Comments on: KEEP YOUR MAN HOME

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 11 May 2009 22:11:51 +0000

I sense two sides forming- those who see the film for its basic self (An action filled, above average film which is watchable a couple of times) and the Star Trek fanatics (Like me) who, although the film is awesome in itself and will no doubt be successful, would still have cried tears of Joy had the film consisted of 60 seconds of Nimoy powdering Shatners wig…..hmmm…..I would watch that….

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 09 May 2009 23:48:41 +0000

I don’t thing you can categorize Star Trek as a “dumb summer action movie” that you need to shut your brain off for. I mean, it’s not complicated by any stretch of the imagination. But it doesn’t insult one’s intelligence, either.

My feeling is that for a Star Trek movie to be good, it needs a little bombast. Look at Wrath of Kahn and First Contact. Leave the cerebral, society reflecting stuff to the television shows where exposition isn’t a factor. I think the reboot did a good job of focusing on Spock and his obstacles being half human and half Vulcan. But beyond that, there were characters that needed introductions. If they had left those out in favor for a more complicated plot, people would still be crying foul.

By: Orpheus

Orpheus — Sat, 09 May 2009 16:34:23 +0000

I enjoyed the new Star Trek, but it didn’t really wow me. A friend of mine tried to argue that it’s just a dumb summer action movie and that I need to shut my brain off and “love it like everyone else” (her words, not mine). My only response was that it’s not supposed to be a dumb action movie, it’s supposed to be STAR TREK.

You’re right, Tom, it’s a lot better than the last movie. I just think the last thing Star Trek needed was a Star Wars prequel.

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 09 May 2009 13:30:36 +0000

Shawn, I think that’s a fair assessment. Star Trek is always best when it’s used as a mirror to society. But I don’t think that’s what people want from a summer blockbuster – especially not a reboot where you’re re-establishing the characters in a new context after being off screen for almost 20 years.

I thought the time travel element was very interesting because it not only allowed them to recontextualize certain relationships, but set the stage for whole new adventures. So you know they’re not going to rehash the same stuff.

Mel, I agree that it’s a little hollow, especially at the end. I don’t know what happened. But when younger Spock was piloting that ship, I didn’t feel any danger for him. It’s certainly slick. The lens flares are over done. But considering where the franchise was when we left it, what was on screen this weekend was certainly an improvement.

By: Mel

Mel — Sat, 09 May 2009 06:44:53 +0000

On a scale of 1 to 10, I’d give the new Trek a solid 5. It’s pretty watchable, and it’s probably worth paying full price for, but I have no desire to see it again. And, now that that’s out of the way, I can say that it succeeds more as an action/adventure movie than as part of the Trek franchise. To me, it just felt hollow, all flash with no real substance.

By: Shawn Robare

Shawn Robare — Sat, 09 May 2009 05:47:22 +0000

My friend is a pretty big nerd for the original Trek series and he made an interesting point about what he hopes to see (he hadn’t seen it when we talked, and I don’t think it’s really in the film) which is a strong speculative fiction concept that the movie revolves around. He was mentioning that a lot of the original series feels much like the Twilight Zone, or the Outer Limits in that each episode would center on a core sci-fi concept (like a lot of sci-fi short stories) like a mirror world or something and the characters for the most part took a back seat to exploring that idea. I think this is one of the things a lot of people identify with sci-fi besides the interstellar setting. Then later, in the movies, the concepts took a back seat to finally exploring the characters more.

I’m hearing a lot of people complain that the new flick puts the sci-fi on the back burner too much in favor of action and character development, which I agree that it does, but I think it’s a good thing. I think the film took a lot from what worked in Wrath of Kahn and mixed in a healthy dose of what worked in First Contact and just runs away with it. I really liked it.

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 09 May 2009 04:48:37 +0000

Monday’s comic is pretty much going to be about lens flares.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sat, 09 May 2009 02:15:05 +0000

I thought the movie was really good, too, but the INSANE amount of lens-flares are keeping me from going back any time soon. I can barely see to type this comment.

By: nick

nick — Fri, 08 May 2009 21:32:30 +0000

It’s a great movie. Not a stunning, incredible, mindblowing amazing movie. But a great one. It didn’t exceed my expectations for it (which were quite high), but it did meet them, and with gusto.

Maybe it’s just weird seeing Star Trek with great special effects…

More than that, though, the new actors are morphed seamlessly into the original crew, but even as the acknowledge old character molds, they immediately start to break free of them. Each of the main bridge crew says their key catchphrases without ever breaking their stride (and plenty of other intensively nerdy references are abound). Pile this on top of the fact that this might be the first Star Trek movie with clear and obvious comic relief. I laughed out loud multiple times during the film, not because anything looked ridiculous, or stupid, but because it was genuinely funny.

…weeeeird

By: Tracy

Tracy — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:34:37 +0000

Saw it last night. It had me from the get go and didn’t let up until the lights came on. I haven’t been that engrossed in a film whole heartedly since Batman Begins.