| Re: Star Trek (2009) |
Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009)
by CapFan on 2009/5/12 23:02:39
Quote:I'm showing my age...But, I was there when it was first run on NBC...back in 1967 ( I was 11 at the time )
So, yell at me all you want...lob tomatoes if ya feel like it...but, I have to give this a '5' out of "10". The only actor I was impressed by was Karl Urban's great portrayal of Dr. Leonard McCoy. Ulhura acted way off base...Checkov is only 17? Kirk is too much of a smart-ass jerk???
COME ON NOW!
Maybe they'll get it right in the next film...but, Ol' Charlie here ain't gonna hold his breath...
First, wow.
Second, I agree with you 100% about Karl Urban. Probably the best portrayal of one of the original characters in the entire movie hands down. I also agree about Uhura being off. Checkov was the youngest member of the crew I believe and remember this is now an alternate timeline where they pulled cadets from the academy to man the ship.
That leads into my point about Kirk. Kirk went from being the raised in Iowa by his mother and father to the Kirk we have now. The Kirk in this movie never knew his father other than the stories he was told. Without that positive male influence in his life, you get the Kirk that steals an antique roadster and purposefully drives into a canyon as a boy. You get the Kirk that hits the bars where cadets hang out so he can hit on the girls and fight with the guys.
The trailers and posters warned you. "This isn't your father's Star Trek." So, sorry, "Dad". 
For the record though, I did go see it with my dad who is a huge fan of ToS and was alive to watch it when it was a regular series and he loved it. He's two years older than you by the way, Wolf. (have I made you feel old enough yet?)
|
|
