Keith Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I just don't see where you guys are getting ST franchise = deep meaningful insightful sci-fi. Hell, the most thought provoking movie of the franchise is written off as the most boring by fans & critics alike. Are you really claiming that the new movie is more actiony (well, maybe somewhat) & has more plot conveniences by the most popular movies of the franchise (II, VI, First Contact, etc). I don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewie Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) I'm not defending anything either, I'm just pointing out sources and things I've read here or there. I do agree that a bunch of stuff that would have made the movie a little easier to swallow for the hard core fan shouldn't have been on the special features of the bluray or a comic only a "handful" of people who saw the movie would read. That being said, even as a pretty big fan I enjoyed the movie because it put a fresh face on Star Trek and gave it the kick start it needed. I personally chalk the Enterprise looking different up to reboot magic and it doesn't bother me at all. Chiming in on the comment about Titanic and Avatar too. You have to realize that Titanic wasn't about a ships tragic end because stupidity, arrogance and the loss of life associated with that. It was a chick flick with Leonardo Decaprio that every (and I say this with as much love as I can muster for my own girlfriend) sniveling, cheese loving, love story absorbing girly girl made their man take them to see. It's that simple. Twilight isn't as stupidly popular as it is because it's a phenomenal story. :rolleyes: Avatar, yes, was a rehash of 35 other stories and was predictable and really, as far as the story was concerned, nothing new. However, it was visually striking, beautiful and as movies goes another step in the right direction with the technologies used to make them. I recall an interview with James Cameron stating that the story wasn't his focus anyway. I didn't watch that movie up to a 10th time for the story. I watched it because it's really great to look at. I have a lot of other friends who have done the same thing. Hell, I saw it theaters 4 times. That said, it too was a love story and even as thinly veiled as it was, you have to accept that it was another movie that had boyfriends being dragged along kicking and screaming to see, possibly more than once. Not to mention kids. I never think it's as cut and dry as "America" when it comes to movies that make a billion dollars and Hollywood thus thinking they can pull one over on us time and time again, it's just tweens, and the silly boys who pay for them. Edited March 7, 2012 by Chewie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynaman Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Hell, the most thought provoking movie of the franchise is written off as the most boring by fans & critics alike. You must be talking about the original movie - it WAS boring, no other way to put it. It also does not follow that trying to be thoughtful means it ends up that way. It does not help that ST:TMP is a rehash of at least one episode of the show either. Finally, I like ST:TMP, especially the redone version released on DVD a few years back. Now, if your talking about ST:V, nah, you can't be... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I'm not going to say Star Trek V was good, because it wasn't, But I will say that I enjoyed it the most of the bad ST movies. It's stupid and cheesy, but I find it amusing enough that I can sit through it, unlike I, III, Inserection and Nemisis; which range from insufferably dull to down right painful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Train Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 My favorite is still VI, best pew-pew (Excelsior + Enterprise tag team), somewhat good plot, and best adversary since Khan (though not surpassing him). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 You must be talking about the original movie - it WAS boring, no other way to put it. It also does not follow that trying to be thoughtful means it ends up that way. It does not help that ST:TMP is a rehash of at least one episode of the show either. Finally, I like ST:TMP, especially the redone version released on DVD a few years back. Now, if your talking about ST:V, nah, you can't be... lol, I'm definately talking about TMP, which I also happen to like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) I absolutely agree that, for the most part, the movie series haven't tackled anything of particular substance. Wrath of Khan, which I love, is nothing but a rip-snortin' action fest, and a direct response to the reception of TMP (which I'll go on the record as enjoying also). From that perspective, all the movies are basically action films exploting the brand built by the TV series to increase audience share, and the latest Star Trek is no more or less guilty. I suppose the real issue is that some (like me) aren't comparing the new Star Trek against all other movies in the franchise. Because it's a relaunch of the original series cast, the standard we're holding it to is the original TV series, and the expectation it set around some level of social commentary. Before they started to drown under the weight of their own technobabble, TNG, DS9, and even occasionally Voyager and Enterprise produced stories that aspired to the same level... not every story, and not always successfully, but they tried. Now, JJ's movie series is the sole bearer of the Star Trek banner, and in retelling the story of the original crew it has some big shoes to fill. Maybe that's not fair. I guess I'm worried that, as Paramount tries to widen the audience for the movies, they will eventually fall into the trap of seeking the blandest common denominator and we science fiction fans will have lost one of the few franchises that occasionally rose above its special effects. Edited March 7, 2012 by Penguin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynaman Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I absolutely agree that, for the most part, the movie series haven't tackled anything of particular substance. Wrath of Khan, which I love, is nothing but a rip-snortin' action fest, I'll have to disagree, ST: 2 is actually about growing old and how to handle it (along with mortality), it is just wrapped around a rip-snortin action fest. The best action movies are like that, some substance with an action wrapper. ST 6 is another good one, how do we handle prejudice, hatred, lack of trust, and forgiveness - all wrapped around another rip-snortin action fest. ST is at it's worst when being OVERLY preachy, anything with Janeway comes to mind, or ST: 4, yes it is good to not destroy the planet BUT you don't have to hit me over the head with a sledgehammer to make the point. But that is nothing compared to ST 5 (at least 4 had lots of good humor)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beltane70 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I've always been a fan of Star Trek The Motion Picture. I've never found it boring like other people have. In fact, I've always felt that it seemed like the most Star Treky of all the movies. I've always wondered what Star Trek Phase II would have been like if production of it wasn't cancelled once they decided to go forward with TMP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ps99042 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I've always been a fan of Star Trek The Motion Picture. I've never found it boring like other people have. In fact, I've always felt that it seemed like the most Star Treky of all the movies. I've always wondered what Star Trek Phase II would have been like if production of it wasn't cancelled once they decided to go forward with TMP. I agree that The Motion Picture was pretty close to how Gene wanted to Star Trek to be, which is why it was boring. We'll never know how Phase II would've been but at least the group from startreknewvoyages.com is slowly (and I mean slowly) giving us an idea of what the rest of the 5 year mission could've looked like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehPW Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 http://trekmovie.com/2012/04/30/major-star-trek-sequel-spoilers-confirmed/ major spoilers.... assuming this isn't bullsh*t, of course... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Train Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 LOL, the Priceline Negotiator must be so p!ssed if Spock Prime returned for the 2ND movie of the reboot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Focker Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 LOL, the Priceline Negotiator must be so p!ssed if Spock Prime returned for the 2ND movie of the reboot. The Negotiator died when the bus he was on fell off a bridge and exploded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miles316 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) The Negotiator died when the bus he was on fell off a bridge and exploded. I was going to point that out. Fockerrrr, Fockerrr, Fockerrr, Fockerrrrrrrrrrrr!!!! Edited May 1, 2012 by miles316 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 The Negotiator died when the bus he was on fell off a bridge and exploded. Shatner sure doesn't have good luck with bridges does he? As for the new movie, I've yet to hear the thing I most want to hear. "Engineering refit." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 As for the new movie, I've yet to hear the thing I most want to hear. "Engineering refit." Considering they ejected the warp core last time---wouldn't they have to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sketchley Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Considering they ejected the warp core last time---wouldn't they have to? That brings up a good point: how did they continue to fly at warp speeds, without the warp core? The impression I had from the CG animation, was that it was the anti-matter storage pods that were ejected, and not the warp core itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I got the impression that the warp core now consists of a number of "pods" that look very much like TNG anti-matter storage pods. That, or the CG team didn't do much research/got the labels swapped on the diagrams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikElvis Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Excited for this. I am a fan of the original movies. Well not so much last last couple TNG ones. I think the reboot was a different kind of star trek movie but was very good in its own right. Uggg Insurrection...... It was like a long TNG episode. I love the show but not in a movie theatre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 They can eject teh warp core/cores without ejecting the whole engineering room. Besides, looked like they got things back up & running for the last scene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobber Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Well, unfortunately they are filming in the brewery again so I guess JJ and crew didn't take the nearly universal criticism to heart, and there was a lot of well intentioned constructive criticism about the engineering set, not just haters, too. I didn't mind the "industrial" look to the engineering set, but it was too much and too big/spacious. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Train Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Yes, I never understood the "new" Engineering section. McDonalds playground was the first thing that came to mind when Scotty was trapped in the tubes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) Yes, I never understood the "new" Engineering section. McDonalds playground was the first thing that came to mind when Scotty was trapped in the tubes. Considering the original TV engineering section was kind of nebulous in its look, I'd have hoped they'd go with the ST:TMP style engineering room, but oh well, even the new BSG's engine room looked like a steam engine. Edited May 3, 2012 by Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynaman Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 even the new BSG's engine room looked like a steam engine. True, but BSG didn't have a budget for anything else. On the plus side for ST at least there isn't any sunlight coming in through the windows of the brewery into the "engine room", anyone ever see "Space Mutiny"? (if not watch the MST3K version). And finally, a brewery is probably a good thing in Scotty's opinion, perhaps he was the designer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sketchley Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 The problem with the re-envisioning is all that empty space inside of the ships. Empty space that's pressurized (but the first ST movie also has the same problem!) I found it neat that they had water pipes and pumps in the re-envisioned engine room, but... it was too vast (for the exterior shots of the ship) and it left me wondering where the firewalls were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiotheforsaken Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 I can appreciate what they tried to do with real locations and all that. I can even buy the size of the engine room if you go off the official length which makes this Ent huge. But I think seeing something slightly more traditional would be cool too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greyryder Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) I remember seeing the concept sketches of what they originally wanted for the engineering section. (Might have seen them on this forum, I forget.) It would be nice if they could actually do that in the movie. Then, some part of the ship could actually look futuristic. Honestly, the engineering section was the least of my issues with that ship's interior. The bridge is way too retro, for my tastes. We've been seeing white spaceship interiors since at least "2001: A Space Odyssey." It's reached the point where it just makes things look dated, to me. Edited May 4, 2012 by Greyryder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I loved the bridge, just thought it needed less lense flare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big F Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 you have gotta agree lens flare is far better than that shakey cam thing the is supposed to be the in thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 I prefer no shakey cam OR lens flare. I still hate the bridge in AbramsTrek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 (edited) you have gotta agree lens flare is far better than that shakey cam thing the is supposed to be the in thing. This is true. I just wonder what other little surprises this movie will have. If the Khan info is true, it's just being leaked so we won't look for the real treat in the story. Kinda like how the first actually showed the Kobiyashi Maru excersize, complete with an apple chomp. I'm hoping for a quick reference & subsequent squashing of "NOMAD." Edited May 5, 2012 by Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kung flu Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 you have gotta agree lens flare is far better than that shakey cam thing the is supposed to be the in thing. Don't really like lens flare, but it is better than shakey cam. Though at the moment the "in thing" is probably 3D which dosen't work on me, makes me feel left out with all these new "3D movies" coming out in cinema Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big F Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Some 3D films I cant see the point, others I can see that the 3D makes it. I have far more 3D films on Blu-Ray than I have actually seen in a cinema. Cant help feeling sorry for those who have vision problems that prevent them from "seeing" it properly, added to the fact that some cinemas are no not bothering to show the 2D version of releases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Train Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 The next big thing will be black & white silent film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myk Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 The next big thing will be black & white silent film. Hmm...that might add a new way of experiencing William Shatner's "Kahn!" scene, lol... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.