|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Sept 15, 2011 20:27:06 GMT
True that it may have been lacking in imagination on a grand scale like that, but it was still a fun and enjoyable film I felt.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Sept 15, 2011 21:08:41 GMT
The terrible nonsensical script, unfocussed plot, stupid elements (ie building a starship in a field, Kirk going from cadet to Captain in a day, young Spock being a complete moron, Scotty having the brains of a chimp etc), bizarre design choices (the Engine Room of the Enterprise seemed to come from a different universe than the rest of the ship) and one-note direction (whip-pan! lense flare! repeat ad nauseum) all rather got in the way, for me. Nevermind the premise.
Star Trek has never been so shit. I wouldn't even call it Star Trek. I don't know what that crap was.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Sept 18, 2011 8:22:07 GMT
Been watching some TNG in a loop while laid up with the lurgy. What boggles my mind is that some of these episodes I'm watching are now as old as episodes of the original series were when I first saw TNG when it was new!
Just feels weird.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Sept 21, 2011 18:07:15 GMT
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Sept 24, 2011 7:43:54 GMT
Having watched a lot of TNG on *cough* of late, I do believe Armus from Skin of Evil is the sensational character find of 1988. He's great. ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Oct 24, 2011 6:13:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Oct 26, 2011 18:16:42 GMT
Some interesting points there. I do find TNG currently plays more freshly than it has in years now that so many shows are obsessed with overall arcs rather than individual episodes with the odd recurring storyline.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Nov 14, 2011 19:43:16 GMT
I've just spotted the ST Movie thread is numbered 1790. It so should have been 1701! |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Dec 23, 2011 20:09:04 GMT
Search for Spock on Film4!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 25, 2011 15:57:22 GMT
I approve. Never really understood the poor reputation it has.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Dec 26, 2011 10:06:13 GMT
Me neither. Probably my second fave classic Trek film after Wrath of Khan
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Dec 29, 2011 18:12:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 29, 2011 20:04:35 GMT
Great film!
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Dec 29, 2011 21:13:27 GMT
I still want a special edition director cut with the needed effects redone or done for the first time. Just to see what it should have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Dec 30, 2011 0:35:28 GMT
Shatner asked for cash to do that for the 2nd DVD release of the film, pointing out that Paramount had splashed the cash for an alternate DVD version of the first film. He was told no.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Feb 5, 2012 19:42:29 GMT
Been watching a fair chunk of Star Trek: The Animated Series over the past week or so. I have seen some of the episode before, but not all of them so I figured it was time to correct this omission, so that I can honestly claim to have seen all of original Star Trek.
Actually, I am quiet enjoying the Animated Series to be honest. The stories are very much of a piece with the live action series - both tonally and in terms of reusing established recurring elements from its predecessor. Tribbles, Harry Mudd, the planet from Shore Leave all return and are used quite well. Indeed, in terms of storytelling it is pretty much "Star Trek" only quicker - being twenty-five minutes instead of fifty.
Visually, it struggles with its budget as most animated shows have a tendency to do but some of it is absolutely lovely - I defy anyone to look at the background paintings and not agree that they are beautifully executed. It has its flaws, the voice-directing is a little bit iffy in places for example and not all of the episodes are up to snuff, but really the latter could be said of most shows.
All told, the Animated Series is pretty much "Star Trek" in a different media, and I'd argue is closer to the tone and nature of "Star Trek" than a lot of the live-action spin-off stories.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Feb 22, 2012 16:26:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Feb 22, 2012 16:49:07 GMT
Interesting but not $10 interesting. That's a steep price! |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Apr 11, 2012 18:22:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Toph on Apr 15, 2012 18:54:33 GMT
I liked the last Star Trek film.... apart from the problems it causes with Massive Donkey Balls of First Contact & Enterprise, all pre film, by destroying the universe that TNG happens in. The "Prime" Universe (As Roddenberry's original universe is now canonically called) is fine. They can still do stories, series, and what not set there. So it's gone no where, and hasn't been destroyed. It's just still in mothballs, where it would be if Abhram's movie never happened. The new Universe is a brand new reality, as evedent in the movie, before the characetrs declare time has changed and created an alternate. It already was an alternate before Nero came back in time. (While this is more fan desire than anything, I shove Enterprise into this continuity and leave it out of the original, for my personal fannon) It betrayed a lack of imagination for a universe which was about New Things. Doing 'young Kirk and co' was pointless enough, but doing *alternate* versions of them doubly so! -Ralph Not to Gene Roddenberry it isn't pointless. Gene Roddenberry Jr. spent the better part of the last decade making and filming a documentary about what Star Trek means to people, and trying to get to know his father from that (It's called Trek Nation, and aired here on The Science Channel, a few months ago) While he was digging around family archives, he found an interview with his father, who said it's his personal dream to see a modern take on his original star trek. A reimagining by new directors, new actors, new writers, and new special effects. Having grown up on Trek (TNG specifically), I quite enjoyed the new Trek film. It had it's problems (The science makes my head hurt when I think too hard about it, but then my obcession with science has ruined a great number of movies that should have been fun, like 2012), but it was a lot of fun, I loved the actors, and for the first time, I actually *kike* Kirk. (Kirk was the only TOS character I didn't like). Either way, for all it's faults, the new Trek is a lot better than anything Brenan Bragga can cough up. And I'm glad the franchise has been stripped of Burman. I think if New Trek got turned into TV series, and they were allowed to go into a slower paced format that would allow, you'd enjoy new new changes more. The first movie is an origin, and those are always wonky. All the players are in place and set up, so I think the next one will blow this one out of the water. |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Apr 15, 2012 19:01:02 GMT
Oh I well understand how folk enjoy it and it is cool that you got something out of. Tis just for me personally that I just can't get excited about a slightly different version of the 60's show. I would much rather see new characters, ship, etc, which is what Star Trek was about from 1987 onwards.
But like you say, the original stuff still exists. I can always still enjoy it and if I want new tales set there at least there are comics and books still being produced for it.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Toph on Apr 19, 2012 1:26:31 GMT
I want to see a series that follows the adventures of the Enterprise-B.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Jun 15, 2012 22:51:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Toph on Jun 15, 2012 23:57:46 GMT
Ugh. Brannon Braga needs to go away.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Jun 16, 2012 9:05:34 GMT
Oh, I don't mind him.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Toph on Jun 17, 2012 0:11:47 GMT
I do. He and Burman together ruined Trek.
As far as I'm concerned, the best thing that happened with the new trek movie, is Paramount firing them from the franchise.
From what everyone says behind the scenes (Cast and crew), the two of them are about as self important and assy as it gets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Jun 17, 2012 7:22:55 GMT
They ruined Trek? I hadn't realised they were so involved in Enterprise.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Jun 17, 2012 17:53:14 GMT
Got no problem with Berman. Some good stuff came out under his reign.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Jun 17, 2012 18:25:44 GMT
I second that.
Enterprise was the lowest point of Trek as far as I am concerned, although Season One of TNG runs close at times.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Jun 17, 2012 18:44:38 GMT
But season 1 of TNG has Armus, the greatest shit evil alien of 1987!
-Ralph
|
|
