I came.
[quote]50_Caliber wrote:
Spoilers/Easter eggs:
2.The reason Scotty was put on that barren ice planet was because he p/o’ed Admiral Archer off (the captain Archer in the TV series). Apparently in this timeline, perhaps because April is killed he may have been promoted to Admiral before the Enterprise flew it’s first mission.
[/quote]
Close, he tried to beam Archer’s beagle to a ship flying at lightspeed and failed… He did not know where the dog was to this date… Poor beagle…
Just got back from seeing it. I loved it! I thought it was AMAZING! It’s rare when you can see a movie that’s over two hours long and never find yourself bored or waiting for a particular scene to end and get back to the action. That never happened here.
I was never a huge fan of the original series. I was more of a TNG guy, so I don’t mind any of the changes or reboots made.
I thought the cast was perfect. It was said before that people are expecting this movie to do well and Chris Pine’s movie career to take off after this. I have to agree. I would be amazed if this movie doesn’t do for Chris Pine’s stardom what X-Men did for Hugh Jackman’s.
[quote]Brown_Lifter wrote:
The green chick was farking hot.[/quote]
Rachel Nichols
She’s also playing Scarlett in G.I. Joe.
[quote]Pootie Tang wrote:
Side note: There was a shit load of camera glare/particle effect in this movie. It made everything feel shiny and new but after a while I was like “damn how fucking shiny is this ship?” Just an observation.[/quote]
I was reading an article where J.J. Abrams said that the effect was intentional because he wanted everything to have a bright, futuristic look to it, but he also admitted that he may have overdone it a bit.
For the record, while I didn’t dress up, I did wear a shirt similar to this.
It was darker blue and the insignia was gold. 
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I do disagree with that. They kept Nimoy out of it until nearly half of the movie had gone by. I think that this gave the audience time to accept “the new guy” completely in that role. Also, because of the way this franchise had been accepted over the last half century, it deserved and needed some kind of homage to the originals…even if it had been through some old recording device that gets sent back in time. If nothing else, it’s like a shout out to what they created and set the stage for back then. I felt it was about respect.[/quote]
What are you, wandering around in my mind? That is exactly what I just told a friend.
I felt the film was good enough to GET AWAY WITH even slightly cheesy, “should’ve resisted temptation” (a la Bill Roberts!) elements.
Most important, I think, is how great the cast chemistry was. The casting direction really deserves some recognition. I have not seen such a diverse cast (not just skin color, I’m talking acting STYLES, even, and former roles) work so well together in a LONG time. This made the movie truly enjoyable. I never felt that one actor felt threatened by another’s role. There was no competing.
Kirk played his role really well.
Wait, so everyone saw the G.I. Joe trailer, right?
After last night, I am sold on the movie and can’t wait to see it. Looks so damn cool.
SPOILER
Damnit, forgot to mention:
I’m not as big of a fan as some of you (but I did grow up watching TNG and loved DS9 most of all) so I’m not sure what the fans would say, but I loved how they wove Scotty into the equation and allowed his role to assimilate into the story line. They finessed him in there pretty well.
Leonard Nimoy was just too slick of a story element, honestly. I did not know he would be in there.
This was easily the best movie I’ve seen in a long long time
The action was marathon and had me holding me breath. The casting was impeccable. All actors beautifully portrayed the younger, more exuberant, yet immature aspects of the original characters. For everyone under 25 or so, be very very proud, this is YOUR STAR TREK.
*** SPOILER ***
Although I thought this movie was off the charts…my one complaint was Nimoy’s bad fitting dentures that made him lisp. I’m thinking, with all of Hollywood’s money, they couldn’t fix that?? Or did they do it on purpose? Haha Very annoying either way.
[quote]AngryVader wrote:
Pootie Tang wrote:
Side note: There was a shit load of camera glare/particle effect in this movie. It made everything feel shiny and new but after a while I was like “damn how fucking shiny is this ship?” Just an observation.
I was reading an article where J.J. Abrams said that the effect was intentional because he wanted everything to have a bright, futuristic look to it, but he also admitted that he may have overdone it a bit.
[/quote]
I don’t know anything about the technical aspects of that, but from the standpoint of I guess the typical moviegoer in that regard, I thought he got it right.
It was important to the movie that even in the little things, there was no tendency to “just do it the way it’s been done before.” For example, the brain-dead thing to have done would have been to have the ships go to warp same as they done throughout the movies. He did it a new way.
It would have been brain-dead to use the same lettering style (font) for the words “Star Trek,” names of actors, etc as done throughout the movies. He did not, he used a distinctive new font (new to Star Trek anyway.)
The brain-dead thing to do would have been to have the music use the old shopworn – to say the least – themes. That wasn’t done (except, unfortunately, at the very end.)
It would have been brain-dead to just have the phasers as they’ve always been, and the ship in general firing weapons as it always has. He didn’t bind himself to the old.
Etc.
The TV Enterprise was I guess what I’d call average-lit and of course with bright primary colors. The movie Enterprises were fairly dark-lit. The Next Generation TV Enterprise was sort of living-room in appearance.
His look was entirely new. He didn’t even confine himself to the bridge being as small-appearing as it always has before.
And the movie needed new.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
This was easily the best movie I’ve seen in a long long time
The action was marathon and had me holding me breath. The casting was impeccable. All actors beautifully portrayed the younger, more exuberant, yet immature aspects of the original characters. For everyone under 25 or so, be very very proud, this is YOUR STAR TREK.
*** SPOILER ***
Although I though this movie was off the charts…my one complaint was Nimoy’s bad fitting dentures that made him lisp. I’m thinking, with all of Hollywoods money, they couldn’t fix that?? Or did they do it on purpose? Haha Very annoying either way.
[/quote]
This sounds like a job for…me.
Trust me…it is RARE for someone to have bottom dentures that fit after they have been wearing them for several years. The bone gradually resorbs at the floor of the mouth making perfect fit of the lowers eventually impossible if the person has been without lower teeth for more than ten years which it sounds like he was. The tongue makes it very difficult to use adhesive as well.
In other words, kids, brush your teeth because if you end up in dentures, you will eventually speak very similar to that no matter how well they are made the longer you have them.
Spoiler
Just a tought: Not all older series’ timeline has changed. While this will have impact on the movies, TNG, DS9 and VOY, Enterprise should be pretty much untouched as it’s around 2150 (or more than 100 before ST). Which is quite funny, given that it pretty much was the least popular with fans. I like the idea, but I surely hope that they will now work on re-developing that new timeline and filling it with content. Anyone for a new TOS?
Makkun
Hmmm… well. I’ll admit, I can’t flex my “Geek” wings as much as I normally can with Star Trek - I hated the old franchise. Like any stupid American, though, I love big budgets and awesome special effects. I thought it was a great movie. I really enjoyed the vulnerability of all characters - especially the main ones. I enjoyed the added dimension (get it?) of the story that I wasn’t expecting, and thought the movie had a great balance of legitimate action with non-Michael Bay humor.
Now I gotta go find me some green ass.
[quote]AngryVader wrote:
Pootie Tang wrote:
Side note: There was a shit load of camera glare/particle effect in this movie. It made everything feel shiny and new but after a while I was like “damn how fucking shiny is this ship?” Just an observation.
I was reading an article where J.J. Abrams said that the effect was intentional because he wanted everything to have a bright, futuristic look to it, but he also admitted that he may have overdone it a bit.
[/quote]
The only time I noticed anything as “wow that’s bright” was actually a star that was shining into a window or something, and you could argue that’s realistic since it turns out stars are bright when you’re not 93 million miles from them.
[quote]AngryVader wrote:
Just got back from seeing it. I loved it! I thought it was AMAZING! It’s rare when you can see a movie that’s over two hours long and never find yourself bored or waiting for a particular scene to end and get back to the action. That never happened here.
I was never a huge fan of the original series. I was more of a TNG guy, so I don’t mind any of the changes or reboots made.
I thought the cast was perfect. It was said before that people are expecting this movie to do well and Chris Pine’s movie career to take off after this. I have to agree. I would be amazed if this movie doesn’t do for Chris Pine’s stardom what X-Men did for Hugh Jackman’s.[/quote]
Same here.
Loved Enterprise and Voyager, but really didn’t care for the original series, but this movie was dope. This movie was so good it wiped the bad taste that Wolverine left.
Can’t wait to see where they go from here.
Someone else that POSSIBLY could’ve played Spock is Josh Hartnett (i haven’t seen the movie yet) but perhaps he’s maybe 5 years too old for the rest of that cast… but still a good fit to spock’s look:
Just seen it today very very good i think it was the perfect length as well, didn’t check my watch once.
i loved this movie. i liked the corny reruns of the original star trek series and the whole science-fiction concept that show introduced. it had its own language and semi-mythology that was not adversely affected by the horrible “special” effects. those sets with big fake boulders… anyway, i was a big fan of the next generation, the characters and storylines.
i liked the movies for TNG a little more than the Star Trek movies, excepting Wrath of Kahn. this movie was great. it did not take the easy way out with dialogue as it seems every type of movie does lately. the action was awesome. spock totally owned the role. spock prime was great. kirk and scotty, even the doc, were amusing and just did very well.
i did like sulu whereas in the series he irked me at times. i love what they did for uhura’s character…the whole cast was perfect. i barely recognized eric bana and w. ryder. i cannot wait to see it in IMAX. it was sold out;)
[quote]mpenix wrote:
Someone else that POSSIBLY could’ve played Spock is Josh Hartnett (i haven’t seen the movie yet) but perhaps he’s maybe 5 years too old for the rest of that cast… but still a good fit to spock’s look:
Cool story bro.