Star Trek

[schild]

First Contact was so awful it caused me and my fiance to break up. True story.

First Contact was really the only Star Trek movie I'd qualify as good. Your fiance was right to break up with you.

[ghost]

Review:  decent movie.  They could have done better without the "time travel" bullshit.  Leonard Nemoy is certainly cool, but was unnecessary in this movie.  They could have developed the characters better. 

[stray]

Why was he unnecessary? Umm.. I'm confused. I mean, sure the whole time travel thing might be passe, but it's basically the only way you could tell this story. It stands or falls on the idea of old Spock accidentally pissing on a Romulan. Kind of have to love it or hate it for being a time travel story.

[Riggswolfe]

Review:  decent movie.  They could have done better without the "time travel" bullshit.  Leonard Nemoy is certainly cool, but was unnecessary in this movie.  They could have developed the characters better. 

What Stray said. Seriously, how do you propose they change Trek history without time travel? Now, if they'd undone it all at the end of the movie I'd agree. But they didn't. They changed things and made it permanent. I've heard Nimoy was there more to act as a bridge to the fans. Sort of a "here's one of the originals giving his stamp of approval to this." As for his role in the movie I liked it but don't think the movie would have fallen apart without it.

[Kail]

Seriously, how do you propose they change Trek history without time travel?

Perhaps.... we could reverse the polarities and route it through the main deflector dish.

Really, though, they had a lot of options. 
1) This is a different timeline from the original Star Trek.  I understand that's what they do for the movies anyways (which allegedly is the canon reason why things like lighting and special effects look different in the shows from the movies).  This is pretty much the norm for series reboots.  Batman Begins doesn't start with George Clooney jumping back through time in a desperate attempt to prevent Batman and Robin.  You just go with it.
2) Take your pick of one of the million time travel/alternate reality storylines already established in the lore.  Didn't Fist Contact already basically fuck up the entire timeline afer 2063 anyways?
3) Stay faithful to the original design.  I'm not really into the Star Trek EU, so I don't know what exactly got "changed" aside from Kirk's dad getting offed, but couldn't they have made that into the story just about as easily?  This was largely an action/adventure flick.  I may be missing a bit of background, but nothing I saw revolved around Kirk's dad dying except to try to make him an edgier character or something, which the movie would have worked fine without.

[AutomaticZen]

Perhaps.... we could reverse the polarities and route it through the main deflector dish.

Really, though, they had a lot of options. 
1) This is a different timeline from the original Star Trek.  I understand that's what they do for the movies anyways (which allegedly is the canon reason why things like lighting and special effects look different in the shows from the movies).  This is pretty much the norm for series reboots.  Batman Begins doesn't start with George Clooney jumping back through time in a desperate attempt to prevent Batman and Robin.  You just go with it.
2) Take your pick of one of the million time travel/alternate reality storylines already established in the lore.  Didn't Fist Contact already basically fuck up the entire timeline afer 2063 anyways?
3) Stay faithful to the original design.  I'm not really into the Star Trek EU, so I don't know what exactly got "changed" aside from Kirk's dad getting offed, but couldn't they have made that into the story just about as easily?  This was largely an action/adventure flick.  I may be missing a bit of background, but nothing I saw revolved around Kirk's dad dying except to try to make him an edgier character or something, which the movie would have worked fine without.

You're angry they gave you a reason for the different timeline?

[Kail]

You're angry they gave you a reason for the different timeline?

Kind of, I suppose.  It seems to detract from the movie.

Series are rebooted all the time.  Watching the Spider-Man movie, I don't think it would be greatly improved by incorporating some time travel subplot in which comic book Spidey comes back in time to explain why he doesn't have mechanical webshooters anymore.  You don't need to do that.  We're not retelling the battle of Gettysburg or anything; explaining how one fictional setting ties in with another fictional setting is only really helpful if it adds to the current story somehow, and I don't think it does here, since this is a reboot and therefore is supposed to stand on it's own.

And time travel plots in general are full of WTF, so I'd just as soon avoid that.

[stray]

I don't understand if you like general feel of the movie, but just could do without something..? Or if you just don't like the movie. Only the latter makes sense. Otherwise, it is what it is. You can't just like this or that, but then go.. well, it could have done without a delinquent Kirk, or Nimoy, or time travel, or whatever. I mean, I'm not sure what that hypothetical movie is without any of them. The whole thing revolves those three elements.

[edit] Nothing in Star Trek "lore" (err.. is that the word?) ever went into much about the original Kirk's life afaik. Just that he grew up in Indiana or something. He was supposed to just represent that midwest American type. Nothing ever explained why he had to a tendency to be insubordinate either.. He did past that test in the academy by cheating or something or other. Most of the things about the new Kirk and old one are the same. I just don't think the old one had as much of a chip on his shoulder. In a way, I guess the dad dying and giving him some history of petty crimes or whatever gives the character more flesh than the old one had. It might in fact be an improvement. Except.. Shatner, the actor himself, is superior (in a shitastic kind of way).

[Reg]

Whether you like it or not time travel has always been a part of Trek. It played a big role in all of the series. It's not likely to go away any time soon.

[Kail]

I don't understand if you like general feel of the movie, but just could do without something..? Or if you just don't like the movie. Only the latter makes sense. Otherwise, it is what it is. You can't just like this or that, but then go.. well, it could have done without a delinquent Kirk, or Nimoy, or time travel, or whatever. I mean, I'm not sure what that hypothetical movie is without any of them. The whole thing revolves those three elements.

I generally liked the movie, it's just that the time travel thing was something I didn't see the point of.  You can still have Kirk being all edgy and stuff, still have basically the same plot (some bad guy has a big ship which blows shit up) without having to play the time travel card.  There were only three or four scenes where it was at all relevant, and all of them could have easily been rewritten to omit it.

Like that scene with Scotty inventing transwarp beaming.  They could have just had Scotty come up with it then and there on the spot, but instead future Spock comes in and says "you would have invented this eventually, but now I'll just give it to you" and so we get the stupid "this technique was never invented by anyone but it still exists" paradox.

It's not like it killed the movie for me, or anything, I just think I would have liked it better without it.

[stray]

You couldn't really have the same villain. His whole schtick is just being some psychotic average joe..... from the future. Which makes him a psychotic, yet formidable average joe.

[Merusk]

Like that scene with Scotty inventing transwarp beaming.  They could have just had Scotty come up with it then and there on the spot, but instead future Spock comes in and says "you would have invented this eventually, but now I'll just give it to you" and so we get the stupid "this technique was never invented by anyone but it still exists" paradox.

That's pure Trek tradition right there.  It's something old Scotty (Doohan) did in Trek IV, no less!  "Oh hey you're the guy that invtented transparent aluminium, here you go! Now sell us some."

I figured it was an homage to that.  There were a lot of little things thrown in to the movie like that that were nods to old Trek.  Kirk & the green alien, Sulu knowing how to sword fight, Uhura and Spock.   They even mention Enterprise with incident involving Scotty & Admiral Archer's beagle.

[ghost]

Whether you like it or not time travel has always been a part of Trek. It played a big role in all of the series. It's not likely to go away any time soon.

Maybe they should have incorporated a way to go back in time to save the whales.  Oh, wait, they already did that and it was fucking stupid then too.

I thought the acting was good and they were close to a good story.  The whole thing smacked of a way to get a tie to the original franchise, which they didn't have to do.

[Samwise]

Whether you like it or not time travel has always been a part of Trek. It played a big role in all of the series. It's not likely to go away any time soon.

Maybe they should have incorporated a way to go back in time to save the whales.  Oh, wait, they already did that and it was fucking stupid then too.

You shut your fucking whore mouth.

[stray]

Too much LDS.

[Merusk]

Too much LDS.

What do the Mormons  have to do with this?

[Reg]

He had too much LDS back in the '60s. I think that's how he got his ears caught in the mechanical rice picker.

[Teleku]

Whether you like it or not time travel has always been a part of Trek. It played a big role in all of the series. It's not likely to go away any time soon.

Maybe they should have incorporated a way to go back in time to save the whales.  Oh, wait, they already did that and it was fucking stupid then too.

I thought the acting was good and they were close to a good story.  The whole thing smacked of a way to get a tie to the original franchise, which they didn't have to do.

Agreed.  That was easily the greatest thing ever to come out of Star Trek.   

[stray]

Too much LDS.

What do the Mormons  have to do with this?

That was a line in ST IV.. When Kirk was trying to excuse Spock's strange behavior.

[UnSub]

Nerd fight in a Star Trek thread about LOTR! If we can somehow mix Star Wars and mechs, the circle will be complete! 

[Trippy]

Holy Jesus Christ you guys

[Venkman]

I rather enjoyed it, was about ready to dive in 

First Contact was so awful it caused me and my fiance to break up. True story.

I sat behind someone like you when I saw it. They vocally bemoaned the new design, the Borg cube battle, and left when one of the Federation ships was caught in the explosion. Probably to go home, done their crenelated forehead and watch their VHS copy of Errand of Mercy.

But I could have you figured wrong. What didn't you like about it? Personally, it's my #3 behind Wrath of Khan and the newest one. It was a good fun movie with enough "Trek" in it to be on IP without being shackled by what is really less consistent than your average Star Wars tripe.

[Reg]

First Contact was the best of the next generation movies as far as I'm concerned. I enjoyed the touches of humour in it as much as I did in Voyage Home which is another of my favourites.

[stray]

Yeah, it's was the humor/fun take that drew me in. I don't think Star Trek was ever supposed to be so serious.

Which brings me to another thing. Just about everything is funwith the new movie, but the guy who plays Kirk has mighty shoes to fill. Spock and McCoy's shoes are filled.. But this just makes me appreciate Shatner all the more. He's irreplaceable. The new guy is funny in his own way, but it's probably the only thing that's ever going to be a little off about this "reboot".

[Reg]

The new Kirk has the toughest job.  If he goes full-Shatner with the over acting he'll get criticized and if he doesn't he'll be accused of not being enough like the original Kirk.

[stray]

Like I said, Shatner is irreplaceable. More irreplaceable than even.. Christopher Walkin (not that Walkin has anything to do with Trek... although that'd be sweet if he did). So far, the new guy is more of a slapstick type of funny. While Shatner is just so uniquely and horribly bad that he's awesome.

[ghost]

I went to see the Menagerie at the local theater.  The best part was the terrible home made "uniforms" the people had on.  I love that kind of shit.  Most of them appeared to arrive with parents or siblings. 

[Ironwood]

First Contact was cancer of the brain.

Also, I went to see Generations at the cinema.  There was a hawt wee sixth year lassie in a Star Trek Next Gen outfit.  She was fucking awesome.

The film blew though.

I can't think of a single Next Gen movie I would rate as 'good'.  And it's got fuck all to do with Star Trek, really.  It's just that they were all shite.

[stray]

Oh c'mon. Cancer? Some of you guys blow your load on hating the kind of shit that barely needs hating. There's a quota you know!   What happens when a truly shitty movie comes around and deserves the hate? It'll be like the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Nobody will give a fuck what you say, and then a truly shittastic movie will get away, laughing at you.

[Ratman_tf]

Oh c'mon. Cancer? Some of you guys blow your load on hating the kind of shit that barely needs hating. There's a quota you know!   What happens when a truly shitty movie comes around and deserves the hate? It'll be like the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Nobody will give a fuck what you say, and then a truly shittastic movie will get away, laughing at you.

BUT WHAT IF THAT'S THIS ONE?!?!?!

[Teleku]

I don't remember hating First Contact in the way that everybody here is.  But then again, all the next gen movies were the same to me.  Meh.  Can't really think of one I liked much better than the other.  Didn't really hate any of them or like them very much.

[Triforcer]

First Contact was the only good movie of the TNG era, "good" meaning "barely passable."  Everything after that until the reboot I've blocked out. 

[Reg]

Nemesis was horribly bad. Compared to Nemesis, First Contact was a work of art. But yea, none of the the Next Gen movies were particularly good. Of them all, I think First Contact was the best though.

[Venkman]

Like I said, Shatner is irreplaceable. More irreplaceable than even.. Christopher Walkin (not that Walkin has anything to do with Trek... although that'd be sweet if he did). So far, the new guy is more of a slapstick type of funny. While Shatner is just so uniquely and horribly bad that he's awesome.

Would a Shatner Kirk be possible today though? I mean, was he a parody of overacting in the 60s or was that just the way things were for TV then? Not having been around then, I'm really curious.

I think the new guy did a good interpretation of a modern Kirk, particularly in the final sequence from the opening of the turbolift, through "buckle up" through welcoming Spock back to the crew. It felt honest and contemporary. If he went full Shatner, I feel like it would have been Tim Allen parody.

Which is why I asked the above

I'm also curious which Trek movie Ironwood liked second best (assuming Khan was the first).

[bhodi]

Undiscovered country? That's my 2nd anyway.