Comments on: Review: Star Trek

By: Jesse McCann

Jesse McCann — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:31:06 +0000

Not at all. Leonard Nimoy's presence in the film keeps the old alternate reality very much alive.

By: Joe505

Joe505 — Sat, 09 May 2009 06:57:47 +0000

So I think J.J. Abrams was sitting at home writing LOST, and asked himself the question…"How can I further explain the time travel theories in this show? Oh I got it, I'll remake Star Trek and confuse the fuck out of people!" I bet he got a big audience of just LOST fans and they were the only people who completley understood. Good movie in all. But I love me some LOST.

By: BillBrasky

BillBrasky — Wed, 06 May 2009 17:46:44 +0000

I rescind the "Cole (I hate fun movies) Abaius" Your affection for ID4 tells me that you just hate Transformers and not all things fun.

By: Cookie_Garris

Cookie_Garris — Wed, 06 May 2009 05:36:00 +0000

Independence Day was the first movie in years that people stood at the end and cheered.(The original Star Wars trilogy were the first I'd seen people do that) Seeing it a second time yes it had it's flaws but the first time you watched it the movie caught your emotions and held on till the end. 99% of people don't go to movies to be a critic. We want our emotions pulled in every different direction. We can be a critic later so maybe people need to lighten up before they get a hernia. And I know Trek front and back and the writers have let the series get stale like three day old bread. Maybe we need a new time line.

By: RobertFure

RobertFure — Tue, 05 May 2009 23:42:34 +0000

I wasn't a Star Trek fan. Thought it was pretty lame for the most part, but I loved this. I though ID4 was cool at the time, but not great, and has since become pretty lame. This Star Trek movie kicked some serious ass. It was a very fast moving 2 hours. All in all it was probably a little light on plot, but that's to be expected considering the entire film is basically a chase executed at Warp Speed.

By: Josh_Radde

Josh_Radde — Tue, 05 May 2009 17:55:34 +0000

Agreed. I reserve all my A's for stuff like Slumdog Millionaire and Paul Blart. Can't just give an A to everything like Neil does. And Neil even gives out some A+ grades. No movie is an A+. Not even Blart.

By: Nerd

Nerd — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:29:00 +0000

I'm not a virgin when it comes to Star Trek, but I am a virgin when it comes to sex.

By: Aleric

Aleric — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:50:34 +0000

I would have to agree that ID4 was a simplistic film in most parts, namly character developement and a plausible story line, and lets not forget it gave Will Smith his first chance to save the world, but it wasn't terrible. It was simply over hyped and meant for people who don't know one thing about SciFi. So it was the Budweiser of the SciFi market.

By: Rob_Hunter

Rob_Hunter — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:45:53 +0000

Is that the reason they give you?

By: Rob_Hunter

Rob_Hunter — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:45:20 +0000

Also… since when is a 'B+' "only" anything? It's just shy of an 'A' which should be reserved for almost perfect movies.

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:39:57 +0000

If it gives insight: Jurassic Park was THE movie that transformed me into a movie fan, exposed me to the magic of film at a younger age. ID4 was a great, fun experience. I disagree that ID4 is a terrible movie – it's fun, it works on a lot of levels.

But the difference is that no one watches JP with me because I can quote the entire movie.

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:35:25 +0000

I said the film seemed more like the set up for a sequel than I would have liked, and that some of the sci-fi elements (and Trek trivia) was sort of glossed over. And some of the characters (like Chekhov and Sulu were flat, underused.

Hope that pin points my grading for you.

By: Beetlescott

Beetlescott — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:17:41 +0000

I am slightly confused. From what I can gather, the new movie will be in an alternate timeline. Is it possible that it will ALWAYS be in a different timeline than the original? Does this mean that the last 43 years we have come to love is out the window?

By: Flooberjooch

Flooberjooch — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:12:13 +0000

Oops. My second post was meant to be a reply to your post, Nagroc, but I posted it as a new comment.

By: Flooberjooch

Flooberjooch — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:10:12 +0000

Nagroc, I have to assume that you too were quite young when you saw ID4 for the first time. Nostalgia seems to play a huge part in how people feel about certain movies, but I do feel that people need to revisit the sacred cows of their youth and assess them with new eyes once they grow up. It helps you to raise your standards and develop appreciation for things like original thought, and giving audiences some credit.

Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin have been quoted as saying that they always set out to make the kind of movies that drew them to the theater on a Friday night, but I would go so far as to say that they only attempted to remake elements of those movies that they clearly loved so well, without having the talent to at least put their own stamp on the work.

Roland Emmerich has always been a fan film maker with a Hollywood budget, and minus the fun of actually seeing a fan's take on established properties. He just manages to make fan films where the original material has been changed just enough to avoid charges of plagiarism. So, fan films without the fan part, basically.

If I'm wrong about your ID4 experience being a childhood one, then I'm just not sure what to say to that. I'm not here to insult anyone's intelligence.