The minute I saw that Rhianna did the "song" for Star Trek I knew it was bad news, and it was enough to stop me watching it.
I'm glad the review has told me all I needed to know, and confirmed I made the right choice by not seeing it.
The original Star Trek series and subsequent sequels stubbornly and persistently refused to frame their dramas in black-and-whites. Balance of Terror, for example, transformed heretofore-unseen Romulans from villains into tragic heroes over the course of an hour. As happened in so many episodes, the writers avoided the cheap …
I, Robot did have many good moments - but they served mostly to illustrate all the ways in which the rest of the movie was so poor.
There was one good twist revelation at the end, but overall I think the writers were too unwilling to take risks and deviate from the tried-and-tested cliches. Killer robots and computers bent on world domination are tried-and-tested plot elements that usually get a good audience reaction. But they are so overdone all you really get is a very generic action movie.
It's made all the worse for having read the book - which was focused on subverting those very cliches. The final chapter is set as a dinner conversation, as a board of engineers discover that the robots are conspiring to overthrow human government. Then they take a look at what human government has achieved, realise that the robots are obliged by their design to act always in the best interests of those governed and incapable of doing otherwise, and decide to just keep quiet about the matter and let the robots win.
I'd probably have been fine with that movie if they had called it anything except "I, Robot." Although the movie was ok, I seethed my way through it because it had nothing (and I do mean absolutely nothing) to do with Asimov's fine collection. Good or bad (and much as I enjoy Will Smith's performances), I refuse to ever watch it again.
I think with I, Robot, they took the three laws to the extremes and the not possible. The first law they have to follow is simple...
a robot can't harm a human or, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm.
I want to go do some dangerous activity, I do it because it's dangerous and there is a risk I will get harmed. The first law there would be "okay, we have to stop you from doing that, Master". In Asimovs' world it would be "we'll stop you by making it much safer" (followed by the Shrink lady discussing with the robots why Humans need to do stuff which may be dangerous to themselves), in I, Robot it was "we'll kill you and enslave you to save you from yourself". Was a good robot film, a terrible Asimov film.
"The three laws are complete bollox.
one only had to go to a Car assembly line and stand in the way of a robot to see that."
The robots on car assembly lines are simply following a set of pre-programed routines with no decision making involved, they are therefore not robots in the sense that we are talking about.
A human would have realised that... What are you?!?
"A slightly dented human from standing too close to a car assembly robot I would assume..."
Slightly dented? On July 1, a worker in a Volkswagon plant in Germany was grabbed by a robot and shoved into a metal plate, crushing his chest, killing him.
I am amazed at the narrow-minded hatred for I Robot - a really good action-SF film, with Will Smith doing a fine job as the hero, beautifully supported by Alan Tudyk as Sonny, the philosophising robot.
No, the film doesn't follow any of Asimov's stories. But it does expand on Asimov's Three Laws in a very intelligent way - more than intelligent enough to support what is essentially an effects-driven action film. It's not like Asimov's writing was all that magical, either. His ideas were great, but his writing tended to be pretty dry. (Recall that he wrote a future history of the human race, in three thick volumes, without including even one female character. We're not talking Tolstoy here - or even Tolkien.)
Apart from its other virtues, I Robot (the film) is the best warning ever against the dangers of automatic updates. It's a very sharp observation, especially coming so many years before Microsoft's current cloud-based software coup d'etat.
"I am amazed at the narrow-minded hatred for I Robot [..] No, the film doesn't follow any of Asimov's stories."
That's because the script originally had nothing to do with Asimov or his stories, and the "I, Robot" name was later slapped on, along with some references to Asimov's laws:-
This may go some way to explaining the negative reception among some sci-fi fans.
I've never seen the film myself, except a brief clip where I was flicking through TV channels and the CGI robots and the way they moved and looked appeared *really* fake, even by the standards of ten years ago. Robots should be far easier to do mimic convincingly than humans or animals, and they didn't even manage that.
"...That's because the script originally had nothing to do with Asimov or his stories..."
I'm not aware of this background, but I'll take your word for it. However, the story as filmed does hinge rather neatly on Asimov's three laws, so I felt it was a worthy homage to the author. The film's key observation is that true intelligence in a robot could be recognized - or maybe even defined - by its ability to violate the Three Laws. That's pretty deep for what is basically an action movie.
"the CGI robots and the way they moved and looked appeared *really* fake, even by the standards of ten years ago"
Actually, the fluid motion of the robots is a key feature of the story, and works extremely well in making them scary. These aren't your Robbie the Robot clunkers - they're physically far superior to humans in every way. That seems like a pretty reasonable extrapolation. Any technology capable of building an anthropomorphic robot of this sophistication would surely give it mechanical capabilities to rival its mental ones.
I thought that, as far as movies, Starship Troopers was a more egregious straying from the source material than I Robot was. I Robot actually had some interesting moments with robots making certain decisions to save people or try to become more human. Starship Troopers was basically a bug shoot-em-up, though I did enjoy the portrayal of the future of human governance being some kind of kindly, media-driven fascism. "Would you like to learn more?"
I think that if you ask the people who (like me) love Starship Troopers or hate Starship Troopers, they will both say that the film adaptation is the biggest "fuck you!" to the source material conceivable.
If they'd have stayed true to the book, IMNSHO opinion it'd have been like a NSDAP political broadcast as directed by Michael Bay.
Even swapped my DVD for free from Flipper to RSDL, even copied to video tape while it was being swapped.
A really enjoyable and well made film, nothing like the original story, but good enough to stand on its own feet.
If you hate it, I don't mind, I just like the cheesiness of it, and the overblown ridiculousness. Yes I did notice a very authortarian rule. But the use of not very well known actors and actresses stopped it becoming a vehicle for actor X.
BTW a tape copy was actually pretty good, much much better than any retail tape, worst thing was surround sound was downgraded to Prologic from 5.1.
Actually that tape was one of my best recordings ever. Showed how much better the loser in the video tape war was than the winner.
Starship Troopers was basically a bug shoot-em-up
No. No, it wasn't.
Starship Troopers - the first one - was a satirical look at how a society based upon militaristic views always sets itself up as the "good guys", regardless of who actually starts the conflict, and always considers any and all actions to be warranted. I think it's a good film.
The later movies were just unadulterated shit. Even Jolene Blalock cannot be considered a saving grace...
The hatred is due to some of us loving the Gentle Doctor's original works, which the title of the film refers to and the film itself craps all over. If you find the film's alterations "very intelligent" - I weep for you.
As for the Foundation trilogy - while I'll grant there aren't a lot of female characters, claiming "none" proves your ignorance of the work; I'll mention just two: Bayta Darell, and her granddaughter Arcadia ("Arkady") Darell. Neither are wilting flowers - in fact, Bayta is instrumental in the defeat of The Mule.
I feel your pain, Grunchy. I knew about I, Robot from the off, but I've just learnt that he's playing Deadshot in Suicide Squad. I wasn't much invested in that item to begin with, but now it's arrived at "Aw HELL no"sville.
(Okay, I'm still faintly intrigued to see Jared Leto Joker, because he has in my mind always been the-guy-you-call-when-Heath-Ledger's-not-available, so this casting was no great surprise. I expect I will forevermore watch his movies and ponder how Heath would have played it, but that's my psychosis. Oh, and a hot Asian chick with katanas is never a reason *not* to watch a movie in my book. But still, probably gonna pass on balance.)
Hancock was also a tragic waste of a good premise, but I only give him a small share of the blame for that trainwreck.
Thanks for the background, Ian. That pic of Kirk standing disconsolately in a veritable ball-pit of them would be rendered quite horrendous by the notion that they were all crapping all over him all the while.
(Horrendous but undeniably tittersome. I am a bad human being.)
"Next episode the Enterprise will hunt Pokemons..."
Licensing error...How about Tribble-mon...?
- At the very least people will get bored of the fad a lot quicker and we won't have to endure it too long....'gotta catch em' all!' - 'why? they all look alike'.
I do think the author looks at the original series through a rose-tinted vizor. There was some good episodes that were deep, but just as many that had really poor writing (just how many parallel earths did the original series encounter? Most of the series (stng, ds9,voy,ent) were much the same to one degree or another.
If they had had CGI then (or much, much more money), you would have seen less reuse of existing movie sets. Being feasible within the budget was a big constraint, and ideas had to be reworked to use what was available.
While not all scripts were of equal quality, the number of very good ones is high. Many scriptwriters today are too arrogant and too ignorant at the same time, and not only Star Trek ones. The appalling quality of many productions is a direct result of that. CGI attempts to fill the void, but works only for children and very 'naïve' people....
"There was some good episodes that were deep, but just as many that had really poor writing (just how many parallel earths did the original series encounter?"
The only thing bad about TOS is the fact that CBS treated the show like crap. Literally, like a piece of garbage. Go check the wikipedia article on TOS, CBS went OUT OF THEIR WAY to treat the fans and the creators of TOS like trash. Any failure in the show after the middle of season 2 are all due to CBS, nothing else. Period.
Here's a sample of CBS' "love" for TOS:
1) they moved the show to Friday nights; death to a series that is popular with young viewers
2) they lied about how many fans wrote in to say they loved, or other positive comments, about TOS. Over a million people wrote in, and CBS claimed it was about 116K. CBS is a shit network. This is a fact.
3) CBS is a shit network
4) this is a fact
5) there is NO REASON 5
6) TOS was years ahead of its' time, and the execs at CBS still in the fucking stone ages
7) There would be NO FUCKING STAR WARS unless there was a TOS. Period.
9) get back to work you fucking IT slackers!
10) I'm still in Devops, and it's still pretty fucking sweet, you dopes
11) FU, muggles!
"Any failure in the show after the middle of season 2 are all due to CBS, nothing else. Period."
CBS rejected the whole show because they already had a science fiction show, Lost in Space.
Star Trek (TOS) aired on NBC, even though CBS - realizing its error - eventually bought the rights to the Star Trek franchise.
The real key to the greatness of Star Trek TOS was the show's emphasis on actual SF ideas, driven by a ground-breaking use of actual SF authors for scripts. I can't think of another continuing (non-anthology) series where you might have seen an accumulation of names like Sturgeon, Bloch, Brown, Spinrad and Ellison. The show also gave a start to some great new writers, most notably David Gerrold. Even Dorothy Fontana, the in-house script editor, ended up turning in some excellent work.
The early Trek movies tended to hit a much lower standard, but at least paid lip-service to the original tradition. Meanwhile, the TV sequels continued to emphasize intelligent writing - with challenging SF ideas in STNG, and really strong political drama in DS9.
By comparison, the recent Trek reboots have been consistently bereft of intelligence, drama, or even basic logic. They make the Transformers films look like works of genius. I can only hope that the upcoming Trek TV series won't be able to get away with that kind incompetence, going up against the really strong SF/fantasy/superhero series we're seeing these days on Netflix, HBO and elsewhere.
"At the very least people will get bored of the fad a lot quicker and we won't have to endure it too long....'gotta catch em' all!' - 'why? they all look alike'."
Oh you're one of those miserable people that whines about other people doing something that they find full Just because you don't.. what a full and exiting life you must lead, sitting in your house complaining about kids nowadays...
What's the problem de jour? They don't get out enough? Or are they out too much playing Pokemon?
I'll bet back in your day all you had was a tin can and a dead cat on a stick to play with... And you were glad to have them!
Stop whining about what makes other people happy you miserable old git.
"Oh you're one of those miserable people that whines about other people doing something that they find full Just because you don't.. what a full and exiting life you must lead, sitting in your house complaining about kids nowadays..."
@ 'pointless' A.C.
- Have I touched a nerve about how your fun new hobby is a pointless time-waster fad?
- 90% will have forgotten all about it in a few weeks, a further 8% will get bored as soon as the difficulty ramps up.
- Last comment was written on from the pub (on a Nintendo 3DS, no end of crap free Poke-mon apps on that, Poke-dex, Poke-mon Picross - every time I delete one, another appears), You don't have to sit in your house to complain about 'kids nowadays' - haven't you heard of mobile communication?
"I'll bet back in your day all you had was a tin can and a dead cat on a stick to play with... And you were glad to have them!"
- I've just seen more crassly exploitive fads than you have, clearly. You end up with a pile of junk that takes up space and nobody wants after a month.
"Stop whining about what makes other people happy you miserable old git."
I couldn't care less what entertains the kind of mindless, nutless, soul-less moron that would enjoy the current Trek reboot films. What I do mind is when those morons usurp a franchise that I care about, one that has long stood as a bastion of intelligence and compassion in a wasteland of overblown fantasy epics masquerading under the trappings of space opera or actual SF.
In fact, the demolition of Trek has been so thorough, I have to believe that it was malicious. Someone decided that the public didn't deserve a show that might lead it to think of higher things. A series that might speak of a brighter future, and how we might achieve it. So they took the Trek tropes and drove them relentlessly down to the lowest level of stupidity. That's offensive, no less than spitting on someone's flag.
You want dumb, go ahead and create your own brainless franchise, instead of deriving some kind of sick pleasure from demolishing one of the few intelligent ones. Trek has been taken away from its fans by the schoolyard bullies, whose highest aspiration is spoil what they can't understand or appreciate.
I console myself with the realization that these Trek films will come and go, but their eager audience will remain sub-human, forever locked out of the treasure-house of great art and visionary ideas.
"I console myself with the realization that these Trek films will come and go, but their eager audience will remain sub-human"
Whoah... I thought you might have had a legitimate point (#)- if one expressed in a slightly melodramatic and conspiratorial manner- until I read this.
You're describing people as "sub-human" because they might enjoy the slightly dumbed-down new Star Trek films? Seriously?
Ugh. I'm guessing your average idealistic Star Trek fan wouldn't want to be associated with that sort of viewpoint either. Shows that geeks can be just as bad as the people they like to think themselves above and not even realise it.
(#) Haven't seen any of the rebooted Star Trek series myself, so can't judge it.
Movie makers have been hijacking pre-existing franchises and dumbing them down for as long as movies have been a thing. Early example.
Moral: don't expect anything else of movies. Certainly not of any movie that has the word "franchise" attached, however tangentially. Artists are creative, they don't want to spend their time splashing about in someone else's imagination. Everyone associated with the Star Trek franchise since Gene Roddenberry died has been a bought-and-paid-for hack, nothing more.
I also think people revere TOS rather more than it deserves; it was absolutely the freshest science fiction TV programme of it's time. The best? Doctor Who at it's best can give it a run for it's money but it's well "up there".
But for me the important part of the above is "of it's time"; watching it now, it is very dated. The sacrificial "red shirt", the soft focus on Kirk and his "girl of the week", the whole captain taking part in away teams and so forth. The best episodes do still tell great stories but making a film based on TOS would be a financial disaster with only hardcore trekkies or trekkers (not sure what they call themselves) going to see it.
If you look at what remained of the original pilot, actually TOS could have been even better. No miniskirts uniforms, a female first officer, etc. etc.
But Roddenberry to get on air had to accept some compromises with the network - and its dinosaur executives - some of them fixed in later series, although to make the most vocal fans happy, for example even TNG became too much Picard-Data oriented.
Anyway we shouldn't forget ST was still a design of the mid-60s, sometimes even the best sci-fi finds hard to get past some main cultural topoi of its own epoch.
Moreover, in TV without a public you can't go nowhere, to boldy go where no one has been before, you may need some compromises to find a public... and then feed them something new.
that's this one: The Game
bet there have been a few treasure hunt episodes.
eg The Chase where they hunt DNA fragments in competition with Romulans, Cardassians and Klingons (Oh My)
or Gambit, where Picard does his archaological pirate bit looking for a vulcan/romulan artifact?
"Next episode the Enterprise will hunt Pokemons...
...On space station K7. The Pokemon are being sold by Cyrano Jo-Smith, played by Penn Jillette, who accidentally uses them to uncover a sinister Klingon plot to poison the station's supply of... um... space barley.
There will be a fifty minute long brawl between Scotty and the entire Klingon crew, briefly framed by a few minutes of story.
And the best part is that it will be completely and totally original, just like all of the new Star Trek films.
That's genius casting, so genius that I hope no one at Paramount sees your post or we'll surely be treated to a remake of the Tribbles episode for the next movie.
Since Teller has to be included whenever Penn is, he'd be cast as either Cyrano's silent partner (hey, it is a new timeline, he could have a partner this time) or as a redshirt wearing security guard who suffocates when a pile of tribbles land on him.
"That sort of already happened. Penn and Teller were cast in an episode of Bablyon5. And it was terrible (but then I think Bab5 was just terrible anyway)"
That was season 5 (the least good season), they panicked thinking they weren't getting a fifth season and wrapped up all the story arcs at the end of the fourth in a rush. Babylon 5 was generally more popular in the UK than the US.
Next episode the Enterprise will hunt Pokemons...
This one had me laughing, but the sad part? I wouldn't be surprised one single bit if some "genius" would indeed pay up for the royalties so that they can call their next movie "Star Trek GO". I mean: with such an awesome title, who wouldn't go see it? (.... 4 years later when the Pokemon Go hype has long passed).
I watched the trailer up until the warbling started and it looked pretty bad, Justin Lin was a poor choice and Pegg without Edgar Wright isn't really that great at anything production or script based. It's a shame as the first two films were enjoyable, although yes they were retreads.
>It's a shame as the first two films were enjoyable,
The first two films were mostly yelling and running and exploding, with a bit of drinking, shagging, and punching - all of which seem to be JJA's definition of drama.
Khan as Cumberbatch (did I get that the right way round?) was more ridiculous than sinister, which surely deserves an Oscar as a cinematic achievement in its own right.
The only thing missing was Daniel Craig in a cameo as a Tribble.
I liked the first film, thought it had real legs for doing something interesting given how it had taken the power balance and chucked it in the bin. But no, the terrible attempt at Khan followed by what sounds to be quite poor. When I saw "I wanted to do something original" and "destroying the enterprise" I gave up hope.
I shall see it though, got free tickets.
Now, I did go see Ghostbusters about an hour before it, so someone hammering nails through my sensitive parts would seem enjoyable by comparison, but the review does seem to be a bit of a stab at a film that isn't that bad.
I mean, it's not a Trek film, neither have the last two, nor arguably the last Generations one, but, it's about on par with the rebooted franchise, the spacey action sequences are about the same and the action's about the same - too close/fast/cut to be able to see what's going on, but as I watched Into Darkness this morning I'd have to say they're about on par for the franchise (and most movies these days).
There's an obligatory action beat whether it's needed or not (but, not giant rolly tentacle monsters loose on Han's ship for no real reason bad) but a nice nod to Leonard Nimoy (if maybe a little too over done).
But yeah, Trek's long since dead, and, for weird creature wandering around wearing it's face, it's about what you'd expect, far from an unwatchable steaming pile of dung, but far from a Trek movie too, maybe if they'd just rename it to "generic action movie in space" that'd solve alot of the problems with it..
"nor arguably the last Generations one,"
- 'A bit harsh' - I though it was okay, not great, but okay (it kind of reminded me of 'first contact' as it focused in on Picard), only moreso, if I try to remember the movie all I get in my head is a few fleeting scenes which are most close ups of Patrick Stewart looking sweaty, concerned and determined.
Am I weird? heretical? I actually quite liked most of Enterprise..... - Okay, I'll get my coat.
Funny but I loved the original series, grew to like the Picard series a lot.
Enjoyed DS9, Voyager was quite good, but a bit messy.
Enterprise was a good series with a few odd story choices.
The films were a right mish mash, but Voyage Home was the funniest by a long way. But TOS films were prefereable to STNG films.
I wonder if Gene Roddenberry would have approved?
Benedick Cumberland as Khan?
Remember in the first one when the 'miffed' Romulans dropped that big Black'n'Decker into Vulcan and Kirk and Sulu parachute onto it and have a fist fight with said Rommos. Well, i thought that Vulcan had a heavier gravity and thinner air than Earth which is why Kirk was having such a problem breathing when he was battling Spock on Vulcan in the TV series, yet in the film Kirk and Sulu are thousands of metres in the air (where its going to be even thinner) and don't seem to be suffering any effects of Hypoxia! The people who make these remakes claim that they have a love for the subject matter as it was 'a big influence on them in their childhoods', just like Peter Jackson, who said that King Kong was a big influence on him and yet Mr Jackson & Mr Abrams didn't blink twice when the opportunity to stand on the shoulders of giants and shit all over their body of work came along.
Oh yeah, this big love-in the world's got with Edris Elba who are you kidding, HE CAN'T ACT!! Him and Eric Bana have got 'One Expression' each and that's it!
@ Anonymous Coward
Air on vulcan......?
I'm sorry, but that, is just such a classic 'comic book guy' post,...
- Anyway, weren't they wearing suits with helmets (can't recall if they still had the helmets on when they landed on the 'drill' though).
>>The people who make these remakes claim
>>that they have a love for the subject matter
Actually, Abrams never liked Star Trek, he didn't like it at all until he started working on his own movie of it, then he 'fell in love with it', so the only trek he had a love for, was his own.
“I stopped listening to you when you said you didn’t like ‘Star Trek.’ I know what happened because your mouth kept moving after that, so I’m assuming you apologized,”
Sadly, Trek continues to be bellwether of the zeitgeist. Once upon a time, that meant morals challenged, arrogance humbled, conventions tested. Trek spoke truth to power. Now it just means kill the Other, which is roughly how the world seems to be going. The LOTR movies sold out in the same way. Unlike in the books, elves do not laugh in the LOTR movies; they kill.
Ultimately, the latest Trek is just an advertisement for itself, which is to say, an advertisement for CGI glorifications of war in the name of money. Again, roughly the way the world seems to be going.
I blame Star Wars.
You can't go that far.... The prequels were worse than any star trek film... even nemesis!
But saying that, the Prequels ended up giving us the Clone Wars TV Series, and with it Rex & Ahsoka
Two characters I would love to see appear on the big screen (and with films such as Rogue one being made, I am hopeful we'll see them at some point!)
Now it just means kill the Other,
I presume that is where your reference to Trump is coming from (and nowhere might I add, has Trump ever advocated killing anyone).
I saw it as a parable of the "collective" vs the individual (or Neitschen "superman"), or in politocal terms the leftist versus the libertarian. Krull was quoting , or at least paraphrasing Neitsche, and was having collectivist theory thrown back at him - they were really really belabouring both points - "The twig in a bundle" etc , Kirk, although he acts as a Neitschen superman, "its the whole team" stuff at the end - I saw a Krull = Trump undertone
... but it appears I am to be disappointed. The reboot story wasn't bad and established the new characters pretty well. Twisting around to include Nimoy may even have been a touch of continuity genius.
Then, ugh, Into Darkness was Lindelofed into a colander of absurd plot holes, vacuously disconnected action sequences and the crying waste of Cumberbatch as the Brexit version of Khan: a movie so blitheringly daft they tried to prop its idiocies up with dreary expositions. (And was it Lindelof who also destroyed Prometheus, come to think of it?)
What a pity that they've screwed this one up too. If it really is another stinker I don't know how they could salvage the wreck with a fourth one.
"I was counting on the *odd*-numbered ones this time round"
It looks like they've adjusted the formula, perhaps they've moved on to a logarithmic scale with an unknown constant for a multiplier. When they make another watchable one we will have more data, but for now just expect the worst :)
"I was counting on the *odd*-numbered ones this time round"
Sorry, Microsoft failed so hard with its "this should be the good one" Windows
910 that they broke the underlying quantum mechanism of reality, so now it doesn't work for Trek movies or anything else "one good / one bad" either anymore... :(
On entering the living room the other night, there was a trailer on TV featuring some really cheesy looking female shaped humanoid alien type thing..'Ah!', says I, 'a new Galaxy Quest film?'
My sister (a die-hard trekkie), turns round, growls the following at me 'might as well be, it's the new Star Trek film...'
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...
there is no way I'm going to see this (apparent) travesty, I shall wait for a torrent to become available. Christmas time I suspect.
Then they can bleat how me downloading it lost them a sale, oblivious to the fact its more than likely due to it being a dog egg of a film that keeps paying patrons away.
And as for the ghostbusters re-hash, I wont even waste the bandwidth on that.
Do you know why you still remember some artists like Abba and Elvis? Or why certain movies turned out into classics? Because they stopped at their peek. People didn't try to milk the franchise dry, but they stopped and it kept the memories alive.
All this "Search for more money" mockery does is kill the franchise. Instead of thinking back at the good stuff people now reflect to the most recent stuff. And if that most recent stuff is horrid then their memories of the entire franchise get stained. Thank you Hollywood for destroying even more good childhood memories!
Just because something was awesome back then (ThunderCats, Masters of the Universe, Ghost in the Shell, Inspector Gadget (now focusing on my personal main interest of animation)) doesn't automatically mean that it'll be awesome again when it's remade. I think Ghost in the Shell is a prime example of this: the new GiTS series (Arise, released under Spielberg) wasn't bad but it also lacked the quality and depth of the originals (and it made me cringe at seeing how often Kusanagi managed to get herself hacked, even though it was hinted at time and time again that she was already Wizard class in her teens).
I get the impression that Hollywood doesn't get the obvious: all those blasts from the past were awesome because they were new and different. Stop doing re-runs, try to actually work for your money by coming up with something actually creative for a change.
"Do you know why you still remember some artists like Abba and Elvis? Or why certain movies turned out into classics? Because they stopped at their peek."
- Really? people have been trying to milk the likes of Abba and Elvis for ages (maybe you missed the Abba inspired musical a while back). Hollywood meanwhile is just desperate. Perhaps another race has emerged in another part of the universe, and all our creative souls have gone to them, leaving us with the uninspired middle management acting as Producers, accountants and repetitive hacks.
The main issue seems to be writers are not considered that important, all the focus is on the Director and the actors.
"Kusanagi managed to get herself hacked" - fnarr fnarr! I'm quite keen on anime, as long as the U.S. doesn't get involved with the creative side, it's still fairly fresh and new, but you can't expect a franchise not to get tired, a good story should always have an end.
"Do you know why you still remember some artists like Abba and Elvis? Or why certain movies turned out into classics? Because they stopped at their peek."
- Really? people have been trying to milk the likes of Abba and Elvis for ages (maybe you missed the Abba inspired musical a while back)
Abba is still trying to milk the likes of Abba.
Elvis stopped because of a terminal case of death ("Lounge singer Elvis" wasn't really his peak, was it?)
"people have been trying to milk the likes of Abba and Elvis for ages (maybe you missed the Abba inspired musical a while back)"
I think his point was that ABBA as a *band* and ongoing entity (effectively) broke up around the time they were clearly reaching their natural end and didn't feel compelled to continue working together for commercial reasons or because they didn't know what else to do.
Like The Beatles, their legacy may have been exploited, but the band itself didn't keep going past its prime and sully that legacy. (Even The Beatles sort-of reformed in the mid-90s; ABBA never did, and speaking as an ABBA fan, I wouldn't want them to do that now).
"wasn't bad but it also lacked the quality and depth of the originals"
I prefer to think of Arise as being a prequel created by somebody who never actually watched the films/series(es!) and instead wrote something "fresh and exciting" based upon some character descriptions.
On my harddisc, Arise is stored in a directory called "Arise". It isn't a subdirectory of "GiTS"...
"Because they stopped at their peek."
Or because you were 17 when you encountered Abba or 14 when you encountered Elvis. In all the kerfluffle over Star Wars|Trek and Ghostbusters, it strikes me that for many a disgruntled moviegoer there is one essential thing missing: himself at 12 or 15 or whatever the optimal age is for watching.
You may not mind living Hollywood's equivalent of Groundhog Day all the time, but some of us really, really do especially when reboots all but rape the essence of the originals. Not that I'm not a grumpy git - I totally am - but this has nothing to do with that.
Ursula K LeGuin once said something like the point of science fiction is to create a distancing effect so you can explore aspects of the human condition without preconceptions.
I feel like the first several Treks at least gave it the old college try. I never felt it with Enterprise nor with the reboot. It could just be me. But it makes me sad.
100% Agree. All the best sci-fi books I've ever read are more about the people than the technology - the tech is just there to create new backdrops and scenario's to explore reactions.
Space Opera is a prime example of the best kind of writing there is, regardless of genre.
Every once in a while my wife convinces me to read a 'mainstream' book, times best-seller kind of thing. I have to say, that even though the subject might be interesting and that there are some novel ( ;) ) ideas presented, it's like they are written for 5 year olds. So much so that I actually had to ask if the style of writing was typical for the author or if it was written that way as a kind of subtle subtext to the overall plot.
Oh boy was I being generous! :)
"......best viewed by creatures with eyes on only one side of their head......"
or a Flounder, Flatfish or Halibut...
(incidentally, this is the second forum today I've mentioned halibut - first was about gnome apps on other desktops - long story...)
Time for the fish slapping dance.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJQp-q1Y1s
Or why Ferengi (etc) couldn't just use replicators to replicate gold-pressed latinum (that would quickly make it worthless, but let's not tribble, I mean quibble...). Or replicate replacement bits for various parts that get blown up on spaceships (modular? We've heard of it).
...sometimes you just need to turn off your internal critic and enjoy it for the entertainment it's supposed to be. Not always so easy when you've got more than a couple of brain-cells to rub together and plot-holes are big enough to swallow a galaxy class starship, but I digress... :-)
"Or why Ferengi (etc) couldn't just use replicators to replicate gold-pressed latinum (that would quickly make it worthless, but let's not tribble, I mean quibble...). Or "
I seem to recall they handwaved it as being unreplicatable, for whatever reason.
Latinum (a liquid metal - that's why it's "pressed" into gold) has a quantum peculiarity that makes it impossible to replicate. At least, that's the story - and that's why it's actually useful as currency, because everything ELSE can be replicated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6QdY6YDfj0
I'll make my own opinion when I watch it, however I see the logic of the article, Star trek is not a thing, rather a state of mind with regards to other beings and other cultures. I can't wait for our first contact with alien races because I love street food. I look forward to toasted tribbles on naan bread.
"I look forward to toasted tribbles on naan bread."
Why stick to trek exclusively "I look forward to toasted tribbles on narn bread." Personally I'd skip the Drazi main course If I were you, and I wouldn't go near Pac'Ma'Ra hors doevres unless you like things five days dead.
"All cities and installations on Aminiar 7 have been located, identified, and fed into our fire control system. In one hour and 45 minutes the entire inhabited surface of your planet will be destroyed. You have that long to surrender your hostages."
Now that is gunboat diplomacy at its finest. USA in Space, indeed!
It looks you overlooked it a bit - the Enterprise was just simply telling them it was going to show how war *really is* - not just a computer calculating casualties and booths to disintegrate people "cleanly" to make war socially acceptable instead of peace (even if the real reason was Kirk didn't like the idea of disintegrating young charming women before he had a chance to seduce them - <G>). And of course it was a bluff. Very different from "gunboat diplomacy" - more an exploration on how far could a ruling class go in sacrificing its people to keep power instead of really facing and resolve the actual issues - very actual, indeed.
Unlimited movie cards allow one to watch loads of movies that one wouldn't pay for - yes, I have the time, no facecrap, no shitter, no fumblr, hardly an whytube and only Netflix + good iPlayer TV (other streaming services are available, apparently), so I will go along, with a sprog or two and enjoy it for what it is, an action yarn. My other half might even go although she hates sci-fi (but loves Simon Pegg).
Good for you for speaking up! I was afraid of the lynch mob.
I also quite liked it; it certainly wasn't the best thing ever, but things kept moving at an even pace and I loved the battle scenes/effects. It was touching seeing their homage to Nimoy (even if it was a tad over done).
Suicide Squad next then ;)
Ah Skyfall, the one where the villain has a preposterous plot that somehow comes off in spite of hundreds of unforeseeable events having to come off in the right order at the right time and he actually gets everything he wants yet viewers still see it as a win for Bond?
Along with "What's A Robot".
The original series broke taboos on race, raised questions on responsibility and consequences.
Enterprise raised some very good morality questions e.g. cloning a person for organ replacement.
Now what do we have?
You Robot - reducing Dr. Susan Calvin to "Robot get the girl" because a woman can't be someone you look up to.
Fast and Fatuous in Space.
Looks like you guys need tranquilizer dispensers at EL Reg...or to stop letting fan boys write reviews the film was ok not great but it was miles better than this review.
Star Trek is so out of step with the reality of the present world it is absurd , nobody is interested group hugging anymore or fantasy notions of a societies in harmony. TOS barely holds it's head up plot wise, TNG well is just canned mush DS9 was just a jump on the B5 bandwagon and V well best avoided for IQ loss and lets not talk about Scot bulkas quantum leap into boredom.
Yeah all that stellar stuff was miles better than this new film......really is that what you are saying !
time to back away from your knee high boots, lycra and communicator skin for you phone
But, I will be thinking much of the time, "If Karl Urban didn't do this movie, he MIGHT have made Dredd 2".
I doubt they'll make second regardless :(
It was poorly received whhc is a shame because it was an excellent film and a great transition from comic to celluloid but the truth is I doubt if anyone who wasn't familiar with "Judge Dredd" would get it.
Its got Star Trek in the title. ST had some steaming pile of turd episodes, mostly those focused around Wesley Crusher, but regardless I'm a fan, so I grinned and stuck with it. So I'll be sat in the Cinema at one minute past midnight tonight ready to watch. Not dressed up, I'm a fan, not a weirdo.
Lets just hope the new TV show can be more true to the ethos. Even if its not I'll still watch it. Its Star Trek.
So am I. I've rather enjoyed the first two reboot films. Entertaining. Which, after all is the aim of a film isn't it ?
I'm a Star Trek fan and have spent a fortune over the years on VHS and DVD copies. But looking objectively I would say about 50% of all Star Trek episodes from all the series are a bit rubbish, 25% OK and 25% excellent.
I watched the movie last night in a marathon with the previous two movies. I entirely disagree with this review.
The pacing was good, the story clear and well-told, with the right humour at the right time, and it was a lot more "Star Trek" than the previous two movies (maybe even the previous four).
I might just go and watch it again next week.
Majority of the problems with poor Star Trek films is the way they are conceived.
Most good movies actually originate from a story or script that has been developed for a very long time, then come to the attention of a studio or producer who convinces people to pony up the money to make a film from it.
A lot of these dud movies (including many of the Trek films) start with the approval to make a new film in the series or a sequel, then start work on creating plot or writing a script. I remember hearing that one of the Trek films had only weeks to come up with the story or script from when it was given the green light by the studio.
I wonder how this latest Trek movie came to be.
This is a terrible review of a perfectly reasonable film. I'm going to guess that the writer is a born-again TNG fan. I shall be paying attention to what he writes for The Register in future, because that's highly likely to be total bullshit as well, if this is anything to go by. There isn't a single hint of anything that relates to the film I watched yesterday that makes any sense. Get him to actually think about stuff before he writes, rather than just vomiting on his touch screen and leaving it to the subs.
I have to slightly disagree with the post here. Although I can agree that this film will not be winning any awards it is a passable entry to the franchise. It eludes to shathers troubled thoughts in generations of his life in space and as for the explanation at the end this makes sense if you have seen any of the later series of enterprise. So its a good atempt to write it off without the proper perspectives is just wrong.
Western governments need their citizens to think only in terms of Good Vs Evil, otherwise after being fed the "Us against Terrorism" rhetoric they may start thinking about what caused the terrorists to be so pissed of with us and realize that the evil is not completely one-sided.
Or you could just go along and enjoy the film - yes it has a few flaws - but there isn't a trek episode or film - or indeed any film without them. Plot holes tend to be plot devices - if he could have just used the transporter then that scene would be significantly shorter wouldn't it?
The final mano-a-mano fight was unnecessary (but very Kirkish) and not great - but its easily forgiven - I laughed out loud at sections and felt the need to listen to Sabotage again afterwords... it was good unadulterated star trek.
I got what I payed for and would happily watch it again.
Yes we could have more deep and meaningful commentary on society - but I go to the movies to leave that crap behind for a couple of hours...
... Is that they stomped all over some really cool fan-made works so they wouldn't "compete" with this dreck... I mean seriously, when a big studio with a multi-million dollar budget can't compete with a bunch of hobbyists and drama students, it's time to throw in the towel...
...there are people out there who think these three crapfest films are actually Star Trek.
Personally, my three favorite films out of the franchise are Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home and First Contact but generally I think Star Trek has been at its best as episodic television. Sure, there were weak, even cringe-worthy episodes in all the series - but there were also amazing gems and a lot of solidly entertaining episodes. The tension of "Balance of Terror"; the intensity of "Chain of Command", "In The Pale Moonlight" or "The Year of Hell"; the social commentary of "A Private Little War", "Past Tense", "Death Wish" or "Similitude"; the sheer artistry of "The City on the Edge of Forever" or "The Inner Light". And I can't pass up the chance to mention what I think is the masterpiece of the Animated series: "Yesteryear," our look at what Spock's childhood was like - and a brilliant, sensitive handling of the issue of a child losing a beloved pet, inside the science fiction. (And yes, this is where we found out the name of Spock's home town: ShiKahr. Gene Roddenberry may have wavered on the "canon-icity" of TAS, but clearly the writers who wove its details into other episodes knew a good thing when they saw it.)
I sincerely doubt we'd ever see ANY of that richness in the so-called "Kelvin continuity" because it's all rooted in the values of Star Trek that those currently in charge of the franchise apparently don't understand.
Thankfully the upcoming CBS series has ditched the reboot timeline and gone back to basics of the original, somewhat more intellectual continuity set after the events of The Undiscovered Country. That puts some helpful constraints on what the writers can('t) do...
I hadn't encountered any information on where in the timeline the new series occurs; given the registry number on the ship in the teaser/trailer that came out recently (NCC-1031) I was thinking it might be somewhere between Enterprise and TOS - presuming that in general, registry numbers trend upward. (Voyager, after all, is NCC-74656!) Can you give me a pointer to what makes you say it comes after The Undiscovered Country?
This is the weird thing about Star Trek being split between Paramount and CBS - the movies and TV don't necessarily have to have anything to do with each other, and that ... bothers me, though in this instance the fact the TV series won't have anything to do with Jar-Jar Abrams' pollution of the franchise is a good thing. (I use that name because it was when I saw the interview where he said that he had always been "more of a Star Wars fan" I got my first bad feeling about the reboot.)
Star Trek Beyond,my verdict.well first the positive,the movie starts good,in a well thought way with the characters in central place kirk,bones beautiful scenery etc etc...that was okay,second plus were the good use of humor especially the Bones/Spock dynamic witch still works great and as a third plus there is the scene where these bee like weapons attack the enterprise,good action spectacle in a sci fi world but then...................................................................this movie turns into the dumbest,most illogical,childish peace of crap to ever come out of the star trek movie book!!!!this thing was exactly what that so very often criticised trailer represented,a space movie with a bad kick ass bitch an ugly villan and the beasty boys music in space!!!oh did i mention kirk riding a motorcycle?Allright i can take an exaduration here and there,i can take a female sidekick to draw the puberty audience but these tottaly uninteresting characters were appaling.The villan Krall what was that?it looked like a cheap deep space 9 mask villan,i mean come on after people like Khan,or the incredible General Chang or the Borg Queen played by great actors really making a difference we get a good Actor in this rediculus cheap ugly villan B movie mask played by Idris Elba....what a waise of talent!then there is this star wars runaway character with the awfull paintings on her face jaylah what is her role?other than to be this kick ass female character she is so boring outside of 14year old kids who mabe like her i dont get what that has to do in a major big budget Star Trek movie,but maby is that just it,Major Star Trek movies just get dumber and dumber?when i first heard that Justin Lin was to direct the next Star Trek my stomach just turned over,are you really serious???????????Fast and furious does Star Trek,you know what i wanted to do watching this crap movie?i just wanted to cry because they just destroyed the one sacred thing in sci fi world to me,this epic idea from 1966 by Gene Roddenbery with this human hope for the future,relationships,morals special entitys meetings etc etc and they just killed that off with BEYOND!and if it could not get any worse the best is yet to come nearing the end of this movie it seemed that a beasty boys song would be the ultimate weapon against this highly advanced alien race........pardon me......are you really serious.....i mean what do they think we are?a bunch of idiots???This is by far and i mean that it is even worse than insurrection by far the worst thing i have ever seen in the Star Trek movie line up,it even is the worst movie i saw this year!!!!!!from the wrath of khan i saw every Star Trek in the theaters and allways more than once,just because i am such a fan,even into darkness with its serious story wholes i saw a few times as it had a certain charme and quality to it,but this tragedy i hope i will never have to see again in my life!!!sad so very sad,there are so many things i could keep on saying about it why it is so bad i could write a book about it!the death of Star Trek is called Beyond.
You know, it makes me laugh the number of people saying they aren't going to see it because it's so bad. I've been watching Star Trek for 30-odd years, and I thought it was OK. Not perfect, but not bad, and in fact better than some past attempts such as Generations. Everybody is entitled to an opinion, but at least watch the thing before you pass judgment on it. If you haven't actually seen it, you aren't really in a position to comment on it.
"The structure of spacetime is more concerned with means than ends: beginnings must be clean to be of profit." -- Surak
And while I indeed haven't - and will not - see Into Darkness or Beyond, I have seen the 2009 horrorshow - and by the above-quoted principle, the entire so-called "Kelvin continuity" is irredeemably poisoned.
I knew it was problematic when they were blowing up Fakebook saying "IT'S AN ACTION MOVIE!" Gene Roddenberry must be rolling! I nearly vomited when I saw Rihanna "singing" songs for it.
Dafuq you tossers done to my Star Trek?!?!? Star Trek is supposed to be a LITTLE more high-brow than a freaking action movie. :(
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019