Star Trek (2009) by J. J. Abrams

Star Trek (2009) – directed and Produced by J. J. Abrams

Where no fan has gone before, J. J. Abrams and company have set out to recreate a tale that references all the goodies Star Trek fans love without the predictability of many past ventures. This is just good old fashion story telling with that Star Trek flourish. If you’ve never seen a Star Trek film or television show, you will have a very good time. If you are a Star Trek fan, you’re in for one hell of a ride! If I reveal too much of the story or discuss the film in too much detail, I would give away some of the films great surprises. Know that you find this film is full of them, even for fans.

This story has everything a fan would expect from a Star Trek movie. My one regret is seeing the film with a “normal” crowd and not with my fellow fans. I can just imagine the parts that would bring applause and laughter or even cheers from that crowd (i.e. the opening). Of course in our town… silence with the occasional guffaw. Still, I would add that I did not detect disappointment when the audience left the theater. Smiles all around.

For those unfamiliar with the origins of the Star Trek Universe, this film attempts to explain what started it all. This story takes us back to the period of time just before the birth of Captain Kirk, the most famous starship captain in moviedom history. The film begins in the midst of battle with a flourish of activity that not only reveals the course of the film but its major players. We find them not only at birth, but why precocious would seem an underestimated label in their youth. Rebellious, yes. Commonplace, no. One by one the inevitable happens. We find each person’s character as the show progresses. They show up unexpected at times. These are the people that Trekkers have long recognized as family.

The villain is no less notorious, although he does resemble the same guy they dragged out in “Nemesis.” Much to Abrams credit, it is explained he is Vulcan, and hence the pointy ears. I found this part to be the film’s only weakness. Otherwise the script and its characters perform flawlessly. I would say in terms of surprise and excitement, this film is the equal to that golden standard, “Wrath of Khan.” In many ways, it surpasses it. For the ship’s crew are the same, are they not? Granted they appear younger here. But the cast nailed their personalities, right down to their cadence.

While the subject matter of the film is overall a serious one, Abrams and company left in all the humor we’ve come to expect from a Star Trek show. Gone are the pretentious pious actors spouting poorly written dialogue as we saw only recently. Those versions of Star Trek nearly spelled the end of the series. Instead we have those same snappy lines that made the original characters so lovable, as if Scotty and Bones were back in younger bodies. Many kudos go to an ensemble cast of this size. It is difficult to stand out when the camera is focused in so many directions at once. Leave it to the editors and the writers to come up with moments of brilliance when Scotty or Bones (the true comic relief of the old show) blurt out a great line not thrown away by their actors. I must also commend director Abrams for bringing so many complex elements together in a pace and rhythm that is not too rushed, a mistake of many modern directors. Making a special effects film of this magnitude must seem like delivering eight babies at once. (Didn’t someone do that recently?) The only other film to Abrams’ credit is “Mission Impossible III” a forgettable experience. Based on the work I saw in this film, I hope we can look forward to similar efforts and that Abrams has redeemed his film career.

“Star Trek (2009)” comes highly recommended for anyone who wants to have a great time at the movies. The tribute at the end I found very moving. The end credits rise and the original theme, withheld through the film, blares out its familiar tune with shots of some great 3-D scenes imposing the names of the principle cast and crew against celestial backdrops.

A friend who works for a local newspaper in New Brunswick got to see an advance screening and said he loved it.

But he said there are flaws in the script, that the time travel crap was used to cover up weak writing. I don't know anything about that because I haven't seen it yet. Jus thought I'd throw that up there. And I've talked to 2 others who saw it last night and they say it's amazing but doesn't really seem like Star Trek.

I'll definitely be seeing it. Just not anytime soon during these sold-out screenings. I'm becoming less and less fond of being in packed movie theatres. (It feels like it's ganging up on my nervous system). I'm a matinee guy, and yes, I love to go to movies alone. Why? Not because I'm anti-social or anti-dating or anything like that, it's just that when I go to a movie, I go to see the movie, not chat, cuddle, gossip, be seen, text or any other juvenile crap.
And at screenings like the new Star Trek, you can bet your cloaking shield that the audience is chock full of those types.
You only pray that the sound system drowns out their tweets and twits and twerps and chirps...

Boy do I have stuff in common with J...
I won't be missing this but I'll wait until next weekend to watch it.
It will be, as usual, a $6 noon show.

For a purist, the new STAR TREK update or "earlier" date has an amazing cast who almost to a person succeed to transforming themselves into younger counterparts of their older selves in the original series. The glaring exception is Kirk. For some reason his new younger persona doesn't seem to reflect William Shatner's Kirk.

I found the beginning sequence both exhilirating but negatively manipulative and forced until the emotional climax. I wasn't impressed with the special effects. The storyline was decent enough and there was plenty to commend in this new version in the little tributes to the original television version. Yet there were some weaknesses, I felt with the weaponry used (that came across more like actual guns with bullets), there is one scene in which the word "gun" was used. The script and plot could have had one more go around to tighter up the technical flaws, especially with presenting more advanced space craft with a better electronic surveillance system and weaponry system - earlier Star Trek versions had much superior fire power along with dazzling special effects.

I am not so enanmored with this effort as most everyone else, but I did enjoy seeing the movie and experiencing a truly fantastic rebirth of the franchise even with the distracting weaknesses in this movie.

Can anyone help with with what's up with Uhura in this movie?

As time goes on, this new Kirk will make his own Star Trek and the issue of casting will fade dramatically, probably like Tom Cruise and MISSION IMPOSSIBLE.

My fascination with the film definitely stems from exposure to the original series while I was in high school. This was the first time we had anything that approached credible in terms of science fiction. Granted, the current film contains many "technical" flaws, especially when it comes to time travel. I hate the entire concept. It's over used.

However, I must disagree on Chris Pine's/Shatner's/ Kirk. The original series often portrayed him as a womanizer, a bit of a cad and outspoken. The biggest laugh came during his liaison reveal and the Andorian woman (a joke from the very first episode of Star Trek). As a anvid fan from day one, the "in" jokes often came fast and furious. I did not want to mention too many lest we spoil things for those who have not seen it.

While I believe that Chris Pine will do fine as the new Kirk, I just can't see him as replacing William Shatner's persona. Perhaps it was the poor development and sparse backstory regarding Kirk as a youngster. There wasn't any explanation until much later in the film about the possibility of his character, particularly growing up without a father. I found that SUPERMAN and even SPIDERMAN did a better job of capturing the development of a young boy into manhood than this STAR TREK movie. Even though at a little over hours running time, I would have hoped for more exciting and emotional scenes that allowed the younger audience to gain some further insight into Kirk's youth, it would have even have been fascinating for the older generation. Then we could have even more strongly identified emotionally and experientially with this character. Personally, my first impression (likely because I'm getting older) of Kirk as a boy was I didn't like him at all - he was a rebellous, way too young punk, narcissistic in fact, and unlikely to really almost kill himself. I wished I could have understood the origins of Kirk, the boys, anger and defiance, much like what was missing in X-MAN ORIGINS - WOLVERINE - so many questions unanswered.

J.J. Abrams: STAR TREK (2009)


Spunk meets Spock

Review by Chris Knipp

What do you do with a franchise that has been milked dry? You stage a prequel, or, in other words, a childhood-and-youth-of-the-hero movie. J.J. Abrams' aim in this simply-titled entry is to show how James Kirk and Mr. Spock got to be running the spaceship Enterprise. The non-Trekkie must approach with trepidation this dramatic effort to freshen up the hallowed TV series and its not-so-successful movie avatars. Is it enough to say it's beautiful and entertaining, but lacks something?

What happens is a big battle to trounce an evil guy who's destroying whole planets, and some background on the young Spock and Kirk. The substance is simple: Spock's logical, alright, but he's also deeply emotional. Kirk's a testosterone-soaked bad boy, but he's got just the balance of smarts and derring-do to be a great leader.

Beyond that, this Star Trek reboot is a dazzlingly pretty audio-visual experience, maybe the closest a lot of moviegoers will ever come to abstract art. It's geometric abstraction: though we're whirling around the galaxies, mostly what we see is space ships with their angles and curves. The early sequences are well balanced and fun, despite an opening that follows the typical but inexplicable blockbuster theory that you should hit 'em with all you've got in the first ten minutes. This 25-years-older flashback showing how daddy Kirk was captain of the Enterprise for a few minutes and saved 800 people while his wife was giving birth on board to the future James Kirk, is ridiculously loud and impulsive and confusing, and when it is clear, it seems corny as all heck. Anyway, mile-a-minute openings' may grab the viewer, but you can never keep up to that level. The only reliable result is that you've numbed the audience.

The next scene, a nice contrast because it's back down on the flattest of earth surfaces, shows a pre-teen Jim junior--miraculously, since it's the 23rd century: where'd he get the fossil fuel?--racing a stolen Corvette across the desert a few lengths in front of a motorcycle cop, jumping out just before the 'vette pitches over a cliff and hanging there--a time-worn dramatic device that will be repeated again more than once. This tow-head smart-aleck is an annoying little cuss, but he's certainly got balls far beyond his years. He's ready to "boldly go."

I have never watched a whole Star Trek original episode, and if I've glimpsed any of the ten-odd movie spin-offs, I've forgotten. I can believe, however, that this is both one of the better ones--and missing certain essential elements in the interpretation of the original characters and in the way "issues" are brought up in the series as originally conceived. The only "issues" seemed to be to stop a bad guy bent on destroying the galaxy, and the conflict between the cold logic of Zachary Quinto's Spock and the obnoxious spunk (but creative initiative) of Chris Pine's Jim Kirk. The young Kirk, more or less the star, played by Chris Pine, is a bad-boy cutie. His pretty face is always bruised and scarred from a brawl, or maybe it's acne. Pine's Kirk bursts with boyish energy that's hard to resist. What's not so easy is to imagine how such an obstreperous twerp would be allowed on board the space ship, let alone be rapidly moved to a leadership position in the highly regimented, not to say repressive and fascistic, intergalactic system.

It's also not quite clear how a nerdy character like the half-Klingon Spock would be so highly regarded, if Kirk's kind of, well, enterprise, were deeply valued. Are they just two sides of one person, maybe?

But mostly there's so much action going on in Star Trek that it's not important to ponder such questions. It primarily just gorgeous special effects.

There are some appealing secondary characters (not as much multi-galactic social color as in Star Wars, though, by a long sight). Simon Pegg the English actor plays Scotty with a real Scottish brogue and a peppy comical manner. Anton Yelchin who is really a young Russian-born actor but grew up here and speaks perfect English, does a funny but accurate Russian accent as the 17-year-old navigator, Chekhov. John Cho, who plays the Asian crew member Hikaru Sulu, is the quite amusing guy who plays Harold in the Harold and Kumar comedies, but he's not very amusing here. I was surprised to see Winona Rider was in the cast. I thought she might have been the green floozy, but she turns out to have played Spock's human mother. I know nothing about the guy who plays the young Spock. He is not interesting. But Leonard Nimoy himself, the original Spock, is on hand to play the old Spock, who returns from the future to help out. That is a lovely touch, though the writers have to get tangled up in a time warp to stage it.

Eric Bana as the evil leader Nero is fine, if you don't mind that all his cohorts look pretty much identical to him--all swarthy, shaven-headed, tattooed leathermen. The contrast with the bright-eyed dazzlingly-lit world of the Enterprise reminds me of the Drapes and Squares of my high school, or the Greasers and Soscs of S.E. Hinton's The Outsiders. How is it that the proper good-boy spaceships are by NASA out of Mies van der Rohe, while Nero's are like rough-hewn medieval sculpted weapons? You kind of have to like the originality of the Nero vessels, but they don't look very aerodynamic.

It seems to be the rule now that when a blockbuster is half decent, the flacks rush in with raves when it's barely out of the can. I'd side more with Anthony Lane ("This new Star Trek is nonsense, no question. . .but at least it's not boggy nonsense" or Roger Ebert ("you want space opera, you got it").

I really enjoyed Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986). I remember reading somewhere that it's the least dependent on special effects of all the Star Trek motion pictures. Does anyone have a favorite among them? Can't call myself a fan of the show or sci-fi in general. The last sci-fi film that totally won me over was A.I..

I am pleased to read that someone else enjoyed A.I. which really didn't get the credit or reviews that pure sci fi deserved as a super sci fi fantasy fairy tale. I am also one of the few people who believes that the best Star Trek movie was the first movie version (1979) based on the storyline and how it was presented (as an exciting, mysterious, dangerous alien invasion - the elements of the best of sci fi movies), it had the creepy but beautiful elements of discovery and awesome strangeness. The beginning of STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE really had the intense powerful scary but slick build up that STAR TREK (2009) while it had some of the powerful punch came across as exciting, chaotic frantic, but also emotionally manipulative even though it did have its moments. But for the new generation (not the next generation), this most current STAR TREK likely has the elements that they like the most, unlike those older audience members who have some experience to contrast this movie with earlier efforts some of which we detested but some which we embraced and use as a standard by which to experience this newest of STAR TREK versions.

I also like A.I., very much. And of course 2001: A Space Odyssey. What about Solaris? I am going to rent Danny Boyle's Sunshine to re-watch it because I remember it as having some very beautiful moments, though it was a flop. I may have seen Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, after all. Don't remember it well though if I did.

Don't think one can really say one is "not a fan" of sci-fi, because it is too important and central an approach to "reality." How could one dismiss Alphaville, La Jetee, The Man Who Fell to Earth, Brazil, The Quiet Earth (Geoff Murphy), 28 Days Later, the even better and more pointedly political 28 Weeks Later; Soylant Green, Glade Runner, Gattaca, 1984; the list goes on and on. The quality varies but the significance is so often there. Significace is rarely reached through special effects of the explosion kind we find a lot of the new Star Trek, but production values like Kubrick's can greatly enhance the sense of another reality, which somebody really clever like Roeg can accomplish that with very simple means.

I am hoping JOHN HILLCOAT'S The Road from Cormac Mccarthy's novel will be good.

I watched SOLARIS (1972) last year (which would have been for about the fourth time). I still feel that it is over-rated. It has the look and the attractive features of the classic, but somehow, it still is somewhat superficial in that it tries to be imitate a classic, but I've read the book a long time ago and well, something is missing in the original. It could actually have been better. I am also one of the few who enjoyed and really like the more focused and carefully crafted remake of SOLARIS (2002) which didn't try to make such overall generalized mysterious statement and focused on a love story angle. It was more crisp, mysterious as well, but in some ways more emotionally touching and rewarding than the original. The Originally tried to be a 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY Eastern European style - for me it was more of a vaguely disguised gimmick at the end. The remake had an ending that had a more fascinatingly human/alien twist.

My take on SUNSHINE from IMDb:

"There are echos of ALIEN (1979) from the mechanical corridors to the now famous kitchen scene. The are whispers of the eerie ALIEN sound effects. There is even a shot from FIRST SPACESHIP ON VENUS (1962) with the growth of a plant. This movie almost descends to the level of EVENT HORIZON (1997), a science fiction film that turns into a horror movie, however, SUNSHINE apparently has more integrity by the end. Still the title, SUNSHINE while apparently obvious in its reference to the sun, should have been re-titled to SUNBURST or something with more flash and action. SUNSHINE is more correctly a science fiction thriller and incorporates whether intentionally or not a nice Japanese culturally backdrop with some of the crew as well as their honor. Strangely, this movie is both stereotypical and devoid of stereotypes. While there are not the obvious nerds, the flamboyant playboy, the scared beautiful seductive girl, there is plenty of macho male hormones that aren't really well explained except for their outrageous antics. There are also the frantic, hysterical females who unlike in ALIEN don't seem to get equal coverage. By the end of the movie, the editing and continuity seemed strained as several strands of scenes seem to get lost and there is of course the extra passenger strangeness towards the end of the movie. The brilliance of this movie, however, is in its visual delivery and the sound effect and soundtrack that helps to carry this movie. Unfortunately, this movie could have been among the best science fiction films, but the flaws in it detract from its apparent beauty. Seven out of Ten Stars."

Good comment, I guess. I have to see it again.

Quote:

---

The brilliance of this movie, however, is in its visual delivery and the sound effect and soundtrack that helps to carry this movie.

---

That part is what I relate to. Isn't a big part of the power of Kubrick's 2001 the sheer mad intensity of the production values?

2001 is an ant-blockbuster. It totally avoids all the frantic noise and rush of stuff we see today, and the opening ten minutes of the new Star Trek, which declare it to be very middlebrow, but also quite well done. I can't get over the fact that in infinite space, all we see is spaceships. Kubrick gave us a real SPACE Odyssey. He gave us SPACE. Even his spaceship is full of vast empty space.

Blockbuster manufacturers are afraid of empty space and of silence, the way radio broadcasters are afraid of pauses. They're afraid the ADD viewer will zone out, switch channels, start texting.

Maybe the Russian Solaris is overrated, but the Soderbergh one isn't very successful either. It's a bore!

Good discussion, guys.

Re: 2001.
Kubrick asked Is there any intelligent life on earth? and we haven't had too many "affirmatives" in terms of movies set in space. There are precious few indeed that give us an idea of what it's actually like out there, or that give us overwhelming desires to "boldly go" into the vast, unknown expanse that is space.

Sunshine is great.
Star Wars is great, but it's fantasy.
Same with Flash Gordon.
Fantastic Four touched on it.
Event Horizon wasn't bad.
Alien and Blade Runner kick ass (but are fantasy as well)
Red Planet makes a good attempt.

2001 really tried to put the audience in outer space, and that's part of it's Legendary status. Before 1968, there was nothing that could touch Kubrick's vision. And to this day, I can't think of any sci-fi film (besides some sequences in Lynch's DUNE) that comes close to immersing the audience in an other-worldly context that inspires mute awe or primal desire for the mysterious, the celestial.

Kubrick really tried to give the audience an experience in space, a non-verbal one. That film will always stand the test of time. I've seen it zillions of times and it's still a monolith in and of itself, forget the 4 slabs we saw in the movie. Kubrick's 1968 film has been called his Masterpiece and I cannot disagree. That one was like the Big Bang for cinema history. Scorsese said it: anything was possible after 2001.

I am curious to see how this new Star Trek turned out.
"primarily special effects", Chris?
It's ILM at the helm of those, so it's gotta be great in the special effects department, right?
I don't get too worked up about Star Trek, but I don't hate it or consider it to be crap entertainment. You gotta have SOME kind of space operas on TV and in the movies, and the concept of the whole Star Trek universe intrigues me. Plus I really like the uniforms of the original 60's show, with the bloused black pants, boots and primary color schemed shirts.

I said "primarily glorious special effects." The effect of the "effects" is beautiful.

2001 is unique.

However I want to repeat myself, that often smaller budget sci-fi films can be extremely thought-provoking and original, such as Alphaville, La Jetee, The Man Who Fell to Earth, Brazil, The Quiet Earth (Geoff Murphy), 28 Days Later, t 28 Weeks Later; Soylant Green, Blade Runner, Gattaca, 1984, and more. I strongly feel that it is not our responsibility to congratulate Hollywood for making blockbusters. Nonetheless, the new Terminator looks pretty cool.

Glorious or "gorgeous"?

:)

I've seen and appreciated a number of sci fi movies for the reasons that 2001: A SPACE ODYESSY held (which I finished watching again two days ago by coincidence).

Alphaville - Haven't seen, but I've put it on my list.

La Jetee - Haven't seen, don't know anything about it.

The Man Who Fell to Earth - saw it years ago. Considered a classic independent.

Brazil - A bizarre and creatively different movie, captivating.

The Quiet Earth (Geoff Murphy) - Haven't seen.

28 Days Later - More sci fi horror than alien fascinating adventure.

28 Weeks Later - Haven't seen. I may never see it.

Soylant Green - Classic dystopian future movie.

Blade Runner - Classic of course, though not much really in regards to aliens rather than replicants.

Gattaca - Under-rated, though not really alien in nature, more about our own furturistic society in regards to genetic discrimination.

1984 - There were two versions. Classic dystopian futurist vision basic on George Orwell's novel.


I would add:

Silent Running. Environmentalist sci fi film (non-alien).

Logan's Run. Age discrimination sci fi (non-alient).

Forbidden Planet. Advanced alien technology in hands of primitive humans.

Alien. About an alien (the real deal here).

THX-1138. Another dystopian future about ourselves. Considered a classic.

Wavelength (1983). Little seen and overlooked movie about aliens.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). One of the true classics about aliens.

Slaughter House-Five (1972). A Kurt Vonnegut novel-based movie. It's as far out of there as any sci fi movie.

Rocky Horror Show. What else can I say.

The Fifth Element deserves a mention I think.

La Jetee is short, but it has similarities with Godard's Alphaville, an intellectual avant-garde film that ain't for everybody. Films buffs love those two..and la Jetee was the source for Terry Gilliam's bizarro 12 Monkeys.

Watch the Marker and Gilliam in one sitting tabuno.
Let us know what you think.
They're good movies to watch back to back in one night...

And good call on 1984. It's science fiction, but it's also disturbingly real as a possible outcome for the human race...

Touche'... I can't even quote myself accurately. Gorgeous was better. "Glorious" is going a bit overboard.

We had this debate over "AI" before this post. As you may recall, I loath that film. I won't go into the awful list of reason why during this post. I consider it one of Speilberg's failures.

As to Star Trek IV, that is usually mentioned as the second most likable Trek adventure after Star Trek II. That was Leonard Nimoy's directorial effort and he put lots of humor into the piece, where the characters often poked fun at their own personas. The worst Star Trek film is considered Star Trek V. William Shatner directed that film. He repeatedly drove his heavy handed style down our throats every chance he got. Needless to say, from the actors to the crew to the critics, most are thankful he never directed another feature film again.

I read the Ebert piece when I found out that he was one of the few critics on Cream of the Crop that did not give "Star Trek (2009)" a favorable review. However, I found his "techinical" objections strange. For example, if all the talk about singularities and time travel bothered him, then why did he give "Star Wars" such a favorable review. Rockets do not "blast" in space. To suddenly lurch into the speed of light would squash the occupants of a spaceship flat. Explosions in space would not have "fire" in them since oxygen does not exist. Yet, Ebert took those things for granted. I believe that as a critic, we must overlook these "technical" details at times and relate whether the story was good or not.

The only film that ever tried to realistically present outer space was "2001 - a space odyssey." Kubrick insisted that he made a film that represented a real depiction of outer space. You hear no sound. You see no explosions. Weightlessness is handled appropritately as well. His attention to details hold up today.

I was only endorsing Ebert's summary comment on the new Star Trek, not his whole review. He has been known to make mistakes. One has to respect his love of film and broad knowledge of it, however, and since he is notoriously over-favorable on the movies he reviews, it's worth noting when he is niggling in his praise of one. The movie and indeed the whole franchise seem so utterly remote from any kind of realism, it hardly even seems worth thinking about whether events in (the new) Star Trek could actually physically happen. But once again and from another angle, that of scientific accuracy, 2001 comes out on top. I was praising the silence on aesthetic and structural grounds. You point out that it is also appropriate to outer space. As for A.I., as is well known, anyone who condemns it is in the majority. I differ.

We had an extensive review of Kubrick's works on this site in the past. However, I agree that "2001" stands out as one of his crowning achievements in cinema. I believe it changed the face of science fiction. Prior to that, "Forbidden Planet" was the standard in filmmed (as a verb) science fiction. That movie seems silly by todays ridged standards (Rumors persist in a another remake of an old movie with James Cameron at the helm no less. But look at what they did with the remake of Bob Wise's "The day the Earth stood still" Ugg! An utter disaster!).

I knew Roger Ebert a very long time ago when he and Gene Siskel started out on public television with "At the movies" when they used to forego joining the crowd in orchestra seats and sneak off to the balcony. Each week they used their famous closing line, "...until next week, the balcony is closed." Gene Siskel offered a great counterpunch to Ebert's effete electic style of intellectualizing. While Ebert has continued successfully over the years, I miss Siskel's down-to-earth commentary sadly missing from the too-smart crowd. He was simply a journalist with an easy to understand manner. Sadly, our world has far too few Siskel's and far too many Pauline Kael wanna-be's.

The actual successors to Siskel have been unfortunate, and now that program no longer exists. Siskel was not only valuable for being direct or down to earth but for being less prone to like everything than Ebert. And then it was a bit of a surprise after Siskel died to learn how passionately he loved cinema. As for Kael, I liked her far more than either of them, but I don't think today what goes on can really be blamed on her. Her influence is dying out, though not entirely.

Thanks for bringing up James Cameron, cinemabon.

He decided to become a filmmaker because of Kubrick and Star Wars. He has said that when he saw 2001 he was fascinated with it and that he had to find out how Kubrick did it. You know, that old chestnut about a work of art and the mystery behind what created it...and Cameron also said he was jealous of Star Wars: A real neo-Myth. I wanted to be the one who made that movie!

He made something just as classic, though: The Terminator.
Why on God's green earth he didn't keep making sequels to his own epic series is beyond me. I thought Terminator was his baby.
You would think that he'd never let any other filmmaker touch that saga, that he'd be the one blowing people's minds with new installments, but no. I'm glad he made the excellent and Legendary Titanic and Ghosts of the Abyss, but man, he's one of the best directors out there (Canadian too, I feel compelled to add). His flagship franchise is being handled in a slightly sub-par fashion without him at the helm. Maybe he's not interested anymore? Maybe he's got other projects he wants to forge ahead on? Some moons ago he was attached to a live-action version of the classic anime Battle Angel: Alita, which really got my blood pumping, because James Cameron would really do it justice, and I'm sure would turn a lot of peeps into Battle Angel fans in the process...
But we'll just have to see what he does next, I guess.
Kubrick and Lucas got him into the director's chair.
I'm just wondering out loud what he'll do in the future.
He's got a degree of secrecy surrounding his career right now that's a little unsettling. But I'll wait patiently for his next feature.
He's worth it.

And I agree totally about Gene Siskel.
He was a good man and a passionate movie guy.
He did a great interview with Kubrick when Full Metal Jacket was being released in 1987.

You must also like that Cameron is a Canadian. I see that he actually wrote a lot of the spinoffs of Terminator, he just didn't direct them. Don't you think that somebody who is clever and original and energetic enough to originate a successful mega-franchise wants to go on to direct new things and not the sequels, which in some sense are hack work by comparison?

You probably don't care to mention it, but the film by Cameron that I personally like the best by far is Titanic. But I will be interested to see the newest Terminator because the producer is the relative of a friend.

Yes, I love the fact that the biggest box-office champ was made by a Canadian (born in my home province of Ontario too).
Between IMAX, Atom Egoyan, Cameron and many others, Canada rocks on the world cinema stage.

I know he has every right to do other projects and different things, I'm not saying he should stick to the Terminator series and nothing else, but I do lament that he's not the one directing the films.
I'd feel the same way if Christopher Nolan handed Batman to someone else.

James Cameron can do whatever the hell he wants.
He's definitely earned that right.
But I do wish he'd make a Terminator sequel himself.
That would be something to really get jazzed about.
Like I said, maybe he's had enough.
Maybe he's too interested in other projects.
That said, T-3 was great to my mind and "Salvation" looks pretty boss. At least Cameron is overseeing what the final product is.
Did anyone here hear anything about Cameron's reaction to "Rise of the Machines"? I haven't heard anything.

Just looked it up on wikipedia and Cameron said about Rise of the Machines: In one word?: GREAT.

So there you go. From the man himself.
"Salvation" looks even better than "Machines", so it's probably safe to say Mr. Cameron approves of it as well.

And why aren't we talking about Abrams' Star Trek?
Isn't this thread about Kirk and Spock?

There's a limit to how long we an talk about Abrams' Star Trek. I notice you have not mentioned Titanic. I imagine you would rather forget about it--not your kind of blockbuster, but I prefer it to comic book monster stuff like Terminator. "Between IMAX, Atom Egoyan, Cameron and many others, Canada rocks on the world cinema stage." Many others such as who?, I wondered, so I looked up "Canadian film directors" on the inevitable Wikipedia. Huge: David Cronenberg. Notable: Guy Maddin, whom I've finally leearned to appreciate. Me, I'm not such a fan of Paul Haggis, except for his writing for Clint. Some Qubecuois French directors of note exist, I was thinking, but I can find only two whose names i know, Claude Jutra and Denys Arcand. Im sure I'm missing lots. Can you help?

I'm thinking the Aussies make a really strong showing to with, the likes of Bruce Beresford, Graeme Clifford, John Hillcoat, Phillip Noyce, Peter Weir, Alex Proyas, and Fred Schepisi. And New Zealand's not too shabby with Jane Campion, Peter Jackson, and some others whose work i've found striking such as Lee Tamahori and Geoff Murphy. Can you add to those lists?

You didn't notice my first Cameron post in this thread?
Where I said Titanic is excellent and Legendary?
You can't talk about James Cameron without talking about Titanic.
It's impossible.

Other Canadian directors of note:

-Larry Kent (an underground legend who I met at the 24th VIFF)
-Mary Harron (I shot Andy Warhol/American Psycho/The Notorious Bettie Page)
-Bruce McDonald (Hard Core Logo)
-Norman Jewison (Jesus Christ Superstar)
-John Smith (the Boys of St. Vincent)
-Ted Kotcheff (First Blood)
- Arthur Hiller (Love Story)
-Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters)
- George Dunning (The Beatles: Yelow Submarine)
- Patricia Rozema (Samuel Beckett's Happy Days)

and Mack Sennett is Canadian, as well as the founder of MGM: Louis B. Mayer (but he was born in the capital of Belrus. He was raised in St. John, N.B.)

We got pedigree...

Apologies for my two big omissions, not seeing your post acknowledging the importance of Titanic, and missing the name of Canadian director (and producer) Norman Jewison, a middlebrow powerhouse with some real accomplishments and movies everybody's heard of such as The Thomas Crown Affair(!)! In the Heat of the Night, The Russians are Coming the Russians Are Coming, Rollerball, A Soldier's Story, Agnes of God, and Moonstruck.

Titanic is a wonderful film.
I'm not crazy about the love story, but what guy is?
But I admit that it is the glue that holds the whole thing together.
Without Kate and Leo's relationship, the movie wouldn't have been as nearly as compelling as it was.

The sinking of the ship is still one of the greatest sequences ever filmed. The scale of it was nailed by James Cameron.
He made us in awe of that hulk rising out of the water.
It was realistic in feel.

There's another ship that is only 6 meters shorter than the Titanic, the Super Battleship Yamato, of the Imperial Japanese navy, the largest battleship ever constructed, and a movie of it was made in 2005 and only released in Japan, and it gives Titanic a run for it's money in the epic scale department.
I've seen it online and I have a rip copy. A friend of mine who's a huge WWII naval warfare student has turned me into a student of the Yamato, Shinano and Musashi battleships. Their stories are fascinating. And so is the German battleship Bismarck. They need to do a kick-ass movie on the Bismarck. If you can track down the Yamato movie, you'll be in for a real treat. Only released in Japan, but you can find it on DVD if you look. (I located a pirated copy in Chinatown and the quality is actually really good).

But yes, Titanic is a landmark in cinema history.
I've never left the room or turned it off while watching.
It's a seriously great film which can be watched many times over.

Jewison's contributions to science fiction being "Rollerball" dealt with the evetual expansion of roller derby, a sport considered at one time so popular that it would eventually replace the NFL. Now where is it? When was the last time they held a roller derby match in your city? That demonstrates the danger of predicting the future (something I tried to avoid in my novel that takes place in 2016).

Look at "Escape from New York" another science fiction film that predicted New York City's crime rate would increase to the point that it would eventually turn into one big jail cell. So much for that prediction. The story is set in the terrible futuristic year of 1997! Who knew?

When we look at at what Roddenberry thought the future would look like in 1967 and compare that to 2009's Star Trek, the two futures look very different indeed. In one hilarious line, the current Bones (Karl Urban) makes a casual reference to his "boots." This reflects on the style of shoe they wore on the original show that was suppose to represent future shoes. I laughed.

"Prediction is at least two things: important and hard." Howard H Stevenson, Harvard University

Roller Derby is still very popular in Canada at least.
But it's not a huge money-making enterprise like the NFL or NHL.
And it's more popular with the ladies than the men.
We have leagues here with all-women teams.
Those chicks can really bang!

Yes, but does it beat hockey or draw the same crowds as a soccer/football match?

Not by a mile.
But the fans are pretty rowdy.
They really get into it up here.
I went to a roller derby near Belleville that was a really raucus night. And of note is the fact that they still wear those old clunker roller skates, exactly like the ones from the 70's: leather uppers and 4 wheels. (not like the much better roller blades we have now). Don't ask me why they still wear those old skates...

I apologize for not having anything substantial or provocative to say about Star Trek. I just want to share that I enjoyed it and felt that my time and money was well-spent. I didn't go into it expecting anything ground-breaking or particularly "deep". I'm also not the biggest sci-fi fan. I absolutely love AI, La Jetee, 2001, Solaris (1972), Alphaville, Brazil, Blade Runner, and Stalker. But I never go to the movies expecting to add to that list.

I benefited from seeing TERMINATOR SALVATION after STR TREK. The latter was so evidently a great deal more fun even though I've seen better.

I just re-watched Danny Boyle's SUNSHINE on DVD.It has an excellent commentary too by the film's science consultant Professor Brian Cox, and it's even more exciting and beautiful than i thought when I saw the very last East Bay showing of it two years ago. To anybody who has not seen SUNSHINE, do. It's really one of those "Produced and Abandoned" movies (using Michael Sragow's phrase). A lost gem at the box office but available on Netflix.

Boyle's Sunshine is much more ambitious than successful.
I will totally pass on Terminator: Salvation.

People are still enjoying and discussing Sunshine and it remains one of the most beautiful sci fi films ever. Terminator Salvation has no colon. You do well to avoid it.