RE: The latest Star Trek movies...

RE: The latest Star Trek movies... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Level -> RE: The latest Star Trek movies... (5/12/2013 10:09:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake quote: The idea is that it appeals to younger fans who weren't around when the earlier productions came out. I get that, too, although it still begs the question as to why they went through all that ridiculous falderal just to get the same exact characters. It seemed a bit too unnecessarily cheesy to me. I thought it was supposed to be movie about Young Kirk and Young Spock, both of whom had to earn their stripes before they got to the level of senior officers. So, what I hear you saying is, they made Kirk and Spock into juvenile delinquents in order to appeal to the guys who decorate our planet with spray cans? For me, it was more making them more realistic. They are still good men, just young, and a bit rambunctious. Though there was that one scene, where Scotty put the flaming turd-filled bag outside McCoy's room.

ResidentSadist -> RE: The latest Star Trek movies... (5/12/2013 10:39:56 AM)
Have you ever watched an action movie and the bad guys shoot out a headlight on the hero's car but in the next scene, the fucking headlight is just fine? Does it bother you? Does it ruin the continuity and make the already unbelievable script even less believable when it violates it's own rules? Come on, we had to make a leap of faith and/or swallow the magic pill in order to become a fan and watch the otherwise unbelievable film unfold in the first place. But when but when film or franchise makers violate their own rules or rewrite their own history . . . well, that is when fans get upset. I hope this helps the non fans understand what this thread is about. As far as the movie goes, I am going to see it. Can't really comment on the OP until then but Kirk always had a "young Turk" attitude and I don't feel the last Start Trek violated his renegade personality base or framework. Just my 2 cents.

FrostedFlake -> RE: The latest Star Trek movies... (5/12/2013 11:19:42 AM)
quote: RS Can't really comment on the OP until then but Kirk always had a "young Turk" attitude and I don't feel the last Start Trek violated his renegade personality base or framework. It's just that, neither one of those characters were sufficiently mature to be believable in the roles assigned. Ergo, my supposition the intent was to allow a kid with a skateboard to say, "Hey! That guy's JUST LIKE ME!" To be real, Kirk didn't even finish Jedi School. He was a stowaway for crying out loud. There is quite a bit about J.J. Abrams to dislike. But I tend to focus on the idea that rewriting classic cinema is a bit different from reinterpreting it. It isn't as if there were not 40 odd thousand other imaginary starships he could have made a film about. I think it would have been fun if it were a Klingon starship. Hopefully he will catch some horrible disease.

ResidentSadist -> RE: The latest Star Trek movies... (5/12/2013 12:38:35 PM)
I first took note of J J Abrams when he produced Cloverfield. I saw all the underground clips, some leaked dailies, script fragments and etc. I was completely stoked about this new movie because the cliche idea of the lost video camera (Blair Witch etc) bringing part or all of the movie to us through the perspective of a hand-held video camera seemed like it was brilliantly applied to a great scifi theme. Two cliches in a perfect meld. Basically Godzilla as seen by the Blair Witch crew. Neither Godzilla or Blair Witch were artistically that great but combining the two concepts could have been awesome. After seeing Cloverfield, I was so disappointed I wanted to punch J J Abrams in the nose for ruining something that could have been great. Sure, he pulled off a couple Hollywood sized effects on a backyard budget (25 mil), but those were few and far between. Certainly not wort the price of admission. How Cloverfield got him the 140 million dollar budget Star Trek film the following year is beyond me. Why he is still doing Star Trek is beyond me. The world of movies will all be back in balance next month when The Lone Ranger comes out.

YourBigDaddy67 -> RE: The latest Star Trek movies... (5/12/2013 3:54:29 PM)
to the OP and his Supporters, That is why I refuse to watch these movies, I saw the first one and all the time I was watching the movie I heard a small whirring which because a large and powerful Hum. I realized that noise was Gene Roddenberry spinning wildly in his grave! Yes I know what they did with Gene but the metaphor holds up. Gene would have gone insane to have his vision destroyed as it was, and then he would have laughed his ass off all the way to the bank. But if you knew Gene he had a sadistic sense of humor and a love of money that would have rivaled Donald Trump! However the real fans hate it with a passion as do I

ShaharThorne -> RE: The latest Star Trek movies... (5/12/2013 4:43:13 PM)
Roddenberry's ashes are in space...and since I don't really do movies, who cares about directors and their interpretations.

njlauren -> RE: The latest Star Trek movies... (5/12/2013 5:19:02 PM)
I think the trekkers and such miss the point (and I love the old star trek universe, I loved next generation, deep space nine had its moments (I loved Avery Brooks, and I loved the humor, and the F'rengai , working in the financial industry, were old home week, and I enjoyed voyager). Enterprise lost it big time, and it was because it took itself too seriously, it lost a lot of the self depreciating humor star trek had ('Captain,you may be able to command a star ship, but you cannot use a clutch"). I met Roddenberry 30 years ago when I was in college, he was a charming, amazing man (and yes, I am well aware of his flaws, he was human and there were things I probably don't know I wouldn't like) and I don't think he would hate the new movie (I haven't seen number 2, we don't get it until the end of this week). It had humor (Carl Urban as McCoy would have made Deforrest Kelly smile, he caught McCoy the way that Ewan McGregor caught Alec Guinness), and yes, it was edgy, Kirk as a punk, but if you think of it, Kirk was a punk in the original (great episode of I believe Voyager, when the federation temporal police talk about what a menace Kirk was, where he violated the time prime directive many times)... It had the humor (I loved Simon Pegg's Mr. Scott and his sidekick), it worked for me,and again, this is an alternate timeline. Spock is going to be more human than he was, which isn't a bad thing, it is different. It is in the spirit of star trek, which is what matters, might be grittier, bit more out there, but in the end, it did what the original was supposed to do, entertain us. Will it break new ground? The old Star Trek tried, the international crew, the kiss between Uhura and Kirk, the planet with the half white/half black people (on opposite sides), the planet fighting wars based in computer war games....all had social meaning..but on the other hand, sometimes it was entertainment, too (Trekkers deride it, but i loved "A piece of the Action", cracks me up every time). Next Gen in many ways blew away the old series, they had better actors, and also a better budget, too:). I think the franchise lost its way when it took itself too seriously, and this movie kind of reverses that. I think Roddenberry would have seen what it was, story telling at its best, and it still has the humor and the underlying intent of the orignal series, while being different. I am not so certain about Star Wars, but then again, Lucas didn't do a great job, either, outside the Emperor (that actor should get a special oscar for all time bad guy on screen, he was amazing), And I loved Ewan MacGregor and I liked Liam Neeson (have a crush on him, big time), but for the most part it was pretty crappy......I don't know what they are planning for it, if it becomes simply a mechanism for Disney merchandising, it will suck, but let's see what he can do.

jlf1961 -> RE: The latest Star Trek movies... (5/12/2013 5:39:23 PM)
The problem is that JJ Abrams has rewritten two key characters' personality. In his version, Kirk never actually finished the academy, he assumed command of a starship without the authority, and he acts like a two bit punk, and to be honest, Star Fleet would have cashiered him for insubordination. Vulcans are ruled by logic, and this Spock is nothing like he should be portrayed. Crashing the Enterprise in the new movie brings up some other problems. First it would have broke up in the atmosphere, and therefore come down in a bunch of large chunks, not in basically one piece. I know it is fiction, however when Roddenberry and his crew had control of the franchise, it at least attempted to obey the laws of physics where it could. Even in Search for Spock, the Enterprise broke up on re-entry after being destroyed.

angelikaJ -> RE: The latest Star Trek movies... (5/12/2013 5:46:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The problem is that JJ Abrams has rewritten two key characters' personality. Vulcans are ruled by logic, and this Spock is nothing like he should be portrayed. Spock was never anything close to a pure Vulcan; his mother was human and his human half created a lot of inner conflict as much as he wished otherwise. edit: extra letter

jlf1961 -> RE: The latest Star Trek movies... (5/12/2013 7:18:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: angelikaJ quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The problem is that JJ Abrams has rewritten two key characters' personality. Vulcans are ruled by logic, and this Spock is nothing like he should be portrayed. Spock was never anything close to a pure Vulcan; his mother was human and his human half created a lot of inner conflict as much as he wished otherwise. edit: extra letter The point I was making was that the new version of Spock seems about as emotional as a 16 year old.

ShaharThorne -> RE: The latest Star Trek movies... (5/12/2013 7:37:21 PM)
Oh gods...a half Vulcan dealing with mental anguish...

FrostedFlake -> RE: The latest Star Trek movies... (5/12/2013 7:39:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaharThorne Oh gods...a half Vulcan dealing with mental anguish... And tight, Vulcan, underwear.

njlauren -> RE: The latest Star Trek movies... (5/12/2013 8:01:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The problem is that JJ Abrams has rewritten two key characters' personality. In his version, Kirk never actually finished the academy, he assumed command of a starship without the authority, and he acts like a two bit punk, and to be honest, Star Fleet would have cashiered him for insubordination. Vulcans are ruled by logic, and this Spock is nothing like he should be portrayed. Crashing the Enterprise in the new movie brings up some other problems. First it would have broke up in the atmosphere, and therefore come down in a bunch of large chunks, not in basically one piece. I know it is fiction, however when Roddenberry and his crew had control of the franchise, it at least attempted to obey the laws of physics where it could. Even in Search for Spock, the Enterprise broke up on re-entry after being destroyed. In "generations" the saucer section of the Enterprise crash lands on the planet without breaking up, so it isn't entirely inconsistent. As far as Kirk getting commandeered for insubordination, it is interesting, in the Star Trek reboot they bring Kirk up on charges for the Kyobi Maru situation, where he cheats and reprograms the simulation. In the original Star Trek, we are told Star Fleet gave him a medal for doing that ( I think it was Star Trek II, Wrath of Khan, where that is mentioned), so it isn't inconceivable the Kirk would survive Star Fleet the way he does. He never faced as a young Cadet the situation in this movie, where the earth is going to be destroyed (he does in the later films), and remember Kirk gets away with a lot, he violates the prime directive time and again, he violates temporal policies, he goes to a forbidden planet to rescue spock and so forth, and in the end, retains being a fleet officer. As far as Vulcans ruled by logic, it is in character for Spock to do what he did. In the TOS, he chooses early on to take the Vulcan way, of logic and no emotion, though he does break that in that he is friends with Kirk and so forth, which Vulcans do not do. In the reboot, Spock, faced with the older Spock, and with the situation, rejects the vulcan path in part because his father tells him it is okay, and given this is about an alternate timeline, it can fit, since spock is half human, and he always had that choice. In TOS, he choose the vulcan path, in this one, he chose to move away from it. This universe is very different from TOS, Nero kills Kirks dad, who presumably in the original lived to help Kirk grow up, once Nero killed Kirks dad, Kirk goes down a very different path.

Darkfeather -> RE: The latest Star Trek movies... (5/12/2013 8:10:45 PM)
What we are trying to say is, Abrams is not trying to shoe-horn his version of Star Trek into the 21st century. He took his own take on them, hence the alternate universe schtick. Sure its tried and cliche, but what can you do. He made them younger, hipper, and what the hell, he even made spock sleep with Uhura fer chrissakes. But be honest, do you really think any, and I mean ANY of the old Shatner episodes would hold up in a movie today? Even the movies were on the thin side. I mean we had Uhura dancing with feathers buck naked at one time, a giant holographic god head, klingons quoting shakespere? Abrams did not do any worse to the Star Trek genre, believe me

dcnovice -> RE: The latest Star Trek movies... (5/12/2013 8:13:28 PM)
FR Found this while seeking something else. Enjoy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-WBKah3uwg

erieangel -> RE: The latest Star Trek movies... (5/12/2013 8:48:07 PM)
My son plays Star Trek online. He and his Trekkie friends has discussed the Abrams movies. My son has also seen every single episode of every single Star Trek series and every movie--in the past year. I love Star Trek but he's a bigger fan than I am. Anyway, he told me that the original series hinted at a past relationship between Spock and Uhura and that it is these hints that JJA was drawing from when he put them together in movie 1. Remember, not only are we in an alternate universe, but we are seeing things that predate even episode 1 of the original series, so of course they are all so much younger. I had plans to see the next movie this coming weekend. But then I found out that it is the only movie available on all 18 screens in the county. It is the only movie available in the entire region for 4 straight days. I feel like the movie industry has stacked the deck to make Star Trek a blockbuster by giving it no competition. So I'm going to wait a week or so. Maybe go and see it over Memorial Day weekend. I generally don't like Abrams. He tends to leave projects before they are complete. He also tends to fuck them up royally. Now with the contract for Star Wars, he'll not give us another installment of Star Trek, even if the studio wants one.

sisymaidvictoria -> RE: The latest Star Trek movies... (5/12/2013 9:18:42 PM)
The new movies don't really appeal to me. I was a huge Star Trek fan in high school but I watched TNG, DS9 and most of Voyager. So Kirk and his crew don't have that nostalgic hold on me. I get most of the references to the old show but they don't tickle me like they are supposed to. If they ever reboot Picard and the Enterprise D I will be more interested in checking it out.

FrostedFlake -> RE: The latest Star Trek movies... (5/12/2013 10:15:47 PM)
quote: Darkfeather But be honest, do you really think any, and I mean ANY of the old Shatner episodes would hold up in a movie today? To be honest, a movie is a bit longer than a TV show. But even so, what could be done with a Klingon star cruiser packed to the gunnels with disgruntled souls and a few metric tons of Tribbles? Done well, in the style of the original era (CAMP) I think it could be very funny. It starts just as they go into warp out of K-7, and an alarming report reaches the bridge. It ends 110 minutes later, shortly after the four surviving Klingons beam down to a barely habitable rock and look skyward to catch a glimpse of the fireworks where their ship used to be. Then there is the dead race that built the planet with the cute doll whose touch made all your cells explode. What sort of adventures did those guys have, before they accidentally killed every single fucking one of themselves? Then there is the dead race that built the androids Dr Cory found. Androids that wiped 'em out, for the best of all possible reasons. Not a movie in that? Then there is the androids that found Harry Mudd. How did THEY come to be at loose ends? Might be a story, there, too. About a dead race. Then there is the Gorn. A race of spacefaring reptiles. With doubtless a different take on things. And bad table manners (DO NOT be taken prisoner). Is there a movie in that? Then there is the three folks found in glass beach balls, half a million years old. If you want, you could make a movie about those guys, without reusing any of the names Kirk, Spock, Bones, Uhura, Scott, Sulu, Checkov or Enterprise. And I think THAT is what the problem is. It is said, Abrams was creative. He reinvented. If so, what is with all the crutches? What? Is there a rule that says the starship has to be one of ours? That it HAS to be named Enterprise? Is there a rule that says there even has to be a starship? The movie could occur at the academy. Or at Starfleet Command. Or it could focus on the adventures of a battalion of 24th century Marines in a war over a forgotten planet. Or a team of operatives for Starfleet Intelligence (one of whom is a counterspy). If you are going to make a science fiction movie, you have to break new ground or be accused of plagiarism. Going over the same patch of dirt over and over, year after year, is for farmers. And to be honest there is an enormous amount of new ground to cover in any imaginary universe you care to shake a stick at. It does take a little talent, though, to tell a new story. TOS was new, even though it was 'Wagon Train' in space. Many of the movies were not new. Some didn't even have a plot. But some did extend DIRECTLY out of the original series. TNG was new. To hover where no one ever hovered before, except for the Cardassians, was new. To get the hell back from who the fuck knows where was new too. So was Enterprise. But JJ was CREATIVE, and it isn't new. It's rolled over and recycled. The plot seems awfully familiar. He didn't even come up with his own names. Clear cut example. If Luke Skywalker was named Buck Rogers, would that be OK? Or would that have been the last we heard of him? Y'know. Just saying.

erieangel -> RE: The latest Star Trek movies... (5/12/2013 11:57:36 PM)
To do it this way wasn't just Abrams decision. It was the decision of the producers, Paramount, the Roddenberry family and a bunch of other people all put together. For another perspective on the Star Trek franchise, check out the 3-part web-series "Star Trek: Of God and Men" It was directed by Tim Russ (Tuvok on Voyager). My son downloaded it a few months ago and we both thought it was better than the Abrams story, though the costumes, sets and makeup weren't up to par because the web-series was low budget. Tim Russ is also in the middle of doing a web movie, Renegade, which he hopes to use as a pilot for a web series unless CBS picks it as a pilot for a new Star Trek series.

Zonie63 -> RE: The latest Star Trek movies... (5/13/2013 5:26:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 It seemed a bit too unnecessarily cheesy to me. Now don't get me wrong I really enjoy Star Trek but you can't be saying that the original wasn't cheesy? Yeah, but at least it was original. It was on a shoestring budget on network TV. It obviously couldn't rely just on special effects to carry the show. They also had to have dialogue and some sort of coherent plot. Some episodes were better than others. And at least in the original, the characters were developed over the course of years. In Abrams' version, he clearly decided what he wanted the final product to look like (the original characters from the TOS crew) while the story of how they all came together was hastily inserted as an afterthought. They didn't even do that in TOS. This version is probably the result of some kids calling the Gorgon (Abrams): "Hail, hail, fire and snow. Call the angel, we will go. Far away, for to see, friendly angel come to me." Abrams appeared and said unto them: "The universe will be mine to command, yours to play in."

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875