Doesn't mean it had to be a mind-numbing mess with the Transformers bumbling around a back yard for 20 minutes like idiots.
What other things can we change for The Drooling Masses?
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
- Status
Doesn't mean it had to be a mind-numbing mess with the Transformers bumbling around a back yard for 20 minutes like idiots.
QFT
I was born in 1984 and I grew up on Transformers reruns. And I found them endlessly entertaining.
You know why? Because I was a fucking toddler. Transformers was extremely true to its source material. Which, by the way, wasn't King Lear.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Nice Freudian slip there
It would still be the same thing just with more stuff added.
The old Enterprise has 1960 written all over her. You cannot change that without changing the ship.
1. The scene wasn't 20 minutes.
2. It's an adaptation of a 25 year old cartoon. Yes. It had to be a mind numbing mess. Sorry. If you're expecting Optimus to expand your mind like Whitman or Chaucer then you need help. Not all movies are supposed to be dramatically good, some are just supposed to be "fun". Transformers was never going to be nominated for Best Picture and neither will Star Trek.
Likewise, this is an adaptation of a 40 year old TV show that had a budget of literally dozens of dollars. Things are going to look different. Get. Over. It.
As long as the fans are doing this
to the image of TOS Trek.
You mean wallowing in Bukkake?
"Look different" is one thing.
I can understand a major bridge change. The TOS bridge, even The Cage one, wouldn't have worked in this movie.
The original model, wouldn't have worked. So more details and texturing needed to be added to it (a'la Vektor's designs) not, you know, a radical change like what they're doing.
It's only "radical" to people who care what the ship looked like.
I watched for who the characters were and what crazy adventures they got into.
Did you seriously watch for the ship? If so, you deserve what you're getting.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Actually, a radical change was indeed needed - and I'm not just talking about the visuals.
Transformers brought a little joy to a lot of people, my two sons included. I call that a success. Do you have children, Trekker? Do you know anything about entertainment and stories that are enjoyed by anyone other than yourself? And why do you judge others for finding fun in ways that you do not?
*sigh*
Yeah. You can care about both. You should care about both. But the fact is the Enterprise is more important as a concept than it is a visual reality.
It's akin to bitching about Shatner's fucking wig as violating Kirk's character.
Hardly.
I just simply did not enjoy Transformers. I've no strong feelings against Michael Bay. I think he's a hack but many of his movies I've liked.
Transformers, for me, just wasn't good. I wanted to kick Shia in the head, the transformations weren't given any "wow" to them nor where we given a chance to revel or enjoy in the complexity of them, the Autobots weren't given enough or much character, and ugh.
The movie was just, to me, not good. I've nothing against mindless entertainment, but TF wasn't my brand of it.
How about this? It wa a change made for the sake of making a change with no logic or reason behind it other than "we need to upadate it make it look cool."
And right now, it's all I have to go on as I've not seen enough of these actors' portrayal to really judge.
I *have* seen the image of the Enterprise.
And I don't like it. I don't see the need to have made the change and I think it was only changed to appeal to people who only go see movies for the cool effects and visual splendor. That kind of logic and thinking, to me, is not good. There was no need to change the classic design of the ship. NONE.
If the movie is more of the uninspired, insipid lameness Paramount has been putting out under the name Star Trek for the last ten years, I promise you I will not shed a tear to see it tank hard. I'd much rather have no new Trek than a bunch of new crap with the name Star Trek slapped on it.
Trek's been dead for years. We'll see if its personality can be transferred into a new body.
..and I think we've reached our impasse.
I don't think they needed to change it either. But I'm cool with it. Your mileage clearly varies.
Detail. Being different textures, more windows, more greebles and widgets. Like Vektor's work.
"Too much change" raidcally changing the entire look of the ship. Changing the porprotions of it, making the undercut more severe, etc.
I.E. "OK change" - the difference between the 1964 1/2 Mustang and 1966.
Radical/too much change. The difference between the 1964 1/2 mustand and the 2010 concept.
Yup. As long as it isn't "long lost evil twin" (Nemesis) then it'll be a step up.
Trekker, I'm honestly trying to see your perspective here but you're not making any sense. You spent time and money to see a movie whose target group was children, then complain that the movie was juvenile. Your arguments about the new Star Trek are equally as convulted. Perhaps your thought process makes sense to you, but you've lost a lot of us.
- Status
Similar threads
