Darmok and Jalad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: dave1251
I wish I could say the same in regards to the latest Star Trek Movie.

Oddly enough, I haven't seen it, but yep, I heard I didn't miss much. I'll have to catch it anyhow, sooner or later, since that's simply mandatory.
wink.gif



I advise you to expect two hours of worthless violence and dribble with a plot that is written for a audience that can not stay engaged without explosions every two minutes. If you do this the movie can be entertaining.
 
Originally Posted By: dave1251
I advise you to expect two hours of worthless violence and dribble with a plot that is written for a audience that can not stay engaged without explosions every two minutes.

Gene must be spinning in his urn/space capsule or whatever he's in now.
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Neelix was the Jar Jar Binks of Star Trek.


I laughed when I read that....and I can't argue, in the first few seasons, I found him irritating while Kess was cloying and saccharine...but in the later seasons, Neelix showed some depth, and became a genuine character...instead of the caricature he was initially.


That he he did. But Jar Jar, worse than Ewoks, barely.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: dave1251
I advise you to expect two hours of worthless violence and dribble with a plot that is written for a audience that can not stay engaged without explosions every two minutes.

Gene must be spinning in his urn/space capsule or whatever he's in now.

It's not THAT bad. It's as different from the past iterations as those have been from each other, and it's different in the same direction as the rest of the industry: bigger, louder, flashier.

The main problem is that JJ Abrams and Roberto Orci basically excluded Star Trek's more cerebral elements and social mission. That's what really offends, IMO. You definitely feel it in the movies. There's none of the intellectual depth that the franchise had prior to them.

For the first Abrams movie (2009), I'd say it was perfectly good as a sci-fi action movie and a really entertaining and interesting take on updating the original series. The second one was really just an action flick in space, but still serviceable in that role. They just weren't good as Star Trek movies.

As a side note, I think the Abrams treatment is exactly what the Star Wars franchise needs for the post-Lucas era, so I'm eagerly anticipating that. For Trek, though, it was a travesty -- though I'd still say the movies are worth seeing (or at least not worth avoiding).
 
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: dave1251
I wish I could say the same in regards to the latest Star Trek Movie.

Oddly enough, I haven't seen it, but yep, I heard I didn't miss much. I'll have to catch it anyhow, sooner or later, since that's simply mandatory.
wink.gif



I advise you to expect two hours of worthless violence and dribble with a plot that is written for a audience that can not stay engaged without explosions every two minutes. If you do this the movie can be entertaining.

Both films, to me, lacked that special quality of "What's Out There???" that was the essence of "Star Trek." Good casting all around, I have to admit. (Except maybe the actor playing Mr. Scott.) But there was no imagination, no "What a strange pocket of the universe" that was the hallmark of at least the first two series.

Not to mention things like Chekov leaving his post on the bridge without permission, Spock having an affair (!) with Uhura, the Enterprise being able to land and take off from an ocean, and Kirk, a new ensign fresh from the Academy, being handed command of a top-of-the-line starship! In our world, ensigns do not command aircraft carriers -- and "Star Trek" at its best always tried to be plausible and to avoid things like that. We were told more than once that Kirk, while being the youngest starship captain they had, did his time in lesser posts and worked his way up the promotion ladder.

So, no; I didn't like either film.
 
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
Both films, to me, lacked that special quality of "What's Out There???" that was the essence of "Star Trek." Good casting all around, I have to admit. (Except maybe the actor playing Mr. Scott.) But there was no imagination, no "What a strange pocket of the universe" that was the hallmark of at least the first two series.

Not to mention things like Chekov leaving his post on the bridge without permission, Spock having an affair (!) with Uhura, the Enterprise being able to land and take off from an ocean, and Kirk, a new ensign fresh from the Academy, being handed command of a top-of-the-line starship! In our world, ensigns do not command aircraft carriers -- and "Star Trek" at its best always tried to be plausible and to avoid things like that. We were told more than once that Kirk, while being the youngest starship captain they had, did his time in lesser posts and worked his way up the promotion ladder.

Well said.
 
The whole Cadet-(not even Ensign)-Kirk-being-handed-the-keys-to-the-Enterprise thing did bother me, but I take it like this:

Pike was summoned to the Romulan ship. He handed the ship over to his First Officer (Spock) who he knew completely lacked the cojones that he had stated in the bar scene were a necessary requirement to be a great Starfleet officer, so he intended for Kirk to fill that role in his absence. He never counted on Vulcan being destroyed or Spock being unable to fulfill his duties as acting Captain - all Spock was ever supposed to do was to rendezvous with the rest of the fleet, and likely turn over command of the Enterprise to a senior officer.

So, yeah... that's my rationalization.
 
It's been a while since I saw the first Abrams film, so I'm not sure. Was Spock a cadet, at the Academy with Kirk, or was he an older officer (as was implied in the original series)?
 
Originally Posted By: john_pifer
BTW I've always hated Janeway. Horrible choice for captain of Voyager


++1

I'd take DS9 over Voyager in any light year.
 
Originally Posted By: leeharvey418
The whole Cadet-(not even Ensign)-Kirk-being-handed-the-keys-to-the-Enterprise thing did bother me, but I take it like this:

Pike was summoned to the Romulan ship. He handed the ship over to his First Officer (Spock) who he knew completely lacked the cojones that he had stated in the bar scene were a necessary requirement to be a great Starfleet officer, so he intended for Kirk to fill that role in his absence. He never counted on Vulcan being destroyed or Spock being unable to fulfill his duties as acting Captain - all Spock was ever supposed to do was to rendezvous with the rest of the fleet, and likely turn over command of the Enterprise to a senior officer.

So, yeah... that's my rationalization.


Kirk had already saved them by realizing what was going on. And its not as if Pike had an experienced crew.
 
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
It's been a while since I saw the first Abrams film, so I'm not sure. Was Spock a cadet, at the Academy with Kirk, or was he an older officer (as was implied in the original series)?


Same as original.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
The main problem is that JJ Abrams and Roberto Orci basically excluded Star Trek's more cerebral elements and social mission. That's what really offends, IMO. You definitely feel it in the movies. There's none of the intellectual depth that the franchise had prior to them.

Of course, that's always the dilemma. It's not easy to have something cerebral become a summer blockbuster.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: dave1251
I wish I could say the same in regards to the latest Star Trek Movie.

Oddly enough, I haven't seen it, but yep, I heard I didn't miss much. I'll have to catch it anyhow, sooner or later, since that's simply mandatory.
wink.gif



I really enjoyed the reboot. I thought they were faithful to the characters while creating a new timeline. It's a very different take on Kirk. Kirk's birth, and his father's decision in that scene was very well done. Bruce Greenwod is a very believable Pike.
 
The new movies should have been based on Peter David's New Frontier--the Excalibur, commanded by Mackenzie Calhoun. (First officer: Elizabeth Shelby.)
 
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
What little I saw of "Voyager" I liked. Tim Russ made the best Vulcan since Nimoy and Lenard -- too many of the younger actors playing Vulcans failed to project that sense of alienness, of a superbly intelligent being, that the first actors did. And Kate Mulgrew's Capt. Janeway really seemed like a ship captain. (I understand Genevieve Bujold was originally cast as Janeway, and quit during filming of the first episode. I can't believe her as a commanding officer. Mulgrew I could.)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SIZcDWKyw0
 
I remember as a kid, being drawn into TNG by the fact that it had a person who I always already familiar with, as a watcher of Reading Rainbow and Captain Planet. I always found it so interesting to see him on TNG. Same goes for Whoopi Goldberg.

Good draw-in for one of the best TV series I ever encountered.

I watched them all, except for Enterprise, which sucked from what little I saw. I did love Jeffery Combs as the Andorian, however.

Say what you want about the new movies, but in contrast to Enterprise, and some of the other Trek movies, at least people want to watch these movies.
 
Enterprise actually had it's moments. I was never able to bring myself to watch all of it though.
 
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
What little I saw of "Voyager" I liked. Tim Russ made the best Vulcan since Nimoy and Lenard -- too many of the younger actors playing Vulcans failed to project that sense of alienness, of a superbly intelligent being, that the first actors did. And Kate Mulgrew's Capt. Janeway really seemed like a ship captain. (I understand Genevieve Bujold was originally cast as Janeway, and quit during filming of the first episode. I can't believe her as a commanding officer. Mulgrew I could.)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SIZcDWKyw0


All I can say is, Thank GOD she quit.

She would have had to introduce herself as "Katherine Janeway, Spinster of the USS Voyager".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

vavavroom
I spotted a driverless self-driving Prius
Replies
7
Views
365
PandaBear
y_p_w
Wind power being used for commercial shipping
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
OVERKILL
Owen Lucas
  • Locked
Submersible wreckage brought to surface.
3 4 5
Replies
87
Views
4K
M56959
V
What is that place called off shore of New York in the Atlantic?
Replies
9
Views
732
alarmguy
C
River cruises in the USA
Replies
5
Views
572
Chevelle3221
Back
Top