Monday, May 18, 2009

Dammit Jim!

Just saw Star Trek over the weekend. With honor, I present:


E-Man said...

It was such a great movie. The better technology gets the better the sci-fi movies become.

Garnel Ironheart said...

Interesting point, E-man and it's something I've always been bugged by.

Look at the two incarnations of Battlestar Galactica. Now obviously the special effects in the new series blow the old ones away. But is it fair to say it's better because of that? After all, it's not a fair competition. For the time it was on TV (the late '70's) the original BSG was considered groundbreaking in its special effects and was the most expensive sci-fi TV show ever made.

Same thing with the Star Trek series. Yes the later ones had better special effects than the original. But why is it that Kirk et al continue to define the mythos? Because if you were to take TOS and give it updated computer graphic effects (wait a minute, they did do that!) then it would blow away TNG and the others.

Look at Planet of the Apes. You couldn't convince me the remake was better than the original.

Orthoprax said...

The original Planet of the Apes is great. The remake was awful.

The new Star Wars movies don't hold a candle to the original Star Wars trilogy. Terminator 3 was terrible. The newest Indiana Jones was awful (or so I hear, I have no desire to watch a raping).

Cool special effects can definitely enhance a great movie (think Matrix) but modern movies sometimes rely on the special effects to the detriment of the film (think Matrix 2&3).

I came into this newest Star Wars movie expecting it to crash and burn, but turns out that I liked it, even if the plot at times revealed itself as annoyingly contrived.

Anonymous said...

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

A Star Trek quiz...Boldly going where no quiz has gone before
By David Buckna
Special to ASSIST News Service

E-Man said...

I hear what you are saying and I will modify my statement, the better technology becomes the greater POTENTIAL sci-fi movies have. This is because it can be made to look more realistic. That is all. The plots of the old movies were much better and clearly had more thought put into them. If a modern day movie was made with the same thoughtfulness then it could be so much better, just because of visual effects.

Garnel Ironheart said...

Okay, I've seen it. Here's my brief review (a longer one will eventually show up on me blog)

Loved it!

Not because of the special effects. I expected those.
I loved it because Abrams has rebooted the franchise but did it in a consistent way by using the real Spock and Nero to change history so that the original mythos could be wiped out without changing the characters too much.

I also really liked Dr McCoy. The other actors were playing "hipper" versions of the original but Urban was channeling DeForest Kelly 100% perfectly. "Dammit Spock, I'm a doctor, not a physicist!"

Plot hole - we already know from the Kelvin's destruction that although the Narada has strong shields, a starship can crash right into it, crippling it for a while. Why can't Starfleet put a ship on remote control and just fly in into the Narada's belly to take it out? Why leave it to the Jellyfish?

Miri said...

I know this isn't much of a surprise, but still...
Geeks. All of you.

E-Man said...

Garnel, who says that ship was damaged much? The reason they didn't attack anyone since then was because they were waiting for the red matter, No?

Garnel Ironheart said...

If you notice in the scene where the Kelvin's shuttlecraft are escaping there's a large area of the Narada that's is glowing as if it's on fire. The ship is also spinning and drifting, a clear sign that its main drive was down.

Hi Miri, and yeah, you're right.