On the Insurrection convo:
It wasn't a horrible film, but it seemed more like a two-part episode forced into theatres rather than a storyline worthy of being a motion picture. If you were to split the movie into two acts and air it on television it would have been fine. The villains and there motivations weren't big screen worthy.
Originally posted by MF DELPHHave you seen it yet ?
On the Insurrection convo:It wasn't a horrible film, but it seemed more like a two-part episode forced into theatres rather than a storyline worthy of being a motion picture. If you were to split the movie into two acts and air it on television it would have been fine. The villains and there motivations weren't big screen worthy.
Originally posted by MF DELPH
On the Insurrection convo:It wasn't a horrible film, but it seemed more like a two-part episode forced into theatres rather than a storyline worthy of being a motion picture. If you were to split the movie into two acts and air it on television it would have been fine. The villains and there motivations weren't big screen worthy.
Pretty much. I think F Murray Abraham is capable of being a cinematic villain, though.
Finally saw this last night. It wasn't without its serious flaws. Bizarre pacing, often terrible choice of music score. The fact that they concentrated more on Khan being a badass Klingon killer and head crusher than a political and tactical genius annoyed me but I guess this is what happens when you want to court the mainstream audiences who prefer sparkly lights and big explosions than anything they have to think about. Also still can't fathom why huge parts of the ship look like buckets of bolts stuck together yet the brig looks like the reception of a luxurious hotel.
far the best aspect of the films is the dynamic between Kirk, Spock and Bones although in this timeline's case there's no context to Kirk and Spock's friendship. In the last film they hated each other and now they're best friends with nothing to have bridged that gap in the form of a tv series it seems hollow which is an advantage the original series and films have over this timeline.
Anyway. Rating? 6.5/10. Was decent enough but I expected more.
Originally posted by jaden101
The fact that they concentrated more on Khan being a badass Klingon killer and head crusher than a political and tactical genius annoyed me but I guess this is what happens when you want to court the mainstream audiences who prefer sparkly lights and big explosions than anything they have to think about.
That's what the 5 second Khan speech from old Spock was for.
Originally posted by KazenjiI asked him if he saw the second reboot film. Why would it make sense to ask him if he saw the movie he just spoke on. Think, Aussie.
The original Star Trek: Insurrection ?there's only one anyway
and before you have another go at me again MF DELPH was having his input on the insurrection convo, Clearly your not with it.
Originally posted by koollukeWhat was so unbelievable about it ? Sounds like an old Trekkie mentality unhappy just because. Explain why you feel it Wasnt believable.
Was anyone else disappointed with this? I felt that it tried to rip off the Wrath of Khan too much and it didn't live up to the first reboots standards. I jsut didn't really believe in the friendship between Kirk and Spock.
I said something similar. The problem is there was no context to their friendship. At the end of the movie there was a grudging mutual respect between them yet by the end of the 2nd film they're best friends to the point that Spock loses his shit over Kirk's death. The old series had the advantage of having context to their friendship being built up over many episodes of the tv show. In the new film it didn't ring true and suffered for it.
Originally posted by MF DELPH
On the Insurrection convo:It wasn't a horrible film, but it seemed more like a two-part episode forced into theatres rather than a storyline worthy of being a motion picture. If you were to split the movie into two acts and air it on television it would have been fine. The villains and there motivations weren't big screen worthy.
Originally posted by -Pr-You are both being gecko right now.
Pretty much. I think F Murray Abraham is capable of being a cinematic villain, though.
Originally posted by jaden101Wrong, they saved each others lives and had been through a lot. Kirk saved Spock twice and these kinds of experience create life long bonds. Ask anyone in a war rescued by another fellow soldier they will reiterate these kinds of bonds.
I said something similar. The problem is there was no context to their friendship. At the end of the movie there was a grudging mutual respect between them yet by the end of the 2nd film they're best friends to the point that Spock loses his shit over Kirk's death. The old series had the advantage of having context to their friendship being built up over many episodes of the tv show. In the new film it didn't ring true and suffered for it.
Originally posted by jaden101At the end of the last movie they were beginning to like each other. This movie happened years later, obviously this friendship grew.
I said something similar. The problem is there was no context to their friendship. At the end of the movie there was a grudging mutual respect between them yet by the end of the 2nd film they're best friends to the point that Spock loses his shit over Kirk's death. The old series had the advantage of having context to their friendship being built up over many episodes of the tv show. In the new film it didn't ring true and suffered for it.
Do you even star trek, bro?