Joe Irvin
Conductor
(I'm the one in the middle)
Posts: 815
|
Post by Joe Irvin on May 18, 2009 13:38:41 GMT -8
I never said it was my ONLY problem. But it is a pretty serious one to me. Not to nitpick, but here's what you said earlier... Star Trek was flawless in every way but one: its utterly retarded time travel plot and villain. Everything else... the acting, dialogue, special effects, music were all absolutely top-notch. Jocko: I think I agree with you about the Phantom Menace. I think it's the best of the prequels, even with Jar-Jar. Oh, if they had only given the budget of this movie to the Star Trek: New Voyages people...
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on May 18, 2009 13:48:35 GMT -8
I never said it was my ONLY problem. But it is a pretty serious one to me. Not to nitpick, but here's what you said earlier... Star Trek was flawless in every way but one: its utterly retarded time travel plot and villain. Everything else... the acting, dialogue, special effects, music were all absolutely top-notch. There's actually no contradiction here - I just phrased these statements in an awkward and unfortunate way. What I meant was that it is not the only problem associated with the villain and especially the time travel plot. There is a LOT more wrong with that particular aspect of the movie.
|
|
Joe Irvin
Conductor
(I'm the one in the middle)
Posts: 815
|
Post by Joe Irvin on May 18, 2009 13:55:42 GMT -8
If you say so. I don't want to argue about something trivial when we could be hating Star Trek together...
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on May 18, 2009 15:29:03 GMT -8
If you say so. I don't want to argue about something trivial when we could be hating Star Trek together... To elucidate a bit on the other problems I have with the entire time travel premise, I feel that the film's plot could be interpreted in two ways: 1. With the death of Kirk's father and the destruction of Vulcan, the entire chronology of Trek as we know and love it has been forever obliterated, to be replaced by this new timeline (all for the sake of justifying a reboot). This to me is absolutely unacceptable. 2. The death of Kirk's father created an alternate timeline and thus an alternate universe separate from the Trek we know. This certainly is the less maddening interpretation. However, since I have no emotional investment in alternate universe Trek, why should I give a wet fart about alternate Kirk and alternate Spock? I didn't realize going in that this wasn't going to be a straightforward, one-shot prequel. If I'd known this was the Bizarro-Trek franchise launch, I don't think I'd have gone to see it at all.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Bat on May 18, 2009 16:15:53 GMT -8
It also begs the question as to how this film is suppose to attract a new young audience to Star Trek (who apparently are suppose to be able to go in without having to worry about any far-fetched technical jargon), since the premise is ridiculous. They casted young to attract the young, but is that enough? I guess there is enough mindless colorful action that it doesn't become too much of an issue of having to make the audience think. And Jens, I don't think at any point JJ Abrams and crew were concerned about maintaining Star Trek canon.
I won't rehash the issues of the film, but I want to bring up another issue no one else has brought up. From the beginning I never saw this new Star Trek becoming a long series of films. I think they are rebooting Star Trek in the wrong domain. The idea of bringing JJ Abrams and crew to reboot Star Trek as a film series to me is an odd choice. He comes from a successful career in television. And so does Star Trek. So why not combine the two together and also in the same medium?
Sure, you can say they tried that with Enterprise, but by that time the people behind the show had lost their juice and gone in the wrong direction.
Also: I found Giacchino's music to be a disappointment. Too bad, I was hoping for something amazing from him here.
Okay, one more time:
Sorry, just can't resist.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Armin on May 18, 2009 17:31:27 GMT -8
Now that Joe mentioned TV, I guess that's what I kind of liked about the movie: it feels like a pilot to a TV series. It'll be interesting to see how the studio moves on from this movie, as there was really not much of a need to change the timeline if it was just going to be more movies. Sure, Kirk's father is dead, Vulcan is gone, but who ever cared about that anyways?
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on May 18, 2009 20:50:07 GMT -8
Now that Joe mentioned TV, I guess that's what I kind of liked about the movie: it feels like a pilot to a TV series. For what is supposed to be a Hollywood blockbuster, that is not actually praise. Sure, Kirk's father is dead, Vulcan is gone, but who ever cared about that anyways? Wait... wait... I think I have the answer to that. Yes indeed, I'd like to solve: STAR TREK FANS!
|
|
|
Post by Armin on May 19, 2009 6:32:25 GMT -8
No, indeed it is no praise for a Hollywood blockbuster, but personally I enjoy TV stuff quite a lot these days. So from that point of view it was a good movie and worth the 5 bucks.
Star Trek has been messed with enough by Voyager and Enterprise, it can't really get all that much worse.
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on May 19, 2009 6:41:20 GMT -8
No, indeed it is no praise for a Hollywood blockbuster, but personally I enjoy TV stuff quite a lot these days. So from that point of view it was a good movie and worth the 5 bucks I enjoy TV stuff on my TV.
|
|
|
Post by Armin on May 19, 2009 6:50:12 GMT -8
Lucky you. My TV sucks, and I'd actually love to see ST: Generations on a cinema screen. So much better.
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on May 19, 2009 7:54:56 GMT -8
Lucky you. My TV sucks, and I'd actually love to see ST: Generations on a cinema screen. So much better. I saw Star Trek: Generations in the movie theater when it originally came out. Believe me, you didn't miss a thing.
|
|
Joe Irvin
Conductor
(I'm the one in the middle)
Posts: 815
|
Post by Joe Irvin on May 21, 2009 16:47:27 GMT -8
One more thing: when did ILM start doing the special effects for Star Trek? What a travesty...
|
|
|
Post by Armin on May 21, 2009 23:15:09 GMT -8
ST:G is not a TV show... and not good...
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Bat on May 22, 2009 4:14:46 GMT -8
One more thing: when did ILM start doing the special effects for Star Trek? What a travesty... Since First Contact. Joe
|
|
|
Post by indy2003 on May 22, 2009 6:17:19 GMT -8
|
|