|
Aatrek posted:Neither the ship coming out of the water, nor the one crashing into water is the Enterprise. Both are shaped all wrong. I thought I could make out "NCC-1701" on the one coming out of water? A friend of mine from years back was having a trailer discussion on Facebook just now, and apparently he was saying there's something on TrekMovie about how the crashing ship is named "Yamato." Kinda interesting.
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:10 |
|
|
Stormageddon posted:And now, two movies in a row, Earth is under attack from some world destroying threat. That is my problem. They are shrinking a universe known for being big and mysterious into another "kicking rear end and saving earth" movie. It bothers me. Star Trek - The Motion Picture: save the Earth from V'Ger Star Trek - The Wrath of Khan: save the Federation from a madman with a doomsday device Star Trek - The Search for Spock: k, not much Earth saving going on here Star Trek - The Voyage Home: save the Earth from a killer probe, and from its own shortsightedness Star Trek - The Final Frontier: save the galaxy from a madman and an omnipotent God who wants a starship Star Trek - The Undiscovered Country: not much Earth saving here either Star Trek - Generations: not much Earth saving here either Star Trek - First Contact: save Earth, the Federation, and the future from the Borg Star Trek - Insurrection: not much Earth saving going on Star Trek - Nemesis: save the Earth from ClonePicard By my count, that's 6 of 10 Prime Trek movies that are directly "save the Earth/Federation." All of the movies that are considered "good" are firmly in that camp, with the notable exception of The Undiscovered Country. This isn't saying that the good movies are ONLY in the villainy camp, but most are. Trek movies have almost always been actiony popcorn flicks. That's what movies are. For sci-fi, people don't want to go and sit in a theater for two hours and watch a blown-up version of Encounter at Farpoint. This doesn't diminish the quality of the franchise, it's just something different. I like my Trek to be a lot of things. I like it cerebral. I like it dramatic. I like it deep, with amazing character and story development. I like it funny. I like it sad. I like it goofy. I like it cheesy. I like it campy. Are my nerdpanties all in a bunch because JJ Trek isn't a big-screen deep-thinker like Measure of a Man? No, because SO many of the other reasons that I listed for liking Star Trek still apply. It's the same argument Star Trek fans have had since there was Star Trek fandom, just translated over into "Prime Trek" versus "JJTrek." It's the same Kirk and Picard argument, the same Trek vs. Wars poo poo. It's dumb. Just sit back and enjoy the ride, because you know as well as I do that you're all gonna see the thing on opening weekend and probably enjoy it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
DentArthurDent posted:You've got some bizarre definitions of "villainy action movies". At least two of the films on your list do feature the Earth under attack, but are nothing at all like the formulaic Trek of the last 10-15 years. The Motion Picture was a slow-paced homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey, while The Voyage Home was a lighthearted adventure-comedy where not a single shot was fired in anger. I wager you won't see movies like that from JJ (not that I blame him solely: Trek films were getting formulaic long before he showed up). Yeah, the dude I was quoting was specifically calling out JJTrek 1 and 2 for being "Earth in Danger" movies. I was responding to that. Stormageddon posted:Plus the series didn't earn renown for the movies, but for the series and the elements of sci fi within. I dunno, ask any Joe Schmoe on the street about Star Trek and they'll tell you about the whales, or Khan, or the Borg, or the reboot. Kinda doubt they'll tell you about deep characters like Dukat, or that time Picard played his flute. I really, really want to see some kind of metric (if one is available) from Netflix since they've had all of Star Trek on Instant-Watch and how it correlates to the release of JJTrek movies. How many -new- Trek fans has JJ brought in, even if the "new" movies are different from the TV series we're used to? The answer is probably quite a lot. Drone fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Is Gary Mitchell ever referred to by any other name or title? Or might they have used the character but changed his name? Maybe the only reason the filmmakers don't want you to know he's the main villain is because "Gary Mitchell" is terribly plain, boring, and non-threatening. Maybe he'll take some badass crazyperson nickname. The Caligula to Nero's Nero.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2012 22:33
|
|