The starfleet dress would have ridden up and been uncomfortable if she put that jumpsuit over the top of it, so she did have to take her clothes off.
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
Chu'lak
Lieutenant
The ST:TMP novelization was pretty terrible. Did we ever find out who actually ghostwrote it? Too early for the Reeves-Stevenses.
Try the directors cut if you haven't already seen it. I prefer that version.
Marshak and Culbreath?
My favourite authors!
Roddenberry wrote it. Susan Sackett made regular comments in her "Making of TMP" (supposely cowritten with GR, but Sackett just interviewed him), "Starlog" articles and Lincoln Enterprises' newsletters to Roddenberry beavering away at it in during the last few months of TMP's production.
The slipcase hardcover edition has a dedication "To Majel", which doesn't appear in the MMPB.
The rumour that Alan Dean Foster ghostwrote it came from an error in the French-translated MMPB, which left out crucial lines of text referring to Harold Livingston and Gene Roddenberry.
I figure that Roddenberry must have contributed to the novel to about the degree that Shatner contributes to his, because the prose does show a some of his bad habits.
Did we even see the same movies ?
ST09 and STID blows TMP out of the water. There are so many better TOS TV shows than the TMP even. Every single Star Trek TV series has better single TV episodes than TMP. At least with these 2 rebooted movies they never wasted time trying to make a type of TV episode into a good movie. TMP is a TV episode of the TOS nothing more, nothing special as it should have been, as it could have been. And I know some people are ok with that, I am not.
Pretty much, yeah. At least STID does.
Quite honestly - I felt it was one of the best Trek films.
There are plenty that I've found "meh" (such as most of the TNG films) and plenty that were good and enjoyable but didnt leave me pondering or wondering afterword. TUC and TWOK were the only two that really left a strong impact upon me, and even they didn't leave me going "whoa..." the way that STID did. I walked out of the theater feeling like I'd been on an amusement park ride, because the cinematography had me *in the film* that much. The shots that they used make you feel like you're part of the action.
STID is a masterpiece of world building and cinematography. I loved seeing the ship rise out of the cloud bank, I loved the attention to detail with the scenes on earth and Qo'Nos. I loved the more understated approach to the storytelling that left a lot to be read between the lines. I loved that it covered all the philosophical and ethical bases yet still was a pretty decent action flick. I'm not a fan of the "stand around in uniform with the starfleet joint chiefs of staff talking about the prime directive for two hours" style of storytelling and am glad this was more action and less exposition.
It was a good film, not just a good Star Trek film. And I've been waiting for a Star Trek film that actually had decent cinematography and direction for a LONG time. I don't see what's wrong with a Star Trek film being a summer blockbuster. It SHOULD be thrilling and that's what's been missing from the films for a long time. Space should have a sense of wonder and danger to it.
The only thing I wish we could've seen more of - it was perhaps a little TOO understated with Khan and his people. Too much tell and not enough show.
My father saw the film a few days ago and says that he was thrilled when he saw all of the scenes with the Enterprise being seen from space and hadn't had that feeling since he saw 2001 in the theaters, in the 70s.
There are plenty that I've found "meh" (such as most of the TNG films) and plenty that were good and enjoyable but didnt leave me pondering or wondering afterword. TUC and TWOK were the only two that really left a strong impact upon me, and even they didn't leave me going "whoa..." the way that STID did. I walked out of the theater feeling like I'd been on an amusement park ride, because the cinematography had me *in the film* that much. The shots that they used make you feel like you're part of the action.
STID is a masterpiece of world building and cinematography. I loved seeing the ship rise out of the cloud bank, I loved the attention to detail with the scenes on earth and Qo'Nos. I loved the more understated approach to the storytelling that left a lot to be read between the lines. I loved that it covered all the philosophical and ethical bases yet still was a pretty decent action flick. I'm not a fan of the "stand around in uniform with the starfleet joint chiefs of staff talking about the prime directive for two hours" style of storytelling and am glad this was more action and less exposition.
It was a good film, not just a good Star Trek film. And I've been waiting for a Star Trek film that actually had decent cinematography and direction for a LONG time. I don't see what's wrong with a Star Trek film being a summer blockbuster. It SHOULD be thrilling and that's what's been missing from the films for a long time. Space should have a sense of wonder and danger to it.
The only thing I wish we could've seen more of - it was perhaps a little TOO understated with Khan and his people. Too much tell and not enough show.
My father saw the film a few days ago and says that he was thrilled when he saw all of the scenes with the Enterprise being seen from space and hadn't had that feeling since he saw 2001 in the theaters, in the 70s.
Did we even see the same movies ?
Yeah, it's called an opinion. I wish there were more TMP-like sci-fi movies, but I understand that it's unappealing to most people, so I don't make an issue of it.
Did we even see the same movies ?
Yeah, it's called an opinion. I wish there were more TMP-like sci-fi movies, but I understand that it's unappealing to most people, so I don't make an issue of it.
The Motion Picture has a story with big ideas and special effects to match. But I can see how it wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea. Though I wished we would get more big idea movies but I know that's unrealistic based on the current market.
Did we even see the same movies ?
Yeah, it's called an opinion. I wish there were more TMP-like sci-fi movies, but I understand that it's unappealing to most people, so I don't make an issue of it.
2001 would be a complete disaster today, people don't have the attention span to watch a movie like that. I liked TMP, it has one of my favorite trek moments in it, the fly around the Enterprise. I thought the DE version tightened the film up a lot and that is the version of the film I really like the best.
Although, I do miss the computer voice from the theatrical release.
I thought the story telling in Into Darkness was pretty close to the original series. It had Sulu left in command, Kirk and a landing party on a mission, McCoy making some sort of serum to save a crew member, this time Kirk, it had the banter between the crew, some humor, the over reaching StarFleet (commissioner, admiral, commodore), each of the crew members had their moments to do something in the film as well.
RDM on Trek on TV vs. Film
http://geektyrant.com/news/2013/4/5/ron-moore-on-why-star-trek-is-better-suited-for-tv.html
-Chris
I'm with RDM. I've been a long time TV-Trek advocate. While the films are great for what they are, and definitely way more accessible, they lack the subtle nuance, simplicity, and charm of the great episodes.
If adjusted accordingly, I think all twelve films would have been pretty average episodes.
If adjusted accordingly, I think all twelve films would have been pretty average episodes.
I remember Scotty being left in command most of the time, while the Trio was on a landing party..
In season 1 Sulu was left in charge several times. Errand of Mercy he was told to leave if the Klingon's showed up. The scene in Trek 2009 in the transporter room before they go to the Narada reminded me of that episode in particular.
-Chris
I really liked the effect when the Enterprise was shot out of warp, leaving a trail of debris. I think this is the first time we ever saw a debris field in Star Trek from a one on one space battle. (I guess it would be 2, if we count Balance of Terror)
-Chris
-Chris
I know this is veering off-topic, but the strength of TUC in the larger context of Trekdom is its portrayal of a more cultured Klingon rather than the Viking/Samurai stereotype in the TNG-era shows that often veered on caricature with all that grunting and howling and mugs clanking together.
There was somewhat of a breaking of the 4th wall going on by casting a Shakespearean actor to sling Shakespeare as well. Everyone knew who was under Chang's mask, and so it felt fitting to let him quote Shakespeare.
It's also been a Trek tradition to make literary references, all the way back through TOS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eXB1Yj05Fw
The idea is, at least in Starfleet, that everyone's well-educated in the liberal arts and these things just kind of flow out of them. You saw that again in TNG with Picard quoting Hamlet (one of my favorite TNG moments).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irYYBx8djsU
So it's hardly Nick Meyer alone doing this stuff.
Khan's a monster but he's also supposed to be a super-genius, so he is well-read and likes to show it now and then.
Trek has always (at least until JJ) been very preachy which is not unlike Shakespearean drama with all those lofty monologues.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
