I didn't say you didn't say that. Just an observationI didn't say it wasn't.
The Undiscovered Country
- Thread starter PaddyRyan1706
- Start date
- Status
I disagree. I'm happy to learn Shatner had such an investment of the character of Kirk and made equal valued performances in all of his appearances for the directors who helm in their own individual picture.
Easily my favorite Star Trek movie.
I'll give TUC a few extra points for at least doing some work to redress the Ent-D corridors over the lazy way they just simply shot the corridors with no changes for TFF, even with the obvious Okuda labels on the doorways.And the Bridge Observation Lounge, hallways and crew quarters.
There's a school of thought, not one I necessarily agree with, that Meyer jettisoned the sense of wonder to be able to make a decent story on a tight budget, a template that Trek films more or less adhered to until the Kelvinverse. I think the producers learned their lesson on TMP though and realised a quality story with compelling character development was more important than having a breathtakingly impressive look that was comparable with the best Hollywood had to offer. Many of the films with TOS cast felt they could be a two part episode of the tv show, which is apt given the franchise's roots.
I agree. Comparing Treks 5 and 6 shows you how to make the most of the money you have. (They had fairly similar budgets.) For all the cost-cutting measures ST6 had to endure, it still looks fabulous for the most part and they made sure to spend the money where it needed to be spent. ST5 (which I like!) shows how cheap a movie can look without an experienced hand on the rudder. ST5 hasn't aged badly, it always looked cheap.
...and that's not to say ST5 doesn't look great in places. Just that it really doesn't hide the seams well at all.
I love how TUC was the Trek film equivalent to a political thriller, its something I wish they did more with Trek films--spin them into other genres other than just "sci-fi action". Trek does some of its best work when it makes our heroes have to think their way out of situations rather than go in with all phasers firing.
Its a pity that the TNG films leaned so much into the action movie stuff because they had the sort of characters to make a thriller/mystery oriented story work.
Because ST V did so poorly. The studio wanted a comedy, Shatner wanted a serious film and then stated he could do both. And it didn't work. So, there is this constant need to return to TWOK formula because it was largely successful.
In many ways, ST V was the last adventurous Star Trek film, and it's now more than 30 years old -- a pretty sad statement.
I think 09 hit that note pretty well, but it still had that TWOK tint sadly.
But, if that is a sad statement its one that fandom needs to own because TWOK is overhyped, Khan is considered the best villain of all time and there is no desire to move past that. So, studios are responding to what is being stated by the fandom to be "the best." Why change it?
I know you're a fan, and that that movie has its fans in general, but (to me) it's just dumb fun in space -- and especially vicious dumb fun, like the way Kirk and Spock pulverise each other for the command chair, and then for the mass-murder they gleefully perpetrate against Nero and his command crew at the end. And then Kirk gets a medal for it, which is gifted to him based on several criteria, including his "inspirational valor" and his "supreme dedication to [his] comrades" -- what??? It's a coarse narrative full of coarse, unsympathetic nobody characters. There is nothing in that movie (to me) that explores the human condition or the wider unknown.
Well, it was half-changed in ST V -- Sybok might have been a tad crazed, but he wasn't insane or bloodthirsty. Since then, however, every Trek antagonist has basically been a vainglorious, heartless villain that it is impossible to dissuade or reason with. In a way, that makes every ST film, barring TMP and TFF, the antithesis of Star Trek (Star Trek at its smartest, anyway), and the full set of films very much one of the most formulaic blockbuster franchises ever attempted. Despite some sci-fi gloss and a few seductive series trappings.
Completely disagree. I think it explored what makes leaders and what it takes for Kirk to become that leader I knew he could be. Unsympathetic? I guess that's a mileage will vary because both Spock and Kirk and Chekov all appeal to me, among others, in a deeply personal way. Their humanity is on display in full view, both the good and the bad and grow to my mind.
Again, I disagree. Nero, Marcus and Khan all have their points of view that I can understand, and while they can't be reasoned with, I'm not lacking in understanding of their point of view. Nero is probably the most interesting of the group.
I'm not seeing the problem with Star Trek being fun. It beats many of the dull lectures we've gotten on how great humanity is.
I know this isn't the thread, but to me they're just lame, worthless, pathetic idiots.
- Spock? Far too pouty and emotional (and command-compromised by his relationship with Uhura).
- Kirk? A boastful, arrogant, violent sleazeball who basically bullies and punches his way into the captain's chair and commits genocide at the end (along with out-of-character prompting by Spock).
- Chekov? Sad that the actor died, but his character elicits little emotional response or admiration from me. An autistic bore who just sits there and apathetically explains that Vulcan is being rapidly devoured by Nero's ludicrous weapon.
Nero has no believable character motivation. He's just irredeemably savage and impossibly spiteful and crazed, right from the moment he decides to viciously attack the U.S.S. Kelvin and execute her captain who goes over to Nero's ship in good faith. These antagonists are all dark-hearted, aggressive, and idiotically malevolent because the filmmakers aren't interested in rounded character traits or an exploration of what makes people behave badly or desire different outcomes to "the heroes".
Everyone had their views on these things, but I am wondering where Kirk committed genocide?
- Status
Similar threads
