Earth's Role

[DalekJim]

Procutus wrote:

---

I enjoy my real life just fine; I'd just like to see Trek on the screen that felt a bit more like the source material.

The stuff in the 9 min preview sounds very TOS-y and I wish that sequence wasn't just a James Bond-esque prequel. More my kinda Trek than Cumberbatch doing the Nero or Shinzon shtick, though I respect that a lot here really like that kinda thing.

[Procutus]

DalekJim wrote:

---

The stuff in the 9 min preview sounds very TOS-y and I wish that sequence wasn't just a James Bond-esque prequel. More my kinda Trek than Cumberbatch doing the Nero or Shinzon shtick, though I respect that a lot here really like that kinda thing.

And I respect that too, I just wish that these films conveyed a bit more of a sense of wonder about the universe and the mysteries 'out there', as opposed to being an all-out action-adventure franchise, which this greatly feels like.

[DalekJim]

Procutus wrote:

---

And I respect that too, I just wish that these films conveyed a bit more of a sense of wonder about the universe and the mysteries 'out there', as opposed to being an all-out action-adventure franchise, which this greatly feels like.

You're far from alone .

All-out action is what rakes in the cash though. Wrath of Khan is just a popcorn action movie but it benefits from an intelligent script and subtler direction. First Contact is a kinda fun action film although it loses points for the dumb script. Star Trek CAN work as an action film. I just don't see why it has to be one every single time. With The Voyage Home they made a light comedy and that made a huge profit. Sometimes risk is their reward as a wise man once said .

Hell, I'd rather sit down and watch Insurrection than either of the other films since. It's not very good but at least it feels like Star Trek. Which is better than watching not very good films that don't feel like Star Trek at all.

[Procutus]

DalekJim wrote:

---

You're far from alone .

I appreciate that. For years, I thought I was about the only Trek fan out there that actually enjoyed TMP (which is still my favorite ST movie). To me, it managed to feel both epic and played up on idea that a threat is not necessarily a villian. It was also the most intellectual of the ST movies.

But times have changed and as you pointed out, it's the constant action that helps place rumps in movie-seats.

[Nerys Myk]

DalekJim wrote:

---

You're far from alone .

All-out action is what rakes in the cash though. Wrath of Khan is just a popcorn action movie but it benefits from an intelligent script and subtler direction. First Contact is a kinda fun action film although it loses points for the dumb script. Star Trek CAN work as an action film. I just don't see why it has to be one every single time. With The Voyage Home they made a light comedy and that made a huge profit. Sometimes risk is their reward as a wise man once said .

Hell, I'd rather sit down and watch Insurrection than either of the other films since. It's not very good but at least it feels like Star Trek. Which is better than watching not very good films that don't feel like Star Trek at all.

Maybe you rewatch the Trek film you called "brilliant" The one that brought Trek back "bigger and better". The one where the big three three were "perfectly recast."

[DalekJim]

I'm sorry, but you're the guy that says The Motion Picture is an atrocious 2001 clone yet admits he'd watch it multiple times in a row back in the day? The fact it's OK for your opinion to change over the years and not mine too makes you a hypocrite to an absurd degree. The lack of self-awareness you display veers between embarrassing and heart-warming.

Oh, and just once it'd be nice if you'd debate the actual points I make in my posts instead of making things personal for no reason. There's literally no reason why we can't all get along in this thread.

Procutus wrote:

---

I thought I was about the only Trek fan out there that actually enjoyed TMP (which is still my favorite ST movie).

This is the correct opinion .

[Nerys Myk]

DalekJim wrote:

---

I'm sorry, but you're the guy that says The Motion Picture is an atrocious 2001 clone yet admits he'd watch it multiple times in a row back in the day? The fact it's OK for your opinion to change over the years and not mine too makes you a hypocrite to an absurd degree. The lack of self-awareness you display veers between embarrassing and heart-warming.

Oh, and just once it'd be nice if you'd debate the actual points I make in my posts instead of making things personal for no reason. There's literally no reason why we can't all get along in this thread.

I watched multiple times because a friend was trying to set a record and I kept him company for several viewings. My opinion of it did not change after multiple viewings. It was a 2001 wannabe in 1979 too.

Your points are rarely interesting enough to ponder, much less debate. Look, you came in guns blazing annoyed more than a few people and now you wanna "play nice" because that tactic didn't work out as you planned?

Maybe you should have considered the "IDIC" approach a few days ago.

[DalekJim]

Santa Kang wrote:

---

I watched multiple times because a friend was trying to set a record and I kept him company for several viewings.

Wow, that's the least convincing excuse I've ever heard. I think I've only ever seen the 2009 Trek film twice in my life. You watched The Motion Picture more in one day than I've ever even seen the 2009 film .

[Kruezerman]

TMP was wonderful because it was very visual. The story was crap for a movie, great for an episode, crap for a movie.

It was my first Trek movie, I was one in 93 when I saw it on my grandfather's Betamax player. It was fantastic because I thought it looked cool.

I'm twenty now, it's still my favorite because it looks cool, it's not good, it just appeals to my "ooh-ah" complex. The only "smart" bits were at the end with V'Ger evolving and such.

Stop this silly "hero" worship of TMP. It wasn't like 2001, not even close, it was great for the visuals and the music. That's it.

And I will watch it with full knowledge of this.

[Nerys Myk]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Wow, that's the least convincing excuse I've ever heard. I think I've only ever seen the 2009 Trek film twice in my life. You watched The Motion Picture more in one day than I've ever even seen the 2009 film .

What can I say,you do weird stuff in the name of friendship. I've mentioned it more than once on this board, probably going back 10 years or more. Search if you like. I'd show you the tickets stubs but is was over 30 years ago. We did spent a fair amount of time mocking the film in each viewing. And reading books.

[DalekJim]

I love it to hell but I mock TMP too as a fair bit of it is goofy. A fair bit of it is breath-takingly beautiful too. The superlative score doesn't hurt.

It's not something I can just sit down and watch whenever but I like having it on as a sort of mood piece. It's the only one of two Trek films I ever really rewatch, the other being Wrath of Khan.

[Nerys Myk]

Our favorite bits were the wormhole, "Be lay that pha ser or der" and Ilia bouncing in her seat.

[Kruezerman]

The Motion Picture tried too hard to be epic. That was it's problem.

It just wasn't.

[DalekJim]

I think that's why I love it. It does indeed "try too hard" and thinks it's the most important film ever. I love it's magnificently pretentious ambition of being serious art . I'd rather a film tried way too hard than didn't try at all.

Star Trek Into Darkness seems to be coasting by on the standard blockbuster formula. It looks like we're even having John Harrison let himself be captured ala The Joker in The Dark Knight, Loki in The Avengers and wotshisface from Skyfall.

[Kruezerman]

But truly great films like 2001 and the like don't try too hard. They stand alone just fine. They don't need to work harder than they have to to sell you the idea that this is big, this is important, you find that out yourself.

TMP was hindered by it's story, which was a re-write of a Phase II episode, so they filled it with CGI-heavy filler.