Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Star Trek **Contains Spoilers**


Darth Biscuit

Recommended Posts

OK, I went to see this last night... I wish to discuss this but there is no way to discuss without spoilers... don't read ahead if you don't want to hear it...

Overall as a stand alone movie it was pretty good, B- maybe...

I guess it wouldn't be a proper Star Trek movie if all the other ships aren't in this quadrant and the trainees have to take over...

The green, redheaded Orion chick Kirk is fuging is hot as hell, as is Uhura...

I thought the actors that played Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty did a great job of making those characters very much like the ones from the original series.

Chekov and Sulu kinda sucked... and although Uhura was hot, she was just OK.

The effects were spectacular although I didn't like the constant camera angles where the light kept washing out the picture, weird... in fact the whole film was "over exposed," or something, too bright in spots and too dim in spots...

Eric Bana as the Romulan villain was not good, he's a worse overactor than Shatner...

I guess the worst thing to me was that the whole movie was essentially an alternate universe/alternate timeline... kind of a cop out in my opinion.

I'm interested to see what others who saw it thought...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't agree with any of the negative things in that post.

the only negative to me was how frigging loud the tazer blasts were in my theatre. everyone on the row in front of me were plugging their ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saw it, really enjopyed it. Kirk, Spock and especially McCoy were great. Agreed, Chekov sucked. Great action adventure, didn't enjoy the slow down when "old" Spock appeared. The thought of Spock nailing Uhura with the "Green Hammer" cracks me up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the worst thing to me was that the whole movie was essentially an alternate universe/alternate timeline... kind of a cop out in my opinion.

I don't think it was a cop out at all.

In fact, I think it was a clever way to explain how we can go back to when the crew was young and go from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen it yet. Probably Monday. But time travel / alternate universes are always a cop out. It's just another way of Rick Berman changing what Gene Roddenberry built and now that he is dead, this is the only way Berman can attach his name to the beginning. I hated Enterprise the changing of ST history that was going on in that. But I will see the movie and comment more...

I really hate Rick Berman though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I went to see this last night... I wish to discuss this but there is no way to discuss without spoilers... don't read ahead if you don't want to hear it...

Overall as a stand alone movie it was pretty good, B- maybe...

I guess it wouldn't be a proper Star Trek movie if all the other ships aren't in this quadrant and the trainees have to take over...

The green, redheaded Orion chick Kirk is fuging is hot as hell, as is Uhura...

I thought the actors that played Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty did a great job of making those characters very much like the ones from the original series.

Chekov and Sulu kinda sucked... and although Uhura was hot, she was just OK.

The effects were spectacular although I didn't like the constant camera angles where the light kept washing out the picture, weird... in fact the whole film was "over exposed," or something, too bright in spots and too dim in spots...

Eric Bana as the Romulan villain was not good, he's a worse overactor than Shatner...

I guess the worst thing to me was that the whole movie was essentially an alternate universe/alternate timeline... kind of a cop out in my opinion.

I'm interested to see what others who saw it thought...

JJ's vision was to call it Star Trek as if it was the first one. Thus the reason behind the backstory for Kirk and Spock.

In fact, you can tell he was paying a little homage to Richard Donner and the first Superman movie with the thorough intro to the characters childhood.

Heck even some long shots looked like Superman. The corvette scene was just like Clark Kent sprinting ahead of the car thru the Kansas landscape.

Ahh the film part. It was shot 2:35 1 to go away from the norm of digital to accentuate the very lights you talk about.

They wanted to make the film more crisp and vibrant and not give in to regular CGI stuff that we see alot of.

Example of this is old John Carpenter films Pay attention to when a light is in direct path of the camera, the light twinkles and seems even bigger, just a neat little trick.

I'm not a Trekkie. Saw about the first 4 Trek films. Of course most of the tv series.

JJ gave the series a great launching point to wherever.

Overall a very good film and I predict this movie will be the highest grossing film of the year.

I say it finishes with 265 domestic and 230 foreign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it was a cop out at all.

In fact, I think it was a clever way to explain how we can go back to when the crew was young and go from there.

i can see how it could be considered a cop out, but it just didn't feel like one.

I guess I could have explained more/better on the "cop out" comment. I realize that they had to do something to explain the timeline changes, etc., for the big things particularly like the death of Kirk Sr., and the destruction of Vulcan, etc, but I thought that instead of making up a good back story for Kirk, Spock and the gang with a more plausible history that fit in the original story, they took the easier route of doing a alternate universe/timeline as a plotline.

I did qualify my statements as a "stand alone" movie, because I really think they did it this way as almost a re-invention of Trek. They really can go in any direction they want now as well, so it will definitely make them more $$$.

I will also say that this movie was FAR better than the last 8 or so other Trek movies by a LONG shot...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I could have explained more/better on the "cop out" comment. I realize that they had to do something to explain the timeline changes, etc., for the big things particularly like the death of Kirk Sr., and the destruction of Vulcan, etc, but I thought that instead of making up a good back story for Kirk, Spock and the gang with a more plausible history that fit in the original story, they took the easier route of doing a alternate universe/timeline as a plotline.

I did qualify my statements as a "stand alone" movie, because I really think they did it this way as almost a re-invention of Trek. They really can go in any direction they want now as well, so it will definitely make them more $$$.

I will also say that this movie was FAR better than the last 8 or so other Trek movies by a LONG shot...

I liked the alternate time line scenario. I would have hated it if they were just doing a back story. Plus all the Trekkie's would have eaten it alive every time they missed a step. This way they get a clean start and a fresh look to an old series.

I think it's the best Star Trek movie since the Wrath of Khan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it was. Fantastic work and yes, a trekkie like me would be happy to point out the problems, but the movie needed them to succeed and be great, and it did.

It is so great to be able to look forward to more Trek after Brannon/Braga "killed" it.

For the sequel: LETS SEE HARRY MUDD!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked the alternate time line scenario. I would have hated it if they were just doing a back story. Plus all the Trekkie's would have eaten it alive every time they missed a step. This way they get a clean start and a fresh look to an old series.

I think it's the best Star Trek movie since the Wrath of Khan.

Oh Gawd, yes, it was the best ST movie since Khan. We said that in the parking lot right after seeing it. Khan #1, Star Trek #2. I absolutely loved this movie. I rate it up there with movies like Stargate, the start of a new franchise. The Uhurra/Spock hook up surprised me but I liked it.

I don't understand all the disdain for the small amount of movie time that was spent with time travel in the movie. It wasn't anything complicated or mysterious, the old worm hole theory. It didn't need any explaining, the theory has been around for so long.

George Kirk is my hero. :patriot:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Kirk is my hero. :patriot:

Yeah, that opening was awesome. Certainly one of the best I've ever seen. The way they set it up---you knew that the SFX were better, you knew the camera work was better, and the sounds were better, but it somehow still FELT like the exact same phaser blasts that the Enterprise has shot for the last forty years.

And you new it really wasn't your daddy's Star Trek after that lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Oh, the high expectations after a draft. Keep your expectations low, people. Darin Gantt's latest "Ask The Old Guy" gives life to one of those lessons about pro football reality as a fan: "Rasheed Walker was a three-year starter at left tackle for the Packers, so Freeling is going to have to work. Hunter's got another big 'un in front of him in Bobby Brown III and a different kind of defensive tackle in Tershawn Wharton. Chris Brazzell II's got a lot of traffic at his position. Zakee Wheatley has to be better than the chronically underappreciated Nick Scott, and Sam Hecht is a fifth-round rookie at the hardest position on the line to play, who probably doesn't have immediate positional flexibility, and a solid free agent addition in Luke Fortner in front of him. "Fans generally love their draft class as soon as it arrives, because there is no evidence to the contrary yet. Once guys get on the field, the reality begins to creep in, and the seasoned among you remember that if you get three or four good players out of a draft, that was an amazing draft." https://www.panthers.com/news/ask-the-old-guy-things-looking-up-after-the-draft-monroe-freeling-luke-kuechly-bryce-young-derrick-brown Don't get crazy. Winning the draft (or the offseason BTW) on paper always leads to good feelings and great expectations, especially when you seemingly succeeded the season before, but let's remember that the Panthers are very much a work in progress. Team building takes time. If we get a couple of starters out of the draft, it's a good draft, but three or four would be an amazing draft, and anything more than that is actually sensational--even if entails a few multiple high end rotational players along with three starters. Moreover, kind of within that same vein, the coaches have to let the kids off the chain. Remember the coach-speak of past coaches about competition that is anything but because coaches have their notions about veteran experience? Not saying that they're necessarily wrong, but sometimes I think their reluctance to put the young guys out there is based somewhat in dogma or possibly fear because big stakes are on the line (e.g., their jobs). It can be frustrating to say the least, but the coaches are supposed to know best. Again, I say all of this so that we can remember to temper expectations and keep them within the realm of reality. It's like telling your mind to think of it as something akin to under-promising and over-delivering. Leave room to be pleasantly surprised for the best case scenario, but be cognizant that that rarely happens. I would think at this point, most of us should be able to recognize growth when we see it, and sometimes that growth doesn't manifest itself in the form of immediate supremacy, but a setting of the stage for long term dominance for years to come. It seems like we're on track for an emergence by 2028 or 2029. We still have huge questions, but by 2029, hopefully we will take our seat at the table of the perennial contenders in the NFL.  
    • You’re playing madden we’re talking real football stuff…. He does have you seen his special on internet he def thinks he’s getting paid 
    • Without the team having an identity kinda hard to predict what they value.  They either are really trying to build a balanced team, or preparing for another swing at qb if Bryce doesn’t pan out. Seems like we value the o line but the $ spent there has been underwhelming besides Lewis, you could say it’s because of injuries but still hasn’t been worth the investment. as already stated, the whole handling of Bryce young as a whole has been ass backwards, we spent the years we’re supposed to take advantage of having a qb with a lower cap hit, building the team up to be adequate. now It appears, key word appears, the saints have done it correctly, which is painful to even think about. Regardless, I hope the front office has paid attention to qb contracts recently, such as Tua, Kyler, Daniel jones(pre colts) and don’t settle for subpar qb play at franchise qb rates    
×
×
  • Create New...