I am a Star Trek iconoclast. I keep hearing from those in my "camp"...

...who say this new version is an abomination. Then, I hear from those who say they watched some of the old Star Trek series, but really weren't groupies about it, and they loved this new one. Is there anyone out there who has seen the new one, but is also a hardcore Trekkie, and actually thinks the new one is good. I'm just trying to figure out whether I need to throw my money away.

Let me put it this way: I bought my tickets weeks ago for the first showing in my area, got out of work a bit early to see it, and liveblogged about the movie via Twitter.

I thought it was very good.

...before I posted, but I may not have caught it.

:shrug:

I'll go kick it.

I saw it tonight & loved it. Might go back tomorrow. Who knows? I used to be into fandom & cons & all that, but there were & are too many who are "wound too tightly," getting all huffy about changes, that ruined my enjoyment of the shows & movies. I guess that makes me a heretic or something, but I really don't care. :) Quinto as Spock is worth the price of admission.

dg

...It looks like I'm going to have to go see it.

I thought it was the best ST movie to date, Ally who is a hardcore trekkie dug it, and the way the characters were portrayed. We both agreed that the actor playing Bones did a terrific job.

The kids enjoyed it. The biggest downer for me was $30 for 4 medium cokes, and 2 medium bags of popcorn.

There was a couple of cheesy plot devices, but come-on, this is a Star Trek movie..

I highly recommend it. It's not as good as Wrath of Khan or First Contact, but it's right up there near the top.

if you're into it purely for the techno-jargon and minutia, you might not

it's a character-driven movie, more action than philosophical (think wrath of khan, as opposed to the deeper episodes of the series), but it kind of has to be - as it's an origin piece

it puts it all together and sets things up for something really special in a sequel

i grew up on the original series films and loved them. liked tng a good deal, too.
it was the stuff after that i had a problem with.

As for my fan credentials, I have this in my office:



Like many other fans, I went into this movie excited but somewhat nervous (from the trailers) that I just might encounter the following:

a) A special-effects and action-driven Michael-Bayish three-ring circus without a compelling story and well-drawn characters;

b) Young, angsty "pretty boy" actors making laughable attempts to step into the well-worn shoes of giants;

c) Decades of "canon" and continuity sacrificed on the altar of being "hip" and edgy;

d) An attempt to recreate the flash and silliness of "Star Wars" without the heavier narrative weight and respect for science (well, at least token respect for science) that "Star Trek" had.

I am pleased to report that my fears were almost (and by almost, I mean 99%) unfounded.

Yes, this movie is heavy in eye-popping special effects, but like all good science-fiction movies, they service the story well. Yes, the cast consists of young and attractive unknowns, but they are all fine actors and they step into the familiar and well-loved roles with ease. The canon and continuity of the original series is not dispensed with lightly; rather, it is set gently aside with acknowledgement and respect. The Star Trek Universe might have changed, but in many very satisfying ways it has stayed the same.

The coolest thing about this movie, and why it is a triumph, in my opinion, is that it undeniably IMPROVES on many things from the original series, because the producers of the original show just didn't have the time, budget, or technology to pull it off. I don't want to give too much away (this movie has already been almost thoroughly spoiled), but there is some business with the transporters that had me laughing out loud, because I always wondered if they shouldn't work that way! And this movie, unlike most of the series following the original (and every movie following Star Trek IV) is genuinely FUNNY. Not funny in a self-parody way, but funny from situations that arise in the film.

And I can't talk about the humor in the film without again giving kudos to the actors. Simon Pegg and Karl Urban are the standouts, as they so happily bring back the fun of McCoy and Scotty. Zoe Saldana has a much meatier and touching role as Uhura. And Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are simply terrific as Kirk and Spock. They don't mimic Shatner and Nimoy, but they bring back the essence of those great characters, and when the two team up to take on the villain at the end, it's just like we're seeing old friends in action again.

So why was I 99% satisfied? Because as much as I liked the story, it is NOT "City on the Edge of Forever" or "The Doomsday Machine". The story is compelling and it serves to get the cast of characters together on the bridge of the Enterprise, but that's really about all it can do. However, I eagerly await the sequel and all future movies made with this creative team.

So, in summary, let this Star Trek fan say that not only was I NOT disappointed, but I was very pleasantly surprised. This is the Star Trek movie I hoped for when the original Star Trek: The Motion Picture came out. It is easily the best of the series, and it has left me wanting MORE.

Of course, the only figure/doll I had was the puppet guy from The Corbomite Maneuver, but I still loved it (even if the scale was wrong for my Star Wars figures!)

But it relies upon a shoddy optical illusion to only make it appear that a character has transported, instead of using the Mego technology that actually made the character "vanish".

I still have all the Enterprise crew dolls and the Klingon. Apparently, they also made a Tellarite, an Andorian, and (I think) a Gorn. But those weren't available in rural Idaho back in the '70s.

When I divorce all presumptions and foreknowledge about Star Trek and look at the movie strictly as an object of cinema, it's very poorly done and a sophomoric effort. I've never been a fan of Abrams' television work; I find 'Lost' to be truly boring. The exception I will make is for the Abrams-produced (not directed) 'Cloverfield' of last year, which was genuinely well done.

Some have compared Abrams as being the next Cameron. I don't believe that. At all.

So, can the kid make money for the studio? You bet! And that's just fine with me. But profit doesn't mean you're good at what you do. We've seen that proven very recently with the shenanigans in corporate America.

What films did I feel more satisfied with from this year? 'Watchmen' and 'Knowing' come to mind...

Definitely a Trekkie, loved the new movie.

I have yet to hate anything I've seen him in. He's sort of my English version of Tim Robbins. I even liked "Howard The Duck" (although I suspect Thomas Dolby's involvement in the music had something to do with that).

And I've spent the last 15 years hating the hell out of Berman.

Like Bush made us pine for the days of Nixon, so Abrams makes me pine for the days of Berman.

Never thought I'd ever say that.

I think of people sitting around talking about conflicts between other people with different shaped latex knobs on their heads.

Endlessly.

:pals:

I know we're all squabbling over a movie remake of a TV/movie series, but then Gene Roddenberry was special. Even Rick Berman's drowning of the show was more in tune with Mr. Roddenberry's beliefs (though expanded on by Berman's ideals and the differences are obvious)...

Do you mean iconodule?

(saw everything except Enterprise... sat through all seven seasons of Voyager waiting for it to stop sucking, but I haven't read the books and don't go to conventions).

I think the key to this one is expectations. I went to it completely prepared for it to suck and it didn't totally. Really B/B+. There's not a hell of a lot of story. It's just a set up for more movies which have the potential to be a lot better.

If you're prepared to get on board an alternate universe/stand alone series of Trek with better special effects and some good actors (Urban, Pegg, Quinto) then it's worth seeing this one so that the sequels make sense.

If you're not prepared to accept anything non-canonical then don't bother.

It's indisputably better than anything to come out of the Star Trek franchise in the last ten years. It's been a pretty long drought, so I'll take what I can get.

But then, even Spock laments that everything will be different.

I'll stick by watching my DVDs. "Trek" is dead to me if it's now a shallow action piece.

Some might say Gene would have approved. Anybody reading behind-the-scenes stories from Trek's early years would know Gene would loathe this new version.

I totally agree about product placement being ridiculous (since the founding principle of the universe excludes the concept of brands).

Also, automated police and Kirk buzzing through Star Fleet Academy in three years (cause he's always been the brains of the show?!?)

But unfortunately the two lamest things are straight from classic Trek:

1.) "Red matter" which drives the entire "plot" and which is a figment of some writer's desperately lazy poverty of imagination. But it fits right into a long tradition of taking the easy way out of complex plots with technobabble.

2.) The Enterprise is the only ship in Star Fleet that ever does anything. And on the Enterprise, the only people that ever do anything are the bridge crew plus Scotty. The Romulan ship is, at most, eighty or ninety years more technologically advanced than Star Fleet and is supposed to be a converted trash scow. But a single ship can pop up next to earth and the entire Federation has no ships that can even damage it except the Enterprise? And wouldn't the second officer who, you know, *graduated* the Academy and served on ships for six or seven years be a little pissed that suddenly Kirk is first officer?

But at least the alternative universe is more PC ("its continuing mission" "go where no ONE has gone before"). Strange little ripples from George Kirk's death...

A lot of fans are freaking out about the idea of using a variant timeline, because they're married to the established one. If your idea of a proper TOS origin movie has beige pullovers and Gary Mitchell and everything in its right place, you're going to be very frustrated with this movie; it postulates slightly (and sometimes hugely) different angles on things than we saw previously in an attempt to scrape the barnacles off.

Also, this movie tilts towards the bantering, swashbuckling side of Trek and not the solemn, philosophical side. Briefly, if you think The Motion Picture is a better Star Trek movie than The Voyage Home, you're going to be in for a long sit.

"The Cage" onward.

DS9 onward bored or angered me because there was nothing original left, the plots were reused, and it became soap opera that also strayed too far (e.g. Roddenberry was for exploring, DS9 keeps everybody put and Voyager has them trying to get home instead of bolding accepting their fate, encountering new strange things, and reporting home via sending bottles back in Earth's general direction or whatever.)

Whatever the new movie's visual sleekness or financial successes, there is no way in hell that has ANYTHING to do with Roddenberry's vision. Not even indirectly.

Especially when NuKirk and NuSpock have their quick discussion about saving Caesar's (whoops, Nero's) life and basically say "nope" in a nonchalant way. Mocking the original series didn't get any more obvious than that. That was the icing on a cake that was so much full of self-parody that I left. I'm glad I didn't leave until the very end because my arguments need to remain valid and not based on half-guesses. Heck, the last time I saw our Trek heroes bumping into walls and showing that quaint naive side was "Star trek V" -- that movie is hated and the actors LOATHED having to come across like imbeciles on screen. Abrams' movie is replete with this mocking garbage and everybody laughs it up and wants more.

Wow. Just wow.

The movie is shite. It's a generic piece. In some ways it's good, but I will debate that it is NOT "Star Trek" in the ways that Gene envisioned it.

If people say Gene's ideals are outdated, fine. Leave the franchise buried. Don't disrespect the man by molesting his vision. And that's what JJ Abrams did.

And keep in mind, Abrams is on record saying he did not like "Star Trek" and also in record saying "I did not get 'Star Trek'" (meaning he didn't understand it).

Combine that with nicking scenes and dialogue from old movies to help set up the characters, but in his own vision, he should have simply made his own genre piece and not leech into "Star Trek".

Both by Diane Carey, whom I consider to be the best Star Trek author out there. I read "Battlestations!" and "Best Destiny", which incidently is about a young James Kirk and his father, George, and their second adventure in space. Kind of to "set the mood" for the movie.

I found the the intricate character depth and interpersonal dynamics of the novels (which Carey does extremely well) sorely lacking in the movie. Carey takes the dynamics we saw on the TV screen with the TV series and amplifies it to the point where her stories are difficult to put down. I finished reading "Best Destiny" on Friday night... after sitting at the kitchen table for about 4 hours to finish it while barely noticing the time passing.