Topic: Star Trek Movie Rating ...

[Ravok]

Well, I just got my bootleg copy of it, and I'm up to the part where Vulcan is destroyed.  The film is confirming my low expectations so far.  The only good thing I can say about it is that it is better than the Spirit.

 Stealing is wrong.

 And how can we expect an honest criticisms, from somebody, who used dishonest means, to arrive to his conclusions?

So basically, the only way I could satisfy you would be to sell out my own beliefs, and helping TROST to murder Star Trek.  If I had not seen this bootleg, you and all of your ilk would have continued to criticize me for judging the film without seeing it despite the fact that everything he had released gave me a good indication of what garbage this film is.Abrams has raped and murdered something which I have enjoyed since I was in grade school, and I have no regrets about punishing him in even a small way as retaliation.  If I had seen this abomination in theaters, you would have criticized me for betraying my own values.

 Look don't even attempt to preach values. When you are on contemptable, moral grounds to begin with.

 Instead of ranting about a ST movie, that does not act like you think it should, take a good look at your presumed values and do some soul searching.

 First you critisize something you know nothing about.
Then buy an illeageal copy, to justify your actions.

 If you cant see the problem with that. I don't know what the hell to tell you.

 2 wrongs don't make a right.

 As for punishing Abrams?? you are in NO position to judge or punish anybody.

If anything, YOU should be punished for breaking the law, and stealing from all, who worked, to make money off the film.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

Let's keep it light OK?


It's a flick.

[Czar Mohab]

You know? I liked the movie, but deep down, I just have to say:



Czar "'nuff said" Mohab

P.S. In ks's defense, everyone was p*ssing in his cheerios about not seeing it and still hating it. From that point of view, at least he saw it. And no, I won't judge him for finding a copy "cheap as free". Not my buisness, and in the grand scheme of things, not that big of a deal, really... all he did was see it before it was on the shelf at the local library where he could still see it for free. Let him be, as at least he saw the flick.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

                                         

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLR_6y4TfQs

[knightstorm]

 Look don't even attempt to preach values. When you are on contemptable, moral grounds to begin with.

 Instead of ranting about a ST movie, that does not act like you think it should, take a good look at your presumed values and do some soul searching.

 First you critisize something you know nothing about.
Then buy an illeageal copy, to justify your actions.

 If you cant see the problem with that. I don't know what the hell to tell you.

 2 wrongs don't make a right.

 As for punishing Abrams?? you are in NO position to judge or punish anybody.

If anything, YOU should be punished for breaking the law, and stealing from all, who worked, to make money off the film.

First off, I did not criticize something I knew nothing about.  I pointed out that Abrams had failed to release anything to prove that he was not going to butcher Star Trek.  Every single interview, every single trailer showed a contempt for what Star Trek has been for decades, and by association its fans.  Also, if my moral grounds are so contemptible answer this question.  Since when is standing up for yourself wrong?  When have I attacked someone on this board who hasn't attacked me first?  When have I answered a politely delivered message that I disagreed with by attacking the messenger?  The answer is never.  Can you say the same?  As for two wrongs making a right, they don't but they cancel each other out.  And in Abrams' case, his wrong is far greater than mine.  I don't know what your problem with me is, but unless you can refute my claims about the film without resorting to personal attacks against me then you are only proving how weak your position really is.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

So basically, the only way I could satisfy you would be to sell out my own beliefs, and helping TROST to murder Star Trek.  If I had not seen this bootleg, you and all of your ilk would have continued to criticize me for judging the film without seeing it despite the fact that everything he had released gave me a good indication of what garbage this film is.Abrams has raped and murdered something which I have enjoyed since I was in grade school, and I have no regrets about punishing him in even a small way as retaliation.  If I had seen this abomination in theaters, you would have criticized me for betraying my own values.

You could have waited for the DVD, a rental, a friend's rental, or even for it to show up on cable so you could watch it for free.

Think about it:  Abrams has made a movie you don't like.  You have stolen.

Stealing makes you, by definition, a thief.

Since when is standing up for yourself wrong? 

When you steal!


-S'Cipio

[Ravok]

 Look don't even attempt to preach values. When you are on contemptable, moral grounds to begin with.

 Instead of ranting about a ST movie, that does not act like you think it should, take a good look at your presumed values and do some soul searching.

 First you critisize something you know nothing about.
Then buy an illeageal copy, to justify your actions.

 If you cant see the problem with that. I don't know what the hell to tell you.

 2 wrongs don't make a right.

 As for punishing Abrams?? you are in NO position to judge or punish anybody.

If anything, YOU should be punished for breaking the law, and stealing from all, who worked, to make money off the film.

First off, I did not criticize something I knew nothing about.  I pointed out that Abrams had failed to release anything to prove that he was not going to butcher Star Trek.  Every single interview, every single trailer showed a contempt for what Star Trek has been for decades, and by association its fans.  Also, if my moral grounds are so contemptible answer this question.  Since when is standing up for yourself wrong?  When have I attacked someone on this board who hasn't attacked me first?  When have I answered a politely delivered message that I disagreed with by attacking the messenger?  The answer is never.  Can you say the same?  As for two wrongs making a right, they don't but they cancel each other out.  And in Abrams' case, his wrong is far greater than mine.  I don't know what your problem with me is, but unless you can refute my claims about the film without resorting to personal attacks against me then you are only proving how weak your position really is.

 Pointing out the obvious, is not a personal attack, its a matter of fact.

 And you consider anybody, and everybody, that does not agree with you, to be attacking you.

 Disagreement, and disapproval of theft, are not  personal attacks.

[knightstorm]

 Look don't even attempt to preach values. When you are on contemptable, moral grounds to begin with.

 Instead of ranting about a ST movie, that does not act like you think it should, take a good look at your presumed values and do some soul searching.

 First you critisize something you know nothing about.
Then buy an illeageal copy, to justify your actions.

 If you cant see the problem with that. I don't know what the hell to tell you.

 2 wrongs don't make a right.

 As for punishing Abrams?? you are in NO position to judge or punish anybody.

If anything, YOU should be punished for breaking the law, and stealing from all, who worked, to make money off the film.

First off, I did not criticize something I knew nothing about.  I pointed out that Abrams had failed to release anything to prove that he was not going to butcher Star Trek.  Every single interview, every single trailer showed a contempt for what Star Trek has been for decades, and by association its fans.  Also, if my moral grounds are so contemptible answer this question.  Since when is standing up for yourself wrong?  When have I attacked someone on this board who hasn't attacked me first?  When have I answered a politely delivered message that I disagreed with by attacking the messenger?  The answer is never.  Can you say the same?  As for two wrongs making a right, they don't but they cancel each other out.  And in Abrams' case, his wrong is far greater than mine.  I don't know what your problem with me is, but unless you can refute my claims about the film without resorting to personal attacks against me then you are only proving how weak your position really is.

 Pointing out the obvious, is not a personal attack, its a matter of fact.

 And you consider anybody, and everybody, that does not agree with you, to be attacking you.

 Disagreement, and disapproval of theft, are not  personal attacks.

No, I consider individuals who make use of name calling, rude language, and character assassination to be guilty of personal attacks.  If you had read my previous posts on this forum as closely as you claim, you would notice that while I remain outspoken, and unrelenting in my views, as long as individuals stay civil with me, I stay civil with them.  Read your first post on this thread.  You didn't even try to meet my arguments about the film on their merits.  Instead you immediately jumped into character assassination.  When I pointed out that I believed your attack was a read herring, and you would probably have launched some sort of similar attack even if I had gone to see the film in theaters, you launched into a vicious tirade against me.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

Anyone like the video?

[Kaledor]

Just saw the movie. Surprisingly, the "new Enterprise" isn't what I like least about the movie. Did I miss Kirk actually graduating from the academy? Goes right from cadet to captain in one mission. Kirk wasn't tough enough nor was he established as a womanizer, a "player", enough IMO. The established characters of Spock and Uhura are destroyed in this new version. The story line is very weak. No surprises that you didn't see coming. Special effects work, but nothing that really wowed me. Nothing that was breaking new ground in that department. The other characters (McCoy, Scott, etc...) I thought were well written and acted. The acting for all roles was well done though. Any flaws in the characters are the fault of the writers, not the actors. I don't mind the time travel plot. Except that it was done to destroy the Trek timeline we already know. We are left with it being some sort of predestined thing that the crew got together.

Everything else in the Trek universe has changed, but somehow these individuals still end up together and Kirk has never even been assigned to a ship before becoming captain of Starfleet's flag ship.

I just have a question... did you ever see the original show?  There was such high sexual tension between Spook and Uhura was unreal.  Check on the FIRST episode.  As for Kirk, he is so a womanizer!  Please go back and watch the original series. 

- Arneson

[Rod ONeal]

Just saw the movie. Surprisingly, the "new Enterprise" isn't what I like least about the movie. Did I miss Kirk actually graduating from the academy? Goes right from cadet to captain in one mission. Kirk wasn't tough enough nor was he established as a womanizer, a "player", enough IMO. The established characters of Spock and Uhura are destroyed in this new version. The story line is very weak. No surprises that you didn't see coming. Special effects work, but nothing that really wowed me. Nothing that was breaking new ground in that department. The other characters (McCoy, Scott, etc...) I thought were well written and acted. The acting for all roles was well done though. Any flaws in the characters are the fault of the writers, not the actors. I don't mind the time travel plot. Except that it was done to destroy the Trek timeline we already know. We are left with it being some sort of predestined thing that the crew got together.

Everything else in the Trek universe has changed, but somehow these individuals still end up together and Kirk has never even been assigned to a ship before becoming captain of Starfleet's flag ship.

I just have a question... did you ever see the original show?  There was such high sexual tension between Spook and Uhura was unreal.  Check on the FIRST episode.  As for Kirk, he is so a womanizer!  Please go back and watch the original series. 

- Arneson

Trust me, I've seen TOS.

[GE-Raven]

Well for what it is worth... I loved the new movie.

Sure I realize they "reset the timeline" of course they did, only way to be free to make movies without "messing up the timeline".  Frankly I find the "hardcore" lamentations of trek fans to be humorous.  I mean really you do realize that the movie you all want can never ever be made, because there are maybe 10,000 people on planet earth that would enjoy it...  Ok maybe 50,000.  The fact is as I see it, it was entertaining, I still got very good "vibes" from the cast as they began to line up with the personality I grew up with.  I find it very amazing that I really did believe that Bones was Bones by the end of the movie... the "southern gentlemen" accent was DEAD ON!!!  I loved that Uhura was more than just a sub-plot.  I love all the "tidbits" thrown in for the hardcore fans (which many of them acknowledge and then chastise them for trying to placate them). 

All in all it "felt" like trek.  Much like Next Gen did after season one.  And frankly if it doesn't get a big audience then there are no more movies... maybe you want trek to only be a memory and an old nostalgic friend, but I personaly would rather have a chance at some good new stories, than none at all.  This movie has allowed that to happen. 

So yeah I am a heretic, but I love the new trek.  This coming from a guy who just got the 1-6 movies on Blueray as a Birthday present.  I will even watch the Motionless Picture once I get my home theatre finished... and in my ranking this last movie is only behind 2 and 4 in terms of my enjoyment level.  Which for those keeping score at home makes it 500 times better than 1 and about 16,000 times better than 5.

GE-Raven

[Fedman NCC-3758]

What the franchise needs is new blood and fresh original thought coupled with genuine creative talent........ not rehashing and fiddling around with the original crew.

Trek does not always have to be about the Enterprise.

Does it?



C'mon JJ.....  be creative.

[Nemesis]

What the franchise needs is new blood and fresh original thought coupled with genuine creative talent........ not rehashing and fiddling around with the original crew.

Trek does not always have to be about the Enterprise.

Does it?

C'mon JJ.....  be creative.

They could easily have done a little of both, concentrated on the U.S.S. Farragut among whose crew would be Ensign Kirk.

Other major characters could show up at different times in peripheral ways.  McCoy wasn't always Starfleet, he could be enountered as a civilian doctor (married and older than Kirk) as one example. 

[Norsehound]

What the franchise needs is new blood and fresh original thought coupled with genuine creative talent........ not rehashing and fiddling around with the original crew.

I wouldn't mind seeing a Trek TV series set in the Motion Picture Era (2-6) about Coldwar tensions on the Klingon border from the perspective of another ship.

But since it isn't likely we'll ever get that, I'm rooting for this new take on Trek instead. Besides, I thought the movie was awesome.

Though I think the reason why they went back and re-visited the original characters is because nobody would have really paid attention if it was a whole new cast and crew. To save Star Trek they had to return to origins and revisit them.

Frankly, I'm relieved they didn't do a Ron Moore "reimaginement" of Trek. I don't think any series deserves to have what Moore did happen to it. At least the main cast is recognizable and nobody changed gender for the hell of it.

[toasty0]

Finally found some time to watch this film...

I am not impressed. Or moved. Or inspired. In fact, the filmmaker's arrogant attmpt to awe me with the use of dutch angles and MTV-like editing skill and the total reliance on the audience to fill in the gaping holes he passes off as character arc is insulting. I find nothing to redeem this piss poor junior film school attempt at filmic story telling.

The best element of this film is the special effect that run during the end credit roll. All else in this misbeggotten moving picture is poop.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

I think that's the difference between those who watched the original (sometimes campy) series on NBC ....... and those who grew up with TNG crew.

TOS had little in the way of special effects ...... it relied on storytelling and character development.

Film making today is all flash and dazzle.   I'm not of the MTV generation therefore I look deeper into the film.

When I did, there was little to see.

One other thing.  Every other Trek flick does NOT have to involve the survival of the Earth.

JJ kindly take note.

[Norsehound]

I always liked TOS more than TNG, and I was a kid when TNG was airing. I think TOS is more fun to watch than any series that's come since. What does that mean?

I wanted my Trek to be about adventure and saving the day. I'm happy it didn't have "a heavy-handed message on tolerance".

One other thing.  Every other Trek flick does NOT have to involve the survival of the Earth.

Many of them do, but not all. Generations, Search for Spock, Undiscovered Country, and Insurrection didn't. I hope that the next movie doesn't have an earth-threat though, but I think it was acceptable for the kickoff of a new franchise.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

This  is Star Trek.   

JJ take note.


   

Battle of the Mutara Nebula

[toasty0]

yes. A focused, charater driven conflict...in otherwords, filmic story telling 101.