Are you saying these movies are made weaker because they lack visible ventilation shafts on the sets?
Just checkin'
Entertainment Weekly Reviews The Star Trek Movies
- Thread starter Mudd
- Start date
Are you saying these movies are made weaker because they lack visible ventilation shafts on the sets?
Just checkin'
He must have LOVED it when a ventilation shaft was an actual plot point in TUC.
TMP -- Kirk "steals" the center seat from Decker
TWOK -- Spock lets Kirk take command
GEN -- Harriman lets Kirk call the shots
Trek '09 -- Kirk maneuvers Spock into relieving himself from command
What was the fifth time?
Also, I love this:
interesting about the TFA/Rey and Nemesis similarities - at the time was quite shocked how similar certain elements were to Nemesis - (others e.g.s tormented bald villain wanting to destroy earth with superweapon, greenish hue interiors of the giant ship, crewmember sucked into space, Scotties little friend like a mini version of the Mad Max aliens)
It saddens me that here, in the 21st century, sci fi fans are unaware of their true heritage of ventilation shafts.
But it seems some have not forgotten.
I can't wait for the next episode of Dark Matter, there's bound to be a prison break, and Dark Matter has some fine ventilation shafts in. Like latter day Jeffries tubes with a Scandinavian twist.
He brings up interesting stuff, and definitely highlights some of the weaknesses in 09 and a few positives (I could have done without the potted Abrams history, but had no idea he has such a small amount of....originality...in his projects. I could blame it on the trend for remake and reboots, but then there's films like Interstellar out there, and I am probably alone in thinking Alias owes more than a little to La Femme Nikita) but overall I don't think he liked the film. It's also interesting what he doesn't mention, given his past reviews (no mention of Wil Wheaton cameoing, kind of,) and thebreviewbalmsot becomes as fast moving with little content as the film he's trying to critique.
His eye for the actual visuals is very good though...thinking about it, the Batman angles may be why I find 09 so damn annoying to sit through.
His eye for the actual visuals is very good though...thinking about it, the Batman angles may be why I find 09 so damn annoying to sit through.
You do get that I was just going along with the joke, right?
The fact you 'liked' Vger23's post suggested not. Sorry if I misunderstood.
Not at all, but then no-one calls out Joss Whedon for Dollhouse either.
There was also the Nikita remake 'Point of No Return', released outside the US as 'The Assassin', which I though was a better title.
Mostly a puff piece, but a couple of interesting points, the best of which is
One of the film’s sharper ideas is that Chris Hemsworth-as-George Kirk substitutes for the original incarnation of Captain Kirk – and his death signals the fading of that archetype in the Star Trek franchise. ... You could argue that Kirk’s parental anxiety reflects Abrams’ own reboot anxiety – that the “Father” being wrestled with is Star Trek itself.
I'd dispute the writer's criticism of the camera work in the Vulcan council scene. The virtuoso opening move shows off the amazing space they filmed in, in the best way possible. The use of shots from a variety of angles is not a weakness; it's a sign of quality film-making. Cutting repeatedly between the same two reverse shots is usually (not always) a sign of cheap or unimaginative film making. (There's a great extra on the DVD of Rodriguez's El Mariachi showing how he achieved JJ's look on a $0 budget.)
The similarities to NEM that are pointed out are interesting, but some are wrong, i.e. Picard doesn't drive his car off a cliff, and neither of the villains' ships is "jet-black".
EDIT: Apologies for multipost. I don't usually do that!
OK, this was weird. Early on, he writes:
His filmography thus far comprises a threequel, an elevenquel, a twelvequel, and a sevenquel. There was an original movie – curiously, it’s the only Abrams film with a number in the title – but Super 8 is so explicit and yearning in its Spielberg homage that it’s arguably more of a remake than his Treks or his Mission or hisWars. (Super 8 looks more like E.T. than Star Trek looks like Star Trek.)
Three paragraphs later, he mentions Mission Impossible 3 by name. How the heck did nobody catch that?
And while I can't imagine a question I care less about than "Who is the J.J. Abrams, character in Star Trek '09?" if I had to pick somebody, I'd choose that totally miscast towheaded kid we were supposed to believe was a young James T. Kirk -- but who looked absolutely nothing like either William Shatner or Chris Pine.
His filmography thus far comprises a threequel, an elevenquel, a twelvequel, and a sevenquel. There was an original movie – curiously, it’s the only Abrams film with a number in the title – but Super 8 is so explicit and yearning in its Spielberg homage that it’s arguably more of a remake than his Treks or his Mission or hisWars. (Super 8 looks more like E.T. than Star Trek looks like Star Trek.)
Three paragraphs later, he mentions Mission Impossible 3 by name. How the heck did nobody catch that?
And while I can't imagine a question I care less about than "Who is the J.J. Abrams, character in Star Trek '09?" if I had to pick somebody, I'd choose that totally miscast towheaded kid we were supposed to believe was a young James T. Kirk -- but who looked absolutely nothing like either William Shatner or Chris Pine.
I also mean the TV series as well as the original. XD. I never managed to even start watching dollhouse, and really couldn't get into Firefly. Thinking about it, I didn't like Angel much after series one, and series 6 and 7 of Buffy weren't exactly a pile of awesome for me either. I think Whedon is a bit....variable.
Jet Black is probably an overall thing...colours on spaceships are fiddly things in films, but the scimitar and Narada are big dark ships with many pointy bits. (less said about the ugly vengeance the better) and Picard does drive his ship off a cliff....and into a shuttle.
It's OK. We had old Spock telling us that the recast cast looked exactly like the originals. Usually very emphatically. Perhaps it's one of those 'they only look this way to us the audience, in universe Chris 'blue eyes' pine looks exactly like Bill Shatner. Or neither of them look like Kirk at all, or Spock actually did go blind in 'is there in truth no beauty' and has been bullshitting everyone using ancient Vulcan techniques for years. The Ma'at myrd'k allows him you see. It's a Vulcan ritual that allows reboots retcons and recasts. (he also used it on Saavik)
Not the same thing at all, IMO. The Shatner/Pine thing is basic suspension of disbelief. Saying that Super 8 is JJ's only movie with a number in the title and then mentioning MI3 a few paragraphs later is just sloppy editing.
Did MI3 actually have 3 in its title? Generations is technically star trek 7, but doesn't have the number in its title.
And yes I get suspension of disbelief, am mostly poking fun at the scripts tendency to have Nimoy basically point at people and say 'you are this person...just in case the audience isn't following' in fact I like to think off camera he is doing it to inanimate objects like some kind of toddler educational program. 'you are a phaser. P h a s e r.'
Similar threads
- Locked
