Do you think that was a fundamental flaw of enterprise? looking backwards?
The Worst Star Trek Movie Is...
#101
Posted 04 September 2013 - 04:05 AM
#102
Posted 04 September 2013 - 06:19 AM
I won't type up a huge reply, so as not to go off-topic too much, but I'll say this: whilst I do enjoy Enterprise (not love, but definitely enjoy), YES - it being a prequel was a huge flaw in my honest opinion. Trek has always looked forward, and painted a nice, rosy future. Of course, there's war in there, because war is something that (sadly) we'll never escape. But it showed a grand, happy future, filled with delights from both technology, and other beings, etc (you know what I mean!).
Enterprise didn't, and neither do the new movies. Star Trek has always been a universe that I would happily move into. As depicted in Enterprise, and the JJ-verse though, no - I'd rather live in this universe.
#103 Guest_1701_*
Posted 04 September 2013 - 02:07 PM
Been meaning to reply to you 1701 about favorite movies, no time yet.
But I wanted to share this from TrekMovie.com. I have to say, when TrekMovie.com is posting critical articles about the film franchise that drives its very existence (the site was started in advance of ST09 to feed on hype), something may be wrong. Before this movie came out they would barely tolerate any dissent in the comments, now they are posting it themselves.
http://trekmovie.com...-how-to-fix-it/
Just about every relevant thought on this forum is echoed concisely in this article; here is what I have largely said in this thread:
Now I have to be careful here because I may at some point contradict myself but I'm thinking all the time and I guess that's a consequence...
I don't think Star Trek is necessarily broken but I would say that it's in a state of identity crisis and I'm not really surprised, it's been revived in a medium it was never originally intended for, The movies Abrams have been faithfully done, but Star Trek is most definitely out of it's comfort zone.
First of all I think Into Darkness is a BRILLIANT summer movie and providing you go into watching it with an open mind, its a brilliant Star Trek movie however, rather than doing something new, I felt they worried and chose to do something that works on many levels for newbies but fails at being original. It would be easy for me to dismiss Star Trek Into Darkness as nothing more than a ridiculous alternate universe Trek movie that is also a forgettable action movie that does little to advance the plots in Star Trek (2009) and somewhat comes across as sometimes lazy and downright fan-boy shit, rehashing old scenes and plots from a time when Star Trek was fresh out of the gate... To dismiss this movie that easily though would be unfair as Star Trek Into Darkness is a far more complex movie than any Trek movie before it.
In truth though it is all of the above and an example of the conflict Star Trek finds itself in regardless of the story. What was meant as an interesting parallel between Wrath of Khan and Into Darkness came off as a cheap imitation and a pointless fangasm that ultimately alienated many of them who have passionately loved the franchise, and truth be told why do Khan? Cumberbatch could have played Wendy from Starfleet accounting and we'd still all be in awe of his greatness. I can only assume that the writers were thinking "well if it worked for the Joker in Batman..."
Yet I can't ignore my own opinion that this is also one of the greatest Star Trek movies so far. When you put it up against Insurrection, Nemesis, The Final Frontier and The Motion Picture, this movie stands above them all and goes far beyond yet just another Trek movie, I mean this thing is vast, I loved it and I loved it more the 2nd and the 3rd time's I saw it. It really is just an incredible summer blockbuster and infectiously watchable providing you check your fan-boy in at the door. The scope and scale is vast and the story is quite simply relentless, it is entertaining to say the least. It is also a story that has a relevant meaning to it if you are inclined to find it. The parallels it draws between our world today can't be ignored and the acting is just superb. Cumberbatch adds some much needed weight to Khan and IMO does an honourable job at not taking anything from Montalban's performance as the super-human. Both Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto up their game and seem to have grown into not only playing these iconic roles with ease but also into fine actors. The film itself looks incredible, the colours are rich and vibrant. What Abrams has done is give Star Trek the much needed resources to make it look future-cool and yet keep it very close to the style of the original TV series. This is how I imagined Star Trek looking if it had had a $190 million budget.
I can definitely see the writers intentions when they broke the story but ultimately it's misguided. There are far too many questions your left with in the end and far too many "Oh dear, WTF?" moments too and whilst it works on one level for people who don't care about Star Trek. It's irritating to be continually reminded of the fact that this Star Trek isn't for Star Trek fans... I mean why the hell can't Star Trek work for the ignorant but also be for it's fans? There are a shit load of us but by the use of the female characters Carol Marcus in her underwear for no reason other than to show of her very lovely boobies and Uhura's need to put her relationship issues with Spock in front of her starfleet duties, the ridiculous uses of iconic tech such as the transporters that make using ships obsolete and not explaining that the reason Khan could transport that distance was because of his Super-Human qualities, oh and don't get me started on Khan's super-blood and Spock Prime helping out whenever the crew can't figure it out for themselves... There are moments when any long-term or even casual Star Trek fan will sigh a huge groan of disappointment.
Ultimately Star Trek Into Darkness was not worth the 4 year wait and whereas Star Trek 2009 took bold steps forward with Kirk and Spock, Into Darkness may have made a giant leap back and thats not saying it's bad, its just not the movie I wanted to see after such an energetic and positive beginning in 2009.
Hope that made sense
#104
Posted 05 September 2013 - 07:03 PM
I won't type up a huge reply, so as not to go off-topic too much, but I'll say this: whilst I do enjoy Enterprise (not love, but definitely enjoy), YES - it being a prequel was a huge flaw in my honest opinion. Trek has always looked forward, and painted a nice, rosy future. Of course, there's war in there, because war is something that (sadly) we'll never escape. But it showed a grand, happy future, filled with delights from both technology, and other beings, etc (you know what I mean!).
Enterprise didn't, and neither do the new movies. Star Trek has always been a universe that I would happily move into. As depicted in Enterprise, and the JJ-verse though, no - I'd rather live in this universe.
Yeah, I enjoy ENT as well, I have to say when its brought up that going backwards is a mistake, I think I agree. Maybe its part of the issue many fans have with the re-boot... the idea of a reboot is going backwards... a do-over... and I keep asking why we need a do over? why can't we move forward and tell new stories?
I guess some fans love that Nimoy keeps coming back, but I don't want him or the Shat back!
#105
Posted 10 September 2013 - 08:01 AM
Do you think that was a fundamental flaw of enterprise? looking backwards?
Scott, simple as that. Most of the cast really, but Scott was not right for that part.
#106
Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:02 PM
Interesting FHC, why do you say that? what was he missing or what did he do that was so un-trek like?
I think of Stewarts Picard as the quintessential Captain, probably because he always came off as in control, and actually running a ship, which is typically the captains job. But I'd have to say Brook's Sisko was my fav,because his raw passion and emotion came through.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users