I like the idea of it being a giant escape slide (like on an airplane).
"No, Mr. Spock, raising your arms in the air and going "WHEE" is not entirely illogical..."
Great alternate movie shots
- Thread starter JJohnson
- Start date
I like the idea of it being a giant escape slide (like on an airplane).
"No, Mr. Spock, raising your arms in the air and going "WHEE" is not entirely illogical..."
If that guy is standing immediately below the ship, he must be huge.
Since shadows are being cast towards the viewer, the Trekonaut "getting beamed down" must be well to port of the ship.
If that guy is standing immediately below the ship, he must be huge.
Since shadows are being cast towards the viewer, the Trekonaut "getting beamed down" must be well to port of the ship.
No, it's Ensign Fezzik, newly assigned to the brute squad, er, security. No one is taking out this red shirt, except the Man In Black.
What is the difference of the critique of the last two films and the critique of everything else? I've seen plenty of posts and posters that stated blatetly how bad Star Trek is, either because it was made in the 60s or they don't like Shatner, or any other of their own reasons. I don't know how many times the TNG films have been complained about, plus TFF and TMP and any of the other first generation movies. How is this different from bashing? Or a better question is, when does a negative review turn into bashing? I did not like those last two movies, I've been consistent with that and don't go into their forums to tell everyone how they should think like me. I only mention it when it pops up in the forums I'm in.
Will Smith?
Saying it's bad because it was made in the '60s, or that they don't like Shatner, is bashing. Saying you don't like it is opinion. Negative reviews become bashing when they say it's bad because they don't like it.
If you don't like the last two movies, are consistent about it, but don't use your dislike to try to influence others' opinions about it, that's good. Most of the posters here are the same*. My complaint is about those who, unlike you, can't denounce films loudly enough to suit themselves, and are increasingly abusive to those that like them for what they are. Again, it's the "It isn't how I would have done it, so it sucks and no one should ever watch it." syndrome. Some people, including several entertainment professionals from a variety of media, have this idea that new creators taking over established characters must still do them in the exact same manner that the originals did, to continue the original, often dated experience for the established viewer, or the new creator is a hack, and cannot be trusted to do anything, even their own creations, with any skill or acumen.
For instance, comic creator John Byrne hates Peter Jackson's version of "King Kong" because Peter Jackson didn't put Tom Bombadil in "Fellowship of the Ring", even though Tom Bombadil doesn't advance the plot any(he doesn't, he's just a fun character), and mispronounced 'Anuril' as 'Anduril'(something the Tolkien estate signed off on). John Byrne has been vehement about how he would have included Tom Bombadil, and done everything else as a direct transcription(making a 24 hour epic rather than a 9 hour one), and that because Peter Jackson didn't, he can't make entertaining films and John Byrne will never watch a film made by Peter Jackson again, even the ones he made before "Lord of the Rings" that he used to enjoy. He also refused to watch "The Hobbit", yet still panned it as poorly done based on nothing more than that Peter Jackson had made it. This is all bashing in the extreme.
And that's what I was complaining about.
*Although you may occasionally sound off about it a little much.
STAR TREK has had many spin-offs based on the common thread of space explorers/adventurers associated with the Federation and Starfleet established in TOS. I think the reason JJTrek has attracted so much venom is because it completely altered those established characters so that nothing remained but the names. When does the "ship of Theseus" stop being the ship of Theseus?
As one of those curmudgeons who did not like the Abrams films, I think it's perfectly valid to ask why the project didn't just come up with a new title and names for the characters, since it was changed so much? The ground-based drydock that started this thread did not really bother me. Having Spock wig out and everybody graduate the academy at the same time—all jumping to their TOS ranks and positions through battlefield promotions—did annoy me because it felt like cheap writing meant only to capitalize on the established franchise.
For comparison, the 2010 live action SPACE BATTLESHIP YAMATO changed a few key items and—in my opinion—told a better story. The "big" changes were making Mori Yuki a pilot, rather than a nurse, and changing the nature of Gamilas (and Iskandar) from blue-skinned humanoids to incorporeal entities. Lots of the "silly" items from the original anime stayed in, such as having Kodai Susumu catapult straight to the captaincy, right over the usual chain of command. But that was done because it was a personal story, which developed as the movie went along.
STAR TREK (2009) dropped the ball on such development (in my opinion). I went in expecting to be rewarded with the backstory of our heroes, and came out feeling cheated by formula writing and sensationalism. Again, the ship on the ground and other VFX were "superior," if a bit overdone. But a satisfying movie needs more than cutting edge VFX.
Well said.
Considering the wispy, smoke-like appearance of the swirl and the explorer standing immediately beneath it, I'd say it's a stylistic rendition of the transporter having just beamed someone down.
That's it. I love the "distant", mysterious feel of the Bantam covers.
I think that sums up most of my feelings very well.
I found that most of the style changes, which I readily admit that there needed to be changes, I just didn't like the way they went. The design of the ship, the flash lights of the warp drive, the huge bridge that was too bright and too many glass surfaces. Those are all things that aren't important but I didn't even like them. I also disliked a lot of more important things like the plot, setting, and events of the story.
I wonder if a small part of the bashing actually came from two different things I've experienced.
First, JJ Abrams himself and the media around the movies saying, "this isn't your father's (or grandfather's) Star Trek" which made me feel like he was bashing what came before.
Also, it's hard to remember, now, but when TNG was new it was "the" Star Trek and the old show was just some strange thing that came before.
That attitude is long gone but I still remember it and it just seems like people are coming along to reinvent the wheel and tell me how much better their wheel is than the wheel I have but it just does the same thing and not even as well as the one I had.
And get off my lawn!
I couldn't sound more like an old fart if I tried.
I don't think this is really fair to Abrams. Whatever one thinks of the films themselves, Abrams didn't have much of a choice in how to sell the movie. If there was an inkling that it was more of what had just been served audiences a few years earlier then the movie was dead on arrival.
Honestly, I feel the Abrams films are the closest we will ever get to TOS. There was a sense of excitement and adventure that had been missing from Star Trek for a very, very long time.
