FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM

LOG IN Forgot Login? Register General Discussion • Trading Post • Non-Film Score Discussion  Profile • Preferences • Community Rules • Help/Contact • Search Board Search Terms:  Search Within:  topics posts since 2019 2018 posts 2017 posts 2016 posts 2015 posts 2014 posts 2013 posts 2012 posts 2011 posts 2010 posts 2009 posts 2008 posts 2007 posts 2006 posts 2005 posts 2004 posts 2003 posts 2002 posts 2001 posts 2000 posts users  search tips  You must log in or register to post.   Go to page:  1      General Discussion: FSM Blog Post: Aisle Seat 6-14: Star Trek II, Rollercoaster,...   Last Post  This is a comments thread about Blog Post: Aisle Seat 6-14: Star Trek II, Rollercoaster, June Wrap by Andy Dursin    Posted:   Jun 15, 2016 - 8:17 AM     By:   gbays27280   (Member) As good as Star Trek II is, I always feel like it is very overrated. I think that Star Trek III is a much better film, and frankly very underrated. I felt Nimoy brought more emotion to the Star Trek series than Meyer (which at times seemed to bring more egotism), especially how he requested James Horner to be more operatic with his score. Yes, I may be taking credit away from Star Trek II, but there are enough people out there to support the praise over it, so I'm sure that people could put up with my opinion.    Posted:   Jun 15, 2016 - 9:30 AM     By:   Tom Servo   (Member) Both TREK II and TREK III are great films in the series overall, but even just looking at TREK II objectively, it runs as perfect as a Swiss clock. I will never dismiss TREK III, it made me more of a Star Trek fan than TREK II did and it began my love of James Horner's music. Also, I wind up watching TREK III more than than II. All that being said, I can't deny that TREK II is the most polished, the best paced, best cast and overall better made movie. But we're really splitting hairs here, it all depends on what kind of Star Trek movie experience you're looking for.    Posted:   Jun 15, 2016 - 9:48 AM     By:   Solium   (Member) I don't know why it bothers ppl Kirk and Khan never met eye to eye. I read this in every review. It never bothered me, or ever crossed my mind that something was "lacking" in the story.    Posted:   Jun 15, 2016 - 11:38 AM     By:   Ado   (Member) I agree that The Wrath of Khan is a good movie, but I have heard it overpraised for years. I really cannot grasp the 4 stars for it, if nothing else because it looks underfunded. The effects in the genesis cave, while very innovative for the time, always looked terrible and Meyer knew that too. And while The Motion Picture is always criticized for the lack of action Wrath of Khan really does not have that much more, and it has a lot of scenes of talking. The insertion of Peter Preston carried on the bridge never made a lick of sense, sheer theatrics that I never wanted to see. And yes, I never grasped the issue with Khan and Kirk not meeting either. I took it for granted that people that work in space might never meet in person. And I also think that The Search for Spock is quite good. There is some real emotion and character in that movie that is rarely touched on in genre pictures anymore.    Posted:   Jun 15, 2016 - 8:43 PM     By:   Last Child   (Member) No mention of a bonus feature discussing Khan's baby dying as Genesis explodes... http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2012/06/12/the-baby-that-was-cut-out-of-star-trek-ii-the-wrath-of-khan    Posted:   Jun 15, 2016 - 10:33 PM     By:   Zoragoth   (Member) Star Trek III has its moments, but even when it came out I was disappointed. It's a bit preachy, pretentious, and self-congratulatory, the emotions forced. I thought at the time, and still think now: these guys are getting long in the tooth, realistically they only have so many films left in them, and a whole film gets wasted searching for Spock, bringing them back, so to speak, to where they were at the beginning of the last film. I had hoped, in vain, that the recovery of Spock would be a component of a much larger adventure, and not the whole point of it.    Posted:   Jun 15, 2016 - 11:34 PM     By:   jenkwombat   (Member) As good as Star Trek II is, I always feel like it is very overrated. I think that Star Trek III is a much better film, and frankly very underrated. I felt Nimoy brought more emotion to the Star Trek series than Meyer... I also like III better than II. While I saw TWOK only once in the theater in 1982, I saw TSFS multiple times during the Summer of 1984. Loved it! One of the more emotional and heartfelt 'Trek' films. And Horner's score is quite beautiful. Too bad so many people knock this film, especially when comparing it to the louder, more bombastic previous installment. At the very least, III deserves more credit than it gets....    Posted:   Jun 16, 2016 - 8:01 AM     By:   RoryR   (Member) As good as Star Trek II is, I always feel like it is very overrated. It is very overrated. But I have a fond memory of seeing it on opening night back in college on a date with a girlfriend back then -- now married to someone else. But I also have a memory of going to it again a couple weeks later, this time alone, and finding myself bored by it. I was also surprised when I looked just yesterday in Phil Hardy's "The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction Movies" that it's called "A lackluster sequel to ST-TMP, going rather less boldly than they used to on TV." Ouch! Having said that, I already have this new Blu-ray, but I've never had the movie on BD before and it's as I said, a fond movie going memory now thirty-four years old!!! Yikes!    Posted:   Jun 16, 2016 - 8:38 AM     By:   SBD   (Member) Okay, is that seriously the box art for the ROLLERCOASTER Blu? Where's the lower half of his face?! That's even scarier than the first coaster crash, which - let me tell you - was pretty harrowing to 10-year-old me seeing the film on Encore. And **1/2 for ZOOTOPIA? Humph.    Posted:   Jun 16, 2016 - 8:53 AM     By:   Mr. Jack   (Member) And **1/2 for ZOOTOPIA? Humph. I actually agree with Andy on that one...it's cute and pleasant, but also shoves its political agenda down the audience's throat, and it's only the happenstance that it came out in the era of Trump that made critics go crazy for it's "subversive" subtext. And all of the various animal puns are either obvious or dated, or both (a Godfather parody? In 2016?). Disney has done much better in the recent past.    Posted:   Jun 16, 2016 - 8:57 AM     By:   Ado   (Member) Zootopia is 3 to 3 1/2 stars out of 4    Posted:   Jun 16, 2016 - 10:16 AM     By:   RoryR   (Member) And **1/2 for ZOOTOPIA? Humph. I actually agree with Andy on that one...it's cute and pleasant, but also shoves its political agenda down the audience's throat I haven't seen it yet. What's its political agenda?    Posted:   Jun 16, 2016 - 10:31 AM     By:   Solium   (Member) And **1/2 for ZOOTOPIA? Humph. I actually agree with Andy on that one...it's cute and pleasant, but also shoves its political agenda down the audience's throat I haven't seen it yet. What's its political agenda? It knocks you over the head with the messages of tolerance and equality. Nice messages, but it was the tail wagging the dog.    Posted:   Jun 16, 2016 - 10:41 AM     By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member) That's even scarier than the first coaster crash, which - let me tell you - was pretty harrowing to 10-year-old me seeing the film on Encore. I was 26 when I saw ROLLERCOASTER in the theater, and that first coaster crash was just as horrifying to me in all of its Panavision, Sensurround, and humanity-splattering glory.    Posted:   Jun 16, 2016 - 12:18 PM     By:   Sean Nethery   (Member) RE Chisum: That's the Lincoln COUNTY War, not country.    Posted:   Jun 16, 2016 - 3:25 PM     By:   jenkwombat   (Member) That's even scarier than the first coaster crash, which - let me tell you - was pretty harrowing to 10-year-old me seeing the film on Encore. I was 26 when I saw ROLLERCOASTER in the theater, and that first coaster crash was just as horrifying to me in all of its Panavision, Sensurround, and humanity-splattering glory. That freaked me out when I was a kid seeing that in the theater also. (But it probably would have even if I'd been 26.)    Posted:   Jun 18, 2016 - 9:17 AM     By:   TominAtl   (Member) I totally agree with the 4 star review of The Wrath of Khan. It completely holds up against the sands of time in terms of entertainment in every aspect and after all of the ST films that came before and after it, "Wrath" is still the considered by critics and most of the Trek fans to be the litmus test in terms of comparison. Star Trek III is a good film. But I remembered seeing it in the theater and immediately felt something was off. First, the blocking and pacing of certain scenes are awkward and clumsy. The sets and shot set ups in many scenes look cheap, including the many of the special effects. And the new actress as Savik was a poor choice. She brought nothing to character of Savik. What was done right was the destruction of the Enterprise, it's burn entry into the atmosphere and the effects on Vulcan when they returns Spock's body. Also notable was the escape of the enterprise and its subsequent chase, propelled by Horner's score. And the script did a good job of allowing every character contribute something and they seem to have fun doing this film. But what really made the film work was the emotional "reunion" among the friends and cast. So yes, overall it's a good film but to me just doesn't work on nearly as many levels as does its immediate predecessor.     General Discussion: FSM Blog Post: Aisle Seat 6-14: Star Trek II, Rollercoaster,...    < 1  >   Go to page:  1   First Post    General Discussion • Trading Post • Non-Film Score Discussion  Profile • Preferences • Community Rules • Help/Contact • Search Board You must log in or register to post.   Go to page:  1

© 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved. Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.