Star Trek X1 -Open Discussion for those who have seen the movie

[rarocks24]

I'm seeing it again tomorrow.

I've never, ever, EVER had the feeling to punch Spock. EVER! Until this movie.

[Alan Wake]

I'm seeing it again tomorrow.

I've never, ever, EVER had the feeling to punch Spock. EVER! Until this movie.

Was that a compliment and hate rolled together in one?

[Shan Bruce Lee]

I loved what they did with Spock in the movie. It payed off, especially with the conversation at the end that he had with himself...

[the fifth man]

I'm seeing it again tomorrow.

I've never, ever, EVER had the feeling to punch Spock. EVER! Until this movie.

I will probably go see it again too. Maybe later in the week.

[Commander Zelix]

I loved what they did with Spock in the movie. It payed off, especially with the conversation at the end that he had with himself...

Spock was a good human character. But I didn't feel this guy was actually acting logical in any way. Which I think is the whole point of the Vulcan race. He sure wasn't overcompensating like some say about our old TOS Spock. For example, at one time, he put her cadet girlfriend (Uhura) off the Enterprise vessel, the most prestigious one, to save appearances. Which seems illogical since any other appointer would have put her there considering her credential (shes a good cadet).

But, just to be sure, if you don't think it was illogical. She then confront him about it, then he change his opinion in a second and put her on the Enterprise vessel. Again, or if you were not sure about the first one, an emotional decision (to satisfy your gf). All of this before the destruction of Vulcan, which have taken an emotional tool on him. The scene were Spock lost his temper, yet again, with cadet/captain Kirk is lessened by it. Because we never actually believe he was over his emotion. That he was a extremely logical person. Almost, nothing in his actions made us believe so.

Otherwise I did like the idea of the relationship between Spock and Uhura. Her with Kirk would have been dull and predictable. No relationship just wouldn't please the studio .

[knowles2]

I'd say its better, mostly because I found 2001 to be boring and dull, gotta love opinions though eh? But I won't I go off on a tangent saying the people who reviewed 2001 back in the day were bribed. I don't expect everyone, even a majority of people/reviewers/whatever to agree with me, and you shouldn't either.

That whole point, according to some interpetation of the film it is meant to be boring and dull,. Because We are the gods or the one behinds the monoliths of 2001 film universe, and we were finding humans so slow and boring they decided to give humanity a kick up the ars, and sent the second monolith. It also sought of made a point that us humans are dull boring creatures who break down just as much as our dull boring machines do.

But the true beauty, is that it is the Mona lisa of films, you can interpet it how you want, there are so many different meanings that you can take from it. Top level it probably the most boring film ever created, sorry Stanley and Kubrick, but dig just a little deeper and you can find layers and layers of meaning in the film depending on your view, which what makes it great. Plus the sets and the way it filmed is pretty good. And then the outstanding musical score.

A great film in my opinion let you leave a theatre asking question about what you seen and watch and experience. This what ultimately why very few films get great from me, good, even excellent are probably me common ratings from but I rarely say great.

This so take me back secondary school and probably only lesson in which our entire media class stay behind to argue about this film through a substantial portion of our lunch break.

[Vyse99]

That whole point, according to some interpetation of the film it is meant to be boring and dull,. Because We are the gods or the one behinds the monoliths of 2001 film universe, and we were finding humans so slow and boring they decided to give humanity a kick up the ars, and sent the second monolith. It also sought of made a point that us humans are dull boring creatures who break down just as much as our dull boring machines do.

But the true beauty, is that it is the Mona lisa of films, you can interpet it how you want, there are so many different meanings that you can take from it. Top level it probably the most boring film ever created, sorry Stanley and Kubrick, but dig just a little deeper and you can find layers and layers of meaning in the film depending on your view, which what makes it great. Plus the sets and the way it filmed is pretty good. And then the outstanding musical score.

A great film in my opinion let you leave a theatre asking question about what you seen and watch and experience. This what ultimately why very few films get great from me, good, even excellent are probably me common ratings from but I rarely say great.

This so take me back secondary school and probably only lesson in which our entire media class stay behind to argue about this film through a substantial portion of our lunch break.

I'm not going to refute your posts about 2001 as its totally irrelevant to the topic at hand here, which is Star Trek's movie reviewers being bribed. I'll just simply say I didn't like 2001 and you did that doesn't make my taste in movies or yours invalid we just look for different things in a movie.

[Circusfresh]

Im sorry, I know this is the new stigma in the US, like saying your an atheist in public, but I hated this film. Yes, I have watched "some" Star Trek in the past but I am not what others would consider a "Trekker", I watched TNG as a kid but own no memorabilia. Picard is my favorite Captain, bc he is intelligent and I just like Patrick Stewart as an actor. I have a career, not a job, a girlfriend (gonna have to take my word on that), and have been known to play Gears of War for entertainment. I watch Sci-Fi Fridays bc my girlfriend works that weekends (RN double and triple time on weekends), Thursday is "date night"...love SG-1 and have learned to love Atlantis and think BSG was good for two season and then got really terrible really fast after they colonized New Caprica...so there is my level of nerdom for ya.

My problem with this film is not that Abrams takes liberties and rewrites the ST Universe to suit his vision or even the inconsistencies with the past movies or series or the disrespectful tone in which Abrams just ignored Roddenberry's original vision for the franchise, its that its just a really bad movie.

The acting is OK, just OK, its not the Matrix or even Blade Runner. I spent my time wishing someone would just shoot Chekhov in the head so that terrible actor who played him would never again have to butcher his lines, ditto with Urhura, double ditto for Scottie and I love the guy who plays him in OTHER FILMS. The plot and script were pathetic, its seems like Abrams could of tried to a better job writing the movie but dumbed it down so 16 year olds who love Justin Timberlake could understand the overall story, but its Abrams a producer's kid. Abrams whole plot seemed to revolve around his reasoning for changing the future of the franchise and not writing a good movie, which should of been the priority. Nero was such a bad villain and acted horribly, and I like Eric Bana, halfway through the film I forgot he was the villain.

This was TRL - Star Trek, Sci Fi for Brittany Spears fans.

I'm not gonna nitpick the film, if you liked it great I am happy for you, if it brings fans to the franchise even better, but as a movie fan, I felt ripped off. I rate this film between the Transformers (which gets a 0 out of 10(it would of got a 1 but they hired Shia Lebouf)) and the Spiderman films which were all terrible but had points which were fun to watch (the fight on the subway with Doc Oct.) About a 4 out of 10 bc of the fancy blowing up of things.

I know many will want to run to the "Hey you didnt like it, you are a Star Trek Nerd and you should be cool like us, calm down and enjoy, no love this great film..." Which amuses me to see so called "cool" people on SNL telling the Trekkers to get a life and buy into a Sci Fi movie, but the problem is this is not a great film, it is not Lawrence of Arabia or Lord of the Rings or Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, its not even a good film. Its just a pretty looking, poorly written, poorly acted, Michael Bay blow everything up and stick every woman in a mini skirt example of why Hollywood has committed to selling 30 second trailers and not films.

Blade Runner, Matrix, Terminator, 2001, EmpireSB these are great Sci Fi movies, Abram's Star Trek is in the same category as the prequels to Star Wars or the Chronicles of Riddick, absolutely terrible.

Not writing this to be the mean guy, but I read some of the posts on IMDB and here and everyone just loved this film so I went and I felt like people owe me 10 bucks. Just trying to save some people a little coin in the recession. Also, I get to so rarely pick films when my girlfriend and I go to the movies and I just feel like I wasted a pick and should of held out for GI Joe...=).

Maybe a better word would be "disappointed", like your mom when she caught you drunk after a high school dance...

[diana6echo]

No-one will crucify you for your words Circusfresh. I hope so :>

For now, I've seen two times ST and I'll probably see it again cos I simply like it.
The cast did good job on characters, especially Chekov, Sulu and McCoy. I loved humorous interactions between Kirk-Bones or Kirk-Spock. And I'm aware that action with Uhura's first name was THE ONLY thing from which they could start entire history.

But one thing make me angry:
destroying time line and creating new one
It was the worst idea ever. I'm not a Trekker but still, it makes my teeth grind to say: I don't give a d! about TOS :|
So lame.

So, the new ST isn't so ambitious. Today Enterprise mission aren't an exploration of the outer space or a fight against the discrimination against the minority, but conquering international box office.
Entire sending it is being brought about to the wisdom with family from cheap guides: believe yourself, emphasize your individuality and remember that you can always afford on more.
It's a pity that authors of the film didn't listen to this advice.

I just hope thet XII will be better and longer (120 min?! it's a joke?!)

[dosed150]

In addition to that, what does that sun exploding have to do with the Federation? Why was it their fault? Nero blamed Spock (because he was trying to help), ok, but I still don't see what the Federations involvement was during the destruction of Romulus.

#5: New Aliens - I don't understand the reason for them adding new species in here. We had several species which we've never seen before. Instead of half of them, could we not have had some Andorian's, Tellarite's, more Vulcan's etc?[/spoiler]And for the Satisfaction:[spoiler]#1: The new Enterprise - After seeing the design, I originally didn't like it at all. I thought it was too futuristic for the era it was set in. However, having watched the film, and having seen it in action, I've come to terms with it not being so bad. The only thing I'd change are the nacelles and size of the deflector dish (these, in my opinion, still seem out of place).

romulans arent exactly known for logical actions at the best of times, and nero had just lost his family and his world which would be enought to turn even sane people crazy

i would have liked some explanation somewhere of all the new aliens, but the federation does have something like 150 races so its good to see more of them, although was uhuras roommate meant to be orion that seemed a bit odd

[ha'tak_]

I loved this movie , okay some detiles her and there that could be better but overall A GREAT MOVIE

[JediKnutt]

I liked it overall, but there was just too much ignoring of TOS. Uhura mentions a Cardassian drink. They wouldn't even know of the Cardassians for another almost 90 years. I just don't think Nero going back would be the catalyst for THAT much sweeping change. An Orion girl in Starfleet? Reference is made of Archer. There's no way Kirk would know Archer. Archer's time frame was 100 years before kirk. Although I don't really think they meant Archer. The list goes on and on.

[Vyse99]

I liked it overall, but there was just too much ignoring of TOS. Uhura mentions a Cardassian drink. They wouldn't even know of the Cardassians for another almost 90 years. I just don't think Nero going back would be the catalyst for THAT much sweeping change. An Orion girl in Starfleet? Reference is made of Archer. There's no way Kirk would know Archer. Archer's time frame was 100 years before kirk. Although I don't really think they meant Archer. The list goes on and on.

I'm pretty sure it was the same Archer was Enterprise with his "prize beagle", besides who knows how long medical technology in that century can keep someone alive.

[jds1982]

I liked it overall, but there was just too much ignoring of TOS. Uhura mentions a Cardassian drink. They wouldn't even know of the Cardassians for another almost 90 years. I just don't think Nero going back would be the catalyst for THAT much sweeping change. An Orion girl in Starfleet? Reference is made of Archer. There's no way Kirk would know Archer. Archer's time frame was 100 years before kirk. Although I don't really think they meant Archer. The list goes on and on.

The Cardassian thing didn't bother me too much, as it was just the name of a drink. No one said they had actually met the Cardassians. It's possible that drink got introduced to the Federation by contact with a race, who knew a race, that had contact with the Cardassians. Maybe it was the El Aurians, they were from a long way away. There were civilizations in Ancient Europe who knew of China through rumors, but didn't actually have contact with them. Some Ohio native tribes had artifacts produced near the Gulf of Mexico. Sometimes things get around faster than people.

[Sanguine]

I feel like someone has to really defend this film.

First of all, look at it from the writer and director's point of view. This film was a way to revive the Star Trek franchise and get a new audience that will continue it in the coming years. The design of the Bridge for example kept that old trek feel but modernized it, as did plenty of other additions. One also must realize that the techno babble was removed so as to not alienate audiences. Its not the techiness that makes it Star Trek, it's an entire universe where our heroes (Kirk, Spock, Scotty, Bones, Uhura, and sometimes even Checkov) always end up saving the day.

The Enterprise itself seemed very authentic and perhaps my favorite scene in the entire movie was Leonard Nimoy's voice over of a slightly altered TOS opening credits at the end.

The acting especially was spot on. Kirk acted like Kirk would and Chris Pine did it with his own flare. Two of my favorite lines from him especially were:

"Uhura, no way, that was the name I was gonna make up for you."

This entire scene said a lot about Kirk and was also very funny.

"Spock, It'll work."

During this scene, when Kirk said this, the music went along perfectly, and was very moving. Very Star Trek in my mind.

Zachary Quinto also did a gerat job as Spock and he walked the line of a half Vulcan half Human very well.

What I didn't like in this movie was Spock and Uhura's relashionship. It seemed forced and just didn't seem right. I never felt Spock was one seeking a life partner and this was the down point in the movie.

The soundtrack was great and I downloaded it after seeing the movie twice in the same day. It is a great reimagining of the old Star Trek scores. And for all those that didn't like the whole "reset button," what's wrong with you! Time travel is a huge essence in Star Trek. Sure it was more promient in VOY and TNG, but I feel as if the ripping of space-time is wound in the very nature of the Star Trek universe.

Overall throught the movie, I was shacking from excitment. It seemed like such a magical movie that felt just so Star Trek. That is why it became my favorite movie ever, next to the Lord of the Rings that is.