Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Cara007, Nov 1, 2013.
And I'm sure you're more than well aware that Therin wasn't saying that either.
I wouldn't go as far as saying nuTrek is on par with the original trilogy. When it comes to space opera, I think only SERENITY managed to capture the spirit of the original STAR WARS trilogy better. One thing I do think the prequels should have had was the energy that nuTrek had.
Does anyone else find it odd "Pointy" is an unforgivable racial slur, but stuff like "Keep your Vulcan hands off of me", "That green blooded son of a bitch!", "We're talking about the end of all life on Earth Spock, don't you have any goddamned feelings about that!", and ect. all get a pass?
It's all about context.
Considering the source, no.
Personally, I thought Serenity was awful and pretty much killed my interest in Firefly completely.
Same here. Serenity felt like a bad fanfilm.
Hatas gonna hate.
(Serenity wasn't Citizen Kane or anything. Trying to wrap up plots that were planned for an entire television series in two hours is a daunting task, I thought they pulled it off pretty well. And though the prevalence of kung fu and katanas was a little off, I loved the Operative. The complete opposite of a scenery-showing moustache-twirling villain, but just pompous enough that you can still hate him...)
It just didn't feel right when compared to the television series. I don't think I've seen a complete episode since seeing Serenity in the theater.
But my wife loved the movie. Different strokes and all that.
Heh, SERENITY is the reason I went into FIREFLY in the first place. Saw the movie based purely on good word of mouth and was surprised to find out how much I enjoyed it. Eventually I caught the show and it only increased my appreciation. I will concede that I like plenty of episodes over the film, but the film does a great job and it's still amazing that it was made at all.
I though the movie was okay, but I wouldn't put it on the level of the original Star Wars movies.
Yeah, the tone is buggered for one thing. Another is that the characters didn't feel right, felt to dark or dark for the sake of being dark. Maybe, as a season finale, as a set up for something to follow in a new season, it might have worked. As it was, the story felt incomplete. A feeling like we're missing the beginning and the end, but got the middle.
From what I understand, it's basically a condensed version of what could have been the second season. In many ways it's more like a very refined outline of a season, but I think Whedon pulled it off very nicely and I didn't feel that any of the characters were off. I was on board with them all.
The tone ranged between light-hearted and quite dark, the latter of which seems to have been where River's character arc was planned to go. As projections of the character arcs set up in the series, or just as movie characters in their own right, I thought the characters worked fine.
In fact I found it pretty remarkable for a show that only aired like a half-dozen episodes, how much I found I connected with and cared about the entire cast of characters. The deaths of Wash and Book had real teeth for me, I wanted everyone to survive. Even Mr. Universe was likable enough to make his coming somewhat out of left field forgivable.
I remember waiting for Mr. Universe to make an appearance on the show, only to my surprise that the film was his only appearance. Tells you how much the film and TV series connected for me.
Well for me, I am putting it that high. I don't like this thing in pop culture where people mostly male fans hold some films in such high extent that they are convinced that no other new films can touch or deserves to be put on in that same high extent.
The new films like the old films are still made by human beings.
Trek 2009 is brilliant and as good a the original trilogy. Rottentomatoes agrees with me on this one. Last I checked Trek 2009 and Episode 5 made their best ever science fiction films of all time.
As far as I am concerned they are on the same level.
I once suffered from this as well. Sheepishly following the public's opinion on films and even books. I was convinced that Lord of the rings was better than Harry Potter because that was what popculture fans mostly males kept on saying. So I accepted it without even watching the films and reading the books on my own.
When I took the time to read both series. I discovered how LOTR despite been so brilliant is still quite outdated with a pretty much black and white straight forward story and Harry Potter was far more complex with a lot of great plot twists and brilliant foreshadowings. The HP series was also more brutal and more realistic for the fantasy genre . Harry Potter also had wider social and political themes and had much more three dimensional characters than LOTR ever did.
LOTR is still the best medieval fantasy series for all time. however am not sure I will call it the best fantasy series overall because of other good modern fantasy series and its different time settings.
The same could be said for The Dark Knight. I once accepted it was the best superhero film ever made because everyone was saying so. However when I re-watched X-Men 2. I realised how far better it was to the Dark Knight with much more complex villains like Magneto and General Striker unlike The Joker in TDK who was a Gary Stu villain, quite one dimensional and lacking any depth as a character.
So yeah, I don't follow the large public opinion when it comes to films. a lot of films and series the public, which is made up of the male gender rate so high and worship so much tend to be very overrated or truly be among one of the best films but not necessary the best film.
You feel star trek 2009 should not be placed as high as the original trilogy. why?
Where exactly does it say so. You can only judge both films on the critical reception and acclaim. Star Trek 2009 matches episode 4 and 5 in this areas so to me that makes it as good.
The original trilogy are classics because they have been out longer and the star wars fan base is insane when it comes to popularity.
However I would argue that Trek 2009 is now a modern classic. SFX did name it the best scifi film of the last decade.That carries a lot of weight.
Did you know that episode 5 received mixed reviews when it was first released but over the years it became a fan and critics favourite.
I'm not saying new films will never be as good as old films. Read my post, where I expressed the opinion that SERENITY manages to capture the spirit of the original trilogy quite well, and remember that the film was made in 2005, which is fairly recent.
Either way, I actually prefer THE WRATH OF KHAN over all of STAR WARS.
Yep, laugh all you want. That is my whole point. Star Trek 2009 is still sitting fresh at a 95% on RT, higher than all the star wars films minus episode 5.
SFX named it the best scifi film of the last decade and RT has it as one of the best sci fi films of all time just below episode 5.
So that for me is proof enough.
I love how the male fans laugh and mock me yet they can't challenge my opinions with any depth. so so typical.
Separate names with a comma.