This morning, the astronauts on the shuttle Atlantis were woken up with their daily song, which was Star Trek.

Not Giacchino's though. They used the theme from TOS (with Shatner's monologue).

It almost never happens with me, that I can listen to a score all the way through, without any parts letting my interest drop off.
Actually, I can listen to tracks 1-5 and 13-15 on a loop, without ever getting tired of it!

Could the main theme be a bit more refined? Yes. Could there have been more flourishes? Absolutely.
But I love it.

I'm listening to Star Trek TMP right now, and really, it's a completely different league.

But I'm definitely getting that "vibe" from Giacchino. I could do without the "epic choir" thing though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quill:
I just love the one-two-punch of Enterprising Young Men and Nero Sighted. Tracks 5 and 6 (I think) get cranked a lot in my car (particularly now with my I-Drive controlled I-Pod...yes!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OneBuckFilms:
Personally, I'd like to see this one expanded.

There's a lot of good material that isn't on the CD.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeron:
Hmmmm... custom mix, eh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin:
DVD release date - November 17th.

[b]'Trek' beams up homevid hologram[/B]

---

These were the low points for me (some probably already highlighted, so pardon me if I sound repetitive of other's comments):

* The film is based almost entirely on unbelievable coincidences. The beginning required Kirk's father to be at a single point in the VAST expanse of space in order to encounter Nero. Kirk is jettisoned away to Hoth where Spock Sr. just happens to be camping out in an ice cave, not to mention Scotty is conveniently located 14km away unbeknownst to Spock Sr. Pike just happens to wander into some random, in-the-the-middle-of-nowhere IOWA bar to enlist Kirk.

* Time travel. GAH! People CRIED about Voyager/Enterprise and the time travel nonsense but they love this?!

* Nero is a retarded brute villain. He's unconvincing as a formidable enemy and I was left neither liking nor disliking him. And why is he so pissed off at Vulcan/Earth? Because he was too damn lazy/inept to save his OWN planet? And the moronic Romulans couldn't detect FAR IN ADVANCE that a freaking star is about to go supernova on their ass? WEAK villain plot line.

* Why is Nero's miner ship outfitted with 20th century style missiles that somehow can do loads of damage? No phasers or photon torpedos? And no shields, either? And why is a miner ship loaded with so many armaments?? And when Spock Sr. was flying around inside the miner ship, I thought for a brief moment that I was watching Independence Day.

* WTF is this "red matter"? It's such a stupid plot device that carried so much weight in the movie. Apparently if you load up some red matter in a syringe and inject a supernova, you create a time warping black hole? WTF.

* They killed old Trek with new alternative timeline blah blah. I'm fine with that, but no more Vulcan? Screw that.

* It seems like the movie goes out of its way to make fun of old Trek. They have Chekov with an even more annoying accent which they unamusingly try to highlight with the intercom/announcement scene. They awkwardly load up a red shirt, gung-ho nobody onto the shuttle to destroy the umbilical cord attached to Vulcan..it was so painfully obvious he was going to die (HAHA, we get it, TOS always killed red shirts). Kirk is so ridiculously reckless/immature that it seems like they were parodying old Trek Kirk.

* At the end of the movie, we're left with a bunch of babies leading the presumable flagship of the Federation.

* The lifts from Star Wars were plain annoying. We have Hoth, weird looking aliens, stupid CGI beasts, demented robot-sounding ships (Spock Sr's ship) and some sort of midget Ewok/Jem H'dar with bunny eyes.

* Spock Sr. should not have been in this. If you want to reboot, then reboot fresh.

The high points:

* The music was awesome. I think Giacchino did a fine job.

* The effect were great, but that's not a reason to rate this movie as high as it is.

* The acting was pretty good for the most part, especially considering the steaming piles of bad dialogue.

* References to old Trek was cool. The Klingon training exercise and I think they even mentioned killing Archer's annoying dog..? Those were just a couple.

Read Star Trek: Countdown and Nero and a lot of your supposed criticisms are answered in crystal clear; if you don't care, though, and aren't a Star Trek fan, like Michael, than move on.

Weapons/shields:

These differ in all iterations of Trek; are shields a skin--an armored hull? (Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Star Trek) are shields a force field? (Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Generations, Star Trek: First Contact, Star Trek: Insurrection) are shields a force field skin? (Star Trek: Nemesis) are shields hull platting? (Star Trek: Enterprise) what are they and does it really matter? NO. Personally, I prefer the hull being armored and scorched and battered when hit by weapons; it's more dramatic and looks a hell of a lot more dangerous: The writers--Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman--mentioned that this was the way they'd always preferred it. Also, the Narada's weapons are torpedoes, not missiles: The Kelvin's tactical screen reads "SYS_ALERT - INCOMING TORPEDO." If you watch the excellent Next Generation episode "Yesterday's Enterprise," you'll see Picard's Enterprise fire torpedoes in the same manner as the Narada, and even destroy a Klingon Bird Of Prey with a single phaser blast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmk7jCbETIE&feature=related

Why is the Narada outfitted with weapons? Read Star Trek: Countdown (again, only if you consider yourself a Star Trek fan): To put it briefly, the Narada goes through a rapid transformation in design and armaments in preparing it for war with the Federation, part of which is Romulan engineered Borg tech (ie. the Narada's ability to repair itself).

You thought you were watching Independence Day? I've yet to try acid, but I hear these kinds of "flashbacks" and/or "hallucinations" can occur--why they won't let prospective pilots pass their tests if they've taken this drug.

What is Red Matter? Read Wired and watch a little Alias and you might just have some fun with it ...

What's wrong with the destruction of Vulcan if you can accept a new, alternate time-line? That seems illogical to me.

Chekov was hilarious; Olson was funny, too; Kirk was great! Moving on ...

Hoth? I assume you mean Delta Vega ... Well, that felt more like Rura Penthe from Star Trek VI than it did Hoth, and I think that's what they went for (even shot some of it in Alaska, like Trek VI). Aliens? It's Star Trek. CGI beasts? It's Star Trek.

Spock? He was fine. Again, read Star Trek: Countdown and Nero if you need any justification or have issues/problems with his presence and I'm sure you'll come around to the logic of his being there. And, also check out Paul Pope's awesome entry, written by Orci and Kurtzman: http://www.wired.com/special_multimedia/2009/whenWorldsCollide

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargate:
Yeah, I realize most of my criticisms are nitpicks that don't really matter..it's just..the whole plot seemed bleh to me. I'll check out this book/comic, but in my opinion, those should not be considered in the timeline of the movies/television.

I do agree, in hindsight, that the characters/acting were really spot on. The reason I'm so harsh in my criticisms is that I really want Trek to be a freaking knock-out. I just don't feel the plot lived up to it. HOWEVER, I do feel that the next one -- with a better plot and villain (regardless of whatever book/comic you have to read) -- WILL be better.

---

First off, I enjoyed the movie overall, although I have some quibbles with plotting, acting and canon.

But the fact is, comics/graphic novels/books are ancillary to the experience of watching and enjoying a film, whether or not you consider them to be canon. As with other movies in recent years (ahem, STAR WARS), you should not *have* to read outside, ancillary sources to get a cogent and cohesive story. That is a failure at the most basic, primary level: the filmmakers didn't tell the story. I have read the things you mentioned, along with the Foster novelization; but I shouldn't have been required to do so by holes in the narrative. Watching the film, one could suppose that it was possible for a supernova to destroy an entire galaxy (ummm, nooo....); that Romulus was incapable of evacuating its citizens - or unwilling to do so; and that Spock was the only person either *able* to save them, which he didn't, or the only one that they trusted to do so, which is hard to stomach just sitting in the theater. That answers are available elsewhere isn't really the point if one is pointing out the flaw in the movie: the film itself didn't do the job within its running time. That's all. Not reading the ancillary material to answer questions left after viewing the movie doesn't make one less of a fan, nor would one need to "just move on"; tolerance and IDIC, right? It's just that for some, questions arose out of plot, character and portrayal of same, and suspension-of-disbelief-straining coincidence. No less a fan if you happen to notice flaws, guys.

I actually agree with the things mentioned, and have several more of my own quibbles. Interestingly, though (and this doesn't happen much with me), I forgave the film its many flaws. I was moved right from the opening sequence with the passionate, almost Operatic emotional tone that was set & that those filmmakers devoted to the material. That "The Human Adventure Is Just Beginning...." stuff from Treks Past seems very appropriate here, since it is emotional, flawed, and gives hope for the future.

I'm tickled to death with the reference-level visual and audio quality of the BluRay set - I'm one of the 5k or so dorks that ordered it up with a pewter Enterprise included, too.

Giacchino's score kills. I love it and am DYING for expansion.

Be Well and Happy, guys.

---- Mark

Only yesterday I bought the DVD and found out immediately why I like this new STAR TREK. It doesn't take itself TOO seriously - totally the opposite to almost every movie coming from Hollywood these days. In the wake of the new much "darker" Batmans, Bonds, Transformers and various others the movie-making has slipped into a disastrously dark direction, as if "dark" would be synonymous for good movie-making. Not.

Nearly everything that has been written in this thread is true: this STAR TREK has utterly ridiculous story - but not many movies of the decade have managed to be this brave in being honestly ridiculous. To me - and to some of my acquaintenses who ARE Trekkies - the original television series seems ridiculous and thus extremely nostalgic; a blast from the past from the age of innocence, when childlike imagination was most that was needed to conjure up great entertainment. I honestly feel that the new movie managed to find this sincere essence, and despite of some serious message in the characters' motives the movie didn't transform into a "too dark" thing, but managed to maintain its sincere touching and uplifting soul.

I'm also surprised that no one here hasn't realized the "arch" of Giacchino's great score which saves the legendary Alexander Courage theme for the finale: The entire movie, as I have understood it, is based on an alternate - and yes, much darker - timeline to a future that hasn't been yet altered. That's why I think Giacchino's score has the right to be much darker and less melodic (compared to other Trek movie scores) until the crew of Enterprise has been restored and the ship is ready to fly towards the great future that has already been.

For me the finale - with Leonard Nimoy's "to boldly go" - gives still the warmest goosebumps and the heavenly arrangement of Courage's theme truly makes my heart soar. Isn't that what great entertainment is mostly about?

KEN

PS. Sorry for the double post thing; it's been so long since I have used this forum - and needing to edit my post...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken S:
I am probably representing a minor group here: I have NEVER been a Trek-fan (well, neither a Star Wars -fan ...blaaarghh), and I have never particularly followed any of the Star Trek TV series or movies - and yet I thought the new movie was AMAZINGLY good, beautiful, touching, funny, and even mysteriously marvelously nostalgic. I didn't have any trouble of following - and believing - the story, and what really amazed me was that I knew almost every single character, even though my knowledge of the Trek universe comes basically from reading - and usually hopping over the TREK articles of - the Starlog movie magazine in the past.

Only yesterday I bought the DVD and found out immediately why I like this new STAR TREK. It doesn't take itself TOO seriously - totally the opposite to almost every movie coming from Hollywood these days. In the wake of the new much "darker" Batmans, Bonds, Transformers and various others the movie-making has slipped into a disastrously dark direction, as if "dark" would be synonymous for good movie-making. Not.

Nearly everything that has been written in this thread is true: this STAR TREK has utterly ridiculous story - but not many movies of the decade have managed to be this brave in being honestly ridiculous. To me - and to some of my acquaintenses who ARE Trekkies - the original television series seems ridiculous and thus extremely nostalgic; a blast from the past from the age of innocence, when childlike imagination was most that was needed to conjure up great entertainment. I honestly feel that the new movie managed to find this sincere essence, and despite of some serious message in the characters' motives the movie didn't transform into a "too dark" thing, but managed to maintain its sincere touching and uplifting soul.

I'm also surprised that no one here hasn't realized the "arch" of Giacchino's great score which saves the legendary Alexander Courage theme for the finale: The entire movie, as I have understood it, is based on an alternate - and yes, much darker - timeline to a future that hasn't been yet altered. That's why I think Giacchino's score has the right to be much darker and less melodic (compared to other Trek movie scores) until the crew of Enterprise has been restored and the ship is ready to fly towards the great future that has already been.

For me the finale - with Leonard Nimoy's "to boldly go" - gives still the warmest goosebumps and the heavenly arrangement of Courage's theme truly makes my heart soar. Isn't that what great entertainment is mostly about?

KEN

---