I've always liked Star Trek right from when the original series came out. I don't look at it series by series or even series vrs movies. I've enjoyed multiple episodes from every single series and been bored to death by some in every single series as well. I've enjoyed some of the movies and the others have been hmmmm.
It comes down to I'd be more than happy to watch another one. Hopefully it's a good one but I'm glad they are still making them.
I really never got into star trek, and I always hate getting into series half way and such, but this looks great. and it starts at the beginning. Hopefully if it does well they will make more.
Crap. That does look good. I think I might see that.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
I watched The Voyage Home last night...damn that was a bad movie. Moreso, some of the acting was really bad.
Looking forward to this movie!!
I think this raises a good point about Star Trek's issues in the past. Very few of the movies have any real significance or power to them. I love the original series, but only Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country felt like they belonged on the big screen. The rest had the depth and acting skill of two-part episodes (doesn't mean they weren't good). The Motion Picture was far too dull to be the type of exciting "wagon train to the stars" the TV show was.
As for TNG, only First Contact came close to feeling like a movie rather than a TV show. Generations and Nemesis were total disasters, and Insurrection was essentially a made-for-TV movie.
I think this largely has to do with the power of the supporting cast. Aside from Shatner, Nimoy and Stewart, the remainder of the cast are TV character actors, and there's nothing wrong with that. The big difference is in the villains. Ricardo Montalban and Christopher Plummer had/have such charisma and talent that it elevates the players around them.
Most Star Trek movies suffered from failing to secure the top-name actor envisioned for the movie and having a less than stellar backup. Catherine Hicks instead of Eddie Murphy, Lawrence Luckenbill (who?) instead of Sean Connery, James Cromwell instead of Tom Hanks (who actually wasn't bad, but Tom Hanks would have been way better and actually looks like the guy from the TOS episode), Tom Hardy instead of Jude Law (why even cast someone as Shinzon, Stewart would have been better, and that was apparently an idea at one point).
This movie has huge special effects, a great blend of talent, and it shows in the trailers. Color me excited but still skeptical.
The Following User Says Thank You to Thunderball For This Useful Post:
I think this raises a good point about Star Trek's issues in the past. Very few of the movies have any real significance or power to them. I love the original series, but only Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country felt like they belonged on the big screen. The rest had the depth and acting skill of two-part episodes (doesn't mean they weren't good). The Motion Picture was far too dull to be the type of exciting "wagon train to the stars" the TV show was.
As for TNG, only First Contact came close to feeling like a movie rather than a TV show. Generations and Nemesis were total disasters, and Insurrection was essentially a made-for-TV movie.
I think this largely has to do with the power of the supporting cast. Aside from Shatner, Nimoy and Stewart, the remainder of the cast are TV character actors, and there's nothing wrong with that. The big difference is in the villains. Ricardo Montalban and Christopher Plummer had/have such charisma and talent that it elevates the players around them.
Most Star Trek movies suffered from failing to secure the top-name actor envisioned for the movie and having a less than stellar backup. Catherine Hicks instead of Eddie Murphy, Lawrence Luckenbill (who?) instead of Sean Connery, James Cromwell instead of Tom Hanks (who actually wasn't bad, but Tom Hanks would have been way better and actually looks like the guy from the TOS episode), Tom Hardy instead of Jude Law (why even cast someone as Shinzon, Stewart would have been better, and that was apparently an idea at one point).
This movie has huge special effects, a great blend of talent, and it shows in the trailers. Color me excited but still skeptical.
I think in terms of the original series movies, I really enjoyed TWOK and TUC, they felt like they blended in the things that made the original series so special, strong relationships, some humor and top notch scene chewing villians. TVH was interesting because there wasn't a villian so to speak, I did enjoy the interpersonal relationships, but it was a movie where you knew that there was no way that they weren't going to save the planet. TMP was just so . . . whats the word I'm looking for . . . vanilla I guess, it was dry, it was over enamoured with the special effects and the characters didn't really click, I will give it credit though because v'ger to me was a brilliant concept but it was lost in a movie that tried to be too grand. TFF was terrible, the cast members didn't act like the cast members that we knew and loved, they were were cartoons of themselves (Scotty knocking himself out on a bulk head), the mentally strongest character (McCoy) being seduced so easily, Uhura being naked then horny. It was a bad script.
Don't get me started on the next gen films. First contact was ok, but it destroyed what was a very cool concept (The Borg) a relentless artificial intelligence with no concept of mercy or malice and through in an incredibly egotistical queen, that was the end for the Borg. Insurrection was similar to TFF in that they were almost making fun of all of the characters except for Picard and Data, and some of them had been reduced to scenary dressing. Nemisis was god awful the whole (I'm mad at the romulans so I must destroy earth) concept made no sense, they had the whole deux ex machina unbeatable enemy ship. The mind rape of Troi (WTF?) a villain that was weak. I also have to ask why they would have a main junction of a incredibly destructive weapon exposed on the bridge, why didn't they just have a countdown clock and a huge red button on the bridge. And again don't get me started on how stupid and foolish the main characters acted, how the minor characters were given nothing to do, we had a pointless wedding scene and an even more ######ed dune buggy chase which probably would have made more sense if they played Dukes of Hazard banjo music through out it.
I'm not convinced that we need another star trek movie that involves time travel, its just a lame fix all for the ######ed. We don't need a Captain Kirk who's suddenly a juvenile delinquent sky diving parachute junky who f##ks Uhura, and we don't need another villain who's hell bent on either changing the time line or destroying the earth over something completely unrelated.
This movie might look all cool and flashy in the trailers, but chances are, each and every one of us who watched and enjoyed the original well written well acted series with interesting villians and planets and concepts is going to walk out of that theatre feeling a little bit ripped off.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
. We don't need a Captain Kirk who's suddenly a juvenile delinquent sky diving parachute junky who f##ks Uhura, and we don't need another villain who's hell bent on either changing the time line or destroying the earth over something completely unrelated.
.
Here I go. First that is an Orioin Cadet played by Michelle Nicols (sp?) in bed with Kirk in the trailer. Look closer. As for the juvenile delinquent Kirk I recently read "Best Destiny" by Diane Carey http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Best_Destiny which while I know isn't really Canon, was based on the Prime Universe not the Abramsverse and the deliquent thing made sense. As for time travel, your right its contrived. But can you imagine the riots if everything looking different wasn't 'explained'?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
[explaining Spock's odd behavior] Kirk: Oh, him? He's harmless. Part of the free speech movement at berkeley in the sixties. I think he did a little too much lds.
figure it out?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
i just hope this is done right, because if it is it could introduce an entire new generation to Star Trek and give the franchise a sorely needed reboot
i'm still waiting for my Deep Space 9 movie though, because the last couple seasons of that show were some of the best Sci-Fi ever made
