Discussion in 'Literature' started by Master_Keralys, Jan 1, 2009.
I might actually get that just out of morbid curiosity
I finally got to see Abrams' Star Trek, it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be (though it sure looks more like Star Wars than Star Trek as I expected it to), but my dad summed up my feelings when he asked me whether they ended up restoring the timeline. My fundamental problem with this film is the gang didn't try to restore the timeline, which they always try to do every time something like this happens.
It's genuinely hilarious, and incredibly entertaining. I've only seen a few episodes of the Adam West show when I was a kid, and I've seen parts of the movie, but like anyone who doesn't live under a rock I'm familiar enough with the series tropes. I imagine it would be fun in its own right even if you've never seen any of the West show.
Also, while I'm generally not a big fan of the "infinite comic" concept (which is basically just pop-up panels), it fits this so well... pop up sound effects!
But really, I shouldn't have to provide reasons to get a comic based on a show like this
Same thing happened in Finland when it got its independence in 1917. The founding fathers were almost equally divided between a monarchy and this new fad called democracy. First they tried to get a king from the German royal family, but then they lost the WWI and suddenly things became embarrassing. So the moustache lords made a compromise and voted a president with kingly powers but only six years of reign.
Later, after people were embarrassed of President Kekkonen the First's reign (1956-1982) they made the chair of president little more than a title to fool foreigners, not anything with real power in politics. People still like to vote because it's easy to choose from three or four candidates or something.
Is this the 2009 Trek? Because if that's how you're feeling now, just wait til you get to Into Darkness!
I am always confused when a president is elected in a country and then they reign for 20-something years. This is why I'll never understand modern history. Too many rules and too many people breaking rules. I never know what's going on.
What? I'm on the THRONE! VERY BUSY! I've stuffed Tyrion in it and am busy crapping on him from a great height!
"Only those who risk going too far can know how far they can go."
And no, I'm neither reading the books nor watching the show, it's a popular culture riff.
You can't escape GOT! There was a page 3 Metro article on the Red Wedding massacre and that free paper is read by just about every commuter going.
And they got complaints for spoiling the episode for those who had not watched it.
How nuts is that?
I've wondered if I would enjoy this more since I never got into the old Trek movies and TV shows and therefore don't know enough to notice continuity issues.
I haven't seen it yet but it's on my list after The Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey.
What separates the film from the great majority of time change stories is the nature, method and scale of the changes enacted. Most often there's clearly a point where it all diverges and find a way to change that point and it's done. Abrams' Trek film lacks this.
Although, that anyone would willingly agree to erase their self is a concept I find much harder to buy. Stargate did a smart riff on this with the Continuum movie, where Beau Bridges basically says who are they to change the world? Only after things become apocalyptic does he relent.
Bah, the current Trek reboot isn't Trek. The tone is wrong, the feel is wrong, hell, everything just feels off. I love the United Federation of Planets and Starfleet, but this new series doesn't even fully understand what they are.
To borrow an old acronym from these boards and tweak it, the reboot is STINO.
I saw Into Darkness with a friend (who knew absolutely nothing about Star Trek, save the 2009 film) and my mom (who's a major Original Series fan). My friend thought the film made perfect sense and got into a massive argument with my mom afterward, who thought the film was utter tripe.
I think it comes down to this: say someone were to remake the original Star Wars trilogy. But while the major character are more or less the same, the plot is a vague flittering shadow of the original's plot. And Vader's Han Solo's father and Jabba the Hutt is an invincible human. And so people who know nothing about the original are like, "YEAH! That Jabba-the-Invincible-Human is AWESOME!" and those who know the OT are like, "I don't know what I just watched."
No no no. This is Tywin's seat.
Looks like ignorance is definitely bliss then.
I put several Star Trek shows in my Netflix streaming queue and tried to watch some of the original series; couldn't really get past the first couple of episodes. I haven't decided whether I'm going to bother with the Next Generation, DS9 and Enterprise or just take them out.
Well. There's your problem, then.
Had to happen.
You know you've made it when you have a Hitler video!
hahahah wars have been fought in the JCC with similar words. I'm not going to name names, but certain JCCers would have your intestines for floss if you didn't acknowledge that STID was the greatest cinematic work ever produced, that all the plot holes were brilliant and intentional, and that Cumberbatch is a god come among humanity.
Now, I happen to agree with you but I stayed away from that argument for that very reason -- apparently anybody who liked old Trek (and I loved the TOS movies) is a bitter old fogie who loves camp and hates good taste.
Nevermind that STID would still be a terrible movie (action-packed schlock made accessible for the immature teenage audience!) even if nobody had ever heard of old Star Trek... the fact that it was wholly derivative and butchered a far superior film makes it a lot worse.
Most opinions of Into Darkness seem to lean heavily toward one side, but I'm in the middle on it. On one hand, Cumberbatch gave a great performance and there was some decent Kirk/Spock interaction. On the other, it was a fairly shallow and forgettable movie (would certainly be forgettable if it didn't have Star Trek slapped on it), and even if one accepts that it's meant to be a light action movie first, it still has an incredibly weak climax.
It doesn't really worry me about Episode VII, or at least, no more than it did before I saw ID. After all, ID so often felt like a Star Wars movie trying desperately to be a Star Trek movie. At least with EVII Abrams will be able to drop the act.
The Original Series is definitely interesting. So far, outside the Abrams movies, they're my only experience with Star Trek. There's some very hammy acting, often courtesy of William Shatner and, as bad as this is gonna sound, most of the women on the show, though I feel a little less bad about saying that since almost all of the women on the show are just there to play Kirk's weekly love interest (it's like when they're looking for a female actor to play this weeks Kirk love interest, they rate auditions based on how breathy and lifeless the performance is), some pretty laughable effects, recycled environments, and so on. But a few of the episodes so far are fairly well written; The Naked Time, The Enemy Within, and a few others stand out.
Still, if I can enjoy TOS, I imagine I'll really enjoy later series. Of course, the big question: do I bother with the Animated Series?