 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 15, 2016 - 9:00 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Howard L
(Member)
|
THIS JUST IN:
The New York Times has just notified me that their edited/abridged version of my letter will be printed in tomorrow's paper. Online, it should be visible by later today.
Luv it, Dr.
Per previous reply above, we once again are on the same page.
To the Editor:
Re “Who Stole My ‘Star Trek’?” (Op-Ed, Sept. 8): If Thomas Vinciguerra knew how many fans dearly love the “bloated and boring” “Star Trek: The Motion Picture,” he might be quite surprised to hear from them, as I was when I wrote about the film.
For all the criticism it’s endured since 1979, when it was made, Robert Wise’s production embodied all the heart and soul Mr. Vinciguerra rightly finds deplorably absent in the recent reboots.
It’s that spirit, derived from Gene Roddenberry’s original TV series, that continues to move many viewers, and that, thanks to its box-office success, was responsible for all the “Star Trek” movies and series that followed and continue to flourish, for better or worse.
PRESTON NEAL JONES
Hollywood
The writer is the author of “Return to Tomorrow: The Filming of ‘Star Trek: The Motion Picture.’ ”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 16, 2016 - 12:48 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Disco Stu
(Member)
|
I have come to re-evaluate a lot of opinions on things. For one thing I now truly love the late seventies vibe of US series from "Buck Rogers" to "CHiPs" etc. and it is in that light that I gave ST-TMP a new try. Despite all good will on my behalf, the film still comes across as an example of what those 1950s B-movies seen on MST3K would have been had they had all the money they wanted.
Visuall it still can hold its own against any current production, maybe even more so as CGI is starting to loose its "wow-factor"even with the people who previously were completely in love with it. It is just too much visual.
It can be done, as "Bladerunner" clearly shows. However TMP is not "Bladerunner".
The minimalistic approach was very good in "The Andromeda strain", which also still holds its own today, but again, TMP is not "The Andromeda strain".
TMP will gain more fans over time though. If not for its merrits than just because it's the trendy thing to do. First something gets blowback, then a counter movement starts that begins with "it's not that bad" growing to full blown "pathetic fools, their simple minds don't realise what a gem they were given".
There are some things to like about TMP but there is a lot more not to be cared for. It fits the, then new, ST main theme very well though, both of them never get out of first gear.
D.S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rory, not sure how far, if at all, your tongue is in your cheek with your accusation of pro-ST-TMP bias. If the former, then I smile appreciatively. If the latter, (still smiling, in the spirit of good fellowship), I respectfully draw your attention to what I said above about appreciation versus love. More to the point, you'll notice my letter speaks of other people's opinion, not my own.
As to the original essay, it's usually the editors, not the writer, who create a story's title. But if you also have reservations about the body of the text itself, why not take issue with it over at the Times' Comments page? (If you can find it. I haven't been able to find it yet, I'm too much of a Luddite, I fear. But don't let that stop you.)
Go for it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
