What's keeping me out of the theatre....

[ria 75]

Now what fault are people finding with Blade Runner?

Usually folks who find fault with BLADE RUNNER are the ones who are bored by 2001, so I'd say ask yourself.

Well I don't fit in the categories you assume. I thought it showed that I like Blade Runner, while I am bored by 2001. (Not to the point that I left/stopped before the end the 2 times I saw it, but I wish it would make more sense and/or move at a faster pace.) I don't put the two in comparison. So I ask my question again, because I don't find fault with Blade Runner.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Those who do, though, dislike it for the reasons you dislike 2001.

 

[Warped9]

The new film isn't exactly that either.

You're. Right. Shit can be used as a fertilizer.

 

[number6]

 

[Forbin]

Very on point: http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/yb/130668300

Good review!

One thing that did irk me is covered in that review - you don't build the command staff a vessel by picking up strays and exiles along the way. They aren't the escaped prisoners of Farscape or the militant rebels of Blake's Seven. It's already been pointed out how absurd it was to have Kirk, currently under reprimand and not even an academy graduate, in command at the end of the film, but I also must ask how in the hell was Scotty suddenly the chief engineer in this movie?

Because TOS never had a "Huh? WTF was that" moment...

Great counterargument! I ask a very specific question, and you respond with vague vagueries.

So when, specifically, in TOS did two disgraced and/or exiled personnel, one of them a cadet, become command officers overnight?

 

[David cgc]

As I recall, Spock once murdered Captain Kirk and then was able to go back to work without so much as a dock in pay because Kirk recovered from death. That's a bit of a biggy. I don't think I could cut someone within an inch of their life and then get off scott-free because a doctor is able to put them back together.

 

[Warped9]

^^ Buzzz! You're wrong.

Spock did not kill Kirk in "The Enterprise Incident." He rendered him comatose in a state that simulated death by cursory examination. That's why they got him back to the ship ASAP.

 

[number6]

^^ Buzzz! You're wrong.

Spock did not kill Kirk in "The Enterprise Incident." He rendered him comatose in a state that simulated death by cursory examination. That's why they got him back to the ship ASAP.

I think he was referring to "Amok Time."

There's a technicality there, too. It goes back to the David Gerrold complaint of "OK who are we going to almost kill this week?"

 

[Warped9]

^^ You're right. I just remembered after I posted. In "Amok Time" McCoy basically drugged Kirk so that he'd pass out. In Spock's state he thought he'd killed him.

 

[Cakes488]

Very on point: http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/yb/130668300

Good review!

One thing that did irk me is covered in that review - you don't build the command staff a vessel by picking up strays and exiles along the way. They aren't the escaped prisoners of Farscape or the militant rebels of Blake's Seven. It's already been pointed out how absurd it was to have Kirk, currently under reprimand and not even an academy graduate, in command at the end of the film, but I also must ask how in the hell was Scotty suddenly the chief engineer in this movie?

Well that was a scathing review...and I didn't even read the whole thing. I scanned it and the review does bring up some issues that have certainly been addressed around the board. I agree with some of it....but I disagree that nuTrek is totally stupid and without any merit.

I just heard from a friend that since the movie has come out, sales of TOS season sets have shot up 400%.

Really! I'm not entirely surprised because if I was going to see nuTrek and it was my first Trek foray....I know I would of checked out the original....that's just how I roll. Does your friend have any actual numbers ??

I've watched TOS as much as you have, W9, and Court Maritial was the very first episode I ever bought on tape, when the VHS blue-boxes came out in the States.

But the new film is Star Trek without trying to be TOS. TOS is over and done, and unless we can get everyone in a time machine and a resurrection ship, it's never coming back.

All of this is like Loki/Bele. Warped9 and his hatred of nuTOS will fight forever.

What's this nuTos stuff....LOL? But TOS is not over and done as you say...look we're still talking about it right now!!! TOS will never be "over and done" as long as we pass the torch to the next generation....

 

[Forbin]

Well, I like that it's generated interest and folks are buying TOS DVDs. That's a good thing.

 

[MarianLH]

^^ You're right. I just remembered after I posted. In "Amok Time" McCoy basically drugged Kirk so that he'd pass out. In Spock's state he thought he'd killed him.

It's been awhile since I've seen "Amok Time", but didn't Spock say something to the effect that he expected to soon face consequences for killing Kirk? Another Vulcan says the "live long and prosper" line to him, and he replies "I shall do neither".


Marian

 

[Anticitizen]

^^ You're right. I just remembered after I posted. In "Amok Time" McCoy basically drugged Kirk so that he'd pass out. In Spock's state he thought he'd killed him.

It's been awhile since I've seen "Amok Time", but didn't Spock say something to the effect that he expected to soon face consequences for killing Kirk? Another Vulcan says the "live long and prosper" line to him, and he replies "I shall do neither".


Marian

Yep. "I shall do neither. I have killed my captain and my friend."

Then, on the Enterprise, he tells McCoy that he's turning over command to Scotty, and that the Enterprise should be diverted to the nearest Starbase so he can turn himself in. That's when Kirk walks in behind him and says, 'Don't you think you'd better check with me first?"

 

[Steven Of Nine]

So when, specifically, in TOS did two disgraced and/or exiled personnel, one of them a cadet, become command officers overnight?

Oh, please, stop the bullshit argument!! If they had done that in the original, you'd be blasting the new film for copying 40-yr old plots!

You don't like it, that's all the reason you need. I do, and that's all the reason I need.

Puhleeeeease!

 

[Vance]

Oh, please, stop the bullshit argument!! If they had done that in the original, you'd be blasting the new film for copying 40-yr old plots!

Honestly, If they had done that in the original, we probably wouldn't be here now... It so suspends disbelief that it outright breaks the narrative, making it 'stupid-fi'. But enough T&A, pretty action sequences, and ADHD editing, and most people won't even pay attention to it...

 

[number6]

Since when did TOS not have T&A and pretty action sequences??

"Stupid-Fi??" Really?? How necessary was that?

Especially where you seem to love calling out other people for how they post?

 

[trevanian]

Since when did TOS not have T&A and pretty action sequences??

Don't take his remark out of context. It is the COMBINATION of the above elements and the ADHD editing (and presumably a superficial script) that he is figuring mass audiences are eating up (and he is rejecting.)

 

[number6]

Since when did TOS not have T&A and pretty action sequences??

Don't take his remark out of context. It is the COMBINATION of the above elements and the ADHD editing (and presumably a superficial script) that he is figuring mass audiences are eating up (and he is rejecting.)

No he said that adding that stuff was for the purpose of hiding what he calls "stupid-fi."

TOS always had T&A and action sequences. What it didn't have was ADHD editing which is more of a product of its time. As far as the "stupid-fi," that's a needlessly demeaning term which could be applied to anything. One could say that TOS did the same thing.

He was implying that audiences are eating it up because they don't know any better because of the fast pace, T&A and action. That conclusion is insulting, beyond being completely fallacious.

 

[trevanian]

Since when did TOS not have T&A and pretty action sequences??

Don't take his remark out of context. It is the COMBINATION of the above elements and the ADHD editing (and presumably a superficial script) that he is figuring mass audiences are eating up (and he is rejecting.)

No he said that adding that stuff was for the purpose of hiding what he calls "stupid-fi."

TOS always had T&A and action sequences. What it didn't have was ADHD editing which is more of a product of its time. As far as the "stupid-fi," that's a needlessly demeaning term which could be applied to anything. One could say that TOS did the same thing.

He was implying that audiences are eating it up because they don't know any better because of the fast pace, T&A and action. That conclusion is insulting, beyond being completely fallacious.

It sounds reasonable to me. Geezus, millions of people like the BOURNE movies, which to me seem like spy movies made by people who've never seen a spy movie or cut an action scene or photographed a moving object (except for Clive Owen's near-cameo in the first one, I can't think of anything memorable in a good way about them.) That would suggest this is a template for summer action, an accurate remark, regardless of whether some member of the audience would find it insulting.

 

[number6]

Don't take his remark out of context. It is the COMBINATION of the above elements and the ADHD editing (and presumably a superficial script) that he is figuring mass audiences are eating up (and he is rejecting.)

No he said that adding that stuff was for the purpose of hiding what he calls "stupid-fi."

TOS always had T&A and action sequences. What it didn't have was ADHD editing which is more of a product of its time. As far as the "stupid-fi," that's a needlessly demeaning term which could be applied to anything. One could say that TOS did the same thing.

He was implying that audiences are eating it up because they don't know any better because of the fast pace, T&A and action. That conclusion is insulting, beyond being completely fallacious.

It sounds reasonable to me. Geezus, millions of people like the BOURNE movies, which to me seem like spy movies made by people who've never seen a spy movie or cut an action scene or photographed a moving object (except for Clive Owen's near-cameo in the first one, I can't think of anything memorable in a good way about them.) That would suggest this is a template for summer action, an accurate remark, regardless of whether some member of the audience would find it insulting.

It's the remark I find dismissive. I found the film to have more depth than the poster is giving it credit for. We're not going to agree so I am not going to waste my time explaining it to you.