Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Cara007, Nov 1, 2013.
So we're in agreement that both VOY and nuTrek are shit, glad we got that covered.
Kes was a very quick learner. Much quicker than humans. It made sense to crash course her, she could then train other people and be ready to deal with emergencies herself a lot sooner than a human would have.
I will concede that some parts of Voyager were shit. They had some really bad or senseless episodes and poorly-thought out concepts. However, the same can be said of all the Trek TV series.
So far all I've found to like about nuTrek was one of nuSpock's lines (I've mentioned this previously).
I found VOY to be consistently subpar, with only a handful of really good episodes.
IT WAS ALL WONDERFUL
I'm sure Janeways lapdog said that everyday. Sorry, I meant Chakotay.
And what if he did? Don't we all dream of such a companion?
Lap.. lap.. lap..
Yeah, that's the joke. She'll be dead by the end of the series.
I got it.
Exactly. Sadly Paramount has the last words and the words are bigger than life heroes aka the quantity. That is were the money is. The money is not in serious drama but the sad truth is, the serious drama is where you can find a better and a more quality film.
I don't want serious drama, I want fun adventures in space. That's what Star Trek does best, IMHO.
Take TMP: It's a "serious" sci-fi movie. It's also routinely ranked lower in the fan polls and blasted as the "Slow Motion Picture".
STII: Ranks high, if not often the highest. It's a naval battle, "action", movie in space.
"Serious" has different meanings, not only to different people, but also depending upon the context.
I suspect that most fans would agree that The City on the Edge of Forever is, overall, quite serious. It's my second-favorite episode ever, but I wouldn't want that level of intensity every week.
Many episodes have scenes with a serious tone, that convey universal messages about the human condition, even if the episode wasn't completely highbrow. I'll reel off a few examples: Court Martial, Where No Man Has Gone Before, Arena, A Private Little War, The Doomsday Machine, The Ultimate Computer, to name a few.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that TOS generally managed to strike a balance between serious and fun without getting too serious.
But does the "navel battle action" represent a good chunk of the film like the action does in the JJ Abrams films. I don't think so. For all the talk of Star Trek II being a certified action film, there's really not a whole lot of action in it when compared to other films that are about action. The surprise attack from the reliant and the battle in the Mutara Nebula are pretty much the only action pieces in the film. There's a ton of character moments with lots of dialogue, something that JJ's films seems to rush through or only cover the minimum amount in order to get the idea across.
All I have to do is walk outside my door or turn on the news if I want serious drama.
Paramount hasn't had anything legally to do with Trek in years.
By early 1980s standard it is a certified action film.
It opens with a battle, has a confrontation in the middle and climaxes with a battle.
Dialogue-scenes, expository and character-driven alike, are a lot slower than they would be were the film made today.
Were you asleep?
JJ's films have just as many wonderful character moments as any other Trek. And, thankfully, much less mindnumbing technobabble than "Voyager" or "Enterprise", which seemed to think had become compulsory.
So you should be really happy that Damon Lindelof is gone, since he's the one who advocated that Earth should be the stomping ground in their Star Trek movies.
I wouldn't classify Uhura's whining about her relationship with Spock to be wonderful, or Kirk's xenophobic language he uses openly around Spock.
Separate names with a comma.