If you don't like cuts, watch Birdman.
Simple Question: Do You Like The Reboots?
- Thread starter Mudd
- Start date
What about Xanadu? That movie has entire musical numbers without a single cut, just done in one single loooooong shot
Personally I don't mind quick cuts or fluid camera movement, but I definitely get how someone might not.
I don't know if it's the next one, but CHILD OF TWO WORLDS is due out in December. (Turned in the ms. two weeks ago.)
That's a Pike novel, which I guess counts as TOS. And, yes, we're talking the Jeff Hunter version of Pike, as seen in "The Cage."
Last edited:
Yep. We're talking Pike, Number One, Yeoman Colt, young bushy-eyed Spock, etc.
I love TOS era novels. Working my way through Vanguard right now. For some reason anything pre TNG strikes a chord with me. And by pre I mean in universe timeline.So any thing from the present day to Enterprise to TOS to TOS movies and I'm sold! Feels like history to me, while TNG+ is "the present".
The first one was enjoyable, but Wrath of Khan 2.0 was by far the worst film in the history of the franchise. I won't be seeing the next one until I've read plenty of reviews and set my expectations accordingly.
Modern films seem to have difficulty with the notion of suspense. Wrath of Khan has some action in it, but it has tons of suspense. The tension builds, and then climaxes with a few minutes of phasers and explosions. Into Darkness had tons of action, but really no suspense at all. When everything is phasers and explosions, there's no time for the tension to build. It's just boring.
Modern films seem to have difficulty with the notion of suspense. Wrath of Khan has some action in it, but it has tons of suspense. The tension builds, and then climaxes with a few minutes of phasers and explosions. Into Darkness had tons of action, but really no suspense at all. When everything is phasers and explosions, there's no time for the tension to build. It's just boring.
Sounds like I'm picking up a new book
I have always enjoyed Pike and his era, though the uniforms needed some help
One of the reasons I found Abrams films so enjoyable is with Pike and his relationship with Kirk. That is a dynamic that we never really have with prime Kirk, and one of the reasons ID is so enjoyable from a character point of view.
I look forward to it, Greg! Thanks for the teaser.
I'm kind of on board with this. A lot of movies like this tend to be real hyperactive- action, explosions, crashes - rinse, repeat.
And then the cliched bloated plots-- something like, "Plexicorp is developing a super weapon and this rogue secret agency is trying to steal it" blah blah etc etc.
I tend to like simple, meaty plots. Terminator 2--a new shape changing terminator is out to kill young John Conner. The original terminator is sent back to protect John.
They have to find a way to escape and destroy the new terminator. Simple, but it works.
Action is fun to watch, but too much at a time and I get bored. The first explosion is OK. The 2nd is OK. The 3rd and 4th one is pushing it.
In Trek ITD, I count 8 different major action/explosion scenes, some within minutes of each other. The movie is hyperactive.
Bickering-- Kirk/Spock, Uhura/Spock Bones/Kirk- hardly any conversation can pass without bickering. It gets really grating, annoying.
The Scotty and Kirk scene were pretty funny though.
All in all, STID is starting to grow on me actually. There are certain things in it I'm starting to like.
No.
I've only seen the first one, and I refuse to see the second.
I re-watch it every now and then and, without exception, I come a way liking it less and less each time. In fact, it's better to say that I come away disliking it more and more.
It's basically just Star Wars with a Star Trek Skin Mod, for people familiar with computer games.
I prefer my science fiction to be slow-paced, cerebral and nuanced. There's room for action, of course, and intrigue (hell, I love the Dominion War arc more than anything else) but the context has to be well built and engaging.
If I were to be honest all the little nitpicks I have (about the Supernova, Delta Vega, the Orion Girl, the Uniforms, the Sound Effects, Nero, the Poor Lead, the Black Holes and the Red Matter, the Product Placement, the Enterprise's Construction, the Academy, the Insignia and so on and so forth) could be tolerated on their own, but when taken together they become impossible for me to ignore.
That said, I thought Zachary Quinto and Karl Urban were good casting choices.
I've only seen the first one, and I refuse to see the second.
I re-watch it every now and then and, without exception, I come a way liking it less and less each time. In fact, it's better to say that I come away disliking it more and more.
It's basically just Star Wars with a Star Trek Skin Mod, for people familiar with computer games.
I prefer my science fiction to be slow-paced, cerebral and nuanced. There's room for action, of course, and intrigue (hell, I love the Dominion War arc more than anything else) but the context has to be well built and engaging.
If I were to be honest all the little nitpicks I have (about the Supernova, Delta Vega, the Orion Girl, the Uniforms, the Sound Effects, Nero, the Poor Lead, the Black Holes and the Red Matter, the Product Placement, the Enterprise's Construction, the Academy, the Insignia and so on and so forth) could be tolerated on their own, but when taken together they become impossible for me to ignore.
That said, I thought Zachary Quinto and Karl Urban were good casting choices.
Last edited:
You're not missing out on much. The first is the better of the two.
If you liked the first, you might not like the second. If you disliked the first, you'll hate the second.
I can give the first a bit of credit for having an original plot, but I can't say the same for Into Darkness. It's essentially a patchwork of old plot ideas and references.
Think Wrath of Khan, but with things switched around a bit to make the events slightly ironic.
I like that comparison. That's exactly what it feels like. A Star Wars-prequel Total Conversion. Mindless fun, but not the Trek I love.
Well said.
Star Trek is about the story, with a little bit of action to keep it interesting.
Star Wars is about the action, with a little bit of story to keep it interesting.
I've always felt that Trek movies should be more action-oriented and bigger in scale than TV episodes, so the new movies deliver on that perfectly. I also think that Trek was put on too high of a pedestal after TOS sometimes--but that's more of an insular thing among some fans, IMO. The new movies capture the more popular or fun aspects of Trek, particularly TOS, without being lost in its own greatness or self-importance.
I would agree with this. I love Star Trek and more so Star Wars but for these different reasons.
Having just rewatched Enterprise I can honestly say I would much rather a 5th season of that than another reboot.
Exactly.
I agree with this point. For me, TOS was fun and interesting and engaging, and this was when I was 10. I enjoyed the technical details, but hardly worried about the political commentary. Even now, as an adult, the adventure is more interesting to me.
Here is my thing, and this might just be me, but I'll put it out there. I have yet to understand for find a convincing argument that make the reboots not Star Trek. I understand why fans don't like them, because there are many episodes of Trek that I have not enjoyed.
So, I don't know what others might see, but I don't know why the reboots get treated like mindless action
Well...because thats what they are.but I don't know why the reboots get treated like mindless action
Well...because thats what they are.but I don't know why the reboots get treated like mindless action
No. They actually do have lots of interesting plot and dialog (try reading a transcript sometime, it's an interesting experience), but the style tends to overwhelm the substance.
Similar threads
