[Yudster]

I just liked the direction they took the film in, but then I loved Batman Begins as well.

I haven't even seen that one. I guess I really should!

If you aren't interested in Batman, and don't enjoy the films, then why?!

[Latina]

I just liked the direction they took the film in, but then I loved Batman Begins as well.

I haven't even seen that one. I guess I really should!

If you aren't interested in Batman, and don't enjoy the films, then why?!

Because it's the one before the Dark Knight, and therefore might make it easier for me to appreciate it. I had a feeling I was missing some prior knowledge.

[MK Chris]

I think you can definitely watch The Dark Knight without having seen Batman Begins, I just love both films. I don't think watching Batman Begins is going to change your opinion in the slightest to be honest.

[Munki Bhoy]

I loved the 1989 Batman movie. Michael Keaton was brilliant in it, but Jack Nicholson was better. The second one was probably more fun (or in my case teenage lusting after Michelle Pfeiffer) but after that they went down hill.

Until Batman Begins. Brilliant reboot. They didn't kid around that they were starting again or try and shoehorn in that the previous movies were being written off. That was probably a good move on their part. If you want to do things differently from what's gone before, go for it. But don't try and pretend it's part of the same series with a shoehorned plot device to explain all the differences ala the new Star Trek movie.

Anyway, for all Batman Begins was good, Dark Knight was better. I watched Batman 1989 again after seeing it and to be honest...

Heath Ledger > Jack Nicholson.

I mean, I still like Nicholson's lunatic Joker, but Ledgers was truly psychotic and a better villain for it.

[Johnny 1989]

Whoa, whoa, WHOA! Patrick Troughton & Tom Baker were superb, I must point out however that I worded my original statement wrong, I like both the modern & classic series.

Patrick Troughton was hammy, stagey and wrinkly in a bad show. Tom Baker went ridiculously over the top with the same old sub-standard material, and produced a memorable performance as a result, but the memorable performance was still in a dreadful programme.

Patrick Troughton wasn't hammy or stagey (he hated the stage by the way, he's been quoted as to say "lots of shouting in wide shot" or something to that effect, when it came to Theatre, he prefered TV/Films) he bought a bit of magic to the part. As for Tom being over the top, yes he did at times but he was still great.

Oh well I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree then

[MK Chris]

I loved the 1989 Batman movie. Michael Keaton was brilliant in it, but Jack Nicholson was better. The second one was probably more fun (or in my case teenage lusting after Michelle Pfeiffer) but after that they went down hill.

Until Batman Begins. Brilliant reboot. They didn't kid around that they were starting again or try and shoehorn in that the previous movies were being written off. That was probably a good move on their part. If you want to do things differently from what's gone before, go for it. But don't try and pretend it's part of the same series with a shoehorned plot device to explain all the differences ala the new Star Trek movie.

Anyway, for all Batman Begins was good, Dark Knight was better. I watched Batman 1989 again after seeing it and to be honest...

Heath Ledger > Jack Nicholson.

I mean, I still like Nicholson's lunatic Joker, but Ledgers was truly psychotic and a better villain for it.

I agree with all of that bit (except lusting after Michelle Pfeiffer and the bit about Star Trek, which I don't know if I agree with or not).

[Latina]

Until Batman Begins. Brilliant reboot. They didn't kid around that they were starting again or try and shoehorn in that the previous movies were being written off. That was probably a good move on their part. If you want to do things differently from what's gone before, go for it. But don't try and pretend it's part of the same series with a shoehorned plot device to explain all the differences ala the new Star Trek movie.

*Potential spoilers for Star Trek*

For all its complications and the fact that it is a bit of a cop-out, I don't mind what they did with the new Star Trek movie, as the Trekkie in me (albeit not much of one - only saw movies I-VI) would have been irritated if the canon was changed too much. This way, there are basically two universes that are both canon, which wouldn't have worked for Batman. Hence, Batman was free to go for the total reboot.

Star Trek is a bit different though. For one thing, characters have usually been played by the same actors throughout most of the entire franchise (at least the film/TV part), and these associations are strongly cemented, unlike other franchises such as Batman and Bond in which viewers are used to new incarnations of the same characters every few years.

However, JJ Abrams and co have managed to find a way to make a prequel and recast the original characters (which was of course inevitable given the age of the series) in a way that might succeed in both appeasing those who were comfortable with the way the franchise had run so far, and starting afresh.

There's an article on how the new movie fits in with the previous time frame here: http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-orc ... l-science/

[Munki Bhoy]

There's an article on how the new movie fits in with the previous time frame here: http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-orc ... l-science/

*SPOILER ALERT*

I have no problem with anything that is said in that article. Except that what they said in that article isn't actually the case at certain points.

For instance, they mentioned that while some characters are completely bollocksed up by the timeline changing - ie. Jim Kirk - others - ie. Spock - is not. Nonsense. Spock has dramatically changed for no good reason as far as I can see. The relationship with Uhura proves it. Vulcans only spark up relationships when Pon Farr kicks in. But leaving that aside, Spock spent three seasons of TOS turning Nurse Chapel down! If he were to be consistent with his "prime universe" character he'd turn down Uhura as well.

Further more, the question that they didn't answer was an interesting one. Does Spock try to restore his timeline? Well, no he doesn't. But if he were to be consistent with any other character in Star Trek - including himself in City on the Edge of Forever - he'd want to restore his timeline. ESPECIALLY given the fact than in his timeline billions of Vulcans don't needlessly die. If anything old Spock would be going for the winner and trying to save Romulus in his timeline's future as well as Vulcan.

Better still - where's Captain Archer's time travelling friends? You know, those Temporal Agents that kept turning up who seemingly could jump between the different universes. They even turned up on Voyager once or twice. Surely given such a dramatic change in the timeline they'd be wanting to sort things?

My problem with this whole "alternate universe" thing is that, yes it could explain a lot of differences. But they've made so many sweeping changes and so dramatically altered the timeline - killing off a whole planet worth of Vulcans is definitely something any sane person would want to change if they knew it was possible and certainly if they knew it wasn't meant to be in the first place - that they've ended up taking what could have been a good idea and overdone it. Therefore in my eyes they've completely wasted it.

The other major problem I have with the movie is the ridiculous notion that you could hand over the keys to the Federation's flag ship to a cadet who was suspended when they left Earth! I don't care what he's done, you commend him and put him back in school to graduate. If you're really lucky you get a commission. You don't get booted straight up to Captain! The prime universe Captain Kirk became the great Captain he was through experience from the Farragut. Gut instinct just isn't enough to justify one Captain/Admiral's faith in you. If Starfleet was that desperate for Captains, how come Spock got stuck being first officer?

To me, this movie was a big, big gamble. If it had paid off it would have been brilliant and they could have kicked on from there. But they've made some whopping errors, and I'm amazed that I'm one of the few dissenting voices in the wilderness to be saying this. Especially given how anal your average Trekkie/Trekker (the fact there's two names and people get pissed off depending on which one you use proves the analness) can be.

[Johnny 1989]

There's an article on how the new movie fits in with the previous time frame here: http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-orc ... l-science/

*SPOILER ALERT*

I have no problem with anything that is said in that article. Except that what they said in that article isn't actually the case at certain points.

For instance, they mentioned that while some characters are completely bollocksed up by the timeline changing - ie. Jim Kirk - others - ie. Spock - is not. Nonsense. Spock has dramatically changed for no good reason as far as I can see. The relationship with Uhura proves it. Vulcans only spark up relationships when Pon Farr kicks in. But leaving that aside, Spock spent three seasons of TOS turning Nurse Chapel down! If he were to be consistent with his "prime universe" character he'd turn down Uhura as well.

Further more, the question that they didn't answer was an interesting one. Does Spock try to restore his timeline? Well, no he doesn't. But if he were to be consistent with any other character in Star Trek - including himself in City on the Edge of Forever - he'd want to restore his timeline. ESPECIALLY given the fact than in his timeline billions of Vulcans don't needlessly die. If anything old Spock would be going for the winner and trying to save Romulus in his timeline's future as well as Vulcan.

Better still - where's Captain Archer's time travelling friends? You know, those Temporal Agents that kept turning up who seemingly could jump between the different universes. They even turned up on Voyager once or twice. Surely given such a dramatic change in the timeline they'd be wanting to sort things?

My problem with this whole "alternate universe" thing is that, yes it could explain a lot of differences. But they've made so many sweeping changes and so dramatically altered the timeline - killing off a whole planet worth of Vulcans is definitely something any sane person would want to change if they knew it was possible and certainly if they knew it wasn't meant to be in the first place - that they've ended up taking what could have been a good idea and overdone it. Therefore in my eyes they've completely wasted it.

The other major problem I have with the movie is the ridiculous notion that you could hand over the keys to the Federation's flag ship to a cadet who was suspended when they left Earth! I don't care what he's done, you commend him and put him back in school to graduate. If you're really lucky you get a commission. You don't get booted straight up to Captain! The prime universe Captain Kirk became the great Captain he was through experience from the Farragut. Gut instinct just isn't enough to justify one Captain/Admiral's faith in you. If Starfleet was that desperate for Captains, how come Spock got stuck being first officer?

To me, this movie was a big, big gamble. If it had paid off it would have been brilliant and they could have kicked on from there. But they've made some whopping errors, and I'm amazed that I'm one of the few dissenting voices in the wilderness to be saying this. Especially given how anal your average Trekkie/Trekker (the fact there's two names and people get pissed off depending on which one you use proves the analness) can be.

Whoa! Calm down a bit it's only fiction, it's only fiction!

I suppose I just watch Sci-Fi like I would any other drama, if it entertains me it's good, if it doesn't then I know not to watch it again.

I'll be honest though I'm surprised more Trekkies weren't up in arms about it.

[Latina]

There's an article on how the new movie fits in with the previous time frame here: http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-orc ... l-science/

*SPOILER ALERT*

I have no problem with anything that is said in that article. Except that what they said in that article isn't actually the case at certain points.

For instance, they mentioned that while some characters are completely bollocksed up by the timeline changing - ie. Jim Kirk - others - ie. Spock - is not. Nonsense. Spock has dramatically changed for no good reason as far as I can see. The relationship with Uhura proves it. Vulcans only spark up relationships when Pon Farr kicks in. But leaving that aside, Spock spent three seasons of TOS turning Nurse Chapel down! If he were to be consistent with his "prime universe" character he'd turn down Uhura as well.

Further more, the question that they didn't answer was an interesting one. Does Spock try to restore his timeline? Well, no he doesn't. But if he were to be consistent with any other character in Star Trek - including himself in City on the Edge of Forever - he'd want to restore his timeline. ESPECIALLY given the fact than in his timeline billions of Vulcans don't needlessly die. If anything old Spock would be going for the winner and trying to save Romulus in his timeline's future as well as Vulcan.

Better still - where's Captain Archer's time travelling friends? You know, those Temporal Agents that kept turning up who seemingly could jump between the different universes. They even turned up on Voyager once or twice. Surely given such a dramatic change in the timeline they'd be wanting to sort things?

My problem with this whole "alternate universe" thing is that, yes it could explain a lot of differences. But they've made so many sweeping changes and so dramatically altered the timeline - killing off a whole planet worth of Vulcans is definitely something any sane person would want to change if they knew it was possible and certainly if they knew it wasn't meant to be in the first place - that they've ended up taking what could have been a good idea and overdone it. Therefore in my eyes they've completely wasted it.

The other major problem I have with the movie is the ridiculous notion that you could hand over the keys to the Federation's flag ship to a cadet who was suspended when they left Earth! I don't care what he's done, you commend him and put him back in school to graduate. If you're really lucky you get a commission. You don't get booted straight up to Captain! The prime universe Captain Kirk became the great Captain he was through experience from the Farragut. Gut instinct just isn't enough to justify one Captain/Admiral's faith in you. If Starfleet was that desperate for Captains, how come Spock got stuck being first officer?

To me, this movie was a big, big gamble. If it had paid off it would have been brilliant and they could have kicked on from there. But they've made some whopping errors, and I'm amazed that I'm one of the few dissenting voices in the wilderness to be saying this. Especially given how anal your average Trekkie/Trekker (the fact there's two names and people get pissed off depending on which one you use proves the analness) can be.

I really must take some time to digest this post when I am not working...

[Munki Bhoy]

I took my dad to see it last night. He enjoyed it. So I should just give up now and claim my "most anally retentive Trekkie" trophy. Clearly the rest of them have given up.

Although I did work out that the first time me and my dad went to see a Star Trek movie together was a full 20 years ago now. Kinda scary thinking it was that long.

Although it was Star Trek V, so maybe I should stop going with him cos they apparently suck when I do that...

[Sunny So Cal]

You need to let it go now Munki. Just walk away.

[Zoot]

Munki is reminding me a bit of Tim's issue with the Phantom Menace in Spaced.

I didn't have you down as a Spaced fan lottie!

[Munki Bhoy]

Must go watch Spaced actually, haven't seen it in ages.

[foot-loose]

RIGHT... ive seen this bloody film now. Firstly:

There's an article on how the new movie fits in with the previous time frame here: http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-orc ... l-science/

*SPOILER ALERT*

I have no problem with anything that is said in that article. Except that what they said in that article isn't actually the case at certain points.

For instance, they mentioned that while some characters are completely bollocksed up by the timeline changing - ie. Jim Kirk - others - ie. Spock - is not. Nonsense. Spock has dramatically changed for no good reason as far as I can see. The relationship with Uhura proves it. Vulcans only spark up relationships when Pon Farr kicks in. But leaving that aside, Spock spent three seasons of TOS turning Nurse Chapel down! If he were to be consistent with his "prime universe" character he'd turn down Uhura as well.

Further more, the question that they didn't answer was an interesting one. Does Spock try to restore his timeline? Well, no he doesn't. But if he were to be consistent with any other character in Star Trek - including himself in City on the Edge of Forever - he'd want to restore his timeline. ESPECIALLY given the fact than in his timeline billions of Vulcans don't needlessly die. If anything old Spock would be going for the winner and trying to save Romulus in his timeline's future as well as Vulcan.

Better still - where's Captain Archer's time travelling friends? You know, those Temporal Agents that kept turning up who seemingly could jump between the different universes. They even turned up on Voyager once or twice. Surely given such a dramatic change in the timeline they'd be wanting to sort things?

My problem with this whole "alternate universe" thing is that, yes it could explain a lot of differences. But they've made so many sweeping changes and so dramatically altered the timeline - killing off a whole planet worth of Vulcans is definitely something any sane person would want to change if they knew it was possible and certainly if they knew it wasn't meant to be in the first place - that they've ended up taking what could have been a good idea and overdone it. Therefore in my eyes they've completely wasted it.

The other major problem I have with the movie is the ridiculous notion that you could hand over the keys to the Federation's flag ship to a cadet who was suspended when they left Earth! I don't care what he's done, you commend him and put him back in school to graduate. If you're really lucky you get a commission. You don't get booted straight up to Captain! The prime universe Captain Kirk became the great Captain he was through experience from the Farragut. Gut instinct just isn't enough to justify one Captain/Admiral's faith in you. If Starfleet was that desperate for Captains, how come Spock got stuck being first officer?

To me, this movie was a big, big gamble. If it had paid off it would have been brilliant and they could have kicked on from there. But they've made some whopping errors, and I'm amazed that I'm one of the few dissenting voices in the wilderness to be saying this. Especially given how anal your average Trekkie/Trekker (the fact there's two names and people get pissed off depending on which one you use proves the analness) can be.

Stop yer whining ya moany cow!

It was cracking! There was spaceships and BOOOOOM explosions and PEOW PEOW lasers and "live long and prosper" and "For God's Sake Jim!!" and "Ye canna change the laws of physics!" and "Space... the final front ears" and a hawt version of Captain Kirk and old Spock and TOS theme tune.

Cracking.

PS: IMAX RAWKS!

[Zoot]

I saw it today. It was alright. I spilt my popcorn on the floor though.

Best. Review. Ever.

[Yudster]

See I want to see it now, foot loose has sold it to me.

[Johnny 1989]

I watched it Sunday & thought it was great, great casting, great effects, great music, and I can't wait for a sequel.

I must buy the original series when I get paid next month

[Kaiser Chef]

I watched it Sunday & thought it was great, great casting, great effects, great music, and I can't wait for a sequel.

Are you me in disguise? I saw it on Sunday too and thought pretty much the same

[Johnny 1989]

I watched it Sunday & thought it was great, great casting, great effects, great music, and I can't wait for a sequel.

Are you me in disguise? I saw it on Sunday too and thought pretty much the same

Depends if your 5' 8" and weigh, a lot

I am glad though that "non trek fans" (which I do sort of class myself as, as I've never really watched them properly before) really enjoyed it.

I can see this new Star Trek franchise replace Star Wars, eventually, as the most popular Sci-Fi film series, mainly as this film "wasn't up it's arse"

[Console]

I don't think that Star Wars can really be classed as Sci-Fi - 'The Core' is more of a Sci-Fi film than Star-Wars.

[foot-loose]

Star Trek >>> Star Wars.

Dominos > Clone Wars!

[Munki Bhoy]

I don't think this latest Star Trek movie can be classed as Sci-Fi either. Action fantasy maybe, it was good at that.

[Kaiser Chef]

I watched it Sunday & thought it was great, great casting, great effects, great music, and I can't wait for a sequel.

Are you me in disguise? I saw it on Sunday too and thought pretty much the same

Depends if your 5' 8" and weigh, a lot

I am glad though that "non trek fans" (which I do sort of class myself as, as I've never really watched them properly before) really enjoyed it.

I can see this new Star Trek franchise replace Star Wars, eventually, as the most popular Sci-Fi film series, mainly as this film "wasn't up it's arse"

Yeah, this is gonna be a big brand re-launch and open it up to a new generation (the next generation, if you will...)

I'm not a trekky by any means, I used to watch it sometimes when I was a kid, starting from Next Generation, because my Mum used to watch it.

[Andy B]

Does this mean in ten years we'll have a new alternate Next Generation with Daniel Radclife as a prematurely bald Picard. Riker would have to be about 12 and god knows what infant would play Wesley Crusher.

New Star Trek film = big budget popcorn film with minimal/dubious plot.

Twix > Dominos.