# Star Trek 2009 - In Theaters - Box Office Review



## wbassett

[img]http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l190/wbassett/HTS/MovieReviews/StarTrek2009/star-trek-2009a.jpg[/img] Not out on DVD yet, but why wait? There really hasn't been a big screen Trek movie since The Wrath of Khan. Many may disagree with me on that, but if they search their Trek loving hearts, deep down most will have to admit the rest of the movies were pretty much just good quality TV series level of entertainment. Not this one though... Move over Obi Wan... This ain't you're father's Star Trek!

J.J. Abrams took some liberties and even broke a few Trek 'rules', but it all works. There are some really good nods to the original series and even the actors that played the roles before this new cast stepped in to fill some pretty big shoes. The problem with a franchise reboot or prequel is that we already know the outcome. All the characters survive. They have to, because we know about their other adventures. Abrams put a bit of a twist on things though. Although he deftly crafted a story that assembled the Enterprise crew together, it wasn't how they 'originally' met, and that's why this works.
[img]http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l190/wbassett/HTS/MovieReviews/StarTrek2009/startrek_enterprise.jpg[/img]
This is my second viewing of Star Trek at the theater. The first time I went with my brother, this time my wife actually wanted to see it so I took her tonight. She is a 'mild' Trek fan at best, and basically tolerates it because she knows I like it. It didn't take long before she dropped the take it or leave it attitude and really got into this movie.

What really impressed me was I was actually trying to figure out how Abrams was going to 'fix' certain things that start off oh so wrong. During my first viewing my fear was that he wasn't going to and that this new Trek would end up a sell out and Star Trek in name only. Trust me, even the most hard core fan will accept this entry, but more important is that it is simply a great sci-fi/action flick too. 

There is even some touches of politics in the story, as well as prejudices- surprisingly from the Vulcan Academy itself! Also look for the infamous 'Red Shirt' scene.

If there is one thing to complain about, in my opinion it would be the engineering spaces. Granted I am very familiar with the engine rooms on real naval warships, and they can be a maze of pipes and valves and in general a very low tech looking environment. Thing is though, we're talking about the 23rd Century and I like the old Trek engineering levels better. These look like they ran out of set budget so they filmed in a manufacturing plant somewhere. 

Abrams is also known for his fast pace and faster cuts too. Even though we do get to see the Enterprise bridge in quite a few scenes, I honestly couldn't describe the layout to anyone and it was quite different than in any other Trek show or movie. 

[img]http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l190/wbassett/HTS/MovieReviews/StarTrek2009/star-trek-2009.jpg[/img]The cast was well thought out and Trek has the unique ability of capturing lightning in a bottle more often than any other franchise out there. Many, including Roddenberry doubted if they could get the same chemistry between the main characters in Star Trek The Next Generation as they had in the original series. The franchise did have some major misfires with some of its other spin off series, but... Roddenberry always said the true star of the show was the Enterprise itself and the crew was secondary. 

All the banter we have come to love is there, and we even get some back story on some characters too. Karl Urban absolutely nails McCoy. He looks like DeForest Kelly, and even sounds like him. Pine's Kirk though isn't quite the same but all the elements are there- He's confident and even arrogant, he has an eye for the pretty ladies... but most important is his drive and tenacity to win at all costs. Kirk coyly said in Wrath of Khan that he doesn't believe in a no win scenario... Pine's Kirk proves it and then some.

Simon Pegg as Scotty- I never remembered James Doohan as the 'plucky comedic relief' in the original series, but Pegg pulls it off. He's witty, funny, and charming all at the same time. 

Quinto's Spock is almost uncanny. Certain shots he is a dead ringer for Nimoy in the original series. Quinto does a fantastic job of bringing the complex turmoil buried deep within Spock. Nimoy does reprise his role in an extended 'cameo' but his part was mainly an homage to the original show and it very easily could have been omitted.

[img]http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l190/wbassett/HTS/MovieReviews/StarTrek2009/nero_character_star_trek_2009_poste.jpg[/img]
Nero is played by Eric Bana and he has less screen time than he deserves. Bana chewed scenery every bit as well as Ricardo Montalban did as Khan, he just didn't get as much screen time to truly make him an interesting foe.

One thing that was really odd about these 'villains' was the way they introduce themselves. After an unprovoked barrage of missiles, they open hailing frequencies and say 'Hello'. It just sounded really strange hearing a Romulin say hello that casually, especially considering the situation. I'd love to hear Abrams reason, I'm sure he had one.


[img]http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l190/wbassett/HTS/MovieReviews/StarTrek2009/BruceGreenwoodasCaptainPike.jpg[/img]
Captain Pike was played by Bruce Greenwood. This was another bullseye. Greenwood made Pike a natural leader and added tons of respectability to the cast. Greenwood may not be known by many though. Most people will probably be sitting there thinking 'Who is he? I know I saw him somewhere!' He's been doing TV for ages, but most probably recognize him as the President in National Treasure: Book of Secrets. 

Sarek, Spock's father was a bit of a surprise to me. Sarek is played by Ben Cross who usually plays the bad guy or heavy. I remember him the best as Prince Malagant in the Richard Gere/Sean Connery version of King Arthur's tale in First Knight. Cross impressed me very much because he went from being so evil in that flick to stoic and dignified as Sarek. 

All in all it was an excellent cast they assembled. Even John Cho, better known to many as Harold from the Harold and Kumar flicks, slipped comfortably into his new role as Sulu.

It goes without saying that the special effects were top notch. Many of the other Trek outings, especially the Next Generation movies skimped on new FX and even recycled FX scenes from the TV series... and it showed. Abrams didn't cut any corners and it's obvious he was given a huge budget to work with. My guess is now that Star Wars is officially done, Paramount finally woke up and realized they had something that could appeal to more than just the hard core fans, but they'd have to pony up some money to do it right and grab the attention of non-Trek fanboys.

When this comes to DVD it hopefully will be nothing short of spectacular, but Paramount isn't exactly known to do the best transfers to disc. I have the new Bluray sets of the movies and season 1 of the original series and will be doing a review on those. As long as Paramount keeps that level of quality when they release this, it is going to be a mind blower in anyone's home theater. 

It's non stop action and adrenaline. 
I give it :5stars: across the board!


----------



## lcaillo

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Great review. Great movie. 

I am an old school Star Trek fan who agrees with your view of the movies after Khan. This was a winner. The casting and performances were great. I differ with you on the sets. The original series sets were simplistic, as the budgets were limited and it was a popular view of the future of technology to make it sleek. Our view of the future is more complex, and the maze of technology gave a more interesting backdrop for the movie.


----------



## Sonnie

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Agree... excellent review... :T

I was among the William Shatner generation of Star Trek. I really have not been interested in it since, but this one seems different from what I can tell and I believe your review confirms this for me. I anxiously await the BD release for an addition to our library.


----------



## wbassett

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

I'm not sure what it was about the engineering rooms, the pipes and valves did give more of a visual 'texture' but for some reason it didn't seem right to me is all. I guess it reminded me of steam turbines not warp engines. Still that is a very minor complaint.

It's hard to really discuss the story line. I don't want to ruin any of the surprises and twists.


----------



## Prof.

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

This is one that's definitely going on the list..

Having been a StarTrek fan since James T Kirk first arrived on the TV screen, and having seen every episode and series plus all the movies, this sounds like it will be an excellent addition to my collection..:T


----------



## paints

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Ugg...I can't lie. I hated it.

Of course I'm that guy who has all the comics, read all the books, collected all the movies on VHS, DVD and am about to do it over on Blu Ray. Yeah...I'm a 38 year-old Trekker who grew up with the old cast and have grand illusions that Star Trek is supposed to have a meaning in their stories.

Let me back up here. I wasn't opposed to a reboot of Trek after I saw and loved how well Battlestar Galactica was remade. So I did have some lofty expectations going in. In fact I liked how George Kirk was shown to have died. I didn't mind that it deviated from lore at all. I even could used to the new Kirk and Spock and how they have changed when the timeline from the beginning was altered.

What killed it for me was how Shaun of the Dead or should I say Scotty of the Dumb was portrayed. ...even Chekov was botched. He shouldn't even been on the Enterprise let alone be in Starfleet Academy. Timeline change or not. They blew some of the chronogical progressions that can't be altered. Guess it shouldn't matter as Chekov was turned into a clown like Scotty was.

Plot was pretty basic but it had zero meaning to it. I thought the ramped up Enterprise was pretty cool but I agree the Engineering Section looked pretty bad. The Bridge I hated. I mean come on! If the Bridge can be that high tech and sterile...how can the engine room look like it was from a WWII destroyer?

I better stop here because I know I'm just a bitter old fan. I had hoped the new Trek would be more than special effects and comedy relief and have a soul to it.

Nowhere to go but up for me.


----------



## wbassett

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Paints I may have you beat as far as a Trek geek! 

Had them on VHS and Laser disc, DVD, now on BD... PLUS down in my basement is a 6'x8' by 6' high section of boxes of nothing but Playmates Star Trek ships and figures. I have every ship they made (dupes of just about all of them too) just about every action figure they made... a Spock bust liquor container... binders and binders of I think every Trek trading card ever made including a couple 24kt gold captain cards... boxes of every Star Log book and Trek novels...

So needless to say I have a huge Trekker collection!

The movie isn't perfect and there are plenty of holes. For instance according to Trek lore only the saucer was built on earth and flown to a space dock to be mated to the engineering hull and nacelles. Also the saucer was built in San Fran, not in Iowa, same as that's where the academy is at, not in Iowa...

I didn't like how they all were in the academy at the same time, they are different ages and that part didn't set well with me, but the timeline shift was supposed to be the reason for that.

Also and possibly because of the timeline shift... originally there were 14 Constitution class star ships commissioned and sent out on five year missions. Only the Enterprise returned intact. That's when Starfleet decided the Enterprise would be the flagship.

I did like Pegg though, but agree he was a bit too 'quirky'. Chekov though... whew. I didn't think it was possible to be more annoying and unlikeable than Wesley Crusher, but he succeeded. They would have been better off bringing his character in for the second movie, or... introduced him as a new crew member towards the end.

But the worse complaint I have (bothers me more than the engine room of the Enterprise being filmed in a Budweiser factory in Van Nuys, California) is the flippant attitude Kirk had during the Kobayashi Maru test. He was just way too smug and Abram's 'solution' was pretty lame and lacked any imagination.

We'll have to wait and see if they settle the characters into their roles better in the next movie, although I don't know why the older Spock doesn't just travel back in time (or forward I guess, no back in time... ) and just prevent all the events from happening in the first place! I mean after all that wouldn't be violating the Prime Directive if he changes things back to the way they were originally supposed to be, right?!

All in all though, they could have done worse by the franchise and at least it has a new lease on life now. Let's just hope they don't decide to remake Wrath of Khan... or do anything with Harry Mudd in it!

And oh... does this mean that STNG never happened? Although that really doesn't matter because they all die in Generation anyway and everything after that is just what Piccard is creating as his 'reality' while stuck in the Nexus... Yepper totally geeking out here! :bigsmile:


----------



## paints

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

You got me beat on the Laser Disc!

On the collection and toy front...haft to call it a draw. I wasn't prepared to show my full on geekness with the collections. The saddest time of the year for me is Christmas as the wife won't let me unleash all my Hallmark Star Trek Ornaments on the tree (yep..I have every one starting from when the original Enterprise was released).

Heh...I need my own tree. Does "Shuttlecraft to Enterprise" ring any bells?

I 100% agree the Kobayashi Muru scene was horrible as well. The whole apple munching and flippant attitude sucked as did seeing Spock teaching at Starfleet Academy along with all the other bridge members being there.

I bet you sat watching the movie just ticking off in your head everything that was wrong/didn't jive/or just plain stupid.

Boy, this is probably the only topic I have ever been negative on here at the Shack. I could go on (and on and on and on) over the movie. But I'll stop.

Real quick. Was there anything you liked about the reboot? I still prefer the adventures George Kirk had with Captain April in the book form (with Jim reading the letters as the backstory) over the movie version. But I really didn't mind that deviation. I even liked how Spock left the Vulcan Science Academy. After that though....it was a wash.

Blowing up Vulcan was pretty extreme too.

I should stop. Even though I have a hard time calling it Star Trek. I guess with it grossing 209 Million at the box office. I'm in the minority on this (farce) movie.

Know whats funny, though? Here is how I would rank the Star Trek movies. Wrath of Khan, Voyage home, Undiscovered Country, Search for Spock, The motion picture, Star Farce and last....Shatner's steaming pile of poo, Final Frontier.


----------



## paints

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Oh yeah....when the devil (JJ Abrams) reboots The Next Generation. I bet he gives Jean-Luc a full head of hair.


----------



## paints

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

I think JJ Abrams thinks he's Q.


----------



## Vader

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

I have not seen (nor have I any intention of seeing) this film, but I wanted to address some of the comments I have read here and on other boards from the perspective of one diehard Trekkie (me). And yes, I know that I am probably the only person on the planet who prefers "Trekkie" to "Trekker."

Short version: This film, while it may be a good movie, is sacrilege to the Classic Trek faithful.

Long version: OK, let me explain myself in a little more depth. I have been a Trekkie since the early 70's (I missed the original run by a few months – I am 41 years old), to the point of knowing by heart every line from the original series (including the inflection of the actor's delivery). So, let me address my grievances point by point: 

First, the whole "Romulan comes back in time to change the timeline" thing is a thinly veiled way of allowing Abrams to mess with established events and characters and do whatever he pleases. In any reboot, this is simply a way to "contemporize" the story to appeal to the current generation, but more often than not this results in a watering down (or outright obliteration of) what made the original what it was. It has been compared to the reboot of Battlestar Galactica, and how "well" that worked out. I respectfully disagree. In the case of Battlestar Galactica, Ron Moore retooled the basic premise to appeal to a generation that wanted gritty reality over the family escapism of the original. He missed the point that the cheesy family-friendly atmosphere of the original _was the point_. His retooling of characters such as Col. Tigh to be a drunk is a prime example. And then there is Ron Moore's laughable justification of using profanity. His claim that the made-up word "frak" and its profane counterpart in our society refer to the same thing, but since one is allowed on TV and the other is not, people really object to the sound of the word rather than its meaning. I am not saying that it is not a good drama series (I have never seen it beyond the pilot), but it is not a good _Battlestar Galactica_ series.

Second, the relative ages of the characters are all wrong. Unless the Romulan went back to before any of the crew were born and changed things such that their birthdates were altered as well (and even then, the odds that they would each follow the same paths are astronomical – pun intended). Then there is the fact that Chekov didn't even come into the picture until well after the five year mission had begun.

Third, technological continuity was thrown completely to the wind. Why is it that the bridge looks more like a Mac superstore than something that was built before the original series? At least with the Star Wars prequel trilogy, it could be rationalized by saying "In the prequels, the galaxy was in a more civilized age. After the clone wars, the galaxy was in disarray and ruin." Here, Abrams is obviously saying "I don't care about the established lore and fitting in with it. I'm gonna do it because I can." There are some things you can acceptably change in a reboot, and then there are directors sufficiently arrogant to mess with icons that should not be touched: The origin of Superman, the fact that Han shoots first (actually, he didn't: Greedo never got off a shot, so Han was the only one to shoot), and the look and design of the Enterprise.

Fourth, why introduce profanity (it has never been a part of the Trek universe, and they even poked fun of the fact in Star Trek IV)? They did it for the same reason why profanity seems to permeate every other film out there: because "nobody pays any attention to you unless you swear every other word" (James Kirk, Star Trek IV). So much for the family friendliness inherent in Star Trek, huh? It seems that so many directors cannot seem to get their ideas across without peppering the dialog with "colorful metaphors." Granted, compared to anything by Martin Scorsese or Quintin Tarentino (two directors who need to get a different job IMO – but I digress) the cursing in Abram's Trek is minor, but why put it in there in the first place?

Fifth, changing some characters to willful jokes (like Montgomery Scott), just for comic relief. Or Spock having a sexual relationship with Uhura. Now I can understand why so many of the "Lord of the Rings" faithful (the books) reject Peter Jackson's interpretation of Gimli and Legolas (mostly Gimli). I have never read the books, so _I _did not have a problem with it, but for those who came to know the characters as serious warriors I can see the problem. When a character's persona is changed to the point that it is no longer faithful to who the character has come to be known as, it is no longer the character but a cheap facsimile.

Finally, what made Star Trek so great in the first place is the political and social allegory, which has been missing from all Trek incarnations post-TNG. This film seems to push the action and special effects above the human story, again to appeal to the adolescent mind of today with the attention span of a peach. As an example of Trek done right, one needs to look no further than "The Wrath of Kahn", and "The Undiscovered Country." Both films were extremely entertaining, had great action sequences, and social messages appropriate to Star Trek.

OK, it felt good to vent. Now I'm gonna go watch some real Trek on Blu-ray…


----------



## brucek

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Gee, I'm glad I'm just a regular guy who has always loved Star Trek series and movies without using a microscope. :huh:

I thought the recent film was great. Lots of action and fairly well acted. Good fun.

brucek


----------



## tonyvdb

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Derek, I agree with everything you said above, Well said although maybe just a bit too harsh. I'm 40 and also missed the first run of Star trek however watched every episode many times in reruns. I enjoyed may of the movies and spin off TV series and although the last series "Enterprise" started off poor they canceled the series just as it was getting interesting.
I do think that today's movie goer between the age of 10 and 25 have lost touch with the way movies should be written in that there is so much action and little to no real plot. So many movies these days have huge holes in the plot that even my wife picks them out many times and she is not a big science fiction/action movie fan.
But that said This movie has alot going for it as well in that it is very entertaining and as long as you dont look into it too deep you will walk out with a smile on your face.


----------



## Vader

*Re: Star Trek 2009*



brucek said:


> Gee, I'm glad I'm just a regular guy who has always loved Star Trek series and movies without using a microscope. :huh:
> 
> I thought the recent film was great. Lots of action and fairly well acted. Good fun.
> 
> brucek


Bruce, you are one of are the normal people. Then there are those of us whose OCD extends from HT to Trek (to be more accurate in my case, I was an OCD Trekkie long before I got into HT)...


----------



## Vader

*Re: Star Trek 2009*



tonyvdb said:


> Derek, I agree with everything you said above, Well said although maybe just a bit too harsh. I'm 40 and also missed the first run of Star trek however watched every episode many times in reruns. I enjoyed may of the movies and spin off TV series and although the last series "Enterprise" started off poor they canceled the series just as it was getting interesting.
> I do think that today's movie goer between the age of 10 and 25 have lost touch with the way movies should be written in that there is so much action and little to no real plot. So many movies these days have huge holes in the plot that even my wife picks them out many times and she is not a big science fiction/action movie fan.
> But that said This movie has alot going for it as well in that it is very entertaining and as long as you dont look into it too deep you will walk out with a smile on your face.


Yea, I'm currently getting the brunt of the same good-natured ribbing at work (since I am Mr. Trek around here :nerd. I finally had to agree to give the film a shot with an open mind. I have no doubt that it will be a lot of fun, "but it's scarring my precious Star Trek" (over-exaggerated weeping and cry-baby face)...:crying: :bigsmile:


----------



## Prof.

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Does anyone know if this is just a "one off" movie..or the beginning of a new StarTrek series.?


----------



## paints

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

I read they were planning another Star Trek movie when the advance screenings were coming back positive.

I think with the movie already over 200 Mil in the US. Another movie labeled Star Trek is a certainity.


----------



## tonyvdb

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

My understanding is that they want to re do all the movies but from a different perspective. Not sure how that will fly with us original Star trek fans but who knows.


----------



## bborzell

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Good review. Thoughtful and appreciative of what making movies is all about. While I appreciate that there are folks who have a view of what the Star Trek lore means to them, I don't believe that movies that approach well known material should be constrained by singular views of plot, characters or developments. For that matter, set design comes under that same heading, for me.

While my overall experience while watching the movie was clearly positive, one of the aspects of the film that stood out to me was the realistic treatment of the spaceport from which the young officers left Earth. It didn't look like someone's imaginary image of what such a setting might look like at some point into the future, it looked like a practical location for the purpose of gathering passengers and taking off. That made sense to me in much the same way that the innards of the Enterprise made sense to me. 

Previous depictions of the ship (as opposed to the bridge) always left me flat. I wondered if the walls were plywood or sheet rock. The industrial appearance made sense to me.

What impressed most of all however, was the respect that the cast carried into the project. Not simply respect for the story, characters, previous actors or all the myriad of other factors which having been carried off poorly might have alienated many people; but respect for the audience, too.

Far to many young actors have made way too many movies in recent years where it was readily apparent that they were there to hit their marks, walk through their lines and increase their exposure, often at the expense of the film and story line and also at the expense of those of us who choose to part with our hard earned money to go see a film from time to time. 

I was almost to the point of writing off all new releases as more suitable for my own theater since poor performances at home offer quick and easy recovery at much less cost than the $30 it takes to see a film in a theater nowadays.


----------



## Wayde

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Count me among the folks who enjoy Star Trek without trying to analyze it too much. I believe a single piece of fiction should be reviewed/judged/viewed on its own merit and not as part of a whole. If Star Trek were a World War II documentary I think it’d be useful to pick nits about continuity and accuracy. 

That said – I really enjoyed the movie much more than I thought I would. It turned out to be a thrilling action film with space-opera elements.

But there were problems for me, mainly esthetics. I really don’t like how movies and TV shows nowadays (meaning from about the late 90s to present) gives everything this ultra-polished sheen – especially the characters.

Everybody is way too young and good-looking in the new Star Trek. I don’t buy supermodels as ‘real’ people. We may admire perfection but we love flaws. Nimoy in the 60 was a brilliant choice – he looked unusual and it fit the character like a glove. Zachary Quinto as Spock turns the character into a pretty-boy and loses his distinct charm. 

I have loved Star Trek all my life. I have talked of Spock and Kirk’s relationship as a classic analogy relating to some of my own good friends. Although I was slow to adopt Next Gen I grew to love it too and look back fondly on the characters. I feel as close to those two crews as friends – I even feel I’ve learned a few lessons about character, leadership and life from the shows. 

As much as I enjoyed the thrill ride of this movie - I don’t believe I’ll ever look upon the ST reboot as fondly as I have Star Treks past.


----------



## Prof.

*Re: Star Trek 2009*



Wayde said:


> Although I was slow to adopt Next Gen I grew to love it too and look back fondly on the characters.


Likewise for me also..

I think Patrick Stewart was an excellent choice for Picard, along with the rest of the crew..Data being the standout..

It's funny..When I look back at some of the Kirk series and films, they seem a bit corny now compared to Next Generation..


----------



## paints

*Re: Star Trek 2009*



Prof. said:


> Likewise for me also..
> 
> I think Patrick Stewart was an excellent choice for Picard, along with the rest of the crew..Data being the standout..
> 
> It's funny..When I look back at some of the Kirk series and films, they seem a bit corny now compared to Next Generation..


That's pretty understandable. Shoot! It was made in the 60's. What made it unique for it's time is that it tried to be serious. Remember most Sci-Fi on tv back then was basically monster of the week and kill it. Shows like Voyage to the Bottom of the sea or Lost in Space (another horrible remake I might add) were the norm.

I'm pretty lucky. I grew up watching what my dad did. So I can slip in and out of those decades pretty easy and appreciate films/tv for their times. And yeah...I know there was a ton of corny stuff from the original series. It's a shame Rodenberry moved out of the creative side in season 2 and the slide began. The fans saved the show with a letter campaign for a third season. But by then the whole creative element was going into the crapper.

Whatever anyone thinks of the original series...They changed the perception of sci-fi and helped legitimize the genre a bit.


----------



## Prof.

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Getting off the track for a moment..I used to love those old black and white sci-fi movies, back in the 50's and 60's..infact that's when my love of sci-fi began..
My favourite at the time was 'The Day The Earth Stood Still'..and whadya you know..it's back again!!:bigsmile:


----------



## texfrazer

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Excellent review! I went and saw it with my wife. I'm not a devotee to the original series (though I do like a lot of the episodes), however I am a big fan of the movies (with V being a noted exception).

I was very impressed with the overall storyline and how it was pulled together. I would tend to disagree on the importance of Leonard Nimoy's part (at least the part in the middle), as it served to explain what was happening and to set the stage for this cast to boldly go forward and not squelch the fun of the old series and films.

I certainly agree that Karl Urban IS Dr. McCoy (and Abrams does a pretty good job of explaining why he ended up in Starfleet the same time as Kirk).

Quinto did a good job, though he was a bit more out of control than I would have imagined Spock to be.

I completely agree that they shortchanged the Kobayashi Maru. Pegg as Scotty was respectable, especially since Scotty was almost a self parody in the movies.

The rest were pretty adequate (with my agreement that Pine's Kirk did do a good job of showing the "I don't believe in no-win situations" persona), and I thought that the Kirk/Spock chemistry did meld as the movie progressed. I would really like to see the same cast come back for another movie to see if the overall chemistry can continue to grow.

Overall, I would be excited about a second film.


----------



## Vader

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Well, against my better judgment (not specific to this movie, but just blind buying anything that I have reservations about), I just ordered this film . Every person I have talked to has said that it is a fantastic movie, even in spite of it being called "Star Trek". We will see next month if I made the right decision... (I'm hopeful that it will shine as a stand-alone action/adventure film)


----------



## Jon Liu

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

I loved this film when I saw it in theaters. Even my wife agreed. We are no "Trekkers" that's for certain and it had enough substance to keep us both entertained thoroughly.


----------



## Prof.

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

That sounds like a good recommendation..when you hear a report like that from a non Trekky! :bigsmile:


----------



## Jon Liu

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

In all honesty, I will even go as far as to say that this was one of my favorite movies of 2009.


----------



## Prof.

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

WOW!!..that is saying something!!
I'll be ordering this one shortly..:T


----------



## Jon Liu

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Prof. I hope I am haven't built this movie up too much for you now!


----------



## recruit

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

This was so well done that I really did not expect it to be as good as it is, most certainly ordering this on BD...Fantastic film and look forward to sequels...


----------



## Prof.

*Re: Star Trek 2009*



Jon Liu said:


> Prof. I hope I am haven't built this movie up too much for you now!


Not a chance!..I'd be buying this movie anyway, to add to my collection of Star Trek movies..:T


----------



## Jon Liu

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Prof, since you are a Star Trek fan, I would just caution you a bit, though. J.J. Abrams takes some creative liberties with parts of the Star Trek legacy and deviates a tad (or maybe quite a bit), or so I've heard. If you can overlook some of the things, then I think you will enjoy it thoroughly.


----------



## lcaillo

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

I have not spoken to a Star Trek fan yet that thought the "creative liberties" taken were a big problem with the film. I thought it was the best one yet other than maybe Wrath of Khan. It is fiction, after all.


----------



## Jon Liu

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Yeah, several of my "Trekker" friends said basically the same thing. The changes were enough to make mention, but not enough for them to prevent them from enjoying the movie.


----------



## Prof.

*Re: Star Trek 2009*



Jon Liu said:


> Prof, since you are a Star Trek fan, I would just caution you a bit, though. J.J. Abrams takes some creative liberties with parts of the Star Trek legacy and deviates a tad (or maybe quite a bit), or so I've heard. If you can overlook some of the things, then I think you will enjoy it thoroughly.


Yes, thanks Jon..
I had heard some time ago that there would be some deviations, so I'm ready for that..

At the moment I'm changing all my Star Trek DVD's to Blu-ray..
The transfer quality on the re-mastered disc's is excellent..It gives new life to the old movies..:T
I highly recommend them for all the ST fans out there..


----------



## Andysu

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Pre-ordered my copy of Star Trek region 2 DVD thou I don’t expect to see it selling out like hot cakes from HMV within 24 hours on the day of its release this November.

Saw Star Trek at Empire Leicester Square (JBL 56KW THX Dolby digital cinema) on May 7th twice that day, once front row and centre and second showing in the circle sweet spot centred. 

Image was like blindingly bright sharp robust solid colours and (the flare camera effects) nice. 

SPL db was rocking loud punchy full of reference glory, :hsd:I mean I had to dry up all the drool off the floor after I left. It was that good!:1star::1star::1star::1star::1star:


----------



## Andysu

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

The Bluray B region looks marginal fair on my LCD video at 1080i on temporary bed sheet at 80 diagonal in 10 foot room width.

Colours look spot on 
Brightness spot on 
Contrast spot on 

The six-track Dolby stereo Ture sounded nice and punchy right down to the impressive Foley work from footsteps to body punches to warp speed cracking the vacuum space barrier to Vulcan collapsing into black hole.

No issues came up. I’m fully pleased with this transfer it reflects closely to what I experienced at the Empire Leicester Square on May 7th via Dolby digital cinema and the 56KW JBL THX sound system.

My system is only small 1.5KW and it’s plentiful enough.

I’m presently listening to the audio commentary session while typing. The director and crew keep making references to DVD so I guess they must be watching a DVD and not Bluray?

The crew sounds cheery while relieving details of each scene of the filming.

:1star::1star::1star::1star::1star::T


----------



## Andysu

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

My ViviCam 3785 doesn’t capture too well under artificial or low light conditions due to the lens. The image as tint of green due to low light level, what do you expect for £50.00 camera?


----------



## Andysu

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Did this quick video taken from second Bluray disc extras 

Ben Burtt and the sounds of Star Trek










Photon Torpedo

I’m curios about it myself, for the mixing techniques, for the original TV show. Would original mixers have used multi-track tape mixed down for monaural sound for the show.

If that’s the case then maybe the photon torpedo is made up of several sounds mixed down to one sound?

I like the ososlator sound generator it sounded like Forbidden Planet


----------



## Vader

*Re: Star Trek 2009*



lcaillo said:


> I have not spoken to a Star Trek fan yet that thought the "creative liberties" taken were a big problem with the film.


You have now... I just watched it, and while it was a very well produced action film, it was (IMO) definitely not Star Trek (though I would like to know in what universe a third class midshipman fresh out of the academy is handed the keys to the most advanced starship ever built at the time: Going from ensign directly to captain with no rank advancement... impressive). Given what Abrams wanted to do with Superman, it is no surprise that he showed little to no concern for what has been established over the last 40 years... 

That being said, I am glad I own it, and it will get repeat viewings due to the fact that I like popcorn movies. In my mind, it is like the 1998 Godzilla (GINO vs STINO? ). It is a guilty pleasure, but disrespects the source material to the extreme by poor writing (see my rank advancement comment above).

As for all of the Trek fans that liked it as a Trek film, I am glad that the franchise has found new life, and any further films in the series (c'mon... you know there will be) will provide more topics of debate between myself and my fellow pro-Abrams Trekkies :boxer:. Then again, that in and of itself, will provide a lot of fun... :R


----------



## Sonnie

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

I get my BD copy tomorrow... can't wait for the mail to run. I may have to take off early and come home and watch it. Ahhh... I'll probably end up waiting til the weekend... something really look forward to all week.


----------



## Andysu

*Re: Star Trek 2009*



Sonnie said:


> I get my BD copy tomorrow... can't wait for the mail to run. I may have to take off early and come home and watch it. Ahhh... I'll probably end up waiting til the weekend... something really look forward to all week.


Sounds too me like your postal service is running on ¼ impulse power. They need more warp speed.:rofl2:


----------



## recruit

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Picked up a copy of this film on BD yesterday, superb movie and certainly gives your sound system a good work out :T


----------



## lcaillo

*Re: Star Trek 2009*



Vader said:


> You have now... I just watched it, and while it was a very well produced action film, it was (IMO) definitely not Star Trek (though I would like to know in what universe a third class midshipman fresh out of the academy is handed the keys to the most advanced starship ever built at the time: Going from ensign directly to captain with no rank advancement... impressive). Given what Abrams wanted to do with Superman, it is no surprise that he showed little to no concern for what has been established over the last 40 years...
> 
> That being said, I am glad I own it, and it will get repeat viewings due to the fact that I like popcorn movies. In my mind, it is like the 1998 Godzilla (GINO vs STINO? ). It is a guilty pleasure, but disrespects the source material to the extreme by poor writing (see my rank advancement comment above).
> 
> As for all of the Trek fans that liked it as a Trek film, I am glad that the franchise has found new life, and any further films in the series (c'mon... you know there will be) will provide more topics of debate between myself and my fellow pro-Abrams Trekkies :boxer:. Then again, that in and of itself, will provide a lot of fun... :R


There is always one...a first time for everything.

Since when did Kirk ever follow rules?

I can understand your concern with departure from tradition, Bones. Star Trek, after all is about a centuries old social structure that certainly can't tolerate deviants like that. :foottap:

My initial thought was, HEY!, what are they doing, but then I just kicked back and took the ride. After all, the big picture was the same, and details are just that. It is fiction, and the movie was sort of like a rememberance of youth...and memory is such that from any particular perspective, the story could be very different. Or, as your question suggests, it could just be an alternative reality or universe. That was the theme of more than one OE.


----------



## wbassett

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

I'll be picking it up Wednesday (wife is in school all day Tuesday).

I've seen this twice in the theater, now I am wondering how well it will do with the test of time.

When it first came out there was an excitement about it because it had been awhile since a Trek movie, and after the poor box office showing of the last several attempts everyone was resigned to thinking the movie franchise was over. In that sense this was a very good thing. It revived the movie franchise and also brought in a whole new set of fans.

Now though I am starting to wonder at what cost.

The new Trek has lots of action and is a great Sci-Fi popcorn flick, but the more I look at it the less it looks like Star Trek to me.

As I mentioned earlier, I really didn't like them all being at the academy at the same time and Abram's excuse of this being an alternate timeline isn't standing up well after repeat viewings and over time. Then there is the engineering level, and the bridge.

One thing that Rodenberry always said about Star Trek was that as much as the cast and crew were important to the show, the Enterprise was the real star of the series. The bridge is an iconic Sci-Fi image, however this new Enterprise is just about as generic looking as you can get. Can anyone really describe what the bridge looks like? Or any part of the interior of the ship for that matter.

Also there is something strange about the nacelles and warp drive engines. I read where Abrams was going for more of a 'hot rod' or 'muscle car' look over a sleek design of the newer series ships. I know this part is minor, but something really looks out of place with the engines.

It's still a fun movie, but it totally rips apart Trek at the core. I know they explain it away as being different because it's an alternate timeline... When it comes to alternate timelines... I guess I like Mirror/Mirror better! Spock with a goatee! Now that was cool!


----------



## Prof.

*Re: Star Trek 2009*



wbassett said:


> The new Trek has lots of action and is a great Sci-Fi popcorn flick, but the more I look at it the less it looks like Star Trek to me.


Same for me!..I've watched it twice now on Blu-ray and it's a great sci-fi movie..but I can't relate it as a Star Trek movie..



> excuse of this being an alternate timeline isn't standing up well after repeat viewings and over time.


I think this was the biggest disappointment for me..The timeline thing just doesn't gel and you come away thinking..Is this Star Trek!! 


> Then there is the engineering level, and the bridge.


The engineering was huge, but totally out of date and too "nuts and bolts"..
Even the original "Enterprise" series had a more futuristic looking engineering section..
It's not surprising really when you see where they filmed the engineering system for this movie!!
I wonder whether any of you guys in the US recognise the engineering section!!?



> The bridge is an iconic Sci-Fi image, however this new Enterprise is just about as generic looking as you can get. Can anyone really describe what the bridge looks like? Or any part of the interior of the ship for that matter.


The bridge was more in keeping with the period, but I agree, we never really saw what the whole bridge looks like..just bits and pieces..and if anybody asked me what the interior looked like..I couldn't tell you!!

One thing I did like that JJ Abrams included was the little bits of dialogue or references to other Star Trek movies...
That was about the only thing that you could relate to this being a part of the Star Trek saga..


----------



## wbassett

*Re: Star Trek 2009*



Prof. said:


> One thing I did like that JJ Abrams included was the little bits of dialogue or references to other Star Trek movies...
> That was about the only thing that you could relate to this being a part of the Star Trek saga..


Except... this is an 'alternate timeline' and none of the other movies even happened!


----------



## Prof.

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Good point..I hadn't considered that!:T
That just makes it more out of context!! :rolleyesno:


----------



## tonyvdb

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Wow, I just came back from our local big box store and they were already sold out of the "tin box" BluRay. I had to go with the 3 disc special addition regular case. There were three tills open and a line up at all of them everyone but two people that I could see had a copy of the movie.


----------



## Jon Liu

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

I am REALLY looking forward to watching my copy, probably, this weekend. I may try to watch it sooner, if my wife will allow me to!


----------



## recruit

*Re: Star Trek 2009*



Jon Liu said:


> I am REALLY looking forward to watching my copy, probably, this weekend. I may try to watch it sooner, if my wife will allow me to!


Oooh, I could not wait Jon, as soon as I got in the disc was in the player :bigsmile:


----------



## Lordoftherings

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Watched this Blu-ray last night, Wow! Fantastic! 

I never was a fan of all these Star Trek franchises. But now, Ya baby, bring some more. :bigsmile:

* By the way, I love the bass on that one, really shooked my couch! :T
The picture was perfect too, so was the story line.


----------



## Jon Liu

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

I was a good boy. Well, almost...

I watched the introduction sequence up until the "antique corvette". I just could not resist starting up the disc just to preview it.

We'll see if I can resist putting it back in tonight to finish it!


----------



## tonyvdb

*Re: Star Trek 2009*



Jon Liu said:


> I was a good boy. Well, almost...
> 
> I watched the introduction sequence up until the "antique corvette". I just could not resist starting up the disc just to preview it.
> 
> We'll see if I can resist putting it back in tonight to finish it!


LOL, there would be no way that I could stop it once I start it so I'm waiting till Saturday to watch my copy. Im having some friends come over to see it as well.


----------



## Lordoftherings

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

I'll be rewatching that one many more times, I'm sure. I just love it sooooo much. :bigsmile:

* I'm still all hyped from yesterday! :hyper:


----------



## Jon Liu

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

I resisted last night! I may just make my wife watch this one with me tonight.


----------



## Lordoftherings

*Re: Star Trek 2009*



Jon Liu said:


> I resisted last night! I may just make my wife watch this one with me tonight.


She'll love it, you'll see. And she'll recompensate you for it. :kisskiss:


----------



## Jon Liu

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

lol, Well, she's seen it before. We saw it in theaters and loved it when we saw it, but I didn't know if she was just humoring me or not, but sure enough she seemed excited to watch it again when I mentioned it.

We did end up watching it last night and I'm so glad we got it. This is a movie I will be popping in again and again.


----------



## Prof.

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

+1..:T


----------



## Lordoftherings

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

They did a special screening with Star Trek with only women; they offered them to watch the film, and if they didn't like it and wanted to leave before the end, they offered them $50 (or $100, can't remember for sure), for leaving earlier. Well, they all stay till the end, and they enjoyed it very much so.

* It is mentioned I believe in the commentary, near the end, as well a sequel that is in progress.


----------



## tonyvdb

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

:T Great movie, the plot was good and full of laughs and entertainment.


----------



## Sonnie

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Wow! Excellent movie... :clap:

I want to know when will the new series start... it would have to be a huge hit.

We also need a Media Review on this one too. :yes:


----------



## recruit

*Re: Star Trek 2009*



Sonnie said:


> Wow! Excellent movie... :clap:
> 
> I want to know when will the new series start... it would have to be a huge hit.
> 
> We also need a Media Review on this one too. :yes:


I've watched this 4 times already on BD :clap:


----------



## wbassett

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

I've watched it twice so far since I bought the Bluray and it looks best up on the 106" screen with the sound cranked up!

I have to say after watching the special features I've softened my hardcore stance on some of the earlier things I didn't like or agree with. Nimoy fully signed off and approved of the story line and Abrahms said if Nimoy wouldn't have liked it and said no to doing the film that they would have been sunk. Also I saw the rest of the original cast that is still alive all meeting with their new counterparts, so in that respect it looks like everyone was on board for the reboot and how Abrahms handled it.

I still don't like the very low tech looking engineering levels. As cool and modern as the Budwiser factory may be, it doesn't look like anything that could produce warp speed! I say to Abrahms, come on! If they can make a cool looking engineering for STNG on a TV budget then you can do something grand with the budget you had!

Overall though I still like it very much and the Bluray doesn't disappoint at all. Video is a 5 out of 5, sound is 5 out of 5, and special features are fun and informative and I give them a 5 out of 5 as well. The weak link is the stupid digital copy that is included. Maybe this one has good PQ, I don't know though. I stopped checking out the digital copies included with BDs a long time ago.

This is definitely worth anyone addition to their DVD/BD collection whether they are a big time Trek fan or not.


----------



## wbassett

*Re: Star Trek 2009*



Sonnie said:


> Wow! Excellent movie... :clap:
> 
> I want to know when will the new series start... it would have to be a huge hit.
> 
> We also need a Media Review on this one too. :yes:


I originally did this one over in the Media Review thread but it was moved here. The edit to make this a BD/DVD review would have been extremely simple  
The reason I did it over there was because those reviews get featured on the main page and at the time I thought we were reviewing both DVD/BD releases as well as doing movie reviews of what's playing at the box office- Again because it was a main page feature.

Someone can do another media review though, no harm no foul.  If you want I can do a quick update like I originally planned and move this back to the media review thread.


----------



## Lordoftherings

*Re: Star Trek 2009*



wbassett said:


> I've watched it twice so far since I bought the Bluray and it looks best up on the 106" screen with the sound cranked up!
> 
> Overall though I still like it very much and the Bluray doesn't disappoint at all. Video is a 5 out of 5, sound is 5 out of 5, and special features are fun and informative and I give them a 5 out of 5 as well.
> 
> This is definitely worth anyone addition to their DVD/BD collection whether they are a big time Trek fan or not.


I agree, watch this one on a huge screen and crank it up for a full immersion of the senses. :bigsmile:

I agree again, and I'd give this movie the same scores that you did.

I never was a Star Trek fan, until now! :bigsmile:

* I'll probably rewatch it for the third time tonight. :bigsmile:


----------



## lsiberian

*Re: Star Trek 2009*



wbassett said:


> I originally did this one over in the Media Review thread but it was moved here. The edit to make this a BD/DVD review would have been extremely simple
> The reason I did it over there was because those reviews get featured on the main page and at the time I thought we were reviewing both DVD/BD releases as well as doing movie reviews of what's playing at the box office- Again because it was a main page feature.
> 
> Someone can do another media review though, no harm no foul.  If you want I can do a quick update like I originally planned and move this back to the media review thread.


The story line was very lacking, but the acting was excellent. I saw this as a relaunch movie trying not to be a fantastic film.


----------



## nova

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

Picked up a copy this afternoon, may view it this evening.


----------



## Sonnie

*Re: Star Trek 2009*



wbassett said:


> I originally did this one over in the Media Review thread but it was moved here. The edit to make this a BD/DVD review would have been extremely simple
> The reason I did it over there was because those reviews get featured on the main page and at the time I thought we were reviewing both DVD/BD releases as well as doing movie reviews of what's playing at the box office- Again because it was a main page feature.
> 
> Someone can do another media review though, no harm no foul.  If you want I can do a quick update like I originally planned and move this back to the media review thread.


Yeah... you can just edit the original post and make this the media review and move it back. You can mention that you saw it at the movie theater and BD.


----------



## nova

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

:clap: :bigsmile: :clap:

I did the same thing Leonard did,.... just kicked back and enjoyed it!

Really can't say much more than what has already been said, good or bad. Aside from the aforementioned flippant attitude during the Kobayashi Maru, the only thing that REALLY bugged me was Kirk's promotion at the end. A battlefield promotion...Ok, but once they returned? There is no way he would have retained the rank of Captain.

Otherwise,... I thought it was a hoot. One of the most enjoyable films I have seen in the last couple years.

Oh, and I was a Trekkie before Trekker became PC


----------



## wbassett

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

I think the reasoning behind him retaining the rank was because he 'saved' Earth.


----------



## Lordoftherings

*Re: Star Trek 2009*

:yeahthat: :hail: That'll do it.


----------



## Harpmaker

As usual, I'm about a year behind everyone else when it comes to seeing a movie. Just watched this one tonight.

As reboots go I guess this was as good as any, but I still didn't like it as a whole. I didn't mind Scotty being the comic relief since he came across that way often in the series, but I do think they over did it a bit. My real problem is with the new Kirk. Maybe it's just me, but I never saw the original Kirk as being such a skirt-chaser; maybe this is part of the reinvention of the franchise. No matter what it is I don't like it.

Spock and Uhura getting busy? I just didn't need that mental image... There is also no way Spock would have done that, and it isn't a race thing. Shipboard romances usually end badly and Spock would know that.

Many of the SFX were overdone and really had no meaning other than to wow the audience. I wasn't wowed. Don't get me wrong, the SFX were top-notch, it's just that many didn't add to the story telling.

Maybe I was seeing things, but I could have sworn that when Kirk and Spock were firing their phasers I detected recoil like they were firing a projectile weapon such as a modern day handgun. That doesn't work on any level.

The acting was very good imo, but some of it was a bit overdone.

In the end I see this as an excuse to continue the franchise into the 21st century which means it must cater to people that grew up playing video games and have a short attention span. No offense meant - it is what it is.


----------



## usrsld

Harpmaker said:


> Maybe it's just me, but I never saw the original Kirk as being such a skirt-chaser; maybe this is part of the reinvention of the franchise. No matter what it is I don't like it.


Must just be you... :unbelievable: I seem to remember Kirk hooking up with a female alien every other episode in the original series.


----------



## nova

Harpmaker said:


> My real problem is with the new Kirk. Maybe it's just me, but I never saw the original Kirk as being such a skirt-chaser; maybe this is part of the reinvention of the franchise. No matter what it is I don't like it.


Hahaha, you're being funny? Right? You may need to revisit the original series Don. 
I do agree with you about Spock and Uhura, that was just silly.


----------



## paints

Allright. Revisiting the devils (JJ Abrahms) version of Star Trek and after re-viewing the movie on blu-ray. I have come to this conclusion. There is no need for the Enterprise anymore. The genius that is Abrahms can now transport people from planets to moving starships. Can't believe that little tidbit didn't make my original beef list.

God I hate that movie. Wish Ron Moore would have done the reboot.


----------



## Harpmaker

OK, I'll admit I perhaps remember ST-TOS as being more "innocent" than others perceive it (after all, it did push the censors to the limit and had a number of "firsts" to it's credit like the first interracial kiss and the first naked female belly-button), but I see a difference between flirting, and even dating, to hopping in bed at the drop of a hat (I'm trying to remain "family friendly" here). I guess they updated that to today's needs as well.

Something that stuck in my mind all these years (I'm 55) is at the end (I think) of the episode _The Naked Time_ Kirk introspectively and sadly mutters to himself "No beach to walk on" meaning he knows that his responsibilities as a starship captain may well prevent him from having a real long-term relationship with a woman. 

I guess I'm just not as world-wise as the rest of y'all.


----------

