Hi feffo46, I have seen it too last week and I find it to be very good action/fiction movie. All the crew fit their role well and if it is to be the last of the serie (I don't think so) it will be remembered as the best of the Star Trek saga.
Claude.

Jeff,

This is one heck of a review. I haven't seen it yet, but I want to. It might be next weekend before I can go. My wife (who is not a Trekie) wants to see it as well. I hope it is as good as the trailers sell it.

RK

_________________
RK

2007 Fender Highway 1
2012 American Deluxe
2015 MIM Dave Murray HHH
2010 Fender Blacktop
1987 Fender Avalon Acoustic
2012 Marshall DSL 15 watt head

Yip, hard core trekie here and saw it last week.

From the trailer's It looked awful. well, not awful, but not a star trek movie.
Startrek is nerdy, a cast of reliable's we know and admire, who bring us through a good sci fi story in the star trek universe. The trailers showed trendy good looking young people causing huge explosions and having S*xual relations, wearing cool brand name runners etc. everything startrek is not.

I thought it would be Star trek 90210.

I was shocked. I really wanted to hate it but i didnt. Story was not bad, but teh acting was outstanding. rather than be just parodies of the original cast, the new cast acted superbly. they had all the nuances of the original cast and acted them out tastefully.

The only thing i didnt like is all the star trek history we know is now gone as its a new time line. I know they had to do it, or else they wouldnt be able to write anything new, they would just have to make movies up until the beginning of TOS, but still, it makes my collection of dvds less in my eyes.

But then again if you take the terminator philosophy of predestination paradox where time can loop and is not changed just because the timeline goes in a different direction, the all TNG, TOS, Voyager etc all happened so its all cool in the hood! Nerdy or what huh!

I'm a major hardcore dyed-in-the-wool Trekkie. I've seen the movie twice now, and I think it's very good. Not great, mind you, but very good.

The casting was excellent with the very obvious and notable exception of the kid who plays Chekhov (who shouldn't actually be in the movie at all because that character didn't come along the second season...but I digress). I'm also a little lukewarm on the usually delightful Simon Pegg as Scotty. Chris Pine as James T. Kirk and Zachary Quinto as Spock are brilliant, but the real prize goes to Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy. Scary!

I respectfully disagree with Claude's citing it as the "best of the Star Trek saga." Of the eleven movies to date, I rate it as fourth best, behind Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek: First Contact and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.

But whether you're a Trek aficionado or not, it is worth watching. This clip sums things up nicely: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/t ... _trek_film

Live long and prosper.

_________________
I really like all them "Aster" guitars. You know, like the Stratoc, Telec and Jazzm.

Now i like a bit of Trek, nothing major you wont see me wearing pointy ears. I haven't seen this film yet so cant judge it. All i really want to point out is my disgust at some trekkies. The missus's mates husband is a trekkie so am a friend/acquaintance of his by rote (the oppressed should stick together). Last week he told me 1million reasons why the film is bad. He hasnt seen it either though. It just strikes me as stupidity of the highest degree that someone wouldnt let themselves enjoy something out of misguided loyalty to bad acting.

Gonna see that film soon and form my opinion of it as a film viewer not anything else.

_________________
No no and no

Quote (I respectfully disagree with Claude's citing it as the "best of the Star Trek saga." Of the eleven movies to date, I rate it as fourth best, behind Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek: First Contact and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country)

Hi russianracehorse, and yes, Ricardo Montalban outclass all the others for the acting part as Khan, some movies have a deeper sense of philosophical meaning, some are more hardcore science fiction, some don't jerk around with time paradox and altered realities, but in my quick morning reply I couldn't explain all this.
So as a global note for all the aspects of the film I still think it is the best of the serie. As you said "Not great but very good" it is not in the same boat with Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Raging Bull and so many other films that are at the top of the scale. Not great but very good, I can live with that.
See ya. Claude.

Woah..hold on a second. Your opinion is obviously that TOS was acted out terribly. But lets stand back a bit and look at it. TOS is what kicked all this off. TOS has millions of devotees world wide. And it has these fans for a reason.
They love the story, charachters, acting, sets and everything else that goes with it.

All that is part of what made star trek , star trek.

Changing anything, even for the better is still changing the thing that the devotees love.

eg. Volkswagen had a car in the 70 and 80s called the soricco. it was a cool as they come sports car that was attainable by everyone and not just the rich.

They have recently released a new "sirocco". Its not a sports car, its absolutely nothing like the original car. sure it has tons of advanced technologies, handles better in every way, is quitier, more fuel efficient etc etc, but the only thing that makes it a soricco is the name. if you took the name off this car there is no way to know its a soricco as it has nothing to do with the original car.

In fact, when we have all this technology and comfort in new cars,why do people drive classic cars at all. Theres something there that cant be got with tons of technology and new features. they may have bone shaking suspension, uneconomical engines, dodgy gear boxes, poor safety features, but they are "classic" as they have that "gen e say qua".

ITs the same for star trek, at least for devoted fans. so please dont rant about what you dont get.

And before im critized, id like to point out that I really love TOS and TNG, and I still really liked this movie, mainly for one reason, the actors. rather than being parody's of the original charachters, they took the nuances that make the original charachters individual and likable, and used them in the perfomance subtly and brilliantly. So, for me, the way these new actors replicated the acting of the old actors is what held this film up.

I haven't really been around long enough to be a longtime Star Trek fan, nor have I seen enough of it to really know much about the time line or characters or anything so I can't say how "accurate" it was or not. I enjoyed the movie and I was fully expecting not to like it. I'm definately going to buy it when it comes out on DVD, it's worth watching again.

_________________
Website: http://www.rebeccalaird.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rebeccalairdmusic
Twitter: https://twitter.com/beckslaird
Instagram: http://instagram.com/beckslaird

I liked the movie quite a bit. it was nice to see a sci fi remake or prequel that wasn't castrated. You know of the franchise i'm talking about.....i'll never let that go LUCAS!! I think Star Trek was very well acted, cast, and well wriitten.

william shatner is a terrible actor fullstop. I like star trek but the acting is awfull and awkward for the best part. Lets face it if it wasnt for the brilliant genius storylines of trek scifi would largely be cowboys and indians in space.

_________________
No no and no

You dont get it though. Shatners acting, regardless of your opinion of it is part of what made star trek , star trek.

Shatner was/is a terrible actor, but that is part of the charm to the original series.

I have not seen the movie yet and will probably wait until it is on the movies channels.

_________________
Chet Feathers

Authorized TonePros Dealer
Authorized WD Music Products Dealer
F/A Official Southpaw Compliance Certification Tester http://faamps.com/

http://www.facebook.com/cafeathers


I didn't Lose my mind, I traded it for this guitar.

Sorry i just cant accept bad acting under any circumstance, even though i do enjoy the first 2 series's of trek. Theres many a good thespian out there that would of made that character a lot better that went by the wayside unnoticed. The success of the program wasnt down to shatner at all. I'd offer that shatners success as an actor is largely due to startrek. I think at that time a program that dealt with the sometimes very heavy issues that trek did would have been a success if they had pigs acting it out.

_________________
No no and no

Normally I would agree. But there was something about the rest of the cast of the original series that made Shatner's bad acting tolerable and sometimes quite funny.

_________________
Chet Feathers

Authorized TonePros Dealer
Authorized WD Music Products Dealer
F/A Official Southpaw Compliance Certification Tester http://faamps.com/

http://www.facebook.com/cafeathers


I didn't Lose my mind, I traded it for this guitar.

Well Chet i can certainly agree with that. I'd like to think it was a budget production but have no idea of tv at the time. All said and done its a good tv show for an hour a week.

_________________
No no and no