Funny reading the sour grapes from the expected quarters. If they're not pleased by this movie, frankly they're not likely to be satisfied by anything. I respect dissenters and there are plot elements you can criticize if you look closely enough (though isn't that the case with most any science fiction?), but it's amusing reading the few naysayers get so bent out of shape over a movie that, to me, does almost everything right. Either way, they'd better get over it -- this movie is STAR TREK now, no recent film has been as well-reviewed, most audiences are crazy about it, and it's already a massive hit.

I wonder if they'll still be able to get up tomorrow, lol.

AndyDursin wrote:Funny reading the sour grapes from the expected quarters. If they're not pleased by this movie, frankly they're not likely to be satisfied by anything.

The good news is: Those people are really in a very small minority. They're really not even worth paying attention to at this point.

I respect dissenters and there are plot elements you can criticize if you look closely enough (though isn't that the case with most any science fiction?), but it's amusing reading the few naysayers get so bent out of shape over a movie that, to me, does almost everything right. Either way, they'd better get over it -- this movie is STAR TREK now, no recent film has been as well-reviewed, most audiences are crazy about it, and it's already a massive hit.

I wonder if they'll still be able to get up tomorrow, lol.

Here's another fact that they need to know: For every one of them...there's been several new fans brought in to take their place anyways, so quite frankly: No one cares about them or what the have to say.

I agree with some of the more constructive criticisms and healthy dissent to a point but I'm addressing the bitter fanboys and I think that's the type you're really referring to as well.

Oh yes, exactly. I know they don't really matter either, I just find it amusing. The central plot gets a little hazy, even two times through it, though I think nitpicking other aspects of the story are a bit ridiculous -- do you do the same to RAIDERS or STAR WARS? It's a piece of escapist entertainment. It needn't be brainless, yet at the same time, there's a suspension of disbelief you need to take in order to accept this kind of film. I did, and if the movie works for you (which it did for me), none of it gets in the way of enjoying the film.

Oh and if Harlan Ellison wants to sue them because they made a time travel movie without paying him, go right ahead. Nobody cares, bud. Get over it.

Whether or not I should be, I am surprised by the seemingly universal praise this film as gotten. I thought it was only so-so. I have no problem with a "re-imagining" of Trek, frankly, I think that was the best thing they could do under the circumstances. I was just disappointed with what was "re-imagined".

The fact that Kirk is an arrogant jerk did not really work for me, though I could imagine that he might become less obnoxious in subsequent episodes. Scott (and Chekov to an extent) was just comedy relief, too bad. Spock came off best I think. I never found myself especially caring about these characters or what happens to them.

The "shaky-cam" and hyper-editing is not my cup of tea, but I have seen more extreme examples of these affectations, so that's only a minor annoyance in this case.

I don't buy or like the Uhura/Spock thing. It just seems like unprofessional behavior in a working environment.

A few minor quibbles about the production design. The Enterprise engineering section, the Enterprise bridge (like the whole room is fluorescent lights), the Romulan ship (inside and out) looked like it sprang from a crazed mind (perhaps that was the intent). Overall, not terrible, but hardly, in my opinion, an overwhelming success.

esteban miranda wrote:Whether or not I should be, I am surprised by the seemingly universal praise this film as gotten. I thought it was only so-so. I have no problem with a "re-imagining" of Trek, frankly, I think that was the best thing they could do under the circumstances. I was just disappointed with what was "re-imagined".

The fact that Kirk is an arrogant jerk did not really work for me, though I could imagine that he might become less obnoxious in subsequent episodes. Scott (and Chekov to an extent) was just comedy relief, too bad. Spock came off best I think. I never found myself especially caring about these characters or what happens to them.

The "shaky-cam" and hyper-editing is not my cup of tea, but I have seen more extreme examples of these affectations, so that's only a minor annoyance in this case.

I don't buy or like the Uhura/Spock thing. It just seems like unprofessional behavior in a working environment.

A few minor quibbles about the production design. The Enterprise engineering section, the Enterprise bridge (like the whole room is fluorescent lights), the Romulan ship (inside and out) looked like it sprang from a crazed mind (perhaps that was the intent). Overall, not terrible, but hardly, in my opinion, an overwhelming success.

Esteban, everything you wrote is all fair criticisms and I pretty much agree with you on every single one of these points.

I'm grateful for this post because now I think we can shift gears with honeymoon afterglow wearing off a bit and start dissecting specifics.

Without reading a much of spoilers, I knew going into this thing that I needed to leave my Star Trek Encyclopedia on the shelf or I'd go nuts.

That's what I tried to tell any other fan I ran across who shared a lot of my concerns. Some heeded my warning. Others did not.

JJ Abrams made it VERY clear months ago going into this thing that there would be respect but they were going to take this thing and essentially do whatever they wanted, albeit in a creative fashion, and I think they did that.

I think success is definited by the box office returns and the obvious buzz and energy out there for Star Trek again in general. These are undeniable positive indicators at this point that indeed we have ourselves a success on our hands regardless of the fact that we all could probably come up with some points of valid criticism.

This is a runaway success. There's no two ways about it. When it reaches home video you will see the other side of the coin of a runaway success.




As far your criticisms go, which again I agree with all of them let's look at them:

Considering the timeline gets thrown to hell as far back as Kirk's young father and right when James Kirk is born...it makes a lot more sense that when 25 years goes by...there's going to be waves of changes all throughout the universe without getting into a complicated conversation about the ramifications of time travel and all that. It's like dropping the rock in the water and the ripple effect works it way out. That's how I view all of this. That's why everything is so different but familliar. I can buy it. I can work with it.



I don't mind THIS Spock and THIS Uhura as a couple in this timeline because everything changed the moment George Kirk was prematurely killed when Nero showed up. Again, the ripple effect. Uhura is a remarkable woman and I really don't mind her and Spock as a couple given everything. I can buy that. She's pretty advanced and special.

I don't buy the public displays of affection at all. That's where they screwed up a little bit.

The ONLY excuse I can make for it is the extreme trauma of the moment of Vulcan being destroyed and all this other angst and Spock is half human and these are young cadets fresh out of the Academy in the middle of hell but I have to force sell it on myself a little bit.





I'm not a fan of prequels or reboots and if I'd had my druthers they would have moved forward with something new instead of revisiting Kirk and the icons of the past. But we got this and I think they did a Batman Begins style reboot of this thing about as well as could be done overall.



I'm eager to see the sequel and see what this gang can do cut loose and on their own.

It's their timeline, the torch got passed...let's see what they can really do now, cut loose from the tethers of past continuity and everything. The sky is truly the limit.



That's the key difference in the end: I and many other people are hungry, eager, and excited for Trek again and it's been YEARS since I've seen this kind of energy or felt it myself.

Lumps and all...something worked here.





I guess in my case after slogging through the likes of Generations, Insurrection, Nemesis, Voyager, and 4 episodes of Enterprise before I quit on that thing...damn, I guess I was just a lot more forgiving and went in and had a good time anyways.

For me Nemesis was a deliberate grudge job and outright attempt to kill Trek and I thought it had succeeded. Until I saw the hype and excitement for this movie and then finally saw the movie...I really figured Trek was dead thanks to the final deathblow cast by Nemesis.

It's really kind of a miracle that Trek survived 15 years or so of ever declining mediocrity and crap capped off by that abomination of a movie called Nemesis and made it to this.

To see this come about and see the kind of fresh and energetic take that this movie brought to the table, lumps and all?

I'll take it after 15 plus years of watching Trek die an Alzheimer's like death.

AndyDursin wrote:Oh yes, exactly. I know they don't really matter either, I just find it amusing. The central plot gets a little hazy, even two times through it, though I think nitpicking other aspects of the story are a bit ridiculous -- do you do the same to RAIDERS or STAR WARS? It's a piece of escapist entertainment. It needn't be brainless, yet at the same time, there's a suspension of disbelief you need to take in order to accept this kind of film. I did, and if the movie works for you (which it did for me), none of it gets in the way of enjoying the film.

Oh and if Harlan Ellison wants to sue them because they made a time travel movie without paying him, go right ahead. Nobody cares, bud. Get over it.

At the end of the day: Exactly. This isn't Shakespeare and it isn't supposed to be but on the same token it's not supposed to be American Pie in space, either, if you know what I mean.

The fact that Kirk is an arrogant jerk did not really work for me, though I could imagine that he might become less obnoxious in subsequent episodes. Scott (and Chekov to an extent) was just comedy relief, too bad.

I didn't think Kirk came off as an arrogant jerk -- he's confident, cocky, and almost always right. For me, it was perfectly in keeping with the character Shatner established. As far as Scotty and Chekov are concerned, when have either of them been given anything to do, ever, in any of the prior movies? Or been used from a serious angle? Chekov was always a minor character, even in the TV show. I felt this movie probably did a better job than any of the older movies in terms of giving each side character some lines and some kind of purpose as the movie went along. They're never going to be Kirk and Spock -- the focus isn't on them, and never will be. Of the whole cast I think John Cho probably got the short end of the stick as Sulu, though he did get a big action scene.

As far as caring about them, I respect your opinion Esteban though I certainly did care about what happened as the story completely engaged me.

We can pick apart flaws the same way you can pick apart SUPERMAN, STAR WARS and on and on. For me this movie is as well packaged, entertaining, compelling and satisfying a big studio film as I've flat out seen in years and years. And no recent film has made me want to go back to see it again the next day since...actually I can't even recall it, to be honest!

I don't buy or like the Uhura/Spock thing. It just seems like unprofessional behavior in a working environment.

Spock goes to great lengths to hide their relationship, as evidenced by him assigning Uhura a different ship at the beginning. It's not like they're holding hands -- the only time it's visible is when Spock's planet is blown up and she tries to comfort him. Overall, I think Abrams really just included it to mix things up, and I didn't have a problem with some kind of romance being added into the film. It's not something that would be entirely out of the question based on the old show either, when you think about it.

Even though comparisons with the "original" are inevitable, I'm trying to avoid them and just judge this as a stand-alone movie.

It is a known fact that one man's "confident" is another man's "smart-ass". I know Shatner exhibits a lot of confidence in his portrayals, I guess it can be a fine line. I hope in the sequel, the Kirk character exhibits a little less of whatever it is I don't care for (call it what you will).

True, in the past "secondary" characters haven't been given much to do either. You can only have so many "main" characters in a story before you run into confusion and clutter. Less a complaint than a disappointment.

True, in the past "secondary" characters haven't been given much to do either. You can only have so many "main" characters in a story before you run into confusion and clutter. Less a complaint than a disappointment.

I think if you are going to have them all take part in the story, you can't expect more than what they did in this movie. As you say, not every one of them can be a main character.

I'm judging this film as a standalone work also. As I wrote in my review, this movie clicks on a level I haven't seen from any studio blockbuster in years. And I know it's working for people who don't care about Star Trek, like my wife, who absolutely loved the film as much as I did -- we couldn't have more divergent levels of interest in Trek and yet the film worked equally for both of us. I think that's a sign Abrams completely did his job.

esteban miranda wrote:Even though comparisons with the "original" are inevitable, I'm trying to avoid them and just judge this as a stand-alone movie.

Sure. That's what I tried to do as well going into it.

It is a known fact that one man's "confident" is another man's "smart-ass". I know Shatner exhibits a lot of confidence in his portrayals, I guess it can be a fine line. I hope in the sequel, the Kirk character exhibits a little less of whatever it is I don't care for (call it what you will).

Agreed, although I think it's important to note that Kirk and this bunch were fresh out of the Academy and a bit younger than the crew in the 60's show were and less seasoned and all the rest.

I wasn't 100 percent clear on this: Three years go by from the Academy scenes to the Kobayashi Maru, the trial, and then into the events of the rest of the movie.

Kirk was suspended while technically as a cadet without rank, right?

How did folks like Spock come out and somehow he already had the rank of commander? Did I get that right? If so...how?!

True, in the past "secondary" characters haven't been given much to do either. You can only have so many "main" characters in a story before you run into confusion and clutter. Less a complaint than a disappointment.

Right. In this case, I was pretty happy that every character had a moment to shine and something meaningful to do. I've seen some folks rag on Chekov, but c'mon. He's all of 17 years old in this thing.

Right. In this case, I was pretty happy that every character had a moment to shine and something meaningful to do. I've seen some folks rag on Chekov, but c'mon. He's all of 17 years old in this thin

I thought Chekov was great. Bright eyed youngster with a heavy Russian accent. What else can you do there? I mean, if you're ragging on Chekov, I think it's time to get your priorities in order. lol.

In case you missed it on SNL the other night...

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/ ... k/1099561/

I like the fact that from a directorial standpoint, this movie is visually more interesting than any of the Next Generation movies.

First, I liked that the exterior look of the Enterprise resembles what the ship might have looked like prior to the "refit" of the Enterprise from STAR TREK- THE MOTION PICTURE. At least, I felt that this new ship tool a lot of inspiration from this ship. at first, it looked a litle odd to me, but it made sense. Then, we were treated to some really cool visual angles of the ship during many of the sequences - something that was really missing from many of NextGen movies. Kudos to Abrams on this.

Secondly, I like the rudimentary style of some of the sets. The bridge was certain interesting and the captain's chair kind of reminded me of the old Captain Pike chair from TOS pilot. The engineering section looked like an elaborate basement boiler room of a hospital. This is not meant to put it down, but I really like that it had an organically crude and primitive look, compared to the "sleek" and futuristic look of TMP. Forget the original series, where the obvious cost made it look cheap.

The props resemble some of the originals (communicator) and a kind of hybrid from the original series and TMP (phaser).

I have to see this again soon - there's so much detail.

Agreed Ed, I enjoyed the movie as much the second time around as I did the first. The film is loaded with memorable scenes and interesting elements from the production design on down.

For me it's a triumph of genre filmmaking -- and the first movie I've wanted to see again the next day in ages. And sure you can nitpick this or that...but it's like complaining about STAR WARS or SUPERMAN or any other sci-fi fantasy film. It's a piece of pop entertainment, and this one is superior to anything I've seen like it in years.

Edmund Kattak wrote:I like the fact that from a directorial standpoint, this movie is visually more interesting than any of the Next Generation movies.

Absolutely.

First, I liked that the exterior look of the Enterprise resembles what the ship might have looked like prior to the "refit" of the Enterprise from STAR TREK- THE MOTION PICTURE. At least, I felt that this new ship tool a lot of inspiration from this ship. at first, it looked a litle odd to me, but it made sense. Then, we were treated to some really cool visual angles of the ship during many of the sequences - something that was really missing from many of NextGen movies. Kudos to Abrams on this.

+1

Secondly, I like the rudimentary style of some of the sets. The bridge was certain interesting and the captain's chair kind of reminded me of the old Captain Pike chair from TOS pilot. The engineering section looked like an elaborate basement boiler room of a hospital. This is not meant to put it down, but I really like that it had an organically crude and primitive look, compared to the "sleek" and futuristic look of TMP. Forget the original series, where the obvious cost made it look cheap.

The props resemble some of the originals (communicator) and a kind of hybrid from the original series and TMP (phaser).

I have to see this again soon - there's so much detail.

I'm eager to get this on Blu so I can enjoy all the gorgeous detail in high definition. My movie theater leaves a lot to be desired and I've become incredibly spoiled by watching just about everything in HD for the last couple of years now. I'm DYING to see this in full high definition.

That being said, even at that, I agree with all of the above comments and still appreciated what I did see.

You know what I really liked visually and you touch on it: Everything looked REAL and looked well worn and used. That engineering section is a perfect example as was the outpost Scotty was found on in the first place.

That's right out of Star Wars Trilogy in the best way: Just about everything looks tangible, real, and well lived in by people as it should.

AndyDursin wrote:Agreed Ed, I enjoyed the movie as much the second time around as I did the first. The film is loaded with memorable scenes and interesting elements from the production design on down.

For me it's a triumph of genre filmmaking -- and the first movie I've wanted to see again the next day in ages. And sure you can nitpick this or that...but it's like complaining about STAR WARS or SUPERMAN or any other sci-fi fantasy film. It's a piece of pop entertainment, and this one is superior to anything I've seen like it in years.

I'm eager to see it a second time myself.

Also, I've been told by several people now to see it in IMAX. I have several IMAX theaters to choose from, so I might be tempted to go on Saturday.

The 10,000 watts of sound might not help the score, but the larger screen may bring out more of the details.