Star Trek, five months later

PST: discuss Star Trek without "versus" arguments.

Moderator: Vympel

Post Reply

Rate the movie!

10 - I have no sense of perspective and think mankind will never better this masterpiece
2
1%
9
8
5%
8 - very good
44
25%
7
51
29%
6 - decent but flawed
46
26%
5
13
7%
4 - poor
4
2%
3
2
1%
2 - shit
3
2%
1
1
1%
 
Total votes: 174

User avatar
Bounty
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10767
Joined: 2005-01-20 08:33am
Location: Belgium

Star Trek, five months later

Post by Bounty »

It's been five months since Star Trek was released, and with the DVD release upcoming I thought it'd be interesting to do a poll.

The hype has long-since died down. The initial excitement has passed. Looking back, how do you rate Star Trek as a movie? Were you entertained? Did you enjoy it at first but now see more flaws, or has it grown on you?

As a courtesy, please only vote if you have actually seen the movie - nobody gains anything from "hur hur all Trek sucks" wankers.

Also, if you vote, please post to give a bit more detail - why did you like or dislike the movie, was it better or worse than you expected, are there specific flaws or merits that influenced your vote, et cetera.

Finally, I would really appreciate it if this didn't drift off-topic into minutiae or tech discussions. PST is on life support anyway, start a new thread if you must.
User avatar
Bounty
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10767
Joined: 2005-01-20 08:33am
Location: Belgium

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by Bounty »

Myself I've rated it an 8. I love the movie and will happily rewatch it, but there are minor flaws that in the end add up. The plot rides roughshot over some sections and while that doesn't *have* to be a major flaw it does make some sequences - particularly anything involving the physics of the space time hole - hard to understand. There's potential for good character work that's squandered in favour of more fisticuffs. And while the look of the film is, in my opinion, successful, it could do with a little less lens flares. I get the idea, it's a cute effect, but it's overdone.

I'd still rank it among the best Star Trek movies, and it's definitely my personal favourite even if TWoK just about manages to squeeze ahead on storytelling merits.
User avatar
Prannon
Jedi Knight
Posts: 589
Joined: 2009-03-25 07:39am
Location: Austin

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by Prannon »

I was damn excited about this film, and after seeing it I was a little underwhelmed. I blame myself for having too high expectations, not necessarily the film. Looking back at it now, I see it as a very fresh start. The look was new, the actors were new, the way they treated the story was new, it was all just new. It also took some serious risks and made some big changes, unlike previous movies. I wanna see more! I wanna see more ships jumping to warp like bullets out of a gun, and I want to see more space battles and star ship porn like they portrayed them in this movie. I also wanna see just how they develop the universe now that they don't have any millstones holding them down. So, at least on the point of getting me to come back for the next one, the movie succeeded.

On the other hand, the story and the villain are a bit lacking. I'm not going to pretend that I know how they should fix the film and make it perfect, but when I watch TWoK, STXI doesn't really hold a candle to it. Maybe I'm just a snob, but STXI just didn't seem to be so carefully woven as that film. I give them a lot of credit for character interaction. The characters were not stale in any way. However, there's very little development, or very little smooth development that I could believe (barring Spock, and I think this movie was a little more about him than anyone else). Kirk wasn't really likable, I didn't really buy his ascendance from Cadet to Captain, and to be honest, I have a hard time giving him the lion's share of credit for saving Earth.

tl;dr version: I look back and see a flawed film that did what it was supposed to do, generate interest. It took some risks, it had some good characters, but it was lacking in good storytelling and seemed to just be a simple popcorn flick. I'd honestly like a little more out of the films I see.
User avatar
Lusankya
ChiCom
Posts: 4163
Joined: 2002-07-13 03:04am
Location: 人间天堂
Contact:

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by Lusankya »

I gave it a seven, rounded up from 6.5. It was fun and exciting, the special effects were good. The plot was good enough for my tastes, though I guess it could have been "Trekkier". With minor changes (mainly ones related to the fact in non-Trek, people wouldn't already have an attachment to Spock), it probably could have been turned into a generic Sci-Fi flick. That's not necessarily a bad thing, since "Trekkiness" is actually quite boring, but they could have somehow made it at least look like the spiritual successor of Trek or some rot like that, rather than just chucking the brand name on the movie. It's a relatively minor complaint, though.

In the end, it was dragged down by the fact that I couldn't stand Kirk. Even now, the first thing I think of when I look back is, "Man, Kirk was a douche." There's a line between being brazen and cocky and just being a dickhead, and new Kirk was on the wrong side of it. That would have been fine, had Kirk been a minor character, or had it been the way his character was supposed to be, but in the end I couldn't buy it, and I thought it impacted the movie significantly.

Pretty much everything else was solid to very good.
"I would say that the above post is off-topic, except that I'm not sure what the topic of this thread is, and I don't think anybody else is sure either."
- Darth Wong
Free Durian - Last updated 27 Dec
"Why does it look like you are in China or something?" - havokeff
User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7768
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by ray245 »

I expects the Star Trek movie to be something that I could call an epic movie, but in then, the lack of urgency and real danger makes it seems like just another Star Trek episode of the week.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 8843
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by Solauren »

I gave it an 8.

The only big 'issues' I have are how 'Supernova', 'Black Hole' are used, and 'Red Matter'.

Beyond that, good movie. Expecting acurate use of real-world Science from Star Trek is like expecting to win the lottery. Sure, it could happen, but I wouldn't count on it.
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.

It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
User avatar
tim31
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3388
Joined: 2006-10-18 03:32am
Location: Tasmania, Australia

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by tim31 »

I gave it a 6. I did really enjoy it, and willingly ignored bad science(it's Trek), but the bit at the end where they weren't sure if they'd get the green for a second film? Why is that young man being given a commission and a ship?
lol, opsec doesn't apply to fanfiction. -Aaron

PRFYNAFBTFC
CAPTAIN OF MFS SAMMY HAGAR
ImageImage
User avatar
Captain Seafort
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1699
Joined: 2008-10-10 11:52am
Location: Blighty

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by Captain Seafort »

tim31 wrote:Why is that young man being given a commission and a ship?
This is the big issue I have with it. If it hadn't been for the fact that virtually the entire crew were still cadets, it would have been an 8 or 9. Instead they had to make Kirk so good that he could command the most powerful ship in the fleet having completed only 3/4 of the academy course, with no apparent shipboard experience. Then we have the entire KM fiasco, which had all the subtlety of a cricket bat to the head.

Overall, the basic plot was good, and the entire film after the fleet left for Vulcan was very good, but the flaws drag it down a lot, so it's a 6 for basic quality, plus a bonus point for feeling fun.

Final score: 7
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe - Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sir Sirius
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2002-12-09 12:15pm
Location: 6 hr 45 min R.A. and -16 degrees 43 minutes declination

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by Sir Sirius »

Gave it an 8. I enjoyed the movie tremendously, even if it was just a light hearted action movie. And since that is my only real criteria for rating movies it scores highly.

However the movie did feel a bit forced at times; Vette scene and the fall of the cliff, the jump to the drill, the HtH n the drill, Kirk meeting Spock and McCoy on that planet and so on. Also I wasn't too impressed by some of the designs, mainly the Romulan ship, it just looked silly inside and out.
Image
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by The Romulan Republic »

"Decent but flawed" really describes this movie, I think. Then again, I thought it maybe held up better on repeat veiwings, so I could go as high as seven here I think.

As to why:

Positives: some good character developement, decent special effects, a few kickass actions scenes, a couple good performances. I really liked the opening scene.

Negatives: too many references to the old films and characters that felt forced, too hyperactive, big plot holes, a mostly mediocre musical score.
User avatar
Anguirus
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3702
Joined: 2005-09-11 02:36pm
Contact:

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by Anguirus »

I expects the Star Trek movie to be something that I could call an epic movie, but in then, the lack of urgency and real danger makes it seems like just another Star Trek episode of the week.
Dude, THEY BLEW UP VULCAN.

Anyway, it's more like a 7, but I'm gonna notch it up to an 8 for sentimental reasons...it's the only watchable Trek there's been for years, and despite being highly ambitious turned out to be better than most Star Trek movies, and as good as the very best.

Hell, I'm giving it a point just for the opening scene.

(Note: I almost clicked on 10 just cause the caption is funny.)
"I spit on metaphysics, sir."

"I pity the woman you marry." -Liberty

This is the guy they want to use to win over "young people?" Are they completely daft? I'd rather vote for a pile of shit than a Jesus freak social regressive.
Here's hoping that his political career goes down in flames and, hopefully, a hilarious gay sex scandal.
-Tanasinn
You can't expect sodomy to ruin every conservative politician in this country. -Battlehymn Republic
My blog, please check out and comment! http://decepticylon.blogspot.com
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by Stark »

I liked it. It was a bit rubbish, but things happened and it looked good and it jettisoned a pile of rubbish continuity. I'm just not sure how to give it a number. 6-7?
User avatar
Themightytom
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2818
Joined: 2007-12-22 11:11am
Location: United States

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by Themightytom »

I gave it a 7 but I am not judging it as a stand alone movie. That also means however that sequels would influence its quality for me, as odd as that sounds. If it turns out this movie lays the ground work for something good, I might change my mind but by itself it was not so impressive.

As a reboot, it lacks the depth I would have liked to see. I think they sacraficed a little too much for a fast paced crowd pleaser, the most notable manifestation off this being their urgency to get familiar characters back into their familiar roles. Kirk has to be a Captain, Spock has to be his first officer, Scotty has to be on board, Chekov has to be a navigator even if he doesn't really seem old enough or even talented enough. If they had started everyone out in familiar positions that would be one thing, but they started with some bold changes, and then retconned them IN the movie so that everyone ended up where we expected them for the most part.

It doesn't even really WORK as a continuation movie, despite the effort made to link it via Old Spock. They did zero seek out new life, the future didn't seem that optimistic and it did nothing to further any old storylines a la Wrath of Kahn or ST: First Contact.

All of that aside I don;t really mind it as a movie, I wouldn't buy it but I would put it on netflix instant DL or watch it on TV.
Anguirus made a good point as well, the opening scene gets it an extra point.

"Since when is "the west" a nation?"-Styphon
"ACORN= Cobra obviously." AMT
This topic is... oh Village Idiot. Carry on then.--Havok
User avatar
TC Pilot
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1648
Joined: 2007-04-28 01:46am

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by TC Pilot »

I'll give it a 5. I was busy at the time, so I basically avoided all the hype in the lead-up to the release, and when I finally got around to watching it, I couldn't help but get over the nagging idea that something just seemed wrong. If you're going to do a reboot, that's fine. But actually do it, rather that wimp out with this time travelling nonsense.

Everything else just seemed so rushed or forced, that it felt really sloppy and insubstantial. When I think Star Trek, or at least good Star Trek, I think of something far more... for lack of a better word, graceful. Same could be said for the actors; they're enthusiastic in their roles, but they really lacked any forceful presence to them. Ah well, that's what sequels are for, I guess.
"He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot."

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."
User avatar
El Moose Monstero
Moose Rebellion Ambassador
Posts: 3743
Joined: 2003-04-30 12:33pm
Location: The Cradle of the Rebellion... Oop Nowrrth, Like...
Contact:

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by El Moose Monstero »

5, it really wasn't what I wanted from the premise or the trailers, and I think part of that was the hype surrounding it.

The villain was crap, if I hadn't seen the thread here with the prequel comics, I'd have had not much clue what was going on. I felt there were large wastes of space within the film which could have been made up by decent writing, acting and character development instead of the director just whipping out and polishing his giant kirk-penis just to establish how much lovin' he's giving the original series and the source material.

Even going with the initial plot, I maintain that something better acted (by everyone apart from McCoy), written and thought out could have been achieved and still maintained enough pew pew lasers and lense flares to keep everybody happy. All I asked was a few less characters, as if you're going to get a second film anyway, why bother cramming everything into your first film? Lose the Spock voiceover/mindmeld flashback and do it through Nero instead. I've always thought that writing the backdrop film, the establishing film, is easier as you've got most of the bare bones done and all you need to do is tie things together. If they'd spread out the characters, they could have introduced Scotty, Sulu and Chekov in number II and given themselves some free source material for number two instead of pissing about on an ice planet with Trek-wok midgets and having 'ho-ho-nuclear-wessels-look-at-my-kirk-penis'.
Image
"...a fountain of mirth, issuing forth from the penis of a cupid..." ~ Dalton / Winner of the 'Frank Hipper Most Horrific Drag EVAR' award - 2004 / The artist formerly known as The_Lumberjack.

Evil Brit Conspiracy: Token Moose Obsessed Kebab Munching Semi Geordie
User avatar
Stofsk
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12924
Joined: 2003-11-10 12:36am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by Stofsk »

I'd need to watch it again to see what effect half a year does to a film I thought was better than 'very good'. Since the flaws in the film were beginning to get pretty noticeable on my second viewing I might give it a 7. 'Still very good, but could have ironed out a few creases'. Or an 8 'Very good, and the problems/flaws don't detract from my enjoyment of it'.
Image
User avatar
phred
Jedi Knight
Posts: 989
Joined: 2006-03-25 04:33am

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by phred »

7 It was a good flick, and did what it was supposed to. Getting the crew together, establishing the universe, spaceships, and explosions.

OTOH the bad guy's ship was just ridiculous. It's like they got an idea of what evil is supposed to look like and then took it a couple of notches further, which was the wrong way to go.

The red matter was a SoD breaking thing for me.

The way they shoehorned in the full crew just because was sort of irritating too. I'm sure if they wanted to, they could have done it a little better.
Yo mama so classless, she's a Marxist utopia - Proof that not all general chat is totally devoid of intelligence.

It's so bad it wraps back around to awesome then back to bad again, then back to halfway between awesome and bad. Like if ed wood directed a godzilla movie - Duckie
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by Patrick Degan »

Decent but Flawed. Very flawed. The script needed work, particularly where the clumsier aspects of the time travel plot and Kirk's set-up to eventual command of the Enterprise were concerned. Kirk's character also needed a lot of work to make him something other than a self-important little asshole through half the movie.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
erik_t
Jedi Master
Posts: 1108
Joined: 2008-10-21 08:35pm

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by erik_t »

Having not seen it in the intervening four months, the movie I remember is an eight. We'll see how I feel on repeat viewings. My major complaint was bla bla red matter bla cadet stuff, which is annoying to think about in a long discussion among like-minded people but frankly did not substantially affect my viewing enjoyment.
User avatar
Oskuro
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2698
Joined: 2005-05-25 06:10am
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by Oskuro »

An 8. It had its fair share of eye-rolling moments, but it was fun to watch(tm) and that is all I really expect from a movie.
unsigned
User avatar
FSTargetDrone
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7878
Joined: 2004-04-10 06:10pm
Location: Drone HQ, Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by FSTargetDrone »

Rated 8. I enjoyed it immensely and despite my hatred of Time Travel as a plot device in general, I wasn't bothered by any of the apparent incongruities, I didn't mind the nonsense of the Red Matter and I even liked the bad guy. The acting was fine throughout and I even liked Kirk.

However. The one thing that sticks in my craw, as shallow as a complaint as this may be compared to any of the other issues raised now and previously, is that of the design of the Narada. I'm sorry, but it is an absurd ship. What is the purpose of the many spikes and pointy protrusions? Why is a mere "mining vessel" so heavily armed? I can tolerate just about everything else "wrong" with the film, but I loath the Romulan ship. As goofy as the inside is (so much wasted space!) I hatehatehate the outside. If I could make one change to the film it would be to redesign the Narada. It is cartoonishly Evil-looking. It should look more like the Nostromo and less like an overgrown nightmare conjured up by The Shrike.

I will be buying the DVD as soon as funds allow. Here's hoping for commentary and (wish-wish-wish) having the option of integrating deleted scenes into the film proper.
Image
User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15744
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by Batman »

I will NEVER buy the DVD because the movie stunk. I only recently saw it and I'm glad I DIDN'T waste money on seeing it in theater. The ONLY thing that movie had going for it was the looks of the new E-Nil (which we saw too damned little of). The plot made no sense,the Romulans on Nero's ship wore 'we're evil' tattoos just because as did Nero, the weapon sound effects stunk (and sorry,trying for realism by not having sound effects for the outside shots was a waste of effort-we ARE talking Trek here. FTL, phasers etc?)
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
erik_t
Jedi Master
Posts: 1108
Joined: 2008-10-21 08:35pm

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by erik_t »

FSTargetDrone wrote: However. The one thing that sticks in my craw, as shallow as a complaint as this may be compared to any of the other issues raised now and previously, is that of the design of the Narada. I'm sorry, but it is an absurd ship. What is the purpose of the many spikes and pointy protrusions? Why is a mere "mining vessel" so heavily armed? I can tolerate just about everything else "wrong" with the film, but I loath the Romulan ship. As goofy as the inside is (so much wasted space!) I hatehatehate the outside. If I could make one change to the film it would be to redesign the Narada. It is cartoonishly Evil-looking. It should look more like the Nostromo and less like an overgrown nightmare conjured up by The Shrike.
Mmm yes, I forgot about that part. That was the only real issue that bothered me from a watching-the-movie point of view.
User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3926
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by Formless »

I gave it a seven. I'm hardly sentimental for Star Trek (having grown up on Voyager) but it was fun. I didn't rate it any higher because it just wasn't, well, memorable. Its not the kind of movie that five months later I've given much thought to. Its kinda like Attack of the Clones in that regard; not so horrible you want to forget it but can't like The Phantom Menace, but not so good that I want to see it again or own it like Revenge of the Sith, The Empire Strikes Back, or even Return of the Jedi.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.
User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7768
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Star Trek, five months later

Post by ray245 »

Anguirus wrote:
I expects the Star Trek movie to be something that I could call an epic movie, but in then, the lack of urgency and real danger makes it seems like just another Star Trek episode of the week.
Dude, THEY BLEW UP VULCAN.
Even if this is the case, I didn't feel any excitement or any sense of tensions when they are trying to blow up Vulcan and Earth.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
Post Reply