Young Kirk n Spock + Lost = new Star Trek movie

the shaky cam stuck out when they tried to use it in close-up. Doesn't work there, as you can see hair isn't moving etc

I didn't find the lens flares or "shaky cam" particularly distracting. And I usually hate that kind of thing in other movies.

i've never seen people freak out so much about LENS FLARES before. at least dude had a consistent vision for how it should look, i mean did you really want it to look like a '60s tv show?

looking like a '00s tv show is sooooooo much better.

the plethora of closeups is way more annoying, frankly

Hmm, we rarely seem to agree Morbs, but I'm with you on this. When I can see individual pores on Kirk's face then chances are we're too close.

How close was that ice planet to Vulcan? About the distance from the Earth to the Moon? Why is there a Starfleet base on the equivalent of a Vulcan moon? And why isn't it affected by/don't they seem to know/care about the black hole that's REALLY REALLY nearby? Where did Spock get his torch? How carefully did Nero coordinate his placement on the ice planet with their black hole, so that the rotation would give him an unobstructed view of Vulcan at just the right time? Wouldn't it have been easier to just put him on Vulcan or keep him on the ship without bringing another planet into things? What do they do at that Starfleet base? Who else works there? Does Starfleet miss Scotty when he leaves or care that he will apparently never return to his assigned post? So Nero transported Spock the the surface of the ice planet/moon for him to observe Vulcan, walk into a cave, light a torch, and just kind of hang around by himself (but nearby a Starfleet base) until Kirk was ejected onto the same (moon-like?) ice planet and wandered into the same cave?
These are the things that keep me awake at night.

oh why does a 10 year old rebel blast like 300 year old music?

hoth? they should have called it coldth.

^^^ Couldn't get that line out of my head throughout that bit of the movie.

looking like a '00s tv show is sooooooo much better.

― Dr Morbius, Friday, May 15, 2009 5:36 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i know you don't want to hear this, but '00s tv shows generally look a lot better than '60s tv shows.

yeah, The Prisoner badly needed lights shining into the lens.

i dunno, there was no internet for people to bitch about effects believability back then xp

oh why does a 10 year old rebel blast like 300 year old music?

music from his own time is a real bitch to licence

all of altair's objections don't bother me. Those things don't linger if the movie carries you past em; this one didn't.

yeah, The Prisoner badly needed lights shining into the lens.

― Dr Morbius, Friday, May 15, 2009 2:19 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

put this movie into perspective. SIMON WEST is trying to remake the prisoner. SIMON WEST. if you don't know who that is, look him up.

well, i'm not gonna see that, even for free.

I was amused by one of the links above suggesting Winona R's fate in transporter beam means we may see her again.

"oh why does a 10 year old rebel blast like 300 year old music?"

There's a theory going around that Shatner's funky pronunciation of 'sabotage' is the origin of that:

given that every other scene is a pastiche/tribute, the theory might be right.

Just started watching the amazing Blu-ray of TOS from the top (broadcast order) and immediately noted the Spock/Uhura tension! That ballad she sings to him!!!

"Oh, on the Starship Enterprise
There's someone who's in Satan's guise,
Whose devil's ears and devil's eyes
Could rip your heart from you!

"At first his look could hypnotize,
And then his touch would barbarize.
His alien love could victimize...
And rip your heart from you!

"And that's why female astronauts
Oh very female astronauts
Wait terrified and overwrought
To find what he will do.

"Oh girls in space, be wary,
Be wary, be wary!
Girls in space, be wary!
We know not what he'll do."

What...the...

Spockhura

http://www.harkavagrant.com/nonsense/swingssm.png

seeing this tomorrow night

Ok the things I mention don't *really* bother me. It's not like Ceti Alpha VI blowing up for no good reason made sense either. Well actually, the nearness of Spock's ice planet to Vulcan bugged me right away when I saw it, but the other stuff is just typical goofy Star-Trek-is-fictional-has-plot-holes stuff.
Just felt like throwing that stuff out there anyway.

I refer to everything as "stuff" apparently.

gonna see this on IMAX

"nearness of Spock's ice planet to Vulcan"

Vulcan's not allowed to have other planets nearby?

That's a nice lemon-sucking expression on the Spock playground drawing.

gonna see this on IMAX

Real IMAX or fake IMAX?

I think altair is saying that moon or planet would not have had such a bright clear sky and stable orbit if Vulcan was imploding.

nearby planets are fine, but didn't they travel for quite awhile before they got to the ice planet (maybe even at warp, I don't remember)? then all the sudden they've got a shot of Vulcan looming huge in the sky. I might be remembering it incorrectly.
But also don't nearby planets usually look like, say, Venus or Mars? Sort of like tiny points of light? (unless they're crashing into each other maybe)
It's a nerdy nitpick maybe... but it really caught me off guard as blatantly nonsensical.

xpost that too

Real IMAX or fake IMAX?

― naturally unfunny, though mechanically sound (Pancakes Hackman), Friday, May 15, 2009 8:38 PM

ha i thought it was odd for an amc theater to be advertising imax all of a sudden. thanks for that

saw this last night; karl urban as bones is the best casting in anything i've ever seen. also action! and stuff! it was fun.

Aziz: You know what Twitter is? I have 25,000 followers, I’m tell 25,000 people you run fake IMAX’s and that they should boycott AMC.

I think IMAX really blew it by letting their IMAX Junior (I don't consider it "fake" IMAX because from what I have read it is still a significant upgrade from the usual theater experience) screens be branded in the same way as their regular ones. It really dilutes a powerful brand. You could have knocked me over with a feather when I found out that one of my local theaters had IMAX, but now when I google it and see all the code words re: "IMAX digital screen" I can tell that it's not the ginormous IMAX screen we all think of. Incidentally I was going to see ST in IMAX but it was sold out, guess I didn't miss out as much as I thought.

It looks awful in IMAX, yr constantly confronted by pores and crap. Morbius otm about the movie not carrying me past its silly bits, that's really all that failed about it. I'll put up w any amount of idiocy if I have a good time.

Saw this tonite and enjoyed. Trailers for upcoming shite very, very scary (Transformers2. G. I Joe., Terminator all melded together into one big CGI 5.1 Boom! Boom! monstrosity).

I think the Terminator trailer looks far more promising than Transformers or GI Joe. I really hate the way they re-imagined Transformers. Star Trek is so much more successful and keeping some of the essence of the original...

It's a bit of a richer vein, to be fair!

the IMAX digital thing is some bullshit. i was an IMAX projectionist for many years at an old-school institutional 15/70 theater. the amount of storage and processing power it would take to run movies at a resolution even approaching that of a 15/70 film is absurd. the current digital system is available to provide like, 1/5 of 15/70 resolution.

also, feature films shot on 35mm film undergo this goofy process (called DMR) to blow everything up to 70mm. it doesn't always look right (the 2nd matrix movie, for example, looked even worse in IMAX than it did on 35). the only real advantage to formerly-35mm-films at the IMAX is the sound system, which is really what the IMAX system does best.

christopher nolan shot a few scenes of the dark knight with a 70mm camera (bank robbery, hong kong, exploding hospital, etc) and it looked awesome. if more people do that it will be more worthwhile to go see feature films on IMAX.

that said, there are some AMC and other commercial theaters with actual film projection systems. the screens tend to be significantly smaller and the projectionists are typically useless AMC employees.

star trek was awesome.

this was pretty rad!!

Dude who plays Kirk's dad in the film has apparently been cast as Thor.

I guess "Thor who" would indicate this thread is no place for me.

how Thor was he?

kinda surprised morbs has never heard of the voyage of the kon-tiki

almost made that joke! :)

haha!

I saw this last night with the wifey. It's rare for her to be up for an action-adventure type film, so I'm still surprised she went.

Anyway, putting all the fanboy stuff to one side, it struck me as a better than average space-based shoot 'em up, but not quite up to the top drawer Hollywood stuff. It was entertaining.

The story leaned very heavily on "oh noes weez in danger" elements, which lasted about 5 minutes per menace, with lots of noise, fisticuffs and fireworks. Afterward came a brief respites to let the characters advance the plot or make a joke before the next oh noes. Consequently, character interaction and development was awfuly sketchy, but I've seen worse, so it gets a C+ or a weak B- on that heading.

It avoided the pitfall of too-great seriousness, which was a good choice.

If you want to pick apart its details looking for egregious nonsense, I am surprised that no one has mentioned that, although the Romulan ship was roughly 40 times the size of the Enterprise, yet, once inside the ship Kirk and Spock could make their way from the helm to Spock's captured ship and to the place where Captain Whatsisname was being held as quickly and easily as if the Romulan ship were about the size of one city block instead of Manhattan island.

But filmmakers have known for about a century now that the audiences for shoot em ups don't really care about that stuff, so why should they clutter up the story by forcing it to make realistic sense? All it does is bog down the action.

the one nitpick I have, and someone may have mentioned it already, was that Captain Pike needed people with hand-to-hand combat experience, yet he chose his pilot (Sulu) and engineer (Olson) to accompany Kirk versus any one of his security personnel?

In Star Trek II, it is a ship full of baby-faced recruits, so I think they're trying to recreate that here -- therefore they probably do have the most combat and skydiving experience out of everyone on the ship. The security dudes are just meatheads who don't even know space karate.