ReformedChapin
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm going to go watch right now my gf. I want to see what all the fuss is about. I've never been a fan of Star Trek but this one has gotten pretty good reviews.
We'll See...
We'll See...
New Star Trek Movie = AWESOME
- Thread starter tellville
- Start date
- Status
tellville
Puritan Board Junior
So how did you like it?
Wannabee
Obi Wan Kenobi
Not to sound cliche, but it was awesome. Minus the green lady scene and a couple of expletives, it was a good, clean, space western. Action from before the credits to the end - an adrenaline rush. And the way they tied apparent inconsistencies with earlier Star Trek episodes together to make them consistent, in a sci fi way of speaking, was brilliant, setting the stage for a whole new generation of Enterprise voyages.
The opening scene was perhaps the best opening scene I've ever seen in a movie. A man's man shows what it is to love his wife as Christ loves the church and lives out the second great commandment. I won't spoil it here, but that scene was just about worth the cost of admittance.
And Spock's line about "live long and prosper" possibly being self-serving was priceless. I'll not mention who is talking to who though.
If you're a hard-core Trekkie you'll be annoyed until you get it. Then... love it or hate it, you'll simply have to deal with it.
I was looking forward to several summer movies, but can't go see Wolverine because of the language. However I look forward to seeing this one again; and the sequel; and so on...
The opening scene was perhaps the best opening scene I've ever seen in a movie. A man's man shows what it is to love his wife as Christ loves the church and lives out the second great commandment. I won't spoil it here, but that scene was just about worth the cost of admittance.
And Spock's line about "live long and prosper" possibly being self-serving was priceless. I'll not mention who is talking to who though.
If you're a hard-core Trekkie you'll be annoyed until you get it. Then... love it or hate it, you'll simply have to deal with it. I was looking forward to several summer movies, but can't go see Wolverine because of the language. However I look forward to seeing this one again; and the sequel; and so on...
Reformed Thomist
Puritan Board Sophomore
Looking forward to seeing this. The trailer does look amazing.
tellville
Puritan Board Junior
Not to sound cliche, but it was awesome. Minus the green lady scene and a couple of expletives, it was a good, clean, space western. Action from before the credits to the end - an adrenaline rush. And the way they tied apparent inconsistencies with earlier Star Trek episodes together to make them consistent, in a sci fi way of speaking, was brilliant, setting the stage for a whole new generation of Enterprise voyages.
The opening scene was perhaps the best opening scene I've ever seen in a movie. A man's man shows what it is to love his wife as Christ loves the church and lives out the second great commandment. I won't spoil it here, but that scene was just about worth the cost of admittance.
And Spock's line about "live long and prosper" possibly being self-serving was priceless. I'll not mention who is talking to who though.
I completely agree!
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
The missus and I saw it today. Very good, but a couple of the scenes were very hard to watch -- not because of anything "bad", but because of visual overstimulation. And there is one "cute" creature that is very Lucasian/Spielberg-esque in its addition (read: high cheese factor). Otherwise, a great movie.
MrMerlin777
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Hey, I like cheese.
The Trouble With Tribbles episode from TOS had an incredibly high cheese factor.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
I saw it Friday night. It sits, now, in the top 10 movies I'd watch again.
There was one time where McCoy used the Lord's name in vain, and one scene where Kirk had his shirt off with the green chick in a bikini and Ohura with a bra on for about 3 seconds. Those two spots are the only two ruinous parts to the film.
I'd say that the "reboot" to this movie for the series easily replaces everything else that they've done before. Other than the "Wrath of Kahn" which was a good movie, nothing else even closely resembles how excellent the film was.
If they did away with all other series, movies and shows of Trek, and it could be restarted and rebooted with this film, I'd be OK with that. And I think that is what JJ Abrahms was trying to do. (Of course his genious is behind LOST and FRINGE).
Hopefully they will continue the voyage in movies to come. It will be hard to top.
There was one time where McCoy used the Lord's name in vain, and one scene where Kirk had his shirt off with the green chick in a bikini and Ohura with a bra on for about 3 seconds. Those two spots are the only two ruinous parts to the film.
I'd say that the "reboot" to this movie for the series easily replaces everything else that they've done before. Other than the "Wrath of Kahn" which was a good movie, nothing else even closely resembles how excellent the film was.
If they did away with all other series, movies and shows of Trek, and it could be restarted and rebooted with this film, I'd be OK with that. And I think that is what JJ Abrahms was trying to do. (Of course his genious is behind LOST and FRINGE).
Hopefully they will continue the voyage in movies to come. It will be hard to top.
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
I absolutely loved it!! I'm a die hard trekkie and it took me twice before I fell in love. It was alot to take the first time but seeing it a second and on Imax was awsome. Even the first time in Sony 4k was amazing with HD picture quality no more dirty print all digital!!
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
You just forgot your glasses!
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
BTW, they showed a preview of the upcoming Transformers film! 
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Shall I call you Optimus Prime?
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
I usually make fun of Trekkie's, but that was an excellent movie. Easily the best that my wife and I have seen on the Big Screen in a long time.
There was a nobility included there that is lost in many of our modern action flicks including blockbusters such as X-men Origins, which was less noble than it was a revenge-fest.
There are a couple of scenes in there that might make some of you have to fight to keep from choking up, and it is one of the few (only?) big name movies in recent years that actually makes officers and the military look more like an honorable profession, and less like power hungry tools of the empire.
There was a nobility included there that is lost in many of our modern action flicks including blockbusters such as X-men Origins, which was less noble than it was a revenge-fest.
There are a couple of scenes in there that might make some of you have to fight to keep from choking up, and it is one of the few (only?) big name movies in recent years that actually makes officers and the military look more like an honorable profession, and less like power hungry tools of the empire.
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
[SPOILERS]
This is interesting and I disagree. Based on the thread, I am perhaps the only Trek fan who hated the movie. To me Kirk was self-indulgent and dissolute. He lacked heroic quality and was uninspiring. The early scene of him stealing a wrecking a car is emblematic of personal flaws (not that he perceives them as flaws) that he embraces, does not fight against, and never changes. That is not the character of a hero.
Also key plot points were silly. Staffing nearly all senior posts of the greatest ship in the the Federation with cadets is ridiculous and unbelievable. To say that all senior officers (except Pike) were gone on other missions is goofy. It was a deus ex machina strategy to get the cadets in the action and it shows. Further, to promote Kirk from the rank of cadet (not even a commissioned officer) to captain of the Federation's flagship at the end of the movie was utterly ridiculous. It is pandering to the age group of workers who think they should be able to enter the workforce and start out as president of the company (there are studies on this).
You suggested that Wolverine was a revenge fest. I disagree. In contrast, Wolverine was actually a consummate anti-revenge movie. In fact, eschewing revenge was the key moral theme. Wolverine has a sin nature. He is subject to rage and violence. His conscience accuses him of this and he repents and fights against his flaw. As in the Christian life, he does not alway succeed, but he does struggle, which is what we are called to do.
That is a key difference between Kirk and Wolverine. While both Kirk and Wolverine have flaws, Wolvie fights against his while Kirk embraces his. At the end of the movie Wolverine has a prime chance to take revenge on and kill his arch nemesis, struggles with the temptation to do so, and ultimately makes the right decision and does not take revenge. The theme that revenge is wrong is mirrored in the action of his girlfriend who has the chance to kill the main bad guy, Stryker, and does not. She explains that the reason she is not going to take revenge is that it would be wrong. Wolverine is an anti-revenge movie. It is also a movie about sanctification and struggling with temptations to do wrong. It was an excellent movie. I would rather have a movie with some profanity and violence but that ultimately makes a valid and inspiring moral point than one in which profanity is absent but the movie actually glorifies sin (Kirk's dissolute, selfish, hedonistic, and anti-authoritarian lifestyle).
The new Star Trek makes Kirk into a postmodern anti-hero. Even when he risks his life for people, he seems to be doing more as an action junkie than anything else.
I would have liked to see a lot more of Kirk's father, who seemed to be a legitimate hero, or even the earlier captain.
Anyway, those are my
and I know I am in the minority.
tellville
Puritan Board Junior
<spoilers>
He's a hero. He's a flawed hero, but he is definitely a hero.
Good point. However, I thought they did a halfway decent job of justifying this. First Pike makes him First Officer, a battlefield commission so to speak. Then Kirk "makes his bones" by defeating the Romulans and saving the day. Also remember that about a dozen Star Fleet vessels were destroyed in the initial Romulan attack, thus creating a huge manpower shortage and leadership void within Star Fleet. Situations like this often lead to (very) rapid promotion. Look at World War II, for example. The Army Air Corps rapidly expanded into the Army Air Forces, from just a few thousand planes to over fifty thousand. Anyone who showed signs of leadership, and who was lucky enough to not get his head blown off in combat was promoted. What choice did they have? Thus in time you had some very young officers promoted into tremendous areas of responsibility. These promotions were often temporary. After the war a lot of ex-captains and ex-majors were unceremoniously knocked down to sergeants and staff sergeants. Because the need was no longer there. In this timeline they need Kirk to be a captain at a real young age. But you're right. It would have been fun to see him going up through the ranks.
Kirk helped to save earth, not to mention Starfleet probably interrogated future Spock and found out how important cadet Kirk really is. Furthermore, when you prove yourself in the battlefield, versus on paper, which do you think Starfleet should care more about? Kirk earned his promotion, because Kirk out performed everyone.
Also, remember he was promoted to Captain from First Officer - a fairly logical promotion to my mind - not from an ordinary Cadet.
The promotion to First Officer was rapid, but as already pointed out this was made in the heat of battle by a Captain (who can ultimately chose whoever he wants in that context) and was based on rational criteria - leadership potential, combat ability and a long term knowledge of Kirk's background. It also came in the context of a general shortage of Starfleet personnel (as explained in the movie).
HE SAVED EARTH!! I think promoting him as Captain of a ship and crew that he commanded to save Earth makes sense. I think if I was an officer in Starfleet, I would either be jealous or more likely, hero worship the guy. HE SAVED EARTH!! But if you are talking about when he took over half way through the movie, I could see that from most if not all the crew members being upset, especially Cupcake. But nobody had the guts to take action, control and really command a ship and the situation. Everybody seemed to be to scared to think or do anything. He showed he can deal with fear and pressure under fire, like that Kobayashi Maru was testing for. He beat a nearly impossible situation, again with a cheat (future Spock).
Again, though, good point. I think if (when) they were to make a sequel then a good plot point would be how other captains don't take Kirk seriously and are resentful about it "it took me years to be a captain and this guy gets it after a day".
I am not sure describing Kirk as dissolute, selfish, hedonistic and anti-authoritarian is entirely accurate. He is selfish, but is he selfish when the rubber hits the road? He does risk his life countless time for people (even cupcake). He isn't really anti-authoritarian in the purely negative sense of the word. He does have what he believes to be justifying reasons for his actions (simulation a cheat; good evidence for the Enterprise about to enter a trap). He is definitely hedonistic and this is a flaw but when given a choice between his hedonism and sense of duty his duty clearly wins out.
I disagree. I think he has a sense of duty and obligation. His motive to risk his life isn't for action, but to save his friends, ship, and planet. He is clearly moved by the knowledge of his future friendship with Spock. It becomes a clear motivation near the end of the movie.
I don't think he is as much of a postmodern anti-hero as Batman is. Also, I am not sure describing him as an anti-hero is entirely accurate. He definitely is from a Christian perspective, but from the culture at large he is more of a postmodern hero.
I would have loved to see more of these guys as well! If anything, this was a brillantly cast movie!
Scott said:
He's a hero. He's a flawed hero, but he is definitely a hero.
Scott said:
Good point. However, I thought they did a halfway decent job of justifying this. First Pike makes him First Officer, a battlefield commission so to speak. Then Kirk "makes his bones" by defeating the Romulans and saving the day. Also remember that about a dozen Star Fleet vessels were destroyed in the initial Romulan attack, thus creating a huge manpower shortage and leadership void within Star Fleet. Situations like this often lead to (very) rapid promotion. Look at World War II, for example. The Army Air Corps rapidly expanded into the Army Air Forces, from just a few thousand planes to over fifty thousand. Anyone who showed signs of leadership, and who was lucky enough to not get his head blown off in combat was promoted. What choice did they have? Thus in time you had some very young officers promoted into tremendous areas of responsibility. These promotions were often temporary. After the war a lot of ex-captains and ex-majors were unceremoniously knocked down to sergeants and staff sergeants. Because the need was no longer there. In this timeline they need Kirk to be a captain at a real young age. But you're right. It would have been fun to see him going up through the ranks.
Kirk helped to save earth, not to mention Starfleet probably interrogated future Spock and found out how important cadet Kirk really is. Furthermore, when you prove yourself in the battlefield, versus on paper, which do you think Starfleet should care more about? Kirk earned his promotion, because Kirk out performed everyone.
Also, remember he was promoted to Captain from First Officer - a fairly logical promotion to my mind - not from an ordinary Cadet.
The promotion to First Officer was rapid, but as already pointed out this was made in the heat of battle by a Captain (who can ultimately chose whoever he wants in that context) and was based on rational criteria - leadership potential, combat ability and a long term knowledge of Kirk's background. It also came in the context of a general shortage of Starfleet personnel (as explained in the movie).
HE SAVED EARTH!! I think promoting him as Captain of a ship and crew that he commanded to save Earth makes sense. I think if I was an officer in Starfleet, I would either be jealous or more likely, hero worship the guy. HE SAVED EARTH!! But if you are talking about when he took over half way through the movie, I could see that from most if not all the crew members being upset, especially Cupcake. But nobody had the guts to take action, control and really command a ship and the situation. Everybody seemed to be to scared to think or do anything. He showed he can deal with fear and pressure under fire, like that Kobayashi Maru was testing for. He beat a nearly impossible situation, again with a cheat (future Spock).
Again, though, good point. I think if (when) they were to make a sequel then a good plot point would be how other captains don't take Kirk seriously and are resentful about it "it took me years to be a captain and this guy gets it after a day".
Scott said:
I am not sure describing Kirk as dissolute, selfish, hedonistic and anti-authoritarian is entirely accurate. He is selfish, but is he selfish when the rubber hits the road? He does risk his life countless time for people (even cupcake). He isn't really anti-authoritarian in the purely negative sense of the word. He does have what he believes to be justifying reasons for his actions (simulation a cheat; good evidence for the Enterprise about to enter a trap). He is definitely hedonistic and this is a flaw but when given a choice between his hedonism and sense of duty his duty clearly wins out.
Scott said:
I disagree. I think he has a sense of duty and obligation. His motive to risk his life isn't for action, but to save his friends, ship, and planet. He is clearly moved by the knowledge of his future friendship with Spock. It becomes a clear motivation near the end of the movie.
I don't think he is as much of a postmodern anti-hero as Batman is. Also, I am not sure describing him as an anti-hero is entirely accurate. He definitely is from a Christian perspective, but from the culture at large he is more of a postmodern hero.
Scott said:
I would have loved to see more of these guys as well! If anything, this was a brillantly cast movie!
Last edited:
ReformedChapin
Puritan Board Freshman
It was great. Lots of action and a pretty decent story line.
Next on the watch list Terminator: Salvation
I like Christian Bale. The only movie I didn't like with him in it was Shaft, that was a horrible movie but I like the other ones I have seen.
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
Mark - On Kirk's promotion, I see this as analogous to a guy who almost (but not quite - and was on the verge of being expelled) graduated from the Naval Academy, having an exemplary first mission, being promoted to be the captain of the absolute best flagship the Navy has to offer. It is outrageously silly. It drains the movie of credibility (for me at least).
The promotion to first officer was silly in itself (since Kirk was the only guy there on academic probation and on the verge of being expelled), the consequence of a silly situation of nobody more senior than a bunch of cadets being available. The whole thing piles one silly event on another.
As for Kirk, being a hero, he basically embraces criminal behavior in addition to being self-indulgent and dissolute. Prior to the 1960s, movies were governed by the Hayes Production Code, which had in part this guiding principle:
This was one principle:
The script writers put scenes in for a reason. The car theft is to give us insight into Kirk's antinomian philosophy.
The promotion to first officer was silly in itself (since Kirk was the only guy there on academic probation and on the verge of being expelled), the consequence of a silly situation of nobody more senior than a bunch of cadets being available. The whole thing piles one silly event on another.
As for Kirk, being a hero, he basically embraces criminal behavior in addition to being self-indulgent and dissolute. Prior to the 1960s, movies were governed by the Hayes Production Code, which had in part this guiding principle:
This was one principle:
Let's use the car theft scene as an example. The point and effect of the theft was to make the crime look cool. Kirk is similarly portrayed as cool because he does what he wants irrespective of how he hurts others. He hurt the owner of the car by destroying irreplaceable property. The movie portrays Kirk as someone who perceives himself as free from rules and law. He is antinomian. The movie portrayed this crime in a sympathetic light. Kirk is a bad guy.
The script writers put scenes in for a reason. The car theft is to give us insight into Kirk's antinomian philosophy.
Wannabee
Obi Wan Kenobi
SPOILER!
That's an interesting take Scott. I'd hate to over-analyze this, but I would have a slightly different take. Not that I don't see the validity, but there is some history. Kirk, historically (futuristically) was somewhat brash, but had a good record. He was a model, if somewhat unconventional, student. He rose up in Star Fleet because of his excellent credentials, among other things. And he had a wonderful relationship with his dad.
The opening scene changes all that we know about him. His mother does what she can and he has a guardian who is definitely not of the same character as his father. Thus, we see him as a trouble maker, which explains a lot as the show proceeds. It also gives the story a whole new dimension, which lends to so many opportunities for more movies that it's hardly worth mentioning. In light of this history, I didn't think the theft looked cool. I thought it reflected the reality that this Kirk was not the Kirk we grew up with. He might have some similar traits, but we're dealing with a different set of circumstances with characters who have been affected differently. It's a parallel universe scenario, but imposed because of a change in the events of their history rather than another dimension. Because of this, there is a certain validity to portraying him as a troubled young man who still has some grit.
Having said that, I would have much preferred a more noble Kirk. This indeed smacks of the modern entitlement generation and the unfortunate reality that it's often more about who you know than what you know. Perhaps we will see him mature with a greater purpose than fulfilling his own gratification in future episodes. I hope so.
That's an interesting take Scott. I'd hate to over-analyze this, but I would have a slightly different take. Not that I don't see the validity, but there is some history. Kirk, historically (futuristically) was somewhat brash, but had a good record. He was a model, if somewhat unconventional, student. He rose up in Star Fleet because of his excellent credentials, among other things. And he had a wonderful relationship with his dad.
The opening scene changes all that we know about him. His mother does what she can and he has a guardian who is definitely not of the same character as his father. Thus, we see him as a trouble maker, which explains a lot as the show proceeds. It also gives the story a whole new dimension, which lends to so many opportunities for more movies that it's hardly worth mentioning. In light of this history, I didn't think the theft looked cool. I thought it reflected the reality that this Kirk was not the Kirk we grew up with. He might have some similar traits, but we're dealing with a different set of circumstances with characters who have been affected differently. It's a parallel universe scenario, but imposed because of a change in the events of their history rather than another dimension. Because of this, there is a certain validity to portraying him as a troubled young man who still has some grit.
Having said that, I would have much preferred a more noble Kirk. This indeed smacks of the modern entitlement generation and the unfortunate reality that it's often more about who you know than what you know. Perhaps we will see him mature with a greater purpose than fulfilling his own gratification in future episodes. I hope so.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Part of the character of the "original" Kirk was spun out of the culture of the 1960s -- the philosophy of "don't trust anyone over the age of 30." Hence, Roddenberry places a young captain in charge of the Federation's flagship starship. Nevertheless, having a 25 year old at the head of the top spaceship in the galaxy does seem to stretch things a bit. I could understand the promotion to captain and all, but I would expect him to cut his teeth on other ships. But, as was pointed out above, after that battle, there might not be many ships left to captain!!!
A question: in the original Star Trek timeline, at what age did Kirk assume command of the Enterprise? And was it his first command?
A question: in the original Star Trek timeline, at what age did Kirk assume command of the Enterprise? And was it his first command?
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
I think the angle not having a father could produce this kind of behavior is fine. I don't have an issue with showing him do this. My issue is that to me, the way the scene was portrayed (the music, excitement, bravado) threw sympathy to his action. I know in my unbeliever and younger days if I saw that I, I would be "yeah, cool, this guy does not play by the rules, he does what he wants, I like him." If the movie used different music (say ominous foreboding as opposed to energetic fun music), staged the scene differently to make demonstrate the stupidity of what Kirk was doing, it would have been totally different.
If the movie showed Kirk suffering consequences for wrong action and then learning from those consequences, it would be totally different. Instead throughout the movie he is rewarded in spite of, or perhaps even because of (I am thinking of Pike's speech to Kirk in the bar in which Pike demeans others in the Federation and applauds Kirk's rebellious nature), his antinomianism. He is the only cadet on the Enterprise that was on probation from the academy and about to be expelled. Yet, Pike makes him the first officer and he later becomes the captain. Antinomianism does not have bad consequences. In fact, it is rewarded. And it is cool. At least according to the movie.
-----Added 5/14/2009 at 04:08:02 EST-----
This quote from Roger Ebert was funny:
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
LOL. There were a LOT of kids on the bridge! The only thing worse than a 25 year old captain being in charge was when the captain and first officer left the bridge and turned over the command to a 17 year old who had trouble speaking clear English!!!
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
I have been reading about the civil war recently. I am reminded of a situation in which the South was so depleted of manpower that they pulled in the cadet class of VMI to perform a dangerous assault on a Northern position. The cadets performed admirably and successfully. I don't believe that any of them were promoted to general or anything like that.
Another thing is that this cadet crew that manned the Enterprise was thoroughly green. Sulu could not even remember how to engage warp drive. These are not guys that should be in control of the Federation's best ship!
Another thing is that this cadet crew that manned the Enterprise was thoroughly green. Sulu could not even remember how to engage warp drive. These are not guys that should be in control of the Federation's best ship!
Wannabee
Obi Wan Kenobi
Kinda like Harry Potter, eh? Yea, you really do have a point. I enjoyed it anyway. Might have something to do with the fact that I go to about 1 or 2 movies a year, and hadn't even planned on seeing this one at the theaters. Still, the opening sequence was excellent, motivating and heroic.
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
[SPOILERS]
This is interesting and I disagree. Based on the thread, I am perhaps the only Trek fan who hated the movie. To me Kirk was self-indulgent and dissolute. He lacked heroic quality and was uninspiring. The early scene of him stealing a wrecking a car is emblematic of personal flaws (not that he perceives them as flaws) that he embraces, does not fight against, and never changes. That is not the character of a hero.
Also key plot points were silly. Staffing nearly all senior posts of the greatest ship in the the Federation with cadets is ridiculous and unbelievable. To say that all senior officers (except Pike) were gone on other missions is goofy. It was a deus ex machina strategy to get the cadets in the action and it shows. Further, to promote Kirk from the rank of cadet (not even a commissioned officer) to captain of the Federation's flagship at the end of the movie was utterly ridiculous. It is pandering to the age group of workers who think they should be able to enter the workforce and start out as president of the company (there are studies on this).
You suggested that Wolverine was a revenge fest. I disagree. In contrast, Wolverine was actually a consummate anti-revenge movie. In fact, eschewing revenge was the key moral theme. Wolverine has a sin nature. He is subject to rage and violence. His conscience accuses him of this and he repents and fights against his flaw. As in the Christian life, he does not alway succeed, but he does struggle, which is what we are called to do.
That is a key difference between Kirk and Wolverine. While both Kirk and Wolverine have flaws, Wolvie fights against his while Kirk embraces his. At the end of the movie Wolverine has a prime chance to take revenge on and kill his arch nemesis, struggles with the temptation to do so, and ultimately makes the right decision and does not take revenge. The theme that revenge is wrong is mirrored in the action of his girlfriend who has the chance to kill the main bad guy, Stryker, and does not. She explains that the reason she is not going to take revenge is that it would be wrong. Wolverine is an anti-revenge movie. It is also a movie about sanctification and struggling with temptations to do wrong. It was an excellent movie. I would rather have a movie with some profanity and violence but that ultimately makes a valid and inspiring moral point than one in which profanity is absent but the movie actually glorifies sin (Kirk's dissolute, selfish, hedonistic, and anti-authoritarian lifestyle).
The new Star Trek makes Kirk into a postmodern anti-hero. Even when he risks his life for people, he seems to be doing more as an action junkie than anything else.
I would have liked to see a lot more of Kirk's father, who seemed to be a legitimate hero, or even the earlier captain.
Anyway, those are my
Some good points, but wasn't the entire second half of the movie about Logan tracking down the island fortress on which the general was located precisely so that he could have his revenge for the "death" of his wife/girl?
Maybe my memory is fuzzy on it, so correct me if I got that wrong. We did catch the midnight opening after having spent three hours on a return trip from the Seattle area.
-----Added 5/14/2009 at 07:50:11 EST-----
Saw Star Trek with the Wifee and Loved it.........However....there were no Klingons!
That's because they had all been destroyed by the Romulan ship. Weren't you paying attention?
MrMerlin777
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
- Status
