?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
20 May 2009 @ 08:59 pm
Star Trek movie  
So I saw the new Star Trek movie. I know everyone and their mother has already seen it, but this is only the first or second movie I've seen in a theater this year. So it's a pretty big deal to me! What happened is that Eric really really wanted to see it, I guess, and Seanie really really wanted to see it, but Seanie made the mistake of agreeing to see me first, so he had this deadweight girlfriend that he couldn't ditch. I kinda wanted to see it, but not desperately enough that I was willing to pay. Sean only had six dollars to put towards my ticket, so Eric stepped up and paid the rest. That's why he's awesome!

Trekkie background: I've watched the equivalent of two seasons or so of Next Generation, clips from the 60's series (but I'm pretty sure I never saw an entire episode), bits and pieces from Voyager and Deep Space Nine, and probably three-quarters of the first season of Enterprise. Never saw any of the movies, but I know the basic plot highlights, at least as they relate to Spock, because he's my favorite character. So hardly an expert, but maybe more than just a newbie.

I gotta admit, I enjoyed the movie a whole heck of a lot more than I expected. I thought it was going to be kinda lame, but after hearing so many people rave about it I was hopeful. There is no way I'd pay to see it multiple times in the theater. It was good but it wasn't that good.

I thought they did a great job with casting; the actors seemed to gel together very well. I knew Leonard Nimoy came back for this movie, but I figured his role would be a quick cameo; he actually did a lot more with Spock than I expected. Simon Pegg was pretty fantastic as Scotty; Uhura had a much bigger role than I expected and that was nice. I didn't even recognize Eric Bana and usually I'm pretty good with actors' faces.

Plot-wise, I'm not crazy about the series re-boot that this creates, but I understand why they did it. It does make it a million times easier to create new movies or start another TV series. But the total destruction of [if you saw it, you know what] was such a bummer, and I'm jut not sure it was necessary. My boyfriend and I were comparing it to that that scene in Serenity where Wash lands the ship and is suddenly killed: yes, it has huge emotional impact, but could the story have moved on without it? Seanie feels that Serenity needed Wash's death to really bring the tension in the final scenes to its full potential because suddenly viewers realize that no character is safe. But blowing up [blankity blank] didn't seem necessary to the plot in quite the same way.

It was fun. I'll probably watch it again when it hits DVD. Definitely worth seeing in the theatres, especially on someone else's dime.

 
 
 
Nechtan Albaflameelf on May 27th, 2009 05:00 pm (UTC)
I tend to agree, although "that which was destroyed" ends up being "reseeded" on a new, 'pretty much like it was before' place, so eventually "the DestroyedThing Mk #2" will be called by the name of the first and everyone will forget it happened.

My only question was, now they can still save the thing that triggers the whole plot of THIS one, so in the future does that mean that the past never has to happen...and won't? *laughs*

But giving it the 'reboot', as you put it (very clever!) is probably the best answer of all. It also allows them to indulge in future "what-ifs" without any criticism.

Grey ;)