Comments on: The New Star Trek Movie Blows Fans Away [Star Trek Review]

By: J Horton

J Horton — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:39:13 +0000

The popularity of this movie with geeks shows what most geeks are – pathetic people with child-like minds.

ST’09 is a “comic book” movie consisting of predictable, boring action sequences stitched together by a plot that doesn’t make any sense.

By: Miss Cellania

Miss Cellania — Mon, 11 May 2009 14:53:15 +0000

I love the way the title of this post shows up in my reader as “The New Star Trek Movie Blows.” Ha!

By: DRFP

DRFP — Mon, 11 May 2009 14:52:41 +0000

Well I liked it but I’m getting tired to all the time line saving the show stuff, a lot of Star trek shows centered around time travel the last 20 years and even BSG did a little of that.

Good Movie, Alternate universe and leaves the writers plenty to write about now, Vulcan is gone but Vulcans are still around, remember they have many colonies.

The movie made you think this was not so, yet the original series we know this to be true.

By: Jay

Jay — Mon, 11 May 2009 03:53:52 +0000

I’m pretty happy with the way the “new” rebooted series was fired off. I think. ;-) Only time will tell if this will begin a new series of movies with this crew, I certainly hope so, I think they have much staying power.
As to the portrayals of the two main characters, I think they did the right thing.

************POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT*************

If Pine tried and failed to pull off an imitation of one of the most iconic actors in sci-fi film history, I think he would have quickly found failure and IMMENSE disapproval from viewers who would have thought the mismatch between their memories and the new movie had “ruined everything”. I appreciate the new Kirk being a tad different and it is justified by his alternate history.
I’m unsure as to Quinto’s “Spock”. While Kirk’s alternate reality justifies his change in behavior, it doesn’t do anything for Spock. He was never portrayed as this emotional in any of the series.. sappy yes, but not angst ridden.
Then again, how much younger is this duo from when we first saw them battling VGER. (egad, I’m a geek) maybe they have some maturing to do. That is not beyond the grasp of human development.

Finally, I must say that the supporting cast did an amazing job. I sort of felt like Bones was imitated quite rigorously, just so that we were reminded of who we were watching. Bones, Scotty, Sulu, Chekov and Uhura were fantastic if a little comical at times.

I have friends that have already seen this 3 times or more by this writing. I don’t know that I will watch this in the theater again but I can offer monetary guarantees that this will enter my DVD collection.

;-) Thanks for letting me vent and calm myself after watching this movie. LOL It really was a good flick!

By: Matt Hendershott

Matt Hendershott — Sun, 10 May 2009 21:50:32 +0000

I agree with much of what was said as well, but am also one of the folks won over by the new Kirk.

He certainly seems more troubled than the the original Kirk (toK), but the essence of what toK was seemed in tact. The cowboy spirit, the almost comedic overconfidence and general intensity in his resolve was all there, but all just a bit more pointed which I attributed to age more than time line changes.

I found my mind occasionally projecting an image of this new Kirk 5 years in the future with more missions under his belt and found him to be reasonably consistent with the Kirk we all know and love.

The whole crew seemed a fair bit younger to me, complete with the impetuous nature of youth and all it’s associated chaos. :)

I think I’ll have to see it again to be sure…but I may need to increase my movie budget for the year after seeing the orgy of CGI eye candy that came in the form of the trailers…wow…it’s a good year for geeks and movies.

By: Dal

Dal — Sun, 10 May 2009 18:24:18 +0000

I somewhat agree with your assessment of Kirk. However, I liked it because of this. Kirk has had the most obvious changes to his personality because of timeline changes. So it makes sense.
But also, because there are more movies, hopefully someday maybe they’ll get this cast into a TV show (one can only dream..) the Kirk we’re looking for just hasn’t been made yet. He has some growing up to do, some experience to gain. The Kirk of TOS, Khan, and ST VI are all different in certain ways, as should the Kirk fresh out of Academy. The best clues we’ve been given as-to what he was like in the academy was the kobiashi maru — the Kirk we know later isn’t as much of a prankster as the one who reprograms the test, as an example.

I also do not usually want to rewatch a movie so quickly after seeing it in theatres, as I did this one.

By: Jimmy Rogers

Jimmy Rogers — Sun, 10 May 2009 04:58:44 +0000

It’s really nice to hear criticism on a comment that isn’t also vulgar.

I guess for me, the new Kirk didn’t feel very much like the old one. This might be because in the first series, Kirk didn’t really have to “win the trust” of his crew…they came pre-packaged as his dutiful officers from day one. This would all be ok, since the new movie is heavily based on the idea that Kirk must fight his way into his iconic role based on manipulation of the past…except the “final Kirk” at the end didn’t quite sit well with me either.

For me, after watching Jim Kirk command for years, I’ve become acclimated to a certain “flavor,” like the flavor of chocolate ice cream. This new one is more like chocolate-peanut butter ice cream…similar but different. Maybe it’s because he doesn’t talk like Shatner, I dunno.

BTW, I forgot to mention in the article that this is one of the few movies I came out of and immediately wanted to watch again. That’s truely rare for me.

By: Henry Hornstein

Henry Hornstein — Sun, 10 May 2009 04:24:13 +0000

I agree with most of what was written except for the comments about Chris Pine’s Jim Kirk. The “new” Kirk and Pine’s portrayal of him were great AND believable. I cannot fathom what more it would take for Jimmy Rogers to be “won over” by the new James T. Kirk.

By: Jimmy Rogers

Jimmy Rogers — Sun, 10 May 2009 02:53:16 +0000

I totally agree…SciFi has gotten much darker in recent years as a way of exploring new areas…but the lighter sides shouldn’t be lost along the way.

By: Perry Lane

Perry Lane — Sun, 10 May 2009 02:47:28 +0000

It’s a great start to a new journey. I like that fact that it continues the “hope” that was central to the original Trek, and I hope it gives way to a new sci-fi that looks at the future in a less bleak way. Stories like Pyramids of Mars (www.pyramidsofmars.com) the free online digital graphic novel come to mind. Sure, it’s a big scale sci-fi story about an alien invasion with great graphics, but it’s also hopeful about the future and humanity. And that’s what we need. That’s what Gene Roddenberry was talking about.

By: Jimmy Rogers

Jimmy Rogers — Sun, 10 May 2009 00:49:29 +0000

Maybe I was being too subtle, but by “ignore the new black hole” I meant “ignore the massive potential change that destroying an important planet could lead to.”

I didn’t actually mean to say anything relating to the physical characteristics of a black hole.

By: Chaos Motor

Chaos Motor — Sun, 10 May 2009 00:34:33 +0000

The black hole doesn’t really matter, because it’ll only have the same mass and gravity field size as the planet it consumed, so it won’t really do anything unusual except not radiate nearly as much. A black hole the same mass as the planet won’t eat the sun or anything else really.