It is in England. It's not the show's fault that most of us Yanks are behind the curve.
What do you diehard TOS fans think of the new movie?
- Thread starter treklover
- Start date
It is in England. It's not the show's fault that most of us Yanks are behind the curve.
Oh well you better not watch menagerie...as your friend will surely point out the utter stupidity that Pike beeps to respond.....If your friend is to enjoy star trek she must suspend some of the believability of it....much as i did with this new movie...after she does that I'm sure she'll enjoy it much more...much as I did with this new movie.
And BTW, you're not responding because you dismissed me and my "rants" ...you said: " You can not answer the specifics of what I said in a coherent fashion, so it's unsurprising that you will not try". You further said that you had tried to "humor me in the past" with your replies and I said then "that you can save it and don't reply"...so that's why you're not replying... because I dared you not to!!!! But more importantly you don't reply because you know your wrong LOL.
PS I know I come of as harsh sometimes... I can acknowledge that...I don't fool myself *ahem ahem* but hello....so do you. You ain't no angel...I don't expect you to aknowledge your own shit and shortcomings...but you should as it just makes you a better person.
Not to be contrary; but Lost In Space and a lot of the other Irwin Allan shows of the 1960ies still have a large fan following; not to mention The Twilight Zone and the original The Outher Limits - so in that regard Star Trek isn't that unique.
There's also still a large fanbase for other 1960ies TV like Gilligan's Island and The Brady Bunch
(And I'm not putting down TOS at all, it's still my favorite series, and TV show, honestly; just trying to keep things in perspective as views tend to get a bit myopic here at times).
It is in England. It's not the show's fault that most of us Yanks are behind the curve.
Well, I do know that I've gotten a great deal more entertainment and sheer delight out of Davies' version of Doctor Who than I have the last twenty years of Star Trek.
The same is true of Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Firefly/Serenity. It's quite a bit more unusual, though, for someone to bring such verve and imagination to a "franchise" property like DW than it is for a creator to successfully invest that in his own original series or film. That's less a matter of what the producer may want to do, I suspect, than it is on the various studio "experts" and concerned executives who are involved with a studio franchise.
Since its a nickname and not his real name, that doesn't work. Enterprise is not an analog to Bones. That would be the E, the Big E, Enty, Redshirts Graveyard or any other nickname for the ship.
I had a friend who used to call me "Bwana" because once when he asked me to do something I replied "Yes, sahib." So his mind connected Sahib to B'wana and the nickname was born. Similarly, the term "Bones" stuck in Kirks head and became his nickname for McCoy.
Oh, I enjoyed the "all I've got left is my bones" implied origin for McCoy's nickname. There was never anything so especially interesting or clever in the previous implied origin that we're losing anything by its being replaced.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Since Bones was called Pille (Pill) in the German version, they had to give him another line in the German dub; instead of the 'all I've got left is my bones' we got 'Das war ne echt bittere Pille.' ('That's a really bitter pill.')
Both versions are cute...
Hell, I've gotten more entertainment and sheer delight out of Davies' version of Doctor Who than I did out of Trek XI.
Where were we? Oh, right. Doctor Who rocks.
That's one point where we'll have to agree to disagree. I didn't see anyplace where the new ship acquired a sense of scale to nearly the extent accomplished in TMP. Perhaps some will say the engineering scenes, but I think those were so surreal that they didn't communicate anything about the ship at all.
It's funny, but the most successful communication of the size of the Enterprise in my opinion was done by our own Tallguy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq0wVRuUFLk
Have a scene where someone walks out on the hull of that ship and you begin to get a sense of its enormous size.
But as you say below, the design wasn't in any way a determinant in whether I liked or disliked the film. I acknowledge the creative team's prerogative to make the film look like they want it to look. The result can be judged as to its success or failure in creating a setting that contributes to the story. Certain aspects -- most certainly the brewery sets -- don't hold up as anything more than near-parody IMO. If a set is supposed to contribute to the setting, and the suspension of disbelief, then I believe the interiors for the new Enterprise failed because of those brewery sets. But I'm not sure if they failed, because this film seems to be constructed in such a way that "suspension of disbelief" is dealt with more through the style of shooting, editing and pacing than by design. "Linger little and shake things up when you do, and there will be little to ground the viewer before he's swept off to the next scene." So even if the engineering set had been ideal, I'm not sure what it would have contributed.
I realize that. I was asked whether TOS holds up today, and I replied to the common accusation that the look was dated. I tried to point out that had nothing to do with your basis for what you wrote about TOS being dated, but perhaps wasn't clear.
I agree with everything here except your last point. For me, I respond emotionally, sure. But there is a running credibility meter that has more or less prominence in my mind depending on what kind of movie I think I'm seeing. I think I mentioned before that when I first saw this film, I guess I was expecting something very different. It threw me, wildly. I took a group of neighborhood kids to see it a week or two later and this time was prepared for something very different, and was able to enjoy it. Clearly my credibility meter was set too high the first go 'round. As a result, I was overthinking it and wasn't able to enjoy it at all.
I'm now back to where I was the last time we talked -- I see the film as a kind of postmodern pastiche of superficial references to Star Trek and the 60s, maybe determined more by what its creators think modern audiences believe those references mean today than by any original meaning.
Cakes488 wrote:
I think he knows more about film making than I know. And I agree that my viewing of Star Trek is likely so colored by repeated viewing that I can no longer hope to see it like someone seeing it for the first time. So, any problems with the editing or pacing just become part of a familiar story to me -- one I'm perfectly willing to accept because when I first saw it, that kind of editing worked for me.
Absolutely not. But I've always been as much or more into the art as the writing. Since I think art speaks in one way to the moment and in another way to the ages, I'm still fine with what I see. But I'm also willing to entertain the possibility that my view is prejudiced here as well, because I first saw those shows when they were trying to communicate a believable future. It did communicate that to me, and I think my view will be forever colored more by that "look" than by any Trek that came after. Or Star Wars, or Alien, etc. However much I might have enjoyed those films.
So, I'm someone that is hopelessly biased trying to be objective. And I acknowledge the difficulty. I love those original episodes. When I show them to kids, they still work. But I can certainly believe that Dennis' experiences might have been different. And that his explanation for why they failed to resonate is better informed than mine as far as the particulars of film making are concerned.
Nope. Just friends that can respectfully disagree and still be friends afterwards.
I think he knows more about film making than I know. And I agree that my viewing of Star Trek is likely so colored by repeated viewing that I can no longer hope to see it like someone seeing it for the first time. So, any problems with the editing or pacing just become part of a familiar story to me -- one I'm perfectly willing to accept because when I first saw it, that kind of editing worked for me.
Absolutely not. But I've always been as much or more into the art as the writing. Since I think art speaks in one way to the moment and in another way to the ages, I'm still fine with what I see. But I'm also willing to entertain the possibility that my view is prejudiced here as well, because I first saw those shows when they were trying to communicate a believable future. It did communicate that to me, and I think my view will be forever colored more by that "look" than by any Trek that came after. Or Star Wars, or Alien, etc. However much I might have enjoyed those films.
So, I'm someone that is hopelessly biased trying to be objective. And I acknowledge the difficulty. I love those original episodes. When I show them to kids, they still work. But I can certainly believe that Dennis' experiences might have been different. And that his explanation for why they failed to resonate is better informed than mine as far as the particulars of film making are concerned.
Nope. Just friends that can respectfully disagree and still be friends afterwards.
^^^ Thank you for your response...I'm glad that you agree with me on some points, if not all. And maybe what you said here can be applied to me too:
"hopelessly biased trying to be objective" and " my viewing of Star Trek is likely so colored by repeated viewing that I can no longer hope to see it like someone seeing it for the first time. "
I'm going to re-watch BOT when I have time which certainly ain't this weekend...but I'm am going to try to be objective when I view it....we'll see how that goes....
"hopelessly biased trying to be objective" and " my viewing of Star Trek is likely so colored by repeated viewing that I can no longer hope to see it like someone seeing it for the first time. "
I'm going to re-watch BOT when I have time which certainly ain't this weekend...but I'm am going to try to be objective when I view it....we'll see how that goes....
I've been a fan of the original Star Trek since it was first on in the 1960's, and I've recently been introducing my 7-year-old nephew to TOS on DVDs, and I enjoyed the new movie a lot.
I thought the characters were very well done; they did capture a lot of the feel of the originals. I liked that this wasn't like some other show revisions; the characters still ended up as intelligent, competent, brave, loyal, etc, not drunks and backstabbers and incompetents or whatever.
The changed time line doesn't bother me. The new time line offers new possibilities, it's fun comparing and contrasting the two time lines, and we still have everything that was shown and written about the original time line.
I thought the characters were very well done; they did capture a lot of the feel of the originals. I liked that this wasn't like some other show revisions; the characters still ended up as intelligent, competent, brave, loyal, etc, not drunks and backstabbers and incompetents or whatever.
The changed time line doesn't bother me. The new time line offers new possibilities, it's fun comparing and contrasting the two time lines, and we still have everything that was shown and written about the original time line.
@ Cakes488: Ass-kissing? Hardly. (T'Bonz recently gave me mild friendly and said I was acting like a PMSing adolescent when I took umbrage at one of his pithier posts.) Like I said, I've taken serious issue with Dennis before and he with me. I doubt either of us (as represented by what we post here--neither of us really knows the other) can be said to truly like the other. But I can't fault him for laying out a detailed and thought-through argument, even if I don't agree.
In short, I believe civility is more important than a tv show, even a tv show I'm a fan of. I don't always live up to that belief, but I try. To show someone the respect he is due--and Dennis has proven to me time and again that his intellect does deserve my respect and, at times, my admiration--is not tantamount to kissing his ass. Kirk admired Khan; he never puckered up.
In short, I believe civility is more important than a tv show, even a tv show I'm a fan of. I don't always live up to that belief, but I try. To show someone the respect he is due--and Dennis has proven to me time and again that his intellect does deserve my respect and, at times, my admiration--is not tantamount to kissing his ass. Kirk admired Khan; he never puckered up.
Very cool, kudos to Tallguy. Funny though, it makes the TOSerprise seem smaller than I had imagined it. I'd love to see something similar for a few other ships, especially the new Enterprise (if anyone can ever agree on the scale).
I've been watching Trek since I was a wee bairn in the mid 70s, and I was entertained more by this flick than anything in the intervening years. I don't get wrapped around the axle about make-believe technologies or histories, so I don't share many of the stated complaints.
About my only real issue is that I didn't quite care for the characterization of Kirk and Spock when they killed Nero and the Narada crew. It sort of came across as Big Jim McBob and Billy Sol Hurok of Farm Film Celebrity Blow-Up: "He blow'd up good, blow'd up real good!" Other than that, I'm good.
Wouldn't mind seeing Harry Mudd at some point, though. What contemporary actor can pull off a quality handlebar mustache?
Last edited:
number6
Vice Admiral
True enough.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I am.
This much is certain.
Well, I'm glad that you were eventually able to have a good time with it.
Similar threads
