Star Trek Movie Not To Be Missed

Skybird · 04-27-09, 04:47 AM

Spielberg hin, Lucas her -Special effects alone do not make a great movie. I saw the latest TV trailer over here, it is broadcasted regularly now - chaotic, and the cast very teen-TV-like.

I remain very sceptic. Casino Royal worked well because of the cool new actor (best Bond evah, imo), and well-dosing the action and balancing it against the narration. See how it degenerated in Quantom of Solace when narration was left behind and the gaps were filled with even more, chaotic action. Craig's first movie is the best Bond movie there is, but his second already is the worst there ever has been. The third Craig-Bond should be called "Balancing Extremes", maybe.

The point is, casino Royal was much closer to Ian Fleming'S novel and it'S mood, and the way he had constructed the figure. But the star Trek legacy is such that something vital gets lost if you skip this very tradition and reset everything back to beginning, we have seen that loss already in Voyager, and then even more in Enterprise - both were ripped out of the context forming that certain ST mood, and tradition. DS9 and TNG however, managed to fit into it, after the first one or two seasons, and that'S why they functioned well. What worked for 007, must not work for ST. Just imagine to redo Star Wars 4-6 with a new cast, without Harrison Ford as Han Solo, etc. It wopuld not work, at least not for the older viewers, like my age group is expecting Spock to be Nimoy, and Kirk to be Shatner, and not some stretched juveniles from Melrose Place. Not to mention the absurdity to give a ship into the hands of such an extremely young crew and officers.

And Lucas - is a fantastic special effects insider - and one of the worst story tellers known in business.

04-27-09, 04:47 AM	#9
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,620 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Spielberg hin, Lucas her -Special effects alone do not make a great movie. I saw the latest TV trailer over here, it is broadcasted regularly now - chaotic, and the cast very teen-TV-like. I remain very sceptic. Casino Royal worked well because of the cool new actor (best Bond evah, imo), and well-dosing the action and balancing it against the narration. See how it degenerated in Quantom of Solace when narration was left behind and the gaps were filled with even more, chaotic action. Craig's first movie is the best Bond movie there is, but his second already is the worst there ever has been. The third Craig-Bond should be called "Balancing Extremes", maybe. The point is, casino Royal was much closer to Ian Fleming'S novel and it'S mood, and the way he had constructed the figure. But the star Trek legacy is such that something vital gets lost if you skip this very tradition and reset everything back to beginning, we have seen that loss already in Voyager, and then even more in Enterprise - both were ripped out of the context forming that certain ST mood, and tradition. DS9 and TNG however, managed to fit into it, after the first one or two seasons, and that'S why they functioned well. What worked for 007, must not work for ST. Just imagine to redo Star Wars 4-6 with a new cast, without Harrison Ford as Han Solo, etc. It wopuld not work, at least not for the older viewers, like my age group is expecting Spock to be Nimoy, and Kirk to be Shatner, and not some stretched juveniles from Melrose Place. Not to mention the absurdity to give a ship into the hands of such an extremely young crew and officers. And Lucas - is a fantastic special effects insider - and one of the worst story tellers known in business. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 04-27-09 at 05:01 AM.