criterionforum.org

Saw the theatrical trailer in front of Bond last night.
I just think they are all too young.

I'm with Adam on this. Someone on another forum said "space teen drama" and that was the phrase I'd been looking for to describe the trailer. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Looks like MTV's Star Trek to me. Pass.

I suppose the age thing is probably an effort to break tradition.

Stupid as the question may sound, who gives a starship to a command crew of young twenty year olds?

Abulafia wrote:Stupid as the question may sound, who gives a starship to a command crew of young twenty year olds?

JJ Abrams.

Good answer.

Faux Hulot wrote:Looks like MTV's Star Trek to me. Pass.

Agreed, yet another unnecessary and unwanted "franchise reboot"

The fact that this has turned into teen Trek never surprised me. But I was stunned to hear Kirk introduce himself as "Jim" in the Super Bowl teaser.

Here's the Super Bowl spot.

New trailer.

If Abrams has seen STARSHIP TROOPERS, he certainly didn't get the point.

Lens Flares: The Movie. Actually, it looks like a fun Saturday afternoon.

Matt wrote:Lens Flares: The Movie. Actually, it looks like a fun Saturday afternoon.

Agreed. I think this'll be a blast.

The sequel has already been green lit.

Variety raves.

Matt wrote:Lens Flares: The Movie.

Apparently, that would be a very accurate title.

At least they're "real" lens flares and not digital ones added in post. I actually love lens flares, so this is just another reason for me to see the movie.

I've now seen the film twice & I absolutely love it. It was even better the 2nd time. Having been a hardcore Trek fan since I was 7 years old (I am now 26), it took some getting used to the first time through. The actors do a great job of honoring the original characterizations without doing parodies or impressions (although I do feel that Anton Yelchin's Chekov is a little too mannered). Chris Pine is able to do Kirk without doing Shatner, although there is enough of a similarity to feel that they are the same character. I was especially pleased with the portrayals of McCoy & Scotty, my two favorite characters. I was really looking forward to seeing Simon Pegg in the role & he did not disappoint, bringing a good dose of humor with him.

The film itself is a wonderful mix of action, comedy, & drama. One of the pleasures as a long-time fan is that using the plot device they have created, they are able to go back to the beginning, but still have true surprises in the story. It also helps free non-Trekkies from the burden of all the history of the show. I have 2 Trekkie friends who brought their non-Trekkie wives with us to both the sneak previews I attended & both their wives also greatly enjoyed the film, one of them going so far as to declare it her new favorite movie. But they also do include a lot of references & jokes for hardcore fans also.

There are a few caveats, notably an early scene with Kirk as a child that is awkward & feels a little untrue to the future Trek world: as much as I like the song, "Sabotage" by Beastie Boys, creating the first utterance of the "F word" in Star Trek, feels way too incongruous & having a Nokia logo on a communications device betrays the notion of a future free of greed & consumerism. However, a parallel scene with a young Spock feels right & adds insight & development for his character.

I will be seeing it many more times.

**The joke about Lens Flares: The Movie is pretty accurate, but I'm really keen on lens flares, so I loved it.**

I was just going to say "All we need now to confirm it might be good is an Armond White pan," and then wouldn't you know:

Armond White wrote:It’s watchable, yet still terrible cinema.

Saw it this afternoon at a highly-attended morale event with my coworkers (a benefit of working for a tech company). It's got a relatively straight-forward plot, big well-defined characters, and a good balance of action and humor - I predict it'll go over big with the general public like Iron Man did last year. You certainly don't need to know anything going in to enjoy it, but there was enough fan service to keep the Trekkies happy too - I'd say my audience was more Trek-fan than not and everyone seemed pleased, though not blown away. The original series was always my favorite (even though I grew up watching TNG and DS9), so I was certainly predisposed to generating some backlash, but, like Manohla Dargis's review linked above, the biggest surprise for me was that all the characterization and chemistry from the major players was spot-on, Kirk in particular. I think the young casting was actually a huge benefit since it helps to further differentiate the new interpretations from the original ones. The only disappointment in the cast was Bana, whose villain suffers both from the PG-13 limitations of the film and a severe shortage of screen time - he doesn't get to do anything to generate a real reaction from anyone (audience included). The lens flare wasn't all that distracting; I think it actually contributed a lot to giving the film some style which a sci-fi film so desperately needs to differentiate itself.

If I were going to complain about anything, it would be that the story's structure was a bit too transparent - I was rolling my eyes by the second or third meet cute character introduction that ends the scene with the new character introducing themselves by name. Also, I wouldn't say that the majority of the action is particularly compelling, especially by blockbuster standards. It's mostly standard choppy/shaky fare. Still, considering this is the origin movie, as it were, it left me contented and looking forward to seeing a more interesting tale told in the obligatory sequel.

reno dakota wrote:Fans decry new Star Trek film as 'fun, watchable'.

Fans won't like this parody of their disappointment, but it's kind of realistic, unfortunately. As non-Star Trek things can be in the movie, I believe they forget sometimes that it's not the series, not TNG, not DS9, not TOS... It's just a reboot, made for family and large audience.

So of course it's simplified. Of course there are shortcuts. But what about the movie itself ? I've read a 12 pages analysis that is just, basically, everything that is not right according to the series. But they never talk about the directing, the CGI, the actors, not even once.

They say something in the video that I think is very accurate : 'in fact, fans are disappointed because they thought that Star Trek was something that belong to them, and now, studios took it and turned it into something everyone can enjoy'.
And I would add 'everyone can enjoy without knowing each and every details of each and every previous Star Trek series and movies'.

"Easy Lay" Ebert no more? First the Jarmusch, now this.