Star Trek 2 - Page 16 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #451 of 682 Old 05-28-2013, 01:31 PM
Advanced Member
 
sog35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Let's just agree that you and I have different taste in movies and decide to never talk to each other again. Trying to debate movies with you is about as productive as punching myself repeatedly in the face.

couldn't hurt, what's there to lose?

Seems like you have the same line for every movie: Not realistic. Stupid plot. could never happen in real life. Please just stick to documentaries.
sog35 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #452 of 682 Old 05-28-2013, 01:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Morpheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montreal by day, Paris by night...
Posts: 6,624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
"Oh no, Kirk is dead. I'm so sad."

"Hey, wait a minute. I coincidentally just happened to inject this dead Tribble with Khan's blood at the same time Kirk was brought in here, because it's not like I have anything better to do while the captain of the ship is dying in front of me, and OH MY GOD it's magic resurrecting blood!!!! What amazingly perfect timing that I discovered this just exactly when I most needed it!"

Deus.
Ex.
Machina.

tututut.... Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
McCoy took his blood when they captured him, the tribble coming back to life was the result of McCoy's experiments on Khan's blood, which happened earlier in the story
Morpheo is online now  
post #453 of 682 Old 05-28-2013, 01:58 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,226
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Liked: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

tututut.... Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
McCoy took his blood when they captured him, the tribble coming back to life was the result of McCoy's experiments on Khan's blood, which happened earlier in the story
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
And the Tribble miraculously came back to life exactly when Kirk died, just perfectly in time for McCoy to realize that he had a life-saving cure.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #454 of 682 Old 05-28-2013, 02:03 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,226
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Liked: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

couldn't hurt, what's there to lose?

Seems like you have the same line for every movie: Not realistic. Stupid plot. could never happen in real life. Please just stick to documentaries.

And you have the same line as well: "Every new movie I see is the greatest movie ever made. There are no such thing as plot holes or bad writing. Every movie is absolutely perfect all the time, no matter what happens in it. Don't question. Don't think. Lower your standards."

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #455 of 682 Old 05-28-2013, 05:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rezzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Matrix
Posts: 7,765
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Saw three movies this holiday weekend: Fast/Furious 6, IM3, and ST3. Trek was easily the best of the 3, and better than its last installment....still plenty of lens flares, though (what the frak's up with that?).

With some tweaking and a name change of the "villain", I could've enjoyed this even more. The only Abrams flick I've enjoyed besides Cloverfield.
Dbuudo07 likes this.

"I knew you'd say that"...*BLAM!*
rezzy is online now  
post #456 of 682 Old 05-28-2013, 07:24 PM
 
TyrantII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 10,114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
And the Tribble miraculously came back to life exactly when Kirk died, just perfectly in time for McCoy to realize that he had a life-saving cure.

TyrantII is offline  
post #457 of 682 Old 05-28-2013, 07:35 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
gwsat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 14,711
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 241 Post(s)
Liked: 519
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezzy View Post

Saw three movies this holiday weekend: Fast/Furious 6, IM3, and ST3. Trek was easily the best of the 3, and better than its last installment....still plenty of lens flares, though (what the frak's up with that?).

With some tweaking and a name change of the "villain", I could've enjoyed this even more. The only Abrams flick I've enjoyed besides Cloverfield.

I've liked a lot of J.J. Abrams' work, in fact I narrowly preferred Star Trek 1 to Star Trek Into Darkness. That said, I really liked both films I also liked Super 8. As I have said before, Abrams' heavy use of lens flair doesn't bother me much.

I also really enjoyed Iron Man 3, thought it was better than Iron Man 2, and didn't miss matching the quality of Iron Man by much.

I liked Fast & Furious 6 but didn't think it was in a class with the above mentioned films. It is very well made and is breathtakingly exciting but, man, it is dumb.smile.gif
gwsat is offline  
post #458 of 682 Old 05-29-2013, 08:26 AM
Advanced Member
 
sog35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

And you have the same line as well: "Every new movie I see is the greatest movie ever made. There are no such thing as plot holes or bad writing. Every movie is absolutely perfect all the time, no matter what happens in it. Don't question. Don't think. Lower your standards."

I've bashed many movies here: FF6, Dune, Battleship, ect.

It just seems you get a kick out of bashing movies that are popular and have generally high reviews. Sorta like that dude at the store who bashes all the popular $25 wines and only praises the $250 bottles.
sog35 is offline  
post #459 of 682 Old 05-29-2013, 09:21 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,170
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Liked: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

And you have the same line as well: "Every new movie I see is the greatest movie ever made. There are no such thing as plot holes or bad writing. Every movie is absolutely perfect all the time, no matter what happens in it. Don't question. Don't think. Lower your standards."


I decided to take the Pepsi challenge as far as the above post and do a 5 minute tour through sog35's last 3 pages of posting history and Josh you could not be more wrong! He has critical remarks about plenty of films just in those 3 pages alone including the IM films, ZD30, MI films, etc...........


Sorry to but in.........I will let you two get back to it now as it is entertaining. biggrin.gif

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is online now  
post #460 of 682 Old 05-29-2013, 10:44 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,226
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Liked: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezzy View Post

Saw three movies this holiday weekend: Fast/Furious 6, IM3, and ST3. Trek was easily the best of the 3,

I agree. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock is underrated. smile.gif

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #461 of 682 Old 05-29-2013, 10:46 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,226
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Liked: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Sorry to but in.........I will let you two get back to it now as it is entertaining. biggrin.gif

Meh. I'm over it. He can blather on without my seeing his posts anymore.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #462 of 682 Old 05-29-2013, 01:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,027
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Liked: 355
Again, I had a good time watching the new Star Trek. One of the issues that didn't sit as well with me is that, even more than the first one, characters were rarely acting like any sort of military (or otherwise)
crew. By that I mean, there was little to none of the air of officiousness, decorum, regulation, hierarchy that one would plausibly find in a massive Star Fleet operation. Even the original series maintained
a sense of procedure and hierarchy, with lower crew members having deference to Kirk etc. In this Star Trek, everyone essentially acted like they were frat boys and girls on a big ship. They didn't relate so much with a sense of rank, anyone could just rag on anyone else, Kirk often being the object of derision even from medical officers and engineers (e.g. Scotty). Only in the final scene did Kirk start to look like a captain again...and then the movie was over.

(And, yes, I know this is supposed to be the crew when they were younger, but that isn't an excuse. Look at how the military is run: young cadets are trained for deference to the hierarchy and generally act that way when in their official capacity).

For me the best Star Trek episodes were when Kirk was "cool" insofar as he was calm, methodical and authoritative. This take on star trek is all on-your-sleeve emotions and a sort of high-school level obsession with personal relationships. Not surprising given the demographic almost every expensive blockbuster aims toward. I know others like the approach, I'm just saying these are some of the things I personally don't care for in the re-boot series.
raaj likes this.
R Harkness is offline  
post #463 of 682 Old 05-29-2013, 01:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 818
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

Strunk & Whites', The Elements of Style will really will tell you all you need to know about writing. The Kindle edition to which I linked is free from Amazon. This little volume has been my bible for more than 40 years and is never far from hand.
Every decent writer has one handy.
It truly is the "bible" of modern writing.wink.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post

OK, that's too damn funny.biggrin.gif

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #464 of 682 Old 05-29-2013, 01:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Bond 007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 12,292
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 342 Post(s)
Liked: 858
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Again, I had a good time watching the new Star Trek. One of the issues that didn't sit as well with me is that, even more than the first one, characters were rarely acting like any sort of military (or otherwise)
crew. By that I mean, there was little to none of the air of officiousness, decorum, regulation, hierarchy that one would plausibly find in a massive Star Fleet operation. Even the original series maintained
a sense of procedure and hierarchy, with lower crew members having deference to Kirk etc. In this Star Trek, everyone essentially acted like they were frat boys and girls on a big ship. They didn't relate so much with a sense of rank, anyone could just rag on anyone else, Kirk often being the object of derision even from medical officers and engineers (e.g. Scotty). Only in the final scene did Kirk start to look like a captain again...and then the movie was over.

(And, yes, I know this is supposed to be the crew when they were younger, but that isn't an excuse. Look at how the military is run: young cadets are trained for deference to the hierarchy and generally act that way when in their official capacity).

For me the best Star Trek episodes were when Kirk was "cool" insofar as he was calm, methodical and authoritative. This take on star trek is all on-your-sleeve emotions and a sort of high-school level obsession with personal relationships. Not surprising given the demographic almost every expensive blockbuster aims toward. I know others like the approach, I'm just saying these are some of the things I personally don't care for in the re-boot series.
Agreed. Discipline is severely lacking. A reflection of todays society really.
bulls likes this.

No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!
Bond 007 is offline  
post #465 of 682 Old 05-29-2013, 02:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,996
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Again, I had a good time watching the new Star Trek. One of the issues that didn't sit as well with me is that, even more than the first one, characters were rarely acting like any sort of military (or otherwise)
crew. By that I mean, there was little to none of the air of officiousness, decorum, regulation, hierarchy that one would plausibly find in a massive Star Fleet operation. Even the original series maintained
a sense of procedure and hierarchy, with lower crew members having deference to Kirk etc. In this Star Trek, everyone essentially acted like they were frat boys and girls on a big ship. They didn't relate so much with a sense of rank, anyone could just rag on anyone else, Kirk often being the object of derision even from medical officers and engineers (e.g. Scotty). Only in the final scene did Kirk start to look like a captain again...and then the movie was over.

(And, yes, I know this is supposed to be the crew when they were younger, but that isn't an excuse. Look at how the military is run: young cadets are trained for deference to the hierarchy and generally act that way when in their official capacity).

For me the best Star Trek episodes were when Kirk was "cool" insofar as he was calm, methodical and authoritative. This take on star trek is all on-your-sleeve emotions and a sort of high-school level obsession with personal relationships. Not surprising given the demographic almost every expensive blockbuster aims toward. I know others like the approach, I'm just saying these are some of the things I personally don't care for in the re-boot series.

I actually think this plays well into this particular cast. The one thing I always thought was interesting about the original cast was their casualness amongst each other. I think the new cast nails this pretty closely but from the wet behind the ears stage of their development. I can fully see this (new) crew developing (maturing) into the original cast growing into a bit more structure but maintaining a certain laid back atmosphere. Kirk was a rogue all by himself, clearly not one who always responds appropriately to authority so it stands to reason that his crew to a degree mimic that. And it at least appeared to me that that military structure existed from those outside of the Enterprise crew thinking about the behaviors with Admiral Pike and Admiral Marcus. And even in the first, the meeting where Kirk was to stand in review for cheating felt quite formal in a military tribunal sense (from a Hollywood perspective anyway). This of course is in stark contrast to TNG crew, which mimics Picard's style.
Closet Geek is offline  
post #466 of 682 Old 05-30-2013, 07:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lordcloud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Again, I had a good time watching the new Star Trek. One of the issues that didn't sit as well with me is that, even more than the first one, characters were rarely acting like any sort of military (or otherwise)
crew. By that I mean, there was little to none of the air of officiousness, decorum, regulation, hierarchy that one would plausibly find in a massive Star Fleet operation. Even the original series maintained
a sense of procedure and hierarchy, with lower crew members having deference to Kirk etc. In this Star Trek, everyone essentially acted like they were frat boys and girls on a big ship. They didn't relate so much with a sense of rank, anyone could just rag on anyone else, Kirk often being the object of derision even from medical officers and engineers (e.g. Scotty). Only in the final scene did Kirk start to look like a captain again...and then the movie was over.

(And, yes, I know this is supposed to be the crew when they were younger, but that isn't an excuse. Look at how the military is run: young cadets are trained for deference to the hierarchy and generally act that way when in their official capacity).

For me the best Star Trek episodes were when Kirk was "cool" insofar as he was calm, methodical and authoritative. This take on star trek is all on-your-sleeve emotions and a sort of high-school level obsession with personal relationships. Not surprising given the demographic almost every expensive blockbuster aims toward. I know others like the approach, I'm just saying these are some of the things I personally don't care for in the re-boot series.

I agree on all counts. Loved the movie, but it had some obvious flaws, this being one that I noticed while watching the movie but only took issue with after the movie was over. Blockbusters are made for the masses, unfortunately.

I LOVE MOVIES!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

lordcloud is offline  
post #467 of 682 Old 05-31-2013, 07:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,996
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

I agree on all counts. Loved the movie, but it had some obvious flaws, this being one that I noticed while watching the movie but only took issue with after the movie was over. Blockbusters are made for the masses, unfortunately.

Just curious, who should they be made for?
Closet Geek is offline  
post #468 of 682 Old 05-31-2013, 08:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jwebb1970's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 8,339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

Just curious, who should they be made for?

Overly critical & occasionally snarky AVS Forum members, that's who!

Money does not buy happiness. It can, however, buy you a giant boat that you can pull up alongside happiness. - David Lee Roth

jwebb1970 is offline  
post #469 of 682 Old 05-31-2013, 09:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
smudge981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Nevada
Posts: 1,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

I agree on all counts. Loved the movie, but it had some obvious flaws, this being one that I noticed while watching the movie but only took issue with after the movie was over. Blockbusters are made for the masses, unfortunately.

I feel your pain. I'm a "frustrated" astrophysics major who still dabbles in the space sciences as a hobby. You really have to suppress what you know as fact when watching. It can be done as Buzz Aldrin shows with a bad movie like "After Earth."

http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/movies/20130530_ap_aldrinafterearthnoisierthanspacereallyis.html

"I am NOT suffering from insanity... I happen to be enjoying myself!"

smudge981 is offline  
post #470 of 682 Old 05-31-2013, 07:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lordcloud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

Just curious, who should they be made for?

Obviously you don't know the meaning of what I said, so I'll explain it to you......

Usually....when someone uses a term like "the masses", in a negative way, they are referring to the general watering down or dumbing down of something, so that it is easiest to consume by a large quantity of people. This large quantity of people, generally being thought of as less willing to think when being entertained and less demanding of quality, than the minority.

I do understand that movies are made for the masses, but my statement was saying that movies should be made to be good. Not for a specific audience. Not solely to be entertaining, Not simply as a money making tool. But good. Unfortunately, blockbusters are meant to be entertaining and appealing to the masses first, and hopefully they're good in the process.

I LOVE MOVIES!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

lordcloud is offline  
post #471 of 682 Old 06-03-2013, 02:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Closet Geek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,996
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

Obviously you don't know the meaning of what I said, so I'll explain it to you......

Usually....when someone uses a term like "the masses", in a negative way, they are referring to the general watering down or dumbing down of something, so that it is easiest to consume by a large quantity of people. This large quantity of people, generally being thought of as less willing to think when being entertained and less demanding of quality, than the minority.

I do understand that movies are made for the masses, but my statement was saying that movies should be made to be good. Not for a specific audience. Not solely to be entertaining, Not simply as a money making tool. But good. Unfortunately, blockbusters are meant to be entertaining and appealing to the masses first, and hopefully they're good in the process.

Here we go again. There's a lot about your statement that I won't get into because it's already been done and frankly it didn't go well. This whole "The Masses" thing is used so much as a crutch it's almost unbelievable. Just because something is geared for "the masses" doesn't make it dumbed down or even lesser quality. Yes, I realize you said "ususally" but I simply don't think that most movies are made without the idea of it being good. No one says "let's make a crappy movie". Nor do I think any filmmaker says first "What would Lordcloud say about this scene or this plot?" and make their movie based on that thinking. Movies would never get made if that were the case. For the most part it's all based on the "hot hand". If a filmmaker's got it, studios choose him. And a filmmaker has a hot hand because he makes movies for the most part that he or she would like to watch. In doing so there may be a creative element that appeals to them (like a lens flare) and maybe it takes off like, I don't know, the post it note, or it doesn't like divx. But they do it their way and often times it just works out to be appealing to "the masses". Circa 1960's there was nothing about Star Trek that was geared toward the masses. Somebody just had an idea and did it their way. However, a cult following wanted to see it live on and it grew deeper and more complex. Roddenberry saw it and told it a certain way. Leonard Nimoy gave it his own little style. Johnathan Frakes along with Abrams did so as well. Each (among with others) took it further and "the masses" simply followed it. Why? Because it was good and they liked it and wanted more of it.
Dbuudo07 likes this.
Closet Geek is offline  
post #472 of 682 Old 06-03-2013, 04:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Bond 007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 12,292
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 342 Post(s)
Liked: 858
I have worked in customer service for years and in my experience "the masses" are incredibly stupid. I often wonder how the human race survives.
btw I love Star Trek. smile.gif
bulls likes this.

No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!
Bond 007 is offline  
post #473 of 682 Old 06-03-2013, 04:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lordcloud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

Here we go again. There's a lot about your statement that I won't get into because it's already been done and frankly it didn't go well. This whole "The Masses" thing is used so much as a crutch it's almost unbelievable. Just because something is geared for "the masses" doesn't make it dumbed down or even lesser quality. Yes, I realize you said "ususally" but I simply don't think that most movies are made without the idea of it being good. No one says "let's make a crappy movie". Nor do I think any filmmaker says first "What would Lordcloud say about this scene or this plot?" and make their movie based on that thinking. Movies would never get made if that were the case. For the most part it's all based on the "hot hand". If a filmmaker's got it, studios choose him. And a filmmaker has a hot hand because he makes movies for the most part that he or she would like to watch. In doing so there may be a creative element that appeals to them (like a lens flare) and maybe it takes off like, I don't know, the post it note, or it doesn't like divx. But they do it their way and often times it just works out to be appealing to "the masses". Circa 1960's there was nothing about Star Trek that was geared toward the masses. Somebody just had an idea and did it their way. However, a cult following wanted to see it live on and it grew deeper and more complex. Roddenberry saw it and told it a certain way. Leonard Nimoy gave it his own little style. Johnathan Frakes along with Abrams did so as well. Each (among with others) took it further and "the masses" simply followed it. Why? Because it was good and they liked it and wanted more of it.

If your thinking is centered around studio execs choosing a director of their next blockbuster primarily because of creative reasons, then I don't know what to tell you. Because that is not the primary reasoning. A blockbuster has to make money. Copious amounts of money. it doesn't have to be good, or interesting, or make sense. It just has to make an insane amount of money. That's it. The masses don't go in large amounts, to go see good movies. They go see what movies they think might be good, they've heard are good, or are based off of other media that they liked previously. Or things along those lines. The two top grossing moves of all time, are not great movies by any stretch of the imagination. Avatar was a horrible movie, in my opinion. A great experience at the theater, but a horrible movie. But more people went to go see that, then Drive, Gosford Park, Perks of Being a Wallflower, Scott Pilgrim, and literally a million other much better (in my opinion) movies. That's what "the masses" do. They spend money on the perception of quality, not actual quality. If they did, this site wouldn't exist. I would never have felt the need to reach out to other people who were more discriminating in their choice of home cinema reproduction equipment.

Now, not everything is made with the masses in mind, obviously. But without a doubt, blockbusters are. Star Trek was. it's an action movie, based on an ip that is not action based. There is without a doubt action, but that is not it's core. ST:ID is an action movie through and through. It's a check your brain at the door, popcorn flick. And a very very well done one at that. I love the movie, but I don;t pretend it's anything else than what it is. The same can be said for "the masses". They're idiots. Plain and simple. I love people, but put more than ten of them in a room, give them a topic of discussion that involves any sort of serious thought beyond what is obvious and on the surface, and I want to shoot myself. The masses think whatever makes them laugh or gasp, is good. That's how far they can think about a movie. Hollywood knows this, and they use it to their financial advantage. They know most people won't be able to notice the obvious plot holes in a movie, as long as it's entertaining and pretty enough.

I LOVE MOVIES!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

lordcloud is offline  
post #474 of 682 Old 06-03-2013, 04:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lordcloud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bond 007 View Post

I have worked in customer service for years and in my experience "the masses" are incredibly stupid. I often wonder how the human race survives.
btw I love Star Trek. smile.gif

I deal with "the masses" on a daily basis, and they are in fact, ridiculously stupid. it's not a nice thing to say, but it is true. Many huge businesses thrive because of this simple truth. Hollywood being one of them.

I LOVE MOVIES!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

lordcloud is offline  
post #475 of 682 Old 06-03-2013, 04:37 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Bond 007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 12,292
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 342 Post(s)
Liked: 858
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

I deal with "the masses" on a daily basis, and they are in fact, ridiculously stupid. it's not a nice thing to say, but it is true. Many huge businesses thrive because of this simple truth. Hollywood being one of them.
And politicians. wink.gif

No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!
Bond 007 is offline  
post #476 of 682 Old 06-03-2013, 04:46 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 18,278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 373 Post(s)
Liked: 681
Just got back from seeing it in "conventional" 2-D. Kind of ho-hum, really. The sci-fi equivalent of Chinese food - in an hour I'll want to watch another mindless blockbuster.

It was fun, don't get me wrong. Kept the adrenaline up. But like the first one, it just didn't feel like Star Trek. There's no there there. Random thoughts:
Spock having a romance with Uhura is just dumb on so many levels.
Scotty is so miscast. Simon Pegg? Really?
Peter Weller just needed a mustache to twirl and he would have been perfect.
Khan is back and again gets outwitted. I'm sorry, but Benedict Cumberbatch is no Ricardo Montalban. (great Sherlock, though)
We had a postmodern version of the classic fight scene on top of the railroad.
A makeover for the Klingons, now with head rings!
Lots and lots of CGI eye-candy. They spared no expense.

I'll probably end up buying the BD for this one just like the first not because I want to see the movie again but because of the awesome production design on these films. On some of this stuff I like to put the thing in pause and just stare at it for awhile.
archiguy is online now  
post #477 of 682 Old 06-03-2013, 06:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lordcloud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 2,309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Lots and lots of CGI eye-candy. They spared no expense.

I'll probably end up buying the BD for this one just like the first not because I want to see the movie again but because of the awesome production design on these films. On some of this stuff I like to put the thing in pause and just stare at it for awhile.

This was one of the most amazing looking films I've ever seen.

I LOVE MOVIES!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

lordcloud is offline  
post #478 of 682 Old 06-03-2013, 06:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Morpheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montreal by day, Paris by night...
Posts: 6,624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Just got back from seeing it in "conventional" 2-D. Kind of ho-hum, really. The sci-fi equivalent of Chinese food - in an hour I'll want to watch another mindless blockbuster.

It was fun, don't get me wrong. Kept the adrenaline up. But like the first one, it just didn't feel like Star Trek. There's no there there. Random thoughts:
Spock having a romance with Uhura is just dumb on so many levels.
Scotty is so miscast. Simon Pegg? Really?
Peter Weller just needed a mustache to twirl and he would have been perfect.
Khan is back and again gets outwitted. I'm sorry, but Benedict Cumberbatch is no Ricardo Montalban. (great Sherlock, though)
We had a postmodern version of the classic fight scene on top of the railroad.
A makeover for the Klingons, now with head rings!
Lots and lots of CGI eye-candy. They spared no expense.

I'll probably end up buying the BD for this one just like the first not because I want to see the movie again but because of the awesome production design on these films. On some of this stuff I like to put the thing in pause and just stare at it for awhile.

The original crew (both the series and the films) was so over-the-top and cheesy that I see absolutely nothing wrong with the new crew and how it's being portrayed. As I've said many times in this thread, I still fail to see how the Spock/Uhura thing is wrong, or, as you said, "dumb". Montalban was great, and I prefer not to compare the two - what I do see though, is a fine performance from Cumberbatch. It's different, but that's the point. Everything feels at time like some sort of déjà-vu, yet it's always different. I do think it feels like Star Trek, at times more than others, and I don't mind the modern feel. My wife, who really wasn't a fan of the old Star Trek, absolutely loves the new films from Abrams - she likes the characters, their friendship, Spock's human side, everything. Me, my favorite Star Trek up until now was ONLY the original series, I like it even more than the films (which doesn't mean I don't like the flms either) - and I'm even surprised how much I like the new movies, this young crew is building a chemistry that is delightful to watch .I'm eagerly waiting for the next film. While I do get where your "frustration" comes from, I still think it's better not to compare the two "universes". And frankly, but that's just me, what makes the old Star Trek so cool today is simply the nostalgia attached to it; but again, that's just me.
Dbuudo07 and BornSlippyZ like this.
Morpheo is online now  
post #479 of 682 Old 06-03-2013, 08:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
bulls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 805
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 24
...
bulls is offline  
post #480 of 682 Old 06-04-2013, 04:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dbuudo07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,778
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

The original crew (both the series and the films) was so over-the-top and cheesy that I see absolutely nothing wrong with the new crew and how it's being portrayed. As I've said many times in this thread, I still fail to see how the Spock/Uhura thing is wrong, or, as you said, "dumb". Montalban was great, and I prefer not to compare the two - what I do see though, is a fine performance from Cumberbatch. It's different, but that's the point. Everything feels at time like some sort of déjà-vu, yet it's always different. I do think it feels like Star Trek, at times more than others, and I don't mind the modern feel. My wife, who really wasn't a fan of the old Star Trek, absolutely loves the new films from Abrams - she likes the characters, their friendship, Spock's human side, everything. Me, my favorite Star Trek up until now was ONLY the original series, I like it even more than the films (which doesn't mean I don't like the flms either) - and I'm even surprised how much I like the new movies, this young crew is building a chemistry that is delightful to watch .I'm eagerly waiting for the next film. While I do get where your "frustration" comes from, I still think it's better not to compare the two "universes". And frankly, but that's just me, what makes the old Star Trek so cool today is simply the nostalgia attached to it; but again, that's just me.

Very well said, Morph!

David Budo
Dbuudo07 is offline  
Reply Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion

Tags
Star Trek Ii The Wrath Of Khan Restored Blu Ray
Gear in this thread - Star by PriceGrabber.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off