You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Episodes → Star Trek
Okay, I've listened to it now (without watching at the same time, which is really rare for me). It starts out as the pointless argument that I figured it was, but gets better once everyone calms down a little.
Rebooting the series by creating a new timeline was ingenious. But the film is basically fan fiction with all the trimmings, and Kirk is Mary Sue.
Oh, and I totally am a racist. Short people got no reason to live.
I think "ingenious" is exactly the right word for it. Like or dislike it, I think we can all agree that Orci and Kurtzman's approach was damn clever.
And speaking as somebody who's five-foot-seven on a humid day, fuck yoooooooooooou.
Thanagarian Snare Beast: well played.
I think Zarban just described every movie ever.
Yup. X-Men also fits most of those criteria...
Silly Trey. Nobody in X-Men was named "Jim." Your thesis is wholly untenable. Untenable!
You are forgetting that in Issue #207 it was revealed that Wolverine's full name is Jim Wolverine. So that totally counts.
Wolverine's real name is actually James....so there you go.
Holy crap. The universe just got all weird on me.
Sorry, weirdER.
Ah, but are the comic books canonical in the context of the movies?
That is the nerdiest sentence I've ever typed.
well, as was just demonstrated - in a most unsettling fashion - even when one attempts a lame joke about a comic character, it will actually turn out to be freakin' true according to some issue or other.
I hereby dub this the The Stokes-Doty Everything Becomes Canonical Eventually Hypothesis
I'm not a big fan of the Star Trek franchise. I'm more a Star Wars fan (There are only 3 movies!). However, even though Star Trek was aimed at people like me, I absolutely hated it. Transformers 2 angered me more than I thought any movie ever could. Star Trek comes close. I have to go with Brian in most of the niggles regarding the movie. Plus, I think I have an allergic reaction to Abrams. He's like my Kryptonite.
Zoe Saldana, whether by limit of acting ability or by direction, always plays the same character. She is always the chick with an attitude. Avatar, The Losers, Star Trek - essentially they are all the same character. Couldn't we have a less contentious Uhuru? She seems to be written just to argue with Kirk. Shouldn't that be Bones' job?
And they blew up Vulcan and most of Starfleet! What?
And why parachute down to a suspended drill when you can just launch torpedos at it?
My summation is the movie is little more than someone dangling shiny keys in front of a baby. Lens flares anyone?
Having recently rewatched this, I was struck by something in Spock's narration. How can a supernova pose a threat to a galaxy? That's what Spock says, that a star will go supernova and 'threaten the galaxy' - huh? He then says that he promised to save Romulus, and then when en-route the supernova's wave destroyed Romulus.
This to me doesn't really work as a set up. Stars don't just go supernova overnight. The Romulans would have foreknowledge long before that destructive wave hit their planet and, logically, would have moved their population off world. I suppose you could argue that they didn't do so because they thought Spock would solve the problem, but it doesn't seem intelligent not to have some sort of back-up plan. Especially since Spock's timing is so off. What was his plan, to wait until after the star had gone supernova before creating the black hole - isn't that cutting it close? Also, where was this star? Because it's clearly not in the same system as Romulus, because without their own star the planet would be screwed anyway. So how many light years away was the star? Why didn't they evacuate the planet in between the star going supernova and the wave hitting their planet? Maybe the line 'then the unthinkable happened' is meant to hang a lantern on the improbability of the whole thing.
And the years haven't really changed how I feel about Nero and his murky motivation, or the tasteless destruction of Vulcan and billions of its inhabitants. I still find Nero's anger towards Spock to be entirely misplaced given what we are shown in the film. I chalk this up mainly to the fact that the writers were looking to recapture that Khan dynamic.
Also, I noticed that there are parts of the film where it seems like the characters have all read the script and know what's just happened. Kirk and Sulu give appropriate sad faces and seem to know Spock has lost his mother, seconds after it's happened and without even knowing who the blip on Chekov's monitor was.
It's funny you mention that, because I just watched Star Trek: The Motion Picture for the first time last week, expecting to hate it, and I actually really, really dug it. I can completely see where people wouldn't like it as it really doesn't have a lot of character work, but what it is, is a genuinely good honest to god hard-sci-fi flick.
I really miss the idea of just having a bunch of scientists working together to try and logically figure out a solution to a problem. No need for random space battles thrown in for no reason. I actually think there's a lot of great sci-fi concepts at play, the special-effects are genuinely gorgeous, I love the Goldsmith score. Frankly, even if it's flawed, The Motion Picture is way more ballsy and admirable than the reboot, which just aims for blockbuster action over ideas. I think it's very fair to say that the reboot is Space Opera, not Science Fiction, and I think that's an unfortunate step down. There's plenty of Sci-Fi action movies already, I'd rather they aimed for something different/more-sophisticated.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Episodes → Star Trek
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
