Hype User Reviews: Star Trek XI

[Hamill-Joker]

Isn't that a Lucas trick? It reminded me of when Obie Wan and Jar Jar and Anakin were in that underwater craft and the big creature kept getting eaten by the even bigger one....

George Lucas did not invent the saying "There's always a bigger fish"

He just used it.

 

[DorkyFresh]

Isn't that a Lucas trick? It reminded me of when Obie Wan and Jar Jar and Anakin were in that underwater craft and the big creature kept getting eaten by the even bigger one....

it's a film trick but not necessarily exclusively Lucas's...note the ending of Jurassic Park where the humans almost get jumped by a raptor, but the T-Rex jumps in at the last moment.

 

[BloodyWolverine]

I really think they need a really bad a$$ Klingon villain to kinda place the running point of Kirk that he and the Klingons hated each other. I think it was implied before the death of Kirks son in Star Trek 3. With a reboot i suggest they need a Klingon villian after a Romulan one.

 

[Hamill-Joker]

I really think they need a really bad a$$ Klingon villain to kinda place the running point of Kirk that he and the Klingons hated each other. I think it was implied before the death of Kirks son in Star Trek 3. With a reboot i suggest they need a Klingon villian after a Romulan one.

Have the villain be Q

 

[squeekness]

it's a film trick but not necessarily exclusively Lucas's...note the ending of Jurassic Park where the humans almost get jumped by a raptor, but the T-Rex jumps in at the last moment.

True.

 

[roach]

its more or less an idea that both Spielburg and Lucas picked up from the Indy films

 

[Matt]

I really think they need a really bad a$$ Klingon villain to kinda place the running point of Kirk that he and the Klingons hated each other. I think it was implied before the death of Kirks son in Star Trek 3. With a reboot i suggest they need a Klingon villian after a Romulan one.

I don't know much about Star Trek but I know what a Klingon is (who doesn't? They're like elves and jedi, everyone knows them). I was suprised that such a big part of the Star Trek franchise was missing from this movie. I would be very suprised if they didn't include them next time.

 

[roach]

well they did show the Klingon ships

 

[DACrowe]

I keep reading people calling it Michael Bay-ish. I disagree. The action is brilliant and bright, but it is short and not elongated to the point of mind-numbingly stupid. And Abrams still keeps a sharp eye on character and interplay. While he may have decided to go with a very safe-story with not a lot of intellectual weight for his first outing in the Trek universe, he uses this backdrop to reintroduce the world in a revamped cool way to general audiences who think of Trek as a bland world of people just talking to each other with funny make-up.

There is some pseudo-science and the film very quickly and articulately describes its concepts and grounding on time travel which has a dash of the philosophical and scientific and manages to describe it in a few scenes far more clearly and satisfyingly than the entire Terminator franchise has ever been able to do or even Abrams' own Lost franchise has been able to do.

This is a fun slick ride. But unlike Bay, the actors and characters have something to do with why the movie is enjoyable. Even small roles like Spock's mother, Captain Pine and (unfortunately) Nero, are played with such conviction and style that you immediately like 'em all. And the character interaction keeps the movie entertaining and the viewer engaged. It may not challenge its viewers like other Trek films have done or even Serenity, but it isn't trying to do that. It is reintroducing these characters to pop culture in a fresh dynamic way. It may rely a wee bit on formula, but hey so did Batman Begins (which has the exact same formula as Superman, Spider-Man, Iron Man, etc. and a weak third act), but that can lead to bigger and better things). It made these characters interesting and made them fun to watch and engaged the audience.

Bay's idea of engaging the audience is showing Megan Fox in short-shorts working on a motorcycle and having even bigger robots eating smaller robots. I think Abrams, as the critics have noted, blasted off with a great film and has set himself up for new things in the next one.

 

[Rocker22]

I don't know much about Star Trek but I know what a Klingon is (who doesn't? They're like elves and jedi, everyone knows them). I was suprised that such a big part of the Star Trek franchise was missing from this movie. I would be very suprised if they didn't include them next time.

They edited them out.

 

[DorkyFresh]

i think the reason why people keep mentioning Michael Bay is because of the shakey cam technique that's becoming so popular in action sequences. however, Michael Bay wasn't the first to utilize it and he doesn't do it as well as Abrams does in this film. the way Bay uses shakey cam most of the time makes it feel that way just because it's a cool effect. Abrams uses it in this movie to give the audience more of a sense of realism, as opposed to using it just because it's a cool effect.

 

[roach]

Bay's idea of engaging the audience is showing Megan Fox in short-shorts working on a motorcycle and having even bigger robots eating smaller robots. I think Abrams, as the critics have noted, blasted off with a great film and has set himself up for new things in the next one.

you'er comparing a trailer to a whole movie

 

[SapphirePrima]

This movie was awesome!!!!!!!! I loved it! 10/10 for me. I've never watched a full episode of Star Trek in my life and they were right you don't have to be a fan to enjoy this movie. Go see it totally worth the money.

 

[DACrowe]

you'er comparing a trailer to a whole movie

Okay...Megan Fox bending over a car engine while wearing a low-cut tank top and robots who were introduced five minutes earlier with singular lines and text blurbs under their introductions immediately killing each other. Better?

 

[Hamill-Joker]

Sex Sells....

 

[roach]

i vote for V'ger as the villain in the next one

 

[Doctor Jones]

I keep reading people calling it Michael Bay-ish. I disagree. The action is brilliant and bright, but it is short and not elongated to the point of mind-numbingly stupid. And Abrams still keeps a sharp eye on character and interplay. While he may have decided to go with a very safe-story with not a lot of intellectual weight for his first outing in the Trek universe, he uses this backdrop to reintroduce the world in a revamped cool way to general audiences who think of Trek as a bland world of people just talking to each other with funny make-up.

There is some pseudo-science and the film very quickly and articulately describes its concepts and grounding on time travel which has a dash of the philosophical and scientific and manages to describe it in a few scenes far more clearly and satisfyingly than the entire Terminator franchise has ever been able to do or even Abrams' own Lost franchise has been able to do.

This is a fun slick ride. But unlike Bay, the actors and characters have something to do with why the movie is enjoyable. Even small roles like Spock's mother, Captain Pine and (unfortunately) Nero, are played with such conviction and style that you immediately like 'em all. And the character interaction keeps the movie entertaining and the viewer engaged. It may not challenge its viewers like other Trek films have done or even Serenity, but it isn't trying to do that. It is reintroducing these characters to pop culture in a fresh dynamic way. It may rely a wee bit on formula, but hey so did Batman Begins (which has the exact same formula as Superman, Spider-Man, Iron Man, etc. and a weak third act), but that can lead to bigger and better things). It made these characters interesting and made them fun to watch and engaged the audience.

Bay's idea of engaging the audience is showing Megan Fox in short-shorts working on a motorcycle and having even bigger robots eating smaller robots. I think Abrams, as the critics have noted, blasted off with a great film and has set himself up for new things in the next one.

I couldn't of said it better.

 

[Gracen1]

Some of you are mistaking me saying Nero is "shallow" for "Nero's motivations aren't believable".

Nero's motivations are certainly a little hard to swallow, but this is a fictional movie, so it's believeable on some level. None of your real world examples begin to resemble a man who kills billions and billions and billions of innocents because someone failed to save his homeworld. If there'd been more exploration into the Federation's actions, and Nero's assessment of them...I would completely understand his hatred of the Federation. As such, no, it feels incredibly forced and misplaced. And even THAT, as apparent as it is, isn't explored in the slightest.

"You're looking too deep"?

"Just enjoy it for what it is"?

No thank you. I'll take films that explore issues and ideas and raise interesting questions (as the original Trek did) and debate, not films that just present villains who talk in a single sentence about why they're doing what they're doing and run around screaming about revenge. If I want that, I'll watch something like SPY KIDS.

Once again:

I don't have a real problem with the man's basic motivations. His world blew up. His loved one's died. He's angry and hurting.

Telling us that in a sentence or two is not sufficient exploration of the concept. It does the concept a massive, massive disservice. We need to see something else, some extension of his plot, some moral exploration so that the audience is allowed to make their own conclusions about Nero's actions, the Federation's actions, etc, and not simply told "He's a bad guy, see how much he's jumping around and yelling at people? Look, he just killed a man unprovoked".

Otherwise he's a damned mad scientist. And STAR TREK deserves better than that.

I agree. i like my villains with more substance. like ozymandias, davey jones, barbossa, nomak from blade 2, prince nuada from hellboy 2, even the predators had more to them. even if they do have villains that are just bad, make sure they have good dialogue and good screen time like hanz gruber, mr. joshua and countless others. i also thought abrams was going to show us how "our" kirk, spock and company met and became friends. not their alternate timeline versions of themsleves.

 

[TheVileOne]

Its hard to avoid the Bay thing since Abrams freaking wrote Armageddon.

 

[Balthus Dire]

The only "Bay" vibe I personally got from this was the various shots where a character is constantly passing through an insanely bright light shining right into the lens.

 

[Nivek]

I myself had issue with the lens flare and prisms being overused. They used to not put that in film for a reason, JJ. It's too jarring to some viewers.

 

[Figs]

Just got back from seeing this and really enjoyed it.

I give it an 8/10 or for this poll a 4/5.

Really liked all of the cast, thought they did a great job. I just wish Bana got some more scenes but he had more than I thought he would since a lot of people were making it sound like he only got two throughout the whole film. I'm kind of in the middle on his character. Part of me thinks his motivations were fine since he lost his entire planet/civilization but at the same time I agree that he could have used a little more background to add some weight to his anger.

The cast did a damn good job taking over for this new film series. I think the weakest of them was probably Yelchin, he still did good but if I had to pick one of the actors/characters that I wasn't fully happy with it would be him. I kind of miss Walter Koenig's take on it. Chris Pine did better than I expected. I'm glad he did his own take on it and didn't try to mimic Shatner's style of talking, that would have just come off as a parody almost. My favorite character from the original films was always Dr. Leonard McCoy and I felt Urban kicked some ass in the role. I was grinning ear to ear with most of his lines.

One thing that came from nowhere that I felt was kind of weird was Spock(Quinto) and Uhura's little fling going on. I really only watched the original films and not the TV series growing up, I think I've seen only around 10-12 episodes of it so I have no idea if they had a liking to each other in the show but from what I can remember I didn't think so. I guess it's a little better than having her get with Kirk since that would be a bit cliche' since he's #1, you know...the Captain.

The action and effects were damn good, that is pretty much the biggest draw for members of the general audience who never liked or cared for the originals. I say it's the biggest draw for them because although I may not be a trekkie, from watching the old films I think the dialogue and characters in this new version still felt like Star Trek. It might not have been as technical/nerdy as the originals but it had that nerd vibe still(which is a good thing for this franchise obviously...can't be everyone's cup of tea, not making fun of any trekkies by the way when I say this since I myself loved most of the old films) that I'm sure a good number of people might still not care for.

All in all this was a great and fun sci-fi adventure. I went and saw it with my gf and family for Mother's Day(my parents are huge fans of Star Trek) and my parents were really interested in seeing a sequel with these new actors. Which is surprising coming from my Dad since he went in to the film not sure if he would like it due to those new actors. I don't blame him though, while he's not a hardcore trekkie he's definitely still a huge fan of the original series and films, I knew he would miss the original cast.

One last thing, I was kind of pissed that I didn't notice the Tribbles in the cage on Scotty's desk when Kirk and old Spock first meet him. My gf pointed it out for me but it was too late. Still a pretty cool nod to one of the more commonly known episodes of the series.

8/10

 

[TheVileOne]

In the original TV show, there was a recurring character named Nurse Chapel played by Majel Barrett who later married Gene Roddenberry. Chapel did have I think an unrequited attraction to Spock. But nothing serious.

Since Chapel wasn't around here, and they were doing some different things with Spock, it was a good way to make Uhura a more full character and sort of show some of Spock's emotion through Uhura.

It was a ballsy, bold, and audacious move but I like it because its done very organically. This is a more conflicted Spock, and it makes sense. They aren't making them act in a totally uncharacteristic way. When Uhura embraces Spock, Spock only gives the slightest return of affections.

 

[Immortalfire]

I've been a fan too long to get into some re-start thing. They'd have been better off just making a new ship/crew..continuing on after the events in the 24th century.

The Enterprise looks too new. I can't stand it when prequel things look newer than the most recent events.

Spoiler

Amanda's death and Vulcan's end were totally WTF?

Cast was good, but I didn't buy Pine as Kirk. The others were good though, but I couldn't roll with Uhura smooching w/ Spock... What the hell.

Not a bad effort, but I'm not going to forsake 40+ years of film and television legacy because Abrams is too lazy to make something new. I got a vibe he only knew slightly more about Trek, than Bryan Singer knew about Superman.

It was ok. Some parts I liked, others I didn't..I found to be a balance of both sides. 5 of 10.

 

[Warhammer]

You don't have to forsake the shows and movies, though. This is an alternate timeline/parallel universe.