Subj : Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to To : All From : Duggy Date : Wed Nov 16 2011 14:12:49 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos From Address: Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me? On Nov 16, 4:50apm, Akira Norimaki wrote: > Duggy wrote: > [Star Trek XI] > >>>> Agreed, on both. It's a funny ride but the plot is rather pointless. > >>> So it's an action film. > >> Yeah, pretty much. An action movie in space. > > It sells. > I can understand why. It would have been nice to have something more for > this franchise but that's what we have now. Thing is franchises have to be blockbusters these days. You want a quality thoughtful film you're going to need to do a random no-budget film with no franchise attached. Moon, for example. > For someone is better than > nothing for others was better nothing. I'm somewhere in between those > two position, personally. I started to enjoy the movie only after I > realized it is not Star Trek. Not ST as I think it should be, I mean. > And to be totally honest with myself I don't see any the ST movies that > is exactly as I think ST should be, expect Khaaaaaaannnnnn and, maybe, > [slow] Motion Picture. ST was clearly a TOS episode made too long (yes, I know it was the 2- part pilot for Star Trek: "Phase 2" based on an unused "Genesis II" idea) so yeah, it was Trek. 2... yeah, a bit too much action, but very STTOS plot. 5... was a very Star Trek plot... but that doesn't mean it was good. I think 6 was as well... The first 3 Next Gen films were (in varying ways) very TNG. Nemesis was a whole lot of different films... including Bond... thrown together. === = DUG. === --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp # Origin: http://groups.google.com (1:2320/105.97) * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105) .