PDA

View Full Version : Just saw the new Star Trek movie and...



virtualcomposer
05-08-2009, 09:48 PM
Hey everyone,
I just saw the new Star Trek movie and thought it was really done well. The graphics in most were really great. I did, as an animator, see a few camera moves that I didn't think worked well but hey, it was still great. I also thought they did a good job in having a newtro look without looking to futuristic. I think this movie was a good move for the Star Trek sega since the other ones were just dragging over time. What were your thoughts for those who saw the movie???

IgnusFast
05-08-2009, 10:21 PM
Sorry in advance for the purists, but IMHO it's easily the best of all the Trek movies. Even better than Kahn, which had a better story but Barney-class acting (and a few truly terrible FX, even for the day).

Carm3D
05-09-2009, 12:42 AM
What does Barney-class acting mean? Barney the Dinosaur?? Ricardo was awesome as Khan. One of the best movie villians of all time.

bazsa73
05-09-2009, 01:11 AM
Khan! Khaaan! Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!

waverguy
05-09-2009, 07:59 AM
I was thinking about seeing it this weekend. I just hope there is no time travel in this one.

warrenwc
05-09-2009, 08:39 AM
I was thinking about seeing it this weekend. I just hope there is no time travel in this one.

Sorry.
But it's handled well.

toby
05-09-2009, 01:32 PM
Looking forward to seeing Simon Peg and - er, 'Harold'

virtualcomposer
05-09-2009, 08:05 PM
I agree. I think is probrably the best star trek movie to date. It was fresh and a new look at a franchise that was steaming out quick.

IgnusFast
05-09-2009, 08:35 PM
What does Barney-class acting mean? Barney the Dinosaur?? Ricardo was awesome as Khan. One of the best movie villians of all time.

Yeah, that's Barney acting. Mostly due to Shatner's performance, as always, but much of the cast was guilty of over-emoting. Even Monte was a little hard to buy when he was so overly-dramatic all the time.

But Khan is still the (now second) best Trek movie... :)

cresshead
05-09-2009, 09:48 PM
maybe i'm too old but it looks more like 'teen trek' than star trek...i just don't buy into the wet behind the ears new recruits "saving the galaxy thing"

still, the fx look fun!

also some of the camera work looks very 'tv' and not cinematic...ie made to work on a small screen and not a 50ft screen

colkai
05-10-2009, 03:54 AM
Sorry.
But it's handled well.

Indeed, I liked the way the "reboot" was handled, subtle, certainly for a blockbuster film it was anyways. ;)

achrystie
05-10-2009, 07:36 AM
I'd have to say that Karl Urban's portrayal of "Bones" was by far the best in the movie. The rest of the actors did well too, I thought, but mostly just seemed to be playing out their own personalities (as most actors do nowadays), but despite the fact that Karl doesn't look much like Dr. McCoy (DeForest Kelley), it really "felt" like he was a young version of the original character. Props to Karl Urban in a big way, it's not very common that a reasonably decent looking actor can also do a good job with character portrayal outside his normal personality. In fact, I had trouble telling it was Karl Urban at first just because he did such a good job changing his own facial expressions in the first scenes. Zachary Quinto (Sylar from Heroes) was decent as Spock too, but he also has the advantage of looking the part and the Spock character doesn't diverge much from the way he plays Sylar in Heroes, so it wasn't as much of an acting leap.

The movie was good, my only beefs were some really "shaky" camera work in parts (again, seems this is the new style for modern movies), some really abrupt cuts here and there, and there are maybe a few things in terms of how the story played out I may have chosen to do differently from the standpoint of "flow", but overall, pretty decent effort for a reboot. I'd certainly watch a well done sequel with the new cast.

toby
05-12-2009, 02:08 AM
It was ok, I would've liked it a lot more if there hadn't been so many absurd coincidences, major plot holes and Michael Bay camera/editing. Some things were started then forgotten about, it makes you wonder why they bothered to distract you. Some of the characters were completely different from the originals, which leaves you in limbo as to what they're like, since there's almost no character development.

Nicolas Jordan
05-13-2009, 08:27 AM
From what everyone is saying I conclude this movie is action packed, very shallow and full of special effects to add spice to something that is very lacking in depth. Sounds to me like this movie is made to appeal to blonde bimbos and Star Trek fans alike. It looks like it succeeds at doing this. In the end if this is what kind of movie it is it isn't even worth my time to consider going to see a dumbed down shallow movie that has probably been almost entirely directed by shallow people in focus groups. I prefer the original Star Trek series and nothing else. I guess if I did waste my time seeing it then I could fairly criticize it. :grumpy:

toby
05-13-2009, 10:13 AM
Yes, the original series was ten times smarter than this movie, but it was a good attempt at young versions of the characters, and better than the other ST movies (except wrath of khan!)

crashnburn
05-13-2009, 02:21 PM
Kahn was the only movie that Shatner didn't over act. The director used the tactic of making Shatner do take after take until he got fed up. The director realised that at this point Shatners acting was more natural.

Svenart
05-15-2009, 01:52 AM
Kahn was the only movie that Shatner didn't over act. The director used the tactic of making Shatner do take after take until he got fed up. The director realised that at this point Shatners acting was more natural.

thats right... I just readed this a few days ago on wikipedia. Nice trick:)

To the new movie: Before I watched the new movie, I was hoping for a change, but now I miss the way they did the old movies.. The movie was ok. Very good fx, action and nice actors. But for me it was to much fistfights, car races and shooting... The story was ok, but not superior. All in all I have hope that the next one will a little bit better.

Kaaaahhhnnn:)

toby
05-15-2009, 03:26 AM
I'm more than a little concerned that hollywood will force every movie with the slightest bit of action in it to include the Michael Bay factor in every sequence, for fear of not making maximum profits.

SAHiN
05-15-2009, 01:27 PM
I saw it 3 times over the weekend it opened :) I am a fanatic of TOS so this movie was like a fresh breath to me. I hated that cold next generation crew..So thank God for getting them off my face.. They may be young yet, but thats even better as we will be seeing more Kirk, Spock, Scotty and others over the coming years..

CG work was really handled well.. Not much to say there..
However, one thing about the movie kept bugging me, The anamorphic distortions of the flares we didnt even see..
It seemed to me that, JJ Abrams just discovered that we have plugins that can simulate lens flares and went trigger happy with it.. :)

Other than that.. I am so happy the real STAR TREK is back.. and thumbs up for the best ST movie so far..

Amurrell
05-17-2009, 06:33 AM
I saw it just last night, and I thought it was really good. I know the actors wanted to stay away from trying to act like the original actors, and they did a really good job I thought, with their own takes. It would have been detrimental to the series to have it filled with impersonators. Special effets were good, some shots throughout were a little too tight, or a little too obstructed. Just remember that you have to view the movie as one of those introductory films where you get to know the characters and their origins more than focusing on the plot or thick stroyline. In future installments I think you will see more of a plot.

Cerender
05-17-2009, 01:07 PM
"We didn't have time for a plot this movie...
We'll give that a try in the sequel."

Sorry that's what I thought of when I read your post. :dance:

I did love the movie and I think I might like it better then STII. I'll wait a few years before saying for sure though. It was light on some details. It skimmed over things I think because they wanted the movie to end with the crew on the Enterprise in their positions. Great but the time span of the movie was huge!

I'm reading the book now but it looks like Alan Dean Foster is not going to fill in much either. :stumped:

bazsa73
05-17-2009, 01:49 PM
Would be cool if later they could recreate digitally Kirk's face so it resembles Shatner. Somehow he is my hero in a cheesy way.
Maybe I watch this film when the hype is over and I will draw my own conlusion but I have the feeling that the new movie can't beat Kirk. He is unbeatable. And strong. Brave....

DigiLusionist
05-17-2009, 10:58 PM
I really liked this film.

There were a few things I DIDN'T like though.

Young Kirk didn't have the "iron will' that I see Kirk having. He just came across as an irreverent jackass (as in the TV show) who stumbled into situations rather than a guy who calculated his way into and out of them.

The Kobi Ashi Maru (or whatever) test is a prime example. If Kirk had been portrayed as "making a statement" while he was taking the test, instead of flippantly eating an apple, THAT would have added more to his characterization as a "genius rebel" who absolutely refused to buy into the idea that there are "no-win situations."

Also, Kirk ends up being captain not by exerting his sense of will and perspective on the others but by being Rocky Balboa (able to take a beating until he gets his way).

Besides these things, the movie was fun, interesting, and well done.

It needed more cowbell, though (more green-skinned alien chick sex).

IgnusFast
05-17-2009, 10:58 PM
Kahn was the only movie that Shatner didn't over act. The director used the tactic of making Shatner do take after take until he got fed up. The director realised that at this point Shatners acting was more natural.

Is there any place online with detail on this? Just curious; I couldn't find it in Wikis for Shatner or Trek II...

Svenart
05-20-2009, 12:24 PM
William Shatner overacting on family guy....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef6ZMPi_UjE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP-krMn5k4E&feature=related

...details about Shatner overacting are only in the german wikipedia, not in the english.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_II:_Der_Zorn_des_Khan

Paul_Boland
05-20-2009, 12:52 PM
I'm a life long Star Trek fan, started watching it when I was three years old. I don't go around wearing a pair of pointed ears or speaking Klingon, but I am a huge fan and have followed it from TOS, to TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise and I loved them all.

The movie was fantastic and after a five year break I was very eager to see it. There are some issues I have with it but overall I loved it and it will join my vast Star Trek DVD collection. As to if it was the best of the 11 so far, not for me. I'm a HUGE Borg fan and so Star Trek First Contact is my all time favourite movie.

TheRetiredSailo
05-20-2009, 04:58 PM
I enjoyed the movie, but had issues with the script. Warning - spoilers.

Scotty leaving his dismal outpost on the ice planet bugged me. Sure, it served to bring him aboard the Enterprise. That said, what commissioned officer is going to leave his or her post on the word of a cadet and a man from the future? That said, I got a real kick out of his character.

Having retired from the Navy, I just can't buy that Kirk would go from cadet to Captain in one jump. I don't care if he did save the day. I don't care if there's an Admiral who believes in him. It just isn't going to happen.

Starfleet Academy must be good. I have the highest respect for graduates of Annapolis, but they are not ready to step into the job the day they report aboard.

Yeah, I know, I'm holding the movie's world to today's standards. It is a work of fiction, and in science fiction you can do anything you want. I just think the story challenged its credibility.