STAR TREK Warps Into First with $76.5 Mil Comments - Mania.com



COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Showing items 81 - 88 of 88
<<  <  6 7 8 9 
phantomman 5/11/2009 5:12:45 PM

Hobbs.... i guess i didn`t articulate it properly.   they certainly changed a lot.  Spock`s mom, kirk`s father`s death and manner in which kirk joins starfleet, Vulcan`s demise etc etc etc.   what i meant was everything else that we know of about Trek and it`s history is pretty much up in the air as to how it pans out.  Whether or not history goes on roughly the same or if things go completely different.  Will Kirk fight a big lizard one on one like he did in TOS?  Will there be a Wrath of Kahn?  Will Kirk have a son?  Will he die in the same manner as in Generations?  Will TNG still come about as we know it?  That`s why i mentioned it would be awesome to do an actual TV series.   You could totally explore just HOW drastically things have changed.

videocide 5/11/2009 8:53:12 PM

Spoiler----- 

Hobbs,

Yes nero did need the red matter from Spock, as well as time to make repairs after the Kelvin collided and for all we know he visted Romulus which we could find out in the sequel. I definetly need to give this movie another view.

chervil 5/13/2009 10:07:12 PM

 Karas1 - on the matter of "rational" people who want to wreak havoc without necessarily being crazy, I submit to you one Harry Mudd.

Who, btw, would make an excellent villian or even side-character in an ST: sequel.


Redhairs, I wonder if the Ceti Alpha creature is of the same type but of a slightly different sub-species.
Like ants have different sub-species.

Either that, or they can access the brainstem through more than one means.
 

karas1 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

chervil 5/14/2009 11:32:32 AM

 Karas - Sorry, for some reason I failed to notice that you referenced "movie" villians specifically.

I guess the only movie villians ST has had that were not crazed psychopaths were V'Ger and that probe from ST:IV.
But I am not sure if they really count or not as they weren't really intent on destroying anything so much as just making contact.
 

karas1 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.

thebigiff 5/16/2009 9:09:47 AM

Never a huge fan but I must say I was very pleased with this movie. It has been a while since I came out of a theatre and was not disappointed (see Wolverine) A bit too much of Kirk hanging over the edge of stuff, Spocks head being too big for his body and Kirk landing within a 100 yards of old Spock are my only quams. I hope this franchis does LLAP

chervil 5/17/2009 7:59:59 AM

 I have to admit that when you look at the series, most of the "villians" they encountered really weren't focused on the Federation or the Enterprise and her crew. They just "happened" across them in the normal stream of seeking out "new life and new civilizations".

What really hurts movies these days, is that the quality of writing and special effects on television is so high, that many shows are like mini-movies (under an hour long). 
Simply doubling the length, but following the same formula doesn't really guarantee a success.
When you pay to see something at the theatre, you expect to be wowed, not to see the same stuff you could see for free at home.

However, I think that most filmmakers misunderstand this and think it translates into bigger explosions, bigger baddies and over-the-top everything, rather than just better planning and organization and a great plot that just can't be told in under an hour or in a continuation.
IMHO, this is why many television shows (with some exceptions, natch) that are put on the big screen end up failing.
There winds up being little distinction between what is on the silver screen and what is on the flat screen in terms of content quality. Bigger explosions (etc.) do not make up for a lack of ratcheting the writing and acting up a notch or two.
 

<<  <  6 7 8 9 

ADD A COMMENT

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.