Young Kirk n Spock + Lost = new Star Trek movie

Hollywood films have never been worse.

^ i'll give you that much!

Really? I'm not nearly that pessimistic about Hollywood blockbusters but come on, worse than the 90s?

Also I almost admire your level of dedication to hating, Morbius

Let's be fair to the doc, I think he's going longue durée on the shitness of films. In any case I fully enjoyed this film. I watched La Grande Illusion last night, this didn't come near it, but it more than approximated an enjoyable 2 hours.

well yeah, Grand Illusion is not a souped-up exploitation of a TV show.

I don't hate this movie. I hate the idea that it represents the pinnacle of mainstream entertainment to a disturbingly large number of people.

And I can't believe no one told the writers that "Bones" is just an abbrev of "Sawbones," which is what you called a doctor way-back-when.

http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/2009/05/star-trek-90210-or-star-trash-or.html

It’s all piff-paff, whack-bang, etc, packed with heaps of post-modernist “irony” or whatever it is they call this bollocks. Nudge nudge, wink wink ahoy. We are all wallowing in a never-ending adolescence these days. So, instead of making us laugh, J.J. Abrams just wants to make us feel clever, and the whole thing becomes a big ego-massage. Like buying an I-Pod....

Abrams’s background in TV is most obvious in his compositions: A one shot of Kirk—CUT—a close up of Spock—CUT—a two shot of the star-crossed lovers’ resisting the urge to play a round of tonsil tennis—CUT—a one shot of Kirk, etc, with coruscating beams of light in the background that blind the retinas.

I don't hate this movie. I hate the idea that it represents the pinnacle of mainstream entertainment to a disturbingly large number of people.

Well, as long as you've got something to hate.

The movie is a carnival ride, Morbs. It's not the greatest carnival ride ever built by a long shot, but it has no ambitions to be a drama, a comedy, a musical or anything else. You judge it against stuff like Transformers: The Movie, and not A Streetcar Named Desire.

As it happens, a large segment of the movie-going population is in high school and they have no idea that a goodish carnival ride is a bit shy of true greatness, because face it high schoolers are always going to have very shallow standards.

also, calling a movie "a ride" I most DEFINITELY hate.

I'm not talking about teenages, I'm talking about intelligent ILXors.

Is this movie worth seeing if you were not especially a fan of the TV series or the prior movies?

Try to catch it at matinee prices if you can.

xp. Yes.

As in I have a love for trek but it didn't obfuscate my enjoyment, and my bro's gf seemed to enjoy despite general ignorance of subject matter.

Must admit, it looks kind of cool in the ads, and it's getting such good reviews and box-office results that it feels like an "event movie." So that -- plus Simon Pegg as Scotty -- kinda make me want to see it . . . at matinee prices, yes.

Is this movie worth seeing if you were not especially a fan of the TV series or the prior movies?

I liked it a lot, and was pretty ignorant of any of the previous stuff other than what I picked up from my uber-nerd cousin and friends - who honestly pretty much turned me off of Star Trek because they were kind of obsessed with it.

You judge it against stuff like Transformers: The Movie, and not A Streetcar Named Desire.

Exactly - I almost never go out to see movies, as I'd rather watch something at home with the wife on my couch with a beer or whatever, at my own pace. But certain things I will spring to see on the big screen, preferably at a busy showing where the scale and popcorn and crowd energy is part of the experience. I want a big loud summer blockbuster "carnival ride" type movie for these experiences and have been disappointed or downright angry by the last couple I've bothered with, even though I was smart enough not to bother with Transformers. Star Trek was exactly what I wanted for this kind of thing and I was quite happy I saw it.

Heck-a-rooty, Dr. M., I haven't noticed any intelligent ILXors repping for the idea that Star Trek represents the pinnacle of mainstream entertainment -- but I also admit I haven't read every one of the 900+ posts in this thread, so I may have missed this phenomenon.

As for calling it "a ride", I think that is a pretty accurate metaphor for this type of movie, so perhaps what you DEFINITELY hate are movies with such low aspirations, as to provide little more than a cinematic version of a ride.

Dr Morbius mostly otm in this thread. Judging this by the lowered standards of summer blockbuster action movie or whatever, it's still not very good. The first half of it is aggressively bad. I mean, I was laughing during the opening scene where Kirk's old man is about to die and is telling his pregnant wife that he loves her. And I was crying during the high speed Beastie Boys car bit. I kind of warmed up to it over the course of the movie, but overall found the whole thing very lacking. It was better than say, Ghost Rider or the first Daniel Craig James Bond movie, but worse than say, the Dark Knight or the Watchmen.

I dunno, I came in with pretty low expectations as someone who's not a fan of and is mostly ignorant of the Star Trek franchise, but it still failed. So when I see praise heaped on it, I can't help but think, wow people really don't expect much at all for their entertainment dollar anymore. Everything about this movie was half-assed except for the casting. If one were to throw in enough gratuitous nudity this would be worthy of late night cinemax. Unfortunately, we instead got the pg-13 version, but without the compensating effort of making a movie worthy of spending money on to see on a bigscreen in a theater.

this i agree with, it reminded me of being stuck on a bus with stinky nerds dressed in clown makeup. where's the fun, where's the rock and roll?

i was promised ice cream and i got a fucking slap in the face. i'm glad i enjoyed terminator because this might be the last movie i pay to see.

wow you guys suck at life STAR TREK WAS AWESOME EVEN THO I SAW IT OVER A WEEK AGO WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Still need to see this again.

Of course different people like different things and Star Trek 2009 is not Dostoyevsky. But seriously--if you are that horrified or saddened by such a FUN movie, you really might want to re-evaluate how you're living your life.

Then again, you can always stay at home and make friends on internet message boards. It's not like there's no hope for you at all.

below the belt.

still, Morbs' problem isn't with the film, but with the fans, which is a shame.

to get a decent blockbuster, even if it is mediocre, is a small miracle these days.

huh? I have plenty of problems with the film. I just don't find it worth HATING.

It's depressing that joygoat thinks the few movies that are worth seeing in a theater must be biff-boom-special effects-"popcorn" machines, but i hear this constantly. What about visually artful, ambitious, adult films, the few that come around? Battle lost, I know.

no reason you can't like both

No, you must choose. http://gamenight.4leafcoder.com/__oneclick_uploads/2009/03/grailknight.jpg

:)

It's depressing that joygoat thinks the few movies that are worth seeing in a theater must be biff-boom-special effects-"popcorn" machines, but i hear this constantly. What about visually artful, ambitious, adult films, the few that come around? Battle lost, I know.

I live in a small town, hate people talking during movies more than just about anything, have Netflix and a fairly nice TV, and would rather spend $20+ for a night at the movies on something else nine times out of ten.

It's depressing that joygoat thinks the few movies that are worth seeing in a theater must be biff-boom-special effects-"popcorn" machines, but i hear this constantly. What about visually artful, ambitious, adult films, the few that come around? Battle lost, I know.

― Dr Morbius, Monday, May 25, 2009 1:36 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

no reason you can't like both

― Vokuhila (latebloomer), Monday, May 25, 2009 1:45 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i agree with latebloomer! i want both! but if you keep going to movies called "star trek" expecting the latter, maybe you should either reconfigure your expectations or make some better choices!

New Sam Raimi flick's coming out this week, isn't it?

you'd have to drag me to hell to make me watch it

^ lol. def looking forward to that

It's depressing that joygoat thinks the few movies that are worth seeing in a theater must be biff-boom-special effects-"popcorn" machines, but i hear this constantly. What about visually artful, ambitious, adult films, the few that come around? Battle lost, I know.

hey doc did u see that bsball movie sugar tht it was terrific but i mean i still fuck with star trek and if i had to pick one to see in the theater it'd be star trek because its just not going to look as good @ home on my tv

It's depressing that joygoat thinks the few movies that are worth seeing in a theater must be biff-boom-special effects-"popcorn" machines, but i hear this constantly. What about visually artful, ambitious, adult films, the few that come around? Battle lost, I know.

― Dr Morbius, Monday, May 25, 2009 1:36 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

This assumes you live anywhere near a cinema that shows these movies. If you live in the backarse of nowhere cinemawise at least, you take what you get, and Star Trek had big explosions and special effects so I'll take it k?

the whole thing becomes a big ego-massage. Like buying an I-Pod....

I like this thread! It's exciting! *in best Scottish accent*

if you keep going to movies called "star trek" expecting the latter

s1ocki, you are aware that "Star Trek" with all its flaws used to mean an approximation of thoughtful mainstream science-fiction, riiiight? instead of, as my ex-roomie said to me in summarizing this movie, violence like clockwork every minute?

k, I'll stop now. Enjoy your bone-crunching dumb-downers til Oscar bait bores arrive at Thanksgiving.

Enjoy your bone-crunching dumb-downers til Oscar bait bores arrive at Thanksgiving

Hm. Hey guys! Land Of The Lost opens June 5!

(Actually, I agree with Dr. M about movies; I still might go see Star Trek).

well, LoL is based on a brain-dead '70s children's show. So that's a dumb-upper by default, maybe.

What about visually artful, ambitious, adult films, the few that come around?

Are there any that come out in the theaters on a wide scale? Seriously, I do not know. I've been using Netflix for Fellini and Herzog films and arthouse stuff and animations old classics i havent seen etc etc for over a year now. I go to the movies maybe 4 times a year and its always pop trash.

Please let me know what visually artful, ambitious, adult films have come out in the past few years so i can check them out.

Also aside from the first couple, the Stark Trek movies were mostly silly pop trash as well.

but kinder, gentler... and w/out lens flares.

recent adult films released (at least somewhat) widely: Milk, Two Lovers, Benjamin Button

star trek was SO much better than benjamin button (but not the other two). BB was an "adult" movie in the worst sense of the word, exactly the kind of "oscar bait bore" you were decrying a second ago!

opinions, it has been established, are hugely split on that.

Dammit, why didn't Milk make $200 million?!

s1ocki, you are aware that "Star Trek" with all its flaws used to mean an approximation of thoughtful mainstream science-fiction, riiiight?

Mainstream sf of the 40s and 50s perhaps; the mainstream of sf had moved on a little by the time Star Trek arrived, and a lot more by the time it actually got popular. One of my personal gripes with ST fandom is that its more rabid adherents don't seem to have read any other sf but the tie in novels and therefore have no idea that sf is about a bit more than zooming about in a starship blowing up a succession of bumpy-foreheaded humanoid aliens and occasionally stopping to discuss the odd philosophical question at the level of a 12 year old.

yes to all that, but when you consider the Lost in Space / Fantastic Voyage TV/film norm of the '60s etc.

Ah, sf in the mainstream rather than the mainstream of sf... I see your point.

"Hollywood films have never been worse."

I defy you to find a hollywood movie today worse than BioDome. I think you would have to go back 20-30 years before you could find a time when yesterday's crap was better than today's crap, and even then I'm not sure if nostalgia isn't the winning factor.

"sf is about a bit more than zooming about in a starship blowing up a succession of bumpy-foreheaded humanoid aliens and occasionally stopping to discuss the odd philosophical question at the level of a 12 year old"

I don't think SF proper acquits itself much better than Star Trek. What reasons do "serious" writers have to stay in the SF ghetto these days when they are no longer penalized for having SF elements in mainstream fiction? What is this great and serious SF that Star Trek has neglected to appropriate?

Bio Dome was better than Terminator and Wolverine!

Surely, you jest!
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/5964/biodomeboxhirescd.jpg

http://www.ballina.info/cinema/images/movies/ghosts_of_girlfriends_past.jpg

The drive-in where we saw Terminator 4 played this right after and we were bored so we stayed and watched. I think both movies were about the same quality.

As for Star Trek being pop trash, mainstream, scifi crap, whatever, I'm open to any ideas. But The Wrath of Khan should not be touched. That is a film that transcends Star Trek and most other movies.