Star Trek 2009 - In Theaters - Box Office Review - Page 2 - Home Theater Forum and Systems - HomeTheaterShack.com

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #11 of 78 Old 06-11-09, 01:33 PM
Senior Shackster
 
Vader's Avatar
Derek
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Colorado
Posts: 402
My System
Re: Star Trek 2009

I have not seen (nor have I any intention of seeing) this film, but I wanted to address some of the comments I have read here and on other boards from the perspective of one diehard Trekkie (me). And yes, I know that I am probably the only person on the planet who prefers "Trekkie" to "Trekker."

Short version: This film, while it may be a good movie, is sacrilege to the Classic Trek faithful.

Long version: OK, let me explain myself in a little more depth. I have been a Trekkie since the early 70's (I missed the original run by a few months – I am 41 years old), to the point of knowing by heart every line from the original series (including the inflection of the actor's delivery). So, let me address my grievances point by point:

First, the whole "Romulan comes back in time to change the timeline" thing is a thinly veiled way of allowing Abrams to mess with established events and characters and do whatever he pleases. In any reboot, this is simply a way to "contemporize" the story to appeal to the current generation, but more often than not this results in a watering down (or outright obliteration of) what made the original what it was. It has been compared to the reboot of Battlestar Galactica, and how "well" that worked out. I respectfully disagree. In the case of Battlestar Galactica, Ron Moore retooled the basic premise to appeal to a generation that wanted gritty reality over the family escapism of the original. He missed the point that the cheesy family-friendly atmosphere of the original was the point. His retooling of characters such as Col. Tigh to be a drunk is a prime example. And then there is Ron Moore's laughable justification of using profanity. His claim that the made-up word "frak" and its profane counterpart in our society refer to the same thing, but since one is allowed on TV and the other is not, people really object to the sound of the word rather than its meaning. I am not saying that it is not a good drama series (I have never seen it beyond the pilot), but it is not a good Battlestar Galactica series.

Second, the relative ages of the characters are all wrong. Unless the Romulan went back to before any of the crew were born and changed things such that their birthdates were altered as well (and even then, the odds that they would each follow the same paths are astronomical – pun intended). Then there is the fact that Chekov didn't even come into the picture until well after the five year mission had begun.

Third, technological continuity was thrown completely to the wind. Why is it that the bridge looks more like a Mac superstore than something that was built before the original series? At least with the Star Wars prequel trilogy, it could be rationalized by saying "In the prequels, the galaxy was in a more civilized age. After the clone wars, the galaxy was in disarray and ruin." Here, Abrams is obviously saying "I don't care about the established lore and fitting in with it. I'm gonna do it because I can." There are some things you can acceptably change in a reboot, and then there are directors sufficiently arrogant to mess with icons that should not be touched: The origin of Superman, the fact that Han shoots first (actually, he didn't: Greedo never got off a shot, so Han was the only one to shoot), and the look and design of the Enterprise.

Fourth, why introduce profanity (it has never been a part of the Trek universe, and they even poked fun of the fact in Star Trek IV)? They did it for the same reason why profanity seems to permeate every other film out there: because "nobody pays any attention to you unless you swear every other word" (James Kirk, Star Trek IV). So much for the family friendliness inherent in Star Trek, huh? It seems that so many directors cannot seem to get their ideas across without peppering the dialog with "colorful metaphors." Granted, compared to anything by Martin Scorsese or Quintin Tarentino (two directors who need to get a different job IMO – but I digress) the cursing in Abram's Trek is minor, but why put it in there in the first place?

Fifth, changing some characters to willful jokes (like Montgomery Scott), just for comic relief. Or Spock having a sexual relationship with Uhura. Now I can understand why so many of the "Lord of the Rings" faithful (the books) reject Peter Jackson's interpretation of Gimli and Legolas (mostly Gimli). I have never read the books, so I did not have a problem with it, but for those who came to know the characters as serious warriors I can see the problem. When a character's persona is changed to the point that it is no longer faithful to who the character has come to be known as, it is no longer the character but a cheap facsimile.

Finally, what made Star Trek so great in the first place is the political and social allegory, which has been missing from all Trek incarnations post-TNG. This film seems to push the action and special effects above the human story, again to appeal to the adolescent mind of today with the attention span of a peach. As an example of Trek done right, one needs to look no further than "The Wrath of Kahn", and "The Undiscovered Country." Both films were extremely entertaining, had great action sequences, and social messages appropriate to Star Trek.

OK, it felt good to vent. Now I'm gonna go watch some real Trek on Blu-ray…

Peace... Vader

"Ya see, we plan ahead. That way we don't do anything right now. Earl explained it to me." - Valentine McKee

One sub to rumble them all. One sub to shake them. One sub to humble them all. And in the darkness break them....

The Overlook Theater - Not liable for injuries sustained while laughing.

Last edited by Vader; 09-01-09 at 11:03 AM.
Vader is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 78 Old 06-11-09, 01:50 PM
Elite Shackster
brucek
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,514
Re: Star Trek 2009

Gee, I'm glad I'm just a regular guy who has always loved Star Trek series and movies without using a microscope.

I thought the recent film was great. Lots of action and fairly well acted. Good fun.

brucek
brucek is offline  
post #13 of 78 Old 06-11-09, 01:56 PM
Elite Shackster
 
tonyvdb's Avatar
Tony
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Can
Posts: 14,805
My System
Re: Star Trek 2009

Derek, I agree with everything you said above, Well said although maybe just a bit too harsh. I'm 40 and also missed the first run of Star trek however watched every episode many times in reruns. I enjoyed may of the movies and spin off TV series and although the last series "Enterprise" started off poor they canceled the series just as it was getting interesting.
I do think that today's movie goer between the age of 10 and 25 have lost touch with the way movies should be written in that there is so much action and little to no real plot. So many movies these days have huge holes in the plot that even my wife picks them out many times and she is not a big science fiction/action movie fan.
But that said This movie has alot going for it as well in that it is very entertaining and as long as you dont look into it too deep you will walk out with a smile on your face.

Home theater:
Onkyo 805, Yamaha YDP2006EQ, Samson Servo 600 amp
3 EV Sentry 500 monitors across the front, 4 Mission 762i's Surrounds, SVS PB13U sub, Panasonic BDT220, Harmony 1100, Nintendo WiiU
Panasonic PT-AE8000 on a 120" 2,35:1 fixed screen

Living room system:
Sherwood/Newcastle R972, Mission 765's, SVS SBS02's, A/D/S MS3u sub, Yamaha YDG2030EQ
Yamaha KX-393 Tape deck, CDC 805 CD changer, Panasonic BD60, Sony turntable PS-T20
Panasonic TC-P50ST60, HD-PVR & WDTV Live, Harmony 900

tonyvdb is online now  
post #14 of 78 Old 06-11-09, 02:00 PM
Senior Shackster
 
Vader's Avatar
Derek
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Colorado
Posts: 402
My System
Re: Star Trek 2009

Quote:
brucek wrote: View Post
Gee, I'm glad I'm just a regular guy who has always loved Star Trek series and movies without using a microscope.

I thought the recent film was great. Lots of action and fairly well acted. Good fun.

brucek
Bruce, you are one of are the normal people. Then there are those of us whose OCD extends from HT to Trek (to be more accurate in my case, I was an OCD Trekkie long before I got into HT)...

Peace... Vader

"Ya see, we plan ahead. That way we don't do anything right now. Earl explained it to me." - Valentine McKee

One sub to rumble them all. One sub to shake them. One sub to humble them all. And in the darkness break them....

The Overlook Theater - Not liable for injuries sustained while laughing.

Last edited by Vader; 06-11-09 at 02:17 PM.
Vader is offline  
post #15 of 78 Old 06-11-09, 02:03 PM
Senior Shackster
 
Vader's Avatar
Derek
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Colorado
Posts: 402
My System
Re: Star Trek 2009

Quote:
tonyvdb wrote: View Post
Derek, I agree with everything you said above, Well said although maybe just a bit too harsh. I'm 40 and also missed the first run of Star trek however watched every episode many times in reruns. I enjoyed may of the movies and spin off TV series and although the last series "Enterprise" started off poor they canceled the series just as it was getting interesting.
I do think that today's movie goer between the age of 10 and 25 have lost touch with the way movies should be written in that there is so much action and little to no real plot. So many movies these days have huge holes in the plot that even my wife picks them out many times and she is not a big science fiction/action movie fan.
But that said This movie has alot going for it as well in that it is very entertaining and as long as you dont look into it too deep you will walk out with a smile on your face.
Yea, I'm currently getting the brunt of the same good-natured ribbing at work (since I am Mr. Trek around here ). I finally had to agree to give the film a shot with an open mind. I have no doubt that it will be a lot of fun, "but it's scarring my precious Star Trek" (over-exaggerated weeping and cry-baby face)...

Peace... Vader

"Ya see, we plan ahead. That way we don't do anything right now. Earl explained it to me." - Valentine McKee

One sub to rumble them all. One sub to shake them. One sub to humble them all. And in the darkness break them....

The Overlook Theater - Not liable for injuries sustained while laughing.

Last edited by Vader; 06-11-09 at 02:45 PM.
Vader is offline  
post #16 of 78 Old 06-11-09, 06:23 PM
HTS Senior Moderator
 
Prof.'s Avatar
The Mad Professor
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Murraylands South Aust
Posts: 8,316
My System
Re: Star Trek 2009

Does anyone know if this is just a "one off" movie..or the beginning of a new StarTrek series.?

Prof..
Home Theatre...the never ending story!

www.dogboardingsa.com
Prof. is offline  
post #17 of 78 Old 06-12-09, 10:52 PM
Senior Shackster
paints
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 100
Re: Star Trek 2009

I read they were planning another Star Trek movie when the advance screenings were coming back positive.

I think with the movie already over 200 Mil in the US. Another movie labeled Star Trek is a certainity.
paints is offline  
post #18 of 78 Old 06-13-09, 11:38 AM
Elite Shackster
 
tonyvdb's Avatar
Tony
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Can
Posts: 14,805
My System
Re: Star Trek 2009

My understanding is that they want to re do all the movies but from a different perspective. Not sure how that will fly with us original Star trek fans but who knows.

Home theater:
Onkyo 805, Yamaha YDP2006EQ, Samson Servo 600 amp
3 EV Sentry 500 monitors across the front, 4 Mission 762i's Surrounds, SVS PB13U sub, Panasonic BDT220, Harmony 1100, Nintendo WiiU
Panasonic PT-AE8000 on a 120" 2,35:1 fixed screen

Living room system:
Sherwood/Newcastle R972, Mission 765's, SVS SBS02's, A/D/S MS3u sub, Yamaha YDG2030EQ
Yamaha KX-393 Tape deck, CDC 805 CD changer, Panasonic BD60, Sony turntable PS-T20
Panasonic TC-P50ST60, HD-PVR & WDTV Live, Harmony 900

tonyvdb is online now  
post #19 of 78 Old 06-14-09, 03:57 PM
Shackster
Bob
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Colfax, CA
Posts: 12
Re: Star Trek 2009

Good review. Thoughtful and appreciative of what making movies is all about. While I appreciate that there are folks who have a view of what the Star Trek lore means to them, I don't believe that movies that approach well known material should be constrained by singular views of plot, characters or developments. For that matter, set design comes under that same heading, for me.

While my overall experience while watching the movie was clearly positive, one of the aspects of the film that stood out to me was the realistic treatment of the spaceport from which the young officers left Earth. It didn't look like someone's imaginary image of what such a setting might look like at some point into the future, it looked like a practical location for the purpose of gathering passengers and taking off. That made sense to me in much the same way that the innards of the Enterprise made sense to me.

Previous depictions of the ship (as opposed to the bridge) always left me flat. I wondered if the walls were plywood or sheet rock. The industrial appearance made sense to me.

What impressed most of all however, was the respect that the cast carried into the project. Not simply respect for the story, characters, previous actors or all the myriad of other factors which having been carried off poorly might have alienated many people; but respect for the audience, too.

Far to many young actors have made way too many movies in recent years where it was readily apparent that they were there to hit their marks, walk through their lines and increase their exposure, often at the expense of the film and story line and also at the expense of those of us who choose to part with our hard earned money to go see a film from time to time.

I was almost to the point of writing off all new releases as more suitable for my own theater since poor performances at home offer quick and easy recovery at much less cost than the $30 it takes to see a film in a theater nowadays.
bborzell is offline  
post #20 of 78 Old 06-15-09, 12:12 PM
Senior Shackster
 
Wayde's Avatar
Wayde
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Waterloo ON, Canada
Posts: 539
Re: Star Trek 2009

Count me among the folks who enjoy Star Trek without trying to analyze it too much. I believe a single piece of fiction should be reviewed/judged/viewed on its own merit and not as part of a whole. If Star Trek were a World War II documentary I think it’d be useful to pick nits about continuity and accuracy.

That said – I really enjoyed the movie much more than I thought I would. It turned out to be a thrilling action film with space-opera elements.

But there were problems for me, mainly esthetics. I really don’t like how movies and TV shows nowadays (meaning from about the late 90s to present) gives everything this ultra-polished sheen – especially the characters.

Everybody is way too young and good-looking in the new Star Trek. I don’t buy supermodels as ‘real’ people. We may admire perfection but we love flaws. Nimoy in the 60 was a brilliant choice – he looked unusual and it fit the character like a glove. Zachary Quinto as Spock turns the character into a pretty-boy and loses his distinct charm.

I have loved Star Trek all my life. I have talked of Spock and Kirk’s relationship as a classic analogy relating to some of my own good friends. Although I was slow to adopt Next Gen I grew to love it too and look back fondly on the characters. I feel as close to those two crews as friends – I even feel I’ve learned a few lessons about character, leadership and life from the shows.

As much as I enjoyed the thrill ride of this movie - I don’t believe I’ll ever look upon the ST reboot as fondly as I have Star Treks past.

Wayde
Wayde is offline  
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
2009 , star , trek

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now




PLEASE COMPLETE ALL REQUIRED FIELDS BELOW... THANKS!

REQUIRED FIELDS ON THIS PAGE
YOU MUST COMPLETE ALL OF THESE

Username
Password
Confirm Password
Email Address
Confirm Email Address
Random Question
Random Question #2




User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
PLEASE READ BELOW PRIOR TO ENTERING AN EMAIL ADDRESS!

ATTENTION!

YOU MUST ACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT!

Activation requires you reply to an email we will send you after you register... if you do not reply to this email, you will not be able to view certain areas of the forum or certain images... nor will you be able download software.

AN INVALID EMAIL ADDRESS WILL CAUSE YOUR ACCOUNT TO BE DELETED!

See our banned email list here: Banned Email List

We DO NOT respond to spamcop, boxtrapper and spamblocker emails... please add @hometheatershack DOT com to your whitelist prior to registering or you will get nowhere on your registration.


Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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 is not allowed!
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 


For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome