World Premiere/Advance screening discussions [SPOILERS GUARANTEED]

[Cakes488]

As fun as bashing each other for our opinions apparently is, could we possibly get back to discussing the actual movie?

You know what you're right! After the next bashing that was going to be the very next thing I said! LOL

So in the spirit of the true cause of the thread...I find it absolutely repulsive that Spock would be involved with Uhura in any kind of sexual way....

I mean I know they said reboot----but I didn't think they'd be knockin the boots!

 

[M'Sharak]

...there will be misspelling and typo's abound..

All your base are belong to us!

Seriously though, I'm sure Dennis would agree that knowledgeable and sincere people can have a completely different opinion on something than he does, but not be wrong, just like he's not wrong, just has his own viewpoint.

Who the hell is Dennis? Is that Starship Poleuphisass that you're talking about?? <snip>

I hate to interrupt this little love-fest the two of you have got going, but that sort of shenanigans with the spelling of usernames really isn't going to fly here, Cakes. Disagree, if you must -- even disagree vigorously -- but the namecalling stops now, please.

Now, as Captain X wishes to remind us:

As fun as bashing each other for our opinions apparently is, could we possibly get back to discussing the actual movie?

...though only a few posts back, he said something which seems to belie that sentiment somewhat:

One may respect the right of another to hold and express an opinion - any opinion at all - but there is no reason to respect the content of the opinion itself if it is uninformed, unduly biased, ill-reasoned or just plain stupid - among other possible defects.

The problem is, you and others seem to think that any opinion which doesn't agree with your own is "uninformed, unduly biased, ill-reasoned or just plain stupid", because in your mind no opinion can differ even if someone has seen the same information as you, looked at it from an analytical standpoint, thought it over reasonably and intelligently, and still disagree with you. Why is that? And if that's the case, can you really claim to be unbiased and reasonable in your own opinion since you accuse others of what you did?

To this, I'll say only that there are those holding opinions more closely resembling your own who have taken the very same tack you describe here, (and may indeed be attempting to employ yourself in the very post I've quoted) and it didn't make them any more right.

Yes, I think getting back to discussing the movie is a much better idea.

 

[Captain X]

You think I enjoy having to point out that bashing someone for their opinion as being "uninformed, unduly biased, ill-reasoned or just plain stupid" because they don't agree with the party line? Please, I may be stubbornly persistent, but I'm no sadist. The idea is to get people to realize that everything said here is opinion, whether they agree with it or disagree with it, and that both can be done without insulting the opinion holder. Gads, I've lost count of how many times someone's been accused of living in their mother's basement or of being a "purist" or a "fundamentalist" because they don't like this movie and have the gall to try to explain why. Hell, there are people here who don't like the movie and I don't agree with them. There are people here who don't agree with me and we have managed to have some good debate, so it is possible to talk about this movie, its merits and/or failings, without insulting others. And to be honest I think a good deal of it comes from far too many people getting it in their head that not liking this movie and saying so is just some kind of trollish attempt to spoil their fun. Another part of it is that some people have it in their head that they just have to be "better than" a perceived minority. As so many people remind everyone, this is a movie. There is no reason why discussion here can't be fun. It sucks that the only thread in here that has any real sense of fun is the blue nacelles thread.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I'll just come right out and say it--while I respect Moore for his work, BSG was not my cup of tea.

So his opinion on Star Trek may be "respectable", but that doesn't mean I (or any reasonable person) has to agree with it.

This.

Agreed.

DS9, for example, had the perfect setup for a new series contained in it's finale, had Paramount chosen to use it.

The concept could be summed up in a simple question:

"They won the war...now, can they win the peace?"

The new series could have shown us a battered and fragmented Federation trying to secure it's future in the Alpha Quadrant while dealing with the deeply divisive issues churned up by the Dominion War (colonists vs full member worlds, militarists vs "explorers", and just what happens when the Romulans find out about the Federation's little black lie?).

The stories would be the adventures of a crew from a badly mauled, undermanned and outgunned Starfleet that can barely keep the spacelanes open but must reach down and find the strength (physical and moral) to reforge galactic civilization.

 

[ClayHefner]

Sounds awesome. But remember who was running the franchise back then.
At least VOY was just messing with the Delta Q

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Sounds awesome. But remember who was running the franchise back then.
At least VOY was just messing with the Delta Q

True, the "Killer B-s" would have had to keep their damn hands off of it ( like they mostly did with DS9 ).

The story is still viable, but with the "non-reboot reboot" I doubt it will ever get done. New Trek (like new Galactica) has taken up the public image of the franchise.

 

[RJDiogenes]

There's still an infinite amount of life left in the original Star Trek, as a number of good (and even mediocre) writers have been proving for decades.

As for Ron Moore-- well, I'll be as kind as I can possibly be. I think the architect of nuBSG, even if you believe he has talent, was simply too bored with Star Trek, thematically, to have any interest in being creative in that arena.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

There's still an infinite amount of life left in the original Star Trek, as a number of good (and even mediocre) writers have been proving for decades.

I can't wait to see what they'll do with ST XI. Ideally, they'll do stuff which works both timelines into one story...

 

[darkwing_duck1]

There's still an infinite amount of life left in the original Star Trek, as a number of good (and even mediocre) writers have been proving for decades.

As for Ron Moore-- well, I'll be as kind as I can possibly be. I think the architect of nuBSG, even if you believe he has talent, was simply too bored with Star Trek, thematically, to have any interest in being creative in that arena.

Given the way he was treated by the Bs, can you blame him?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think the architect of nuBSG...was simply too bored with Star Trek, thematically, to have any interest in being creative in that arena.

I would hope so - anyone who can create something as novel and interesting as nuBSG would be spinning their wheels managing the nth Star Trek series set in the 2nth century aboard the NCC-1701-n... It would be a step down and back for Moore at this point.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I think the architect of nuBSG...was simply too bored with Star Trek, thematically, to have any interest in being creative in that arena.

I would hope so - anyone who can create something as novel and interesting as nuBSG would be spinning their wheels managing the nth Star Trek series set in the 2nth century aboard the NCC-1701-n... It would be a step down and back for Moore at this point.

Yes, because it's SOOOO much more creative to go back over someone else's already created ground...

 

[Kelso]

Yes, because it's SOOOO much more creative to go back over someone else's already created ground...

I'm actually watching The Maltese Falcon at this very moment. That made me laugh.


Carry on...

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Yes, because it's SOOOO much more creative to go back over someone else's already created ground...

I'm actually watching The Maltese Falcon at this very moment. That made me laugh.


Carry on...

????

 

[Kelso]

Yes, because it's SOOOO much more creative to go back over someone else's already created ground...

I'm actually watching The Maltese Falcon at this very moment. That made me laugh.


Carry on...

????

Oh, sorry.

John Huston's 1941 film The Maltese Falcon was the 3rd film adaption of Dashiell Hammett's novel. In fact, it was the 3rd film adaptation within ten years (IIRC)... yet it is regarded as one of the best films of all time.

It was almost as if the universe was disproving your point as I was reading it.

I found it humorous, that's all.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

John Huston's 1941 film The Maltese Falcon was the 3rd film adaption of Dashiell Hammett's novel. In fact, it was the 3rd film adaptation within ten years (IIRC)...

I did not know that! Are any of the other versions in existance and available? That would have some curiosity value.

EDIT: Oh my goodness, Detective Ted Shane?

Wikipedia doesn't have much to say about the 1931 version.

So much for the notion that Hollywood just recently discovered remaking everything under the Sun.

 

[Kelso]

I did not know that! Are any of the other versions in existance and available? That would have some curiosity value.

Yeah. The 1931 version is actually good... if you don't compare it to Huston's masterpiece.

So much for the notion that Hollywood just recently discovered remaking everything under the Sun.

...along with the ever-present claim that "da original is alwayz better!!!"

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I did not know that! Are any of the other versions in existance and available? That would have some curiosity value.

Yeah. The 1931 version is actually good... if you don't compare it to Huston's masterpiece.

So much for the notion that Hollywood just recently discovered remaking everything under the Sun.

...along with the ever-present claim that "da original is alwayz better!!!"

Which really wasn't my point.

Dennis was claiming that "reinventing" BSG was somehow more creative than coming up with all NEW characters and situations in a "shared setting", when the reverse is the actual case.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I did not know that! Are any of the other versions in existance and available? That would have some curiosity value.

Yeah. The 1931 version is actually good... if you don't compare it to Huston's masterpiece.

So much for the notion that Hollywood just recently discovered remaking everything under the Sun.

...along with the ever-present claim that "da original is alwayz better!!!"

Ain't that the truth!

Thank you - I will buy the DVD.

Just don't tell me that there's a older version of "Casablanca" out there starring Frederic March or something.

 

[Kelso]

Which really wasn't my point.

Yeah, I got a bit off topic.


So... Star Trek... looks good, eh?

 

[Borgminister]

I think the architect of nuBSG...was simply too bored with Star Trek, thematically, to have any interest in being creative in that arena.

I would hope so - anyone who can create something as novel and interesting as nuBSG would be spinning their wheels managing the nth Star Trek series set in the 2nth century aboard the NCC-1701-n... It would be a step down and back for Moore at this point.

As I'm sure he'd be the first to tell you...

What a laugh.