Comments | aunty_marion: I am Born Again.

aunty_marion

I am Born Again.

May 23, 2009 00:48

"Sixteen years it's been, and now Trek has been born again..."

Actually, it's almost 30 years since The Motionless Picture, and 27 since TWoK. But this is a damn good film (originally typed 'filk' there - freudian slip, much?), even if it does have strong echoes of Galaxy QuestZachary Quinto does a damn fine job as Spock; I quite liked Karl Urban ( Read more... )

star trek

Comments 9

eoforyth May 23 2009, 00:48:03 UTC

30 years - has it really been that long? *feeling even older*

Also, Leonard Nimoy really should have got some stronger denture fixative.

I thought that when he was in the original films, so how bad is it 3 decades on?

essayel May 23 2009, 11:00:21 UTC

It didn't bother me at all that the replacement actors didn't look like the originals. I didn't like it that Uhura looked like a matchstick and I didn't like the script that turned MacCoy into a parody, but on the whole I enjoyed it as much as any of the other ST films.

Nimoy originally made his name advertising toothpaste so I doubt he had dentures back in the 60s. Possibly slightly ill-fitting caps?

aunty_marion May 23 2009, 11:37:59 UTC

I didn't notice Nimoy's slushiness of speech at all in whatever the last thing I saw him in was (possibly one of the Romulan redemption episodes of Next Gen or whatever, and only in passing then); but it sounded to me very much in this film as though his dentures don't quite fit properly. Either that, or he's got something else wrong with his mouth. OTOH, given that Spock is supposed to be at that point around 200 years old, he might just be forgiven. But it almost broke my heart to hear him. He used to have extremely clear diction.

Yes, Uhura was a bit of a matchstick compared with Nichelle, who was ... pneumatic. But one could give her the benefit of the doubt and let her have a few years' growth!

McCoy got most of the recognisable TOS rip-off lines, but then he always got those in the original anyway. There were enough other cross-references to keep me happy.

islandsmoke May 23 2009, 14:26:13 UTC

I generally avoid those kinds of (remake/revive/relive) movies, but I've heard it's good. Maybe I'll give it a try.

aunty_marion May 23 2009, 14:51:43 UTC

It's good. Just go to see it with an open mind. (And be prepared to drool over Zachary Quinto as Spock.)

(The comment has been removed)

aunty_marion May 23 2009, 14:37:32 UTC

Yes, he was bouncy enough (but SEVENTEEN?!?!?!?! What the heck was he doing on board? How many strings did his daddy pull? *G*) He did get the accent right, I'll give him that - just listening to him was very like listening to Walter in his first few episodes. Ditto for what'sisname who played Sarek - if I didn't look at him, he was OK.

lil_shepherd May 23 2009, 15:01:33 UTC

Well, most of the crew are Academy cadets, and the film Chekov is supposed to be a boy genius, so he probably got in early on his brains and sailed through the academic courses.

Seeing it a second time, some of the plot points made themselves much clearer and, apart from the dodgy science, quite a lot of it makes more sense than some people have been saying.

aunty_marion May 23 2009, 15:08:02 UTC

I think I need to see it again. Oh god. *foresees yet another week of pasta in cheap veg-and-bacon-and-cheese-sauce*

mbumby May 26 2009, 13:50:44 UTC

I was wondering how they'd handle the difference in ages -- i.e. how would such divergent folks all accumulate at the academy at the same time -- and they did ... okay with that. I still think Spock should have been a few decades older. However, I do agree that they managed to balance "not your parents' Star Trek" with "fresh and new and different" pretty well.

Although, as a comic fan, I'm having problems not thinking of it as "Ultimate Trek". (Lets rewrite all the lives, make everybody younger, edgier, and all the stories darker.)