Subj : Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to
To   : All
From : Steven L.
Date : Fri Nov 18 2011 12:59:16

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: sdlitvin@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Star Trek (2009) Someone explain this to me?



"Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message 
news:7bc5f90e-8d82-4562-8d23-47f5c3f54254@h31g2000pro.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 16, 4:50apm, Akira Norimaki <diotona...@gmail.com> 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.

Not necessarily.

"Contact" (based on the novel by Carl Sagan) was thoughtful.

But it didn't skimp on visuals either.

You make it sound like "thoughtful" means it can't also be visually 
appealing or have action.  Of course it can.




-- Steven L.


--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
 * Origin: CCO BBS - capitolcityonline.net:26 (1:2320/105)

.