RE: New star trek movie. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

housesub4you -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/10/2009 5:26:36 AM)

No..actually I was just responding to something they posted in response to my post and the whole thing about never going into space was said with tongue firmly planted in cheek



MarsBonfire -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/10/2009 6:33:53 AM)

The ultimate irony of those "negative pronouncements" was the famous line about: "If God had meant man to fly, he would have given him wings!" Which was taken from the sermon of one Reverend Wright of Dayton Ohio... father of a pair of boys named Wilbur and Orville.

Getting back to the new Trek film, although I consider myself a fan of the show, since the very beginning... (I can still remember seeing original episodes when I was five) I really tend to balk at the idea of elevating it to a religion, or some kind of "philosophy" to live by. Roddenberry was a prettty good television producer, but a pretty poor writer... (just look at some of the episodes he wrote himself, like "Omega Glory.") I'll stick to the philosophies whaich have been developed and road tested over hundreds, if not thousands of years, thanks. I'm not going to get my ideas about how to relate myself to the universe, of my fellow man via something dreamed up over two bottles of wine and some grass back in the 1960's. (Or, dare I say it, from a stack of crappy pulp novels.)

There's a great book out by Thomas M. Dich, called "The Dreams our Stuff is Made Of" which details how science fiction in the 20th century altered the trajectory of history forever. Including a major chapter on how it gave rise to various cults and whacky religions. Definitely worth a read!



BlackPhx -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/10/2009 9:13:29 AM)

As someone who worked Star Trek Conventions when they FIRST started, and enjoyed the series ( all of them) I didn't go to see this picture expecting a remake of Star Trek the Motion Sickness. Each Show from NG to Enterprise recreated the paradigm. Heck the Enterprise in Enterprise Looked better than the one that supposedly succeeded it in ST (original). First clue this was NOT going to be a Re-cap of the Original Show? Spock blows OFF the Vulcan Science Academy, second, He programmed the Kobayashi Maru and third, the Ships Number, NCC-1701. For all of this I was actually happy, and settled in to watch a movie that was Fresh, brought in a new view, some changes and still managed to pay homage to the original. I was able to cast off the expectation that this would be another Star Trek Movie and therefore a remake and enjoy it for itself, and it IS enjoyable. Rich with subplots, teasers of what is potentially to come and a lot of fun. Best of All..it made me laugh when Scotty demonstrated just HOW he started to know every inch of the ship..

Don't go expecting a remake. Don't go expecting a rehash..Go and see the movie for it'self and have fun.

poenkitten



philosophy -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/10/2009 10:44:10 AM)

FR

...can't remember where i read this, but i can't claim it as original....

Trek fans condemn new movie as watchable and entertaining.....



girlygurl -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/10/2009 10:56:31 AM)

Sir and I saw it Friday night and enjoyed it very much.



hejira92 -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/10/2009 10:59:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackPhx

As someone who worked Star Trek Conventions when they FIRST started, and enjoyed the series ( all of them) I didn't go to see this picture expecting a remake of Star Trek the Motion Sickness. Each Show from NG to Enterprise recreated the paradigm. Heck the Enterprise in Enterprise Looked better than the one that supposedly succeeded it in ST (original). First clue this was NOT going to be a Re-cap of the Original Show? Spock blows OFF the Vulcan Science Academy, second, He programmed the Kobayashi Maru and third, the Ships Number, NCC-1701. For all of this I was actually happy, and settled in to watch a movie that was Fresh, brought in a new view, some changes and still managed to pay homage to the original. I was able to cast off the expectation that this would be another Star Trek Movie and therefore a remake and enjoy it for itself, and it IS enjoyable. Rich with subplots, teasers of what is potentially to come and a lot of fun. Best of All..it made me laugh when Scotty demonstrated just HOW he started to know every inch of the ship..

Don't go expecting a remake. Don't go expecting a rehash..Go and see the movie for it'self and have fun.

poenkitten



Master took me to see it last night. And, although there were a few internal inconsistencies and one gratuitous self indulgent scene that was unnecessary, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and agree with Poen.



DomKen -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/10/2009 11:58:18 AM)

I guess my problem, and the problem of a whole lot of fans, is we watch Star Trek for a particular view of the future. In simplest terms I'm looking for a little positive escapist fiction about the future. I do not go looking for 'generic science fiction action movie #22b' which is what this film is.

JJ Abrams is a talented director and I'm sure people going in looking for a piece of light entertainment in teh summer blockbuster action movie genre will enjoy it but it isn't Star Trek.



numuncular -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/10/2009 1:23:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


And this generic cast of good looking young actors (with the exception of Simon Pegg) is a sad sham compared to the original series cast.


but half the original cast where there for their looks in the first place!! chekov was cast simply cos they wanted someone there youngish with hair like the beatles!



Vendaval -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/10/2009 1:34:12 PM)

I went with my primary boy and a big group of friends, we had a good time. Poenkitten has the best advice here and that worked well for us. 


quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackPhx
Don't go expecting a remake. Don't go expecting a rehash..Go and see the movie for it'self and have fun.

poenkitten



BitaTruble -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/10/2009 1:38:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983


Thank you, sir. You done took the words right out of my mouth. Berman & Braga left Star Trek on the verge of death, and JJ Abrams comes along, breaks its legs and fucks it in the ass.


We just got back from the theater and you are being much too kind. Abrams didn't break its legs and fuck it in the ass.. that would have been merciful and appealed to my inner sadist. He took a sick patient and lobotomized it. I'm so pissed right now that my stomach hurts. ::sighs::





xBullx -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/10/2009 1:46:02 PM)

I guess I'm not a Trekkie.....not like those here anyway.

I really liked the movie and had fun watching it.

I'll have to ask my friend Crell as to it's validity as being Star Trekly authentic, he lives this stuff.



darklight17 -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/10/2009 2:04:07 PM)

I can see it now- "Star Wars: The Next Paycheck".

Someone write some decent new sci-fi for the love of god.

Better yet, just write more fiction period.



lazarus1983 -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/10/2009 2:25:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire

The ultimate irony of those "negative pronouncements" was the famous line about: "If God had meant man to fly, he would have given him wings!" Which was taken from the sermon of one Reverend Wright of Dayton Ohio... father of a pair of boys named Wilbur and Orville.

Getting back to the new Trek film, although I consider myself a fan of the show, since the very beginning... (I can still remember seeing original episodes when I was five) I really tend to balk at the idea of elevating it to a religion, or some kind of "philosophy" to live by. Roddenberry was a prettty good television producer, but a pretty poor writer... (just look at some of the episodes he wrote himself, like "Omega Glory.") I'll stick to the philosophies whaich have been developed and road tested over hundreds, if not thousands of years, thanks. I'm not going to get my ideas about how to relate myself to the universe, of my fellow man via something dreamed up over two bottles of wine and some grass back in the 1960's. (Or, dare I say it, from a stack of crappy pulp novels.)

There's a great book out by Thomas M. Dich, called "The Dreams our Stuff is Made Of" which details how science fiction in the 20th century altered the trajectory of history forever. Including a major chapter on how it gave rise to various cults and whacky religions. Definitely worth a read!


I just read a collection of Robert Heinlein's letters, Grumbles From The Grave, and after Stranger In A Strange Land came out, many people attempted to re-create Mike Valentine's Church. Allegedly there's one in California that follows the teachings and certain ceremonies, such as water-sharing, etc. etc.

Heinlein was even contacted by members of the Manson Family with questions.



BitaTruble -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/10/2009 3:08:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

I guess I'm not a Trekkie.....not like those here anyway.

I really liked the movie and had fun watching it.

I'll have to ask my friend Crell as to it's validity as being Star Trekly authentic, he lives this stuff.


This is easy, Master Bull. John Norman writes book 35 and sends an agent from the future to give the women a weapon of mass destruction which causes them to win the war. Sorta changes things a bit, yes?  The Gor you know, that you practice and embrace no longer exists. It's just gone. No need to worry about continuity. As far as I'm concerned, this is a new franchise, because the old one has finally been put to death and by someone who purported to love it so much that he would spend the rest of his life making Star Trek movies if he could. Meh. My Star Trek is dead. No, that's not right because to die you had to have lived and living with Trek for the last 40+ years was just wiped out in a little over two hours.

Live long and prosper, Master Bull.




MarsBonfire -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/10/2009 5:31:10 PM)

The current boxoffice for the first weekend of release are in, and they are estimating $76.5 million. Estimates by next Thursday are in the $112 million range.

By way of comparison, "Nemisis" made $85 million (adjusted for inflation)... in it's entire run. If this continues with less than a 20% drop off due to competition from other summer blockbusters... It should clear the $300 million mark by the end of the month, easily. This will put it only behind "The Motionless Picture" as the most popular Trek film in history. At least in terms of boxoffice.

Just sayin'....



BitaTruble -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/10/2009 6:29:15 PM)

Yeah, I know. Damn Ferengi's. Bring on the gold pressed latinum!



DemonKia -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/10/2009 7:55:46 PM)

FR

LOL . .. . . Well, I consider myself as much of a 'weal Twekkie' as the next one, & I loved it . . .. . I thought it was lovely & clever & fun . . .. . I thought the kid playing Kirk was very Kirk . . . . . . My only real disappointment was the usual lack of Borg; for me it's only really good if there are Borg involved somewhere . . . . lol

I've learned to temper my expectations around mainstream Hollywood movies: there's an inverse correlative relationship between budget & the intelligence of the resulting product . . . . As long as I keep that context firmly in mind, I can enjoy the crashy-bangy blockbuster spectaculars for what they are -- entertainment product . .....

If I was gonna let stupidity get in the way of enjoying cinematic sci-fi, I'd be a very unhappy person cuz virtually all the scifi that gets made is dumb, with enormously fictionalized science . .. . . But. I go to these movies to enjoy myself, to have fun, & I generally do . . .. . .

This one, tho', yeah, two thumbs way up -- lotsa crashy-bangy silliness . .. .. . [;)]



PanthersMom -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/10/2009 11:15:00 PM)

if i go see it, i'll go see it because i'm looking for something to escape life for a couple hours and relax.  let's face it, each bastard child spawned by the trek series had its critics and those who thought they were great.  same with the movies, with the exception of the first trek movie, the only cure for insomnia in my book, i think everyone hated that one!  just go and have fun, why worry about continuity and crap like that.  if you were hoping for exact faithfulness to the original story line, why go see the movie, just recite trek facts and stories!  what the hell is wrong with just having a little fun for fun's sake?
PM



BKSir -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/10/2009 11:52:39 PM)

Like it or don't, I'm not going to debate it.  I loved it.  I thought the casting job they did was amazing.  Especially for McCoy.  They couldn't have cast him better unless they could go back in time and actually GET a young DeForest Kelly.  I'm not sure about the affectionate nature that they gave Uhura, that's really my only complaint about it.  The inside jokes, especially with the V/W problems of poor Chekov were overboard, but I think they were done that way on purpose as an inside joke, and were hilarious (AND he was... OH MY GOD HOT!!!!!  I want to put him on a leash and parade him around the park... and my bedroom).  ;)

Visual effects were stunning, to say the least.  The guy that played Kirk...  there's an undies scene...  boy be packin' some serious heat! Good on him! ;)  Oh, come on, like you weren't looking too...  Don't give me that.  [:D]

It was a very very enjoyable movie.  I'm sorry to all the uber trekkies out there that hated it, but, I go into a movie to enjoy it, no matter what the movie.  I have better things to do with my life than worry about the alternate time lines and realities, and argue them.  If you want to, go ahead, I'm staying out of it.  This one worked for me, it was fun, funny, somewhat sad at points too I guess, but overall very enjoyable.



Rainfire -> RE: New star trek movie. (5/11/2009 10:10:19 AM)

I'm considered an uber-Trekkie ( I did name my son "Patrick Stewart" after all...) and loved the movie. There were some inconsistencies that bugged me a bit but then I said "fuck it - they've already said that it's an alternate reality. Enjoy the movie!" and just went to town with pleasure after that. I think Karl Urban (he of the Eomer fame from Lord of the Rings) did a spot-on fantastic job as McCoy and Simon Pegg as Scotty was hilarious. I don't know what those critters were that he had with him but they were funny. ("GET DOWN FROM THERE!")

Now, seeing Leonard Nimoy step back into the role of Spock was incredible. I started tearing up a time or two, especially as he read the intro for ST: Classic. And I think that Ben Cross did an incredible job as Sarek (RIP Mark Leonard) and I was thrilled with how he played Sarek.

Now, BK, I did not notice Kirk packing, hmmmm, guess I'll have to watch it again. Ah the slim excuse to watch it again. Not that I need one of course! [:D]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875