View Single Post

Default 

January 27th, 2013, 09:18
Originally Posted by Lucky Day View Post
his utopian talky future removed conflict and was a complete yawner. its the reason he got fired from TNG and control was given to Rick Berman. ICYDK, though Shatner get's the writing credit for the 5th movie, he stole it. It was Rodenberry's original plot for for a ST Movie - he (or at least his ghost writer) admits this in ST Movie Memories. DG Fontana was the real brains behind TOS.
Roddenberry didn't get fired, what are you talking about? He was the one who picked Berman because he understood his vision better than most.

He had to abandon control because of his failing health - and he died years before TNG was finished.

I think Roddenberry's vision was fantastic for its time.

TNG kept true to that after his death, and that's why it's the best Trek series.

character establishment - remember the speech Pike gave Kirk that they lost something when Senior Officers jump first and ask questions later.
You mean the Hollywood version of character establishment. Where if you're to show a rebellious nature - you don't show it through human behavior - but through something absolutely extreme so even the most dense person in the audience will pick it up, and everyone will have something AWESOMELY EPIC to look at.

You know, like a small child driving a car over a cliff and very nearly falling to his death - with lots of slow motion and lens flares, and overwrought music.

That's so exciting…. If you're ten years old

But it has nothing to do with plausible behavior.

More importantly, they are basing Kirk more on the real life personality of Shatner himself who has done stunts like this. Shatner did a lot of his own stunts until he nearly lost his hearing during on an set explosion. He rode his motorcycle everywhere back then and is still into riding his horses.
Oh, come on. Shatner drove his car over a cliff once? What have Hollywood been feeding you.

So, there was a technical accident on the set of TOS and he likes to ride horses - and that's why we're getting a super standard Hollywood introduction? It's directly from the school of Michael Bay - who pretty much created modern Hollywood.

As for Kirk - he's not Shatner. Shatner is the actor portraying him, so his real personality should steer clear.

Uhura's affection for Spock in TOS is obvious and as the token woman she seems to be the only that sees there's more to Spock than just logic.
The problem is not Uhura, it's Spock. The entire core of his personality is a deliberate shutdown of emotions. It's literally the most vital aspect of his character, and he would NEVER enter into any kind of relationship with a female during his training or years as a science officer. The only way something like that could happen is if he was affected by something external, like the few times the campy TOS show felt he had to have interaction with females.

Also, he would NEVER be goated by Kirk - and he would NEVER abandon a fellow officer on a remote planet. It's Prometheus-level writing, right there.

Simon Pegg was great!
Sure, if you like pathetic attemps at humor suited for 12-year olds

Anyway, you may like his humor and that's fine. But it had nothing to do with Scotty.

It's just yet another turd in the face of fans.

I agree - I thought that was odd. You can't get away with that in modern stories.
You had a moment of clarity? Beware of having those next time you see an Abrams film.

Speaking of Wrath of Khan, you didn't think the cloud battle was a visual nod to the movie? Or the scene where we see the Enterprise flew upside down like the the ship was originally supposed to look, or the red matter globes looking a lot like the blood in Undiscovered Country, or any of the other dozen tributes to TOS like Pike in wheelchair?
I'm not sure what your point is here. I don't remember saying they didn't try to ape something from the past, so they could point at not completely dismissing everything.

Problem is that the good stuff from the past was only good because you cared about what happened to the characters.

Anyone with money can hire a CGI team and tell them to copy a scene and call it an homage, but I'm afraid it takes more to make it genuine.

I'll have to shut my brain off too on the next one so I don't notice these things either.
If you want to enjoy an Abrams film, that's definitely the thing to do.

——

You like Star Trek - and I hated it. I have many, many good reasons for hating it. The most important reason being what it does to the characters, some of which I'm extremely fond of - and how it has ruined the future of Trek for many years to come. They had a chance at bringing it back to a decent level - and they chose instead to shit all over it and laugh all the way to the bank.

Anyway, I don't think I can be clearer than this. Let's not bog down the thread further. I accept that a LOT of people love the new Trek - and there's nothing I can do about it.

That's sad.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#44

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,257