Star Trek (2009)

Now that I see that there are indeed some Trekkies aboard, what did you guys think about JJ Abram's Star Trek in 2009? I personally loved it when I saw it. I'm going to rewatch it once I finish rewatching TOS so I can get a feel for exactly how different it was from the original stuff going on. When I first saw it, I felt like it was relatively accurate. He did a good thing by placing the events in an alternate reality, in my opinion.

One of the only things I didn't like was the relationship between Lt. Uhura and Spock, and I didn't like Chris Pine cast as Kirk. He just didn't do it for me.

What about you guys?

I never thought I would like Star Trek. It can't compare to Star Wars imo, not even the prequel. Suck on that:p lol

Anyway the reboot was great. In theory it's more a sequel rather than a reboot, but you get my point. And why did it work? Because JJ Abrams wanted to make it more similar to Star Wars. Well, it certainly worked for me! The music, the action.... Everything improved imo. They wanted to get off the 'Battleship' motif which is what Star Trek often just mostly was. Ship gets Enterprise, fake shaking, Enterprise hits ship. And so on... While the enterprise comes with a solution in tactics or another solution. Those are not my word, though I did alter them slightly in my style lol. More sarcasm, but nothing more.... But that's what Abrams said. Call him ignorant to the true Star Trek if you disagree that this what was Star Trek was about. But it surely often felt like that, with a forced story attached to it and mediocre acting.

I never felt that way about Star Trek. IMHO I always like Star Trek over Star Wars. I found Star Wars to honestly be more fantasy than sci-fi. The only thing sci-fi about Star Wars, to me, is the space/space ship aspects of it. I always forget about Star Wars when I think about sci-fi.

I actually really don't like JJ Abrams directing style. Too many lens flares and too much over the top action. You're right, and so is everyone else, when it comes to saying that his "reboot" wasn't true to Star Trek.

I think, honestly, the only reason I liked the movie is because I love the original characters that they were all portraying.

Also, I don't agree with the mediocre acting, especially if we're talking strictly Star Trek TOS.

Well truth is these are tv actors, not movie actors. You had great acting like from Patrick Steward of course, but mostly it was mediocre imo. Mind you I'm not saying Star Wars had the best acting. But I'm not going to argue what's better. You already know what I prefer, but I agree that Star Wars is fantasy with sci-fi elements, not pure sci-fi. And well about the rest I said, that's just mostly what people said like Abrams. The reason why they changed the formula. I do agree about the lens flares. It's too much, but I don't mind, because the rest of the movie was good.

I think, as far as TOS goes (can't speak for the rest of the Star Trek TV series until I've rewatched them all), the stuff in the 60's accounts for old acting and writing and directing. I don't think it can accurately be compared to anything today. Acting, writing, and directing have changed severely since Star Trek TOS aired from the mid-late 60's. That and, those actors were also movie actors, as we got to see in the original movies that were made after the TV show ended. Back then, there wasn't that huge of a differences between TV, Movie, and play acting. I've been noticing certain things while watching that really make me feel like I'm watching a play and not a TV show.

I also think that the special effects for TOS were way ahead of their time, and that's something that will always amaze me. The same goes for Star Wars.

I was never able to get into the original Star Trek show, as well as the movies that sprang from that. While I absolutely do recognise its importance as a cultural landmark and a classic sci fi series, it just never really did it for me.

What made JJ Abram's reboot/re-imagining/kinda sequel work for me was the characters. This version of Star Trek made me care about them. I really wanted them all to get through in one piece, and each little victory made me want to pump my fist in the air.

I quite like Abram's style of directing, but only when its married to a terrific script, which this had. He somehow made this sci fi universe feel a little less clinical and sterile, and yet also managed to retain its high tech look. The world felt much more fully realised to me, and there wasn't a dud moment in the film's entire running time.

My mom and I were talking about it last night and we definitely agreed on which parts we didn't like. Then again, we're both huge TOS fans.

Why couldn't you get into the original series? I never understood how Trekkies could say such a thing lol. It's so much better than the rest to me, but the quality of many things in TNG is better, so I can understand that. For me, it's hard to rate older shows/movies/etc against newer ones because things were just so different back then in regards to the film industry.

I havent seen a lot f star trek series, but I liked the movie, and I AM EXCITED for upcoming one...

and Anakin is right...SW is da best.

yeah new start trek was great, and I'm also wating for the next one!!!

I can't wait for the next one either. I just love Star Trek in general. Despite the discrepancies I had with the first one, it was very enjoyable and I loved it.

I still hate the actor they picked for Kirk though

Chris Pine, yeah not the best choice, but he's not bad imo. At first I thought they had picked Chris Hemsworth as you saw him in the beginning of the film. Turns out he was his father. Major disappointment lol. Then again, would I rather see him as Captain Kirk or Thor? Hard question... He was superb as Thor in Thor, though I thought he looked a bit.... Too pretty, with the long locks and such and less beard.

I honestly think that Hemsworth would have been a better choice for Captain Kirk than Pine. Hemsworth resembles Shatner more closely... though, it would have been better to pic someone with NOT BLUE EYES -.-

Pine isn't a bad actor at all. I love his acting and he portrays a young Kirk very well. It's his looks that throw me off and keep me unable to be immersed in his "Kirk".

Well to be honest, I don't see much resemblance with Chris Hemsworth to Shatner either. I just think he would have certainly made a cooler Captain Kirk, even than Shatner. That's maybe blasphemy, but then well I'm a blasphemer lol.

olivia_the_vulcan wrote:Why couldn't you get into the original series? I never understood how Trekkies could say such a thing lol.

That's a fair question, liv. Let me open by saying that I probably don't consider myself much of a Trekkie to begin with (nor am I a huge Star Wars acolyte for that matter). Believe me, I really do want to like TOS as it is justifiably a classic of the genre, and I've tried many times.

It probably doesn't help that I personally don't find William Shatner's style of acting to be all that compelling. I can look past the special effects, and the costume and set design (which were admittedly very good for their time), but stuff like the way he acts is a real block for me.

I also didn't really get into the stories (as high concept as some of them are) because I couldn't get into the characters in general. Usually, compelling characters are my way into a story. I simply don't care what happens plot wise if I don't care about the characters.

Again, I must stress that I don't consider this to be a terrible show just because it's not my cup of tea. It's not TOS. It's me. Maybe if we go on another date some time, we might finally fall in love and be a thing. But until then, I'm-a-gonna see other shows instead.

I did care a lot about Kirk/Spock/McCoy trio...they are cool!!!

Ephemeral wrote:

olivia_the_vulcan wrote:Why couldn't you get into the original series? I never understood how Trekkies could say such a thing lol.

That's a fair question, liv. Let me open by saying that I probably don't consider myself much of a Trekkie to begin with (nor am I a huge Star Wars acolyte for that matter). Believe me, I really do want to like TOS as it is justifiably a classic of the genre, and I've tried many times.

It probably doesn't help that I personally don't find William Shatner's style of acting to be all that compelling. I can look past the special effects, and the costume and set design (which were admittedly very good for their time), but stuff like the way he acts is a real block for me.

I also didn't really get into the stories (as high concept as some of them are) because I couldn't get into the characters in general. Usually, compelling characters are my way into a story. I simply don't care what happens plot wise if I don't care about the characters.

Again, I must stress that I don't consider this to be a terrible show just because it's not my cup of tea. It's not TOS. It's me. Maybe if we go on another date some time, we might finally fall in love and be a thing. But until then, I'm-a-gonna see other shows instead.

I can understand that. See, I'm just really able to put myself in the mindset of someone from the 60's watching the show. Acting back then was exactly what Shatner was doing. And it wasn't just Shatner that acted that way. They were all doing it. Shatner just got the most crap for it in later years because he was the star of the show. I've never had any trouble getting into older movies/etc because I can appreciate good acting for WHEN it was good acting, if you follow me.

olivia_the_vulcan wrote:I can understand that. See, I'm just really able to put myself in the mindset of someone from the 60's watching the show. Acting back then was exactly what Shatner was doing. And it wasn't just Shatner that acted that way. They were all doing it. Shatner just got the most crap for it in later years because he was the star of the show. I've never had any trouble getting into older movies/etc because I can appreciate good acting for WHEN it was good acting, if you follow me.

Well, actually, you make a good point. I would even say that it still can be considered legitimately good acting. Sure, it might be of a different vintage and style but that doesn't make it bad or invalid. If you study actors from that era, they still have that "played out on a stage" vibe to their performances, so everything's larger, their movements and expressions more melodramatic and flamboyant. It's perhaps not nearly as nuanced and understated as some contemporary folks might like (like little ol' pedant me), but there's no reason why there can't be room enough in the world for both styles to coexist.

I find it to be fantastic acting. It IS stage acting. Many of these actors started out on the stage, and you can see that in their acting. You'll notice that someone could be in ear shot, but they won't be heard by anyone but the person they're talking to directly. Or when someone gets a message and it should be able to be heard, but no one hears it because the focus wasn't on the person receiving the message. In my mind, I find that to be a brilliant way to act/direct/write because it keeps the stage, the beginnings, alive.

And of course it gives us a good giggle when it's silly

I must say that I admire your ability to articulate exactly what it is that you like or dislike about something, liv. Not many people do that. It makes for a refreshing conversation rather than the usual "oh, 'cos it's dumb and you're dumb" rubbish I usually get.

Why thank you, Eph. I appreciate that. Sometimes I feel like no one listens when I'm talking anyway, mostly because I'm so concise (and at times verbose) about my opinions :p