• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request

Star Trek (2009)

well, in reality we currently can't build spaceships of that size yet... and when we do, we certainly wouldn't build them on the ground.... even all the plans for a mars mission include assembling the final version of the ship in orbit... not on earth.... that's just basic common sense

and it's not so much about that one little issue.... yes i consider that part pretty stupid... but it's more about whether the director respects the source material enough to at least stick to basic principles.... i'm not saying the whole film is going to be that way.... nor that every single little detail must be exactly like what has come before... but if he's willing to throw away something that basic from common sense.. and from the universe he's working in.... it doesn't really give me much hope for his respect for the source material.... i hope it's a good movie... i want it to be... but honestly it looks like it's going to be just mindless over-the-top action with some teen angst thrown in....
 
The trailer does not give me a good feeling at all. I agree with Lewis886, that if the trailer shows illogical points and stupidities, which it does, then that does not bode well for the movie.

Teen angst in space....what a horrible thought. Star Trek without Denny Crane is unimaginable.

I would liked to see the movie begin with Shatner and Nimoy reminiscing about their early days but as Shatner is not a part of the franchise (as Nimoy became after the success of his directorial efforts) he has been ostracized from the production much to his disappointment.
 
I have read that Roddenberry stated on several occassions that the ship was built on the ground.Furthermore, in the book Star Trek: a Flag Full of Stars. Major sections of the Enterprise including the saucer section and secondary hull were built on Earth and flown up into space.
 
not trying to beat a dead horse but back to the 'no adults comment'

when do you consider someone an adult?

simon pegg, karl urban, john cho, zach quinto, eric bana, yada yada yada....
most of the major cast in this film are over 30.

the original cast would have been around the same age (if not younger) when the show began.
 
come on elberto! you know what I mean!.......ok...maybe you dont.... :p ....."Body of Lies".......DiCaprio-teen, Crowe-adult ;)
 
voodl said:
come on elberto! you know what I mean!.......ok...maybe you dont.... :p ....."Body of Lies".......DiCaprio-teen, Crowe-adult ;)
Click to expand...

yeah, I know what you mean. But I am only 29 so I guess I am on the young end of this discussion?

How old does Dicaprio have to get before he is considered an adult?
the guy is 34 :-D

Anyway, after 10 movies with old men in space, I can handle giving a younger cast a chance.
 
It's not about age, it's about appearance......DiCaprio looks like kid! ........Im 32 and liquor shop salesman still ask me for my ID!

Let's try another one: ALIENS (1986) whole space marines team is about 30........Do they look like new startrek crew? Do they look like graduates? :p
 
I see what you are saying, I guess it just comes down to personal opinion though.

IMO other than the guy playing Kirk (never seen him before and cant tell from the trailer), all the other main actors feel like they are a reasonable age. ie, they dont look too young and they dont look too old.

I certainly dont expect this film to out-do classics like ST 1 and 2 but I dont expect a highschool emo fest either. I do expect better than crapfests like ST 5 and Nemesis though! Basically I am willing to give it a chance which doesn't seem to be the opinion shared here (and thats fine).

Good analogy w/ the cast of Aliens but I just dont agree, that and JJ Abrams (casting choices) cant hold a candle to Camerons.

So do you (and other people that arent interested in this one) feel that paramount (or whoever owns the franchise) should let it die rather than reboot?
 
actualy Im going to watch this and Im not saying: "let startrek die!"........ I just feel it will be another movie to joke about.
 
voodl said:
actualy Im going to watch this and Im not saying: "let startrek die!"........ I just feel it will be another movie to joke about.
Click to expand...

fair enough, lets hope not though!
 
I'm not into ST & I'm not bothered about the franchise either way.

So I'm only judging it how I'd judge any other up & coming movie & going from the trailer I just watched that fella playing Kirk doesn't come across at all.

Which isn't good, as I'm gonna take a leap here & say he's probably the main character & when the main character ummm.... doesn't have any character that's not good.
 
early buzz is looking good. Of course I take this info on good faith from a post on IMDb but if accurate this sounds like it could exceed expectations:

Star Trek met a fantastic reception in London sometime in the past few nights. Critical response seems to be unanimously positive on both sides of the pond.

The Times: Without sacrificing the majesty of Gene Roddenberry's humanitarian ideals or the humor that is Star Trek's salvation, Abrams's film is a rollicking space adventure that makes you fall in love with the original series all over again.

Guardian: Combined, the stars, and this new voyage, have real optimistic force and uplift.

Daily Mail: There has been no bigger surprise for me this year than this movie.

Variety: Abrams' smart and breathless space adventure feels like a summer blockbuster that just couldn't stay in the box another month. Paramount won't need any economic stimulus package with all the money it'll rake in with this one globally, and a follow-up won't arrive soon enough.

THR: Paced at warp speed with spectacular action sequences rendered brilliantly and with a cast so expert that all the familiar characters are instantly identifiable, the film gives Paramount Pictures a new lease of life on its franchise. ... The boxoffice should beam up enormous returns

Empire: Odd-number curse be gone. The most exhilarating Trek to date marks a new future for Kirk and co. If this can boldly go on to seek out ideas to match its speed and style, a franchise is reborn.

Suits me, I love me some space movies
 
InfoDroid said:
NOOO! Not another franchise from my childhood ruined! I don't think my heart can take it...
Click to expand...

Oh, come on. Things like that happen all the time. Just look at Star Wars, Alien, Transformers... Every imaginable franchise is on the reboot/remake/prequel bandwagon. Hell, they are even planning a "He-man" movie for 2011. :oops:

To stay on topic, since I've only ever watched The Next Generation, I feel unaffected by the hype. Hopefully, I'd enjoy this movie. I highly doubt this is going to be the "Dark Knight" or the "Casino Royale" for the "Star Trek" franchise, but who knows... I've been wrong before. Plus Sylar is in it. :)
 
I'm not a ST lover, though the original tv series was quite good.
But this movie looks great to me.
ST never was huge in france, but I feel this movie can change that.
Strange to live in a time where Star Wars is becoming kind of has been and ST could be the new "cool" franchise.
Well, let's see the movie first...
rendez-vous next month!
 
The creative team of this film is Abrams, Lindelof, Burk, Kurtzman and Orci - basically the combined teams of both Lost and Fringe. Since they have never really made anything that's remotely terrible, I really doubt that this will be a trainwreck. Uninspired? Maybe. Disaster? Highly unlikely. It's the only commercial film/tv creative team nowadays that I actually trust will not make complete shit. (The only thing I worry about is that they're spread too thin with three massive projects at once, although Abrams is the only one working on all three.)

About Abrams working on Armageddon, I don't know the extent of his involvement, but keep in mind that there are a total of 5 writers on that film, including celebrated writer-director Tony Gilroy. My guess is that Michael Bay wrecked that film all on his own.
 
Am I the only one who here who isn't too keen about this movie? It's not that I'm anti-Trek (in fact, probably the furthest thing from it), but everything I've seen of this film is that it's an empty sci-fi spectacle without the usual Trek weight and subtext behind it. As if Abrams watch the Trek movies in preparation, but didn't analyze them.
 
Most people in this thread seems pretty negative, so I doubt that you're the only one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom