# New Star Trek filum



## Chester Copperpot (Nov 19, 2008)

Anyone else looking forward to this. 

http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-gb&vid...c5b57a&tab=s1204298895071&from=homepage_picks

For a minute I thought I was watching the wrong trailer.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 19, 2008)

I'd forgotten that Sylar was playing Spock.

Looks fun - the JJ Abrams connection can't be bad


----------



## 8den (Nov 19, 2008)

Trailer recut.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 19, 2008)

How have the worked auld man Nimoy in as Spock?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 19, 2008)

I usually hate star trek but the abrams connections make me half interested...


----------



## ajk (Nov 19, 2008)

Awesome Wells said:


> How have the worked auld man Nimoy in as Spock?



Time travel.

<shudders>


----------



## Detroit City (Nov 19, 2008)

few nights ago i watch the Star Trek TOS episode "Errand of Mercy" with the newly done special effect.  It was ace.

Doubt i'll go see any new ST movie.  I'm stuck with Kirk and Spock


----------



## cliche guevara (Nov 19, 2008)

\the trailer looks fucking cool, but doesn't give enough information to judge whether the film will be any good. I've got faith though.


----------



## Detroit City (Nov 19, 2008)

cliche guevara said:


> \the trailer looks fucking cool, but doesn't give enough information to judge whether the film will be any good. I've got faith though.



i've never seen a bad trailer but i've seen lots of shit movies


----------



## cliche guevara (Nov 19, 2008)

Detroit City said:


> i've never seen a bad trailer but i've seen lots of shit movies



Yeah that's what I was thinking.

Well, I've seen plenty of bad trailers, but I see your point.


----------



## gsv (Nov 19, 2008)

8den said:


> Trailer recut.


lulz! 

GS(v)


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Nov 19, 2008)

I shall be watching it! I do hope it's good. I may cry if it isn't


----------



## ooo (Nov 21, 2008)

can't wait to see it!
am excited with the new cast.


----------



## The_Reverend_M (Nov 21, 2008)

A re-fresh for ST was needed ... just not sure this is the one!


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Nov 21, 2008)

I thought the Kirk bit at the start of the trailer was a bit lame...however, I'm keen to see what they do with it.


----------



## ooo (Nov 21, 2008)

and the new terminator 'salvation' with christian bale!
that will be cool.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Nov 21, 2008)

ooo said:


> and the new terminator 'salvation' with christian bale!
> that will be cool.



Hmm...I have my doubts about that. I haven't liked any apart from the first.


----------



## 8den (Nov 21, 2008)

James T Kirk's reaction to the trailer.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 21, 2008)

The intro bit is utter shite, James Tiberius Kirk eh? Already i want to shoot the scriptwriters and throw JJ off that conveniently placed cliff. Alias was fucking annoying as they went for plastic and pretty over plot and from that tiny little snippet i'm not convinced that this will be different from his previous work.

I'll watch the film when it's out, there's no question of that. I am not expecting it to be 2 of the best hours of my cinematic life though.


----------



## CyberRose (Nov 21, 2008)

I bet a certain somebody wishes he'd never invented the phrase "as sure as every odd numbered Star Trek film is shit"


----------



## ooo (Nov 21, 2008)

8den said:


> James T Kirk's reaction to the trailer.




LOL!


----------



## ooo (Nov 21, 2008)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Hmm...I have my doubts about that. I haven't liked any apart from the first.



anything with christian bale will be great


----------



## Detroit City (Nov 21, 2008)

ahh the last decent one was Star Trek IV and that came out 22 years ago


----------



## Bungle73 (Nov 21, 2008)

Bob_the_lost said:


> James Tiberius Kirk eh?


Kirk's middle name was established in Star Trek 6.


Detroit City said:


> ahh the last decent one was Star Trek IV and that came out 22 years ago


Um Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country & Star Trek First Contact.


----------



## derf (Nov 22, 2008)

Always a bit suss about this sort of stuff but it being star trek and me being a fully anoraked trekky will buy the pirate when it turns in over here.
Usually about Rp12,00 or 80p


----------



## Detroit City (Nov 22, 2008)

Bungle73 said:


> Um Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country & Star Trek First Contact.



put down the crack pipe man


----------



## mentalchik (Nov 22, 2008)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I shall be watching it! I do hope it's good. I may cry if it isn't



Me and you both !


----------



## The Unseen (Nov 22, 2008)

8den said:


> Trailer recut.




lol, i like the bit showing Spok and the title 'Syler'. Its impossible to get away from it isn't it.


also the 'boobs in star trek bit'!


----------



## clandestino (Nov 22, 2008)

Detroit City said:


> put down the crack pipe man




6 is the best of the original series films. i like 2-4, although 4 is more carry on star trek than anything. 5 is utter shit, and 1 is a good science fiction film, but not star trek. everything after 6 isn't worth bothering with. this is all fact, rather than opinion. 

i'm a little worried by this new movie. jj abrahams says he preferred star wars to star trek, and that young kirk bit feels a bit too luke skywalker for my liking. and simon pegg as scotty feels like a disaster waiting to happen imo.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 22, 2008)

Bob_the_lost said:


> The intro bit is utter shite, James Tiberius Kirk eh? Already i want to shoot the scriptwriters and throw JJ off that conveniently placed cliff. .



If ever there was a scene shot solely to put in a trailer I reckon that was it. Who the fuck announces their middle name when they get busted by the hover-plod? Who the fuck gives their real name at all?


----------



## Augie March (Nov 22, 2008)

I'm looking forward to this. Personally, the Trek films have always felt like they've been a bit weighed down by the stigma and the baggage of the series. With this film, it's looking like Abrhams is able to let rip with some great characters and create a whole new world with them. I'm hoping it works.


----------



## steveo87 (Nov 22, 2008)

fogbat said:


> I'd forgotten that Sylar was playing Spock.
> 
> Looks fun - the JJ Abrams connection can't be bad



Simon Pegg is playing Scotty.....
....This could be a good thing, geographically speaking, at least Pegg is from the same land mass, whereas the guy who played the original (I forgot the name-never liked TOS) was Canadian...

Anyway it looks wicked cool.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 22, 2008)

Augie March said:


> I'm looking forward to this. Personally, the Trek films have always felt like they've been a bit weighed down by the stigma and the baggage of the series. With this film, it's looking like Abrhams is able to let rip with some great characters and create a whole new world with them. I'm hoping it works.



^This. Thank the good lord that they've stopped flogging the dead horse that is the TNG crew. 

I feel really sorry for the people who've done the continuity for this film, knowing that as it's a prequel any tiny flaw in the canon will get spotted by hordes of rabid internet nutjobs. There's a shitload of trek episodes they have to try not to contradict...


----------



## The Unseen (Nov 22, 2008)

The bit at the start is awful isn't it, about always knowing your slightly different etc..

blaaa


----------



## Detroit City (Nov 22, 2008)

ianw said:


> young kirk



there should be no "young kirk"...it will ruin the older kirk's legacy


----------



## The Octagon (Mar 6, 2009)

Newest Trailer (being shown with Watchmen in the US at least)

I know trailers aren't always representative of a good film, but damn this looks impressive.

Eric Bana looks like he could steal the film too -"Fire Everything!"


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Mar 6, 2009)

http://www.startrekmovie.com/

I just watched the trailer at the above link... and got very excited


----------



## ajk (Mar 6, 2009)

Still not keen on new Kirk, but it still smells of awesome.


----------



## derf (Mar 6, 2009)

So when is it due out?

I'm having wet dreams about it here.


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Mar 6, 2009)

may


----------



## derf (Mar 6, 2009)

bouncer_the_dog said:


> may



Yipppeeeeee. If it's out on the first there will be a pirate on the second.
If there are any DVD advance copies around it will be available now.

<Buggers off to check out the pirate DVD sellers.>


----------



## MikeMcc (Mar 7, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> If ever there was a scene shot solely to put in a trailer I reckon that was it. Who the fuck announces their middle name when they get busted by the hover-plod? Who the fuck gives their real name at all?


Especially when their middle name is _Tiberius_!


----------



## cliche guevara (May 4, 2009)

Just booked my tickets. The trailers I've seen are leaing me feeling that this is either going to be massively awesome, or horribly shite. Either way, it's going to provoke a reaction.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 4, 2009)

I usually hate Star Trek, and I think this film is going to be the absolute mutt's nuts.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (May 4, 2009)

Star Trek V:  The Final Frontier contains the best line in cinema history:

"Uh, God, excuse me, I have a question."  

It was almost Ghostbusteresque in its greatness.


----------



## T & P (May 4, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Just booked my tickets. The trailers I've seen are leaing me feeling that this is either going to be massively awesome, or horribly shite. Either way, it's going to provoke a reaction.


 Apparently it has been very well received by the critics. Which considering it's a Star Trek film, is very encouraging indeed.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 5, 2009)

T & P said:


> Apparently it has been very well received by the critics. Which considering it's a Star Trek film, is very encouraging indeed.



even the Daily Wail give it a 5 star review.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 5, 2009)

Oh, and what will all the typical presumptive types on here who were slagging off Simon Pegg for being in this say when they realise it's actually really good?


----------



## dynamicbaddog (May 5, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Oh, and what will all the typical presumptive types on here who were slagging off Simon Pegg for being in this say when they realise it's actually really good?



I reckon he's going to be really good in it
  I am so looking forward to  Thursday (2 more sleeps)


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 5, 2009)

It's gonna do for Star Trek what Batman Begins did for Batman and Casino Royale for Bond.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 5, 2009)

Reboots=Win (BB, CR)
Prequels=Fail (Wolverine, Star Wars, Temple of Doom)


----------



## onenameshelley (May 5, 2009)

As i was seriously traumatised as a kid by that Star Trek film the one where they put a centipede thing in the helmet and it killed him *rocks backwards and forwards* i have never had any interest in ST films...until now..

Now i am super excited about going to see this and i cant wait to see Mr. Quinto with his new eyebrows as i suspect they are going to be as sexy as his normal ones. I have read that Chris Pine sucks ass but well i suspect die hard fans were never going to be happy unless it was shatner or shatners clone child playing the role. 

Other than that i know nothing about ST and so hopefully it will enlighten me.


----------



## kyser_soze (May 5, 2009)

> As i was seriously traumatised as a kid by that Star Trek film the one where they put a centipede thing in the helmet and it killed him *rocks backwards and forwards* i have never had any interest in ST films...until now..



That'd be Chekov having a mind control thingy put in him by KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## elevendayempire (May 5, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> That'd be Chekov having a mind control thingy put in him by KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Saw an interview with the writers of the new film - apparently they're thinking of bringing KHAAAAAAAAAAAN back, and getting Javier Bardem to play him.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (May 5, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> Saw an interview with the writers of the new film - apparently they're thinking of bringing KHAAAAAAAAAAAN back, and getting Javier Bardem to play him.



That would be sooooooo good


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 5, 2009)




----------



## elevendayempire (May 5, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> That would be sooooooo good


"Call it, friendo."

"KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!"


----------



## Stigmata (May 5, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> Saw an interview with the writers of the new film - apparently they're thinking of bringing KHAAAAAAAAAAAN back, and getting Javier Bardem to play him.



Beacause they cast a hispanic guy last time? Khan's supposed to be an Indian Sikh iirc.


----------



## elevendayempire (May 5, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> Khan's supposed to be an Indian Sikh iirc.


Yup, that's right.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 5, 2009)

humm

The Eugenics Wars (or the Great Wars) were a series of conflicts fought on Earth in the mid-1990s. The result of a scientific attempt to improve the Human race through selective breeding and genetic engineering, the wars devastated parts of Earth, by some estimates officially causing some 30 million deaths, and nearly plunging the planet into a new Dark Age.

reboot needed?


----------



## onenameshelley (May 5, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> That'd be Chekov having a mind control thingy put in him by KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!!!!



eeeeeeek No not the earwiggy in the ear.


----------



## Iguana (May 5, 2009)

I just wish that if they were going to reboot Star Trek they would do it with the actual original crew from the pilot.  They had put a much stronger and more interesting crew together in the pilot and Cptn Pike, though we saw very little of him, was obviously a better captain than Kirk.


----------



## elevendayempire (May 5, 2009)

Shippou-Chan said:


> humm
> 
> The Eugenics Wars (or the Great Wars) were a series of conflicts fought on Earth in the mid-1990s. The result of a scientific attempt to improve the Human race through selective breeding and genetic engineering, the wars devastated parts of Earth, by some estimates officially causing some 30 million deaths, and nearly plunging the planet into a new Dark Age.
> 
> reboot needed?


IIRC they did a couple of spin-off novels that reworked the Eugenics Wars as a "secret war" played out over the course of the real conflicts of the 1990s. Having just watched Space Seed and Wrath of KHAAAAAAAAN, it's pretty obviously a clunky attempt to retcon the old episodes. Not having read them, I'm not sure how well the attempt worked...


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (May 6, 2009)

Im off too see the 12.01am showing tonight.. i will be going dressed as Obi Wan Kenobi


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 6, 2009)

omg its on at the IMAX ,  Thats my weekend sorted then


----------



## onenameshelley (May 6, 2009)

i quite like their  uniforms i think they are quite nice but arent they made of velour or something? Dont you get static shocks in space?? Or sweaty pits

Can we have some lovely pictures of Zachery Quinto and his foxy eyebrows? 

Oh and what did the guns look like i remember the communicator thingies that looked like they were made out of sweetboxes.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 6, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Reboots=Win (BB, CR)
> Prequels=Fail (Wolverine, Star Wars, Temple of Doom)



Not so sure, the new Hulk isn't as bad as it could have been. Although I still prefer the other one...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 6, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> Saw an interview with the writers of the new film - apparently they're thinking of bringing KHAAAAAAAAAAAN back, and getting Javier Bardem to play him.



Oh man that would be great! If they did it as a the history between him and Kirk and the events leading up to his enforced exile even better!


----------



## kyser_soze (May 6, 2009)

For shells@


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 6, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> It's gonna do for Star Trek what Batman Begins did for Batman and Casino Royale for Bond.



That's my hope.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 6, 2009)

I'm not going to be able to watch without going 'look out captain , it's sylar!'


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 6, 2009)

lol@dc


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 6, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Not so sure, the new Hulk isn't as bad as it could have been. Although I still prefer the other one...



The new hulk wasn't a prequel was it?

I actually quite enjoyed it.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 6, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm not going to be able to watch without going 'look out captain , it's sylar!'



After Heroes turned so shogs, I've abolished it from my head.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 6, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> The new hulk wasn't a prequel was it?
> 
> I actually quite enjoyed it.



Yeah badly worded, meant that it wasn't amazing but wasn't crap.


----------



## onenameshelley (May 6, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> For shells@



whoohoo he can vulcanthingygrip me anytime he likes


----------



## fen_boy (May 6, 2009)

Trekkies bash new Star Trek film.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 6, 2009)

fen_boy said:


> Trekkies bash new Star Trek film.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 6, 2009)

Why the hell hadn't I realised the Onion had a video section before...


----------



## Bungle73 (May 6, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Oh man that would be great! If they did it as a the history between him and Kirk and the events leading up to his enforced exile even better!


I'm not sure what you mean by "history".  All that happened between Kirk and Khan was in "Space Seed".  After that he didn't see him again until "TWOK".  How they'd work him back in I don't know.


----------



## LindaR (May 6, 2009)

Going to see this next week, when I'm on holiday. I've been a Trekkie since it was first shown on the Beeb, and, to put it mildly, I hae me doots, but if Abrams _does _pull it off, I'll be cheering from the rafters. I'd love a reboot to work, nothing has ever matched original Trek, and just as we've accepted different actors playing Sherlock Holmes or Superman over the years, I'm not opposed to the concept of a different Kirk/Spock per se. I just want it to be right.


----------



## Bungle73 (May 6, 2009)

LindaR said:


> Going to see this next week, when I'm on holiday. I've been a Trekkie since it was first shown on the Beeb, and, to put it mildly, I hae me doots, but if Abrams _does _pull it off, I'll be cheering from the rafters. I'd love a reboot to work, nothing has ever matched original Trek, and just as we've accepted different actors playing Sherlock Holmes or Superman over the years, I'm not opposed to the concept of a different Kirk/Spock per se. I just want it to be right.


Yeah but Sherlock Holmes and Superman were already established characters before anyone played them, and no one played them for as long as Shatner and Nemoy played their characters.  They played them for so long, and basically created them so that Kirk IS Shatner and Spock IS Nemoy.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 6, 2009)

Bungle73 said:


> Yeah but Sherlock Holmes and Superman were already established characters before anyone played them, and no one played them for as long as Shatner and Nemoy played their characters.  They played them for so long, and basically created them so that Kirk IS Shatner and Spock IS Nemoy.



Yeah, but this new film looks tons better than the original Trek, which was really quite dull.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 6, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Yeah, but this new film looks tons better than the original Trek, which was really quite dull.


The first film was shit, there can be no doubt. The question is if it's better than Kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahn!


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 6, 2009)

I'm talking about the whole thing, teh series etc.  Never been a fan.  This new one has really got my attention


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (May 7, 2009)

Saw it last night. Top marks. There is tons in there for the Sci FI nerd and Trek fans. It has all the important stuff, loads of phasers, weird aliens, monsters, exploding spaceships, mad special effects... the works.


----------



## Stigmata (May 7, 2009)

Holy shit this film kicks ass. I was doubtful for the first 20 minutes or so (the product placement for Nokia was a low point), but it was fab. It's been a while since Star Trek was actually exciting.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (May 7, 2009)

wow that was amazing! 

and I was right - Simon Pegg is really good as Scotty


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2009)

Definite contender for best science fantasy/space opera film ever, even gives the old star wars films a good seeing to.

But the Trek Purists will despise it, mereckons.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 7, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Definite contender for best science fantasy/space opera film ever, even gives the old star wars films a good seeing to.
> 
> But the Trek Purists will despise it, mereckons.



i bet your one of those people who like new doctor who over the old stuff


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 7, 2009)

STOP IT! 

Please! I'm not going to see this until tomorrow and you're only making it worse, tell me it's just like Generations, tell me the acting is as poor as TOS, tell me there is less plot than one of those filler episodes where they get all loved up.

All this relentless praise is killing me!

*cries*


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2009)

Shippou-Chan said:


> i bet your one of those people who like new doctor who over the old stuff



TBH I'm not that bothered about Dr Who either way for some reason.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2009)

Bob_the_lost said:


> STOP IT!
> 
> Please! I'm not going to see this until tomorrow and you're only making it worse, tell me it's just like Generations, tell me the acting is as poor as TOS, tell me there is less plot than one of those filler episodes where they get all loved up.
> 
> ...



Nope, it's like the best episode of Firefly allied to the best elements of the old Star wars films, it's slick, it's epic, it's spectacular, the acting is good, the people are good looking.  It's not Star Trek, but it fucking rocks.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2009)

There's one scene, where there's this giant drill going from the baddies' ship down onto Vulcan, and there's a platform about halfway up it where Kirk and teh Chinese guy are fighting some baddies, and I swear it's like something from Iain M Banks or Alastair Reynolds.  That's the sort of grand vision it is.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2009)

I will definitely buy the DVD when it comes out.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 7, 2009)

I will kill you for this Renegade Dog


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2009)

It's the sexiest, most epic, grandest scifi film ever made.

I can't believe I'm talking like this about a _star trek_ film.  A series I usually find so tedious.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Definite contender for best science fantasy/space opera film ever, even gives the old star wars films a good seeing to.
> .



High praise indeed-if it lives up to this I will be very pleased


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2009)

Can someone please give J J Abrams a copy of Consider Phlebas for his consideration.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> High praise indeed-if it lives up to this I will be very pleased



Some people are going to be very cross with it, I reckon.  But for high octane epic spectacle, it's been a long while since I've seen anything as good.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2009)

Better than the Nolan Batfilms as well, and you know how much I rate those.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 7, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> and teh Chinese guy



sulu  hikaru i'm guessing


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2009)

Shippou-Chan said:


> sulu  hikaru i'm guessing



Yeah, that's it.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 7, 2009)

he love sword fighting







apparently  he terrorised the set during the filming


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2009)

bouncer_the_dog said:


> Saw it last night. Top marks. There is tons in there for the Sci FI nerd and Trek fans. It has all the important stuff, loads of phasers, weird aliens, monsters, exploding spaceships, mad special effects... the works.



Didn't you once say Terminator 3 was a good film..?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Didn't you once say Terminator 3 was a good film..?



Mate, if you aren't majorly impressed by this film, I'll eat my horse.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Mate, if you aren't majorly impressed by this film, I'll eat my horse.



You have a horse?


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 7, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> You have a horse?


Half a haunch left after making the same claim about another film i'll bet.


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (May 7, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Didn't you once say Terminator 3 was a good film..?



I think you'll find all my T3 enthusiasm was from before I actually saw it (maybe with a teensy bit of attempted face saving). Anyway you don't like Resident Evil 4 and must be mad!


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (May 7, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> It's not Star Trek


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2009)

Bob_the_lost said:


> Half a haunch left after making the same claim about another film i'll bet.



Nah, just going on KE's tastes etc, I reckon he will think it rocks...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2009)

bouncer_the_dog said:


>



It isn't though - for the reasons I've outlined above, and also in that hilarious Onion video.


----------



## Stigmata (May 7, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> High praise indeed-if it lives up to this I will be very pleased



The baddies in particular are very Alastair Reynolds. Also the Vulcans have never been as cool as they are in this.

The plot was highly illogical though:



Spoiler: why on earth



If the Romulan star was about to blow up, why did the Federation just send one geriatric Vulcan to help out?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2009)

bouncer_the_dog said:


> I think you'll find all my T3 enthusiasm was from before I actually saw it (maybe with a teensy bit of attempted face saving). Anyway you don't like Resident Evil 4 and must be mad!



Hmmm I won't mention your T3 love in if you don't mention my R4 loathing, deal?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Nah, just going on KE's tastes etc, I reckon he will think it rocks...



By KE's tastes you mean very similar to RD's taste.


----------



## cliche guevara (May 7, 2009)

Just got back, this film surpassed all expectations, I was completely hooked from start to finish. It takes Star Trek to a whole new level. Film Of The Year so far, and by a country mile.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Just got back, this film surpassed all expectations, I was completely hooked from start to finish. It takes Star Trek to a whole new level. Film Of The Year so far, and by a country mile.


----------



## cliche guevara (May 7, 2009)

I would happily watch it again right now. I was so geared up for it to be a disappointment, and to be disloyal to the Star Trek universe. It wasn't.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> I would happily watch it again right now. I was so geared up for it to be a disappointment, and to be disloyal to the Star Trek universe. It wasn't.



So you're a big Trek fan but still loved it?  Cos I usually hate Trek, but thought it was astounding, but many times when I was watching it, I thought "THe hardcore fans are going to be bitching forever about this"...


----------



## Stigmata (May 7, 2009)

I'm as hardcore as they come (enough to get even the very obscure in-jokes), and I loved it.


----------



## cliche guevara (May 7, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> So you're a big Trek fan but still loved it?  Cos I usually hate Trek, but thought it was astounding, but many times when I was watching it, I thought "THe hardcore fans are going to be bitching forever about this"...



I'm not a trekkie, but I am a fan. Not die-hard. Without giving too much away, before the plot was clarified by the first proper encounter with Nero I was under the impression that Abrams had disregard the Star Trek history and chronology, but then all was revealed and I was content again.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 8, 2009)

to be honest  all trekkies have been inoculated by enterprise   which although managing to do some cool plot lines that actually mended  some  holes  in the plot line  (like the whole kilingon forehead thing)  managed to  feel like it was raping continuity in the arse with a deep heat covered spiky dildo


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2009)

Am now grinding my teeth at how much I want to see this film but can't. Yet.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 8, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Am know grinding my teeth at how much I want to see this film but can't.



Why can't you?  No missus, no son, no impossibly difficult course.  I have all 3 and still manager to sneak off to see it.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Why can't you?  No missus, no son, no impossibly difficult course.  I have all 3 and still manager to sneak off to see it.



I'd have to get the bus to northampton and then buy a cinema ticket, and I am poor. I'll have it downloaded by sunday I reckon, ready to watch on the sceen wit powerful projector.

But I want to watch it NOW


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 8, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I'd have to get the bus to northampton and then buy a cinema ticket, and I am poor. I'll have it downloaded by sunday I reckon, ready to watch on the sceen wit powerful projector.
> 
> But I want to watch it NOW



Where can you get good copy to download this early?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 8, 2009)

Bugger me, Even peter bradshaw's given it 5 stars, and he usually slates anything like this.


----------



## cliche guevara (May 8, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I'd have to get the bus to northampton and then buy a cinema ticket, and I am poor. I'll have it downloaded by sunday I reckon, ready to watch on the sceen wit powerful projector.
> 
> But I want to watch it NOW



Sunday?

Dude


----------



## The Groke (May 8, 2009)

We have tickets to see it today.

Wasn't that bothered about it until the last week or so - seems like it might be worth checking out after all.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 8, 2009)

The Groke said:


> We have tickets to see it today.
> 
> Wasn't that bothered about it until the last week or so - seems like it might be worth checking out after all.



It so so is.  I just hope I haven't overhyped people - but it IS better than anything else I can remember, even Empire Strikes Back or The Two Towers or The Dark Knight. That's how good it is.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 8, 2009)

Shippou-Chan said:


> to be honest  all trekkies have been inoculated by enterprise   which although managing to do some cool plot lines that actually mended  some  holes  in the plot line  *(like the whole kilingon forehead thing) * managed to  feel like it was raping continuity in the arse with a deep heat covered spiky dildo



So just what _is_ the explanation for that?


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 8, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> So just what _is_ the explanation for that?


Genetic engineering to make klingons stronger, byproduct of.

I go see this in about seven or eight hours. Yay me.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 8, 2009)

Bob_the_lost said:


> Genetic engineering to make klingons stronger, byproduct of.
> 
> I go see this in about seven or eight hours. Yay me.



Enjoy.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 8, 2009)

im meant to be going with my mates on monday , but i think i may slyly go to the imax tomorrow and see it......


----------



## Stigmata (May 8, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> It so so is.  I just hope I haven't overhyped people - but it IS better than anything else I can remember, even Empire Strikes Back or The Two Towers or The Dark Knight. That's how good it is.



Not better than, but i'd personally place it in the same league as those films for pure enjoyment.


----------



## Stigmata (May 8, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Bugger me, Even peter bradshaw's given it 5 stars, and he usually slates anything like this.



He called Nero a Klingon though. FAIL


----------



## kyser_soze (May 8, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Why can't you?  No missus, no son, no impossibly difficult course.  I have all 3 and still manager to sneak off to see it.



That's because you're a bad husband, neglectful partner and lousy student, who has their priorities all out of whack.

Good work!!! 

Am now _gagging_ for this film like a porn star forced to deepthroat...this weekend at the Imax methinks...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 8, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> Not better than, but i'd personally place it in the same league as those films for pure enjoyment.



It will definitely join them in my 'most watched films' list, methinks...


----------



## onenameshelley (May 8, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> So just what _is_ the explanation for that?



Another vote for an explanation to the cornish pasty forehead thing?


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 8, 2009)




----------



## kyser_soze (May 8, 2009)

I was under the impression that the forehead was cos they liked headbutting each other


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 8, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Where can you get good copy to download this early?



probably one of those sites where members have to seed billions of files in order to get to anything. You know, the sort that has replaced the arrogance of the industry with the arrogance of the intermatrix


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 8, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> probably one of those sites where members have to seed billions of files in order to get to anything. You know, the sort that has replaced the arrogance of the industry with the arrogance of the intermatrix


----------



## onenameshelley (May 8, 2009)

Bob_the_lost said:


>



is that at me not knowing about pastyhead?? 

i have already admitted i am not a fan because of the earwigs so i never watched anything to do with ST ever again in case of repeated earwig attacks....scarred i is.


----------



## onenameshelley (May 8, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> I was under the impression that the forehead was cos they liked headbutting each other



nah thats goats, surely in space there would be better ways to dispatch your enemies


----------



## dylans (May 8, 2009)

Bungle73 said:


> Kirk's middle name was established in Star Trek 6.
> 
> Um Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country & Star Trek First Contact.



Yes, undiscovered country was great. Cold war analogy etc. First contact was cool too. The borg are the best baddies in sci fi.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 8, 2009)

One thing, though, apparently most other Trek series and films have reflected the mood the times.  This one doesn't really.  Personally I like that lack of heavy-handed allegory...


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 8, 2009)

You and kyser ignored me 

This makes bobbert sad.

Anyhow, the forehead ridges were a side effect of genetic alteration programs used by the klingon military, they were going for increased strength / speed / aggression. There were some major side effects, archer was involved in some manner and the whole klingon race got infected with something that casued pastrification.

Not 100% accurate on the details but close enough.


----------



## kyser_soze (May 8, 2009)

Yeah, but that was in Enterprise, and that would mean that, despite finally getting some decent long term story arcs and having the hottest Vulcan this side of 7of9 to watch it always felt I was somehow endorcing Bryan Adams-lite...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 8, 2009)

I never got the fuss over 7of9.  I always thought she looked quite butch

Deanna Troi from TNG would be my pick of star trek babes.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 8, 2009)

jadzia dax ftw


----------



## kyser_soze (May 8, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> I never got the fuss over 7of9.  I always thought she looked quite butch
> 
> Deanna Troi from TNG would be my pick of star trek babes.



It was a combo of two things:

The ultra skin tight outfit
That whole Borg-reclaiming humanity thing...

Altho I rate T'Pol more tho...thinking about it, I seem to have a thing for hot, pointy eared women (thinks of Liv in LotR)


----------



## onenameshelley (May 8, 2009)

Bob_the_lost said:


> You and kyser ignored me
> 
> This makes bobbert sad.
> 
> ...



 ok then, i think i will just go see the film and enjoy it for what it is because i dont get the whole back story trekie thing and i know its quite important.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (May 8, 2009)

I thought Captian Pike was the first one to serve on the enterprise with Spock. I'm not really a star trek nerd so I  can't back this up with much more than the pilot and the trial(?) ep that recuts the pilot into two shows.


----------



## Kenny Vermouth (May 8, 2009)

The Onion takes the piss out of Trekkies in this piece of hilarious video news:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film?utm_source=a-section


----------



## Stigmata (May 8, 2009)

onenameshelley said:


> ok then, i think i will just go see the film and enjoy it for what it is because i dont get the whole back story trekie thing and i know its quite important.



It's completely irrelevant to the film.


----------



## onenameshelley (May 8, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> It's completely irrelevant to the film.



Hurray!! I dont need to know any of what you lot just said about pastyheads or strange alien ladies (who may or may not be hot) i can just go and drool over Mr. Quinto and enjoy the explosions whoohooo


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 8, 2009)

Kenny Vermouth said:


> The Onion takes the piss out of Trekkies in this piece of hilarious video news:
> 
> http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film?utm_source=a-section



Posted already


----------



## Stigmata (May 8, 2009)

onenameshelley said:


> Hurray!! I dont need to know any of what you lot just said about pastyheads or strange alien ladies (who may or may not be hot) i can just go and drool over Mr. Quinto and enjoy the explosions whoohooo



Do it.


----------



## The Groke (May 8, 2009)

Just saw it.

It was fine. Good fun, made me laugh a fair few times, casting was mostly spot-on and it kept me entertained for 2 hours.

No more and no less than that.

Sorry RD - I reckon you _did_ over-hype...




Shame Karl Urban didn't get more to do - he was good value, which surprised me. Wasn't sure he would make much of it, given his track record (I mean he isn't really an _actor_ is he) but he played McCoy with just the right amount of tribute/parody and still made it is own character.


(Oh - I liked the "red-shirt" gag/homage. Saw it coming a mile off, but I think you were _supposed_ to.)


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 8, 2009)

I always do that with films I've just seen...


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (May 8, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I thought Captian Pike was the first one to serve on the enterprise with Spock. I'm not really a star trek nerd so I  can't back this up with much more than the pilot and the trial(?) ep that recuts the pilot into two shows.



Come on, does the film explain or ignore this or is it irrelevant?


----------



## Bungle73 (May 8, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I thought Captian Pike was the first one to serve on the enterprise with Spock. I'm not really a star trek nerd so I  can't back this up with much more than the pilot and the trial(?) ep that recuts the pilot into two shows.



You are correct.  How the new film handles this I don't know as I haven't seen it yet.  From the traliers and clips it looks like it starts off with Pike in command with Spock and then for some reason or other Kirk takes over.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (May 8, 2009)

Then they go on a five year mission?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 8, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Come on, does the film explain or ignore this or is it irrelevant?



It does.

I'd like to know what you think of this film AS as you do tend to bash most blockbusters...


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 8, 2009)

something minor spoilerish  reguarding  the  film canical  nature



Spoiler: about pike etc



it's meant to be an alternate timeline due to time travel


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 8, 2009)

So Grokey, did you disagree with my contention that it's a stone cold classic and up there with the old star wars, LOTR and nolan batfilms?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (May 8, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> It does.
> 
> I'd like to know what you think of this film AS as you do tend to bash most blockbusters...



Most blockbusters are shit. My problem with a lot of them is that they follow a very well trodden formula that plays it safe and has no surprises. 
Not really into the trek so I wont be in a hurry to see this unless I am on a plane. 

I'm hearing good things about this one but the young 90210 look of kirk is just too much for me.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2009)

Shippou-Chan said:


> something minor spoilerish  reguarding  the  film canical  nature
> 
> 
> 
> ...



staple sci fi cop-out number 3


----------



## Stigmata (May 8, 2009)

It's just an attempt to keep the continuity fascists at bay. I don't give a monkeys personally, they could have cast Chiwetiel Ejiofor as Spock and i'd have been okay with it.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 8, 2009)

The Spock guy is easily the standout actor.  I mean, I knew he was good as Sylar, but playing Spock, he does it equally as well, in a totally different way.  Definitely one of the big name actors of the future IMO


----------



## The Groke (May 8, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> So Grokey, did you disagree with my contention that it's a stone cold classic and up there with the old star wars, LOTR and nolan batfilms?



Sadly, yes!

It is an entertaining movie and one that I suspect will be the best of the summer special-effects extravaganzas due this year.

That said I would perhaps hazard Iron Man and Hellboy 2 as useful peers for "that" kind of movie and I rate both of those above Star Trek.

I thought Nero was weak and underdeveloped as a character. Not Bana's fault, just an uninteresting baddie and not really granted enough room to become one.


----------



## Stigmata (May 8, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> The Spock guy is easily the standout actor.  I mean, I knew he was good as Sylar, but playing Spock, he does it equally as well, in a totally different way.  Definitely one of the big name actors of the future IMO



I thought it was to his credit that Sylar didn't come to mind once during his performance, and he's easily my favourite _Heroes_ character. I liked him a lot (see tagline).


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 8, 2009)

The Groke said:


> Sadly, yes!
> 
> It is an entertaining movie and one that I suspect will be the best of the summer special-effects extravaganzas due this year.
> 
> ...



You rank Iron Man above Star Trek?  No way, Iron Man was a fun diversion, but ST was the utter bollocks.

Still, it would be totally dull if I kept on agreeing with you about everything


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 8, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> I thought it was to his credit that Sylar didn't come to mind once during his performance, and he's easily my favourite _Heroes_ character. I liked him a lot (see tagline).



Exactly.  He's shown he can do soft and poetic just as well as he can do scary.  Class actor.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 8, 2009)

Was alright i guess.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 8, 2009)

Bob_the_lost said:


> Was alright i guess.


----------



## Balbi (May 9, 2009)

Didn't think i'd praise Abrams ever.

But what a way to completely twat the groaning canon of Star Trek. I thought most of the actors were spot on, although Peggs Scotty was a bit rubbish. More technical stuff, less furless ewoks please.

Karl Urban's Bones was outstanding, great compliment to Pine's Kirk. It worked, because it was their version.

Red shirts died, green skinned women got shagged, transporters went breeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeuiiiiiiiwww.

Ace.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 9, 2009)

The green skinned bird was quite hot.


----------



## Balbi (May 9, 2009)

I demand moar. 

Moar sequels.


----------



## Strumpet (May 9, 2009)

Always been a bit indifferent to ST tbh. 
Just saw it tonight. FUKN loved it!! Surpised how much.  
I agree re: the baddie not being interesting enough to particularly care about though.




Kenny Vermouth said:


> The Onion takes the piss out of Trekkies in this piece of hilarious video news:
> http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film?utm_source=a-section


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 9, 2009)

That still cracks me up...

I love the Onion, it single-handedly refutes the notion that Americans can't do irony..


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 9, 2009)

We firmly believe that in a few years this will be seen as just as cornball and dated as the previous star trek movies


----------



## Balbi (May 9, 2009)

It doesn't matter that Nero were shit. This film was about

a) establishing the new cast

b) fucking over the rest of the franchise in favour of the clean sweep


----------



## Diamond (May 9, 2009)

Wow

Saw this with my bro tonight for want of anything better to do and it was awesome.

Go see it.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 9, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> I love the Onion, it single-handedly refutes the notion that Americans can't do irony..



If you haven't already got it get "Our Dumb Century". The funniest toilet book ever. (The other Onion Books are not as good)

WA-
(headine continues on page 2)


----------



## Diamond (May 9, 2009)

And see it at the IMAX.

Worth every penny.


----------



## Kenny Vermouth (May 9, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> That still cracks me up...
> 
> I love the Onion, it single-handedly refutes the notion that Americans can't do irony..


Spot on.

I know it's off topic, but here's one of the funniest things I ever read on the Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38641


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 9, 2009)

Kenny Vermouth said:


> Spot on.
> 
> I know it's off topic, but here's one of the funniest things I ever read on the Onion:
> 
> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38641



Very good.

I liked their one about archaeologists finding an email from 1993.


----------



## Balbi (May 9, 2009)

Dreamt I was Captain Kirk last night.

Awesome.


----------



## Kenny Vermouth (May 9, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Very good.
> 
> I liked their one about archaeologists finding an email from 1993.


Ha ha - found it and read it, I've not seen that before.

I like the headlines the most:

Friend's suggestion dismissed with wanking motion
Gender guessed correctly at second attempt
Pie-eating contest winner didn't know he'd been involved competition
Clinton vaguely disappointed by lack of assassination attempts
I'm like a chocoholic, but for booze

And police baffled by bottle-shaped bag:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29518


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 9, 2009)

The only slightly shit bit is the bit at the beginning when the child Kirk is joyriding in his uncles stolen car.  Seems like the makers of the Fast and the Furious sneaked into the studio for that bit.


----------



## Balbi (May 9, 2009)

Yeah, definitely no need for Beastie Boys there - dates it to fuck.

Loved the George Kirk vs Nero bit.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (May 9, 2009)

The Groke said:


> That said I would perhaps hazard Iron Man and Hellboy 2 as useful peers for "that" kind of movie and I rate both of those above Star Trek.
> .



Good lord, then I am definitely not going to waste money on the new star trek then. Iron Man was an ok film (only because of downey) ruined by a very very run of the mill plot by numbers.


----------



## Stigmata (May 9, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> The only slightly shit bit is the bit at the beginning when the child Kirk is joyriding in his uncles stolen car.  Seems like the makers of the Fast and the Furious sneaked into the studio for that bit.



Yes, that bit had me worried about what the rest of the film would be like. Product placement in Star Trek ffs


----------



## Badgers (May 9, 2009)

I am pretty meh about Star Trek but this one has me interested. 
Not read a bad review so far.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (May 9, 2009)

You know what, I know it was panned but I really like the first ST film. It feels really cinematic and big.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 9, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Good lord, then I am definitely not going to waste money on the new star trek then. Iron Man was an ok film (only because of downey) ruined by a very very run of the mill plot by numbers.



Groke is wrong.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 9, 2009)

They found a very good person to play George Kirk lookswise too, looks just like Chris Pine.


----------



## steveo87 (May 9, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> You know what, I know it was panned but I really like the first ST film. It feels really cinematic and big.



I did too, in a wierd this is totallly disco sort of way.#


I think if you treat all the films (except The Undescovered Country, that was all kinds of awful) as stand alone and as just basic low down special effects ladened fun, then they're all really good science fiction.


----------



## steveo87 (May 9, 2009)

Balbi said:


> I demand moar.
> 
> Moar sequels.



Memory-alpha, the single reason why I failed my Journalism degre:

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Untitled_Star_Trek_sequel

If you want know anything about Star Trek, then its on there, including an article about a possible sequel.....


....Incidently, fucking brillaint film, sort it on my todd but my step-dad wants to see it so off we go nect week.

Absolutelt dead chuffed about how it turned out, part of my childhood reborn.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 9, 2009)

steveo87 said:


> Absolutelt dead chuffed about how it turned out, part of my childhood reborn.



Me too, and I've only seen a shaky cam version. My mum who is 76 and a huge Star Trek fan* is desperate to see it, but she can't sit at the pictures for that long, and it'll be too loud for her, or I'd take her this weekend. I guarantee that she will love it though, oh yes. She'll love young Spock - I don't think she knows that old Spock is in it...

* my old mum has a complete collection of the James Blish novelizations, a load of 1970s annuals and all the partwork things detailing the technical schematics of obscure Ambassadorial shuttle craft and whatnot, which I think is pretty fucking cool. Go mum!


----------



## steveo87 (May 9, 2009)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Me too, and I've only seen a shaky cam version. My mum who is 76 and a huge Star Trek fan* is desperate to see it, but she can't sit at the pictures for that long, and it'll be too loud for her, or I'd take her this weekend. I guarantee that she will love it though, oh yes. She'll love young Spock - I don't think she knows that old Spock is in it...
> 
> * my old mum has a complete collection of the James Blish novelizations, a load of 1970s annuals and all the partwork things detailing the technical schematics of obscure Ambassadorial shuttle craft and whatnot, which I think is pretty fucking cool. Go mum!



Yeah, that was gonna be my original point but got distracted by memory-alpha, Zachery....lets call hims Syler, was genius casting, he got the mannerisms the vioce tone, and the look absolutly spot on as well as adding a bit more, ie, the pent up emotions and all that.


----------



## Detroit City (May 9, 2009)

is this movie worth seeing?  i was invited to go today but i declined as i figured the chances are 9 out of 10 that its shite


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 9, 2009)

steveo87 said:


> Memory-alpha, the single reason why I failed my Journalism degre:



stricktly  canon type guy  or are you  just  underplaying memory betas role


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 9, 2009)

i require seeing this


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 9, 2009)

Detroit City said:


> is this movie worth seeing?  i was invited to go today but i declined as i figured the chances are 9 out of 10 that its shite



It's not shite, and the first fifteen twenty minutes or so are really, genuinely fucking amazing.


----------



## dlx1 (May 9, 2009)

Star Trek: Nemesis is on telly now is the new one at Cinema better?


----------



## mentalchik (May 9, 2009)

dlx1 said:


> Star Trek: Nemesis is on telly now is the new one at Cinema better?



I bloody hope so !


----------



## Detroit City (May 9, 2009)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> It's not shite, and the first fifteen twenty minutes or so are really, genuinely fucking amazing.



i'll have to see it then, innit?


----------



## mentalchik (May 9, 2009)

Detroit City said:


> is this movie worth seeing?  i was invited to go today but i declined as i figured the chances are 9 out of 10 that its shite



Here's a radical suggestion.....why not go see it and make up your own mind !


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 9, 2009)

dlx1 said:


> Star Trek: Nemesis is on telly now is the new one at Cinema better?


Much. Faster paced, more interesting, better special effects and the acting talent isn't contained soley in a balding captain.


----------



## Detroit City (May 9, 2009)

mentalchik said:


> Here's a radical suggestion.....why not go see it and make up your own mind !




most movies are shite
possibility of wasting 2.5 hours
cost of $10 to $12 not including food/drink


----------



## dlx1 (May 9, 2009)

Some bloke with green eyes was sing blue moon (cheesy) 
were the lasers


----------



## mentalchik (May 9, 2009)

Detroit City said:


> most movies are shite
> possibility of wasting 2.5 hours
> cost of $10 to $12 not including food/drink



1/ no they're not
2/ possibly
3/ don't buy food and drink then ?


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 9, 2009)

They've reimagined weapons tech massively which is both good and overdue.


----------



## Stigmata (May 9, 2009)

Bob_the_lost said:


> They've reimagined weapons tech massively which is both good and overdue.



Although they kept mentioning shields, and I never saw any. They did the same thing in DS9 though.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 9, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> Although they kept mentioning shields, and I never saw any. They did the same thing in DS9 though.


That is something that didn't seem to happen, you're right.


----------



## Detroit City (May 9, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> Although they kept mentioning shields, and I never saw any. They did the same thing in DS9 though.



its a good way so save money on special effects.  with movies many things boil down to co$t.


----------



## mwgdrwg (May 9, 2009)

Man I loved that film, pure fun and entertainment from the first second. As great a re-boot as there could ever be!


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 9, 2009)

Detroit City said:


> its a good way so save money on special effects.  with movies many things boil down to co$t.


They really, really didn't skimp the SF budget would have bought at least one other film.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 9, 2009)

dlx1 said:


> Star Trek: Nemesis is on telly now is the new one at Cinema better?



downloaded and watched it the other night

it's not  horrible horrible

it's just... poor

the problem the next gen lot  had  was they were all just  ....  normal...  there was no fire   

star trek the next generation is like going on a trip in a mini van

classic is like  being in a sports car with the top down with kirk driving and the rest of the crew partying...  oh and spock hanging out the window throwing vulcan signs


plus there is the sexual tension


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 9, 2009)

the one thing i worry about  is  how  can anyone  but shatner play kirk

i would  say the same about  spock  but the moment i heard who they cast i though "shit, that will really work"

i mean kirk is shatner  and to a certain extent  shatner is kirk ...


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 9, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> Although they kept mentioning shields, and I never saw any. They did the same thing in DS9 though.



ohh  now  i'm going to go a bit   ultra geek  here  but   i though that  before  the   next gen era   the shilding  wasn't  a sheild bubble  but   something that  was  on the actual hull plating  

i seem to remeber the enterprise a  had  special new improved shilds  so it  was  grey  not white

humm  not exactly right... it's been years since i've watched any of the old movies or series

mind you  in any fight  shelds are the first thing to go


----------



## steveo87 (May 9, 2009)

Shippou-Chan said:


> stricktly  canon type guy  or are you  just  underplaying memory betas role



strickly cannon, memory beta has its purposes, but alpha has always had a place in my heart for the way it helped me fail so utterly catastrophically as I did.


----------



## Stigmata (May 9, 2009)




----------



## steveo87 (May 9, 2009)

Stigmata said:


>



uber super nerd this has been quality day LOLZZZZZ


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 9, 2009)

nice... but it's just not the same, admit it


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2009)

Shippou-Chan said:


> downloaded and watched it the other night


the only download i've come across is the single, and inevitable, cam version. Seems a waste of time.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

Detroit City said:


> is this movie worth seeing?  i was invited to go today but i declined as i figured the chances are 9 out of 10 that its shite



It's a stonker.  Absolutely brilliant.  One of the best films of its type I've ever seen.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

Shippou-Chan said:


> i require seeing this



Get thyself to the cinema.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> the only download i've come across is the single, and inevitable, cam version. Seems a waste of time.



I think SC means he downloaded Nemesis for some reason.


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2009)

Stigmata said:


>





I can't hear him because of how awesome Karl Urban is.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2009)

Watching this this afternoon

Renegade Dog- If it isn't 'as good as star wars' as you claim it is, then I'm going to tear you a new arsehole


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2009)

DAMMIT DC, HE'S A TEACHER, NOT A FILM CRITIC.

You green blooded goblin.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Watching this this afternoon
> 
> Renegade Dog- If it isn't 'as good as star wars' as you claim it is, then I'm going to tear you a new arsehole



It's better than A New Hope and Return of the Jedi, and there's a silver rizla between it and Empire, can't make up my mind which is the better of the two.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

Balbi said:


> DAMMIT DC, HE'S A TEACHER, NOT A FILM CRITIC.
> 
> You green blooded goblin.


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2009)

Couldn't resist it 

"I'M GIVIN' HER ALL SHE'S GOT CAPN'"


----------



## cliche guevara (May 10, 2009)

Has it been over hyped?

With hindsight, it's good, but not great. A solid 8/10.


----------



## Fictionist (May 10, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> It's better than A New Hope and Return of the Jedi, and there's a silver rizla between it and Empire, can't make up my mind which is the better of the two.



As opinions go that has to be one against which I find myself utterly opposed.

So I don't agree. It isn't _that _good.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

Fictionist said:


> As opinions go that has to be one against which I find myself utterly opposed.
> 
> So I don't agree. It isn't _that _good.



 I think it is.  So there.


----------



## Fictionist (May 10, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> I think it is.  So there.



Curse your Vulcan rationality!


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

Fictionist said:


> Curse your Vulcan rationality!



Seriously, though, I'm a lifelong Star Wars fan and Star Trek not-fan, and I was that impressed by the film.


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2009)

I'm going to go and see it again on Friday. First time i've done that since Batman Begins


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

Balbi said:


> I'm going to go and see it again on Friday. First time i've done that since Batman Begins





I want to see it again too.

I never thought I'd say that about Star Trek 

(There has been the sort of Star Trek nerd backlash I predicted, though, over on RT there's already a 'JJ Abrams has raped star trek' thread)


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2009)

RT?


----------



## Stigmata (May 10, 2009)

I've been surprised by the positive responses from even the nerdier reaches of fandom.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

Balbi said:


> RT?



Rotten Tomatoes.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2009)

I can't hear this thread over the sound of how awesome Kirk is.


I said 'look, it's Sylar '12 times as well


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I can't hear this thread over the sound of how awesome Kirk is.
> 
> 
> I said 'look, it's Sylar '12 times as well



So do I get to live to fight another day?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> So do I get to live to fight another day?



we'll see how the last half hour pans out, it's on pause cos advocaat is prepping some munch.


----------



## Onket (May 10, 2009)

I thought it was great.

I'm not one of those sad sci-fi geeks either.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> we'll see how the last half hour pans out, it's on pause cos advocaat is prepping some munch.



OK, where did you download the good quality version from? 

Please don't tell me you are watching a shite cam


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> OK, where did you download the good quality version from?
> 
> Please don't tell me you are watching a shite cam


I'm interested to know also.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

Me too - I really want to watch it again.


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2009)

We're such fucking geeks.


----------



## The Groke (May 10, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Please don't tell me you are watching a shite cam



He is watching a shite cam...

Unless there is some amazing secret hidden source of new movies at high quality which I am unaware of.

Nothing remotely decent on the usual torrent sites or on usenet yet...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

Balbi said:


> We're such fucking geeks.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

The Groke said:


> He is watching a shite cam...
> 
> Unless there is some amazing secret hidden source of new movies at high quality which I am unaware of.
> 
> Nothing remotely decent on the usual torrent sites or on usenet yet...



You never know, though - a near-perfect torrent of Revenge of the Sith came out almost straight away.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

Isn't this kind of thing a major refutation of torrenting being so evil?  I reckon a really large proportion of downloaders, at least when it comes to films, are people who either can't find the thing in the fucking shops (as is true of most of the films on Karagarga) or they're geeks who will see it x times at the cinema also and then buy the DVD when it comes out too...


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> OK, where did you download the good quality version from?
> 
> Please don't tell me you are watching a shite cam



cam.

acceptable quality, couple of wankers have ruined it by going for a slash etc. but the camerawork is acceptable and the sound adequate


----------



## The Groke (May 10, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> You never know, though - a near-perfect torrent of Revenge of the Sith came out almost straight away.




Aye and it was all over the torrent sites and usenet like a rash moments later...

The only Star Trek downloads I can see are cams - some are telesynced, but they are still cams.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> cam.
> 
> acceptable quality, couple of wankers have ruined it by going for a slash etc. but the camerawork is acceptable and the sound adequate



So it is a cam.  Hmm. I'll wait.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2009)

Balbi said:


> We're such fucking geeks.


paupers would be a better word. The talkies are dear these days; too dear for me!

i saw some samples from a cam version; they reeked. really reeked.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> paupers would be a better word. The talkies are dear these days; too dear for me!
> 
> i saw some samples from a cam version; they reeked. really reeked.



Nah, we've both been to see it in the cinema already and probably will again soon, but we want to see it again before even that instance.


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2009)

MOAR TREK! 



The sequel's being written now, for a 2011 release date. All principle cast signed on for 2 sequels.

Have I already said that?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

Balbi said:


> MOAR TREK!
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I am currently downloading a torrent of all the previous films. 

Will Star Wars ever forgive me?


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> I am currently downloading a torrent of all the previous films.
> 
> Will Star Wars ever forgive me?



KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (May 10, 2009)

Im off to see it again in a bit...


----------



## mrsfran (May 10, 2009)

Saw it this morning, really enjoyed it


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

Seems it's been a huge commercial and critical success (96% on RT)


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 10, 2009)

'Apparently' there is an 'R5' on the way. I have no idea what that really means, but set your internets to stun.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

Wot's that, a really good quality torrent?


----------



## cliche guevara (May 10, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> 'Apparently' there is an 'R5' on the way. I have no idea what that really means, but set your internets to stun.



Open region DVD innit? The kind they send out to reviewers.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

Cool.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2009)

Nimoy


Sylar


I await the review rip.


----------



## cliche guevara (May 10, 2009)

Glad you enjoyed it. My Dad is going to see it tomorrow and having trouble trying to convince my mother to accompany him. I smell a second sitting.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Glad you enjoyed it. My Dad is going to see it tomorrow and having trouble trying to convince my mother to accompany him. I smell a second sitting.



My dad would moan about it being full of explosions.  

Actually it's hard going to the cinema with my dad, as he complains about the volume of teh sound.  One of the few times I've been to the cinema with him as an adult was to see the first LOTR film, and he liked it but couldn't stop moaning about it.  i think it's because he's a classical guitarist and has never frequented places which play amplified music.  Or possibly the rest of us just have badly damaged hearing...


----------



## Santino (May 10, 2009)

It was good, but it's no Star Wars. 

Anyone who thinks it is probably likes 'Love, Actually'.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 10, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> My dad would moan about it being full of explosions.



The new Trek film is the only Sci-fi movie I know of which gets the 'explosions in space' thing right. As space is a vacuum, there's no medium through which sound can propagate, so space-bound explosions are noiseless.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2009)

Idris2002 said:


> The new Trek film is the only Sci-fi movie I know of which gets the 'explosions in space' thing right. As space is a vacuum, there's no medium through which sound can propagate, so space-bound explosions are noiseless.



the exhaust gasses and waste elements of the exploder and explodee will propagate the sound wave regardless. In space no one can hear you scream but actually they can because your scream is vented through gasses and picked up by the immensely sophisticate sensors one would expect to be standard kit on an interstellar craft.


----------



## Santino (May 10, 2009)

Hang on... time travel isn't even possible!!


----------



## Idris2002 (May 10, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> the exhaust gasses and waste elements of the exploder and explodee will propagate the sound wave regardless. In space no one can hear you scream but actually they can because your scream is vented through gasses and picked up by the immensely sophisticate sensors one would expect to be standard kit on an interstellar craft.


----------



## mentalchik (May 10, 2009)

Idris2002 said:


> *The new Trek film is the only Sci-fi movie I know of which gets the 'explosions in space' thing right*. As space is a vacuum, there's no medium through which sound can propagate, so space-bound explosions are noiseless.



Battlestar Galactica !


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 10, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> the exhaust gasses and waste elements of the exploder and explodee will propagate the sound wave regardless. In space no one can hear you scream but actually they can because your scream is vented through gasses and picked up by the immensely sophisticate sensors one would expect to be standard kit on an interstellar craft.



This would only be the case if you were about a foot away from the exploding and gas-venting object.

Don't you try to defend this sort of shoddy space opera nonsense. Stephen Baxter would roll his eyes at you.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> This would only be the case if you were about a foot away from the exploding and gas-venting object.
> 
> Don't you try to defend this sort of shoddy space opera nonsense. Stephen Baxter would roll his eyes at you.



I _am_ that close given the gods eye view the narrator sits us in. This applies to both written and filmed. Third person omniscient mo fo.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 10, 2009)

What's more, if you were close enough to hear, _your ears_ (or appropriate sensors) _would be burnt off by the superheated gasses anyway_.


----------



## Detroit City (May 10, 2009)

i'm going to see it tonite


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 10, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> What's more, if you were close enough to hear, _your ears_ (or appropriate sensors) _would be burnt off by the superheated gasses anyway_.



Actually, this sounds so much like the sort of shit I used to distract my physics teacher with when people needed to finish an essay for double English next period. I quite seriously managed to get half an hour on "does a rifle bullet have enough energy to melt itself on impact" (answer: yes, actually). Given the minimum temperature to produce plasma from the steel hull of a spaceship and assuming that it is surrounded by effectively pure vacuum at interstellar temperatures, and the minimum decibel volume for detection of a sound, construct a formula to determine the temperature of the gasses delivering that sound.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> What's more, if you were close enough to hear, _your ears_ (or appropriate sensors) _would be burnt off by the superheated gasses anyway_.



Unless one is the weakly godlike AI of a major interstellar ship receiving information from the hundreds of cloaked sensor drones you have seeded the environs with and a the vast data level before burnout/destruction allows you the AI to reconstruct the actual screams. Bet a Culture Mind could do it.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 10, 2009)

Bah, deus ex machina.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2009)

petit deus ennit.

quantum computers are going to be ace


----------



## mentalchik (May 10, 2009)

Some of you guys think about this all far too much.........


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2009)

Some people don't think about this stuff enough.........


----------



## mentalchik (May 10, 2009)

Balbi said:


> Some people don't think about this stuff enough.........



Shaddap you........i have to wait till next week to see it !


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 10, 2009)

You have to add a bit more spice with that sort of thing if it's going to work. For instance - a missile which contains a built-in package of millions of microscopic media drones, which eject just before impact and record the details until obliterated, each sending a package of sensory data from multiple sources that is reconstructed by a system owned by the corporation owning the missile into a composite, and leaked "accidentally" across the galaxy as a viral sense-impression.

or something


----------



## Idris2002 (May 10, 2009)

mentalchik said:


> Battlestar Galactica !




TV series. Not a movie, a TV series.


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You have to add a bit more spice with that sort of thing if it's going to work. For instance - a missile which contains a built-in package of millions of microscopic media drones, which eject just before impact and record the details until obliterated, each sending a package of sensory data from multiple sources that is reconstructed by a system owned by the corporation owning the missile into a composite, and leaked "accidentally" across the galaxy as a viral sense-impression.
> 
> or something


----------



## mentalchik (May 10, 2009)

Idris2002 said:


> TV series. Not a movie, a TV series.










*crosses fingers that HMV still has the whole thing in the sale for £35 next month*


----------



## Santino (May 10, 2009)

Teleporting from a planet to a moving spaceship lightyears away was pushing it a bit.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2009)

Alex B said:


> Teleporting from a planet to a moving spaceship lightyears away was pushing it a bit.



I did expect Q to show up at that point.


----------



## Balbi (May 10, 2009)

Yeah, but it's the future - and neatly references the transparent aluminium gag with Scotty and Bones.

"Computer.....computer...."


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 10, 2009)

Alex B said:


> Teleporting from a planet to a moving spaceship lightyears away was pushing it a bit.



They're constantly teleporting from rotating planets to static spaceships in all of the Star Treks.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> They're constantly teleporting from rotating planets to static spaceships in all of the Star Treks.



the pattern is recorded, the initial flesh destroyed and reconstructed by the transporter. See the Evil Riker episode.


----------



## Stigmata (May 10, 2009)

He wasn't evil, he was just less of a square.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 10, 2009)

Star Trek movie plots in haiku form:

http://blogs.amctv.com/scifi-scanner/2009/05/star-trek-movie-plots.php


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

Alex B said:


> It was good, but it's no Star Wars.
> 
> Anyone who thinks it is probably likes 'Love, Actually'.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

mentalchik said:


> Battlestar Galactica !



And Moonraker! 

My dad thought it was the best Bond film jsut because the explosions in space were soundless...


----------



## Detroit City (May 10, 2009)

this movie better be good otherwise it'll ruin my star trek experience forever...i basically only get into the original series/cast/movies.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

Detroit City said:


> this movie better be good otherwise it'll ruin my star trek experience forever...i basically only get into the original series/cast/movies.



It's better than any of them.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2009)

Sylar was fucking ace, I reckon there is a future for him playing emotionless sci fi roles (keanu, bale, diesel)


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Sylar was fucking ace, I reckon there is a future for him playing emotionless sci fi roles (keanu, bale, diesel)



He's infinitely better than two of those...


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (May 10, 2009)

Alex B said:


> Teleporting from a planet to a moving spaceship lightyears away was pushing it a bit.



Where as a single drop of red stuff making a blackhole is perfectly plausible..


it's just as good a 2nd time BTW


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 10, 2009)

Just seen it tonight, really really good movie.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

Kid Eternity didn't rate it, judging from early reports


----------



## tiki (May 10, 2009)

The Groke said:


> Just saw it.
> 
> Shame Karl Urban didn't get more to do - he was good value, which surprised me. Wasn't sure he would make much of it, given his track record (I mean he isn't really an _actor_ is he)



How do you mean he isn't an actor? Are you mixing him up with Keith Urban? Thought he was great and was up with with Quinto as the best performers in the film. He had Bones down perfectly.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 10, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Kid Eternity didn't rate it, judging from early reports


I rate it completely.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 10, 2009)

sleaterkinney said:


> I rate it completely.



Just goes to show that football taste doesn't transliterate elsewhere 

Would you go as far as to agree with my contention that it's one of the greatest space opera films of all?


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2009)

Saw it yesterday.  It's really good - much better than I expected it would be.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 11, 2009)

It wasn't very good. Nice looking, some excellent casting (I thought Karl Urban did a better Bones than whatshisface did Spock imo) but the film was hollow, it lacked heart, and had a plot that was so inane it should have been a two part TNG episode...and the score was terrible too.

If only someone would do a proper B5 film...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 11, 2009)

See, I didn't think it lacked heart at all.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  most of the time i see big budget films I just walk out thinking well it looked nice but...

this film still seems good a few days after seeing it, which is usually a sign for me that it's more than just about the graphics...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 11, 2009)

And Sylar was amazing as Spock.  IMO


----------



## jannerboyuk (May 11, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> It wasn't very good. Nice looking, some excellent casting (I thought Karl Urban did a better Bones than whatshisface did Spock imo) but the film was hollow, it lacked heart, and had a plot that was so inane it should have been a two part TNG episode...and the score was terrible too.
> 
> If only someone would do a proper B5 film...



babylon 5 is a big pile of shit!


----------



## Rainingstairs (May 11, 2009)

Saw it yesterday, it was awesome! Spock was a hottie


----------



## Detroit City (May 11, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> It's better than any of them.



indeed, i would give it an 8.5 out of 10


----------



## Stigmata (May 11, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> had a plot that was so inane it should have been a two part TNG episode



*What's that supposed to mean eh?* 

I knew you wouldn't like it KE, your taste in blockbusters is all skewiff.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 11, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> *What's that supposed to mean eh?*
> 
> I knew you wouldn't like it KE, your taste in blockbusters is all skewiff.



I dunno, I usually fundamentally agree with him, disappointed to see we have such a difference of opinion on this one...


----------



## kyser_soze (May 11, 2009)

Nah, while he has the appearance of good taste, it's only a surface thing. Underneath he's a _monger_ of bad critical judgement. And anyone who failed to be moved by the Death Of Aeris has no place to say a film has 'no heart'


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 11, 2009)

wrong post


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (May 11, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> If only someone would do a proper B5 film...



WTF? OK I can't take any of your opinions seriously now. I bet you watch andromida.


----------



## fen_boy (May 11, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> It wasn't very good. Nice looking, some excellent casting (I thought Karl Urban did a better Bones than whatshisface did Spock imo) but the film was hollow, it lacked heart, and had a plot that was so inane it should have been a two part TNG episode...and the score was terrible too.
> 
> If only someone would do a proper B5 film...



That's sealed it for me, I'll definitely go to see it. If KE dislikes it, it must be great.


----------



## Santino (May 11, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> They're constantly teleporting from rotating planets to static spaceships in all of the Star Treks.


Yeah... but... but... but... at least they were in the same solar system at the time, and not TRAVELLING FASTER THAN LIGHT and MANY MANY LIGHT YEARS AWAY.


----------



## The Octagon (May 11, 2009)

Idris2002 said:


> The new Trek film is the only Sci-fi movie I know of which gets the 'explosions in space' thing right. As space is a vacuum, there's no medium through which sound can propagate, so space-bound explosions are noiseless.





mentalchik said:


> Battlestar Galactica !





Idris2002 said:


> TV series. Not a movie, a TV series.





Serenity (and Firefly) got this right too


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (May 11, 2009)

Bad Troll KE.. must try harder


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 11, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> *What's that supposed to mean eh?*
> 
> I knew you wouldn't like it KE, your taste in blockbusters is all skewiff.



TNG is utter shit. DP9 is barely watchable only because it essentially ripped off B5.



RenegadeDog said:


> I dunno, I usually fundamentally agree with him, disappointed to see we have such a difference of opinion on this one...



Yeah I must say I was a little surprised by this too, you're one of the few people I normally agree with about this type of thing...



kyser_soze said:


> Nah, while he has the appearance of good taste, it's only a surface thing. Underneath he's a _monger_ of bad critical judgement. And anyone who failed to be moved by the Death Of Aeris has no place to say a film has 'no heart'



Pah, infantile emotional expression dressed up as pathos. FF7 was crap.



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> WTF? OK I can't take any of your opinions seriously now. I bet you watch andromida.



Nope, can't stand it. B5 is real sci fi with proper politics along with gunfighting cool ass ships.



fen_boy said:


> That's sealed it for me, I'll definitely go to see it. If KE dislikes it, it must be great.



Fuck you Resi bwoy!


----------



## jannerboyuk (May 11, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> B5 is real sci fi with proper politics along with gunfighting cool ass ships.



ooo did you get that from the big book of sci fi definitions or did you just make it up? clue: you just made it up.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 11, 2009)

Babylon 5 was lame.

But it had the acest name for a species ever 'TechnoMages'


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 11, 2009)

I've never really seen B5.


----------



## Pseudopsycho (May 11, 2009)

B5 was ace but that's a derail. Just posting say would have seen this over weekend but bastard mate gave me food poisoning from his BBQ hoping to go soon


----------



## Dr. Furface (May 11, 2009)

I didn't think it was worth the rave reviews I've seen for it, although I did enjoy it as a piece of undemanding escapist entertainment. The main problem is that the Kirk and Spock characters have none of the charm, wit and humour of the originals, and as so much of this film is based on the relationship between those characters, the more macho competitive slant this film gives them felt all wrong to me. Actually the only characters I thought were done well were Bones and Chekov.

And if this is so much better than the other Trek movies, thank fuck I didn't see any of those.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 11, 2009)

Dr. Furface said:


> I didn't think it was worth the rave reviews I've seen for it, although I did enjoy it as a piece of undemanding escapist entertainment. *The main problem is that the Kirk and Spock characters have none of the charm, wit and humour of the originals, and as so much of this film is based on the relationship between those characters, the more macho competitive slant this film gives them felt all wrong to me*. Actually the only characters I thought were done well were Bones and Chekov.
> 
> And if this is so much better than the other Trek movies, thank fuck I didn't see any of those.




I'm looking forward to the slightly rougher slash/fic tbh


----------



## Stigmata (May 11, 2009)

Babylon 5 ruled pretty hard once you got past the general lameness of the first season.

Insightful video review of the Star Trek film


----------



## 8den (May 11, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> Babylon 5 ruled pretty hard once you got past the general lameness of the first season.
> 
> Insightful video review of the Star Trek film



B5 fanboys always try and excuse it's lameness. 

"Babylon 5 is excellent once you get over the dialogue/plot/acting/or..."


----------



## kyser_soze (May 11, 2009)

I like Bab 5 - one of the first TV shows generally to have multi-season story arcs and show that the concept could work successfully, and it's an enjoyable take on a lot of sci-fi concepts. I'm not a fanboi - generally I'm not that sad about anything - but it's one of those shows worth persevering with...and the acting is no better/worse than most other TV SF fare pre-BSG...


----------



## DotCommunist (May 11, 2009)

as I recall this technomage was incredibly camp


----------



## kyser_soze (May 11, 2009)

He's the Equaliser's son...


----------



## 19sixtysix (May 11, 2009)

Saw the film last night at the Imax in Glasgow. Good film and excellent on the big screen but what a badly organised cinema. I book 4 tickets and when i get there we have to join a queue for the seat scramble. So if you turn up on time having booked you have no guarantee of sitting together. Staff said you can at least guarantee a seat. Utter shit. Oh and they put the house lights up and made an announcement over the end credits. I like the imax in London but doubt I'll bother with the Glasgow one again.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 11, 2009)

jannerboyuk said:


> ooo did you get that from the big book of sci fi definitions or did you just make it up? clue: you just made it up.



Um, you're a prick.


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (May 11, 2009)

I don't think we'll be seeing KE join the elite squad of double viewers.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 11, 2009)

bouncer_the_dog said:


> I don't think we'll be seeing KE join the elite squad of double viewers.



Double viewers?


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 11, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Double viewers?


Those dedicated to fine cinematography so strongly as to watch the film twice?


----------



## mentalchik (May 11, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> Babylon 5 ruled pretty hard once you got past the general lameness of the first season.



I concur !


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 11, 2009)

I watched it.

Why are people calling it a prequel. It isn't. Hokey giant reset button did feel like Leonard Nimoy stepping out the sonic shower and saying 'Hi Pam'!

Why was Sarek played by Donald Trump?


----------



## cliche guevara (May 11, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> FF7 was crap.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 11, 2009)

Bob_the_lost said:


> Those dedicated to fine cinematography so strongly as to watch the film twice?



Oh I thought it meant those who are stupid enough to pay twice for crap.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 11, 2009)

Oh yeah, the random casting of Winona Ryder as Spocks mum was way out there. I kept expecting her to go 'Whoa Spock, man...you're like totally a cool Vulcan and stuff!'


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 11, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Oh I thought it meant those who are stupid enough to pay twice for crap.


Who said we paid for it even once!?

Course, i did, cos piracy is murder kids.


----------



## Detroit City (May 11, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Oh yeah, the random casting of Winona Ryder as Spocks mum was way out there. I kept expecting her to go 'Whoa Spock, man...you're like totally a cool Vulcan and stuff!'



get out! that was not winona ryder.

anyways i'd say it was the best star trek movie since Star Trek II: TWOK


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 11, 2009)

Detroit City said:


> get out! that was not winona ryder.
> 
> anyways i'd say it was the best star trek movie since Star Trek II: TWOK



It was. I kept saying that looks like WR, Random One was like 'shut up it aint her' but there she was in the credits! Talk about the quietest come back ever!


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 11, 2009)

I've never actually seen Khan.  Will be watching it tonight possibly.  Well, either that or Let The Right One In.  But the latter sounds fucking depressing.  I need cheerful.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 11, 2009)

Did R1 think it was crap too?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 11, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Did R1 think it was crap too?



She thought it was alright.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 11, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> It wasn't very good. Nice looking, some excellent casting (I thought Karl Urban did a better Bones than whatshisface did Spock imo) but the film was hollow, it lacked heart, and had a plot that was so inane it should have been a two part TNG episode...and the score was terrible too.


There was plenty of emotional content, right from the very first scene ffs.


Kid_Eternity said:


> If only someone would do a proper B5 film...


Why?. It was shit.


----------



## Detroit City (May 11, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> It was. I kept saying that looks like WR, Random One was like 'shut up it aint her' but there she was in the credits! Talk about the quietest come back ever!



i guess you're right, i just looked it up


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 11, 2009)

How could you _not _think that was Winona Ryder? She looked _exactly _like her!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 11, 2009)

sleaterkinney said:


> There was plenty of emotional content, right from the very first scene ffs.
> 
> Why?. It was shit.



It was plastic and non captivating, the killing of six billion Vulcans hardly elicited a moments sadness in the film. It was an empty vessel of a film...

B5 had some crap acting and dodgy dialogue but over all it had a great story line and some great renditions of politics on a galactic scale. ST cannot hope to equal it in those terms because they haven't the guts to do anything truly brave for fear of pissing off the fucking fans...


----------



## mentalchik (May 11, 2009)

Woohoo going on 2 for 1 orange wednesdays..........on wednesday !


----------



## Detroit City (May 11, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> How could you _not _think that was Winona Ryder? She looked _exactly _like her!



they had her made up to look older


----------



## DotCommunist (May 11, 2009)

mentalchik said:


> Woohoo going on 2 for 1 orange wednesdays..........on wednesday !



UCG sixfields?


I remember when it was Virgin and you could waltz in without paying cos they were so shortstaffed.

Also nicked bare ashtrays. You deserve it if you have 'stolen from Virgin cinema' printed on the base of your nice china ashtrays. That's red rag to a bull.


----------



## mentalchik (May 11, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> UCG sixfields?
> 
> 
> I remember when it was Virgin and you could waltz in without paying cos they were so shortstaffed.
> ...



Vue at sol central !


----------



## Balbi (May 11, 2009)

mentalchik said:


> Vue at sol central !



Enjoy


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 11, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> UCG sixfields?
> 
> 
> I remember when it was Virgin and you could waltz in without paying cos they were so shortstaffed.
> ...



At the cinema in Newcastle, you could easily go and watch as many different films as you like in one day, as they only check the tickets at the front and you leave the screen the same place that you go in.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 11, 2009)

Detroit City said:


> they had her made up to look older


they gave her a crow's foot and two grey hairs.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 11, 2009)

I have beef with Sol Central tbh, but that's another thread..


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 11, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> It was plastic and non captivating, the killing of six billion Vulcans hardly elicited a moments sadness in the film. It was an empty vessel of a film...
> 
> B5 had some crap acting and dodgy dialogue but over all it had a great story line and some great renditions of politics on a galactic scale. ST cannot hope to equal it in those terms because they haven't the guts to do anything truly brave for fear of pissing off the fucking fans...


...such as destroying one of the major parts of the series' canon.

Though i'm surprised you don't mention the time travel plotline which effectively destroyed any empathy you had for these characters as it then becomes apparent (and Spock says it) that these people are not how they should be. The whole thing is a giant daydream.

Good film, very shit plot idea. 

And why does a Romulan giant mining ship look like that?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 11, 2009)

I have to admit, the ship felt rather close to those of the Reavers in Serenity.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 11, 2009)

The ship made no sense at all.

1) Simple mining ship with weapons, what the hell? I can understand lasers (with which to cut rocks up) but torpedo launchers?
2) The design was a bit too: This'll look cool rather than believable engineering plan (which the enterprise did have to some degree).
3) What the fuck were they doing for 20 odd years? Or am i getting to the second film already?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 11, 2009)

25 years that guy is flying around without being noticed. He spends all that time being obssessive and weird aboard his giant spiky ship of chasms and death plotting a scheme so implausible it almost works bar the most unbelievable set of coincedences. 

You have to love it.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 11, 2009)

Why does the black hole have to be at the centre of the planet? Why not just drop the red matter on star fleet headquarters.


----------



## mentalchik (May 11, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I have beef with Sol Central tbh, but that's another thread..



Well it's in walking distance so there you go !


----------



## mentalchik (May 11, 2009)

A question,


does the ship look as pretty as the original ?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 11, 2009)

Bob_the_lost said:


> The ship made no sense at all.
> 
> 1) Simple mining ship with weapons, what the hell? I can understand lasers (with which to cut rocks up) but torpedo launchers?



could well be there travelled through a dodgy section of space  

you need to protect your  ship full of expensive ores n shit


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 11, 2009)

Shippou-Chan said:


> could well be there travelled through a dodgy section of space
> 
> you need to protect your  ship full of expensive ores n shit


ffs it's Star Trek not Eve Online!


----------



## Balbi (May 11, 2009)

Innit, and if you had a big fucking cutty laser energy bastard which fucked enemy communications and transport systems - you're not going to leave it on the shelf.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 11, 2009)

mentalchik said:


> Well it's in walking distance so there you go !



The mexican restaurant opposite, with the big graph piece on the side?

used to live above that


/pointless detail


----------



## Stigmata (May 11, 2009)

Bob_the_lost said:


> 3) What the fuck were they doing for 20 odd years? Or am i getting to the second film already?



Apparently they cut a whole sequence where Nero was imprisoned on Rura Penthe (Klingon prison planet) for 20 years before busting out.

Also there's apparently some sort of tie-in graphic novel that explains a lot of this stuff. Like Nero's ship apparently nabbed a load of Borg nanotech that the Romulans were hoarding, and it got transformed by it.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 11, 2009)

Why not just go to Romulus and warn them what's going to happen instead of spending 25 years _being a twat!_

I assume the ship was hard because it comes from the future. And old school Fed ordnance just can't cut it; plus the ship at the start was a weeny ship. Though why you'd bring your pregnant wife aboard I don't know; I thought all that shit was something they invented in the new age 80's for the next generation, along with therapists and wankdecks.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 11, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> It was plastic and non captivating, the killing of six billion Vulcans hardly elicited a moments sadness in the film. It was an empty vessel of a film...


So when spock is giving his captains log after that and says he's a member of an endangered species and uhuru comforts him afterwards that was nothing, right? 


Kid_Eternity said:


> B5 had some crap acting and dodgy dialogue but over all it had a great story line and some great renditions of politics on a galactic scale. ST cannot hope to equal it in those terms because they haven't the guts to do anything truly brave for fear of pissing off the fucking fans...


I get the feeling you would have hated ST anyway......


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 11, 2009)

sleaterkinney said:


> So when spock is giving his captains log after that and says he's a member of an endangered species and uhuru comforts him afterwards that was nothing, right?
> 
> I get the feeling you would have hated ST anyway......



It didn't say there was utterly no emotion in the film just that over all it lacked heart. Was distinctly underwhelmed. I was kinda looking forward to it, given they'd finally dumped the god awful TNG crew...


----------



## mentalchik (May 11, 2009)

*taps foot*


----------



## Stigmata (May 11, 2009)

I think it looks lovely mentalchik. There's a fab sequence when they're flying up to it for the first time.


----------



## Detroit City (May 11, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> ...given they'd finally dumped the god awful TNG crew...



thank freakin' god that sad lot is gone


----------



## mentalchik (May 11, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> I think it looks lovely mentalchik. There's a fab sequence when they're flying up to it for the first time.



Thank you !


----------



## mentalchik (May 11, 2009)

Detroit City said:


> thank freakin' god that sad lot is gone


----------



## Stigmata (May 11, 2009)




----------



## Detroit City (May 11, 2009)




----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 11, 2009)




----------



## Detroit City (May 11, 2009)

fucking TNG - what a waste


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 11, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> It didn't say there was utterly no emotion in the film just that over all it lacked heart.


It's an action adventure movie not a love story and there is plenty of emotional involvement


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 11, 2009)

TNG was brilliant.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 11, 2009)

So if Kirk hadn't happened to be born on the one ship that happens upon Nero popping through a timewarp, he wouldn't have known it was a trap and thus wouldn't have saved the Enterprise?

Not only that had Sulu not forgotten to mirror signal maneuver, the Enterprise would have warped into its death along with all the other ships?

That's just the most awesome coincedences.


----------



## golightly (May 11, 2009)

Oh and Kirk gets marooned on the same planet as Spock and Scotty.  What's the chances of that?

I don't it's the kind of film to worry too much about massive coincidences and plot holes tbf.


----------



## Stigmata (May 11, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> So if Kirk hadn't happened to be born on the one ship that happens upon Nero popping through a timewarp, he wouldn't have known it was a trap and thus wouldn't have saved the Enterprise?
> 
> Not only that had Sulu not forgotten to mirror signal maneuver, the Enterprise would have warped into its death along with all the other ships?
> 
> That's just the most awesome coincedences.



Have you seen many films? lol


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 11, 2009)

sleaterkinney said:


> TNG was brilliant.



It was fucking soulless shite.


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 11, 2009)

golightly said:


> Oh and Kirk gets marooned on the same planet as Spock and Scotty.  What's the chances of that?
> 
> I don't it's the kind of film to worry too much about nassive coincidences and plot holes tbf.


You could drive a bus through the plotholes in this film 

a great big spiky spiny armed to the teeth mining ship of a bus.

but i really don't like the whole alternate reality thing. It's a bit insulting to the movie itself to reduce it to that. Why? Just come up with a fun plot involving Romulans and we're good. We Don't Need Another Nero!


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 11, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> It was fucking soulless shite.


Wesley Crusher is twice the man you are. Pussy.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 11, 2009)

spoilers mofos  spoilers!!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 11, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> Wesley Crusher is twice the man you are. Pussy.



Haha that scrawny little turd.


----------



## Santino (May 11, 2009)

Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!


----------



## jannerboyuk (May 11, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Um, you're a prick.



thanks for confirming that you made it up. hey kids remember abuse is ok if you put a smiley on the end.


----------



## cybertect (May 11, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> You could drive a bus through the plotholes in this film



Here's one I tried earlier...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 11, 2009)

jannerboyuk said:


> thanks for confirming that you made it up. hey kids remember abuse is ok if you put a smiley on the end.



No you're a prick because you decided to make a snide remark. I didn't make it up you dolt I expressed an opinion. Something we're free to do on here dickwad.


----------



## steveo87 (May 12, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I said 'look, it's Sylar '12 times as well




I* inly did that twice, which suprised me....


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 12, 2009)

steveo87 said:


> I* inly did that twice, which suprised me....


So shallow, Andy Kaufman.


----------



## golightly (May 12, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> You could drive a bus through the plotholes in this film
> 
> a great big spiky spiny armed to the teeth mining ship of a bus.
> 
> but i really don't like the whole alternate reality thing. It's a bit insulting to the movie itself to reduce it to that. Why? Just come up with a fun plot involving Romulans and we're good. We Don't Need Another Nero!





Alternate reality is bread and butter to Star Trek script writers.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 12, 2009)

golightly said:


> Alternate reality is bread and butter to science fiction script writers.



fixed


----------



## Balbi (May 12, 2009)

Yeah, and it's not a dis-service to the film and franchise either - essentially this film happens AFTER all of TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager, but it happens after them in the past.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 12, 2009)

Balbi said:


> Yeah, and it's not a dis-service to the film and franchise either - essentially this film happens AFTER all of TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager, but it happens after them in the past.


But after Enterprise in the present.


----------



## Balbi (May 12, 2009)

Bob_the_lost said:


> But after Enterprise in the present.



Now you're just trying to incite rage. SCOTT BAKULA IS NOT REAL STAR TREKS.


----------



## Stigmata (May 12, 2009)

balbi said:


> now you're just trying to incite rage. Scott bakula is not real star treks.



*it's been a long road...*


----------



## mentalchik (May 12, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> *it's been a long road...*



*starts humming tune*





"coz i got faith of the heart".............


----------



## Balbi (May 12, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> *it's been a long road...*



...........and we're not quite sure where we've been

NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVAH FORGET WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM
NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVAH PRETEND THAT IT'S NOT REAL
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMEEDAY THIS WILL ALL BE SOMEONE ELSES DREAM,
THIS WILL BE SOMEONE ELSES DREAM...



Tell me everyone else spotted that.


----------



## steveo87 (May 12, 2009)

Detroit City said:


> get out! that was not winona ryder.
> 
> anyways i'd say it was the best star trek movie since Star Trek II: TWOK



agreed, Khan pretty much shit on this one, but thats not a bad thing, cos kahn was the epitamy of what a star trek movie should be about. 

I actually Ryder was quite good a Spk's mum, maybe that was because it was such a realtivly small part?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 12, 2009)

golightly said:


> Alternate reality is bread and butter to Star Trek script writers.


but the mirror universe is awesome. no mirror universe episode has ever been bad.

In fact sylar wearing the goatee of evil is the only way they can do another movie. I insist.

"Mr Chekov, your agoniser please"!


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 12, 2009)

Balbi said:


> Yeah, and it's not a dis-service to the film and franchise either - essentially this film happens AFTER all of TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager, but it happens after them in the past.


that's why it's called the past, Einstein.


----------



## Balbi (May 12, 2009)

There's not a paradox in the film that I can see


----------



## Kanda (May 12, 2009)

Just watched it on download. Superb. Will go to cinema too.


----------



## jannerboyuk (May 12, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> No you're a prick because you decided to make a snide remark. I didn't make it up you dolt I expressed an opinion. Something we're free to do on here dickwad.



temper temper


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 12, 2009)

Kanda said:


> Just watched it on download. Superb. Will go to cinema too.



Was it a cam or have you unearthed a good quality download?


----------



## jannerboyuk (May 12, 2009)

steveo87 said:


> agreed, Khan pretty much shit on this one, but thats not a bad thing, cos kahn was the epitamy of what a star trek movie should be about.
> 
> I actually Ryder was quite good a Spk's mum, maybe that was because it was such a realtivly small part?



i think is pretty good but sometimes overrated. everybody only really remembers one bit. i thought the new one was pretty good but dont know if there is one stand out moment people will remember and repeat in the same was as you know what.


----------



## jannerboyuk (May 12, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> but the mirror universe is awesome. no mirror universe episode has ever been bad.
> 
> In fact sylar wearing the goatee of evil is the only way they can do another movie. I insist.
> 
> "Mr Chekov, your agoniser please"!



i thought the mirror universe in deep space 9 was lame. the red dwarf one kicks arse!


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 12, 2009)

jannerboyuk said:


> i thought the mirror universe in deep space 9 was lame. the red dwarf one kicks arse!



Which Red Dwarf one?


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 12, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Which Red Dwarf one?



The one where Lister and Rimmer are women and Cat, Dog?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 12, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> The one where Lister and Rimmer are women and Cat, Dog?



Yeah, just wondering as there are quite a few - the dimension that Ace comes from where Cat's this mellow old dude, Kryten is that slightly camp desk guy, Holly is the secretary and Lister is the flight engineer, or at the end of series 8 there was some weird upside down universe.  Also The Inquisitor saw alternative versions of Kryten and Lister...

The 'opposite sex' one is probably the all time worst episode from the first six series.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 12, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Yeah, just wondering as there are quite a few - the dimension that Ace comes from where Cat's this mellow old dude, Kryten is that slightly camp desk guy, Holly is the secretary and Lister is the flight engineer, or at the end of series 8 there was some weird upside down universe.  Also The Inquisitor saw alternative versions of Kryten and Lister...


Oh yeah, for some reason I had forgetten about that one , even though that's probably the best one. The other one that sprung to my mind was the one with Kochanski in it and I thought it couldn't be that one because you hardly see it. Not sure The Inquisitor one counts though. 



> The 'opposite sex' one is probably the all time worst episode from the first six series.


Tbh I find the whole first series a bit lame but the second series better, though perhaps that's because I read the book first which just does it all better. Therefore I kind of like some of the ones which didn't make it to the book.


----------



## jannerboyuk (May 12, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Which Red Dwarf one?



ace rimmer!!!


----------



## PursuedByBears (May 13, 2009)

I saw it tonight and really liked it.  I got dragged along to see it and wasn't really bothered but ended up thinking it was great.  I liked the total destrution of the dead weight of the series continuity, plus it ensured a future in which Wesley Crusher will never be born (hopefully)


----------



## The Octagon (May 13, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Yeah, just wondering as there are quite a few - the dimension that Ace comes from where Cat's this mellow old dude, Kryten is that slightly camp desk guy, Holly is the secretary and Lister is the flight engineer, or at the end of series 8 there was some weird upside down universe.  Also The Inquisitor saw alternative versions of Kryten and Lister...
> 
> The 'opposite sex' one is probably the all time worst episode from the first six series.



And the Good / Bad Dwarfers in 'Angels & Demons' (Rimmer with the Holo-whip and "I'm going to hurt you..... and then I'm going to have you" )


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 13, 2009)

jannerboyuk said:


> i thought the mirror universe in deep space 9 was lame. the red dwarf one kicks arse!


I preferred the enterprise alternate reality. Go evil federation!


----------



## kyser_soze (May 13, 2009)

Bob_the_lost said:


> I preferred the enterprise alternate reality. Go evil federation!



That sounds like 'All Good Things...' (I think) from TNG where you see a properly tooled up Galaxy Class Enterprise with an additional warp engine and cannoned up to the gunwales:






It's from one of the alternate timeline eps anyway...can't remember which one...


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 13, 2009)

That was good too, but no i was thinking of the "Enterprise" alternate reality with archer.


----------



## Kanda (May 13, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Was it a cam or have you unearthed a good quality download?


 
Star Trek 2009 TELESYNC AAC-SecretMyth (Kingdom-Release)


----------



## strung out (May 13, 2009)

watched this last night on the net. really enjoyed it... not quite the epic space opera some are making it out to be but a lot better than i expected it to be


----------



## golightly (May 13, 2009)

Kanda said:


> Star Trek 2009 TELESYNC AAC-SecretMyth (Kingdom-Release)


 
I didn't think the quality of that download was all that good.  I'll wait until there's a DVD quality download.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 13, 2009)

Yeah telesyncs tend to be just as shit as cams really.  I don't mind waiting for the real deal


----------



## mentalchik (May 13, 2009)

Vert much enjoyed it........din't blow me away or nowt but glad i went to see it !


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 13, 2009)

Well, that was a bit fucking awesome.  It's Star Trek but good*! 

*I am very fond of the original Star Trek, but I do also consider it slightly embarrassing


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 13, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Well, that was a bit fucking awesome.  It's Star Trek but good*!
> 
> *I am very fond of the original Star Trek, but I do also consider it slightly embarrassing


----------



## Crispy (May 14, 2009)

I also thought it was good. I liked the ending.


Spoiler: the final confrontation



Um, didn't nero's ship get destroyed while it was still above the surface of the earth, in a black hole and also the big explosion that spock caused. So now there's a black hole hanging around near earth? What?


----------



## Crispy (May 14, 2009)

Oh and I completely forgot that Eyebrows from lord of the rings was Bones. Turns out he _can_ act!


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (May 14, 2009)

Crispy said:


> I also thought it was good. I liked the ending.


No



Spoiler: the final confrontation



Spock Warped after nicking the ship and blasting the mine thingy and Nero followed.


----------



## Crispy (May 14, 2009)

ah good, that clears that up


----------



## The Groke (May 14, 2009)

Crispy said:


> Oh and I completely forgot that Eyebrows from lord of the rings was Bones. Turns out he _can_ act!





The Groke said:


> Shame Karl Urban didn't get more to do - he was good value, which surprised me. Wasn't sure he would make much of it, given his track record (I mean he isn't really an _actor_ is he) but he played McCoy with just the right amount of tribute/parody and still made it is own character.
> 
> 
> (Oh - I liked the "red-shirt" gag/homage. Saw it coming a mile off, but I think you were _supposed_ to.)




yup!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 14, 2009)

Crispy said:


> Oh and I completely forgot that Eyebrows from lord of the rings was Bones. Turns out he _can_ act!



He was the best of the casting imo, excellent rendition of Bones!


----------



## Crispy (May 14, 2009)

Pegg wasn't too bad at a scottish accent, but he was funny and had some good lines


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 14, 2009)

I was impressed with Spock , Scotty and Bones , wasnt really over-awed by Kirk tho , but that doesnt mean to say i didnt like him.

And Urhura is damn hot!!!


so was the green girl too


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 14, 2009)

Crispy said:


> Pegg wasn't too bad at a scottish accent, but he was funny and had some good lines



I didn't think that much of him tbh. His accent wasn't consistent and he's become a bit of a one trick pony humour wise.


----------



## PursuedByBears (May 14, 2009)

I didn't really like Simon Pegg or his freaky Jar Jar Binks sidekick.


----------



## strung out (May 14, 2009)

same, i thought pegg was the weak link of the original characters. accent was pretty poor and he was more of a scotty parody than any of the other characters were to their originals.


----------



## clandestino (May 15, 2009)

ianw said:


> 6 is the best of the original series films. i like 2-4, although 4 is more carry on star trek than anything. 5 is utter shit, and 1 is a good science fiction film, but not star trek. everything after 6 isn't worth bothering with. this is all fact, rather than opinion.
> 
> i'm a little worried by this new movie. jj abrahams says he preferred star wars to star trek, and that young kirk bit feels a bit too luke skywalker for my liking. and simon pegg as scotty feels like a disaster waiting to happen imo.



I needn't have worried. Saw it today and it was fantastic. 

Now I'm off to read this thread...


----------



## elevendayempire (May 15, 2009)

Fun article on the similarities between the new Trek and Star Wars:

http://www.shinyshelf.com/article/3/4/1621


----------



## bhamgeezer (May 15, 2009)

I saw this last night and I can say it totally out did my expectations, I can only recommend this film to normal human beings. Hardcore trekkies probably hate it but I thought it was awesome.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 15, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> Fun article on the similarities between the new Trek and Star Wars:
> 
> http://www.shinyshelf.com/article/3/4/1621



These similiarities are due to the fact that most US sci-fi conforms laid down by the classic American genre, the Western.


----------



## fen_boy (May 15, 2009)

Saw it yesterday and I liked it for all the reasons other people have said, but in addition to that I was blown away by the sound direction/editing, which was really, really well done.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (May 15, 2009)

fen_boy said:


> Saw it yesterday and I liked it for all the reasons other people have said, but in addition to that I was blown away by the sound direction/editing, which was really, really well done.



It was good editing.  However I hated the set design for most of it.  They designed for the "cool" factor rather than anything resembling a fully functioning space ship.   The Romulan ship was especially bad in this respect.  I guess they needed that giant fan just for Eric Bana to pose in front of Zombie Zero style.  

Oh, and who the fuck put a canyon in Iowa?  Or did the car chase last clear into Wyoming?


----------



## Santino (May 15, 2009)

Idris2002 said:


> These similiarities are due to the fact that most US sci-fi conforms laid down by the classic American genre, the Western.


In which Western does a small spaceship fly into a larger spaceship and blow it up?


----------



## fen_boy (May 15, 2009)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> It was good editing.  However I hated the set design for most of it.  They designed for the "cool" factor rather than anything resembling a fully functioning space ship.   The Romulan ship was especially bad in this respect.  I guess they needed that giant fan just for Eric Bana to pose in front of Zombie Zero style.
> 
> Oh, and who the fuck put a canyon in Iowa?  Or did the car chase last clear into Wyoming?



I meant the sound editing.


----------



## elevendayempire (May 15, 2009)

Idris2002 said:


> These similiarities are due to the fact that most US sci-fi conforms laid down by the classic American genre, the Western.


Only inasmuch as the Western conforms to the mythic archetypes in Joseph Campbell's Hero With A Thousand Faces.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 15, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> Fun article on the similarities between the new Trek and Star Wars:
> 
> http://www.shinyshelf.com/article/3/4/1621



I have to admit, when I was watching what I consider to be amongst the few nitpicky poor scenes in the film, i.e. Kirk rushing through the snow away from one monster, only for that to be eaten by a bigger one, I was reminded of two Star Wars scenes: first, obviously, Hoth (I was half expecting him to cut open the first monster and keep warm inside its body) and then, moreover, the awful "There's always a bigger fish" deadpanning of Neeson when that big seamonster eats the smaller ones...


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (May 15, 2009)

fen_boy said:


> I meant the sound editing.



... and I agreed with you.  I just found some of their set design to be lacking.

... and don't get me started on the general lack of physics knowledge of Starfleet cadets.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 15, 2009)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> It was good editing.  However I hated the set design for most of it.  They designed for the "cool" factor rather than anything resembling a fully functioning space ship.   The Romulan ship was especially bad in this respect.  I guess they needed that giant fan just for Eric Bana to pose in front of Zombie Zero style.
> 
> Oh, and who the fuck put a canyon in Iowa?  Or did the car chase last clear into Wyoming?



It's the future.  It's a mine of some kind.


----------



## Santino (May 15, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> Only inasmuch as the Western conforms to the mythic archetypes in Joseph Campbell's Hero With A Thousand Faces.


Campbell's methodology was flawed and his monomyth is a complete fantasy.


----------



## fen_boy (May 15, 2009)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> ... and I agreed with you.  I just found some of their set design to be lacking.
> 
> ... and don't get me started on the general lack of physics knowledge of Starfleet cadets.



oh ok, I though you meant editing editing. I quite liked the set design.


----------



## elevendayempire (May 15, 2009)

Alex B said:


> Campbell's methodology was flawed and his monomyth is a complete fantasy.


Well, his research and methodology was flawed, yes. But that hasn't stopped most Hollywood films since Star Wars mining the Hero's Journey for all it's worth. Anyway, Westerns _are_ archetypal myths - hell, two of the most successful were based on Kurosawa films (as, indeed, was Star Wars).


----------



## Santino (May 15, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> Anyway, Westerns _are_ archetypal myths - hell, two of the most successful were based on Kurosawa films


That's a bit of a non sequitur.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 15, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> Well, his research and methodology was flawed, yes. But that hasn't stopped most Hollywood films since Star Wars mining the Hero's Journey for all it's worth. Anyway, Westerns _are_ archetypal myths - hell, two of the most successful were based on Kurosawa films (as, indeed, was Star Wars).



'Battle Beyond the Stars' is a direct rip-off of 'The Magnificent Seven', which in turn was an adaptation of 'Seven Samurai'.


----------



## elevendayempire (May 15, 2009)

Alex B said:


> That's a bit of a non sequitur.


Um. It shows that certain stories can speak equally well to two entirely different cultures if you simply swap samurai togs for a cowboy hat (or a space helmet!). They're archetypal stories.


----------



## elevendayempire (May 15, 2009)

Idris2002 said:


> 'Battle Beyond the Stars' is a direct rip-off of 'The Magnificent Seven', which in turn was an adaptation of 'Seven Samurai'.


And there's Yojimbo/A Fistful of Dollars/Last Man Standing. Well, okay, the latter film doesn't really hold a candle to the other two...


----------



## Santino (May 15, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> Um. It shows that certain stories can speak equally well to two entirely different cultures if you simply swap samurai togs for a cowboy hat (or a space helmet!). They're archetypal stories.


I don't think 'archetypal myths' (whatever they are) are the same as stories that speak equally well to two different cultures (once the stories have been changed a bit).


----------



## CNT36 (May 16, 2009)

bhamgeezer said:


> Hardcore trekkies probably hate it but I thought it was awesome.



I tried tolike it but alternative timeline or no I can't help feeling that the ordering of a Cardassian sunrise pisses all over everything I believe in.


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (May 16, 2009)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> It was good editing.  However I hated the set design for most of it.  They designed for the "cool" factor rather than anything resembling a fully functioning space ship.   The Romulan ship was especially bad in this respect.  I guess they needed that giant fan just for Eric Bana to pose in front of Zombie Zero style.
> 
> Oh, and who the fuck put a canyon in Iowa?  Or did the car chase last clear into Wyoming?



I couldn't disagree more! I thought the Enterprise looked fantastic with is shiny reflective surfaces, dials and computer screens. The engine rooms were great too, in TOS there where always random girders in the background. The shuttle bays were excellently functional and in proportion too.

I thought the evil Romulan ship from the future was brilliant too, it looked evil, it had loads of evil platforms, all the computer screens and equipment was suitably evil and wonky and even the computer graphics were all at funny angles with green evil futuristic readouts. 

If you are a baddy you need evil architecture o stand infront of looking mean, as much as the Kirks and Picards need some smart interior design to stand in front of whilst being good!

As for the canyon didnt some aliens turn up and blast random holes in earth during Enterprise?

As for the Cardassian Sunrise wouldn't that be like ordering a 3rd Riech On the Beach??


----------



## fen_boy (May 16, 2009)

bouncer_the_dog said:


> As for the Cardassian Sunrise wouldn't that be like ordering a 3rd Riech On the Beach??



Or a borg-bon biscuit.


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (May 16, 2009)

Mabe a species 8472 with soda and a dash of lime...


----------



## QueenOfGoths (May 17, 2009)

Just seen this at the cinema. Loved it. Really loved it. And I want Zachary Quinto, I want him _so_ much!


----------



## mentalchik (May 17, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Just seen this at the cinema. Loved it. Really loved it. And I want Zachary Quinto, I want him _so_ much!



He's a bit yummy isn't he........


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 17, 2009)

just got back from seeing it

all the little nods to the classic series i adored...  from the moment the alarm sounded  i was filled with a  nostalgic glee

however the bits  that  they got wrong  really niggled    most notably  the phaser fire was all wrong  

i'm just not sure how i sit  with the whole  time travel alternate universe thing....  it's  like it wants to be a full reboot of the series  but then again also wants to be part of the continuity... it just feels weird

this also  passes onto the  charactors  kirk is played  as shatner would  but others  are played quite differently  it leaves  a sensation that  they  don't  know what they  want it to be

also  this means  some of the charactors  just  look wrong...  checkov very much so


actually this interview kinda acknowledges it  even if it does gloss it over
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Memory_Alpha:Ask_J.J._Abrams/Answers


yeah  overall i really  did like  the movie   but  i wish it had made it's mind up about  how  canon it wants to be


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 17, 2009)

I think you're overanalysing it from a hardcore fan POV TBH


----------



## QueenOfGoths (May 17, 2009)

Shippou-Chan said:


> just got back from seeing it
> 
> all the little nods to the classic series i adored...  from the moment the alarm sounded  i was filled with a  nostalgic glee
> 
> ...



All good points, especially how different some of the characters were played though it didn't bother me too much. 

I do think though that if other films are made then time travel thing thing may get a bit annoying/confusing and agree with it not really knowing how canon it wanted to be.

But I did love it. 

I also thought Ben Cross was excellent - meant to say this when I posted yesterday, a smallish role but really imbued the part with dignity and graitas plus sympathy while retaining Vulcaness!

I didn't like Uhura snogging Spock though.....mainly 'cos I want to!


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 17, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> I think you're overanalysing it from a hardcore fan POV TBH



i'm not a hardcore fan  i'm not even a big trek fan

i think anyone who watched classic trek  and enjoyed it  would have the same  feelings

well maybe  not about  having  the  wrong sort of phaser fire   but  certainly  about  not  knowing  if these actors really are meant to  be playing the same of different characters as the original actors


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 17, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I didn't like Uhura snogging Spock though.....mainly 'cos I want to!



Yes, I might have a slight Syler Spock crush too. 

In re: to continuity, one thing I found interesting was Uhura's changing body shape - curvy with those pointyish breasts in the original series, and very slender in the reimagining. Well, it just shows how female ideals of beauty have changed, but I thought it was interesting anyway.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 17, 2009)

Yeah, I remember reading that Marilyn Monroe's body shape would be considered 'fat' today.


----------



## Balbi (May 17, 2009)

Oh god, i'm such a geek 

I didn't really pay attention to what Uhura looked like, I was too busy watching the awesome.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 17, 2009)

Balbi said:


> Oh god, i'm such a geek
> 
> I didn't really pay attention to what Uhura looked like, I was too busy watching the awesome.



I must admit, I found the green bird hotter than uhura


----------



## Balbi (May 17, 2009)

TOS style ftw. There's not enough of people painting themselves funny colours in sci-fi


----------



## mentalchik (May 17, 2009)

Balbi said:


> TOS style ftw. There's not enough of people painting themselves funny colours in sci-fi











I so want some wiggly antenna on my head !


----------



## Balbi (May 17, 2009)

I'd love to be blue...





rawr


----------



## strung out (May 18, 2009)

is that leslie ashe?


----------



## kyser_soze (May 18, 2009)

Finally got to see this last night, and I say _as a low-medium level Trekkie_ that it was the mutts nuts...and a good film to boot!

It actually addressed a lot of the complaints I've long had about the _Trek_ universe, esp wrt the firepower of it's wessels - none of that pansy-ass fizzle, they've got full on point-defence systems, and bucketloads of firepower in the phaser banks.

Bones had me grinning from the moment you heard his first line; the rest of the characters were there for me by the end of the film.

YAY JJ! is all I can say, I absolutely loved this.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (May 18, 2009)

Oh and I liked the little jokes about Chekov's accent - and Sulu's fencing - and Bones "I'm a doctor not a..." commebt - oh I just liked it. A  lot!!


----------



## Lea (May 18, 2009)

mentalchik said:


> He's a bit yummy isn't he........



Another fan here of Zachary Quinto. He's hawt even with the pointy ears!


----------



## kyser_soze (May 18, 2009)

OK, well if we're having a lust-fest, Zoe Saldana is up there with Megan Fox in sci-fi hottie stakes...and she's starring in Cameron's next biggie, _Avatar_

And Transformers 2 looked fucking aces too *makes 'ecch ooo ech-oo-oo' noise*


----------



## DotCommunist (May 18, 2009)

There is no kickass sci fi heroine finer than Xev.

end of, no discussion needed.

Also, Sylar is better than Nimoy imo.


----------



## Pingu (May 18, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> There is no kickass sci fi heroine finer than Xev.
> 
> end of, no discussion needed.
> 
> Also, Sylar is better than Nimoy imo.



i preferred zev tbh but xev floated my boat too


----------



## jæd (May 18, 2009)

Yuwipi Woman said:
			
		

> However I hated the set design for most of it. They designed for the "cool" factor rather than anything resembling a fully functioning space ship.



 That was an in joke as Scotty said something along the lines "If they'd designed the ship along conventional layouts"...


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 18, 2009)

jæd said:


> That was an in joke as Scotty said something along the lines "If they'd designed the ship along conventional layouts"...


In jokes shouldn't be allowed to compromise the movie itself and that got a bit close imo


----------



## Stigmata (May 18, 2009)

Spoiler: the Romulan ship



Nah, the Romulans are aliens so they design alien-looking spaceships. Fine by me, and all the internal space makes sense if it's a mining vessel.



There was one major plot hole however-



Spoiler: lightning storm



That whole lightning storm in space business seemed to be caused the first time by the black hole, and the ship emerging from it. So why did it happen again near Vulcan? They made quite an important plot point out of that but it doesn't make sense.


----------



## elevendayempire (May 18, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> There is no kickass sci fi heroine finer than Xev.












> And Transformers 2 looked fucking aces too *makes 'ecch ooo ech-oo-oo' noise*


Gah, it looked crap. Especially those shots of Megan Fox essentially fucking a motorbike. She's supposed to be just out of high school, yet she looks like the most jaded aging stripper _evah._


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 18, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> Spoiler: the Romulan ship
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Spok turning up. Duh!


----------



## Stigmata (May 18, 2009)

Bob is wise


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 18, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> Bob is wise


QFP


----------



## jæd (May 18, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> Spoiler: lightning storm
> 
> 
> 
> That whole lightning storm in space business seemed to be caused the first time by the black hole, and the ship emerging from it. So why did it happen again near Vulcan? They made quite an important plot point out of that but it doesn't make sense.





Spoiler: lightning storm reply



Because thats where the Evil Romulan was going. It would make sense to emerge from TimeWarp close to your target.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (May 18, 2009)

Well I had purposefully not read this thread, so I din't know what to expect.

I LOVED IT.

Fucking superb.


Love love love.


----------



## Lionman (May 18, 2009)

I thought it was alright. There were some nice moments & I don't really have anything bad to say about it but it just didn't float my boat.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 18, 2009)

i think  one of the reasons i didn't like it as much as i had hoped  was that  i could no longer connect with the crew in the way i had done

i think classic trek kinda  had it's last goodbye   with  undiscovered country (which i thought was really  quite good)   

i wanted  to see kirk spock bones scotty and all the rest again...  and although  there were some good nods to  the  old characters it  really  wasn't  the same   

yes i know people  will say this is just  me being a fan  but   this is star trek... this isn't a new sci fi movie  this is made to be trek  so  the view of the followers of the series are important


----------



## Augie March (May 18, 2009)

Well, I thought it was great. Who would've thought Sabotage would ever have been played in a Star Trek film?


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 18, 2009)

Augie March said:


> Well, I thought it was great. Who would've thought Sabotage would ever have been played in a Star Trek film?


Only as part of the weakest scene of the entire film.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 18, 2009)

Bob_the_lost said:


> Only as part of the weakest scene of the entire film.



I agree, it was a bit wanton.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 18, 2009)

waton

but great fun


----------



## Stigmata (May 18, 2009)

It just reminded me of that line in Futurama about Fry sitting in his underpants listening to classical music.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 18, 2009)




----------



## editor (May 19, 2009)

Me and Eme just saw it. I thought it was a great romp. Fabulous entertainment.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 19, 2009)

You know a film's good when editor comes on a thread to comment on it


----------



## Teepee (May 19, 2009)

Spoilers follow!

well as a pretty ardent trekkie i have to say that I was a bit disappointed by the plot, despite being thoroughly entertained. I didn't like the star wars esque scene with the small animal getting eaten by the big one, followed by the convenient deus ex machina of Spock popping out with a torch to scare it away, who just so happened to be in the exact same point on the planet. Also you'd think that, finding himself 25 years in the past, Nero would choose to A. Warn Romulus of its impending destruction rather than B. Slowly go insane waiting for Spock then destroy Vulcan.

Also I'm concerned that this new alternate timeline will take the series away from the old, optimistic federation utopia toward a new war-laden 'pew pew lasers being fired attractive young people i love hollywood' sort of thing. It's all very entertaining but it's not really star trek... and an alternate timeline is about as good as 'and they woke up and it was all a dream'.

And where was all the insightful, reflective dialogue that you'd find in TNG? Where was the subtle, dry wit of TOS? Where were the hidden political parallels? 

I did enjoy the film but it didn't leave my head full of questions and concepts like a lot of star trek episodes do ((like this one). Just blinded me with (amazing) special effects

Yes I am probably overthinking this, yes I am a giant nerd


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 19, 2009)

Teepee, I draw your attention to the Onion video posted early in the thread


----------



## Teepee (May 19, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Teepee, I draw your attention to the Onion video posted early in the thread



haha, yep ive seen that one and was thinking 'yup, that's me!' Although the onion miss the point of the fact that all that tedious dialogue brings with it a much deeper vibe of the whole thing. A positive, optimistic 'this could really happen if only we just respected each other and worked together' kind of feeling. If you want an entertaining film, the new one is it, but it brings none of that atmosphere with it.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 19, 2009)

Teepee said:


> haha, yep ive seen that one and was thinking 'yup, that's me!' Although the onion miss the point of the fact that all that tedious dialogue brings with it a much deeper vibe of the whole thing. A positive, optimistic 'this could really happen if only we just respected each other and worked together' kind of feeling. If you want an entertaining film, the new one is it, but it brings none of that atmosphere with it.



90's optimism is so dead to sci fi. It's back to fear, good looking aliens and big guns.


----------



## fogbat (May 19, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> 90's optimism is so dead to sci fi. It's back to fear, good looking aliens and big guns.



Now is the opportunity for someone to say "post 9-11"


----------



## Santino (May 19, 2009)

Here are posts 9 - 11 from this thread:



Detroit City said:


> i've never seen a bad trailer but i've seen lots of shit movies





cliche guevara said:


> Yeah that's what I was thinking.
> 
> Well, I've seen plenty of bad trailers, but I see your point.





gsv said:


> lulz!
> 
> GS(v)




That what you had in mind?


----------



## fogbat (May 19, 2009)

Alex B said:


> Here are posts 9 - 11 from this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, Alex.


----------



## Augie March (May 19, 2009)

Teepee said:


> A positive, optimistic 'this could really happen if only we just respected.  each other and worked together' kind of feeling. If you want an entertaining film, the new one is it, but it brings none of that atmosphere with it.



I disagree. The whole Kirk/Spock story was all about them coming together and working as a team, even though they had issues with each other.

Actually thinking about it, Kirk probaly only started properly respecting Spock, when he found out that he was boning Uhara.


----------



## kyser_soze (May 19, 2009)

> A positive, optimistic 'this could really happen if only we just respected. each other and worked together' kind of feeling. If you want an entertaining film, the new one is it, but it brings none of that atmosphere with it.



So the fact that from the start you're seeing aliens and humans from loads of different cultures all working together (the dr with the giant eyes delivering JTK for example), doesn't convey this? That it's not some excercise in 80s cultural awareness (that TNG suffers from in so many ways, and TNG is my favourite series) and that whole message isn't hammered home every single second?

Personally I hope there's a bit more stuff blowing up - certainly this film delivers on the firepower front (as I pointed out earlier in the thread), but it's a reboot so you and all the other devoted Trekkies for whom there are blasphemous things happening are going to have to get over yourselves and remember it's a work of fiction, not actual history being rewritten...


----------



## Stigmata (May 19, 2009)

I certainly thought the casting was a lot more diverse than Voyager or Enterprise, which settled into lazily casting white guys as background crewmembers.

And i'll tell you what it had that put Lucas' prequel trilogy to shame: a sense of humour. Not horrifically misjudged CGI clowning, but actual proper LOL moments. Like Sulu messing up with the warp drive.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 19, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> so you and all the other devoted Trekkies for whom there are blasphemous things happening are going to have to get over yourselves and remember it's a work of fiction, not actual history being rewritten...



i enjoyed the film  but i have to say this

star trek should be made for star trek fans

you want  to create a new sci fi  along   star trek lines    the create a new  one  and  don't drag star trek into it

like i said i enjoyed  the film... i had a  few critisisms  but i belive they were justified

i really belive that if you are going to resurrect a series  with a huge fan base  you have to respect it  other wise  why are you doing it?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 19, 2009)

because you're trying to hit a newer demographic and still retain the old one as well.

I think it's called 'having your cake and eating it'


anyway it has Sylar as Spock, so your arguement is invalid


----------



## Augie March (May 19, 2009)

Shippou-Chan said:


> i really belive that if you are going to resurrect a series  with a huge fan base  you have to respect it  other wise  why are you doing it?



Because the huge fan base had deserted both the TV series and the films. The whole franchise was dead in the water and to carry it on as it was, with the huuuge baggage from the all of Treklore, was just an exercise in madness because no-one realy gave a shit anymore. 

This film was the only way Trek was ever going to continue in any kind of form, apart from in cheap paperbacks and dodgy fan fiction.


----------



## kyser_soze (May 19, 2009)

Because time moves one, storytelling moves on and even with a huge fanbase, sticking religiously to what they want, and only what they want, alienates potential new fans - or indeed, for the kind of budgets required to make an effects heavy film these days, you need to get in more than just a hardcore fanbase.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 19, 2009)

and it was remade _well_. Be glad of that. It could have been a star wars prequel


----------



## kyser_soze (May 19, 2009)

Exactly. For my money, not only have they produced the at least equal best Trek outing to date, it actually transcends the Trek-verse and like Batman Begins and The Dark Knight enters the realm of 'good film'.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 19, 2009)

all this  new fan stuff is balls... 

if your going to remake something  why are you  remaking it   WHY NOT MAKE SOMETHING NEW?  if it's  going to be star trek  be proper star trek

look as i said  i enjoyed the film  and  i did think it  hit the balance quite nicely but  the point  still stands   

saying  that  time has move on  and you  want  to make  new fans  is no excuse for covering  Nicolas Cage in bees  was it


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 19, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> So the fact that from the start you're seeing aliens and humans from loads of different cultures all working together (the dr with the giant eyes delivering JTK for example), doesn't convey this? That it's not some excercise in 80s cultural awareness (that TNG suffers from in so many ways, and TNG is my favourite series) and that whole message isn't hammered home every single second?
> 
> Personally I hope there's a bit more stuff blowing up - certainly this film delivers on the firepower front (as I pointed out earlier in the thread), but it's a reboot so you and all the other devoted Trekkies for whom there are blasphemous things happening are going to have to get over yourselves and remember it's a work of fiction, not actual history being rewritten...



I agree.  it's ridiculous.  Again, that Onion thing summed it up.

The old 'Trek' tended to be very heavy handed with its allegory...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 19, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Exactly. For my money, not only have they produced the at least equal best Trek outing to date, it actually transcends the Trek-verse and like Batman Begins and The Dark Knight enters the realm of 'good film'.


----------



## ohmyliver (May 19, 2009)

Well, I liked it. I'm not a hardcore trekky though. I thought it was an enjoyable film. 

Did like The Onion's take on it:
eta which has already been posted, and discussed so I'll remove the link


----------



## Teepee (May 19, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> So the fact that from the start you're seeing aliens and humans from loads of different cultures all working together (the dr with the giant eyes delivering JTK for example), doesn't convey this? That it's not some excercise in 80s cultural awareness (that TNG suffers from in so many ways, and TNG is my favourite series) and that whole message isn't hammered home every single second?
> 
> Personally I hope there's a bit more stuff blowing up - certainly this film delivers on the firepower front (as I pointed out earlier in the thread), but it's a reboot so you and all the other devoted Trekkies for whom there are blasphemous things happening are going to have to get over yourselves and remember it's a work of fiction, not actual history being rewritten...



I think you're missing my point. That film could have been called 'Generic Space Film 2 : The lasering' and still have been just as awesome. When you make a trek film, though there's a whole load of stuff that needs to go with it. The reboot, imho was a (sucessful) attempt to use the brand to sell something entirely different. Like selling cheddar cheese in a babybel wrapper. or something.

I'm not resentful at all about the film and enjoyed it, I'm just a little disappointed that they chose to take this direction with the plot. I can certainly see why they did it though.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 19, 2009)

Shippou-Chan said:


> all this  new fan stuff is balls...
> 
> if your going to remake something  why are you  remaking it   WHY NOT MAKE SOMETHING NEW?  if it's  going to be star trek  be proper star trek
> 
> ...




crap analogy is crap-Wicker Man was a small cult film not a massive franchise laden with baggage.

And it Wicker Man didn't spawn loads of really bad slash/fic

unless you have that wickerman sex manga.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 19, 2009)

i was just picking a good example of  a pointless remake  justified on  updating  and  gaining new fans

what i'm asking  is  why did they chose to make another  star trek  not  start up a new sci fi series?  

because they wanted to cash in on the fan base

if your going to do that  treat it with  respect AND I THINK THEY DID THAT FAIRLY WELL  i just  see a few  niggles  and i feel justified in pointing them out  with out being shouted down  as  just  a hardcore fan


----------



## golightly (May 19, 2009)

Isn't it just like the remake of Casino Royale though?

That was James Bond going back to its roots and exploring the role from a different angle or somesuch.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 19, 2009)

and thankfully  no i don't think i have that manga

lots of wierd pagan sacrifce stuff   but  no wicker men


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 19, 2009)

golightly said:


> Isn't it just like the remake of Casino Royale though?



well yes and no

although there was a certain amount of continuity  between bond films   there wasn't that much  each new  bond  was  a reinvention of the series  really


----------



## DotCommunist (May 19, 2009)

Shippou-Chan said:


> i was just picking a good example of  a pointless remake  justified on  updating  and  gaining new fans
> 
> what i'm asking  is  why did they chose to make another  star trek  not  start up a new sci fi series?
> 
> ...



oh no doubt the use of Star Trek clothes over a sci fi film was entirely an attempt to cash in on the original fan base. I don't think the makers owed the og fans anything-it was clearly touted as a reboot.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 19, 2009)

so if  you claim it  is a reboot  you  can  take a series and do what you want to it  and no one  is allowed to complain?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 19, 2009)

Yeah, why not. That's sci fi. You get to claim'alternate universe' and nobody gets to bitch about it


----------



## golightly (May 19, 2009)

This is just an example of Hollywood feeding on itself, which it has been doing for decades now.  Usually something is lost when producing something like this, and I guess some could say that something is lost here.  However, I think that the gains here probably outweigh the losses.  This film works precisely because it is knowingly manipulating the images, characters and concepts that we have known so well.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 19, 2009)

Yeah why not as long as it's not shit like the recent Red Dwarfs have been.

It's like Super Mario 2, it's totally different to the others but it's still a Mario game.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 19, 2009)

*fail*



RenegadeDog said:


> Yeah why not as long as it's not shit like the recent Red Dwarfs have been.
> 
> It's like Super Mario 2, it's totally different to the others but it's still a Mario game.



No Way. Super Mario 2 is *NOT* a Mario  game man, it's NOT!


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 19, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> No Way. Super Mario 2 is *NOT* a Mario  game man, it's NOT!





Is.


----------



## kyser_soze (May 19, 2009)

Teepee said:


> I think you're missing my point. That film could have been called 'Generic Space Film 2 : The lasering' and still have been just as awesome. When you make a trek film, though there's a whole load of stuff that needs to go with it. The reboot, imho was a (sucessful) attempt to use the brand to sell something entirely different. Like selling cheddar cheese in a babybel wrapper. or something.
> 
> I'm not resentful at all about the film and enjoyed it, I'm just a little disappointed that they chose to take this direction with the plot. I can certainly see why they did it though.



What was so different about this vs any other Trek? More explosions? What 'stuff' needs to go with it?

Bear in mind I'm a Trek fan - I'll even admit to liking Enterprise after S2, and TNG is my favourite series. How exactly does this film go against the spirit of the ST franchise, the basic tenets it was birthed from? All the stuff you mentioned in your earlier post about the happy unity of the Federation - what I saw in that film was the happy unity of a bunch of humans and aliens working without having to be slapped in the face about it. Does the best of Trek come through minutes of exposition, or does it come through in the ideas?

For me it took everything that was good about ST - _all_ of the series - and distilled it into something that reflects the changes that have happened around the franchise over the last 40 years. Sp the Enterprise has more muscular firepower - this is space combat as ST _should_ have done it (and indeed as it's implied, certainly in the Dominion War episodes, or even going back as The Best Of Both World, when the Enterprise arrives around Wolf 359 to find a borg-devastated fleet.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 19, 2009)

if there was one thing i though  was  lacking  it was  character depth  and  that  really wasn't the films fault   with all the other  star treks  you  had  a tv series  to build up the characters   depth  and  show  how they interact with each other  characters   

with this film  they have  rejiged all the  players   so  the personalities aren't  quite the  same  but  then  they  do  things  with  very little explanation   like  the spock and uhura romance thing   that seem  to jump straight  to the snogging  and to be honest  i don't know how that  sits  with my  view of spock...  

i think what the film lacked was time


----------



## DotCommunist (May 19, 2009)

blatantly jeleouse of Sylar ennit. Don't worry shippy I felt a pang of rage when he got his freak on with uhura too.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 19, 2009)

do you really think she is my type?


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 19, 2009)

fogbat said:


> Now is the opportunity for someone to say "post 9-11"



This was post post 9-11 imo.


----------



## Balbi (May 22, 2009)

It's been 2 weeks, i'm off to see it again and check it was that good.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 22, 2009)

Balbi said:


> It's been 2 weeks, i'm off to see it again and check it was that good.


----------



## Balbi (May 22, 2009)

The bit on Hoth right? Whoever wrote that needed a shoeing.

If Kirk had caused an avalanche by shouting Spock in a Khanesque manner - he could have still met Old Spock and avoided too much cgi.

And Scotty would have been better served without the sidekick.

However, that aside. Still good, still jaw dropping visuals and they are Kirk and Spock


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 22, 2009)

The Sidekick didn't annoy me that much tbh.  In fact I barely noticed it 

I agree about the lazy hoth sequence - one of the two weak bits along with the car race at the start.  The monster then bigger monster was straight out of Phantom Menace.


----------



## Balbi (May 22, 2009)

Scotty should have been hammered on home brewed scotch when they found him


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 23, 2009)

character depth is something the first two movies had in spades. In fact that's what they were about (and the novelisation of TMP by Roddenbery himself explains a hell of a lot). This film lacks that unfortunately; though to be fair that's not what this movie was about. And nothing beats McCoy with a huge beard and a St Christopher medallion. 




THAT is awesome.


----------



## extra dry (May 23, 2009)

still looking for work Awesome?


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 23, 2009)

I don't understand the reason for that post.


----------



## extra dry (May 24, 2009)

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=264055&highlight=wells

this is what I mean...have you been successful in finding employment and/or a course to do???


----------



## Awesome Wells (May 24, 2009)

No I don't have a job. Why are you asking me about this on a thread about the Star Trek movie? Are you recruiting for Starfleet?


----------



## extra dry (May 24, 2009)

yeah...just go outside and I will beam you aboard...


----------



## ChrisC (May 24, 2009)

Saw this last night and really enjoyed it. Something doesn't sit right though, it didn't feel like a Star Trek film. Still I guess that was it's purpose.


----------



## dylans (May 25, 2009)

ChrisC said:


> Saw this last night and really enjoyed it. Something doesn't sit right though, it didn't feel like a Star Trek film. Still I guess that was it's purpose.



It lacked Klingons.


----------



## madzone (May 27, 2009)

Took the kids to see this last night. I wasn't sure about it tbh. The camera work was oddly jerky. I thought it lacked something but I couldn't work out what.


----------



## El Jefe (May 27, 2009)

*CAVEAT: I was Actually Looking Forward To This*

what a fucking crock.

Now that we know "they" can make anyrthing happen with CGI, it loses its wonder unless it is employed in the service of something else - narrative, character, whatever. Sheer spectacle doesn't cut it anymore.

So what else was there?

Some tired temporal paradox stuff that was exhausted by the end of the Terminator movies but was all there was really to drive the plot
Fuck all characterisation outside the tiresome Spock / Kirk love-hate bromance nonsense and a load of knowing / ironic nods to the characters as we already know them.
An arse-clenching and overextended cameo from you know who (no spoiler) which was just painful.
Simon cocking Pegg
And a closing "aren't you great after all, you maverick, have a medal" which was already embarassing when they closed the first Star Wars movie with it.


This had REAL potential. But as ever, nobody bothered to develop a plot or some characters, figuring 2 hours of RILLY BIG EXPLOSIONS would suffice.

There is more action, suspense, drama,excitement and narrative in an hour of Battlestar Galactica than this sorry sack of shit


----------



## strung out (May 27, 2009)

so you didn't like it then?


----------



## El Jefe (May 27, 2009)




----------



## Balbi (May 27, 2009)

Traditional Jeff contribution.


----------



## El Jefe (May 27, 2009)

Balbi said:


> Traditional Jeff contribution.



why? i went full of hope, and i'm quick with  praise if i like something. But this was dire


----------



## Balbi (May 27, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> why? i went full of hope, and i'm quick with  praise if i like something. But this was dire



Yeah, but if you'd liked it it'd be a three line post.

You always revel in your distaste for things


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 27, 2009)

Balbi said:


> Traditional Jeff contribution.



I'm saying nout, as I've recently discovered a few good things thanks to jefe recommendations (Outlaws for instance).  But yeah, when it comes to blockbusters...


----------



## El Jefe (May 28, 2009)

Balbi said:


> Yeah, but if you'd liked it it'd be a three line post.
> 
> You always revel in your distaste for things



"happiness writes white"


----------



## Grobelaar (May 28, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> What was so different about this vs any other Trek? More explosions? What 'stuff' needs to go with it?
> 
> Bear in mind I'm a Trek fan - I'll even admit to liking Enterprise after S2, and TNG is my favourite series. How exactly does this film go against the spirit of the ST franchise, the basic tenets it was birthed from? All the stuff you mentioned in your earlier post about the happy unity of the Federation - what I saw in that film was the happy unity of a bunch of humans and aliens working without having to be slapped in the face about it. Does the best of Trek come through minutes of exposition, or does it come through in the ideas?
> 
> For me it took everything that was good about ST - _all_ of the series - and distilled it into something that reflects the changes that have happened around the franchise over the last 40 years. Sp the Enterprise has more muscular firepower - this is space combat as ST _should_ have done it (and indeed as it's implied, certainly in the Dominion War episodes, or even going back as The Best Of Both World, when the Enterprise arrives around Wolf 359 to find a borg-devastated fleet.



I don't disagree with this - but having watched it two weeks ago, I left the cinema with a slightly sour taste in my mouth. The cringeworthy moments, poor acting, the contrived run-around action scenes, the silly OTT crash bang-wallop, the product placements (did you think the engine room looked a bit naff? It's the budweiser brewery - product placement doesn't get much bigger).

The movie didn't feel like a Star Trek film to me, I didn't like the art direction - I respect the right to give it a new feel, to move away from the clean lines - but the gritty feel felt cheaply done (see Budweiser factory) and is just as cliched as what it replaced.

So a few weeks on and having seen the build up to other summer blockbusters - Terminator Salvation etc - my excitement is lukewarm. I know I'll have seen the film before, Star Trek's flaw expose where Hollywood's priorities lie - product placement, set-piece action sequences all crowbarred into an homogenised Bruckheimer template entertainment experience.

The IP dredger/remake mill is continually dredging up the same franchises and just making these theme park thrill rides outta films that were the heyday of Hollywood sci-fi.

I can still to this day sit down and watch, Alien, Aliens, Robocop, Blade Runner, Total Recall, Terminator, Predator and the like. I know these films were far from perfect and everyone will say the effects have dated or some of them are very budget in comparison - but I can't honestly see me wanting to rewatch any sci-fi film in the last 10 years or so.

Independence Day set the template for the big budget summer fx thriller and from then on in, it's been downhill ever since. Possibly the Matrix was the exception - but then they went and utterly fucked up the sequels.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 28, 2009)

But the new Trek absolutely battered the fuck out of the original boring trek stuff.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 28, 2009)

It's a nonsense to say that Hollywood isn't still making big movies to match the old ones.  the Bourne films, the new Batman films, the Lord of the Rings films, this new Trek (IMO), the first two X Men films, all just as good as anything else you've mentioned.  IMVHO.


----------



## Grobelaar (May 28, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> It's a nonsense to say that Hollywood isn't still making big movies to match the old ones.  the Bourne films, the new Batman films, the Lord of the Rings films, this new Trek (IMO), the first two X Men films, all just as good as anything else you've mentioned.  IMVHO.



yeah, but the cookie cutter is getting real tired don't you think...


----------



## DotCommunist (May 28, 2009)

Grobelaar said:


> The movie didn't feel like a Star Trek film to me, .



I don't think it was meant to tbf.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 28, 2009)

Grobelaar said:


> yeah, but the cookie cutter is getting real tired don't you think...



Cookie Cutter?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 28, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> But the new Trek absolutely battered the fuck out of the original boring trek stuff.




pish

i still love  wrath of khan  voyage home  and  undiscovered country  more than this


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 28, 2009)

Shippou-Chan said:


> pish
> 
> i still love  wrath of khan  voyage home  and  undiscovered country  more than this



Yeah, i've got the complete anthology on my computer (of films) so I will have to watch them.

I just find the TV series insufferably dull.  I have to confess to having enjoyed the films a bit more when I've seen them (compared with the TV programme)


----------



## El Jefe (May 28, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> It's a nonsense to say that Hollywood isn't still making big movies to match the old ones.  the Bourne films, the new Batman films, the Lord of the Rings films, this new Trek (IMO), the first two X Men films, all just as good as anything else you've mentioned.  IMVHO.



all shit.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 28, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> all shit.


----------



## El Jefe (May 28, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


>



i'm serious. All CGi, all action, no interest.

the 2nd Batman movie was OK cos Ledger introduced some actual personality, but the others are soulless spectacle with no real ideas other than to have people running fast while things blow up.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 28, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> i'm serious. All CGi, all action, no interest.
> 
> the 2nd Batman movie was OK cos Ledger introduced some actual personality, but the others are soulless spectacle with no real ideas other than to have people running fast while things blow up.



I don't know how anyone could watch, in particular, the Lord of the Rings films and come to a conclusion like that.  If anything, those films fell down on relatively weak CGI whilst being very strong on the human element.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 28, 2009)

I can see that as a more logical criticism of the Bourne films, as those are really 3 films of someone running away from people, but it's done very well...


----------



## El Jefe (May 28, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> I don't know how anyone could watch, in particular, the Lord of the Rings films and come to a conclusion like that.  If anything, those films fell down on relatively weak CGI whilst being very strong on the human element.



the LoTR films are utter wank, but you're right, they're wank for different reasons than the other films you cite.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 28, 2009)

Anyway, we've been around this particular mill a hundred times, it's obvious that what you think makes a good action film and what I do is pretty different, so we'll just have to leave it at that...


----------



## Pingu (May 28, 2009)

i loved it - which kinda by definition means it wont appeal to el jeffe

no in depth or complicated poltline - check
hot chick - check
lots of lasers - check
things being blown up for no apparent reason - check
space battles - check

only thing it needed for a 5 flipper score on the pinguommeter was battling robots


----------



## DotCommunist (May 28, 2009)

Jefe hated the books of LOTR as well though, so it's would have taken a small miracle to make a LOTR film that he'd like


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (May 29, 2009)

Enjoyment of that kind of Scifi and LOTR etc requires a) a sense of humour and b) some imagination.


----------



## gsv (May 31, 2009)

Cloo and I saw it last night, and while it was fun I have a pretty big problem with it. With such a major reboot they've effectively wiped all of Trek's continuity and heritage. For starters, The Cage will almost certainly never happen. And The Search for Spock _can't_ happen. It may as well be in another universe, so why bother making it Trek at all?

Plus the meeting with Spock Prime was awfully meet-cute 

GS(v)


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 31, 2009)

this is kinda what i felt

if it's going to be trek  BE TREK

the alternative universe  works  for   alowing you  some freedom  does  does  mess up charactors


----------



## DotCommunist (May 31, 2009)

gsv said:


> Cloo and I saw it last night, and while it was fun I have a pretty big problem with it. With such a major reboot they've effectively wiped all of Trek's continuity and heritage. For starters, The Cage will almost certainly never happen. And The Search for Spock _can't_ happen. It may as well be in another universe, so why bother making it Trek at all?
> 
> Plus the meeting with Spock Prime was awfully meet-cute
> 
> GS(v)



alternate timeline shirley?


----------



## strung out (May 31, 2009)

i loved the film myself but i do kind of agree. if you start talking about alternate timelines, then why the fuss _every_ time someone goes back to change history?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 31, 2009)

strung_out said:


> i loved the film myself but i do kind of agree. if you start talking about alternate timelines, then why the fuss _every_ time someone goes back to change history?



cos it depends wether the writer wants to play single timeline or many earths.

It could be theorised that many-worlds only comes into play when momentous issues are changed, or when grandfather paradoxes happen. At those points we get divergence, alternate history. But minor incursions into the past might not force a new divergent branch of timeline. iyswim


----------



## Stigmata (May 31, 2009)

Time travel isn't a science, it's a plot device.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 31, 2009)

even though all privious  trek time travel  stories   say  that  changing the past alters the future


----------



## DotCommunist (May 31, 2009)

Stigmata said:


> Time travel isn't a science, it's a plot device.



it's possible, we just need to build a wormhole then vibrate one end at near _c_ to effect the dilation effect. Then you can go into the past (but only as far back as when the gate was built).

Takes more energy than the universe is speculated to contain, but in theory...


----------



## Stigmata (Jun 1, 2009)

Shippou-Chan said:


> even though all privious  trek time travel  stories   say  that  changing the past alters the future



But parallel universes do exist in Star Trek.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jun 11, 2009)

I really enjoyed it.

The alternate timeline offers the filmakers the chance to re-launch the characters and the concepts that help to deliver this prequal in all it's shiny, fresh, self-aware glory.

I wouldn't have wanted some retro sci-fi prequal, that would have looked like a parody.

This was a serious attempt to re-brand star trek out of it's source material, therfore, unlike other efforts, it didn't have to re-invent, just re-design, the original idea and give us a bit of what we wanted.

The casting was very good, the Enterprise looked great...we got the them tune, an old face, and it was funny, sexy and smart.

My only quibble...where were the tribbles...no, sorry, it was that Eric Banner's baddie was a bit lame. Like a big flouncy baby really.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 11, 2009)

but it fails to rebrand star trek by having Leonard Nimoy in it and playing Spock in a very pivotal role (as far as Kirk is concerned).

The more I think about this film, the less I like it. As a space adventure romp, it's fun. As Star Trek, I don't know wtf it is.

Would  have been better just doing a story featuring the old crew with new actors, which is what I assumed it to be. Rather than a confusing story featuring time travel and alternate realities; the creakiest of trek macguffins.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jun 11, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> but it fails to rebrand star trek by having Leonard Nimoy in it and playing Spock in a very pivotal role (as far as Kirk is concerned).
> 
> The more I think about this film, the less I like it. As a space adventure romp, it's fun. As Star Trek, I don't know wtf it is.
> 
> Would  have been better just doing a story featuring the old crew with new actors, which is what I assumed it to be. Rather than a confusing story featuring time travel and alternate realities; the creakiest of trek macguffins.



I think Nimoy gave some weight to what is basically a new-origin story which will allow new stories to be told.

It was always gonna divide fans, I for one thought it a lot of fun and certainly enjoyed it more than any of the other spin offs.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jun 11, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> but it fails to rebrand star trek by having Leonard Nimoy in it and playing Spock in a very pivotal role (as far as Kirk is concerned)..



..and a re-brand does not have to exclude all of the original ideas and concepts.


----------



## derf (Jun 11, 2009)

I managed to pick up a copy yesterday ripped from a Russian DVD so it's pretty good quality.
I've converted it to a WMV file this morning while I was watching it on the TV.

Many posters seem to have misunderstood the time paradox stuff.
I, overall, enjoyed it.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jun 11, 2009)

El Jefe said:


> the LoTR films are utter wank, but you're right, they're wank for different reasons than the other films you cite.



Aw, I wanted to write this but you have already done it for me. 

After seeing the first film I genuinely thought it was so bad that it would be universally panned and the best reviews would measure indifference. OK, there are lots of films I don't like but LOTR really took the biscuit, how it has become so revered completely baffles me. No real plot, no real reason for the pointless quest, terrible characters with bizarre motivations, pitiful CGI nonsense and wayyyyy tooooo lonnnnngggg. 
The last time I had a feeling like I did watching the LOTR screening was the press screening of Gothica which had the entire audience face palming and shaking their heads all the way though.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 11, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Aw, I wanted to write this but you have already done it for me.
> 
> After seeing the first film I genuinely thought it was so bad that it would be universally panned and the best reviews would measure indifference. OK, there are lots of films I don't like but LOTR really took the biscuit, how it become so revered completely baffles me. No real plot, no real reason for the pointless quest, terrible characters with bizarre motivations, pitiful CGI nonsense and wayyyyy tooooo lonnnnngggg.
> The last time I had a feeling like I did watching the LOTR screening was the press screening of Gothica which had the entire audience face palming and shaking their heads all the way though.


oh dear, an overabundance of turbocharged fail.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jun 11, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> oh dear, an overabundance of turbocharged fail.



Another white dwarf reader?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 11, 2009)

Bizarre motivations? the bizarrely didn't want the dark lord to rise and condemn middle earth to darkness and despair.

what weirdos


----------



## mentalchik (Jun 11, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Aw, I wanted to write this but you have already done it for me.
> 
> After seeing the first film I genuinely thought it was so bad that it would be universally panned and the best reviews would measure indifference. OK, there are lots of films I don't like but LOTR really took the biscuit, how it has become so revered completely baffles me. No real plot, no real reason for the pointless quest, terrible characters with bizarre motivations, pitiful CGI nonsense and wayyyyy tooooo lonnnnngggg.
> The last time I had a feeling like I did watching the LOTR screening was the press screening of Gothica which had the entire audience face palming and shaking their heads all the way though.



You have read it i take it ?


----------



## moonsi til (Jun 11, 2009)

I liked it. Went to see it with my 9yr nephew who had perhaps had not seen any Star Trek before. On the way home he told me who his faves were and kept pronouncing Spock as 'Spork'.


----------



## gsv (Jun 11, 2009)

moonsi til said:


> I liked it. Went to see it with my 9yr nephew who had perhaps had not seen any Star Trek before. On the way home he told me who his faves were and kept pronouncing Spock as 'Spork'.






Want! 

GS(v)


----------



## Crispy (Jun 11, 2009)

I was going to photoshop the spork in place of the live long and prosper hand, but that one's good too.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Dec 4, 2009)

Just watched it and loved it.
(Busy reading this thread now.)


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Dec 4, 2009)

I was suprised to see Carlos Tevez sitting at the bar.
(early in the film ...when Kirk first meets Uhura.)


----------



## dylans (Dec 4, 2009)

moonsi til said:


> I liked it. Went to see it with my 9yr nephew who had perhaps had not seen any Star Trek before. On the way home he told me who his faves were and kept pronouncing Spock as 'Spork'.



Watched it with my 10 year old son who kept insisting that Spock was "that elf bloke." He was much amused by my trecky outrage.


----------



## Helen Back (Dec 4, 2009)

I didn't see Spock - I saw Sylar!!! 

And Blank Reg as a Vulcan???


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Dec 4, 2009)

Waiting for my dvd of this to turn up in the post..


----------



## The Octagon (Dec 4, 2009)

Bought the DVD and watched this the other night.

I have to say, maybe it was the fact I watched it on a relatively small screen, I wasn't that impressed.

Casting - good (especially Karl Urban as Bones), liked the new take on Kirk.
Plot - Serves it's purpose, although a lot is not explained properly (I believe there were graphic novels released that showed exactly what led to Nero coming back in time, so the film felt a little incomplete to me). That said, the 'alternate universe' trick does free the film-makers up slightly, which may pay off in later films. I wasn't a fan of how quickly everyone on the ship just accepted and adjusted to the fact their lives had been irrevocably altered. 
Action scenes - again, small screen, so maybe not the best judge, but they weren't as epic as I'd been led to believe they would be.
Spock / Uhura, whilst a interesting idea (and I know it was mooted in the original series), was executed badly. I felt no chemistry and the scenes detracted from the pace of the film.

Far too many co-incidences (ok, you could argue course-correction, but I preferred that there was no over-riding influence / intervention in Trek-world), particularly Old Spock / Kirk.

Nero could have been a great villain (his story is tragic and could have been fleshed out), but Bana's given nothing to do except seethe and occasionally rant until he spits. His death scene is lame too.

Overall, until I see it again on a projector or big HD telly, I have to say - Meh.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 4, 2009)

Looks totally different on a big screen - it's a proper 'event' movie (and I use the word movie in the 'Don't expect too much from it, just sit back and enjoy the ride' sense of the word). I mean this:



> Action scenes - again, small screen, so maybe not the best judge, but they weren't as epic as I'd been led to believe they would be.



Trek has some of the best space battles this side of BSG (which to my mind has re-defined the visual style for ship-to-ship combat in space), and the atmosphere jump onto the drill platform is almost gut-churningly vivid on a big screen.

Even on a projector you're still likely to say 'meh tho - your crits demonstrate that, like Heroes, you seem to expect pulp culture to deliver something akin to Battleship Potemkin. It's never going to do that.


----------



## dylans (Dec 4, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Even on a projector you're still likely to say 'meh tho - your crits demonstrate that, like Heroes, you seem to expect pulp culture to deliver something akin to Battleship Potemkin. It's never going to do that.



Did Battleship Potemkin have space battles?


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 4, 2009)




----------



## The Octagon (Dec 4, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Looks totally different on a big screen - it's a proper 'event' movie (and I use the word movie in the 'Don't expect too much from it, just sit back and enjoy the ride' sense of the word). I mean this:
> 
> Trek has some of the best space battles this side of BSG (which to my mind has re-defined the visual style for ship-to-ship combat in space), and the atmosphere jump onto the drill platform is almost gut-churningly vivid on a big screen.
> 
> Even on a projector you're still likely to say 'meh tho - your crits demonstrate that, like Heroes, you seem to expect pulp culture to deliver something akin to Battleship Potemkin. It's never going to do that.



Heh, I get your point (re: expectations), but to be fair JJ Abrams (and the rest of the creative team he assembled) is/are usually very good at working in more subtle, intelligent moments along with the big, dumb action scenes. I just didn't feel much was going on behind the outer veneer, which is disappointing. 

Forgot about the drill platform scene, that was definitely better than the space battles in my view (collapsible swords and idiot red-shirts FTW ).


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 4, 2009)

it was good that the vulcans were portrayed less as benevolent logicians and more as up themselves twats


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 4, 2009)

> Heh, I get your point (re: expectations), but to be fair JJ Abrams (and the rest of the creative team he assembled) is/are usually very good at working in more subtle, intelligent moments along with the big, dumb action scenes. I just didn't feel much was going on behind the outer veneer, which is disappointing.



Now y'see I reckon JJ is a bit of a confidence trickster in all this. For me he's excellent at making something _look_ like it has lots of deep substance (Alias, Lost), when in fact there's very, very little actually there - it's all tease with JJ, and very little reveal (I mean how fucking long did that Fibonnaci crap play out in Alias? 4 Seasons, that's how fucking long). Same goes for Fringe and Lost; same also applied to MI:3 and Cloverfield.

For me he's like a Tim Burton or Terry Gilliam - brilliantly talented and always worth watching, but lacking in the really deep disciplines of story structure that make a film like Apocalypto intensely engaging. I suspect this is because in the case of Gilliam and Abrams they're somewhat enamoured of a combination of post-modern story and anime story telling styles (i.e. no strong conclusions/endings, story 'structures' rather than 'lines', scenery as impotant as character etc). 

Burton, for me, seems to have done his best work with animation - his live action films, for me, are visually gorgeous but patchy, hung together with paperclips affairs. Another example of a director with a great style and feel but who rarely transcends this to make his movies truly great is Michael Mann - Collateral was his last excellent film, with Miami Vice a po-mo stylistic experiment (which, yes, possibly reflects the moral ambiguity of the characters and story better but _it doesn't make for a good film_). I haven't seen Public Enemies yet so can't comment on it.



> it was good that the vulcans were portrayed less as benevolent logicians and more as up themselves twats



Space elves, innit? It's also a reflection of the Vulcans you see in Enterprise


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 4, 2009)

Ah, yes...my point...I never go into one of their films expecting tight plotting, strong character development and the chance to build a strong emotional bond on first viewing. What I _do_ expect is marvellously executed set-pieces that may or may not be strung together by a good plot and snappy, cool reference rammed dialogue, and thus adjust my critical faculties accordingly.


----------



## The Octagon (Dec 4, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Now y'see I reckon JJ is a bit of a confidence trickster in all this. For me he's excellent at making something _look_ like it has lots of deep substance (Alias, Lost), when in fact there's very, very little actually there - it's all tease with JJ, and very little reveal (I mean how fucking long did that Fibonnaci crap play out in Alias? 4 Seasons, that's how fucking long). Same goes for Fringe and Lost; same also applied to MI:3 and Cloverfield.



Rimbaldi  (Fibonnaci was the Prison Break snitch that originally put Abruzzi away ) 

Alias did go to shit eventually (I've yet to see the final season because S4 bored me to tears at times), but episodes like Phase One were genuine game-changers (back when that phrase hadn't become overused), with a balance of plot and action.

I think people also overstate Abrams influence on Lost, he helped break the story and directed the pilot episode, since then it has been down to Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof to run the show (which, I would argue has become something of substance, at least for a US Network show). Ditto Fringe.

Can't remember my point now , but I think it was something like - I'll watch it again, perhaps with lowered expectations, which may help.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 4, 2009)

The Octagon said:


> I think people also overstate Abrams influence on Lost, he helped break the story and directed the pilot episode, since then it has been down to Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof to run the show (which, I would argue has become something of substance, at least for a US Network show). Ditto Fringe.



Agreed! Don't think I've seen anything as bonkers since Twin Peaks...


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 4, 2009)

I loved Alias, and not just because Sidney was sexy as hell (something Jennifer Garner has struggled to successfully replicate in her movies I would add), but because it did all the JJ Abrams 'stuff' IYSWIM.

My favourite thing he's done, after Trek, is probably Cloverfield. I know loads of people hate it ('I really hated seeing those people having a good time at a party, I hated the _so much_ because blah blah', 'The camerawork made my eyes hurt' (which is valid TBF)) but I rate it as one of the best monster destroys city movies ever.


----------



## The Octagon (Dec 4, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> I loved Alias, and *not just because Sidney was sexy as hell* (something Jennifer Garner has struggled to successfully replicate in her movies I would add), but because it did all the JJ Abrams 'stuff' IYSWIM.



I refer you to my previous 'Phase One' comments.

Greatest. Opening. Scene. Ever.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 4, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> No real plot, no real reason for the pointless quest, terrible characters with bizarre motivations, pitiful CGI nonsense and wayyyyy tooooo lonnnnngggg.



You know, whether one agrees with these criticisms or not, they are practically all criticisms of the actual book too.

Lord of the Rings is an exceptionally good piece of cinema considering what it's based on.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 4, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Looks totally different on a big screen - it's a proper 'event' movie (and I use the word movie in the 'Don't expect too much from it, just sit back and enjoy the ride' sense of the word). I mean this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Word.

I honestly thought, and still think, it was and is up there with the best of high-end pulp, star Wars, indiana jones, etc.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 4, 2009)

jer said:


> Agreed! Don't think I've seen anything as bonkers since Twin Peaks...



Lost confused everyone by becoming rather tedious in series 2 and 3, and then suddenly becoming remarkably good over the last 2... Can't wait to see how it concludes.

I have to say that "The Constant" is one of my favourite bits of television.  Ever.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 4, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Lord of the Rings is an exceptionally good piece of cinema considering what it's based on.



Indeed. An exceptionally good book.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 4, 2009)

I agree about Cloverfield Kyser, i only watched it on the pooter but I loved it.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 4, 2009)

jer said:


> Indeed. An exceptionally good book.



I think there are two main schools of criticism of Peter Jackson's admirable attempt to film a book that it had often thought would never be filmable.  One school is the people who say "Ooh it's long! And it's boring! And they just walk along for hours! And it's got hobbits in!"

WELL READ THE FUCKING LABEL THEN YOU CUNTS!  It's like going to India and moaning "OOh! There are lots of Indian people here!" or going to the football and going "Oh my! You didn't tell me there were going to be lots of people sitting on seats watching people kick a ball around!"

The other is the sort of arch Tolkien fan who complains that they don't walk along quite enough of the time and that each and every detail of all 1000 pages of the book is not included in depth.

I thought it got the balance just about right - pleased the casual Tolkien fan while appealing to a mass market audience...


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 4, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> I think there are two main schools of criticism of Peter Jackson's admirable attempt to film a book that it had often thought would never be filmable.  One school is the people who say "Ooh it's long! And it's boring! And they just walk along for hours! And it's got hobbits in!"
> 
> WELL READ THE FUCKING LABEL THEN YOU CUNTS!  It's like going to India and moaning "OOh! There are lots of Indian people here!" or going to the football and going "Oh my! You didn't tell me there were going to be lots of people sitting on seats watching people kick a ball around!"
> 
> ...



The extended DVD's also pleased even a Tolkien purist like myself. OK Jackson DID take some liberties in the interest of dramatic tenson but they are forgivable.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 4, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> I think there are two main schools of criticism of Peter Jackson's admirable attempt to film a book that it had often thought would never be filmable.  One school is the people who say "Ooh it's long! And it's boring! And they just walk along for hours! And it's got hobbits in!"
> 
> WELL READ THE FUCKING LABEL THEN YOU CUNTS!  It's like going to India and moaning "OOh! There are lots of Indian people here!" or going to the football and going "Oh my! You didn't tell me there were going to be lots of people sitting on seats watching people kick a ball around!"
> 
> ...




I hear you. The only criticism I have is that the scouring of The Shire and Tom Bombadil were left out. But then, I guess ROTK had so many damn endings, they prob felt "enough, already" 

This was the greatest sci-fi trilogy since the original Star Wars films. IMHO.

Be interesting to see how The Hobbit pans out...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 4, 2009)

I actually think without the Scouring, the rest of the Shire sequence at the end felt a bit flat, and I'd have ended it with the ceremony on Minas tirith, just panned out, the end.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 4, 2009)

I agree with this above. The actual ending of ROTK went on _way_ too long. Altho it did lead to many amusing if mildly homophobic comments about Sam and Frodo, especially when Sam, from the arms of saucy Rosie, looks wistfully back at Mr Frodo.

Doesn't detract from the utter, utter brilliance of the films tho.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 4, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> I agree with this above. The actual ending of ROTK went on _way_ too long. Altho it did lead to many amusing if mildly homophobic comments about Sam and Frodo, especially when Sam, from the arms of saucy Rosie, looks wistfully back at Mr Frodo.
> 
> Doesn't detract from the utter, utter brilliance of the films tho.





One of the great "bromances" of recent years...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 4, 2009)

When Aragorn says "My friends, you bow to noone," it was a really great moment and they should have just ended it at that point, IMO...


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 4, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> You know, whether one agrees with these criticisms or not, they are practically all criticisms of the actual book too.
> 
> Lord of the Rings is an exceptionally good piece of cinema considering what it's based on.



Indeed, and I am not denying that. It's a pittiful set of books. Even when I read them as a child I thought they were bollocks. I thought the hobbit was ok, I'm not sure I would say that now though. It might have been the first piece of fantasy writing like it, but that doesn't make it good. My daughter loves drawing but her pictures of cats are all shit.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 4, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Indeed, and I am not denying that. It's a pittiful set of books. Even when I read them as a child I thought they were bollocks. I thought the hobbit was ok, I'm not sure I would say that now though. It might have been the first piece of fantasy writing like it, but that doesn't make it good. My daughter loves drawing but her pictures of cats are all shit.



Entirely disagree. Amazingly evocative, epic books. Read them 3 times - the only thing that came near them in recent years were the Pullman books.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 4, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Indeed, and I am not denying that. It's a pittiful set of books. Even when I read them as a child I thought they were bollocks. I thought the hobbit was ok, I'm not sure I would say that now though. It might have been the first piece of fantasy writing like it, but that doesn't make it good. My daughter loves drawing but her pictures of cats are all shit.



I just don't know why anyone would bother watching the Lord of the Rings films if they didn't like that sort of thing - it's not as if it's difficult to find out how long it is or what it's about...


----------



## elevendayempire (Dec 4, 2009)

jer said:


> The only criticism I have is that the scouring of The Shire and Tom Bombadil were left out.


Tom Bombadil was a cunt, though. His absence was not keenly felt.

"Hi-ho, Bombadil-o."

Oh, fuck off, do.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 4, 2009)

Agreed, it's a shit part of the book and was a good idea to omit...


----------



## dylans (Dec 4, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> I think there are two main schools of criticism of Peter Jackson's admirable attempt to film a book that it had often thought would never be filmable.  One school is the people who say "Ooh it's long! And it's boring! And they just walk along for hours! And it's got hobbits in!"
> 
> *WELL READ THE FUCKING LABEL THEN YOU CUNTS!  It's like going to India and moaning "OOh! There are lots of Indian people here!" or going to the football and going "Oh my! You didn't tell me there were going to be lots of people sitting on seats watching people kick a ball around!"*
> 
> ...



Absolutely. I thought they were fantastic movies.. The battle scenes alone were some of the best in cinema.  The fight for Helms deep when we see the size of the ork army. The battle for Minis Tirith, I could  watch them a thousand times.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 4, 2009)

Christopher Lee. Awesome as Saruman. Always brings such a presence to the screen. Even with Count Dooku...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 4, 2009)

Definitely.

"We will drive the machine of war with the sword and the hammer and the iron fist of the Ork..."


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 4, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> I just don't know why anyone would bother watching the Lord of the Rings films if they didn't like that sort of thing - it's not as if it's difficult to find out how long it is or what it's about...



My wife wanted to go. Also, I assumed that despite reading the book that there must be something pretty good about the film. So many people were raving on about how ace it was (and you lot are still doing it on this thread) so I didn't expect it to be complete and utter bollocks.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 4, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> Tom Bombadil was a cunt, though. His absence was not keenly felt.
> 
> "Hi-ho, Bombadil-o."
> 
> Oh, fuck off, do.



but it excluded the barrow wights bit that was awesome.

All that Goldberry river daughter fa de la shit was wank though


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 4, 2009)

Who left the nurdary door open?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 4, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Definitely.
> 
> "We will drive the machine of war with the sword and the hammer and the iron fist of the Ork..."



Lee's Saruman was about the only character in the films who managed to get across the actual point of the books. The third one was a load of old rubbish for not having him in it. Apparently a pivotal scene with Gandalf and Saruman was cut from ROTK, god knows why they cut that out but still had room for 45 minutes of dreck at the end. 

Wow, this must be about the 100th unrelated thread to descend into bitching about LOTR


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 4, 2009)

So yeah, Star Trek. Good cast, visually impressive if a little on the camp side, terrible pacing, muddled plot, no-dimensional bad guy. Overall, meh. A better editing job could have made all the difference.


----------



## dylans (Dec 4, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Definitely.
> 
> "We will drive the machine of war with the sword and the hammer and the iron fist of the Ork..."



Great stuff. "Show them no mercy, for you shall receive none."


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 4, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> Lee's Saruman was about the only character in the films who managed to get across the actual point of the books. The third one was a load of old rubbish for not having him in it. Apparently a pivotal scene with Gandalf and Saruman was cut from ROTK, god knows why they cut that out but still had room for 45 minutes of dreck at the end.
> 
> Wow, this must be about the 100th unrelated thread to descend into bitching about LOTR



It's in the extended version (all of which are better than the cinematic ones anyway IMO)


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Dec 4, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> So yeah, Star Trek. Good cast, visually impressive if a little on the camp side, terrible pacing, muddled plot, no-dimensional bad guy. Overall, meh. A better editing job could have made all the difference.



Not a bad thread either 

(Took an effort to read all of it but worth it.)


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 4, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> My wife wanted to go. Also, I assumed that despite reading the book that there must be something pretty good about the film. So many people were raving on about how ace it was (and you lot are still doing it on this thread) so I didn't expect it to be complete and utter bollocks.



But it was an exceptionally good rendition of _a book about orks and goblins and dwarves and wizards and people walking up mountains_ and so on.

Did you expect it to be the full-on, totally-changed, post-modern version where Peter jackson released a film called Lord of the Rings and secretly collaborated with Tarantino and where halfway through loads of tanks pulled up and Samuel L Jackson got out and started blasting rocket launchers at the Orks or something?


----------



## Crispy (Dec 4, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> Lee's Saruman was about the only character in the films who managed to get across the actual point of the books. The third one was a load of old rubbish for not having him in it. Apparently a pivotal scene with Gandalf and Saruman was cut from ROTK, god knows why they cut that out but still had room for 45 minutes of dreck at the end.
> 
> Wow, this must be about the 100th unrelated thread to descend into bitching about LOTR



that scene's back in the extended version, which is the _real_ version of course


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 4, 2009)

Crispy said:


> that scene's back in the extended version, which is the _real_ version of course



Yeah.  To be honest, when I first saw The Two Towers in the cinema, I wasn't quite as keen on it as the first film.  But having got the lot in the EEs, it's now my favourite of the three.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 4, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> But it was an exceptionally good rendition of _a book about orks and goblins and dwarves and wizards and people walking up mountains_ and so on.
> 
> Did you expect it to be the full-on, totally-changed, post-modern version where Peter jackson released a film called Lord of the Rings and secretly collaborated with Tarantino and where halfway through loads of tanks pulled up and Samuel L Jackson got out and started blasting rocket launchers at the Orks or something?



Samuel L Jackson as Aragorn:

'I am Aragorn, son of Arathorn, motherfucker, and I'm gonna slay yo' ass'


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 4, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Samuel L Jackson as Aragorn:
> 
> 'I am Aragorn, son of Arathorn, motherfucker, and I'm gonna slay yo' ass'


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 4, 2009)

I'd have Ving Rhames as Saruman...keep Liv as whatshername, just wearing a lot less.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 4, 2009)

The first half or so would be totally authentically Tolkien. It would only go crazy half way through, like from Dusk to Dawn except instead of changing from crooks kidnapping people to flee across the border into vampire film, it would change from fantasy into complete mayhem


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 4, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> but it excluded the barrow wights bit that was awesome.




Oh, yeah - completely forgot about that - really chilling stuff!


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 5, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> But it was an exceptionally good rendition of _a book about orks and goblins and dwarves and wizards and people walking up mountains_ and so on.


I don't think it was. It's overlong and the CGI was just shit. 




upsidedownwalrus said:


> Did you expect it to be the full-on, totally-changed, post-modern version where Peter jackson released a film called Lord of the Rings and secretly collaborated with Tarantino and where halfway through loads of tanks pulled up and Samuel L Jackson got out and started blasting rocket launchers at the Orks or something?



No, because that would have been shit too. Why do you think that would have made me like it? 

I expected there to be something half decent about the film because so many people were saying (and still are) how amazing it was. Despite my reservations I assumed there would be some entertainment value in it. Surely a film with such rave reviews couldn't be all that bad? I thought it was so spectacularly bad that when it finished I looked around expecting to see a lot of confused, frowning faces and shoulder shrugs. I was (and still am) surprised that I film that I found so utterly appalling on pretty much every level is so revered by so many. 

The only other films I can think of that had this effect on me despite rave reviews were 21-grams and that one with 'river' in the title by eastwood.


----------



## Pingu (Dec 5, 2009)

well I bloody well liked it. as did all my friends who used to dress up as elves and dwarves and do LARP

so there



I and a lot of my friends are probably what could be called "tolkein heads"* and the only really bad things we said about the films were mainly on these topics

bombadil missing
no barrow wights
glorfindel missing
The scouring of the shire
the palantirs being a bit shit


now I *could* go into painful levels of detail (esp over bombadil) but its not good for my blood pressure

and we still liked the films

* - we have all read the silmarillon FFS ... willingly... some of us more than once


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Dec 5, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I don't think it was. It's overlong and the CGI was just shit.



Not that I like star trek, but i wonder if you just basically completely hate CGI and anything that has it? Like, new doctor who for example despite many people liking it.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Dec 5, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I don't think it was. It's overlong and the CGI was just shit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You didn't like the books, you didn't like the films. Some people did and some people do.

Do you think if you keep telling people what you think about both that it will change their mind?

Mystic River is a good film btw.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 5, 2009)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Do you think if you keep telling people what you think about both that it will change their mind?
> .



Not at all. I was just trying to explain for the umpteenth time why I went to see the lord of the rings in the first place (wife wanted to go, very good reviews). No need for everyone to get upset. It's just a film. A lot of people like it. I don't.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Dec 5, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> A lot of people like it. I don't.



Yes - we know. Again.


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Dec 5, 2009)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Yes - we know. Again.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Dec 5, 2009)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Yes - we know. Again.



Well maybe you do but the walrus guy asked again.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Dec 5, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Well maybe you do but the walrus guy asked again.



I'm happy that you got another chance.


----------



## Pingu (Dec 5, 2009)

well i was a bit unsure of how he felt so I am glad he cleared it all up.

i cant believe they left bombadil out...


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Dec 5, 2009)

Pingu said:


> well i was a bit unsure of how he felt so I am glad he cleared it all up.
> 
> i cant believe they left bombadil out...



Personally I don't feel the Hobbits were as short as they were in the book.

And their feet were a bit less hairy.

Jackson's attention to detail is shit!


----------



## Pingu (Dec 5, 2009)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Personally I don't feel the Hobbits were as short as they were in the book.
> 
> And their feet were a bit less hairy.
> 
> Jackson's attention to detail is shit!


 

aye wtf was he doing having Arwen replace Glorfindel in the smiting of the nazgul at Bruinen? replacing one of the Calaquendi with some flowery bint my arse. It would take a full on elf lord to face the 9 and survive...


nurse my tablets if you please


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Dec 5, 2009)

Pingu said:


> aye wtf was he doing having Arwen replace Glorfindel in the smiting of the nazgul at the crossing? replacing one of the Calaquendi with some flowery bint my arse. It would take a full on elf lord to face the 9 and survive...
> 
> 
> nurse my tablets if you please



and Sean Bean's hair was wrong for the part. They should have got a hair double.


----------



## Pingu (Dec 5, 2009)

gimli should have been more dwarfy too

oooh I forgot about them cutting out Aiwendil (Radagast) - he was Maiar FFS. 

still even though the attention to detail was clearly appaling it was a good series of films


----------



## Reno (Dec 5, 2009)

I liked _Star Trek_. It was just about the only non-animated Hollywood blockbuster with a modicum of wit and charm this year. 

It was also, thankfully, completely Hobbit free.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 5, 2009)

Pingu said:


> gimli should have been more dwarfy too
> 
> oooh I forgot about them cutting out Aiwendil (Radagast) - he was Maiar FFS.
> 
> still even though the attention to detail was clearly appaling it was a good series of films



I don't recall radagast from the LOTR books, save when saruman was cussing him to gandalf 'Radagast the Bird tamer, Radagast the fool!'


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 5, 2009)

Reno said:


> It was also, thankfully, completely Hobbit free.



If you don't like Hobbits don't go see a film about hobbits. Just like if you don't like shit acting you don't go and see a film with Matthew McConaghey in it.


----------



## Pingu (Dec 5, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't recall radagast from the LOTR books, save when saruman was cussing him to gandalf 'Radagast the Bird tamer, Radagast the fool!'


 

he was used by saurman to lure gandalf to orthanc which resulted in him being imprisoned there. he also sent Gwaihir to rescue him (the big eagle). 

a cruciial part of the tale as its intertwined with the discovery that Saurman was in fact a baddy (although the films also skipped over the reasons for this being that Saruman was using a palantir that Sauron trapped him with and corrupted him). Saurman was tehrefore not an inate baddy but more somone who was trapped and then developed his own plans of world domination.

tbh the flims would have had to have been 6 hours long (each) to cover all the intricacies.

a much shorter version of the film would have gone like this

Bilbo - Ganfdalf this ring thing I found
Gandalf - yes Bilbo give it here
_Bilbo hands Gandalf the ring_
Gandalf - ha ha noob
_Gandalf puts on the one ring_
Gandalf - all your base belong to me... pwned

radagast could have been crucial to another version of the film

*Coucil of Elrond - Rivendell ME third age*
Elrond - ok so we have the 9 members of the fellowship. now you must all walk through great danger and over many hundreds of miles to the heart of Mordor.
Radagast - hey how about we just plonk them onto these great big eagles I know?
_Bilbo and Sam fly to mordor and drop the ring into mount doom and are back in time for lunch - there is much rejoicing_


----------



## Reno (Dec 5, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> If you don't like Hobbits don't go see a film about hobbits. Just like if you don't like shit acting you don't go and see a film with Matthew McConaghey in it.



I didn't say I don't like Hobbits, but I wouldn't like Hobbits in Star Trek and I'm not sure why they hijacked this discussion about the rather excellent Star Trek film.


----------



## Pingu (Dec 5, 2009)

Reno said:


> I didn't say I don't like Hobbits, but I wouldn't like Hobbits in Star Trek and I'm not sure why they hijacked this discussion about the rather excellent Star Trek film.


 

one ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them... and space is so very very dark


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Dec 5, 2009)

Reno said:


> I didn't say I don't like Hobbits, but I wouldn't like Hobbits in Star Trek and I'm not sure why they hijacked this discussion about the rather excellent Star Trek film.



Hobbit Trek - sci-fi crossover blockbuster due summer 2010

Spock - I respect Kirk a great deal
Sam - I love Mr Frodo more than life itself
Kirk - Fags
Spock - illogical Captain - I am incapable of man love
Frodo - ooh, my ring's making me feel all woozy.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 5, 2009)

Reno said:


> I didn't say I don't like Hobbits, but I wouldn't like Hobbits in Star Trek and I'm not sure why they hijacked this discussion about the rather excellent Star Trek film.



NOBODY EVER SUGGESTED PUTTING HOBBITS IN A STAR TREK FILM

Jesus fucking christ 

e2a: Oh, actualy it looks like someone actually did suggest that in the previous post.


----------



## Reno (Dec 5, 2009)

Erm, I wasn't being that serious.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Dec 5, 2009)

Star Trek and LOTR is very serious business for some folk.


----------



## Pingu (Dec 5, 2009)




----------



## TrippyLondoner (Dec 5, 2009)

lol


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 5, 2009)

Pingu said:


> tbh the flims would have had to have been 6 hours long (each) to cover all the intricacies.



I reckon you'd have needed about 50 hours.  I still reckon some day someone will do another version, for telly, which covers each and every tolkien hardline fan-pleasing detail


----------



## Pingu (Dec 5, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> I reckon you'd have needed about 50 hours. I still reckon some day someone will do another version, for telly, which covers each and every tolkien hardline fan-pleasing detail


 

man that producer\editor would earn their money for sure.

_OK meeting 6,543, john could you take the minutes? cheers.
so this party in the field..._


----------



## 8den (Dec 5, 2009)

Okay we find some common ground here. Something we all agree is truly awful. 

Fan Slash Fiction. 

In particular, a menage a trois between two midgets and a giant anthropomorphic tree. 

You can read exerts from Merry, Pippin an Treebeard in "Root and Twig".

Warning NSFW, or sanity...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 5, 2009)

8den said:


> Okay we find some common ground here. Something we all agree is truly awful.
> 
> Fan Slash Fiction.
> 
> ...


----------



## Balbi (Dec 25, 2009)

I got it on dvd for xmas. WIN.


----------



## The Octagon (Dec 25, 2009)

Rewatching it today because Xmas telly is so shit.

Good stuff on the big telly.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Dec 25, 2009)

Pingu said:


> a much shorter version of the film would have gone like this








see also


----------



## T & P (Dec 26, 2009)

Balbi said:


> I got it on dvd for xmas. WIN.


 Me too. Watched it a couple of hours ago. Fucking ace I thought. Everything the Star Wars prequels should have been and weren't.


----------



## Balbi (Dec 26, 2009)

Looked great on telly, but big screen MAKES this film even better.


----------



## kerb (Jan 3, 2010)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> You rank Iron Man above Star Trek?  No way, Iron Man was a fun diversion, but ST was the utter bollocks.
> 
> Still, it would be totally dull if I kept on agreeing with you about everything



I just saw this on New Years Day for the first time. Thought it was awesome. Watched it again today. Best cgi action film i've watched in aaages. 

loved it


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jan 3, 2010)

I definitely stand by what I said earlier in this thread: that this film raises the bar for scifi-space opera type stuff.  Finally we can move on from Star Wars.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jan 3, 2010)

We watched it again over Christmas and it stood up well to a second viewing


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 3, 2010)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> I definitely stand by what I said earlier in this thread: that this film raises the bar for scifi-space opera type stuff.  Finally we can move on from Star Wars.



As much as I enjoyed it, I think you praise it to highly. It's probably number three in the best science fiction films of the year. But it is no Avatar or District 9. Altogether to much ham going on and the script wasn't taut enough for me. I know it's space opera and I know the film was more adventure than the sort of concept and theme driven sci fi, but for me it was a bit Peter Hamilton iyswim. Satisfying, enjoyable and a good romp but ultimately hollow in the way that the best space opera manages to avoid (see Revelation Space. Now THAT would make a movie)


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jan 3, 2010)

I must say that when I watched it again on the laptop, it didn't blow me away as much as in the cinema, whereas other films like TDK keep getting better...


----------



## Belushi (Jan 3, 2010)

I watched it yesterday for the first time, fucking excellent.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Jan 3, 2010)

Belushi said:


> I watched it yesterday for the first time, fucking excellent.



Fuck me !
You lot are making me want to download it again.
(Had to delete it,low disk space.)

Thought it was a cracker !


----------



## METH LAB (Jan 3, 2010)

Best of the new star trek films i thought, much more pace to it... prequels are usually shit but this was superb.

I hope they make a couple more based on the same bunch.

peace


----------



## Crispy (Jan 3, 2010)

Saw it again recently. Rollicking good fun. Good cast, good looks, good writing (moment-to-moment). Pretty crummy plot and lame bad guy, but it sets up the 'new' universe very well. Fingers crossed that the next one has a meaty plot that's suited to the original show's premise to "seek out new life and new civilisation" - not more "random bad guy with something against kirk" stuff.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 3, 2010)

I'm still not happy with the 2 Spocks paradox but otherwise, this is up there with Khan & The Borg one...


----------



## 8den (Jan 3, 2010)

I love the fact that Wesley Crusher has a Cameo...


----------



## pboi (Jan 3, 2010)

8den said:


> I love the fact that Wesley Crusher has a Cameo...



one of those nobs are you

hope you feel better


----------



## 8den (Jan 3, 2010)

pboi said:


> one of those nobs are you
> 
> hope you feel better



See you had Wesley Crusher, you don't know Wil Wheaton, he's become a very charming very funny nerd.

This is a review of one of the worst TnG Episodes "Code of Honour"



> The inhabitants of the Federation planet Styris IV had the fish for dinner, leading to an outbreak of deadly Anchilles fever. With Styris IV's fate in the hands of Acting President Ted Striker and his intern Elaine, the Enterprise pays a visit to the only planet in the entire galaxy that can provide a vaccine, Ligon II.
> 
> Picard meets with the Ligonian leader Lutan and his little buddy Hagon when they beam up into the ship's cargo bay. On the way to meet them, Troi and Riker tell Picard that the Ligonians are a proud people with a very structured society. Picard thanks them for waiting until they're in the turbolift, going to the meeting to tell him this important information, instead of bogging down the pre-meeting briefing with it. When they get to the cargo bay, we discover that the Ligonians are also descended directly from a 1940s pulp novel set in deepest, darkest Africa, and that they are amused to discover that the Enterprise's security chief is a woman.
> 
> ...



Wil Wheaton wrote it. 

He's got a great blog, and does a weekly DnD podcast with the guys from penny arcade.


----------



## pboi (Jan 3, 2010)

I saw him in Big Bang Theory

I also heard of Wheatons Law or smth


( did you say Wheaton was in the latest star trek or not? )


----------



## 8den (Jan 3, 2010)

pboi said:


> I saw him in Big Bang Theory
> 
> I also heard of Wheatons Law or smth
> 
> ...



They got him in to do some dialogue looping for the Romulans, so his voice is the film.


----------



## pboi (Jan 3, 2010)

Geek post crits you 1337 damage.

You wither and die


----------



## 8den (Jan 3, 2010)

pboi said:


> Geek post crits you 1337 damage.
> 
> You wither and die



Yeah, using l337 speak gives you a -100 on your critical hit roll. 

Makes the save roll for teh win.


----------



## 8den (Jan 3, 2010)

8den said:


> Yeah, using l337 speak gives you a -100 on your critical hit roll.
> 
> Makes the save roll for teh win.



Apparently she does the hippity hoppity music, that the youngsters are down with.


----------



## pboi (Jan 3, 2010)

haha


----------



## 8den (Jan 3, 2010)

pboi said:


> haha



Damn.


----------



## ernestolynch (May 3, 2010)

Belushi said:


> I watched it yesterday for the first time, fucking excellent.



Me too. We loved it. Wish it was the pilot for a new series on tv. Spock was great.


----------



## starfish (May 3, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Spock was great.



Thats what made me not like it. Which Spock? There was 2 of them. No need for that.


----------



## ernestolynch (May 3, 2010)

starfish said:


> Thats what made me not like it. Which Spock? There was 2 of them. No need for that.



The new lad. Old Spock had to be in it to ease transition for fans. I think the new one's better than Nimoy.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2010)

Spock is sylar- excellent baddie from Heroes


----------



## cliche guevara (May 3, 2010)

When's the next installment due?


----------



## Augie March (May 4, 2010)

2 years away.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 4, 2010)

An extraordinarily daft and shallow film, surely?


----------



## Augie March (May 4, 2010)

And what's wrong with that?


----------



## Stigmata (May 4, 2010)

Mr Moose said:


> An extraordinarily daft and shallow film, surely?



Whatever you say grandad


----------



## gnoriac (May 4, 2010)

Only caught it recently and I thought it was excellent. I've only ever liked the original series, I find TNG and all the spin-offs painfully dull. This captured most of the strengths of the original while getting rid of a bit of the laddishness and giving the main characters some personality flaws which makes it much more interesting.


----------



## gamma globulins (May 4, 2010)

Daft and shallow, but still fun to watch. Sadly it lost me when the second spock appeared.

A clean reboot would have been much better.


----------



## fazey101 (May 5, 2010)

i wonder about the next one...

like will they do on old story line in new universe  (khan etc)

or something completely new?


----------

