Re: Star Trek XI

651
Showing the scene to Nimoy and then have him approach Shatner would have been a masterstroke. You can't tell me that we are the first ones having that idea. I just can't get over the fact that they went through all that trouble to envision and plan the scene out, then simply decided to pursue it no further because they thought Shatner wouldn't do it.

Sounds too convenient to me. :huh:

I'm not sure this scene would work as well in the sequel. For one, I think it can almost be guaranteed that Nimoy won't be doing this again, so the context and emotional impact of the moment will be lost forever now. Nostalgia for seeing Shatner as Kirk one last time aside, having Quinto/Spock watching the message would do nothing for me without the Nimoy/Spock lead-in.

Lastly, with all this moronic talk of Khan for the next movie, you can kiss goodbye to any chance of Shatner appearing. The transition, such as it were, is done, and I don't think the plot is going to hold a place for even a cameo from old Kirk. :(
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek XI

652
I remember when that scene first surfaced a while back and just the thought of it was touching, but to actually read it... wow... and if I had scene it.. my eyes would not have been dry.

I may be reading too much into it, and as much as I like the scene, it seems as if they threw in a few self-serving lines in Shatner's voice over... such as "its their turn now" which Kirk prime would have been referring to cadets in the prime universe, but in this case it could be taken that he is referring to JJ's crew, etc.

Val is right, they couldnt get that scene in another movie, it HAD to take place at that EXACT moment, it CANT happen in a sequel... the emotion behind it would be lost.

Re: Star Trek XI

653
Here's more on the lost Shatner scene, courtesy of TrekMovie:
The World Reacts To Unfilmed Shatner Star Trek 2009 Scene + Could It Be Done?
Image

The big news this week has been the revealing of the scene written for William Shatner for the Star Trek movie. Below we have some of the reaction from across the web and here with the Trekkies. Plus we review comments from Orci and Kurtzman and take a look at the technical logistics of putting Shatner into Trek.

What they are saying
The Shatner scene spread across the geekosphere like a wave this week. Many sites justed posted links and excerpts, but some others added commentary, which is about universally positive.I really like this sequence as scripted… and feels it nicely addresses a nagging, nitpicky issue I had with the film: there’s not enough gravitas when QuintoSpock steps onto the Enterprise bridge at the end of the movie, and asks PineKirk for permission to come aboard. Spock Prime has already tipped off PineKirk and QuintoSpock to the profundity and consequence of their friendship ("a friendship that will define you both" is what Nimoy tells QuintoSpock, for example) – PineKirk simply "granting" QuintoSpock permission to join the crew at the end doesn’t feel quite accentuated enough.
- AICN
To be honest, it’s pretty damn good. It brought a little tear to my eye, and it would’ve been a pretty powerful way to end the film. However, you can’t dwell on what never was, and the movie turned out great without this scene. Still, it’s hard not to wonder.
- Cinemablend
All things considered, this might have been a reasonable way to shoehorn Shatner into the film. The hologram device would allow for a certain degree of CGI de-aging to be applied, and it’s a hokey but not altogether unprecedented bridge between the generations. There are already enough glaringly overt nods to classic ideas and character tics throughout the new film, and one more wouldn’t have killed it. If the last of classic Kirk’s dialogue had been toned down a bit so it wasn’t quite so sentimental, I’d have been willing to buy it.
- Slashfilm
I could have dug that.
- JoBlo
I’m not even a Trekkie and I can see the wasted opportunity in this. Hopefully he’ll make an appearance in the second film and finally let us see him in the captain’s chair one last time.
- Screencrave
It obviously never made the film but I somewhat wish it had…The scene is very nostalgic but yet logical to the story line. At the same time though, it’s also a classic Hollywood voice over scene and really doesn’t fit with the tone of the whole movie. But I would still like to see it.
- CrunchGear
I’m of two minds concerning this. It certainly is a well written scene, and does add some poignancy to the end of the film (which was already poignant enough). There definitely would’ve been more of a sense of closure and things coming full circle for the original crew, as well as a new beginning for the Abrams series.
At the same time, as well written as it may be, the scene does feel a bit like a gimmick. I mean, what are the odds that Spock would have had that transmission thingy hanging around his neck at the exact moment that he was thrown through time?
- Latino Review
…read the whole thing, and see if you don’t get slightly choked up at the end
- io9
Trekkies in tears – most want the Shat scene
Looking through the hundreds of comments here at TrekMovie.com, like most things, this scene sparked a lot of debate. However, it is clear that lots of Trekkies liked this scene. There are many who even talk about "tearing up" and "crying" when they read the scene. Looking at it more objectively, we held a poll, and a clear majority wish that the scene were in the final film. Here are the results:
What do you think of the Shatner ST09 Scene?
  • Should have been in film (64%)
  • Good, but better without it (29%)
  • Don’t like it (7%)
[/indent]Orci and Kurtzman on the "Supreme Court" Shatner Decision
As is his custom, Star Trek co-writer Roberto Orci dropped by the comments section here this week, and in the Shatner Scene threated he pointed out that the debate scene here is not unlike the one amongst the Trek team:boborci
You can imagine how the debate raged among the Supreme Court. tough decision, right?
Back in early May, Orci and co-writer Alex Kurtzman spoke to MTV about the scene. We showed this before but you may not have spotted it with so much going on around the release of the film. Regardless, now that you have read the scene, it is worth reviewing what the pair had to say about it, and how the "Supreme Court" (Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof and Burk) debated it. They also go into more detail into how the scene would have fit into the final film.

You can see that debate even going on within the video above. It is clearthat Orci’s vote was to pitch the scene to The Shat. From his public statements, it seems Abrams vote was against. The director has noted he felt that putting Shatner into the film would have felt "forced."

But, How do you get Shatner into Star Trek?
There is also a logistical issue of getting Shatner into Star Trek. The plan was to show Captain Kirk at a time previous to Star Trek Generations. Kirk was 60 years old in Generations, and Shatner was 63 when he shot it. William Shatner is now 78 and would be around 80 by the time the next Star Trek movie goes into production.
Image

William Shatner in Generations (1994) and at Madame Tussauds (October 2009)
Any scene with Shatner playing a pre-Generations Kirk would have to de-age the actor by around two decades. The good news is that the technology to do this exists. In fact Shatner was digitally de-aged in 2006 for a Direct TV commercial, which put new shots of the actor into scenes from 1991’s Star Trek VI.
And the technology is improving and would be even better for a big feature film. Recent films like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button extensively use digital aging and de-aging. And in 2009 there was a movie that digitally de-aged a Star Trek captain. [SPOILER ALERT] X-Men Wolverine had a brief cameo from Patrick Stewart at the end of the movie. As the film was set years before the 2000 film X-Men, they had to shave a decade or two off Stewart.
Image

Patrick Stewart in X Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) and at British Academy Film Awards (February 2009)
Also, the above scene was to be done as a holographic recording. The same technique could be done in the sequel as well. There is no reason a portable hologram projector has to be picture perfect, and so the image itself could end up being somewhat distorted. Using an effect like those seen in the Star Wars films could make the de-aging less important.
Image

Bail Organa (Jimmy Smits) as hologram in "Star Wars Episode III"
One thing is for sure. The revelation of this scene will only fuel the debate to put Shatner into the Star Trek sequel. In fact, Orci has already responded to the new calls for that here at TrekMovie.com, with the following comment:
boborci
Oh, boy! Here we go again!
[/indent]
Also make sure to watch the DirecTV commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voILEz4i ... r_embedded

I'm not sure how much of that is "de-aging" Shatner and how much of it is simply morphing his mouth in existing footage to match new dialog. In any case, if anyone doubts Paramount's ultimate motives, this whoring out of Star Trek, and a fan-fave film no less, so illustrate where their sensibilities lie.
Last edited by Olorin on Sun Nov 29, 2009 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI

654
Everyone be careful reading this post—if you are struck by flying eyeballs, those are Valkrist's eyes, rolling out of his head. ;) Please pick them up carefully and give them back to him. Anyway, from TrekMovie:
Star Trek One Of Paramount’s Films For Award Season Consideration

Image
JJ Abrams Star Trek has been doing well with the ‘popularity contest’ type of awards (Scream Awards & Hollywood Awards), but now it is time to get serious. With the end of the year comes the beginning for awards season. This is now being kicked off by the "For Your Consideration" promotional campaigns from the studios. For 2009, Paramount has around 20 eligible films, and they have selected four for their awards campaign, including JJ Abrams Star Trek.

Consider Star Trek
Paramount has launched a ‘for your consideration’ website at paramountscreenings.com. The site is currently promoting four films, two typical high brow films coming out in December, and two of its Summer tent poles:
  • "Up in the Air" (directed by Jason Reitman, starring George Clooney, based on novel by Walter Kim)
  • "The Lovely Bones" (directed by Peter Jackson, starring Rachel Weisz & Susan Sarandon, based on the novel by Alice Sebold)
  • "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" (directed by Michael Bay, starring Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox and giant robots, based on Hasbro toy line)
  • "Star Trek" (directed by JJ Abrams, starring Chris Pine & Zachary Quinto, based on TV series created by Gene Roddenberry)
Paramount has not yet put up its list of which awards it is suggesting for Star Trek, but it would not be surprising if it included the traditional big awards, like Best Picture and Best Director for JJ Abrams. The film was well received by critics and has already been mentioned as a possibility for Best Picture now that the Academy has extended the rules to allow ten nominations. The site does have its list of ‘considerations’ for Transformers 2. 2007’s Transformers picked up three Oscar nominations for technical awards, but this time Paramount is suggesting members consider the sequel for many of the big awards (including Best Picture, Best Director for Bay and Best Screenplay for Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman). Transformers 2 was Paramount’s biggest film of the year, although it did not garner the same kind of critical praise as Star Trek.

Of course, with the e xp anded Best Picture list, other studios are also coming up with some interesting suggestions. Warner Brothers is proffering the comedy hit The Hangover for Best Picture, and Sony has followed suit with their Summer comedy Bruno.

A Star Trek first?
No Star Trek film has won an Academy Award, however there have been a number of nominations. The last Star Trek feature film to get an Academy Award nomination was Star Trek First Contact, for Best Makeup. Star Trek VI was nominated for Best Makeup and Best Sound Effects Editing. Star Trek IV had four nominations: Best Cinematography, Best Sound Effects Editing, Best Original Score, Best Sound. Star Trek: The Motion Picture had three noms: Best Set Decoration, Best Visual Effects, Best Original Score. For the Golden Globes (which has fewer categories), the only nomination was for The Motion Picture for Best Score.

The campaign begins
The next step for Paramount will likely include advertising in Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and other places where potential Academy members can be found. More importantly, Paramount will be arranging screenings for the Star Trek movie for Academy members and guild members as well.
Now, in fairness to Val, who is so easy to pick on when you know what buttons to press ( ;) ), I have to say my own eyes nearly rolled out of my head reading that movies like Transformers 2 and Bruno are going to be pushed by their respective studios for Best Picture. I knew that when the Academy e xp anded the number of nominees from 5 to 10, the quality would be diluted, but seriously...Transformers 2? Bruno? Granted, I never saw either one, but they were trounced by the critics, while comparatively speaking, Star Trek garned a good deal of praise.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI

655
Well, you know this really doesn't surprise me anymore. If anything, it only reinforces my belief that people's appreciation and priorities as to what constitutes a 'good movie' these days have taken a radical shift from the criteria of previous times. Things change, and not always for the better, and yes, it is largely a matter of subjectiveness here, but I truly weep for the shallowness of present day society.
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek XI

656
[quote=""Valkrist""]Things change, and not always for the better[/quote]

I believe Gaffer Gamgee said something just about like that when he was complaining to Gandalf about the Sackville-Bagginses moving into Bag End.

But yes, I don't know what possessed the Academy to e xp and the nominees to ten. I suppose there were times when a movie truly deserving was shut out of consideration because there more than five best picture-quality flicks that year. However, I think that doubling the number of nominees should not have been a cattle call for movies like Transformers 2 to be nominated. Of course, the studios can campaign for it all they want, but I don't think it's got a shot at winning. Not if the Academy values the last shreds of its reputation, in any case.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI

657
From TrekMovie:
TrekMovie: Lets switch to some Star Trek stuff. Assuming you saw the new movie, how did you feel about the reference to Admiral Archer?

Scott Bakula: It went by so fast and there was so much going on that I almost didn’t think that I had heard it, because it was the dog reference and I was like "did I just hear that?" My two sons, they were all caught up and they didn’t care about my backstory, so when I asked them if they heard it, they didn’t remember it. So I had to confirm it with other people. I thought it was very clever. I thought JJ Abrams did a great job with the movie and everybody was great and it was a huge success for the studio.

TrekMovie: I talked to Bob Orci, who co-wrote the movie, and he told me that in his mind that reference was to your character, who was still alive at that time.

Scott Bakula: I really appreciate that. Maybe I will get in the next one. All I want to do is beat Shatner out for being in the next one.
Archer would be 146 years at the main timeline of movie....

Read the rest at: http://trekmovie.com/2009/12/07/exclusi ... quel-more/
Last edited by Olorin on Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI

658
I think that would be too much of a stretch, especially when trying to continue this trend that anyone that serves on any ship called Enterprise is mysteriously endowed with super long life.

Spock is Vulcan so he's got a valid excuse, but we saw a decrepit McCoy see the Enterprise D off, there was a reference in one episode to Captain Sulu still being alive, Scotty comes back from the grave, and now Archer too?!? What the hell are they feeding these Starfleet officers anyway? :huh:
Last edited by Valkrist on Mon Dec 07, 2009 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek XI

659
I think it's reasonable to assume that if nothing drastic happens, by the 23rd or 24th Centuries human lifespans will be considerably longer than they are now. However, something drastic did happen in Star Trek's timeline—there was a major nuclear war in the mid-21st Century. That could not be without major consequences. Archer, who was born in 2112 according to the Trek wiki Memory Alpha, would have been conceived and born about 60 years later to parents carrying several generations worth of radiation-induced mutations in their genes.

Obviously, Star Trek, like Terminator and any number of other sci fi ventures, conveniently overlooks the radiation factor when using a nuclear war as a plot point or backstory element. Otherwise, I think we have to assume that when the Vulcans arrived 10 years after the war, they took pity on humanity and handed out miracle cures for radiation damage. Either that or they rounded up everyone who was chromosome-damaged and euthanized them....
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI

660
[quote=""Olorin""]Either that or they rounded up everyone who was chromosome-damaged and euthanized them....[/quote]

Whoa... Vulcan death-camps? Now there's a thought-provoking plotline. Maybe that would e xp lain why humans and Vulcans are so mistrustful of one another in Archer's time as seen on ST: Enterprise. :huh:
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek XI

661
[quote=""Valkrist""]Whoa... Vulcan death-camps? Now there's a thought-provoking plotline. Maybe that would e xp lain why humans and Vulcans are so mistrustful of one another in Archer's time as seen on ST: Enterprise. :huh: [/quote]


That would be a good story actually... if you take the emotion out of it (which Vulcans would), it would seem logical to remove the mutated DNA out of the genetic pool for the sake of humanity (and for Vulcans as well)....

According to memory-alpha... Mccoy was 137 years old on TNG, being that Archer was born in 2112, 115 years before McCoy, and only 103 years from today... I dont know if people will be living a century and a half in the next 100 years, although I could be wrong, the average age is still in the 70s, but who knows, medical advances every day. McCoy was looking a bit decrepit on TNG, but Archer being 146 may be just a bit old for someone that close in the cuture.. but I digress.

Re: Star Trek XI

662
Here's a short article (http://trekmovie.com/2009/12/11/star-tr ... t-critics/) that questions whether Star Trek has a chance of beating Avatar for the special effects Oscar.

Some of the effects in Star Trek were mind-boggling, and some were just so-so. We haven't seen Avatar yet, but in the trailers, some of the effects are mind-boggling, and some are just so-so. In particular, I think the aliens don't look very real. Considering we're almost 10 years on from Gollum, they should look a lot more like real objects and not like obvious CGI that could have used a lot more render cycles. Also, their movements seem very unrealistic. I realize that effects in trailers are often somewhat preliminary and the final effects are better. I also recall that Sam Worthington made an F-bomb-laced, nearly incoherent comment that the movie was designed to look good on an IMAX screen in 3-D, not necessarily on a computer monitor in 2-D. So, it remains to be seen which movie we will feel has the better effects (and which will get the Oscar...I suppose "neither" is a possibility).
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI

663
Something that occurred to me recently (and possibly we've already discussed it here) is the huge plot hole in the latest ST movie. Instead of doing that admittedly spectacular space jump onto Nero's drilling platform, why didn't they just target the thing with a photon torpedo or salvo of phaser bursts? I mean, they saw that Nero had destroyed the Federation fleet, so they knew he was up to no good, even if drilling into one of your planets wasn't tip-off enough.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI

664
On the surface, yeah it does seem like a massive plot hole. However, and as much as I am loath to do so, this one can actually be e xp lained (somewhat.)

Recall that if the Narada had enough power to wipe out six starships in as long as it took the Enterprise to warp to Vulcan, then we know it would have made short work of them too. The only thing they had going for them insofar as a delay was the fact that Nero wanted to talk to Pike.

So, once Pike is in the shuttle and on his way, he drops Kirk and friends onto the platform to take it out while he's buying time for them to do so. If the Enterprise had simply opted to target the drill with phasers and torpedoes, Nero would have just blasted the ship to kingdom come right there and then.

Of course, by the time they do destroy the drill, Vulcan is pretty much toast already, so Nero could care less, cuts the tether, and runs for Earth.

Hard to say what the point of no return was for the damage to Vulcan to be irreversible, but it does make me wonder how futile the drop to the drill might have been. Destroying it with the Enterprise *might* have saved Vulcan, but then the Narada would have annihilated the Enterprise and simply lowered another drill down. No matter how you look at it, Vulcan was doomed.
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek XI

665
Actually, the biggest plot hole is that they didn't even need to drill the hole. A black hole deposited on Vulcan's surface would be just as deadly as a black hole deposit at the core. In fact, if you dropped a black hole onto it, it would eat its way to the core in short order. Of course, this doesn't look as spectacular as the drill in action.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI

667
I guess what bothers me here is that critics lambasted some of the movies, such as Generations, for having huge plot holes, yet totally loved the new one, which had plot holes as big as anything in any of the previous movies. And why did they love it? Because it was dumb fun. It's odd, because I actually like the new movie on its own terms, but I bristle when critics praise it for discarding things that were great about its predecessors.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI

669
I just tried the dealie where you hold your DVD box up to your webcam and get a simulation of the ship to play with. It's a little awkward to manipulate (and a little unnerving when it flies into your hair [you remain visible for parts of it]), but it's kinda fun.

[url]http://www.e%20xp%20erience-the-enterprise.com/us/[/url]
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI

672
I'm picturing a remake of the scene from A Clockwork Orange, where Malcolm McDowell is strapped into a chair with little gadgets to hold his eyelids open, and he is forced to watch films of ultraviolence. In the remake, Val is strapped into the chair and is being forced to watch Twilight and the new Star Trek! ;) :crazy:
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI

674
At least Twilight is known to be bad. Half the girls I've spoken to admit it's a guilty indulgence, and even go so far as to say "I know it's bad, but I like it".


Star Trek, however... people think it's good! Star Trek is far more dangerous. (But I don't need to clear anything up now by saying for the record, I like Star Trek more, right?)
-_-

Re: Star Trek XI

675
Damn you, Sed, for forcing me to revise my initial statement. :P

Yes, I guess I do like Star Trek better than Twilight, because at least Trek has one or two redeeming qualities, whereas I see truly see zero value in Twilight, at least personally.
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek XI

676
Could it be that Shatner is finally going to see it?

From TrekMovie:
Image


William Shatner was a guest on the Howard Stern Radio Show this morning. Later Shatner talked about the new Star Trek movie (and the next one). Details below.


Shatner talks JJ Abrams and the new Star Trek Movie(s)
Here is the exchange between Shatner, Howard and his co-host Robin Givens on the new Star Trek movie (and the next one). Here is part of the exchange.Givens: Are you lobbying to be in the next [Star Trek]?
Shatner: I wouldn’t mind [laughs]
Stern: But you would have preferred to have been in this first one
Shatner: Of course I would have loved to have been part of this historic event. But how do you bring back to life this dead…I died my character died.
Stern: He did a great job with it. And the kid who played you was fabulous. And I can’t believe that you are not going to see this kid who played you.
Shatner: All right. So JJ said to me, he would have a screening at Paramount. I thought "wow what a glamorous thing." He’ll rent the theater, it seats two or three hundred people, I’ll invite my family and friends and we’ll have it catered and we’ll all watch. So I haven’t done that yet, but I am about to. In fact, if JJ is listening, and I think he does, JJ get ready, I am going to take you up on your offer.
Stern: The plot of the movie does leave it open that you could appear, there are ways for you to be in this.
Shatner: Well I they desperately search them out. But I am very e xp ensive.
"I am very e xp ensive." Well, does he want to be in Star Trek one last time or not? If he does, he shouldn't view this as another humongous paycheck opportunity. What's he need all that money for at his age? As my aunt Eileen says, shrouds don't have pockets. And big salaries are what helped push the old cast out the door—Shatner and Nimoy were pulling down $5M US toward the end. Of course, it didn't take too many TNG movies before Stewart was completely blowing them away with a big old $15M US.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI

677
I think he was just being a smartass with the "e xp ensive" comment and wouldn't read too much into it.

Anyway, do you guys ever watch The Onion newsclips online? Here is a humourous review of the new Star Trek movie. It pokes fun at guys like me, but it is very tongue-in-cheek, and as a big fan of The Onion stuff, I totally get the message under all the over-the-top comments. :crazy:

Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02LgdXVk ... re=related
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek XI

678
[quote=""Valkrist""]Anyway, do you guys ever watch The Onion newsclips online? Here is a humourous review of the new Star Trek movie. It pokes fun at guys like me, but it is very tongue-in-cheek, and as a big fan of The Onion stuff, I totally get the message under all the over-the-top comments. :crazy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02LgdXVk ... re=related[/quote]

Yeah, I saw that way back when. It pissed me off. It single-handled praised the questionable new movie while mocking Star Trek. Normally I find the Onion stuff funny, but this just pandered to the viewpoint that people who like Star Trek are all ear-wearing losers.

Just my two cents! ;)
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI

679
I honestly didn't take it that way because I know the Onion stuff well enough to know that they are often instead making fun of those who think they are doing the laughing. The double-entendre in their brand of humour is legendary. I'd bet my life that most of those guys are old-school Trek fans. ;)
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek XI

680
I guess that lessens their sin somewhat. I would say that the great unwashed would not pick up such a subtle distinction, but probably not too many of that great unwashed are Onion fans anyway.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI

681
Shhhhh.... do you hear that?

That's the sound of galactic justice being served, and the collective sigh of relief from the few true fans of Star Trek still left in this world.

What am I talking about?

Well, as you no doubt know by now, the Oscar nominees for the past year have been released and there is no sign of Star Trek in the Best Picture category. In fact, there is no sign of Star Trek in any of the major categories. Call it petty, but to me that's vindication.

JJ's lovechild did garner a respectable four nominations for Makeup, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, and Visual Effects. My prediction is that it will win at least 2/4, and 3/4 at best.

In the past, the Academy has been infamous for its repudiation of anything fantasy or sci-fi. Lately that's been relaxed a little with Lord of the Rings doing a sweep, and now Avatar and District 9 are up for Best Picture also. Good for them, but it makes me happy to no end that the new Star Trek didn't make the list. Not that the previous ten films were exactly worthy of the distinction (though a couple come close in my books,) but I think it would have been a personal insult to forty years of rich history, lore, continuity, and the combined efforts of thousands of actors and staff that they were snubbed and pushed aside as pariahs and geeks associated with a nerdy tv show, only to be supplanted by this loud and flashy mess of a reboot.

The day when you decide to honour that while stepping on the ashes of your unappreciated parent is the day I give up on the pretense of the Oscars having any validity to begin with.

For once, they got it right.

To all the so-called movie critics that checked their brain at the door and ate up everything that Abram's and his crew served them, all I have to say is: "Revenge is a dish best served cold."

There's my nerdy, old-school Star Trek quote for you to chew on. Hope you choke on it. :P
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek XI

682
"Don't mince words, Bones, tell me how you really feel...." ;)

The funny thing, is there is a certain amount of sentiment out there that Star Trek got robbed/snubbed by Oscar. Personally, I think it's pretty silly. I don't think it was Best Picture material, whether or not it was good Star Trek...but then again, neither was Avatar.

It would have been bittersweet at best for me if ST had been nominated...ST at last getting some Oscar cred (to the limited extent that Oscar has any cred to bestow any more in the eyes of many people), yet the least ST of the bunch. It would have been, I suppose, like a slap in the face, because it would have been like they were saying, "this is how to make ST good."

I am pleased, however, that 2 sci fi flix were nominated. I thought District 9 was quite good. I think its social commentary is what earned Oscar's nod.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI

683
Agreed.

Admittedly, Star Trek was a longshot for that list, no matter how anyone tries to paint it. I just have to shake my head in incredulity that some people are indignant that the movie got snubbed. Oh please... get over yourselves and this movie already.

As you already know from my reply, it wouldn't have been bittersweet for me at all, just a big slap in the face.
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek XI

684
Well, at least Orci has some humility:

http://trekmovie.com/2010/02/03/movie-f ... s-no-snub/

Another thing going against Star Trek is the short memory of the Academy. Typically, most things nominated come out late in the year. I haven't surveyed this year's list with an eye toward release date. Honestly, I don't care that much about the Oscars any more. When FOTR and TTT didn't win, esp. w/TTT losing out to what I thought was a crap musical, I gave up any notion that the award was based on worth.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI

686
All I can say is, thank god. And thanks for reminding me that things could be worse than they are. Personally, these Oscars just erased any doubts in my mind I may have had that the academy has no taste, knowledge, or brains in general. I'll try not to get carried away here for once (I'm burnt out from all the complaining within the past two days), but The Road was one of the greatest films I've seen, not to mention one of the best (if not the best) of 2009 (which should have been 2008) and.... it's NOWHERE on any of their lists. It didn't get nominated for a SINGLE thing? Wow. Even increased their list to ten this year and it's STILL not there. So let me get this straight... Precious, The Blind Side, Avatar, and some Pixar movie are thought to be better films than The Road?

No. They made more money though. Thanks again academy for snubbing my favorite film of a whole year, and thanks for not paying Viggo his long-deserved acknowledgment as one of the finest actors working today.


But now that I've visited this thread, I can tack on some glimmer of hope to my pessimistic, albeit truthful, outlook: At least Trek wasn't nominated (even though I think I'd rather see it on there than 90 percent of the trash they have.... wow that optimism was short-lived, huh?)
-_-

Re: Star Trek XI

687
I never saw The Road although I sorta wanted to. It got rave reviews. I was ambivalent about seeing it because of such dark subject matter. In the end, I saw almost no movies around the holidays (other than Avatar).
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI

688
I thought the idea behind District 9 was good, but I thought the movie was mish mash of poopoo. I actually almost turned it off (something I can't say that I have ever done before... wait, I did for the Constant Gardener ( I was bored with that one)... but the main character in the movie completely and utterly ANNOYED me... his voice, his everything just made the movie almost unbearable for me.

If any Trek movie was to get a best picture nomination or win... in my book it would have had to have been either The Voyage Home or First Contact.

If they did best scene, it would have to have been Kirk/Spock in Spock's death in WoK

or Picard in First Contact when he breaks his ships and says ""I will not sacrifice the Enterprise. We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no farther! And I will make them pay for what they've done!"
... which that scene gives me chills every time I watch it... he shoulda got an oscar for that one (in my opinion)

Re: Star Trek XI

689
I liked District 9. The main character was annoying at first, and unsympathetic because he obviously had no regards for the aliens as sentient beings, but once his fate begins to unfold, you kind of have to feel sorry for the guy, because he's receiving a terrible lesson.

Yeah, Picard's scene where he loses it and gives that speech...that is an all-time top moment in Star Trek.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI

691
[quote=""Olorin""]I liked District 9. The main character was annoying at first, and unsympathetic because he obviously had no regards for the aliens as sentient beings, but once his fate begins to unfold, you kind of have to feel sorry for the guy, because he's receiving a terrible lesson.

Yeah, Picard's scene where he loses it and gives that speech...that is an all-time top moment in Star Trek.[/quote]
I always loved the fact that Picard scene revolves around the Moby Dick story and Ahab. I think that doubled it's impact as it played out both in dialog and in Jean Luc.

Re: Star Trek XI

692
[quote=""Valkrist""]D9 has a very serious message and it is an excellent movie. Wikus is annoying and despicable at times, yes, but his unwitting struggle for redemption and his ultimate fate are indeed an abject lesson, as Olorin pointed out.[/quote]


Not to stray too off topic, but I wasn't denying the seriousness of the message, but just the main character was so annoying... maybe I was e xp ecting something else... I wanted to see more of the alien society and their struggle and that kind of thing, I guess.

Re: Star Trek XI

694
[quote=""Valkrist""]Then, my friend, you should rent 'Alien Nation.' (the movie... I can't vouch for the quality of the show that followed.)

So yeah... back to Starship Troopers...er... I mean... the last Star Trek movie. :P [/quote]
Twinkle, twinkle little Star
Trek;
Wars;
Troopers;

Re: Star Trek XI

695
[quote=""Valkrist""]So yeah... back to Starship Troopers...er... I mean... the last Star Trek movie. :P [/quote]

Whenever I see the phrase "Starship Trooper," I think of the classic Yes song of that name from 1971, and secondarily, I think of Robert Heinlein's novel of that name from 1959 (upon which the movie is loosely based). I probably never think of the totally forgettable movie! I remember little about it except Rue "Blanche Deveraux" McClanahan as a military instructor.

But getting back to Star Trek 2009, another little flaw that occurred to me this morning is one it actually shares with most incarnations of Trek. When the Kelvin crashes into the Narada, the release of anti-matter when the containment fields collapsed should have vaporized both ships and then some. That's a convenient little thing that ST usually forgets...these ships are fueled by something that, ounce for ounce, is vastly more powerful than a hydrogen bomb, but nothing all that spectacular happens when a ship is blown up or crashes.
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI

696
Yeah, I started noticing that problem as early as The Search for Spock. Whenever the auto-destruct plot device was mentioned before, I had always assumed it involved releasing the anti-matter in the warp core, resulting in a devastating e xp losion that would take out the ship and any enemies in the vicinity.

So, when I first watched that movie and watched in horror as Kirk completes the sequence on the bridge, I fully e xp ected the Enterprise to go out like a mini supernova, since to my recollection, this was the first this was going to be witnessed in Trek history. Imagine my confusion when the first thing the e xp losion does is simply blow out the entire saucer section, causing the ship to just fall out of orbit. In fact, the initial e xp losion occurs on the computer console and then we see the bridge go up, followed by the collapse of the hull plating on the saucer. The nearby Klingon ship doesn't even get a scratch.

So where was the warp core collapse? The anti-matter e xp losion? It can be argued that the self-destruct we saw merely made use of conventional e xp losive charges placed throughout the ship, but wouldn't that in turn eventually cause the warp core to go critical? It didn't really make sense, and yes, that goes for every time we see something like the Kelvin colliding with the Narada.

PS. In case you didn't get it, my reference to Starship Troopers was to invoke the image of a sci-fi movie full of action, hot young people, bad dialogue, and thin plot that bears little resemblance to its predecessor work and name. Ring any bells? ;)
Last edited by Valkrist on Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
This Space for Rent

Re: Star Trek XI

698
[quote=""Valkrist""]Yeah, I started noticing that problem as early as The Search for Spock. Whenever the auto-destruct plot device was mentioned before, I had always assumed it involved releasing the anti-matter in the warp core, resulting in a devastating e xp losion that would take out the ship and any enemies in the vicinity.

So, when I first watched that movie and watched in horror as Kirk completes the sequence on the bridge, I fully e xp ected the Enterprise to go out like a mini supernova, since to my recollection, this was the first this was going to be witnessed in Trek history. Imagine my confusion when the first thing the e xp losion does is simply blow out the entire saucer section, causing the ship to just fall out of orbit. In fact, the initial e xp losion occurs on the computer console and then we see the bridge go up, followed by the collapse of the hull plating on the saucer. The nearby Klingon ship doesn't even get a scratch.

So where was the warp core collapse? The anti-matter e xp losion? It can be argued that the self-destruct we saw merely made use of conventional e xp losive charges placed throughout the ship, but wouldn't that in turn eventually cause the warp core to go critical? It didn't really make sense, and yes, that goes for every time we see something like the Kelvin colliding with the Narada.

PS. In case you didn't get it, my reference to Starship Troopers was to invoke the image of a sci-fi movie full of action, hot young people, bad dialogue, and thin plot that bears little resemblance to its predecessor work and name. Ring any bells? ;) [/quote]

In one of the (non-canon) Trek guidebooks (Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, probably), it said there were two self-destruct modes, one triggered by code "000 Destruct 0" and the other triggered by "000 Destruct 1." Destruct 0, which is what we saw, is used when the ship is near a planet that you don't want to decimate. It uses e xp losives planted throughout the ship. Destruct 1, used out in interstellar space, simply drops the containment field around the antimatter.

Of course, that's an after-the-fact e xp lanation by a Trek fan for why we saw what we saw, and it's the best we're going to get, even though it's not canon. Personally, I think it would be pretty dangerous to have e xp losives planted throughout the ship because they would be triggered during battle by attacks, or by accidents, or by Scotty falling down in the bath tub, or whatever.

And yes, I understood your reference to Starship Troopers. :) It's just that the first image to come to mind is always the Yes song (probably because I've heard it a million times and have seen them perform it half a million times).
"Olorin I was in the West that is forgotten...."

Re: Star Trek XI

700
Someone should hire one of these non-canon fans to write for a Trek show or movie instead of putting out books after the fact. They might be surprised at how much stuff starts to make sense with some of these people on the payroll. :huh:
This Space for Rent

Return to “Star Trek & Star Wars”

cron