I have to see the movie again I guess, but did they really mobilize the entire fleet? I thought they were argueing wether or not to go back and rally the rest of the fleet, or just go straight after Nero?
I was also under the impression that Pike was a Star FLeet instructor as well as captain, so it made sense to me that his ship was filled with cadets.
I was given the impression that during the deployment scene everyone was promoted as they were being assigned. It was supposed to be an all-hands situation.
But seriously, the ONLY people you see during the movie were the bridge staff, one medical officer, and a couple of people in the transporter room. The bridge of the ship only needs the captain and the first officer to actually be officers. The rest of the bridge crew could very reasonably be cadets since they are just conveying information gathered by other parts of the ship, in reality.
I have to see the movie again I guess, but dud they really mobilize the entire fleet? I thought they were argueing wether or not to go back and rally the rest of the fleet, or just go straight after Nero?
I think they mobilized the entire available fleet at Earth. I'm pretty sure the second group of ships was a rendezvous of all other ships that were out on individual missions, following the disaster.
I was impressed by Star Trek. What 3 or 4 errors it had was more than made up for by how the rest just fit so perfectly.
I really expected to see the ship fall into that new black hole and end up back in time to fix the blown up planet or kelvin incident, but at least this way it creates something new
I just hope the sequel doesn't blow. I had to go into this one with the idea it sucked (because all the reviews were high) to keep from being disappointed. It worked.
As for Transformers, it was an iconic part of my youth, being of elementary-school-age when they came out. The movie wasn't nearly as bad as some people make it out to be, when you consider it's just a movie based on a childs toy and cartoon. It was reasonably entertaining and anyone under ~15 probably had a good time watching it. I expect the new one to be the same.
The new Star Trek movie was a legitimately good film. You do have to drop the pretense of lining up everything with the old films/shows, while letting the new interpretation of Trek sink in. The fact that it's a mega-smash-hit is very good tidings for Trek fans, as it will bode well in terms of further Trek sequels, series, and so forth. Also, for a 'reboot', it does a pretty good job of nodding to the source material, I especially loved the 'red shirt' thing. I told Amanda 'he's got a red shirt! he's gonna die!' and she was like 'what?!', and then he did. Ah, good times.
^^^ nice synopsis. I think a lot of people that have complaints against the new movie must have completely forgotten how awful most of the other Star Trek films actually are.
I mean, they're a fun-awful...like Masters of the Universe or Escape from New York...but they're still awful.
This is really the only one that constitutes a "good movie". (the Next Generation movies barely count as "films" since they're almost all basically extended episodes)
Wrath of Khan was a good war movie. Substitute submarines for starships. I think VI could have been good, too, if it wasn't a sendoff with all of the stars trying to get the "most memorable line" award.
But all of the other TOS movies are classic-awful. And the NG movies are just extended episodes that nowadays would be shown on Sci-Fi as made-for-cable features.
Yeah I must agree this was probly the best Star Trek movie. Insurection and Nemesis were ok, but the rest were just poor. They seem like they could have all just been made into 2 hour long holiday special TV movies rather then feature films.
The only thing I find dissapointing about this film is where they may go with another series. I have been waiting for a new series for a long time. I was hoping though that the new series would take place after Voyager, and continue the story line. I am tired of going back in story. We pretty much know the entire history of earth, from present day, all the way up to 2379. What happens to the federation next? Whats the next big scientific break through? in 300 years we have gained so much technology. When do we find out more about the other quadrents of the galaxy. Does the Federation expand? What are the borg up to? Whats happening with Q?
Eh maybe the next series will take place in Old Spocks timeline. Will we get to see speciaies or empires form other galaxies?
To be fair to the older films, the budgets just weren't there at the time, and they frequently used people like Shatner or Nimoy to direct. They did a pretty good job overall considering.
My take :
Star Trek 1 : Too long, promising plot muddled a bit, there were a lot of shots that lingered on excessively. The effects and such were on par with what was out. Not enough 'fun' factor, I have a feeling the filmmakers may have been somewhat influenced by the 2001 / Arther C. Clarke brand of 'serious' Sci-Fi. Classic Trek to me was all about the feeling of adventure, discovery, and camaraderie. Particularly damaging was that the serious tone wasn't matched with any credible sense of urgency or real danger.
Star Trek 2 : Very very good (particularly for the time). They regained both the fun factor and the pacing necessary to keep the series alive. I honestly think that if they hadn't done such a good job with this film that the series might have been scuttled forever. The plot was brilliant, it was easy to follow, and the choice to really link in the original series with Khan was a great great move. Getting James Horner to do the soundtrack was also a great coup. For a 1982 production, it really is still enjoyable even if a bit dated of course.
Star Trek 3 : They lost a bit of the urgency here, the pacing wasn't up to par with the previous film, but it did a good job of continuity. Casting Chris Lloyd as the Klingon commander was a great move, and overall I think this is an entertaining installment even if it's not at the top.
Star Trek 4 : This is a divisive installment. They really amped up the comedy angle here, and I think that bugged a lot of diehard fans. For me as a young one watching it, I had a great time, as I was 9 years old. There was some creativity here, even if the plot is a bit of a stretch. The production values were quite high for a 1986 film, receiving 4 Oscar nominations. It was a box office hit, and was very approachable even for fans not very familiar with the series or Sci-Fi in general.
Star Trek 5 : IMHO, this is easily the worst of the Trek films. It doesn't succeed on any level. The direction by William Shatner is confused, and the production was plagued by many problems which probably made what could have been a mediocre film a legitimately bad one. There are a couple interesting moments, but it's still almost embarassing to watch.
Star Trek 6 : A huge improvement over the previous film, but not up to the standard of the 'loose trilogy' of 2, 3, and 4. It was a modest commercial success despite being released in a mild recession, and it was a good touch to see the great Christopher Plummer in this installment.
Star Trek Generations : Sort of a shame really. On one hand it was nice to see the improvements in special effects, and to see TNG stuff on the big screen, but other things didn't work out so well. The plot and pacing were not great, and the death of Kirk remains one of the silliest and underwhelming moments in Trek history. Malcolm McDowell's performance in this was a significant disappointment, particularly contrasted with great past baddies by Chris Lloyd, Plummer, Montalban, and so on. Has legitimately been described as a long TV episode of TNG.
Star Trek First Contact : Pretty decent, and an immediately noticable improvement over Generations. Good big-screen usage of the Borg. Competently directed by Jonathan Frakes, and one of the more approachable Trek films for a non-acolyte.
Star Trek Insurrection : I was a bit let down by this, the writing and story just didn't do much for me. Still better than Generations, but not one of the better films of the series. Commercially it didn't fare near as well as First Contact.
Star Trek Nemesis : An improvement in the series IMHO, but it was released at an insanely bad time, against Harry Potter and The Two Towers in December. If they had waited until February or so, it could have been a reason for people to go to the theatre during the drought of decent major releases.
Star Trek (2009) : A very successful film on it's own merits. My GF, who doesn't know Trek whatsoever had a real blast and truly liked it. Well cast, great energy and chemistry, good music, outstanding visual effects and sound, and a pretty good story. For those who might take the classic Trek canon very seriously, it might be offensive to see the whole thing rebooted, but I think it's a good thing for any Trek / Sci Fi fan to see this level of success for this kind of thing. Very well directed, and it shows again the wisdom of getting a good director to take this kind of job rather than handing it off to an actor.
So, in order, from best to worst, IMHO (just how I see it personally) :
(1)- Star Trek 2 (2)- Star Trek (2009) (3)- Star Trek 4 (4)- Star Trek 3 (5)- Star Trek 6 (6)- Star Trek First Contact (7)- Star Trek Nemesis (8)- Star Trek TMP (9)- Star Trek Generations (10)- Star Trek Insurrection (11)- Star Trek 5
I seem to be the only person who honestly liked Generations. I felt like First Contact wasn't that great at all when I first saw it. They just got a new ship, supposedly the new state of the art, and they spent no time exploring what it could really do. Plus the fish-eye Borg lens... Bleh.
I also kinda feel like they use time travel too much in the movies. The Voyage Home, First Contact, and the new Star Trek are all about time travel.
I enjoyed First Contact and Insurrection...I just don't think they were really films, so much as extended episodes. There was NOTHING about them that required the big screen to appreciate.
So I saw this the other day and when I was watching the credits, I saw Winona Ryder's name up on the screen. Where the fuck was she in the movie?!?!?! Also, I could have sworn I saw Laurence Fishburne very briefly in the film, but he didn't even have a speaking role.
So I saw this the other day and when I was watching the credits, I saw Winona Ryder's name up on the screen. Where the fuck was she in the movie?!?!?! Also, I could have sworn I saw Laurence Fishburne very briefly in the film, but he didn't even have a speaking role.
She had a nice body but that mug was just to much. I didnt notice it untill about halfway through the movie. If you are planning to see it again really just take a good look at her face on the elevator.
I kinda like First Contact. I can't decide if #2 or #4 were the best of the old movies. Maybe it was Spocks "Colorful Metaphors" that always won me over with #4
Good bump! I'll be going to see it again probably Tues with my wife, we've got some cheap passes we got a while back that we're looking to burn. I wonder if Dain ever saw it...
Comments
I was also under the impression that Pike was a Star FLeet instructor as well as captain, so it made sense to me that his ship was filled with cadets.
But seriously, the ONLY people you see during the movie were the bridge staff, one medical officer, and a couple of people in the transporter room. The bridge of the ship only needs the captain and the first officer to actually be officers. The rest of the bridge crew could very reasonably be cadets since they are just conveying information gathered by other parts of the ship, in reality.
I have to see the movie again I guess, but dud they really mobilize the entire fleet? I thought they were argueing wether or not to go back and rally the rest of the fleet, or just go straight after Nero?
I think they mobilized the entire available fleet at Earth. I'm pretty sure the second group of ships was a rendezvous of all other ships that were out on individual missions, following the disaster.
sorry, watched robot chicken last night
I was impressed by Star Trek. What 3 or 4 errors it had was more than made up for by how the rest just fit so perfectly.
I just hope the sequel doesn't blow. I had to go into this one with the idea it sucked (because all the reviews were high) to keep from being disappointed. It worked.
Loved all the TOS references too.
The new Star Trek movie was a legitimately good film. You do have to drop the pretense of lining up everything with the old films/shows, while letting the new interpretation of Trek sink in. The fact that it's a mega-smash-hit is very good tidings for Trek fans, as it will bode well in terms of further Trek sequels, series, and so forth. Also, for a 'reboot', it does a pretty good job of nodding to the source material, I especially loved the 'red shirt' thing. I told Amanda 'he's got a red shirt! he's gonna die!' and she was like 'what?!', and then he did. Ah, good times.
I mean, they're a fun-awful...like Masters of the Universe or Escape from New York...but they're still awful.
This is really the only one that constitutes a "good movie". (the Next Generation movies barely count as "films" since they're almost all basically extended episodes)
But all of the other TOS movies are classic-awful. And the NG movies are just extended episodes that nowadays would be shown on Sci-Fi as made-for-cable features.
The only thing I find dissapointing about this film is where they may go with another series. I have been waiting for a new series for a long time. I was hoping though that the new series would take place after Voyager, and continue the story line. I am tired of going back in story. We pretty much know the entire history of earth, from present day, all the way up to 2379. What happens to the federation next? Whats the next big scientific break through? in 300 years we have gained so much technology. When do we find out more about the other quadrents of the galaxy. Does the Federation expand? What are the borg up to? Whats happening with Q?
Eh maybe the next series will take place in Old Spocks timeline. Will we get to see speciaies or empires form other galaxies?
Can they travel to Star War's galaxy?
My take :
Star Trek 1 : Too long, promising plot muddled a bit, there were a lot of shots that lingered on excessively. The effects and such were on par with what was out. Not enough 'fun' factor, I have a feeling the filmmakers may have been somewhat influenced by the 2001 / Arther C. Clarke brand of 'serious' Sci-Fi. Classic Trek to me was all about the feeling of adventure, discovery, and camaraderie. Particularly damaging was that the serious tone wasn't matched with any credible sense of urgency or real danger.
Star Trek 2 : Very very good (particularly for the time). They regained both the fun factor and the pacing necessary to keep the series alive. I honestly think that if they hadn't done such a good job with this film that the series might have been scuttled forever. The plot was brilliant, it was easy to follow, and the choice to really link in the original series with Khan was a great great move. Getting James Horner to do the soundtrack was also a great coup. For a 1982 production, it really is still enjoyable even if a bit dated of course.
Star Trek 3 : They lost a bit of the urgency here, the pacing wasn't up to par with the previous film, but it did a good job of continuity. Casting Chris Lloyd as the Klingon commander was a great move, and overall I think this is an entertaining installment even if it's not at the top.
Star Trek 4 : This is a divisive installment. They really amped up the comedy angle here, and I think that bugged a lot of diehard fans. For me as a young one watching it, I had a great time, as I was 9 years old. There was some creativity here, even if the plot is a bit of a stretch. The production values were quite high for a 1986 film, receiving 4 Oscar nominations. It was a box office hit, and was very approachable even for fans not very familiar with the series or Sci-Fi in general.
Star Trek 5 : IMHO, this is easily the worst of the Trek films. It doesn't succeed on any level. The direction by William Shatner is confused, and the production was plagued by many problems which probably made what could have been a mediocre film a legitimately bad one. There are a couple interesting moments, but it's still almost embarassing to watch.
Star Trek 6 : A huge improvement over the previous film, but not up to the standard of the 'loose trilogy' of 2, 3, and 4. It was a modest commercial success despite being released in a mild recession, and it was a good touch to see the great Christopher Plummer in this installment.
Star Trek Generations : Sort of a shame really. On one hand it was nice to see the improvements in special effects, and to see TNG stuff on the big screen, but other things didn't work out so well. The plot and pacing were not great, and the death of Kirk remains one of the silliest and underwhelming moments in Trek history. Malcolm McDowell's performance in this was a significant disappointment, particularly contrasted with great past baddies by Chris Lloyd, Plummer, Montalban, and so on. Has legitimately been described as a long TV episode of TNG.
Star Trek First Contact : Pretty decent, and an immediately noticable improvement over Generations. Good big-screen usage of the Borg. Competently directed by Jonathan Frakes, and one of the more approachable Trek films for a non-acolyte.
Star Trek Insurrection : I was a bit let down by this, the writing and story just didn't do much for me. Still better than Generations, but not one of the better films of the series. Commercially it didn't fare near as well as First Contact.
Star Trek Nemesis : An improvement in the series IMHO, but it was released at an insanely bad time, against Harry Potter and The Two Towers in December. If they had waited until February or so, it could have been a reason for people to go to the theatre during the drought of decent major releases.
Star Trek (2009) : A very successful film on it's own merits. My GF, who doesn't know Trek whatsoever had a real blast and truly liked it. Well cast, great energy and chemistry, good music, outstanding visual effects and sound, and a pretty good story. For those who might take the classic Trek canon very seriously, it might be offensive to see the whole thing rebooted, but I think it's a good thing for any Trek / Sci Fi fan to see this level of success for this kind of thing. Very well directed, and it shows again the wisdom of getting a good director to take this kind of job rather than handing it off to an actor.
So, in order, from best to worst, IMHO (just how I see it personally) :
(1)- Star Trek 2
(2)- Star Trek (2009)
(3)- Star Trek 4
(4)- Star Trek 3
(5)- Star Trek 6
(6)- Star Trek First Contact
(7)- Star Trek Nemesis
(8)- Star Trek TMP
(9)- Star Trek Generations
(10)- Star Trek Insurrection
(11)- Star Trek 5
I also kinda feel like they use time travel too much in the movies. The Voyage Home, First Contact, and the new Star Trek are all about time travel.
http://www.geocities.com/jkdskinhead/c4s.mp3
http://www.geocities.com/jkdskinhead/c3.mp3
http://www.geocities.com/jkdskinhead/c2.mp3
http://www.geocities.com/jkdskinhead/Crystalis.mp3
So I saw this the other day and when I was watching the credits, I saw Winona Ryder's name up on the screen. Where the fuck was she in the movie?!?!?! Also, I could have sworn I saw Laurence Fishburne very briefly in the film, but he didn't even have a speaking role.
She was Spock's mammy.
Her roommate was kind of cute
The green chick? She was in Playboy in like 2007. VERY hot.
~~NGD
^^^^^She posed nude with the green skin? What color were her nipples?
No, she was regular-skinned in Playboy. :-P But I'd think even if she were green, they'd be red. Complementary colors.
For anyone looking for a little NSFW action, I dug up this link: http://www.yousexything.org/media/d/diora_baird_002_550x746.jpg
All I've got to say is daaaaamn, Kirk! You go dawg!