Just saw Star Trek...

[Tripp Woelfel]

... and it's epic. Should appeal to trekkers and non trekkers alike. Great story, great acting. Simon Pegg was a little over the top as Scotty, but he made it work. It took me about a half hour to stop thinking that Spock was going to point his finger at someone and take his head off. Big step from Sylar but he is very good. No complaints about acting at all.

As someone who doesn't often go for action movies of this ilk, but this was fast-paced, funny, action packed and flew by at warp factor 9. I'm not much into the whole Trek culture, but Iwas in high school when the Tribbles episode first aired on NBC so I'm a fan and probably a bit biased.

One niggle about the cinematography. IMO, the overdid the light streak thing to the point that it was very distracting to me, but maybe it's that common these days.

Big fun that if you suffer at all from vertigo will seem like a two hour motion control ride. I needed the movie to end so I could catch my breath.

[Vito DeFilippo]

I just saw it, too. It was awesome. I grew up with the original series, and thought they did a great job bringing the original characters back.

I was also very impressed with how the plot allows them to start all over again, and continue making Star Trek movies for the foreseeable future. Very smart. And hey, I'll go see them if they're this good!

This movie also was one of the first I've seen that had convincingly real looking CGI. I had hardly any moments of being aware of the animation. Really well done.

[Kelly Goden]

Kurtzman and Orci have a very poor screenplay track record.

Legend of Zorro(they turned Zorro's daughter into a whining nagging housewife as if they didnt even watch the previous movie).

The Island

Mission Impossible 3 (I liked it at first but realized after a couple of viewings its really a bunch of loose scenes strung together)

Transformers (very bad script)

From what I hear their screenplay for Star Trek is the same(although
they can write a good joke here and there).
I am sure the fx and action are good.

I would have seen it if Shatner and Nimoy both were in it(Generations be damned)
but as it stands I'll probably wait for video.

[Bryan Daugherty]

I saw it last night and I agree it was epic, the light rays were over done (you shouldn't have to squint in a dark movie theatre) and it was a great movie. I felt the middle dragged a little but not for more than 15 minutes. It was a really brillant concept that allows for a complete reboot without losing the essence of a beloved series. I, for one, am glad there was no cameo from Shatner. I enjoy Boston Legal but Shatner doesn't look like Kirk anymore and with a reboot it is nice not to have to compare the old and new Kirks on film. I think many of the choices made in how to reboot an old serious were very bold but respectful of the fanbase at large. I thought the acting and effects were well done, some throwbacks were overdone, but over all it was well-written and a rollercoaster of a ride. i can't wait to go see it again.

[Kelly Goden]

Ha that's true. Shatner is rather bulgy now(and started to look that way by the time of Generations). I didnt care for how he died in it--although I am not sure that alternate reality sequence made sense. If they were in an energy ribbon that granted you any wish and gave you the illusion of it, and so was the Malcom McDowell character,and he wanted to see his family again, then whose to say they werent still in the energy ribbon and just believed they had escaped it?
I never liked the NG movies except First Contact to some extent.

They use time travel way too much in the ST movies.
And enough with the romulans.
How about some new aliens?

[Richard Alvarez]

Good fun. Good time. I'm on board for wherever this crew is going next.

[Matt Buys]

Just saw it. Wow. What a ride! Much better than I thought it would be. Director didn't take many short cuts.

I don't want to wreck the movie for anyone who has not seen it so I won't say who but I am curious if anyone else watches the movie if they think someone's face was way out of focus during the last few minutes. Not once, but multiple times. I can't tell if it was shot with a different camera or if the focus puller was working too late.

[Vito DeFilippo]

Originally Posted by Matt Buys

I am curious if anyone else watches the movie if they think someone's face was way out of focus during the last few minutes. Not once, but multiple times.

Yes, absolutely. His entire take was out of focus, and for some reason they chose to cut to it several times. I was amazed to see that. Why not reshoot it?

I can't believe it wasn't noticed at some point, so there's obviously a reason it wasn't redone. It will be interesting to see if it gets mentioned at some point.

[Charles Papert]

Anamorphic is excruciatingly tough focus-wise on close-ups. I saw the shot in question also and while it was notable, I've seen worse, not that that is a good thing! Probably two inches of depth at best on that shot. For those who are eager to shoot with some of the cameras that have been announced that shoot larger than S35 (FF35, for instance), take note...it's brutal on focus (and even shallower digitally than on film).

Generally why this sort of thing makes it to the screen is that the take is noted as soft and subsequent takes are made to cover, but later in the edit the performance in the soft shot takes precedence. It may have been too late and too expensive to re-shoot at that point.

Up until recently, when Avid outputs were low-res at best, a lot of soft stuff got through because you wouldn't know until the negative matchback and the first answer print. These days the non-linear outputs are good enough that you can judge focus so that excuse is gone.

[Cole McDonald]

I got a kick out of the fact that they put dust on the lens of those opening CG shots. Great idea to bring a spot of realism in right away. I didn't mind the light streaking so much.

I thought they did a good job modernizing while keeping the "flavor" of TOS! Have to go cut out some paper triangles to tape to my ears like I did when I was little now :)

I thought they worked EVERY SINGLE ONE of the one liners in from TOS in a way that actually didn't seem too forced - and we still knew they were coming. Great fun, wife loved it for mother's day present. I'd see it again, it's definitely a theater film rather than a DVD wait for me.

[Mike Tapa]

I saw it at the Empire Leicester Sq.
The sound system there is awesome and so loud it borders on deafening but I didnt' mind.

I thought the casting was excellent (especially Uhura..mmm) and I look forward to them growing into their roles in more episodes.

Going to buy the original movies on Blueray now.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Originally Posted by Mike Tapa

Going to buy the original movies on Blueray now.

Haven't seen the new film, but just picked up the BluRay version of the original movies. Have only watched about half of the first one, but it looks really good. I was glad to see that they went back to the original theatrical version instead of the CGI enhanced DVD version.

But you really are more aware of the inconsistent quality of the effects shots when watching in HD. The model work is spectacular and I really admire that. But then there are some pretty hokey matte paintings in other shots. I guess that replacing these was the rationale for the CGI director's cut version on DVD, but it's fun to see the film in its original form anyway.

[Warren Kawamoto]

It's playing in IMAX here in Honolulu. Did everyone else see it in IMAX too? Picture quality was superb, and yes, the audio was so loud that it almost hurt my ears! They weren't kidding when they said 12,000 watts of power will knock your socks off!

The movie itself wasn't shot in Imax, was it? Was it scaled up? I didn't see anything in the credits about Imax cameras.

[Mark Ganglfinger]

Everything about the movie was stunning, the best ST made to date, however.....
They completely screwed up everything in regards to the star trek story line. Not just a few inconsistancies... totally absoutely screwed up!!!

It is a shame because the character development, casting, acting, production and everything else were perfect. They just alienated a huge Star Trek fan base for no good reason.

[Andy Wong]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

Anamorphic is excruciatingly tough focus-wise on close-ups. I saw the shot in question also and while it was notable, I've seen worse, not that that is a good thing! Probably two inches of depth at best on that shot.

Hey Charles, why is that? I have no experience shooting Anamorphic (and thus don't completely understand the nature of it), so I am intrigued to know why focussing will be tougher when shooting on Anamorphic lenses as opposed to standard.