Comments -

All karas1's Comments

Showing items 2,751 - 2,760 of 3,075
<<  <  273 274 275 276 277 278 279 >  >>  

ANGELS Nearly Stunned by Trek (Article) - 5/19/2009 11:56:36 AM

Hobbs, I know.  As much as I bitch it isn't going to change things.  They are going to churn out some uninspired eye candy and call it Star Trek and the new generation of fans whom Abrams is courting will eat it up and not know or care what they are missing.

I doubt that they will wait for 2012 to release another ST film.  They will want to strike while the iron is hot.  I expect it Christmas at 2010 or maybe summer of 2011.  It is unfortunate that the world won't end first...

WhiteKnight, if this movie had been about some other starship full of people in some other franchise or even some other ship in Starfleet with some other crew I could enjoy the movie for what it is, silly science fantasy that's no better than it should be.  Unfortunately, this is Kirk and The Enterprise and it should have been, could have been so much more.  How bad are things when the best you can say about a film is it wasn't as bad as it could have been?


ANGELS Nearly Stunned by Trek (Article) - 5/19/2009 4:30:26 AM

Hobbs, more mainstream doesn't have to mean moronic.  You can make an excellent film that has the slam bam action and cool effects and ALSO has a coherent plot and makes sense.  Look at the original Terminator film.  There was a really good scifi/action film that had a really GOOD time travel paradox at it's heart.  T2 was the same.  Look at the original Matrix film.  There was non stop action and cool FX AND the story meant something and had something to say about the human condition.  Star Trek used to be like that too.  This new version had the wiz and the bang but not the heart or the sense, like a supermodel who looks great but has a IQ of 40 and no conversational skills.  It may not cause the end of civilization but it's a big symptom that it's coming.

Byzarro, I am an OLD Trekkie.  It kills me that Wessmith's kid's friends think that this is Trek.  I don't want the ST franchise to die.  I want it to live forever.  But not at the price of becoming mindless pablum.  You say it had a great story?  What great story are you talking about?  It was a mindless retread of The Wrath Of Kahn without the sense or history that that film had.

chemikillgod, as I said to Hobbs, I have no problem with ST being popular or cool.  I just insist that it is also smart.  I still don't see why it can't be both.  Is the ordnary movie going public really so stupid that they won't go to a movie if it has a coherent plot without holes and errors in sense and logic?

And don't dis Trekkies.  We are not a little cult.  We are legion and we are doctors and lawyers and we work for NASA.  We invented the cell phone so that we could have our own communicators.  We are the people who like to watch movies that make us THINK rather than just go ohh ahh at the pretty colors.

But we are also getting old and are no longer the target demographic for adds for soda and fast cars.  So we don't count any more.  They'd rather make movies for teenagers who spend their days at the mall engaging in conspicuous consumption than the parents who have jobs and fund this orgy of spending.

BSG did the reboot concept right.  I have issues with the new BSG but it was a good show and it WAS about something and it did make you think.  It was about answering the question of what it is to be human and the morality of war and how we conduct ourselves under stress.  It was about hope in the face of incredible odds.  If the new ST had even half the intelligence of the new BSG I would have been overjoyed.  Unfortunately, it didn't.

And BTW, spock was ALWAYS hot. 

This Star Trek movie is new and hot and everybody still has the high they felt coming out of the theater.  In 6 months everybody will take a look back at it and realize that it was an incredibly ordnary movie.  Star Trek shouldn't be ordnary.  It was extrodinary for 40 years, now it is mundane.

ANGELS Nearly Stunned by Trek (Article) - 5/18/2009 10:51:16 AM

Yes Hobbs, it burns me.  They replaced good storytelling and science fiction that was actually about some form of science with a big budget FX spactacurlar that didn't make any sense.

Think back to the various TV series.  While I'd never say the science was %100 acurate there was at least some attempt to make it look real and many of the plots did hinge on actual science.  There was often some sort of point or moral to the story.  And characters had, well, character, personalities that frequently grew and changed like real people do during their lives.

This new movie had nothing resembling real science anywhere.  The moral was, mass murdering psychopaths are bad.  Did we really need a movie to tell us this?  And what personality the characters had was a parody of the actual characters that we loved for years.

It burns me that audiences would rather watch things go boom than an actual story that means something.  It's the death of our culture where people with no attention span watch slack jawed as the bright lights flicker over their faces and no thought passes through their brains.

This Star Trek film would be instantly forgettable for me if I weren't so busy counting up it's flaws.  It's a hollow empty shell of a movie that means nothing.  If that's all the original ST had been it would not have lasted for 40 years.  And I ache with sadness that anybody would prefer this zombie of a movie to the franchise that I grew up on that had intelligence and wit and heart and put forward the message that the future would be a wonderful place.

What is Genre Programming? (Article) - 5/18/2009 4:18:57 AM

It's a long Scifi tradition not to show anything interesting on holiday weekends.  They expect everybody to be a a BBQ for Memorial Day so why waste anything which might attract viewers?

Instruction Manuals for the U.S.S. Enterprise (Article) - 5/18/2009 3:59:36 AM

You think that JJ Abrams version is less goofy?  Unbelievable.

ANGELS Nearly Stunned by Trek (Article) - 5/18/2009 3:58:27 AM

I'm finding it throughly disappointing how popular the Star Trek film is.  I guess special effects will win out over an intelligent script every time.  Why write interesting dialogue or a plot that doesn't look like swiss cheese when you can watch a planet implode?  It's sad.

STAR TREK Debut Nets $7 Mil (Article) - 5/14/2009 12:35:18 PM

V'Ger and the probe from ST IV weren't really villians at all.  They had no evil motives and the fact that their actions killed or endangered people was totally unplanned by them. 

The Borg were doing what the Borg do.

Most of the other ST movies have featured villians who blew up planets and stars and things which killed or threatened to kill billions of people, usually because they were pissed off at some Enterprise crew member, TOS or TNG.  You know, that's getting boring.

Solving the Fans Economic Crisis Part Two (Article) - 5/14/2009 4:22:43 AM

Ben, you asked about Farscape.  Farscape was the best thing since sliced bread.  In fact, it was BETTER than sliced bread.  It was smart and creative and took chances and most of the time that paid off big time.  Occasionally it crashed and burned, but if you take risks there is always going to be the occasional failure.  Better the occasional dud episode among the gems than a long stretch of mediocrity.

It's not for everyone.  There were some people who just couldn't get past the fact that some of the characters were played by anamatronic puppets.  But most people with good imaginations didn't have that problem.

While the stories were mostly self contained in the first season, starting in the second season it got into some very dense arcs and by season 3 coming in cold would probably leave you completely confused.  And it got really dark in some places.  I mean really dark.

But was it worth it?  Hell yeah!  It was an experience you really shouldn't miss.

The current run of Farscape comics are cute, but they really don't do the original justice.

Kara S



STAR TREK Debut Nets $7 Mil (Article) - 5/14/2009 3:54:21 AM

And Harry Mudd was not a movie villian.

I would love to see Harry Mudd or a similar character in a ST movie.  I admit that Mudd's motivation, greed, is something I can understand and therefore I find that character more interesting than yet another vengence crazed psychopath. 

Not being a crazed psychopath myself I find that kind of character hard to understand or empathize with and while seeing such a character is interesting once, when you get to the fifth or sixth time it starts to wear thin.

Kara S

STAR TREK (Article) - 5/11/2009 12:41:44 PM

Hobbs, the reason the movies after First contact failed was, they weren't very good movies, ST or no ST.  The highest grossing of the ST films was ST IV because it was a great film.  It's as simple as that.  A really good film will usually make better box office than a mediocre one.

redhairs, perhaps ST has a small fan base compared to to all the people who go to movies every day.  My question is still, why should the movie goers who are not ST fans and not part of the fanbase be more attracted to a Star Trek movie with Kirk than one with Captain Ramalovich?  By definition, they are not fans of the franchise and have no particurlar attraction to Kirk.  They don't know him.

SPOILERS - natch

Now, I actually saw the movie yesterday and it wasn't as horrible as I had expected it to be.  I wrote a long post about some things I didn't like about it in the box office report thread, mostly dealing with why I hated the engineering sets, and so most of you have probably read that already.  (though I will reiterate, Spock and Uhura making out in the elevator?  Nooooooo!)  I disliked other things, about the plot.  Such as, why is EVERY villian in a ST movie fucking nuts?  And how could old Spock and Kirk have such a good view of Vulcan imploding unless the planet they were on was in the same solar system (and really, really close to Vulcan) and I was quite sure that by the time Kirk was ejected from the Enterprise they had been in warp for a while and were most definitely not in the Vulcan system. 

I liked most of the actors (except for Checkov who, IMHO, sucked).  I thougth Quinto was great as Spock, and I loved Scotty.  Pine as Kirk and Urban as Bones were good.   Sulu was fine.  Uhura would have been fine if she hadn't been trying to jump down Spock's throat at every opportunity, though that was a problem with the script, not the actress.

An interesting thing.  I was at at 3:40 showing, there were maybe a dozen people there.  I took my 71 year old mother (she loved it by the way) and while there was was one kid who was there with his grandfather, the other moviegoers were all at least my age, most older.  While I didn't talk to any of them I'm sure they were all Trekkies who had loved the franchise for decades.  There were no young people there who were unfamilliar with the franchise, there to see the pretty explosions.  Of course, the theater in general was pretty dead so it's not like viewers were boycotting the film in favor of seeing something else.  They were just off celebrating Mother's Day in some other way than by going to the movies.

Kara S



Date Joined: October 3, 2006