[Futureguy]

Originally Posted by kevin

Yes, and for twenty-something episodes of TOS there was also no indication he had a brother. It wasn't a fact for almost a third of TOS's run because nothing was said. Until it was revealed. Then he was never mentioned again in 40 years.

Oh yes, that detail was absolutely essential to have.

But not unessential. We would have known the implications. While to others newbs, no, it would not have made a difference. I think that the fact that they went to the trouble of even removing the slight reference to George or "Sam" in the movie, as young Kirk passed him on the road was "bad form". Why did they not just edit out the part where Kirk passes him on the road instead of overdubbing what is said to whom has now become a relatively incidental person. THAT was kinda unessential. Since that scene was in there and had supporting footage why not include it as shot?

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Futureguy

But not unessential.

I think that very likely depends on one's definition of 'essential' - to wit, they appear not to match in this matter.

Although, re-investigating Sam he also has a brief dialogue only mention earlier in the season in 'What Little Girl's Are Made Of?' when real Kirk is testing robot Kirk. So, that would actually be two minor mentions he had overall, instead of just the one and only a half-dozen episodes before we knew of his existence. So, I was partly wrong.

Whether that earlier mention elevates his overall importance......................well, suffice to say, not even remotely for this viewer. I have absolutely no doubt that mileage varies, however.

We would have known the implications. While to others newbs, no, it would not have made a difference. I think that the fact that they went to the trouble of even removing the slight reference to "George" in the movie, as young Kirk passed him on the road was "bad form". Why did they not just edit out the part where Kirk passes him on the road instead of overdubbing what is said to whom has now become a relatively incidental person. THAT was kinda unessential. Since that scene was in there and had supporting footage why not include it as shot?

On that, you would have to as the editor. I don't rank it as mattering whether it was there or not.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

I tend to agree with Horatio that the scenes that were cut were cut for a reason. As much as I like Klingons I think the story was better off without that storyline, it would have raised more questions than it answered. I actually kind of like leaving Nero's whereabouts for those missing years a mystery.

I do think that the scene with Kirk and his uncle and brother would have been a nice addition. It explains why he feels the need to destroy a classic car. That's probably the only one that really adds anything useful. Maybe the scene with Gaila too.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by kevin

I didn't actually find 'Avatar' a 'long' film - well, at least in terms of feeling or percieving the time drag while watching it.

I have had that happen though. Although I've watched 90 minute films that felt like about three days!

Time is, it seems all relative indeed!

Oh, I agree. Avatar was a very well paced film.

I think the reason that 90 minute movies go by so slowly is because they're trying to tell so much story in such a compacted time frame....they have a LOT of things going on in rapid sequence, so it seems like a much bigger movie than it actually is.

Now, a movie like "The Dark Knight"...a great movie, but even at 2hrs and 30 minutes, it felt more like a 4 hour movie...perhaps it was the pacing at which they told certain elements of the story. It wasn't just a superhero movie, it had a lot of personal and interpersonal elements that sometimes would slow the movie down.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by martok2112

Oh, I agree. Avatar was a very well paced film.

I think the reason that 90 minute movies go by so slowly is because they're trying to tell so much story in such a compacted time frame....they have a LOT of things going on in rapid sequence, so it seems like a much bigger movie than it actually is.

Now, a movie like "The Dark Knight"...a great movie, but even at 2hrs and 30 minutes, it felt more like a 4 hour movie...perhaps it was the pacing at which they told certain elements of the story. It wasn't just a superhero movie, it had a lot of personal and interpersonal elements that sometimes would slow the movie down.

I feel these days that The Dark Knight is very rambling and a bit unfocused. I wouldn't say it's necessarily a complaint that the film is trying to be too ambitious, and I do like the Nolan reinventions, but the more I watch it now the more aware I am that it's a bit all over the place.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by kevin

I feel these days that The Dark Knight is very rambling and a bit unfocused. I wouldn't say it's necessarily a complaint that the film is trying to be too ambitious, and I do like the Nolan reinventions, but the more I watch it now the more aware I am that it's a bit all over the place.

Thus taking the elements that make a 90 minute movie seem so long, and adding another hour to it.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by martok2112

Thus taking the elements that make a 90 minute movie seem so long, and adding another hour to it.

Yeah, it's definitely a bit bloated.

But then I don't think it's really a superhero film, I dunno, but I remember Nolan wanting to tell a story about a city, in this case Gotham. It seems really more like a crime saga.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by kevin

Yeah, it's definitely a bit bloated.

But then I don't think it's really a superhero film, I dunno, but I remember Nolan wanting to tell a story about a city, in this case Gotham. It seems really more like a crime saga.

Indeed....a lot of times it felt more like a high quality episode of 24 rather than a superhero movie.

Sometimes I like that in a genre film or show....when it can make you forget that you're watching that particular genre.

One of the reasons I loved the new Battlestar Galactica so much was that it was played out more like a drama that just happened to have sci-fi trappings.

[horatio]

In Dark Knight Gotham City had to appear like a normal city because the movie had to visually reflect the main theme, i.e. the Joker's effort to corrupt people. There is no shroud of superhero genre aesthetics which creates distance, so the movie seems very real. Interestingly ST09 shares this feature with Dark Knight, it is by far the less stylized and most realistic Trek movie.

I think the main advantage of this realism is that you are drawn deep into the movie. The car chase scene in Dark Knight or the orbital drop / platform fighting scene in Trek are good examples.
The disadvantage is that everything plays on one layer. Take a random Kirk fight in TOS and compare it with the Kirk fights in ST09, you aren't drawn into the action but view it from a distance, from a second, ironic layer.

[Futureguy]

Originally Posted by kevin

Although, re-investigating Sam he also has a brief dialogue only mention earlier in the season in 'What Little Girl's Are Made Of?' when real Kirk is testing robot Kirk. So, that would actually be two minor mentions he had overall, instead of just the one and only a half-dozen episodes before we knew of his existence. So, I was partly wrong.

Whether that earlier mention elevates his overall importance......................well, suffice to say, not even remotely for this viewer.

Well if two separate mentions, then there might have been more as the series progressed or continued past the third season.......If only they had not killed Sam and the series off! That was one of a few "deaths" that personally affected Kirk in TOS, besides Gary Mitchell, so it was an important death, at least in the series.