 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 16, 2020 - 8:56 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
Forcing humor into Hollywood films has been a problem for 30 or 40 years now. Sometimes it works, but most of the time its cringe worthy and falls flat. It ruins many films.
I personally like well balanced films, that hit all the senses, drama, humor, action, horror. Those are my favorite kinds of films when done well. WOK has all of that. I do enjoy TVH quite a bit. It has a lot of humor but it is pretty much a dramedy. And I LMAO quite a bit. It was a nice break from the last two films.
I generally dislike films that are monotone in style however. All action, all humor, all horror, etc. Or films that take themselves to seriously or to humorously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trek V is indeed a mess, but it comes pretty close to the heart of the original show in it's shambling about way.
Not so say it would ever have been a 'superb' film, but Paramount did quite a lot to pull the rug out from under it.
The biggest mistake was not waiting a bit to get ILM on the job, a few of those quaint Bran Ferren visuals work out well, but others are pretty bad.
Or any better company than Associates and Ferren. DreamQuest, who did Total Recall a year later, would have been a nice choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 16, 2020 - 9:11 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Last Child
(Member)
|
That said, I don't disagree with the overall feeling that the movie jumped the shark,
“Jumping the shark” isn’t so much a low point, but that moment when everything pivots and changes because of something. The Trek movie’s Jump the Shark point was Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.
I thought the phrase originated regarding a specific episode in a TV series - possibly the culmination point of faults or absurdities that showed how far the series has deviated from its origins. DARK SHADOWS and RHODA pivoted from their original genre but those changes aren't considered jumping the shark. Whereas the TREK OS probably has a episode that does, or maybe it's just season three.
Given the long list of criticisms for the TREK OS movies, I think it can be loosely applied within a film. They aren't necessarily low points for each viewer, but a pile of errors, issues, discrepancies, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That said, I don't disagree with the overall feeling that the movie jumped the shark,
“Jumping the shark” isn’t so much a low point, but that moment when everything pivots and changes because of something. The Trek movie’s Jump the Shark point was Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.
I thought the phrase originated regarding a specific episode in a TV series - possibly the culmination point of faults or absurdities that showed how far the series has deviated from its origins. DARK SHADOWS and RHODA pivoted from their original genre but those changes aren't considered jumping the shark. Whereas the TREK OS probably has a episode that does, or maybe it's just season three.
Given the long list of criticisms for the TREK OS movies, I think it can be loosely applied within a film. They aren't necessarily low points for each viewer, but a pile of errors, issues, discrepancies, etc.
It was from the Happy Days episode where The Fonz literally jumps over a shark on water skies. It wasn't a bad episode really, but it signaled a change in the series, where Fonzie had like magical powers and the series was never the same again. So, the intention wasn't showing the series at its worst, but a point where things took a left turn.
Fans of the series actually consider that point sooner, but this was the phrase that stuck, so there ya go.
Star Trek TOS jumped, rguably, in the beginning of the third season, with the arrival of Freddie Freiberger. After Gene Coon and Dorothy Fontana left the staff, the light humor and cameraderie was all but gone and the show was a lot more grim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 16, 2020 - 12:27 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Last Child
(Member)
|
It was from the Happy Days episode where The Fonz literally jumps over a shark on water skies. It wasn't a bad episode really, but it signaled a change in the series, where Fonzie had like magical powers and the series was never the same again. So, the intention wasn't showing the series at its worst, but a point where things took a left turn.
Fans of the series actually consider that point sooner, but this was the phrase that stuck, so there ya go.
Star Trek TOS jumped, rguably, in the beginning of the third season, with the arrival of Freddie Freiberger. After Gene Coon and Dorothy Fontana left the staff, the light humor and cameraderie was all but gone and the show was a lot more grim.
Scott, I know which series the phrase was named for. I was there - lots of hype for a 3-parter where the shark-jump was a cliffhanger. It was the California version of motorcycle stunt jumping. Not unlike Evel Knievel's canyon jump which disappointingly didn't involve a regular motorcycle. Or the Brady Bunch 3-parter in Hawaii with a scooby-do mystery. You knew about it, but even as a kid you knew it was beyond stupid and might not tune in.
I described the phrase in generic terms earlier to make a point that not every series that has major changes is a shark-jumper. I stopped watching MASH after they killed off 3 original characters, but I don't think that qualifies as jumping the shark since alot of people kept watching.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott, I know which series the phrase was named for. I was there - I described the phrase in generic terms earlier to make a point that not every series that has major changes is a shark-jumper.
Sorry, the way you phased it, I got the mistaken impression you didn't know what show it was. Womp womp.
Hey, some shows never have that moment. The Fugitive, Hill Street Blues, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, The Dick Van Dyke Show and others just happily kept things consistent. Others, like The X-Files, Dallas and shorter shows like V and SeaQuest made those hard lefts more than once.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 16, 2020 - 3:11 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Grecchus
(Member)
|
Just as they believed in Sybok's cause in ST:V. And there was more going on than therapy - they were getting some kind of euphoria (by removing all guilt or whatever), similar to the spoors on Omicron Ceti III where they also mutinied against Kirk.
The spores on Omicron Ceti III? Is this one of the more memorable TOS episodes? Gee, I could never remember where or when that one was, but the premise you mention makes it clear to me this is the episode which comes to mind. Kirk actually gets a dose himself, does he not? In fact, he has to mutiny against his mutinied self when it becomes the only way he can get back to normality. I believe the way he did that was to get angry with himself to shake himself out of the torpor of hippy, eezee, trippy 'love' that had ensconed itself upon his psyche. Then he had to upset Spock enough to get him out of his dozy, cosy trip without incurring the neck pinch. Hey, the visual joke of 'flower power' got nailed head on, don't you think? Everyone was just smiling and happy-go-lucky until Kirk reverse engineered the fluffy, puffiness of the sheer nuttiness of it all. The crew simply did not want to leave the flower garden. T'was the best of times that was the worst of times. Whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 16, 2020 - 3:32 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Grecchus
(Member)
|
Funnily enough, there's the other TOS episode I remember from years back, where Kirk ends up trapped in unpleasant company and he's strapped to one side of a round table to which the mirror half of the surface has a sponge-effigy, or teddy-bear like humanoid form placed opposite him. The table is spun to high speed for several revolutions. When the spinning table-top slows down and stops we see that in addition to original Kirk, we get a copied Kirk in place of the teddy-effigy thingy, which has transformed into an equivalent Kirk, except this identical copy of Kirk is a naughty, evil version of him. The evil twin. Can never remember those precise details, either, except that other Kirk was no nice guy at all!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 16, 2020 - 3:43 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Grecchus
(Member)
|
But, even without the naming of names you must surely be able to recall which episodes I'm referring to, even though I really can't recall anything else about them. The thing is, both these episodes are ones in which alternative egos of the characters are fleshed out. I wonder how much relevance Shatner would have attached to these particular episodes in order to deal with the dual aspects of his character which got squeezed out on the visit to Sha-Ka-Ree, or wherever it as supposed to be. Well, it's obvious it is supposed to represent Shangri-La, from Lost Horizon, where all sense of reality does straight down the pan on the other side of the divide. I mean, it all sort of adds up, or so it seems to me. It's the years and the mileage, honey!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 16, 2020 - 3:52 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Last Child
(Member)
|
But, even without the naming of names you must surely be able to recall which episode I'm referring to, even though I really can't recall anything else about them. The thing is, both these episodes are ones in which alternative egos of the characters are fleshed out. I wonder how much relevance Shatner would have attached to these particular episodes in order to deal with the dual aspects of his character got squeezed out on the visit to Sha-Ka-Ree, or wherever it as supposed to be. Well, it's obvious it is supposed to represent Shangri-La, from Lost Horizon, where all sense of reality does straight down the pan. I mean, it all sort of adds up, or so it seems to me. It's the years and the mileage, honey!
Yes, I know the "spores" title I brought up ("This Side of Paradise" which I edited into my post), and the title of the 2nd episode you described (which I don't see any connection to ST:V). But anyone who remembers "Sha-Ka-Ree" is toying with us. I suspect you know them all better than I.
If not, then I'll explain that the 2nd episode is "What are little girls made of?" and the Kirk android is not evil. But there is an episode called "The Enemy Within" where the transporter accidentally creates two Kirks, one benign, the other violent. I guess you could say Kirk had to conjure up his violent side to counteract his benign side in "This Side of Paradise." But this doesn't enter into ST:V because Kirk never lets Sybok give him a mind lift.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 16, 2020 - 4:34 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jeyl
(Member)
|
You don't remember TURNABOUT INTRUDER?
Yep. And it wasn't Kirk they were turning against.
- They weren't showing blind loyalty to him in ST:III - they believed in his cause.
Wow. Almost 20 years of service together and you write it off as 'blind loyalty'? No. That was loyalty.
HUH??? This doesn't make sense. I didn't write anything off. I said they didn't follow Kirk ONLY out of loyalty, but also because they believed in his cause (finding Spock).
There's more to loyalty than merely following someone blindingly. Loyalty isn't just something one gives to a person, it's something that has to be earned. Kirk 'earned' his crew's loyalty throughout all their years of service together. They trust him.
Heck, let's bring in some moments from the Star Trek VI Comic while we're in a thread about the film. Can you imagine Star Trek V's Sulu saying this?
Crewman: Sir! You realize you've just committed treason.
Sulu: To be candid, I always hoped that if the choice ever came down to betraying my country or betraying my friend, I'd have the guts to betray my country.
Of course, I'm sure if this was Star Trek V's Sulu, he would persuaded to blow up the peace conference from orbit if you took away some bad memory of his.
How about the Voyager Episode Flashback which has sequences that take place during Star Trek VI?
TUVOK: I am aware of my limited experience, but I am also very much aware of Starfleet regulations and my obligation to carry them out.
RAND: That's enough. Ensign, you're relieved. I'm sorry about this, Captain. I assure you it will not happen again.
SULU: Ensign, you're absolutely right. But you're also absolutely wrong. You'll find that more happens on the bridge of a starship than just carrying out orders and observing regulations. There is a sense of loyalty to the men and women you serve with. A sense of family. Those two men on trial, I served with them for a long time. I owe them my life a dozen times over, and right now they're in trouble, and I'm going to help them. Let the regulations be damned.
See? No 'following a cause' there. Unless you want to say he was following the cause of loyalty!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 16, 2020 - 5:00 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jeyl
(Member)
|
By the way, why is VI actually referred to as The Undiscovered Country? I forget so many things.
It's sort of a different interpretation of Hamlet's 'To be or not to be' monologue.
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovere'd country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Though for the film's purposes, instead of the title being about death, it's about the future. Even substituting death with the future, it still works within the context of the speech. The future is not knowable, hence it's undiscovered. The future is also very vast, hence why it's compared to a country. And when change happens, you cannot go back to your former self (No traveler returns). Those who understand and adapt can find purpose. Those who don't will be driven to keep what they have even if those things are still the source of conflict. They would rather have something they know and are familiar with than confront something that they do not know or understand. That is what Kirk said in the end. "People can be very frightened of change."
And that's the crew's journey in this film. The universe is changing in drastic ways that in order for them to have continued purpose, they have to move on from old ideas. Chang and all the conspirators want to keep this conflict between the Federation and the Empire going because they're unwilling to let go of their ills. But in the end, Kirk and crew choose to venture into that Undiscovered Country by leaving behind the ills they know facing the unknown, not with fear but with optimism. That is what they're all about, isn't it?
Kirk: This ship and her history will shortly become the care of another crew. To them and their posterity will we commit our future. They will continue the voyages we have begun and journey to all the undiscovered countries, boldly going where no man, where no one, ...has gone before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
