Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics
|
It is currently Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:46 pm
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
| Author |
Message |
|
MiloDC
|
 Re: STAR TREK
|
| Mon May 11, 2009 11:46 pm |
|
 |
|
LintMan
|
 Re: STAR TREK
By "trashed", I didn't mean they disgraced it, I mean that they've thrown it all away. As I see it, this movie has essentially made it so none of the stuff in TOS or the movies or perhaps even TNG, DS9, etc has happened as we've seen it. 40 years of continuity down the drain. That's about 40 times worse than the "JR is alive and last season was all just a dream!"
I think they could have rebooted the series without such a drastic measure.
|
| Tue May 12, 2009 3:07 am |
|
 |
|
Trevor
|
 Re: STAR TREK
Once again, as I already responded to someone else: They don't trash everything. They say it in the movie--when Spock/Nero went back in time they started a new timeline, an alternate reality.
That is to say, everything still happens- TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, etc., but it happens in a separate reality/dimension/whatever from this new series of movies that has begun. So, not trashing, just setting aside.
|
| Tue May 12, 2009 3:22 am |
|
 |
|
LintMan
|
 Re: STAR TREK
 |  |  |  | Trevor wrote: Once again, as I already responded to someone else: They don't trash everything. They say it in the movie--when Spock/Nero went back in time they started a new timeline, an alternate reality.
That is to say, everything still happens- TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, etc., but it happens in a separate reality/dimension/whatever from this new series of movies that has begun. So, not trashing, just setting aside. |  |  |  |  |
Dammit, I logged in, wrote my reply, hit post, and it wanted me to login again and in the process lost my reply. Shortened version: I don't remember things being described that was as if this was an alternate, parallel reality. I recall it more as being described as a changed timeline where the previous circumstances were "past tense" - changed and no longer the case. That's a nuance, though - I'd have to listen to what they said again for the exact wording.
|
| Tue May 12, 2009 11:40 am |
|
 |
|
Heli
|
 Re: STAR TREK
Because the characters in question mirrored our current real life situation. My wife is pregnant and very close to delivery. Kirk's mom was pregnant and very close to delivery. It was easy for both of us to imagine the difficulty of the situation that the characters were facing, and imagine ourselves in their places. Beyond that, pregnant women are often subject to very powerful emotions, which is why it hit her harder; it made it even easier for her to imagine herself in that situation; losing a husband just as her child was born. Regarding ST canon, I thought this was an interesting opinion: http://www.postmodernbarney.com/2009/05 ... rek-canon/
|
| Tue May 12, 2009 3:20 pm |
|
 |
|
MiloDC
|
 Re: STAR TREK
How did their situation mirror yours, apart from that single aspect? Seems hyper-sentimental, to me. Is one of you about to die? I can understand your wife reacting that way, *maybe*, since she's a woman. My wife and I have a two-year old daughter and we would never have teared up at that cheesy scene, even if she had been pregnant at the time. That would be like me shedding a tear because the captain was a black guy in his thirties, or because Mama Kirk looked like my wife. It would "mirror" us, somehow. No offense, I just think it's effusive, to start crying at the opening of a blockbuster popcorn flick (especially one written by the hacks who wrote The Transformers), for any reason. I think I cried at the beginning of Saving Private Ryan, that was without any mirroring going on. It's all good, I guess.
Last edited by MiloDC on Tue May 12, 2009 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
| Tue May 12, 2009 5:40 pm |
|
 |
|
Patrick
|
 Re: STAR TREK
Yes you are Milo...don't do it again or someone, maybe me, will have to do some modding on you.
Also, pregnant women are crazy, emotional woman. Why else would they eat the things they do.
|
| Tue May 12, 2009 5:50 pm |
|
 |
|
MiloDC
|
 Re: STAR TREK
Their emotions are intensified, sure, but that hardly means that they're going to weep at the beginning of what's essentially a Star Wars episode. Would this guy and his wife have cried if they had been expecting when they watched the end of Revenge of the Sith? Seriously. This is a popcorn jaunt of a summer action kiddie flick. Why cry?? Other movies deserve that kind of reaction, not a movie written by Roberto frickin' Orci and Alex frickin' Kurtzman. Jeez, this country is whack.
|
| Tue May 12, 2009 5:59 pm |
|
 |
|
Patrick
|
 Re: STAR TREK
Does your "country" have the phrase "One's man trash is another's man treasure."?
And to dismiss a movies emotional potential cause of the screenwriters and then insult people who do feel something is not only being a jerk, it's also extremely ignorant. The screenwriters are on the low-end of the totem pole, scripts get written, re-written, ghost re-written and then actors usually ad-lib stuff. So maybe you should blame JJ Abrhams for that and not those guys. Besides they only real dud those writers have is Legend of Zorro. They have written the best Mission Impossible movie and Michael Bay's best and third-best movies.
Now stop being a jerk and spoiler-tagging everything! Real life is not spoiler-worthy for anyone!
|
| Tue May 12, 2009 6:49 pm |
|
 |
|
MrGuinness
|
 Re: STAR TREK
Wow these spoiler tags are seriously annoying....
|
| Tue May 12, 2009 9:27 pm |
|
 |
|
new_xieland
|
 Re: STAR TREK
Saw the film over the weekend and thoroughly enjoyed it. I am by no means a Star Trek fan boy and must confess that I have not watched a single episode of the tv series. However I do seem to have a problem with the whole "beaming" device used as an almost deus ex machina in certain situations. I think it's inclusion drastically decreases the suspense levels that we feel for most of the character. For example any potentially dangerous or dire situation a character finds him/herself in, they can simply be "beamed" out of it and back into safety. For example: Spock simply beamed out of the craft he was flying before it crashed into Nero's ship.
Boarding Nero's ship was easy as they simply beamed Spock and Kurk onto it, and then beamed them back out after they had rescued the captain.
Spock and Sulu beamed back into safety while they were free falling to their death. While I know that I'm nit picking about an existing plot device that probably saves the writers a lot of time, I hope they don't over use it as the solution to every single problem the crew encounters.
|
| Tue May 12, 2009 11:11 pm |
|
 |
|
Ratel
|
 Re: STAR TREK
 |  |  |  | LintMan wrote:  |  |  |  | Trevor wrote: Once again, as I already responded to someone else: They don't trash everything. They say it in the movie--when Spock/Nero went back in time they started a new timeline, an alternate reality.
That is to say, everything still happens- TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, etc., but it happens in a separate reality/dimension/whatever from this new series of movies that has begun. So, not trashing, just setting aside. |  |  |  |  |
Dammit, I logged in, wrote my reply, hit post, and it wanted me to login again and in the process lost my reply. Shortened version: I don't remember things being described that was as if this was an alternate, parallel reality. I recall it more as being described as a changed timeline where the previous circumstances were "past tense" - changed and no longer the case. That's a nuance, though - I'd have to listen to what they said again for the exact wording. |  |  |  |  |
I’d have to see the film again, but I could have sworn that the phrase “alternate reality” was used by Spock.
|
| Tue May 12, 2009 11:14 pm |
|
 |
|
thewatcher
|
 Re: STAR TREK
Besides, that scene was considerably more gripping than its counterpart in Revenge of the Sith. I get you Milo. Things are more powerful when they hit close to home. And Milo, if you think the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan is tear worthy, talk to a WWII veteran about it and see if it isn't more important to them.
|
| Tue May 12, 2009 11:25 pm |
|
 |
|
Trevor
|
 Re: STAR TREK
Just watched it again this afternoon. Spock is going through all of it, speculating and figuring it out. Then Uhura speaks up and says, "like an alternate reality!"
|
| Tue May 12, 2009 11:35 pm |
|
 |
|
Patrick
|
 Re: STAR TREK
 |  |  |  | new_xieland wrote: Saw the film over the weekend and thoroughly enjoyed it. I am by no means a Star Trek fan boy and must confess that I have not watched a single episode of the tv series. However I do seem to have a problem with the whole "beaming" device used as an almost deus ex machina in certain situations. I think it's inclusion drastically decreases the suspense levels that we feel for most of the character. For example any potentially dangerous or dire situation a character finds him/herself in, they can simply be "beamed" out of it and back into safety. For example: Spock simply beamed out of the craft he was flying before it crashed into Nero's ship.
Boarding Nero's ship was easy as they simply beamed Spock and Kurk onto it, and then beamed them back out after they had rescued the captain.
Spock and Sulu beamed back into safety while they were free falling to their death. While I know that I'm nit picking about an existing plot device that probably saves the writers a lot of time, I hope they don't over use it as the solution to every single problem the crew encounters. |  |  |  |  |
Welcome to any and all episodes/films/cartoons of any and all incarnation of Star Trek.
|
| Tue May 12, 2009 11:40 pm |
|
 |
|
Ratel
|
 Re: STAR TREK
Thanks Trevor. I knew the pharse was there somewhere.
Last edited by Ratel on Tue May 12, 2009 11:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
| Tue May 12, 2009 11:53 pm |
|
 |
|
new_xieland
|
 Re: STAR TREK
*Sigh...* I guess I'll shelf Star Trek's beam technology along side Clark Kent's ability to wear a simple pair of oversize nerd glasses that somehow completely obscures his identity as Superman 
|
| Tue May 12, 2009 11:54 pm |
|
 |
|
Trevor
|
 Re: STAR TREK
You're spot on with your criticism of the beaming technology. It seems kind of cool at first, but right away the writers realized the same thing you did--that it robs any episode/movie of much of its suspense. So, they had to invent something almost every episode that somehow blocks transporters and/or transmissions, like the planet drill in the new movie.
|
| Tue May 12, 2009 11:57 pm |
|
 |
|
Sebastian
|
 Re: STAR TREK
well, I finally saw the movie...and it was SIMPLY AMAZING. I've never been a fan of the original series - knew very little about the Star Trek world before watching the movie - but I nevertheless enjoyed it a lot  definitely gonna be awaiting the next installment - if done right, it could be even BETTER than this first movie. if you're interested in my opinion, you can check out mi review down there in my signature, lol.. man, I've just seen the film - like three hours ago - and I'm so PUMPED UP. I'm definitely going to watch it in theatres again!
|
| Wed May 13, 2009 2:01 am |
|
 |
|
washington
|
 Re: STAR TREK
I don't know. I am only 24 and have seen all the episodes of voyager, all the next generation movies, and many of the next generation shows.
I'm by no means a canonical devotee, or a big fan, I just liked voyager for some reason- back then I had few friends and was in 8th grade... I had yet to develop what would become a talent for science and endurance sports... so I had tv shows and video games. Much has changed between now and then. I am tremendously outgoing and watch very little non-sports TV and spend almost no time by myself.
That said, I disliked the film. Not because of the reimagination, not because the acting was bad or anything else, it was simply a 2009 film that moved too fast. No thinking, no slow development. Now I know this is where cinema is today and we won't be seeing the godfather or 2001 space oddessey-paced movies, but this one simply had one action chase after another. No time to make the audience think. It was too much, it needed more time to develop the characers, to show the budding relationship of the crew together, to capture the thinking aspect that separates star trek from other science fiction. The characters barely get to process anything before the next big thing happens. Its too much like transformers and all those other crummy action flicks out there. If I want action, ok give me die hard, give me terminator 2, give me... point break, or heck even face/off... I love action movies. but this is not what star trek was designed solely around.
I liked watchmen and adventureland much better, as my #2 and #1 favorites respectively for 2009.
|
| Wed May 13, 2009 2:37 am |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|