|
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1021
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
(News Flash! News Flash! http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...star_trek_film) |
|
#1022
|
||||
|
||||
|
work work hard things they had to do to tie this film together isn't that right.
__________________
![]() Space is disease and dangerous wrapped in darkness and silence-Leonard Bones McCoy |
|
#1023
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
To secure the peace is to prepare for war. -Metallica |
|
#1024
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I'm eager to be introduced to a new species and have a "getting to know you" process. On TNT, I watched Steven Spillberg's telling of "War of the Worlds" (a movie I found really heavy and scary). The mystery of those tripods was scary--the not knowing. Then, we learned a little more about the aliens--the actual beings in control of the tripods--were curious conqurors...They weren't nice, but they did exhibit intelligence. I thought the little reveals about the creatures was nice, and wished there was another movie where we could learn more about them. I think Star Trek's "exploring strange new worlds" motif would fit well in learning about a new civilation (be they friendly or hostile). |
|
#1025
|
||||
|
||||
|
In what way does the movie suck
![]()
__________________
![]() Space is disease and dangerous wrapped in darkness and silence-Leonard Bones McCoy |
|
#1026
|
||||
|
||||
|
I agree, starwarsrcks, that "NuTrek" (shudders saying that) doesn't "suck". However, since this is the thread creator's viewpoint, he's entitled to express why (gulp) "NuTrek" is filled with "suckiness". I, on the other hand, applaud the fact that Trek is now "cool again"--and is more popular than ever, thanks to this film. The creators of the film have done ther VERY BEST to honor the spirit of TOS while liberating the mythos to new possiblities and new stories--capturing and widening the franchise's demographics (here I go venturing into the business side of this art form again!). Movie making is both an ART and a BUSINESS. The art side is very subjective, and thus the creator of this thread can express his or her viewpoint of the film's greatness or failures (as long as, IMO, they are being civil on the internet). The only way to quantify the film as a "success" then is by Professional Critical approval and WORD OF MOUTH approval by the movie going public--with a convergence of the two USUALLY translating into a financial success. So, while I personally LOVED (here I go again) "Hudson Hawk", it was not a "successful movie". "Star Trek" IS a successful movie, but I can't knock anyone who hates it as much as I loved "Hudson Hawk". Just as long as they are civil and logical in expressing their disdain for the movie as a whole or in part and respect the forum.
What the heck is wrong with me??? I've been just a loose fountain of words as of late! |
|
#1027
|
|||
|
|||
|
The movie itself doesn't necessarily suck. In fact, I thought it was a fun and exciting sci-fi movie. Add to that the fact that I don't think I've seen anyone here actually say the movie sucked. What sucks is the way that 40+ years of Star Trek continuity was tossed out with the garbage to make this movie. That's what bothers me as a TOS fan. The fact that "my" Star Trek is gone forever and that I'll have nothing to look forward to in Trek's future but the Abramsverse. That saddens me. I'm not happy or content with the Abramsverse. I don't like what JJA has done to "my" Star Trek. And I will never be okay with it. I have come to accept the Abramsverse as a "what-if" tale similar to the "Elseworlds" one-offs from DC Comics in which they put established heroes in different situations. It's not part of the established history of that character but it is still interesting. One that comes to mind is where Kal-El crashes in Gotham city and is taken in by the Waynes instead of the Kents. It's very interesting to see Superman take on the role of the Dark Knight. However, it is an alternate reality or simply a "what-if" scenario that is not meant to fit in with the character's established history. That's how I feel about STXI. It's nothing more than a what-if story that uses the same names but is not meant to fit in with the established Trek universe. It's simply there for entertainment. Nothing more.
|
|
#1028
|
||||
|
||||
|
Zim, would you have preferred a straight reboot with out the time traveling aspect of it?
__________________
![]() ![]() |
|
#1029
|
|||
|
|||
|
You know what? Maybe. At least then there would have been no "canon" questions. There would have been absolutely no pretense of trying to fit in with the original continuity. None of the dancing around the issue that we heard in the beginning. A straight reboot with no ties to TOS would have been preferable. That way it could have literally been a separate franchise and we old TOS fans could keep our Star Trek for ourselves and let the noobs have NuTrek.
|
|
#1030
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sometimes I think a straight reboot would have been the way to go too.
__________________
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|