Am I the only one who wasn't blown away by Star Trek? See here's the thing: The original show was idealistic, corny and had special effects that looked like they were invented in, well, 1968. But for all it's flaws and bombast, it had a sincerity about it -- a sweetmess, if you will, that gave it integrity.
Even though this Trek looks better, and has much better acting, where is the soul? I feel like the filmaker is winking at me -- "Remember this? And this? Remember how gruff, yet loveable McCoy was? How Chekoff couldn't pronounce his Vs?" I'm tired of being winked at. I get it -- I'm a boomer and so everything must be eternally hip. Give me some grease.
Posted at 12:01 pm by commish
 | | |
Daniel John
November 2, 2009 04:38 AM PST
very nice write up... i completely agreed with you...
thanks for sharing... keep posting..
<a href="http://www.flashpapers.com/">Term papers</a>
|
|
| | |
Ratty
May 18, 2009 10:51 AM PDT
The original Star Trek series is NOT replaceable. They can make sequels, they can write books, and make new movies about it... but still, that series IS THE series, and the new movie cannot compete with it. Actors were very good after all, and the story too, but the classic Star Trek has made its history and, as I said, cannot be replaced by a new remake.
I'm glad we think alike about it :) |
|
| | |
Emyn
May 16, 2009 11:11 PM PDT
Hey, how are you? I was just thinking about watching Star Trek today. I guess the nostalgic approach to the film can't be helped, given its nature as a prequel. I'll post my impressions after I get to watch it.
I hope you're well! |
|
