RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 149,585
Posts: 5,947,623
Members: 26,486
Currently online: 402
Newest member: aravenftw

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Thread Tools
Old June 24 2013, 07:53 PM   #271
Belz...'s Avatar
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Why did they bother...

I liked On Her Majesty's... also. I think Lazenby did a fine job and it would've been better if he had done Diamonds, too.
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25 2013, 06:58 AM   #272
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
Location: "Who are you?"
Re: Why did they bother...

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Nope, the Original cast are both Connery and Moore. TOS= Connery. Films= Moore.
So, does that mean TAS=Lazenby?
I think the analogy might be on shaky ground, at that point.
I probably should have included the winky, though I think the analogy was already a little wonky.

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
OHMSS is the best Bond as a "film." I think this is because of Lazenby. I don't know that the beautiful sentiment and irony that carried over from the book would have really translated well had it been Connery.
Haven't read the book, but I love the film. It might very well be the best Bond film. And let's not forget Diana Rigg. It would have been nothing without her.
“A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP” — Leonard Nimoy (1931-2015)

CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25 2013, 07:19 AM   #273
Fleet Captain
M.A.C.O.'s Avatar
Re: Why did they bother...

I wouldn't call OHMSS the best Bond film, but it is very polished. The first 45 minutes of so are great. When the second act starts things get silly with the dopey women, the allergy clinic and the virus omega that will affect the entire planets population. In the novel it was only going to effect the UK. The films dials it up to the entire world. Then the third act with it's epic chase scenes and finale at Piers Gloria put the film more in step with the drama of the first act. For me at least.

I'd say new Trek is closest to Daniel Craig era. With Star Trek 2009 being the Casino Royale of it's respective franchise. Gone are most of the tropes of the previous era (Rick Berman Trek/Pierce Brosnan tongue and cheek Bond). Replaced with a serious that takes the canon and forms films that are identifiable with today's 21st century audiences.

Also Dalton and Moore fan 4 Life
M.A.C.O. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25 2013, 10:13 AM   #274
I am not Spock
Location: Australia
Re: Why did they bother...

Belz... wrote: View Post
I liked On Her Majesty's... also. I think Lazenby did a fine job and it would've been better if he had done Diamonds, too.
Yes, DAF would have been massively improved if it was starring Lazenby, and written with his portrayal of Bond in mind. We needed his revenge on Blofeld for what he did to Tracy, and what did we get? A comical, cheesy, camp farce with Blofeld in drag. I think Diamonds is possibly the nadir of the franchise.

As for the Abrams Trek reboots, I can see what people are getting at. They are like Star Trek's answer to the Daniel Craig era. They went back to basics, back to the source (TOS; and Ian Fleming's novels respectively)
Senator Vreenak- In the Pale Moonlight
I am not Spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25 2013, 10:06 PM   #275
TenLubak's Avatar
Location: Baltimore MD USA
Re: Why did they bother...

Its cool seing Kirk and crew again onscreen. He's the character w/ spock and McCoy that made STAR TREK. So, to me it cool, plus it allows the younger kids to get into it with younger actors. It may be hard to relate to the older original crew in those films.

I love the original TOS, but the safest bet was to go with a recast of the original crew. As long as its a good story and well made, then either a new crew or re cast would've been fine with me. But to really make it STAR TREK at its core those characters are the iconic crew most people reference.

So any new good Star Trek is cool with me. I doubt that another Next Geraration or "Typhon Pact" type film would have done nearly as well. And a whole new crew in that TNG / ds9 (Stardate 50000.0 or something era; the one which started on screen around 41292.2ish in TNG season 1. We saw 15 years brought us to the time of the TNG movies and Deep Space Nines/ VGR's end. That timeling now continues ten plus years in the books i understand. See how confusing it is to explaion where we are to the general audience? )

I think putting the original crew in space with new missions is a cool idea.
"Now, how are we progressing, Mister La Forge?"
"About like you'd expect, sir."
"Splendid. Splendid. Carry on."
TenLubak is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.