Ok who saw Star Trek. What did you think of the Movie?.... Here is my Review

[Twitterpated Dad]

I beg to differ.

This was a very good movie. Great entertainment. But, it was not Star Trek. I feel the same way about the last two "James Bond" movies too.

And, I've got some gripes:

Zachary Quinto is Sylar, not Spock. He will always be evil to me. Quinto as a good guy makes about as much sense as Charles Bronson as a wimp.

What's up with all the camera flares? I found it very annoying.

And, I know the premise is that everything from the day of Kirk's birth on is a new time line. Fine. Then don't change history and technology before that. I felt like I was watching an episode of Lost: it doesn't matter what you've learned before, the writers will change history at will, sometimes repeatedly in the same show.

Bottom line: Go see it. But, only if you can forget most of what you already know.

 

[Blumonkeyboy]

I honestly say it could be one of the best movies i have ever seen in my LIFE.
And ive been told by many ppl i look like spock. Maybe ill post me in my costume when i finish it.

 

[Blumonkeyboy]

My son took me to see Star Trek for Mother's Day. We all loved it. I wish it was showing at the IMAX theater but it's not. I thought they did a terrific job with the characters but the Spock-Uhuru relationship seemed illogical from what I remember of the series. Maybe I missed something.

I didn't recognize Winona Ryder during the movie but saw her name in the credits and my son told me she was Spock's mother.

I would like to reiterate, alternate universe. The spock uhurah could very well be in that universe.

And twiterpated dad, can you give an example of them changing history in the movie, multiple times?

 

[Sleepless Knight]

The movie was so good it made this non star trek fan want to catch up on the classics!

Be aware that this movie is very different from those classics. This film is much more action oriented than the more cerebral classic Trek and subsequent series. It's also worth mentioning that classic Trek features a very different history than the one going forth in this alternate timeline.

In TOS, McCoy was much older than Kirk, and by the ages established in old canon, Chekhov and Sulu were substantially younger thank Kirk. As a movie, it's fine. It tells a compelling story. But as a prequel featuring younger versions of iconic characters, it's more complicated. This new film marks a major departure from what had previously defined Star Trek. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's certainly a new direction. And that's precisely why some classic Trek fans are not happy about this film.

 

[Jitzy]

Loved the movie! We had such a good time. It was nice to see some younger actors take over the parts. Plus, the guys were all really cute!

 

[Twitterpated Dad]

Sleepless Knight is spot on.

Here are a few examples of things that were changed in the movie BEFORE the change in the time line (the day Kirk was born):

Kirk was born in Iowa. On a farm.

The Farragut was commissioned after the Enterprise, not 20 odd years before.

Constitution class star ships had a crew of a few hundred, not 800+. They carried 4 shuttle craft, not 37+, and none of the craft were warp capable until the Enterprise D.

Minor points to be sure, but, they're still annoying.

So back to my original comment: Go enjoy the movie. Just forget your history first.

 

[Hazzard101]

Only thing I didn't like was who he accidently ran into in that cave. That is just too big of a coincidence.

The person in the cave was from the future remember? He would have known where the other person would be. Get it?

 

[Hazzard101]

Loved the movie and want to see it in Imax. Yhe movie was very well done and was enjoyable for fans and newbies alike

 

[doconeill]

The person in the cave was from the future remember? He would have known where the other person would be. Get it?

Different future, remember? None of the events are unfolding as he knew them.