Star Trek: the new movie.

[framework4]

I just came from watching the 12:01 am showing. Delightful!!! And it lived up to, indeed surpassed, the hype.

[justTripn]

I agree. I left my "review" elsewhere. Of course the OS is the series I am least familiar with, so I breifly considered how I would feel if someone "rebooted" my beloved "Star Trek: Enterprise," and decided if someone wants to reboot Enterprise, 40 years from now after Connor and Jolene and crew are too old to do it, and they produced the show with alot of skill and affection for the original, generally preserving the "feel", I would be fine with it. Scratch that, I would be overjoyed.

[Alelou]

The NYTimes review is glowing (man, I feel so respected!), but what will particularly interest people here are the Trekkies commenting on it underneath.

http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/movies/08trek.html

I liked the Amy Biancolli's review that ran in our local paper too, maybe because it begins with the line,

I'll say it loud, and say it proud: I am a Trekkie.

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/st ... e=5/8/2009

[JadziaKathryn]

SPOILER!!!:

I liked how Scotty materialized in a water tube (lucky it was just water!) because it makes sense that when you're transporting blind, there might be mishaps. Felt like Nero (no overuse of the Roman theme at all, right? ) saying "Spooock! Spooock!" was trying and failing to be like "Khhaaaan!" The whole Spock/Uhura thing... meh. I guess for this Emo!Spock it worked. Generally I felt like Uhura was mostly there to be an attractive woman who occasionally did something useful. Actually, that might be the only thing they faithfully kept from TOS...

So, here's a question. Future Spock's ship was commissioned in 2387, yes? Can we therefore assume that in the "real" universe, Romulus has been destroyed and Spock is MIA?

What was with the tatooed Romulans, though? Seriously, that was kind of weak.

Did anyone else think Pike reminded them of Gibbs from "NCIS"?

"If you believe crew morale would be better served by me pacing the corridors weeping..." was a good line. Liked that. But I felt like Spock jettisoning Kirk was inserted because it was the only way the writers could work in Future Spock. Really, isn't that kind of wrong?

Verdict: B. Enjoyable but not deep, non entirely canon but within a plausible framework, nice special and visual effects, decent-to-great acting, mostly reasonable storyline.

[Ezinma88]

HELLLLP!!!!

I watched the new Trek film last night. I really enjoyed it at the time. But now, almost 24 hours later MY BRAIN IS MELTING as I try to reconcile various time-travel paradoxes.

This is a spoiler-laden question. So please stop reading right now if you haven't watched the film yet........

SPOILER!!!:

As I understand it.....In the original time line, the Romulan mining ship didn't travel back in time. Kirk grew up knowing his father and Vulcan was never destroyed.

The problems all start about 120+ years after TOS, when a star near Romulus goes nova and the planet's destroyed.

So my problem is this.......In the original timeline the star still would have exploded. Surely that's a factor beyond anyone's control?.....Romulus would have still been destroyed. BUT, obviously somehow it wasn't because Romulus STILL exists in Benjamin Sisko's time AND in 'Star Trek X: Nemesis' we actually see Romulus whole and intact.

I'm starting to get a bit muddled with my tenses now, but I hope you all know what I'm talking about.

Perhaps in the original timeline Spock gets to Romulus in time (somehow).

[CX]

Nothing about this movie makes sense, so you might as well not even try to think too much about it. After all, the people who made it sure didn't.

[Asso]

Nothing about this movie makes sense, so you might as well not even try to think too much about it. After all, the people who made it sure didn't.

[JadziaKathryn]

Ezinma:

SPOILER!!!:

Spock's nifty little eggbeater ship was commissioned by the Vulcan Science Academy in 2387. That takes place later than DS9 or anything else we've seen so Romulus could be destroyed. But VULCAN still exists then, ergo this has to be an AU.

However, in the words of Doctor Who, "from a nonlinear, nonsubjective viewpoint, [time] is more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff."

[justTripn]

Being a beta, I shouldn't make this confession, but I can NEVER follow the plot of a complicated movie or TV series. I am kind of "living in the moment" during a show.

SPOILER!!!:

Like, right now they have to storm that platform and shut off some jamming signal. I'm not sure why.

Afterwards I ask my friend or my kids to explain the plot to me. Strangely, this doesn't prevent me from enjoying the show. I will have to see this movie one more time to even begin to follow the plot.

SPOILER!!!:

Yeah Kirk meeting Spock in a cave on the ice planet was kind of inexplicable, but I was immediately involved in the meeting itself. One of the best moments of the movie

Maybe I should demand more in terms of plausabiity, but I can't work up the righteous indignation when I'm having so much fun. For some reason the tone of this movie reminded me of Elessar's "You are Cordially Invited to a Raging Kegger." It's all the characters we know, except as kids . . . So it's them, but it's not because it's AU, which is funny and charming. That's the way I feel about this movie. If in the end it doesn't jive with canon, I'm going to say, OK, having enjoyed it, I'll now revert to "real Star Trek." This was just some sort of Star Trek homage, like Galaxy Quest. OR if this version of Star Trek is so compelling to the younger generation that they take it and run with it (I'm not sure there is enouph there for that), well that's their business and I wish them a happy time.

[Ezinma88]

Nothing about this movie makes sense, so you might as well not even try to think too much about it. After all, the people who made it sure didn't.

Something tells me that you didn't like the film.

My head HAS been left hurting......but I appreciated the line about Archer and his missing beagle.

[Ezinma88]

However, in the words of Doctor Who, "from a nonlinear, nonsubjective viewpoint, [time] is more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff."

*A small aside* I have some good news about Dr. Who! I intend to start a thread about it soon and hope that you will all support the cause.

But, I'm not sure how to post photos. So, if anyone can enlighten me........

[justTripn]

Go get yourself an account at photobucket.com. Post your photos there and then get a link to copy and past in here. There is also a code where the image itself will show instead the link. You'll see. Go to photobucket and the site will guide you through it.

[Ezinma88]

Thanks!

[Aquarius]

However, in the words of Doctor Who, "from a nonlinear, nonsubjective viewpoint, [time] is more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff."

OMG THANK YOU for that!!

[JadziaKathryn]

You're most welcome!