Darkness.......
Kind of on topic as its sort of naval.
Liz and I saw the new Star Trek movie yesterday. Excellent!!
In fact I saw it twice, as she decided Philip, our little boy would love to see it, so I was detailed off to take him in the afternoon.
I've seen it in 2D and 3D with "supersound" - don't bother with the extras, the 3D and sound are overblown and detract from the action. IMHO the 2D version was a MUCH more enjoyable experience.
Thank you for the review. I wasn't sure if I would like the first one when it came out but I loved it. Looking forward to seeing the 2nd.
Thanks for the review. I think the last movie I went to was Master and Commander with an old friend. May have to get together and see the Star Trek movie then. Sounds like it would be a good time together.
Thank you for the review. I am looking forward to seeing the film. I have been a Star Trek fan for years.
That's interesting about the 3D vs 2D David. I saw Avatar in both and much preferred the 2D as it was more comfortable to watch and was somehow more realistic which you would think otherwise. The new Star trek movie is on my next list. The latest Ironman III has a final scene in a dockyard.. that's naval too
Thanks David, looking forward to seeing it!!!
Saw the first part in 3D - second part will follow as soon as possible.
Dissenting Opinion: Didn't like the first reboot -- probably going to avoid this one, at least until it hits cable. "Abrams Trek" should be the top listing on TVTropes' "Completely Missing The Point" page....
Counterpoint - most of the people who dislike Abrams alternate history version of trek, are usually the old farts who remind me of Rick Nelson's song "Garden Party". Problem is that I remember watching the original tv version, and being the remote (i.e. I was the one who had to walk over and adjust the volume, switch channels, or go outside to make sure the antenna was pointing in the right direction). When people get so fixated on what was, and want the same ol same ol, they miss the point that it is either not possible anymore (those original stars are just too bleepin old!), or can't wrap their heads around alternate science fiction (i.e. that the whole new abrams series is alternate time line to the original time line of the original time line).Originally Posted by csadn
And then again, some people just can't see that things change and thats life.
Too bad too sad, drive on and be happy, have a nice day, and bless you, etc. And all them other southern euphemisms for bleepin curse phrases.
Entirely Not My Point.
What annoys me about "Abrams Trek" is not the new actors, nor the "alternate history" aspect (tho' I despise remakes in general). No, what grates on me is the substitution of $100,000,000 in SFX, explosions, and shiny background materials for what Roddenberry was intending to make with _ST:TOS_* -- a human race which was not perfect, admitted it wasn't perfect, and was trying to be better than it had been (and in several episodes of _ST:TOS_, *failing*). To be perfectly blunt: _Babylon 5_ was a hell of a lot closer to _ST:TOS_ than any of the stuff which followed _ST:TOS_ over the past 40 years. On that score, Abrams has Completely Missed The Point.
[*: _Star Trek: The Original Series_ -- the episodes from the '60s; arguments persist over whether to include the first six movies as well.]
Though my "side job" is creating and teaching 3D Animation and Video Game Development college courses, I am 100% with Chris on this.
Thank you for this information.
Oh, please. Wagon Train to the stars. Putting out product. Making money. Everything else was just gravy.
And really, you who just want the original roddenberry, miss the point as well. The point is the movie makers are looking to get richer, period end sum. To do this they require a new meme. And the old meme is not all that popular anymore. They need new stars, new themes and new ways to look at things to attract the younger audience. And face it, the old meme supporters are getting on in years. So unless you can find a longevity system for the masses, good luck getting your old stuff.
Last edited by Wargamer; 05-13-2013 at 10:48.
If thats what you think then you actually might quite like it.
And then again, things may actually get real interesting in the near future. Since JJ is not only directing these Star Treks under discussion, but has the contract on the next few Star Wars from Disney.
Funny -- _ST_ didn't start making money until after TOS was cancelled for the last time....
Modern Hollywood most-assuredly is only interested in "the last best hope for a quick buck", as Susan Ivanova so eloquently put it -- which is why they are doing remake after reboot after reimagining rather than developing new and different properties (of course, having seen the previews for _Ender's Game_, I wouldn't trust them to not bugger up [ahem >;) ] the new stuff as well).
There's hope on the horizon, tho' -- _Iron Sky_ showed what can be done when the studios are cut out of the creative process, and the film-makers can actually make a film sans the intervention of Focus Groups and Suits. (It's not everyone's cup of tea, but it wasn't supposed to be.) God help us, I might actually live to see a live-action version of Ringo's Keldara novels, or Williamson's Ripple Creek Security, or a proper big-screen version of Drake's _Hammer's Slammers_ and/or Republic of Cinnabar works.... :)
ST:tos, cancelled 1969. ST:tmp, 1979. All the bushwa you were quoting on Roddenberry was from the convention period inbetwixt those dates. The attempt to convince the 60's and early 70's crowd of con goers that this was worthwhile fell on fertile ground. But hey, it is history. Those days are gone.
As far as Ringo, I would much rather see Under a Graveyard Sky on the screen, it would be a lot more entertaining. Keldara, not so much, otbe doncha know. And Monster Hunters Inc would be more fun. The RCN would be nice too. I would also prefer Belisarius series to the Hammers.
Like many here I grew up watching TOS and have much of that and TNG on DVD. I don't think some of the comments above necessarily meant seeing the original actors as I think all of us admit they are mostly beyond prime. It's more of a major flavor change that turns some people off, and JJ's flavor of ST is significantly different. This isn't necessarily a bad thing though. The modern flavor of James Bond is very different than that of Roger Moore's time, and each of those were different than Sean Connory's. TNG was actually pretty different from TOS when it first came out. In all such 'universe' creations some people will feel one is right and others are wrong. I try to enjoy each for their own merits though there are often some that just don't grab me.
Now, I'm not typically a fan of 'reboot' films. Especially when they KEEP getting done. How many Spiderman or Superman reboots do we need for example? I was a bit turned off with some of JJs' ST reboot but not in ways that some people may think. I wasn't very happy about what happened with Vulcan but accept it in the alternate timeline. And I can accept Kirk's new rise to Captain as the alternate timeline throws all 'backstory' from TOS out the window anyway. But something just didn't work for me with the differences in the Sulu and Uhura characters. I thought Spock, Bones, Scotty and Checkov were all pretty good. But Sulu seemed a little too high-strung and Uhura just a bit too b***chy in several scenes. I never connected with either character.
My biggest gripe with the movie though, and this started before JJ, was the "enemy creep" scale. The TOS episode Balance of Power is one of the best IMO and it's just two captains trying to out think each other. Most of the TOS and TNG episodes and movies were driven by the characters and/or more reasonably scaled foe. It seems after the Borg filmmakers want to just keep making enemy ships bigger and bigger. TNG's Nemisis and JJ's Star Trek are horrible offenders in this and I feel are lessened from it. I am hoping the new film doesn't have yet another monster sized ship in it. They're just becoming as cliche as the Jaws shark getting bigger and bigger each film (and I didn't like any of those after #1 anyway). TNG was a bit stuck with this because they had set the technological bar of the Federation so high that they needed something to threaten it. But the reboot goes WAY back to early Federation and it doesn't take as much. And not every enemy in the universe has to care about attacking Earth anyway...
I am happy to see the B5 references above. I think that is one of the best sci-fi universes created and really wish it could have gotten traction for films. I didn't watch much of Crusade for various reasons but with the exception of a few points the rest of the series is great IMO. The core characters are obviously not able to be represented in a movie at this point without another 'reboot' and I'm pretty sure Hollywood would screw that up. I think they'd be much better off doing a film either before or after the main timelines. As mentioned, the Hollywood Machine is driven far more by patterned stories and bling. I would rather just see all the existing B5 stuff brought up to HD level and they keep their 'creative process' away.
I also know a lot of people really think 3D adds to the experience but for me it's just candy. The 3D in The Hobbit was the smoothest, best I've seen but I still found it more distracting because it is just so obvious what scenes are there just to give the 3D "Wow!". I've seen a few 3D films and then seen them again in 2D and in every case I have to say the 2D is more enjoyable because you can just relax and get into the film. Seeing something in 3D for me is far less about the movie's story than it is just having the 3D Wow factor. Unless I'm going with a group of friends that really want to see the 3D versions of something I don't even bother considering it.
/rants off
Same here -- and it's worse for me: I've met Nichelle Nichols....
All true, except for the Large, Ill-Tempered Fish getting bigger in successive _JAWS_ flicks -- it was the same size (same mechanical, and all); it just became sillier (and seen more often, which, like Abrams Trek, Completely Missed The Point of what made the first flick so... effective).
JMS has said straight-out "The next B5-related project I do is a Feature Film -- otherwise, forget it".
When did I "quote" anything Roddenberry said (or anyone else for that matter)?
Oh, joy -- just what we *DO NOT* need: Another grey-goo zombie flick. Talk about "uninspired"....
No, actually, I don't.
Uh-huh -- "TVTropes, The Novel"; that'll be about Hollywood's speed.
Belisarius -- not enough BOOM.
Wrath of Kahn reminded me of The Enemy Below or Run Silent Run Deep. Both of which were good movies.
Whilst on the topic of submarine movies, Das Boot (The boat) was excellent and ..don't laugh...I really liked hunt for Red October. Then if we delve back into the "depths" of time, the old TV series "Voyage to the bottom of the Sea" was a great favourite when I was growing up, rated up their with all the Epic movies we had on Saturday mornings (300 Spartans etc)
Voyage to the bottom of the sea was one of my favorites as well. Back when there were only 5 channels to choose from and not much to watch.
Das Boot truly is an excellent film.
I, too, thoroughly enjoy Hunt for Red October, and for awhile, I couldn't figure out why. I took a film class, and one of our texts was on screenplays. The book delineated the qualities of a well-told story and how to incorporate them into a screenplay, and I had my epiphany. Hunt for Red October is basically textbook good storytelling. It encompasses most, if not all, of the techniques the author described.
Time to watch some movies again.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks