Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Malevolent
2018 ***1/2 It's 1986 for some reason, and a team of paranormal investigators are making a big name for themselves all over Scotland. ...
-
I’m sure none of you except for JPX knows that I’m a bit of a germ-a-phobic. It’s annoying, but manageable. Though, since I met JPX and list...
9 comments:
Ooooo, corridor-y.
Ugh. Not impressed. The last thing Trek needs is more Atlantic-City-Hotel corridors with trapezoidal cross sections.
I finally figured out what's so weird about all this new Trek movie promotional material. They don't seem to realize that all this "Oh boy—SPACE!" stuff doesn't play as well in 2008 as it did in 1968 or even 1978. Using the Neil Armstrong/JFK tapes over the trailer not only endeavors to get us all excited about the nobility of ACTUAL SPACE TRAVEL in a way that highlights the most old-fashioned and retrograte elements of the concept, but also reproduces the approach taken by the odious Enterprise series.
Nimoy made this great point (in a DVD commentary) about how the first movie emphasized "the ship, the ship" at the expense of the characters. He's totally right and they fixed that in subsequent movies. But I know why they did it, the first time: They couldn't help it, because of Roddenberry (who was actually producing the movie) and his whole "gee-whiz" vision.
Trying to resuscitate that 1960s/1970s "NASA" "Feel good about America...because of space travel!" vibe is, I suppose, a smart way to go for bringing Trek into the present, but still. It's weird, and it keeps reminding me of that awful show with Scott Bakula.
"Atlantic-City-Hotel corridors"
Ha!
You make a good point. Trying to engender that "Wow, space travel!" enthusiasm is impossible in 2008 when, for example, we have new pictures of Mercury (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/new-photos-show.html)
It's kind of like telling a jury to "disregard what you just heard" - that's impossible! We can't pretend that we don't know about the wonders of space, although I give them credit for trying.
I'm a Star Trek: The Motion Picture apologist, I've always liked that movie.
Yeah, I watched TMP recently and dug it. I always dig it; by the time you get into the story and you don't have to listen to them standing around grumbling about having to work together again on this new ship or whatever was bothering them. Both Shatner's performance and Kirk's behavior are underrated. Kirk's command decisions are excellent throughout; you see why the Enterprise can solve this one when nobody else can. The whole thing has this deft, serious (in the sense of "not for kids") tone that I really admire.
I was hoping the picture of Mercury was going to be cooler looking than that.
That's what I've always really liked about TMP, it's "serious" and more cerebral science-fiction compared to the other Trek films (although I enjoy most of the others as well). Robert Wise and Alan Dean Foster were a good combination. I also liked the 2001 Robert Wise edition that updated some of the fx and restored some of the cut scenes.
I never say this, but I find some of the changes "intrusive" on the new TMP. Not "the CGI," which was perfect in that it was designed to look like 1970s ILM. (here"s a photo of the CGI TNGSE Enterprise.)
But I didn't like the Vulcan sequence additions.
That's true, the Vulcan sequences seemd a bit forced, as if they were saying, "Look what we can do now!" That's a beautiful shot of the ship. In the new edition I like how V'ger builds that bridge for the crew.
I believe I'm due for a re-viewing of TMP.
I'm with you on all the duddy "SPACE travel" stuff. Space travel is cool and all, but it's kind of boring too. The space shuttle's like a big truck. That goes into space.
Post a Comment