Film Junk Follow-Up Star Trek Podcast

Posted by on May 12th, 2009   Filed under: Site News

Bonus Film Junk Star Trek Podcast

This past Monday we had our special LIVE Film Junk podcast, tackling this weekend’s summer sci fi blockbuster, ‘Star Trek’. It was a lively discussion and a lot of fun, but I felt as though we hardly even scratched the surface of what we had to say about the film. If any of you agree, we’re glad to announce a special bonus follow-up podcast which myself (Jay) and Reed Farrington (The Shat) will be recording tomorrow afternoon. Unfortunately, Sean can’t make it and I’m making the leap to assume Greg isn’t interested. Here’s what we’ll do though: let’s make this post the ‘official’ thread for any questions, concerns, complaints or debates regarding JJ Abram’s Star Trek. We’ll use YOUR thoughts as a guide to our discussion and hopefully shed some light on our own thoughts about the film. There’s a lot to discuss here (which is a good thing for a summer blockbuster, no?) so this episode will definitely contain MAJOR SPOILERS.

So there you have it. Start sharing your thoughts in the comments. Those of you who’ve already expressed your feelings elsewhere, feel free to simply copy and paste. We’ll have the show up Wednesday night for your listening pleasure. Stay tuned!

And for those of you who need to catch up, you can find Monday’s show here.



  • Ian

    Needless to say this Star Trek is not that Star Trek. It is however Fun, Universally loved, Contrived, and Kinetic.

  • I liked the movie – it was entertaining. Perhaps the scene I had the most issue with was young Jimmy Kirk driving the car. Definitely an eye-roller, but a certain aspect of it took me out of the scene. He Nokias the radio, blasting some Beastie Boys – or so the Internet says, I didn’t recognize the song. When the car vrooms off the cliff and Kirk and his giant sneakers climb to safety, I’m pretty sure the music continues playing.

    Yes, the technique of music that starts from a prop and then transitions to playing outside the realm of the scene is typical, but for some reason in Star Trek’s case, when the prop that plays the music gets destroyed and the music continues for a couple more seconds, I was taken right out of the scene. Was anyone else bothered by this or was I just hallucinating?

  • rob

    How did you guys feel about all the casting choices? I thought Anton Yelchin and Karl Urban were awesome. I wanted more Bones in the last act of the film.

    Also, are you guys picking up the Star Trek 1-6 blu-rays?

  • Dexter Morgan

    I think you are just hallucinating, GimmeCookies – you do seem like a crazy person.

    I am curious what Reed would have liked this film to make merch/swag out of – what little pieces of this movie would you like to put in your star trek room? other than the orion slave girl, of course.

    also, did you guys think that spock’s mom’s death was a little anti-climactic? i saw it on screen and even though i understood the emotional impact, i just didnt feel it in mah belly (that’s where i feel feelings).

    (i apologize if these are repeat questions covered in the previous podcast, i havent listened to it yet)

  • Nathan

    Hey guys. I thought the live podcast went really well. One thing that Reed mentioned on the show was that he didn’t understand why Spock jettisoned Kirk onto on ice planet where he could have died on his way to the Starfleet outpost. Well, the computer in the escape pod tells Kirk to stay in the pod until he can be rescued because of the dangerous conditions, but Kirk refuses. This “anti-nitpick” is all I got.

  • Goon

    maybe debate whether Kirk got enough to establish himself, either through schooling or from the adventuring (ie running from the monster), and if old Spock got too involved with the past, telling people their futures and influencing people rather than letting the new cast get there themselves.

  • Schizopolis

    Hey guys..just listened to the star trek show…damn…reed needs to take a broadcasting class!! And greg should hold back his justified annoyance with reed until 2-3mins into the show….about the same stretch of time the audience is about flip its lid on reed! it would make greg look less of a bully…even though we know he prolly spent too much time around reed just before the recording.

    Now to Star Trek. I’m not a trekkie and barring some typical bad JJ Abrahms scenes (eg. corvette and ice planet), i had a lot of fun watching the movie! As one of the filmspotting guys put it, it was nicely executed “magic trick”. You have a blast while at the same time ignoring all rationale. However as a fan of film, i felt the movie being both a prequel and a reboot is a perfect example of wanting your cake and eating it to. There were plenty of minor nit picks, but I’ll only raise one, which i think is major.

    The whole time continuum device wasn’t necessary. I think Abrahms and his crew are talented enough to execute a good prequel without completely restructuring the original star trek storyline. Imagine if George Lucas did that for the STAR WARS PREQUELS and started a new timeline for Vader, Obi Wan, Luke, etc. Vader meeting the young Anakin would be seriously controversial making episodes 4-6 irrelevant. I mean there might be a case to argue that after 10 or so mediocre to crappy Star Trek movies, a timeline change for the prequel sounds refreshing. But all film devices should service the context of the film. Again I’m not a trekkie, but i’m pretty sure that the space time continuum is sacred in the star trek universe and starfleet’s prime directive is never to drastically alter it. But in the case of the prequel, the WRITERS ALTER IT, which is kind of a big fuck you to the entire Star Trek canon, isn’t it?? Or maybe, Abrahms and his team don’t realize it’s a fuck you and just think they’re being clever. Either way, it’s flaw worth discussing because i’d hate to see this become a common thing among movie prequels.

    I believe a good filmmaker doesn’t need to be cute and clever in telling a dramatic story and Abrahms over does it again. Ironically enough, Abrahms has said he was always more of a Star Wars guy than a Trek guy. And with this prequel, he basically remade Star Wars Episode 4 by utilizing the joseph campbell storyline of the hero’s journey . The Luke, Han, Obi Wan and Yoda character hybrids are there! Topped with a big commendation finale by a fleet of officers. In my opinion, at least Abrahms’ star trek prequel still surpasses star wars episodes one, two and arguably three. He just needs to cut down on the cute and clever altogether, instead of executing it better than Lucas.

    Take care,

    Schizopolis

    p.s. i know yoda wasn’t in episode 4

  • Rusty James

    Reed Gerryington, who among the cast did you like best? Who was worst?

    Jay, do you think that Orci and Kurtzman’s script suffered from the same problems as Transformers? Or would you say it’s an improvement.

  • cronenfly

    I thought the film was entertaining to a degree. I thought all of the original characters felt like caricatures of themselves. anyone else agree?? I thought the special effects were good, the score was awesome, the sound effects were also great. It was very forgettable in my opinion. As i sat there watching it, i just wanted to leave and watch the original series. i think it could have been better but it could have been much much worse!

  • Greg

    Shitty. I totally would have done this. I liked arguing with Reed. I found it odd and enjoyable to defend Star Trek against a Superfan.

    I’m in Indigo meetings all day sadly.

  • Overall, I quite enjoyed the film, but it was different than I expected and I missed the exploration aspect. The action however was good and the opening sequence was fantastic as was the cast. Also, not since Trek 6 has a Trek movie seemed to be more epic than a 2-part episode of the show. I think the budget was quite apparent in the set designs and effects.

    I am interested to get your reaction to the destruction of you know where. That was the moment that really surprised me and told me there was no going back. On the other hand, some of the echoes in the film, like Pike in chair, made me think that there would be some shadowing of the old series here.

    Also, I am interested to hear your thoughts on future films. Lots of people assume Khan is next, but I would rather them not rehash old movie plots (we still have Wrath of Khan if we want to watch that).

    What are some of the characters from the series you would like to see brought into the new film series?

    Do you want them to explore Klingons next, or would you like to see Next Gen races brought in(Cardasians, Borg, Dominion)?

    Some small points I would also like your thoughts on, Scotty’s rock friend, the bottomless pit in the Romulan ship, Kirks quick promotions.

    Sorry if thats too many questions.

  • Schizopolis

    Jay C…i don’t consider Casino Royale a prequel. I put it in the same category as Batman Begins…a reboot and origin story of a known character but set in contemporary time period. Abrahm’s Star Trek is a prequel because it’s the same characters set 10 or so years before the original tv series…and by making a new timeline, it’s also a reboot…in a way making all the other original star trek movies irrelevant. I still question the motivations of Abrahms & co. in doing that. In the end, i think he wanted to show his hollywood clout by freeing the writers from any creative restrictions and push his Star Wars sensibilities. And if that’s the case, then the trekkies probably have every right to feel betrayed. I don’t think the rebooted timeline was the best decision by Abrahms, but it could’ve been far far worse.

  • Neil M

    This is awesome. I wanted to hear Reed’s entire list, so hopefully now he can get to the rest of his retarded notes. Here’s something – I read an article with the film’s two writers today. They were saying that the time travel element was mainly used to set up the alternate reality. Now that the road has been paved for a whole new story arc, there likely won’t be any future use of time travel. What do you guys think about this? Here’s the link to the article.

    http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1611063/story.jhtml

  • swarez

    I don’t quite understand the complaints about them not sticking to the old Star Trek lore. It’s a reboot, they can do pretty much what they want, which they did and without damaging the original cannon with the whole time line thingy.
    Trekkies need to understand that this film is not made for them alone. There is a reason the original series failed, lack of interest from the general public and this is a way to give it a shot in the arm which it has done in a spectacular way.
    I know that fans would like to think that this property is their own and don’t like outsiders to get in on the action but they have to realize that they are not alone in the universe and the Trek world doesn’t revolve around them.

  • FROM MY EXPERIENCE SEEING THE FILM IN A LARGE AUDIENCE I THINK THIS TOPIC, I SUBMITTED EARLIER, IS WHAT IS KEY TO THE SUCCESS… the more I think about the movie and read the comments about the science and plot holes; I agree that the movie has major flaws. I still enjoy it, for lack of a better phrase, what I describe as the Magic of Cinema. I think the box office, word of mouth and appeal is going to be huge for this movie due to the audience desire to rekindle their movie relationship with the iconic characters of Star Trek.

    Beyond serious trekkies, Kirk and Spock are part of our culture in one way or another for over 40 years and this movie is coming out at the perfect time to capture that nostalgia. You add the fact that we get to see these iconic characters as sexy young adults and you have a really powerful mix.

    All of this nostalgia is covering a really weak story, plot holes and that is what is really interesting to me. It’s like George Lucas famous line “movies are binary they are either positive or negative – you can never predict when one will break through”.

    I guess what I want to interject is what other movies which exploded due to their perfect timing and the audience wanting the return of familiar characters? I submit these to start:

    Ironically, the first Star Trek film had this appeal because of the long gestation the material developed in reruns and with fans of the TV show growing up.

    Terminator 2 exploded on to the scene as people were desperate to see the terminator again. Unlike this film, T2’s script holds up over time.

    In a way Titanic is part of this discussion, how would anyone predict the pined-up desire to see such a historical event given the Hollywood treatment. It’s a story every child hears about in history class and it had numerous film versions (one that is actually better then Cameron’s) and the world was waiting for this ‘reboot’. Like this Star Trek, Titanic’s melodramatic script is its biggest negative.

    The Wiz is a favorite of my childhood and was a jazzy, African-American reimagining of The Wizard of Oz with Diana Ross and Michael Jackson as the scarecrow. (Might be a stretch because I don’t know if it made the money they wanted) A must see for any serious film fan.

    Hook did very well and fed the public’s desire for more Pan magic.

    In a way Phantom Menace is the same as Star Trek; it feeds the public’s hunger for a return of characters and myth with very little script to back it up. People will go see Star Trek to rekindle even if they hear the script is bad.

    Thoughts?

  • “…blasting some Beastie Boys – or so the Internet says, I didn’t recognize the song.”

    Are you serious?? If so, I am old.

    Actually something I wanted to bring up on the podcast that I kind of forgot about, and Rus touched on this… do you think a few years from now this movie will be regarded on the same level as The Phantom Menace? Is it all just a smokescreen, positive reviews based on nostalgia and timing? I mean obviously Phantom Menace had a lot more detractors right from the get go, and there’s no Jar Jar Binks in Star Trek, but still.

  • Rusty James

    I’ve got another question for Gerry.
    You’ve become a Film Junk sensation. To what do you attribute your phenomenal success?

  • Cy-Ed

    Even though I liked the film it felt like something very essential were missing.

  • I hope people don’t get tired of all this talk about the new Star Trek movie. I’m hoping to avoid repeating myself in this bonus podcast. I’m afraid my written reviews will end up being superfluous by the time I actually get them written.

  • RJ

    Great idea!

  • dan

    Looking forward to the bonus discussion, too. Don’t worry, Reed. We won’t get tired of it. I enjoyed the movie overall, but had some problems. Like some overly convenient plot points on how Kirk came up with solutions to everything. I may have missed it, but did they explain how he beat Spock’s training program? And like greg pointed out on the podcast, was there really a need to throw in those lame monsters on Hoth? Seems like George Lucas move there.
    I could have done with less action and smarter sci-fi stuff.

  • Nate

    I haven’t listened to Monday’s show yet (it’s sitting on my iPod as I type) so perhaps you already talked about this stuff. But:

    How many times did you say to yourself, “Why is there a lens flare in this shot?”

    Also, why am I (and everyone else in the world apparently) so eager to forgive this film of its obvious plot holes and silliness? Why did I (and everyone else in the world) not give the same free pass to Indy 4 last year? What’s the difference?

  • Henri

    Overall i really enjoyed the movie, pretty much everything apart from story was fantastic.
    I really loved the heavy usage of lens flare and other post procsess ligthning effects. It certainly made unique look for this flick.

    My nitpicks for story/script:
    Swordfighting on drilling platform. Really? How about melting romulan face with those laser guns(whatever they are called)…
    Dropping kirk onto a ice planet. If i recall correctly kirk had argument with spock(?) and for that crew got rid of him. No lockable doors in Enterprise? Kirk almost died down there.. seems really irresponsible to send kirk down onto that planet…

  • Lee

    I can’t believe people are nit picking a summer movie that is somewhat intelligent and entertaining. We have just had the turd that was Wolverine and have Transformers and a whole slew of garbage that will have nothing close to the humour and spirit of this Star Trek.

    Are people going to complain about the inconsistencies of the Transformers plot or Bay’s aesthetic choices to this extent, no for some reason they think it’s cool when robots kick the shit out of each other and are able to let that shit slide. This was a solid summer movie that felt more like an introduction/reset to the characters and world

    I don’t think it was a perfect movie by any means; there are story structure problems and a bland Bana. I’m not a fan of that particular universe (The Voyage Home is a fun movie though) so I do have a distance from previous entries but what do people want, the franchise was dead! Trekkers should rejoice that a continuation of that world exists at all, they should be happy they are getting anything close to this quality in this age of Hollywood. Mabye they should look at the state of other franchises before they cry rape.

    I also didn’t mind the lens flares one bit.

  • Lee hit it on the spot, I totally agree :-)

  • blackmothra

    general star trek question

    what happened to captain kirk and the rest of the crew between the end of TOS and star trek: the motion picture?
    im only 6 episodes into TOS
    but i cheated and watched (most of) the movie, and i am very confused.
    so i decided to wait until i can understand before starting in with the movies, maybe you can help.

  • Goon

    “Are people going to complain about the inconsistencies of the Transformers plot or Bay’s aesthetic choices to this extent, no for some reason they think it’s cool when robots kick the shit out of each other and are able to let that shit slide”

    I wont because I wont see Transformers 2. I thought the first one was the worst blockbuster of the last 10 years. But no, Star Trek is not getting some unfair treatment from me relative to that movie, thats for sure.

  • Nate – “Why did I (and everyone else in the world) not give the same free pass to Indy 4 last year? What’s the difference?”

    Very good point…is it the young and sexy aspect of this nostalgic romp? I think so.

  • Star Trek not Justin is “Bringing sexy back” ….take’em to the Star Trek bridge!

    “Dirty babe
    You see these shackles
    Baby I’m your slave….”

  • Sean – “do you think a few years from now this movie will be regarded on the same level as The Phantom Menace?”

    I’d be curious about that. For me the last good Star Trek movie was The Undiscovered Country, though people seemed to dig First Contact. I was only old enough to catch Return of the Jedi on laserdisc, and I never saw any TNG movies in theatres. I kinda feel the theatre experience is a big part of it. I guess it would all depend on how the reboot sequels do.

    But then again, I can see myself re-watching Star Trek whereas even though I like the Star Wars movies, you would have to force me to re-watch The Phantom Menace.

    Comparing TPM and Abram’s Star Trek, the latter has better performances, and on the strength of the Kelvin scene and much too brief Enterprise pyoo pyoo pyoo moments, has better action. Yes, Jedi battles are the stuff of awesome, but for me, they can be a bit tiring mainly cuz it’s a lot of martial arts flash; I find the starship battles in Star Trek much more engaging because it’s between two colossal objects that have to either present themselves from an angle that makes them smaller to deflect glancing blows or stick out their entire body to take the entire shot. I love broadsides. And sides of broads.

  • Bob The Slob

    questions for reed and Jay:

    1) Does it annoy either of you when they reboot/remake/reuse/recyle a movie or franchise and then everyone dismisses all it’s shortcomings because its a “summer movie” or a “popcorn movie”. If it does annoy you, is it people’s reactions to the terms (i.e. “summer movie”) or the fact that the beloved franchise should have been given better treatment then just being an “entertaining ride” for summer audiences.

    2) Do you agree with me that if an actor originates (in TV or FILM) a character that is based from a script alone (as in NOT from another medium like books or comics…so like James Bond, Superman, Batman) then they ARE that character. Such as Shatner IS Kirk, Nimoy IS Spock, Robert Englund IS Freddy, Kurt Russell is Snake Plisken…etc.? If so, how does that effect your view of movies like Star Trek 2009?

    3) In the film it seems that Earth nor Vulcan have no homeland defenses that could easily destroy the drill head attacking their planet…why did young spock have to bother with destroying it at all, shouldn’t earth’s defenses have taken it out almost instantly, especially considering it was in the heart of a city right next to Starfleet? discuss.

    4) Whats worse…nitpicking Star Trek 2009 to death…or people complaining about the inevitable nitpicking of Star Trek 2009 to death?

    5) Uhura was hot. So they got that right, right?

    6) Reed, are you annoyed as I am that we now, most likely, live in a world where young kids LOVE Star Trek, BUT will go back and watch the real Star Trek and say they are boring and the effects are bad? Also, noting how satirical it is that this is an actual complaint among Trekkies, that Star Trek doesn’t belong to them anymore and will be replaced in the minds of the young, is it not a valid grievance even to the slightest degree? It is ok to be bitter and old?

    7) I realize they couldn’t beam young spock to the room with his parents in it…but couldnt they beam him closer…he had to like climb a mountain to get to them.

    8) What is a better spoof of Star Trek…Galaxy Quest or Star Trek 2009?

    9) Several upon several complaints have been made, including by Reed, about Spock abandoning Kirk on the lethal ice planet…do you think this is because it was a monumentally stupid plot device or because it was a monumentally stupid plot device? Yes…that question is a tad bias.

    10) The Green Girl…would you?

  • Bob The Slob

    I dont know why #8 is a emoticon smiley face.

  • How do you guys feel about the starship battles – visuals and audio?

    I’m a big fan of the Nicholas Meyer battles (Khan and Undiscovered Country). They – and the others in that series – had a nice weight to them; slow-moving, massive starships that were scalpel-precise with their phasers, and booming with the torpedoes.

    I liked Abram’s Star Trek battles because they were kinetic and had a more shotgun blast feel with their pyoo pyoos – I guess mainly because the Federation ships were more concerned with shooting down Nero’s torpedo swarms, and the fact that his mining ship was of unknown design and so the Enterprise and Kelvin wouldn’t know what areas to subtarget.

    TNG’s I never liked. Absolutely no weight to the sound effects. The phasers and torpedoes and the impacts sounded like someone brushing food crumbs off a pillow.

  • Maopheus

    In answer to post 26: It depends on what you read. As with a lot of blank periods in Star Trek mythology, there have attempts to fill them in by the novels. The problem with the novels is that it is debatable how acceptable they are as canon. I did read several of the novels but grew tired of them much like the Star Wars novels. I felt that having a handful of novels that covered or expanded upon key missing periods in the mythology are good, but too many just waters it down. There was a novel that covered the period between the OS and ST:TMP. I really can’t remember anything about it, it was published back in the ’90’s I think. Another example of a good novel is “Imzadi” which discusses how Riker and Troi first got together. I mean stories like that are great because they have an importance. But the novels that just feel like another episode are kind of pointless. Now if you read the Michael Okuda official history of Star Trek, he says that only two years pass between the end of the series which coincides with the end of the five year mission, and the beginning of ST:TMP and presumably the beginning of the next five year mission. I always found that to be very improbable due to the greatly advanced design of the new Enterprise and the fact that 10 years pass in reality between the series and the movie. It’s hard to explain the aging of the older crew members like Scotty, who looks a lot older, as happening in two years. Okuda’s placing of two years by the way is based on Decker’s point to Kirk that he hadn’t been Captain for almost two years or 18 months or something like that. Of course we have no idea what that last event was, whether he was referring to the original series or some other mission that occurred in between.

  • Maopheus

    And by the way, Okuda writes that a whole five year mission passes between ST:TMP and ST II, even though the movies are 3 years apart. And obviously anyone can tell that the events of ST II-IV take place over a short period of time, although it’s unknown how long the crew maintained their exile of Vulcan in the events leading up to ST IV, perhaps a few months?