My post on IMDB.com under Star Trek (2009):
The new Star Trek movie - cheesy, predictable, senseless
WARNING: SPOILERS BELOW
Did you guys see the new Star Trek movie yet?
It was a TOTAL DISGRACE. Besides special effects, it had nothing going for it. What were the filmmakers thinking? They have no respect for Star Trek.
Movies are never remembered for CGI and special effects.
First off, they turned Star Trek into a cartoon. The action was cheesy and unnecessary. They kept surviving million to one odds in every single scene, often by pure luck. Yeah right.
Why couldn't they have made it more realistic? The cheesy cartoon scenes totally discredited it. Now people can't see Star Trek as a beacon of hope for the future of humanity. It should have been more serious and realistic.
It was too much like James Bond. A lot of the action and last second saves were improbable and clicheish. A total disgrace.
This was not Star Trek. It was a roller coaster ride and adrenaline rush.
Even as a kid, Kirk drives a car off the cliff and nearly kills himself, coming within inches of falling? Yeah right. No one would do that. This film is trying WAY TOO HARD to create cheap action and toughness out of nothing. Way too fake. Not believable at all.
The characters did things that were unnecessary too. Spock had no logical reason to send Kirk off to a snowy planet to almost get killed. Usually they just throw you in the brig. Then Kirk gets chased by a monster whom he could never outrun? Yeah right.
Spock almost sent Kirk to his death, just so he could run from a monster and run into the old Spock. So cheesy.
The writers of this film are the worst thinkers ever.
And that Romulan ship looked like a giant squid. Not impressive at all.
Also, destroying Vulcan was unnecessary and added nothing. Vulcans make Star Trek interesting and unique. Why destroy their whole planet? Stupid. And there was no reason to kill off Spock's mother either. What was gained by that? They just ruined any future sequel.
In the past, they've done lots of stupid things and killed off characters for no reason. In ST3, they should not have killed off Kirk's son. Nor did they need to destroy the Enterprise. In Genesis, they did not need to kill off Kirk. And in Nemesis, they did not need to kill of Data. All of this was unnecessary and added nothing, it only pissed people off.
It's like these new Star Trek writers are doing things and random and turning Star Trek into a cheap cartoon!
And why did the interior of the Romulan ship have to have humungus drops and unprotected walkways over them? What for? Do Romulans enjoy having their crew accidentally fall off and die? Competely senseless. It kind of reminds me of the stupidity of the Emperor in Return of the Jedi having to put a huge abyss in his thrown room, so he could be thrown into it later. Completely illogical and unnecessary. So clicheish and contrived. There is no logical reason to have an abyss in an Emperor's throne room, just so someday he can be thrown into it. Completely senseless.
The acting was also cheesy and overly done. The scene with Scotty in the water tubes was stupid and added nothing. It was a very cheap attempt at humor and suspense. What is this, a children's show? That was such low quality humor. It was like watching Scary Movie, except it wasn't even funny.
Most of the acting was fake and contrived too. You did not emotionally bond with any of the characters.
So sad and awful.
They need to make another deep film of adventure like Star Trek The Motion Picture. Even Star Trek II left you with emotion and feeling for the characters. But this left you with nothing but nausea after a roller coaster ride. Totally degrading. A total disgrace.
The plot also has hundreds of holes in it. Anyone can see that.
If they can travel back in time so easily, why didn't the do it and save Kirk's father's life or go back save Vulcan and Spock's mother? Or go back and prevent the Kennedy Assassination? Sheesh. And what is the old Spock going to do now, live in the past?
And if they came into the past through the Black Hole the first time, how do they know that Nero's ship didn't just travel in time again?
The motives made no sense either. Why would Nero blame the destruction of Romulus on Spock, when Spock didn't do anything wrong? All Spock did was fail to get to Romulus in time. And if Romulus' sun supernovaed, why didn't they evacuate or prepare for it in advance?
There was just no motive for the villain at all.
Everything in this film was lacking in every category. The writers sucked and were way below average. There must be a plot to ruin Star Trek.
The new Star Trek movie - cheesy, predictable, senseless
The new Star Trek movie - cheesy, predictable, senseless
Last edited by Winston on December 9th, 2012, 8:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Meet Loads of Foreign Women in Person! Join Our Happier Abroad ROMANCE TOURS to Many Overseas Countries!
Meet Foreign Women Now! Post your FREE profile on Happier Abroad Personals and start receiving messages from gorgeous Foreign Women today!
Wasted opportunities/wrong turns in Star Trek film history
From my post on IMDB:
Wasted opportunities/wrong turns in Star Trek film history
WARNING: SPOILERS (if you haven't seen any of the previous Star Trek films that is)
This is my opinion, but so many missed opportunities, wrong turns and mistakes were made with Star Trek since TOS.
First, TOS should have went two more seasons. It was too good to be cut after only three seasons. The characters and their chemistry were too unique and will never be repeated again. They could have evolved and developed more with two more seasons. A wasted opportunity. Instead, they make tons of trash TV the next few decades.
When ST The Motion Picture came out, it was a masterpiece ahead of its time, kind of like "2001 A Space Odyssey", that's why most could not appreciate it. It was a REAL TRUE JOURNEY, enlightening process and experience, the kind that develops you spiritually and emotionally. It's what Star Trek should have been all this time. It showed the true potential of Star Trek that could have been.
At that point, they had plans to start another Star Trek TV series, and should have, for the actors were still young and good looking enough to perform. But they didn't. Another wasted opportunity forever that could have led to something great.
In Star Trek 2: The Wratch of Khan, we get a very different film, but still a masterpiece in different ways. The characters were believable, interesting, and some of the scenes, like on the space station, were chilling. I think it was a mistake though to kill off Spock and then have to revive him in the next movie. Trek without Spock isn't the same. It'd be like removing Mickey Mouse from Disneyland. Plus, people do not watch Star Trek to see tragedies. They watch Hamlet for that. So it was unnecessary.
After ST2, there was opportunity to take Trek to new heights and levels. There was infinite potential at that point. Any creative visionary person could have given them wonderful ideas. But what do they do? They create a dark movie with unnecessary tragedies about friends sacrificing everything for each other, which was unnecessary and a waste. People do not see Star Trek to watch dark tragedies. They can watch Hamlet for that. People watch Star Trek for intelligent science fiction, action, adventure, space ships, aliens and some deep moral lesson, philosophy or vision of the future.
So ST3 comes along and although it's suspenseful and sad, it was a waste. There was no need to kill Kirk's son or destroy the Enterprise. It gained nothing. It was merely a cheap attempt at hitting people emotionally. Plus, his son and ship were destroyed senselessly anyway. There was no real glory in it. Again, people don't see Star Trek to experience dark tragedies.
Plus, killing Kirk's son was a wasted opportunity. First, it ruined any chance of seeing him becoming something great in Starfleet to carry on his father's legacy. And second, it ruined the chance to see Kirk develop his role as a father and how he would deal with it. Parenting is something real people can relate to, and films work their best when people relate to the characters and issues they face.
In ST4 The Voyage Home, the show somewhat redeems itself in providing a lighthearted fun film back in 20th century Earth and about whales, that also carried with it a good environmental and ecological message. It wasn't a masterpiece, but it was funny, memorable, and worked very well as a Star Trek film. It was the first Star Trek film that appealed to mainstream women as well.
After that, with everything fixed, they again had the potential to take Star Trek to wonderful new heights and levels. But again, they blew it. With Star Trek 5, there was potential at the beginning to do something amazing with the plot. But the ending totally tanked, as most agree. ST5 was considered one of the worst ST films ever made.
So then they do a film that is to be the final one with the original characters, that is supposed to be their best one. After all, legendary characters should go out with a bang on their best film.
But again I was disappointed. I never understood why Trek fans praise ST6 as a great film. I thought it was very very very mediocre and uninteresting. All it is is about a peace treaty between the Federation and Klingon Empire and rogue elements who are against it trying to thwart it. The crew race to stop the conspirators before it's too late. Blah blah blah. Now what the hell is so damn meaningful, deep, philosophical or spiritual about such a standard very ordinary plot like that?!?!?! I never understood it. Lots of ordinary films with bad guys in them have a similar shallow plot. So why was this film so highly praised?
The whole plot was standard, flat and dry. And most of the action scenes were predictable. This was not their best film at all. It was a pity that the TOS crew went out in such a mediocre bland way. There was nothing deep or memorable about it. It was a standard "good guys race against the bad guys to see who wins" plot. That's all it was.
And don't get me started about TNG. The characters in that series were flat and dry. They look like they were selected at random with no taste or vision or class at all. In a show by itself, TNG would be an ok series. But not as a Star Trek film. It has none of the magic, chemistry, charm, or charisma of TOS. I felt nothing for the characters too.
So I don't see why they had to make films with TNG crew. They were nothing special. Not memorable at all. I think all their films sucked, including First Contact. I never understood why First Contact was so good. It was a simple mediocre action film in which the good guys race against the bad guys to see who wins, kind of like ST6. Nothing deep, meaningful or philosophical about it. No deep insights in human nature, society, humanity, etc.
ST Generations was an insult to Kirk fans. His character was killed needlessly and senselessly. It added nothing to the film and was an insult to Trek's greatest legend. It was the equivalent to the White House mocking George Washington. Furthermore, Kirk did not even act like Kirk in that film.
Nemesis was another pure action film with no substance. It was one of those movies where the good guys have all the odds against them at the end, are overmatched and overpowered, and pressed into the corner with no way out, and then suddenly, at the flip of a switch, all the tables turn, and a no win situation disappears. Too clicheish, cheap and predictable.
And killing off Data was senseless too. He was the only tolerable character in TNG, so why do that? What did it add? Nothing.
So we get to this new Star Trek prequel. It could have been a wonderful character building film of Kirk and Spock that we could relate to. (Movies are always best when we can relate to the characters) And what did it turn out to be?
Nothing more than a cheesey predictable action flick that tried too hard to keep you interested at every minute, appealing to the lowest common denominator. The plot and story line was also senseless and shallow, and looked like something any grade schooler could have written up. It was nothing more than that.
The weirdest thing is that the majority of Star Trek fans and film critics almost unanimously agree that it's a great film. I haven't seen such unanimity since The Godfather movie, and this was nothing compared to The Godfather.
It's like The Twilight Zone or something. How can every critic agree on a film that's so cheesey and predictable, and devoid of any substance or meaning? There are also no moral lessons or philosophical insights in this film of any kind, PERIOD.
So, WTF?
Am I the only sane rational person here?
I think Marcus Aurelius, hero of the Roman Empire, once said,
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
So perhaps it's a blessing that I don't agree with the majority.
Anyone agree with my observations here?
Wasted opportunities/wrong turns in Star Trek film history
WARNING: SPOILERS (if you haven't seen any of the previous Star Trek films that is)
This is my opinion, but so many missed opportunities, wrong turns and mistakes were made with Star Trek since TOS.
First, TOS should have went two more seasons. It was too good to be cut after only three seasons. The characters and their chemistry were too unique and will never be repeated again. They could have evolved and developed more with two more seasons. A wasted opportunity. Instead, they make tons of trash TV the next few decades.
When ST The Motion Picture came out, it was a masterpiece ahead of its time, kind of like "2001 A Space Odyssey", that's why most could not appreciate it. It was a REAL TRUE JOURNEY, enlightening process and experience, the kind that develops you spiritually and emotionally. It's what Star Trek should have been all this time. It showed the true potential of Star Trek that could have been.
At that point, they had plans to start another Star Trek TV series, and should have, for the actors were still young and good looking enough to perform. But they didn't. Another wasted opportunity forever that could have led to something great.
In Star Trek 2: The Wratch of Khan, we get a very different film, but still a masterpiece in different ways. The characters were believable, interesting, and some of the scenes, like on the space station, were chilling. I think it was a mistake though to kill off Spock and then have to revive him in the next movie. Trek without Spock isn't the same. It'd be like removing Mickey Mouse from Disneyland. Plus, people do not watch Star Trek to see tragedies. They watch Hamlet for that. So it was unnecessary.
After ST2, there was opportunity to take Trek to new heights and levels. There was infinite potential at that point. Any creative visionary person could have given them wonderful ideas. But what do they do? They create a dark movie with unnecessary tragedies about friends sacrificing everything for each other, which was unnecessary and a waste. People do not see Star Trek to watch dark tragedies. They can watch Hamlet for that. People watch Star Trek for intelligent science fiction, action, adventure, space ships, aliens and some deep moral lesson, philosophy or vision of the future.
So ST3 comes along and although it's suspenseful and sad, it was a waste. There was no need to kill Kirk's son or destroy the Enterprise. It gained nothing. It was merely a cheap attempt at hitting people emotionally. Plus, his son and ship were destroyed senselessly anyway. There was no real glory in it. Again, people don't see Star Trek to experience dark tragedies.
Plus, killing Kirk's son was a wasted opportunity. First, it ruined any chance of seeing him becoming something great in Starfleet to carry on his father's legacy. And second, it ruined the chance to see Kirk develop his role as a father and how he would deal with it. Parenting is something real people can relate to, and films work their best when people relate to the characters and issues they face.
In ST4 The Voyage Home, the show somewhat redeems itself in providing a lighthearted fun film back in 20th century Earth and about whales, that also carried with it a good environmental and ecological message. It wasn't a masterpiece, but it was funny, memorable, and worked very well as a Star Trek film. It was the first Star Trek film that appealed to mainstream women as well.
After that, with everything fixed, they again had the potential to take Star Trek to wonderful new heights and levels. But again, they blew it. With Star Trek 5, there was potential at the beginning to do something amazing with the plot. But the ending totally tanked, as most agree. ST5 was considered one of the worst ST films ever made.
So then they do a film that is to be the final one with the original characters, that is supposed to be their best one. After all, legendary characters should go out with a bang on their best film.
But again I was disappointed. I never understood why Trek fans praise ST6 as a great film. I thought it was very very very mediocre and uninteresting. All it is is about a peace treaty between the Federation and Klingon Empire and rogue elements who are against it trying to thwart it. The crew race to stop the conspirators before it's too late. Blah blah blah. Now what the hell is so damn meaningful, deep, philosophical or spiritual about such a standard very ordinary plot like that?!?!?! I never understood it. Lots of ordinary films with bad guys in them have a similar shallow plot. So why was this film so highly praised?
The whole plot was standard, flat and dry. And most of the action scenes were predictable. This was not their best film at all. It was a pity that the TOS crew went out in such a mediocre bland way. There was nothing deep or memorable about it. It was a standard "good guys race against the bad guys to see who wins" plot. That's all it was.
And don't get me started about TNG. The characters in that series were flat and dry. They look like they were selected at random with no taste or vision or class at all. In a show by itself, TNG would be an ok series. But not as a Star Trek film. It has none of the magic, chemistry, charm, or charisma of TOS. I felt nothing for the characters too.
So I don't see why they had to make films with TNG crew. They were nothing special. Not memorable at all. I think all their films sucked, including First Contact. I never understood why First Contact was so good. It was a simple mediocre action film in which the good guys race against the bad guys to see who wins, kind of like ST6. Nothing deep, meaningful or philosophical about it. No deep insights in human nature, society, humanity, etc.
ST Generations was an insult to Kirk fans. His character was killed needlessly and senselessly. It added nothing to the film and was an insult to Trek's greatest legend. It was the equivalent to the White House mocking George Washington. Furthermore, Kirk did not even act like Kirk in that film.
Nemesis was another pure action film with no substance. It was one of those movies where the good guys have all the odds against them at the end, are overmatched and overpowered, and pressed into the corner with no way out, and then suddenly, at the flip of a switch, all the tables turn, and a no win situation disappears. Too clicheish, cheap and predictable.
And killing off Data was senseless too. He was the only tolerable character in TNG, so why do that? What did it add? Nothing.
So we get to this new Star Trek prequel. It could have been a wonderful character building film of Kirk and Spock that we could relate to. (Movies are always best when we can relate to the characters) And what did it turn out to be?
Nothing more than a cheesey predictable action flick that tried too hard to keep you interested at every minute, appealing to the lowest common denominator. The plot and story line was also senseless and shallow, and looked like something any grade schooler could have written up. It was nothing more than that.
The weirdest thing is that the majority of Star Trek fans and film critics almost unanimously agree that it's a great film. I haven't seen such unanimity since The Godfather movie, and this was nothing compared to The Godfather.
It's like The Twilight Zone or something. How can every critic agree on a film that's so cheesey and predictable, and devoid of any substance or meaning? There are also no moral lessons or philosophical insights in this film of any kind, PERIOD.
So, WTF?
Am I the only sane rational person here?
I think Marcus Aurelius, hero of the Roman Empire, once said,
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
So perhaps it's a blessing that I don't agree with the majority.
Anyone agree with my observations here?
Last edited by Winston on December 9th, 2012, 8:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
-
Boner_Jones
- Freshman Poster
- Posts: 140
- Joined: May 9th, 2009, 5:25 pm
-
Mr S
- Veteran Poster
- Posts: 2409
- Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:57 am
- Location: Physical Earth, 3rd Dimensional Plane
The problem with Hollywood nowadays is everyone just copies each other or whatever has gotten the greatest moneymaking success. It's not really about creating a great movie that will have long lasting critical acclaim, its about what will bring in the big bucks NOW. Also today's audience have been dumbed down to not be able to sit through slower themed movies where you have to think and take in what is happening to put two and two together. I believe this is a combination of our dumbed down sheeple education system as well as our modern media creating increasingly fast paced images which creates an ever increasing need to out-do the last fast paced media model. Movies nowadays are about creating emotional stimuli through visual imaging rather than through visual and verbal actions. Modern movies have gotten rid of the verbal side pretty much and just focuses on the visual, and makes it overly unrealistic and excessive like a video game.
In regards to the Star Trek movie, they could care less about its legacy they only want to appeal to the modern audience and the younger generations that have never seen the old version. So yes the movie in my opinion sucked and was totally illogical. I knew it was shit when they had that chick giving birth on a ship in the middle of space while it was being blown to bits! Also why would you have a chair with wheels in the 23rd century but yet have a motorcycle that can levitate? Why would Spock and Uhura be having a fling?! WTF? Uhura was a minor character in Star Trek and they have her prancing around like she is a major one because they need a black minority in the movie promoting multiculturalism. The movie was so campy and stupid, I had to turn away at many parts because I was embarrassed to watch. Any movie director that would ignore putting in the original Kirk but put in old Spock has to be suspicious. I think its because he didn't want to have a creative conflict with Shatner as he would probably tell him what he though of his script, whereas Nimoy probably isn't as critical.
The whole Star Trek franchise can now be resurrected which I think is the movies aim as I guess the new characters are living in a parallel universe now and so whatever happened in the previous franchise can be disregarded as taking place in a different universe. I don't think Spocks mother died in the previous series and Vulcan was never destroyed. Star Trek can now be changed to fit the paradigms of new audiences, flipping the bird to previous core fans. Similar to what happened with the newer Star Wars movies. Lucas changed the theme of the first three to fit a different demographic than what the earlier ones were. It's all about money nowadays vs intellectual integrity.
I don't really watch movies nowadays as most suck. I've decided to take a chance and watch this one and once again was disappointed. I also watched the Wolverine movie and it was practically a clone of the Star Trek movie in how they filmed the unrealistic action scenes and the like. I don't think anytime soon movies will become more realistic and slow down, unless some new trend develops. I hope the new Hobbit movie coming out in a few years isn't all f***ed up and distorted with dim witted special effects and no story line or plot.
In regards to the Star Trek movie, they could care less about its legacy they only want to appeal to the modern audience and the younger generations that have never seen the old version. So yes the movie in my opinion sucked and was totally illogical. I knew it was shit when they had that chick giving birth on a ship in the middle of space while it was being blown to bits! Also why would you have a chair with wheels in the 23rd century but yet have a motorcycle that can levitate? Why would Spock and Uhura be having a fling?! WTF? Uhura was a minor character in Star Trek and they have her prancing around like she is a major one because they need a black minority in the movie promoting multiculturalism. The movie was so campy and stupid, I had to turn away at many parts because I was embarrassed to watch. Any movie director that would ignore putting in the original Kirk but put in old Spock has to be suspicious. I think its because he didn't want to have a creative conflict with Shatner as he would probably tell him what he though of his script, whereas Nimoy probably isn't as critical.
The whole Star Trek franchise can now be resurrected which I think is the movies aim as I guess the new characters are living in a parallel universe now and so whatever happened in the previous franchise can be disregarded as taking place in a different universe. I don't think Spocks mother died in the previous series and Vulcan was never destroyed. Star Trek can now be changed to fit the paradigms of new audiences, flipping the bird to previous core fans. Similar to what happened with the newer Star Wars movies. Lucas changed the theme of the first three to fit a different demographic than what the earlier ones were. It's all about money nowadays vs intellectual integrity.
I don't really watch movies nowadays as most suck. I've decided to take a chance and watch this one and once again was disappointed. I also watched the Wolverine movie and it was practically a clone of the Star Trek movie in how they filmed the unrealistic action scenes and the like. I don't think anytime soon movies will become more realistic and slow down, unless some new trend develops. I hope the new Hobbit movie coming out in a few years isn't all f***ed up and distorted with dim witted special effects and no story line or plot.
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor and stoic philosopher, 121-180 A.D.
-
momopi
- Elite Upper Class Poster
- Posts: 4898
- Joined: August 31st, 2007, 9:44 pm
- Location: Orange County, California
The biggest difference between ST and SW is that ST is "science fiction" versus SW is "science fantasy". Unfortunately with all the time trave and FX, ST is moving into the science fantasy realm. Other than that, I thought the character selection for the new movie was OK, but the plot was... ugh.
As for Uhura, her original presence in ST TV series was a political-social statement when black people were only protrayed as inferior on TV. Uhura was the first black person to be protrayed in equal status with her white coworkers on the bridge, and her kiss with Kirk was the first interracial kiss on TV.
The romance and sexual tension between Spock and Uhura in the new movie was really off the wall.
Zachar Quinto did a great job as Spock.
John Cho made an OK Sulu. I think he could've done better.
Anton Yelchin... um... I think he was trying too hard to be Chekov.
As for Uhura, her original presence in ST TV series was a political-social statement when black people were only protrayed as inferior on TV. Uhura was the first black person to be protrayed in equal status with her white coworkers on the bridge, and her kiss with Kirk was the first interracial kiss on TV.
The romance and sexual tension between Spock and Uhura in the new movie was really off the wall.
Zachar Quinto did a great job as Spock.
John Cho made an OK Sulu. I think he could've done better.
Anton Yelchin... um... I think he was trying too hard to be Chekov.
W: You mean you walked out in the middle of the movie? I'd never do that, even if it was bad, because I would wait and hope that it would get better. Otherwise, I'll always wonder if it did get better. Two hours isn't a lot to waste anyway. lolgmm567 wrote:I went to see it, but walked out. It was boring . No compelling plot plus ok special effects.
I was hoping for something like StarWars but didn't get that. I was dissappointed. It just wasn't a great movie
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
W: Well that's just me and Gmm567's opinion. Remember that most people who saw it like it a lot, and the critics are nearly unanimous in giving it a thumbs up. On Rotten Tomatoes website, which tends to be very critical, the new Star Trek movie had a 100 percent rating, before Robert Ebert brought it down to 94 percent. That's very rare to see all the critics agree like that. But I have no frickin idea what these critics are thinking, because usually a mindless movie with over the top special effects is usually trashed by the critics. So I have no idea why they didn't follow their usual precedent. It's very odd.Boner_Jones wrote:hey thanks for the heads up on that. Too bad I was going to see it in the theater but now maybe I'll download it or something.
The characters at least were ok. But they were not very believable, and neither was the plot or action. There were too many "last second saves" kind of like in James Bond or Mission Impossible. Stuff like that is for the fast and the furious crowd. I don't know why Star Trek had to become that kind of film.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Good points Mr S. JJ Abrams said he didn't use Shatner in this one because it had already been established in the movie Generations that he died after coming out of the Nexus, which was totally stupid. He has said though, that since the timeline is changed, that he may use Shatner in the next movie and try to help restore the timeline.
A lot of fans are complaining that instead of changing the timeline and having them slide into a parallel universe, they should have just did a reboot, like they did with Batman and James Bond. I agree with that.
A lot of fans are complaining that instead of changing the timeline and having them slide into a parallel universe, they should have just did a reboot, like they did with Batman and James Bond. I agree with that.
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
-
Boner_Jones
- Freshman Poster
- Posts: 140
- Joined: May 9th, 2009, 5:25 pm
Vinstonas wrote:W: Well that's just me and Gmm567's opinion. Remember that most people who saw it like it a lot, and the critics are nearly unanimous in giving it a thumbs up. On Rotten Tomatoes website, which tends to be very critical, the new Star Trek movie had a 100 percent rating, before Robert Ebert brought it down to 94 percent. That's very rare to see all the critics agree like that. But I have no frickin idea what these critics are thinking, because usually a mindless movie with over the top special effects is usually trashed by the critics. So I have no idea why they didn't follow their usual precedent. It's very odd.Boner_Jones wrote:hey thanks for the heads up on that. Too bad I was going to see it in the theater but now maybe I'll download it or something.
The characters at least were ok. But they were not very believable, and neither was the plot or action. There were too many "last second saves" kind of like in James Bond or Mission Impossible. Stuff like that is for the fast and the furious crowd. I don't know why Star Trek had to become that kind of film.
Nah, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to like it much. Seen too many movies like it already, thats why I don't go out to movies much anymore. Didn't like Next Generation and the one where Kirk died. I was really looking forward to the new terminator movie and that one sucked donkey balls. I'm skipping this one.
Loved it. Can't wait for the next one.
Star Trek has become so stale and politically correct it might aswell be called GAYS IN SPACE.
On TV: All the women wear slacks and everyone is equal...
In this movie all the women wear DRESSES and there is racism.. the vulcans are actually arrogant and the humans aren't especially bright.
this movie was RERESHING... makes the universe a bit more gritty and fills it with REAL characters... Star Trek has been so boring ever since Jane Way was given command of the voyager...its about time we got some strong male roll models in SF. Hopefully this time they actually make the klingons blood thirsty assholes like they were in the original instead of poetry reciting idiots.
Star Trek movies were becoming more like scooby doo episodes: change the monster and the location and keep the plot exactly the same as the last one.
it was time for a much needed change in direction. I liked what they were doing with ENTERPRISE... rock and roll for the titles, cool plot, time war, a bit of sex, dark, dirty and THEN FANS GOT THEIR WAY... season 2 killed star trek... normal people were actually enjoying the new series until fans got their hands on the material.. Notice Trip, The Captain and the whole crew fall into Scoobydoodom after season 1, might aswell have been called Voyager 2: The search for more money.
Look at this kirk, he is a mix of Ryker, Picard, The Original James T, Scotty, Worf, Trip and The pilot from voyager (the guy who married the kilingon chick). He's a guy's guy... he does crazy sh1t and gets into fights.. he is basically James Dean. I like him and so did everyone else... that's probably why women actually liked this movie and nerds hated it. He's a typical all american army brat, cocky, arrogant, always living in the shadow of his father. He's got real problems like real people do in the real world. The old Star Trek would like us to believe that problems at home have been eradicated and everyone lives in peace and harmony like flower children. It's refreshing to see a captain that wants to get a little action for once. It's high time we see men start acting like men in movies and not like henpecked fools.
Loved what they did with vulcan... got rid of all the lore, wiped everything away in a single scene... Clean slate.
Star Trek has become so stale and politically correct it might aswell be called GAYS IN SPACE.
On TV: All the women wear slacks and everyone is equal...
In this movie all the women wear DRESSES and there is racism.. the vulcans are actually arrogant and the humans aren't especially bright.
this movie was RERESHING... makes the universe a bit more gritty and fills it with REAL characters... Star Trek has been so boring ever since Jane Way was given command of the voyager...its about time we got some strong male roll models in SF. Hopefully this time they actually make the klingons blood thirsty assholes like they were in the original instead of poetry reciting idiots.
Star Trek movies were becoming more like scooby doo episodes: change the monster and the location and keep the plot exactly the same as the last one.
it was time for a much needed change in direction. I liked what they were doing with ENTERPRISE... rock and roll for the titles, cool plot, time war, a bit of sex, dark, dirty and THEN FANS GOT THEIR WAY... season 2 killed star trek... normal people were actually enjoying the new series until fans got their hands on the material.. Notice Trip, The Captain and the whole crew fall into Scoobydoodom after season 1, might aswell have been called Voyager 2: The search for more money.
Look at this kirk, he is a mix of Ryker, Picard, The Original James T, Scotty, Worf, Trip and The pilot from voyager (the guy who married the kilingon chick). He's a guy's guy... he does crazy sh1t and gets into fights.. he is basically James Dean. I like him and so did everyone else... that's probably why women actually liked this movie and nerds hated it. He's a typical all american army brat, cocky, arrogant, always living in the shadow of his father. He's got real problems like real people do in the real world. The old Star Trek would like us to believe that problems at home have been eradicated and everyone lives in peace and harmony like flower children. It's refreshing to see a captain that wants to get a little action for once. It's high time we see men start acting like men in movies and not like henpecked fools.
Loved what they did with vulcan... got rid of all the lore, wiped everything away in a single scene... Clean slate.
Check out the trailer for the next Star Trek film "Star Trek Into Darkness". What do you think?
Check out my FUN video clips in Russia and SE Asia and Female Encounters of the Foreign Kind video series and Full Russia Trip Videos!
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
Join my Dating Site to meet thousands of legit foreign girls at low cost!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post