 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simon Pegg has the right idea.
"Dumbing down" indeed!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simon Pegg has the right idea.
"Dumbing down" indeed!
I can respect what he's saying, and I could do with a few more though-provoking films sometimes, as well. But at the same time, I often feel that more people today are amongst the most stressed-out and unhappy than at any time in our society's recent history. I can't exactly blame them for looking more for escapism from their movies than tackling real-world issues, when I'm sure most people have their fill of real-world issues in the course of their real lives.
If more Star Trek movies were less Star Treky, I would enjoy more Star Trek movies.
That's what other film franchises are for. The last two Trek films have intruded too far on Star Wars territory, IMO. It didn't seem so bad in the first one, since there hadn't been a decent Star Wars movie made since 1983, but while I at least had a bit of fun watching Trek '09, Into Darkness failed to thrill me on any level.
I have no idea what Paramount plans to do with the Trek film franchise in the future, but at the moment I'm not particularly interested anymore. All I can say is thank god I've got The Original Series and The Next Generation on Blu-ray, as well as all the excellent score releases from FSM, LLL, Intrada and Varese (meaning mostly Nemesis, though I did buy '09 and STID for completness' sake).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 21, 2015 - 9:32 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
Simon Pegg has the right idea.
"Dumbing down" indeed!
I can respect what he's saying, and I could do with a few more though-provoking films sometimes, as well. But at the same time, I often feel that more people today are amongst the most stressed-out and unhappy than at any time in our society's recent history. I can't exactly blame them for looking more for escapism from their movies than tackling real-world issues, when I'm sure most people have their fill of real-world issues in the course of their real lives.
If more Star Trek movies were less Star Treky, I would enjoy more Star Trek movies.
That's what other film franchises are for. The last two Trek films have intruded too far on Star Wars territory, IMO. It didn't seem so bad in the first one, since there hadn't been a decent Star Wars movie made since 1983, but while I at least had a bit of fun watching Trek '09, Into Darkness failed to thrill me on any level.
I have no idea what Paramount plans to do with the Trek film franchise in the future, but at the moment I'm not particularly interested anymore. All I can say is thank god I've got The Original Series and The Next Generation on Blu-ray, as well as all the excellent score releases from FSM, LLL, Intrada and Varese (meaning mostly Nemesis, though I did buy '09 and STID for completness' sake).
I don't buy the idea a filmmaker can't make a fun, exciting film with a little more depth and still be successful. Hollywood almost always gets it wrong. They typically shunned away from science fiction until Star Wars (Yeah, I know science fantasy) blew away the box office. Everyone in Hollywood believed classical animated films were dead until a little film called, "An American Tail" became the highest grossing animated film on first release in film history. (up to that point)
The money ppl in Hollywood who have destroyed the art don't know shit really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 21, 2015 - 10:16 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Seems like we are all on the same page with this.
Paramount continues to bungle this movie series, they should probably abandon the Trek movies, and work back towards television. I recently watched Trek 2009, and while it is entertaining enough, and better than Trek ID - it is pretty empty too, things happen randomly in order just to make the plot operate.
Trek should be Trek, and like not everyone likes avacados - or whatever else, not everyone likes Trek. It is a good property, with a great framework to talk about ideas and entertain, but not entertain everyone. Paramount should just let Trek be Trek, and scale back the costs on these projects- just accept that Trek is not Iron Man or Avengers, - and thank god for that.
Years ago Roddenberry - pretty much sidelined after TMP, protested the changes to the movie series, apparently he was pretty upset with Undiscovered Country. I would imagine he would be pretty outraged at what it has become now.
Yeah Solium, there is a reason I am so much into animated movies. Overall the animated movies are better character and story driven, and more well made movies than live action stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 21, 2015 - 3:24 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe E.
(Member)
|
I keep seeing posts - not just here, but on other boards as well - from people who consider Star Trek Into Darkness a letdown from Star Trek ('09), and I just don't get that at all. I mean, yes, Star Trek Into Darkness is lousy, and I consider it my second-least-favorite Star Trek production ever, but only because its immediate predecessor is my absolute least favorite, and just a terrible, terrible Star Trek movie. I'm not saying I don't understand people disliking Star Trek Into Darkness, but that I don't understand them liking it less than the installment right before it.
But oh, well - different strokes and all that, once again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 21, 2015 - 5:18 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
I keep seeing posts - not just here, but on other boards as well - from people who consider Star Trek Into Darkness a letdown from Star Trek ('09), and I just don't get that at all. I mean, yes, Star Trek Into Darkness is lousy, and I consider it my second-least-favorite Star Trek production ever, but only because its immediate predecessor is my absolute least favorite, and just a terrible, terrible Star Trek movie. I'm not saying I don't understand people disliking Star Trek Into Darkness, but that I don't understand them liking it less than the installment right before it.
But oh, well - different strokes and all that, once again.
Joe
I think you are in the minority thinking that ID is the better movie, on Meta Critic ID is 72 and 2009 is 83, so the critics pretty roundly prefer the first one too. They spent quite a bit more money on the second one. It is very well produced, at the craftsmanship level it is very good, I would argue that it surpasses either Avengers movie in several ways, especially craftsmanship and effects. The problem is the ID has barely a shred of an original idea to it, what little it has is just a riff of of Wrath of Khan and some other conspiracy fluff. Kurtzman also admitted that the entire last 20 minutes or so was a total tack-on that had no narrative purpose at all, it was studio mandated blustery pointless ending action stuff.
It has it's moments of visceral movie stuff, but it is pretty empty headed and unoriginal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 21, 2015 - 8:16 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
I keep seeing posts - not just here, but on other boards as well - from people who consider Star Trek Into Darkness a letdown from Star Trek ('09), and I just don't get that at all. I mean, yes, Star Trek Into Darkness is lousy, and I consider it my second-least-favorite Star Trek production ever, but only because its immediate predecessor is my absolute least favorite, and just a terrible, terrible Star Trek movie. I'm not saying I don't understand people disliking Star Trek Into Darkness, but that I don't understand them liking it less than the installment right before it.
But oh, well - different strokes and all that, once again.
Joe
I think you are in the minority thinking that ID is the better movie, on Meta Critic ID is 72 and 2009 is 83, so the critics pretty roundly prefer the first one too. They spent quite a bit more money on the second one. It is very well produced, at the craftsmanship level it is very good, I would argue that it surpasses either Avengers movie in several ways, especially craftsmanship and effects. The problem is the ID has barely a shred of an original idea to it, what little it has is just a riff of of Wrath of Khan and some other conspiracy fluff. Kurtzman also admitted that the entire last 20 minutes or so was a total tack-on that had no narrative purpose at all, it was studio mandated blustery pointless ending action stuff.
It has it's moments of visceral movie stuff, but it is pretty empty headed and unoriginal.
Star Trek ID is the better film for the simple fact it didn't have a scene of some dumb ass kid driving a classic vehicle off of a giant cliff. (IMHO) But of course that doesn't make ID a good film either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HE wants MORE films like TAXI DRIVER (which was not a commercial success]
?????!!!!!
tell him to watch HBO or SHOWTIME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 21, 2015 - 9:02 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe E.
(Member)
|
I keep seeing posts - not just here, but on other boards as well - from people who consider Star Trek Into Darkness a letdown from Star Trek ('09), and I just don't get that at all. I mean, yes, Star Trek Into Darkness is lousy, and I consider it my second-least-favorite Star Trek production ever, but only because its immediate predecessor is my absolute least favorite, and just a terrible, terrible Star Trek movie. I'm not saying I don't understand people disliking Star Trek Into Darkness, but that I don't understand them liking it less than the installment right before it.
But oh, well - different strokes and all that, once again.
Joe
I think you are in the minority thinking that ID is the better movie, on Meta Critic ID is 72 and 2009 is 83, so the critics pretty roundly prefer the first one too. They spent quite a bit more money on the second one. It is very well produced, at the craftsmanship level it is very good, I would argue that it surpasses either Avengers movie in several ways, especially craftsmanship and effects. The problem is the ID has barely a shred of an original idea to it, what little it has is just a riff of of Wrath of Khan and some other conspiracy fluff. Kurtzman also admitted that the entire last 20 minutes or so was a total tack-on that had no narrative purpose at all, it was studio mandated blustery pointless ending action stuff.
It has it's moments of visceral movie stuff, but it is pretty empty headed and unoriginal.
Yes, I'm aware the popular consensus is also the critical one, and that among persons who aren't me, the 2009 movie is widely regarded not just as the better of the two, but one of the best Star Trek movies ever, which saddens me. There's nothing I can do about it other than share my own opinion, of course.
It's remarkable, because if anything I usually tend to be a bit more forgiving than many others with lesser installments of series I enjoy; I can find redeeming qualities in everything from Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull to Spider-Man 3, but these last two "Star Trek" movies just seem so fundamentally untrue to what Trek is, in addition to having their own significant flaws in storytelling (and art direction, etc.) that it actually angers me. I hate, hate, hate that one of my most cherished franchises now continues under the guidance and at the mercies of people who seem neither to understand nor care about it and what it represents. The thought that large numbers of people actually like them, the first in particular, fills me with despair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
