Was I the only one that stopped noticing the lens flares after the first ten minutes of the movie? I had no idea so many people could be so bothered over one - admittedly repetitively used - visual trick.

Can't open articles from this site at work, but good god those lens flares drove me crazy. Loved the movie, but wanted to punch J.J. in the face for letting all that "artsy" camera stuff in there.

Going to go see movie again in IMAX on Friday, so I guess I didn't hate them that much.

J.J. ruined Star Trek. Unfortunately, I'm one of the only ones who thinks so.

/sad Trekkie

I wish Photoshop had this feature.. sigh.

maximum_jack: J.J. ruined Star Trek. Unfortunately, I'm one of the only ones who thinks so.

/sad Trekkie

Did you decide that before even watching the movie?

/I can already predict the answer...

quizzical: Was I the only one that stopped noticing the lens flares after the first ten minutes of the movie? I had no idea so many people could be so bothered over one - admittedly repetitively used - visual trick.

I agree with the above quote by quizzical.

Firefly did it first.

maximum_jack: J.J. ruined Star Trek. Unfortunately, I'm one of the only ones who thinks so.

/sad Trekkie

To rip off a recent unrelated headline, the words "barn" and "door" come to mind.

/new movie was good

needs moar lens flare.

/hot

Is lens flare the new blue wang?

MadCat221: maximum_jack: J.J. ruined Star Trek. Unfortunately, I'm one of the only ones who thinks so.

/sad Trekkie

Did you decide that before even watching the movie?

/I can already predict the answer...

Ooh! Burn!

/People who don't like this movie must be morons who live at home, right?

maximum_jack: J.J. ruined Star Trek. Unfortunately, I'm one of the only ones who thinks so.

/sad Trekkie

Have you seen it?


And hell I didnt even notice any lens flares after awhile.

poteet: Can't open articles from this site at work, but good god those lens flares drove me crazy. Loved the movie, but wanted to punch J.J. in the face for letting all that "artsy" camera stuff in there.

Going to go see movie again in IMAX on Friday, so I guess I didn't hate them that much.

Link (new window)

This guy would bet you $5 that you aren't.

I didn't even notice them.

/the future is bright and shiny... deal with it.

Sphaux: /the future is bright and shiny... deal with it.

From what I understand you have to wear shades.

Have not seen the movie yet. Was planning on going Saturday. I will probably be distracted from enjoing the film by the lens flares now.

thanks a lot.

As much as I enjoyed the movie, I still think JJ is a pretentious tool and reading interviews like this just reinforces my desire to punch him in the face.

J.J. owes Howard Stern a B.J.

I noticed exactly one lens flare, and I had even heard the biatching before seeing the movie.

/I also don't usually mind shaky-cam

HAHAHA listen to the nerds complain about lens flare. Sooo dumb!

I guess the rest of the film was good? Ill admit, I noticed the flare, but if it keeps you from enjoying a well made movie THAT much, you need to get laid BADLY.

That movie was better than anyone expected. I mean cmon guys.

Where was the wooden acting, incoherent plot and bad ending? This isnt a typical Star Trek and THANK GOD for that! This reminds me of the dumb threads of people biatching about Ledger being Joker and how he could never beat Jack.

DUMB.

I liked them. Reminded me of action movies from the 80's.

angrymacface: maximum_jack: J.J. ruined Star Trek.

How do you define ruined?

He meant that JJ runed it... when he drew runes all over the Enterprise.

Tomorrow's headline today:
Interesting - "Protip: If you're the key grip on Star Trek, bring plenty of gaff tape (with pic goodness)"

rancidPlasma: I wish Photoshop had this feature.. sigh.

Photoshop doesn't, but Photo Brush gets damn close...
http://www.mediachance.com/pbrush/

angrymacface: maximum_jack: J.J. ruined Star Trek.

How do you define ruined?

I defined ruined by erasing 40 years of continuity just to use iconic characters that you didn't create. This wasn't some great untold story that had to be told, this was a blatant cash grab. Kirk's crew was over and done with, J.J. could have told us a new story about new characters, but that wouldn't make enough money.

Other that that main problem its still riddled with stupidity. Beastie Boys? Budweiser Classic? Nokia phones? It's nice to know that corporate America exists in Star Trek's Utopian (and socialist) future. I won't even touch the silly Uhura-Spock nonsense.

/rant off
//I really don't care if others enjoyed the movie, it just breaks my heart a little bit

I just noticed yesterday that Clint Howard gave away the entire plot of Star Trek on the Fringe that aired just before the movie came out.

maximum_jack: Other that that main problem its still riddled with stupidity. Beastie Boys? Budweiser Classic? Nokia phones? It's nice to know that corporate America exists in Star Trek's Utopian (and socialist) future. I won't even touch the silly Uhura-Spock nonsense.

/rant off
//I really don't care if others enjoyed the movie, it just breaks my heart a little bit

In defense of Abrams, the selection of Sabotage was (in part anyways) supposedly a reference to Shatner's curious case of "Sabataage".

The lens flares were a tad pretentious but I didn't mind. I liked the movie but HATED the constant face zoom ins. So many scenes were comprised of a single face taking up the whole screen.

quizzical: Was I the only one that stopped noticing the lens flares after the first ten minutes of the movie? I had no idea so many people could be so bothered over one - admittedly repetitively used - visual trick.

I didn't notice the lens flare or the shakycam. I'm surprised about the shakycam, as I got nauseous from it in Cloverfield.

I liked all parts of the movie.

Especially the lens flares.

Suck it, haters.

maximum_jack: angrymacface: maximum_jack: J.J. ruined Star Trek.

How do you define ruined?

I defined ruined by erasing 40 years of continuity just to use iconic characters that you didn't create. This wasn't some great untold story that had to be told, this was a blatant cash grab. Kirk's crew was over and done with, J.J. could have told us a new story about new characters, but that wouldn't make enough money.

Other that that main problem its still riddled with stupidity. Beastie Boys? Budweiser Classic? Nokia phones? It's nice to know that corporate America exists in Star Trek's Utopian (and socialist) future. I won't even touch the silly Uhura-Spock nonsense.

/rant off
//I really don't care if others enjoyed the movie, it just breaks my heart a little bit

I had this conversation with the wife last night after seeing the movie. She reminded me that the original timeline (the one from your childhood) was erased in the first 10 minutes of the movie.

I didn't notice it either, until one scene on the bridge about 2/3 of the way through the movie.

The lens flare suddenly became so ever-present, at one point it actually felt blinding, and I had to close my eyes to re-adjust.

The DP went just a TAD overboard with his lens flare 'toy'.

I'm glad other people were annoyed with it. I mean, it's not like it ruined the movie or was a big problem, but I remember seeing the first one and thinking "Well, that's a little bit much. Do we really need an artificial lens flare?" and then after seeing several more thinking "Jesus Christ! What on Earth made him think this was so cool?"

/But was always soon back to "LOL, you tell 'em Bones!"

It was an entertaining movie but right after you finish watching it you realize how empty it was. It didn't need to be anything more than that. It was a 7/10. Maybe a 6.5/10. I don't think it has a long shelflife in that 10 years from now people will recommend it or anything. I am not a Star Trek fan, I was just judging it as a summer movie. Entertaining, contrived, goofy, fun. I don't understand the people who get upset on here if people didn't like it. Why are they so self conscious about a movie they seemingly enjoyed?

quizzical: Was I the only one that stopped noticing the lens flares after the first ten minutes of the movie? I had no idea so many people could be so bothered over one - admittedly repetitively used - visual trick.

I'm right there with you.

I heard a lot about all the horrible lens flairs before going to see it. I did notice a bunch in the first few minutes, but after that not at all.


Same with the supposed shaky cam. I'm sure it was there, but I simply never noticed it.



maximum_jack: Other that that main problem its still riddled with stupidity. Beastie Boys? Budweiser Classic? Nokia phones? It's nice to know that corporate America exists in Star Trek's Utopian (and socialist) future. I won't even touch the silly Uhura-Spock nonsense.



Who ever said it didn't always exist? We don't have much to judge the rest of the federation's daily citizen's life expect for a few off the had comments from Star Fleet officers. That's like judging what the USA is about by only studying an aircraft carrier and it's crew.


Would it be that hard to say those brands stay around? Not really, though I can't imagine it being more then just a brand name now and not the same company.

The differences between 200 years from today will be quite a lot more different the difference's that happened from 1800 to 2000.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: I had this conversation with the wife last night after seeing the movie. She reminded me that the original timeline (the one from your childhood) was erased in the first 10 minutes of the movie.

Erased? I doubt it. Star Trek doesn't always treat time travel as a linear progression where changing the past affects the future. The J.J. Abrams Star Trek dimension might end up as one of the infinite Enterprise-D's that appeared when the dimensional rift opened in the episode "Parallels."

Plus, Star Trek online is coming out next year, and it's set after Spock Prime disappears and is presumed dead.

angrymacface: maximum_jack: I defined ruined by erasing 40 years of continuity just to use iconic characters that you didn't create. This wasn't some great untold story that had to be told, this was a blatant cash grab. Kirk's crew was over and done with, J.J. could have told us a new story about new characters, but that wouldn't make enough money.

Other that that main problem its still riddled with stupidity. Beastie Boys? Budweiser Classic? Nokia phones? It's nice to know that corporate America exists in Star Trek's Utopian (and socialist) future. I won't even touch the silly Uhura-Spock nonsense.

/rant off
//I really don't care if others enjoyed the movie, it just breaks my heart a little bit

Sounds like you're upset they didn't accept your *oh-so-totally-awesome* Section 31 movie script. :p

Star Trek was already dead; Berman & Co. made sure to thoroughly kill it before control was wrested away. This film might breathe life back into the Star Trek franchise and then again it might not.

I'm not saying it's perfect; I certainly had some qualms wiht it (Delta Vega in the Vulcan system, really J.J.?). But it was a worthy effort and an entertaining movie.

So, in conclusion, I quote the words of the immortal William Shatner when I say, "Get a life!"

I never said I had a better idea for the movie. I just don't get why he couldn't make a new story with new characters. God forbid he come up with something original. Since the Star Wars prequels, Hollywood has been reboot/remake crazy. It has nothing to do with good stories, it has everything to do with $$$.

/Seriously one dude who didn't like the movie, doesn't ruin your enjoyment of it.

maximum_jack 2009-05-13 06:27:33 PM
angrymacface: maximum_jack: J.J. ruined Star Trek.

How do you define ruined?

I defined ruined by erasing 40 years of continuity just to use iconic characters that you didn't create. This wasn't some great untold story that had to be told, this was a blatant cash grab. Kirk's crew was over and done with, J.J. could have told us a new story about new characters, but that wouldn't make enough money.

Other that that main problem its still riddled with stupidity. Beastie Boys? Budweiser Classic? Nokia phones? It's nice to know that corporate America exists in Star Trek's Utopian (and socialist) future. I won't even touch the silly Uhura-Spock nonsense.

/rant off
//I really don't care if others enjoyed the movie, it just breaks my heart a little bit

I am in agreement. Teary, aggrieved agreement.

maxwellhauser: Link (new window)

This guy would bet you $5 that you aren't.

He has a valid point about the deceptive advertising about the screen size. That makes Regal, AMC, and IMAX a bunch of tools.

However, the blogger is also a tool. If the screen size was that important, he should have walked out as soon as he realized it wasn't standard IMAX size. He watched the entire movie, he got what he paid for, no $5 refund. I wish the manager hadn't caved in to the hissy fit - two movie passes to the Burbank AMC are worth about $20.

Speaking of lens flare...

If you go to facebook right now and click on the white background then press Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, enter, then click on the screen or type, you get some crazy lens flare.

Star Trek was a soap opera in space. Bored the living hell out of me when I was a kid.

rancidPlasma: I wish Photoshop had this feature.. sigh.

Try this plugin (new window)

WeezinTheJuice: Where was the wooden acting, incoherent plot and bad ending? This isnt a typical Star Trek and THANK GOD for that!


Not a hater, I quite enjoyed it. But "incoherent plot"? Did we see the same movie? Plot holes. So many. So large.

I think they should have had a disclaimer at the beginning:

"Please disable all higher brain function before viewing. May cause nausea, vomiting and intense nerd rage in those who cannot let go of the past."

maximum_jack: J.J. ruined Star Trek. Unfortunately, I'm one of the only ones who thinks so.

/sad Trekkie

There's only a few of us.

I mean, come on, he farking wrote and directed Felicity, Lost, & Alias episodes, produced Felicity, Alias, & What About Brian episodes. He even admitted on a show here in Australia that he never liked Star Trek.

The guy is a toolbag, and the movie is an offense against all ST fans. It's one of the worst conceived ideas ever, and they are prepared to make MORE!

I really liked the movie. Except for the part where it invalidated everything post Enterprise.

Also, the Spock make-out scenes with Uhura where disturbing. Either Spock has jungle fever or Uhura has Vulcan fever. Either way the scenes where very cringe worthy.

maximum_jack: angrymacface: maximum_jack: J.J. ruined Star Trek.

How do you define ruined?

I defined ruined by erasing 40 years of continuity just to use iconic characters that you didn't create. This wasn't some great untold story that had to be told, this was a blatant cash grab. Kirk's crew was over and done with, J.J. could have told us a new story about new characters, but that wouldn't make enough money.

Other that that main problem its still riddled with stupidity. Beastie Boys? Budweiser Classic? Nokia phones? It's nice to know that corporate America exists in Star Trek's Utopian (and socialist) future. I won't even touch the silly Uhura-Spock nonsense.

/rant off
//I really don't care if others enjoyed the movie, it just breaks my heart a little bit



My god, no its not. Its still there. Do you even know what alternate timeline, different dimension even means? Think of it like sliders. Our star trek world and universe is still there. Just a different dimension. Hell imagine how many dimensions there could be in the star trek worlds? Its not like this is the first time alternate reality type stuff has happened, if it was the very very first time anything ever hinted at something like this then yeah I can see not liking it. Mirror mirror? That sure as hell didnt keep the regular timeline. Yet nobody has ever complained about it, everyone has always talked about how great that is and want to see more involving that. And now when another possible dimension has been revealed, its bad? Hell I thought it was going to suck and that I would hate it. But I decided to go see it, and its good. I liked it, I hope they make a series with this. Millions of vulcans gone, just imagine the possibilities?

Astus: maximum_jack: J.J. ruined Star Trek. Unfortunately, I'm one of the only ones who thinks so.

/sad Trekkie

There's only a few of us.

I mean, come on, he farking wrote and directed Felicity, Lost, & Alias episodes, produced Felicity, Alias, & What About Brian episodes. He even admitted on a show here in Australia that he never liked Star Trek.

The guy is a toolbag, and the movie is an offense against all ST fans. It's one of the worst conceived ideas ever, and they are prepared to make MORE!

Nice to know that I'm not alone.

"Doctor Who" is a great example of how you can restart a franchise and NOT erase 40+ years of history.

Hender: The_Six_Fingered_Man: I had this conversation with the wife last night after seeing the movie. She reminded me that the original timeline (the one from your childhood) was erased in the first 10 minutes of the movie.

Erased? I doubt it. Star Trek doesn't always treat time travel as a linear progression where changing the past affects the future. The J.J. Abrams Star Trek dimension might end up as one of the infinite Enterprise-D's that appeared when the dimensional rift opened in the episode "Parallels."

Plus, Star Trek online is coming out next year, and it's set after Spock Prime disappears and is presumed dead.

Ok, perhaps erased wasn't the best choice of words. Let's just say that Abram's timeline and Roddenberry's timeline have only character names and general attitudes in common. Everything else, including relationships between characters is all derived from the change in time from the first 10 minutes of the film.

Wow. Nerds arguing about whether a Star Trek movie is stupid or not.

Of course it is! It's Star Trek for christ's sake! The original series was poorly-acted and poorly-written, just like 99% of all science fiction movies.

He can have all the lens flare he wants, but if they put shaky-cam in one more movie, I swear I'm going to stop downloading them.

vartian: Also, J.J. didn't kill Star Trek; he couldn't, it was already dead. Enterprise, and a few lame recent movies, killed it. The Undiscovered Country was the last good one (and my favorite...yes, even over Khan).

If anything, he molested a corpse.

Mmmmmm necrophilia lol.

Bunnyhat: Who ever said it didn't always exist?

Gene Rodenberry, for one. Money didn't exist within the federation government. They only had any to use in dealings with other cultures. Brand labels would have been a thing of the past. I think maximum was just saying that the movie was sort of abandoning some well established principles of federation ideology. I liked the movie for what it was, but I completely agree that it was lazy on the part of the new team to just erase everything and go back to the beginning rather than come up with something new. But we are talking about the man who brought us such cinematic classics as Cloverfield and MI3, so what should you expect?

d000fus: Wow. Nerds arguing about whether a Star Trek movie is stupid or not.

Of course it is! It's Star Trek for christ's sake! The original series was poorly-acted and poorly-written, just like 99% of all science fiction movies.


"You're stupid and everything you like sucks. Nyah!"

Go troll somewhere else.

brassknizz: Star Trek was a soap opera in space. Bored the living hell out of me when I was a kid.


Ugh.
Undereducated opinions are the worst.
More like an old Western in space. "Like 'Wagon Train' in space" is what Gene wanted.

D-O-single_G: Bunnyhat: Who ever said it didn't always exist?

Gene Rodenberry, for one. Money didn't exist within the federation government. They only had any to use in dealings with other cultures. Brand labels would have been a thing of the past. I think maximum was just saying that the movie was sort of abandoning some well established principles of federation ideology. I liked the movie for what it was, but I completely agree that it was lazy on the part of the new team to just erase everything and go back to the beginning rather than come up with something new. But we are talking about the man who brought us such cinematic classics as Cloverfield and MI3, so what should you expect?

And who is anyone to say that Federation ideologies aren't different in this dimension?

RevMercutio: quizzical: Was I the only one that stopped noticing the lens flares after the first ten minutes of the movie? I had no idea so many people could be so bothered over one - admittedly repetitively used - visual trick.

I didn't notice the lens flare or the shakycam. I'm surprised about the shakycam, as I got nauseous from it in Cloverfield.


Neither did I, and the Bourne movies made me dizzy and Cloverfield made me hurl in the first 5 min.

\Can't even watch home movies

Screen cap of the Enterprise from the next Star Trek movie:




I will do this to death..yes.

d000fus: Wow. Nerds arguing about whether a Star Trek movie is stupid or not.

Of course it is! It's Star Trek for christ's sake! The original series was poorly-acted and poorly-written, just like 99% of all science fiction movies.

So is porn but both still have a huge following so lighten up Francis.

/Mmmm Star Trek porn

Can someone start posting pics of Zoe Saldana to save this thread? Thanks!

shocker66s: /Mmmm Star Trek porn

funmonger: shocker66s: /Mmmm Star Trek porn

I think I just fired off my photon torpedo.

Banacek: start posting pics of Zoe Saldana to save this thread

Sphaux: I didn't even notice them.

/the future is bright and shiny... deal with it.

I didn't notice them, either. But now that I've read all the complaints about them, I wonder if they're going to bug me the next time I see the movie.

The problem with Rodenberry's vision for Star Trek is that it doesn't make any damn sense. Without money there's no economy. Without an economy and salaries how do people get jobs? Does the government assign them? Who gets stuck with trash collector or the dangerous crap? What do they do with the people who refuse to work?

The deeper you probe into Rodenberry's dream the more it appears to be a horrific dystopia.

maximum_jack: angrymacface: maximum_jack: J.J. ruined Star Trek.

How do you define ruined?

I defined ruined by erasing 40 years of continuity just to use iconic characters that you didn't create.

I strongly disagree.
***WARING...SPOILER BELOW***

I think it NEEDED to be done.
I mean, It's gone! I think that's an awesome starting point to some other stories.
And let's face it, when you're trying to bring something back, the way to do it is shock them. Taking it away was the way to go because
A) You destroyed a major landmark in ST
B) It wasn't important anymore anyway other than a quick reference to "He came from there."
Look at how many stories come back and kill a major character. It tells you "things will be different." so you don't know what to expect.

/spolier

I also disagree with the whole "So many other stories out there."
I don't see anything that would grab EVERYONES attention. Just a select few who read the books and still care. Most don't.
ST isn't dead, but it wasn't exactly leading the way either. I think any future story after Next Gen or Voyager would look like Insurrection. A normal episode on the big screen.
I'm not paying to see a TV episode on the big screen. I learned that from XFiles.
What this did was bring new people to the table and what a LOT of people constantly forget is, if you don't hit the "refresh" button a few times, things will whither and die.
Look at comics. They're dying because they can't bring new people to read them. It's the same old people still collecting.
Same as with games, etc. If you don't introduce a new generation to things, no one is there to take the place of the people who stop wanting or care about it.

To The Escape Zeppelin!: The problem with Rodenberry's vision for Star Trek is that it doesn't make any damn sense. Without money there's no economy. Without an economy and salaries how do people get jobs? Does the government assign them? Who gets stuck with trash collector or the dangerous crap? What do they do with the people who refuse to work?

Wrong thread.

maxwellhauser: poteet: Can't open articles from this site at work, but good god those lens flares drove me crazy. Loved the movie, but wanted to punch J.J. in the face for letting all that "artsy" camera stuff in there.

Going to go see movie again in IMAX on Friday, so I guess I didn't hate them that much.

Link (new window)

This guy would bet you $5 that you aren't.

25,000 twats follow him, i wouldnt fark with him.

I didn't care. It was the first movie I truly enjoyed seeing since Iron Man last year.

funmonger: To The Escape Zeppelin!: The problem with Rodenberry's vision for Star Trek is that it doesn't make any damn sense. Without money there's no economy. Without an economy and salaries how do people get jobs? Does the government assign them? Who gets stuck with trash collector or the dangerous crap? What do they do with the people who refuse to work?

Wrong thread.


Allow me: (new window)

Come back when you're done there and we can talk.

quizzical: maxwellhauser: Link (new window)

This guy would bet you $5 that you aren't.

He has a valid point about the deceptive advertising about the screen size. That makes Regal, AMC, and IMAX a bunch of tools.

However, the blogger is also a tool. If the screen size was that important, he should have walked out as soon as he realized it wasn't standard IMAX size. He watched the entire movie, he got what he paid for, no $5 refund. I wish the manager hadn't caved in to the hissy fit - two movie passes to the Burbank AMC are worth about $20.

That's the thing with this IMAX debate going on. Once people see a movie in an IMAX Experience theatre, they know what they are getting. If they're mad that the screen isn't 7 stories tall, well, they won't see the IMAX version next time. If they like the better sound system and super high res screen, they will come back. It's all about repeat customers.

I paid 13.50 for my IMAX Star Trek and I got my money's worth.

funmonger Thank you for your hard work :)

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Hender: The_Six_Fingered_Man: I had this conversation with the wife last night after seeing the movie. She reminded me that the original timeline (the one from your childhood) was erased in the first 10 minutes of the movie.

Erased? I doubt it. Star Trek doesn't always treat time travel as a linear progression where changing the past affects the future. The J.J. Abrams Star Trek dimension might end up as one of the infinite Enterprise-D's that appeared when the dimensional rift opened in the episode "Parallels."

Plus, Star Trek online is coming out next year, and it's set after Spock Prime disappears and is presumed dead.

Ok, perhaps erased wasn't the best choice of words. Let's just say that Abram's timeline and Roddenberry's timeline have only character names and general attitudes in common. Everything else, including relationships between characters is all derived from the change in time from the first 10 minutes of the film.

Believe it or not, that's actually OK with me. I'm nearly 30 and have watched every incarnation of ST over the years (except for Enterprise...couldn't get into that) and I thought it had gotten really, really stale. I've not a big fan of reboots/retellings in general, but in my mind the only way to get a fresh start without ruining the rest of the continuity (or hell, relying on it) was to go back to the beginning and start anew while maintaining plausible denial that everything we've watched over the years is still intact.

Hell, I can see a lot of potential in an alternate dimension Star Trek. All the continuity holes from TOS and on can be fixed or changed, for one thing. Or as someone put it the other day in another thread, have Spock grow a beard and we'll have some real potential. :)

Hender: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Hender: The_Six_Fingered_Man: I had this conversation with the wife last night after seeing the movie. She reminded me that the original timeline (the one from your childhood) was erased in the first 10 minutes of the movie.

Erased? I doubt it. Star Trek doesn't always treat time travel as a linear progression where changing the past affects the future. The J.J. Abrams Star Trek dimension might end up as one of the infinite Enterprise-D's that appeared when the dimensional rift opened in the episode "Parallels."

Plus, Star Trek online is coming out next year, and it's set after Spock Prime disappears and is presumed dead.

Ok, perhaps erased wasn't the best choice of words. Let's just say that Abram's timeline and Roddenberry's timeline have only character names and general attitudes in common. Everything else, including relationships between characters is all derived from the change in time from the first 10 minutes of the film.

Believe it or not, that's actually OK with me. I'm nearly 30 and have watched every incarnation of ST over the years (except for Enterprise...couldn't get into that) and I thought it had gotten really, really stale. I've not a big fan of reboots/retellings in general, but in my mind the only way to get a fresh start without ruining the rest of the continuity (or hell, relying on it) was to go back to the beginning and start anew while maintaining plausible denial that everything we've watched over the years is still intact.

Hell, I can see a lot of potential in an alternate dimension Star Trek. All the continuity holes from TOS and on can be fixed or changed, for one thing. Or as someone put it the other day in another thread, have Spock grow a beard and we'll have some real potential. :)

I'm in the same boat as you, except I stopped watching with Voyager. I enjoyed this incarnation for the entertainment value, nothing more. When I go see it again, I'll keep in mind the alternate dimension and probably enjoy it even more.

To The Escape Zeppelin!: RevMercutio: quizzical: Was I the only one that stopped noticing the lens flares after the first ten minutes of the movie? I had no idea so many people could be so bothered over one - admittedly repetitively used - visual trick.

I didn't notice the lens flare or the shakycam. I'm surprised about the shakycam, as I got nauseous from it in Cloverfield.


Neither did I, and the Bourne movies made me dizzy and Cloverfield made me hurl in the first 5 min.

\Can't even watch home movies

I'm not that severe. I've only gotten it from Cloverfield, Blair Witch, and when I worked for Vivendi Games and had to test F.E.A.R. for a few weeks.

I didn't notice the lens flares. Spock and Uhura necking on the transporter pad was unforgivable, he's supposed to get with Nurse Chapel.

angrymacface: Delta Vega in the Vulcan system, really J.J.?

Yeah, I had a hard time with that one too.

Did anyone get flashbacks to the "young SG1" vignette from "200"?

The_Six_Fingered_Man: I'm in the same boat as you, except I stopped watching with Voyager. I enjoyed this incarnation for the entertainment value, nothing more. When I go see it again, I'll keep in mind the alternate dimension and probably enjoy it even more.

Hell, and I haven't even seen the movie yet, either.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: I enjoyed this incarnation for the entertainment value, nothing more. When I go see it again, I'll keep in mind the alternate dimension and probably enjoy it even more.

I hate to say it, but I really LIKED the two terran empire episodes on Enterprise. I'd love to see a terran empire series.

/Yelled "Oh, hell YEAH!" when Cochrane blasted the Vulcan at the first contact scene
//Wow, was that a double take the first time I saw it

This was a HUGE technical pet peeve for me.

I still enjoyed the film despite its plot holes, but I thought this SATIRE (new window) on youtube was pretty spot-on.

I LOL'd.

rancidPlasma: I wish Photoshop had this feature.. sigh.

Try GIMP, it's free and it also has awesome fractals

also, Zoe Saldana is even hotter when she's BLUE.

/all I can say until comicon.

One part that came to mind that they could have been made better. When the young Kirk stole the Corvette and that Beastie Boys soundtrack came one.. they could have broken into the same soundtrack for when the younger Spock goes off a little bit later.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: And who is anyone to say that Federation ideologies aren't different in this dimension?

Abrahms said he wanted to stick to canon, and canon says that by the time Nero interfered in the time line these ideas were well established in their society and were working well for them. Even if they had decided to go back to the capitalist orgy that ruined the planet in the 21st century, Nokia and Budweiser would not have existed anymore. A blatant cash grab by Abrahms and the studio. I happen to share the same views as David Lynch on this matter. (new window)

It's especially bad in Star Trek, where there no logical explanations for it.

schattenteufel: brassknizz: Star Trek was a soap opera in space. Bored the living hell out of me when I was a kid.


Ugh.
Undereducated opinions are the worst.
More like an old Western in space. "Like 'Wagon Train' in space" is what Gene wanted.

Oh, I guess I don't like old Westerns either then due to the transitive property.

When I saw the previews / trailers - the lens flares worried me. They are annoying. But when I saw the movie - I barely noticed them. There are a few scenes where I noticed them, but they seemed to fit with what was going on. Like when the Kelvin crew is watching Nero's ship come out of the black hole. That made some sense. They were right in front of a big bright star.

It was just a movie people. Enjoy it for the story and fun. Who cares if the physics is perfect. Remember, its a MOVIE. Not reality. If I wanted a movie about reality, I'd watch a documentary.

phuquetarde: When I saw the previews / trailers - the lens flares worried me. They are annoying. But when I saw the movie - I barely noticed them. There are a few scenes where I noticed them, but they seemed to fit with what was going on. Like when the Kelvin crew is watching Nero's ship come out of the black hole. That made some sense. They were right in front of a big bright star.

It was just a movie people. Enjoy it for the story and fun. Who cares if the physics is perfect. Remember, its a MOVIE. Not reality. If I wanted a movie about reality, I'd watch a documentary.

Yeah where the Kelving and the sun and all that is, is about the only area I noticed it too.

maximum_jack: angrymacface: maximum_jack: J.J. ruined Star Trek.

How do you define ruined?

I defined ruined by erasing 40 years of continuity just to use iconic characters that you didn't create. This wasn't some great untold story that had to be told, this was a blatant cash grab. Kirk's crew was over and done with, J.J. could have told us a new story about new characters, but that wouldn't make enough money.

Tell me something, Do you also think no one should make Sherlock Holmes movies because the characters have already been created?

Understand something, in the first series, there was no continuity, they made it up as they went along. It's the rabid fans that demand continuity.

I love those characters, and I'm happy to see them again. I don't need continuity to enjoy them.

Trust me, I was a Trekkie (yes TREKKIE)long before you were born. I don't need my Star Trek confined to the small universe that it had become.

One thought I had after watching Star Trek is the time line in which this story occurs could still be very close to the time line that we know from all the series and movies. The destruction of Vulcan can explain a lot about future stories. Based on the Vulcans from Enterprise they seemed to be a very influential race and had a lot of power. Yet in every series from TOS up until Enterprise, the Vulcans never played an influential role in any major stories. There are still a couple differences that would not make sense but those can easily be changed as well. (Spock's mom, references to Vulcan, scenes on Vulcan)

Just a thought. Oh and lens flares were only noticeable and annoying if you were actually looking for them.

Life_in_LA: This was a HUGE technical pet peeve for me.

I still enjoyed the film despite its plot holes, but I thought this SATIRE (new window) on youtube was pretty spot-on.

I LOL'd.

That was fantastic! LOL

quizzical: Was I the only one that stopped noticing the lens flares after the first ten minutes of the movie? I had no idea so many people could be so bothered over one - admittedly repetitively used - visual trick.

I came here to say this. It was the Weeners in the thread and I didn't bother scrolling through the rest. That said, they didn't bother me one little bit.

/saw the movie last Friday
//seeing the movie again this Friday or Saturday

Can you farking geeks STFU about ST timelines and canons and shiat?

You bunch of pussies. JJ raped your childhood...bwhahaha! Good, and I hope it gets you out of the basement.

Pansy ass Trek Tards.

Mugato: Spaceami: Spock and Uhura necking on the transporter pad was unforgivable, he's supposed to get with Nurse Chapel.


I don't know how many times it has to be expliained. Nothing is "supposed" There is no canon anymore. Any similarities are either the result of chance or something to too much a part of the character's fate to not happen.

Besides, the look on Kirk's face was the funniest moment of the movie.

I just came in to say that the scene where the lady was sucked out into space from the Kelvin, and all of a sudden there was no sound out in space - I thought it was cool to see a glimpse of a space battle as you would (not) hear it in open space...

maximum_jack: angrymacface: maximum_jack: J.J. ruined Star Trek.

How do you define ruined?

I defined ruined by erasing 40 years of continuity cruft just to use iconic characters that you didn't create in new unexpected ways. This wasn't some great untold story that had to be told, this was a blatant cash grab. Kirk's crew was over and done with, J.J. could have told us a new story about new characters, but that wouldn't make enough money.

Other that that main problem its still riddled with stupidity. Beastie Boys? Budweiser Classic? Nokia phones? It's nice to know that corporate America exists in Star Trek's Utopian (and socialist) future. I won't even touch the silly Uhura-Spock nonsense.

/rant off
//I really don't care if others enjoyed the movie, it just breaks my heart a little bit

FIFY

DON.MAC: Did anyone else notice pixelization in the shootout scene in the Romulan ship?

They were hiding the naughty parts.

ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY!!!ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY!!!ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY!!!ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY!!!ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY!!!ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY!!!ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY!!!

I mean, seriously, did they run out of money when they made the engineering set?

I've been a fan of Star Trek for a long time, although I wouldn't call myself a 'trekkie'. I really really liked the movie. It wasn't cheesy, it was fun and I felt like watching it a second time right away, something I never do. Yeah the lens flares were obvious, but I didn't feel it detracted from the movie at all. Like many other people are saying I stopped noticing pretty quick.

Didn't notice the lens flares when I saw it the first time. Only after reading people whine about them in Fark threads before seeing it a second time did I notice them.

RadicalMiddle: maximum_jack: angrymacface: maximum_jack: J.J. ruined Star Trek.

How do you define ruined?

I defined ruined by erasing 40 years of continuity just to use iconic characters that you didn't create. This wasn't some great untold story that had to be told, this was a blatant cash grab. Kirk's crew was over and done with, J.J. could have told us a new story about new characters, but that wouldn't make enough money.

Tell me something, Do you also think no one should make Sherlock Holmes movies because the characters have already been created?

Understand something, in the first series, there was no continuity, they made it up as they went along. It's the rabid fans that demand continuity.

I love those characters, and I'm happy to see them again. I don't need continuity to enjoy them.

Trust me, I was a Trekkie (yes TREKKIE)long before you were born. I don't need my Star Trek confined to the small universe that it had become.

I do understand what you are saying. It just bums me out.

D-O-single_G: Brand labels would have been a thing of the past

Why?


No really, why? Companies and business had to have a reason to do business and make items. That's the problem with these utopia wonderland idea's, they simply rarely work in widespread practice.


So yes, they don't have money apparently, but there had to have been some system of rewards for doing a good job, other wise no one would do any.

We still don't know enough about the system in place beyond some off the hand comment and Gene saying yes the government didn't have money.

All Star Trek threads fail without pics of Zoe Saldana.

Hender: Hell, I can see a lot of potential in an alternate dimension Star Trek. All the continuity holes from TOS and on can be fixed or changed, for one thing. Or as someone put it the other day in another thread, have Spock grow a beard and we'll have some real potential. :)

I'd actually like to see what the mirror universe would be like in this new alternate reality.

fusillade762: WeezinTheJuice: Where was the wooden acting, incoherent plot and bad ending? This isnt a typical Star Trek and THANK GOD for that!


Not a hater, I quite enjoyed it. But "incoherent plot"? Did we see the same movie? Plot holes. So many. So large.

I think they should have had a disclaimer at the beginning:

"Please disable all higher brain function before viewing. May cause nausea, vomiting and intense nerd rage in those who cannot let go of the past future past future past and future (screw it)past."

/Tried to fix
//Not broken

Gangway Fathead: All Star Trek threads fail without pics of Zoe Saldana.

She's hot, but I'm more annoyed that they cut Diora Baird's scenes from the film:

Is this the thread where I get to say how awesome the season finale of Fringe was?

Thank you, J.J. Abrams, for Fringe, Star Trek, and a halfway enjoyable ride through Cloverfield.

I'll forgive you for Lost sometime after it's over as long as the ending doesn't suck.

I didn't even notice them until I read about them before watching the film a second time. I mostly noticed how Mom kept asking me confused questions about alternate timelines during and after the film. Oh well, at least it wasn't like the conversation we had after "Brokeback Mountain." I'm lucky to still have a car after THAT.

If JJ Abrams was a food, he'd be McDonalds.

That's all I see in his work. Generic, simple, lowest common denominator, and LOTS of it.

tdpatriots12: Gangway Fathead: All Star Trek threads fail without pics of Zoe Saldana.

She's hot, but I'm more annoyed that they cut Diora Baird's scenes from the film:

Is she the blonde on the bridge that's in like two cut away shots?

Gangway Fathead: Is she the blonde on the bridge that's in like two cut away shots?

She was supposed to be an "Orion slave girl" - press photos of Rachel Nichols (Uhura's roommate) were often confused for her. So, nope, not in the film at all.

maximum_jack: I defined ruined by erasing 40 years of continuity just to use iconic characters that you didn't create. This wasn't some great untold story that had to be told, this was a blatant cash grab. Kirk's crew was over and done with, J.J. could have told us a new story about new characters, but that wouldn't make enough money.

Oh, get over it.

Let me put this in the same terms I described to a non-Trekkie friend. TNG had Data. He was an important character. He was unique. He was strong, but not invulnerable. He was incredibly "smart", but had a lot to learn and never had "emotions" unless it was a plot device. There were constant dilemmas concerning his "personhood" or the morality of creating an army of Datas, but it held together because he was unique and hard to duplicate.

And then Voyager came along. And they have a character who is purely a hologram with all the intelligence of Data, but with deep personality as well. He's just a computer program, so duplicating him is simple. Is he limited to the ship since he's a hologram? Nope... they figured out how to send him on away missions.

At some point, the technology jumps the shark, and Voyager did that by shiatting all over the ground broken by TNG.

It needed a reboot. It didn't need to move further into the future while clinging to canon. It didn't need to dwell in the Enterprise period. It needed to be in Kirk's time without clinging to canon. For the most part, they pulled it off.

Well, that's what I get for going to the bottom of the thread without even skimming it first!

The_Time_Master: ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY!!!ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY!!!ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY!!!ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY!!!ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY!!!ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY!!!ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY!!!

I mean, seriously, did they run out of money when they made the engineering set?

uh, that's because THEY FILMED IT IN THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY. linky (new window)!

4NSpy: Is lens flare the new blue wang?

Nah. Nobody ever gets jealous over lens flare.

haha, who would have thought that the tears of star trek nerds are almost as delicious as the tears of neo-conservatives?

Back to the main topic: I picked up the Nero Burger King glass the other day. It's got lens flare on the freaking BOX.



Not complaining. It's just funny.

Life_in_LA: uh, that's because THEY FILMED IT IN THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY. linky (new window)!

It reminded me of the engine room on the Southern Sun

Life_in_LA: The_Time_Master: ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY!!!ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY!!!ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY!!!ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY!!!ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY!!!ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY!!!ENGINEERING LOOKS LIKE THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY!!!

I mean, seriously, did they run out of money when they made the engineering set?

uh, that's because THEY FILMED IT IN THE BASEMENT OF A BREWERY. linky (new window)!

Interesting.

tdpatriots12: It reminded me of the engine room on the Southern Sun

that's funny. it reminded me of a farking brewery. Looked like shiat, especially compared to the beautifully designed bridge.

Life_in_LA: tdpatriots12: It reminded me of the engine room on the Southern Sun

that's funny. it reminded me of a farking brewery. Looked like shiat, especially compared to the beautifully designed bridge.

...are you familiar with the "film" Space Mutiny? It wasn't a compliment.

TOS JJ'd

tdpatriots12: Life_in_LA: tdpatriots12: It reminded me of the engine room on the Southern Sun

that's funny. it reminded me of a farking brewery. Looked like shiat, especially compared to the beautifully designed bridge.

...are you familiar with the "film" Space Mutiny? It wasn't a compliment.


Some people love it, some hate it. I'm on the fence. The industrial feel was kind of a nice departure. Though it did seem like those high ceilings were wasting a lot of space, especially on a starship. At least there weren't pools of water everywhere.

The thing I don't like about lens flare is that I don't see lens flare when I'm looking at things. When I watch movies, I like to pretend that a camera isn't there filming it, which is what I'm reminded of when I see lens flare.

fusillade762: The industrial feel was kind of a nice departure. Though it did seem like those high ceilings were wasting a lot of space, especially on a starship. At least there weren't pools of water everywhere.

You'd think a mining vessel with that many refits and weapons on hand would be able to afford a sump pump.

ubermensch: I like to pretend that a camera isn't there filming it, which is what I'm reminded of when I see lens flare.

So the idea of lens flare bothers you...but explosive decompression is ok?

maximum_jack: MadCat221: maximum_jack: J.J. ruined Star Trek. Unfortunately, I'm one of the only ones who thinks so.

/sad Trekkie

Did you decide that before even watching the movie?

/I can already predict the answer...

Ooh! Burn!

/People who don't like this movie must be morons who live at home, right?

Right. :)

And yeah, I liked the lens flares and quick zooms and out of focus shots on Firefly too.

fusillade762: tdpatriots12: Life_in_LA: tdpatriots12: It reminded me of the engine room on the Southern Sun

that's funny. it reminded me of a farking brewery. Looked like shiat, especially compared to the beautifully designed bridge.

...are you familiar with the "film" Space Mutiny? It wasn't a compliment.


Some people love it, some hate it. I'm on the fence. The industrial feel was kind of a nice departure. Though it did seem like those high ceilings were wasting a lot of space, especially on a starship. At least there weren't pools of water everywhere.

It looked like a water treatment plant to me. It would have been better to look like a nuclear power plant in my opinion.

Lord Zoranov: .

It looked like a water treatment plant to me. It would have been better to look like a nuclear power plant in my opinion.

Reminded me of an engine room on an aircraft carrier.

tdpatriots12: ...are you familiar with the "film" Space Mutiny? It wasn't a compliment.

and onto the netflix queue it goes!

/loves me some cheese!
//scifi cheese even better

erewhon: angrymacface: Delta Vega in the Vulcan system, really J.J.?

Yeah, I had a hard time with that one too.

Did anyone get flashbacks to the "young SG1" vignette from "200"?

JJ didn't write the movie, you f*cking morons.

Carth: Lord Zoranov: .

It looked like a water treatment plant to me. It would have been better to look like a nuclear power plant in my opinion.

Reminded me of an engine room on an aircraft carrier.

I was thinking of a Navy ship's engine room myself.
(Was any of us Navy vets ever get sent down there for BT punches? I didn't fall for that one)

Life_in_LA: tdpatriots12: ...are you familiar with the "film" Space Mutiny? It wasn't a compliment.

and onto the netflix queue it goes!

/loves me some cheese!
//scifi cheese even better

You'd be much better off getting the MST3K version
Or just go here
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=space+mutiny+mst3k&hl=en&emb=1&aq=0&oq=sp a ce+mutiny#

Budweiser I can understand. It's a horrible product to place of course, but it's known that there are people who run real restaurants in Star Trek, why not poeple who run real breweries? Espeically since this is before replictors.

Nokia, however, is pretty inexcuseable.

Life_in_LA: tdpatriots12: ...are you familiar with the "film" Space Mutiny? It wasn't a compliment.

and onto the netflix queue it goes!

/loves me some cheese!
//scifi cheese even better

Two words: "Ice Pirates"
Two more, just for good measure: "Space Herpes"

fusillade762: Two words: "Ice Pirates"
Two more, just for good measure: "Space Herpes"

Hey...that's not cheese. That's a damn classic!

hey now, I should be excused for not knowing space mutiny, but I'm a bit insulted that you think I've never seen Robert Urich at his peak.

/seriously
//at the drive in with the parents, back in the day

quizzical: Was I the only one that stopped noticing the lens flares after the first ten minutes of the movie? I had no idea so many people could be so bothered over one - admittedly repetitively used - visual trick.

I didn't notice them much at all, either.

maxwellhauser This guy would bet you $5 that you aren't.

tshetter 25,000 twats follow him, i wouldnt fark with him.

Way to fark up my weekend, Fark. Now what am I supposed to do on a Friday night?

/At the darkness

excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but traditional star trek fans should be HAPPY!

by altering the time line, it opens the possibility that Kirk doesnt die in the near future to something as stupid as falling off a bridge

erase that shiat, bring Shatner back!

mamoru: roughridersfan: quizzical: Was I the only one that stopped noticing the lens flares after the first ten minutes of the movie? I had no idea so many people could be so bothered over one - admittedly repetitively used - visual trick.

I didn't notice them much at all, either.

I actually didn't notice them at all. I was too busy enjoying the rest of the movie.

I enjoyed the movie very much. I didn't worry about the product placement either besides recognizing the brand names.

The movie was well done for a Star Trek movie. I liked this reboot for the most part. I think they had Simon Pegg go a bit over the top, but he still did his Scotty magic, so that's what mattered.

They had plenty of references to the original series, but did I catch an Enterprise reference when Scotty referred to beaming Admiral Archer's dog somewhere?

Bunnyhat: Why?


No really, why? Companies and business had to have a reason to do business and make items. That's the problem with these utopia wonderland idea's, they simply rarely work in widespread practice.


So yes, they don't have money apparently, but there had to have been some system of rewards for doing a good job, other wise no one would do any.

We still don't know enough about the system in place beyond some off the hand comment and Gene saying yes the government didn't have money.

But in this universe it does work. People have accepted that bettering society is reward enough when there are no creditors beating down your door and there is always food on the table. The absence of money would change the dynamic of life completely. Whether or not it works in real life is for people to debate in their poly sci classes, for this is fiction, sir.

But, that doesn't even address the issue of product placement in movies being a complete abomination to begin with. It completely destroys artistic credibility in anything because it snaps you back to reality when you see something you are familiar with in a fictional world. Also, it says that you are more interested in making an extra $500k than just making the best movie you can.

As I said before, I liked the movie for what it was: a summer action movie. But as fan of Star Trek, I hated the fact that they took out the elements that focus on ethics and the promotion of tolerance and knowledge in favor of more things being as explodey as possible. Some people love the new Trek, but I just sort of like it.

maximum_jack: J.J. ruined Star Trek. Unfortunately, I'm one of the only ones who thinks so.

I really tried to hate it. I can't stand Lost, didn't care that much for Firefly/Serenity, and thought Cloverfield was just OK.
However, he did a great job with Trek; almost as good as Russell T. Davies did with Doctor Who.

/future's so bright, I gotta wear shades...

Nobody erased 'your' timeline. They stop the farking movie to tell you this is an alternate reality. 'Your' timeline is just fine, sans Romulus.

RICK BERMAN ruined and KILLED Star Trek. 2 failed movies in a row and one cancelled show. Abrams SAVED Trek, and for the first time in it's history has true success. Of course, it wasn't what you wanted, so you're going to stamp your feet and throw a tantrum.

If you didn't like this movie, then you don't like Star Trek, and never wanted it to be successful, I'm sorry, but it's the truth. The franchise never needed you, and we are not sorry to see that you're gone.

Just like with the Transformers movie, nobody will notice your inept and quiet hate.

They had money because the crew bought TRIBBLES.
TRIBBLES were sold to make... MONEY.
QUARKS BAR took money.
Aliens wanted to get paid.
The currency was based on precious metals I recall.

D-O-single_G: Bunnyhat: Why?


No really, why? Companies and business had to have a reason to do business and make items. That's the problem with these utopia wonderland idea's, they simply rarely work in widespread practice.


So yes, they don't have money apparently, but there had to have been some system of rewards for doing a good job, other wise no one would do any.

We still don't know enough about the system in place beyond some off the hand comment and Gene saying yes the government didn't have money.

But in this universe it does work. People have accepted that bettering society is reward enough when there are no creditors beating down your door and there is always food on the table. The absence of money would change the dynamic of life completely. Whether or not it works in real life is for people to debate in their poly sci classes, for this is fiction, sir.

But, that doesn't even address the issue of product placement in movies being a complete abomination to begin with. It completely destroys artistic credibility in anything because it snaps you back to reality when you see something you are familiar with in a fictional world. Also, it says that you are more interested in making an extra $500k than just making the best movie you can.

As I said before, I liked the movie for what it was: a summer action movie. But as fan of Star Trek, I hated the fact that they took out the elements that focus on ethics and the promotion of tolerance and knowledge in favor of more things being as explodey as possible. Some people love the new Trek, but I just sort of like it.

Artistic credibility means jack without money. Do you think Star Trek could have been made without people paying for it? Or just about any movie that hits the big screen (with the exception of Blair Witch Project)? I'm okay with product placement. I just roll my eyes and move on. It's not like I'm going to go out and buy a Nokia, but if they want to help finance the movie, why not?

And I've never bought the Roddenberry future where the only reward necessary for doing a good job is feeling good about yourself. If that were true, where does ambition fit in? Kirk should be happy being an Ensign if the world doesn't run on real rewards.

I only saw 16 pieces of flare in that frame. You do want to do more than the minimum, don't you Mr. Abrams? I just want you to express yourself.

IXI Jim IXI: fusillade762: Two words: "Ice Pirates"
Two more, just for good measure: "Space Herpes"

Hey...that's not cheese. That's a damn classic!


Oh no, it's cheese. However, the cheesy bits are quite often the tastiest.

Ice Pirates
Buckaroo Banzai
Starship Troopers
Alien 4

Love them all.

zipdog: I only saw 16 pieces of flare in that frame. You do want to do more than the minimum, don't you Mr. Abrams? I just want you to express yourself.

Winner.

rmatthewware: D-O-single_G: Bunnyhat: Why?

*snip* an interesting discussion about why a depiction of a fictional universe that eschews money is betraying it's roots by trying to sell stuff *snip*

Artistic credibility means jack without money. Do you think Star Trek could have been made without people paying for it?


However, I would point out that the series was brought back in large part due to a letter writing campaign. How does that jive with your competing theories?

Personally, I thought it looked great. My wife however, thought the projector lens was dirty or there was something wrong with the screen LOL.

Did anyone get flashbacks to the "young SG1" vignette from "200"?
Only when she said, "I'll be monitoring your frequency" That was a bit much for me but I'm a tolerant sorta fella.

I was thinking about counting the flares today, but forgot about it when I spilled my coke. They seemed way more prominent when characters were introduced at first, and when there were departures from the timeline, or significant events.

Spaceami: I didn't notice the lens flares. Spock and Uhura necking on the transporter pad was unforgivable, he's supposed to get with Nurse Chapel.

Alternate universe, remember? So he's necking with Uhura now. Either way, it's still awkward because it's Spock. So we're cool.

I just had some botched Lasik surgery, so I'm getting a kick at the lens flare effects constantly in front of these replies.

maximum_jack: J.J. ruined Star Trek. Unfortunately, I'm one of the only ones who thinks so.

/sad Trekkie

sing it, bro

fusillade762: rmatthewware: D-O-single_G: Bunnyhat: Why?

*snip* an interesting discussion about why a depiction of a fictional universe that eschews money is betraying it's roots by trying to sell stuff *snip*

Artistic credibility means jack without money. Do you think Star Trek could have been made without people paying for it?


However, I would point out that the series was brought back in large part due to a letter writing campaign. How does that jive with your competing theories?

Sure, the letter writing campaign brought it back just in time for it to get canceled again. Of course, then they realized that Star Trek did really well in the nerdy, buy our product, demographic.

Jericho came back with a letter campaign just to get canceled again. Letter writing campaigns can have an impact, but the real test is if the right demographic watches it or not.

In the end, money talks. If it was just about fans, then Star Trek 11 would have been about Data reemerging through B4.

If it was just about fans, then Star Trek 11 would have been about Data reemerging through B4.
Are you nuts? People really want to see that? Real trekkies? I'm not buying it. All the trekkies I know say since Spiner wanted to die, and biatched and moaned until he got that put in the script, he doesn't get to come back. Ever.

ChrisPC: I really tried to hate it. I can't stand Lost, didn't care that much for Firefly/Serenity, and thought Cloverfield was just OK.

wat

Great Movie!

Crappy Star Trek!!!

If I never saw Star Trek I would have liked it. I was a bit put off by some of the pop culture references and the change in time line. ST never seemed to be very clear about how time travel works. If they use all possible worlds model where everything that can happen does happen and each decision results in an alternate parallel universe then you can say the history isn't technically erased, but if they continue to make movies with this new time line then as far as any trekkie is concerned, they killed the time line.

Still good movie overall though. Definatly "fixed" very many things that were broken with the typical ST movies. Broke a few big ones as well IMO. I might see it again.

/Still doesn't hold a candle to ST II: The Wrath of Khan

quizzical: Was I the only one that stopped noticing the lens flares after the first ten minutes of the movie? I had no idea so many people could be so bothered over one - admittedly repetitively used - visual trick.

They weren't bothered until they got home and some 'mother-nerd' mentioned it on the internet, so they ALL had to start biatching about it.

I cannot stand that purist stripe of nerd who hates any change and loves to complain.

"Flares is the new Shakey cam."

Soon every DP will have a "special" flashlight in his toolkit.

I blame YODA way back in ESB when the little Farker pointed Lukes flashlight at the camera, Sci-Fi has never been the same...

Moray: "Flares is the new Shakey cam."

Soon every DP will have a "special" flashlight in his toolkit.

I blame YODA way back in ESB when the little Farker pointed Lukes flashlight at the camera, Sci-Fi has never been the same...

But the farking dick couldn't decide, he used shaky cam, dutch angles AND flares. I sat there saying "what a farking stupid movie" simply because he couldn't allow his creative content to speak for itself. If I want to watch a mountain dew commercial, I'll watch basic cable.

Can someone make one of those inspirational posters about them having sandwiches in the future please.

maximum_jack: angrymacface: maximum_jack: J.J. ruined Star Trek.

How do you define ruined?

I defined ruined by erasing 40 years of continuity just to use iconic characters that you didn't create. This wasn't some great untold story that had to be told, this was a blatant cash grab. Kirk's crew was over and done with, J.J. could have told us a new story about new characters, but that wouldn't make enough money.

Other that that main problem its still riddled with stupidity. Beastie Boys? Budweiser Classic? Nokia phones? It's nice to know that corporate America exists in Star Trek's Utopian (and socialist) future. I won't even touch the silly Uhura-Spock nonsense.

/rant off
//I really don't care if others enjoyed the movie, it just breaks my heart a little bit

Trek was never socialist nor capitalistic. Way to overlook Roddenberry's point that we moved beyond that thinking.

crab66: Screen cap of the Enterprise from the next Star Trek movie:

I will do this to death..yes.

Isn't that from a TNG episode?

I haven't seen this movie yet because Kirk needs to be more misogynistic alpha male and less pretty-boy douchebag.

The Corporation: I haven't seen this movie yet because Kirk needs to be more misogynistic alpha male and less pretty-boy douchebag.

See the movie. He pretty much nailed the part of TOS Kirk.

/why do people forget The Shiat was a pretty boy before the burger binge?

Having just seen the film for the second time (this time on Imax) - let me offer a caution -

It is Not a good movie to see on Imax unless you can assuredly sit well back from the screen. Due to the 'shaky-cam' and the number of scenes that have an awful lot going on at the same time, it's pretty hard to keep track of if you're close to the screen (moreso than other movies I've seen in this way).

I liked it a lot better when I saw it on the 'regular' screen.

Oh, and minor spoiler/question:

Why was there a lightning storm reported when Nero's ship appeared near Vulcan?

Rubber Biscuit: I cannot stand that purist stripe of nerd who hates any change and loves to complain.

"Purist" is a polite word for them. They are mentally ill people who assume an omnipotent point-of-view and confuse derision with taste.

Nattering nabobs of negativity with no interest in rational analysis, they are weak and flatulent minds with strong opinions proffered to compensate for their relative powerlessness and lack of creativity.

Why write your own stories when you can just say everyone else's sucks?

I looooved it. Just got some weird dizziness from the scenes that showed a whole bunch of action happening really high up. But that's just me being a wuss. :)

I have no recollection of lens flare. I guess I just paid too much attention to the movie.

But seriously - this was a problem? I'm sort of concerned that I don't remember this. Maybe i have flare cancellation in my vision.

labman: /I could do without crewmembers abandoning their posts to go running through the hallway to do something, though.

I CAN DO THAT! I CAN DO THAT! I CAN DO THAT!

quizzical: Was I the only one that stopped noticing the lens flares after the first ten minutes of the movie? I had no idea so many people could be so bothered over one - admittedly repetitively used - visual trick.

I was the same. Just didn't really care. Movie was entertaining, thought that was more important.

labman:
I loved the movie, but I'd like to see it again with a pause button to take in some of what was going on in the action sequences.

Aww yeah. I'm gonna be all over that shiat frame by frame when the Blu-ray comes out.

Bondidude: labman: /I could do without crewmembers abandoning their posts to go running through the hallway to do something, though.

I CAN DO THAT! I CAN DO THAT! I CAN DO THAT!

I actually loved that scene. That one, and "How old are you", "17".

Andric: ChrisPC: I really tried to hate it. I can't stand Lost, didn't care that much for Firefly/Serenity, and thought Cloverfield was just OK.

wat

Yeah, that was Joss Whedon. What was I thinking?

"Wahhhh, the screen moved!"

"Waaahhhh, there were too many shiny things!"

"Wahhhh, interracial smooching gives me hives!"

"Waaaaaaahh, there are things I recognised!"

"Waaaah, the future is socialist!"

"Waaaah, I hate LOST, so anything JJ Abrams does is poop!"

GO READ A FARKING BOOK, YOU NERDS!

maximum_jack: J.J. ruined Star Trek. Unfortunately, I'm one of the only ones who thinks so.

/sad Trekkie

I agree.