• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

Star Trek (SPOILERS)

Chilli

Chilli

High Treason Prevention Officer
Hah. Seems like I got it a day earlier than everyone else.

This whole thing was stupid. The idea was stupid, the plot was stupid, it never should have been done. But it was still rather fun, in an entirely not Star Trek way. Just for Simon Pegg alone, who was way too awesome to be a believable Scotty. Chris Pine was actually pretty cool too, which surprised me more than anything.

And I told you Uhura was banging Spock! Hah! Of course, anything I might have said is completely irrelevant, because all the Trek we've ever seen never really happened. Yay.
 
Chilli said:
And I told you Uhura was banging Spock! Hah! Of course, anything I might have said is completely irrelevant, because all the Trek we've ever seen never really happened. Yay.
Click to expand...

Haven't seen the movie yet, but don't care about spoilers so I read your post. Frankly, you didn't really spoil anything key plot wise that I saw. I did want to reply to your last sentence though. From the early rumors about this movie, that scenario was hinted at, and even stated. That this was a "reboot" that could, in theory, change everything that has happened in the Star Trek universe that we have seen and "open a new book."

There are two schools of thought here.

1) People who treat everything they see on camera as bible. If you take that stance, then yes, this movie might mean (and I'm guessing since I haven't seen it) that everything that happened in Trek TOS, Trek TNG, DS9 and even Enterprise has been changed and may never have happened as a result of the plot of this movie. However, if you take that stance, there is SO MUCH contradiction anyway in movies and TV shows continuity wise, that you would probably go insane. I don't think anyone can take everything literally.

2) People that tend to separate works by creators and directors of the medium. What I mean here, is that there was Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. Then was the Rick Berman era of Star Trek after Gene passed away, and now there is the JJ Abrams era of Star Trek. Why do these all have to be considered the same thing? Many people do not treat them as such, and rightfully so as they are VERY different.

I'm of camp #2. Personally, for me. I don't put the TNG era movies in the same universe as the TOS series, and movies canon wise. Why should I? Rick Berman very openly had an extreme dislike for the TOS Trek era. He hated it. He didn't respect it, and he went out of his way to pretend like it never existed. His treatment of Kirk and the TOS crew in Generations was done to spite the TOS era. Enterprise as a series entirely, was also there to spite the TOS era and almost "pretend like it didn't happen" to a degree. So I've never felt that Generations, First Contact and those movies were "canon" in the same universe as TOS and Gene Roddenberry's vision. Similarly, why would I consider a JJ Abrams reboot to be gospel and make Gene's Trek as if it never happened. It did. I watched it. It had a huge impact on our culture. So for me, these are three different artists creating from a similar concept. This happens all the time in comic books to the point of characters and people being alive in one adaptation, dead in another, and totally different in a third --- but they are all looked upon as separate works.

This is how I have approached Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry for TOS and early TNG. Rick Berman for Generations TNG and beyond, and now JJ Abrams for this "reboot." You can't get away with this for Star Wars since its all Lucas, but for Star Trek you certainly can.

So I guess the short version is I'm not going to be walking out of the theater thinking to myself "well I guess Kirk never fought Khan" or anything like that. I already believe that Gene Roddenberry's Kirk didn't sacrifice himself on the Enterprise B and Veridian III because Gene would have never done that. I keep them separate so I'll watch this for what it is, probably won't be to crazy about it, and move on.

Wow, long post.
 
Last edited:
Heh .. yeah, my SPOILERS!! note might have indicated more spoilers than I've posted. I'm sure they'll come.

Here's one spoiler: A redshirt dies. :wtf:

I'm mostly with you - I never cared about Berman ruining Roddenberry's universe. When watching old Trek, new Trek just didn't happen for me. Thus, no forehead bump continuity errors. I was just annoyed with Berman wasing my time with bad, bad shows.

But:
* I'm so over this whole prequel/reset thing in general - also if I loved two of the most notable ones we've had in recent years, Casino Royale and Batman Begins. It just feels like an overused gimmick.
* It's even more annoying to me when a movie really DRIVES THE POINT that this is a reset.
"ZOMG, GOD, THE TIMELINE HAS BEEN CHANGED, ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN! THIS IS TOTALLY RESETTY!"
I'd prefer to just ignore anything produced in the past - old Trek has been decanonized by us not having any Eugenic Wars anyways :p
 
I think in terms of the new one, I'm just worried that the film will feel a bit generic, as odd as that sounds. All of the advertisements I've seen have all looked like miscellaneous action, and I get that that's the route adverts are usually made, but with Star Trek, its presence in my mind's history is one of poignancy, and I just worry if this won't have that kind of poignancy. And, I worry over whether the characters will feel like their namesakes, or if they'll just have their names and little else. I hope I end up liking it though.
 
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film?utm_source=a-section

Recoil, where are you getting this business about Berman hating TOS, and bringing in Kirk in Generations to "spite" fans? Yeah I know he's not a popular figure amongst Trek fans 'cause Voyager and Enterprise sucked, but that's quite a leap to say he "hated" TOS.

Anyway, I'm going to see this on Saturday night in the IMAX. All I expect is a decent action flick with characters that share the same name as those from an iconic but ancient TV show.

and this....

star-trek-uhura-poster.jpg


yummy
 
GKarsEye said:
Recoil, where are you getting this business about Berman hating TOS, and bringing in Kirk in Generations to "spite" fans?
Click to expand...

I didnt think that was anything but common knowledge. There have been many examples, situations, and comments over the years that illustrated Bermans lack of respect for the original series. Its not really a secret, its almost common knowledge. Dont feel like digging up ancient articles, quotes, and comments, but that is generally accepted as common knowledge.

In any case, he was just one part of the Star Trek Universe. IMO, the weakest link, but he was a part of it. I cant help but look back at the Berman era with nothing but negativity.

ST: TNG started on a serious decline
ST: TOS was ignored and almost put down
ST: DS9, while a quality show on many counts, was still a B5 rip off
ST: Voyager, while having solid promise fell far, far short, and missed a golden opportunity for some solid story telling
ST: Enterprise was an attempt to erase TOS history be "retelling" some pre TOS history without paying attention to ANY continunity (until Manny Coto took over in Season 4, but it was too late at that point).

Not wanting to get into a debate, but I think there are few people who will dispute Bermans stance on the Trek franchise, and few who wouldnt blame him for its decline.
 
Chilli said:
But:
* I'm so over this whole prequel/reset thing in general - also if I loved two of the most notable ones we've had in recent years, Casino Royale and Batman Begins. It just feels like an overused gimmick.
Click to expand...

Conceptually, I agree. That being said, I DID really, REALLY enjoy Casino Royale and Batman Begins as really, REALLY solid reboots. Mind you, Im not going to get into debates on how they do and don't respet the prior works of those series. I dont care. I dont consider Casino Royale "canon" on the James Bond universe per say. James Bond to me was a Cold War spy, and in Casio Royale they are re-inventing him in the modern day world. I just really enjoyed that movie on its own merits. Same goes for Batman Begins. I was never a hardcore comic fan. I thought the first Batman movie was decent, but I LOVE Batman Begins and The Dark Knight for what they were. There are MANY remake/reboots that I dont like, but those two I did enjoy. So while Im tired of the concept, I do think there are a few that get it done well. I am not sure if Start Trek will be one of those for me. But....I AM tired of the reboot concept --- even if some do work well. I also dont think ANY of these reboots should be considered as replacing the original story/art. Take the new ones for what they are and leave it at that. Thats what Im doing for Star Trek, and that what I did for the TNG movies.
 
I for one always wanted to see a return to the TOS era. Star Trek was always limited by budget and the constraints of 1960s television, but the characters were powerful and iconic. In addition, Trek was cut short and disappeared for 10 years before returning as a motion picture series. Perhaps if Phase II had made it to television and run for several years, us old Trekkies would have had our fill of Shatner and and crew, albeit without Spock. Once Paramout committed to a film series, we saw a radical refit of the entire universe with our beloved characters wearing white-bootied uniforms and staring out the window at excruciatingly long special effects sequences. By the time Wrath of Khan came around and brought back the action, it still didn't matter, Kirk was 50, wearing spectacles and lamenting his lost youth. He would never drop kick again.

So after decades of sanitized Trek, hardcore fans wanted a return to action, sex, color, and thought provoking drama. This film delivers most of it except for the thought provocation. It was a lot of fun, but it is not the way I would have done it. However, it leaves us with a young crew in their prime ready for their next adventure. But hurry, the clock is ticking. A few movies later and these guys will start looking old too.
 
The only one thing I wish any Trek had in order to be in the spirit of Trek is to incorporate some of the litarary science fiction themes. One of the geniuses of TOS was that it dealt with the impact of future technology and space exploration, time travel, and other ideas that were only found in novels and short stories before Trek brought it to visual entertainment for everyone else. I was a bit dismayed to learn the plot of this ones involves battling Romulans.

I'm not asking for long talky nerd talk or ultra-complicated smug BS- just something that makes it feel like it's in the tradition of actual science-fiction, not just an action flick in space.
 
GKarsEye said:
I'm not asking for long talky nerd talk or ultra-complicated smug BS- just something that makes it feel like it's in the tradition of actual science-fiction, not just an action flick in space.
Click to expand...

I read a great quote on another board from a poster who said basically what you did. That while a lot of people didn't like Star Trek: The Motion Picture, it was probably the only true Science Fiction movie of either of the two series. After that it started becoming more of a space drama and in later installments, action movies in space. ST:TMP was just poorly executed, but it was a Science Fiction movie, there is no doubt about that.

This movie is clearly marketed as an action movie in space, as are most these days, sadly enough. You just cant get people in theaters if there isnt sex and explosions :)
 
Yes, I've always had that exact judgment of the first Trek movie.
I believe it was greatly inspired by 2001: A Space Odyssey, the most science-fictiony science fiction movie ever ever.
 
I love the reboot. Admittedly, my thought at the end was "if you're gonna nuke/reboot all the previous work ... couldn't they have gotten Enterprise too?" I am more of a modern Trek guy, I grew up with TNG, watching "Encounter at Farpoint" was one of my earliest memories.

Yes, this was more of an action film, but it had such energy and was so fun to watch that I was enthralled. At least this movie lacked the self-indulgent pretensions of the last few Star Wars and Matrix movies.

With the possible exception of New Chekov (who seemed to be there to mainly mock old Chekov's accent), the cast was brilliant.
 
admiraldave said:
I love the reboot. Admittedly, my thought at the end was "if you're gonna nuke/reboot all the previous work ... couldn't they have gotten Enterprise too?" I am more of a modern Trek guy, I grew up with TNG, watching "Encounter at Farpoint" was one of my earliest memories.

Yes, this was more of an action film, but it had such energy and was so fun to watch that I was enthralled. At least this movie lacked the self-indulgent pretensions of the last few Star Wars and Matrix movies.

With the possible exception of New Chekov (who seemed to be there to mainly mock old Chekov's accent), the cast was brilliant.
Click to expand...

He did do a good job at mocking his accent.

Which made me wonder why they went to such efforts to hire a Russian. :LOL: .. the most retarded thing was when they were showing him struggling to pronounce "V".

Here's the thing .. Russians DO get W and V mixed up occasionally. This is because their language has only one of these sounds - V. So they'll sometimes have trouble figuring out what goes where, but they will never have problems pronouncing V. Come on - Vodka, Moskva, Do Svidanya, Na Strovye?

I agree that it was a great action movie. The visuals were impressive, the pacing was perfect, the acting was great, the dialogue was quite good, even the chemistry wasn't bad. The plot was stupid, the villain was unengaging, and the whole thing left me wondering why they were even doing this (aside from the $/€/£/¥, of course).

Best things about the movie:
* Simon Pegg
* The captain's life-rate monitor in the opening scene
* Bar fights!
* Uhura
* Nokia
* Vulcan Prats
* The Kobayashi Maru
* Mr. Kick-some-Romulan-butt Olsen's demise
* Seeing Leonard Nimoy again
 
I loved it... exacted a good amount of emotional responses right across the board from me. Had the benefit of watching both Trek and Wolverine today and have to say the former more than outgunned the latter.

As to the emphasis being on action rather than hardcore sci fi... let's not forget that this is the initial film and if we recall, in order to get original Trek passed as a series, Roddenberry had to sell it as a "Wagon Train to the Stars".

I loved Spock Prime's joke at our expense over the issue of temporal paradoxes. We think we know why Kirk can't alow Spock to know of his future self's existence... because we've seen it so many times in Trek and other sci-fi... and Leonard Nimoy just comes along and rips it up with a wry throw away line.
 
Well, I just saw it for a second time ... first movie I saw twice opening weekend. I honestly think this one may challenge for top Trek movie for me.
 
Before I went to see the film, I had a discussion with a hard core Trekkie friend of mine, and said that I was afraid I would be disappointed by the changes made in the reboot. Surprisingly, he was ready to accept what they did... before he saw it. After we went to see it, I was fine with the film, in part because I liked the way they handled the changes. The time-travel thing was an integral part of the movie, but it was not the main theme of the movie, it was background. I dislike the "alternate universe," and the "holodeck world" sorts of stories, because I see them as artifice, and a crutch. But, this didn't work like that, to me. Oddly enough, my Trekkie friend wasn't too happy with the changes, but sort of liked it anyway. But it IS and action picture in space, not an examination of philosophical themes, as is ST at its best.

I saw the film from the center of the front row, with a VERY wide screen. I had to turn my head to catch everything. That's the way I like it...

Some random observations:

I knew we would see something about the Kobayashi Maru.

I thought the Spock/Uhura love interest was pretty strange.

The instant I saw there was a Redshirt with Kirk and Sulu on their assault, I turned to my Trekkie friend and said "He's gonna die! :D He replied, "Well, he does have a red shirt.

Sulu's sword was rather derivative of a light saber - at the moment he drew it.

I thought the youngest Kirk was a stupid jerk, unnecessarily.

The bad Romulan's ship looked like a Shadow vessel!

My biggest disappointment with the film is that we didn't get to see more of the green girl, and for longer... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 994 (members: 0, guests: 994)

Share this page

Back
Top