Comments -

All karas1's Comments

Showing items 2,861 - 2,870 of 3,175
<<  <  284 285 286 287 288 289 290 >  >>  

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


STAR TREK Debut Nets $7 Mil (Article) - 5/11/2009 4:46:54 AM

Well, it wasn't as bad as I was fearing.  I overall liked the new actors.  But some things still rubbed me the wrong way.


Spock and Uhura making out in the elevator?  Oh come on!  Spock may have been young but he was never young enough to do something so undignified. 

And the Enterprise is now apparently powered by steam engines.  Um, well, that was... unexpected.  In TOS the warp engines were powered by dilithium crystals in a quantity that you could hold in your hand.  Now the engine room is huge and filled with tubes and vats containing water or some other clear, non dangerous liquid.  In a scene straight out of Willy Wonka, Scotty gets sucked through the tubes towards a spinning fan that will chop him to bits until Kirk gets him out through a handy release vent, put there, presumably, to release clumsy engineering trainees who get themselves sucked into the pipes like idiots.  Wait, did I say Willy Wonka?  I meant Galaxy Quest!  But I digress.  Since engineering progress is geared towards miniturization, going form an engine which is powered by a handfull of crystals to one full of tubes and vats and fans seems to be a big step backwards.

And Nero, he witnesses the destruction of his planet and gets sucked back in time.  What does he do?  Does he go to Romulus and buy stocks he knows will do well, bet on ball teams he knows will win and, maybe, warn his people that a supernova will destroy the planet in 150 years?  No.  He decides to destroy a bunch of other planets instead.  You'd think that even if he was as crazy as a bed bug, some of the other people on his ship would have a few smarts.  And why are all ST movie villians stone cold crazy?  Aren't there any rational people in the 23rd century who want to wreak havoc as part of some rational plan to accomplish some goal other than revenge?

Kara S

Star Trek's 6 Most Ridiculous Alien Races (Article) - 5/9/2009 12:12:08 PM

Well, A Piece Of The Action was always one of my favorite eps. ST did comedy so well.

STAR TREK (Article) - 5/9/2009 12:08:09 PM

Redhairs, I don't know if are old enough to remember when Star Wars first came out.  (I mean Star Wars: A New Hope but they added the new hope part much later and it will always be just Star Wars to me.)  There was a movie full of characters we had never heard of in a universe we were completely unfamilliar with and yet, despite the fact that Star Wars didn't have 40 years worth of press  behind it, it was a hit and made lots of money.  So did The Matrix and Back to The Future and Raiders Of The Lost Ark and Jurasic Park and a whole bunch of others

Why?  Because they were good movies.

In fact, most movies are not part of pre-existing franchises and some of them do phenemonally well, in fact, become the foundation on which new franchises are built. 

It is more common for a movie to spawn TV series than the other way around.  Or it used to be.  Now we are awash with movie versions of old TV series and most of them sink like stones.  Why?  Because while they have brand recognition they are bad films. 

Hollywood moguls think that all you need is a familliar name and you'll have a hit.  They greenlight Green Acres the Movie, forgetting that the reason Green Acres was popular was because of Eddie Albert and Eva Gabor.  Then you get a piece of trash starring Justin Timberlake and Lindsey Lohan, set in the hood instead of the country, written by someone who couldn't pass the high school regents English test and scored with hip hop and rap music.  God forbid!

But I digress...

A new Star Trek film with new cast wouldn't have to start from scratch.  Put a big Star Trek logo on it to attract the people who are already fans and then treat it like it was a brand new movie.  Introduce the new characters and situations like it was brand new.  It might seem a slow start to those of us who already know a Klingon form a Cardassian but we'd get by.  Then send your new crew with new actors on a slam bang action ride across the galaxy and everybody, new fans and old, will be satisfied and have a wonderful time.

Kara S

STAR TREK (Article) - 5/9/2009 10:01:29 AM

Chemikillgod, I haven't seen the film yet, but from what I understand, due to some business with a timewarp, the bridge crew of the Enterprise meet eachother and go on adventures BEFORE they are assigned to the Enterprise in direct contradiction of established contunity.  Abrams did this on purpose BECAUSE he didn't want to be bothered to be accurate.  And because trying to fit new adventures into 40 years of established continuity was too damn hard.  He wiped the slate clean so he could craft his own adventures from scratch in his own way.  That's the whole purpose of the movie.

As per my previous post, you can see that having new adventures told in a different way doesn't upset me.  The franchise needed a new direction because it stagnated and died.  What upsets me is that in order to find his new direction, Abrams thought he had to trash all that had gone before.

Kara S

STAR TREK (Article) - 5/9/2009 9:49:06 AM

But Hobbs, they used a brand new fresh spanking crew in TNG and DS9 and Voyager and all 3 were tremendously successful.  Each new series went for SEVEN seasons and only ended because the actors' contracts were up and they wanted to move on.  So why wouldn't a movie with a new crew do well?  ESPECIALLY since Abrams is trying to attract new viewers who aren't ST fans and wouldn't know Kirk from a hole in the ground anyway.

The series that didn't do well, Enterprise, had 2 things against it. 

First, Brannon and Braga and the other producers and show runners had been doing ST for 15 or so years and they were, to put it bluntly, out of fresh ideas.  As big a fan of ST as I am, I quit watching Voyager around year 4 because it had gotten boring.  The same 6 ideas were being recycled endlessly and the characters weren't engaging enough to keep me interested anyway.

I never watched Enterprise because the same people who bored me with Voyager were running it. 

Secondly, Enterprise went back in time before Kirk and made a mishmash of the established continuity and I didn't want to see it.  They tried to fix it (I've heard) with a story arc about villians going back in time and screwing up the timeline.  The fans didn't buy it.  It only lasted 4 seasons, which when you think about it, isn't bad for a network TV show.

The fans didn't like timewarp retconning in Enterprise, Why should they like it in this new movie?

And since the viewers that Abrams is trying to attract never watched TOS anyway, why should they be more attracted by Captain Kirk then they would be by Captain Romelovich?  Run a few commercials with clips of a space battle and explosions and a couple of scantily clad green women with bodacious tatas and all your bored twentysomething movie goers who have had nothing better to watch than Fast and Furious since December will be running to the theaters in droves.  And Abrams would have a whole new franchise to play with WITHOUT offending long time fans (we have money too, why alienate us if you don't have to?)  You could even cast the exact same actors and use the flourescent sets and everything.

STAR TREK (Article) - 5/9/2009 7:48:54 AM

< it was just becoming too cumbersome to have to stop the process of storytelling in order to determine if person X was in place Y at such and such time. Imagine how difficult it would be to tell GOOD stories when you're going back to Kirk and Spock in their early years, while having to tiptoe around all the previously established continuity.>

Which is the best reason not to go back in time and tell stories about Kirk and Spock before TOS.  It would have been better to do a movie with different characters that would take place AFTER  Voyager.  Then you could chart your own course and do your own thing and tell your own stories and not have to worry that if you kill off Comodore Decker he won't be around to play his part in The Doomsday Machine episode or whatever.

Now, I haven't seen the film yet (I'm going to tomorrow) but from what I understand, they pull a fast one with a time warp which apparently sets up the crew of the Enterprise to have all new adventures and invalidates 40 years of ST storytelling.  Why?  So they can call their characters Kirk and Spock?  Why not invent all new characters who are similar?  Brash young officers and logical alien scientists must be a dime a dozen in the federation.  The adventures of Captain George Romelovich and his buddies Dr Glasser and Mr Xrughtlyn in the 25th century have a lot more appeal to me than the adventures of Kirk, Spock and McCoy in an alternate dimension with new actors and sets.

And with Paramount's marketing dept it would be all the same to these new potential fans who never watched the old show anyway.  It would be a big summer popcorn flick with space ships and aliens and exploding suns.  All the same people would go to see it.  So I repeat, what is the point?

STAR TREK (Article) - 5/8/2009 11:33:24 AM

Joeybaloney, you are so eloquent.  You said exactly what I've been trying to say.

I get the feeling that Abrams thinks Star Trek is old fashioned and dumb.  So he wants to change it to make it "cool".  What he fails to realize is that the definition of "cool" changes and what looks cool today will look dated and dumb in a few years.  Star Trek has something that has made it popular for 40 years with 5 TV series (six if you count the cartoon), 7 movies and countless tie in novels, toys and games.  There have been hugely popular Star Trek conventions for generations. 

You know, this Star Trek might just have something, some quality that's worth something.  It might be something that Abrams in his quest for cool might not understand or value.  And that would be sad.

BTW, I get the feeling that certain Maniacs might feel that Star Trek is old fashioned and dumb also which is why they are so pumped that it has been reimagined.  If so, you are entitled to that oppinion.  I probably don't like all the franchises that you value either.  But the attitude that those of us who fear that something we love has been tarnished should stop counting rivets and get a life is getting on my nerves.  We have as much right to be nervous as you do to be pumped.

Kara S 

The Best of Star Trek: The Next Generation (Article) - 5/7/2009 12:49:39 PM

My favorite TNG episode, I think it's called Brothers (though I could be wrong) is the one where Data is kidnapped by Dr Soon and then Lore shows up.  I also liked the one where Data had a daughter.

Probably my least favorite was the one where parts of the Enterprise were turning into a stone temple.  And it didn't seem to affect hull integrity.  My second least favorite was the one where the crew were de-evolving.  Did you know that humans evolved from Spiders?  Me neither.

STAR TREK (Article) - 5/7/2009 12:36:04 PM

I'll see the film and who knows, I may like it.  But it's supposed to be "not your father's Star Trek".  And since I'm old enough to be the parent of the new fan that Abrams is courting, he has stated that this is not the film for me.  So what am I supposed to think?

I guess I'll just have to plunk down my money and see you all on Monday to debate the film's merrits.

Kara S


Date Joined: October 3, 2006