Movies STAR TREK: Movies Discussion Thread, Next: ST3 for 50th Anniversary Year Film
|
|
 May 9 2009, 11:33 PM
Return to original view | Post
#1
|
 
Junior Member
364 posts Joined: Apr 2009  
|
QUOTE(lycaphim @ May 9 2009, 08:25 PM) Correction: So Kurtzman & Orci. See Transformers. Kurtzman and Orci are the screenwriters, I doubt they had any say in the amount of lens flare used. |
|
|
|
|
|
May 9 2009, 11:44 PM
Return to original view | Post
#2
|
|
Junior Member
364 posts Joined: Apr 2009
|
QUOTE(frega @ May 9 2009, 08:14 PM) it felt like a michael bay movie to be honest. so action packed, so flashy with the crazy lens flare use and FX, so...mainstream. which isnt necessarily bad, just didnt feel like star trek. no prime directive(yes there was no prime directive at that time) but its like it has no direction! If this were a parallel universe... there might be a possibility that the prime directive might not even come to existent in this timeline I beg to differ. Trek fans complain a lot about the action, always saying "this is not what Star Trek is all about!" god that would suck so much.This is what the movies are all about. Ever since The Wrath of Khan, the best Trek movies have always been fast-paced outer space action-adventures. You want scientific exploration plus social issues, watch the various TV series. A movie has to be, first and foremost, fun. Otherwise you end up with the very first Trek movie - Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Do you remember how that turned out? |
|
|
May 10 2009, 01:42 AM
Return to original view | Post
#3
|
|
Junior Member
364 posts Joined: Apr 2009
|
QUOTE(frega @ May 9 2009, 11:44 PM) I'm sorry I was just expecting more from a futuristic franchise to do some explaining and not make up some liquid in red that can pop up blackholes with just a freaking drop. What's with the Genesis device in Wrath of Khan? How can a machine the size of a pillar create life? What kind of science is that?I do not mind the action. But there's just serious plot issues and vast list of inaccuracies, ie not following simple STverse guidelines or you know logic. For that matter, how can aliens simply be humans with bumpy foreheads? Face it, scientific accuracy has never been Trek's strong point.  |
|
|
May 14 2009, 06:38 PM
Return to original view | Post
#4
|
|
Junior Member
364 posts Joined: Apr 2009
|
I've put up mini-reviews of the old Trek movies in my blog. If you're interested in exploring the history of Star Trek, hope my reviews can help.
Part 1, first 5 movies are up. Part 2 will be up by tomorrow. |
|
|
Dec 8 2011, 08:42 PM
Return to original view | Post
#5
|
|
Junior Member
364 posts Joined: Apr 2009
|
QUOTE While no one is revealing who the two actors are testing for, let’s face it, it’s Khan. Isn’t it obvious by now? What does Del Toro, Ramirez, and Molla have in common? They’re all of Latin descent, just like Ricardo Montalban, who played the original Khan in 1982′s “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan”. So if the villain isn’t Khan, then that’s one hell of a coincidence. Bullshit. The other thing they have in common is a darker Mediterranean complexion, which could also mean they're playing a Klingon. Hairy, didn't I tell you to stop getting you info from Beyond Hollywood? |
| Change to: |  0.0167sec
 0.26
 7 queries
 GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 26th November 2025 - 12:55 AM |
Quote