ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

I really dislike Star Trek XI

Garak_3473

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17972

Report this Jan. 18 2010, 11:16 am

The first time I watched it I liked it. It was a fun movie but after thinking about it for a while I realized the story was dumb and that Star Trek XI really is just an action movie and the story is only there to create the next action scene.

Now, I wouldn't even be thinking about the movie but the GF loves it and watches it alot (and she is watching it now, very loudly in the other room).

Anyway, I am unimpressed with NERO in every way. His makeup is horrible, why does he look nothing like TNG/DS9/VOY Romulans? He is literally no different than Shinzon, perhaps worse. NERO simply wants to destroy the Federation because they couldn't stop his planet from being destroyed (not like the Federation caused it and not like Spock didn't try). His motivation is about like Elmer Fudd's motivation to shoot Bugs Bunny.

I don't care for the shaky camera either. I liked the acting though but that isn't enough.

Ok, rant over, I do want to know your thoughts though.

Humorbot

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4208

Report this Jan. 18 2010, 11:19 am

I didn't see it, the trailer didn't inspire me.

Also JJ Abrams directed Mission Impossible 3, which was a bad movie.

Garak_3473

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17972

Report this Jan. 18 2010, 11:38 am

Must be a pretty crappy movie if you can't get anyone the official Star Trek message board to give their opinion about the latest Star Trek movie. :p

Garak_3473

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17972

Report this Jan. 18 2010, 11:40 am

Quote (starbase63 @ Jan. 18 2010, 10:37 am)
Hop over to the movie board for all the yakking about ST:XI, Garak...

Much of what you ask is answered and discussed at length over there.

:logical:

I am not asking anything, I am criticizing.

I don't want excuses about why NERO looks like he was tattooed instead of put into makeup.

I don't want excuses about how this stupid story can somehow make sense without destroying the TOS and later timelines.

Besides, 10F is about the only forum that gets any traffic.

Longtimetrekker1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 9471

Report this Jan. 18 2010, 11:41 am

Quote (Garak_3473 @ Jan. 18 2010, 11:16 am)
The first time I watched it I liked it. It was a fun movie but after thinking about it for a while I realized the story was dumb and that Star Trek XI really is just an action movie and the story is only there to create the next action scene.

Now, I wouldn't even be thinking about the movie but the GF loves it and watches it alot (and she is watching it now, very loudly in the other room).

Anyway, I am unimpressed with NERO in every way. His makeup is horrible, why does he look nothing like TNG/DS9/VOY Romulans? He is literally no different than Shinzon, perhaps worse. NERO simply wants to destroy the Federation because they couldn't stop his planet from being destroyed (not like the Federation caused it and not like Spock didn't try). His motivation is about like Elmer Fudd's motivation to shoot Bugs Bunny.

I don't care for the shaky camera either. I liked the acting though but that isn't enough.

Ok, rant over, I do want to know your thoughts though.

Nero's motivations are strange.  I know that his bitterness was clearer in the full script, but I don't think it addresses the whole idea that Spock was on his way, in the fastest ship the Federation had.  It would have been more interesting by far if the Vulcans or Spock had made a decision based on logic that doomed Romulus.  For example, if they had decided the odds were against a rescue being possible and made a cold, logical decision not to help, but they were wrong.  Even better would have been Spock making a quick decision to save the most people possible with Nero's family being on the losing end of his choice.  Then there would be some reason for his hatred for Spock and Vulcan as a whole.

I find the movie flawed but very well done in many ways.  Whenever I watch it, I'm completely absorbed in it.  I wish they had kept the deleted scenes in about Kirk's motivation to steal the car, and the monster chase on the ice planet was predictable and dumb.  Also, Scotty through the water pipes was over the top stupid out of place.  Mostly though, I feel the laid the groundwork for a rebirth of the franchise, and I hope the new movie is even better.

Garak_3473

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17972

Report this Jan. 18 2010, 11:48 am

Quote (starbase63 @ Jan. 18 2010, 10:45 am)
Quote (Garak_3473 @ Jan. 18 2010, 11:40 am)
Quote (starbase63 @ Jan. 18 2010, 10:37 am)
Hop over to the movie board for all the yakking about ST:XI, Garak...

Much of what you ask is answered and discussed at length over there.

:logical:

I am not asking anything, I am criticizing.

I don't want excuses about why NERO looks like he was tattooed instead of put into makeup.

I don't want excuses about how this stupid story can somehow make sense without destroying the TOS and later timelines.

Besides, 10F is about the only forum that gets any traffic.

You obviously haven't been on the Movies board since your last visit here...it's usually the next busiest board after Ten Forward, even before the movie debuted in May.

The movie doesn't destroy TOS at all, doesn't affect anything in the prime timeline. It's a new timeline that splits off in 2233 and is a blank slate. It's pretty simple, really. Also means that if you don't like the movie, you can completely ignore it because as far as the prime timeline is concerned, except for the fact that in the post-Voyager 24th century Romulus is destroyed and Spock is missing, presumed dead...the movie never happened.

:logical:

In other words, the movie is inconsequential. It means nothing, it says nothing, it isn't a "part" of Trek but rather exists outside of Trek.

It's just an action flick.

Humorbot

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4208

Report this Jan. 18 2010, 11:51 am

Quote (Garak_3473 @ Jan. 17 2010, 12:48 pm)
Quote (starbase63 @ Jan. 18 2010, 10:45 am)
Quote (Garak_3473 @ Jan. 18 2010, 11:40 am)
Quote (starbase63 @ Jan. 18 2010, 10:37 am)
Hop over to the movie board for all the yakking about ST:XI, Garak...

Much of what you ask is answered and discussed at length over there.

:logical:

I am not asking anything, I am criticizing.

I don't want excuses about why NERO looks like he was tattooed instead of put into makeup.

I don't want excuses about how this stupid story can somehow make sense without destroying the TOS and later timelines.

Besides, 10F is about the only forum that gets any traffic.

You obviously haven't been on the Movies board since your last visit here...it's usually the next busiest board after Ten Forward, even before the movie debuted in May.

The movie doesn't destroy TOS at all, doesn't affect anything in the prime timeline. It's a new timeline that splits off in 2233 and is a blank slate. It's pretty simple, really. Also means that if you don't like the movie, you can completely ignore it because as far as the prime timeline is concerned, except for the fact that in the post-Voyager 24th century Romulus is destroyed and Spock is missing, presumed dead...the movie never happened.

:logical:

In other words, the movie is inconsequential. It means nothing, it says nothing, it isn't a "part" of Trek but rather exists outside of Trek.

It's just an action flick.

JJ Abrams trying to make big bucks for a franchise that was beginning to have a little trouble, yes.

Garak_3473

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17972

Report this Jan. 18 2010, 11:54 am

Quote (Longtimetrekker1 @ Jan. 18 2010, 10:41 am)
Quote (Garak_3473 @ Jan. 18 2010, 11:16 am)
The first time I watched it I liked it. It was a fun movie but after thinking about it for a while I realized the story was dumb and that Star Trek XI really is just an action movie and the story is only there to create the next action scene.

Now, I wouldn't even be thinking about the movie but the GF loves it and watches it alot (and she is watching it now, very loudly in the other room).

Anyway, I am unimpressed with NERO in every way. His makeup is horrible, why does he look nothing like TNG/DS9/VOY Romulans? He is literally no different than Shinzon, perhaps worse. NERO simply wants to destroy the Federation because they couldn't stop his planet from being destroyed (not like the Federation caused it and not like Spock didn't try). His motivation is about like Elmer Fudd's motivation to shoot Bugs Bunny.

I don't care for the shaky camera either. I liked the acting though but that isn't enough.

Ok, rant over, I do want to know your thoughts though.

Nero's motivations are strange. ?I know that his bitterness was clearer in the full script, but I don't think it addresses the whole idea that Spock was on his way, in the fastest ship the Federation had. ?It would have been more interesting by far if the Vulcans or Spock had made a decision based on logic that doomed Romulus. ?For example, if they had decided the odds were against a rescue being possible and made a cold, logical decision not to help, but they were wrong. ?Even better would have been Spock making a quick decision to save the most people possible with Nero's family being on the losing end of his choice. ?Then there would be some reason for his hatred for Spock and Vulcan as a whole.

I find the movie flawed but very well done in many ways. ?Whenever I watch it, I'm completely absorbed in it. ?I wish they had kept the deleted scenes in about Kirk's motivation to steal the car, and the monster chase on the ice planet was predictable and dumb. ?Also, Scotty through the water pipes was over the top stupid out of place. ?Mostly though, I feel the laid the groundwork for a rebirth of the franchise, and I hope the new movie is even better.

Thanks for responding.

So bad editing made the story bad. I can accept that but the movie still stands as it is and most people won't see the original script.

Kirk came off as a rebellious kid with a short fuse. I didn't care for that.

Nimoy was just sort of thrown in there and he deserved a better script than what he got or he shouldn't have been in it at all.

You know what bothers me the most. I think Nero's ship is a horrible design but what bugs me the most is how you never really get to see the ship all in one frame (or if you do the lighting is too dark).

Yes, in JAWS Spielberg hid the shark for effect but that only works if the object you are hiding is worth seeing.

There is nothing about NERO nor his ship that looks Romulan.

Garak_3473

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17972

Report this Jan. 18 2010, 12:04 pm

Quote (GHOSTREK @ Jan. 18 2010, 11:00 am)
i liked it but the ligthing flares ¿bug the hell out of me the first time i wacthed it i was takeing off glasses trying wipe them off ¿thinking there was on the lenes of my glasses ¿

JJ Abrams ¿you wear glasses why did you do that ?

In the special features he said he put the lighting flares in because he liked them.

Blah....he also likes to shake the camera!

At the end of the day, Nemesis is a smarter, better movie and yeah...I think Nemesis sucks too.

Garak_3473

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17972

Report this Jan. 18 2010, 12:17 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Jan. 18 2010, 11:14 am)
Quote (Garak_3473 @ Jan. 18 2010, 11:48 am)
Quote (starbase63 @ Jan. 18 2010, 10:45 am)
Quote (Garak_3473 @ Jan. 18 2010, 11:40 am)
Quote (starbase63 @ Jan. 18 2010, 10:37 am)
Hop over to the movie board for all the yakking about ST:XI, Garak...

Much of what you ask is answered and discussed at length over there.

:logical:

I am not asking anything, I am criticizing.

I don't want excuses about why NERO looks like he was tattooed instead of put into makeup.

I don't want excuses about how this stupid story can somehow make sense without destroying the TOS and later timelines.

Besides, 10F is about the only forum that gets any traffic.

You obviously haven't been on the Movies board since your last visit here...it's usually the next busiest board after Ten Forward, even before the movie debuted in May.

The movie doesn't destroy TOS at all, doesn't affect anything in the prime timeline. It's a new timeline that splits off in 2233 and is a blank slate. It's pretty simple, really. Also means that if you don't like the movie, you can completely ignore it because as far as the prime timeline is concerned, except for the fact that in the post-Voyager 24th century Romulus is destroyed and Spock is missing, presumed dead...the movie never happened.

:logical:

In other words, the movie is inconsequential. It means nothing, it says nothing, it isn't a "part" of Trek but rather exists outside of Trek.

It's just an action flick.

Basically.

Think of Paramount's movie as "New Coke" and the rest of the Trek Universe owned by CBS as "Coke Classic."

We know how that story ended up.

It's Trek, but a different Trek. Created both out of business necessity and of course for financial gain.


:logical:

Indeed.

I just hope that the future Trek movies don't attempt to be "Diehard in Space".

Oh and that product placement! Geez!

Garak_3473

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17972

Report this Jan. 18 2010, 12:20 pm

Quote (GHOSTREK @ Jan. 18 2010, 11:17 am)
Quote (Garak_3473 @ Jan. 17 2010, 2:04 pm)
Quote (GHOSTREK @ Jan. 18 2010, 11:00 am)
i liked it but the ligthing flares ?bug the hell out of me the first time i wacthed it i was takeing off glasses trying wipe them off ?thinking there was on the lenes of my glasses ?

JJ Abrams ?you wear glasses why did you do that ?

In the special features he said he put the lighting flares in because he liked them.

Blah....he also likes to shake the camera!

At the end of the day, Nemesis is a smarter, better movie and yeah...I think Nemesis sucks too.

Nemesis ¿duh tng has been the smarter

kirk was was never a deep thinker

also archer ¿murdered ¿his best friend ¿my opinon but

and reson he wanted to tape ¿t'pol

Kirk may not have been a deep thinker but he was smart and he wasn't as rebellious as this movie would pretend. IMO, this movie made him look very immature.

Garak_3473

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17972

Report this Jan. 18 2010, 12:23 pm

Quote (GHOSTREK @ Jan. 18 2010, 11:19 am)
Quote (Garak_3473 @ Jan. 17 2010, 2:17 pm)
Quote (starbase63 @ Jan. 18 2010, 11:14 am)
Quote (Garak_3473 @ Jan. 18 2010, 11:48 am)
Quote (starbase63 @ Jan. 18 2010, 10:45 am)
Quote (Garak_3473 @ Jan. 18 2010, 11:40 am)
Quote (starbase63 @ Jan. 18 2010, 10:37 am)
Hop over to the movie board for all the yakking about ST:XI, Garak...

Much of what you ask is answered and discussed at length over there.

:logical:

I am not asking anything, I am criticizing.

I don't want excuses about why NERO looks like he was tattooed instead of put into makeup.

I don't want excuses about how this stupid story can somehow make sense without destroying the TOS and later timelines.

Besides, 10F is about the only forum that gets any traffic.

You obviously haven't been on the Movies board since your last visit here...it's usually the next busiest board after Ten Forward, even before the movie debuted in May.

The movie doesn't destroy TOS at all, doesn't affect anything in the prime timeline. It's a new timeline that splits off in 2233 and is a blank slate. It's pretty simple, really. Also means that if you don't like the movie, you can completely ignore it because as far as the prime timeline is concerned, except for the fact that in the post-Voyager 24th century Romulus is destroyed and Spock is missing, presumed dead...the movie never happened.

:logical:

In other words, the movie is inconsequential. It means nothing, it says nothing, it isn't a "part" of Trek but rather exists outside of Trek.

It's just an action flick.

Basically.

Think of Paramount's movie as "New Coke" and the rest of the Trek Universe owned by CBS as "Coke Classic."

We know how that story ended up.

It's Trek, but a different Trek. Created both out of business necessity and of course for financial gain.


:logical:

Indeed.

I just hope that the future Trek movies don't attempt to be "Diehard in Space".

Oh and that product placement! Geez!

no ¿ds9 did that i think ?

Are you kidding me, DS9 was a character show. Yeah, it had the Dominion war (which was awesome BTW) but it also had some of the best stories of any Trek series.

The religious aspect of having a Starfleet captain slowly become The Emissary over a 7 year period was just amazing. DS9 was just full of good storytelling.

Garak_3473

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17972

Report this Jan. 18 2010, 12:34 pm

Quote
Not to mention the way that they turned the station itself from an unimportant backwater assignment that starfleet didnt initally even bother to arm (so it could defend itself) properly to one of the most important outposts in the Federation over that period


Indeed DS9 is the best Trek series. A Trek series that dare touch religion without smashing it under it's shoe. Bravo!

The Dominion War was bigger than anything seen in any other Trek series. The Borg was nothing in comparison. Ever see 100 ships on screen in TNG (or even in the movies) or Voyager? Awesome!

...and who can forget Garak...possibly the best character in Trek.

Garak_3473

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17972

Report this Jan. 18 2010, 12:38 pm

Quote (GHOSTREK @ Jan. 18 2010, 11:31 am)
Quote (Garak_3473 @ Jan. 17 2010, 2:20 pm)
Quote (GHOSTREK @ Jan. 18 2010, 11:17 am)
Quote (Garak_3473 @ Jan. 17 2010, 2:04 pm)
Quote (GHOSTREK @ Jan. 18 2010, 11:00 am)
i liked it but the ligthing flares ?bug the hell out of me the first time i wacthed it i was takeing off glasses trying wipe them off ?thinking there was on the lenes of my glasses ?

JJ Abrams ?you wear glasses why did you do that ?

In the special features he said he put the lighting flares in because he liked them.

Blah....he also likes to shake the camera!

At the end of the day, Nemesis is a smarter, better movie and yeah...I think Nemesis sucks too.

Nemesis ?duh tng has been the smarter

kirk was was never a deep thinker

also archer ?murdered ?his best friend ?my opinon but

and reson he wanted to tape ?t'pol

Kirk may not have been a deep thinker but he was smart and he wasn't as rebellious as this movie would pretend. IMO, this movie made him look very immature.

your talking about a guy ¿thatdemoted ¿him ¿self ¿during ¿the v'ger just ¿so he can retake ¿the ¿command of the the enterprise ¿(ncc-1701 prime) ¿thing and few years later ¿stole ¿the same ships ¿and ¿stole ¿Bird ¿of prey ¿

and at ponit he was a racist
"let them die"

he broke the both Prime Directives

what list i ¿ how dose it make him mature

Klingons have never been trustworthy.  :laugh:

On a serious note, Kirk has always been rebellious but I think Abrams took the concept too far. There's rebellion tied into loyalty (taking Spock home in ST III) and there's rebellion tied into immaturity. IMO Abrams Kirk is the latter.

Garak_3473

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 17972

Report this Jan. 18 2010, 12:42 pm

It is not racism to hate your enemy in a war. In fact, it is necessary to win. Do you think the Klingons had any love for humans at that time?

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: Starcruiser51

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum