 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 21, 2013 - 5:54 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe 1956
(Member)
|
Octoberman said:
..."Some say he protected GR's vision, some say he ruined it."...
When they canned Ron Jones after Roddenberry died, I pretty much walked. From season 5 of TNG to the end of "Enterprise" it was Trek Muzak. Every single episode sounds alike, especially when it goes to a commercial.
People think "The Inner Light" is a great episode. I can't sit through it because of the sonic droning. At almost the end, with the rocket going up, you know you've heard that same three notes a zillion times before.
EDIT:
I just found a clip on YouTube of that segment. Okay, so maybe it's more like 5 or 6 notes, but it still sounds like it was phoned in. Wait for the part where Picard wakes up, and is stunned when he's told he was out for like 25 minutes. Go ahead, tell me that the Muzak doesn't make you think that Sisko and Odo isn't gonna do a walk-through.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia1CISaKnzo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Star Trek disappeared when Rick Berman began putting his greasy fingers all over it.
That's not my view at all. I enjoyed a great many TV episodes during the Berman era.
Berman-Trek is vastly more intelligent and substantive than JJ-Trek-- although I do think Chris Pine is worthy, and Simon Pegg as Scotty is a total gem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 22, 2013 - 11:41 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
nuts_score
(Member)
|
As for them keeping the franchise going, it's profitable and fans love it. That's BUSINESS.
Getting Abrams to make the films into what they've become is ART. Merging ART and BUSINESS is what Hollywood is all about.
Deal with it.
Ron, I agree with you on the business front (though this Trek outing seems to disappoint the Paramount execs in the money-making scheme and phasers seems set to "kill" with the upcoming box office competition).
However, I would argue strongly against Abrams and "art" being in the same sentence. All of his films and television series are made by committee, with multiple screenwriters, producers, polls, focus testing, etc. Even the man's introduction into Hollywood is basically a business transaction as his father is one of the leading producers of TV movies at ABC and has been since the 1970s.
Abrams has yet to make an original film with all of this good fortune that his come his way. His debut picture was the third entry into the Mission: Impossible franchise, his second the eleventh Star Trek feature film, and when he spreads his wings with an "original" production it winds up being a rather forgettable Steven Spielberg pastiche* produced by Spielberg himself (talk about flattering!). Now he is set to direct the seventh movie in the Star Wars franchise of which he is an admitted fan. Star Wars is now owned by The Walt Disney Company -- the owner of American Broadcasting Company. Call it a wild conspiracy theory but the guy is product of established upbringing through facts alone. Like Khan in his Star Trek Into Darkness, perhaps he was bred as some sort of new superhuman multimedia force? HAHAHA!
When Abrams makes a movie that isn't a franchise successor, or a homage-laden CGI-fest, perhaps then I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
*Pastiche with a wonderful original score by Michael Giacchino.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A new future, a new adventure, to boldly go (actually) where no previous Trek has gone before.
Meeting Khan and redoing the death scene of TWOK, down to the dialog, is going where no previous Trek had gone before? Not hardly. Destroying Vulcan and killing Spock's mother, etc. are examples of making bold changes. Nothing in Into Darkness really capitalizes on that. This movie, actually, bathes in fan service a lot more than the previous film, probably to its detriment.
I'd say that both the Abrams "Treks" are highly "distinguishable" from what went before.
Yes, very much so. They have their own style.
and fans love it.
Actually, they're spilt on it. Some love it, some hate it profusely. But Star Trek fans aren't the target, the general audience is. That's one reason why all fans don't love it.
Getting Abrams to make the films into what they've become is ART.
Meh, it's simply business.
Deal with it.
Is this your Ford Thaxton impersonation? Why not dial it back a little?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 22, 2013 - 6:31 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Heath
(Member)
|
I just found a clip on YouTube of that segment. Okay, so maybe it's more like 5 or 6 notes, but it still sounds like it was phoned in. Wait for the part where Picard wakes up, and is stunned when he's told he was out for like 25 minutes. Go ahead, tell me that the Muzak doesn't make you think that Sisko and Odo isn't gonna do a walk-through.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia1CISaKnzo
That clip sums up why I cannot tolerate "next gen" Trek - just a repetative pile of meandering, touchy-feely, simpering, talky, beige, vanilla, new age, sandal wearing, de-sexed, decaffeinated, DE-KIRKED, baloney.
Star Trek for people who rub crystals while sitting barefoot under rickety home made pyramid structures. Star Trek for people who give pet names to their Apple Macs. Star Trek for people who....
....wh...wh...where are my pills??????
Anyway, the last Trek movie under Abrams was a helluva big improvement on that load of old yogurt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
