Well actually the first is from my wife who is not a knowledgble fan or even a true sci-fi devotee... " It was good ... It was differant... but it was still star trek..."

Now for me who is a sci-fi fanatic and 40+ year lover of Trek I had my subtle doubts and concerns. I had also read some reviews through the web from those who had seen it from the world premiers etc but decided to take them with a grain of salt... However to me, my wife Sandy voiced what was to many of us a concerns from the begining... could JJ do some thing differant yet still keep it star trek...??? Can you really do a prequel/restart with such iconic material and have an audiance want to see what follows when it ends??? The answer is a diffinative YES!! I found it had the look of new and the essence of the old. There was a couple of things that happened I found a little sad & disturbing but on reflection they were fairly essential. There was also some interaction between characters that I thought was a bit odd... My concerns over Quinto being Spock are now more of a concern on where the writers will take him next.

To be honest I felt the actors did very well to play such iconic characters and make them thier own and not just sterotyped copies. They are certainly more dimensionable. The story was also entertaining and well concieved though not deep thinking literature. It has a good swashbuckling come roller ride feel about it. There is good background info for those none trekkers to gain familarity with the characters and the effects are also clean, crisp and well done with a definate reality feel about them. The sets are more gritty when it comes to Neros ship and the engineering sections of the starships I'd even go as far as saying they are a little retro-tech. And yes even the "Ipod store" bridge does the job.

Now as for the "E" I got chills when they showed her under construction and in flyby as the shuttles approached her at spacedock/Starbase. She is still the lady of the galaxy and she comes across strong and even majestic in several shots. My fear of the blue instead of red bussard domes is now bannished. Sandy even commented on how good the "E" looked. There are many ships and crafts that would make excellent models eg; the Kelvins shuttles, The Kelvin herself of coarse and some of the Kelvin style variants in Starfleet. And without exception the new Enterprise is a must.

I know I will see it again on the big screen and it's a definate must for the DVD collection. In short this is the film we were all wanting Nemisis to be. (Though I liked Nemisis)

Cheers,

Alec.

Wow. That's really great to hear. Thanks!

The reviews on this so far have been across the board glowing. Bill Hunt at thedigitalbits.com gave it a rave yesterday.

Who knew? Someday us Trekkies would have a bona fide hit on our hands? Go figure.

'Bout time we hit a home run with as many times as we've been at bat!

AJ, do the nacelle caps ever glow red in the film? At Burger King and a couple of other places, they show the Enterprise's nacelle domes to be red as well as blue sometimes.

Please answer with just a simple yes or no. I don't want to be spoiled as to the "why". Thanks. :)

I'm not SJM but I've seen the movie and the bussards are NEVER red as far as I remember.

AJ, do the nacelle caps ever glow red in the film? At Burger King and a couple of other places, they show the Enterprise's nacelle domes to be red as well as blue sometimes.

Please answer with just a simple yes or no. I don't want to be spoiled as to the "why". Thanks. :)

Not that I saw...

I've just come back from watching the movie (with approximately five other people in the cinema - hey, it WAS an 11:45am screening).

As a die-hard TOS fan, I too was hesitant to let this new 're-boot' take me in directions that I sorta knew to be 'against the grain', but found myself really getting in to the story and the characters - to the point that it almost made sense to conceive that this was actually how it WAS pre-TOS.
And that is a hard thing for me to say.
It must be said first & foremost that JJ has done an awesome job with the actors, the story and, to some degree, the ship.
The re-imagined Enterprise is not the 1701 as we know her, and maybe even as we love her. But if the integral essence of this ship is that as an entity which goes beyond her capacity to save her crew and her captain is what is most important to us all, then she delivers on more than one occasion.
It's been a long time coming, but I can safely say that it has been worth the wait. Two very relieved thumbs up from me.

Cheers,

Bruce

Canada's Globe and Mail up here reviews movies and they are notoriously tough critics. Their on line review today is a gushing endorsement entitled "Star Trek's Got its Mojo Back".

You can read it here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090506.wtrek0507/BNStory/Entertainment/home

The Globe says:

"Unlike the current wave of grim "reboots" of film franchises from Batman to Bond, Abrams has shrugged off gravity to have some fun. Smart and youthful, with a well-balanced package of humour, romance, crisp action and character-based drama, Star Trek gives popcorn movies a good name."

Cheers,

Huzz

This morning's Columbus Dispatch gives it 3 1/2 out of 4:

"With Star Trek, director J.J. Abrams has boldly gone where George Lucas failed to go before: re-establishing a beloved space-based franchise with wit, intelligence, fun and excitement.

Imagine that.

From the kinetic opening frames to the whooshing final credits, Star Trek proves an astonishingly effective piece of pure popcorn entertainment.

Gone is the ponderous dialogue and smug self-worship that infected the film series in the late 1990s and early 2000s (sorry, Picard fans, but those missions were as engaging as a Vulcan symposium on warp drives).

Abrams and his crew, much like the interstellar peacekeepers at Starfleet, have successfully bridged the gap between watchdog fans and potential new recruits.

The result marks a return to the lively adventures of years past and -- Gene Roddenberry be praised -- pop-culture relevance."

It's gonna suck.









:p

It's gonna suck.:p
Now, now...be nice! :thumbsup:

This salient quote, from Kenneth Turan's generally positive but refreshingly non-hyperbolic LA Times review, highlights the main concern many Old School TOS fans voiced re: the extent to which Abrams would be faithful to the "core" of Roddenberry's original concept...

"The difficulty is that Abrams' mandate to a certain extent conflicts with the "Star Trek" ethos, a clash that can't be easily ignored. Despite all the glib talk about how moribund the franchise has become, any TV series that spawned 10 preveious motion pictures and several small-screen series has the kind of deep appeal that Hollywood ignores at its peril.

And being true to the Trekker fan base means more than a part for Nimoy, an adroit demonstration of the Vulcan nerve pinch and lines of dialogue like "our gravitational sensors are going crazy." It means embracing a humanistic, utopian world view that never depended on elaborate special effects for its effectiveness. Given the differences between the "Star Trek" ethos created by Gene Roddenberry and the one that Abrams and company represent, what's surprising is not that the new film sometimes misses but rather how many hits there actually are."

That last sentence sums up my feelings on the matter pretty well.

Perhaps Trek XI could have been better, but given the circumstances I think Abrams et el should be applauded for getting it as right as they did.

That said, this Trekkie is keeping his fingers crossed that the Enterprise's next adventure will bring the film series even closer to realizing the full potential of the material.

Saw it last night. It was okay, I guess, but I did leave the theatre feeling disappointed.

Call it the 'Phantom Menace' syndrome, if you will, but I had really hoped the film would be better.
Unless it was just me clinging on to the Trek I remembered...

:(

Saw it tonight. It wasn't perfect, but I thought it was a pretty darn good movie.

I was really impressed with the pacing, the movie covers a lot of ground, and it never lags or has any awkward lets-pause-for-some-exposition moments. The cast was uniformly good, the stand-outs imho were Karl Urban's McCoy and Bruce Greenwood's Capt Pike. Urban absolutely nailed McCoy ,and Greenwood was so good in the scene where he gives Kirk his inspirational pep talk, by the time he got to his "I dare you to be better" line, I was ready to sign up for four years with Starfleet. Uhura wasn't bad either, and was a much more developed character than ever before. Pine's Kirk didn't totally thrill me, but he wasn't bad either.

I was less impressed with Sulu and especially Chekov, but to be fair they didn't have much to do. Pegg provided some nice comic relief, but again, Scotty didn't have much to do.

All the folks that decided this was going to suck based on pictures of the ships and hardware ought to keep an open mind. The Kelvin, The Enterprise, the phasers, that BUF shuttle, the Ibridge, etc, everything looks better in motion and in action in this movie than in the still photos we've seen posted, and are often barely glimpsed in the film. It's all used matter-of-factly without long slow beauty pans. The movie is a lot more about gathering the TOS crew together than about the hardware they use.

Ok, the bad. First of all, the guy destroying everything in sight to get revenge on a Enterprise bridge crew member seems real familiar. I usually like Eric Banna, but didn't think Nero was half as interesting or memorable as Khan. I also wasn't real impressed with Quinto's Spock, he looked the part, but his voice and acting style didn't seem all like Nimoy's. And Spock shouldn't look like he needs a shave. I could have done without the whole ice planet sequence, the one section of the movie where it's pacing faltered. I could have done without Pegg's Ewok-ish assistant too.

But those were pretty minor beefs. It didn't quite knock off WOK as my favorite Trek movie, but it's a far better film than any of the others. And it's arguably the most fun and enjoyable of them all. It's an overused cliche', but this is the perfect summer popcorn movie.

Saw it with another Trek fan tonight at the 7PM, he was lukewarm on but I generally thought it was great. It might fall down a little late in the second act, but nothing fatal. But being mostly unspoiled, we were both a little shocked with the fates of certain Trek icons. JJ giveth, and JJ also taketh away...

PhilipMarlowe I tend to agree with you on most of it.

Urban has now made Mcoy his character. I was pretty pleased with Pines portrail of Kirk, I felt he realy had the essance of Kirk without copying Shatners style. The attitude to Pike in the bar was annoying but as the film progressed I liked the way the attitude and he matured. I really liked all the hardware though I wasn't all that fussed on the futre Spocks ship. As for the ice planet that was a nice "twist of fate" type of chapter and I think fairly pivotal to the Kirks character. Think back to the debate between Kirk and Spock back at the Academy... As for Quintos portrail of Spock he almost had me when he cocked the eyebrow when Pike and the others were having there discussion but I still left the film feeling a bit flat with his portrail. but I think his script was a little to blame as well. As for Chekov the accent was just off for me, it was for me and my wife just a bit to thick...I'm not really sure if Neros character needed to be more than he was. though I agree he could have been a bit stronger but I felt that it was more the events and consequences he created that were the focal point and not him.

Saw it last night at a 10:00 showing. I was quite pleased with it. I thought all the characters were good and yes, even Anton Yelchin as Chekov. Quinto totally nailed Spock and it was really great to see Pine's Kirk ascend from a brash, almost punk into a responsible leader. The whole film had a really fresh perspective to it that was sorely needed. Not sure if they could have done more with Bana's Nero. He was interesting, but you don't see a whole lot of him and perhaps that could be that there was so much ground to cover in a short amount of time. Lots of characters to introduce and given the time spent, they did a great job and kept things moving. Impressive!

I haven't seen the movie yet but I've seen the stills and trailers. So far, the only problem I have is that the crew look like Jr. Officers or ensigns, not the experienced crew maning a top of the line cruiser as senior officers. They may be brilliant with high IQ's but not nearly enough life experiences to be prepared for the unknown . The crew remind me of the jr. officers on an episode of TNG where they were competing for a promotion and one the Bjoran was killed assisting a Cardassian.

I haven't seen the movie yet but I've seen the stills and trailers. So far, the only problem I have is that the crew look like Jr. Officers or ensigns, not the experienced crew maning a top of the line cruiser as senior officers. They may be brilliant with high IQ's but not nearly enough life experiences to be prepared for the unknown . The crew remind me of the jr. officers on an episode of TNG where they were competing for a promotion and one the Bjoran was killed assisting a Cardassian.

That's addressed by the film, without getting into spoilers, there's a reason the Enterprise is manned by a (for the most part) young and inexperienced crew.

I've seen several reviews that comment negatively on the mechanisms and plot contrivances to get Kirk into the captain's chair. I think that's a unfair criticism, what I got from the plot was that although everyone's timeline is altered by the attack on the Kelvin, they all will end up where they are supposed to be. You can chalk it up to destiny, fate, or a plot contrivance, but they are consistant about it. Even with Pike, the last shot he's in has a visual in-joke that nobody but serious Star Trek fans are going to get(I laughed out loud!), but it is entirely consistant with the "we end up where we are destined to be" motif.

I can understand that. If the plot were to have something mysteriously happen that causes the crew to "de-age" like on a TNG episode and they solve it, that sounds like Trek. But, if it were a story of how the crew came together at that young of an age, I'd really, really have a tought time accepting that.

. But, if it were a story of how the crew came together at that young of an age, I'd really, really have a tought time accepting that.

Not sure why. as I said, there's an explanation for it in the plot. And it also ties in with the "we end up where we are destined to be" motif.

And no offense, but imho, the only Trek cliche hoarier than the "bridge crew is aged or made young by an alien disease" plot is the "bridge crew goes back to the ol' West and wears six-shooters" plot. YMMV.

I suppose when you are in your mid forties or fifties that it can be hard to accept that people in their twenties are no longer kids.

But hey, when I was 24 I had an engineering degree and certainly didn't think of myself as a snot nosed kid. My god-son is 17 and he is more sensible then some "grey-haired just turned 40 year olds" I know. Don't be prejudiced based on age or you'll risk being viewed as an old fogey yourself.

Huzz

Yeah, and besides, Shatner can't wear the shirt anymore. Youth happens!

Not sure why. as I said, there's an explanation for it in the plot. And it also ties in with the "we end up where we are destined to be" motif.

And no offense, but imho, the only Trek cliche hoarier than the "bridge crew is aged or made young by an alien disease" plot is the "bridge crew goes back to the ol' West and wears six-shooters" plot. YMMV.

No offense taken :thumbsup:. I haven't seen the movie yet so I don't know the plot. I was only stating that if this crew were assigned a first rate cruiser to command, they are too young with not enough experience. However, if they were older to begin with and something in the movie made them "young" then this is nothing new in the Trek world. We've seen episodes involving artificial rejunivation, aging and flashbacks. I just have a problem with so many new movies casting people as experienced when they are barely out of school. In the Sci-Fi of the 50s, 60s, and 70s, at least the people were effectively representing the ages of experienced military personnel and professors.. Take Fantastic Voyager for example. everyone looked the proper age for being experienced experts and support staff.

I was only stating that if this crew were assigned a first rate cruiser to command, they are too young with not enough experience.

Without getting into spoilers, Spock would say the flaw in your logic was assuming the young inexperienced crew members were assigned a first rate cruiser to command.

Take Fantastic Voyager for example. everyone looked the proper age for being experienced experts and support staff.

Yeah. 25 year-old Raquel Welch was utterly convincing as an expert hemonaut.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2158/2337163206_365c9f1cf1.jpg?v=0

Hemo-wha?

If the film had any flaws for me, it was that they didn't play up enough that there were other "constitution Class" starships and that the Enterprise (while it IS the flagship) was not the only one. It wouldn't make Kirk stand out nearly as much as if he were the only captain of this one of a kind ship.

I was talking with a buddy about what we'd like to see in the sequel.. with out simply rehashing the old episodes. but then I thought how awesome it would be if they were to do a retelling of "Where no man has gone before" but with Pike instead of Mitchell.

there's your character based drama for you

My wife and I saw it last night. I thought it was generally good, but not great. I'd probably give it a B or B-.

Maybe my expectations were too high going in since it's received really good buzz. I've been a Trekkie (yes Trekkie, not Trekker) for 40 years, and I really wanted to love the movie, but I was kind of underwhelmed. As a big fan of Lost, I was rooting for JJ Abrams to deliver a great film. Although I was very skeptical a few years ago when I heard the plot was going to be about how the crew got together, I'd come to accept that that could be an interesting story. The concept of a sort of reboot didn't bother me too much either, since the James Bond reboot Casino Royale worked very well. If it was a good film I could live with the deviations from canon.

I think my biggest problem with the movie is the same problem I had with "Serenity." To make it a viable feature film they ramped up the action at the expense of character moments. I think Star Trek and Firefly work best as TV series. There were some short character snippets in this Trek that I really liked. Karl Urban does a great job as McCoy. Spock and Kirk had their moments, too, and I would have liked to see more of that. But overall, it didn't grab me emotionally, like, say, Wall-E or The Incredibles.

The other problem that has plagued a lot of Trek movies is that it comes down to the Captain vs. some sort of humanoid villain. It worked in Wrath of Khan, and that's about it. Star Trek is supposed to be about exploring strange new worlds, etc., but too many of the features end with Kirk (or Picard) having a fist fight with someone.

And I hated the production design in this movie. I don't like the bridge, the corridors, and the engine room is especially hideous. It looks like it was filmed in a brewery or something; it doesn't look like it's in the same universe as the rest of the ship. They really needed a Matt Jefferies to organize the layout so the interiors looked like a ship with corridors and rooms. Too often it looked like the floor of a convention center with dozens of people randomly placed around the sets with no real sense of organization.

I don't know. Maybe changing 40 years of canon is bothering me more than I thought it would. They're able to sort of justify what's changed, but it's still a little hard for a longtime fan like myself to swallow.

But, like with The Dark Knight (which I thought blew), I seem to be in the minority. I'm seeing a lot of A- reviews showing up, in newspapers and in Entertainment Weekly. Maybe as time passes my appreciation will grow.

Shawn M.
Portland, OR

I don't like the bridge, the corridors, and the engine room is especially hideous. It looks like it was filmed in a brewery or something; it doesn't look like it's in the same universe as the rest of the ship.

The engine room looks like it was filmed in a brewery because it was - in the Busch brewery in Van Nuys. Same site where they filmed the interior of the mothership in 'V'.

WShawn, you're NOT alone. Many of us don't care for the movie (or even the concept). It's okay to not like it. And, despite the attmpts of many to convince us otherwise, it's okay to express that. At least your critisizm is constructive.

Larry

The engine room looks like it was filmed in a brewery because it was - in the Busch brewery in Van Nuys. Same site where they filmed the interior of the mothership in 'V'.

Hmm. I didn't know that. Seems like a weird decision. That setting looked exactly like what it was: a big warehouse filled with ladders and tubes. It didn't look remotely like anything I'd expect to see on a spaceship, especially on a spaceship backed by a $150 million budget.

Given that, I might have bought it if the story had been more engaging for me, but since it didn't grab me I started to focus negatively on the sets and such.

On the plus side, I didn't think the revamped Enterprise looked too bad.

Shawn

saw it,it's great.

SPOILER ALERTS****************I didn't hate it but I didn't like it much either. Too contrived and unrealistic. Kirk just rides a motorcycle into a restricted area, gets on a shuttle and is accepted at Star Fleet? No application or tests? Then magine having an aircraft carrier manned with nothing but cadets with no officers aboard. Then a crisis comes up and after it's said and done one standout while still a junior officer is made captain. The engine room had block walls and looked like the inside of a factory along with steam coming out of pipes and cut off valves. Sword fight? Where where their phasers? Vulcan and Romulus destroyed? Vulcan has a blue sky not red? Kirk just happens to land near a cave with Spock inside? The worst by far was the Uhura-Spock relationship. Total outlandish BS. Even a shift in time doesn't explain why the ship was built in Iowa of all places. I saw the usual geeks in Star Trek outfits at the movies and they sang it's praises. I just don't understand. The whole movie reminded me of Starship Troopers. I'm sorry but I gave it a chance, paid my money and sat through it looking at my watch. I laughed one time. Poor Leonard Nimoy looked so out of place it made me sad. Thank God Shatner had no part in it. The biggest gripe I have is that the best scenes were already released in spoilers online by the studio of all people. I give it 1/2 star out of 5. (I lied, I hated it. Sorry). Star Wreck 90210.

Kirk just rides a motorcycle into a restricted area, gets on a shuttle and is accepted at Star Fleet? No application or tests? .

When watching a movie it helps if you listen carefully to the dialog, Pike mentions Kirk's aptitude test scores in the bar scene earlier in the film.

Yeah. 25 year-old Raquel Welch was utterly convincing as an expert hemonaut.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2158/2337163206_365c9f1cf1.jpg?v=0

Well, in that example, Dr. Duval was the expert, Raquel was correctly cast as an assistant/support. Now if Dr. Duval was played by Raquel, then I'd have problems with her age and being an expert.

I didn't hate it but I didn't like it much either. Too contrived and unrealistic. Kirk just rides a motorcycle into a restricted area, gets on a shuttle and is accepted at Star Fleet? No application or tests? Then magine having an aircraft carrier manned with nothing but cadets with no officers aboard. Then a crisis comes up and after it's said and done one standout while still a junior officer is made captain. The engine room had block walls and looked like the inside of a factory along with steam coming out of pipes and cut off valves. Sword fight? Where where their phasers? Vulcan and Romulus destroyed? Vulcan has a blue sky not red? Kirk just happens to land near a cave with Spock inside? The worst by far was the Uhura-Spock relationship. Total outlandish BS. Even a shift in time doesn't explain why the ship was built in Iowa of all places. I saw the usual geeks in Star Trek outfits at the movies and they sang it's praises. I just don't understand. The whole movie reminded me of Starship Troopers. I'm sorry but I gave it a chance, paid my money and sat through it looking at my watch. I laughed one time. Poor Leonard Nimoy looked so out of place it made me sad. Thank God Shatner had no part in it. The biggest gripe I have is that the best scenes were already released in spoilers online by the studio of all people. I give it 1/2 star out of 5. (I lied, I hated it. Sorry). Star Wreck 90210.

This post should be blanked or something.
Dude, WAY to many Spoilers in here.
Thank goodness I've seen it or I'd be really P.O.'d.

Saw it last night.

While I watched it, I enjoyed it.
But as time goes on my feeling change from it was a good film to just an OK film.

Thankfully I'm not as old, inflexible and unwilling to accept something new as what some of the 'grups' here are. Star Trek was always about exploring the unknown. In a very real and basic sense, that these people don't seem to get. Thank goodness the original series w/o modified effects is still available.

The story was fine.
I liked all the tips of the hat.
IMHO.
Mc Coy was the best of the charactors.
Chekov I thought was the worst.

I LIKED the Spock Uhura thing.
I feel bad for Nichelle Nichols as this Uhura had more charactor development in a single film, than what her Uhura got in 40 years.

The ship looked fine in motion, but I still don't think its one of the better designs.

I still don't care for the bridge set. Not that it doesn't match the original set down to the colorful buttons like I'm sure the grups would complain about.
But simply as a stand alone design I don't really care for it.
I thought it was too bright, and there were to many lens flares. Which I'm sure was part of the conscious look of the bridge.
Its when you could tell they added lensflares in post that it really got annoying.
And see-thru monitor displays, while seemingly hi-tech, I don't see them as realistic. (Imagine watching TV with a see-thru screen, and seeing whats behind the image - pretty hard to interpit the information).

I certainly agree with all the 'lower deck' comments.
Yes the film was expensive, and it did look it.
But shooting in an existing locale like a brewery is a cheap way to get a set and it looks it.
The lower decks are a confusing mess that don't look like the same ship as the bridge, corridors and transporter room.
So yes, poor, inconsistant production design. A poor place to try and save money.

The worst part of the film for me was the water tube.

Best visual? The planet collapse and the Enterprise popping out of Titans atmosphere.

Again, IMHO......

As simply a movie. It wasn't better than Ironman. Of which I'm not a fan of Ironman, but thought it was an almost perfectly balanced film.

It wasn't better than TMP. (which has the similarity of reintroducing Trek to the masses).

It was as good as TWOK, Undiscovered Country and First Contact.

Better than III, IV, V, Insurrection and Nemisis.

It wasn't better than TMP. (which has the similarity of reintroducing Trek to the masses).
WOW! Sorry my friend, but on that one I have to WILDLY disagree. But it's all opinion. I do agree with Busch Engineering Room and hope they do change it to something more suitable next time around and chalk it up to 'design and engineering refinements' or something of that nature. As for Scotty accidentally materializing inside the water tube, it didn't bother me nearly as much as say...Data singing at a wedding.

Saw it last night.

It wasn't better than TMP. (which has the similarity of reintroducing Trek to the masses).

.

As fo rme, I recall watching TMP in the theatre and actually feeling embarassed about how abysmally bad it was.

Huzz

SPOILERS! (just little ones though)








one thing they changed that I liked was windows on the bridge. Felt more like a starship troopers ship but if you have a bridge and its going to be on the very top of the ship (we've all seen the debates in the past about why you would do this when its such a vulnerable spot) you should have some windows in case the view screens go offline.

I could list all the bad new things in this (the brewery like engineering did bother me as well.) but if you look closely you see many changes that are good and actually make sense.

And they did a decent job explaining the plot, though future spocks ship just didn't look like it belonged in the ST universe. Its a little to SW's for me.

For all the complaints about the "brewery," they got a LOT of use out of that location and the only place it really bothered me was maybe the water pipe scene where the overhead shots revealed a little too much of the expanse of the location. It's worked into the Kelvin scenes and lots of other little moments and honestly, I have no problem with it. Clearly the use of that location bought a LOT of other visual moments in the film and I like a lot of the brewery shots--the crewmen repelling down during the evacuation of the Kelvin was a cool shot. I have no idea what could or could not fit into this Enterprise but remember that most people who watch this movie are not going in with a set of blueprints and a caliper. It's just going to be one of those little things people will always point out as one of Trek's "goofs" or whatever; what I find hilarious is angry people for whom THAT is the reason they want to boycott the movie...

Let's face it there are those looking for a reason...ANY reason to dislike this. As unfortunate as it is, that's their choice. I thought (even with the few, and I mean very few shortcomings) it was the best offering from the Trek movies since...well maybe from the Trek movies...PERIOD.

...why am I still reading these? I don't mind the debate, but having read all the commentaries THERE'S NOTHING LEFT TO SEE. What surprises are left for me? My fault for reading, I suppose.

Oh well.

Let's face it there are those looking for a reason...ANY reason to dislike this. As unfortunate as it is, that's their choice. I thought (even with the few, and I mean very few shortcomings) it was the best offering from the Trek movies since...well maybe from the Trek movies...PERIOD.

I'm going to see it tonight and I expect that I'll be in 100% agreement with that comment.

Cheers!

Huzz

A friend of mine, one of 29 years, drove from Washington DC to North East Ohio for a visit and to especially see this movie with me. We both saw the The Wrath of Khan in the theater together some 27 years ago. We're both avid Trek fans while I may be a more rabid one with building starship models and having a few toys at the at of tender age of 44. He, my lovely girlfriend who is not a fan whatsoever and I saw this movie at the 11:40 showing this morning. The movie was big, it was loud and moved at a great pace. The villain, well, not enough time on him in my opinion but the charactors, our beloved characters were represented pretty well. Chekov being the only one I kinda winced at, but still he had his moments. Pine was a great Kirk and Spock or the Spocks were both enjoyable too. We all like the character moments but only Trekkies would get all the little nods to the TOS and they were abundant. We all loved McCoy and Scotty, Uhura was smart and hot and Sulu again got the short shrift but he had a good moment or two also. Now the ship, no it's not your father's Enterprise and the engineering set was...ehh... not what I thought it should look like but hell, it's a movie and when the ship was in motion, in warp, firing phasers or taking damage I was happy to think of it as THE USS ENTERPRISE of this new take on things. I loved the old show, most of the movies, got 'em all on disk and still enjoy 'em all from time to time. This movie, this reboot didn't disappoint me. The girlfriend loved it and my buddy's going to see again very soon and I'll probrably catch an afternoon matinee once more. I can't wait to build a model of the ship and I'd be proud to put it right next to my 18" AMT Enterprise. See this movie and judge for yourself, it's good fun and it's the only new Star Trek that's around.

Brian

Smackdown.

WShawn, you're NOT alone. Many of us don't care for the movie (or even the concept). It's okay to not like it. And, despite the attmpts of many to convince us otherwise, it's okay to express that. At least your critisizm is constructive.

Larry


I think most rational people here would agree that no one wants to suppress negative comments from someone who has actually seen the film. Lively debate with informed opinion should always be welcome. The film needs to stand on its own merits, not how much of a faithful regurgitation it is of 40 years of Trek lore that, to agree with Ron Moore, ended up strangling the franchise in the first place.

For me the engineering section was kinda jarring at first, but I got used to it. Felt a bit like going from the CIC of a modern aircraft carrier or battleship to below deck. A bit retro too.

One small thing I truely didn't like was Scotty's assistant. And Nero was a bit one dimensional, but I thought using the mind meld to catch up on the back story was well done.

I think most rational people here would agree that no one wants to suppress negative comments from someone who has actually seen the film. Lively debate with informed opinion should always be welcome. The film needs to stand on its own merits, not how much of a faithful regurgitation it is of 40 years of Trek lore that, to agree with Ron Moore, ended up strangling the franchise in the first place.

For me the engineering section was kinda jarring at first, but I got used to it. Felt a bit like going from the CIC of a modern aircraft carrier or battleship to below deck. A bit retro too.

One small thing I truely didn't like was Scotty's assistant. And Nero was a bit one dimensional, but I thought using the mind meld to catch up on the back story was well done.

Good points. Engineering was too retro. Parts of it looked like a brewery.

But the movie was a hoot. As a peripheral fan I liked it. My two teenage brats liked it too.

Winona Ryder as Spock's mom?

Oh and one of the major sets on earth was Hangar One from Moffett Field.

http://photos.hobbytalk.com/data/509/hangaronenasa.jpg

Just saw it.

That's it? That's the Big New Star Trek Movie? Just a remake of The Wrath Of Khan?

Big Deal.

The water tube? WTF? I guess there is something stupider than the giant ventilation shaft.

Never need to see it again.