Star Trek Wins Hollywood Movie Award

Last week we reported that you can vote for the new Star Trek movie for a couple of award shows. The nominations for People’s Choice Awards are still being voted on, but Star Trek did win the Hollywood Movie Award, just a week after picking up the the top Scream Award (which aired Tuesday night). See below for more details and pictures of Zachary Quinto picking up the award at the Hollywood Film Festival on Monday.

 

Another Star Trek win
"Star Trek" was chosen for the Hollywood Movie Award by the public voting online at the Yahoo! Movies website, which received 20 million unique visitors and over 160,000 votes cast. The nominees were: “500 Days of Summer,” “District 9,” “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra,” “The Hangover,” “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,” “The Hurt Locker,” “Inglourious Basterds,” “Star Trek,” “Tranformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” and “UP.” "Star Trek" won with 26% of the votes. The new Mr. Spock Zachary Quinto was there to accept the award.


Actress Michelle Monaghan presents the Hollywood Movie Of The Year Award to Zachary Quinto

Quinto was also at the Hollywood Film Festival to pick up a Hollywood Spotlight Award, which was awarded to Quinto and three other actors.


(L-R) Actors Zachary Quinto, Shohreh Aghdashloo, Melanie Lynskey and Paul Schnider pose with the Hollywood Spotlight Awards

And while we are doing photos, here is one more of Zach striking a pose.


Shiny suit is logical this season?

What’s next for Trek
Star Trek seems to being doing well with these popularity contest style Awards, so hopefully it prevails again at the People’s Choice Awards. As we get closer to the end of the year, it will be interesting to see how many critic top 10 lists Star Trek appears. The film did well with the critics in May, but will it still be memorable in November and December?

Images: Wire Image

Sort by:   newest | oldest

keep the awards coming

Tough movies to begin with, I knew Trek could do it, :) People around hear that never saw any trek before are loving it.
Got to get a Blue ray player…..

Star Trek is the best film ever made!

26% of the vote out of 11 nominees. That’s a pretty strong showing. Congrats on the win. I wonder how close the runner up was.

Bravo!

A fresh creative team willing to take chances plus TOS’s original iconic characters were all it took. Star Trek is vital again!!!

@2–

Robert Mulligan, John Ford, John Hughes, Alfred Hitchcock and Robert Wise, as well as any well-respected writers and actors who have left us, are all rolling in their graves because of that comment.

As entertaining of a film Star Trek is, it’s an abomination to filmmaking.

More awards…much awesomeness

Richly deserved. Well done all.

Cool! The movie definitely deserved that award!

@6

Not quite! Just because those directors directed clasica it does not mean they are the best! It’s just a matter of oppinion so don’t get all shoke up over it!

#6—-“an abomination to filmmaking”?

This is Star Trek (2009), not “Ishtar”.

You admit that it is entertaining, so how can it be an abomination to filmmaking? Is not the object of filmmaking to either inform or entertain an audience?

Thank you Closettekker.

IT’S A MOVIE! And the vast majority of people think it was rather entertaining. I have friends who I thought were hopeless to get as fans of Trek who were into the movie.

My mother who has been an avid Trek fan since the Sixties said she can’t imagine how they could have done the movie much better considering the rabid fan base, and I tend to agree.

The next one must deal with issues much deeper, however. It needs to feel a bit more “grown up”.

Son of a Maui Portagee

Whatever it is is sure seems as if the THIS IS IT documentary is going to juggle it and a lot of others down the charts.

I hope Trek09 picks up some more of these.

I also happen to think JJ Abrams did a great job considering this is, what? His second film as Director? “Trek” got loads of praise from James Cameron whom some would say is a fine Director himself.

It’s two hours of exhilarating fun, and it works.

Trek was a fun and refreshing movie with humanity. So often Sci-fi, action movies drown out the fun with an overabundance of special effects and explosions, this movie got it right.

Love you Zachary

i hope the next film doesn’t fall fowl the same faith as the Pirates sequels…ie the first film was brilliant, fun and entertaining… then the next two went “dark” and left fun outside…and those two films lets be honest werent good.

i hope JJ and the crew remember to keep the fun factor which made the first film so enjoyable…please leave the dark stuff at the door guys

Yes, ST09 will continue to win the “popularity contests”…

but when it comes to critical appeal, District 9 is the clear winner.

As Star Trek fans we should hold it to a higher standard than “entertaining”.

“Abomination” is a little strong, but not far from the mark…

#6

Please suggest some films that arent abominations?

Star Trek managed to get around 40 million behinds to take a seat to watch Star Trek.

For the job it had to do (appease established fans and attract new ones) Star Trek did an excellent job.

Star Trek is vital and relevant again.
Bring on the next movie and (please, please) another Trek TV series

Zach’s like me..good looking and hates to shave! HA!

Capt Mike of the Terran Empire

#7 You have your opnion and it is your lone opnion. it’s of the Opnion of just about everyone else that Trek 2009 was one of if not the best movie of 2009 thus far.

The awards must be driving the haters crazy! And these are awards people across the country vote on…from all walks of life, not just sci-fi zealots. When has a Trek project ever won a mainstream award outside of technical areas?

So despite the vocal minority…it is absolutely clear that JJ and his creative team delivered at Star Trek movie that pleased critics and general audiences alike while making big, BIG bucks.

Nice work! Bring on the sequel!

i love star trek,i loved the new film,cried with in ten mins of the film,can’t wait for it to come out on dvd in the uk .

Yah you naysayers what more could u want from a movie-it was visually epic,heroic,fun and funny, exciting,intense, full of character and depth,emotionally resonant, parts were sad and beautiful with an ending leaving you wanting more-nearly perfect as a movie experience-directors like hitchcock never won a lotta awards but made movies for audiences to enjoy-wise made a trek movie-i dare say jjs is better-

Job well done Star Trek! :)

Congrats! Star Trek is incredible and Zachary deserves a Hollywood Spotlight Award (check your spelling on Hollywood). But the shiny suit? Reminds me of John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever :P

3. Phil – October 28, 2009

“Star Trek is the best film ever made!”

Hey, you got any of what you smoke for sale?

Loving that suit almost as much as I loved the new movie… which is A LOT!!!

Well deserved and I hope there will be many more awards for Quinto and the rest of the cast of Star Trek!!!

Best movie in years!!!

#3
You don’t go to the movies on a frequent basis, do you? :)

3- Its a great fun movie but the best movie ever. I don’t think so

In the league of Trek movies there are better, I think First Contact is a much better film than this.

All I am saying is that there is so much love for JJ that I clouds judgment. Perhaps because I am more anti Abrams than most i have a different perspective.

I love Trek XI but it is by no means the best one. It is best film of 2009, however.

why do I get the feeling that on this site many preople hate verything that came before and now ONLY love the new movie?

Its this mentality I don’t understand and it is a reason this site annoys me.

First Contact should have got this honour as well

sorry for all the posts but was wondering am I the only one who thanks that JJ Abrams is over rated?

Captain Neill,

You are simply in the minority. The accolades for Mr Abrams on this site reflect the general sentiment of Star Trek fans, critics and broader audiences as well; that he and his team indeed honored what came before while updating the franchise for 21st century sensibilities. I believe you will find yourself in the same position on other Trek-related sites as well….save for those esoteric destinations with urls such as wehatetrek09.com.

Your “annoyance” is not an atypical reaction for many humans in your position. They find it easier to seek fault in situations that make them uncomfortable rather than embrace the value in the diversity or evolution of ideas and concepts…particularly in those where they feel personally invested.

Do not feel troubled. Perhaps in time you too will come to embrace growth and change as the natural order of the universe.

#19—“As Star Trek fans we should hold it to a higher standard than ‘entertaining’. ”

I’m not sure a Star Trek film has ever been any deeper than that, to tell you the truth. You’re folling yourself if you believe that any of the past feature films in the franchise and their simplistic, elementarily spelled-out ventures into the human condition (the meaning of life, aging, God, etc.) are really any more intellectual in property. If you want that—-read a book!

This was always just entertainment…nothing more.

What makes Star Trek ’09’s look at paternal relationships and deterministic outlooks on the Universe any less valuable than an almost direct sixth grade level allegory to post-Cold War relations with the Soviet Union and a reluctancy to reject the old-guard prejudices associated with it?

Nothing….in my opinion.

” ‘Abomination’ is a little strong, but not far from the mark…”

I’d say it isn’t even near the ballpark, much less in it. Heck, it isn’t even in the same sport!

Star Trek09 is as far from an “abomination” as Transformers 2 is from winning the Academy Award for Best Picture….

35 – “sorry for all the posts but was wondering am I the only one who thanks that JJ Abrams is over rated?”

Not at all. Far from it, I think. He’s a talented man, but this film was, to me, all flash-bang and very little of the deeper substance of TOS.

Entertaining? Yes. Thought-provoking? Meh.

Son of a Maui Portagee
#35., Well, this site is what it is. I don’t really find it more so than any other fan site. And for the most part, far more cordial to dissenting ideas regarding ST09 than other more general SF sites. Do fans of this movie tend to far too often go off the deep end in support of it? I’d say so. For example, there are about 7 billion people on the planet. Roughly only about 35 million of those people have bothered to see this film. Less if you try to account for repeat defenders who have skewed the individual attendance figures by seeing the movie double-digit multiple times. And yet, the most vocal supporters will try to convince you that you are a minority when the vast majority have yet to even notice it or specifically Mr. Abrams as you observed. Myself, I find the movie a curio. Even though triple digit millions were spent in making it, it is cinematically constructed as if it were a budget movie with, unsteady cam, lens flares, use of actual film throughout, editing that does its job to keep you from noticing the seams showing in the script, and a director and cast that compensates for a weak plot with strong characterizations (the usual singular mark of a good SF B movie.) As a movie divorced from my 43 year ride with ST, was it entertaining? Yes. Was it the greatest story ever told? No. Best Trek ever in any medium? No.… Read more »

Don’t get me wrong, he makes the suit work….just like Travolta.
comment image

Shiny polyester illogical? Never.

Hansel…so hot right now ;-)

It’s great Star Trek is getting awards, but what exactly are these awards? In particular are these Hollywood Awards just movies of Summer? Odd. There seems to be a film award to celebrate about every week now.

39

Agreed
THis was an entertaining film and I liked it. I agree it is divorced from the rest of Trek and as a movie in its own right it is great.

As part of the Trek lexicon I am sorry but there are still better stuff in Trek’s past than this movie. I still like the new movie and have got it preordered but just stating that I think JJ Abrams is over rated.

#38—-“Entertaining? Yes. Thought-provoking? Meh.” Quite frankly, I don’t recall in all my more than 3 decades of Star Trek fandom anything that was more than just “entertaining”, and certainly nothing which was particularly “thought-provoking”. #39—-“I’d categorize it in a genre with which I have a personal weakness in that I regard it as a guilty pleasure: A B movie featuring Leonard Nimoy.” You mean like TWOK with much more expensive special effects? “Is this up to the level where I expected ST storytelling to have evolved by this stage of the game? No….” I’m having difficulty seeing how this film is being regarded by some as being somehow of lesser quality than past outings. “Even though triple digit millions were spent in making it, it is cinematically constructed as if it were a budget movie with, unsteady cam, lens flares…” A stylistic choice—-one that I happen to have enjoyed. “… editing that does its job to keep you from noticing the seams showing in the script, and a director and cast that compensates for a weak plot with strong characterizations.” Seems very familiar when you consider this look back at what was generally considered the best of the original films in the series: 1) of all people who could have found Khan on Ceti Alpha V, it just so happens to be a former member of the Enterprise crew whom Khan recognizes—who incidentally makes no mention to Terrell that his former captain once marooned a genetically-engineered Superman and his followers… Read more »

43 – “Quite frankly, I don’t recall in all my more than 3 decades of Star Trek fandom anything that was more than just “entertaining”, and certainly nothing which was particularly ‘thought-provoking’.”

Hmm … maybe that’s because you only take out what you put in.

As for me, I am someone with more than four decades of being a fan (and who refuses to uses faux coinages such as “fandom” — especially incorrectly, since it is meant to refer to a collective and not an abstract state of devotion), and who has found plenty of thought-provoking material at least in TOS and films with the TOS cast.

As for you. I hope that you will someday move beyond the shallowness and callowness of youth and find that Trek can indeed be thought-provoking as well as entertaining.

In the meantime, might I recommend that you enjoy such entertaining fare as “Three’s Company” or perhaps “Pigs in Space” from the Muppet Show. XD

Sorry, Closet, but sometimes you have to get as good as you give. ;-)

Son of a Maui Portagee
#43. “Quite frankly, I don’t recall in all my more than 3 decades of Star Trek fandom anything that was more than just “entertaining”, and certainly nothing which was particularly “thought-provoking”.” Well, I can see that the difference is that I’ve been at it for over a decade more than you and what a difference a decade makes. It also means that you been entrenched in the corporate think of the movie franchise which blinds you to the fact that Trek can be much more than that. I grew up in the Jim Crow South and during Trek’s first season it was just expected and accepted that white men would do and accomplish everything. I can understand how you coming along just ten years later after Trek did its part to shatter those accepted “givens” in episodic adventures might have difficulty believing that those now plainly obvious ridiculous concepts actually held sway in the halls of power and commerce, but I can assure you that Martin Luther King had an actual deep intellectual thought process in begging Nichols to stick with Star Trek and it wasn’t just because he thought she looked cute in short skirt. #43. “You mean like TWOK with much more expensive special effects?” Almost but not quite. Nicholas Meyer’s script was too well crafted to fit in the B movie genre that incorporates my dirty pleasure of ZOMBIES FROM THE STRATOSHPERE which was the first thing I ever saw with Nimoy in it. As much as… Read more »
#44—-“I hope that you will someday move beyond the shallowness and callowness of youth and find that Trek can indeed be thought-provoking as well as entertaining.” It is quite obvious that you failed to understand that statement. When I said, “…I don’t recall in all my more than 3 decades of Star Trek fandom anything that was more than just ‘entertaining’, and certainly nothing which was particularly ‘thought-provoking’ “—–that doesn’t mean that I failed to follow what the writers were trying to get across….How could I not, when it was always spelled out for the audience anyway? “As for me, I am someone…who has found plenty of thought-provoking material at least in TOS and films with the TOS cast.” Really? I’m sorry, but if you need Star Trek to make you think on the level of elementary commentaries on the human condition (such as those of TMP and TWOK) or direct allegories which parallel current global politics (such as TUC)—-none of which require much thought at all, since it is spelled out for you in plain English, then you’re just not reading enough or paying adequate attention to World affairs. After all, if you’ve been a fan for 40 years, you certainly weren’t in the 6th grade when you first saw any of the films….so what “thoughts”, exactly, were provoked solely because you saw a Star Trek movie??? As for my decision to use the word “fandom” informally, as a noun indicating something other than a collective group of “fans”,… Read more »
Closet, I do a lot of reading, okay? I teach, okay? I’m not a dummy either, so please stop treating me and other posters like we are. Trek is part of my life, but a moderate one, and not my entire life. But I have often found it to be far more than mere entertainment. I thought for example that TWOK had a great deal of thoughtful things to say about facing death and making sacrifices. Subtle, as Shakespeare? Perhaps not. But certainly also far beyond “elementary.” “Lord of the Flies” is considered one of the great novels of the twentieth-century, but subtle it’s not. It still does its job, and it causes one to think, not merely entertain — if one can call such a book entertainment. It is an established classic and has a lot of unsubtle yet timeless things to say about human barbarism. My unfair assumption about you is that you have viewed Trek shallowly if you have found nothing in it but mere entertainment. If I accused falsely, I apologize. As for your assumption: “Really? I’m sorry, but if you need Star Trek to make you think on the level of elementary commentaries on the human condition (such as those of TMP and TWOK) or direct allegories which parallel current global politics (such as TUC)—-none of which require much thought at all, since it is spelled out for you in plain English, then you’re just not reading enough or paying adequate attention to World affairs.”… Read more »
#45—“I grew up in the Jim Crow South and during Trek’s first season it was just expected and accepted that white men would do and accomplish everything… I can assure you that Martin Luther King had an actual deep intellectual thought process in begging Nichols to stick with Star Trek and it wasn’t just because he thought she looked cute in short skirt.” But does the casting of Nichelle as a member of (at least what was later established as) a 23rd Century starship’s regular bridge crew reflect “thought provocation” or just an unusual adherence to realism? Nichelle’s first appearance as Uhura on Star Trek occurred a couple of years after the passing of the Civil Rights Acts and a dozen or so years after the United States military was actually and officially integrated. Given those facts, particularly the latter, depicting an all-white officer corps so far in the future (which, even in segregated America, was already long since extinct) would have been nothing short of absurd. The only thing groundbreaking about it was the fact that it was done on a fictional television show in the mid-late 60’s….It was already common practice in reality. Don’t get me wrong. I do not dismiss the practical social implications of the casting…I simply disagree that it equates to “thought-provocation” as applied here. That’s like saying that depicting one of the Enterprise crew in ST09 as being a crossdresser would somehow make it a more intelligent or thought-provoking film. “Nicholas Meyer’s script was… Read more »

My theory:

“Closet” actually CAN see the deeper meaning and humanistic morality in Star Trek…

…but CHOOSES to deny them due to his polarized, entrenched point of view.
I.E. he does not want to accept or acknowledge the point of the morals, so he attempts to trivialize / marginalize / deny them.

“…life is too short…” FULL AGREEMENT

#49—-” ‘Closet’ actually CAN see the deeper meaning and humanistic morality in Star Trek… …but CHOOSES to deny them…” I don’t deny that Star Trek was a 1960’s television show in which some of its episodes/storylines were akin to “morality plays”, but I can hardly agree that those individual stories were particularly deep. What I will say is that Star Trek (in all its forms) to me is a vision of one possible future for Humanity in which human beings have united to conquer many of the social ills which plague us today, and to explore the “final frontier”…and that vision is quite admirable. “…due to his polarized, entrenched point of view.” Lol. Is a polarized and entrenched point of view not a common characteristic in a Star Trek fan? “I.E. he does not want to accept or acknowledge the point of the morals, so he attempts to trivialize / marginalize / deny them.” First, I both accept and acknowledge the point of the social commentary that Star Trek presented….I just disagree that it was anything particularly deep or thought-provoking to a reasonably educated adult. That’s hardly the same thing as a denial of the point. Second, for my point of view to qualify as “trivializing” or “marginalizing” the point of the “morals”, as you say, that would require that I either do not share those morals or don’t put much stock in them. Quite the contrary… I most certainly do share them and feel that they are important. One… Read more »
wpDiscuz