Recommend
7 
 Thumb up
 Hide
24 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Chit Chat

Subject: Finally saw 2009 Star Trek rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Tanner Griffin
United States
Ogden
Utah
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
First off, I'm not a trekkie. I have never been able to find the appeal of any of it. Star Trek is hard to watch for me. I have watched it many times and tried to get into it but I guess I've just run into the worst episodes or something, because I've never been hooked at all.

So it took me a while to watch Star Trek 2009. I was told it was entertaining to those who aren't trekkies, but it was a trekkie who told me that so I was really worried about it.

I enjoyed it. I was very surprised by the quality of the film. The first five minutes of it were more entertaining than the 10 or so episodes of Star Trek TOS and TNG that I've seen, all put together. And it hurt.

What did the rest of you think of the film?
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Andersen
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Star Wars fan here.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
☆ ✧ ☆ ✧ ☆
United States
Minneapolis
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Looking at these stars suddenly dwarfed my own troubles and all the gravities of terrestrial life. I thought of their unfathomable distance, and the slow inevitable drift of their movements out of the unknown past into the unknown future. H.G. Wells
badge
Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect. Chief Seattle
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I prefer The Next Generation.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The neutral evil villain known as
United States
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Ow quit it.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I liked it and thought it a good way to reboot. I still haven't seen the second one tho.

I heard the new xmen is similar, in the way of the reboot dept. I supposed this is something we are going to see more of in years to come.

Wait, is this what the new star wars is going to be?




You're welcome wars-ians, enjoy the nightmares I just gave you.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Lott
United States
Mason
Michigan
flag msg tools
Being a Lions fan is a gift...
badge
...and a curse.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Phil of Mars wrote:
You're welcome wars-ians, enjoy the nightmares I just gave you.

If it's the quality of these new Star Trek films then I'm totally on board for that, no nightmares could match the ones that the prequels brought.

To the O.P.: Love, love, love the new Star Trek films and JJ Abrams is quickly becoming one of my favorite directors.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Cox
United States
Clemson
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
1024x768 works just fine - Don't Wide the Site!
badge
Missing old BGG
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was a fanatic for the original series, back in the 1970s and 80s, and I still like those. I thought The Next Generation was OK, but beyond that, not so much.

It took me until less than a year ago to watch the "reboot" of Star Trek. It was an OK movie, but being a purist, I didn't like the tweaking of history sacred canon.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geeky McGeekface
United States
Manassas
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
It's time for baseball, people! Pitchers and catchers report soon and the national pastime is with us again!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I thought the reboot was a lot of fun, particularly the winking tributes it gave to the original series. It doesn't stack up to the best of the Trek films (many of which include some serious themes), but for a rollicking flick, it was just fine. I was hoping the second one would take a step forward, but it just felt like more of the same. It's already starting to wear a little thin.

I also find Next Generation the best of the series.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Carter
United States
Marion
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I find the JJ Abrams movies to have weak stories with a lot of plot holes/conveniences. Throw in an obnoxious amount of lens flares, and I am worried about how bad the new Star Wars movies will be.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul DeStefano
United States
Long Island
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
It's a Zendrum. www.zendrum.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I thought it was a great escapist movie.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leonard Moses II
United States
Hixson
Tennessee
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I like him for the screenplay to Armageddon and not much else. Still, we would catch ourselves at one of his flicks again (we saw it when it was there in the theater) before we will sit down with some Joss Whedon. Or really even some Big Bang Theory. Whedon, Wheaton, and J.J. Why they all come to mind at the same time I do not know.

I like serious. I like campy. I like Babylon 5. And those people above do not make what I like the way that I like it. I like geeky. Just a specific type.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Carter
United States
Marion
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
darkestoceans wrote:
I like him for the screenplay to Armageddon and not much else. Still, we would catch ourselves at one of his flicks again (we saw it when it was there in the theater) before we will sit down with some Joss Whedon. Or really even some Big Bang Theory. Whedon, Wheaton, and J.J. Why they all come to mind at the same time I do not know.

I like serious. I like campy. I like Babylon 5. And those people above do not make what I like the way that I like it. I like geeky. Just a specific type.


I never really bought into the Whedon hype either, but I did enjoy Cabin in the Woods.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Kinney
United States
Bellefontaine
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It was like Chinese food, tastes delicious, leaves you hungry and wondering why shortly afterwards. It's like winning $20 playing three card monty, and only later when the adrenaline wears off realizing you spent $40 to get there.

JJ Abrams apes Spielberg's style to perfection, but there's no soul. Not that there was much in most Spielberg movies to begin with...

I just watched the sequel this past weekend, and although there were neat bits, and it seemed to work out...when I thought about it the next morning all the plot holes, weak characters, and general 'lack' of the whole thing is what I remember most.

That and the obnoxious lens flares.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David
Switzerland
Buchs
St. Gallen
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Personally I was deeply disappointed. Not by the movie but by the fact that someone let that hack Jar Jar Abrams put his untalented paws on the Star Trek franchise.

As for the movie. It was predictably unimpressive, nonsensical and exaggerated. A brain- and soulless spectacle, a well produced spectacle but it wasn't "Star Trek".

It's basically the same sort of travesty as you would get if you'd let Stephenie Meyer reinterpret the works of Shakespeare for the cast of "The Expendables".
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I thought it was a fairly generic space sci-fi film. The plot's connection to Star Trek was about as tenuous as Will Smith's I, Robot was to anything by Asimov.

It wasn't terrible, better than a lot of the later pre-reboot Trek stuff was. But I get a bit annoyed with films tying themselves to franchises just for the name recognition.

The stuff with having old-Spock come in from the original universe seemed weird and pointless to me. The old continuity is just as meaningless to the continuing story in any case. Unless old-Spock actually started properly telling people what was likely to happen. I don't really see why he wouldn't, so his presence just seemed like a weird cameo to me.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
Watch it once, don't think too hard, and it's great.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Eager
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
DBA Junkie
badge
"A Book should serve as the Ax for the frozen sea within us."-- KAFKA
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
robot I'm an original Trekkie (TOS represent!) and have no problem with the new films/timeline, nor with JJ Abrams (or his lens flares). Those "critical 'cos it's hip" critics can suck it. robot
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Jennings
United States
San Diego
CA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
As others have said, it's good for what it is. As a mindless, action-packed science-fantasy film it's good. It is definitely geared much more to the mainstream movie-goer than the original series was and I think that's why it did so well. But that's also why it doesn't appeal to some fans of the original series. For some, the original series was all about the science behind it. It was cool because, while fiction, everything was scientifically plausible and at least somewhat realistic. The new series is more flash than substance. So if you're just looking for a typical Hollywood-style adrenaline rush then it serves its purpose.

What I found interesting about the new Star Trek is that it felt much more like a Star Wars movie than a Star Trek movie. So, I feel that with the right script, JJ Abrams is a good fit for the new Star Wars films, but I'm still not sure that he was the best choice for the Star Trek franchise.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xander Fulton
United States
Astoria
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
thermogimp wrote:
As others have said, it's good for what it is. As a mindless, action-packed science-fantasy film it's good. It is definitely geared much more to the mainstream movie-goer than the original series was and I think that's why it did so well. But that's also why it doesn't appeal to some fans of the original series. For some, the original series was all about the science behind it. It was cool because, while fiction, everything was scientifically plausible and at least somewhat realistic. The new series is more flash than substance. So if you're just looking for a typical Hollywood-style adrenaline rush then it serves its purpose.


I'm not sure I'd call the original more scientifically plausible - transporters and warp drives are a pretty big jump from the present day understanding of how reality works - but it was certainly more internally consistent and with believable characters.

And, still - I do firmly believe the first five minutes of JJ-Trek 1 stands up to the best Trek ever filmed. The characters, setting, events...all that worked.

Heck, I'll even give you nuKirk's initial introduction, and Pike's speech to him, as good points. But then, once they get onboard the Edselprise and it's all about destiny and fate and stuff...the coincidences pile up too quickly, too much stupid stuff happens in the name of the plot, it just really ruins what started out with promise.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Carter
United States
Marion
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb


Obligatory.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pieter
Netherlands
Maastricht
flag msg tools
Good intentions are no substitute for a good education.
badge
I take my fun very seriously.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It was OK for a popcorn-space movie. Entertaining but completely forgettable.

It wasn't Star Trek, though.

I understand that Star Trek is not for everybody, and at least the reboot was less of a travesty than the TNG movies. The reboot was fairly amusing, mainly because it did not try to be Star Trek at all. So, that's fine, I guess. I am not too hung up on Kirk and his buddies to be bothered by the fact that the new incarnations are completely different.

But I am missing the style of SF that we saw on Deep Space 9 and sometimes on TNG.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J J
Australia
flag msg tools
I liked it. And the second one.

Never liked the original - it may have been good in its time, but it did not age well (few TV shows do).

I liked TNG, DS9, and Voyager. At the time. 20-something years ago. I really can't watch them now. Just so dull, and limited. Typical US network TV. Even the better bits of DS9 (when they got a clue about continuing storylines) are just not good enough now.

I revel in their decision to discard the past, instead of being shackled to the mistakes of long-dead tv shows, and look forward to a third film.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil Carr
United States
Barre
Vermont
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Flyboy Connor wrote:
It was OK for a popcorn-space movie. Entertaining but completely forgettable.

It wasn't Star Trek, though.

I understand that Star Trek is not for everybody, and at least the reboot was less of a travesty than the TNG movies. The reboot was fairly amusing, mainly because it did not try to be Star Trek at all. So, that's fine, I guess. I am not too hung up on Kirk and his buddies to be bothered by the fact that the new incarnations are completely different.

But I am missing the style of SF that we saw on Deep Space 9 and sometimes on TNG.


I agree. Long before the reboot it was shown that big movies are a poor medium for the best part of Star Trek, the vision of a future idealized society. Big blockbusters demand conflict and spectacle, whereas a TV show can slow down and allow for many different ideas to be explored.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pieter
Netherlands
Maastricht
flag msg tools
Good intentions are no substitute for a good education.
badge
I take my fun very seriously.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
JasonJ0 wrote:
Never liked the original - it may have been good in its time, but it did not age well (few TV shows do).

It depends on what you mean by 'aging well'.

If you talk about what it looks like: laughable special effects, incredibly fake looking monsters, ridiculous uniforms and haircuts -- indeed, it did not age well in that regard.

But the writing of the original series is often pretty good. Definitely not always. They experimented with concepts and storylines that often did not work out so well. But when it comes together, it is still pretty good. The best of the original series is on the same level as the best of TNG and the best of DS9 (the best of Voyager is a lot worse, though).

You might find it slow at times, but that's something that you have to get used to. If you watch TV shows from 50 years ago while only being used to what is broadcast today, your expectations of speed and progression will not be met. That doesn't mean that the shows are bad, it simply means that your own experience is not sufficiently broad to be able to enjoy what you see. That has nothing to do with 'aging well'.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.