Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
greengiant912

Star Trek (2009)

Recommended Posts

One of the things that Star Trek has always lacked was a tie in to our reality.

Some other things that I've always felt Star Trek lacked was koala bears, staplers and submarines. I think they could have done a better job of working those into the new movie too! :rolleyes:

 

I know I'm being ridiculous :), but why are those things any less applicable? I mean you say it lacks a connection but does it need one? When the text flashed on the screen saying they were in Iowa, I figured that was enough. I mean it's supposed to be almost three hundred years in the future, so what the crap is a 1960ish Corvette doing there? Why does the main character or someone the character knows always have to be a collector of items from exactly our time? And why should there be a car chase in a Star Trek movie? There shouldn't, but car chases sell movies so they shoehorned it in there even though any number of other events could have just as easily conveyed the point that Kirk was a rebel. In fact, they spent so much time on the gratuitous car chase that they forgot to tell us why he stole it so really he didn't end up as a rebel so much as just a little jerk.

 

I disagree, that bedroom scene was quintessential Kirk :lol:

I thought his ogling of every girl who crossed his path on "campus" and especially Uhura made that perfectly clear. The bedroom just made sure they milked the PG13 rating for as much nudity as possible. Again, that sells movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought his ogling of every girl who crossed his path on "campus" and especially Uhura made that perfectly clear. The bedroom just made sure they milked the PG13 rating for as much nudity as possible. Again, that sells movies.

 

Anybody can ogle, the point being made was that Kirk both ogles AND gets the women. Yes, I understand your point that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that Kirk is a womanizer, but scenes like that are just fun and further reinforce a specific character trait for those who didn't know going into the movie that Kirk was a man-whore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anybody can ogle, the point being made was that Kirk both ogles AND gets the women. Yes, I understand your point that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that Kirk is a womanizer, but scenes like that are just fun and further reinforce a specific character trait for those who didn't know going into the movie that Kirk was a man-whore.

:withstupid: I had no problem with that scene, nor did I have a problem with the car scene.

 

I also don't understand why people throw around "Michael Bay" whenever a movie has special effects now. Does mentioning his name make you hip? Seriously...Star Trek has a great storyline, so shouldn't the spectacular special effects be seen as a bonus and not a detriment? I for one am glad that most people like special effects, because I certainly don't want movie making to backtrack to twenty years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you don't think their will be classic cars 300 years from now... :-\

 

 

Granted the nokia thing was just freaking add placement which I found was quite stupid, same w/ the Budweiser plug....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anybody can ogle, the point being made was that Kirk both ogles AND gets the women. Yes, I understand your point that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that Kirk is a womanizer, but scenes like that are just fun and further reinforce a specific character trait for those who didn't know going into the movie that Kirk was a man-whore.

Maybe so, but I didn't think it was really that funny. It was obvious, slapstick-funny like I'd expect from the next American Pie movie or something. And that's fine, I like those kinds of movies, I just don't want them merging into my Sci-Fi movies.

 

I also don't understand why people throw around "Michael Bay" whenever a movie has special effects now. Does mentioning his name make you hip? Seriously...Star Trek has a great storyline, so shouldn't the spectacular special effects be seen as a bonus and not a detriment? I for one am glad that most people like special effects, because I certainly don't want movie making to backtrack to twenty years ago.

Well, by "people" I figure you might mean me... -I- use the description to mean a cookie-cutter movie (or scene) that sacrifices integrity and ingenuity in order to appeal to reduced-intelligence audiences and thus sell more tickets. It doesn't have anything to do with special effects, although he surely does overuse them. Selling tickets is the plan of course, so I don't really fault the Michael Bays of the world nearly as much as the people who allow him to be successful, but that's a losing battle and I know it because "Dancing With The Stars" was the #1 show on TV.

 

I'd give Dumb and Dumber as an example. That movie was chock FULL of stupid humor and it's one of my all-time favorites. That's because it doesn't require me to suspend disbelief. I went in expecting stupid and when I watch it now, that's what I want. But when I watch Star Trek I want to use my imagination and suspend disbelief which is totally ruined by stupid humor or illogical car chases or CGI sequences or a idiotic music selection like "Sabotage" (an awesome song, btw). It detracts from the story, which is why I'm watching the movie. It was funny when Jason Biggs stuck his junk in a pie, but it would have ruined the movie if Han Solo did it in the middle of Empire! Would you disagree?

 

But people like Michael Bay want to homogenize everything and "mainstream" the crap out of it by injecting more explosions here and a car chase there and more .-appeal here and more CGI there... It's just the way Roddenberry intended it, right?

 

So you don't think their will be classic cars 300 years from now... :-\

I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm skeptical that they'd still have correct octane gasoline and properly sized tires and properly weighted 4-cycle engine oil and all that, but it's not impossible. The problem I have is that in 300 years there would have been... I don't know... 15 "generations" or so, depending on definitions which I'm using loosely. But either way, why couldn't he have been a collector of cars from the 2120's, or the 2090s? Nope, it had to be our time because that makes it "relate-able". But I don't want that from Star Trek, I want imagination, and injecting a Corvette is the opposite of that.

 

It wouldn't even be so bad if it was original, but like I said, practically every future movie insists on doing this. It's not original anymore, it's hacky, it's lame and I think it's insulting to my intelligence that directors still think it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this while it was in theatres and it was amazing.

 

My dad was even lucky enough to score it on preorder from Netflix but my damn studying for my Economics test tomorrow makes me unable to watch it yet.

 

To anybody on netflix here that was waiting to get it, sorry. Probably won't be mailed out until Friday :unsure:

 

On a positive note we're definitely one of the first people to get it since the bottom of the disc looks immaculate. A fairly rare sight from a rental dvd.

Edited by IVIYTH0S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...