What do you diehard TOS fans think of the new movie?

[trevanian]

So hey: back to the SF vs sci-fi thing. Just saw Moon. Rest well. Real SF cinema is still kicking if this and Children of Men are any indication. Any Trek(kie)(ker)(ist)(ite)(inista) pissed off at the relative vacuity of Trek XI needs to see this movie soon as possible.

Children of Men? All that was a one long chase movie. The "grand concept" was nothing more than a McGuffin to get the chase going. Very disappointing, IMHO.

Total disagreement, CoM is like GATTACA-plus to me, almost a 21stCentury equivalent to Se7en. Some of the storytelling is conventional, but that is often a plus when you are portraying a futuristic environment, to have the occasional bit of grounding/relating (note I say 'occasional bit' ... I'm not saying they should have shot in a California brewery and called it 2029 UK in order to let audiences feel the grittiness.)

For me director Cuaron is maybe THE guy to watch for in terms of handling fantasy (and maybe anything else), just based on this and his POTTER film. To me he seems like what Ridley Scott wanted to be in the early 80s, or Andrew Niccol and early David Fincher mixed together ... no, scratch that, comparisons like that don't do anybody justice. He just seems really really sharp and gifted to me on the basis of these two pics.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

So hey: back to the SF vs sci-fi thing. Just saw Moon. Rest well. Real SF cinema is still kicking if this and Children of Men are any indication. Any Trek(kie)(ker)(ist)(ite)(inista) pissed off at the relative vacuity of Trek XI needs to see this movie soon as possible.

Children of Men? All that was a one long chase movie. The "grand concept" was nothing more than a McGuffin to get the chase going. Very disappointing, IMHO.

We'll just have to part as friends over this one. I saw the chase scene as the spoonful of sugar that helped the existentially bleak medicine go down in a most insightful way. (See what I did there?) But hey, if you didn't like that, there's A Scanner Darkly and eXistenZ and even the flawed but ultimately worthwhile Solaris (Dick-adapted, Dick-inspired and Lem-adapted respectively; talk about pedigree... though Paycheck was Dick-adapted and that was... unfortunate).

Of course, all those movies, including CoM, flopped. I hear Transformers 2 is doing boffo box office so there's that.

 

[plynch]

I loved the Trekkies movie. It painted a pretty accurate picture of Trek's extreme fanbase.

I would have agreed, but then I found out about 7 years ago that some of the best/funniest stuff -- 'pike guy' -- is faked/staged when I saw that Rich Kronfeld 4 DAYS IN ROSWELL.

TREKKIES was really good, but I think going that extra 'creative' mile really crosses the line (in a slightly less offensive way than the old news coverage bit of 'when covering a con, film the fat chick'), just like some of the sound editing with Heston at the end of the Michael Moore guncontrol thing ... you've already proven your point with facts, why tarnish that with contrivance or something that can discredit your work?

Nygard maintains Kronfeld is really like that:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/trekkies/nygardinterview.html

 

[plynch]

Wow - let's make up one new word to further divide us. Pre-Coonists?

Kelso is one of those.

No kidding - prefering first-1/2 of season one to what came after?

 

[Warped9]

Children Of Men was okay, but it was dreary as hell. Of course that was a major intentional aspect of the film.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Dreary? I thought it was the feel-good movie of the year until that damn baby showed up.

Of course--lousy movie though it is--I thought Pinbacker was onto something in Sunshine.

 

[Neopeius]

Wow - let's make up one new word to further divide us. Pre-Coonists?

Kelso is one of those.

No kidding - prefering first-1/2 of season one to what came after?

That's what he/she said. I'm not condemning the viewpoint. After all, I only really like the first season of B5.

 

[Forbin]

I guess I'll have to watch Children of Men again some day. All I saw was another film that advertised a high concept, thought-provoking idea, and devolved into another action/chase film. Like Capricorn One.

 

[I Grok Spock]

Oh, and I found a light vfx discussion of TREK 11 ... it is a sound clip, but it is kinda funny, because the guy asking the questions and the fx guy both find it hysterical that the Abrams ship is built on earth ... http://blog.vfxshow.com/?p=200

Yes, amidst the extreme gushing over the direction and composition and story and acting and CG models and CG effects work (with quotes like "This was one of the better films I've seen in a long time" and "The space shots in this movie are full blown works of art" and "I loved every second of it") they say:

MIKE: "They had me from that trailer sequence of the young Kirk getting in trouble, losing the car, and then pulling up just a few years later on his motorbike and then seeing the Enterprise being built on Earth."

MARK: "Which makes no sense at all, right?"

MIKE: "None."

MARK: "It's so anachronistic. But it makes complete sense in the spirit of the film."

Then at the end when they are describing their favorite scenes:

MIKE: "I guess for me the killer shot would be, because I could almost imagine myself working on, not that I'm saying I'm that good...I just honestly think that the motorbike pulling up and that matte painting shot of the Enterprise with the depth cueing of it, with it under construction, was just such a beautifully, exquisitely framed piece of anything, I would happily get a frame of that, blow it up and stick it on my wall, the size of the wall, really."

MARK: "That's an iconic shot. Absolutely iconic shot."

MIKE: "Just goes right into the realm of 'Oh my god, I wish I'd worked on that.'"

Oooh, burn.

Shit, they even love the lens flares.

 

[Rackon]

So hey: back to the SF vs sci-fi thing. Just saw Moon. Rest well. Real SF cinema is still kicking if this and Children of Men are any indication. Any Trek(kie)(ker)(ist)(ite)(inista) pissed off at the relative vacuity of Trek XI needs to see this movie soon as possible.

Children of Men? All that was a one long chase movie. The "grand concept" was nothing more than a McGuffin to get the chase going. Very disappointing, IMHO.

Total disagreement, CoM is like GATTACA-plus to me, almost a 21stCentury equivalent to Se7en. Some of the storytelling is conventional, but that is often a plus when you are portraying a futuristic environment, to have the occasional bit of grounding/relating (note I say 'occasional bit' ... I'm not saying they should have shot in a California brewery and called it 2029 UK in order to let audiences feel the grittiness.)

For me director Cuaron is maybe THE guy to watch for in terms of handling fantasy (and maybe anything else), just based on this and his POTTER film. To me he seems like what Ridley Scott wanted to be in the early 80s, or Andrew Niccol and early David Fincher mixed together ... no, scratch that, comparisons like that don't do anybody justice. He just seems really really sharp and gifted to me on the basis of these two pics.

I thought Children of Men was the best film of 2006 - a year that saw the release of (Cuaron's friend) Guillermo Del Toro's wonderful Pan's Labyrinth. It's an absolutely brilliant exercise in visual storytelling. It won't draw the picture for you - the viewer has to pay attention to what's on the screen, but any who make the effort and have eyes will be richly rewarded.

I also loved Cuaron's HP:POA. The only HP movie with any visual poetry.

I've been telling everyone for a month to go see Moon, although you'll have to darken the doorway of your local art theater to do it.

Oh...and I loved XI. LOVED it. Wonderfully acted, superbly crafted, and a ton of fun. But it's certainly not in the same league as Children of Men.

 

[Therin of Andor]

this movie does assassinate Kirk's essential character in order to bring him in line with the 21st Century entitled pretty boy brat archetype (and yes, I know this noxious archetype has been around for ages--thing is, Kirk was never an exemplar of it);

And yet the tie-in novels (and comics) have almost always portrayed young Jimmy Kirk as a petulant, pretty boy brat archetype in their flashback scenes: "Final Frontier", "Best Destiny", a short story ("Though Hell Should Bar the Way", IIRC) and even Shatner's own "Academy: Collision Course".

 

[trevanian]

I guess I'll have to watch Children of Men again some day. All I saw was another film that advertised a high concept, thought-provoking idea, and devolved into another action/chase film. Like Capricorn One.

I love C-1 too, but it doesn't have a brain in its poor addled head. Still, for lowbrow political paranoia, it's terrific.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I loved the Trekkies movie. It painted a pretty accurate picture of Trek's extreme fanbase.

Yeah, and that's my criticism because it could easily serve to give average John and Jane Public the idea that we're all like that.

We are all open to interpretation by others, based on what little they know of us. Some of your heartfelt/angry misgivings/rants about post-1979 Star Trek have given me (and others) probably entirely unfair and incorrect impressions of you, impressions that would make you more bizarre and intense than many of those more carefree costumed fans in "Trekkies".

Why worry what John and Jane Public think of us? Why should they tell us to stop having fun?

 

[Rackon]

I guess I'll have to watch Children of Men again some day. All I saw was another film that advertised a high concept, thought-provoking idea, and devolved into another action/chase film. Like Capricorn One.

Children Of Men was okay, but it was dreary as hell. Of course that was a major intentional aspect of the film.

The thing to remember about CoM is that it's not plot driven, it's contextual - the film is multi-layered, the storytelling goes on as much in the corners and perimeter of the frame as it does in the center of action.The movie is visually dense. Cuaron expects the audience to notice these things and to read the visual language, something a lot of people aren't used to doing. They're used to being spoonfed and confuse plot with story. CoM isn't about plot. Moreover, in Cuaron's movies, what isn't there is often as important as what is.

And...I actually thought the ending was hopeful.

Here's a review of CoM from critic Stphanie Zacharek, who states it much better than I:

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2006/12/25/children

 

[Rackon]

Why worry what John and Jane Public think of us? Why should they tell us to stop having fun?

Amen to that. When I was watching TOS as a young teen there were adults (including teachers and mentors) who said: "You're a bright kid - why would you waste your time on such drivel?" or "This is so dumb. I can't believe you watch this show."

I think we geeks have had the last word, as if that was ever important anyway.

Let your geek flag fly.

I dunno that I'm a Trekker, Trekkie, or Treknut - but I still enjoy these characters and their adventures 40 years later.

I don't speak Klingon though - does that disqualify me?

 

[number6]

^Yes it does. Turn in your membership card now. And give us back the free toaster oven!!

 

[Brutal Strudel]

this movie does assassinate Kirk's essential character in order to bring him in line with the 21st Century entitled pretty boy brat archetype (and yes, I know this noxious archetype has been around for ages--thing is, Kirk was never an exemplar of it);

And yet the tie-in novels (and comics) have almost always portrayed young Jimmy Kirk as a petulant, pretty boy brat archetype in their flashback scenes: "Final Frontier", "Best Destiny", a short story ("Though Hell Should Bar the Way", IIRC) and even Shatner's own "Academy: Collision Course".

I haven't read a Star Trek novel since 1986--I re-read The Entropy Effect about five years ago but that's about it. The only young Kirk I know is the one described in TOS.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Why worry what John and Jane Public think of us? Why should they tell us to stop having fun?

Amen to that. When I was watching TOS as a young teen there were adults (including teachers and mentors) who said: "You're a bright kid - why would you waste your time on such drivel?" or "This is so dumb. I can't believe you watch this show."

I think we geeks have had the last word, as if that was ever important anyway.

Let your geek flag fly.

I dunno that I'm a Trekker, Trekkie, or Treknut - but I still enjoy these characters and their adventures 40 years later.

I don't speak Klingon though - does that disqualify me?

When I was a kid, the other kids gave me shit for liking Trek but the adults that mattered--my parents, teachers I respected--liked Trek themselves. None of them were Trekkies and I'm sure my excessive devotion eventually became alarming to some of them, but they knew it was a quality, intelligent entertainment I was inordinately devoted to.

 

[Chrisisall]

When I was a kid, the other kids gave me shit for liking Trek

Same here, but those guys became druggies & losers. Last geek laugh, I guess.

 

[Shaw]

When I was a kid, the other kids gave me shit for liking Trek

Same here, but those guys became druggies & losers. Last geek laugh, I guess.

It is strange, no one ever gave me any trouble over liking Star Trek when I was growing up... but then again I don't really recognize most of the stereo types associated with Trek fans in my life either.

Oddly enough, the places I've felt most out of place have been at Trek fan clubs or Trek conventions. These are people I should share a lot with, but I've always felt like an outsider in those places. By comparison I feel much more at ease at sporting events or conventions, even if they aren't sports I've participated in or followed.

The real world is a strange place in that way.