Star Trek Premiere Gets Standing Ovation, Surprise Showing In Austin 437
MrKaos writes "Proving that science fiction can still be great entertainment, J.J. Abrams appears to have impressed Star Trek fans at the official world premiere of Star Trek, who gave the film a five-minute standing ovation at the Sydney Opera House in Australia today. Meanwhile, mere hours beforehand, flummoxed fans at the Alamo Drafthouse theater in Austin, TX, deceived into thinking they were seeing a special, extended version of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, were pleasantly surprised when a disguised Leonard Nimoy greeted them and announced they would be seeing the new film in its entirety. ILM's influence on the film is reported as visually stunning, and lucky Australian fans are scheduled to see the movie first, as it opens a day before the American release."
Wait...what? (Score:5, Insightful)
When was this something that needed to be proven? I've found plenty of entertaining science fiction around. Did I miss the elitist newsletter that told us all we had to say science fiction was crap now?
Jeez, miss one meeting...
An awesome film-going statement! (Score:1, Insightful)
I suspect there were some Star Trek fans like myself at this screening. I do not worship all things Trek. As the fan that I am, I would not hesitate to criticize the film if they screwed it up and screwed with Star Trek too much. With that in mind, it's a safe bet the reaction of the audience is genuine, albeit emotional (Leonard Nimoy as a surprise guest [would that be an oxymoron (was he dressed in Vulcan prostitute garb?)?]?) because of the whole spectacle presented to them. Purple monkey dishwasher.
Still, the general release and the reviews thereof I expect will be manly positive and full of delectable man-sex.
-Dan East
Re:Idea shortage in LA (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear wessels (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFA:
Anton Yelchin's Russian accent in his portrayal of Chekov does get a bit annoying.
What do you expect Yelchin to do with that part, now that Koenig completely immortalized bad accents for Chekov?
Re:Alamo Drafthouse is awesome (Score:3, Insightful)
write your state representative and senator and get them to support Representative Dawnna Duke's economic incentive bill.
Or you could just let them succeed or fail on their own merits like every other industr...
Never mind. Apparently, that's not how we do things anymore in America (or Texas). So yeah, give 'em a handout. Just make sure it's tied to some venue tax in Austin, so I don't have to pay for it.
Re:Wait...what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Idea shortage in LA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Christopher Pike? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pike would. Or is this yet another one of the billion plot holes?
If, by plot holes, you mean elements they changed as part of the *reset that this movie represents*.
Honestly, what part of "not following cannon" do you people not understand?
Re:All trekkies (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Idea shortage in LA (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's not fool ourselves here-- if you think Hollywood has an idea shortage because they're recycling old ideas, stories, and characters, then all of humanity has had an idea shortage for a few thousand years, at least. And I say "at least" because the writers then may have been stealing ideas, but we just don't have records of the ideas they stole.
This era of reboots is fantastic in my opinion. It's what cultures do when they have a rich culture to draw from, which is that they take the old ideas and stories, and reinvent and reimagine them in a way that makes them relevant and poignant for the time. The original series was great for its time, but yeah, it's becoming increasingly dated as a relic of the 60s. The general setup of a band of explorers and the characters themselves, however, still have relevance.
Re:These are fans (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... (Score:5, Insightful)
This post is a better movie than Nemesis.
I'm not impressed (Score:3, Insightful)
"gave the film a five-minute standing ovation at the Sydney Opera House in Australia today."
The Star Trek fans did exactly the same at the end of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and that is one of the worst movies of the franchise. I suspect the applause had more to do with seeing Star Trek *return* than any relation to artistic merit.
On the other hand:
Maybe I'm just being cynical. Abrahms produces a lot of crap. Lost sucks (boring - slow as molasses), and Alias was also lousy except for the brilliant first season. I am not expecting anything from him.
Re:I would have rather seen Wrath of Khan (Score:3, Insightful)
If they were pissed, they are morons. They've seen Khan a hundred times already in every format imaginable. Chances are good that the real event will happen again.
I mean, if this is actually a good film, who wouldn't want to be able to tell their friends that they got to see if first? With Nimoy, no less?
Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wait...what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've found plenty of entertaining science fiction around. Did I miss the elitist newsletter that told us all we had to say science fiction was crap now?
Hell, did I lose the memo that said that crap scifi (or is it syfy?) can't be entertaining?
bad polling? (Score:2, Insightful)
FAIL.
Re:I doubt it's any good (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get this sentiment. If the Internet has shown us anything, it is the fans are the most critical audience. If the movie had been bad, there would have been a riot.
Of course, the article could have exaggerated or outright lied.
There is always one trekkie (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Review? (Score:3, Insightful)
Reviews from a clearly biased crowd -- they were there to see a 27 year old movie with an advertised 10 extra minutes of footage.
I'm not pissing on the parade, just making the point that I would not have expected a negative review, given the circumstances.
SW != ST (Score:3, Insightful)
Star Trek fans have a different mind set the Star Trek fans.
Star Wars: "You better be better then our memories of the first time we saw Star Wars bitch!"
Star Trek fans: "Alright, another Star Trek! Let's be excited for the privileged!"
Oddly enough, even people who are a fan of both have those attitudes toward the respective franchises.
I suspect it has to do with the roots of the franchise. ST was hard fought by the fans SW came out of the gates blowing people away.
Re:Superficial? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is how they get non-trekkies into a Trek film.
Re:Wait...what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what he meant was "Proving that science fiction can still be great pop-culture entertainment".
There's a big difference between what a sci-fi fan finds entertaining (speculation about future technology and society, viewing the problems of today through the lens of fantasy) and what the average guy on the street finds entertaining (I'm going to resist the temptation to lampoon the average guy's tastes).
Don't believe me? Look at the most popular 'sci-fi' movies in history (truly popular, not just cult classics) and think about whether or not they are really science-fiction the way you think about it. Pop-culture sci-fi uses the futuristic/technology aspects as plot devices to make a fantasy story work. What makes the new Star Trek movie interesting is that it seems to be both science-fiction as well as pop-culture science-fiction at the same time.
Re:Better than a refund, and maybe not planned (Score:5, Insightful)
"I can't imagine (though I guess it's possible) even Spock himself would dare show the full movie without authorization. So that may have been planned. The destruction of a print of Wrath... probably wasn't."
Oh, come on. What are the statistical chances of Nimoy being present when any film, let alone a Star Trek film, let alone on the day before release of a new Star Trek film, bursts into flames in the projector and they happen to have the whole new film ready to go rather than only 10 minutes of it? The odds against must be astronomical. (We'll call it the "Nimoy paradox")
It was a dramatic setup. I like it, actually. It's funny (reminds me of a trick Monty Python used to use). But the whole thing was almost certainly staged.
Standing ovation -- bah (Score:5, Insightful)
First screening impressions sometimes don't mean anything.
I would like to piggy-back on your comment suggesting early reviews were coloured by the excitement (which is probably bang-on) and point out that in the theatre where I watched the first screening of Star Wars: Episode I, there was a standing ovation after the movie was over.
Later I realized there was a standing ovation BECAUSE the movie was over.
Re:Idea shortage in LA (Score:3, Insightful)
Or for newer space opera, any of Alistair Reynolds or Peter K Hamilton stuff would work well. I don't think general audiences are ready yet for Iaian Banks or The Culture.
I think Consider Phlebas would make a good movie. There's enough action and special effects to appeal to a wide audience.
Lensman movies, done right, could be great.
Re:Idea shortage in LA (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not possible to do any good novel justice in a movie. A two hour movie can do justice to a short story. A miniseries can do justice to a novella. A good novel requires a series, and probably two or three seasons. It's not a question of whether a movie is going to bastardize the book it's based on, the question is just, how badly?
Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... (Score:5, Insightful)
"shields down to whatever percent"
Out of curiosity, what is wrong with that?
I've always viewed it as a measurement of intensity that is rebuilt over time. Since we aren't dealing with something as simple as magnetic fields (which would be amazing if projected to something the size of the enterprise).
I don't know exactly as I'm not really that into ST. But what's wrong with the % measurement?
Re:Wait...what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. That was a good one.
There is a difference between an actor doing a good job delivering their lines and selling those lines to you. Good writers are required too of course.
Sort of a 1984 reference too.
Re:All trekkies (Score:3, Insightful)
Data: In case of a water landing, I am designed to be used as a flotation device.
Re:Wait...what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nuclear wessels (Score:3, Insightful)
Too right. Walter Koenig will always be Bester to me now, because it was a wonderful character and he did a magnificent job at it.
Re:Wait...what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't believe me? Look at the most popular 'sci-fi' movies in history (truly popular, not just cult classics) and think about whether or not they are really science-fiction the way you think about it. Pop-culture sci-fi uses the futuristic/technology aspects as plot devices to make a fantasy story work. What makes the new Star Trek movie interesting is that it seems to be both science-fiction as well as pop-culture science-fiction at the same time.
I've always thought that Star Trek was science fiction, while Star Wars was space opera. Star Trek usually explored some science fiction concept in each episode. You might say the ideas were crap (they sometimes were), but each episode introduced a new idea, explored it, etc.
On the other hand, you could take Star Wars and redo it as a Western without any loss of story. The space setting is merely a style. Same thing is pretty much true for Battlestar Galactica - the story is great, but it's not really science fiction in the sense of exploring new ideas. You could retell either BSG or Star Wars as Westerns or Fantasy or sword and sandals, etc.
That's not to say that Star Wars or BSG are bad, just that they are space opera - stories with the trappings of space - not science fiction. On the other hand, there are plenty of movies that are not set in space that are science fiction.
Re:Wait...what? (Score:3, Insightful)
There have never been that many hard SF movies made in any time period, and most of them are passed off as boring by whatever generation is growing up at the time. George Lucas didn't get famous for THX-1138, and Kubrick put audiences to sleep with 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Further, there are no fewer kids reading now than there were 30 years ago. After public education took over, literacy rates went to all time historical highs, but it didn't last. Reading for fun was nearly killed off by TV, and the first TV generation grew up a long time ago.
In short, people of every generation are dumb, and putting the blame just on the current one is silly.
Re:I hope it's better than Nemesis..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Or how about:
Sulu: (low voice) Phasers locked.
Khan: Time's up, Admiral!
Kirk: Here it comes. Now, Mr. Spock.
That "here it comes" was just priceless. I know everyone makes fun of the obligatory "KHAN!" scream, but ST:II was full of excellent dialogue. Of course, having Ricardo Montalban did wonders for the movie every time he uttered a line. Probably the best ST villain ever. All the "take over the world" or "destroy the world" plots are pretty hollow, but revenge is indeed a dish best served...cold.
What happened to all the good writers who gave us ST:II, ST:VI, and ST:FC? Were they fired for an excess of talent and replaced with worthless hacks from the Batman-and-Robin school of screenwriting?
Re:Wait...what? (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, you could take Star Wars and redo it as a Western without any loss of story.
Yeah! Like that John Wayne movie where the Sheriff has a giant, slow moving device which can destroy entire towns, and only throwing a rock off a horse from close range at a particular point on the surface of the device can destroy it! And wagons can travel faster than light, but this capability sometimes breaks down, leading to exciting chase sequences before the wagon zips away to an unknown location! And cowboys can use mysterious powers to control physical objects and influence other people!
Frankly, if Star Wars can be a Western I think anything can be a Western.
What aspects of Star Trek are so unique that you cannot draw similar parallels?