The Return of Talking Time

Go Back   The Return of Talking Time > Talking about media > Talking about TV and film

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 05-09-2009, 08:54 AM
dangerhelvetica's Avatar
dangerhelvetica dangerhelvetica is offline
Hi
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul le Fou View Post
Sulu felt half-developed (and "give the asian guya katana and karate" rankled me).


I find that offensive. Just because I am of Japanese ancestry, they assume I know karate. Have I ever lead them to believe I have studied karate?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-09-2009, 09:03 AM
Vega's Avatar
Vega Vega is offline
Tiger, Tiger, muddy dark
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Space Coast, FL
Posts: 3,213
Default

This movie sort of reminds me of the 1996 Romeo and Juliet, where the plot and franchise has been done a thousand times, but they try to mix it up with a new cast and a very intense look and sound. Maybe Hollywood now wants to treat film like live theater, where all the plots and franchises are old, but each new performance lasts for only an instant, and the actors and style are sort of fresh?

What makes me sad is that as a reboot, this movie is trying to nullify TOS that already exists, and also that it has a somewhat fascist vibe that makes it too similar to Verhoven's Starship Troopers. I'd rather see Hollywood rerun classic movies in theaters than remake/reboot them.

Last edited by Vega; 05-09-2009 at 09:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-09-2009, 09:20 AM
djSyndrome's Avatar
djSyndrome djSyndrome is offline
Thanatos feeding time
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Seattle-ish
Posts: 12,607
Default

I get to go see this again tonight.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-09-2009, 10:28 AM
Maggie's Avatar
Maggie Maggie is offline
Time for talking
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 9,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djSyndrome View Post
I kept expecting to see Kal Penn pop up in a cameo.
Doesn't he? I could've sworn I saw him standing on the bridge in an out-of-focus shot for half a second.

Also, I agree with what was said earlier about the villain making no sense. He's stupid and the weakest link in what I already felt was a pretty flimsy chain. I think the writers wanted to make a sympathetic villain, but they had no idea how to actually do that and gave up halfway through trying to give him characterization.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-09-2009, 10:29 AM
Kate or Die!'s Avatar
Kate or Die! Kate or Die! is offline
crazy sniffable
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York Peninsula
Posts: 2,778
Default

I mostly like Trek from Next Generation but I liked all the characters and everything in this movie, no complaints. Roger Ebert wrote about a bunch of 'inconsistencies' that weren't really inconsistencies at all, I guess he just wasn't paying attention.

Quote:
The logic is also a little puzzling when Scotty can beam people into another ship in outer space, but they have to physically parachute to land on a platform in the air from which the Romulans are drilling a hole to the Earth’s core. After they land there, they fight with two Romulan guards, using ... fists and swords? The platform is suspended from Arthur C. Clark’s “space elevator,” but instead of fullerenes, the cable is made of metallic chunks the size of refrigerators.
Or maybe he's just trolling?

Also Tyler Perry and Deep Roy. And I liked Bones too. And Scotty.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-09-2009, 12:02 PM
Parish's Avatar
Parish Parish is offline
Your life is forfeit
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rally, Nerf Cackolacka
Posts: 11,135
Default

I keep trying to find things not to like about this movie, but I'm not having much luck. I figured I could at least get riled up about the Uhura/Spock romance, but then I remembered that in the very earliest episodes of the series Uhura totally put the moves on him only to be rebuffed; clearly the more emotional Spock of the movie decided, "Hell, why not?" Nichelle Nichols was much more beautiful in her day, though.

The little nods to other films were great, from the obvious Star Trek II references to the little things like Old Spock giving Scotty his own warp equation from the future, just like Scotty did for the transparent aluminum guy in Trek IV.

Yeah, it's glossy, flashy, contrived at times, and kinda campy, but so was the original series in its day. The thing I think I like most about the film is that it's the first great reboot I've seen that didn't go the darker, grittier, more serious route a la Batman Begins or Casino Royale. Vulcan genocide notwithstanding. Trek has always been at its best when it's dramatic but not oppressive, and this totally nailed the sparkly sense of fun that draws most people to Trek.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-09-2009, 12:04 PM
Parish's Avatar
Parish Parish is offline
Your life is forfeit
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rally, Nerf Cackolacka
Posts: 11,135
Default

People seem surprised by Ebert's review, especially considering he used to love Trek, but go back and check his Nemesis review. He basically said, "This franchise is dead to me and I want no more of it," and he's a man of his word!
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-09-2009, 12:32 PM
Alixsar's Avatar
Alixsar Alixsar is offline
The Shogun of Harlem
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Harlem
Posts: 23,644
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaeran View Post
It all makes me feel kind of lonely and crazy in the same way that Final Fantasy XII did: "what's wrong with me that I can't enjoy this the same way everyone else does?"
You don't like FFXII or Star Trek? Man. I hate damn well near everything, and I can't even fathom that.

Anyway, Ebert has been at war with the nerd world at large for some time. Who knows what his deal is? Don't pay encourage him.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-09-2009, 12:35 PM
Dizzy Dizzy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,309
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alixsar View Post
Anyway, Ebert has been at war with the nerd world at large for some time. Who knows what his deal is? Don't pay encourage him.
I'm surprised. His brush with death has made him less critical than he used to be. He gave like, 85 movies in 2008 four stars. Only four or five movies truly deserve that kind of rating in a year.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-09-2009, 12:44 PM
Maggie's Avatar
Maggie Maggie is offline
Time for talking
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 9,876
Default

Yeah, Ebert's really kind of weird about reimaginings. Sometimes he's perfectly ok with them, then other times he's nostalgic for the original and doesn't like things become modernized or serious.

It almost feels like he flips a coin to decide how he'll feel about each one. I think he disliked Quantum of Solace because now Bond is too serious and less fun, but he liked Dark Knight.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 05-09-2009, 01:00 PM
Vega's Avatar
Vega Vega is offline
Tiger, Tiger, muddy dark
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Space Coast, FL
Posts: 3,213
Default

Ebert gave Watchmen four stars when most other reviewers only gave it about two. He was also fond of anime movies, back when those were still made.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-09-2009, 01:52 PM
Bergasa's Avatar
Bergasa Bergasa is offline
Terrible confusion
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,890
Default

Just saw the movie. Loved it! Such a great ride. I thought the cast did a great job of representing the old characters, while not going too far to be imitations. McCoy stuck out as the best to me-- there were a few points where his resemblance to the old Bones was uncanny.

Plotwise, it didn't do anything too crazy, but I am happy that the timeline ended up splitting. They are clearly reestablishing Trek with this movie, and to go on with all of that continuity bogging things down... it would have been too convoluted. This way, we get the easing-in by knowing that things do fit in with the old stories (thanks Mr. Nimoy!), but they can still do their own thing. I enjoyed it a lot more than I would have a straight reimagining.

Great film, and I can't wait for the sequels. I was really feeling the Trek withdrawal, and this certainly cured that.

Also:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul le Fou View Post
Sulu felt half-developed (and "give the asian guya katana and karate" rankled me).
To be fair, the Sulu of old was trained in fencing, was he not? There was that episode where he had that fencing sword. I think it was a throwback more than anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Ebert
The logic is also a little puzzling when Scotty can beam people into another ship in outer space, but they have to physically parachute to land on a platform in the air from which the Romulans are drilling a hole to the Earth’s core
Wasn't that thing jamming their beaming capabilities?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-09-2009, 03:16 PM
sraymonds's Avatar
sraymonds sraymonds is offline
Hawkguy
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sugar Land, TX
Posts: 12,406
Default

Oh man, Rachel Nicols was the green alien Kirk was making out with? She's so hot. They got Scarlett in my Star Trek! They got an Orion in my GI JOE!

Yeah, I loved the movie.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-09-2009, 03:54 PM
Red Hedgehog's Avatar
Red Hedgehog Red Hedgehog is offline
For blood and gold
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 14,403
Default

I thought the movie was very good. It got what made Trek good in the first place: The Characters. The interplay between Kirk and Spock really worked and the smaller characters were generally fleshed out too (with the exception of Sulu). I loved Urban as McCoy. I also find it funny that Uhura was probably more developed in this movie than she was in three seasons and six movies of Star Trek.

The weakest point of the movie was the villain as he was totally undeveloped as a character so the Enterprise crew ends up battling a pretty generic bad guy. The ice planet was a drag on the pacing and credibility as well.

Still, the movie did leave me wanting to see more of this universe, so I think it succeeded admirably.

I do wonder if everything would have worked better as a strict reboot with no concessions to the original Trek timeline. That would have meant no Nimoy, but I think it might have improved the pacing of the movie and left time for more development of the villain or a little more of the Star Trek "message".
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-09-2009, 03:55 PM
Falselogic's Avatar
Falselogic Falselogic is offline
Threadcromantosaurus Rex
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: California
Posts: 29,624
Default

Just saw it and loved it. I have nothing more to add. Just excited to see good sci-fi (read hopeful) making a comeback
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-09-2009, 05:35 PM
Dizzy Dizzy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,309
Default

The movie was a blast and that was all I could ask from a movie of this caliber. I'll probably forget in a week but it for now it was exciting, funny and a wee bit sad. I'm guessing this movie was made for people who are not die hard Trekkies looking for something new, as I enjoyed it.

The whole time travel paradox didn't sit well with me, like it does with any movie, stories almost never survive that kind of abuse, and Kirk and Spock's plan went off a little too easily. I can't believe who they got to play Spock's mommy. Huh? I don't know why a "reboot" was necessary but whatever.

Thank god William Shatner did not show up!

There was a moment at the end when |Future Spock nods in approval at young Kirk gaining the respect of that dude who likes to dress up like a grandma in those terrible movies| and I got the creepy feeling that Shatner was going to show up, give |Future Spock| a friendly tap on the shoulder and say, "Just like old times... friend." The movie would have lost all integrity right then and there, and I would have locked the doors to the theater and killed everyone inside.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-09-2009, 06:41 PM
Grignr's Avatar
Grignr Grignr is offline
Unreliable Narrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,032
Default

Just saw it in IMAX (actual giant screen, not "IMAX certified" crap). And then felt motion sick for two hours.

Granted, sitting in the second row from the front didn't help, but there are too many quick cuts/pans during the space battles and fist fight scenes for me to find anything to focus on. So not recommended in Super Size.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-09-2009, 06:54 PM
Brer's Avatar
Brer Brer is offline
Cranky Geezer In Training
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO
Posts: 4,202
Default

Just got back from seeing it, and I have to say that I liked it, although I think some of the criticisms (ice planet, Sulu and Nero's lack of development, etc) are on-target. On the whole, it was satisfying and makes me look forward to seeing what they do with the cast in the future. The only visually jarring note for me was the engineering spaces in the Starfleet hull. I got that they were going for an industrial/powerplant feel, "grittier" than what we've come to expect from the Federation, but there were some shots/sets that looked a little TOO much like they'd just dressed up the same factory that was used for the final fight of Highlander 3, the climax of Gone in 60 Seconds, the last fight in The One, and a thousand other films.

Edit: Nowhere Man! THAT'S where I've seen Bruce Greenwood before! I really liked his part in this film and I've been trying to remember where I've seen him before this.

Last edited by Brer; 05-09-2009 at 07:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-09-2009, 07:49 PM
Egarwaen's Avatar
Egarwaen Egarwaen is offline
Inherently Stealthy
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sebastopol, CA
Posts: 13,611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Hedgehog View Post
The weakest point of the movie was the villain as he was totally undeveloped as a character so the Enterprise crew ends up battling a pretty generic bad guy. The ice planet was a drag on the pacing and credibility as well.
Has any Star Trek movie ever had a well-developed bad guy? The only one you can even argue about is Khan, and that's more because they basically say "Fuck it, he's evil because of genetics. Moving on, watch him stick a bug in Chekov's ear!" Khan is certainly villainous, but isn't particularly interesting and has no characterization of note beyond being a ruthless, amoral villain. Other than that, we have... Uh...?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-09-2009, 07:53 PM
chud_666's Avatar
chud_666 chud_666 is online now
120 Days
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Salo
Posts: 7,768
Default

It was pretty good. I like that Nero's ship wasn't a war vessel but some sort of planet cracker, and because it is from 130 years in the future it is sufficiently bad-ass enough to take on starfleet.

The casting was bad-ass, and I think Pine channeled Shatner on occassion, particularily during the Kobayashi Maru scene. Sylar was a lot better than I was expecting and Eomer's performance was uncanny. The Spock/Uhura thing was cool, as Spock and Uhura were supposed to have a kiss on TOS before Shatner cock blocked him. I don't know if it was a reference to that, but I liked it.

Despite all this, there is something 'off' about the movie, and it feels a little weird. Not sure what it is yet. Overall I am positive though
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 05-09-2009, 07:56 PM
Dizzy Dizzy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,309
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brer View Post
Edit: Nowhere Man! THAT'S where I've seen Bruce Greenwood before! I really liked his part in this film and I've been trying to remember where I've seen him before this.
He also brainwashed high school students in Disturbing Behavior. Science is god!

Quote:
Originally Posted by chud_666 View Post
I like that Nero's ship wasn't a war vessel but some sort of planet cracker, and because it is from 130 years in the future it is sufficiently bad-ass enough to take on starfleet.
Yeah, I thought it was pretty wicked. Seeing it get sucked into a black hole while it was stretching out its tentacles was neat too.

I think Nero said it was a mining vessel of some sort, and that he and his crew were originally laborers.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-09-2009, 07:56 PM
Jeanie's Avatar
Jeanie Jeanie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 9,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Egarwaen View Post
Has any Star Trek movie ever had a well-developed bad guy? The only one you can even argue about is Khan, and that's more because they basically say "Fuck it, he's evil because of genetics. Moving on, watch him stick a bug in Chekov's ear!" Khan is certainly villainous, but isn't particularly interesting and has no characterization of note beyond being a ruthless, amoral villain. Other than that, we have... Uh...?
Let's see... first there was V'ger, then Khan (insert Shatner here), then Doc Brown in Klingon make up, four had some kind of energy wave or something? Been so long since I've seen that one. Six came closest IMO with the Shakespear quoting Klingon. Gen. had Malcolm McDowell, FC with the Borg Queen, Ins. with the stretchy face guy, and Nem. had the Picard clone.

So yeah, maybe only Two and Six had a good villians, and FC was the better of the Next Gen cast.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-09-2009, 08:00 PM
spineshark's Avatar
spineshark spineshark is offline
forbidden noise
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: cube hell
Posts: 11,652
Default

I wouldn't even call the thing from IV a villain. The "main plot" is just a Macguffin.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 05-09-2009, 08:03 PM
Brer's Avatar
Brer Brer is offline
Cranky Geezer In Training
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO
Posts: 4,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzy View Post
Yeah, I thought it was pretty wicked.
According to the prequel stuff it's a mining vessel retrofitted with scavenged Borg tech the Romulans had somehow acquired, making the Nerada something like the Omega-X destroyers from B5, if you'll pardon the cross-franchise geekery. That's the part that my inner lore-obsessed geek does find a little odd.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 05-09-2009, 08:07 PM
nunix nunix is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 8,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzy View Post
He also brainwashed high school students in Disturbing Behavior. Science is god!
Also: the dad in John From Cincinatti.

EAT YOUR TUNA FISH, SHAWNIE!!1
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 05-09-2009, 08:36 PM
Phat's Avatar
Phat Phat is offline
utada hikaru
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: new scotland
Posts: 3,344
Default

Typically I need a catalyst to motivate me to immerse myself in something as monolithic as Star Trek and I think this movie was that catalyst. I'll probably watch some of the movies and then spend all summer watching the serieses.

This is how it always begins and it is to my own chagrin that I am propelled so.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 05-09-2009, 09:23 PM
Egarwaen's Avatar
Egarwaen Egarwaen is offline
Inherently Stealthy
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sebastopol, CA
Posts: 13,611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JFink View Post
Let's see... first there was V'ger, then Khan (insert Shatner here), then Doc Brown in Klingon make up, four had some kind of energy wave or something? Been so long since I've seen that one. Six came closest IMO with the Shakespear quoting Klingon. Gen. had Malcolm McDowell, FC with the Borg Queen, Ins. with the stretchy face guy, and Nem. had the Picard clone.

So yeah, maybe only Two and Six had a good villians, and FC was the better of the Next Gen cast.
You missed Star Trek V, which had Jesus and Evil Space-Lucifer. Six came closest to making the Klingons into a believable "evil empire" again, which is kind of ironic since it was also the "hey, let's make peace now" movie. If they'd been writing the Klingons like that throughout the movies, I think I'd agree about its villain. As-is, he kind of came out of nowhere and didn't get much development or screen time before he got offed.

None of the Next Gen ones had good villains. The Borg Queen does come closest, but that's not saying much. She's lame and shallow. Yes, somehow the consumer-society-gone-mad hive-mind aliens have a queen. Not only that, but a queen who's the only observably female member of her race (until Voyager), and is so obsessed with sex and matrimony that she'll literally sacrifice her entire race to permanently secure a "worthy" mate VIA mind control.

Right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spineshark View Post
I wouldn't even call the thing from IV a villain. The "main plot" is just a Macguffin.
It's a giant space dildo that wants our whales.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 05-09-2009, 10:24 PM
Guy's Avatar
Guy Guy is offline
Conquers the World
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hitachi, Ibaraki
Posts: 4,108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by K.Nicolai View Post
Roger Ebert wrote about a bunch of 'inconsistencies' that weren't really inconsistencies at all, I guess he just wasn't paying attention.
I've actually noticed him doing things like that for a while now. The only example I can remember off the top of my head is his Cloverfield review where he makes a point of saying one of the girls climbs up the leaning apartment complex with no trouble despite wearing high heels, but then I watched it again and she was clearly holding them in her hands. I know it's not a noticeable detail, but then I figured "why make a point of mentioning it?"
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 05-10-2009, 12:26 AM
O..O~'s Avatar
O..O~ O..O~ is offline
Follow the fuck-man
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: coffee and pie oh my
Posts: 5,016
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy View Post
I've actually noticed him doing things like that for a while now. The only example I can remember off the top of my head is his Cloverfield review where he makes a point of saying one of the girls climbs up the leaning apartment complex with no trouble despite wearing high heels, but then I watched it again and she was clearly holding them in her hands. I know it's not a noticeable detail, but then I figured "why make a point of mentioning it?"
Ebert is a monster looking thing right now, I can't decide who I would be more scared of I saw them face to face, him or Harry Knowles.

That said I thought it was great but I really thought the future spock and explaining how this works as a reboot was clever, it just felt kind of constraining. Why couldn't they just do a fresh retelling and give a new take on it? It felt like they set this weird limit on themselves with that.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 05-10-2009, 12:31 AM
Falselogic's Avatar
Falselogic Falselogic is offline
Threadcromantosaurus Rex
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: California
Posts: 29,624
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by O..O~ View Post
Ebert is a monster looking thing right now, I can't decide who I would be more scared of I saw them face to face, him or Harry Knowles.

Why couldn't they just do a fresh retelling and give a new take on it? It felt like they set this weird limit on themselves with that.
Because crazy ass trekkies wouldn't stop bitching and moaning about continuity (when did we even start caring?) and then there'd be internet petitions and angry blog posts... Probably trying to make everyone happy and it comes off a little wierd...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
anomaly , fascinating , four lights , get the cheese to sickbay , gold-pressed latinum , i'm sensing hostility , it's a faaaake! , khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan , live long and prosper , lt. barclay , no it's real!!! , o'brien's shoulder , octo-good , resistance is futile , reverse the polarity , science fiction , shaka when the walls fell , shut up wesley , star trek , tachyon , temba his arms wide , the punishment zone , there is one bridge! , welshy!!!! , wesley crusher

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Your posts ©you, 2007