It's the other way around. One of the two movies is closer to the original series in terms of mood and presentation, and TMP isn't it.
But TMP was made in 1979, so it gets a pass, I see.
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
It's the other way around. One of the two movies is closer to the original series in terms of mood and presentation, and TMP isn't it.
But TMP was made in 1979, so it gets a pass, I see.
In the "Best of Trek" paperbacks that came out after TMP, fans were debating how TMP could actually be shunted into some sort of alternate universe, a universe where its Spock and McCoy could turn their backs on their friendship with Kirk, where Klingons resemble "Munchkins", where Starfleet uniforms look like pyjamas, and where Kirk would accept a promotion that takes him away from his first, best destiny.
"Looked and felt" perhaps, but still just a facsimile. It's not real Star Trek.Looked and felt like Trek to me.
Or whatever...
Not to you. To me, it was. YMMV. This forum would be so much nicer if everyone could just accept that others have a different opinion about wether or not this was a good film.
I loved it!! Good for me!! Other's don't. Just as good for them!!
"Looked and felt" perhaps, but still just a facsimile. It's not real Star Trek.Looked and felt like Trek to me.
Or whatever...
Not to you. To me, it was. YMMV. This forum would be so much nicer if everyone could just accept that others have a different opinion about wether or not this was a good film.
I loved it!! Good for me!! Other's don't. Just as good for them!!
I think CorporalClegg was being sarcastic.
So, I suppose ST:TMP (being unoriginal as it was a remake of the perevious episode "The Changeling"; as well as being full of p[lot holes) "wasn't Star Trek" either?
Well, if you peeled the bad art direction & moronic splitfocus diopters off TMP it was still something resembling TREK underneath, just that the characters were in a different place in their lives.
But if you stopped aiming every light at the camera in the Abrams, and also discarded the ludicrous brewery and the rest of the contemporary welds, you'd STILL have something that didn't resemble trek underneath.
So I would not concur.
Is there any criticism that isn't just pure nitpicking?
Abramstrek isn't like the old Star Trek because Spock is behaving like a psychopath, Kirk is a playboy hot shot who likes to execute bad guys and makes really stupid decisions, they made Starfleet a lot more militaristic, and made the 23rd century way too contemporary, and went away from the idea that Trek needs to convey some sort of message in an entertaining fashion, in favor of hollow sci fi action. And a lot more points that differ.
What is it with people and their split focus diopters, plot holes, breweries or lens flares? All those nitpicks are not the reason why the new films aren't remotely close to original Star Trek.
I imagine watching your mother die and losing your planet can affect you psychologically.
Young, inexperienced people often make poor decisions. Kirk also executed Chang in The Undiscovered Country. After obviously crippling the Bird-of-Prey, he didn't even offer surrender as an option.
No more militaristic than TOS.
There is a more mechanical feel to the technology. But that is a stylistic choice.
Star Trek Into Darkness conveyed a message just fine.
Amok Time, mating urge or not, no other crew member smashed up half the ship just because they were horny.
What message would that be?
Hmm. That's not how I remember it. Enterprise was being fired upon by a cloaked ship ...
"It's gotta have a tailpipe." "Doctor, would you care to assist me?" "Lock and load, Jim!" "Fire!"
Meanwhile, on Excelsior ... "Target that explosion and fire."
That's not an execution. That's defending your ship and crew from an aggressive, merciless attack. If the aggressor was destroyed in the process, oh well. Bad day for him.
IMO, YMMV, yeah.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
OK, please explain how killing an enemy who is engaging in an unprovoked act of war is the same as execution.
Just so I can understand.
Was anyone monitoring the Bird-of-Prey? Did they send a hail offering surrender after obviously crippling it with the first shot?
A single, uncloaked Bird-of-Prey would be no match for two capital Starfleet ships.
Nero was an enemy combatant who blew up an entire planet and killed the majority of its population, destroyed a fleet of ships and killed countless Starfleet personnel, attempted to destroy a second planet, kidnapped and tortured a Starfleet Captain, was in the possession of weapons of mass destruction and was battling the Enterprise. He also refused surrender. Killing him was not an execution any more than killing Chang was. Both were enemies who were engaging in unprovoked acts of war
And it's not like Kirk didn't ask for Nero's surrender.
Twice.
Twice.
Starfleet regulations require you ask three times. Kirk would know that if he attended classes.
That's what I was saying. I don't see where it's "six of one ... " ?
Where I come from, "six of one, half a dozen of the other" means "same difference." In other words, the implication was that Chang and Nero were summarily executed. That's not how I see it. They were enemy combatants who died engaging in war against Starfleet and the Federation.
If we agree, fine. If not, fine. I was just putting it out there.
My meaning was killing Chang and killing Nero were pretty much the same thing/situation. Not that killing an enemy combatant in battle is execution. My take was you were saying one was a execution and one wasn't.
Nope. Sorry for the confusion.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
