My brother acquired new piece to add to our Trek collection: a Master Replicas electronic USS Enterprise. He managed to get it delivered just in time for my birthday and I was able to snap a few pics before my camera's battery died. The pics really don't give a sense of the scale of the piece; it's nearly three feet long and beautifully detailed and lit. The warp nacelles even glow and rotate just like the production model. Have a look (click on the pics for larger versions):
As you are well aware Tony, I know nothing about Star Track, I mean Trek ) but that is some cool stuff you have. Having seen some of your other collectables, I will add that I really like how you display things, very nice.
On another note, Johnny Carson is the greatest entertainer/talk show host of all time.
Thanks Barry; the final display stand for the model is coming, just needs some tweaks so that it will fit into the appropriate spot in the Trek (not Track ) corner. I'll post some pics when its all set up.
Thanks Clum. We'd been on the fence about that piece for a while; when my brother saw one that was reasonably priced, we decided to take the plunge.
BTW, Paramount home video has officially announced that the DVD and BluRay versions of the new Star Trek movie will be released on November 17, 2009. I was hoping they'd follow the Iron Man model and release the film in late September, but I guess Paramount wanted to bow it closer to Christmas.
Here's a link to a page with info on what will be on each version: Star Trek DVD & BluRay
I saw Star Trek a while ago, and I thought I would finally put my review up.
I enjoyed it, however I didn't leave feeling all that excited. As someone who is a fan of Star Trek, but obviously not to the extent of many members on this site, I was quite looking forward to the film. But the film didn't deliver quite as much as I had hoped.
The Good: The performances were all very good. Eric Bana was superb as Nero, probably the best performance in the film, while everyone else really impressed me. This including Winona Ryder, one of my favourite actresses, whom I didn't recognise at all. The various action sequences were all very exciting, and I liked the way that all the significant characters were brought together. I liked that the film didn't feature 'beam me up Scottie,' although it would have been funny if it had. ) The film looked fantastic, although it was obvious towards the start that CGI was used. Abrams utilised numerous unusual camera angles, while the killing of Nero's second-in-command was really cool. B-) Nimoy was fantastic, there were some terrific dialogue, and Uhura was beautiful. :x Oh, and the way that Kirk passed the test at the start was very impressive. Personally, I think he was absolutely entitled to do what he did; what it says about my morals I'll leave for others to decide. :v )
The Bad: Bana's Nero was completely underused. As I stated above, Bana IMO produced the film's best performance. It would have been wonderful to have seen more of him. Additionally, am I the only person who was bothered by the fact that the crew at the start of the film were so young? I can't believe that a crew full of baby-faced youngsters (I sound so old ) would command a ship of such significance.
The Ugly: I wasn't particularly impressed with the whole time travel thing. Time travel raises so many paradoxes, a few of which were raised by the film (such as Spock meeting himself), but what concerned me was the actual premise. At the end of the film, Kirk and co. defeat Nero and prevent him from destroying Earth. Well, great, except he's destroyed Vulcan, killing 6 billion people in the process. It's like preventing terrorists from destroying one continent, yet they still manage to destroy another. Also Spock's despair at losing his mother made it seem incidental; not selfish, but not exactly noble either. I couldn't help but wince when I thought of those 6 billion people who died but yet were barely mentioned. It kind of reminded me of Superman where Supes goes back in time to save Lois, forgetting everyone else, except the difference between that and this is that it was easier to emphasise with Supes. This film IMO was simply callous. Also, one of the problems with using time travel in this regard, which NP raised, is the whole 'you and I will have a legendary friendship' thing. It takes away choice and it also meant that the writers could get away with being lazy; because we know that Spock and Kirk will end up as friends, the writers can take short cuts. But my biggest problem with the time travel thing is that because it wasn't fundamental to the story in the way it was in the Terminator or Back to the Future films, and because it didn't have the child-like fantastical quality of Superman, it was much harder for me to care about the characters and the plot.
All in all, I liked the film, I would certainly see a sequel, but I didn't love it and I left feeling disappointed.
EDIT- I can not believe that I got Eric Bana's name wrong. Not only is he a fellow Aussie, but I've always had a tremendous admiration for him. The really embarassing thing is that I usually go over my posts with a fine tooth comb, so as to make sure they are absolutely perfect, and I missed the misspelling of his name. ;% )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
The whole story of Star Trek was a lousy gimmick. They wanted to cheaply add tradegy so they just destroyed the entire vulcan race. And using time travel for the purposes of vegence never makes sense. Nero could have just warned himself what was going to happen. The direction was entirely predictable and un-creative. By the way, JJ Abrams really needs cut it out the lense flair crap and the arbitrary camera angles.
If they really wanted to reinvigorate this series, they had do more then cast new young actors. Not to say they were bad but the cast deserved a far better script and director then this over-produced Hollywood hogwash.
I saw Star Trek a while ago, and I thought I would finally put my review up.
Took you long enough! )
As to a couple of your observations:
- As a fellow Australian, I'm sure Eric Bana will take umbrage to the fact that you spelled his name wrong again and again and again. Also, I must confess, compared to other memorable Trek villains like Khan and Chang Bana was a little too bland for me. His lack of screentime really robs his character of any gravitas. Try watching Star Trek II or Star Trek VI some time and I think you'll realize the villains from those films in particular were far better realized. For me, the biggest revelation here was Chris Pine who did the impossible: evoking Captain Kirk while never sinking to Shatner parody. Quinto and Urban were also very solid and Simon Pegg (who I was really worried about) was a pleasant surprise.
- The way Kirk beats the Kobiyashi Maru no-win scenario is a homage to events mentioned in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan as Kirk recounts his days at the academy. Try watching that sometime to go full circle with that little passage.
- The destruction of Vulcan was by far the thing I found most disturbing from the film. As a longtime fan, that sequence was very painful for me to watch, as was Amanda's death. I understand Abrams' motivations: he wanted to show that there was real danger in this universe and that things wouldn't necessarily turn out as we expected. And I don't think that its glossed over as both the young and old Spocks are forced to openly deal with it and the ramifications at various points throughout the film - young Spock notes in his log that he is now a member of an endangered species; old Spock confesses to being "emotionally compromised".
- The crew was young at the start but remember at that point, Pike and the Federation were not aware of the magnitude of the threat to Vulcan; they thought it was a natural phenomenon and as most of the fleet was engaged elsewhere (convenient I know, but hardly unprecedented in the lore of Trek) they were all that was available. Its also a concession to the current trend in Hollywood to go young; Trek is hardly the only film to do that recently.
- The time travel element was kludgy; it was an attempt to appease the old time fans who might have taken a mass coronary if Trek had been explicitly rebooted (ala Bond). According to the writers, Nero's incursion created a new timeline running in parallel to the "classic" timeline (the characters even mention this within the film at one point). Thus the adventures of this new crew would not overwrite or undo what came before, but simply stand on their own, existing parallel to the "classic" timeline. Personally I don't think it was necessary to go to such lengths - Trek was dead prior to this film - but I can respect their attempts to appease the diehard fans while still trying to make it fresh and accessible for new audiences. I don't think it broke the film.
Glad to hear you liked it; the movie will be coming out on DVD and BluRay November 17 BTW.
Eric Banna was superb as Nero, probably the best performance in the film, while everyone else really impressed me. .
Really ? I found it particularly bland and forgetable and I couldn't care less about any of his motivations or his ugly ship. I think by far the stand out was Zachary Quinto as Spock. He really became the character.
For me, the biggest revelation here was Chris Pine who did the impossible: evoking Captain Kirk while never sinking to Shatner parody.
Really it was just common sense, just don't act like Shatner. The role of James T. Kirk is an empty shell anyone could occupy convincingly with the right physique.
For me, the biggest revelation here was Chris Pine who did the impossible: evoking Captain Kirk while never sinking to Shatner parody.
Really it was just common sense, just don't act like Shatner. The role of James T. Kirk is an empty shell anyone could occupy convincingly with the right physique.
An empty shell? Don't let our mod Alex catch you saying stuff like that.
Shatner's Kirk was hardly an empty shell. Today he is largely a parody of himself, but go watch some of those old classic shows like City on the Edge of Forever or Where No Man Has Gone Before or The Enemy Within again (or check him out in Twilight Zone's Horror at 20,000 Feet) and you'll see a pretty memorable character with a ton of facets to him and an utterly unique, if sometimes hammy, delivery. Yeah, he did go overboard a lot but when he was into his lines he had a real command of the camera.
The beauty of Pine's performance was that he did do his own thing, but still threw in a little mannerism here (the way he sits in the captain's chair) and an inflection there (the way he says "Bones" when speaking to McCoy) to give us hints of Shatner's delivery without hitting us over the head. Very subtle but definitely there if you're familiar with the character.
For me, the biggest revelation here was Chris Pine who did the impossible: evoking Captain Kirk while never sinking to Shatner parody.
Really it was just common sense, just don't act like Shatner. The role of James T. Kirk is an empty shell anyone could occupy convincingly with the right physique.
An empty shell? Don't let our mod Alex catch you saying stuff like that.
Shatner's Kirk was hardly an empty shell. Today he is largely a parody of himself, but go watch some of those old classic shows like City on the Edge of Forever or Where No Man Has Gone Before or The Enemy Within again (or check him out in Twilight Zone's Horror at 20,000 Feet) and you'll see a pretty memorable character with a ton of facets to him and an utterly unique, if sometimes hammy, delivery. Yeah, he did go overboard a lot but when he was into his lines he had a real command of the camera.
The beauty of Pine's performance was that he did do his own thing, but still threw in a little mannerism here (the way he sits in the captain's chair) and an inflection there (the way he says "Bones" when speaking to McCoy) to give us hints of Shatner's delivery without hitting us over the head. Very subtle but definitely there if you're familiar with the character.
Sorry I honetly never saw much of a character in Kirk despite what the situation was. He is one of the epitomes of fantasy sci-fi heros by no means a three dimensonal character. I think Spock is more of a fleshed out character. Then again, I am not a "Trekkie" by any means. A casual viewer. Dosen't mean I don't understand though. I feel the same for the onscreen James Bond to an extent.
As for Pine, I found him enjoyable but not exactly brilliant.
Eric Banna was superb as Nero, probably the best performance in the film, while everyone else really impressed me. .
Really ? I found it particularly bland and forgetable and I couldn't care less about any of his motivations or his ugly ship.
No, I thought he was really cool. Of what we saw of him, I loved. As for the ship, I thought it suited him perfectly. ) Truth be told, I am a little biased, as I am a huge Bana fan, but I really thought that he had the making of a great villain, if only we saw more of him.
I think by far the stand out was Zachary Quinto as Spock. He really became the character.
He was great as well.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Been watching the BluRay version of Star Trek Season 2. As with the first season set, the picture has been dramatically cleaned up and colors are much more vibrant with details (like visible sweat on the actors' brows) coming thru nicely. There is more inconsistency going from scene to scene compared to Season 1 but this is probably due to the fact that when the original shows were filmed there just wasn't enough time to get a perfect shot for every closeup; I expect such inconsistencies will be even more visible in the Season 3 set when it is released. Also, as is typical of shows of the period, closeups of all the female characters often have a softness to them; again, a deliberate technique. Still, the overall picture is fantastic and most scenes on these 1080p discs are so clear and vibrant and with such a nice sense of depth to them that they almost appear to be in 3D
The new CGI effects are a treat and certain episodes - like The Doomsday Machine and The Ultimate Computer - receive really major makeovers. For purists, the original effects are still only a click of the remote away. Sound is also improved, with the photon torpedoes, phasers and other ambient effects redone in 7.1 surround sound. The original mono soundtrack is also there. There's lots of extras too, which I haven't even begun to look at.
Overall, another great effort by CBS. Season Three is currently set be released in mid-December and will include a remastered version of The Cage, complete with all new CG effects, and the never before seen alternate version of Where No Man Has Gone Before, which includes several scenes cut from the final episode, also restored and remastered. Between that release and the new movie taking its home video bow in mid November it's a great time to be a Star Trek fan.
and the never before seen alternate version of Where No Man Has Gone Before, which includes several scenes cut from the final episode, also restored and remastered.
There's a streaming video restriction at the office so I won't be able to check this out until tonight but Alex, I'm curious if you've seen the new movie yet as it's now out on home video.
I picked up the BluRay a few days ago and was very impressed with the presentation and amount of behind the scenes stuff, though it was a little disconcerting to see and hear everyone pandering to JJ Abrams as much as they did.
I can handle the first, deaths have always been a part of Trek. (Think back to Kirk's family in Season One final episode) As long as a major character isn't offed. (Unless they're brought back by Genesis of course)
The second is big no-no because it signifies the death of an entire race, and a rather important one at that!
Just thought I'd mention this unimportant anecdote
So I walk into the breakroom for a cup of coffee, and TNG is playing. A cranky Worf goes; "There's nothing wrong with this guiding system, I installed it myself!!!"
(spilled java on shirt)
Worf is a riot )
PS: Here's an amusing video, Top Ten Trek Technobabbles.
Is this the first teaser image from the next Star Trek movie? It's been making the rounds around the web but Paramount will neither confirm nor deny. Given the level of detail and abundance of little touches I'm inclined to think the image is legit, but the "Summer 2012" could easily be a fan addition. Anyhow, it makes a nice wallpaper....
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,785MI6 Agent
Just thought I'd mention this unimportant anecdote
So I walk into the breakroom for a cup of coffee, and TNG is playing. A cranky Worf goes; "There's nothing wrong with this guiding system, I installed it myself!!!"
(spilled java on shirt)
Worf is a riot )
PS: Here's an amusing video, Top Ten Trek Technobabbles.
Sounds like the Seventh Season Episode "Genesis" before everything goes insane - was he in Ten Forward, stuffing his face and groucing to Troi about his bad day? - She starts guzzling water from apparant dehydration?
Re the publicity pic, the ange of the ship looks like the scene when the ships all go to warp - so it could be either a mock up, or a budgeted reuse by Paramount? (Shrugs)
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
The first preview and trailer of Star Trek Into Darkness are to be released on December 14th. A nine minute preview will be attached to IMAX screenings of The Hobbit. A separate trailer will be attached to 2D prints of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings prequel. If you are not interested in seeing The Hobbit, the Star Trek trailer will be attached to multiple prints the following weekend (including Paramount's own Jack Reacher).
The first poster for Star Trek Into Darkness has been released. It features a familiar symbol shaped by the destruction of surrounding buildings, with a mysterious dark figure standing upon a pile of rubble.
That poster - an obvious (shameless?) riff on The Dark Knight - doesn't really say Star Trek to me (no Enterprise, no Kirk & co., no seeking out new worlds or boldly going where no one has gone before anywhere in that pic) but maybe that's the point. The Trekkies will see the film regardless, so its important to try to draw in more of the average filmgoers who might not otherwise be interested in something with the words "Star Trek" in it.
Anyhow, an official teaser trailer will be premiering on the web on December 6 (two days from today) so we'll hopefully have a bit more of a taste of what the movie will be offering.
Comments
On another note, Johnny Carson is the greatest entertainer/talk show host of all time.
BTW, you did see the new movie, right?
i want that
very nice! -{
EDIT: p.s. Happy Birthday, Tony!
BTW, Paramount home video has officially announced that the DVD and BluRay versions of the new Star Trek movie will be released on November 17, 2009. I was hoping they'd follow the Iron Man model and release the film in late September, but I guess Paramount wanted to bow it closer to Christmas.
Here's a link to a page with info on what will be on each version: Star Trek DVD & BluRay
I saw Star Trek a while ago, and I thought I would finally put my review up.
I enjoyed it, however I didn't leave feeling all that excited. As someone who is a fan of Star Trek, but obviously not to the extent of many members on this site, I was quite looking forward to the film. But the film didn't deliver quite as much as I had hoped.
The Good: The performances were all very good. Eric Bana was superb as Nero, probably the best performance in the film, while everyone else really impressed me. This including Winona Ryder, one of my favourite actresses, whom I didn't recognise at all.
The Bad: Bana's Nero was completely underused. As I stated above, Bana IMO produced the film's best performance. It would have been wonderful to have seen more of him. Additionally, am I the only person who was bothered by the fact that the crew at the start of the film were so young? I can't believe that a crew full of baby-faced youngsters (I sound so old
The Ugly: I wasn't particularly impressed with the whole time travel thing. Time travel raises so many paradoxes, a few of which were raised by the film (such as Spock meeting himself), but what concerned me was the actual premise. At the end of the film, Kirk and co. defeat Nero and prevent him from destroying Earth. Well, great, except he's destroyed Vulcan, killing 6 billion people in the process. It's like preventing terrorists from destroying one continent, yet they still manage to destroy another.
All in all, I liked the film, I would certainly see a sequel, but I didn't love it and I left feeling disappointed.
EDIT- I can not believe that I got Eric Bana's name wrong.
If they really wanted to reinvigorate this series, they had do more then cast new young actors. Not to say they were bad but the cast deserved a far better script and director then this over-produced Hollywood hogwash.
Took you long enough!
As to a couple of your observations:
- As a fellow Australian, I'm sure Eric Bana will take umbrage to the fact that you spelled his name wrong again and again and again. Also, I must confess, compared to other memorable Trek villains like Khan and Chang Bana was a little too bland for me. His lack of screentime really robs his character of any gravitas. Try watching Star Trek II or Star Trek VI some time and I think you'll realize the villains from those films in particular were far better realized. For me, the biggest revelation here was Chris Pine who did the impossible: evoking Captain Kirk while never sinking to Shatner parody. Quinto and Urban were also very solid and Simon Pegg (who I was really worried about) was a pleasant surprise.
- The way Kirk beats the Kobiyashi Maru no-win scenario is a homage to events mentioned in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan as Kirk recounts his days at the academy. Try watching that sometime to go full circle with that little passage.
- The destruction of Vulcan was by far the thing I found most disturbing from the film. As a longtime fan, that sequence was very painful for me to watch, as was Amanda's death. I understand Abrams' motivations: he wanted to show that there was real danger in this universe and that things wouldn't necessarily turn out as we expected. And I don't think that its glossed over as both the young and old Spocks are forced to openly deal with it and the ramifications at various points throughout the film - young Spock notes in his log that he is now a member of an endangered species; old Spock confesses to being "emotionally compromised".
- The crew was young at the start but remember at that point, Pike and the Federation were not aware of the magnitude of the threat to Vulcan; they thought it was a natural phenomenon and as most of the fleet was engaged elsewhere (convenient I know, but hardly unprecedented in the lore of Trek) they were all that was available. Its also a concession to the current trend in Hollywood to go young; Trek is hardly the only film to do that recently.
- The time travel element was kludgy; it was an attempt to appease the old time fans who might have taken a mass coronary if Trek had been explicitly rebooted (ala Bond). According to the writers, Nero's incursion created a new timeline running in parallel to the "classic" timeline (the characters even mention this within the film at one point). Thus the adventures of this new crew would not overwrite or undo what came before, but simply stand on their own, existing parallel to the "classic" timeline. Personally I don't think it was necessary to go to such lengths - Trek was dead prior to this film - but I can respect their attempts to appease the diehard fans while still trying to make it fresh and accessible for new audiences. I don't think it broke the film.
Glad to hear you liked it; the movie will be coming out on DVD and BluRay November 17 BTW.
Really ? I found it particularly bland and forgetable and I couldn't care less about any of his motivations or his ugly ship. I think by far the stand out was Zachary Quinto as Spock. He really became the character.
Really it was just common sense, just don't act like Shatner. The role of James T. Kirk is an empty shell anyone could occupy convincingly with the right physique.
An empty shell? Don't let our mod Alex catch you saying stuff like that.
Shatner's Kirk was hardly an empty shell. Today he is largely a parody of himself, but go watch some of those old classic shows like City on the Edge of Forever or Where No Man Has Gone Before or The Enemy Within again (or check him out in Twilight Zone's Horror at 20,000 Feet) and you'll see a pretty memorable character with a ton of facets to him and an utterly unique, if sometimes hammy, delivery. Yeah, he did go overboard a lot but when he was into his lines he had a real command of the camera.
The beauty of Pine's performance was that he did do his own thing, but still threw in a little mannerism here (the way he sits in the captain's chair) and an inflection there (the way he says "Bones" when speaking to McCoy) to give us hints of Shatner's delivery without hitting us over the head. Very subtle but definitely there if you're familiar with the character.
Sorry I honetly never saw much of a character in Kirk despite what the situation was. He is one of the epitomes of fantasy sci-fi heros by no means a three dimensonal character. I think Spock is more of a fleshed out character. Then again, I am not a "Trekkie" by any means. A casual viewer. Dosen't mean I don't understand though. I feel the same for the onscreen James Bond to an extent.
As for Pine, I found him enjoyable but not exactly brilliant.
He was great as well.
Thankfully we didn't.
Thankfully "anyone" wasn't around when they cast the biggest badass of the galaxy.
Yeah, they got a charismatic person to fill the empty shell.
The new CGI effects are a treat and certain episodes - like The Doomsday Machine and The Ultimate Computer - receive really major makeovers. For purists, the original effects are still only a click of the remote away. Sound is also improved, with the photon torpedoes, phasers and other ambient effects redone in 7.1 surround sound. The original mono soundtrack is also there. There's lots of extras too, which I haven't even begun to look at.
Overall, another great effort by CBS. Season Three is currently set be released in mid-December and will include a remastered version of The Cage, complete with all new CG effects, and the never before seen alternate version of Where No Man Has Gone Before, which includes several scenes cut from the final episode, also restored and remastered. Between that release and the new movie taking its home video bow in mid November it's a great time to be a Star Trek fan.
Star Trek The Motion Comic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBSf6ooInJg&feature=player_embedded#
(enlarge and crank volume for true effect!)
I picked up the BluRay a few days ago and was very impressed with the presentation and amount of behind the scenes stuff, though it was a little disconcerting to see and hear everyone pandering to JJ Abrams as much as they did.
Tad apprehensive because of massive positive feedback. Usually when that happens, I come away underwhelmed since nothing can live up to that hype.
I will say when I saw the original uniforms in the trailer a tiny shiver when up my spine.
Guess I'm one of those fans who takes a long time on new releases! ;%
Finally got to see that motion comic; very clever and it's interesting how well those two universes fit together. I'll be on the lookout for Part II.
The second is big no-no because it signifies the death of an entire race, and a rather important one at that!
So I walk into the breakroom for a cup of coffee, and TNG is playing. A cranky Worf goes; "There's nothing wrong with this guiding system, I installed it myself!!!"
(spilled java on shirt)
Worf is a riot
PS: Here's an amusing video, Top Ten Trek Technobabbles.
http://www.cinemassacre.com/new/?p=3170
Sounds like the Seventh Season Episode "Genesis" before everything goes insane - was he in Ten Forward, stuffing his face and groucing to Troi about his bad day? - She starts guzzling water from apparant dehydration?
Re the publicity pic, the ange of the ship looks like the scene when the ships all go to warp - so it could be either a mock up, or a budgeted reuse by Paramount? (Shrugs)
The FULL article.
Star Trek Into Darkness Trailer Also Coming December 14
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Star-Trek-Darkness-Trailer-Also-Coming-December-14-34156.html
Article contains official synopsis.
First STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Poster Looks... Familiar
http://collider.com/star-trek-2-sequel-poster/215391/
Anyhow, an official teaser trailer will be premiering on the web on December 6 (two days from today) so we'll hopefully have a bit more of a taste of what the movie will be offering.