Porn Trek!

[3113]

What I'm calling the new Star Trek movie. Why? Well, just look at the cast....

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/10/new-trekkie-photo.jpg

And, let's face it, Classic Star Trek with sexy young actors, modern special effects, a Kirk-Uhura love scene, surround-sound and action sequences...That's what I call porn!

A surprise preview was shown and one fan's review was "It melted my pants!"

So, hell, yeah, I'm psyched! I'm a geek and a long-time, classic Trek fan and I have got my tickets, you betcha! Anyone else going to be seeing it this weekend?

 

[Dragonlipz]

What I'm calling the new Star Trek movie. Why? Well, just look at the cast....

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/10/new-trekkie-photo.jpg

And, let's face it, Classic Star Trek with sexy young actors, modern special effects, a Kirk-Uhura love scene, surround-sound and action sequences...That's what I call porn!

A surprise preview was shown and one fan's review was "It melted my pants!"

So, hell, yeah, I'm psyched! I'm a geek and a long-time, classic Trek fan and I have got my tickets, you betcha! Anyone else going to be seeing it this weekend?

I'm in.....Uhura inspired a lifelong love of of exotic women of color.....my oldest child is mixed and her mother was hot!!!

 

[JamesSD]

I was in my late teen years when the cheesy Porn series "Sex Trek" came out, before gonzo porn existed and it seemed every porn was a parody of something (Babewatch, etc).

They definitely did sexify the cast.

 

[glynndah]

Star Trek + Nine Inch Nails = Closer

 

[past_perfect]

Star Trek + Nine Inch Nails = Closer

Brilliant!

Well, I'm most likely going to watch it this weekend also, but I am uncertain if I will be able to accept the new cast... I watched the new fan series (the new voyages) and there I wasn't really overly impressed by the performances (apart from the few appearances of the original cast). Still looking forward to it though.

 

[TE999]

I enjoyed the original TV series, TNG, DS9 and Voyager. I thot first two movies were good...the next were lame...everyone was too old. I'm curious to see how this new cast will continue the legacy...I'm guessin' pretty well.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Netflix.

 

[Saucy_Sage]

Yo, man: Rand? Isn't this the etymology of the word 'randy?'

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MMPH-E/254230~Grace-Lee-Whitney-Posters.jpg

 

[cloudy]

My favorite Star Trek video.

 

[Saucy_Sage]

My favorite Star Trek video.

[/QUOTE

That's hysterical!

In the non-gender sense of the word, of course.

 

[3113]

Saw It!

Saw it! Loved it! Incredibly fun reboot. Which is exactly what it is, a reboot. This is not your granddaddy's Star Trek...and yet it is!

In a nutshell, the story isn't brilliant, but you don't go to see this movie for the story so much as the characters. Homework was done both by writers and actors, and not only did in-jokes and accuracies abound, but every actor did a more than credible job of making you believe they were that character through and through. The actor playing McCoy was especially good, but everyone did a fantastic job. You fall in love with them and with those characters all over again and you realize why--because they're all, frankly, really terrific and likable characters.

There's fights, action, energy, a lot of good humor and sexiness. Every character gets their moment, and though you know those moments are contrived they don't feel contrived. I grinned, laughed out loud, cheered and had a great time.

This movie's got my recommendation. Not for little kids but middle to older kids will love it.

 

[3113]

Oh, and just to add, the movie was smart! A lot of movies are sloppy, by-the-numbers, as if the writer did it in their sleep. Not this movie. Certain expected things didn't happen. There were surprises and what characters did made sense. More, you believed that characters that were supposed to be this smart and clever were smart and clever.

One quick example: usually when the rebellious character shouts at the higher-ups that something is wrong and they need to listen to him, they don't. That's by the numbers. In this movie, they do and when he makes sense they say, "He's making sense. We should do what he says." At last! They do what we believe they'd do (being smart and clever characters) and the movie makes sense, and yet it doesn't in any way stall the movie! See! It can be done!

 

[slyc_willie]

Oh, and just to add, the movie was smart! A lot of movies are sloppy, by-the-numbers, as if the writer did it in their sleep. Not this movie. Certain expected things didn't happen. There were surprises and what characters did made sense. More, you believed that characters that were supposed to be this smart and clever were smart and clever.

One quick example: usually when the rebellious character shouts at the higher-ups that something is wrong and they need to listen to him, they don't. That's by the numbers. In this movie, they do and when he makes sense they say, "He's making sense. We should do what he says." At last! They do what we believe they'd do (being smart and clever characters) and the movie makes sense, and yet it doesn't in any way stall the movie! See! It can be done!

I'd been on the fence about this new reimagining, but more than a few reviewers have been impressed with the film. I was expecting to hear a lot of downgrading about the actors and the special effects, but there's been little of that.

As a Trek aficionado (but not a Trekkie ), I'm worried about the "modernization" many producers feel is necessary in a reimagining. Granted, Shatner, Nimoy, et al, began Star Trek at a time when men were macho and women mostly submissive, so I can understand that in order to appeal to modern audiences, the Trek men have to be more sensitive and women stronger. But, do you feel that Roddenberry's techno-utopia is still represented? Or has the future culture of Star Trek been made more "realistic?"

 

[3113]

Granted, Shatner, Nimoy, et al, began Star Trek at a time when men were macho and women mostly submissive, so I can understand that in order to appeal to modern audiences, the Trek men have to be more sensitive and women stronger. But, do you feel that Roddenberry's techno-utopia is still represented? Or has the future culture of Star Trek been made more "realistic?"

(1) I did feel that the techno-utopia was still there in spirit. They have modernized to make the characters/world a bit tougher and hipper, but they offer a valid reason for that. They don't undermine it because all the characters are, themselves, filled with hope and energy. And humor. This movie doesn't take itself too seriously as some of the Trek tv shows did. They don't moralize or try to make things "gray" for the sake of making them gray. The Federation are the white hats and there's no doubt about that.

(2) This is a very macho movie. Yes, Uhura gets to do and be more. But there is tons of fighting from start to finish. Kirk gets into fist-fight after fist-fight...and in between he propositions just about every girl he sees. I think you'll be satisfied that the men have not been "sensitized," and though the women have been modernized, they're still very, very sexy. And the techno-utopia lives on in spirit.

 

[slyc_willie]

(1) I did feel that the techno-utopia was still there in spirit. They have modernized to make the characters/world a bit tougher and hipper, but they offer a valid reason for that. They don't undermine it because all the characters are, themselves, filled with hope and energy. And humor. This movie doesn't take itself too seriously as some of the Trek tv shows did. They don't moralize or try to make things "gray" for the sake of making them gray. The Federation are the white hats and there's no doubt about that.

(2) This is a very macho movie. Yes, Uhura gets to do and be more. But there is tons of fighting from start to finish. Kirk gets into fist-fight after fist-fight...and in between he propositions just about every girl he sees. I think you'll be satisfied that the men have not been "sensitized," and though the women have been modernized, they're still very, very sexy. And the techno-utopia lives on in spirit.

Well, I wasn't exactly rooting for a return to "machoism," but I guess I wanted to be satisfied that some of the testosterone hadn't been drained away. From the way you paint it, the new Star Trek is becoming more and more tempting.

I think I'll bite the bullet and see the hype for myself. Thanks, Elle.

 

[slyc_willie]

One more thing, which I think might be explained in the movie, but I'll ask nonetheless.

In the original Star Trek series, Kirk took over the captain's reins from, I believe, a man named Pike. The Enterprise series has a Captain Johnathan Archer as Enterprise's first captain. So Kirk is, at least, the third man to helm the Starfleet flagship in the original chronology. But, at least two reviews of the new movie indicate that the Enterprise is on it's maiden voyage, with the implication being that Kirk was the first captain.

Does this film, then, ignore the original timeline?

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I think can tell you without seeing it that he is not the first captain of the Enterprise. He is a crewman when it takes that maiden voyage.

I will probably see it tomorrow night or Sunday afternoon, maybe.

 

[Gizzmotick]

Kat and I are going next Saturday (in a week) to see it at IMAX with a rather large group from work.

I do believe I will have to now ignore this thread until then.

Don't want to ruin everything.

 

[3113]

In the original Star Trek series, Kirk took over the captain's reins from, I believe, a man named Pike. The Enterprise series has a Captain Johnathan Archer as Enterprise's first captain. So Kirk is, at least, the third man to helm the Starfleet flagship in the original chronology.

The film doesn't ignore the original timeline, per se. I can't remember for sure (as the movie went by pretty fast and furious) but I believe the Enterprise they're flying is simply the latest of that name. Archer is obliquely mentioned. So Captain Christopher Pike, who is a character in this movie, is either the second Captain of "an" Enterprise and/or the first of this brand, shiny new one that looks the way we all remember from the show--though the bridge, of course, has been modernized.

...so the timeline is maintained at least so far in that he comes after Pike. But it's not quite the same, and you'll have to see the movie to know why

Just to add: I was asked by a friend how I liked the tech, and I did like it because I think they did the smart thing. If you try to modernize too much, then the tech stands out--as in Minority Report, where the cool tech is important and needs to stand out. But you really can't go back to flippy clocks as the audience will wonder why. Is this a universe where the hip decoration is pop 60's? Everyone on the Enterprise, after all, *should* have a communicator that can do as much if not more than an iPhone ("Want to turn your iCommunicator into a phaser? There's an app for that!").

Wisely, I think, the movie's creators modernized the ship just far enough that all the tech looks plausible for us, and therefore we take it for granted. It doesn't stand out as too modern, and it certainly isn't retro-flippy clocks that would have us scratching our heads. They also toss in all the old tech that was never explained (aka, the salt and pepper shakers that Dr. McCoy used to wave around to find out what was wrong with someone).

Works!

 

[rgraham666]

One more thing, which I think might be explained in the movie, but I'll ask nonetheless.

In the original Star Trek series, Kirk took over the captain's reins from, I believe, a man named Pike. The Enterprise series has a Captain Johnathan Archer as Enterprise's first captain. So Kirk is, at least, the third man to helm the Starfleet flagship in the original chronology. But, at least two reviews of the new movie indicate that the Enterprise is on it's maiden voyage, with the implication being that Kirk was the first captain.

Does this film, then, ignore the original timeline?

That Enterprise is the second starship to have that name.

Like the Enterprise here on Earth there's a long history of ships bearing the name.

 

[CharleyH]

What I'm calling the new Star Trek movie. Why? Well, just look at the cast....

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/10/new-trekkie-photo.jpg

And, let's face it, Classic Star Trek with sexy young actors, modern special effects, a Kirk-Uhura love scene, surround-sound and action sequences...That's what I call porn!

A surprise preview was shown and one fan's review was "It melted my pants!"

So, hell, yeah, I'm psyched! I'm a geek and a long-time, classic Trek fan and I have got my tickets, you betcha! Anyone else going to be seeing it this weekend?

I saw it yesterday, so I won't say much other than as a fan who lived with a Trekkie (and has seen the original series 20 times over) I loved how they dealt with it and was even impressed with the delivery of familiar original series lines. I wouldn't go so far as to call it Porn Trek, though. However, as stated, I am not a Trekkie, just a fan who really couldn't logically relate to the major love interest scene.

 

[cloudy]

I saw it yesterday, so I won't say much other than as a fan who lived with a Trekkie (and has seen the original series 20 times over) I loved how they dealt with it and was even impressed with the delivery of familiar original series lines. I wouldn't go so far as to call it Porn Trek, though. However, as stated, I am not a Trekkie, just a fan who really couldn't logically relate to the major love interest scene.

Please tell me that McCoy said, at least once, "He's dead, Jim."

 

[CharleyH]

Please tell me that McCoy said, at least once, "He's dead, Jim."

lol, Jeez, I can't remember exactly, but he did say something along the lines of, "Good God, man", which I was waiting for and he had a few good digs regarding Spock!

 

[3113]

Please tell me that McCoy said, at least once, "He's dead, Jim."

Actually, I think that's the one thing he didn't get to say. Have'ta save something for the next movie. And I can guarantee you that there's going to be a next. If they were smart they signed these actors up for at least three movies.

Oh, and I have to make a serious amendment...there's no Kirk Uhura love scene. But I don't think that any one will be dissatisfied with who Kirk does get it on with or with Uhura

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Oh, and I have to make a serious amendment...there's no Kirk Uhura love scene. But I don't think that any one will be dissatisfied with who Kirk does get it on with or with Uhura

Well, that just goes to show that there is at least some modest understanding of military decorum.