The first official reviews of Star Trek, written by people who have seen the two preview screenings, are in. I think it's safe to say that these early opinions are very much on the positive side:
Empire wrote:The most exhilarating Trek to date marks a new future for Kirk and co. If this can boldly go on to seek out ideas to match its speed and style, a franchise is reborn
The Australian wrote:The result is a triumph, certain to be regarded as not just one Trek's better moments, but one of the finest films made in the sci-fi genre.
It's early days of course, but these reviews are very encouraging.
General Zod wrote:I'm going to take the Australian's review with a grain of salt; but so far it seems like it might actually be worth getting tickets for.
I can say without equivocation that this is the first Trek movie I genuinely want to see in the theater. That the director made the decision to show the full movie during a Wrath of Khan screening (my favorite of all the Trek movies so far) said quite a bit to me.
I won't see it the day or the week it comes out - but I will be seeing it in the theater.
Meh, I'll skip opening night and the predestined Trekkies and catch it on week 2, 3 or 4.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
Knife wrote:Meh, I'll skip opening night and the predestined Trekkies and catch it on week 2, 3 or 4.
Same here. I'm curious about it, but my enthusiasm and excitement nowhere near matches my excitement from the last time a Trek film was in theaters (and that turned out to be a POS).
SFX Magazine wrote:Here’s what matters. This summer, after Abrams’s explosive epic has nerve-pinched all the opposition, back gardens and parks will ring with the sound of young boys zapping imaginary phasers as they play Kirk and Spock, thanks to a reinvention as certain to conquer all before it as Russell T Davies’s revival of Doctor Who. JJ’s bravery has ensured that Star Trek will live long and prosper. For that, we owe him a massive debt of thanks.
Gene Roddenberry’s big mistake was deciding that, in the far-future, humanity would have evolved, become more perfect, more harmonious. But a bunch of stuffed-shirt paragons do not make for gripping human drama. Abrams knows that: his Enterprise crew disagree with one another. They fight. They say “bullshit!” They scream their heads off when chased by CGI monsters, and when confronted by a visitor from the future, they enquire, “Do they still have sandwiches there?” They’re vital and funny and gloriously alive and we recognise them as people, real people, just like us.
True, there will be those who wrinkle their noses and accuse this movie of vapidity, of being too action-orientated, too teen-targeted, of abrogating Star Trek’s responsibility to tackle weighty social issues - the only themes tackled here are grief and vengeance. To them, we say firstly: come on, let’s be honest. Star Trek’s intellectual credentials have been massively overstated. Look at the original series: action-packed or simply downright funadventures far outnumber more thoughtful episodes.
But, like everything in established sci-fi universes, I feel a bit worn out by all the hype and nerdbaiting. Hope the movie will be good regardless.
CinemaBlend wrote:More than anything else, the movie just feels so much more fun than any previous entry. There's more humor, more thrills, far more energy and a much better movie here than anything I've seen from Star Trek* since the 80's. I admit I was skeptical- I was not prepared to care about this universe and these characters again, after the crushing mediocrity that they had become. I can be skeptical no more, though. This is a fantastic movie it's own right, one I would definitely recommend to Trekkie and new fan alike.
I'm cautiously optimistic, if these reviews are remotely accurate. Unfortunately, I am also rather cynical of early reviews, particularly of Star Trek movies. I heard a lot of the "It's totally different and cool and really exciting this time ... honest!" early talk when Nemesis came out, and we all know how shitty Nemesis was.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
I'm far too jaded with Star Trek to expect anything better than a steaming pile of dreck.
Then again this is the first Star Trek movie that's actually held any appeal to me in the trailers since First Contact (even the basic premise of Insurrection and Nemesis were retarded as hell)
If I had something interesting, profound or incredibly stupid to say, it would go here.
I think that anyone who expects it to live up to this hype is wildly optimistic, and likely to be disappointed. I am hopeful, however, that it won't be an outright waste of my money, and I certainly hope it lives up to the reviews. That said, I rather underestimate it and be pleasantly surprised, than overestimate it and be disappointed.
I would be a lot more impressed if Roger Ebert has good things to say about it. Not that I always agree with Roger Ebert, but he has always been resistant to hype and bandwagons, either for or against a film. If he says something, I know that it's an honest opinion borne of his tastes and experiences, not an attempt to ingratiate himself with a certain demographic.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
I am an eternal optimist and while I'm not the biggest fan of the franchise, I have always had a love of the characters. (I get down right weepy at the end of TUD. ) So I am hoping that this is a good as the early gushers are saying as well as staying true to what I know.
I probably won't see it for a while though, as I couldn't even drag my ass to see Watchmen, and I was infinitely more hyped to see that.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
For me, its a matter of avoiding in the early crowds, and the fact that its coming out around my exam time, and unless I fail, I'll be busy as fuck. So no, I probably won't see it initially either.
Dark Horizons wrote:Successfully relaunching the long-declining franchise, rising director JJ Abrams delivers a less cerebral, more adrenalin-fueled take on the voyages of the USS Enterprise. In the process he reintroduces critical elements the franchise has not seen in years - cultural relevance, suspense, and a fresh sense of wonder missing from a mythology so heavily explored and exploited over the years.
I'm going to upgrade my feeling about this movie from "foreboding sense of dread" to "snarky pessimism." The reviews seem to promise typical "blockbuster" material . . . pretty special effects, quick pacing, lots of action . . . underwhelming script. Seems it might be worth seeing, maybe a month or so after it comes out.
IGN UK has a bizarre review up; they complain the movie is "too complicated" and not exciting enough, then turn around and give it three-and-a-half stars out of four.
IGN UK wrote:In a way, Star Trek is this year's Iron Man. Both were superbly cast, full of great character interaction and genuine humanity. But the pair were also seriously hampered by badly conceived storylines and humdrum action sequences (remember Tony Stark's rubbish fight with Ironmonger at the end of the film?) that stops them joining the likes of Jaws, Star Wars and Independence Day in the annuls of truly great summer films.
Darth Onasi wrote:.... did that guy just put Independance Day in the same league as Jaws and Star Wars?
Heresy! Pitchforks and torches, now!
And sigged. Thank you for that.
I plan on skipping X-Men Origins and starting the summer movie season with this. I was never much of a Trekkie, but it does look interesting, though I don't know a single thing about it.
Bounty wrote:IGN UK has a bizarre review up; they complain the movie is "too complicated" and not exciting enough, then turn around and give it three-and-a-half stars out of four.
IGN UK wrote:In a way, Star Trek is this year's Iron Man. Both were superbly cast, full of great character interaction and genuine humanity. But the pair were also seriously hampered by badly conceived storylines and humdrum action sequences (remember Tony Stark's rubbish fight with Ironmonger at the end of the film?) that stops them joining the likes of Jaws, Star Wars and Independence Day in the annuls of truly great summer films.
Are we supposed to take a guy seriously when he calls "Independence Day" a "truly great summer film" and doesn't know the difference between "annuls" and "annals"?
You would think someone writing for IGN UK would be fluent in the English language. "Annuls" is something that a medieval British king does to his marriage with the use of an axe. "Annals" are historical records, usually arranged by year.
Perhaps the movie will do well after all. Apparently, it impressed at least one illiterate person, and illiterate people are an important demographic.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Actually I've noticed quite a lot of that kind of poor proofing on the larger 'gaming' sites lately. It'll pass a spell-checker, but it's clear they don't even send their articles to someone else for proofing.
Stark wrote:Actually I've noticed quite a lot of that kind of poor proofing on the larger 'gaming' sites lately. It'll pass a spell-checker, but it's clear they don't even send their articles to someone else for proofing.
Gaming sites are written by morons, which I suppose is only fitting since they are written for morons. When I said you would think someone writing for IGN UK would be fluent in English, I was making a joke about the "UK" part of the name.
Confusing "annals" with "annuls" is pretty damned bad though. I remember once seeing a boxcover for a porno movie where the writer said that the film would go down in the "anals" of porn history because of its large amount of ass sex. An amusing play on the word "annals", but also evidence that the idiots who write for IGN are actually less literate than at least one guy who writes fucking porno movie box covers.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:Gaming sites are written by morons, which I suppose is only fitting since they are written for morons. When I said you would think someone writing for IGN UK would be fluent in English, I was making a joke about the "UK" part of the name.
Damn. One of the best parts of the situation is that given the nature of these sites (basically fansites that sell advertising space) the writer might not even be in the UK, but the site itself has no proofing either. Who cares about standards?
Darth Wong wrote:Confusing "annals" with "annuls" is pretty damned bad though. I remember once seeing a boxcover for a porno movie where the writer said that the film would go down in the "anals" of porn history because of its large amount of ass sex. An amusing play on the word "annals", but also evidence that the idiots who write for IGN are actually less literate than at least one guy who writes fucking porno movie box covers.
I'd bet money it was lazy spell-checking; perhaps they typed 'annsls' or something, and just clicked 'change' instead of looking at what the suggested word was.
) So I am hoping that this is a good as the early gushers are saying as well as staying true to what I know. 
And sigged. Thank you for that.
One of the best parts of the situation is that given the nature of these sites (basically fansites that sell advertising space) the writer might not even be in the UK, but the site itself has no proofing either. Who cares about standards?
