Star Trek Sparks Oscar Buzz Debates + Paramount Promotes Trek For Guild Awards + more | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Star Trek Sparks Oscar Buzz Debates + Paramount Promotes Trek For Guild Awards + more December 9, 2009

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: CBS/Paramount,Marketing/Promotion,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Last week we reported that Star Trek ended up on the NBR Top 10 list. Now some are starting to question the notion that  JJ Abrams movie actually make it onto the final list of Oscar noms. Below we have the latest Oscar buzz, plus the latest with Star Trek and the critics awards and upcoming guild awards.

 

Is Star Trek Best Picture worthy?
When the Academy first announced they would be increasing their Best Picture nominations to 10 films, there was an immediate response from many entertainment journalists that JJ Abrams Star Trek may make it onto the list. This buzz has continued, and recently gained momentum when Star Trek was named as one of the National Board of Review’s Top 10 films of 2009. The debate over Star Trek and other sci-fi films as possible Oscar nominees is the subject of an article "Could 2010 be the year Oscar goes geek?" at MSNBC. 

The article contains differing opinions from industry experts. Entertainment Weekly’s Dave Karger states:

It looks like there is going to be a sci-fi film in the best picture race. My feeling is that ‘Star Trek’ has the best shot. The reviews were pretty fantastic, and even…non-science fiction fans appreciated it.

However science fiction author, blogger (and Stargate Universe consultant) John Scalzi differs, saying:

To be blunt, if ‘Star Trek’ gets nominated, it’ll be an indication that as a year in film, 2009 stank, because outside of technical categories, there’s no way it should be represented at the Oscars. It’s a fun movie, but it’s not Best Picture caliber by any sensible determination

There seems to be a conventional wisdom growing among many award watchers that even if the original plan of extending of the nomination rules to 10 was designed to bring in more popular films, in the end it may do the opposite. David Ansen of Newsweek suggests to Bloomberg that "it could backfire" and just invite more independent films no one has heard of. This theme was also discussed in a recent Awards Daily Oscar Roundtable with industry watchers and journalists, where Erik Childress of The Oscar Eye stated:

I don’t see the Academy throwing any kind of bone to public ticket buying. It’s not like Transformers, The Hangover or New Moon were ever going to be in the awards discussion anyway. Last year The Dark Knight was a legitimate blockbuster with the critical favor to back up its artistic merits. Some felt that way this year about Star Trek, but once everyone saw past the smaller picture of an extra five slots opening up, they woke up to the big picture that there are still a lot of smaller films that have a better shot at being voted in. Up is the one true blockbuster that will remain in the discussion and could even become a Best Picture candidate.

However, in the same discussion Brad Brevet of Rope of Silicon had this to say about Star Trek:

For the most part, people still know true quality when they see it. Star Trek and District 9 are the “quality” audience favorites right now

And Scott Feinberg of And the Winner Is notes:

I think that many commercial movies — particularly “Avatar,” “The Blind Side,” “Inglourious Basterds,” “Julie & Julia,” “Sherlock Holmes,” and “Star Trek” — will be among the most widely-seen and widely-liked awards hopefuls of the year, and for those reasons will be nominated and help “bring the masses back into the fold.”

Of course, for a Star Trek film to even be discussed as a possibility is already quite an accomplishment. Only a handful of genre films have ever been nominated, so the buzz only helps the Trek franchise as it regains its place in the cultural mainstream, and possibly even gains a new level of credibility.

More Star Trek accolades – Next week is big test
While the world debates Oscars, there is more to the Award and Critics Season than just the Academy Awards. To that end, Star Trek has picked up a couple more accolades in the last weeek. The film is one one (out of two) of the New Yorker Magazine’s Top 10 lists for the year, with critic Anthony Lane citing it. Also last weekend Star Trek was nominated in the best ensemble category by the DC Film Critics association, but lost out to The Hurt Locker.

However, next week is really when things kick off for Award season, with a ton of award announcements, Awards Daily breaks it down:

12/12 – European Film Awards
12/13 – AFI Awards Announced
12/13 – Boston Critics Announce
12/13 – LA Film Critics Announce
12/14 – Critics Choice Award Nominations
12/14 – NY Film Critics Announce
12/15 – Golden Globe Nominations
12/16 – Chicago Film Critics Nominations
12/17 – SAG Nominations

In addition more critic top 10 lists will be issued.

Paramount gears up for guild awards
As noted above, the Screen Actors Guild announces their nominations next week, but every aspect of the film from the sound to the production is represented by a guild and almost all will be handing out awards. To that end Paramount has a campaign for Star Trek (along with three other films: Up in the Air, The Lovely Bones and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen).

For Star Trek, they are promoting the following to the various guilds for the following categories:

And Paramount are not promoting all four of their chosen films in every category, for example Transformers 2 is not being promoted for any acting awards or some of the other categories, and Star Trek is not being promoted for Best Song.

Although Paramount have been campaigning directly to guild members, they have yet to run any ‘for your consideration’ ads in the trades (for any movies). If or when they do, we will show them here at TrekMovie.

Comments

1. bester - December 9, 2009

John Scalzi can suck my left one, sgu is the most boring turd on tv

2. Norm - December 9, 2009

How epic would an Oscar feel? That’d be undeniable evidence that Star Trek is back!

3. Kyle Cawley - December 9, 2009

Yeah…. I don’t know. I don’t think it seems Oscar worthy. It’s awesome, and I love trek as much as anyone here, but it’s Star Trek not Unforgiven, let’s not kid ourselves.

4. Enterprise - December 9, 2009

Trek is more Oscar worthy than UP. Or hell, Up in the Air even. The trailers for that movie stink.

5. jr - December 9, 2009

Best Original Score — dispite the fact the orginal them was used at the end of the movie.

6. Markus - December 9, 2009

#1: Wrong. But I see his point. What “Star Trek” is missing, is a message. Like “Save the Whales” or “Save the Cheerleader, Save the World” for that matter.

7. Kirk>Picard - December 9, 2009

IF it won, I would crap meself

8. J.S. Butcher - December 9, 2009

Split the difference and give Nimoy a supporting actor nom and let Star Trek sweep the technical awards

9. Enterprise - December 9, 2009

6, How about “Save the Earth”?

10. Markus - December 9, 2009

#9: Yeah sure, we really should invest more in global defense in case of an alien attack. My money is on Will Smith or Bruce Willis in that case.

If they really want to nominate a SciFi movie, they should go with Moon.

11. cugel the clever - December 9, 2009

3. Kyle Cawley – December 9, 2009

“Yeah…. I don’t know. I don’t think it seems Oscar worthy. It’s awesome, and I love trek as much as anyone here, but it’s Star Trek not Unforgiven, let’s not kid ourselves.”

YOU must be kidding……. Unforgiven?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Star Trek is many times better than that tired retread of dozens of Clint Eastwood and other Western films. It won only because the academy wanted to toss a bone to Eastwood.

12. TheDoctor - December 9, 2009

Star Trek best picture nomination? Seriously?

I really liked the new movie but there was a lot stuff that was at least worth a discussion. In other words: TDK should have been nominated last year. That movie was a blast. Star Trek was entertaining and fun but there was not much gravitas behind it.

Altough I hope for a nomination or two in the technical categories.

But Star Trek is definatly not Oscar material.

13. Matt - December 9, 2009

I love Star Trek. But to call it Oscar worthy is laughable. Than again I thought the same of Slumdog Millionaire.

14. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - December 9, 2009

Ok. As a Mega Trek Fan I would lovew to See Trek Nomanated.!. But I would be surprised if it was. The reason. Hollowood will not let it. Holloywood has there own agenda and Star Trek is not on there course. Last year the best Picture was by far the Dark Night and it did not even get nomanated. The only reason that the Actor Nomanated and won for the Dak Night._ His name just escapes me.) Is because there was a HUGE!!! UProar that he had to be. (Yes. I Agree. He was the best actor and more then deserved it for his performence as the Joker). Hollywood needs us to buy there tickets and keep them in buiesness. But they ignore us when it is time for the awards. Only the Lord of the Rings the return of the King was one of the last movies that won that truly deserved it. I will say that Slum Dog Millionare was a good movie and I was ok with it winning.

15. bester - December 9, 2009

If a star trek film is to win best picture i want it to be the sequel to this movie.

16. Trekwebmaster - December 9, 2009

I really don’t get this. On one hand, there are the folks who “poo poo” the idea of Trek getting even a nod at best picture; let’s be happy with it getting all the technical awards. Then on the other hand, we have folks who doubt Trek could even place, much less show at the Academy Awards.

But you know what? What we have here is a “Pearl of Great Price,” that any Star Trek Fan, Friend, or Foe has recognized since the series was aired in the 1960’s. They knew it then and “suffice it to say” they know it now. Even with the media buzz making people jump around like Ferengi in a recession; let them eat cake. Star Trek is here and it is here to stay!

The numbers prove it, the fans have proven it, the countless millions that Star Trek 11 made at the box office proves it, and the continuing buzz and patience of die-hard fans proves it; Star Trek is a media force which has proven countless number of times in multiple incarnations; it is a force to be reckoned with. The genre is solid and yes it is its own genre. Star Trek has Gone Boldly BEFORE any other popular science-fiction film, series, genre, cult-icon, or otherwise, has gone before. And shows no sign of stopping.

During a really tough economic recession, this film has garnered more of the box office than ANY film; economic conversion to today’s standards not-with-standing. It has proven itself and now we wait to see if WE can do it justice by recognizing it for what it is; an ideology of the best of humanity — if there is a media which could sum up the best and the worst of humanity and still retain dignity and grace; dear friends, that is Star Trek!

Now tell me that it doesn’t deserve an Oscar for that achievement?

I think the point has been made. Star Trek is indeed the “BEST of the BEST!”

17. Hat Rick - December 9, 2009

All that the nattering nabobs of negativism (as William Safire used to say) do is creative negative buzz where, before, there was only positive buzz.

The only significance I see is that the negative press will create a self-fulfilling prophecy, trashing Trek and therefore making it more unlikely that Trek will be nominated, but only by virtue of the criticism itself.

As fans, we should strive to do the opposite: Create more of the positive buzz that will help guarantee that our favorite franchise will, indeed, live long and prosper.

18. Trekwebmaster - December 9, 2009

this film has garnered more of the box office than ANY film; — clarified as “of the box office than ANY Trek film;

19. jas_montreal - December 9, 2009

FIRST OF ALL…..

If John Scalzi (Stargate Universe consultant) is reading this…..

John… Stargate Universe is complete garbage. You guys ruined the stargate franchise !

In response to Scalzi…. Star Trek was a great picture. It had every single staple of cinema. If Scalzi thinks it was bad… then he hasn’t watched enough Stargate Universe !

20. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - December 9, 2009

I would love to see Trek just get Nomanated. if it does It will not win. It will be nomanated only to get people like us to watch there little show because they need us to keep there ratings up. So. As good as Trek 09 was and as much as I love Trek 09. It won’t win. But getting Nomanated is enough for me. At least then we can stick it to the Elite Holloywoods face and then we can tell them that Star Trek not only saved the Earth many times and even saved the Whales.But Star Trek also SAVED THE OSCARS!!!!.

21. denny cranium - December 9, 2009

I can see a best pic nomination.
All my friends that call me an “eggy” watched the film on my new big screen.
Pretty much EVERYONE loved it.
Most people said thats a Star Trek movie?
Ive been missing out.
My wrath of khan blu ray has been out on permananent loan

22. John from Cincinnati - December 9, 2009

“The Hurt Locker”

What??????

23. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - December 9, 2009

If Trek gets Nomanated we can sing Hoorey for Star Trek instead of Holywood. Long Live Star Trek!!!!!!!.

24. MJPENG - December 9, 2009

After watching the move many times on Blu-ray the following faults stick out:-

Shaky camera work
Lense flares
Sloppy set design (Budweiser)
Plot holes
Chop-Suey style editing

This is why it won’t win an oscar.

I so wanted this film to be good. That fact is Abrams is a bit of an amateur.

25. garen - December 9, 2009

i agree with John Scalzi. This is not a BEST MOVIE caliber film.

dont get me wrong…i love this film. Its a great great film. It more than met my expectations and blew me away. but its just not a BEST FILM oscar winner.

#19 where does John Scalzi say that the film was bad? he didnt say that…at least not in the quote above.

26. Enterprise - December 9, 2009

Lol, the Hurt Locker – no one saw that movie. Stop hyping it.

27. Kregano - December 9, 2009

I’d rather see Inglourious Basterds and/or District 9 get nods for Best Picture than Trek. While Star Trek was a good movie, it didn’t really have the plot and depth that Best Picture nominees should have.

That said, if Trek gets in and D9 doesn’t, I’ll pull for Trek because scifi films have gotten screwed over for so long by the Oscars that having Trek win would be the ultimate “screw you” to the system.

28. ML - December 9, 2009

I don’t know. Is the Oscars about Art or about well-made films? The two can often overlap, but not always. A movie that is well-made in many areas (writing, production, direction, acting) and has an impact on audiences (whether for being highly entertaining, thought-provoking, or moving) is Oscar-worthy in my book. It does not have to be High Art in the classic sense, i.e. pushing the boundaries of film-making or having extremely original or complex concepts. I’m no film or art critic, so perhaps I don’t know what I’m talking about. Maybe I just haven’t seen or studied enough film to really be able to recognize the greatness of the arthouse indie films nominated in years past. Some are good, but it seems to me that for many of them, entertainment wasn’t their primary focus. To me, this is a key element of movie’s quality. If you cannot engage your audience, your art has failed.

I do consider myself refined enough to discern stupid, hack entertainment from clever, well-crafted entertainment, and I suppose I want that achievement to have its due as well. And what better forum to honor films that reach a broader audience than the one awards show that broader audience watches? But I guess we already have an awards show for that: the Golden Globes. But I often don’t agree with their nominations either, as they put too much emphasis on popularity over quality.

I guess we all have our opinions…

29. Kyle Cawley - December 9, 2009

#11 cugel – No, it’s definitely not better. Within the context of the Star Trek world, the new movie kicked serious ass, and was cool, but I personally don’t think it was SO original that it deserves something like Best Picture. Music, FX, all that stuff, THAT would be cool to see it win for, but leave best picture for a really creative film, not some time travel/space adventure/remake inspired and totally dependent on a show that ran for a few years in the 60s. Again, I love Star Trek more than anything, but I don’t know…

The Oscars are stupid anyways, so who really cares if they win? It’s just a bunch of guys on a committee who choose. Why should we invest so much concern in their opinions?

30. Enterprise - December 9, 2009

hey, if Shakespeare in love can get Best Pic, Star Trek sure can. But, I bet the George Clooney movie that no one will see will get it.

31. foefuloe - December 9, 2009

Nimoy should win a lifetime achievement academy award for acting and directing.

32. Shepherd - December 9, 2009

If Forrest Gump, Driving Miss Daisy and Chicago can win Best Picture, why not Star Trek?

There will be Best Pic noms next year that will be a nod to widening the field without being ‘realistic’ nominees. I don’t see why Trek, as one of the best reviewed movies of the year, shouldn’t be there.
Sadly, John Scalzi sounds like a snob.

33. Desstruxion - December 9, 2009

I agree with 29. The Oscars suck and I don’t see why anyone would care what a few people in Hollywood think when we the fans are the ones that matter and pay for tickets.

but…
The new Trek movie was ok (it was fun and I liked it) but it isnt the best Trek movie ever. At times, it didnt even feel like Star Trek. It seemed too rushed or something. Sort of like the Star Wars prequels.

but again…
Go ahead JJ and make another one and I’ll see it. I’ll buy the toys and the dvds because it is after all Star Trek and I’ll take it in any form I can get.

34. CmdrR - December 9, 2009

How many viewings have you had of each of the following:

Gandhi
The English Patient
Crash
Out of Africa

Now, if one of them comes on… opposite ST09, which one will you be watching?

35. Pyork - December 9, 2009

If we truly are a nation of equality, then a sci-fi film should have as much a chance of winning as a drama. The “Best” films of late have been based on an opinion by a select few of individuals who wouldn’t know an amazing film if it slapped them upside the head. The Dark Knight should have been nominated for best picture because it was the best picture. It wasn’t a super hero movie with all super hero action. It was a film with a theme that had an extraordinary plot and telling for a super hero film. It wasn’t just a blockbuster, it was one of the greatest movies of all time.

The same can be said for Star Trek. The plot wasn’t all that big, but the way it was told is worthy of best picture. So is the cinematography, the special effects, the acting, the actors and the music. It seems the only reason films like Star Trek don’t get nominated is because they’re apart of the “nerdy” sci-fi genre. But I guess it’s a good thing in the end, because the Oscars show us who good directors are. They are the ones who make the movies no matter what the outcome in the Academy awards. They make films for the people, not the trophy.

36. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - December 9, 2009

34. CmdrR – December 9, 2009
How many viewings have you had of each of the following:

Gandhi
The English Patient
Crash
Out of Africa

Now, if one of them comes on… opposite ST09, which one will you be watching?

Hey. You hit it right on the head. If last years movies that were nomanated came on and all were against Star Trek 09. Which one would you watch. Hmm. Slumgo or Trek. Hmm The Sound of Music or Trek. Hmm Milk or Trek. Hmm The Lord of the Rings the Return of the King. Ok. A little tougher one there. I bet of the past nomanies and winners Trek will win out at least 85 to 90% of the time.

37. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - December 9, 2009

I meant Slumdog. Damn. Back to the Agoniser booth.

38. jas_montreal - December 9, 2009

@ 34.

I choose Star Trek (2009).

But, if you included a better movie in that list such as a Hitchcock film, then i would definitely go towards a hitchcock film.

39. "Check the Circuit!" - December 9, 2009

I don’t understand the shock that Star Trek could be nominated. It had virtually unanimous support from critics. Supposedly that’s what the Academy Awards are about. (John Scalzi can only dream of such praise for Stargate.)

The cherry on top is the box office.

Stellar Reviews + Outstanding Box Office = Oscar Contender
(Theoretically!)

40. kingfrc - December 9, 2009

hello what the hell dose this John Scalzi know bout stuff ive been a stargate fan since the start of sg1 all the way through to the abrupt end of atlantas and was hoping that the new stargate universe would be good so I watched the first 9 episodes and have come to the conclusion that its no up to all that much same story every week. I was also hoping star trek 09 would be good but that instead turned out to be awsum. so what im saying is this guy dont know sh*t

41. S. John Ross - December 9, 2009

I would love – absolutely love, be over the moon about – the idea of a Star Trek film winning Best Picture. I strongly agree with the general sentiment that science-fiction and fantasy movies are often unfairly snubbed. The Dark Knight was snubbed, IMO, as was The Fisher King, Blade Runner and others.

But seriously, folks. Let’s have a Star Trek movie that deserves it, first.

42. Charla a long time STAR TREK FAN - December 9, 2009

#24 Sigh… Ok, newsflash…the shakey camera thing, that was intentional. So was the flares. So was the shooting at Budweiser, WHICH no one knew was Budweiser until watching the special features on the blue ray or dvd. And besides what is the problem with that? Would more CGI been better? I don’t think so.

Holes in the plot and chop suey editing- well to each his own, I don’t think anyone else could have done any better in that we are discussing the beginnings of the Star Trek universe, before anyone knew Khan and blah blah blah blah.

And saying that Abrams is an amateur is unfounded as well, as I think the ticket sales and high remarks from everyone says it all about Abrams abilities to pull off a high quality movie.

With that said, the Oscars would be sorely remiss if they ignore Star Trek. As I have said before, just because I am not weighted down with the burdens of the world of the characters doesn’t mean the movie isn’t worthy of Best Picture. The movie had many layers though not too many to lose track of, and plenty of drama, action, humor and even romance.

I say Star Trek can win if viewed as what it is. A thoughtfully written, excellently directed, charasmatic characters with a beautiful soundtrack with a common goal, to see Star Trek continue it’s legacy within the minds of future generations.

43. Butch the Cougar - December 9, 2009

Leonard Nimoy for Best Actor in a Supporting Role!!!

44. Will_H - December 9, 2009

I’d honestly be surprised if it gets a best pic nomination. If it does I honestly dont think it stands a chance of winning, but a Star Trek movie just getting nominated for that would be awesome.

45. I'm Dead Jim - December 9, 2009

#1 John Scalzi may be sucking your left one right now, but I’m in total agreement with him, as much as I loved it, Star Trek is not a best picture caliber movie.

However, bring on the technical awards!

46. Shunnabunich - December 9, 2009

#6: The message is clear. “HEY THERE’S THE BAD GUY HE’S SHOOTING AT US LET’S KILL HIM LOLOL”

#16: You appear to be confusing Star Trek as a whole with the latest Star Trek film.

#24: “Plot holes” doesn’t begin to cover that aspect of the film, but with the addition of the score, I agree with you.

#28: “A movie that is well-made in many areas (writing, production, direction, acting) and has an impact on audiences (whether for being highly entertaining, thought-provoking, or moving) is Oscar-worthy in my book.”

Writing: nope! (from the writers of the Transformers movies comes…something so painfully contrived that every single plot element appears to have been coerced into participation under threat of death! Woo hoo.)
Production: check! (awesome FX, etc.)
Direction: nope! (to be fair, some really good filmmaking may indeed have gone on behind all those lens flares, but we shall never know)
Acting: check! (considering what they had to work with, the cast did an amazing and heartwarmingly authentic job)

Highly entertaining: check! (it’s a “popcorn movie” for sure)
Thought-provoking: hahahahahahaha
Moving: AHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…ahaaa…whee

@Capt Mike of the Terran Empire: Dude, I’m sorry, but…keep a dictionary handy at all times. I’m begging you!

47. S. John Ross - December 9, 2009

#39: “… It had virtually unanimous support from critics …”

Virtually all critics agreed it was a good time, but virtually all critics did not by any long shot declare it anything resembling a great film, let alone the best of the year … Reading only the very _positive_ reviews of ST09, you’ll find them still laced with qualifiers, provisos, and it’s-really-fun-but … warnings. USA today said the time-travel aspect doesn’t “jell,” and points out that Trek’s traditional ideals “take a back seat to pyrotechnics.” The New York Times said it’s a showcase for movie-making tech and implies that the girls in the movie aren’t required to do any acting. The San Francisco Chronicle points out that the energy of the film lags when Abrams tries to pump the pace; NPR laments that the villain’s villainy is “beside the point” and blames the writers explicitly, and the Los Angeles Times basically damns it with faint (relieved) praise, telling us that it’s “serviceable” enough that we can sigh in relief, but refers also to its “missteps” and “misses” and “over-caffeinated aspects.” And so on and so on.

Again, these are from the positive reviews: every review I’m citing here _praises_ the film as _good,_ but the _kind_ of praise Star Trek garners isn’t of the “this is great filmmaking, be awed” variety; it is, much more frequently, of the “this is a fun romp just don’t think about it too much oo look explodey fun” variety.

Flat-out negative reviews were exceedingly rare … the film definitely earned it’s 95% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. But it earned it by being a good movie … not a great one.

48. Captain Janeway - December 9, 2009

If Hip-Hop and Rap songs can not only get nominated for a Grammy but actually win one, I see no reason why a science-fiction movie couldn’t do the same with an Oscar. Those people seriously need to get into the 21st century like, yesterday… *rolls eyes*

49. Ceti Alpha 5 - December 9, 2009

@24
If you actually have the Blu-ray version, then watch the deleted scenes on disc 2, that should take care of most of your “plot holes.”

For me it just pissed me off that few of these scenes weren’t in the final movie. Most notably, -Klingons Take Over Narada, -Young Kirk, Johnny, and Uncle Frank, and -Prison Interrogation and Escape(in an extended form, as is….eh no.)

If anything, Star Trek XI would probably get some of the technical awards like costume design and sound editing. But in bigger categories; maybe best original score, but that would probably be it.

So far the strongest picks are…

Best Picture: right now it’s between District 9, Up in the Air, and Where the Wild Things Are.

Best SFX: Transformers 2 and Avatar.

Best Actor: George Clooney (Up in the Air) or Tobey McQuire (Brothers). Maybe Robert Downey Jr. (Sherlock Holmes)….hell I don’t know.

That’s all I can name right now off the top my head.

50. Michael Hall - December 9, 2009

S. John Ross,

Point taken–and, as I’m no great partisan of ST ’09, I very much concur. Still, you have to admit that this week’s NBR Top Ten rating is quite a critical coup for this “popcurn” film; it’ll be interesting to see if it can extend that streak into the awards announced next week.

51. Bucky - December 9, 2009

out of the two sci-fi genre horses, I’d back District 9 as a nomination almost for sure. Star Trek would be nice but I don’t think it’d get it. Personally, I hope both get in, andI think there WILL be one sci-fi movie nominated, and I conclude that it’ll be District 9. which was better than Star Trek by, like, a nosehair.

52. parker - December 9, 2009

Naaah, Star Trek shouldn’t win Best Picture. My feeling is that when a sci-fi or fantasy movie gets so wrapped up in it’s own world and it’s own logic that it’s not longer talking about MY world (the Earth and the peoples we know and experience on a daily basis) then I don’t care anymore. When a Star Trek movie comes out that I can see MYSELF in and my friends and family can see THEMSELVES in, then it will deserve an Oscar.

STXI that is not.

53. Enterprise - December 9, 2009

If anything, Avatar should be nominated. At least it’s a whole new world.

54. Admiral New - December 9, 2009

“District 9″ deserves a Best Picture nomination, I think, but not “Star Trek.” It would be nice if “Up” got nominated for Best Picture, but more than likely it’ll get trapped in the Best Animated Feature category.

55. Enterprise - December 9, 2009

54. Where it should be. Why do people always kiss Pixar’s butt no matter what the movie is?

56. The Angry Klingon (without a trenchcoat) - December 9, 2009

42.
Where have you been? everybody knew about the Budweiser Brewery before the movie came out let alone the DVD and it was a decision based on economics not some great vision. Chang had some great engineering designs but JJ spent all his money on the ‘lens flare’ machine lol.
No movie that takes 12 comics and DVD extras to explain all of the plot holes and contrivances deserves ‘Best Picture’.
My complaint with ST 09 is that it COULD have been a ‘Best Picture’ but it missed the boat script wise and tried to cover it up with shaky cam, loud noises and CGI.
Was it ‘enjoyable’? Yes. In spite of my issues with it I ‘enjoyed’ it but that is tempered with the feeling of ‘what it COULD have been’. I thought the actors did a great job and I believed them as our beloved characters but I found the story they were in to be less then worthy and full of plot holes, unecessary contrivances and surrounded by weak designs.
I said way back when that the ‘worthiness’ of the set, ship, and prop designs would be reflected in the sales of the licensed products and this has panned out with everything being relegated to the clearance bin and lines discontinued.
The Enterprise was a mess inside and out. In past incarnations we have been able to ‘orient’ ourselves on the sets with points of reference. This new whitewalled, overly lit shiny monstrosity is nearly impossible to get your bearings in. Hey, lets shove a bunch of desks in between giant beer vats and call it a ‘communications lab’. Lets do the same thing for Engineering! Ooooh, and Delta Vega and the Kelvin! WTF? These sets look like exactly what they were: money saving afterthoughts. Hell, theyre STILL trying to figiure out how big the damn ship is!
The suspension of disbelief needed for this movie to work was too much. It does NOT hold up to a critical eye and for it to be nominated as ‘Best Picture’ would indicate a lowering of standards for what qualifies as ‘Best Picture’. I could go through the plethora of problems this movie had from a writing and design standpoint but thats all been covered ad nauseum.
The actors did a fine job with what they were given. I liked the music. The story was a contrived mess full of holes, coincidences and contrivances and out right poorly researched BS spoon fed to the public with a large scoop of lens flare, shaky cam and CGI to cover the flavor.
Space Mountain at Disney has all the little tricks like fans blowing in your face in the dark to make you think something is happening when it really isnt. This movie is Space Mountain. Its an enjoyable ride in the moment but it doesnt survive intelligent scrutiny or a critical eye.

57. Rusty0918 - December 9, 2009

#47…you hit it right on the nail.

I could see this thing being nominated for Best Picture though, but even though as much as I’m not a fan of “Stargate Universe,” I do agree with their consultant about such a decision.

While it was a fun-filled romp, I mean, it had a messy plot, and that unforgiveable Budweiser engineering and other interiors, etc. Like I say, it was a fun romp, but no Oscar worthy masterpiece.

58. Shunnabunich - December 9, 2009

#42: I apologize if I seem cranky in this post, and I realize that a lot of it will merely be my own opinion, but…

“And besides what is the problem with [shooting a brewery as Engineering]? Would more CGI [have] been better? I don’t think so.”
Who said anything about more CGI? An actual set would have been fine, not to mention less distractingly anachronistic. (Would Engineering have pipes? Sure. Would it overwhelmingly resemble a 20th-century refinery of some sort? No.)

“Holes in the plot and chop suey editing- well to each his own, I don’t think anyone else could have done any better…”
On what basis? I guarantee there are any number of “origin story” Trek fanfics out there, most of which probably have A PLOT. There are far better writers in Hollywood alone, so just because nobody else was given the job doesn’t mean nobody else could’ve done a better one.

“The movie had many layers…”
Either you’re talking about the FX compositing, or your definition of “many” is very loose.

“I say Star Trek can win if viewed as what it is. A thoughtfully written, excellently directed, charasmatic characters with a beautiful soundtrack with a common goal, to see Star Trek continue it’s legacy within the minds of future generations.”
IMO, that film is EXACTLY none of those things.
– Thoughtfully written: …except for the script, yes, certainly.
– Excellently directed: JJ’s fetish for lens flares seems to override any and all other concerns, and it shows (pun not entirely intended).
– Charismatic characters: almost. And only because they had already been around for 40 years under other writers.
– Beautiful soundtrack: Do you mean the part with the “bad guy” theme, or the four bars of trite garbage that made up essentially the entire rest of the score up until Alexander Courage’s contribution?
– Common goal of continuing Trek’s legacy: Instead, it attempted to replace the Star Trek legacy with cookie-cutter action movie fodder in a last-ditch effort to save the franchise on the technicality of bearing its name. What future generations will take away from this may range from “ooo explodey phaser fights” to “if you want to move up in life, be a complete dick to your peers until they finally lose control and throttle you, then hope everyone forgets how justified the throttling was and feels sorry for you”.

I don’t mean any personal insult to you; I just vehemently disagree with your post on so many points that I felt I had to vent a bit. I’m sure I must seem like a troll by now, so I’ll shut up.

59. NFXstudios - December 9, 2009

What a lot of folks seem to be missing is that not only does Star Trek have a moral, it actually makes a statement on it, which very few episodes or Trek movies ever had: when the genocidal zealot gets his hands on weapons of mass destruction, you don’t capture him so he can stand trial. You fire every photon torpedo you have into his sinking ship.

Trek has historically posed a lot of ideas, but has historically had nothing really to say about them. This movie may have been more about the adventure and the characters, but in many ways, it’s genuinely deeper than any Trek movie since TMP.

60. oztrek - December 9, 2009

I agree with Ceti Alpha 5 at #49.

The movie was a great romp but some of the deleted scenes did leave holes in the plot and the mind-meld scene with Kirk in the cave which filled those holes was a lot of information in a few seconds.

That said – this Trek movie was well cast and well directed and those purists ripping into the plot might want to -re-watch some of its predecessors. Every Oscar winning movie ever-made has high and lows and this movie has more highs than anything else. This is THE movie that saved Trek from being trapped in its own nostalgia. Furthermore reworking classic characters is a greater challenge than introducing new ones but they pulled it off.. a testament to Orci & Co’s sensitivity to the the past and present.

LOTR Return of the Kings got an Oscar and if there was a category for the most tedious drawn-out ending to a film it would have collected a additional one.

My point being that even with its flaws this movie merits a nomination or two.

And I love the Leonard Nimoy supporting role buzz that is floating around in this thread.

61. VOODOO - December 9, 2009

Next week’s nominations will tell you if ST has a legit shot to be nominated.

62. TBW - December 9, 2009

Enterprise:
So you think Up in the Air shouldn’t win…based on the trailers?
Since Avatar doesn’t come out for a week and a half, I’m going to assume you haven’t seen it…but you think it should be nominated?

63. Admiral New - December 9, 2009

@ 55

I’m not sure about the root of your hostility towards “Up” or Pixar in general, but regarding “Up,” I can say this: I believe “Up” is a worthy Best Picture contender because underneath its fantastic exterior is a tale about loss, guilt and, in the end, acceptance. In the first ten minutes alone, the movie imparts to the audience–almost *wordlessly*–the love between Carl and his wife, Ellie; their ups and downs in life; and Carl’s inability to fulfill what he believed to be Ellie’s greatest desire. Isn’t it ironic that a movie about a flying house should have a main character bogged down by so much baggage? And perhaps, because of all that, it’s enjoyable to see Carl relieved of all that weight by an overeager Russell, a ten-foot wide-eyed blue bird, a talking dog, and even more talking dogs (who can fly planes)!

It wouldn’t have been a family movie without a happy ending. I personally sensed the narrative’s turning point–a note scribbled by Ellie in a photo album, telling Carl that being with him was the greatest adventure she had ever had, and telling him to have a new adventure–a mile away, but this doesn’t make it any less moving. I think, for anyone who has ever lost anyone special without warning, a message of gratitude from their beloved would be utterly liberating.

“Up” isn’t trying to be realistic. (Well, obviously.) But despite the fact that it is, visually, a caricature, its (principal) characters and their motivations are very real. “Up” doesn’t preach or offer groundbreaking insights about its characters’ concerns, but it does make them believable. For a live-action movie, that would already be a major accomplishment; for an animated movie, even more so.

64. Enterprise - December 9, 2009

Honestly, Pixar always gets awards, and that’s fine. The Oscars always seem sooo stingy year after year. Vote in something like Star Trek to shake it up.

65. Charla a long time STAR TREK FAN - December 9, 2009

Thank you 59 and 60, if I didn’t make my point clear earlier, you both and some others have for me. I esp. agree with the statement that oztrek said and that is “This is THE movie that saved Star Trek from it’s own nostalgia.”

#46 Obviously, not everyone knew about the Budweiser brewery being in the movie. Although I am a die hard fan, I did not want to be jaded prior to my watching the movie by knowing everything about the movie prior to my viewing it. This made the experience that much better in my opinion. Other points taken, and that is your opinion and we now have both expressed our thoughts.We can agree to disagree. LL&P sir.

#58 You didn’t offend me, this is what a blog is for, and because it is late, I will have to say the same to you as 46. These are your opinions, and I appreciate the opportunity to express mine. and to you LL&P as well.

I will go to bed now saying that everyone is different and would have maybe done something different in this movie, but instead of a mediocre film remniscent of the latter Star Treks, this crew brought Star Trek back into cool-

66. ryanhuyton - December 9, 2009

I still think the Academy could have solved this years ago with a “Best Action/Sci-fi” category. This way, films like The Dark Knight would’ve won while the smaller independent sentimental weepy films would still have their awards. I’m sure someone suggested this to the Academy years ago, but the “voters” probably snubbed their noses. Oh well, the Oscars are boring, drawn out, stuffy, obsessed with political correctness and Kate Winslet and other actresses crying during their acceptance speeches.

67. Mel - December 9, 2009

That a Stargate Universe consultant doesn’t like Star Trek just shows how good the movie is. ;-) Someone who likes SGU and helps to make it the way it is, has a bad taste in my opinion!

68. S. John Ross - December 10, 2009

#63: An excellent summary of some of the wonderful things about “Up.”

69. MJPENG - December 10, 2009

56 & 58 I totally agree, very well put.
I wanted this movie to be so good but the more I watch it the more I come to dislike it. The root problem is J.J. Abrams isn’t a very good director.

70. falcon - December 10, 2009

I can see Trek being nominated for an Oscar. Winning one would be out of the question. To lump Trek in the same category as Ben Hur, Gone With the Wind, or hell, even Rocky, says it’s bigger and better than it really was.

A nomination might correct (in some small way) the AMPAS snub of The Dark Knight last year…kind of like a bogus false start penalty on the offense corrects a bogus “illegal use of hands” penalty on the defense. That’s just the way it works. One step back, one step forward.

71. Shepherd - December 10, 2009

Well MJPENG, the solution to your probelm is easy.

Stop watching ‘Star Trek’ so your appreciation of it doesn’t fall any lower.

In my opinion, the Sci-Fi/Horror movie with the best chance of main Oscar noms this year is ‘The Road’, which was excellent.

72. captain_neill - December 10, 2009

Guess I have a weird thought going in my head.

I am glad that Star Trek is getting the recognition that Trek has always deserved. However, my thoughts are not thinking “Oh this is great, its got to win!”

My thoughts are actually thinking “Damn why didn’t Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country or First Contact get this honour?” I know the Academy are only starting to extend the numbers for the category for next years but I have to admit it is a stray thought.

This is not to say that I don’t want Trek to win, it certainly has been my favourite film of 2009 and I love watching it on blu ray. I am just saying that the other Trek movies I mentioned I feel are better than this new film and that is a thought that is going on in my mind. Those previous movies had better storylines.

If the new Trek movie got nominated and won then I will be extrememly happy. Our favourite show is getting the honour it deserved. I

I sometimes get the feeling that the five series and previous 10 movies are being sidelined because of the new movie.

73. captain_neill - December 10, 2009

I am still adament that Orcie and Kurtzman are not great writers. But on Star Trek they got the characters right.

It will be a dark day if their other film Transformers 2 gets a Best Picture nomination. LOL

74. captain_neill - December 10, 2009

I meant Orci

75. Mark Lynch - December 10, 2009

Was Star Trek ’09 a good film? yes.

Is it worthy of an Oscar for best film? no.

76. Rusty0918 - December 10, 2009

#67: Just because he works on the sub-par “Stargate Universe” doesn’t necessarily mean he’s WRONG about everything. I’m not a real fan of that show either, but saying that it DOES deserve Best Picture because someone who works on a no-so-good series is some pretty bad arrogance there!

#72 – it does seem that way for now with the other stuff being sidelined. But let’s see what happens when the new car smell goes away. And of course the sequel.

The casting was pretty good, and so was the acting (OK, Nero was questionable, and well Kirk came off as a bit too much of a smart alleck). The plot was way too contrived, and #56 has commented that anything that requires several comic series to nail the whole thing down does not deserve a Best Picture Oscar.

This movie isn’t the real test of Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof, and company. The REAL test is going to be the sequel. Are we going to get a “Transformers 2,” a “Quantum of Solace,” or a “Dark Knight?”

77. TrekMD - December 10, 2009

I think the fact that there is this buzz about Star Trek possibly being nominated for an Oscar is the most significant aspect of all this. Was the movie good? Yes. Is it Oscar worthy? Perhaps not, BUT it is undeniable that for what many thought was a dead franchise this is quite the comeback. Star Trek has become cool again and it is back! Let it live long and prosper! (regardless of what happens with the Oscars!)

78. Christine - December 10, 2009

I don’t really think ‘Trek, while it was a fabulous movie, is Oscar material. But hey, if it gets a Nomination, I’ll cheer just as loud as anyone — pro’lly louder. So, I say, go for it, and I won’t complain, but I won’t hold my expectations too high!

79. I am not Herbert - December 10, 2009

“Star Trek” 09 is not Oscar worthy. Not even nomination worthy…

THANK GOD the Oscars are WAY more serious than the Grammys! (WPOS)

“District 9″ on the other hand, deserves best picture!!

80. Hat Rick - December 10, 2009

I am often amazed when I read statements from fans that say, effectively, that the movie they’re a fan of may be good, but it ain’t that good.

81. Red Skirt - December 10, 2009

LOL, Hat Rick your posts really amuse me!

82. Enterprise - December 10, 2009

So, when Avatar gets best picture, Trek Fans will be dissed again.

83. S. John Ross - December 10, 2009

#80: “I am often amazed when I read statements from fans that say, effectively, that the movie they’re a fan of may be good, but it ain’t that good.”

One point of confusion may be the difference between a Star Trek fan, a Star Trek Fan, a Star Trek fan and and a Star Trek fan.

One’s the name of a live-action TV show. One’s the name of an animated TV show. One’s the name of a franchise spawned from that show. The other’s the name of a recent film which bears a legal relationship to the others. Being a fan of any one of those things doesn’t automatically mean (nor should it) that you’re a fan of the others. And one can be a fan of one and just kinda-sorta like one of the other things. For that matter, one can be a fan of one, sort of a fan of the other, strongly dislike the next one and be just kind of “meh” about the fourth.

84. Stopped watching the Oscars a loooooong time ago - December 10, 2009

Star Trek was a good movie, but I don’t know if it was Oscar worthy

Then again, the Oscars are now nothing more than a politically influenced popularity club. That’s why I haven’t watched the Oscars since the year after Titanic won so many awards.

85. Hat Rick - December 11, 2009

Fanship in sports and Trek would therefore seem to be different. The Yankees often reek, and yet when they do play in the semis, it’s hard to find a Yankee fan who would say, in advance of the finals, that they deserve to lose.

86. I am not Herbert - December 11, 2009

Yankees SUCK!

87. Red Skirt - December 11, 2009

Fans are often, and rightly so, a thing’s worst critics. Because they have the most invested in the thing, and should push it to be the best it can be. Showing unwavering public support for a thing regardless how it may be perceived by others goes beyond the bounds of being merely positive. Being a fan is not unconditional. That would be a zealot.

In fact I would argue it is exactly that kind of support for such tedious versions of Star Trek as Enterprise, Voyager, Insurrection and Nemesis, that helped give Star Trek its bad name in the first place.

Consider if you will the proud father whose homely daughter has entered a beauty contest. Everyone knows she’s not going to win it, because she simply doesn’t have what it takes to win that kind of contest, yet the father goes around telling everyone his daughter will win. Who exactly does that approach benefit?

88. S. John Ross - December 11, 2009

#87: Bravo, bravo. Well said.

#85: Possibly because Yankee fans are smart enough to know the difference between a contest in which the performance is already finished (like the Oscars, which judge movies that already exist) and a contest in which the performance hasn’t happened/doesn’t exist yet (like baseball, where the game hasn’t happened yet). They sound very bright to me; might want to consult them on these little details.

89. Jay - December 11, 2009

#24…. seriously what are you talking about?

You hoped it would be good? Well, you should be thrilled because it was beyond good.

Reviews didn’t say it was great? Pure bull…. simply not true. Most reviews said it was a great movie. There were several that said it was hands down one of the best movies of the year. They went out of their way to make it clear it wasn’t just a good “summer blockbuster” but one of the best movies period.

This revisionist history is amazing.

This movie was amazing. Not just as a Star Trek film, where this one is clearly the best, but as a movie period. The story was compeling and at times very moving. Not sure what those that disagree were watching, unless they were in the bathroom during those scenes (Kirk’s birth, Spock’s mother’s death, etc.).

The tecknical side of this film was off the chart. The score – incredible. The sound effects – just breath taking. I remember after seeing it the first time, and also reading this in many of the reviews, how most of us that had seen it talked non-stop about how amazing the sound effects were. From the warp, to the phaser sounds that had more of a feeling of a physical presence than in any sci-fi film ever before, to background sounds, on and on. The acting was supurb as well. The cinematography was outstanding and original.

One last thing. Someone mentioned for Best SFX movie: Transformers 2 and Avatar????????????? Did I read that right? You seriously think one of the worst movies of the last several years is the best SFX movie of the year? I haven’t seen Avatar yet, but Transformers was pure garbage in every aspect. I couldn’t wait for it to end so we could leave.

If you mean just Special Effects. I’m sorry, but they were not nearly as good as ST:09. There was just more of them thrown in your face. The effects in Transformers were the same effects over and over throughout the film. Just a mass of robots fighting. Really just a blur on the screen that the audience couldn’t make heads or tails of. I don’t see how that is worthy of an Oscar for SFX. If there was ever a mindless effects driven popcorn film, Transformers 2 sets the standard. All it was was 2 hours of explosions and robots fighting with some extremely bad acting mixed in and a story with huge plot holes throughout.

Sure there were a couple minor plot holes in Star Trek, but any sci fi movie will have them. But Transformers had huge plot holes. Maine story lines that were just abandoned half way through the film, leaving you as the audience wondering “but what happened to that whole other story?”

Anyway, I’m ranting.

90. Jay - December 11, 2009

This movie isn’t the real test of Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof, and company. The REAL test is going to be the sequel. Are we going to get a “Transformers 2,” a “Quantum of Solace,” or a “Dark Knight?”

While I agree the sequal will be a difficult test, this was a huge test for these guys.

I can’t imagine anyone doing a better job with the imense challege these guys faced with making this movie. It is truely amazing what they did. So yes that was the real test.

But just like a football team winning it’s first playoff game, while that was the biggest game of the year to that point, the next one is even bigger.

ST:09 had so many amazing aspects, especially in the inovative decisions with cinematography, that is it hard to imagine how they will top it. But, given how they exceeded my expectations on this movie by a mile, I believe they will find a way to make an even better movie for the sequel.

There were just so many amazing details in this movie that it is hard to imagine how they will make a sequel that will be executed as well. They have raised the bar that much in my mind.

Watching the other ST movies after watching this one several times now, is well, a let down of sorts. I still like ST:II and ST:III and some of the others, but they pale in comparison. They seem so “2D” by comparison? Does that make sense? The sound effects, cinematography, and special effects in ST:09 just add such a depth of realism and 3D feel that those other movies don’t have. It’s like comparing a movie to a tv show. I still think those other movies like ST:II and ST:III were good. Good acting. Good story. etc. but ST:09 is just quite simply on another level.

91. S. John Ross - December 11, 2009

#89: “Most reviews said it was a great movie.”

Can you actually demonstrate that most (more than 50%) of the reviews called Star Trek 2009 a “great” movie?

92. Red Skirt - December 11, 2009

#89: “Anyway, I’m ranting.”

LOL, you think? ;-)

93. Rusty0918 - December 11, 2009

#90

I do agree that visually in some aspects that “Star Trek” (2009) was kickass. There’s no denying that.

The production design, while some of it was good (the education wells on Vulcan), some of it just plain sucked (the Enterprise interiors that were filmed inside the Budweiser brewery).

Not to mention the convoluted plot, and the not-so-well defined villain (Nero).

Now I didn’t have as much of a problem with the lens flares as others did, but I do admit when you come to think about it, they did go overkill.

94. DGill - December 11, 2009

I totally agree with John Scalzi’s statement, particularly what he said in the latter sentence.

95. DGill - December 11, 2009

#11

“YOU must be kidding……. Unforgiven?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Star Trek is many times better than that tired retread of dozens of Clint Eastwood and other Western films. It won only because the academy wanted to toss a bone to Eastwood.”

Um, wow…no comment there.

96. Michael - December 12, 2009

I was REALLY hoping Trek would eek into the mix for awards finally….but alas, Avatar will nix Trek’s chances.

97. legacy12 - January 6, 2010

In my humble opinion, being a movie watcher of all types of genres, I think Star Trek is definetly worthy of not only getting nominated, but winning. The pacing was perfect thanks to Abrams, the acting was solid, and the story well written considering how Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof wrote the story without trying to “reimagine” an established franchise with an already rich history. Star trek has always been thought provoking, and isn’t that what supposedly “artsie” movies that get nominated do?
Someone wrote that Star trek didn’t have a hidden message. Truth is whoever made that statement didn’t see the picture close enough. there was a very deep and powerful message indeed that was given. One about destiny, because despite how bad the time line was altered, these characters still managed to unwittengly find each other. Certain things are meant to happen.

98. zopchops - February 5, 2010

district 9 got up there and star trek did not , what a load of crap .District 9 was one of the worst shows i’ve ever seen

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.