Posted on 04/28/2013 12:02:59 PM PDT by EveningStar
I am going to preface this that if you do not want to know the truth about Star Trek Into Darkness and who Benedict Cumberbatch is really playing, you should not be reading this.
(Excerpt) Read more at furiousfanboys.com ...
I think all the movies kick butt this summer
I really want see Star Trek, Wolverine, Superman Man of Steel and Iron Man 3 movies
Compared to what was out there at the time, it was genius plus it was hopeful, in that humanity had a future.
People didn't expect to watch Shakespeare. They wanted some entertainment and Star Trek gave them that.
TNG are atrocious,
That's because Gene Roddenberry tried to make the future too much of a utopia.
People boldly declare that JJ ruined Trek.
Yes, because he's incestuous when it comes to story telling. ( He's not alone in this and not the worst offender but it gets annoying. ) Try something different, outside of what has already been written. Don't destroy what was good in the process of making something new. I think people who reboot must have limited imagination and want a quick buck. In a universe of infinite possibilities, why are they stuck playing with the same old stuff?
What was good about the old series was how the characters developed, especially in the movies of 2, 3 and 4. Today's movies suck because they are so quick to tell the story, too much action and not enough good dialog. Movies today don't want to build up the characters or their relationships. They only want explosion after explosion then a sex scene.
“I am your father Luke” which in and of itself wasn’t bad but it put the series on a bad path
Here is where I agree with you on that. I was like, ok Darth is Luke's father but then Timothy Zahn went on to write more books on Star Wars series and he used Palpatine as the bad guy again, although it was his clone but still.. A whole galaxy of evil and he had to recycle palpatine?
Then Zahn used the Jedi "twins" of Han and Leia. It's like really? Are all the descendants of Anakin going to be twins? No triplets just to shake things up?
I dunno, I guess that's why I'm off science fiction... It's not as fun as it use to be.
Understand with all my criticism I still love Trek, but as a QA person I look at warts, it’s my job and I’m good at it.
The primary problem TOS had is that it was really two different shows. There’s the show that built the legend, it really could tell very good thought provoking SF when they took the time to actually write it, and there’s even good less thought provoking episodes. Then there’s the other show, the cheeseball SF show that cranked out some really dumb SF poorly. I will often sing the praises of Gene Coon (aka “the other Gene”) for being the guy that gave us a lot of what makes Trek great (he gave us Khan and Klingons, nuff said). But it’s often times telling that his previous gig was Wild Wild West, a show I also love but people from the show admit there was an onset rule “if the story is thin have Bob take his shirt off”. You can see a lot of that mentality in Trek, Bill takes his shirt in most of the worst eps.
TNG was held back by a lot of things, Roddenberry killed the writers room with his “no conflict” edict. And appeasing the obsessive fans was a major mistake, that really began the canon problems that shackled 3 more shows and a bunch of movies.
Reboots are primarily to free the writers from the obligations of an unmanageable canon. It re-opens the universe of infinite possibility. There’s a reason why in the old days Hollywood didn’t do canon, it’s limiting, it winds up being a list of reason you can’t do that. All the writers that worked on late era Trek talk about that, canon constantly cutting off stories. It’s a much freer Trek world if Phase 2 had gotten off the ground, part of Phase 2 was the revelation that TOS was a TV show in the Trek universe, that’s a reboot. Should have been another reboot after Voyager for Enterprise, leave that 21 seasons behind and go forth with a more open universe. I find it interesting, and creative, that JJ did his reboot on camera, most of the time when that decision is made they just punt it, put out word that it’s a new world all that old stuff doesn’t apply and just tell their story.
I never saw much character development in 3 and 4. 2 had quite a bit, but 3 and 4 were just bad.
Too many movies are made these days for blanket statements. Yeah Michael Bay has never met dialog he wouldn’t replace with an explosion. But there’s a lot of character development in JJs first Trek, Kirk evolves dramatically, and I really love the conflict between him and Spock. Things still get blown up, but it’s no Bay movie. I think JJ brings a lot fun in, his Trek is a fun movie, with stuff. Trek had become very not fun.
I still have not seen the first one.
But as I understand it with time travel and other universes stuff the change in history is easily explained. It’s science fiction after all.
“I still have not seen the first one.”
IMHO, it’s an excellent movie, whether you’re a Trekkie or not.
“But as I understand it with time travel and other universes stuff the change in history is easily explained. It’s science fiction after all.”
B I N G O ! ! ! Looking forward to seeing this flick, should be good, if not great.
Right. ST and Man of Steel look great to me.
but 3 and 4 were just bad.
The replacement Saavak was acted like a liberal vulcan. I couldn't stand her. I liked McCoy's part but three need to be played out for number 4. I hated the artsy farts part where they went back in time but over all I liked 4. Main reason, they got a chance to get off the set.
I like Gene Coon also. The other Gene tried to put too much of himself into Kirk. I think he must of like the shirt being pulled off more than Shatner.
I've been watching other shows by Abrams and sometimes he scores and in other he flops badly. I had high hopes for Super 8 but if was terrible.
Spot on. Regeneration is a built-in “refresh” that allows different actors to play the same role.
I liked the comedy of them interacting with the 20th century in 4, but other than that I found it mostly pretentious and silly. Trek and time travel plots have rarely mixed well in my book. And the whole Spock resurrecting because of the Genesis device just threw me out of 3 and devalues the end of 2, not to mention Shatner running through all possible readings of “Klingon bastard you killed my son” (whom he didn’t know existed until a few weeks ago).
I like Super 8, it’s light, but it’s a solid piece of homage work to ET and Close Encounters. Although it’s funny I like it because I hate ET. Might be the QA guy in me, I’m very good at setting my expectations, I expected an enjoyable piece of fluff from Super 8 and that’s what I got. For his Trek I was hoping for a fun ride and none of Braga’s UN in space crap, and that’s what he delivered.
Why do you hate E.T.? It’s a masterpiece.
Boring, hackneyed, soppy, oddly messianic and even when I first saw it when I was a kid and it first came out I felt it talked down to me. Really if it hadn’t had so much hype I might be able to like it, but it was one of my first major Hollywood disappointments. All the advertising had pushed it as the latest EPIC from the Mighty Spielberg and what I got when I got to the theater was a thin pablum kids’ movie that felt like a better produced version of the crap Disney had been cranking out for a decade. If it had been advertised as a kids’ movie I might have liked it, but I walked in expecting Close Encounters and got Apple Dumpling Alien.
It was from the point of view of a child so it had their emotional state as well. Historically it was a pretty risky venture...in 1981, films about children (pre-teens) were box office poison an had been for a long time.
They were box office poison because Disney had cranked out nothing but crap for a long time, which nobody wanted to see.
Really if it had just been advertised that way I might have liked it. But it wasn’t, it was advertised as a grown up movie and I came out of the theater feeling lied to and insulted. I’ve never tried to watch it again, first impressions are lasting impressions.
See! I completely agree with your assertion that the skills of JJ Abrams are right on par with those of the folks responsible for Lost in Space II: Electric Boogaloo!*
Now, we can get on to the important issues like who was hotter Jennie or her sister?
*I mean, they didn’t even have Dr. Smith, Will Robinson, Penny or the Robot! Instead of Dr. Maureen Robinson, they shook-up things by bringing in Major Rayner Fleming from Remo Williams. Way outta left field, man.
The other nice bit about regeneration (aside from the fact that actors can leave the show without the whole thing coming to a halt) is that it allows the production crew to improve the set as the budget improves (”Hey guys, let’s state that the Tardis also regenerates! Now, we can spend the extra 20 pounds the BBC gave us!”). Also, the regeneration schtick makes for some interesting contract negotiations (”You wanna raise? How about we snuff you instead and replace yer arse?”).
A good example of sheer balls in a franchise would also be the Gundam Universes. When those cats get tired of something, they say, “Aw, screw it. Let’s just start a whole new universe that also features giant robots blasting things. Okay, who’s ready for lunch?”
When I first heard Jar Jar Binks speak, I thought that Amos ‘n’ Andy deserved an apology.
I always thought of Voyager as more Gilligan’s Island in space. Only with Gilligan in charge.
Okay, so played Ginger and Maryann?
I could see the holographic doctor as The Professor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.