|
Post by Hermione on May 13, 2009 14:46:30 GMT -8
You're one of the few folks out there I've seen who actually didn't like the time travel stuff. A friend of mine told me that he loved the movie but was confliced about that part, mainly because... [trying not to spoil anything, but maybe those who haven't seeen the movie yet shouldn't read further] ...he felt like everything he came to know and love about the old Star Trek is now irrelevant. I think this movie was a genius reboot, though, and a great way to avoid incessant nitpicking about minor details in future Trek movies that may be inconsistent with the old series and movies. Speaking of Star Trek, did you guys see the Fringe seaon finale? Wow!!
|
|
|
Post by Hermione on May 13, 2009 14:48:44 GMT -8
Star Trek was flawless in every way but one: its utterly retarded time travel plot and villain. Isn't that two ways?
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on May 13, 2009 20:11:18 GMT -8
Isn't that two ways? The two are inexorably intertwined. It just doesn't make an ounce of sense that Nero, having traveled back in time, with incredibly advanced technology at his disposal, would just sit in the corner of the galaxy for 25 years, twiddling his thumbs, waiting for Spock. And how, may I ask, are any of his actions going to do ANYTHING to save his home planet? Why doesn't he just do the sensible thing, which is go to Romulus, warn them when they need to evacuate their planet, and hand them his super advanced technology, thus making the Romulans the most powerful race in the galaxy? In the 25 years that he's just sitting there waiting for Spock to come out of the wormhole, didn't anything better occur to him than the half-assed revenge plan he's come up with?
|
|
Joe Irvin
Conductor
(I'm the one in the middle)
Posts: 815
|
Post by Joe Irvin on May 15, 2009 10:12:06 GMT -8
THAT'S the only problem you have with the movie?
My gripe is far more critical...
IT'S NOT STAR TREK!
Even Giacchino let me down a bit...I'm very disappointed
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on May 15, 2009 11:28:28 GMT -8
I never said it was my ONLY problem. But it is a pretty serious one to me.
|
|
|
Post by Yavar Moradi on May 15, 2009 19:35:29 GMT -8
Okay guys, do this for me.
Try and remember the Star Wars prequels.
...
...
Now be grateful for what J.J. Abrams did, ugly warts and all.
Yavar
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on May 16, 2009 7:39:07 GMT -8
Okay guys, do this for me. Try and remember the Star Wars prequels. Now be grateful for what J.J. Abrams did, ugly warts and all. I don't rate movies on a bell curve.
|
|
|
Post by Jockolantern on May 17, 2009 5:39:30 GMT -8
I'll take an evening viewing of The Phantom Menace any day before I have to watch Star Trek again. Joe is absolutely correct when he says that what Abrams created isn't Roddenberry's Star Trek. As summer popcorn entertainment, it's just fine. As Star Trek, it's practically a disaster and reboots the franchise in a direction that is entirely inappropriate, especially by the standards of Roddenberry's original vision. The time travel plot is an utter mess, the one great action scene is in the first ten minutes of the picture, and the film highlights a poorly written and cast villain (Eric Bana makes a decent bad guy but is a horrible Romulan and his character arc is a mess; I'm in agreement with what Jens has stated regarding his character) and an oddly underwhelming score by Giacchino. Nothing particularly bad about it but certainly nothing that stood out apart from the appropriate main theme and End Credits suite arrangement of the Original Series theme (the best thing to come out of this particular score); nothing else really registered. A far cry from Michael's exuberant and unforgettable Speed Racer score last year. The only saving graces of the film were some solid character performances: Urban as McCoy (best cast character in the picture; Urban nailed it), Pine as Kirk, Pegg as Scotty, Yelchin as Chekov. The others were quite poor: Saldana as Uhura, Cho as Sulu (worst cast original character in the picture; Cho is terrible); even Quinto's Spock was a sad disappointment (though that may have more to do with the fact that it's hard to portray Spock well when the original man who played Spock has almost as much face time in the film as you do). Oh, and the Apple store for an Enterprise bridge was tacky and overly engaging, as were Abrams constant abuses with lens flares. Argh. I need to go watch The Motion Picture or Insurrection to get the bad taste out of my mouth. Hell, The Search for Spock or The Final Frontier might even suffice at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Bat on May 17, 2009 13:47:04 GMT -8
Anyone else pick up the Original Films on Blu Ray? It is fantastic.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on May 18, 2009 4:17:04 GMT -8
Anyone else pick up the Original Films on Blu Ray? It is fantastic. Yes, it's great to see them in film-like quality, finally. There's only two things I'm unhappy about: 1. The releases are all very bare-bones 2. Star Trek: The Motion Picture is NOT the improved Director's Cut.
|
|
|
Post by Jockolantern on May 18, 2009 4:32:21 GMT -8
2. Star Trek: The Motion Picture is NOT the improved Director's Cut. Wow. Fail.
|
|
|
Post by indy2003 on May 18, 2009 6:01:23 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on May 18, 2009 6:38:56 GMT -8
I've got the "Star Trek" films on Blu-ray. The releases aren't bare-bones, Jen! They've got quite a few bonus features. Here's a review... I DO own the set myself. It seems the only difference of opinion here, Clark, is our definition of what constitutes "bare-bones". This set actually includes LESS features of interest to me than the previous DVD set, and from your review it sounds like you agree with me: Also: Digital Noise Reduction FTL!!!
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Bat on May 18, 2009 6:58:55 GMT -8
Didn't Meyer say he had no Director's Cut for his films? What you see on DVD/Blu Ray is what his cut is. What was done different for TV was done without him.
I don't know why they didn't include the Motion Picture DC though. Perhaps its own seperate Blu Ray release to cash in extra on? I really don't find the set bare-bones. It has all the special features from the original releases plus more. The bonus stuff is better than most older films released on Blu Ray these days.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by indy2003 on May 18, 2009 7:07:01 GMT -8
I've got the "Star Trek" films on Blu-ray. The releases aren't bare-bones, Jen! They've got quite a few bonus features. Here's a review... I DO own the set myself. It seems the only difference of opinion here, Clark, is our definition of what constitutes "bare-bones". This set actually includes LESS features of interest to me than the previous DVD set, and from your review it sounds like you agree with me: Okay, gotcha. I usually think of "bare-bones" as a release with little or nothing in terms of supplements. But yeah, I was definitely disappointed that they failed to do this thing right the first time around. And Joe, Meyer doesn't generally do "director's cuts", but he did make a couple of edits & add a couple of new scenes to "The Undiscovered Country" for the video release. He thought it would make the film's plot a little more clear in certain areas. However, the set only includes the original version that appeared in theatres.
|
|