Hudlin Entertainment Forum

Hudlin's Huddle => Hudlin's Huddle => Topic started by: Reginald Hudlin on May 01, 2009, 10:15:27 am

Title: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on May 01, 2009, 10:15:27 am

If you're a Star Trek fan, you have to love this movie.  It gives you everything you like about Star Trek, but makes it young and sexy.  It reminds you that's we've been watching middle aged and elderly people in these films for a long time, but realistically it would be a bunch of young, smart kids doing this stuff. 

There's plenty of Easter eggs and hat tips to famous images and ideas from the original series, and at the same time does a neat trick to remove any and all continuity complaints. 

The movie also reminds me of two other films...STAR WARS, with the wide range of aliens, nasty monster on while marooned on ice planets, and even the wipes between scenes;  and MASTER AND COMMANDER, the recent Russell Crowe film about period seafaring warfare. 

The best thing about the movie is since he's already addressed the hardcore fans, he can now really go to unexplored territory in the next films..."where no man has gone before". 

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Battle on May 01, 2009, 10:20:10 am

Dag, you saw it already?!(http://s5.tinypic.com/301ooi9_th.jpg)

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on May 01, 2009, 11:26:25 am

Went to the premiere last night.  All the stars were there, along with many of the stars from LOST and HEROES. 

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Hypestyle on May 01, 2009, 11:51:09 am

say, does Tyler Perry still have a cameo?

maybe we'll get to see a glimpse of the ancestors of folks like Laforge, Sisko, etc.


...glad to hear about the monsters-- the white gorilla outfits and such were tacky.. CGI should make for some great creature panoramas..

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on May 01, 2009, 02:14:58 pm

Tyler actually aquits himself honorably in the film.

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Mastrmynd on May 01, 2009, 03:03:31 pm

i'm torn.
i'm happy that you saw the film and that the film was great... BUT on the other hand...i'm hatin' because cool ppl like you and OTHERS have seen the movie before me.
wassupwitdat?

arrghh!
i gotta wait another week to see this wonderful movie.
i am so excited.

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on May 01, 2009, 03:21:34 pm

The other interesting thing at the premiere is that I talked with several women who were NEVER Star Trek fans and they loved the movie.  So you can bring a date.

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Mastrmynd on May 03, 2009, 03:49:52 pm

we can thank zoe for that, huh?
i'll think about taking wifey...but i'm good either way!

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on May 03, 2009, 04:33:05 pm

I think the female appeal comes from the whole story being ground in strong easy-to-relate to emotional drama....the first scene sets it up in a way that really made some women in the audience weepy.

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Princesa on May 05, 2009, 04:19:47 pm

I had thought to see it but then it came to me that no matter "multi-cultural" they say ST is really it's the white boys and some POC window dressing on the side. I mean if you are re-starting the series how about some dashing ethnic heroes for a damn change? They cooled me way the hell off. Wolverine had what one guy? Battlestar Galactic had a token chick and Edward James Olmos.

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Vic Vega on May 05, 2009, 05:17:54 pm

Quote from: Princesa on May 05, 2009, 04:19:47 pm

I had thought to see it but then it came to me that no matter "multi-cultural" they say ST is really it's the white boys and some POC window dressing on the side. I mean if you are re-starting the series how about some dashing ethnic heroes for a damn change? They cooled me way the hell off. Wolverine had what one guy? Battlestar Galactic had a token chick and Edward James Olmos.

There was only one chick on Galatica? I guess you mean Boomer(I never watched the show).

I could have sworn there was at least one other female in the military on that show.

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Hypestyle on May 05, 2009, 05:28:59 pm

Quote from: Princesa on May 05, 2009, 04:19:47 pm

I had thought to see it but then it came to me that no matter "multi-cultural" they say ST is really it's the white boys and some POC window dressing on the side. I mean if you are re-starting the series how about some dashing ethnic heroes for a damn change? They cooled me way the hell off. Wolverine had what one guy? Battlestar Galactic had a token chick and Edward James Olmos.

Interview with co-screenwriter Roberto Orci:
http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/09/exclusive-interview-roberto-orci-on-all-the-latest-with-star-trek-and-more/

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Princesa on May 06, 2009, 09:11:02 am

Quote from: Vic Vega on May 05, 2009, 05:17:54 pm

Quote from: Princesa on May 05, 2009, 04:19:47 pm

I had thought to see it but then it came to me that no matter "multi-cultural" they say ST is really it's the white boys and some POC window dressing on the side. I mean if you are re-starting the series how about some dashing ethnic heroes for a damn change? They cooled me way the hell off. Wolverine had what one guy? Battlestar Galactic had a token chick and Edward James Olmos.

There was only one chick on Galatica? I guess you mean Boomer(I never watched the show).

I could have sworn there was at least one other female in the military on that show.

They had their fair share of white women sure.

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: moor on May 06, 2009, 09:30:18 am

Quote from: Princesa on May 05, 2009, 04:19:47 pm

I had thought to see it but then it came to me that no matter "multi-cultural" they say ST is really it's the white boys and some POC window dressing on the side. I mean if you are re-starting the series how about some dashing ethnic heroes for a damn change? They cooled me way the hell off. Wolverine had what one guy? Battlestar Galactic had a token chick and Edward James Olmos.

Are we seeing the same clips?  I've seen plenty of color within the Federation in the 9-10 clips I've seen.

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: FLEX HECTIC on May 06, 2009, 10:47:11 pm

At The Star Trek Convention!


Flex walks in wearing a dark hooded robe, big black boots and a shiny crimson red light saber on his hip with game face on go.

With an entourage consisting of a wookie, an asteroid droid and both a clone and a storm trooper he ice grills a bunch of trekkies in Klingon gear.


Klingon: "I think you're in the wrong convention hall."

Darth Flex: "Klingons share the galaxy... storm troopers rule it!"

Klingon: "I don't get it. What's that supposed to mean?"


With super quick Jedi reflexes Darth Flex ignites his light saber and gets to cutting.


STAR WARS... there is no substitute!

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: The Dark Wright on May 07, 2009, 05:27:21 pm

Quote from: FLEX HECTIC on May 06, 2009, 10:47:11 pm

At The Star Trek Convention!


Flex walks in wearing a dark hooded robe, big black boots and a shiny crimson red light saber on his hip with game face on go.

With an entourage consisting of a wookie, an asteroid droid and both a clone and a storm trooper he ice grills a bunch of trekkies in Klingon gear.


Klingon: "I think you're in the wrong convention hall."

Darth Flex: "Klingons share the galaxy... storm troopers rule it!"

Klingon: "I don't get it. What's that supposed to mean?"


With super quick Jedi reflexes Darth Flex ignites his light saber and gets to cutting.


STAR WARS... there is no substitute!

Dang....slo down, FLEX....you're killin' 'em.

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Princesa on May 07, 2009, 05:45:29 pm

Speaking of ST you Uhura even though in the original her skirt was up to her navel was still very elegant and dignified and African but I hear she makes a nice transition bar hookup and ship piece of ass.

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: FLEX HECTIC on May 07, 2009, 07:30:42 pm

Flex: "What... you can't talk with a light saber in your mouth?"

Yoda: "Disrespectful to the trekkies you are."

Flex: "Master Yoda. What are you doing at this convention?"

Yoda: "To see Zoe Saldana I am here. Hot she is."

Flex: "OK! She's no Princess Leia sitting half naked next to Jabba The Hutt but I'll give the trekkies a pass this time."

Yoda: "Keeping it real you are. But the dark side clouds all that you do."

Flex: "Why do you speak backwards like that?"

Yoda: "Developed my own style I have. Fresh am I. Now your light saber remove from the mouth of that Klingon."

Klingon: "DUUUDE WTF MAAAN! You Star Wars geeks are freaking crazy!"

Flex: "Don't make me force choke you..."

Yoda: "FLEX!"

Flex: "Yes Master Yoda. I apologize if I have offended any of you trekkies here and I hope that the new movie is all that you wished for to reboot your franchise. OKAY!"

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: moor on May 07, 2009, 07:36:09 pm

Just caught the 7pm showing...

If all reboots were done this way, life would be good.  At once respectful while at the same time unwaveringly non-conforming...  I almost forgive Abrams for Cloverfield...

Gonna check out a Saturday Matinee on the IMAX, because this movie was made for it.  The action scenes were massive, both inside and outside of the ship.

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Hypestyle on May 08, 2009, 07:12:50 am

Mama Hype vouches for the quality of the movie, apparently getting to watch a 'screening'  ;) while at the local laundromat.. I'll have to check it out this weekend..

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: michaelintp on May 11, 2009, 11:45:11 pm

I agree with Reginald here.  Particularly in the way the continuity problem was solved.  Since the only Star Trek series that I ever really watched was the original, that suits me just fine.

I loved the new backstory on the original characters, including certain human/romantic elements that were never in the original series (as far as I recall).

Also pleased to see, as noted above, that the new film retained another tribute to the original:  Uhura's uniform.   ;)

I think Leonard Nimoy was showing his age in the film.  On the other hand, I loved "Sylar's" portrayal of Spock.  In the original show Spock was conflicted at times, but it was more subtle.  Here the tension was more evident, but I found that interesting.

Some of the cliffhanger CGI stuff seemed gratuitous, having nothing to do with the thread of the story, and of course you knew what the outcome of the cliffhangers would be, but ... I loved 'em anyway.  Particularly on the Big Screen.

The ending was solid, without major lose ends.  Ending with the beginning the Star Trek TV Show beginning (... 'Where no one has gone before ... etc ... um ... I could swear Shatner used to say, "Where no man has gone before ..." but maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, haha)

... I'm kinda wondering though ... without a strong hint at the end of this flick, where is it going to go from here? 

I guess we'll find out.

P.S.  It would have been nice for them to allow Shatner to do the ending narrative of the Star Trek theme ... instead of Nimoy.  I heard Shatner was disappointed that he wasn't given some kind of role (though I don't know how that could have been done given the role of Nimoy in the film ... couldn't' really pull a "Stan Lee" cameo).

So yes, all in all, I liked the film a lot.  But ... Reginald ... my wife hated it.  But then ... she's the one that hurumphed throughout the first Spiderman film, and complained as we walked out, "I hated that movie ... It wasn't realistic at all!"   ;D

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Redjack on May 12, 2009, 12:53:28 am

Loved it. Going again. Probably two more times. One will be IMAX for sure.

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Mastrmynd on May 12, 2009, 05:42:36 am

Quote from: Reginald Hudlin on May 03, 2009, 04:33:05 pm

I think the female appeal comes from the whole story being ground in strong easy-to-relate to emotional drama....the first scene sets it up in a way that really made some women in the audience weepy.

that was definitely a powerful scene.
i loved it!

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on May 12, 2009, 06:18:03 am

At dinner last night, I finally met two people who didn't like the film. I was stunned.  They asked how could two objects be in the same place at the same time (ie Spock).  I told them since human cells are constantly regenerating, the 125 year difference meant those were two different beings in the same place at the same time. 

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: michaelintp on May 12, 2009, 07:32:50 am

Quote from: Reginald Hudlin on May 12, 2009, 06:18:03 am

At dinner last night, I finally met two people who didn't like the film. I was stunned.  They asked how could two objects be in the same place at the same time (ie Spock).  I told them since human cells are constantly regenerating, the 125 year difference meant those were two different beings in the same place at the same time. 

The question seems odd.  If you assume time travel is possible, of course the "future" person and the "present" person can be in the same place at the same time.  The future person and the present person are literally NOT the same person -- one is from the present and one is from the future.

I've another question, though.  What I have never been able to figure out is the solution to the time travel paradox.  A man from the future travels to the present and kills his present self.  If he killed himself in the present, he would not have lived in the future.  He had to live in the future in order to travel back in time to ... um ... kill his present self.

The solution offered in comic books and some sci-fi is the "splitting off of alternative timelines."  This never made any sense to me.  Viewing time as linear.  Whatever a person from the future does in the present, he will affect the course of future history that will, inevitably, lead to the future from which he came.  In short, a man from the future cannot travel back in time and kill his present self.  By definition, he would fail, since we know he survived to live into the future.

If anyone can explain to me how there is any logic to this notion of alternative timelines "splitting off" (caused by a time traveler who goes back in time and "changes the past"), I would appreciate it.  Because ... it just don't make sense.

Meanwhile ... what's my solution to this logical quandary?  Simply suspend disbelief ... and have a good time.

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Mastrmynd on May 13, 2009, 05:27:21 am

Quote from: michaelintp on May 12, 2009, 07:32:50 am

Quote from: Reginald Hudlin on May 12, 2009, 06:18:03 am

At dinner last night, I finally met two people who didn't like the film. I was stunned.  They asked how could two objects be in the same place at the same time (ie Spock).  I told them since human cells are constantly regenerating, the 125 year difference meant those were two different beings in the same place at the same time. 

If anyone can explain to me how there is any logic to this notion of alternative timelines "splitting off" (caused by a time traveler who goes back in time and "changes the past"), I would appreciate it.  Because ... it just don't make sense.

THIS is another thing that i liked about the movie...it took what the audience thought they knew about time travel and flipped it on its ear. shucks, KIRK represented "us...we, the people." When Spock played young Kirk, he lead y.Kirk to believe somethin' bad would happen if the 2 spocks would meet. Why did y.kirk think that?  Because...just like us, he must've taken Doc Brown's Back to the Future laws of time travel 101 class.  In B2TF, we were told that if u met urself & i guess,touch, the space-time-continuum would blow up...blah blah blah (touching must be involved becuz doc helped past self with a helping hand.

we don't know squat about time travel. B2TF was a movie, but in this reality ST is real. get it? hahahha.
shucks, when the movie broke it down and said, what happened before still exists,but becuz u came back in time, a whole new timeline was created....i shouted 'reboot' and i was happy.

i'm babblin' but i support redjack's comments.

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: moor on May 13, 2009, 02:08:56 pm

I just found out the actress playing Gaila (Kirk's "study" partner) is also playing Scarlett in the new  GI Joe...

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Redjack on May 13, 2009, 02:51:30 pm

MAny Worlds Theory.

Essentially, every possible outcome exists simultaneously but our decisions (or chance, in the case of inanimate interactions) close off the infinite number of others in favor of the chosen path.

The First and Second Laws of thermodynamics preclude the ability of a time traveller to alter the past (once energy has been used it can't be reclaimed, among other things) but, if such a traveller existed and, say, killed Hitler as a child, the past of his original timeline would not be changed. He would simply have a moved himself into a timeline in which Hitler died as a child.

Nothing would change in the original timeline because, once something is past, it becomes immutable. All that would happen is the time traveller would be gone from the original line.

The present creates the future but once the present becomes the past no further change is possible.

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Mastrmynd on May 13, 2009, 02:53:52 pm

if i wasn't so darn cool, my brain would have exploded...but it didn't becuz i get it!

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: michaelintp on May 13, 2009, 08:58:36 pm

(http://www.dac-editions.com/artes%201/vaielusiv1.jpg)
                   Michaelintp

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: michaelintp on May 13, 2009, 11:01:20 pm

Redjack ... I kind of see what you are saying, but I can't say it really makes a great deal of sense to me.  How is the original timeline not extinguished if that matter and energy that was used to "create" that future timeline is NOW (in the present) diverted to create a NEW timeline.  One cannot use the same matter and energy to create two different timelines.

I imagine the REAL scientific answer is that time travel INTO THE PAST is impossible, which is why we are confronted with these strange explanations and paradoxes when we pretend that it can take place.

However, buying into your premise for a moment, and if we view time as something fluid that can flow backward as well as forward, and if we assume the existence of free will ... then might not that imply an infinite number of timelines.  Every time a choice can be made, a person can decide X or Y.  In one timeline he choses X.  However, looking back and moving to that point again, from the perspective of one not bound by time, he could have chosen Y, and perhaps in an alternative timeline did, since he did have the freedom to chose either one.  Thus resulting in an infinite number of parallel temporal universes ...?   :P

             (http://bp0.blogger.com/_RdO43bQ9DAw/RqniFnkf1lI/AAAAAAAAAFs/yHvPoW9RNqM/s400/head+spin+copy.jpg)

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Redjack on May 13, 2009, 11:52:59 pm

No.

We say that it is "choice" but the Many Worlds model also applies to random events such as two asteroids smacking into each other.

It's easier if you look at it like this.

Every time line moves from then to now to the future in what we perceive as linear motion. Setting aside questions of faith, for purposes of this discussion, accept that the Big Bang started all this.

There is a finite amount of energy/matter in the universe and all of it is being used. Once used it's still there (energy can't be destroyed, only reoriented) but it can't be accessed. That's why time travel to the past is, in practical terms, impossible because, once we've used that energy (or those moments) they become unavailable. The future is fog. The present is a burning match. The past is a road made of the ashes. This is the Second Law which says Entropy (or decay or chaos) must increase to maximum.

Bringing in organisms and the ability to make "choices" doesn't really change anything. At any moment I could stand up from the computer and do any number of things. Or I could stay here all night. or the chemicals in my body could stop working in tandem and cause me to explode. All these things and an infinite number of others are always possible. Everything in the universe exists in a partially undetermined state, including all of us. This flux exists at every moment.

By choosing, ANY choice, you are forcing reality into a fixed pattern. which we can call "geoff gets up and walks to the kitchen." But, as long as I do nothing, ALL potential actions are equally likely.

Many Worlds Theory says the universe or, multiverse for us Comics' geeks, is a massive continuum of possibilites, all undetermined and all existing simultaneously.

IF a person could somehow move back into the past (theoretically possible as objects approaching relativistic speeds create a space/time dilation) and somehow make another choice, paradox prevents the erasure of the first line. You can't travel back in time to prevent yourself from building the device that allows you to travel back in time to prevent yourself from building the device that allows you to travel back in time and so on.

What would happen is

1) Something would prevent you from killing Hitler as a boy. Hitler didn't die as a child.  So, should you get there, whatever action you take in the past has already occurred and been included.

or

2) rather than erasing your original timeline (not possible because you came from there) you force one of the infinite possible timelines to become actual for you moving forward in the new line with new events spinning off of whatever "change" you made.

The old timeline would simply go on without you from the point where you "went back in time."

And, of course, you would never be able to get "home." All you could do is travel back in time and create another new line.

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: michaelintp on May 14, 2009, 07:28:06 am

So you reject the notion of multiple temporal universes existing "simultaneously" based infinite possible choices and/or infinite possible chance events, unbounded by linear time?  Geoff, I've got solid proof that you are wrong:  The Butterfly Effect!

(Hahahahaha -- that was a joke)  ;)  I understand what you are saying.

Though I think what I decribed above is what movies of that sort are kinda premised on.

I believe the real answer is that time travel backwards is impossible even under the Theory of Relativity (though I don't pretend to be Einstein, haha).  Time Dilation, as I kinda understand it, is that as one approaches the speed of light time slows down.  So that someone leaving earth at close to the speed of light and coming back would age minutes while everyone here on earth would (relative to the person in space) age years -- two different "time streams" so to speak.  But neither of those "time streams" are going backwards.  One is just going "faster" relative to the other, but both are still moving in a forward direction.  So the guy who aged only minutes will feel as though he "traveled" through time -- but only forward.  But again, as I said above, my comments come with the caveat that I'm no Einstein.  The Theory of Relativity also makes my head spin.

Has any physicist you are aware of actually posited that time travel backwards is a theoretical possibility?  If anyone would have heard of it, my bet is it would be you.

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Redjack on May 14, 2009, 07:57:22 am

If, when approaching C (that's lightspeed in case someone lurking doesn't know), time "slows down" for the person in motion, if follows that, if they could surpass C, time would move "backwards" for that person. The linear nature of time is simply how we experience it- as decay or increasing entropy. That experience is not accurate for describing how the universe actually works. It's more like a continuum.

For instance. Tachyons are massless particles that move "backward" in space/time. As all "matter" is composed of particles in a more organized collected form, it follows that any object composed of or sufficiently surrounded by tachyons could also move "backwards." Whether an organism could survive the trip is a big question. But, presuming they could, paradox would prevent any alteration of the original line, even if you handed off uzis and grenades to the native Americans so they could greet the Pilgrims properly.

Yes, all the other lines exist simultaneously but we can't access them. From our POV they are only potentialities just as, from theirs, we are.

A time traveller would either be creating an entirely new line simply by appearing in the past or they would be injecting themselves into an existing alternative line where some event, previously unknown, would have occurred  causing the split. Their arrival being predestined to cause that event.

And, no, I don't believe in "free will" as you mean it. I think all this is the result of the ongoing explosion we call the Big Bang and it's just the activities of particles bouncing around. It feels like free will but, really, it's just an illusion. It's a version of Determinism.

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Battle on May 14, 2009, 10:20:58 am

Quote from: Redjack on May 14, 2009, 07:57:22 am

But, presuming they could, paradox would prevent any alteration of the original line, even if you handed off uzis and grenades to the native Americans so they could greet the Pilgrims properly.

Heh heh... ;D

That made me smile! :D

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: michaelintp on May 14, 2009, 07:39:57 pm

Geoff, this stuff is wild.  It is hard, being a Newtonian living in an Einsteinian universe (haha). Can't say I understand how Tachyons move "backward" in space/time, but I'll hop on and enjoy the ride.  As far as exceeding the speed of light ... well, I guess Sci-Fi like Star Trek is based on assuming that is possible, and once one assume that, one can assume anything.  So long as the writers create an internally consistent model (effects flowing logically from assumed premises) ... I've no problem with that.  Movies drive me nuts when things come out of left field that just "don't make sense" in the context of the film's assumptions.  Star Trek did not suffer from that flaw.  The whole storyline hung together really quite well ... and was a lot of fun.  I'm curious to see where it goes from here.

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Redjack on May 15, 2009, 01:58:24 am

Well.

I'm no physicist. I just get a kick out of this stuff. Some people can rebuild their car engines. The thing about Newtonian physics is that they work. They fit how we interact with the world so they're the easiest to swallow. Einsteinian physics are a little more work but even they fit into the realm of what most of us are willing to waste time wrapping our brains around.

Describing the "motion" of top and bottom quarks or their relative "spin" and "taste" takes better math skills than I'll ever have. I can grasp the conclusions but a good deal of how they're arrived at leaves me far behind. It's why I write scifi instead of making real science.

Pay attention in math class is my motto. Girls can wait.

or boys, depending.

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Battle on May 26, 2009, 09:12:09 am

Here's a list of potential actors that were unofficially cast by the staff of WIZARD magazine way back in the spring/summer 2007 MEGA MOVIE issue for the latest Star Trek movie. 
(http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/spezial/Fool/val.gif)HEF features a Hard Choices thread that can match any other creative team's Hard Choices so, here's how Wizard's Hard Choices compares to the actual movie release: 

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/MattDamonBU.jpg/200px-MattDamonBU.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Chris_Pine.jpg/220px-Chris_Pine.jpg)

James T. Kirk

Matt Damon  or Chris Pine?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Zachary_Quinto_-_JVA_-_0203.JPG/200px-Zachary_Quinto_-_JVA_-_0203.JPG)

Spock

Zachary Quinto was a dead-ringer.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/ThandieNewton07TIFF.jpg/220px-ThandieNewton07TIFF.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Zoe_Saldana.jpg/200px-Zoe_Saldana.jpg)

Lt. Uhura

Thandie Newton   or  Zoë Saldana?  I would've preferred Ms. Saldana instead.

(http://j.bdbphotos.com/pictures/N/2/N2W6V3.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/KarlUrbanApr09.jpg/220px-KarlUrbanApr09.jpg)

Leonard 'Bones' McCoy

Kevin Connolly or  Karl Urban?  Are you kidding?!

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/BillyBoyd_ComicCon.jpg/200px-BillyBoyd_ComicCon.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Simon_Pegg_02.jpg/250px-Simon_Pegg_02.jpg)

Montgomery 'Scotty' Scott

Billy Boyd  or  Simon Pegg?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/John_Cho_2008.jpg/220px-John_Cho_2008.jpg)

Hikaru Sulu

No question... John Cho was not a Hard Choice at all!

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Hypestyle on May 26, 2009, 12:13:05 pm

... I have a distant memory of an issue of Wizard going back even further, where they 're-envisioned' Star Trek.. I think Holly Robinson-Peete got the nod for Uhura.. I totally forget everyone else..

Title: Re: Reggie's Review: STAR TREK
Post by: Battle on June 08, 2009, 07:48:48 am

IT'S ABOUT TIME!  (http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/spezial/Fool/kuku.gif)

(http://www.startrekanimated.com/tas_header_kail2.jpg)

(http://www.startrek.com/imageuploads/200607/pro-animated-series-dvd/120x90.jpg)

STAR TREK the animated series---A respectful collection of the complete 22 episodes written and produced by one of my favorite animation studios, Filmation with the same standards as any other Star Trek show, and this is a good thing considering where and when this show was originally slated...
---on Saturday mornings for kids waay-y-y-y back in 1973 but the reality is that the subject matter was a little too advanced for kids and was secretly slipped in for young adults.
In fact, a lot of material and characters in the animated series was referenced in many of the latest Star Trek TV series (The Next Generation, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise) and the current Star Trek movie.  So when you hear kid Kirk in the movie answer back to the highway patrolman,
"My name is James Tiberius Kirk!"
The detail of the middle name comes directly from one of the episodes of the cartoon or when kid spock is being bullied by a gang o' other kid vulcans, guess what...?  It's another reference from the animated show! :)

All of the episodes are done well and so far, the episode that caught my eye on the 1st disc is 'The Lorelei Signal' where Lt. Uhura assembles a security team of starfleet females to rescue Kirk's incapacitated away team on a planet of blond-haired, blue eyed white women.  ;D

(http://www.startrekanimated.com/uhura2_sm.jpg)

Lt. Uhura:  "I am the senior lieutenant here and I am taking charge of the ship!"