whirlcool
Well-known member
I must admit that when I first saw Kirk's son come on the bridge with his sweater tied around his neck by the arms, my gaydar did go off!
Star Trek
- Thread starter whirlaway
- Start date
Help Support :
nmaineman36
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2004
- Messages
- 933
We just saw Star Trek today at the Jordans IMAX in Reading Mass...I like the movie but the thing with Spock and Uhura wasnt something I was expecting. That was a curveball. But overall a good movie...one that I will be getting when it comes out on DVD.
Oh yeah, that Uhura thing. With Kirk being played the way he was by Pine, you can't tell me that it would be out of character for Pine's Kirk to ask old man Spock when he encountered him just what was up between him and Uhura, but he didn't. A glaring omission if you ask me, but a serious can of worms that Hollywood's lame writers couldn't deal with opening.
Ralph
Ralph
ronhic
Well-known member
Saw it last night...fantastic...
whirlcool
Well-known member
We went to see the Star Trek Movie last night at the local IMAX. We went tot he 10:20p showing. Even that late on a weeknight the theater was about 1/2 full.
The Star Trek Movie didn't actually begin until 30 minutes past its start time due to adverts, trailers upon trailers. In fact when the movie actually began, I thought it was another trailer playing!
Things I didn't like:
I thought the transporter effect was like something out of a Saturday morning kids show. Even the TOS transporter effect would have been better.
The Romulan ship looked like a "space cockroach". In general, I thought the ships could have been more impressive. They would have looked better as real models rather than CGI.
Another strange thing, Chris Pine really has a bad complextion. Most movie stars have nice smooth skin. He obviously does not. Maybe it's because I saw it in IMAX?
It's easy to see that they saved money on the sets by filming in actual real locations.
The engineering section looks like it was filmed in a water treatment facility as Toggles said.
I thought the photography was shot too close up. Some of the fight scenes were reduced to just blurs of the characters on the screen. If they had pulled the camera back a few feet these scenes would have been clearer. Once again, it could be because the IMAX screen is so huge you get this effect.
Things I liked:
I thought the casting was done very well. The Spock character was perfect (for the most part) and even old "bones" did a remarkable job recreating DeForest Kelley's take on the character. It was as good as having Deforest there himself. In general I thought the acting was very good to excellent for such young actors.
This movie was very fast moving. I thought I had been there about 30 minutes when the movie ended. I was very surprised that 2 hours had actually passed by!
The makeup department did an excellent job in creating the alien life forms for the move.
After you think about it awhile the storyline wasn't too bad. I hope they do better with the next Star Trek movie, which I understand is now in development.
So all in all, I'd probably go see it again, this time on a smaller screen.
The Star Trek Movie didn't actually begin until 30 minutes past its start time due to adverts, trailers upon trailers. In fact when the movie actually began, I thought it was another trailer playing!
Things I didn't like:
I thought the transporter effect was like something out of a Saturday morning kids show. Even the TOS transporter effect would have been better.
The Romulan ship looked like a "space cockroach". In general, I thought the ships could have been more impressive. They would have looked better as real models rather than CGI.
Another strange thing, Chris Pine really has a bad complextion. Most movie stars have nice smooth skin. He obviously does not. Maybe it's because I saw it in IMAX?
It's easy to see that they saved money on the sets by filming in actual real locations.
The engineering section looks like it was filmed in a water treatment facility as Toggles said.
I thought the photography was shot too close up. Some of the fight scenes were reduced to just blurs of the characters on the screen. If they had pulled the camera back a few feet these scenes would have been clearer. Once again, it could be because the IMAX screen is so huge you get this effect.
Things I liked:
I thought the casting was done very well. The Spock character was perfect (for the most part) and even old "bones" did a remarkable job recreating DeForest Kelley's take on the character. It was as good as having Deforest there himself. In general I thought the acting was very good to excellent for such young actors.
This movie was very fast moving. I thought I had been there about 30 minutes when the movie ended. I was very surprised that 2 hours had actually passed by!
The makeup department did an excellent job in creating the alien life forms for the move.
After you think about it awhile the storyline wasn't too bad. I hope they do better with the next Star Trek movie, which I understand is now in development.
So all in all, I'd probably go see it again, this time on a smaller screen.
toggleswitch2
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 23, 2008
- Messages
- 5,000
~The engineering section looks like it was filmed in a water treatment facility as Toggles said.
I did?
Hmmm. Interesting, I wasn't planning on seeing this flick, but now I want to!
I wonder if today's kids get how fascinating the "communcator" was as science-fiction before mobile/cell phones existed.
Sorry I'm being dense(or missed a few sentences) but what is TOS and CGI?
I did?
Hmmm. Interesting, I wasn't planning on seeing this flick, but now I want to!
I wonder if today's kids get how fascinating the "communcator" was as science-fiction before mobile/cell phones existed.
Sorry I'm being dense(or missed a few sentences) but what is TOS and CGI?
Toggles,
You, dense?
Hah.
Me, now, I tell, 'ya...those echoes in my head get louder every year.
OK, here goes.
TOS: The Original Star Trek.
This is what slash/fic writers call "canon", that is, those first three seasons and the authorized books. Everything else is seen as either conforming to them or arising from them.
Example: It would be ok with TOS for the hunky, hung, gorgeous security guard to have one or two touching moments with another crew member or even attract Captain Kirk's notice...as long as he dies before the end of the episode/film. Preferably painfully, or at least mysteriously. If he lives, goes on to marry and have kids, that is not TOS, that is DS-9, the worst breecher of canon in all the Trekverse.
CGI: Computer Generated Image(-ry).
Industrial Light and Magic does it best. Sony (think of Spiderman III, ugh) does it not as well.
Green screens and CGI have made it possible for even BBC productions to do rather good HD TV.(think Torchwood, and who wouldn't with Jack Barrowman's acres of chest and Garreth David-Lloyd's eye-liner, oops, one-liners).
CGI is pretty free-flowing, I am quite sure you'd find someone here who'd define it more rigidly or far differently. Main thing is, enhancing what's there with something that's virtual to make fool the eye.
Tell me you know Torchwood. Please. It's just up your alley.
You, dense?
Hah.
Me, now, I tell, 'ya...those echoes in my head get louder every year.
OK, here goes.
TOS: The Original Star Trek.
This is what slash/fic writers call "canon", that is, those first three seasons and the authorized books. Everything else is seen as either conforming to them or arising from them.
Example: It would be ok with TOS for the hunky, hung, gorgeous security guard to have one or two touching moments with another crew member or even attract Captain Kirk's notice...as long as he dies before the end of the episode/film. Preferably painfully, or at least mysteriously. If he lives, goes on to marry and have kids, that is not TOS, that is DS-9, the worst breecher of canon in all the Trekverse.
CGI: Computer Generated Image(-ry).
Industrial Light and Magic does it best. Sony (think of Spiderman III, ugh) does it not as well.
Green screens and CGI have made it possible for even BBC productions to do rather good HD TV.(think Torchwood, and who wouldn't with Jack Barrowman's acres of chest and Garreth David-Lloyd's eye-liner, oops, one-liners).
CGI is pretty free-flowing, I am quite sure you'd find someone here who'd define it more rigidly or far differently. Main thing is, enhancing what's there with something that's virtual to make fool the eye.
Tell me you know Torchwood. Please. It's just up your alley.
whirlcool
Well-known member
Hmmm, I thought it was you Toggles that said that, I must have read that somewhere or heard it somewhere, sorry for the mistake.
As I said, even with the things I didn't like the movie was still very entertaining.
As I said, even with the things I didn't like the movie was still very entertaining.
58limited
Well-known member
I should have posted this link before. These guys make hilarious short (1 to 3 minute) movies from the ST:TNG DVDs. They use several episodes in each edit and some are just about the funniest things I've ever seen on youtube. There are 24 so far:
