Originally posted by Gscully

I gave an A, It had a lot of humor that ngen and the rest seemed to avoid.

The one plot flaw (of many) I disliked was that Chekhov was even there. This same error was in Wrath of Khan too, Chekhov was not in the first season, WoK was, so when Chekhov said "I remember you" in WoK he is lying. He wasn't in the episode.

But that litle tidbit didn't ruin the fun I had watching it.

It's an alternate timeline so anything goes.

Originally posted by daarco

I give it a A, and i hate Star Trek! Why a "A"? Because it was a damn good movie. And that is what its all about. I dont care if it is a reboot. Everyone knows what these characters "have" done. You know them already : )

  My sentiments exactly !

I give the movia an A.  I grade movies on one criteria only, did I enjoy it?  That is the one and only question I ask myself at the end of the movie.  I dont give two craps about plot, special effects, writing, cinematography, photography, somethingelseography, director, actors, budget, or any other contrived crap people moan and complain about when they review movies.  I go to see movies to be entertained, not to think, if I wanted to think I would read a book or watch a documentary ( for example like the The Universe series on History Channel, love that series.)  But when it comes to movies I just want 1.5 to 2 hours of fun, just like my MMOs, but apparantly thats not what there made for anymore.  Apparantly movies have become like MMOs and they are just time sinks, who knows maybe movie studios will have us grinding lower level movies until we have enough points to see the uber epic movie.

Any ways the movie was fun, I had fun, and when I first saw the enterprise in its new shiny high tech digital creation the first thought in my head was "I want one of those."

Originally posted by DragonShark

 I gave it a "D". I thought the plot was extremely thin and contrived. The almost non-stop action really grated on my nerves after a while. There was far too much Star Wars throughout this film. The sets were very poorly designed, with the lens flares being just awful. And I think it would have been better off if they had just declared it a reboot rather than try to (poorly) tie it into real Trek.

I did like the characters, and they have potential, but only if writers actually give them a story worth doing.

Despite the numbers, I don't think this has invigorated the series at all. Like all purely-action flicks, I think this has an expiration date on it, at which point audiences will get bored with the concept, as they do with nearly every other action franchise.

It needs more.

So very well said, 100% agree (particuarly on the re-igniting ST part, all it did was turn ST into a summer action flick and those have a very short shelf life).  And not to reargue a different thread (this one), it really is not doing all that great - Wolverine is beating ST soundly still (is Wolv $355 Mil and JJ ST like $335 Mil) and most people accept that Wolverine has done poorly enough to possibly be the last X-men, at least for a while.  Yes, $300 Mil is a big number but so is the $160 Mil budget - Hollywood wants far more from summer actions flicks than doubling up the budget.

Oh, I gave it a C - mostly scored down for the lack of substance and contrived plot when a reboot needs lots of substance and plot to setup all you want to follow (like casino Royale did for Bond and Batman Begins did for Batman - this ST was very fluffy so nothing is really setup beyond action and cool effects).

Well i'm ready for the next one! woot.  and from what i've read they plan on releasing a 3rd and 4th one too!

Hope they come out with a new T.V. series, that'll just make it all the more better!

Really all they wanted to do was find a way to ditch the myriad of varying quality Star Trek tv series, spin-offs and tie-ins and just be able to start from scratch. There's that much history, back story and future story that it just became a bit of Gordian Knot that, I would think, limited them hugely in what they wanted to do with the origins of these characters. So they slashed through it in one go; alternate reality. Everything's the same but, you know, different. Really, who cares?

For the studios, how much of the likely huge box-office takings will be generated by Trek fans and how much will be generated by people who just want to be entertained by something they recognise but don't really care that much about?

Because to those people, ditching the tv series and films is no more likely to ruin their viewing experience than the fact Chris Nolan didn't stay true to the original Batman tv series, let alone Burton's films or (spit, spit) Schumachers etc. Really, as far as the majority of cinema goers are concerned, who gives a toss as long as the movie entertains them for a couple of hours?

So the 'alternate reality' storyline comes along that allows enough freedom to ditch the 'lore' but still keeps the characters and dynamics fairly true to what's expected. It also allows them to progress with their versions of these characters as all bets are off now. Plus, Scotty has an amusing alien sidekick in this version, which has to be a good thing, doesn't it?

Eh? Eh? Oh.

Originally posted by ElGuappo

Really all they wanted to do was find a way to ditch the myriad of varying quality Star Trek tv series, spin-offs and tie-ins and just be able to start from scratch. There's that much history, back story and future story that it just became a bit of Gordian Knot that, I would think, limited them hugely in what they wanted to do with the origins of these characters. So they slashed through it in one go; alternate reality. Everything's the same but, you know, different. Really, who cares?

For the studios, how much of the likely huge box-office takings will be generated by Trek fans and how much will be generated by people who just want to be entertained by something they recognise but don't really care that much about?

Because to those people, ditching the tv series and films is no more likely to ruin their viewing experience than the fact Chris Nolan didn't stay true to the original Batman tv series, let alone Burton's films or (spit, spit) Schumachers etc. Really, as far as the majority of cinema goers are concerned, who gives a toss as long as the movie entertains them for a couple of hours?

So the 'alternate reality' storyline comes along that allows enough freedom to ditch the 'lore' but still keeps the characters and dynamics fairly true to what's expected. It also allows them to progress with their versions of these characters as all bets are off now. Plus, Scotty has an amusing alien sidekick in this version, which has to be a good thing, doesn't it?

Eh? Eh? Oh.

It's not a matter of staying true to the original. For all its ugliness, I don't mind the new Enterprise. I don't mind the new characters. I don't even mind Scotty's new Ewok sidekick.

What I mind is the terrible writing. Make a couple more of these, and the interest of the average viewer will wane. Then the franchise will end. The only way for the franchise to survive will be to get back to the deeper stories that weren't about action sequences every five minutes.

Originally posted by DragonShark

Originally posted by ElGuappo

Really all they wanted to do was find a way to ditch the myriad of varying quality Star Trek tv series, spin-offs and tie-ins and just be able to start from scratch. There's that much history, back story and future story that it just became a bit of Gordian Knot that, I would think, limited them hugely in what they wanted to do with the origins of these characters. So they slashed through it in one go; alternate reality. Everything's the same but, you know, different. Really, who cares?

For the studios, how much of the likely huge box-office takings will be generated by Trek fans and how much will be generated by people who just want to be entertained by something they recognise but don't really care that much about?

Because to those people, ditching the tv series and films is no more likely to ruin their viewing experience than the fact Chris Nolan didn't stay true to the original Batman tv series, let alone Burton's films or (spit, spit) Schumachers etc. Really, as far as the majority of cinema goers are concerned, who gives a toss as long as the movie entertains them for a couple of hours?

So the 'alternate reality' storyline comes along that allows enough freedom to ditch the 'lore' but still keeps the characters and dynamics fairly true to what's expected. It also allows them to progress with their versions of these characters as all bets are off now. Plus, Scotty has an amusing alien sidekick in this version, which has to be a good thing, doesn't it?

Eh? Eh? Oh.

It's not a matter of staying true to the original. For all its ugliness, I don't mind the new Enterprise. I don't mind the new characters. I don't even mind Scotty's new Ewok sidekick.

What I mind is the terrible writing. Make a couple more of these, and the interest of the average viewer will wane. Then the franchise will end. The only way for the franchise to survive will be to get back to the deeper stories that weren't about action sequences every five minutes.

Again well said.  The problem with JJ's ST is not really JJ's ST in and of itself, but seriously - is this lightweight action movie going to be the basis for 40 more years of Star Trek?  Seriously doubtful.  There are far, far, far more popular movies that never achieve what Star Trek did.  Star Trek become what it was precisely because it was unique even if sometimes niche.  Now ST is just another summer movie and while that is likely to earn a sequel and maybe a third if the second does OK it is hardly liekly to be anything but that just like any action type movie.

Originally posted by Scalebane

Well i'm ready for the next one! woot.  and from what i've read they plan on releasing a 3rd and 4th one too!

Hope they come out with a new T.V. series, that'll just make it all the more better!

I can't wait either, because the surprise success of this movie will help the next one. A franchise movie's success on opening weekend is very much determined by the popularity of the last one.(See the diminishing returns of the Terminator franchise) The fact that this one did so well after the horrible taste that Nemesis left in  people's mouths is astounding. Nemesis was really bad. I remember attending that on opening weekend and the theater was barely half full. People just didn't care about Star Trek anymore After two weeks it was pulled from my local theater. On the other hand, I attended this latest one on the third weekend after it was released and it was jam packed with people from different age groups.

Originally posted by ElGuappo

Really all they wanted to do was find a way to ditch the myriad of varying quality Star Trek tv series, spin-offs and tie-ins and just be able to start from scratch. There's that much history, back story and future story that it just became a bit of Gordian Knot that, I would think, limited them hugely in what they wanted to do with the origins of these characters. So they slashed through it in one go; alternate reality. Everything's the same but, you know, different. Really, who cares?

For the studios, how much of the likely huge box-office takings will be generated by Trek fans and how much will be generated by people who just want to be entertained by something they recognise but don't really care that much about?

Because to those people, ditching the tv series and films is no more likely to ruin their viewing experience than the fact Chris Nolan didn't stay true to the original Batman tv series, let alone Burton's films or (spit, spit) Schumachers etc. Really, as far as the majority of cinema goers are concerned, who gives a toss as long as the movie entertains them for a couple of hours?

So the 'alternate reality' storyline comes along that allows enough freedom to ditch the 'lore' but still keeps the characters and dynamics fairly true to what's expected. It also allows them to progress with their versions of these characters as all bets are off now. Plus, Scotty has an amusing alien sidekick in this version, which has to be a good thing, doesn't it?

Eh? Eh? Oh.

Well said. Star Trek had ceased being entertaining years ago. That's why no one went to see Nemesis and why the last series was cancelled after 4 seasons. This whole discussion reminds me of the James Bond fanbase that went ballistic when their beloved hero was going to be played by a man with blonde hair. Some were still not satisfied even after Casino Royale did so well because there was no Q, no moneypenny and none of the usual trappings that came with a James Bond flick. It didn't matter because Casino Royale brought more fans to the table and the ones that miss the old formulaic bonds have 20 movies that they can always rewatch.  So if some didn't like this movie and miss the old formula that couldn't pack a theater even on opening weekend, then they have 5 series and 10 movies they can always go back and watch.

I really enjoyed it for what it was.  The only part I didn't like was the child Kirk riding his car off a cliff at the beginning. 

Originally posted by ktanner3

 

Well said. Star Trek had ceased being entertaining years ago. That's why no one went to see Nemesis and why the last series was cancelled after 4 seasons. This whole discussion reminds me of the James Bond fanbase that went ballistic when their beloved hero was going to be played by a man with blonde hair. Some were still not satisfied even after Casino Royale did so well because there was no Q, no moneypenny and none of the usual trappings that came with a James Bond flick. It didn't matter because Casino Royale brought more fans to the table and the ones that miss the old formulaic bonds have 20 movies that they can always rewatch.  So if some didn't like this movie and miss the old formula that couldn't pack a theater even on opening weekend, then they have 5 series and 10 movies they can always go back and watch.

You are correct on Bond - that was a great reboot and clearly for every fan alienated more where brought in and there core story served as a basis for mroe films.  But Casino Royale VS JJ ST is like comparing a Ford and a Ferrari so you cannot say JJ ST is on par with great reboots like Casino Royale.  Casino Royale did nearly $600 Mil WW, JJ St is looking to settle around $350 to maybe $360 Mill WW.  Hardly in the same category.  As I have said before, JJ ST box office performance wise has far, far more in common (allmost identical actually) with the franchise ending Wolverine than any of the franchise reboot films we have seen that where truly succesful.

How many times have they done the time travel motiff?  Three different movies and many times in all of the different series.  Solid C for lack of imagination.

The movie was worth seeing.  However, I don't want to see this time line flourish.  I would prefer the "real" Roddenberry era continue........Not this reboot.

Originally posted by MLecl0001

I give the movia an A.  I grade movies on one criteria only, did I enjoy it?  That is the one and only question I ask myself at the end of the movie.  I dont give two craps about plot, special effects, writing, cinematography, photography, somethingelseography, director, actors, budget, or any other contrived crap people moan and complain about when they review movies.  I go to see movies to be entertained, not to think, if I wanted to think I would read a book or watch a documentary ( for example like the The Universe series on History Channel, love that series.)  But when it comes to movies I just want 1.5 to 2 hours of fun, just like my MMOs, but apparantly thats not what there made for anymore.  Apparantly movies have become like MMOs and they are just time sinks, who knows maybe movie studios will have us grinding lower level movies until we have enough points to see the uber epic movie.

 

Any ways the movie was fun, I had fun, and when I first saw the enterprise in its new shiny high tech digital creation the first thought in my head was "I want one of those."

Well said. My top priority as well is to be entertained and that hasn't happened from Star Trek in a long while.

I enjoyed the movie....thought it was pretty well done. Then again I pretty much loathed all of TNG and DS9... so no great loss for me.

I thought it could have been a little bit better written though.... some parts seemed just too contrived. Like how Kirk went straight from cadet to Captain of the flagship of the Fleet.

I'm also not a big fan of the Time Travel motiff....although it obviously made sense for them to do it in this one.... gives them the freedom to make future movies/series without worrying about bumping into already established cannon.

Originally posted by purewitz

It has given me a new found respect for Star Trek. As a kid I gave up on Star Trek, when Next Generation and DS9 got canceled.

They were both 7 year runs, that was what was planned, same with Voyager.

Enterprise was cut short.

I have watched all series and movies, not because I am a huge Star Trek fan, but I am a scifi fan. A lot is forgiven by me, if  it is scifi.

The new film was ok, so I gave it B with the poll. It did have some questionable plot points that makes it not A in my mind. Acting, effects and overal athmosphere were very good. 

SPOILERS BELOW

Without reviewing it more, there is one thing that I would change from the film that would make it a lot better in my eyes  - removing the scene where Kirk is chased by the giant red centipede. This scene and event before and after it just did not seem plausable. Kirk should have a better reason to be on that planet. They could have made Kirk use a tricorder to locate the humanoid presence near by and thus finding Spock instead of the rather questionable way it happened.

I would have given the movie a B, while it was a very good movie on it's own there were a few things about it that were a bit off. However, the fact that they got Leonard Nimoy to be in it made it an A. Me and the wife both would have watched it for the simple fact Nimoy was in it lol. Which is one of the things we friggin hated about the season finale of Fringe ><, the very last episode they decided to bring out Nimoy and then end the season ><. Definetly looking forward to next season now though.

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

I would have given the movie a B, while it was a very good movie on it's own there were a few things about it that were a bit off. However, the fact that they got Leonard Nimoy to be in it made it an A. Me and the wife both would have watched it for the simple fact Nimoy was in it lol. Which is one of the things we friggin hated about the season finale of Fringe ><, the very last episode they decided to bring out Nimoy and then end the season ><. Definetly looking forward to next season now though.

I thought the movie would have been better without Nimoy. He and the whole Romulans from the future arc were a mere contrivance to try and appeal to us old-time fans. To me, the entire thing fell flat, and the movie would have been better off just being a complete reboot.