Jump to content

The Big Bad Star Trek XI Thread


Recommended Posts

After having about a week to digest the movie, I guess the one thing that bugs me is that a certain someone's mom had to die, thus jacking up the continuity of everything.

We wouldn't have to see her again until Star Trek IV anyhow....the computer knows this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yay, finally saw it. It was pretty good. Lots of thrills. The alternate universe stuff was fine with me. It was sad to see how different things could turn out. It wasn't a simple gimmick to reboot the franchise, but an integral theme of the plot. How some things change, how some things stay the same. The score was alright.

Why wouldn't Nero just have traveled to Romulus to tell his people what would happen in the future so they could plan to avoid it and re-assess the flaws in Spock's plan to save the planet? In his 25 years of waiting, he didn't once have the urge to visit his home planet and spill the beans about the future? This really didn't make any sense. I get that he was pissed about losing his wife, but you'd think he'd share his knowledge with his homeworld. Maybe even plan for his wife to be off Romulus in 100 years when it happens.

Nero didn't understand that he'd traveled back in time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nero was nuts. I thought that was pretty clear. If the rest of the film didn't make that clear, then Nero's dialogue as he refuses assistance at the end should make it obvious. His mental state was somewhere between late-ROTS Anakin Skywalker and late-TDK Harvey Dent. He wasn't concerned with making the situation any better, he just wanted to hurt the people he thought had hurt him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nero was nuts. I thought that was pretty clear. If the rest of the film didn't make that clear, then Nero's dialogue as he refuses assistance at the end should make it obvious. His mental state was somewhere between late-ROTS Anakin Skywalker and late-TDK Harvey Dent. He wasn't concerned with making the situation any better, he just wanted to hurt the people he thought had hurt him.

Exactly. That's why I loved how Kirk offered him a symbolic chance, and he completely refused, leading to Kirk blasting him to hell. To me, that scene really made me think that these were the characters from TOS. The characters that would become lifelong friends and would sacrifice their own lives to save the others.

After hearing the interview with Orci and Kurtzman, now I wish they used Shatner as I think that "alternate ending" would have been a very Trek like moment. Aw well, what you gonna do?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Those are great moments, for sure, but I personally would have liked just a few more. Is that okay?

No, sir, it is not. Please turn in your keys on the way out the door, and we will mail you your final check.

Can somebody say "memory pillaging studio goldrush?" If you can think of anything you grew up with, it is probably being reworked by studios as we speak.

Thing is, if these projects turn out as well as Star Trek, or even half as well, then they'll be worth my time.

There's nothing wrong with adaptation. If there was, then you'd have to chuck the vast majority of art out the window. Art -- even when it's just "entertainment" -- exists to illuminate, and sometimes it's necessary to illuminate the past as well as the present and the future. As long as a movie does that well, I don't really care whether or not it's an "original idea."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Those are great moments, for sure, but I personally would have liked just a few more. Is that okay?

No, sir, it is not. Please turn in your keys on the way out the door, and we will mail you your final check.

You can't fire me! I quit!

:P

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nero was nuts. I thought that was pretty clear. If the rest of the film didn't make that clear, then Nero's dialogue as he refuses assistance at the end should make it obvious. His mental state was somewhere between late-ROTS Anakin Skywalker and late-TDK Harvey Dent. He wasn't concerned with making the situation any better, he just wanted to hurt the people he thought had hurt him.

The key, I think, to understanding Nero is to recall two pieces of dialogue. One is delivered by Spock, when he says that Vulcans and Romulans share a common ancestry. The second is delivered by Sarek when he says that emotion runs deep in Vulcans, deeper even than it runs in humans.

Now, if he's correct about that -- and, of course, he is -- then it probably means that emotion runs deeper in Romulans, too. Therefore, it makes sense that Nero holds a 25-year grudge without batting an eye, and that he seems a little bit unhinged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally saw it tonight. By myself. I loved it. Got some comments, got some questions. And I haven't read this thread since page 64.

Questions, first of all. What was the name of the shuttlecraft that took Kirk and McCoy to the Enterprise? Was it Gilliam or Gillian, I don't remember the last letter.

And what did Spock Prime say after watching Kirk get the medal from the balcony? Somebody sneezed and I couldn't hear it.

Ok, comments. First off, Nero didn't know he was in the past until he talked to the Kelvin's captain. Then he snapped and had a dilemma. He knew Spock was coming through the black hole worm hole also, but he couldn't leave the spot until that happened. The Romulus that he knew blew up because of a star going supernova, a completely natural phenomenon that was going to happen regardless of what Nero did. It is regrettable that Spock said he'd take care of it and failed, because it indicates that after the Shinzon incident, Romulus appeals to the Federation for help and Ambassador Spock could operate in the open on Romulus, rather than in secret as in Unification.

Ironically, Nero failed to realize that while in the past, he could go to Romulus and warn his people that they've got about 120 years to find a new homeworld, because in our new Abrams Star Trek timeline, Romulus will still blow up in the future on schedule. Nero and Spock's time warp won't affect the natural course of a star. But Nero's 25 years of waiting made him lose his mind, so once he did get the red matter, he became hellbent on revenge, and leaving to go warn Romulus would have left Spock get away. And being a Romulan, he could lose his mind and be the vengeful maniac because Romulans don't control their emotions. They have the same superior physical strength and intellect of Vulcans, but with the emotional angst of humans, making them very formidable villains in the Trek universe.

I don't believe that Spock and Nero left our "normal" Star Trek future and jumped into another timeline to begin with. Nor did they jump into an alternate timeline or universe. They jumped into the past of their own timeline, and by Nero destroying the Kelvin, completely changed the course of the future. Quinto-Spock reveals this by realizing a time travel ship changed the course of the future and their destinies. It's not like there's a universe with Shatner-Kirk captaining the five year mission, while in another universe, Pine-Kirk is captaining this one. That does mean that the "normal" Star Trek timeline is now gone, unless they can go back to the moment the Narada arrived at the Kelvin, and destroy the Narada first. That doesn't make me sad at all because the joys and memories of classic Star Trek will always be with us on DVD and reruns, and we can now get new adventures on the big screen.

In most normal Star Trek episodes, time travel disruptions are usually corrected by our heroes being from the same time as the villains and thus fully aware of what's right or not (First Contact's correction is a good example). Or the changes are on a small scale and easily correctable (the 29th century artifact collector on TNG; the TOS episode where the Enterprise goes back to the 60s Earth). But if you recall Yesterday's Enterprise, a ship leaves the past for the future, and creates an alternate timeline. During the events of that episode, the normal TNG that we had watched up to that point ceased to be, Worf wasn't around, and we had an all-out war. But it was the "correct" progression of time, because the temporal anomaly was natural. Only Guinan was sensitive enough to the altered timeline, especially about Yar, to tell Picard how to fix it. He did so, and the normal timeline was restored (along with a nifty way for Denise Crosby to come back into the fold from time to time). This movie was very much like that, except without a Guinan to know that time was wrong before anything bad happened. Spock Prime knew it was wrong, but was powerless to save Vulcan, and now he and the galaxy must live with the course of new history. There's also a BTTF 2 analogy, but I'm rambling.

It is strange that so much of Star Trek canon seems to have changed by the destruction of the Kelvin, but that's the only explanation (other than the writers just changing stuff for the sake of). Gone is Christopher Pike's almost 11 years of captaining the Enterprise with Spock at his side, with this mission with Cadet Kirk becoming the new maiden voyage. Perhaps his extensive study of the Kelvin incident altered his career path. Gone is Starfleet's practice of building Constitutions in space (though it was built on Earth just for the money shot of Kirk making up his mind). Instead of being commended for creative thinking on the Kobayashi Maru, it looks as if Kirk was going to be flogged for it. Never mind the fact that Spock admitted he never took the K.M. test as he was dying in Star Trek II; no, now it looks as if he actually wrote the test, so taking it would be pointless. Another change as a result of the timeline? Oh, and Chekov wasn't on the first few episodes of TOS, but here he was on this ship's maiden voyage. I don't remember when Koenig joined the show, but it was after Space Seed, which is funny because Star Trek II, supposedly the greatest Trek film of all time, has a big gaping inconsistency because Chekov wasn't on board when Khan was freed. I'm cool with that.

And never mind that the drama of The Balance of Terror is now gone, because it seems all of Starfleet knows of the relations between Vulcans and Romulans, so it would not be a surprise as in that excellent TOS episode when even Spock is astounded at Mark Lenard's pointy eared commander. I chalk this up, however, to what was revealed by the TV show Enterprise, and its Romulan-Vulcan episodes. Because in Abrams Star Trek universe, Scott Bakula's command of NX-01 Enterprise preceded the arrival of Nero's ship by decades.

Nice touches: Green blood on Sulu's sword. Things like the plastic sheets on the shuttlecraft, the use of wheelchairs, the persistence of roads, loud rock music at bars, the more realistic earpieces, and even the door handle on Delta Vega all show that some modern technology won't be improved upon in the next 300 years, and that key pieces of culture will survive, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice touches: Green blood on Sulu's sword. Things like the plastic sheets on the shuttlecraft, the use of wheelchairs, the persistence of roads, loud rock music at bars, the more realistic earpieces, and even the door handle on Delta Vega all show that some modern technology won't be improved upon in the next 300 years, and that key pieces of culture will survive, too.

Agreed. I'd forgotten how nicely the filmmakers incorporated futuristic elements into modern ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is strange that so much of Star Trek canon seems to have changed by the destruction of the Kelvin, but that's the only explanation (other than the writers just changing stuff for the sake of).

Agreed, which is why I feel like a reboot with no canon explanation would have been more honest and more acceptable. Though they probably knew fans would go apeshit. I think that this is worse in the long run, because there will probably be decreasing attempts at continuity even within this timeline, and therefore Paramount will just restore the old timeline after three movies. I guess I have no reason to care about integrity of Star Trek canon, since I barely watched anything but TOS and the movies, but I have a special annoyance for a taste of the month like JJ Abrams having such unlimitless power to drastically redirect something with such a unique cultural following.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Upon seeing 'Star Trek' i say: liked it apart from the inane drill device, the whole Nero thing was a bad idea. It certainly was a loud summer crowdpleaser, but it had flow and good characterizations apart from the sidekick machinist (Scotty?). The ethnic music connected with Spock wasn't too hot, either, but Giacchino's somewhat melancholy main theme is very good and he had some fine musical moments...nothing specatcular, but good enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is strange that so much of Star Trek canon seems to have changed by the destruction of the Kelvin, but that's the only explanation (other than the writers just changing stuff for the sake of).

Agreed, which is why I feel like a reboot with no canon explanation would have been more honest and more acceptable. Though they probably knew fans would go apeshit. I think that this is worse in the long run, because there will probably be decreasing attempts at continuity even within this timeline, and therefore Paramount will just restore the old timeline after three movies. I guess I have no reason to care about integrity of Star Trek canon, since I barely watched anything but TOS and the movies, but I have a special annoyance for a taste of the month like JJ Abrams having such unlimitless power to drastically redirect something with such a unique cultural following.

"Flavor of the month"? Give me a break. Abrams has been a television powerhouse for the better part of a decade, and he was a notable screenwriter for several years before then. He's now beginning to show he has enormous potential in features as both a producer and a director.

Also, it's well known by anyone who's been reading interviews given by Robert Orci that this movie DOES NOT represent a literal reboot. The idea -- not present in the movie itself, granted -- is that by passing through the black hole, Nero and Spock not only went back in time, they also passed into another universe. None of the events of the various incarnations of Star Trek which came before this movie have actually been negated or otherwise wiped out. This is merely a Universe B to previous canon's Universe A.

I would guess that they purposefully did not include this in the movie so as not to bog things down with too much technobabble exposition. After all, nobody would even care except for people who are somewhat likely to find out about it through other means.

The reason why they didn't do a stright-up reboot -- and this is just my own speculation -- is the same reason why you don't chastise your terminally ill grandfather for farting: because it wouldn't be polite. There's no real reason not to, but if you can sail along by treating the old fellow with dignity, why not do it?

Similarly, there was no real need to annoy Trekkies by doing a straight reboot. Also, if you did a reboot, wouldn't you then be obligated to actually follow canon?

The solution Abrams and his writers came up with is elegant, effective, and fairly unique. I was skeptical when I heard about it, but as far as I'm concerned, it's a 100% success.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, it's well known by anyone who's been reading interviews given by Robert Orci that this movie DOES NOT represent a literal reboot. The idea -- not present in the movie itself, granted -- is that by passing through the black hole, Nero and Spock not only went back in time, they also passed into another universe. None of the events of the various incarnations of Star Trek which came before this movie have actually been negated or otherwise wiped out. This is merely a Universe B to previous canon's Universe A.

For me it was rather clear that it was the same universe, but the old spock and nero doings have changed the old future.

This movie, with the appearance of old spock, is still Star Trek XI, so there is no neglecting the old movies, they just created and alternate storyline.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw it last night, loved it. It was clever and bold. (Whoever came up with the idea of a reboot being a direct sequel in the same timeline and universe while managing to erase the original timeline and completely change things deserves a promotion)

I liked that they didn't fix the timeline, it made it different from every other time travel movie ever made.

Two Spocks existing in the same timeline? Is Spock Prime just going to have to pretend to be somebody else? If so, someone's going to wonder why this strange Vulcan suddenly popped up.

Nero was a great villain, completely mad. I'm glad they invented a new villain instead of trying to "redo" Khan. Although, in a way, Nero was to Spock what Khan was to Kirk. I even loved the "Spooooock!" yell Nero does.

Liked the characterizations. Except for Sulu. I could live without Spock having his deep baritone, but that voice absolutely defined Sulu. Right now he's just another Asian helmsman.

The only thing I absolutely hated was Scotty's little alien sidekick. Why did they have to have him pop up on the ENterprise at the end? No doubt he won't be in the sequel.

Music was pretty generic though. Kind of disappointed that there isn't any amazing music left unreleased, thuogh I do like the main theme and some of the music.

All in all, I want to see it again.

EDIT: I find it amusing all the people who are upset about the "alternate timeline." The old movies and TV shows are still there. You didn't lose anything.

Also, fans have been calling for a "Mirror Universe" movie since I was a kid. We finally got one, it was good, and hopefully they keep going. Now let's hope they can focus on the exploration aspect of Trek and discover some new species that aren't Klingons or the Borg. I would, however, like for the final movie to have the Klingons as the villains, only if they are truly done as evil. I never liked how they became some sort of neutral friend/foe thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wojo, you can't talk science in this movie because the science in it is CRAP.

You have to resist picking it apart because its an incredibly stupid movie otherwise.

So I will just love it for what it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wojo, you can't talk science in this movie because the science in it is CRAP.

You have to resist picking it apart because its an incredibly stupid movie otherwise.

So I will just love it for what it is.

An exciting sci-fi movie can't be made that is scientifically accurate because by its nature it would have to remove anything exciting about it. You want science go watch the Discovery Channel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what "science" bit about this movie was more absurd than that of others.

I liked that they didn't fix the timeline, it made it different from every other time travel movie ever made.

Also, how would you define "fixing" the timeline, anyway. From the point of view of the movie's Kirk & Co., the future hasn't happened yet, so who's Spock Prime to say that "his" future is the right one and the one currently happening is the wrong one?

Nero was a great villain, completely mad. I'm glad they invented a new villain instead of trying to "redo" Khan. Although, in a way, Nero was to Spock what Khan was to Kirk. I even loved the "Spooooock!" yell Nero does.

Me too. An obvious Khan reference, and I think Nero was certainly inspired by Khan a lot. The good thing about the Khan-type villain is that his motivations are easy to present, he doesn't need much background story or moral considerations, and as a result works fine as a setup to define the characters and relationships of the protagonists.

The only thing I absolutely hated was Scotty's little alien sidekick. Why did they have to have him pop up on the ENterprise at the end? No doubt he won't be in the sequel.

Completely unneccessary, I agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK that makes it better.

But yeah....Khan had a man sized torpedo that reshaped a dead rock into the Hawaiian islands in 6 mintues. Science is hardly Star Trek's strength.

But what Star Trek always has had is the ability to give those looney ideas, a logical credence. That in turn has inspired action on the part of real scientists, and that's how we have cell phones, and transporters that can beam a single proton for a split second.

For the sake of argument, this movie doesn't even bother with explanations. So it kinda doesn't need logic, because that's not what it's about. I completely understand where you're coming from though Joey.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see what "science" bit about this movie was more absurd than that of others.
I liked that they didn't fix the timeline, it made it different from every other time travel movie ever made.

Also, how would you define "fixing" the timeline, anyway. From the point of view of the movie's Kirk & Co., the future hasn't happened yet, so who's Spock Prime to say that "his" future is the right one and the one currently happening is the wrong one?

The old future was the one that happened when nothing from the future altered the past, therefore is the correct one.

And what about the millions of people nero killed, and their never born descendants?

Its like if in BTTF II they remained in the alternate 1985 because that is the only timeline the people in it know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The old future was the one that happened when nothing from the future altered the past, therefore is the correct one.

Who says nothing from the future altered the past? Could have happened millions of times without anyone noticing it.

And what about the millions of people nero killed, and their never born descendants?

From the POV of the movie, they *were* never born. What about the millions who died in the holocaust (to invoke Godwin's Law)? Should we put all our resources to invent a time machine so we can go back in time, prevent the holocaust? Lost spoilers ahead

the last few eps of the latest Lost season deal with the same dilemma

. There are several philosophical topics to factor into this discussion. For those having to make the decision, the "alternate" future is just as real as the "real" future. And also, they would sacrifice their own, current lives for this "real", but to them unknown, future. See Trek II/III and the whole "the needs of the many do/do not outweigh the needs of the few" business.

Its like if in BTTF II they remained in the alternate 1985 because that is the only timeline the people in it know.

In this case it's their own decision because they know their own actions caused the future to change. It can still be seen as selfish - think of all the people who might have a great live in that alternate timeline but won't because they're restoring the original timeline.

Link to post
Share on other sites

V'Ger must evolve. Its knowledge has reached the limits of this universe and it must evolve. - Captain Spock

Star Trek had been on the brink of extinction for years now. Films 9 and 10 failing to capture the imagination of the average movie goer, or even the Trekkies, Enterprise being cut of after 4 seasons....

I thought it was too soon for a new film, I did not like the fact that the old Starfleet Academy idea appeared to have been dusted off.

But the trailers and pictures looked ok, so my optimism grew.

Here are my ruminations:

The film makers did something very clever here, they obviously watched TOS, the movies and possibly the other shows as well, got what they needed from them, and then decided to blatantly destroy them.

The events in this film show us that TOS as we have known it for nearly 45 years cannot happen! There can be no The Cage, there can be no Amok Time, there can be no Balance Of Terror, TOS as we know it, never excisted.

Actually, it's far worse. The movies never happened, nor did TNG, DS9 and Yoyager. Hundreds of hours of Star Trek erased from temporal excistance, leaving the only officialy canon entry to be Star Trek: Enterprise. :lol:

And this...is a good thing.

It completely cleans the slate, all bets are off. Spock can even die again.

I know the film was sound when I was watching the opening scene. Obvious, and manipulative, but it pulled me in knowingly and willingly.

Chris Pine vanguely looks like Shanter, but he carefully avoids any of the famous Shatnerism's. I did not think it was possible to halfway except anyone other then The Shat as Kirk. Pine succeeded.

Zachary Quinto has the hardest part os Spock. Not only is playing a Vulcan an inherently difficult challenge for any actor, he also has to share the film with Leonard Nimoy.

His Spock is not the Spock we knew, he lacks the wisdom gained on his travels. But I can see how he can become Spock.

It's a solid Starting point.

Karl Urban....Eomer as Bones???

I thought they were mad. Of the 3, Urban's performance is closest to that of the original actor.

He must have very carefully studied Deforest Kelly's acting, because very often, without exactly being able to put your finger on what exactly he's doing, he nails the role.

Zoe Saldana makes for a good Uhura. Though the role is filled in very differently then Nichelle Nichols was ever able too. (the Spock/Uhura romance is rather a startling concept).

Simon Pegg managed to grow nicely into his role. Did not buy him at first, later I did, absolutely.

The actors playing Sulu, Chekov etc did not resemble their famous counterparts, but I guess that is not really a problem.

Leonard Nimoy as Spock, so odd to see him again after all these years, playing Spock so much more emotionally then ever.

Ben Cross was a logical choice as Sarek.

Eric Bana sadly did little for me as the villian. A lot os screaming, a lot of intense, brooding looks, a lot of huffing and puffing.

Greenwood made a good Pike though. Nothing like Jeff Hunter, but very effective in the context of this story.

Special effects are good, impressive without overbearing the story or characters. Lensflares galore, and some shaky-cam, but not too much.

The story is basically sound (temporal logic aside), but it's not very original. Didn't every TNG film save First Contact have a villian acting out of vengeance and in control of some super weapon? Didn't TWOK already do this, or Trek 6?

On the ice planet, did they fight between the 2 monsters not feel a bit George Lucas? "There's always a bigger fish"

A lot of improbable and coincidental encounters in this film. Kirk just happens to meet old Spock in a cave, they just happened to find Scotty in that outpost..... Not logical!

The music:

All week I've been listening to the 10 previous film scores. Perhaps this was a mistake....

In the movie it's sounds fine, and it works. I agree with the recent FSM Podcast though that this sounds more like a superhero score then a Star Trek score. It reminded me more then anything of Superman Returns a few years ago. It's totally servicable, effective, generic hollywood blockbuster film music. Lacking any of the gravitas or subtlety of several of the GREAT filmscores that were done for this series.

On CD the theme get's a bit annoying in the way it sticks in your head. It's simplistic and does not seem to develop of vary much thoughout.

The rest of the score, so far has not done much for me, doesn't seem to have much of an identity. Gia's broad style for this score might be an attempt to harken back to the big, brash Fred Steiner/Gerald Fried scores for TOS, I dunno.

When he finally does get to the Courage fanfare, and the theme, he blows it. EVERY Star Trek film has managed to provide excellent variations of one or both of these themes. Gia blows it. The fanfare feels rushed and lacking in drama or excitement, his renditions of the opening theme seem so oddly paced. I really did not enjoy listening to this long end title cue.

Thankfully, like The Dark Knight, the score was saved by the film.

Certainly not flawless, and a bit too shallow maybe. But certainly great entertainment!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got back from a second viewing.

Loved it as much as I did upon the first viewing.

Visually it looks more stunning than it did the first time.

As a Star Trek film it felt right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got back from seeing the new movie and color me converted. I even am really warming up to the redesign of the new Enterprise now.

Anyways regarding comments as to why Nero didn't go to Romulus and warn his people about future events. Supposedly there's a deleted scene that got filmed...we saw a small bit of it during trailers...but after the Kelvin rammed into the Nerada the ship was heavily damaged and the Klingons managed to capture Nero and his crew and held them on Rura Penthe. During the trailer we saw Nero fighting off two Klingon guards and supposedly during those 25 years they were held captive on Rura Penthe but one day managed to escape and destroyed a Klingon armada (the 47 ships) after they retook their vessel back.

Oh and the lens flare really bugged me a lot of times...it was a bit distracting in a lot of scenes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent reviews, Stefan, on both the score and the film. I agree with you on just about all counts.

On CD the theme get's a bit annoying in the way it sticks in your head. It's simplistic and does not seem to develop of vary much thoughout.

Who here has not been humming this theme all week? It is like a virus. So simple, but it really digs into you and roots itself in your mind. A real brain tickler, to be sure. But, it doesn't really take the listener to anyplace musically unexpected or surprising.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much. It's extremely catchy. Nothing particularly new, but very infectious. It's got kind of...equal parts Zimmer and TWOK-style Horner, so it does a nice job of paying respect to part of the franchise's musical history AND drawing inspiration from a style that's associated with "cooler," more popular franchises these days...yet without falling victim to some of that style's weaknesses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Were they really going to use Rura Penthe? Two snow planets?

Yes. Abrams cut the scene not because it was two snow planets, but because he thought the Klingon subplot overcomplicated the story. There are scenes filmed of Nero escaping Rura Penthe that'll be on the DVD.

John- back from his third viewing. It still rocks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw it, and I liked it. The many references to the original series were a nice addition.

One thing I didn't understand--after the future Spock was dumped on that ice planet, why did he just stay there waiting for Vulcan to be destroyed? He knew there was a base 14 km from his cave, right?

And I was dissapointed that this film fell to the trend of having a shaky camera during the action scenes. It wasn't nearly as bad as many films these days, but it was still incredibly annoying.

The score was pretty good too, I'll consider getting it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just M:i:III.

Well that has plenty of it.

It's nowhere near as bad as Michael Bay's unsteady cam.

I suppose. I'm not bothered by shaky-cam. Quantum Of Solace was the first film that bothered me, but perhaps that had more to do with the editing rather than the camera. If you blinked you missed 3 shots.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The score was pretty good too, I'll consider getting it.

If you liked it at all, I'd recommend getting it if you've got the cash. I have come to appreciate it SO much more as I've kept listening to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I'm really appreciating is that these cues really have a compositional focus that has become too rare these days. I mean the climax is just really well done. There are recognizable segments and there's a flow to it. He's really doing something there. "Nice to Meld You" is becoming a favorite of mine as well. I really like that motif for the mind melding that he has in that one cue.

I just listened to his interview on FSM, and he commented on going the whole "not quite familiar with the characters" route with the theme for Kirk and, to some degree, Spock. A lot of his ideas seem prevalent for reboot/sequel scoring ideology nowadays, but to me, he's taken those lofty ideas and actually done something with it. A lot have commented on the simplicity of the main theme, and yeah it is--and it was meant to be. But at the same time, Giacchino manages to make it something you can remember and hang your hat on--he doesn't forsake quality and execution for the pursuit of ideas, which is something I've disappointed by recently. *cough*BeginsandTDK*cough* To me, even though you could have stronger themes perhaps, it's not disappointing at the same time. The simplicity of the theme does not minimize the impact and enjoyability of something like, say, "Enterprising Young Men," either on CD or in film. Okay, no more backhandedness, I'll be straight up: all the interviews with the lofty talk by Zimmer and Howard (more Zimmer than Howard) talking about, "Oh, we wanted to do something different," "Oh, we don't know who Batman is" all ended up basically coming across as excuses to write a wimpy score. In this case, I feel like Giacchino said, "Okay, this is the approach we're going for" and made a good solid score on that framework. I'm further impressed--and also looking forward to future Trek scores by him. I suspect they will hold some of the development and weight that some people didn't necessarily find in this score.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.