Star Trek Stars Show Up For Critics Choice Awards – Go Home Empty-Handed [Photos] | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Star Trek Stars Show Up For Critics Choice Awards – Go Home Empty-Handed [Photos] January 15, 2010

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: CBS/Paramount,Celebrity,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Tonight the Critic’s Choice Movie Awards, first major awards show of the season, was held at the Hollywood Palladium. The 2009 Star Trek movie was up for five awards and much of the main cast was there, but in the end they went home empty handed. We have pics of the Trek stars at the CCMAs below.

 

No Awards for Trek

Star Trek was up for five awards, here is a breakdown on how the night came down:

Star Trek’s Michael Giacchino did pick up the award for Best Score for Up (Star Trek’s score was not nominated).

In what may be an Oscar preview Avatar was a big winner, especially with the ‘technical awards’. In addition to the above, Avatar picked up awards for Editing, Art Direction and Cinematography. But it wasn’t a sweep for Avatar, which lost out to The Hurt Locker for Best Picture and Best Director.

A complete list at IMDB.

Star Trek stars at the Critic’s Choice Movie Awards
They may not have won, but many of the stars of Star Trek were on hand at the Critic’s Choice Movie Awards. These included Chris Pine, Zoe Saldana, Anton Yelchin, Zahcary Quinto, and John Cho. Quinto and Saldana also presented awards. Check out photos below.

Presenting:.


Zoe Saldana and Zac Efron present the Best Song Award at CCMAs


Claire Danes and Zachary Quinto present the Best Screenplay Awards at CCMAs

Group shots:


John Cho, Chris Pine, Anton Yelchin, and Zachary Quinto


[L-R] James Cameron, Zoe Saldana, Zachary Quinto, and John Cho


[L-R] Paul McCartney, Chris Pine, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Zachary Quinto, and Michael Giacchino


[L-R] Paul McCartney, Chris Pine, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, and Zachary Quinto

Red Carpet:


Zoe Saldana


Chris Pine


John Cho and Zachary Quinto


Anton Yelchin

Photos: WireImage

Comments

1. Harry Ballz - January 15, 2010

The movie may not win awards, but it sure was fun!

2. Rocket Scientist - January 15, 2010

Was McCartney up for a best song award or something? Or was he just hangin’? Whichever, how cool is it to see him there?

3. Christine - January 15, 2010

Zoe’s dress is very cute. (She has a great stylist!)

Ah, such a shame — it keeps getting nominated, but no awards! So messed up!

4. VOODOO - January 15, 2010

Love that picture of Paul McCartney and the guys… McCartney is the definition of living legend.

P.S. Saw McCartney at Fenway Park this summer. I couldn’t believe how this nearly 70 year old guy sold over 80,000 seats over two nights and blew the doors off the place… Maybe the best show I have ever seen.

5. BringBackSuluPrime - January 15, 2010

Chris Pine looks like a Beatle in that suit!

6. jas_montreal - January 15, 2010

@ 5

hahaha, its true !

7. ryanhuyton - January 15, 2010

I just finished watching “District 9″. Classic movie. Well deserving of “Best Make-up”.

8. fwise3 - January 15, 2010

really? it didn’t win best sound? what a shame…

9. StarFuryG7 - January 15, 2010

I continue to marvel at the extent to which James Cameron is taking on the look of a lot of peoples’ grandmothers.

Be honest –doesn’t he remind you of a neighbor’s grandma?

10. Syn4Ever - January 15, 2010

I want McCartney in the sequel (maybe James Cameron too)! I don’t care how forced it is! These guys keep getting nominated but no wins… not cool.

On a high note, they all looked really good!

11. The Original Spock's Brain - January 15, 2010

Sir Paul! Kewl!

12. Christine - January 15, 2010

I don’t see how District 9 got best makeup. I really don’t. It didn’t exactly blow me away. I wasn’t wowed to any extent by it. Avatar’s awards, I can see, and even Inglorious.. Maybe I just wasn’t crazy about D9.

13. nerdinpink - January 15, 2010

Anton looks good with the short hair.

14. S. John Ross - January 15, 2010

Sounds about right, although I think District 9 deserves a special “doing more with less money” award for FX … some kind of “most efficient use of an FX budget” award :)

15. SpockLikesCats - January 15, 2010

It’s a shame “Avatar” opened in the same year as “STXI.” “STXI” would easily have won, but “Avatar’s” advances in special effects blew “STXI” out of the water. Too bad Cameron didn’t wait until 2010 for release, b/c he would have had NO competition.

Dang you, Cameron!!!!

Sorry, #13, but I miss Yelchin’s curls!

16. Lt. Liz - January 15, 2010

Hoo, Chris looks FINE! It’s really too bad they lost, but I can see why. Avatar is just incredible, and although I haven’t seen the others, I’ve heard they’re good… although Trek is still no. 1 in my books. ;)

But where is Anton’s hair?! He looks… so very un-Chekovish… I want back his curls… :(

17. MvRojo - January 15, 2010

#12. I wasn’t too crazy about District 9, but it definitely had before makeup than Trek, especially based on what was predominantly on screen. I know they did a lot of other work, but most was in the Rura Penthe scenes or in the background.

The makeup work that really got screen time were the Vulcans and Romulans (with makeup effects going back 40+ year – not very new or special), the Orion (again painting someone green isn’t spectacular), and a couple bridge people and the barfly.

District 9 involved slowly transforming a person into an alien, so the makeup was right in your face for about half the movie.

18. nuSpock - January 15, 2010

it all boils down to the following: all the major awards shows are doing, and will be doing, all they possibly can to ensure that Star Trek wins NOTHING…even if they have to make a film which obviously is very much inferior to Star Trek in a given field win the award instead…

19. AJ - January 16, 2010

Which one was Ringo?

20. JohnWA - January 16, 2010

I don’t get why everyone thinks Star Trek actually deserves an award for the visual effects. There wasn’t anything remotely special or spectacular about ST09. Perhaps we are so used to seeing sub-standard cheese from this franchise that we were actually mesmerized by adequate CGI rendering. But this is pretty standard stuff for a summer movie.

Vulcan was just your generic “planet that looks like the Mojave Desert.” Vasquez Rocks in California and Valley of Fire, Nevada have been the site of many movie and TV shoots, including numerous Star Trek productions. We didn’t see enough of 23rd century Iowa to care. Aside from the barely noticeable arcology in the background, there’s certainly nothing wondrous about it. Likewise, San Francisco appeared for about five seconds. And it was just the obligatory shot of Starfleet Academy next to another boring matte painting of the Golden Gate Bridge. If you are a Star Trek fan, you have seen it a million times before. The extras were pretty much all human too. Considering this is supposed to be an interstellar Federation of 150 species, that’s a pretty low diversity quota. The lobster creature was clearly a rip-off of the “there is always a bigger fish” scene from that other franchise. And while the skydiving scene will probably be cited as an example of what went right with the VFX in this movie, it is only good in the sense that it was technically proficient. I certainly did not feel it was anything awe inspiring.

ST09 had a visual focus that was as narrow as its predecessors. It does not engross the viewer in this fictional universe. The stunts, the locations, and the people are really just there so we can hurry up and get Kirk to his date with destiny. They have no life of their own. Limited scope – the sense that there’s no life outside of Starfleet – has always been a problem with Star Trek. And this movie hasn’t moved away from that structurally or visually.

21. S. John Ross - January 16, 2010

#18: “all the major awards shows are doing, and will be doing, all they possibly can to ensure that Star Trek wins NOTHING”

I think the filmmakers already handled that job pretty nicely, although I can definitely see Trek deserving nomination (not necessarily victory) for several technical awards.

22. Mr Phil - January 16, 2010

Paul McKhantney.

23. somethoughts - January 16, 2010

zoey is so pretty, love her smile

24. somethoughts - January 16, 2010

#9

Yea, Aunt May, perhaps James Cameron should direct Spiderman reboot like he was suppose to way back when.

Michael Cera can be the new Peter Parker in highschool.

25. Paulaner - January 16, 2010

Avatar has great, stunning visuals, but the story is kind of bland. I liked Star Trek more, for depth and characters. Distict 9, well, that was a real masterpiece.

26. spb - January 16, 2010

If Paul McCartney finally stops dying his hair, he and James Cameron would look like twins.

27. CmdrR - January 16, 2010

There you go, JJ. “ST2012: A Hard Day’s Trek.”

John Cho looks like he just stepped out of the dryer.

Zoe looks great, as always. Nice of her to intro her ‘other’ boss to the boys.

28. spb - January 16, 2010

No awards for TREK ’09 doesn’t bother me at all. THE WRATH OF KHAN is still infinitely better, and probably always will be, in terms of TREK films… where’s all the awards for that one?

TREK ’09 was just a big, dumb, fun summer flick that grossed a bunch of money. Doesn’t mean it’s the pinnacle of filmmaking.

29. Forgetyourself - January 16, 2010

18. nuSpock:

District 9 is NOT inferior to star trek. Maybe one of the older movies but definitely not this one. In fact I think it was a superior movie, despite whether or not it had superior production.

30. RoobyDoo - January 16, 2010

Kirk, Spock, and The Beatles. Whoa, I’m caught in a ’60s flashback.

31. PunkSpocker - January 16, 2010

Congrats kids! Empty handed, but the swag bags must have been good. Great cast great movie. Hey Zach, even my jealous husband thought you were funny!

32. DJ Neelix - January 16, 2010

The only thing I can imagine that ST09 deserves is an award for best sound perhaps, since that was the best thing about the film.

And yes, District 9 was by far more interesting filmmaking. ST09 was a classic entertaining for the moment yet forgettable popcorn movie, while District 9 is a sci/fi classic.

33. Craiger - January 16, 2010

Avatar is going to beat Trek in SFX, Music and Makeup. I wish Trek would get all those awards. I don’t like Avatar coming out the same time as Trek.

34. I'm Dead Jim - January 16, 2010

@32 Yes, I just watched District 9 on DVD last week. Excellent budget filmaking! I would just prefer a sequel over a prequel as the director has proposed.

35. Hat Rick - January 16, 2010

Can’t believe Trek didn’t win a single award.

Just go to prove that life is not fair.

36. I'm Dead Jim - January 16, 2010

James Cameron to Trek Crew: “Hey guys, loved your little film Star Trek. Sorry I swooped in with my uber-budget project at the end of the year and stole all your awards. Hey, how `bout we pose for a picture together. Isn’t that better now?”

37. P Technobabble - January 16, 2010

4. VOODOO

I saw Sir Paul at Fenway too, along with my girlfriend who was not a McCartney fan (she got the tickets as a present to me). McCartney was fabulous, and by the time we headed back to the hotel, she was converted. The guy is a class act, and he’s still got it… and he’s got a great band.

As for Star Trek not winning any awards… this was somewhat expected, hmm? I still think Trek won the audience over, and now all Trek fans have something to be excited about again. The cast is young and has plenty of time to gather some statues. Lack of awards should not be equated with lack of success, by any means.

38. Robert H. - January 16, 2010

If up against Avatar, I can understand why. Even though I have yet to see it.

39. S. John Ross - January 16, 2010

#36: “Hey, how `bout we pose for a picture together. Isn’t that better now?”

Alternate version:

“Zoe, who are these people again? Oh, right. Well, since they’re friends of my star, let’s have picture then.”

40. "Check the Circuit!" - January 16, 2010

Zoe is very pretty…but what a potty mouth! I guess it’s a generational thing.

41. BiggestTOSfanever - January 16, 2010

I’m crushed, Star Trek deserved all of those awards. It’s the best movie ever!!!!

42. VOODOO - January 16, 2010

# 37. P Technobabble

Can’t say enough good things about that show. Made me wonder what it would have been like to see the Beatles in concert… It’s a sin that John and George left us at such a young age.

43. Mikey1091 - January 16, 2010

I know why Star trek never wins. it’s because all the other producers and directors conspired and paid the award programs off. I just hope they all get caught so they can rot in jail for breaking the law.

44. Buzz Cagney - January 16, 2010

Excellent pictures. Pine looks like he’s one of The Beatles in that suit!
Zoe- awww doesn’t she look lovely. Beautiful.

45. Buzz Cagney - January 16, 2010

Sorry N05 just read your post! But he so does!

46. Christine - January 16, 2010

#32 :: A “Classic”? If the dialogue had been something more than yelling and dropping the f-bomb every thirty seconds, I might agree with you… But I don’t think District 9 is anywhere near to the classic scifi’s — the great ones…

Was the story good? Were the FX decent? Was the acting good? Yes, yes, and yes. But I’d refer the writers to a conference or two… or three or four or five.

47. S. John Ross - January 16, 2010

#40: “Zoe is very pretty…but what a potty mouth! I guess it’s a generational thing.”

Not unlike the phrase “potty mouth.” What are you, 70 years old? :)

48. Lando - January 16, 2010

Finally, the hype is over.

49. Paulaner - January 16, 2010

Just watched again Trek 09 on dvd. Great movie. There’s no need for awards.

50. Buzz Cagney - January 16, 2010

#48 but its getting positive recognition. Been a good while since we could say that about Trek.

51. Red Skirt - January 16, 2010

#35. Hat Rick – “Can’t believe Trek didn’t win a single award. Just go to prove that life is not fair.”

Nobody ever, in the history of mankind, said life was fair. No further proof is required. But that has nothing to do with why Star Trek didn’t win a single award. It simply did not earn them this go-around. Perhaps if Hollywood had sat idly by not striving to constantly improve itself, producing the same old stories using the same old techniques, then maybe. Hopefully Abrams learned his lesson for the next film. So close, yet so commercial …

52. Jimtibkirk - January 16, 2010

Zachary Squinto! :)

Let’s face it, Avatar will win, Trek will not. Saw it last night (another packed house) and it is simply astounding to look at. That plus its box office mojo plus Cameron’s track record has positioned it to be the sci-fi darling of this awards season. Even with a so-so story and stereotypical characters, nothing’s ever looked this good.

Whatever Avatar does not win, District 9 should be recognized somehow. Excellent film. Moon was wonderful too but not sure if it it big enough for these awards.

I loved Trek but just don’t see it happening for them. Maybe they should’ve stuck to the original release date last Christmas and perhaps gotten the same awards buzz last year that Avatar is getting this year.

53. screaming satellite - January 16, 2010

i guess if Trek had come out Xmas 08 itd have been eligible for last years awards and oscars yeah?..no Avatar to clean up on everything

might have done an extra $100m box office too due to the lack of competition? i cant quite remember what was out xmas 08 now…I know Bond 22 was out but that was in Nov…pretty sure there wasnt anything major out at Xmas…? Twilight? but then it wasnt THAT big and again came out in Nov

i wonder if Macca has ever met Shatner and Nimoy? i cant think of ONE Trek/Beatles connection actually…i dont think their paths have ever crossed before…oh wait – Shatners LSD

oh and i wouldnt mind seeing a whole load more of Cameron with the new Trek cast…

if you get my drift…

54. ryanhuyton - January 16, 2010

Even though none were “perfect” by any stretch, this has been a great year for sci-fi movies. At least 3 instant classics ( “Star Trek”, “District 9″, “Avatar”). “Moon” I still haven’t seen,( plan to do so soon) but judging by the reviews, that movie is great as well. Thing is, only one movie can win in any one category. No big deal. Good that “Star Trek” got recognized.

55. Hawaiowa - January 16, 2010

Cameron’s gone a long way since “Galaxy of Terror”. If Trek 09 was the “Meet the Beatles” of the renewed film franchise, I’m hopin’ that Trek 12 will be the “Rubber Soul/Revolver”.

56. Jesse - January 16, 2010

I’m disappointed that Star Trek hasn’t won anything, but District Nine was incredible, especially considering it’s low budget. The sequel probably won’t be as good, but I’d still watch it.

57. P Technobabble - January 16, 2010

53. screaming

I seem to recall that McCartney once met with Gene Roddenberry to discuss the possibility of making a movie about aliens who come to conquer earth by using music as their weapon. I think Roddenberry was doing TMP at the time, so he had to turn him down.
I don’t know if this story was true or mythological.

Meanwhile: Just saw on Rotten Tomatoes that Star Trek came in at 94%, while Avatar came in at 82% for the 11th Annual Golden Tomato Awards in the sci-fi category. There’s a win!

58. Michael - January 16, 2010

It should be NO surprise that James Cameron(having been in the business for years) KNEW full well how to WORK IT, releasing his film at the tail end of the year to coincide w/ the awards shows. His film WOULD be the last flic of the year, still fresh in people’s minds, and he’s been perfecting this film for years.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out all the summer flics were all using the same old stuff for FX, and cameron KNEW he was raising the bar FAR higher than anything that’s come before, coupled w/ the 3D effect, it was double-fold beying ANY of last years films in all catagories.
Do I think Avatar is better than Trek 09′? Perhaps on some levels, but I don’t see me rebuying a ticket more than once or multiple viewing on my Bluray player w/ Avatar over Trek.
I enjoyed Avatar…but not as much as Trek.

59. sean - January 16, 2010

District 9 was alright, but no more than a solid 3/5. Good, but not great. And I agree with someone who mentioned this earlier – the dialog was pretty lifeless, just lots of swearing in a South African accent. The concept could have been executed a lot better (and with less pointless and distracting gore). But the effects were very good considering the budget they were working with.

Moon was good but they totally wimped out on the ending.

60. Paulaner - January 16, 2010

#58 “I enjoyed Avatar…but not as much as Trek.”

Agreed. Avatar is based only on visuals. Stunning and awesome, but the story is non-existent. Trek 09, on the contrary, has deep characters and emotions. It’s… well… it’s Star Trek.

61. boborci - January 16, 2010

What an outrage!!!!!;)

62. spb - January 16, 2010

#55-

Or, if Orci & Kurtman phone it in again, it could be “Magical Mystery Tour.”

63. boborci - January 16, 2010

62. spb – January 16, 2010

You think we can break Star Trek records by merely phoning it in? I’ll take that as a compliment.

64. spb - January 16, 2010

(That’s okay, Bob… you’re sitting on a huge pile of money, and I’m not!)

:)

65. DJ Neelix - January 16, 2010

@63 boborci
Phoning it in is of course an exaggeration, because I do think you did the best you could do. Unfortunately it isn’t enough if one wants something else than well-produced nothingness.

66. boborci - January 16, 2010

65. DJ Neelix – January 16, 2010

…uhuh…

67. EFFeX - January 16, 2010

It’s disappointing and all, but compared to the other films in nominated in those categories, it’s not surprising.

With that being said, I still think the entire team did a wonderful job with this film and they shouldn’t let it get them down at all.

We all knew that Avatar was going to clean house in these categories anyway.

68. DJ Neelix - January 16, 2010

@66 boborci
Yes indeed. At least it was entertaining for the moment though… but I hope you will bring some more depth to it next time. That’s why I love Star Trek. Not for “coolness” and special effects. Just look at First Contact, now that’s thrilling and exciting Trek, but also with heart and soul.

69. boborci - January 16, 2010

68. You’ve really shown me the light! Your rhetoric is filled with the exact depth I suspect you seek! You’ve educated me with so few words, too! And it’s not even my birthday!

70. boborci - January 16, 2010

and I knew I’d heard you “coolness” complaint before. Your real name wouldn’t by any chance be Chris Krwoski would it?

http://www.newsinfilm.com/2009/05/05/onion-news-clip-star-trek-fans-upset-film-is-fun-watchable/

Is that you in this clip?

71. DJ Neelix - January 16, 2010

@69 boborci
Look, I know I come off as harsh perhaps. No need to get sarcastic. But sometimes you view things differently. This just my strong, yet humble opinion. It is nothing personal, you all seem to be nice people with the best intentions.
Stuart Baird on the other hand, if I could get my hands on that guy ;P

72. DJ Neelix - January 16, 2010

@70
Hahahaha, no that’s not me but I loved that clip! It was hilarious!

73. boborci - January 16, 2010

71. DJ Neelix – January 16, 2010

No worries at all, I never take these discussions personally — I mean it when i say it is all part of the fun of being a Trek fan! I appreciate that you would care enough to share your opinion, positive or negative.

74. DJ Neelix - January 16, 2010

Good! To me, opinion and person are usually best to separate. Live long and prosper.

75. Hugh Hoyland - January 16, 2010

Maybe this could be a “wake up” call to JJ and crew to duplicate what JC did in Avatar and do the sequel in 3-D. Use Transformers 2 as the template as far as the script goes (fast paced, BIG CGI, villian such as the Gorn) and shoot it in 3-D in exactly the same way James Cameron did with Avatar.

76. wi-kiry-lan - January 16, 2010

Star Trek Loses – Oligarchy FAILS?!

77. dmduncan - January 16, 2010

First Contact was a TV episode with an inflated budget. But it was good to see some fire come out of Picard for once.

I have seen ST.09 more than any other Star Trek movie or single episode, ever, and the complaints that it’s substanceless are really amazing.

These characters feel like real people to me, and the reason for it is that they make me recall their exploits and personalities in the 79 episodes of TOS.

When I see Kirk, Spock, and McCoy in ST.09, I don’t see Pine, Quinto, and Urban — vs. Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley — I see KIRK, SPOCK, AND McCOY!!!

That’s something I never thought I’d feel about another cast.

And because those guys are so effective in their roles, I experience a seamless continuity from one universe to the other carrying all the depth and character of the old series into the new universe. I KNOW these characters. I’ve lived with them for years. And they are SO much more real to me than anything I saw in Avatar.

And I didn’t need any special polarized glasses to make them seem that way.

That’s good writing, good casting, and good acting.

78. dmduncan - January 16, 2010

I would hate to see Andorians in the sequel just because ST has its own blue aliens.

79. P Technobabble - January 16, 2010

First Contact was a good TNG film, for sure. None of the other TNG films did anything for me, personally. The TOS films were far more “grounded” in Star Trek, as was Trek 09. The Trek 09 film brought back the characters from TOS, meaning ORIGINAL Star Trek… not latter-day Star Trek. The Trek 09 film also brought back the feel and flavor of TOS… not latter-day Star Trek. This is pretty clear to me. I realize there are many younger, TNG-focused Trek fans here, but Trek 09 was built to re-visit the origins of Star Trek, not the latter-day reboots of Star Trek… at least this is how I see it. If I’m wrong, fine… I’m wrong. I don’t think so, however.

80. DJT - January 17, 2010

What???? How did Avatar win all those awards. I didn’t even go SEE that movie! I saw Trek like 10 times. So logically Trek should have won. Does not compute. Does not compute. Arghh.

81. Buzz Cagney - January 17, 2010

#79 good post. Couldn’t agree more.

82. Paulaner - January 17, 2010

In my opinion, 3D is nothing more than a gimmick. When you go 3D, you are forced to insert a lot of action, chases, flying things. The visuals come first. The story is secondary. Now, this is good for casual entertainment, but it would kill movies with some kind of depth.

83. cid - January 17, 2010

Well….they look everything in the world but not like a bridge crew of the Enterprise. They are way too ordinary. Gosh, Shatner Nimoy Kelley Doohan Nichols Takei and Koenig were sooo once in a million years! There will never be such a fitting utterly credible cast in TV or movie history.

84. somethoughts - January 17, 2010

I think a 3D Star Trek would work, and they can use JCs new Avatar technology to give us awesome looking aliens. Imagine seeing the Enterprise ship or sets in 3D, gawd that would rock, imagine that black hole scene or the space jump scene in 3D or when we saw the Enterprise for the first time. /Drool.

If James Cameron ever directed a Star Trek, I think that film would break 1Billion, just look at his track record. He is the god of sci fi. Bob, when writing the sequel pretend you are writing for James Cameron and Gene Roddenberry. Now that you have garnered new Trek fans, I am sure the sequel will blow the box office numbers away. If you can get the studio to put up 250-500million for the sets and budget etc. that would rock too :)

#82

You can make it so the movie works in regular format and has to be seen in 3D so you are gaining at least 2 viewings from the viewers.

85. dmduncan - January 17, 2010

I saw Avatar twice and I had a kind of either-or experience each time. The first time I was so totally gawking at all the 3D that the story was barely noticeable. The second time the 3D wore off after about 10 minutes and I only really noticed the story. So I agree that the 3D is a negligible quality, a gimmick. It appeals to those who are looking for the “wow” factor.

Some people have argued that 3D is equal to the shift from black and white to color, but I couldn’t disagree more.

Color offers much more creative latitude. Compare the brilliant cinematography of Vittorio Storaro’s work on Francis Coppola’s “Tucker” to the bleak, almost monotone hues of Shane Hurlbut’s work on “Terminator: Salvation,” and you can see that there is tremendous expressive range in color cinematography that you can’t achieve in black and white.

But 3D is just THERE. All the time. It doesn’t change from one moment to the next. And after a while it ceases to be noticeable.

Now if there were a way to shift in and out of 3D for dramatic effect, THEN I could see 3D being used in very powerful ways that you can sustain over the course of a movie.

Imagine a film of Larry Niven’s “Ringworld” where we shift into 3D as we are introduced to the Ring itself in glorious 3D. It would be appropriate during such moments that we go WOW, but during moments of average character development, I just can’t see the benefit of 3D.

It’s neat, but it’s not ALWAYS neat and at times can be a distraction.

86. dmduncan - January 17, 2010

I am reading “Lucifer’s Hammer” now, for the first time (and why the hell has THAT book about a comet slamming into the Earth, and the aftershocks, NOT made it onto the big screen yet I wonder?), and that is another book where 3D can really make an occasionally important contribution to the experience of the movie.

All the comet scenes and the tsunami that drowns the Los Angeles basin would be amazing in 3D, as would the torrential salt water rains.

87. MacTrek - January 17, 2010

Wait. Wait. Wait.

Hmmm…. When I told everyone “Avatar” has many more reasons to win (due to Cameron’s prestige, innovative mind, contributions to the industry, and “Avatar” being a fresh new original idea), I got told by the Trek-Movie collective, “but, ‘all’ the critics loved the new “Star Trek”. I was even reported to one of the site’s owners/admins for having such a radical perspective.

“Star Trek” has evolved into a ‘cult phenomenon’ over the past 40 years, so no one should be surprised about these award losses. You don’t win over a massive fanbase with one new reboot. It doesn’t happen. It takes years to build up a sustainable audience.

As I said in another similar conversation, J. J.’s “Star Trek” didn’t solve the long-term issues that have been plaguing the franchise. It had short-term success, but it needs to be built upon to have a larger impact. Even though I am not a big fan of J. J.’s “Star Trek”, I will say to all of his fans, “Hang in there. You still have the Oscars as a possibility.”

Everyone else who doesn’t hold faith in awards, keep thinking with that train of thought. “Star Trek’s” success was not made by winning awards. It was made by winning over the hearts and minds of fans. That is where “Star Trek’s” strength has always been, and that is where “Star Trek’s” strength will always remain. “Star Trek’s” story substance has always won over ‘flash’ and ‘bang’.

88. MacTrek - January 17, 2010

Remember, the key to “Star Trek’s” success is to build up a large audience for television consumption, which is very different from creating a fanbase for a trilogy of movies. Its going to take time.

89. S. John Ross - January 17, 2010

#78: “I would hate to see Andorians in the sequel just because ST has its own blue aliens.”

Aye. Heck, I can’t even begin to collate and list all the many reasons I’d hate to see Andorians in the sequel (except maybe walking in the background).

90. Red Skirt - January 17, 2010

#77, too bad nobody giving the awards feels that way. As long as you are happy that’s all that matters.

#85, I’m just happy that opinions like yours are in the minority too. Over 200 million people worldwide have embraced Avatar. It will soon outgross The Dark Knight domestically and may even replace TItanic as the highest grossing movie of all time. Sadly Star Trek had nothing like that kind of impact on movie audiences. Considering the number of times people on Star Trek forums boast about seeing it, I would bet most of Star Trek’s box office came from repeat viewings from the core fan-base.

As for 3D, where the heck did your dissertation on color come from, out of the blue? It is unfortunate that you see 3D is a gimmick, because the Star Trek sequel will be literally dripping with it, I predict. Hopefully it will not distract you too much, or otherwise taint your enthusiasm for it.

91. dmduncan - January 17, 2010

@90: You really are hooked on the numbers thing, aren’t you? You like body counts. So did the Lyndon Johnson administration.

I don’t care about it. My list of favorite movies isn’t built on box office seats sold. I think that’s juvenile.

And why is it “unfortunate” that I see 3D as a gimmick? Because my view is at odds with yours? I think that’s a strength, not a weakness. That’s exactly how I see it and having seen so much of it I have yet to see anything in 3D that makes me change my opinion of it. Including Avatar. There is nothing substantially different about the 3D in Avatar than the 3D I saw in a museum (genuine) Imax movie about solar flares, I think it was, about 10 years ago. And other than the color, it’s really not that different from the 3D that’s been around in the movies since the ’50s.

Also, if you look at the CG renderings alongside the actual actors acting, then you can see that Cameron definitely got the facial expressions and movements down perfectly with the Navi. BUT, they STILL don’t look like real creatures! What Avatar showed me is that the Uncanny Valley is deeper and harder to get out of than anyone, Cameron included, imagined. There is something MORE to making aliens look real than perfect movement. Something is still being missed that CGI isn’t accounting for.

Finally, they want to release ST in 3D? Why should I care? If it comes out in 2D as well, I’ll be sure to see it that way FIRST. And if they don’t, I’ll make do.

I liked Avatar, but I’m not an Avatard. I’m a Trekkie. That’s why I post on this site.

And I love Star Trek for reasons that I don’t EXPECT a mainstream audience that just loves WOW to ever totally really get. And I’m fine with that. I’m happy with the improvements in reaching a larger audience that the supreme court WAS able to achieve.

Unlike Cameron, Star Trek may not ever be “king of the world.” And it probably wouldn’t be Star Trek if it was.

92. the dogfaced boy - January 17, 2010

There’s video of Trek meeting Paul McCartney on youtube “Sir Paul holds court at the Critics Choice Awards”.

Beatles / Trek? Didn’t William Campbell replace Paul after Paul died in the car crash in 1966? And I always thought the other dude in the tribbles episode looked like Lennon with his collarless suit.

93. Eli - January 17, 2010

The new 3d film format is a lot better than the old 50s type and is going to keep movie theatres in business in the ever changing entertainment economy while their home video bretheren are either dying or coverting to automatic dvd machines or on-demand services like netflix or cable/satellite/computer programs.

That Onion video was hilarious and the bit of the woman still following Obama around and crying was the icing on the cake! Thanks for sharing that, Bob! I got faith that you guys are going to wow us again with the script for Trek 2012. I just wish I didn’t have to wait so long.

94. somethoughts - January 17, 2010

Avatar actually stole a lot of elements from world of warcraft/star craft (land/air mounts, floating islands, world tree, elf looking race, legendary heroism and quests to save the land/people from a threat, human navy type mechs) and star trek insurrection. The reason for the universal appeal is because everyone in our society have avatars in some shape or form, be it online games or online personas via twitter/facebook or what not. The general public has always loved fantasy films, be it Lord of the Rings or Wizard of Oz. World of Warcraft movie will most likely follow in Avatars success.

Also the movie is very moving, I can count 3 scenes that can make you cry, and who does not want to see a movie that is fresh and new and uses state of the art technology to make. There is no prejudice with Avatar, it’s pure movie fun, something JJ and the gang is trying to do with Star Trek and succeeding.

95. ryanhuyton - January 17, 2010

When I went and saw “Avatar” in 3-D at the theatre, it wasn’t “true” 3-D, at least for me. I figured images would pop off the screen, as people have said they experienced. Instead, it was more akin to watching a Blu Ray movie on the big screen. It could be that since I have a lazy right eye that I wasn’t able to fully experience it. The movie still looked great, but not what I was expecting in terms of actual 3-D.

96. somethoughts - January 17, 2010

#95

I agree, the 3D was not as obvious as say, “Journey to the center of the earth” with stuff coming at you and you reaching out to touch something. The 3D was more of just depth perception in Avatar.

97. MacTrek - January 17, 2010

@ 94. somethoughts – January 17, 2010
“Avatar actually stole a lot of elements from world of warcraft/star craft”

———————————————–

Hmmm… Did J. J. Abrams rip off “Star Wars”, “Top-Gun”, or another other franchise?

http://www.geekstir.com/did-the-new-star-trek-movie-ripoff-star-wars

98. dmduncan - January 17, 2010

93: “The new 3d film format is a lot better than the old 50s type”

Of course it’s better. It’s in full color and doesn’t require the red and blue lensed glasses. But the technology and depth perception is not noticeably different to me.

Now before Avatar was released I was defending the film against those who kept saying it was no better than a video game, which was and is ludicrous. It’s WAAY beyond that, obviously. But just as honestly I have to say that with all the hoopla over the 3D that had been made, I was surprised to find no quantum leaps in that department. I’ve seen LOTS of 3D, including “Creature From The Black Lagoon” and “It Came From Outer Space” in a double feature at an arthouse cinema in NYC, and I’m not measurably impressed with the results of the stereoscopic camera system.

James Cameron is PT Barnum. He puts on a great show and he knows how to pack the tent, but I did not lose my marbles over Avatar.

Nor was I one of those Avatards who felt depressed about having to return to the real world after the movie.

And really, you want to live Avatar? There’s quite a few Indian Tribes in the South American jungles who are living through the scenarios depicted in Avatar right now, and who use Ayahuasca to experience a spiritual communion with Nature and the Generations. But living in poverty and adapting to conditions real life natives are accustomed is not as romantic in real life as it is in the movies.

But if you REALLY want it, it’s there. South American Indian tribes are threatened RIGHT NOW by deforestation.

99. Red Skirt - January 17, 2010

#91, Of course. Your list is based on your personal predilections. So is mine. There are movies on my list that would get me laughed out of many critical circles.

But, I’m not making this about my own personal preferences or just box office numbers. The professional critics have also given Avatar better reviews than Star Trek, Rotten Tomatoes summarizes the professional critics reviews a good two points higher. Star Trek has simply been outclassed on all fronts and critics and audiences alike have spoken. This article is about Star Trek failing to achieve any recognition in major awards shows after all.

You are the one who came onto this site bashing Avatar, labeling people as “Avatards” and “juvinile”, suggesting that audiences are responding to the “wow” factor and 3D more than anything else and boasting of your superiority because you didn’t fall for it. As I recall, Star Trek was all “Wow” factor, but that didn’t seem to propel it even to the half-billion mark. Guess Star Trek was lacking something else, which the critics and award groups all seem to have found as well?

All I stated is that your opinion is in the minority, as have most Star Trek fans been for 44 years. Nothing new there. Go ahead and enjoy Star Trek all you like, I certainly do, but really why do you feel the need to climb up onto a soapbox even on a Star Trek site and spoil others’ fun by belittling those who did enjoy Avatar? Most posts even on this site have been positive about Avatar, the negative ones have often never seen it. If you didn’t care for it, you can say so without denigrating others. I’ve not met a single person who was depressed after watching Avatar, nor heard of anyone who has. Only the media has blown this thing up out of proportion, in much the same way they took a small minority of Star Trek fans who were upset by the new movie and made that a national story. Guess what it sold news! Yet you seem to make this a pivotal argument against Avatar, having taken the “bait” so to speak. Why? How does it help Star Trek? By the way, I am much happier with a story about how people are depressed because our world has not lived up to the idealized civilization in Avatar, than any Star Trek had, which mostly focused on how it wasn’t just for nerds anymore. At least this one makes people look around and wonder why things can’t be better, a point you seem to have missed. Star Trek was supposed to teach us acceptance of other’s beliefs, but all I’ve seen since Avatar has begin sweeping the awards is biased hate and anger and hollow arguments.

We should all be thankful that we can sit around and debate these kinds of questions even on a day when we should all be thinking more about our brothers and sisters in Haiti, and why such tragedies continue to happen in a world that can actually afford to prevent most of them – which includes your South American Indian tribes. I’ll take Avatar’s message any day over whatever Star Trek was supposed to be about. Obvious or no, at least people are talking about it. Who’s really talking about Star Trek, if they can even figure out what it was about?

100. dmduncan - January 17, 2010

99: “The professional critics have also given Avatar better reviews than Star Trek,”

And each critic puts their pants one leg at a time, same as me. I looked at some of those reviews. I compared, for instance, Roger Ebert’s review of Star Trek (negative) to his review of Avatar (positive), and found him ridiculously inconsistent.

“You are the one who came onto this site bashing Avatar, labeling people as “Avatards” and “juvinile”, suggesting that audiences are responding to the “wow” factor and 3D more than anything else and boasting of your superiority because you didn’t fall for it.”

1. I don’t “boast” about my superiority, and I certainly don’t spend any time stupidly comparing myself to other people, but thanks for complimenting me. I’m sorry if for some reason you feel I should be saying the exact same things about the movie that you are, but I’d be a liar if I did, because that’s not the way I feel about it.

2. “Bashing”??? lol. I’ve said multiple times that I LIKED the movie! But apparently the only way what I’m saying makes any sense to you is to portray me as someone who did NOT like the movie. Where did I say that? I DID like it, but unlike you and so many others, I’m not hysterical over it. Do you worship Avatar? Is it heresy to you for someone to NOT be as affected by the film as you were/are? The term “Avatard” is not a swipe against the movie, but against SOME of its fans, and it’s a swipe I’m going to keep taking, for the same reasons I like to push bone headed Star Trek fans who cry vengeance whenever canon is disturbed.

“As I recall, Star Trek was all ‘Wow’ factor,”

Nope, and I’ve left more than enough breadcrumb trail on this site over the past year explicating that “nope” in much more detail.

“At least this one makes people look around and wonder why things can’t be better, a point you seem to have missed.”

No, that’s what it makes YOU do. I don’t need a freakin movie in 3D to make ME do that, sister. If you are in contact with and experiencing the world outside the theater or Hollywood’s Pantheon of Celebrity Gods, you don’t need a movie to tell you how screwed up things are.

And you have the nerve to talk about what the media turns into news? How do you know about Haiti? You are only talking about it because that’s what the news is showing you.

Do you think nothing worth your attention is happening when they do NOT report it? Sure, big tragedy in Haiti, and before that for decades poor little girls and boys in Nepal are being sold into slavery by their own parents because the families are so poor that it’s the only way for them to get money to feed the rest of the family. There are LOTS of places in the world where people desperately need help NOW.

Here you go, put your money where your mouth is. Donate to NYOF, which has a four star rating by Charity Navigator. Help make the world a slightly better place:

http://www.nyof.org/

So sell your polarized glasses if you must; put off another trip to see Avatar and donate the money to those poor children.

101. DJT - January 18, 2010

I wanna see TOS in 3-D!

Crap! I gotta shell out more cash.

102. Red Skirt - January 18, 2010

#100, oh you’re one of those. Did you call me “sister”? Really!?

“it’s a swipe I’m going to keep taking, for the same reasons I like to push bone headed Star Trek fans who cry vengeance whenever canon is disturbed.”

What a petty hobby.

You really come off like an angry, bitter person. And you probably should stay away from sharp objects as you don’t seem very good with points. I’ve found much of my charity work helps keep me centered, balanced and fulfilled so I don’t feel the need to lash out like that, when there are so many other things I could be doing with my time. I found Habitat for Humanity especially fulfilling, in part because I get to hit things. ;-) But then you know all about that since you purport to know me so well. You have a nice life hon.

103. S. John Ross - January 18, 2010

#100: “Nope, and I’ve left more than enough breadcrumb trail on this site over the past year explicating that “nope” in much more detail.”

I have to agree that ST09 was not simply all “Wow” factor. I’d say it was more like 80% “Wow” factor, and 20% “Yeah, Whatever” factor.

With just a sprinkling of pointless gimmick. For spice.

104. dmduncan - January 18, 2010

102: “#100, oh you’re one of those. Did you call me “sister”? Really!? ”

To you I’m whatever you want me to be, sister. Don’t let my reality stop your imagination from giving me fangs dripping with blood.

“You really come off like an angry, bitter person. And you probably should stay away from sharp objects as you don’t seem very good with points.”

Lol. Actually, that’s how you strike me. And tending a bit towards the oversensitive and hysterical.

Forget that you apparently can’t tell the difference between bashing something and critical analysis of why I thought this or that didn’t work or where something could be improved, without which things do not get improved — the fact that you get set off so easily by a legitimate criticism tells me how much you have invested in Avatar and what it means to you. And that’s fine. To each his or her own. But why should that stop anyone from pointing out where it missed the target? I’ve pulled no punches and done the same thing with ST.09, which I love way more than Avatar.

I talk the same way I write and in real person to person communications — which I have a lot of, by the way — no one gets offended by the things I say because it’s not what I say but how I say it, which communicates the sorts of subtleties that are lost in this medium of exchange, and that tell people I’m not being an ass. C’ est la vie. If I changed how I expressed myself out of fear of how someone would take my words on a website, I’d be a phony. And I’d rather you call me all those other names than phony.

“You have a nice life hon.”

Aw come on now, that sounds final. Don’t go running off just because we had a vigorous disagreement.

105. dmduncan - January 18, 2010

33.333333333333 % wow
33.333333333333 % character
33.333333333333 % tying up the old and introducing the new

ST.09 was an ENDING/ORIGIN story. That’s what it was about. It was a movie devised to fit in with and depend on most of the Star Trek that came before it so that even without the use of 3D glasses the universe we saw in ST.09 had an unseen depth that reached beyond the movie screen, and yet it was ingenious enough to function as a huge movie with fun, excitement, and tragedy to those who were just coming to the franchise and could not perceive those offscreen depths.

And as that sort of movie, it gets my vote for best ever of its kind.

Star Trek 09 was as brilliant an achievement as an arrow that has to wind its way around obstacle after obstacle to hit the bullseye — and then does!

106. Red Skirt - January 18, 2010

#103, I stand corrected. As always S. John Ross, your keen sensibilities continue to cement your position as the steward of reason. But you forgot to add, it’s a recipe which must be consumed quickly as, like a soufflé, it tends to deflate if lingered over too long.

107. dmduncan - January 19, 2010

106: “But you forgot to add, it’s a recipe which must be consumed quickly as, like a soufflé, it tends to deflate if lingered over too long.”

The more I see ST.09 the more impressed I am with it’s subtle complexity.

The problem is that people are comparing the role that ST.09 had to play with other movies which do not have the same responsibilities and, most importantly, which do not have the same purpose.

ST.09 was a LINK between past and future. It was designed to reboot the franchise without destroying the past or being necessarily committed to a particular future — it was not designed to be a stand alone movie independent of past and future incarnations, as Avatar had the advantage of being.

ST.09 had a wonderful story that was appropriate for its purpose.

Avatar and Trek 09 is apples and oranges.

108. Charla - January 23, 2010

I can’t believe Trek didn’t win anything- I couldn’t even post for days on this topic…

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