50 Years of Star Trek - RIP
-
@MajorRage all?
Star Trek suuucks!
-
I watched about as much of the original Trek movie as I could stomach last night. It was just as I remembered it.
A director getting all jismy over long lingering pan shots of his kitset plastic USS Enterprise for the first ten minutes of the movie didn't do it for me 36 years ago and the passage of time has only made it worse.
Still not as portentous as that other space opera franchise though.
Always have preferred the TV series. Stretching the format to 90-100 minutes is a parsec too far I reckon.
-
I thought the problem was Shatner's direction?
-
@dogmeat said in 50 Years of Star Trek:
I watched about as much of the original Trek movie as I could stomach last night. It was just as I remembered it.
A director getting all jismy over long lingering pan shots of his kitset plastic USS Enterprise for the first ten minutes of the movie didn't do it for me 36 years ago and the passage of time has only made it worse.
Still not as portentous as that other space opera franchise though.
Always have preferred the TV series. Stretching the format to 90-100 minutes is a parsec too far I reckon.
It was really just a pilot for a new TV show that they converted to a feature - so that probably explains the long pan shots as trying to fill up time.
Anyway, best to pretend is doesn't exist and just start from Khan.
-
@antipodean said in 50 Years of Star Trek:
I thought the problem was Shatner's direction?
That was - shudders - V: The Final Frontier. Shatner insisted that he direct one, because Nimoy had already done so.
-
Shatners direction was fine, he just ran out of money.
And I really enjoyed the first movie, was a great sci fi story. It badly needed editing, but if I remember correctly they got the special effects late so just chucked them all in as they got them. That's why there was all those long never ending shots.
-
What do the hardcore Trekkies think of the new films? When I saw the 2nd new film I could just imagine the screams when the dude announced his name was Khan.
When I was a kid I had the Wrath of Khan on one of those book + cassette things (when you hear this sound turn the page). Must have listened/read it dozens of times, but never actually saw the film.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in 50 Years of Star Trek:
What do the hardcore Trekkies think of the new films? When I saw the 2nd new film I could just imagine the screams when the dude announced his name was Khan.
When I was a kid I had the Wrath of Khan on one of those book + cassette things (when you hear this sound turn the page). Must have listened/read it dozens of times, but never actually saw the film.
They are disposable garbage. Shit.
Apparently the latest one is OK, but I would doubt it.
-
@Nepia said in 50 Years of Star Trek:
@dogmeat said in 50 Years of Star Trek:
I watched about as much of the original Trek movie as I could stomach last night. It was just as I remembered it.
A director getting all jismy over long lingering pan shots of his kitset plastic USS Enterprise for the first ten minutes of the movie didn't do it for me 36 years ago and the passage of time has only made it worse.
Still not as portentous as that other space opera franchise though.
Always have preferred the TV series. Stretching the format to 90-100 minutes is a parsec too far I reckon.
It was really just a pilot for a new TV show that they converted to a feature - so that probably explains the long pan shots as trying to fill up time.
Anyway, best to pretend is doesn't exist and just start from Khan.
The long pan shot was a pathetic attempt to emulate the classic opening to SW. When SW came out in the 70s that was the most amazing thing seen. I still remember the whole cinema making incremental gasps of excitement as that
stardestroyer grew and grew.
Vine
