Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 1:20 PM   
 By:   zooba   (Member)



Oh, no you di'n't!


SPOCK: "Yeah, Sniff it Tiberius!"

 
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 1:22 PM   
 By:   zooba   (Member)

In Abrahm's STAR TREK, Spock's the one who gets all the fine beeotches!

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 1:25 PM   
 By:   Mr. Jack   (Member)

"It's not Star Trek" = "Too many people like it".

 
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 1:33 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

"It's not Star Trek" = "Too many people like it".


Quite right.
And most of them are apparently very easy to please.
Huzzah!

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 2:42 PM   
 By:   Dyfrynt   (Member)

Star Trek disappeared when Rick Berman began putting his greasy fingers all over it.

You will get no argument from me on that one! How this dipstick managed to keep his job ruining Star Trek series after series and movie after movie is beyond my comprehension. When Enterprise flopped he had the unmitigated gall to suggest that the franchise had to go on hiatus for a while because it was worn out. UnfrackinBelievable!

We absolutely needed a fresh start with new producers. For better or worse, they chose Abrams.

 
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 3:47 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

You will get no argument from me on that one! How this dipstick managed to keep his job ruining Star Trek series after series and movie after movie is beyond my comprehension. When Enterprise flopped he had the unmitigated gall to suggest that the franchise had to go on hiatus for a while because it was worn out. UnfrackinBelievable!


No fan of Berman, I.

Some say he protected GR's vision, some say he ruined it. Whether one or the other is true or not, it's fairly established that what he knew about ST scoring would fit on the head of a pin. That's enough for me to edge toward the "ruined" school of thought.

I eagerly await his book so I can read how he has been so unfairly maligned (the poor dear).

EDITED TO ADD: He actually deserves a punch in the head for allowing that dreadful song to be the "Enterprise" theme. I realize this is a strong and possibly unpopular opinion. I don't care.

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 4:26 PM   
 By:   Heath   (Member)

Star Trek hasn't been Star Trek since Turn About Intruder. None of the subsequent incarnations have convinced me for a moment.

But that's just me, I guess.

On second thoughts, Star Trek hasn't been Star Trek since Assignment Earth. No, hell... Errand Of Mercy... no... Forbidden Planet.... starring Leslie Neilsen as Captain JJ Abrams.... also starring Alan North.... and Rex Hamilton as Daniel Day Lewis. Special guest star William Shatner. Tonight's episode......


 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 4:37 PM   
 By:   Grecchus   (Member)

That's real funny Health. Quote - Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes - unquote.

 
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 4:54 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

 
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 10:36 PM   
 By:   joan hue   (Member)

Tonight I got to see Leonard Nimoy, a cute tribble, a reimagined Kahn, some Klingons,
and best of all a reaffirmation of the mission of the Enterprise: To boldly go where no man
(or woman) has gone before…for the next 5 years. All of it made me very excited to see future
Trek films.

The last two Trek movies have now brought us back to the genesis of the original TV series.
I got my Trek Fix. Except for some shaky camera scenes, I was enthralled and loved
visiting this new imagining of Star Trek. The homages to the past are there and the
new CGI effects promise great new worlds, so I don’t understand some of the anger
towards this movie.

I do miss Jerry Goldsmith’s music, but I thought Michael G.’s music was just fine.

Can’t wait for more treks into Star Trek and popcorn!
It was Star Trek for me.

 
 Posted:   May 22, 2013 - 12:15 AM   
 By:   gone   (Member)

all I know is one thing...

Zachary Quinto was born to be Spock!

 
 Posted:   May 22, 2013 - 1:25 AM   
 By:   ZapBrannigan   (Member)

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 - 1:29 AM   
 By:   Jehannum   (Member)

We now have a Kirk, Spock, Bones, Uhura, Chekov and Sulu for a new generation and a reborn "Star Trek"-verse.

It is the "now". And it's finally in the hands of a director who knows how to reinvent it and make it shine.


Not really. What we have is another indistinguishable 'franchise' remake with no original concept or conception of its own. It's just an echo; a generic product of the creatively bankrupt business administration that is 21st Century Hollywood.

 
 Posted:   May 22, 2013 - 7:48 AM   
 By:   Ron Pulliam   (Member)

Yes, really!

I have no allegiance to the old.

The new "Star Treks" are breathlessly invigorating, imaginative and creative.

The older "Treks" are what they are. But there's nothing there to expand upon.

A new future, a new adventure, to boldly go (actually) where no previous Trek has gone before.

I'd say that both the Abrams "Treks" are highly "distinguishable" from what went before.

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.

 
 Posted:   May 22, 2013 - 8:40 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)


Getting Abrams to make the films into what they've become is ART.


LMAO!

 
 Posted:   May 22, 2013 - 10:41 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.

 
 Posted:   May 22, 2013 - 11:40 AM   
 By:   Scott M (Oldsmith)   (Member)

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 - 5:31 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.

 
 Posted:   May 22, 2013 - 5:37 PM   
 By:   Dyfrynt   (Member)


I'd say that both the Abrams "Treks" are highly "distinguishable" from what went before.

Deal with it.


Star Trek Into Darkness, when all is said and done, is a remake, and a bad remake at that, of Wrath of Khan. This is highly distinguishable from went before? Seriously?????

You seem to have a problem dealing with things. You should try dealing with it!

 
 Posted:   May 22, 2013 - 6:46 PM   
 By:   solium   (Member)


As for them keeping the franchise going, it's profitable and fans love it. That's BUSINESS.


Into Darkness box office results are on par with the 2009 film. Meaning it's under-performing by at least 20 million dollars. Maybe under-performing by 40 million when you consider inflation and 3D ticket prices. It also attracted far less female viewers or kids under 25 this time around. (The most important demographic I might add) This tells me Abrams continued disrespect for the property turned off a lot of Trek fans whom gave him a chance the first time around, and some that thought Nu Trek was so kool have moved onto the next "it" thing.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.