Knights & Knaves Alehouse

I don't know gentlemen, sometimes a movie is just a movie. I would follow Semaj Khan's advice, and you might just enjoy yourselves.

http://tiny.cc/afWfq

I"m going to go rather far out onto limb here.

I unconditionally recommend this ST to any TOS purists. If you see this movie and are not entertained by it, then you have my full, and complete, permission to return to this thread and call me a douche bag, without fear of reprisal.

Call me a douche bag in another thread, and it is soooo on!!

I saw it today, and I thought it was meh. It was OK for a popcorn flick, but I won't be seeing it again or buying the DVD.

Since it's always more fun to complain about movies than to praise them, let me list the three (non-spoiler) things I HATED about the movie, in no particular order:

1. Spock. Uhura.

2. The camera work. The camera was always put rightinpeople'sfaces. I wish they would have pulled back a little.

3. The damn CGI. The whole screen for most of the movie was filled with glowing, flashing, strobing, exploding, shining, zapping, etc. pieces of CGI stuff. It was way, way over the top. Way, way too many special effects. I felt like I was in Las Vegas with all those lights. It made the movie feel unreal, like I was watching a computer game.

TheRedPriest wrote:I"m going to go rather far out onto limb here.

I unconditionally recommend this ST to any TOS purists. If you see this movie and are not entertained by it, then you have my full, and complete, permission to return to this thread and call me a douche bag, without fear of reprisal.

Call me a douche bag in another thread, and it is soooo on!!

TRP I was hoping I could call you a douche bag, but I cannot. It was great.

quatzl wrote:I don't know gentlemen, sometimes a movie is just a movie. I would follow Semaj Khan's advice, and you might just enjoy yourselves.

http://tiny.cc/afWfq

So long as no one on this site ever takes offense to a new game coming out and laying claim to the heritage -- and name -- of a beloved game from years gone by I am quite willing to accept that "sometimes a movie is just a movie" and "get a life."

But then what would we talk about?

BlackBat242 wrote:Well, the thread title says "no spoilers", so I can't tell you what makes me really hate this movie....
If you really want to know, read my post here:
http://www.thepiazza.org.uk/bb/viewtopi ... 436#p26436


The dream is ended, the song silenced, the laughter gone.

So according to what I read in the link, you have not seen it yet.

You hate a film you haven't seen ?

Black Bat: "no spoilers", so I can't tell you what makes me really hate this movie."


Blackbat, I new we had to have at least one hardcore treki. Sure, there's alot of logical problems (letting a bunch of kids (well 20 something kids) crew the Enterprise bridge on their first stint out for one (and alot of other stuff) but hey, the characters did a bang up job on capturing personality, Dr. McCoy was fantastic, Kirk was mostly dead on (and never annoying as I'd expected), Spock was good too. It was action oriented, (with no message crap) they came up with a plot that neatly explained how the group met up (contrary to the original series), and hey, the original uniforms. I did miss phasers that actually did something more powerful then a 22 cal. (I mean lets see some disindegration).

If you were going to make a movie series of Star Trek with anyone but the original cast members, this was BY FAR the best option (even better then making up a new crew). The greatest thing about this is that they are locked into the personalities of likeable characters (rather then the very unlikeable TNG crew with all their personality...touchy feely "issues"). Also, the originals ships, the original uniforms, all fantastic. I was really blown out of my socks (considering what I went in expecting). Definitely the best of the movies save Wraith of Khan (as others have mentioned) though in WOK we were tortured by at least 40 min. of Kirks afro headed whimp son with father issues and his hagged out x-wife (or old girl friend?), luckily this movie had none of that. I'd say it was slightly better then "The Undiscovered Country" (was that 7) with Christopher Plumer.
Wow, I feel a bit like a traitor even saying that. I'll see it again for sure. Lets hope they make many more as good.

One interesting side note: Spocks original father Sarek played the vampire in the Night Stalker pilot movie, and the actor now playing Sarek(Ben Cross) played Barnabus Colins in the 91' remake of Dark Shadows (both were directed by Dan Curtis). I wonder if theres a "behind the scenes" connection here (or just chance).

Speaking of Next Generation, I suspect they felt left out of this movie (it certainly wasn't pussyfied enough for them).

JDJarvis wrote:

BlackBat242 wrote:Well, the thread title says "no spoilers", so I can't tell you what makes me really hate this movie....
If you really want to know, read my post here:
http://www.thepiazza.org.uk/bb/viewtopi ... 436#p26436


The dream is ended, the song silenced, the laughter gone.

So according to what I read in the link, you have not seen it yet.

You hate a film you haven't seen ?

Wait, dude... what?

Blackbat, I must have missed that statement by you... you haven't even seen the movie and you hate it?

Ok.

AxeMental wrote:One interesting side note: Spocks original father Sarek played the vampire in the Night Stalker pilot movie, and the actor now playing Sarek(Ben Cross) played Barnabus Colins in the 91' remake of Dark Shadows (both were directed by Dan Curtis). I wonder if theres a "behind the scenes" connection here (or just chance).

Barry Atwater was the vampire Skorzeny in the Night Stalker movie. I can find no reference for Mark Lenard in the subsequent series.

Ben Cross also played Malagant in the Connery movie First Night. I enjoyed him in that role as well as Barnabas in the retread Dark Shadows series.

So, no connection there.

ETA: Atwater played Surak, the father of Vulcan philosophy, in TOS in "The Savage Curtain." That's probably where you got confused.

I'd been planning to give this a pass, but hearing all these raves has got me possibly reconsidering. I still suspect I wouldn't much like it, not just because of Trek-purity stuff (though that's a part of it) but mostly because I just don't like the way action movies are made nowadays -- the high-adrenaline CGI-heavy set-pieces that feel more like a video game than what I think of as a movie. I have very little patience for those kinds of sequences, and from the trailers it looks like this movie's full of them. It is playing at the theater right down the street, though (and also at the theater right by my work), so I may end up just deciding to go on the spur of the moment (like I did with Watchmen, another movie I has initially planned on skipping).

Semaj Khan wrote:

AxeMental wrote:One interesting side note: Spocks original father Sarek played the vampire in the Night Stalker pilot movie, and the actor now playing Sarek(Ben Cross) played Barnabus Colins in the 91' remake of Dark Shadows (both were directed by Dan Curtis). I wonder if theres a "behind the scenes" connection here (or just chance).

Barry Atwater was the vampire Skorzeny in the Night Stalker movie. I can find no reference for Mark Lenard in the subsequent series.

Ben Cross also played Malagant in the Connery movie First Night. I enjoyed him in that role as well as Barnabas in the retread Dark Shadows series.

So, no connection there.



ETA: Atwater played Surak, the father of Vulcan philosophy, in TOS in "The Savage Curtain." That's probably where you got confused.

Ugg, that was it:

T. Foster wrote:I just don't like the way action movies are made nowadays -- the high-adrenaline CGI-heavy set-pieces that feel more like a video game than what I think of as a movie. I have very little patience for those kinds of sequences, and from the trailers it looks like this movie's full of them.

Yep.

There's lots of movies I don't go to see, because I know beforehand I'm not going to like them. There are lots of dumb comedies, chick-flicks, gory horror, kids' cartoons, etc. etc. that just aren't my thing. (In fact, I hate most modern movies.)

I eventually had to sit through all three The Lord of the Rings movies—gnashing my teeth the whole time—even though I already knew just from watching the first one that I hated the whole thing. I watched them all because people constantly asked my opinion of them and accused me of ill-informed judgmentalism. The fact is, I showed up to the first movie on opening night, in costume, with friends who thought it was great, steeling myself beforehand to try to NOT judge it in comparison with the books... and I still hated it. Sometimes "a movie is just a movie", but sometimes the viewer has a preexisting emotional investment in it.

I'm still on the fence about Star Trek, which honestly I am far less emotional about, but from what I have heard I know I would probably not like it. I think it'll just be a lot easier for me to shrug and casually say "I haven't seen it".

I went into this movie with an open mind, much like I went into the reboot of BSG with an open mind. I'm funny about what I can tolerate and what I can't accept.

This movie is a reboot, make no mistake. There is absolutely NO reason to put this as a "prequel" in the Star Trek universe as we've known it up to now. While we may know "how they characters met", they've met in a different Star Trek than we grew up with.

I enjoyed the movie for exactly that.

Each generation restates myths that fit their beliefs, that fit their worldview and that fit how they can retell a story. I'm sure the myths of today (think comic books), while having similar threads to myths of long ago, would be look at with wide eyes by the tellers and patrons of old. I think that by going into the new ST movie with that attitude, I enjoyed it for what it is.

No, it's not my TOS. It's not the Star Trek I grew up with. It *is* a Star Trek, it is a commentary on friendship and the ties that bind and it is a familiar feeling. When I woke up this morning wondering "What will *THIS* Kirk, Spock and McCoy do in the next movie..." I knew that I enjoyed it.

Things I liked:
- The complete reboot. When you go see it, and you understand the sandbox that this Star Trek will play in, as versus TOS, you'll understand why I say "complete reboot".

- McCoy. My Gods, Jim... I thought I was watching a young DeForest Kelly. Loved it.

- The devil may care, maximum warp speed feel. Someone earlier posted that Kirk's actions would not have been Star Fleet realistic. I had to laugh, given the innumerable times Kirk, Picard, et al broke the Prime Directive and Temporal Directive and got away with it. Kirk blew up 1701A on a personal agenda mission. I felt this movie was right in line.

- The obvious homages and nods to the universe, but the emphasis on what made that universe work - not the regs or rules, but the 3 - Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

What I didn't like:

- There's a new couple in the ST universe and that was one of the things that left me squirming in my seat a bit.

- Simon Pegg's role did not steal the show - I found his character a bit annoying. Not JarJar annoying, but it clashed.

- The intro act stretched credibility just a bit, but then the explanation later in the movie made me go "ah, that's why...."

All I can say is, the allegories of "Abrams ST is to TOS" like "4E is to OD&D" could be correct if you wish - but then, I'm also the guy who would play 4E with the right group of people who play D&D like I like D&D to be played. I can watch Abram's ST with understanding the reboot. TOS will always be my favorite, but I'll definitely enjoy this ST universe as well.

Chgowiz wrote: - McCoy. My Gods, Jim... I thought I was watching a young DeForest Kelly. Loved it.

This. Yes. My favorite character/actor from Star Trek, is now my favorite character/actor from Star Trek. Again.
Karl Urban channeled the heck out of DeForest Kelley. Good writing and acting came together perfectly for this character. You can usually tell when writers like a character, cause they get the best lines. Urban seemed to enjoy the hell out of his character; he played it to the hilt, and I definitely bought this character as a slightly younger Bones.

Chgowiz wrote:All I can say is, the allegories of "Abrams ST is to TOS" like "4E is to OD&D" could be correct if you wish - but then, I'm also the guy who would play 4E with the right group of people who play D&D like I like D&D to be played. I can watch Abram's ST with understanding the reboot. TOS will always be my favorite, but I'll definitely enjoy this ST universe as well.

I didn't get a 4e vibe, or 3e either for that matter, at all. In fact, I got just the opposite, but I'll have to create a Star Trek SPOILERS thread to explain.