Star Trek

Ah, the idiot box, our childhood companion/minder let us speak of your marvellous ways and bask in your shiny technicolour.
User avatar
Chewi
Anti-Hero
Posts: 3517
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 3:51 pm
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Star Trek

Post by Chewi » Wed May 13, 2009 9:31 pm

I know we're dead here but I thought someone would at least post about this. I saw it on Friday and loved it. It seems that only the hardcore fans have been complaining. Bleh to them. This new timeline thing could be seen as a poor cop out for a clean slate but actually I think it was executed well enough to be considered clever.
User avatar
Squirrel
Vagabond
Posts: 1719
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:20 am
Location: In a bear cave
Contact:

Re: Star Trek

Post by Squirrel » Wed May 13, 2009 10:18 pm

Still want to see it, even if it hasn't got Worf in it. Love Worf! He's me fave character, and Jadzia Dax, R.I.P "Old Man".

Anyway, this could bring back happy memories was brought up on the old Star Trek.
User avatar
Mik
Born under a bad sign
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Beyond your borders
Contact:

Re: Star Trek

Post by Mik » Fri May 15, 2009 3:47 pm

It was alright,


I'm always awful harsh on time travel in movies, this generally made no sense, they half explained it in dialogue. Seemed a bit of a cop out to me.

It was good but I'd like to have seen more character development on the villain, his super genocide mode was just explained away, oh he watched his wife and kid die. This is a horrible thing, but it takes a little bit more than that to do what he's done.
User avatar
Chewi
Anti-Hero
Posts: 3517
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 3:51 pm
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Re: Star Trek

Post by Chewi » Sat May 16, 2009 10:19 am

I must admit, until now, I hadn't stopped to consider how the villain could possibly know that Spock would be arriving in a few years or even at all.
User avatar
kaos
Noble Warrior
Posts: 4088
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:09 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Re: Star Trek

Post by kaos » Tue May 19, 2009 4:28 am

timeline?

is it Ultimate Star Trek?

sounds interesting, and the trailers always look fantastic.

I think I'd like if they did a series reboot on star trek.
for me its always been one of those things I only half liked because it wasn't really dark enough.

even star wars has a good chunk of darkness in it.
User avatar
Mik
Born under a bad sign
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Beyond your borders
Contact:

Re: Star Trek

Post by Mik » Thu May 21, 2009 3:23 pm

I'm usually all for darkening it up.


But it goes against the core concept of the series, it's like darkening up Superman.


Technology and space travel stories, it generally goes tits up and it rarely ends well. Star Trek was and is supposed to be this super (albeit slightly communist) utopian future, where everyone inside the federation farts rainbows and has tea with unicorns. The drama and conflicts comes from outside that and how it brings out the best in man.
User avatar
kaos
Noble Warrior
Posts: 4088
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:09 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Re: Star Trek

Post by kaos » Fri May 22, 2009 5:02 pm

Melana
Distgrunted Hero
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:29 am
Location: Australia

Re: Star Trek

Post by Melana » Mon May 25, 2009 12:23 am

I liked it, it was fun, frivulous and i thought the Ahura/Spock romance was just plain silly.
Usually i'm quite a purist to a degree and a nitpicker. But i know suffiently not enough to do that so i'm happy. I had a laugh i enjoyed the explosions... I did think villian was a bit silly.
User avatar
kaos
Noble Warrior
Posts: 4088
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:09 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Re: Star Trek

Post by kaos » Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:44 am

Ahura was HOT

The green chick could have been hotter though.

I liked it. a little clumsey in places... but its an origin Film when you think about it. and most of those are, its the hollywood pattern.

Decent but clumsey origin film
Amazing 2nd film
Shitty 3rd film....Series Death.


Iron man could break the format if its remains good across the board.
but they may not even make a 3rd Iron man.
User avatar
Mik
Born under a bad sign
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Beyond your borders
Contact:

Re: Star Trek

Post by Mik » Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:57 pm

I've got faith Nolan can pwn a 3rd Batman fil,m Ledger dying on us robbed the natural tie up of the series but these things happen.



I liked the Star Trek Movie to an extent, I mean it was slick, funny in the right places, plenty of action and decent acting performances all round. But it suffered from prequel/time travel syndrome, where they reference things that are common place in the previous/future time line in their beta form which is just as powerful if not more so. (Scotty teleported them across exceptionally vast distances. Although it's a fucking telelporter than can move you from a moving ship to a celestial body that's barrelling through the cosmos with ease. So maybe I'm nitpicking.).


Worst part of the movie for me was the needless explaining of the plot about half way through, they they had basically rewritten history, it was a new time-line, a REBOOT and by reading the internet, some people still didn't understand it ><.


Star Trek has a pretty rich lore, I don't think a reboot was entirely necessary as it's a big sandbox and they could have done a movie about any era or ship. I know the average person only knows The Enterprise and Kirk et al but you could have shown them something new.

Reboot the series and kill off Spock and Kirk, now THAT's a reboot!
User avatar
kaos
Noble Warrior
Posts: 4088
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:09 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Re: Star Trek

Post by kaos » Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:55 am

Lastwolf wrote:I've got faith Nolan can pwn a 3rd Batman fil,m Ledger dying on us robbed the natural tie up of the series but these things happen
actually I think it's that kind of thinking that gets these movies in trouble. I can see why Cretan movie series end at film three. But theirs a bunch of material out there being wrapped up when thiers simply no reason for it.

X3 is a prime example. The movie was written as an ending which greatly contributed to it's sucking,
But xmen doesn't end, so ending it made no sense, left loose ends and just felt like a butcher job alltogether.

Hollywood wants their nice neat trilogys. But they keep shoe horning it on material that doesn't work well with that format.

So you either get somthing that ran one movie too long, or something that ran way too short.
I think spiderman was out to do this thing proper till Sony got greedy and said let's make spiderman into twilight and reboot it.
User avatar
Mik
Born under a bad sign
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Beyond your borders
Contact:

Re: Star Trek

Post by Mik » Wed Jul 07, 2010 3:54 pm

Yeah,

I see what your saying and I agree for the most part faith is a dangerous thing and fanboi's let them get away with murder, but it's not necessarily true in all cases, it's just most been observed. Nolan is a better breed of director than most of the asshats that have controlled comic movies, I've liked pretty much all his movies (c'ept for Insomnia, which I felt was missing the tag line, The Cure Has Been Found!).

The problems with X3 are legion, I'm not sure it was the fault of it being the book end to the series. However, if it was, I'm not sure it was to blame in the entirety.

For me, replacing director in a series is a bad call, albeit this was caused by necessity (fuck you Supes!) you have to replace quality with quality, Bret Ratner is not a quality, he's only okay. Also he's the only guy stupid/crazy enough to agree to the release schedule set for the original director nevermind the 3rd.

The problem with most trilogies is that they are tacked on to the original film to make more money (MATRIX!, TERMINATOR!) Nolan wasn't going to do the second movie for ages, till he got the story right.

I think it was a bit bloated, but it was excellent, the sensationalism of Ledger's death probably catapulted it beyond what it could have reached on it's own.

All great stories need an end and while your correct it's daft to nail the coffin door shut as the comics have carried on for decades in most cases, Comics often have arcs and reboots/recons.The 3rd movie just an end of an arc
User avatar
kaos
Noble Warrior
Posts: 4088
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:09 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Re: Star Trek

Post by kaos » Thu Jul 08, 2010 7:40 pm

I think the end of an arc and the end of a series are two totally different things, and that an arc can be done separate from the close of a series.

But things need to first be set in motion from film one.
Most movie trilogies don't do that. Instead they tac on two additional adventures.
They may star some of the same characters, but other than that the relation is fairly non extent.

lots of my favorite movie series are guilty of that.

but I can think of a few movie series...even some with some bad films in them that seem to have done the arc thing right.

Star Wars.
This doesn't actually become clear till after episodes 1-3 were made.

You can designate films 1-3 as the Anikan arc. and 4-6 is the Luke arc.

Additionally, the Star Wars films don't appear to actually end either. I think theirs still valid room for yet another addition to the series.

I've always been kinda "whatever" with Star Wars...but if they put a 3rd trilogy on the thing I will climb on the bandwagon, like a road warrior car jacking.

Terminator
This also didn't become apparent till Salvation.
effectively making films 1-3 the pre-judgment arc.
and the 4th film and what ever films that may follow it the post-judgment arc.

In both cases every films seems to feed directly off of the last, even when a new arc has begun.



Just to be clear though, having 3 or more films doesn't mean you've got an arc.
007 has nearly 30 films and theirs not a single arc to be found. this is how most movie series turn out, just with significantly less films

I dont believe X-men or Spider-man have arcs either. Although the foundation of one was started in spider-man 3, its not going to get validation in the future. Stupid Sony! Gwen Stacey is supposed to die dammit!

Iron-man is kinda tricky, they made a huge plot based referenced to The Mandarin in the first film and they've yet to put him on screen. Its possible that the guy could come in on a film 3 and by like "Stark, I been fuckin' with you from day one!"
I didn't catch any references in the 2nd film, but i watched it with a SHITLOAD of distractions, so i cant confirm he's referenced in it just yet.

The LOTR series has an arc...but it ends along with the series, which ends pretty cut and dry.
however....
They always have the option of putting The Hobbit on it, which would give them Bilbo and Frodo arcs.
But I dont think the series has more life in it than that.
No ring, No story.

and The Matrix is just ruined shit.
User avatar
Mik
Born under a bad sign
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Beyond your borders
Contact:

Re: Star Trek

Post by Mik » Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:29 pm

Star Wars did continue after the 6th(3rd) movie, via novels, they aren't bad I hear. Lucas has mentioned in the past he had more movies after Return of the Jedi in mind. I hope they don't happen though, the new 3 movies added next to nothing and I think they ruined the first 3 a little.


Terminator, suffers from Planet of the Apes syndrome, the writer hated to make a sequel so he tired to murder them all in the second movie, they made him make another movie, so he tries to kill them all again, repeat. I mean I love both series but they aren't examples of well crafted arcs.

In Terminator, only the last 2 attempted to path the way for further development. T1 and 2 pretty much said, Victory for Human Kind huzzah! then they have to pull some stuff out of their ass to make it (Judgement Day) happen again, there where some tenuous links left open after the first movie, (the terminator corpse) which admittedly was quite clever. Think of the end of T2 again, the very sad good bye of Arnie, it was to tie up all loose ends, They crippled Cyberdyne one of the pillars that constructed Skynet, killed guy responsible and destroyed all evidence.

In T3 Brunhild, travelled back in time, with weapons (which contradicts almost the entire premise), and there are major 'I am my own Grandfather' issues with the shit she pulled, the whole shit that went to down in t2 was useless as it happened anyway, which kinda makes sense cause in t1 before there was a destroyed terminator to learn off there had to be a way that skynet was made, but the way they came up was a bit fishy.

I like the Highlander series too, but it's a fucking abomination of story telling.

But it reminds me of Terminator in that they are butchered into a series, you kind of have to assemble your own continuity, for it to make sense (Brain Haemorrhage may occur first in highlanders case).


We are talking Batman here and I think they threaded the first two movies together rather well, First movie was setup, training and collection of assets that make him the character and show the Gotham world. Second movie is his first real test, he has to seriously question his morals and make some big decisions. I'm not entirely sure what the 3rd movie should contain other a dramatic crescendo of the character and what solidifies the legend of batman.

I know it means fuck all (as he has zero input) but what what Zimmer said about the Score for the movies hit this idea home to me. Like in Tim Burton's Batman, there is a clear theme
Click here to view the YouTube video. Click here again to hide it.


They didn't give him a theme in the first movie, just fragments of one in the individual tracks, it's in The Dark knight that he really picks up the mantle and he gets his own theme.
Click here to view the YouTube video. Click here again to hide it.


How they expand that further, I'm not sure, but should be interesting.

It remains to be seen if they can really own the third movie and give some closure to the series as a whole and the story, I'm quietly confident.

I don't think he'll die or anything, although there could perhaps be some beautiful almost poetic shit in that, but I imagine it could be ambiguous or alteast in a relative sense open ended. But Bale ain't getting any younger how much more mileage could the series have, really ?
User avatar
kaos
Noble Warrior
Posts: 4088
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:09 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Re: Star Trek

Post by kaos » Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:56 pm

A lot of people hate the idea of bringing in robin.

But I can see it working.
taking from the books.

He is now solid in the role of batman.
But the life of Bruce Wayne is starting to suffer.
As a result, he is considering forsaking the Wayne alter ego all together.

Play up a "how far is too far" scenario where batman is dangerously close to going over the edge.

Enter Robin.

Most people think he's just a dumb sidekick, those people are stupid.
Robin existence mirrors his own, and he is a key element to keeping bats from going off the deep end and becoming just like the other masked freaks he fights against.

Robin keeps the Wayne side, the human side, of batman intact.
Without it, batman is really just a monster.

Hercules would not be Hercules, if he were not half human and half god.
Post Reply