From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au
Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?
On Nov 16, 4:50apm, Akira Norimaki <diotona...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Duggy wrote:
> [Star Trek XI]
> >>>> Agreed, on both. It's a funny ride but the plot is rather pointless.
> >>> So it's an action film.
> >> Yeah, pretty much. An action movie in space.
> > It sells.
> I can understand why. It would have been nice to have something more for
> this franchise but that's what we have now.
Thing is franchises have to be blockbusters these days.
You want a quality thoughtful film you're going to need to do a random no-budget
film with no franchise attached.
Moon, for example.
> For someone is better than
> nothing for others was better nothing. I'm somewhere in between those
> two position, personally. I started to enjoy the movie only after I
> realized it is not Star Trek. Not ST as I think it should be, I mean.
> And to be totally honest with myself I don't see any the ST movies that
> is exactly as I think ST should be, expect Khaaaaaaannnnnn and, maybe,
> [slow] Motion Picture.
ST was clearly a TOS episode made too long (yes, I know it was the 2-
part pilot for Star Trek: "Phase 2" based on an unused "Genesis II"
idea) so yeah, it was Trek. 2... yeah, a bit too much action, but
very STTOS plot. 5... was a very Star Trek plot... but that doesn't
mean it was good. I think 6 was as well...
The first 3 Next Gen films were (in varying ways) very TNG. Nemesis
was a whole lot of different films... including Bond... thrown
together.
===
= DUG.
===
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
# Origin: http://groups.google.com (1:2320/105.97)
* Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)
|
