Star Trek 90210, is it a rental or a buy?

This forum contains threads from main General Chat forum older than 3 months.

Moderator: thunderchero

User avatar
HsojVvad
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 776
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:00 am

Post by HsojVvad » Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:37 pm

I know how you feel, I feel the same way about Nemisis, it was the first movie I ever watched online. My way of protetsting against crappy movies. If they want me to spend my money and go to a cinema and watch a movie it better be good, and not a cash grab. So I protested and watched it online. (first time ever doing something like that, and I didn't even bother renting it on dvd when it was released. Now I don't know how to do it again. I will just wait for dvd, and don't bother going to cinema's much anymore.
PRIUSQUAM PRAESENS DAMNATUS SALVENS :
HIC HOMO NESCIENS. QUAE FUTURA EST ?

EST PLANE VANUM?
MAGNIFICANDUM?
ERROR AUT SANUM?
O FORTUNA EST!
QUA?

User avatar
marhawkman
Commander
Commander
Posts: 463
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:00 am

Post by marhawkman » Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:56 pm

I LOVED nemesis! What's the plot on this one?

User avatar
HsojVvad
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 776
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:00 am

Post by HsojVvad » Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:43 pm

marhawkman wrote:I LOVED nemesis! What's the plot on this one?
I have fianlly rented the movie. Glad I didn't go to the cinema to watch it. But then again, watching the special effects might have been worth it.

Not to spoil it, there is a certian Person, who wants to get revenge. He goes through time and space to get it. I would say more, but it will give it away, and for once I am glad I didn't read any spoilers since it would have made the movie even worse.

It's not that bad, the cannon or official history of Star Trek was thrown out the window, but that could easily be explained, wich I will not say in order it might spoil it for you.

It is a rental. I might even buy it since my son likes it alot. If you accept it for what it is, a rebirth of Star Trek that dosn't fallow h ST history, it's ok.

User avatar
TurboC
Lieutenant-Commander
Lieutenant-Commander
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:00 am

Post by TurboC » Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:15 am

Peter1981 wrote:Star Terk XI -- great film...

...Just not Star Trek!
Definitely not Star Trek. But I disagree about the "great film" part. I'd say it's a mediocre or above-average action movie at best. The character development is hackneyed, the pacing is laughable, and it's dumbed-down to the 3rd grade level. All it has going for it is one cliche action scene leading into the next, and the next. Have standards dropped so low that this could be considered great?

And in retrospect, Nemesis was pretty bad. Maybe even almost as bad as Abrams' "Star Trek." But at least Nemesis had the virtue of NOT stabbing a poison blade through the very heart of Star Trek.

User avatar
HsojVvad
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 776
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:00 am

Post by HsojVvad » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:32 am

Oh Nemisis was a horrible movie. I wouldn't compare ST XI to Nemisis. I went in thinking it was a sci fi movie and not ST. I will call it ST movie. To not call this a Star Trek movie would like be calling Yesterdays Enterprise a non The Next Generation TV episode.
PRIUSQUAM PRAESENS DAMNATUS SALVENS :
HIC HOMO NESCIENS. QUAE FUTURA EST ?

EST PLANE VANUM?
MAGNIFICANDUM?
ERROR AUT SANUM?
O FORTUNA EST!
QUA?

KrazeeXXL
BORG Trouble Maker
BORG Trouble Maker
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 3:00 am
Location: the 36th Chamber

Post by KrazeeXXL » Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:37 pm

I'm afraid that one day (with the adequate tech) we have to mod ourselves an own Star Trek series/movie from preserves just to keep it somehow alive. Sounds a bit like mumification but Star Trek fans are crazy so I'll expect everything to say at least ;)

"Expect the worst and hope for the best" (Jackie Chan)

What shall I say else? After the First Contact the bar was raised that high so it was just possible to sink down to the ground. (I know HsojVvad you disagree with me in that point but np ;) )

The bottom is hopefully reached so it will and can rise up again. dang, I hope it will... I think the franchise will recognise that something went wrong not until ppl stop buying the dvd's. So it is your decision to buy and support Jar Jar's movie, or not. I for myself already came up to a decision. So... I share Borg_wesley's opinion :mrgreen:

User avatar
HsojVvad
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 776
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:00 am

Post by HsojVvad » Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:37 pm

I don't really want to support JJ, but my son wants it for Christmas, so I will get it for him. My son dosn't understand my descision to not buy it, but once he said, he will ask Santa for it, since I wouldn't buy it, I can't break his heart now.

It was cool though, I was watching Star Trek TOS and he goes, "Daddy that is Spock from the movie", I smiled so at least he is sort of interested in Star Trek now, where before he didn't bother watching it when I am watching it 5 times a day lol. (That is all 5 series, that I tape and watch later)
PRIUSQUAM PRAESENS DAMNATUS SALVENS :
HIC HOMO NESCIENS. QUAE FUTURA EST ?

EST PLANE VANUM?
MAGNIFICANDUM?
ERROR AUT SANUM?
O FORTUNA EST!
QUA?

User avatar
eber3
Captain
Captain
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:00 am

Post by eber3 » Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:09 pm

KrazeeXXL wrote:I'm afraid that one day (with the adequate tech) we have to mod ourselves an own Star Trek series/movie from preserves just to keep it somehow alive. Sounds a bit like mumification but Star Trek fans are crazy so I'll expect everything to say at least ;)
Someday soon I expect that to be possible. They have already done commercials where they splice celebrities into commercials. Plus they did a pretty good job of splice TOS with DS9 in the Trials and Tribulations ep.

Now of course we aren't ready to fabricate entire episodes from scratch yet, but some day soon we will be able make new movies/episodes using celebrities images and voices from existing stock. It will be like taking digital renderings of existing images and sounds then using a computer to make them move and say different things. That way we will be able to make things using dead celebrities, or just make old celebrities look young again.

So, yeah some day we can have a new season of TOS using all the original actors and sets as they appeared then.

User avatar
Deimos
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Posts: 77
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:00 am

Post by Deimos » Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:46 pm

I enjoyed the new star trek film and I think it was worth the high ratings it got
Hated the excessive lens flare effects though, those weren't needed.

Nemesis was "ok", great effects, especially the ship ramming bit, but the story was definatly lack lustre and the TNG cast almost seem tired of the franchise.

User avatar
ruthlessferengi
Multiple Tournament Champion
Multiple Tournament Champion
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:00 am
Location: GMT- 5

Post by ruthlessferengi » Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:01 pm

form purely survival point of view - granted all the above mentioned concernes/complaints/whine/snot about the movie - two things got to be acknowledged.

1. it was a financial success, more so than any other ST movie - and that should count for something for a dying franchise

2. it got attention of folk who would not look the ST way before - the 20 yo and younger.

3. between "thanksgiving puppies" and "muscle cars of america" now you can chose between three (3) different callendars (with images related directly to ST) in the Malls of this glorious nation:) this is huge...! :))


rightly or wrongly, ST franchise got a CPR, survived the shock and may do well from financial point of view. As far as the soul of the thing is concerned, well, it's up to the fan base to preserve and evolve it (which, i would venture to speculate, got expandaded thanks to this movie)

but without cash, there will be no soul as far as busness side of this cult is concerned...
Relevance is a post hoc phenomenon

На безптичье и жопа воробей...
Ancient Klingon Battlecry

User avatar
TurboC
Lieutenant-Commander
Lieutenant-Commander
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:00 am

Post by TurboC » Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:24 pm

HsojVvad wrote:To not call this a Star Trek movie would like be calling Yesterdays Enterprise a non The Next Generation TV episode.
That's just plain stupid. Yesterday's Enterprise was consistent with the established ST universe. All of the characters were "in character", everything was consistent with other TNG episodes, and at the end the resolution was to restore the original timeline.

Abrams' "Star Trek" is inconsistent with the established ST universe. Not just inconsistent - it ERASES it. 40-some years of Star Trek erased by some hack. The characters act like they are either insane or from the mirror universe. They're starfleet, and they stranded Kirk on an ice planet. They stranded Kirk on an ice planet. With monsters on it! Next they can put him in the agonizer!

They didn't even TRY to have plausible science. Black holes don't do that. They just don't. Planet Vulcan exploding in the sky of another planet - what??? There's sci-fi, and then there's just plain idiotic. Abrams' movie is the latter. It fails at being sci-fi because it fails at basic science.

It also fails at being Star Trek. That's because it fails Gene Roddenberry's vision. Star Trek has always been ABOUT something. About some aspect of our humanity. Morality tales set in the future. This was just about special effects and people flipping out and hitting each other.

It's an action movie for 3rd graders. Sorry.

User avatar
HsojVvad
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 776
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:00 am

Post by HsojVvad » Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:02 pm

TurboC wrote:
HsojVvad wrote:
It's an action movie for 3rd graders. Sorry.
I thought it was for 14-18 year olds who watch the GW channel 8O

User avatar
Martok
Rear-Admiral
Rear-Admiral
Posts: 1146
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 2:00 am

Post by Martok » Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:08 am

TurboC wrote:
HsojVvad wrote:To not call this a Star Trek movie would like be calling Yesterdays Enterprise a non The Next Generation TV episode.
That's just plain stupid. Yesterday's Enterprise was consistent with the established ST universe. All of the characters were "in character", everything was consistent with other TNG episodes, and at the end the resolution was to restore the original timeline.

Abrams' "Star Trek" is inconsistent with the established ST universe. Not just inconsistent - it ERASES it. 40-some years of Star Trek erased by some hack. The characters act like they are either insane or from the mirror universe. They're starfleet, and they stranded Kirk on an ice planet. They stranded Kirk on an ice planet. With monsters on it! Next they can put him in the agonizer!

They didn't even TRY to have plausible science. Black holes don't do that. They just don't. Planet Vulcan exploding in the sky of another planet - what??? There's sci-fi, and then there's just plain idiotic. Abrams' movie is the latter. It fails at being sci-fi because it fails at basic science.

It also fails at being Star Trek. That's because it fails Gene Roddenberry's vision. Star Trek has always been ABOUT something. About some aspect of our humanity. Morality tales set in the future. This was just about special effects and people flipping out and hitting each other.

It's an action movie for 3rd graders. Sorry.

That actually sums up fairly well why I, like yourself, despise the new so-called Trek movie. Star Trek is about a vision, including that of humanity's future; this "film" was simply another mindless action movie, nothing more. Well said, Turbo.


HsojVvad wrote:
TurboC wrote:
It's an action movie for 3rd graders. Sorry.
I thought it was for 14-18 year olds who watch the GW channel 8O

That too. :lol:
"Evil is easy, and has infinite forms." -- Pascal

User avatar
Peter1981
Rear-Admiral
Rear-Admiral
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 2:00 am
Location: England

Post by Peter1981 » Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:15 pm

while i am concerned at the new direction forced upon us with this movie we know that the 'new' crew of the starship ENTERPRISE is signed for another 2 films! (a quote from the 'new' Kirk in the Blu-ray specials) It is quite possible that if enough of us whine about the timeline jump we may find that either as a resolution to the 2nd or 3rd films the timeline (as we like it) is restored! (fingers crossed everybody!!)


That said I enjoyed the film when I re-watched it on blu-ray, at the cinema I, like many of us, felt confusion and discomfort at the change of timeline that had occured, but, in hindsight and review I now understand the choices of the film-makers to make a film that would allow a story telling without the huge weight of the backstory for a new generation. That said the film was very entertaining and enjoyable I hope however a retoration of the timeline occures.

The new Star Trek film in many ways recalls the return to british television of 'Doctor Who' which early on ditched the history and moved on with new stories and over the last five years has harmonised with its 46 year history. I hope this kind of reunification can be acheived...

User avatar
HsojVvad
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 776
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:00 am

Post by HsojVvad » Sun Dec 06, 2009 2:50 pm

Yeah Peter, I hope you are correct. I guess ST XII will just continue the current time line, and XIII will have the timeline restored hopefully.

My guess, Either William Shatner will make an apperance, just like Lenord Nemoy did, and restore the time line, or Jonathan Frakes will reprise his roll and restore the time line.

I just find it a little sad, how the TNG crew had to be in the ending of the Enerprise series, and how how they had to be in Voyager as well. So maybe they will do the same thing and the time line will be restored somehow then.
PRIUSQUAM PRAESENS DAMNATUS SALVENS :
HIC HOMO NESCIENS. QUAE FUTURA EST ?

EST PLANE VANUM?
MAGNIFICANDUM?
ERROR AUT SANUM?
O FORTUNA EST!
QUA?

Post Reply

Return to “General Chat Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users