ram
Magpie
randomly avoiding mainframes
Posts: 571
|
Post by ram on Jun 5, 2009 14:22:35 GMT -5
So, what do you all think of the new Star Trek movie? How does it compare to past Trek feature films? It exceeded my expectations. It lived up to the trailers, and then some. That doesn't happen often. A few of the many things I liked about the movie: The opening act - Just WOW. The USS Kelvin and Kirk's dad & mom. What a start! This one sequence moved me more than all the ST:TNG movies put together. The Enterprise crew - All the actors brought new life and personality to the ship's regular players, and they were all likeable. Uhura and Chekhov were particular favorites. Captain Pike - He was obviously overshadowed by the Kirk-Spock-McCoy triumvirate, but it was still nice to see this "lost" Captain of the Enterprise have his moment on the big screen. Bruce Greenwood did a great job bringing a certain dignity to Pike. Kirk/Spock/McCoy - Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Karl Urban were excellent in their respective takes on these iconic characters. Quinto's Spock perhaps wasn't quite as dispassionate as we remembered him from Leonard Nimoy's portrayal, but then this was a younger Spock who had to deal with a pretty insane tragedy to his family and home planet in the film. I think he could be excused for becoming a little unhinged, even for a Vulcan.  The Enterprise bridge - The most visually dazzling Enterprise bridge I've ever seen. All right, the refurbished bridge as first seen in The Motion Picture was pretty snazzy, too. But the radical makeover for the new film was something else. The transporter - The best-looking effects yet for the beaming process. The swirly effect was very cool. The transporter was also used in one of the best action sequences, when Chekhov beamed up Kirk and Sulu as the two were in freefall. I'm sure I was grinning at that scene.  The "new" classic hand phasers - All I have to say is, I want one of those! What I didn't like: The main villain - It's not that I didn't "like" Nero as the heavy, it's just that he didn't make much of an impression. Honestly, I can't think of anything about the movie that I hate. Confused about, sure. But that's almost a given when you're dealing with time travel. I didn't let it faze me too much. And what about the questionable physics in the movie? Well it's not any worse than Star Wars physics. Besides, if I want (near) total scientific accuracy, I'll put on 2001 or The Andromeda Strain. So, these are now my favorite Star Trek films in order: 1. ST: The Motion Picture 2. ST III: The Search for Spock 3. ST IV: The Voyage Home 4. Star Trek 5. ST II: The Wrath of Khan |
|
|
|
Post by thomasallencummins on Jun 6, 2009 14:15:11 GMT -5
Well ram I'm glad you enjoyed the film.
In many ways I had a similar experience.
I know a film is doing it's job when I have a stupid grin plastered on my face for 2 hours. (I had a similar experience last year while watching Iron Man for the first time.)
Star Trek, in my opinion, is by far the most visually stunning Trek film and delivers travails, triumph and tragedy with expert precision. I would echo your opinions about the actors and their performances. Of course I join those that saw this first reboot film as a terrific platform for even greater cinematic achievements.
My favorite original character films fall in line as follows:
Star Trek II
Star Trek
Star Trek IV
Star Trek VI
Star Trek I
Star Trek III
Star Trek V
As I've stated elsewhere, an aggressive re edit of Star Trek I would definitely raise it's place on my list. Trim the fat as it were and perhaps juice the tension with additional scenes. There are only two genuinely perilous moments in STI, the transporter malfunction scene and the initial loss of Ilia. Most of the rest of the film, though somewhat dramatic in some spots, seems to simmer as a constant low bubble. I feel myself interested but in no way filled with awe or implied peril. IMHO of course. ;D
|
|
ram
Magpie
randomly avoiding mainframes
Posts: 571
|
Post by ram on Jun 10, 2009 0:39:56 GMT -5
Well the part about "trimming the fat" must be where we fundamentally differ in our view of The Motion Picture. I don't see the "fat" you speak of. TMP works for me the way it is - as deeply contemplative science fiction.
But I also love the crazy action in the new Trek film. I guess it and TMP represent the extreme opposite (opposing?) ways that one could approach Star Trek. I can enjoy both approaches when they're done well, as I think both TMP and the reboot are.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomasallencummins on Jun 10, 2009 7:02:36 GMT -5
Well the part about "trimming the fat" must be where we fundamentally differ in our view of The Motion Picture. I don't see the "fat" you speak of. TMP works for me the way it is - as deeply contemplative science fiction. But I also love the crazy action in the new Trek film. I guess it and TMP represent the extreme opposite (opposing?) ways that one could approach Star Trek. I can enjoy both approaches when they're done well, as I think both TMP and the reboot are. I understand and tend to relate with your point of view, ram. I guess I tend to think of TMP more in line with 2001 than anything I'd seen of STOS. There is a certain calm, dignified sterility to the film that is more instructive to me than overtly exciting. If the Spock character himself was credited with directing one of these films and people were asked to guess which one then I'm willing to bet most people would guess TMP. (And of course if everyone were asked which film was directed by a blind chimpanzee I'm willing to bet they'd say...oh never mind.) Don't get me wrong. I do in fact like the movie, I always have. But considering it's source material TMP just never felt exactly like a Star Trek to me. (Must be the muted colors) Change the shape of the ships and give everyone different names and I probably would laud it as one of my favorite sci fi space films, intelligent, intriguing, well acted and fairly technologically accurate. IMHO if you don't give Kirk something to punch or sleep with it just aint right. ;D |
|
ram
Magpie
randomly avoiding mainframes
Posts: 571
|
Post by ram on Jun 11, 2009 2:46:03 GMT -5
There is a certain calm, dignified sterility to the film that is more instructive to me than overtly exciting. If the Spock character himself was credited with directing one of these films and people were asked to guess which one then I'm willing to bet most people would guess TMP. Interesting way to look at it. The irony is that the most light-hearted and relaxed Trek movie of them all - Voyage Home - would be directed by Spock.  Oh yeah, the new audio commentary on the blu-ray release of ST: TMP mentioned the muted colors. Seems that initially they were going to use the original uniforms from the TV show. But when Robert Wise saw screen tests with those uniforms, he felt they were too garish for the big screen, and so he ordered a toned down color scheme. I'm perfectly happy with the look of the uniforms in TMP; in fact I prefer them to the uniforms in the subsequent films. |
|
|
|
Post by dANdeLION on Jun 11, 2009 16:12:46 GMT -5
Ram, I don't care that you liked ST I better than any other ST film.....but ST III is your 2nd favorite? THAT ARE YOU, ON DRUGS? ST III sucked! ST II was the best, BTW. And no, that's not opinion; it's fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomasallencummins on Jun 11, 2009 16:41:58 GMT -5
Ram, I don't care that you liked ST I better than any other ST film.....but ST III is your 2nd favorite? THAT ARE YOU, ON DRUGS? ST III sucked! ST II was the best, BTW. And no, that's not opinion; it's fact. Let's see. I don't hate STIII but there are good reasons to consider it flawed enough to rate lower than other installments. I think only one name is sufficient to send STIII's rating plummeting below second or third or even fourth...Robin Curtis. Nuff Said. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by thomasallencummins on Jun 11, 2009 16:49:43 GMT -5
BTW after checking Box Office Mojo Star Trek has reached the 225 mil domestic take. While still pulling in nearly a million dollars every day I expect the film to pull a final tally of between 235 and 240 mil. Certainly respectable enough numbers to warrant a sequel or two. :-) Star Trek TMP was produced for a whopping 35 mil back in 79. I think I heard that nearly 93% of the budget was devoted to constructing V'ger and Shattner's hairpiece. Another 6% went to additional film stock because Mr. Wise used up most of the original film on reaction shots of Sulu staring at the view screen at V'ger. Only 1% of the budget went to the supporting casts' salaries and a nice deli platter. *just kidding*  |
|
|
|
Post by dANdeLION on Jun 12, 2009 9:25:47 GMT -5
Dude, this is a family-oriented forum. Restraint, please. |
|
ram
Magpie
randomly avoiding mainframes
Posts: 571
|
Post by ram on Jun 12, 2009 14:05:49 GMT -5
Ouch, you guys. Maybe I'm mellowing with age ( I doubt that!) but I've become more accepting of Robin Curtis as Saavik over the years. Really, guys, she's not that awful. And ST III rocks!  Star Trek TMP was produced for a whopping 35 mil back in 79. I think I heard that nearly 93% of the budget was devoted to constructing V'ger and Shattner's hairpiece. Another 6% went to additional film stock because Mr. Wise used up most of the original film on reaction shots of Sulu staring at the view screen at V'ger. Only 1% of the budget went to the supporting casts' salaries and a nice deli platter. *just kidding* Funny! ;D But you can't deny that George Takei was utterly convincing. He made you believe, man. He made you believe! Yes, the box office numbers for Star Trek look very impressive, especially in comparison to the last ST:TNG film, which tanked as I recall. However, it should be remembered that The Motion Picture was actually profitable too, contrary to the popular misconception that it was a money loser. I've heard that if you converted TMP's box office earnings into today's numbers, it would be over $400 million. Not too shabby. |
|
|
|
Post by thomasallencummins on Jul 2, 2009 6:15:22 GMT -5
To be fair I don't HATE Robin Curtis but it's alot like asking me to play lead guitar right after Eddie Van Halen. I'm not bad but you don't want to follow an act like that. :-)
George Takei was indeed convincing with is portrayal of a Sulu completely agape in the face of the one and only V'ger. I'd never argue that point.
Frankly Takei's greatest moment in Star Trek movie history (IMHO) comes with his scenes as the captain of the Excelsior in ST:VI. The passion he conveyed with his proclamation "Then fly her apart!" was awesome. I would have really been on board for an Excelsior movie featuring Captain Sulu. What a shame. :-(
|
|
ram
Magpie
randomly avoiding mainframes
Posts: 571
|
Post by ram on Jul 2, 2009 15:38:34 GMT -5
Frankly Takei's greatest moment in Star Trek movie history (IMHO) comes with his scenes as the captain of the Excelsior in ST:VI. The passion he conveyed with his proclamation "Then fly her apart!" was awesome. I would have really been on board for an Excelsior movie featuring Captain Sulu. What a shame. :-( Yeah, that was a missed opportunity, but maybe Paramount was anxious to get the ball rolling on a ST: TNG movie after Undiscovered Country. I guess Takei fans should be glad he got the screen time that he did. When your name wasn't Shatner, Nimoy or Kelley, you had to fight for every scene. Takei sure made the most of his. |
|
|
|
Post by cleburne on Nov 23, 2009 13:05:09 GMT -5
Havent seen it yet but its on sale for £10 here so I might go out and buy it.
|
|
ram
Magpie
randomly avoiding mainframes
Posts: 571
|
Post by ram on Nov 25, 2009 3:39:22 GMT -5
If you're getting it, cleburne, please let us know what you think of the movie.
I haven't bought it yet. I want the Blu-ray version, but with the "digital copy" included it's not cheap. The inclusion of the digital copy irks me a bit. I have no use for it. I don't buy movies just so I can have a copy to watch on a dinky iPod or whatever.
|
|
