Difficult to be precise.
I should say approximately 7,824.7 to 1.
Good freaking lord: the movie
- Thread starter jayrath
- Start date
Difficult to be precise.
I should say approximately 7,824.7 to 1.
Unless he was feeling up Gem. (Bad episode.
Hot chick. 
)I feel modern Trek's problems is because of the inbredness of the TNG old guard. It's that way of thinking that produced Generations (where the writers on the commentary say things like "I have no idea what we were thinking, we know there's no drama or tension or reason for anything to be urgent") or kept producing scripts with Gee-Wiz technobables and flat characters.
It needs some new minds.
I think Gene went crazy. "IN the future there won't be conflict or racism" - what the HECK happened to the Gene who wrote the 'Star Trek' pitch and contributed to 'The Making of Star Trek'?
The movie will do fine if the right pieces come together. But seriously, TMP wasn't any good- it explored things that already were explored in the TV series (NOMAD), it looked and felt drab, and the characters were trapped inside one hour of special effects.
Creation, aging, mortality, friendship, - that's some good stuff to explore and thanks be to TWoK and the Spock trilogy for that.
TNG felt like old TOS episodes for the 1st season. And it had bursts of goodness, but how many 'trapped on the Holodeck and the saftey's are off' episodes can you have? Or how many 'if we invert the deflector dish polarity, we can solve this problem with enough time to go to commercial and roll credits'.
I WELCOME JJ and some new writers who take the basic idea and try to build it up from there. It's what Harve and Meyer did and it worked, even though it didn't have nessesarily an epic feel.
TOS somehow managed to feel epic while also feeling like home. TMP was epic but it didn't feel warm. TNG didn't feel like home and the universe was so uninteresting they could spend entire shows in a hologram.
The new movie could feel epic while also brinigng the human element to make the characters feel at home.
It could suck and suck bad, but it'll be a different kind of effort than the crap we have had this last decade.
It needs some new minds.
I think Gene went crazy. "IN the future there won't be conflict or racism" - what the HECK happened to the Gene who wrote the 'Star Trek' pitch and contributed to 'The Making of Star Trek'?
The movie will do fine if the right pieces come together. But seriously, TMP wasn't any good- it explored things that already were explored in the TV series (NOMAD), it looked and felt drab, and the characters were trapped inside one hour of special effects.
Creation, aging, mortality, friendship, - that's some good stuff to explore and thanks be to TWoK and the Spock trilogy for that.
TNG felt like old TOS episodes for the 1st season. And it had bursts of goodness, but how many 'trapped on the Holodeck and the saftey's are off' episodes can you have? Or how many 'if we invert the deflector dish polarity, we can solve this problem with enough time to go to commercial and roll credits'.
I WELCOME JJ and some new writers who take the basic idea and try to build it up from there. It's what Harve and Meyer did and it worked, even though it didn't have nessesarily an epic feel.
TOS somehow managed to feel epic while also feeling like home. TMP was epic but it didn't feel warm. TNG didn't feel like home and the universe was so uninteresting they could spend entire shows in a hologram.
The new movie could feel epic while also brinigng the human element to make the characters feel at home.
It could suck and suck bad, but it'll be a different kind of effort than the crap we have had this last decade.
The main point I tried, and apparently failed, to make when creating this thread, was how inbred the production already seems. Of course we all tend to prefer to work with those with whom we've worked before. It just seems to me that there is a very, very small club from which actors and production staff are being chosen for this film -- despite a huge budget. It reminds me of the MAD magazine parody of "Paper Moon," in which Ryan O'Neal states that he searched the whole country for the perfect child star, and then happened to discover Tatum in his home.
The more strange and unexpected casting and staff choices were, the better I would feel. I could then safely assume that only the very best people were being chosen.
I'm very ready for a new interpretation. So far, I'm just seeing an old bunch of production cronies being replaced by a young bunch of production cronies.
Give me something truly new and fresh!
The more strange and unexpected casting and staff choices were, the better I would feel. I could then safely assume that only the very best people were being chosen.
I'm very ready for a new interpretation. So far, I'm just seeing an old bunch of production cronies being replaced by a young bunch of production cronies.
Give me something truly new and fresh!
At least, Enterprise will look like a canon-fest after this reboot prequel travesty...
Seriously, I hope the spinning nacelles thing is true. I want all those reboot fans defend this BS like it's the second coming. It will be hilarious.
Seriously, I hope the spinning nacelles thing is true. I want all those reboot fans defend this BS like it's the second coming. It will be hilarious.
Outhouse4 said:
Yeah, the screen plays for Citizen Kane, The Godfather or even The Wizard of Oz, they were all second tier crap.
Well, yeah, because THEY didn't have asteroids the size of Texas in 'em.
That said, I am one of the few that actually liked Armageddon. I'm looking forward to Cloverfield too.
But if you think I like everything J.J. "Dynomite" Abrams has done, you are wrong. I avoided Felicity like the plague.
A
Amaris
Guest
So you hope the movie fails just so you can be right?
J.
As you state people do tend to gravitate towards people they've worked with before. Doesn't mean it won't be "new and fresh". I think Gene did that when he created Star Trek. It seemed to work out OK. Looks like your trying real hard to find a reason to hate this before even seeing a single frame.
Didn't Tatum win an Oscar for her role? Maybe Dad made the right choice.
It just angers me how friends of canon are being ridiculed and labeled as killjoys, nitpickers and funny people lost in nostalgia.
It's not canon that brought Star Trek down.
Seriously, I hope I ain't right. I hope I will sit in the cinema (which I will) and I find out J.J. has delivered a movie that has stayed true to canon, bringing the greatness of TOS into the 21th century by carefully adding new stuff to make this worthwile for everyone, including the infamous "canonista".
A
Amaris
Guest
Ah, that's cool then. I was just worried. You see, that's going around a lot more lately since the movie was announced. I have no problem with people who want to stick to established canon, I can be that way myself, but I do have problems with people who want a movie to fail miserably, just so they can be right. That's just wrong on so many levels, and I'm glad you're not one of the people who do that. I think we both just want well crafted, faithful Star Trek.
J.
The Gored Thing said:
shatastrophic said:
There is nothing mediocre about Deforest Kelley, James Doohan, Leonard Nimoy, and William Shatner
Compared to, say, Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole in Becket or Innokenti Smoktunovsky and Mikhail Nazvanov in Hamlet these clowns would have been lucky to make it as far as their respective high school drama clubs.
TGT
Let's assume most actors are not of that caliber and move on shall we?
RAMA
^^^
I always feel the need to remind (no one in particular) that Shatner is indeed from the Theatre. A Shakespearian Actor. Nimoy was, well, Nimoy. I wouldn't discount the acting of either at all. And I'd be shocked to hear any other major actor or critic say otherwise. In fact, Shatner has loads of respect amongst actors and theatre critics, if I'm not mistaken.
I liked Xena as well. Never watched Herc cause, well, they were guys and Xena was, um, girls.
It's impossible to pin down what will "catch lightening in a bottle" when it comes to film. Man, I'd no idea the guy who directed "The Frighteners" and some questionable horror flicks could give me Fellowship Of The Ring. Though come to think of it, the other two LoTR films felt like the average Xena ep.
Gene Roddenberry was a guy with a lot of energy, smarts, and gumption. Hutspah. He's not so unlike any other major production runner and considering the resume of the JJ Abrams people I'm not unhappy about the possibilities.
I always feel the need to remind (no one in particular) that Shatner is indeed from the Theatre. A Shakespearian Actor. Nimoy was, well, Nimoy. I wouldn't discount the acting of either at all. And I'd be shocked to hear any other major actor or critic say otherwise. In fact, Shatner has loads of respect amongst actors and theatre critics, if I'm not mistaken.
I liked Xena as well. Never watched Herc cause, well, they were guys and Xena was, um, girls.
It's impossible to pin down what will "catch lightening in a bottle" when it comes to film. Man, I'd no idea the guy who directed "The Frighteners" and some questionable horror flicks could give me Fellowship Of The Ring. Though come to think of it, the other two LoTR films felt like the average Xena ep.
Gene Roddenberry was a guy with a lot of energy, smarts, and gumption. Hutspah. He's not so unlike any other major production runner and considering the resume of the JJ Abrams people I'm not unhappy about the possibilities.
And Felicities.
Dear God in heaven, Abrams wrote that despicable abomination Armageddon? That movie was like having a jackhammer in my brain for two hours and had the most mentally retarded dialouge and characters outside of an SW prequel. And more scientific idiocy than Waterworld.
Not only do I predict this movie will be bad, I predict it will get a bunch of Razzie nods, if not wins. So far, no element in this movie has any long, proven track record of excellence. Just Michael Bay lackeys. If you put a piece of shit in the blender, you are not going to get a delicious milkshake.
Not only do I predict this movie will be bad, I predict it will get a bunch of Razzie nods, if not wins. So far, no element in this movie has any long, proven track record of excellence. Just Michael Bay lackeys. If you put a piece of shit in the blender, you are not going to get a delicious milkshake.
Similar threads
