There was about 100 hours of TOS and movies. We've seen 4 hours of the alternate timeline.
How much screen time do you want devoted to McCoy?
An Interesting Take on the JJ Abrams Films
- Thread starter Joel_Kirk
- Start date
There was about 100 hours of TOS and movies. We've seen 4 hours of the alternate timeline.
How much screen time do you want devoted to McCoy?
Maybe less is more? I know I enjoy McCoy every time I see him - in both universes. His moment was certainly the high point of the Beyond teaser.
That's actually one of the parts that irritated me the most.
McCoy
Well, at least I won't die alone.
Spock
(transported away)
McCoy
(Turns around, and surveys the area in disbelief)
Well that's just typical.
cue audience laughter.
Could it be any more of an action-comedy trope?
McCoy
Well, at least I won't die alone.
Spock
(transported away)
McCoy
(Turns around, and surveys the area in disbelief)
Well that's just typical.
cue audience laughter.
Could it be any more of an action-comedy trope?
More.
I laughed. Also, I thought that Kirk's one-liner after landing hard from the transporter was a more tropish.
Both of which are my favorite moments in the trailer.
Also, given the nature of trailers, those scenes might not even end up in the final film.
Ya Kirks line was definitely tropish. The whole trailer was tropes, which is why I believe Pegg was irritated with the company that cut the trailer. But those two mentioned didn't look like throw away scenes. They looked like sizable action sequences. Unless they're doing major reshoots(a la Fantastic Four), those scenes will make the final cut.
I loved both scenes. I loved the trailer. I don't understand why the Trek sandbox isn't big enough for brash action films?
I wonder if the "nuTrek is just dumb summer blockbusters" criticisms had been happening less if we had had a TV show on the air to vary up the kinds of stories a bit.
I don't know about that. It certainly is possible, but given the scenes and lines that were not in Star Wars: TFA anything is possible. Trailers are studio requirements, not controlled by the director.
Either way, I loved the two scenes, and look forward to the film. I have no problem with the action scenes, and it doesn't overwhelm the social commentary for me.
That statement assumes those who are complaining actually enjoy formulaic, derivative, dumbed down action-comedies that are not named Trek. A lot of us were drawn to Star Trek because it offered something not commonly found in tv/film.
In many ways, STAR WARS fans are having this exact conversation, thanks to the release of THE FORCE AWAKENS. You have your Prequel Trilogies fans versus your Original Trilogies fans. It will be interesting how the release of this next trilogy will affect fandom in this regard...
Yes. Ray guns, space ships, and green forehead aliens. nuTrek has those.
Sorry, I guess it's a bit out of your depth.
You've been asked before to refrain from making it personal. This time gets a warning.
Comments to PM.
It is a funny moment in the trailer but the scene makes no sense. What possible reason would there be for the transporter to only grab Spock and leave McCoy in danger, especially when Spock and McCoy are so close together? The only explanation I can come up with is that the transporter actually does beam them both up, just one at a time, so the scene is meant for comedy, because a second later, McCoy is beamed up too.
It's a scene that works within the trailer and by audience reaction. For it to make full sense, we'll have to see the actual film.
Transporter might be running on low power. Can only grab one. Movie-wise that was done in ST IV and V. Or maybe the villain just wants Spock and it is in fact Spock who's the guy who's in the bigger trouble.
I saw the Star Wars movie. I liked it. To this day, I haven't seen the trailer. I think trailers are more trouble than they are worth. At least from my point of view.
I saw the Star Wars movie. I liked it. To this day, I haven't seen the trailer. I think trailers are more trouble than they are worth. At least from my point of view.
Trailers are for hype and hype alone. THey are released so many different times during the editing process that it is impossible to judge the film from them alone, other than there is a new film called Star Trek coming out.
That's all it is-discussion fodder. For good, bad or in between.
That's all it is-discussion fodder. For good, bad or in between.
Please. Enlighten me. What exactly was so special and unique about Star Trek? Since I clearly am not deep enough to grasp the finer points of your nuance, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you mean one of the following common myths:
1.) Star Trek was socially progressive.
Well this has been debated ad nauseam and more or less proven to be fairly inaccurate. While, TOS did present an ideal social setting, it certainly wasn't as progressive as a lot of people seem to think it was. There's been a lot of revisionism and rosy glasses syndrome when it comes to this aspect. And by the mid 70s, (when the show actually became popular) it was almost old-fashioned in many ways.
The Berman-era stuff really wasn't socially progressive at all. Its "better future" conceit was naïve, puerile sentiment at best. (The "no money" thing is the perfect example of this.) And it completely dropped the ball on the two major social issues of the last 35 years: women's equality and gay rights. The latter was given one half-hearted episode, and they extensively celebrated Voyager as a the paragon for the former, but compared to its contemporaries like Buffy and Xena, it falls really flat.
2.) Star Trek was cerebral and provocative.
Not really. Nothing Trek has ever presented hadn't already been discussed in a high school philosophy class. Most of the ideals overly simplistic and condescending in tone (As if they were made solely of making the viewer believe the show was smarter than it really was.) The "Needs of the many" BS is the perfect example At best, it's just a dumbed-down facsimile of Benthamism utility. At worst, it's fallacious nonsense--and therefore not logical at all.
As far as shows that were actually cerebral and provocative in the 60s, there was Perry Mason and TTZ among others.
But, in comparison by some of the TV around today, Star Trek (in any form) looks pretty silly.
3.) Start Trek had SCIENCE!
Nope. Unless you mean magic dressed up in scientific formalwear. TOS didn't really put much into science at all. Nothing it ever showed (that wasn't magic) was scientifically exceptional.
Berman era stuff upped the ante by using arbitrary scientific-sounding buzzwords. That, outside of the context of the mystery of the week, had absolutely no meaning whatsoever. And that kind of science was around in other shows in the 60s and has been creeping more and more into all genres with each passing decade.
Now, there's really no discernable difference between Data's DXM of the week and Abby Sciuto getting a positive ID off the reflection on the back of a bicycle hub in a black and white photograph. The parlance might be different, but the scope, cadence and meter are exactly the same.
So I ask again, what exactly is/was supposed to be so unique about Star Trek outside of the zany space adventure with ray guns, sexy aliens, and cool looking space ships?
