Star Trek

I watched it at the IMAX in Southbank London at 11:30pm!

We all thought that the acting was really good, I was impressed with Karl Urban and naturally Sylar and Kirk. Didn't recognise Winona Ryder at all, at the end credits I turned and asked if I'd missed her, she was the bloody mother!

Anyhoo, Bana totally wasted as the bad guy. That was the main fault with the film really, the way his character was handled was very poorly written. The storyline was also pretty crap which was disappointing because we all thought JJ would make it intelligent.

I also really wish they'd scrap this idea of using Handheld 'shakey' camera for the action sequences. All it does is piss me the feck off while watching it. All modern films are guilty of using this fad technique and imo it makes it a damn sight harder to understand what the hell is going on during an action sequence.

Which leads me to the action. I was actually surprised, they handled this very well. The colour schemes they used and the blurring really helped to bring the action to life. Alot of colour flooded the screen and really helped to make the action more interesting than the sterile cold greys and blues of the past franchise.

I enjoyed it, I thought it was a promising start to what should be really good films. But as an opener the storyline was a shambles and the villain criminally underplayed.

I'd give it 3.5 stars out of 5.
 
RedSky At Night said:
I watched it at the IMAX in Southbank London at 11:30pm!

We all thought that the acting was really good, I was impressed with Karl Urban and naturally Sylar and Kirk. Didn't recognise Winona Ryder at all, at the end credits I turned and asked if I'd missed her, she was the bloody mother!

Anyhoo, Bana totally wasted as the bad guy. That was the main fault with the film really, the way his character was handled was very poorly written. The storyline was also pretty crap which was disappointing because we all thought JJ would make it intelligent.

I also really wish they'd scrap this idea of using Handheld 'shakey' camera for the action sequences. All it does is piss me the feck off while watching it. All modern films are guilty of using this fad technique and imo it makes it a damn sight harder to understand what the hell is going on during an action sequence.

Which leads me to the action. I was actually surprised, they handled this very well. The colour schemes they used and the blurring really helped to bring the action to life. Alot of colour flooded the screen and really helped to make the action more interesting than the sterile cold greys and blues of the past franchise.

I enjoyed it, I thought it was a promising start to what should be really good films. But as an opener the storyline was a shambles and the villain criminally underplayed.

I'd give it 3.5 stars out of 5.
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly man.

The film was a good reinvention, we got to see all the characters come together and I guess this is why the bad guy got less screen time, he was just the catalyst for bringing the crew together in a different way rather than being the focus of the story. I was pretty dissapointed when they revealed he was just a miner who was pissed off his world got blown up, although for a mining vessel that shit sure has a hell of a lot of firepower.

Performances were solid but Sylar has nothing on the real Spock, he was good but his scenes with Leonard just made him look like Spock-lite.

I liked the action throughout, it exploded onto the screen with an awesome first 10 minutes and kept the pace with some decent humour to boot.

A well made sci-fi flick and a solid 7/10.
 
The opening 10-15 minutes is probably some of the best film i've seen in years. Completely absorbing, I loved it. Shame the rest of the film wasn't as good, there were great momments here and there though.

I'm going to drag my dad along and watch it though as I know he'll love it. So it'll be interesting to see what its like in a normal cinema.

*For the record, I advise everyone here to go and see a film at your local IMAX. Just make sure it isn't Transformers 2 as the trailer alone gave me one hell of a headache!
 
noodlehair said:
He wasn't sucked back in time, he was sucked into an alternate reality that happened to be at a different point in time. So technically, not taking revenge for anyone, as it's a different reality to the one his missus died in. Dodgy ground

Either that or fecking about with the past, therefore preventing himself from ever travelling back in time to feck about with the past in the first place.
Click to expand...

Actually him being sent back in time created the alternative reality, he wasnt transported to a alternative reality. Basically he went back in time killed Kirks dad caused Kirk to grow up without a dad and that changed how his life would have orginially panned out. And if you think about it just because he has changed the course of history doesnt mean what he experienced in his time frame didnt happen, i mean it wont happen for his future counter part but he certainly experienced it.

If you have more questions about the story there is a series of 4 comic strips that actually explain Neros story line before he was pulled back in time
 
This one was a whole new breed and fecking damn good too, Abrams hit a home run with it. They could do several more with this cast.
 
OneUnited24 said:
Actually him being sent back in time created the alternative reality, he wasnt transported to a alternative reality. Basically he went back in time killed Kirks dad caused Kirk to grow up without a dad and that changed how his life would have orginially panned out. And if you think about it just because he has changed the course of history doesnt mean what he experienced in his time frame didnt happen, i mean it wont happen for his future counter part but he certainly experienced it.
Click to expand...

You can't "create" an alternative reality just by travelling through time, otherwise the reality can't have existed before the point you travel back to. Where as, if it's not a new reality, and rather a different version of the same one, then that makes things even sillier. Why travel back in time to go around blowing stuff up, when you can just save your planet instead? Even Terminator managed to get that part right.

What makes it really poor is, when you think about it, there was no real reason for the film to include time travel at all, apart from as a way to write Leonard Nimoy into it.

THe main reason I was talked into tagging along to watch it was because I thought the bad guy could be an interesting character. Instead, he was literally just some angry bloke wearing face paint.

OneUnited24 said:
If you have more questions about the story there is a series of 4 comic strips that actually explain Neros story line before he was pulled back in time
Click to expand...

No thanks
 
noodlehair said:
You can't "create" an alternative reality just by travelling through time, otherwise the reality can't have existed before the point you travel back to. Where as, if it's not a new reality, and rather a different version of the same one, then that makes things even sillier. Why travel back in time to go around blowing stuff up, when you can just save your planet instead? Even Terminator managed to get that part right.

What makes it really poor is, when you think about it, there was no real reason for the film to include time travel at all, apart from as a way to write Leonard Nimoy into it.

THe main reason I was talked into tagging along to watch it was because I thought the bad guy could be an interesting character. Instead, he was literally just some angry bloke wearing face paint.
Click to expand...

Noodle you realise this is a science fiction film.. there aren't any cants, especially when it comes to time travel, since when was knowledge of how you create an alternate reality common knowledge anyways lol. You have to suspend your disbelief a bit and it's not like the alternate reality method used in this film hasn't been used before. One reality exists up to the point Nero time travels back to, then a new chain of events branch off from that moment creating the new reality.

Time travel wasn't used just to get Leonard in, it was used as a means to reinvent the whole series with an 'anything can happen' approach, rather than having to follow the cannon of all the other films.
 
DouLou said:
Time travel wasn't used just to get Leonard in, it was used as a means to reinvent the whole series with an 'anything can happen' approach, rather than having to follow the cannon of all the other films.
Click to expand...

It was ripped off from a previous Star Trek film. The one where they help that guy build the spaceship. Hardly re-inventing, if anything they went out of their way not to reinvent it.

Anyway, I know that it doesn't have to all make scientific sense and be explained out in case I happen to be sitting in the audience, but it should at least make common sense.

For example, you can have a film where a giant squid creature suddenly appears for no reason and starts terrorising New York (as you do) and crushing buildings. That's fine, but if it turned out the creature had travelled back in time somehow, thus creating its own reality in which everything is different from its own reality, despite at the same time, being exactly the same, that's less fine, because it's pointless, and doesn't make sense.
 
noodlehair said:
It was ripped off from a previous Star Trek film. The one where they help that guy build the spaceship. Hardly re-inventing, if anything they went out of their way not to reinvent it.

Anyway, I know that it doesn't have to all make scientific sense and be explained out in case I happen to be sitting in the audience, but it should at least make common sense.

For example, you can have a film where a giant squid creature suddenly appears for no reason and starts terrorising New York (as you do) and crushing buildings. That's fine, but if it turned out the creature had travelled back in time somehow, thus creating its own reality in which everything is different from its own reality, despite at the same time, being exactly the same, that's less fine, because it's pointless, and doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

trekkie.jpg
 
DouLou said:
Time travel wasn't used just to get Leonard in, it was used as a means to reinvent the whole series with an 'anything can happen' approach, rather than having to follow the cannon of all the other films.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I was quite disappointed with the time travel scenario when it first became obvious the movie was going down that route. But about half way through the movie I realised that it wasn't so much a plot for this movie, it was a plot to restart the series with new possibilities. Things can now happen in the next movie/movies that would have been shouted down by Trekkies as 'that didn't happen in the Star Trek world!'

Overall, it was a good solid movie without any standout features. The one big disappointment was Bana as the main bad guy. Something just didn't work there. I don't think such a high profile actor should have been used in that role, they just needed some no-name who could've acted insanely angry. Every time I saw him it just looked like Eric Bana with facepaint, he didn't have enough screen time to give him the menace and believability he should've had.
 
noodlehair said:
It was ripped off from a previous Star Trek film. The one where they help that guy build the spaceship. Hardly re-inventing, if anything they went out of their way not to reinvent it.
Click to expand...

I've not seen any previous ones, so they have time travelled in Star Trek before?
 
DouLou said:
I've not seen any previous ones, so they have time travelled in Star Trek before?
Click to expand...


The Voyage Home - Kirk and his crew head for Earth to stand at their court martial for the theft of the Enterprise, and its subsequent destruction, when they find Earth under siege by a giant probe transmitting a destructive signal—intended for the extinct humpback whales. Kirk takes his crew back to the late 20th century to retrieve some whales so they can respond.
Click to expand...

First Contact - The crew of the Enterprise-E pursues the Borg back in time as they threaten to prevent first contact between Humans and Vulcans, thus destroying the Federation before its founding.
Click to expand...

...
 
noodlehair said:
You can't "create" an alternative reality just by travelling through time, otherwise the reality can't have existed before the point you travel back to. Where as, if it's not a new reality, and rather a different version of the same one, then that makes things even sillier. Why travel back in time to go around blowing stuff up, when you can just save your planet instead? Even Terminator managed to get that part right.
Click to expand...

I never said creating a whole new reality but if you go back in time and kill yourself as a child a different parallel reality will form which will live out different events from the one you came from. Its like every decision you have made in your life exists in a alternative reality, each would have its own space time, however, if you were to go back in time in your own space time and change one decision in your life then another alternative reality would form which would be parallel from the one you came from.

Thats what happened in this new movie.
 
All because I said I enjoyed a film I went and saw one wet afternoon.

There's pissing on someone's parade and then there's wikipedia-ing facts to really hammer the piss home.
 
OneUnited24 said:
I never said creating a whole new reality but if you go back in time and kill yourself as a child a different parallel reality will form which will live out different events from the one you came from. Its like every decision you have made in your life exists in a alternative reality, each would have its own space time, however, if you were to go back in time in your own space time and change one decision in your life then another alternative reality would form which would be parallel from the one you came from.

Thats what happened in this new movie.
Click to expand...

Ok, this post confused the feck out of me.

Therefore I win
 
Since time travel is impossible the point is not relevant, reckon we might have seen some time travelers by now from the future had it been.
 
Alex said:
Since time travel is impossible the point is not relevant, reckon we might have seen some time travelers by now from the future had it been.
Click to expand...

Ah, but there could be rules where you are not allowed to reveal you are from the future etc.

And theres that theory that UFO's are actualy time travellers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.