactly here? You're saying that in the alternate reality of this alternate storyline, Kirk grows up without a father. So, I assume that in the Shatner version, the Kirk character is NOT deprived of a Pop. So, what causes the loss of his father in this movie's opening scene? Is the opening of the movie meant to be the divergence point, the fork in the road, Sporto? Uh-huh.