Star Trek (2009) - OFFICIAL REVIEW THREAD

[imported_Imp]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: Baked
It was epic. Way better than star wars in terms of epicness for a sci-fi flick. That is all. The opening scene and next scene made my cry. True story.

I very nearly cried when Kirk's dad was talking to his wife as he was flying the Kelvin into the Narada. I probably would have if I was alone.

I just found out last night that Kirk's mother is Cameron from House.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
It was a good popcorn flick, but it wasn't very Star Treky.

That's a cool way to put it.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: JoPh
u are all borg

Funny you mention that. Nero's mining ship was retrofitted with prototype systems built from studying old borg technology at a hidden Romulan research outpost. :thumbsup:

 

[middlehead]

Originally posted by: JoPh
u are all borg

No, we're all Cylons.

 

[jalaram]

Star Trek writers answer 5 burning questions

 

[Duddy]

God you Trekkies need to take a chill pill. I have NEVER read through an ATOT thread that contained this much geekiness per post (GPP).

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: jalaram
Star Trek writers answer 5 burning questions

The moon thing explains a lot.

So Spock and Kirk were both placed on one of Vulcans moons.

Of course it also opened another question.

Vulcan is a barren hot planet and the moon is covered in ice.... ummmmm

 

[Glitchny]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
It was a good popcorn flick, but it wasn't very Star Treky.

which is why the movie was good.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: jalaram
Star Trek writers answer 5 burning questions

The moon thing explains a lot.

So Spock and Kirk were both placed on one of Vulcans moons.

Of course it also opened another question.

Vulcan is a barren hot planet and the moon is covered in ice.... ummmmm

that makes my head spin even more.


what happened to the good ole prime directive of time travel.

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Of course it also opened another question.
Vulcan is a barren hot planet and the moon is covered in ice.... ummmmm

yea, cuz... see... Earth is all lush and covered with water and our moon is barren and rocky...

 

[alrocky]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: jalaram
Star Trek writers answer 5 burning questions

The moon thing explains a lot.

So Spock and Kirk were both placed on one of Vulcans moons.

Of course it also opened another question.

Vulcan is a barren hot planet and the moon is covered in ice.... ummmmm

And I thought the question it opened was whether said Vulcan moon would hold it's orbit around the newly created black hole or if it would fly off like a ball at the end of a string that was just released.

 

[nerp]

Ok, quick question. Is this movie worth watching if you're just into space and the unviverse and not really interested in star trek stuff? Like, is the movie not super dorky with goofy looking aliens, annoying love dramas and lots of posing around rocks with ray guns? Or is it? Are there a lot of space/timewarp dimension bending cool nebula scenes and shit like that? This is really the deciding factor whether I spend some bucks on this. I like starwars, so use that as your guide.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Of course it also opened another question.
Vulcan is a barren hot planet and the moon is covered in ice.... ummmmm

yea, cuz... see... Earth is all lush and covered with water and our moon is barren and rocky...

Our moon is barren and rocky because it doesn't have enough gravity to hold an atmosphere.

If the Vulcan moon was large enough to hold one then it certainly could hold life etc etc.
But it is unlikely that it would be an ice moon based on what we have seen of Vulcan, although he could have been dropped near the poles etc etc etc etc.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: nerp
Ok, quick question. Is this movie worth watching if you're just into space and the unviverse and not really interested in star trek stuff? Like, is the movie not super dorky with goofy looking aliens, annoying love dramas and lots of posing around rocks with ray guns? Or is it? Are there a lot of space/timewarp dimension bending cool nebula scenes and shit like that? This is really the deciding factor whether I spend some bucks on this. I like starwars, so use that as your guide.

Go see it.

We are being SUPER nit picky.

The movie is damn good and a lot of fun. Just be prepared to walk out asking a bunch of questions like the ones above.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: nerp
Ok, quick question. Is this movie worth watching if you're just into space and the unviverse and not really interested in star trek stuff? Like, is the movie not super dorky with goofy looking aliens, annoying love dramas and lots of posing around rocks with ray guns? Or is it? Are there a lot of space/timewarp dimension bending cool nebula scenes and shit like that? This is really the deciding factor whether I spend some bucks on this. I like starwars, so use that as your guide.

Go see it.

We are being SUPER nit picky.

The movie is damn good and a lot of fun. Just be prepared to walk out asking a bunch of questions like the ones above.

nerp (no relation to the Quake clan?),

It was a pretty good movie. I saw it last night. Not a love story in it, but there was some shots of almost naked people in it. Totally unneeded and things like this in sci fi movies piss me off. But it was only for like 1 minute.

Some people are complaining about plot. I don't get it. I thought the story was very good. Without saying to much, the story involves <SPOLIER>time travel</SPOLIER>.

If your interest in movies is limited to cool special effects, I feel sorry for you. To answer you, yes there are some pretty cool shots of outer space in it.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: guyver01
The only main inconsistency i found as well was the mention of "Admiral Archer and his prized Beagle" ...

now granted there could have been many descendants of Captain Archer from Enterprise, and his Beagle.... but why throw that line in there ...

Wouldn't Johanathan Archer, from Enterprise, be well over 150+ years old at that point?

He would have been 132.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: middlehead

Originally posted by: Newbian
Also where did the ability come from where they are able to transport people light years away?

I never saw anything about that in the tv shows.

Scotty had figured it out in the future, Spock Prime is a super genius and remembered the calculations, showed it to New-Scotty. They sort-of explained it with a (possibly unintended) nod to Futurama. "It never occurred to me to think of space as the thing that was moving!"

WRT the 200% efficient dark matter drives

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: jalaram
Star Trek writers answer 5 burning questions

The moon thing explains a lot.

So Spock and Kirk were both placed on one of Vulcans moons.

Of course it also opened another question.

Vulcan is a barren hot planet and the moon is covered in ice.... ummmmm

Didn't the pod say that he was on a Minshara-Class planet?

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Of course it also opened another question.
Vulcan is a barren hot planet and the moon is covered in ice.... ummmmm

yea, cuz... see... Earth is all lush and covered with water and our moon is barren and rocky...

Actually more concerning is since the moon no longer has a planet to keep it in orbit, it would likely acheive an unstable eliptical orbit- probably like a comet, wiping out all life on it.

How's that for geeky overanalyzation?

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: jalaram
Star Trek writers answer 5 burning questions

The moon thing explains a lot.

So Spock and Kirk were both placed on one of Vulcans moons.

Of course it also opened another question.

Vulcan is a barren hot planet and the moon is covered in ice.... ummmmm

that makes my head spin even more.


what happened to the good ole prime directive of time travel.

The temporal time directive wasn't introduced until the 29th century, thus even Spock Prime wouldn't know about it...

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: alrocky
And I thought the question it opened was whether said Vulcan moon would hold it's orbit around the newly created black hole or if it would fly off like a ball at the end of a string that was just released.

The fact that matter is in a more dense state does not alter its ability to exert a gravitational pull on another body ie. converting Vulcan into a black hole doesn't alter it mass, therefore the moon continues to orbit the black hole.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Of course it also opened another question.
Vulcan is a barren hot planet and the moon is covered in ice.... ummmmm

yea, cuz... see... Earth is all lush and covered with water and our moon is barren and rocky...

Actually more concerning is since the moon no longer has a planet to keep it in orbit, it would likely acheive an unstable eliptical orbit- probably like a comet, wiping out all life on it.

How's that for geeky overanalyzation?

Its full of fail.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: jalaram
Star Trek writers answer 5 burning questions

The moon thing explains a lot.

So Spock and Kirk were both placed on one of Vulcans moons.

Of course it also opened another question.

Vulcan is a barren hot planet and the moon is covered in ice.... ummmmm

that makes my head spin even more.


what happened to the good ole prime directive of time travel.

The temporal time directive wasn't introduced until the 29th century, thus even Spock Prime wouldn't know about it...

Starfleet had temporal guidelines and rules in DS9. Agents questioned Sisko when they went back in time on Earth and he took the place of Bell and his picture shows up in the history books. They state that Kirk IS a menace to time, note they say IS, not WAS.

 

[Raiden256]

REALLY liked it, but was anyone else distracted by the constant lens flares? This works in Fringe because it's understated, but it's completely overdone here. Calm down JJ -- too much of a good thing!

 

[AAman]

This movie was only for people who never watched the original series as nothing made sense (almost every detail contradicted the original series and TNG)...and yes I read the comic prequels after my roomie wasted money on 'em