|
Post by paullev on May 9, 2009 2:45:50 GMT -6
I thought the new movie was splendid ... full review here, with spoilers
|
|
|
Post by andrewlee on May 9, 2009 11:05:36 GMT -6
Interesting web site!
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on May 11, 2009 7:30:16 GMT -6
Yep, like I said -- the movie isn't Star Trek at all. It's a completely different, totally illogical take on the characters, made by a man who had said all along that he didn't like Star Trek. <sigh!> Oh, well. C'est la vie!
|
|
Trip
Ensign
]
Posts: 58
|
Post by Trip on Jan 27, 2010 5:49:13 GMT -6
How was the movie not Star Trek at all?
It was a different take on things, but to boldly assume it's not ST is simply illogical.
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Jan 29, 2010 8:49:35 GMT -6
I don't "assume" anything; I merely make a simple observation. The ship is not the same, the layout of the bridge and engineering aren't the same, the control panels aren't the same, the equipment isn't the same, the uniforms aren't the same, the characters don't behave the same. Most important for me, there is no trace of the humanism so noticeable in the series. How different does it have to be before we can say it's not the same?
|
|
shakfar
Lt. Commander
[ss:Cloak]
Posts: 582
|
Post by shakfar on Feb 8, 2010 17:01:04 GMT -6
Yep, like I said -- the movie isn't Star Trek at all. It's a completely different, totally illogical take on the characters, made by a man who had said all along that he didn't like Star Trek. yep i kinda haft to agree whith this... the movie was good but it just wasent that ol' startrek that jives you the good feeling inside... it would have been MUCH better it it went by a different title and the characters had diffrent names
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Lyssira Caraway on Aug 12, 2010 18:55:31 GMT -6
I don't "assume" anything; I merely make a simple observation. The ship is not the same, the layout of the bridge and engineering aren't the same, the control panels aren't the same, the equipment isn't the same, the uniforms aren't the same, the characters don't behave the same. Most important for me, there is no trace of the humanism so noticeable in the series. How different does it have to be before we can say it's not the same? Please don't take this the wrong way, Atoz. I just couldn't not ask. What it sounds like you're telling me here is that you wanted to watch Old Trek on the big screen, right? I mean, for it's day Star Trek TOS was AMAZINGLY futuristic. I carry my comm. unit with me wherever I go these days (my cell phone), I want the PADD that Amazon is offering (the Kindle) and while I can't beam to work, GPS navigation's getting pretty awesome. I think it's GREAT that JJ updated a classic. Of course, he had to make it new and spicy so that they could make money off the production, but that doesn't mean that it detracts from the fandom. I can't imagine any woman in this era, acting in any fashion like Lt. Uhura from TOS. She's so meek and genteel. And she isn't alone. Bones seemed more real to me for some reason, mostly because his medical-speak made hella more sense. And I can't say it's a bad thing that acting has made so much progress. Look at it this way: Old Trek is Old Trek. It will forever be as awesome and lovable and fun as it always has been. And now, there's Nu!Trek. Nu!Trek opens doors to some pretty amazing adventures. Old is always good for both classic status and nostalgia, but new can be awesome too. I guess I just see Nu!Trek as an amazing update to an old and beloved fandom. I'm excited to see where it takes us with all of the new theories and ideas that Sci-Fi/Fantasy writers are coming up with these days. Uh, and that was ramblely. Sorry guys. I like friendly debate and discussing differences in opinion. And I'm...wordy. Lol. PS - Star Trek XI was totally Trek! All of the concepts of the universe were there. Saying it wasn't Trek is like saying TNG isn't Trek just because it lacks Shatner as Kirk right there on the bridge for every episode. In my opinion anyway. ^_____^
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Aug 13, 2010 7:45:32 GMT -6
Please don't take this the wrong way, Atoz. I just couldn't not ask. What it sounds like you're telling me here is that you wanted to watch Old Trek on the big screen, right? What I'm saying is that if they were trying to recreate "Old Trek", then yes, I would expect it to be recognizable as the original. If they didn't want to do that, they should have created new characters. I would have been happier with that. Making it "new and spicy" means the characters weren't behaving like the original ones did. So now which ones were the "real" TOS characters, the ones we saw on the series or the ones we saw on the movie? It's like the various "Batman" movies. We now have three or four distinct conceptions of Batman. Which one is the real Batman? But I don't want you to think I'm preaching against the new movie. I'm just saying what I think. If you love the new movie, that's great. (On the "Jeopardy!" teen tournament this week, there was a category about Star Trek, and it was all the new movie. I guess I have to resign myself to the inevitable! )
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Lyssira Caraway on Aug 14, 2010 7:32:26 GMT -6
I don't know. I've been watching TOS with my family and so far, I don't think the actual characterization of the characters from TOS to Nu is all that different. James T for Tomcat Kirk is still a player, still intense, still almost overbearingly overconfident, but nu!Jim grew up a little different so there's a few outward personality differences. Spock was significantly more repressed than the TOS Spock, but he also had a bit of a different upbringing. Basically I see all the same character traits just in updated versions. Tomcat personalities are much different now than they were back in the day. Newer audiences would probably find TOS Jim ridiculous placed in modern day scenarios. It'd be hard to relate to a character that acts like he's straight out of the 60s and 70s while you're living in the 21st generation.
It's true that we have several interpretations of Batman in the movies, each with its own flavor, but they are all at least faucets of the character's baseline persona. Keaton was the darker side of Batman, Clooney/Kilmer were the campier side for sure, and Bale was the practical, realistic version I've always hoped would eventually turn up. I think it's healthy for characters to go through various incarnations. It certainly broadens the fandom following and I can never feel that that's a bad thing. Then again...I love corrupting people to a following any way I can. I like to share in the love! Hehehe
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Aug 16, 2010 7:36:16 GMT -6
It's true that we have several interpretations of Batman in the movies, each with its own flavor, but they are all at least faucets of the character's baseline persona. That's sort of what I mean, actually. You speak of Batman as if he were a personality prototype, and so to that extent Batman ceases to be a real person. I just don't want to see the Star Trek characters become comic book characters, killed off, brought back to life, changed around to suit some new generation's whim until they're not real people anymore. It's already bad enough that we have a seemingly endless stream of novels. But I don't read them. I don't regard them as canon.
|
|