Summer SciFi Thread

The other frustrating thing with Trek 2009 is how snobby some of the hardcore fans are about it. They treat the franchise as if they alone have rights to it and god forbid anyone not of their persuasion actually enjoy the new film - what do they know? People also hate the film for taking the series in a new direction even though the old course had hit a very lonely, dark dead end.
Why is it snobby to expect a coherent plot, a non-cartoonish way of handling the characters and plot, basic respect for the original source material, and lead actors who can actually act? Honestly, nuKirk has all the acting skill and charisma of a male underwear model - which is to say none at all. And nuSpock looks constantly constipated.

There are countless ways they could have gone in reviving the series. There's one dropped plot thread from early TNG that was never picked up on again - by any subsequent series. Who were the aliens in the "Starfleet conspiracy" incident? A message got sent at the end of the episode, and we never found out who they were, what they really wanted, why, etc.

I also think thay specific hatred of the characters misses out on the fact they are all young and developing in the roles they were thrust into. The first of the old films began after everyone was already established while these characters literally started the first movie as recruits. You see them grow in both films and if there are more they will continue to evolve. It is fun to watch Kirk go from jackass farm boy to serious-sh!t maverick being all mavericky galaxy wide to responsible commander. :lol:
Kirk was never that much of a jackass. And nuKirk is definitely too damn young to be in command of anything, let alone a starship.
 
There are countless ways they could have gone in reviving the series. There's one dropped plot thread from early TNG that was never picked up on again - by any subsequent series. Who were the aliens in the "Starfleet conspiracy" incident? A message got sent at the end of the episode, and we never found out who they were, what they really wanted, why, etc.
IIRC those aliens were the first draft of the Borg but they got changed around when the production team was unable to make good insectoid makeup on a TV budget. Also, the production team was going to develop the 'Starfleet conspiracy' more but decided it was too dark for the target audience and, due to poor ratings, had to quick push the aliens into the foreground. Considering that gave us "Q Who" I can't complain at all about their decision.
 
pacific-rim-background.jpg


Here's the one I'll be seeing.

When an alien attack threatens the Earth's existence, giant robots piloted by humans are deployed to fight off the menace.

For those disparaging the premise, I'll point out that the robot has a jet engine in its elbow, to make it punch harder. And that there are giant monsters. It's basically a sequel to the Mist
 
I will not be going to see this new Star Trek film. It's by a director so intelligent he claimed "the colon is everything people don't want to see in Star Trek," which is so inane I'm not sure if even he understood what he was trying to say. I also think it's somewhat ridiculous to hire Benedict Cumberpatch to play that part. To be fair, hiring an Hispanic to play it the first time around didn't make much sense either, but at least he wasn't a pasty Englishman, best known for being in one of the three thousand bad Sherlock Holmes adaptations that have popped up since Dr Gregory House made the airwaves. His adaptation wins the award for the most homoerotic tension between Holmes and Watson, though that's something, I guess.
I agree that the casting choice was a little... odd. It does beg the question over whether it would be more racist to have a brown actor do 9/11 with a spaceship or an exceptionally pale white actor play a human genetically modified for superiority, but still, Cumberbatch is a damn good actor. And Sherlock is awesome. And I don't get that tension that everyone insists is there.



Why is it snobby to expect a coherent plot, a non-cartoonish way of handling the characters and plot, basic respect for the original source material, and lead actors who can actually act? Honestly, nuKirk has all the acting skill and charisma of a male underwear model - which is to say none at all. And nuSpock looks constantly constipated.
The casting is, by and large, pretty damn spot-on. One of the best aspects of the relaunch. Zoe Saldana as Uhura is probably the weakest link, although that could just be because Uhura's role is especially poorly written. She does have a decent likeness to Nichols and is exceptionally attractive in general. Oh, and John Cho as Sulu either isn't very good or doesn't have much to do. But still, I think you could make a damn good Trek movie with this cast and a different creative team behind them. Karl Urban as McCoy is freaking inspired.
Kirk was never that much of a jackass. And nuKirk is definitely too damn young to be in command of anything, let alone a starship.
Kirk's different personality is pretty easy to justify, since he grew up fatherless in the altered timeline.
 
IIRC those aliens were the first draft of the Borg but they got changed around when the production team was unable to make good insectoid makeup on a TV budget. Also, the production team was going to develop the 'Starfleet conspiracy' more but decided it was too dark for the target audience and, due to poor ratings, had to quick push the aliens into the foreground. Considering that gave us "Q Who" I can't complain at all about their decision.
I think they should have ret-conned them as the Sphere Builders, myself. Ties up a nice plot-hole without the need for an extended story.

I agree that the casting choice was a little... odd. It does beg the question over whether it would be more racist to have a brown actor do 9/11 with a spaceship or an exceptionally pale white actor play a human genetically modified for superiority, but still, Cumberbatch is a damn good actor. And Sherlock is awesome. And I don't get that tension that everyone insists is there.
THey could have at least hired Ben Kingsley. Sure, he's also a white Englishman, but he's got a moustache, which makes him Indian/ Chinese/ Maori, apparently.

Surely there are talented actors with an Indian or Hispanic background that could have played that part?

The casting is, by and large, pretty damn spot-on. One of the best aspects of the relaunch. Zoe Saldana as Uhura is probably the weakest link, although that could just be because Uhura's role is especially poorly written. She does have a decent likeness to Nichols and is exceptionally attractive in general. Oh, and John Cho as Sulu either isn't very good or doesn't have much to do. But still, I think you could make a damn good Trek movie with this cast and a different creative team behind them. Karl Urban as McCoy is freaking inspired.

Kirk's different personality is pretty easy to justify, since he grew up fatherless in the altered timeline.
Zoe Saldana is awful in that role. Karl Urban does an excellent job as McCoy, I'll give him that. That kid who plays Chekov does it pretty well, though he needs to be hornier. Chekov was always horny. I don't think anyone else does a good job in their roles. Maybe the guy playing Pike, but he's not a major cast member.
 
The casting is, by and large, pretty damn spot-on. One of the best aspects of the relaunch. Zoe Saldana as Uhura is probably the weakest link, although that could just be because Uhura's role is especially poorly written. She does have a decent likeness to Nichols and is exceptionally attractive in general. Oh, and John Cho as Sulu either isn't very good or doesn't have much to do. But still, I think you could make a damn good Trek movie with this cast and a different creative team behind them. Karl Urban as McCoy is freaking inspired.
But most of them can't ACT. Part of an actor's job is to make the audience care about what happens to the character. I couldn't care less about any of these. As for Karl Urban... all I have to say is that he's a dead ringer for a young Gary Mitchell. That's who I thought he was playing when I first saw him.

Kirk's different personality is pretty easy to justify, since he grew up fatherless in the altered timeline.
As a "Starfleet brat" he grew up basically fatherless in the original timeline. Not having a father around is no excuse.
 
Man of Steel

June 14th

ManofSteelFinalPoster.jpg


Clark Kent is a journalist who was adopted as a child by Jonathan and Martha Kent after he was transported to Earth from the dying planet of Krypton. Raised with the values of his adoptive parents, he feels alienated because of his unique super powers and struggles to find his own place in life. When the world is attacked, he becomes the hero named Superman to protect Earth and its people.

Spoiler :
How does he shave?

Directed by Zack Snyder
Henry Cavill
Amy Adams
Michael Shannon
Kevin Costner
Diane Lane
Laurence Fishburne
Russell Crowe

youtube trailer
 
Nothing on Europa Report?
 
Zoe Saldana is awful in that role. Karl Urban does an excellent job as McCoy, I'll give him that. That kid who plays Chekov does it pretty well, though he needs to be hornier. Chekov was always horny. I don't think anyone else does a good job in their roles. Maybe the guy playing Pike, but he's not a major cast member.
I actually really dug Pine's performance in Into Darkness. He definitely gets the award for "most improved." And Pegg isn't perfect, but I do find his Scotty pretty funny.

But most of them can't ACT. Part of an actor's job is to make the audience care about what happens to the character. I couldn't care less about any of these. As for Karl Urban... all I have to say is that he's a dead ringer for a young Gary Mitchell. That's who I thought he was playing when I first saw him.
Well let's not pretend that Shatner was the height of thespianship here. The actors aren't stellar, but truly great acting has never been the norm for these characters.

As a "Starfleet brat" he grew up basically fatherless in the original timeline. Not having a father around is no excuse.[/QUOTE]

He wasn't a Starfleet brat this time either. He grew up with his mother and stepfather. His childhood was altered enough by his father's death that I get the change.
 
Well let's not pretend that Shatner was the height of thespianship here. The actors aren't stellar, but truly great acting has never been the norm for these characters.
Shatner began his career on the stage, which requires a different set of acting skills than TV does. And no matter what you may think of his... actingtics... and how... annoying... theycouldbe, he's still lightyears ahead of this wannabe.
 
Shatner began his career on the stage, which requires a different set of acting skills than TV does. And no matter what you may think of his... actingtics... and how... annoying... theycouldbe, he's still lightyears ahead of this wannabe.

Wow. Sounds like somebody needs to have their nostalgia goggles readjusted.
 
Rather than quote all three of those posts with my rebuttal, I'll simply type it here.

I don't care about the opinions of others when it comes to determining whether I enjoy a movie. I am perfectly capable of enjoying a 'bad' film. I just watched Jurassic Park III on Monday, for example. Twice, that's how much I enjoyed it.

Now, I will admit to being a Trekkie, and I know that this will influence my opinion on the "Abramsverse." But far from making me dislike the film before it even aired, as no doubt happens to some people, I actually want the nuTrek films to succeed; Star Trek is one of my favourite franchises - possibly the favourite, though I'm hardly going to sit down and quantify them all now - and I wish it nothing but the best. I was very disappointed by the cancellation of Enterprise and the sub-par quality of many of the motion pictures - II and VI are the only film I liked from the TOS run, and TNG's films fare even worse, with only VIII being enjoyable - and I was hoping that a film-maker with the influence and reputation of Abrams would bring something worthwhile to the franchise, especially seeing as how I do not blame him for the collapse of Lost, as many people do; he'd already all-but left the show when it's plot descended into Escher-like dimensions of confusion. The 2009 film, unfortunately and disappointingly, was not a good one.

That is not to say a person cannot enjoy it; as I said earlier, I certainly enjoy a lot of crappy films. I was sick on Monday, and one of my favourite things to do when sick in bed is simply watch a whole bunch of worthless popcorn films in succession. But just because a film is subjectively 'fun' does not make a film objectively 'good' (and yes, before anyone brings it up, there are several criteria behind a 'good' film, one of which is a consistent plot, which Star Trek fails comprehensively). Star Trek may be a 'fun' film - I disagree, but 'fun' is subjective anyway - but it is, most certainly, not a 'good,' or even 'mediocre' film from an objective standpoint. It is merely a bad film.
There isn't much to 'objective' judgments of films and I spoke about why. As for not liking it because you simply didn't like it, fair enough. I don't think anyone has to like it, I just react to what I perceive as reflexive, kneejerk 'I hate nuTrek because it's not oldTrek' takes on the movies.
Why is it snobby to expect a coherent plot, a non-cartoonish way of handling the characters and plot, basic respect for the original source material, and lead actors who can actually act? Honestly, nuKirk has all the acting skill and charisma of a male underwear model - which is to say none at all. And nuSpock looks constantly constipated.
No, I never said it was snobby to expect a coherent plot or anything other than it's snobby I don't believe. I said it's snobby not to like 'nuTrek' because it isn't oldTrek, which so many people seem to do.

There are countless ways they could have gone in reviving the series. There's one dropped plot thread from early TNG that was never picked up on again - by any subsequent series. Who were the aliens in the "Starfleet conspiracy" incident? A message got sent at the end of the episode, and we never found out who they were, what they really wanted, why, etc.
And a bazillion other hardcore fans would still find a reason to hate it, let's be honest shall we?

Besides...the old stuff hit a dead end. It was boring, tired and over worn. There wasn't enough fans willing to pay to see that to make it a worthwhile risk for the studios and I can't blame them for going another direction.


Kirk was never that much of a jackass. And nuKirk is definitely too damn young to be in command of anything, let alone a starship.
He kind of was...but again, we meet him in ST:ToS as a grown, mature captain - not as a cadet with a chip on his shoulder and no experience. I get you don't like the decision to go that route, but you've been knocking his character for well, fitting where his character should be mentally, emotionally and at his level of maturity given his background and the fact that he is Kirk, king of the womanizing testosterone freaks.

How many times did he get himself demoted and reprimanded in the old movies again?

pacific-rim-background.jpg


Here's the one I'll be seeing.

When an alien attack threatens the Earth's existence, giant robots piloted by humans are deployed to fight off the menace.

For those disparaging the premise, I'll point out that the robot has a jet engine in its elbow, to make it punch harder. And that there are giant monsters. It's basically a sequel to the Mist
A sequel to The Mist? The movie based on the Stephen King short story where monsters come through a wormhole and there is mist everywhere and the monsters kill everyone? That The Mist?

Cool, cuz that movie rocked but I think this sequel might be a bit of a stretch...:lol:
 
I just react to what I perceive as reflexive, kneejerk 'I hate nuTrek because it's not oldTrek' takes on the movies.
Okay, in the interests of full disclosure: I'm old enough to think that stuff made in the 50s and 60s is still perfectly good, and not in need of being "remade", as if modern audiences are too stupid to understand the original. This is why there are a lot of modern remakes/reboots that I don't like. The tendency is to dumb the material down to the lowest common denominator, and assume the audience is stupid or would never "get" the original material.*

*(yes, I am aware that some of my favorite movies are remakes of earlier ones from the '40s, as in Hamlet and various Robin Hood movies)

That said, I do understand that sometimes the original material might contain aspects that are offensive by today's standards and, if it doesn't completely derail the points made and the impact of the original, by all means let it be changed. For instance, I would hope that nuKirk (or any other nuTrek character) NEVER refers to a grown woman as a "girl." Kirk routinely did that in the TV series, and while it's not something I noticed when younger (I was a girl myself at the time, just 12 years old), it irritates me now.

I said it's snobby not to like 'nuTrek' because it isn't oldTrek, which so many people seem to do.
If nuTrek were an improved version, that would be a different story (no pun intended). However, I see no improvement. All I see are cartoon characters with even less depth than those in TAS (The Animated Series).

I can like a remake that's different if it's respectful of the original material. Example: The Man in the Iron Mask. I first saw and fell in love with the Richard Chamberlain version of that movie. It took a very long time for me to make myself watch the Leonardo deCaprio version, and even longer to realize I actually like it. Mind you, that's not because of deCaprio's performance, but that of the older cast members. Still, while it was not (in my opinion) as good as the Chamberlain version, it wasn't completely dumbed down. So eventually I came to like it. But I will always prefer the Chamberlain movie.

And you'd (and a bazillion other hardcore fans) still find a reason to hate it, let's be honest shall we?
That's pretty damn presumptuous of you. If a Star Trek movie had been made that explored some aspect of TNG (for example) as a jumping-off point, I'd like it if it were any good. That means a coherent story, competent and age-appropriate actors, no stupid retconning of established character background or history, no sacrificing character development for special effects, and so on.

Besides...the old stuff hit a dead end. It was boring, tired and over worn. There wasn't enough fans willing to pay to see that to make it a worthwhile risk for the studios and I can't blame them for going another direction.
The spinoffs suffered from being controlled by the same basic team of people who hit creative burnout. That doesn't mean some other creative people couldn't do something wonderful with continuing on the original storylines. There were certainly enough loose ends left unexplored. And it wouldn't even require any cast from TNG, DS9, or Voyager (ESPECIALLY MICHAEL DORN, WHO ATE NOT ONE, BUT TWO SERIES!!! :mad:).

How many times did he get himself demoted and reprimanded in the old movies again?
He got himself demoted from Admiral to Captain in TMP because he 1. felt he was the most able person to do the job, and 2. he wanted the Enterprise back and this was the best chance he had to get it.

He was promoted back to Admiral at some point between TMP and TWOK.

His actions that led to his next demotion back to Captain were actions taken for the right reasons, in my opinion. I'm not saying he did all the right things, but he certainly did them for the right reasons. Sometimes the right thing is to say, "The word is no. I am therefore going anyway." The history of our civilization would be very different if nobody ever subscribed to that sentiment.

At no time are we shown that Kirk's demotions were the result of his behaving like a cartoonish jackass.
 
He got himself demoted from Admiral to Captain in TMP because he 1. felt he was the most able person to do the job, and 2. he wanted the Enterprise back and this was the best chance he had to get it.

He was promoted back to Admiral at some point between TMP and TWOK.

His actions that led to his next demotion back to Captain were actions taken for the right reasons, in my opinion. I'm not saying he did all the right things, but he certainly did them for the right reasons. Sometimes the right thing is to say, "The word is no. I am therefore going anyway." The history of our civilization would be very different if nobody ever subscribed to that sentiment.

At no time are we shown that Kirk's demotions were the result of his behaving like a cartoonish jackass.
Kirk was demoted to Captain between The Search for Spock and The Voyage Home. I believe there was a scripted plot-point about him being temporarily demoted to Captain to act as commander of the Enterprise during TMP, but it was dropped before filming. Kirk rose to the rank of Admiral again between The Undiscovered Country and the launch of the Enterprise B in Generations.

Kirk's only demotion was due to disobeying orders and going to Genesis to save Spock, but Stafleet gave him command of the Enterprise A, so they clearly had very few problems with his actions.
 
I think it speaks volumes that - love it or hate it - the Star Trek movie has become the main topic of this thread.

My favorite scene is where NuKirk appologizes to his crew, and attempts to accommodate the (lunatic) Admiral's demands to save his people. Original Kirk would have employed some BS Corbomite bluff.

To date;

Oblivion
April19th $259,685,000 55%/66%

Iron Man 3
May3rd $1,111,096,000 78%/83%

Star Trek Into Darkness
May 16th $199,527,000 87%/89%

Spoiler :

Tittle
Openning date in US
Gross Worldwide
Critics rating/Audience rating

Sources: Rottentomatoes.com, Boxofficemojo.com, Wikipedia.com
 
Back
Top Bottom