Members mirrorball Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 Is the movie kinda funny? Because they casted that british dude from Shawn of the dead and one of the Asain dudes from Harold and Kumar. Just seemed a little odd. Right, because they've never tried humor before in the series. Other than most of Star Trek IV (and unintentionally all of V). And comedic actors never do action or drama. Except for Tom Hanks, Denis Leary, Hugh Laurie, the other guy from Harold and Kumar, and oh nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thirsty one Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 Wait, you mean that both of the protagonists undergo a hero's journey?! Man, I hate it how every story has the same basic plot devices. John Cho plays Sulu totally straight, no comedy there, and he does a great job too. Simon Pegg plays young Scottie pretty well; he's definitely comic relief and in a scene or two it's a little heavy-handed but it never disrupts the flow of the movie. Overall it is extremely well-paced and succeeds where most Star Trek movies fail - it is cinematic, larger-than-life, where most Star Trek movies come off more like a long episode with better production values than a truly cinematic experience. To me, it's an extremely exciting film. I am overjoyed that my generation is going to get its own Star Trek, get a chance to meet these characters totally anew (huge financial success so far and everyone involved has already signed on for a sequel that I'm already anticipating like mad)... The new movie doesn't kill the 43-year history of the franchise. That is the star trek corpus vitae, still intact for all of the old-school fans. It's sad that some old fans are taking the alternate-reality aspect so poorly, as Gene Roddenberry used the device all the time himself, and what Star Trek needed right now if it was going to have any life left at all was precisely this - a chance to start over. It's not like they gathered up all the existing material and burned it, this is just a Star Trek for a new generation of fans. And fans aplenty there are, its box office success has been amazing. America wasn't tired of Star Trek, just tired of what Star Trek had become. I raise a toast to new beginnings, and my wife and I will be seeing it again this week. Edit: I wouldn't call myself a Trekker, but I do have all of the movies and my wife and I watch them yearly; I was born too late to see the original series as it aired, but I've watched it on DVD, and I did follow all of the versions from The Next Generation up to Voyager. The Next Generation and Deep Space 9 are my favorites. Voyager was... alright... and everything since has been mediocre. My favorite movie is Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, and the new Star Trek ranks right up there with it. Here Here, I raise my glass with you! Good points Agreed! I loved this film. I wished my wife would get into this kind of movie experience. I liked all the spin offs. TNG version was great. Patrick Stewart is a great actor. I thought the actors in this new film did a great job. I love the actor who plays Skylar from Heros in the Spock roll. It looks like the new Spock will have a few twists as they take this franchise forward. The cameo was an unexpected surprise. I wont spoil that for those of you who haven't seen it yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dkerwood Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Look it up. Enjoy. Tons of stories adhere to its basic structure- Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, the Odyssey, The Lion King, Aladdin (Disney), the King Arthur mythology, Jaws, Mary Tyler Moore, Witness, The Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, E.T., The Matrix, and yes, the new (fantastic) Star Wars movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Blitzraptor007 Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Look it up. Enjoy. Tons of stories adhere to its basic structure- Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, the Odyssey, The Lion King, Aladdin (Disney), the King Arthur mythology, Jaws, Mary Tyler Moore, Witness, The Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, E.T., The Matrix, and yes, the new (fantastic) Star Wars movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Stratman Tigers Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 I love Star Wars. I like Star Trek. Can't we get along Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Naterel Posted May 19, 2009 Author Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 {censored} that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members matterday Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 {censored} that You're so indie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Agreed Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 When Naterel trolls, every fish be bitin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members english_bob Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 IT'S A SAB-A-TAAGE!!!This was my biggest problem with an otherwise excellent movie. Are we really expected to believe that troubled 23rd century pre-pubescent hellraisers listen to 20th century hip-hop/rock crossover? To "young Kirk", that song is 300 years old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MacBradley Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 If it follows a similar plot with video evidence, then I'd have to say yes So basically to understand 'a hero's journey' you need an overly obsessed community the size of Star War's that is as butt hurt as they are that the new Star Wars films blew and Star Trek was great; to make a video for you pointing out the obvious that can be done for thousands of movies/books/game/any damn thing with a story in it? You should really take story analysis from actually WRITERS that write actually well thought out and researched concepts that the obvious that a bunch of people dressed up like Jedi bring up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rushfan Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 This was my biggest problem with an otherwise excellent movie. Are we really expected to believe that troubled 23rd century pre-pubescent hellraisers listen to 20th century hip-hop/rock crossover? To "young Kirk", that song is 300 years old Beethoven's music is over 250 years old, what's your point??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Let It Burn... Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 As a Star Wars geek, I really enjoyed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tape Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 Worst. Casting. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pamackie Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 You know what the new movie needed? Patrick. {censored}ing. Stewart. Other than that, pretty awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chrisjnyc Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 Decent movie, but the guy who plays Kirk is a tool, and has nothing on Shatner... Couldn't they find a guy who can act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members english_bob Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 Beethoven's music is over 250 years old, what's your point??? My point is this, (and maybe with your wide experience of law enforcement you're perfectly placed to tell me): how many ten-year-old joyriders are listening to Beethoven? My guess is very few. Is it not equally unlikely that 23rd century joyriders will be listening to music 250-300 years old? Or to put it another way, is it more likely that 23rd century joyriders will listen to music that's 300 years old than it is that 21st century film directors will resort to soundtracking a scene with rock music less than 20 years old to increase tension or create an atmosphere? Because if the latter is more likely (and I think it is), it represents lazy filmmaking, IMO, which I wouldn't have been so bothered about had the rest of the film not been pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tape Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 it doesn't represent lazy filmmaking as much as it represents catering/submitting to teen taste in music to sell the movie (at the expense of artistic vision). this is nothing new for hollywood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Snufkino Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 My point is this, (and maybe with your wide experience of law enforcement you're perfectly placed to tell me): how many ten-year-old joyriders are listening to Beethoven? My guess is very few. Is it not equally unlikely that 23rd century joyriders will be listening to music 250-300 years old? Or to put it another way, is it more likely that 23rd century joyriders will listen to music that's 300 years old than it is that 21st century film directors will resort to soundtracking a scene with rock music less than 20 years old to increase tension or create an atmosphere? Because if the latter is more likely (and I think it is), it represents lazy filmmaking, IMO, which I wouldn't have been so bothered about had the rest of the film not been pretty good. Well for a start it's not Beethoven. It's the Beastie Boys. You could Joy-ride to Beethoven's 9th though. Anyway, apparently it was put in purely as a reference to William Shatner's mispronunciation of 'Sabotage'. A bit of a stretch, but possibly true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rushfan Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 My point is this, (and maybe with your wide experience of law enforcement you're perfectly placed to tell me): how many ten-year-old joyriders are listening to Beethoven? My guess is very few. Is it not equally unlikely that 23rd century joyriders will be listening to music 250-300 years old? Or to put it another way, is it more likely that 23rd century joyriders will listen to music that's 300 years old than it is that 21st century film directors will resort to soundtracking a scene with rock music less than 20 years old to increase tension or create an atmosphere? Because if the latter is more likely (and I think it is), it represents lazy filmmaking, IMO, which I wouldn't have been so bothered about had the rest of the film not been pretty good. Or maybe, just MAYBE, since he was riding in a car from the 1960's, the owner of the car (apparently his step-dad) had some classic rock in the cd player/cassette deck/8 track. (I don't remember seeing him turn on the radio) Or maybe it's just a {censored}ing movie with music that the audience has heard instead of inventing something completely off the wall which noone who lives today would have any idea what it is or how music sounds 300 years from now. Way to over analyze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Snufkino Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 Or maybe it's just a {censored}ing movie with music that the audience has heard instead of inventing something completely off the wall which noone who lives today would have any idea what it is or how music sounds 300 years from now. Way to over analyze. True. Plus at least it wasn't Greenday or Fallout Boy etc. :poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members english_bob Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 Well for a start it's not Beethoven. It's the Beastie Boys. You could Joy-ride to Beethoven's 9th though. Anyway, apparently it was put in purely as a reference to William Shatner's mispronunciation of 'Sabotage'. A bit of a stretch, but possibly true. I have slightly more sympathy if it was just an in-joke too far, but that's pretty tenuous. Surely they could have come up with a better Shatner joke. Pulled over by officer Hooker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members d4rk0 Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 So basically to understand 'a hero's journey' you need an overly obsessed community the size of Star War's that is as butt hurt as they are that the new Star Wars films blew and Star Trek was great; to make a video for you pointing out the obvious that can be done for thousands of movies/books/game/any damn thing with a story in it? You should really take story analysis from actually WRITERS that write actually well thought out and researched concepts that the obvious that a bunch of people dressed up like Jedi bring up. does this make sense to anyone? I seriously have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I think I agree with you though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members english_bob Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 Or maybe, just MAYBE, since he was riding in a car from the 1960's, the owner of the car (apparently his step-dad) had some classic rock in the cd player/cassette deck/8 track. (I don't remember seeing him turn on the radio) Or maybe it's just a {censored}ing movie with music that the audience has heard instead of inventing something completely off the wall which noone who lives today would have any idea what it is or how music sounds 300 years from now. Way to over analyze. Who's over-analysing, the person who comments on the immediately obvious anachronism between the music and the action, or the one who comes up with "in-universe" theories to explain it? And since when was "Sabotage" classic rock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members d4rk0 Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 [YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Naterel Posted May 19, 2009 Author Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 I like this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.