Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Star Trek

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Favourite Films >> RE: Star Trek Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Star Trek - 9/4/2009 3:00:12 PM   
shool


Posts: 10073
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.
I'm excited about this new film. It looks like it might be a full on action film but it will set the slate for the new star trek universe. Bring it on.

Here are my favourite Trek films in order

1. Wrath of Khan
2. First Contact
3. Voyage Home
4. Generations
5. Undiscovered country
6. search for spock
7. Nemesis
8. Insurrection
9. The motion picture
10. Final Frontier


_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"

(in reply to Timon)
Post #: 121
RE: Star Trek - 9/4/2009 3:15:38 PM   
Tech_Noir

 

Posts: 20199
Joined: 12/10/2005
First Contact gets rated too highly, good action in the first half but overall it feels like two / three episodes played together.

Good score though.


(in reply to shool)
Post #: 122
RE: Star Trek - 9/4/2009 3:24:15 PM   
shool


Posts: 10073
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tech_Noir

First Contact gets rated too highly, good action in the first half but overall it feels like two / three episodes played together.

Good score though.




really? I just thought it was great. Love the bit where they go outside the enterprise to release the dish thingy.

For full on space battles though you cant beat Khan.


_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"

(in reply to Tech_Noir)
Post #: 123
RE: Star Trek - 9/4/2009 3:39:29 PM   
Tech_Noir

 

Posts: 20199
Joined: 12/10/2005
What annoyed me was I thought we're see Borg-infested Earth, instead it's briefly mentioned and then they zip back to modern-ish times (which would be easier on the budget).

(in reply to shool)
Post #: 124
RE: Star Trek - 10/4/2009 12:32:43 PM   
darth silas


Posts: 4949
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: My living room
What i disliked about First Contact is that it was the third time travel adventure IN A ROW for Picards crew.The tv series ended with a time travel story,their first movie involved time travel,and here they were in their second movie doing more time travel.The writers(Ronald d moore and Brannon Braga) were just obsessed with this concept and wrote all these episodes.

Whats funny is that on the dvd extras,Brannon Braga says ''At the time their wasnt a tremendous amount of time travel on Star Trek''

_____________________________

Star Wars:Episodes 1,2,3,4,5,6.Taken together they are one giant movie and it is the greatest movie EVER.

(in reply to Tech_Noir)
Post #: 125
RE: Star Trek - 10/4/2009 3:37:19 PM   
Tech_Noir

 

Posts: 20199
Joined: 12/10/2005
All this has happened before, all this will happen again.

Oh wait, wrong show.

(in reply to darth silas)
Post #: 126
RE: GEEK-ASM - 15/4/2009 11:49:16 AM   
Timon


Posts: 14587
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Bristol
 
 
It's so pretty....


_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Twitter: @timonsingh

(in reply to Tech_Noir)
Post #: 127
RE: Star Trek - 21/4/2009 4:24:41 PM   
Timon


Posts: 14587
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Bristol
The positive reviews for Star Trek (2009) are flying in. As a Trekkie, all I can say is Yay!



_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Twitter: @timonsingh

(in reply to Timon)
Post #: 128
RE: Star Trek - 21/4/2009 4:32:50 PM   
shool


Posts: 10073
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.
I cant wait. I am going to book my tickets tomorrow I think.

_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"

(in reply to Timon)
Post #: 129
RE: Star Trek - 8/5/2009 7:59:31 AM   
Timon


Posts: 14587
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Bristol
Really loved it. En par with the likes of Khan and The Undiscovered Country.

Granted, myself and my friends exchanged looks of horror as Vulcan was destroyed but this, I felt, was a very bold step for a well established franchise and series that could easily rest on its laurels and boldly go where it's gone many, many times before. Being a sequel/prequel, everything that has gone before still exists, but now a new future awaits... a future where Spock's mother is dead, he's actually rather close with his father, Vulcan is destroyed, Pike is an Admiral, that Starfleet knows what Romulans look like pre-Balance of Terror...to quote Scotty, "It's exciting."

All the performances were spot on with notable praise going to both Pine, Urban and Quinto who nail their characters. Abrams directs with (lens) flair and the action scenes are suitably kenetic and exciting.

As a lifelong Trek fan, there WERE things that bemused me or I wish we'd seen more of;

Why did Spock abandon Kirk on Delta Vega? Why not just dump him in the brig?

How can Kirk go from a cadet who hasn't even graduated yet to full-blown Captain, whilst Spock remains a Commander?

Why did Nero leave Spock on Delta Vega?


Apart from these little gripes, it was a great film and I loved the Enterprise's new look especially the industrial engineering that really looked like it powered a starship. A entertaining summerblockbuster and well worth your cash.





_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Twitter: @timonsingh

(in reply to shool)
Post #: 130
RE: Star Trek - 8/5/2009 8:12:30 AM   
Gimli The Dwarf


Posts: 77569
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Central Park Zoo
Can anybody tell me just how much of what went on in this film is part of accepted Star Trek lore? Is it pretty much all a departure from what's gone on before? (or, chronologically, what will happen after)



_____________________________

So, sir, we let him have it right up! And I have to report, sir, he did not like it, sir.

Fellow scientists, poindexters, geeks.

Yeah, Mr. White! Yeah, science!

Much more better!

(in reply to Timon)
Post #: 131
RE: Star Trek - 8/5/2009 8:49:50 AM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
Might want to put some spoiler warnings in there Timon.


Gimli - things are pretty much different but there is one moment in particualar that pretty much plays out as described in a previous film.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Gimli The Dwarf)
Post #: 132
RE: Star Trek - 8/5/2009 11:10:55 AM   
HIM


Posts: 9734
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Star Trekkin', across the universe
Yes, in established cannon, Kirk retook the Kobayashi Maru test and beat it by cheating. Pike was also the first captain of the Enterprise and ended up without the use of his legs (though in the tv series he also loses the use of his whole body, is left mute and also badly scarred). Spock did serve with Pike as well before Kirk took command. Other than that I think everything else changed. Spock and Uhura never got it on (in Star Trek VI Uhura and Scotty have a thing going on), Vulcan isn't destroyed and Spock doesn't lose his mother, Chekov arrives on the Enterprise much later and the Romulans don't reappear until much later.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 133
RE: Star Trek (2009) Deleted Scenes - 8/5/2009 11:10:04 PM   
Timon


Posts: 14587
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Bristol
Apparantly the Klingons WERE meant to be in the new film. For the 25 years, Nero was 'waiting', he was imprisioned on Rura Penthe... that's the Klingon Prison Planet mentioned in the film. Apparantly they filmed all this and it'll be on the DVD along with these other deleted scenes.

Some of the Kirk and Spock back-story
The new Star Trek is an ‘origin story’ with the primary focus on Kirk and Spock. Both have scenes from their childhoods which ended up in the final film, but some still ended up cut. However, even though they aren’t in the film, some of this footage has been used in trailers and TV commercials, notably a scene at Spock’s birth.



DELETED: Scene with Amanda (Winona Ryder) and Sarek (Been Cross) holding baby Spock
 
Also gone is a scene with Kirk’s Uncle. If you remember back to last year, it was reported that Brad Henke had been cast as ‘alcoholic abusive Uncle,’ however Henke is nowhere to be seen in the final film. And although Jimmy Bennett still appears as a young James T. Kirk (the kid who steals the Corvette seen in the first trailer), Spencer Daniels (who plays George Kirk Jr.) didn’t make the final cut either [correction] who was originally reported to playing George Kirk, Jr still appears in the film, however he is credited as "Johnny" and has no lines. 
 
 
Nero on Rura Penthe
Probably the biggest section of the film that has been cut is a whole sub-plot involving Nero on the Klingon prison planet Rura Penthe. Even though it isn’t in the film, clips from this section of the film have worked there way into various trailers, including Nero’s line "the wait is over."

 
 

DELETED: Nero fights off Klingons escaping from Rura Penthe

DELETED: Nero is going to have to wait for the DVDs to see this scene play out
 
This section of the film is actually not entirely gone. There is a reference in the film to a battle ‘at a Klingon prison planet’ and there is also a brief glimpse of Nero’s past during a flashback sequence (which has also been seen in one of the TV commercials). However, neither of these things makes it clear that Nero was actually a prisoner on Rura Penthe.
 
Last November Star Trek director JJ Abrams actually talked to Empire about cutting the Klingon subplot (which we know to be Nero’s time on Rura Penthe):
"There was a big Klingon subplot in this, and we actually ended up having to pull it out because it confused the story in a way that I thought was very cool but unnecessary. So we have these beautiful designs that we’re going to have to wait and do elsewhere I guess."


_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Twitter: @timonsingh

(in reply to HIM)
Post #: 134
RE: Star Trek - 9/5/2009 2:00:35 AM   
Gimli The Dwarf


Posts: 77569
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Central Park Zoo
Cheers for that, guys!

At one time I probably would have known that stuff, but it's been a while.

How do the changes suit die-hard fans? Are they accepted because this universe is taking place differently thanks to events at the beginning of the film?





_____________________________

So, sir, we let him have it right up! And I have to report, sir, he did not like it, sir.

Fellow scientists, poindexters, geeks.

Yeah, Mr. White! Yeah, science!

Much more better!

(in reply to HIM)
Post #: 135
RE: Star Trek - 9/5/2009 11:36:59 AM   
Timon


Posts: 14587
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Bristol
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gimli The Dwarf

How do the changes suit die-hard fans? Are they accepted because this universe is taking place differently thanks to events at the beginning of the film?




Pretty much. I for one am just glad Star Trek now has a budget and the franchise is off its knees.

As for what has gone before...well, it sort of still exists in the past... or future as this film is both a sequel and a reboot, but if you go to imdb, people aren't willing to accept change.

But to quote Capt Kirk himself, "Come, come, Mr. Scott. Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant!"

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Twitter: @timonsingh

(in reply to Gimli The Dwarf)
Post #: 136
RE: Star Trek - 9/5/2009 4:30:04 PM   
impqueen


Posts: 7474
Joined: 24/7/2006
Third viewing in 2 days and I'm not yet bored or annoyed, still an extremely entertaining film that looks stunning.
 
I hope that the deleted scenes are some how incorporated into the DVD/Blu-Ray release, I can not get enough of this film at the moment and any extra would be welcome.
 
As for the changes I'm completely fine with them because in my head the old timeline still exists in some parallel universe so nothing changes as far as canon goes in that universe (cheating me!?) but as I've said in another thread I love the idea of having these characters do something new in the alternative reality, something fresh, anything really because I love them and it's just a joy seeing them back even if they are a tad altered. I just hope they don't screw up the second film…  
 
As for those whining, they are the Trek "fans” that I feel give the rest of us a bad name, I respect Roddenberry's ideals but seriously grow up and move on, accept change Trek has a new lease of life surely that is something to be glad about.   
  
One major anomaly though that I can not figure out is how Kurtzman and Orci wrote this and yet also participated in the bollocks that was/is Transformers, maybe it's the director?  


_____________________________

Yes, always.


(in reply to Timon)
Post #: 137
RE: Star Trek - 9/5/2009 6:30:48 PM   
Timon


Posts: 14587
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Bristol
quote:

ORIGINAL: impqueen

As for those whining, they are the Trek "fans” that I feel give the rest of us a bad name, I respect Roddenberry's ideals but seriously grow up and move on, accept change Trek has a new lease of life surely that is something to be glad about.   
  
One major anomaly though that I can not figure out is how Kurtzman and Orci wrote this and yet also participated in the bollocks that was/is Transformers, maybe it's the director?  



It's already in the IMDB Top 250 though that's hardly an indicator simply due to the nutballs that post on their forum. To quote;

"An atrocity for what they did to 40 years of Trek lore (who the *beep* does this Abrams think he is?)."
 
I'm listening to Michael Giacchino's score. Really good. Through the film, I kept waiting for the Alex Courage/Jerry Goldsmith theme to crop up, but Giacchino's score has its own merit. Is just as good as the likes of James Horner's and Leonard Rosenman's.



_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Twitter: @timonsingh

(in reply to impqueen)
Post #: 138
RE: Star Trek - 9/5/2009 6:40:16 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
Saw it a second time today but took my 12 year old brother who has never watched Star Trek, never been interested in Star Trek and only went because I was paying.

When he came out he turned and said "Can I watch some of the other movies now" - putting him straight onto Khan, Motion Picture might give him a relaspe into not caring.

Got a round of appluase as well. And it was totally full - good sign for the sequel methinks.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Timon)
Post #: 139
RE: Star Trek - 9/5/2009 8:57:58 PM   
impqueen


Posts: 7474
Joined: 24/7/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: Timon

quote:

ORIGINAL: impqueen

As for those whining, they are the Trek "fans” that I feel give the rest of us a bad name, I respect Roddenberry's ideals but seriously grow up and move on, accept change Trek has a new lease of life surely that is something to be glad about.   
  
One major anomaly though that I can not figure out is how Kurtzman and Orci wrote this and yet also participated in the bollocks that was/is Transformers, maybe it's the director?  



It's already in the IMDB Top 250 though that's hardly an indicator simply due to the nutballs that post on their forum. To quote;

"An atrocity for what they did to 40 years of Trek lore (who the *beep* does this Abrams think he is?)."
 
I'm listening to Michael Giacchino's score. Really good. Through the film, I kept waiting for the Alex Courage/Jerry Goldsmith theme to crop up, but Giacchino's score has its own merit. Is just as good as the likes of James Horner's and Leonard Rosenman's.




I avoid the IMDB Forums as much as I avoid the berks over AICN, I saw it was in the Top 250 but like you say it really isn't a particularly good indicator at all.

I too have been listening to the score all day it's superb I really like Enterprising Young Man, Labour of Love, Nero Death Experience and Hella Bar Talk.  

< Message edited by impqueen -- 9/5/2009 8:58:59 PM >


_____________________________

Yes, always.


(in reply to Timon)
Post #: 140
RE: Star Trek - 10/5/2009 1:36:33 AM   
somekindof_battery


Posts: 1608
Joined: 23/2/2008
I've seen pretty much all the Trek movies as far as i can remember but some i've not watched in years so my memory is really hazy of each one. I certainly remember scenes - dinner with the Klingons, the ear bugs in Wrath of Khan and Spocks death. I'd say up until wednesday Wrath of Khan was my favourite followed by First Contact (which does look like a tv episode) but i loved Star Trek 09 so damn much. It was so fun, the cast was fantastic, it had great humour but not dominating like some of the later original series films, the special effects were flawless and i was genuinely excited to watch the film, it was a real adventure.

_____________________________

"I can beat you, I don't need the girl hahah, I DON'T NEED THE GIRL! I don't need the gun John. I can beat you. I DON'T NEED NO GUN! AND I'LL KILL YOU NOW!" - Unknown 17th century poet

(in reply to impqueen)
Post #: 141
RE: Star Trek - 10/5/2009 4:08:30 AM   
Rhubarb


Posts: 24508
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: No Direction Home
First off - I really, really enjoyed it. Having rewatched a hell of alot of Trek over the last few days, I can safely say this sits in the high eschelons (while not quite eclipsing the very best ones)

As for the changes and the new timeline, it slightly bothers me, and I think its incredibly clever. I think it was probably needed to keep the franchise moving - and to keep it from running all over TOS toes - but at the same time I worry that it halfway undermines the entire Star Trek cannon, because its now easy to be flippant about them in a way because they're not in the current timeline, if you see what I mean? Maybe some of the more emotional moments are slightly hindered. Maybe not though - time (always the key word, eh?) will tell.

One thing that did intrigue/confuse me was how the Trek universe actually feels about Time Travel - maybe this is something that someone like Timon can clear up (). In Voyage Home, its suggested that Time travel has the air of the predestination paradox about it - they have to go back in time to ensure certain things happen, alá The Terminator (for example, Scott and Bones have to go back and show the guy how to invent the see through aluminum, so he can invent it, and they can use it in the first place.) In First Contact, it is suggested by the crew, that if the Borg have gone back in time, then they should have (but haven't been, I forget why) assimilated into a new timeline.

All I'm thinking (and its 4am as I type so I'm probably way off) is that this new creation of timelines thing, doesn't sit well with either. With the predestination idea of time travel, you can't change things really, you can only do the things that are meant to happen. Presumably Nero wasn't supposed to come back, he's just a renegade who has ruined things for everyone. As for the being assimilated into the timeline thing - after the events of the latest ST (I wish it had a subtitle, so I could type it without confusing myself!) surely old Spock would just be assimilated into a new timeline, where the effects of Young, Sylar-Spock would change his life - I.e he'd basically just become the Spock he is going to become in this universe, instead of the Spock we've known all these years - the universe would sort of right itself. Does that make sense? Because I know what I mean but I'm not sure I explained it well.

Anyway, I did really like the film, confusing questions aside. The cast were uniformly excellent, all ghosting into the roles which are so iconic and loved. I can't imagine any different cast members for a possible sequel in fact - I hope they keep them in place.

Speaking of which, I had a great idea for the sequel, after Shatner kicked up a bit of a fuss from not being in this one. If you think about it, in this new timeline, Kirk might not get killed by Malcom McDowell, and thus could travel back in time for some plot reason and meet Old Spock who's doddering around rebuilding Vulcan, and they could have hilarious exchanges like so

Kirk: Its...so good to...see you...Spock
Spock: Technically, I am not the same Spock as you once knew, Jim.

It'd be brilliant. Someone get the producers number immediately!



_____________________________

Team Ginge
WWLD?


quote:

ORIGINAL: FritzlFan

You organisational skills sicken me, Rhubarb.



(in reply to somekindof_battery)
Post #: 142
RE: Star Trek - 10/5/2009 6:15:18 AM   
homersimpson_esq


Posts: 20118
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Springfield
Thanks Rhu, now I'm even more confused! A second viewing is clearly in order! After which I'll do one of my 'mini' reviews. Maybe.

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.


Bristol Bad Film Club
A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

(in reply to Rhubarb)
Post #: 143
RE: Star Trek - 10/5/2009 6:25:28 AM   
Gimli The Dwarf


Posts: 77569
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Central Park Zoo

quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

Thanks Rhu, now I'm even more confused! A second viewing is clearly in order! After which I'll do one of my 'mini' reviews. Maybe.


About time as well.

_____________________________

So, sir, we let him have it right up! And I have to report, sir, he did not like it, sir.

Fellow scientists, poindexters, geeks.

Yeah, Mr. White! Yeah, science!

Much more better!

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)
Post #: 144
RE: Star Trek - 10/5/2009 6:35:51 AM   
homersimpson_esq


Posts: 20118
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Springfield
Yeah, yeah, I know.  Going to try and get back into the habit of reviewing as I view - cinematic-release-wise anyway.

_____________________________

That deep-browed Homer ruled as his demesne.


Bristol Bad Film Club
A place where movie fans can come and behold some of the most awful films ever put to celluloid.

(in reply to Gimli The Dwarf)
Post #: 145
RE: Star Trek - 10/5/2009 12:44:57 PM   
mafyou


Posts: 2562
Joined: 23/11/2005
I have to agree with all of you in the praise for Abrams' Star Trek. I might write a review if I can be bothered.

Did anyone watch Nemesis last night? It was one of the few films I hadn't seen so I gave it a go. It was pretty good. Much better than I was made to believe (not by anyone on here, just in general). Certainly more traditional Trek than the new film. What are other people's thoughts on Star Trek: Nemesis? It was certainly interesting for me to compare the latest two movies.


_____________________________

Et In Arcadia Ego

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)
Post #: 146
RE: Star Trek - 10/5/2009 1:05:51 PM   
kathryn2

 

Posts: 1500
Joined: 24/4/2006
Ok, so I was a teenage Trekkie - I think I've seen all of TOS, TNG, and DS9 and most of Voyager (missed the last couple of seasons, I think, when it moved to Sky from terrestrial) and all the films, and read a fair number of the novels too (some of which are really rather good - I'd recommend anything by Peter David). I stopped watching in my early twenties.

So I have a (rather rusty now) affection for the established canon, and having seen the new film I'm feeling awfully ambivalent about it.

There's no doubt it's a good film - it's pacey, the plot makes as much sense as a time travel plot ever can, the characters are well intorduced for a new audience with plenty of in-jokes for old fans, and are highly recognisable despite the new casting (Urban is just brilliant, he looks nothing like McCoy but he sounds and act exactly like him), they even do something interesting with Uhura. It packed a strong emotional punch at certain moments too.

But, but - they destroyed Vulcan! They destroyed Romulus, in the future.The Vulcan/Romulus dynamic was one of the most interesting conflicts in the series --  two halves of the same race diverging into different cultures.

I just didn't enjoy it the way I thought I would - maybe my expectations were too high, after all the hype. Maybe old Trek wasn't as good as I remember it being (though I watched The Wrath of Khan again last night, and think it must be the perfect Trek film).

I really missed the Alex Courage/Jerry Goldsmith theme - the score didn't stick in my mind at all.

Perhaps I just can't let go of what's been before....

Anyone else have this problem?

(in reply to mafyou)
Post #: 147
RE: Star Trek - 10/5/2009 2:24:35 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23695
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41°N 93°W
As a complete beginner to all things Star Trek (well, I could tell you who most of the original crew were, and I found out that my dad was a "former Trekkie" back in the 70s, but anyway), I'll be the first to admit that I wasn't expecting much from this film when I heard about it coming out earlier this year. Consider me pleasantly surprised, it was absolutely brilliant. Great performances all round (particularly from Urban and Quinto, though I'm going to go against the consensus and say that Chris Pine made a great Captain Kirk), a blistering pace and possibly the best CGI I've ever seen. Going to see it again next week, though I figured I'd ask you folks which film I should go with next (i.e. one that someone like myself who doesn't know too much about Star Trek but loved the new movie would like)?

< Message edited by Olaf -- 10/5/2009 10:11:25 PM >


_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to kathryn2)
Post #: 148
RE: Star Trek - 10/5/2009 4:52:55 PM   
impqueen


Posts: 7474
Joined: 24/7/2006
I would say start at the beginning but The Motion Picture also known as the Slow Motion Picture isn’t the best for none Trek Fans, so try out Wrath of Khan (1982) it's the second film from the Original Crew and often sighted as the best, though you may want to read up on the episode Space Seed beforehand.  I myself prefer Undiscovered Country (the sixth film and last for the old school crew) (1991) and The Voyage Home (1986) (the one with the whales and fourth film). If you like Khan you may as well go in order though and follow it up with The Search for Spock (1984) and then onto Voyage Home, the three make up an unofficial trilogy.  
 
If not of the original crew go with First Contact (1996) though you may need to read up on the Borg…


_____________________________

Yes, always.


(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 149
RE: Star Trek - 10/5/2009 7:28:51 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
Olaf  - go with Wrath of Khan, Search for Spock and Voyage Home. As mentioned they form a trilogy (although never intended to be) and nearly everything in the new film has a call back to these three films.

You can skip part 5: The Final Frontier (although I really enjoy it) and go straight to Undiscovered Country. Pretty much everything you need to know about the crew are in those five films.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to impqueen)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Favourite Films >> RE: Star Trek Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.094