pontalba Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 I don't know if I can watch this on principle after what they did to the character of Uruha in the first film, they sexed her up and made her into a complete tramp. I thought my husband put it well. They are all called Star Trek, but are in reality different genres. The original series, Space Seed for example that I mention above. Husband called that more akin to a literary genre, and the new film a straight out Action/Adventure film. I have to agree. Even the films are different to the original series. TOS was more into morality plays. That has been, a great deal, left at the wayside. I believe the farther away from Roddenberry the series got, the more "action packed" it became. I know I gave it a favorable review, and in a way it had as background the good guys against the bad guys, but in retrospect, it ain't the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodkafan Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 (edited) I thought my husband put it well. They are all called Star Trek, but are in reality different genres. The original series, Space Seed for example that I mention above. Husband called that more akin to a literary genre, and the new film a straight out Action/Adventure film. I have to agree. Even the films are different to the original series. TOS was more into morality plays. That has been, a great deal, left at the wayside. I believe the farther away from Roddenberry the series got, the more "action packed" it became. I know I gave it a favorable review, and in a way it had as background the good guys against the bad guys, but in retrospect, it ain't the same. I never thought of it like that before pontalba but yes your husband has it exact. This new dumbed down sexed up Star Trek is not for me I feel. Edited May 26, 2013 by vodkafan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted May 29, 2013 Author Share Posted May 29, 2013 As I said before, I don't think the big screen is really the best place for Star Trek to flex it's muscles, but I think for a general audience this is probably the right format. For any franchise to be successful it has to appeal to a wider audience than just the fans and when you start knocking out films like Insurrection and Nemesis your days are going to be numbered. Abram's hasn't reinvented the wheel, he's just been smart and taken the character dynamic that made the original series appealing and added a fast-paced action-packed plot. This film had it's flaws for me, for the reasons I've stated previously, but leaving those niggles aside this was a pretty decent blockbuster that was way more polished and sophisticated than most of the popcorn fodder Hollywood pumps out. I don't think this approach dumbs down Star Trek, it's just a different direction for it to take whilst we await the inevitable commissioning of Star Trek: The Sixth Generation (or whatever is bound to happen, one day). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontalba Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 (edited) Well, raven...yes and no. With the right crew the franchise is great in any venue. imo Just last night we watched Star Trek: The Motion Picture and The Wrath of Kahn.....really so much better IMO than the new breed. Even though I liked the new one, as mentioned above...it's a whole 'nuther ball game. And good in it's own way, and trying to cling to the good guys winning out. You know as cute and adorable as Chris Pine is..........the other day I saw a picture of his, dressed as Kirk next to a picture of Shatner as Kirk. There. Was. No. Comparison. Sorry. And I'm not saying that as at the age I am now, 62, but as the 16 year old girl that first saw Shatner as Kirk. And, VF, I agree, Nichelle Nichols as Uruha was not only beautiful, but lady-like and she brought a depth to the character that this new girl cannot. Yes, she is a beautiful girl, but all I can think is that the script lacks. Sorry, can't think of her name. Simon Pegg is a cutie, but Scottie? Well, maybe in time. I think the guy that plays Spock comes closest to the original. And he needs work. /crossedfingersforall/ It's funny, I hadn't watched the original Star Trek in a number of years, and watching it again.........simply blew me away with it's sincerity, and humanity. Edited May 30, 2013 by pontalba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodkafan Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Hi pontalba, I have been watching the original series too. Uruha was indeed completely convincing as a ships officer with a job to do, and she had that dignity. I remember Whoopie Goldberg in an interview saying what a huge impression the character of Uruha had on her personally, with so few black role models in TV to look up to . I haven't seen this film, but in the first film what did the new Uruha bring? Sex and a pretty face. I definitely DO think there was a dumbing down and selling out in her case. Is there any role model for a young teenage girl (of any colour) to look up to? No. Both Kirk and Spock have really impressed me re-watching the original series, at least when an intelligent writer is behind the episode. Spock's character is really corny and says the most stupid things in the first episode (Where No Man Has Gone Before) but by the second episode (The Corbomite Maneuver) his logical thought processes are both more apparent and yet more understated and subtle. Which is the mark of a good actor to convey something without being obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodkafan Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Wrath of Khan and The Search For Spock were both awesome films for me and the best of the first crop of movies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karsa Orlong Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 the other day I saw a picture of his, dressed as Kirk next to a picture of Shatner as Kirk. There. Was. No. Comparison. Nice to see you said that Shatner style Simon Pegg is a cutie, but Scottie? Well, maybe in time. I think the guy that plays Spock comes closest to the original. And he needs work. /crossedfingersforall/ Totally agree about Pegg - his Scotty just doesn't work for me. I said it earlier, but I think Karl Urban's McCoy is the best and closest to the original. They really have to give him more to do. They're so busy focusing on Kirk and Spock that they've forgotten the vital dynamics of the original trio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontalba Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Nice to see you said that Shatner style Totally agree about Pegg - his Scotty just doesn't work for me. I said it earlier, but I think Karl Urban's McCoy is the best and closest to the original. They really have to give him more to do. They're so busy focusing on Kirk and Spock that they've forgotten the vital dynamics of the original trio. Ahh, yes. In the presence of The Shat, one must......emote. lol And, yes again, the man...Urban? that is playing McCoy is actually the closest to Kelley that I could imagine. Vital dynamic...exactly. I'm hoping for that to emerge on the new version what with the 5 year mission beginning. Have you read any of the Star Trek books? Wrath of Khan and The Search For Spock were both awesome films for me and the best of the first crop of movies Agreed, although on second viewing the first one was far better than I'd remembered. It was like a love letter to Trekkies....after all, that was released a full 10 years after the original series went off the air. I was a bit disappointed the first time I saw it....upon it's release, but this time I loved it. And Kahn is a wonderful prelude to Search and I have to admit, I loved The Undiscovered Country as well, the humor was truly funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athena Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 I thought The Undiscovered Country was really good, I loved the humour in it. I'm not sure but it may be my favourite one out of the ones I've seen so far (I still have a few more to watch, but I need to see Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes before that first. I haven't bought the seasons yet, I'm waiting for them to be re-released and go down a little in price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontalba Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Although I did enjoy The Next Generation, I could never love it the way I loved the original series. There was never (imo) the true camaraderie in TNG, that existed in TOS. As Karsa brought out...the trio, the unbreakable friendship that was between Kirk, Spock and McCoy has not been replicated. Those guys would and did go to hell and back for each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karsa Orlong Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 I've only just noticed that Syfy is now showing the HD versions of TNG. Unfortunately it's on season 1 at the moment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted May 30, 2013 Author Share Posted May 30, 2013 Despite the effort made to keep some kind of continuity with the original universe in the first film, I very much see the new films as something separate and distinct to the original series (in the same way that Chris Nolan's Batman is a different interpretation of the character from Tim Burton's version, or the Adam West one). Shatner will always be Kirk, Nimoy will always be Spock, Kelly will always be Bones etc, but Pine is now also Kirk - but a different Kirk - and the same goes for Quinto and Urban etc for their characters. I think Zoe Saldana has done a good job as Uhura - certainly no worse than any of the other performances - and I think her character has actually been better utilised than some of the others. For me she comes across as strong, confident, intelligent and - yes - sexy, but you can say exactly the same things about the Nichols version of the character as well. What the film's characters do lack over the original characters though is depth and that is simply because we haven't had the same contact time with them as we have with the original characters (and it is also because we haven't grown up watching them as well). This was a big part of the problem for me with the Kirk/Spock relationship in this film; have they really known each other long enough to build up the same kind of bond the original pair had in their films? No, they are just at the start of their friendship and the way they react to each other at key moments of the film is more like two people who have known each other for many years, not the short time they have.Karsa and pontalba are both right though, the main relationship in the films should be three way between Kirk, Spock and McCoy and not just Kirk and Spock (more screen time for Mr. Urban please!).And what of the other characters? Scotty, Sulu and Chekov are rarely more than caricatures of the originals, but at least Scotty gets something useful to do, poor Chekov has a particular bad ride in this film, but then you virtually always get that with the supporting characters in Trek films. The leads (Kirk/Spock/McCoy or Picard/Data) get all the juicy stuff and the rest of the characters are usually just, well, there - there just isn't enough time in a film for everyone to get a significant bite of the cherry (unless you have Joss Whedon writing for you).As an aside, Trek has always had a wobbly track record when it comes to representing women. Yes, it was a big move to have a such a high ranking female bridge officer in the original series (regardless of her ethnic background) but then they put her in a mini-skirt . . . (and it didn't stop there, Major Kira in Deep Space Nine and Seven of Nine in Voyager are both strong and largely well written characters, but check out their heels . . .). And I'm not even going to go into all the naïve female aliens who were taught about kissing by Kirk . . . Undoubtedly the various series and films have inspired a lot of women and I think this is something Trek does deserve applause for, but I don't think the current film is any worse than the rest of Trek when it comes to its attitude to women (I suppose there is an argument there that they could have been more progressive, though). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodkafan Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 D . And I'm not even going to go into all the naïve female aliens who were taught about kissing by Kirk . . . Hi Raven well defended on all points! You are right about Captain Kirk..no female alien was safe with him around . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted May 31, 2013 Author Share Posted May 31, 2013 Have you read any of the Star Trek books? I forgot to answer this yesterday, but yes, loads of them over the years! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karsa Orlong Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 You are right about Captain Kirk..no female alien was safe with him around . Trek ain't Trek unless Kirk gets to snog an alien and expose his chest at least once per episode Haven't read any Trek novels for 20 years or more, but the ones that stick out in my memory are The Entropy Effect, The Wounded Sky, Yesterday's Son and The Final Reflection (all TOS novels). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palagrin Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I just recently saw this at the BFI IMAX in London in 3D. Can't say I was THAT impressed, slightly disappointed really. Visually - it's stunning, of course, and the IMAX sequences were gorgeous, as usual. But the story. Can't say I was convinced. For a start, the pacing was all over the place; and it never gained any really momentum, it just jumped from crisis to crisis, allowing for no buildup and subsequently no proper climax. Secondly, the motivations of the villains - both Cumberbatch, who was fantastic and underused, I thought - his character almost became a secondary villain, and the Commander, whose motivations weren't really that clear and I thought a bit...meh. I was disappointed by his character. Thirdly, waaaay too many corny lines. I also thought that it relied too much on the established mythos and the self-references for anyone who hadn't seen the episodes/films it was referencing to understand it that well. As for the IMAX - I love IMAX, but I'm not sure I'd watch something in 3D again until shooting in a higher frame rate is standardised. It's just too much of a strain, and it spoils the otherwise stunning visuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dex Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 (edited) ....See it in 2D, See it on a deal day, Don't be a Trekkie. Edited May 31, 2013 by dex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontalba Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I just recently saw this at the BFI IMAX in London in 3D. Can't say I was THAT impressed, slightly disappointed really. Visually - it's stunning, of course, and the IMAX sequences were gorgeous, as usual. But the story. Can't say I was convinced. For a start, the pacing was all over the place; and it never gained any really momentum, it just jumped from crisis to crisis, allowing for no buildup and subsequently no proper climax. Secondly, the motivations of the villains - both Cumberbatch, who was fantastic and underused, I thought - his character almost became a secondary villain, and the Commander, whose motivations weren't really that clear and I thought a bit...meh. I was disappointed by his character. Thirdly, waaaay too many corny lines. I also thought that it relied too much on the established mythos and the self-references for anyone who hadn't seen the episodes/films it was referencing to understand it that well. As for the IMAX - I love IMAX, but I'm not sure I'd watch something in 3D again until shooting in a higher frame rate is standardised. It's just too much of a strain, and it spoils the otherwise stunning visuals. I agree with much of what you say, especially with regard to the self-referential bits....I am pretty well immersed in the Star Trek history, so I have to say I enjoyed that. I can see however that it would be disrupting to someone that was not that familiar. I think it is just a case of JJ trying to throw a bone to the old-timers of Star Trek. There was so much more to Kahn in the original, I suppose I tended to cast this new one in much the same light. Perhaps understood his motivations a bit more. I forgot to answer this yesterday, but yes, loads of them over the years! I have about 200-odd that I collected in the second hand store about 25 or 30 years ago. Trek ain't Trek unless Kirk gets to snog an alien and expose his chest at least once per episode Haven't read any Trek novels for 20 years or more, but the ones that stick out in my memory are The Entropy Effect, The Wounded Sky, Yesterday's Son and The Final Reflection (all TOS novels). One of the first to come out was a collection of short stories... http://www.amazon.com/New-Voyages-Star-Trek/dp/0553246364/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1370030266&sr=1-1&keywords=star+trek+new+voyages It's one of the best. There is a story for every main ST:TOS character. The one at the end with Kirk is especially heart rending and speaks to the close bond between "the three". Loved Yesterday's Son...nice follow up on the original episode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palagrin Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I can see however that it would be disrupting to someone that was not that familiar. I think it is just a case of JJ trying to throw a bone to the old-timers of Star Trek. I'd say I'm more familiar than most but I'm still not THAT familiar and most of that went over my head. So yeah. He did exactly the opposite of what he did for the first - he pandered to the Trekkies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontalba Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 I'd say I'm more familiar than most but I'm still not THAT familiar and most of that went over my head. So yeah. He did exactly the opposite of what he did for the first - he pandered to the Trekkies. Interesting. A mistake on JJ's part then? What I'm actually wondering is how much JJ wants to hold onto the original Trekkies. It's a fine line he has to walk, not so easy. Just out of curiosity, what was it that went over your head? I remember quite a few chuckles on my part, but couldn't say what the connection or instance was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karsa Orlong Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Interesting. A mistake on JJ's part then? Very much so. I still don't know why they decided to basically re-run Khan - and repeat so much of the dialogue in the process - rather than tell an original story. Very lazy. On the other hand, I don't count that as 'pandering', because it seems to be working against the film with the fans. It's certainly my biggest issue with it. What I'm actually wondering is how much JJ wants to hold onto the original Trekkies. It's a fine line he has to walk, not so easy. I don't think he can make a movie for the fans and make the movie that the studio wants to see. For me, the best of the movies (Khan, Undiscovered Country, First Contact) were basically tv episodes upgraded for the big screen. They aren't going to hold the attention of the average multiplex ADHD cinema-goer, sadly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted June 1, 2013 Author Share Posted June 1, 2013 I think The Wrath of Khan, The Undiscovered Country, First Contact and The Motion Picture are the films that best made use of the film format, for me it is the likes of The Final Frontier, Generations and Insurrection that feel more like two-part TV episodes on the big screen (very much so in Insurrection's case). I get the impression Abrams and Co. were just trying to play a clever homage to TWoK in this film, for some it worked but for others, like myself, it was too jarring. I have some friends who know a little about Star Trek, but not to the level that they can recognise dialogue from the films or TV series, and they loved it. For the mass market, all the self-referencing will just go straight over their heads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontalba Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Very much so. I still don't know why they decided to basically re-run Khan - and repeat so much of the dialogue in the process - rather than tell an original story. Very lazy. On the other hand, I don't count that as 'pandering', because it seems to be working against the film with the fans. It's certainly my biggest issue with it. I don't think he can make a movie for the fans and make the movie that the studio wants to see. For me, the best of the movies (Khan, Undiscovered Country, First Contact) were basically tv episodes upgraded for the big screen. They aren't going to hold the attention of the average multiplex ADHD cinema-goer, sadly. No, I wouldn't use as strong a term as pandering. Self-referential, in jokes, on that level. Pandering sounds too......creepy. Right, everything nowadays, with 'blockbuster' type movies, it's all CGI, and the biggest, most elaborate explosions. While that is pretty nifty, it doesn't further the story line in a truly creative manner. Did they repeat the dialogue? The actual story line was far different.....Kahn's entry into that century was certainly different from that presented in TOS's Space Seed, which was the precursor to The Wrath of Kahn. In the original there was no "evil Federation guy/commander" at the back of the "plot". I think The Wrath of Khan, The Undiscovered Country, First Contact and The Motion Picture are the films that best made use of the film format, for me it is the likes of The Final Frontier, Generations and Insurrection that feel more like two-part TV episodes on the big screen (very much so in Insurrection's case). I get the impression Abrams and Co. were just trying to play a clever homage to TWoK in this film, for some it worked but for others, like myself, it was too jarring. I have some friends who know a little about Star Trek, but not to the level that they can recognise dialogue from the films or TV series, and they loved it. For the mass market, all the self-referencing will just go straight over their heads. I didn't care for the films of ST:TNG.....I saw two of them...not sure which at this point, the first two I suppose. But I lost interest. They were getting too "monster/evil alien race" for my taste. Which isn't entirely fair, I know. I suppose it was at the base because I never really got into the Next Gen series. Oh, I watched it, all the way through. And some of it was truly excellent. But, for me, it didn't have the heart that TOS had. The characters never achieved the camaraderie that was so integral to TOS. JMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karsa Orlong Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Did they repeat the dialogue? The actual story line was far different.....Kahn's entry into that century was certainly different from that presented in TOS's Space Seed, which was the precursor to The Wrath of Kahn. In the original there was no "evil Federation guy/commander" at the back of the "plot". I was referring to Kirk (instead of Spock) sacrificing himself to save the ship. The whole of that sequence re-used dialogue from Wrath of Khan, especially the 'death' scene, which was almost word for word. But then why use Khan and his 72 people in the story at all? Why not come up with something original? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontalba Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 I was referring to Kirk (instead of Spock) sacrificing himself to save the ship. The whole of that sequence re-used dialogue from Wrath of Khan, especially the 'death' scene, which was almost word for word. But then why use Khan and his 72 people in the story at all? Why not come up with something original? Oh! Right, that is true. But I thought that was kind of neat, and I'm wondering how they will resurrect Kirk in the next film? But, I absolutely agree, they could have been more original. After all, they didn't mind changing up other stuff...origin of Kahn and all. Not ultimate origin, but origin of the problem in the new film. /phew!/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.