Star Trek is impressing the critics...

I am really surprised it is getting positive reviews.

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]

[QUOTE="duxup"] Nope, that sounds cool, but that doesn't make playing the terrorism card any less sad. Star Trek always addressed issues in its own way, but the "OMG teh terrorists" stuff was way too blatant, and blunt.

duxup

i have to say i don't understand why they chose john cho for his role; i personally don't think he'll be anywhere near as good as george takei was.

OneShotHeadshot

I've heard nothing but good things regarding Cho's performance.

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]Star Trek has always been blunt about addressing current social issues though... even Star Trek IV was all about environmentalism and pollution, which was a hot topic in the mid-80's. "To boldly go where no man has gone before" was from a White House press booklet about space after Sputnik's launch. The original series itself came about in the midst of the space race, and the Klingons in many ways were a symbol of the Soviet Union (especially clear with Star Trek VI, which came out in 1991). Considering how blatant they've been in the past, I didn't see this as being any worse.

MAILER_DAEMON

[QUOTE="lucky326"][QUOTE="Baranga"]

Star Trek did this alternate timeline thing before.

It's sad to see so many of you writing the movie off based on the trailer, and ignoring that those who've already seen it say it has a great plot, great characters AND great action scenes.

I'd like a sequel featuring the Borg. First Contact was awesome.

Baranga

And many Star Trek episodes randomly changed other details too. Have you followed the IMDB Star Trek board? Since Cloverfield, there were countless debates between hardcore trekkies that refuse any change and people that pointed out various timeline flaws over time. For example, the date of the Third World War and of the Eugenics War are always changing.

Since time travel and alternate timelines are allowed in Star Trek, I fail to see the problem. A reboot or remake of anything Star Trek-related is always a viable option. Nothing was changed in Shatner's original series, this is just "another version of the truth". And since multiple universes are allowed, I don't think you can point out a certain correct universe.

I'm very curious to see what this alternate crew does. The "originals" already had their share of adventures.

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]

[QUOTE="duxup"] I don't think much about the movies past #3 so I don't count those. It just seemed like a cheap ploy.duxup

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]That's... kind of a write-off. They're there, and they exist :?

MAILER_DAEMON

I didn't like how Enterprise decided to try to cash in on the terrorism plot line. You felt they were that blunt in other films. I don't buy that as a reason to justify such a cheap and blunt ploy.

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"][QUOTE="duxup"] But they're mostly so so, or garbage. That's not a good template for a good TV show. duxup

I didn't like how Enterprise decided to try to cash in on the terrorism plot line. You felt they were that blunt in other films. I don't buy that as a reason to justify such a cheap and blunt ploy.

[QUOTE="duxup"]

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]Still doesn't mean you can say they don't exist. IV, VI, and FC were amazing, V and Nemesis were bad, while Generations and Insurrection left things to be desired. Like it or not, they're still Star Trek, as is Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise. I could write off the Next Generation because I didn't like it as much as a lot of people do, but I can't deny that it's Star Trek.MAILER_DAEMON

I didn't like how Enterprise decided to try to cash in on the terrorism plot line. You felt they were that blunt in other films. I don't buy that as a reason to justify such a cheap and blunt ploy.

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"][QUOTE="duxup"] I didn't say they didn't exist...

I didn't like how Enterprise decided to try to cash in on the terrorism plot line. You felt they were that blunt in other films. I don't buy that as a reason to justify such a cheap and blunt ploy.

duxup

IV- Pollution, environmentalism, animal rights.

V- TV evangelists and cults.

VI- America vs. Soviet Union / Federation vs. Klingon Empire.

IX- Ethnic cleansing and relocation in the Balkans.

X- Cloning.

Therefore, to me there was nothing cheap and blunt about using the terrorist angle, especially since it wasn't even the supposed terrorist group that carried them out.

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]And I'm saying it didn't bother me because Star Trek has a history of doing just that. The Bajorans, even as far back as The Next Generation, could be seen as Jews, with Bajor as Israel. You don't have to like it, but it's Star Trek.MAILER_DAEMON

IV- Pollution, environmentalism, animal rights.

V- TV evangelists and cults.

VI- America vs. Soviet Union / Federation vs. Klingon Empire.

IX- Ethnic cleansing and relocation in the Balkans.

X- Cloning.

Therefore, to me there was nothing cheap and blunt about using the terrorist angle, especially since it wasn't even the supposed terrorist group that carried them out.

Arguing that they were blunt and clumsy about it in other films would just justify the worst of the series going on and on. It has proven in the past to be better than that.

I don't much care what the excuse is later on in the series. After ringing the terrorism bell all day and night it doesn't get unrung because someone added something later in the plot.

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]

[QUOTE="duxup"] Who said it wasn't?duxup

IV- Pollution, environmentalism, animal rights.

V- TV evangelists and cults.

VI- America vs. Soviet Union / Federation vs. Klingon Empire.

IX- Ethnic cleansing and relocation in the Balkans.

X- Cloning.

Therefore, to me there was nothing cheap and blunt about using the terrorist angle, especially since it wasn't even the supposed terrorist group that carried them out.

Arguing that they were blunt and clumsy about it in other films would just justify the worst of the series going on and on. It has proven in the past to be better than that.

I don't much care what the excuse is later on in the series. After ringing the terrorism bell all day and night it doesn't get unrung because someone added something later in the plot.

[QUOTE="duxup"]

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]You did when you said that you didn't count most of the movies. :? With the possible exception of Generations and First Contact, the movies have something to say about current events

IV- Pollution, environmentalism, animal rights.

V- TV evangelists and cults.

VI- America vs. Soviet Union / Federation vs. Klingon Empire.

IX- Ethnic cleansing and relocation in the Balkans.

X- Cloning.

Therefore, to me there was nothing cheap and blunt about using the terrorist angle, especially since it wasn't even the supposed terrorist group that carried them out.

MAILER_DAEMON

Arguing that they were blunt and clumsy about it in other films would just justify the worst of the series going on and on. It has proven in the past to be better than that.

I don't much care what the excuse is later on in the series. After ringing the terrorism bell all day and night it doesn't get unrung because someone added something later in the plot.

Related to the thread.

Related to the thread.

Baranga

Related to the thread.

Baranga

[QUOTE="duxup"]

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]You did when you said that you didn't count most of the movies. :? With the possible exception of Generations and First Contact, the movies have something to say about current events

IV- Pollution, environmentalism, animal rights.

V- TV evangelists and cults.

VI- America vs. Soviet Union / Federation vs. Klingon Empire.

IX- Ethnic cleansing and relocation in the Balkans.

X- Cloning.

Therefore, to me there was nothing cheap and blunt about using the terrorist angle, especially since it wasn't even the supposed terrorist group that carried them out.

MAILER_DAEMON

Arguing that they were blunt and clumsy about it in other films would just justify the worst of the series going on and on. It has proven in the past to be better than that.

I don't much care what the excuse is later on in the series. After ringing the terrorism bell all day and night it doesn't get unrung because someone added something later in the plot.

Must be case where the movie is better than the trailer, because the impression I got from the trailer is that it is a generic summer blockbuster.

Related to the thread.

Baranga

As ridiculous as it sounds, that pretty much sums up how I feel. It's still fun to watch a video like this and be able to have a laugh at your own expense.

As for the terrorism thing, didn't they already tackle the issue in TNG and DS9 in a much better way than Enterprise with the Maquis?

[QUOTE="duxup"]

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]They finally got a good writing staff and decent producers in season 4, who realized that it was supposed to be a prequel show, not the battleground of 31st century Starfleet's Temporal Cold War. An interesting idea, but they should have saved that for a different show. Unfortunately, most of the fans (myself included) had already jumped ship when season one turned out to be such a bore... and ugh, I wish I could strangle whoever decided that the song from Patch Adams should be a Star Trek theme. I didn't discover season 4's greatness until the DVD releases. I should probably get tickets soon... I'll be the IMAX is already sold out for the next few days.MAILER_DAEMON

The story arc you are talking about was really good from what I remember, and the terrorism aspect didn't turn me away because it really wasn't the core element of the story (if I remember correctly).

Speaking of Season 4... it was really good because it started to relate Enterprise to the original show, and in my opinion that was a lot more effective than the Temporal Cold War you mentioned earlier. It would have been nice to see a Season 5 because it probably would have been about the beginning of the Romulan War, and if done well, that could have been great.

I'm looking forward in watching the new Star Trek movie.

I liked Star Trek, Star Trek Next Generation, and DS9. Didn't care for Enterprise and Voyager. As for Battlestar Galactica I liked the Original instead of the new Battlestar Galatica.

]He might be talking about the Xindi attack at the end of season 2, but whatever it is, I didn't mind the parallels between the show and real-life events too much.

The story arc you are talking about was really good from what I remember, and the terrorism aspect didn't turn me away because it really wasn't the core element of the story (if I remember correctly).

Speaking of Season 4... it was really good because it started to relate Enterprise to the original show, and in my opinion that was a lot more effective than the Temporal Cold War you mentioned earlier. It would have been nice to see a Season 5 because it probably would have been about the beginning of the Romulan War, and if done well, that could have been great.

smokeydabear076

duxup, you'll get no argument from me that it was handled better than other places, but if that season 4 story arc (if that was it) sent you over the edge, then that's something I'll never come close to agreeing with, along with your idea that every movie after 3 was bad. Especially considering it's far from the majority opinion, thus I don't think you have the right to say that they were bad, let alone write them off because you arbitrarily don't count them. That would be like saying that some Star Wars movies or certain episodes of any TV show shouldn't be counted simply because you don't like them, or that Devil May Cry 2 doesn't exist just because most think it's a bad mark on the series. It's bad form of any arguement to just say that something doesn't count.

There have been postive reviews surrounding the movie for about a month now. :D

Not a big Star Trek fan at all but this movie looks pretty awesome, the CGI is amazing :shock:-Sniper99-

It's not CGI. Star Trek is real!