|
Post by Erik on May 5, 2009 9:24:09 GMT -5
If STAR TREK coming out on May 7th (7pm in most places) isn't enough for you then you can look forward to the re-release of STAR TREK: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY on May 8th for the entire day!
I jumped online to see what the times were for STAR TREK on May 7th (there are 2 times leading up to midnight) and was pleasently surprised to see ST VI listed under it as "Starts on, May 8" for several theaters in my area. Be sure to look ahead where you are, and be prepared to do a ST double feature!
|
|
|
Post by james on May 5, 2009 14:03:32 GMT -5
VI is the first Trek film I watched in a theater. I guess I'm old enough that movies I saw are being revived. I wonder if the print will include the "fake Klingon" subplot that was added to home video.
|
|
Dino
Full Member
Tai-Pan
Posts: 166
|
Post by Dino on May 11, 2009 4:16:40 GMT -5
Undiscovered Country is one of four Trek movies I like (the other three being The Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home and First Contact). UC is probably just below WOK in my book.
|
|
|
Post by james on May 11, 2009 5:23:52 GMT -5
Undiscovered Country is one of four Trek movies I like (the other three being The Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home and First Contact). UC is probably just below WOK in my book. Yep, those are also my favorites. I watched First Contact this weekend (on a cable rerun). I hadn't seen it since the theatrical run, and it held up really well for me. After Khan, I think it's the best Trek film - it's visually exciting and cinematic (particularly the opening shot), and doesn't look like an extended episode of the television show. (As much as I like Khan, even in that film there are some scenes that look more like television than cinema, particularly the shots in the science satellite. But Khan was produced by Paramount's television division).
|
|
|
Post by Erik on May 11, 2009 6:32:39 GMT -5
I had this arguement with a few naysayers of this movie (before it came out and it turned out they liked it) that the best movies of Star Trek TOS and Star Trek TNG are the ones that had direct ties back to the TV series. The more the movies deviated from the continuity the series established the worse they got. The exception to that was Star Trek 4, but that was built on the previous 2 movies behind it so it HAD a continuity.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on May 11, 2009 12:52:09 GMT -5
Undiscovered Country is one of four Trek movies I like (the other three being The Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home and First Contact). UC is probably just below WOK in my book. Yep, those are also my favorites. I watched First Contact this weekend (on a cable rerun). I hadn't seen it since the theatrical run, and it held up really well for me. After Khan, I think it's the best Trek film - it's visually exciting and cinematic (particularly the opening shot), and doesn't look like an extended episode of the television show. (As much as I like Khan, even in that film there are some scenes that look more like television than cinema, particularly the shots in the science satellite. But Khan was produced by Paramount's television division). That's probably the reason I don't mind watching STAR TREK movies on television with commercial interruptions. For me, the STAR TREK movies feel like extra-long TV episodes.
|
|
|
Post by james on May 11, 2009 13:35:02 GMT -5
Regarding J. J. Abrams' new movie (which I liked - with a few serious reservations) - it is a film truly meant to be seen in a theater, on a large screen in a 2.35:1 ratio. The space battle scenes are visually detailed and take full advantage of the camera's field of vision. Plus, for once, the star ships aren't fighting on an x-y plane, but move in all directions (the way space craft would move in real outer space). It is not shot like a television show.
I just wish the plot was better...
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on May 11, 2009 15:31:44 GMT -5
Regarding J. J. Abrams' new movie (which I liked - with a few serious reservations) - it is a film truly meant to be seen in a theater, on a large screen in a 2.35:1 ratio. The space battle scenes are visually detailed and take full advantage of the camera's field of vision. Plus, for once, the star ships aren't fighting on an x-y plane, but move in all directions (the way space craft would move in real outer space). It is not shot like a television show. I just wish the plot was better... I'll go into greater detail about how I felt about STAR TREK via a PM I sent you, James. But for right now I'll say that the plot really didn't matter here. It's the same plot we got in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" "The Voyage Home" and "First Contact": a ginormous thingamabob is heading towards earth to destroy it and the Enterprise is the only ship able to stop it. The main reason we've got STAR TREK is to introduce us to the new versions of the crew and the shiny new Enterprise.
|
|
|
Post by james on May 13, 2009 14:41:41 GMT -5
The main reason we've got STAR TREK is to introduce us to the new versions of the crew and the shiny new Enterprise. That's true. I'm still trying to decide what I think about the plot. On the one hand, it exists for its own sake, as a way to justify a corporate "reboot" of a franchise within the story (the time travel stuff, I mean, not the whatsit attacking Earth). I hate to use the term "metatext," but that's kind of what the time travel plot is. Abrams didn't "start from scratch" the way Christopher Nolan did with Batman Begins. It's not the best way to tell a fresh story, I don't think, especially for a franchise held to 40 years of history. On the other hand
the meeting between the wise, reflective older Spock and the younger, priggish new Spock is one of the best scenes in the film, and the contrast between the two realy introduces some strong depth to the character(s?). What could have been a terrible example of fan-wankery is one of the thematically strongest scenes in the movie. Heck, every scene with Nimoy is a highlight. So I can't completely discount the "alternate timeline" stuff, either.
|
|
Dino
Full Member
Tai-Pan
Posts: 166
|
Post by Dino on May 18, 2009 3:15:27 GMT -5
I'm not a big Trek fan aside from the movies I mentioned, but I say going with an alternate timeline was a good idea. With the previous Batman films, fans were DESPERATE for the franchise to start from scratch. But Star Trek has a lot more history in film than Batman and that history is loved by a lot of fans. So if they started off from scratch, the Trekkies probably would have been up in arms. And even though Abrams isn't a Trekkie himself, he seems like he wanted to respect the existing continuity but still do something new.
|
|
|
Post by Erik on May 18, 2009 9:06:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by james on May 18, 2009 9:55:17 GMT -5
Greg Hatcher of Comics Should Be Good wrote up the new movie and the time travel idea. It's a great read and one of the best appraisals of the reboot (and the supposed fan backlash) I've read, and the article doubles as a concise history of Trek as a corporate franchise. goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2009/05/16/saturday-on-the-rebooted-final-frontier/(And I'd never seen that picture of the Xon character from the aborted Phase Two series before reading this)
|
|
|
Post by Erik on May 18, 2009 13:49:17 GMT -5
Xon was to replace Spock in Phase II. The actor who was supposed to play him made a short appearance in The Motion Picture (the Phase II pilot adapted into a movie) as a human, though I forget off hand the character it was. I'm surprised Xon was never reimagined for the later TV shows but I pulled him off the shelf of a Star Trek project I put together and tied it back to the original intent with him.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on May 18, 2009 16:11:31 GMT -5
Xon was to replace Spock in Phase II. The actor who was supposed to play him made a short appearance in The Motion Picture (the Phase II pilot adapted into a movie) as a human, though I forget off hand the character it was. I'm surprised Xon was never reimagined for the later TV shows but I pulled him off the shelf of a Star Trek project I put together and tied it back to the original intent with him. The actor who was supposed to play Xon played the commander of that Starbase that was assimilated by V'Ger at the beginning of ST:TMP. The base detects the three Klingon ships battling V'Ger and manage to send a warning to earth before they get zapped.
|
|
|
Post by stevejrogers on May 20, 2009 10:14:13 GMT -5
Xon was to replace Spock in Phase II. The actor who was supposed to play him made a short appearance in The Motion Picture (the Phase II pilot adapted into a movie) as a human, though I forget off hand the character it was. I'm surprised Xon was never reimagined for the later TV shows but I pulled him off the shelf of a Star Trek project I put together and tied it back to the original intent with him. The actor who was supposed to play Xon played the commander of that Starbase that was assimilated by V'Ger at the beginning of ST:TMP. The base detects the three Klingon ships battling V'Ger and manage to send a warning to earth before they get zapped. That was the actor, but was the character Xon in the movie as well? On another podcast it is suggested that the Vulcan that gets fried in the transporter accident was Xon. I doubt they are right though.
|
|