CINEMA

Star Trek

POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 02:40
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1076
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, July 25, 2016 1:19 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Star Trek was okay, a good popcorn movie.

3 Stars


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2016 9:22 AM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.


What scale do you use? 3 out of 4, or 5? Surely not 10.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 25, 2016 1:08 PM

WISHIMAY

There will be fire and brimstone and Earth will be destroyed!... in several billion years!----------------------------------------- "Well, so long Earth. Thanks for the air... and what-not." -Philip J. Fry


I give it a four out of four. The only complaints were the battle shots were a bit hard to follow and the lisp of the actor was a bit hard to hear.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 26, 2016 4:56 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Sorry about that. 3 out of 4 stars


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 26, 2016 5:13 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I liked it, but I thought the story could have been better. I liked the new character Jayla, the interaction between Spock and Bones (although, how many times did he say "damn-it"), separating them from the ship, and how they paid homage to the original Star Trek crew. I thought that was a nice touch without overdoing it.

Good action, and I agree about some of the action sequences. It never got bogged down or slow paced. Overall I enjoyed it.



SGG


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 26, 2016 5:36 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.


I may see it at some point, then again, I still haven't seen Into Darkness. It's just not a high priority. Someone else who occasionally does reviews for my site is a bigger Trekkie than me, so she contributed this:

http://templetongate.net/startrekbeyond.htm



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 28, 2016 11:52 PM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
I may see it at some point, then again, I still haven't seen Into Darkness. It's just not a high priority. Someone else who occasionally does reviews for my site is a bigger Trekkie than me, so she contributed this:

http://templetongate.net/startrekbeyond.htm





Don't remember titles but I do remember the second one sucked. Naturally parts are good but I remember being very disappointed. When I truly like a series it's the character's that drive it for me. Not the non-stop action.

____________________________________________


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 1, 2016 2:19 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Like THGRRI, I too was disappointed with Into Darkness, but Beyond is 10 times better, just felt the story was a bit weak.

BTW, thanks for posting the review...I found it quite good and agreed with mostly all of it. There were some very minor annoyances in the film, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. I wholeheartedly agree about the transformation of Krall, I kept waiting for that revealing and identifying factor - known to happen within the Star Trek TV series - explaining the reason for such an occurrence. But it never truly came, not really. This is the third film, it's got to get better, but this is a promising start toward that end.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
I may see it at some point, then again, I still haven't seen Into Darkness. It's just not a high priority. Someone else who occasionally does reviews for my site is a bigger Trekkie than me, so she contributed this:

http://templetongate.net/startrekbeyond.htm




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 1, 2016 2:22 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Agreed.

"I truly like a series it's the character's that drive it for me. Not the non-stop action."


SGG

Quote:

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
I may see it at some point, then again, I still haven't seen Into Darkness. It's just not a high priority. Someone else who occasionally does reviews for my site is a bigger Trekkie than me, so she contributed this:

http://templetongate.net/startrekbeyond.htm





Don't remember titles but I do remember the second one sucked. Naturally parts are good but I remember being very disappointed. When I truly like a series it's the character's that drive it for me. Not the non-stop action.

____________________________________________



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 1, 2016 8:52 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


http://moria.co.nz/sciencefiction/star-trek-beyond-2016.htm
The script for this film comes from co-star Simon Pegg, who plays Mr Scott. Pegg inherited the job after Alex Kurtzman, co-writer of the two Abrams Star Trek films, proved ‘difficult’ and was removed from the job after angling to turn it into his own directorial debut. (The film was produced by Kurtzman’s writing partner Robert Orci but he is nowhere in sight).

It says something sad about what the Star Trek franchise has become when to celebrate the series’ fiftieth anniversary Paramount chose to make a new film (great idea) and then selected as the person to helm it a director whose only fame comes from the Fast and the Furious franchise. Now, while I have no wish to knock the Fast and the Furious films, they are aimed fairly and squarely at the male 18-24 demographic and come with an emphasis on fast cars, cool, simplified heroics, hot-looking guys and spectacular vehicular stunts. None of these are things that immediately come to mind when you think back on the original Star Trek. They are however exactly what you associate with the Star Trek reboot series.

In Justin Lin ’s hands, what we have is essentially Star Trek: The Action Movie. This begins from fairly much from the moment The Enterprise leaves Yorktown (a very coolly designed Bernal Sphere by the way). Thereafter the film has been designed to do nothing more than keep providing a series of action and effects sequences. There is a spectacular and intensive set-piece with The Enterprise being invaded, torn into several parts and crash-landing on the planet. (The inherently spectacular nature of the sequence aside, blowing up The Enterprise yet again, which we also went through in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) and Star Trek: Generations (1994), is starting to get old hat. It ’s the cinematic equivalent of a Comic Book Death where a long-standing fixture or usual character of a series is killed in a massive rush of publicity, while the fans fully know that they will be revived not too far off in the future). Thereafter, the film propels us with little let up through a series of action sequences fighting and running through the halls of the crashed Enterprise, raising its wreck off the ground, Chris Pine on a motorcycle (why, well just because – there is not a lot of logic as to why things happen in this film) and a climactic fight in and around a gravity control center as the Yorktown is attacked.

What this is not is much in the way of Star Trek. Well the characters are there and imbued with many of the aspects that we expect of them. And certainly the new ensemble cast are starting to come together as a well-rehearsed unit in their third film. But what we have feels like a Star Trek that is now been run by the marketing department and sold to aforementioned 18-24 demographic. It’s about relentlessly hurtling action and big spectacular effects, cool motorbike stunts, the cast exchanging snappy retorts. Where, you ask, in all of this is Gene Roddenberry’s concept about confronting the alien, the lessons about contrasting different types of cultures and ways of life? Put it another way – take what we have here and imagine it as an episode of The Original Series enacted by Shatner, Nimoy etc. The show wouldn’t have the budget for massive displays of effects so it would have been stripped to an adventure about the crew stranded on a planet, hunted by an alien who wants an intergalactic McGuffin of ill-explained purpose (we never even get to learn how Kirk came to possess it) because [insert generic evildoer purposes]. Stripped of all the effects sequences, the script of the film would lack any substance to get it past the commissioning editor back in 1966. Star Trek the TV series created strong and original stories, Star Trek: Beyond only seems to know how to create action sequences.



The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 2, 2016 3:40 AM

OONJERAH


Star Trek original series, 1966-69. I was 23 when it began and an
avid reader of science fiction for 12 years or so. I liked ST a lot, my
favorite characters being Spock & Scotty. Years later, I was amused
when I read that William Shatner considered Gene Roddenberry a gifted
visionary for having conceived such amazing high tech: FTL travel, the
transporter, phasers, photon torpedos, etc. ... There were also numerous
humanoids who were not near homo-sapiens. But we could still make
babies with 'em. Nice. :)

Everything about Star Trek was new, innovative, visionary ... as long
as you'd never read or watched any earlier science fiction.
A friend of mine used to say that Star Trek had a sci-fi setting, but
it wasn't science fiction. "Every one of them is a morality play."
They were teachings, rather like Aesop's Fables. Thought provoking.
Discussable.

Star Trek aimed at the action addicts? This (also) was not Gene Roddenberry's vision.




... oooOO}{OOooo ...

I've given up looking for the meaning of life. Now all I want is a cookie.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 2, 2016 4:50 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Since this thread is in Cinema, here is a link to the first Beyond thread, with the serious discussion:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=2&tid=60702

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 3, 2016 2:40 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Thanks for posting, I read the comments on the other thread.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Since this thread is in Cinema, here is a link to the first Beyond thread, with the serious discussion:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=2&tid=60702


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
The Shape of Water
Sun, December 10, 2017 20:29 - 15 posts
What Are Your Must-See Films - 2017?
Sun, December 10, 2017 09:30 - 68 posts
Oscar Suggestions
Sun, December 10, 2017 06:31 - 19 posts
Discussion of Wind River
Fri, December 8, 2017 12:04 - 26 posts
3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Thu, November 30, 2017 06:36 - 8 posts
What Are Your Must-See Films For 2018?
Sat, November 25, 2017 03:20 - 5 posts
Wind River
Sat, November 25, 2017 01:12 - 40 posts
Blade Runner 2049
Thu, November 23, 2017 04:19 - 21 posts
Justice League
Tue, November 21, 2017 17:15 - 12 posts
Han Solo Star Wars Prequel (2018)
Tue, November 21, 2017 01:40 - 21 posts
How Bloody Dare They?
Wed, November 15, 2017 15:00 - 6 posts
Films of Mistaken Self Awareness
Tue, November 14, 2017 13:12 - 6 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL