 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.17.32.94
OK, others have weighed in already with similar opinions, so just let me reinforce them.
Puke!
I'm a rabid Trekkie, and love the sci-fi genre. To me, in general the worst sci-fi trumps a good non-fi because the levels of imagination can potentially be greater. Bad guys with warp drives are more interesting than bad guys with hand guns.
But ...
This new ST is a black hole for your money and your entertainment. It rehashes scripts from no less than 3 former movies and/or tv episodes, and does them all discredit. The character performances are charicatures.
If you saw the last ST with Chris Pine as Kirk, and liked it as I did, be warned about this one.
Follow Ups:
Spock was always portrayed as asexual in the original TV series and didn't get the urge to "do it" except for every 7 years when Vulcan men went ape-shit and would even kill to get it on. So the Spock romance with Uhura is not consistent with the character. Also, what happened to the original back story with Captain Pike in the TV pilot episode? He was the captain of the original Enterprise and the young Spock was his first officer, and they were apparently very close. When Pike was badly injured, Spock risked everything to take Pike to a place where he could spend the rest of his life in peace. Is this all part of the "alternate universe" described in the last Star Trek movie?
The first film (2009) establishes that this is a parallel Star Trek Universe.
Spock is half human so the film in a way does a bit better job than the original series bringing out the human emotion factor - SO presumably it would be harder for Spock than other Vulcans to suppress human emotion - plus he's around emotional humans a LOT more than other Vulcans.
OK, I get the parallel universe explanation, but I disagree that the new films give us a better take on the half-human Spock. The updated version of Spock is just another sexually active action hero meant to appeal to a 21st Century audience, but this one has big ears. This undermines the whole Kirk/Spock dynamic and the fascination we had with the disciplined, yet exotic Vulcan lifestyle. Of course, you might prefer Ginger while I might pick Mary Ann.
Well I think, as was stated in my posted review link, that it was important to make sure that audiences were not exposed to a case of the "not gays" in that they had to ensure the character would not be viewed by non Trek fans as being Gay - lots of cash rests in the pockets of a lot of intolerant folk. Besides maybe she has special seductive powers.
See the link below starting at 39 minutes. I like his take on Kirk and Spock.
And these films are not out to make Star Trek fanboys happy - it's out to make a big pile of cash and nothing more. Well and be good enough to be able to make a sequel and make a big pile of cash.
There is a case to be made that Spock would be more "emotional" given the Vulcan in the pathetic show Enterprise. She was always seemingly emotional and pouty.
I am not really against the notion that Spock would have a girlfriend - I think the choice of who it is is kinda dumb but without that relationship what would having Uhura accomplish? Don't they have audible google translate in the future? Warp drive but no instant translation. Comparing it to the original series doesn't really fly because we have and can envision more technological advancements than they could envision in the 1960s.
I kinda look at Spock's relationship almost like a Sheldon Cooper from the Big Bang Theory.
So I posted the review link below of the first movie and decided what the heck - let's see how much of a train wreck this one will be. And I was waiting for it and it never came. The villain was better this go around and like the review below - this isn't really Star Trek envisioned by Gene Roddenberry but a space thriller using Star Trek as a back drop.Spoilers
I like the numerous homage scenes to the original series as well as to Deep Space Nine (Section 31), and The Wrath of Kahn, and they even managed to get a Tribble into the thing (which the reviewer I posted below noted they probably would end up doing (can't have Kingons without tribbles) and to satisfy the non Star Trek fans who do probably remember them.The thing was fast paced but the story held together and mostly made sense - They did to Kahn what the new Bond movies did Bond - they made him a real evil sadistic humorless baddy. Granted I saw this in 3D with the rumble seats at not a stupid volume and it was a hoot. Not a film - a joyride.
As joyride's go I had a fun time. This is the first movie I've been to in 2013 so I may be being more lenient than normal - but it was on par with the first movie.
Spock with a girlfriend and tears is a bit much but he is half human and I liked that it's a battle for him - shown better here than the original series in a sense.
Some lines were clunkers but that's okay because less than 5 second later something would explode so you forgot about that.
I did feel this was made for an ADHD crowd
Where they rank: (out of 5)
Star Trek: The Voyage Home (****)
Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn (***1/2)
Star Trek (***)
Star Trek: Into Darkness (***)
Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country (***)
Star Trek: First Contact (***)
Star Trek: The Search for Spock (**1/2)
Star Trek: Insurrection (**1/2)
Star Trek: Generations (**)
Star Trek: Nemesis (**)
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (**)
Star Trek: The Final Frontier (*1/2)
Edits: 05/26/13
...saw it yesterday in 3-D and it was better than I expected.
A lot of suspense, action and some humor.
But in retrospect it seemed more like an SNL parody than a real Star Trek - all of these young actors who looked a little like the originals were acting just like them, but in an exaggerated way.
Bones getting frustrated when Jim wouldn't take his advice, Scotty exclaiming the generators won't take it and Spock being his unemotional self- too funny.
...I found it to be a loud, frenetic action adventure story shot on a Star Trek set with a lot of the characters going by the same names as characters from previous Star Trek productions. It was really loud and frenetic too.
We'll see how it holds up when viewed on the small screen and on a second viewing. The pace is fast probably to try and jam in everything they could in the limited running time. But it took enough breaths and the acting was generally solid from Kirk/Spock. I'd rather see a bit of a larger than life baddy in Kahn - Ricardo Montalban had pinache.
Imagine Spock gettin' it! The best CGI was the ship crash across the bay, the graininess made it look just news reel enough.
The soundtrack on this movie is WAY shrill during the special effects sequences. My local theater (which generally has good sound) had it loud, and I put my fingers in my ears during a number of scenes, but my ears were still ringing afterwards. Suggestions:
1. Wait for the BluRay
2. If you can't wait, take earplugs!
Don't leave home without them.
Fwiw, not a trekkie or trekker, but I did enjoy the original series back in the day. (1966 - 1968) It was ground breaking television for its time.
movie disclaimer: 'haven't seen it. Probably, I will wait until dvd/blu-ray, if I even bother then. With regard to reviews of this current movie, I would have hoped for better.
re: Abrams. I can't say I'm a huge JJ Abrams fan. Nor a critic. And I thought the 2009 Star Trek was kind of fun if not hugely impressive. There was a light heartedness to it, even though a revered planet within the Star Trek universe had been destroyed. There was a comic/frantic quality to the whole adventure that seemed to keep the movie galloping along from opening to end.
But now, maybe, I would like to see what Joss Whedon (as director) might do with an installment of this franchise using the same cast.
-Steve
agree JJ Abrams is a speed action freak these days
Hollywood would do such a thing! This is a new low............for this week! Ha! Typical tripe from them, I thank all of you Guinea Pigs for proving my theory correct.
ET
I want to beat the hell out of J.J. Abrams.
I'll bet Nicholas Meyer feels the same way.
Spoilers here-
The whole 'radiation' scene was a shameless rip-off of TWOK, and completely ineffective dramatically because WE KNEW IT WAS NOT PERMANENT.
"Lock up when you're done and don't touch the piano."
-Dr. Greg House
Star Trek movies area different animal than the series' - and in general I prefer the series. I liked the 2009 movie as an action movie not as "Star Trek"
This guy did a great job reviewing Star Trek AND Hollywood in general. In fact he liked the 2009 movie - the youtube is more interesting indictment on the process of Hollywood film making.
His reviews are more entertaining than most of the movies out there.
That was an entertaining review. Also, very insightful. The reviewer, (Plinkett) must be an industry insider. Perhaps a writer? His reviews tend to be movies unto themselves. Littered with vulgarities and while hitting bulls-eyes.
For instance, I never really took the time to observe the (now) obvious sexual references he notes in the first ST movie. "Star Trek the Movie". And yet there they are plain as day.
-Steve
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
