I Had Absolutely No Interest In Seeing The New Star Trek Movie.....

[ScoobyNubieToo!]

....until I came accross a few trailers. Holy Carp! This thing looks amazing! I gotta get out and see this thing! Even the critics like it which is amazing also because they hate every action movie.

[240sxDann]

I had the exact same reaction when I saw the trailers lol

[c0nfl1kt]

Staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar treeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111

[captainhook]

I honestly wasn't planning on seeing it until I read the numerous epic reviews, perhaps it is worth seeing. What do you guys think about this . . . my brother is a big trekkie and bet me $100 that the opening weekend of Startrek will beat the opening weekend for Transformers 2. I took the bet in a second cause I thought Transformers would be a sure-fire winner. Anyone have any thoughts on the wager?

[Tru2Blu]

I honestly wasn't planning on seeing it until I read the numerous epic reviews, perhaps it is worth seeing. What do you guys think about this . . . my brother is a big trekkie and bet me $100 that the opening weekend of Startrek will beat the opening weekend for Transformers 2. I took the bet in a second cause I thought Transformers would be a sure-fire winner. Anyone have any thoughts on the wager?

I think Transformers will beat Star Trek. Every kid in the world will want to see Transformers, and after the way the last one ended this one will be tits.

I may be biased, I was never into star trek.

[c0nfl1kt]

I honestly wasn't planning on seeing it until I read the numerous epic reviews, perhaps it is worth seeing. What do you guys think about this . . . my brother is a big trekkie and bet me $100 that the opening weekend of Startrek will beat the opening weekend for Transformers 2. I took the bet in a second cause I thought Transformers would be a sure-fire winner. Anyone have any thoughts on the wager?

Yeah, as much of a sci fi nerd that I am, Transformers has robots, explosions, a hot girl, some goofy dork, and Michael Bay. You can't lose with that many things going for you. JJ Abrams is more of a reclusive director who likes to challenge his audience at times. I love his shows, but he isn't for everyone.

[Elliott18t]

http://www.slight-return.com/files/trekkies.jpg

[captainhook]

Sh*t, I asked the two movie geru's at work about my bet and they both think I'm going down. Although they did give me a possible out . . . the bet wasn't specified on the domestic or global market. Even if Startrek does win in the US, Transformers will most likely dominate the global market. :wink:

[c0nfl1kt]

Sh*t, I asked the two movie geru's at work about my bet and they both think I'm going down. Although they did give me a possible out . . . the bet wasn't specified on the domestic or global market. Even if Startrek does win in the US, Transformers will most likely dominate the global market. :wink:

Let me spell it out for you: Transformers 2 will be the highest grossing film this summer. Period.

[captainhook]

Let me spell it out for you: Transformers 2 will be the highest grossing film this summer. Period.

I hope you're right, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was in fact the case. However, I didn't really realize just how large the Startrek fan base was, it's freakin gigantic. An army of them will flood theaters this weekend guaranteed. I think I may make a separate thread for this since it's kinda taking over the OP's thread.

[c0nfl1kt]

I hope you're right, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was in fact the case. However, I didn't really realize just how large the Startrek fan base was, it's freakin gigantic. An army of them will flood theaters this weekend guaranteed. I think I may make a separate thread for this since it's kinda taking over the OP's thread.

The die hard Star Trek fans are few and far in between. Sure, they are zealots with lots of passion, but they just can't beat numbers(unless they are loaded and purchase multiple tickets per head). It's like this: Ikaruga, one of the best and most difficult over-the-top shooters of all time has a very passionate fan base. Yet, if it came to an Ikaruga sequel being made, it's not going to outsell something like, lets say, The Sims 3.

I love Star Trek, trust me. I have watched every TV series, every movie, etc, but I would never bet that Star Trek outsells Transformers 2 at the box office whether its opening weekend, 60 days, or over time. That movie will move DVDs by the rack full when it releases, and people who go see it this summer will also go back and check out Transformers 1 if they haven't.

[Vr-4-Life]

I just saw this yesterday and it was FANTASTIC.... I want to see it again before its out of theaters

[captainhook]

I've seen every previous star trek movie at some point in time and was honestly let down by this movie. It was so pumped up and so praised that I expected something epic, which this movie is most certainly not. It was a good movie, in my opinion 7.5-8 / 10. It had good (not great) special effects, very good acting, and a decent plot. Doing a prequel is always a tricky animal, other huge name series' have failed completely in the attempt. My brother (the gigantic trekkie) called me right after seeing it and bitched for like 30 minutes. I noticed a few big things in the movie that were completely historically inaccurate, but he found a lot more stuff than I did and pointed out how the events in the movie would make a lot of things in the past movies and shows impossible. We both agreed that it was very similar in success to the most recent James Bond movie: successful action movie to the everyday movie-goer, series failure to hardcore fans.

[WhiteXFire]

I noticed a few big things in the movie that were completely historically inaccurate, but he found a lot more stuff than I did and pointed out how the events in the movie would make a lot of things in the past movies and shows impossible.

Did you both miss the fact that they deliberately did that so they could start fresh and have their own spin on sequels? This was not a "prequel" in the sense that it occurs before the timeline of the other movies. It occurs prior to the other movies based on date, but after the first 10 min has a brand new timeline, an alternate reality.

I do agree though that it was OK, a decent movie, but it just felt like it was lacking something to me.

[captainhook]

Did you both miss the fact that they deliberately did that so they could start fresh and have their own spin on sequels?
A "fresh start" simply isn't possible if they continue to use the Star Trek name and characters. In using the same characters and title they are confined by what has already been written in the 60's tv shows and later Star Trek movies. I know they already have another movie lined up to follow this one, but they don't have a hell of a lot of timeline to work with before where the first 60's Star Trek episode picks up.

This was not a "prequel" in the sense that it occurs before the timeline of the other movies. It occurs prior to the other movies based on date, but after the first 10 min has a brand new timeline, an alternate reality.
This is completely untrue. The movie just released is in fact a prequel, and they can only go so far with further movies as the history of Star Trek and those characters is already defined from the start of the 60's tv shows forward. The point of the movie for long-time fans was primarily to give character background, the point for trek newbies was to just provide an entertaining action flick. (which the layman obviously enjoyed) When doing a prequel (esp multiples) of an already epic series with die hard fans, you're on pretty thin ice. Casino Royale is a spectacular example of a poorly done prequel that tarnished a fabulous series. Star Trek had great acting and a decent plot unlike Casino Royale, which is why it hailed praise from critics/non-trekkies. The trekkies are hoping the movies to come don't further contaminate the timeline and blunder the series. I guess only time will tell.

[Khellen]

Casino Royale is a spectacular example of a poorly done prequel that tarnished a fabulous series. Star Trek had great acting and a decent plot unlike Casino Royale, which is why it hailed praise from critics/non-trekkies. The trekkies are hoping the movies to come don't further contaminate the timeline and blunder the series. I guess only time will tell.

I'm going to have to disagree, tons of people thought casino royale was a great movie. Though, the bond movie that followed was pretty terrible. Quanutm of solace ftl.

[captainhook]

I'm going to have to disagree, tons of people thought casino royale was a great movie. Though, the bond movie that followed was pretty terrible. Quanutm of solace ftl.

And that ton of excited average-joe movie goers were only looking for an action flick. They had no prior knowledge or respect for the history and character of James Bond. All of the die hard Bond fans (myself included) were let down and pissed off by the pathetic attempt at a prequel. Not to mention Danial Craig is worst thing to ever happen to the series. :mad:

[Khellen]

And that ton of excited average-joe movie goers were only looking for an action flick. They had no prior knowledge or respect for the history and character of James Bond. All of the die hard Bond fans (myself included) were let down and pissed off by the pathetic attempt at a prequel. Not to mention Danial Craig is worst thing to ever happen to the series. :mad:

I would think Keith Brosnan was the worth thing to happen to the series. :cry:

[Got Insulin?]

I would think Keith Brosnan was the worth thing to happen to the series. :cry:

lolwut!

Pierce?
QOS was awesome, so was Star Trek.

[WhiteXFire]

A "fresh start" simply isn't possible if they continue to use the Star Trek name and characters. In using the same characters and title they are confined by what has already been written in the 60's tv shows and later Star Trek movies. I know they already have another movie lined up to follow this one, but they don't have a hell of a lot of timeline to work with before where the first 60's Star Trek episode picks up.


This is completely untrue. The movie just released is in fact a prequel, and they can only go so far with further movies as the history of Star Trek and those characters is already defined from the start of the 60's tv shows forward. The point of the movie for long-time fans was primarily to give character background, the point for trek newbies was to just provide an entertaining action flick. (which the layman obviously enjoyed) When doing a prequel (esp multiples) of an already epic series with die hard fans, you're on pretty thin ice. Casino Royale is a spectacular example of a poorly done prequel that tarnished a fabulous series. Star Trek had great acting and a decent plot unlike Casino Royale, which is why it hailed praise from critics/non-trekkies. The trekkies are hoping the movies to come don't further contaminate the timeline and blunder the series. I guess only time will tell.

Then you completely missed one of the fundamental undertones in the movie. After Nero comes back in time he changes the timeline for that "alternate reality". Everything that happens from that point forward is a fresh start, not bound by the timeline previously used in the show and the previous movies.

Star Trek is a 2009 science fiction film directed by J. J. Abrams and written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. It is the eleventh film based on the Star Trek franchise and features the main characters of the original Star Trek series, who are portrayed by a new cast. The film introduces an alternate reality separate from the continuity of the original series and the previous films. It explores the backstories of James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto), before they unite aboard the USS Enterprise to combat Nero (Eric Bana), a Romulan from the future who threatens the United Federation of Planets.
...
Development of the film began in 2005 when Paramount Pictures contacted Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman for ideas to revive the franchise. The creative team contrasted Orci and Lindelof, who consider themselves "Trekkies", with casual fans like Abrams, who all aimed to create a film that would interest a general audience. They wanted to be faithful to Star Trek canon, but they also introduced elements of their favorite novels, modified continuity with the time travel storyline, and modernized the production design of the original show.

[ScoobyNubieToo!]

I'm going to have to disagree, tons of people thought casino royale was a great movie. Though, the bond movie that followed was pretty terrible. Quanutm of solace ftl.

I agree 100% I wouldn't say CR was a great movie but it was pretty decent and much better than the piece of crap QOS.

[captainhook]

I agree 100% I wouldn't say CR was a great movie but it was pretty decent and much better than the piece of crap QOS.
All of the Craig movies were awful. Pierce portrayed an excellent Bond, but the movie plots went drastically downhill on him. Die another Day is when I really started to become disappointed in the series, CR forward was just the nail in the coffin.

I would think Keith Brosnan was the worth thing to happen to the series. :cry:
Lol, thank you for demonstrating my point about the layman movie goer.

Then you completely missed one of the fundamental undertones in the movie. After Nero comes back in time he changes the timeline for that "alternate reality". Everything that happens from that point forward is a fresh start, not bound by the timeline previously used in the show and the previous movies.
Neither I, nor the die hard trek fans I've spoken to agree that the point of the movie was to start an alternate reality in which Abrams will rewrite the history of star trek. The guy is extremely far out as we all know, but an attempt at rewriting star trek would quite literally be the genocide of the series. In the land of Lost he can get away with alternate realities and disappearing islands because he sets the rules, but there is no over writing the past in real life. In the real world there is a solid timeline and what was established in the tv shows and past movies is there to stay, regardless of what Abrams thinks/does. He best tread lightly and respect the history of the series in future movies, or he will almost instantaneously lose the following of star trek's extensive and long term original fan base. He's already planted a large seed of distrust among trekkies with this movie. Well . . . unless the whole thought process is simply, "jeez wizz, we can make a sh*t load of money by raping this novel series and transforming it into simply a cash cow fueled by uneducated viewers looking for a cheap thrill." In which case I feel for the trekkie's, because the same thing already occurred to my beloved Bond. :mad: RIP Bond.

[Scapegoat]

A "fresh start" simply isn't possible if they continue to use the Star Trek name and characters. In using the same characters and title they are confined by what has already been written...


this doesn't make any sense... they've done it a million times before in movies and comic books and everyone is usually happy unless they're uber geeks without a life beyond the original storyline.

How many storylines have there been for batman? and people, even huge fans, buy them up...

[captainhook]

this doesn't make any sense... they've done it a million times before in movies and comic books and everyone is usually happy unless they're uber geeks without a life beyond the original storyline.

How many storylines have there been for batman? and people, even huge fans, buy them up...

To be honest I really don't know Batman very well, so I can't comment on that, however, my quote makes perfectly clear sense. No real fan would appreciate one of their favorite series' being overwritten like it never existed before or like the original wasn't good enough. And the reason why old favorites are getting constantly redone recently is simply because companies/directors are too lazy and/or incompetent to come up with something new and refreshing. Instead they paste a new facade on an old successful story line and bank on average-joe movie goers hitting it up and lining their pockets with cash. Which is honestly pretty sad, but obviously effective. What's going to be interesting is what happens when they finally run out of old story lines and comic series' to remake in 5-10 years. Numerous sequels of all these remakes simply isn't going to hack it.

[Scapegoat]

i think redoing the past is not an issue solely applied to the movie industry... more like mankind itself. cars, movies, characters, history, etc etc etc

nothing wrong with a little rehashing of past successful stories in order to apply more directly to today.

You say this type of stuff isn't going to hack it... but i'm pretty sure 76 million is a weekend is :lol:

Will uber trekkies see a sequel to this movie? I'd bet my life savings on it

[WhiteXFire]

Neither I, nor the die hard trek fans I've spoken to agree that the point of the movie was to start an alternate reality in which Abrams will rewrite the history of star trek. The guy is extremely far out as we all know, but an attempt at rewriting star trek would quite literally be the genocide of the series. In the land of Lost he can get away with alternate realities and disappearing islands because he sets the rules, but there is no over writing the past in real life. In the real world there is a solid timeline and what was established in the tv shows and past movies is there to stay, regardless of what Abrams thinks/does. He best tread lightly and respect the history of the series in future movies, or he will almost instantaneously lose the following of star trek's extensive and long term original fan base. He's already planted a large seed of distrust among trekkies with this movie. Well . . . unless the whole thought process is simply, "jeez wizz, we can make a sh*t load of money by raping this novel series and transforming it into simply a cash cow fueled by uneducated viewers looking for a cheap thrill." In which case I feel for the trekkie's, because the same thing already occurred to my beloved Bond. :mad: RIP Bond.

Again, it's not really a discussion, it's a fact about the movie. Here, straight from the writers:

http://www.cinematical.com/2009/05/07/interview-star-trek-writers-alex-kurtzman-and-roberto-orci/
Just to get started, can you talk about juggling the demands of a passionate and knowledgeable fan base, and introducing an entire mythology to folks unfamiliar with Star Trek?

Orci: It was tough to come up with the idea, but once we had it, then it kind of went downhill – the idea being this is going to be an origin story, but it's going to connect a canon, because Leonard Nimoy as the original Spock is going to have something to do with the changes in the universe. Once we hit upon that idea, it wrote itself, as they say.

Kurtzman: It allowed us to stay true to all of the expectations that we as fans would have about what you wanted from the characters and how they came together. Not just how their iconic lines some into play, but just who they are, and once we had the context for the world, we were able to go to that place.

Orci: It took us eight months to come up with the initial thing, and then once that happened, then it went quickly.

...

Was that the same with the Uhura-Spock relationship?

Kurtzman: The Uhura-Spock relationship actually evolved a little differently because we'd originally done a Spock-Nurse Chapel storyline, and the gag was that Nurse Chapel was totally in love with Spock and he wasn't giving her the time of day. I think what happened was when we came to the context of what he loses at the midpoint of the movie, we felt like he genuinely needed to be comforted by somebody in a way that I think the audience wished he would be. And, keeping in line with the idea that you are in a parallel universe, and yet we want to make homage to –

Orci: The first interracial kiss between Kirk and Uhura. So it was an interspecies kiss.

Kurtzman: Some things could be similar, and some things could be different, so it just felt like a really, no pun intended, logical mirror to Kirk and Uhura.

...

Orci: And we tried to use science to fill in for destiny. So whereas in Star Wars you have a magical Jedi Knight in Ben Kenobi, here it's Leonard Nimoy, and he is in a way acting as a destiny device in that he is pushing Kirk to be captain, but he's doing that because he knows he'd be a great captain. So it actually fulfills both roles, and again, that's why Leonard Nimoy's involvement is so critical. He helps to push the universe into what it's supposed to be and it gives it that sense of destiny and it buys you exactly that mythic thing you're talking about but it does it in canon.

Btw, the ironic part about the bet of Star Trek vs. Transformers 2 is that they're both written by the same people, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, so they win either way! :lol:

[WhiteXFire]

Btw, what's even more ironic about all of this is the season finale of "Fringe" tonight, which as you probably know is also written by Orci and Kurtzman and directed by Abrams. The episode is completely about an alternate reality, titled "There's More Than One of Everything", and the character in the show at the center of everything happening who's hiding in that alternate reality, William Bell, is portrayed by Leonard Nimoy in the last 2 min of the show!! :mrgreen:

[captainhook]

Will uber trekkies see a sequel to this movie? I'd bet my life savings on it
No kidding they'll go and see it, they'll be going with hopes that the next one will be better and restore their faith in the series. Hell I even went to Quantum of Solace in the hope it would be better, now that I know for sure it's doomed I'll wait to see Bond 23 when it comes out on dvd.

"Orci: It was tough to come up with the idea, but once we had it, then it kind of went downhill" . . . now that's true, straight downhill lol

"Kurtzman: It allowed us to stay true to all of the expectations that we as fans would have about what you wanted from the characters and how they came together" Kurtzman is a pompous ass thinking he's going to tell all the real fans what they expect from the characters. Again, he's out to make money and satisfy his own interest, not please fans. The Uhura-Spock relationship was beyond ridiculous and made no sense whatsoever.
Again, it's not really a discussion, it's a fact about the movie.
The fact is that things aren't just the way the writers say they are since they didn't write it from the beginning. The ground work has already been set and it's not changing regardless of what Orci/Kurtzman/Abrams say. It's not their series and thus can not just stroll in and "change the rules" all the sudden to fit their wishes. The reason Abrams can get away with bogus and insane stuff in Lost and the three of them can get away with all kinds of ridiculous stuff in Fringe is because it's their story and they can change/alter it however they like. Although, Abrams went way over the top with Lost and the show has paid the price because of it. Loyal fans and followers have gradually taken a nose dive. Both myself and a number of my good friends started watching lost from the beginning and all but one has completely dropped it because it simply got way too far fetched and ridiculous. Most of us dropped it in the last 2 years. Fans of Star Trek won't take nearly as long to jump off the wagon. Fringe is a different animal simply because the whole point of the show from the start was to shock and surprise you with seemingly impossible stuff. With that kind of mentality from the get-go, anything flies. As the ratings suggest, the "anything flies" theme obviously doesn't appeal to the masses.

Btw, the ironic part about the bet of Star Trek vs. Transformers 2 is that they're both written by the same people, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, so they win either way! :lol:
True, the big difference between the two movies being that Micheal Bay owns J.J. Abrams in directing.

Nimoy playing Bell is old news, I read an interview with him a couple weeks ago about playing the part. I know Fringe is signed up for another season at this point, but there have been rumors over the last month about it getting nixed. If you knew Star Trek you'd see a number of other ideas Abrams jacked from Gene Roddenberry and inserted into Fringe. Everything from parallel universes to Übermensch. I know that in Fringe Abrams is going full steam with the whole Übermensch idea, but he best not continue with it and try to roll it into his second attempt at a Trek movie. Trying to redo the Wrath of Khan will be a sure fire way of losing any remaining support from the Trekkie community.

[terrorcel]

Saw it Thursday at 11:40pm at the IMAX at franklin institute. It was ****ing awesome, I'm not even a big star trek fan. My fiancee is a big trekkie and she loved it. Its just a great action packed movie with some good humor from time to time, definitely a worthwhile movie to see.

[The Captain]

True, the big difference between the two movies being that Micheal Bay owns J.J. Abrams in directing.


:bigeek::bigeek::bigeek::bigeek::bigeek::eek:

# The Island (2005)
# The Lionel Richie Collection (2003)
# Bad Boys II (2003)
# Pearl Harbor (2001)
# Armageddon (1998/I)
# The Rock (1996)
# Bad Boys (1995)
# Meat Loaf: Bat Out of Hell II - Picture Show

[Scapegoat]

:bigeek::bigeek::bigeek::bigeek::bigeek::eek:

# The Island (2005)
# The Lionel Richie Collection (2003)
# Bad Boys II (2003)
# Pearl Harbor (2001)
# Armageddon (1998/I)
# The Rock (1996)
# Bad Boys (1995)
# Meat Loaf: Bat Out of Hell II - Picture Show

and both transformer movies which are waaaay better than anything JJ abrams has directed

[The Captain]

I'll give him transformers...but that's kinda not fair because Transformers was awesome to begin with and it has Megan Fox. It'd be hard to mess that up.

[captainhook]

:bigeek::bigeek::bigeek::bigeek::bigeek::eek:

# The Island (2005)
# The Lionel Richie Collection (2003)
# Bad Boys II (2003)
# Pearl Harbor (2001)
# Armageddon (1998/I)
# The Rock (1996)
# Bad Boys (1995)
# Meat Loaf: Bat Out of Hell II - Picture Show

Shouldn't your :bigeek: faces be replaced with +1's? You proved my point by listing a bunch of great producing and/or directing jobs by Bay, lol.