Just Jack Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 Just a question though: are you allowed to bring a female date or is that against the code? Only if she's dressed like this.
/dev/null Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 Only if she's dressed like this. what if she's dressed like this
Mark Vader Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 A great casting job, to be sure. While I thought Pine and Quinto were great choices for the Glimmer Twins, it was Karl Urban (McCoy) who really made me grin...he was dead on in every scene he was in. Cho was good too, but perhaps a little too 'manly' for the Sulu I remember. With the cast signed for two more movies, it should be fun to see the next installment in a couple of years. Maybe that can update this version as well... Totally agree. I enjoyed the entire cast, but Karl Urban had the look and mannerisms of McCoy down perfectly.
ajzepp Posted May 12, 2009 Posted May 12, 2009 Saw it on IMAX last night...for me, it exceeded expectations. I thought it was really clever the way they rebooted it, and the characters were more believable than I thought they'd be. Spoiler: The only part that bummed me out was that it effectively erases forty years of Star Trek history, lol. Save for Spock, no other character's existence will be the same as we remember...from a movie standpoint, that is. Definitely a thumb's up from me!
Buftex Posted May 12, 2009 Author Posted May 12, 2009 Saw it on IMAX last night...for me, it exceeded expectations. I thought it was really clever the way they rebooted it, and the characters were more believable than I thought they'd be. Spoiler: The only part that bummed me out was that it effectively erases forty years of Star Trek history, lol. Save for Spock, no other character's existence will be the same as we remember...from a movie standpoint, that is. Definitely a thumb's up from me! I understand your one objection, but lets' face it, 1960's television was all that big on character development. There were certainly liberties taken, but none so much that it took away from the original, IMO, or was disrespectful to what was already established. I think being too bound to the past has held other Trek installments back, a bit. I think, the important thing is, they re-booted the original concept of the show, and we can actually look forward to something we haven't seen a million times, in future films. My only real quibble was Scotty's little sidekick. WTF were they thinking?
ajzepp Posted May 12, 2009 Posted May 12, 2009 I understand your one objection, but lets' face it, 1960's television was all that big on character development. There were certainly liberties taken, but none so much that it took away from the original, IMO, or was disrespectful to what was already established. I think being too bound to the past has held other Trek installments back, a bit. I think, the important thing is, they re-booted the original concept of the show, and we can actually look forward to something we haven't seen a million times, in future films. My only real quibble was Scotty's little sidekick. WTF were they thinking? True, I'm with you there. Seems to me the franchise is in good hands, and I know Paramount really wants the things to take off (kinda already has, by the looks of the numbers). I'm excited to see where they take it from here.
BigAL Posted May 12, 2009 Posted May 12, 2009 Saw it on IMAX last night...for me, it exceeded expectations. I thought it was really clever the way they rebooted it, and the characters were more believable than I thought they'd be. Spoiler: The only part that bummed me out was that it effectively erases forty years of Star Trek history, lol. Save for Spock, no other character's existence will be the same as we remember...from a movie standpoint, that is. Definitely a thumb's up from me! Not really. There were multiple parallel universe in the Trek World. Spock's travel back in time through a singularity could easily have put him in a parallel Trek World. Now we get to see the stories from that work instead of TOS. A simple check of Spock's quantum signature could show that he doesn't belong in that universe. Easy fix.
ajzepp Posted May 12, 2009 Posted May 12, 2009 Not really. There were multiple parallel universe in the Trek World. Spock's travel back in time through a singularity could easily have put him in a parallel Trek World. Now we get to see the stories from that work instead of TOS. A simple check of Spock's quantum signature could show that he doesn't belong in that universe. Easy fix. So what were you dressed up as on opening night?
/dev/null Posted May 12, 2009 Posted May 12, 2009 So what were you dressed up as on opening night? Evil goatee
BigAL Posted May 12, 2009 Posted May 12, 2009 So what were you dressed up as on opening night? A geek with a super hot wife.
Recommended Posts