I liked the new Star Trek
Bill Anderson
But the day after we saw it a friend and I were discussing the amazing
number of times this new movie reminded us of Star Wars. So we started
a list:
1) The scene at the bar with the aliens. Patty kept expecting to hear
Mos Eisley cantina music.
2) "Death Star" destroys a planet.
3) Leaping around inside the Romulan tumbleweed like Luke and Vader on
the Death Star.
4) Spock living out by himself alone like Obi-Wan, or even Yoda.
5) That little guy with the bad case of the zits was a dead ringer for
an Ewok -- even walked like an Ewok.
6) The icy moon of Vulcan was a dead ringer for Hoth; when the first
snow monster came charging out of the distance I was sure it would be a
wampa.
7) The shot of Kirk's escape pod headed for the icy moon looked just
like the shot of Artoo and Threepio's escape pod headed for Tattooine.
8) Farmboy makes good in space.
9) In the entire movie there was exactly one prominent hot chick. (Lt.
Uhura, say hello to Princess Leia.)
10) The two male leads are after the same girl.
11) Reluctant friendship between the two male leads.
12) The hero never knew his father.
13) And here's one from a different movie: Look at the reflection in
Kirk's faceplate as he's plummeting toward the drilling platform in the
sky. The shape of the reflected light is the same as the shape of the
reflected light in Dave's helmet just as he's being drawn into the black
monolith at the end of 2001: ASO. The camera even jiggles the same in
both movies.
Well, we thought the similarities were interesting. And curious.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
Your Name
"Bill Anderson" <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yeGdnX3plev...@giganews.com...
> Well, I did like it a lot, so there, nyah, nyah and all that.
>
> But the day after we saw it a friend and I were discussing the amazing
> number of times this new movie reminded us of Star Wars. So we
> started a list:
>
>
> Well, we thought the similarities were interesting. And curious.
Not really. JJ Abrams has been reported as saying he is a fan of Star Wars
and did not really like Star Trek. It's no surprise that he made his movie
more Warsy than Treky (as well as ignoring whatever established facts that
he wanted!). The fact that Paramount employed such a person to do a "Star
Trek" movie is just further proof of how moronic Hollyweird has become - if
you're going to make a movie for an established franchise, then you employ
someone who knows what they're doing and likes what the original franchise.
:-(
According to the official StarWars.com junk email, there's an R2-D2 'Easter
Egg' in the movie somewhere.
On a similar idea, watching the first episode of the TV show "Legend of the
Seeker" a few weeks ago had me seeing all sorts of Star Wars similarities
too. :-)
MDH
news:gupu7f$3os$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz:
>
> "Bill Anderson" <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:yeGdnX3plev...@giganews.com...
>> Well, I did like it a lot, so there, nyah, nyah and all that.
>>
>> But the day after we saw it a friend and I were discussing the
>> amazing number of times this new movie reminded us of Star Wars. So
>> we started a list:
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> Well, we thought the similarities were interesting. And curious.
>
> Not really. JJ Abrams has been reported as saying he is a fan of Star
> Wars and did not really like Star Trek. It's no surprise that he made
> his movie more Warsy than Treky
Of course, truth be told everything from ST:TMP on has beem more SW than
ST:TOS
> (as well as ignoring whatever established facts that he wanted!).
As I understand it, the story set up allowed for that to happen, and it
sounds to me like Paramount was trying to get a new generation into ST so
they created a big delete button plot point so they could do stuff with
out having to rely on old lore, yet they can still use it if need be.
> The fact that Paramount employed such a person to do a "Star Trek"
> movie is just further proof of how moronic Hollyweird has become - if
> you're going to make a movie for an established franchise, then you
> employ someone who knows what they're doing and likes what the original
> franchise.
Of course I don't know of any Trekies that didn't enjoy the movie, I know
of many who did. I'm sure there's some, but they're not seeming to be as
vocal as the ones who did.
Your Name
"MDH" <n...@email4u.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C10A634B6E71m...@69.16.186.8...
I have no doubt that Paramount / Abrams did the Alternative Unviverse / Time
Travel silliness purposely so they could pretend that they aren't really
"rebooting" Star Trek, when they really are ... but the fact that they want
to pretend doesn't alter the fact that it *is* just another silly Hollyweird
in-name-only "reboot" that ignores the original's established history and
slaps original fans in the face as no longer "good enough". :-(
As long as it says "Star Trek" on the tin, most people are apparently too
blind, too stupid or simply don't care and so will believe that's what it
is.
Bill Anderson
>
> As long as it says "Star Trek" on the tin, most people are apparently too
> blind, too stupid or simply don't care and so will believe that's what it
> is.
That's me -- I simply don't care, and I don't care that I don't care.
All the original Star Trek canon is available to me any time I care to
watch, but ... I've seen all I think I'll ever care to watch. The
series is nice enough and I'm glad I'm familiar with it, but I don't
hold it in particularly high regard. It's just a typical 1960s era TV
series that inexplicably developed a following. I'd just as soon
watch episodes of the Monkees or Dr. Kildare. The original actors are
as subject to the effects of time as the rest of us; some are dead and
the rest are decrepit or nearly so. I sure don't want to see them
playing the leads in an action movie now. But...having that
inexplicable following means the Star Trek franchise can still be a
money-maker. So what should the studio do? Start a spinoff? That's
been done with varying degrees of success. Tell the same stories using
different actors? Boring. How about starting over with the same
young characters engaged in the same general mission but using
different actors in a similar but different universe where entirely
different story episodes can unfold? Plausible? Sure, given the
storyline presented. And even better -- how about making the new
movie a real humdinger that delights from start to finish? All I
wanted when I went into the theater was to have a good time, and Star
Trek did not disappoint. That's what I care about.
Your Name
"Bill Anderson" <billan...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:19932b22-6db3-4e71...@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 2:18 am, "Your Name" <your.n...@isp.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > As long as it says "Star Trek" on the tin, most people are
> > apparently too blind, too stupid or simply don't care and so
> > will believe that's what it is.
>
> That's me -- I simply don't care, and I don't care that I don't care.
> So what should the studio do? Start a spinoff?
Be sensible and leave the franchise to die off (while still making money of
the books!) and actually create a new franchise ... problem being that lmost
none of the current generation in Hollyweird actually have enough talent to
do such a thing. Hollyweird apparently reached it's creative peak in the
late 1970s and 1980s, since then it's been slowly going down the toilet with
only occasional flashes of brilliance. :-(
Duggy
> Well, I did like it a lot, so there, nyah, nyah and all that.
> Mos Eisley cantina music.
Nah, more like any Hollywood bar with the patrons from Quarks...
Not like a cantina at all.
> 2) "Death Star" destroys a planet.
More B-5y. A thing that looks tenticly which sends stuff to bore to
the centre of a planet... Shadow Planet Killers.
> 3) Leaping around inside the Romulan tumbleweed like Luke and Vader on
> the Death Star.
Or like Picard in... all the films.
> 4) Spock living out by himself alone like Obi-Wan, or even Yoda.
Spock dumped on a planet an hour earlier. Not like Obi-Wan or Yoda.
> 5) That little guy with the bad case of the zits was a dead ringer for
> an Ewok -- even walked like an Ewok.
Nah, more one of the cantina aliens.
> 6) The icy moon of Vulcan was a dead ringer for Hoth; when the first
> snow monster came charging out of the distance I was sure it would be a
> wampa.
Agreed. Although it ran more like a Tauntaun.
> 7) The shot of Kirk's escape pod headed for the icy moon looked just
> like the shot of Artoo and Threepio's escape pod headed for Tattooine.
Not significantly.
> 8) Farmboy makes good in space.
Yes. As it has been for decades.
> 9) In the entire movie there was exactly one prominent hot chick. (Lt.
> Uhura, say hello to Princess Leia.)
Wow we really are stretching to find points.
> 10) The two male leads are after the same girl.
In a film? Wow.
> 11) Reluctant friendship between the two male leads.
In a film? Wow.
> 12) The hero never knew his father.
Not uncommon in film.
> 13) And here's one from a different movie: Look at the reflection in
> Kirk's faceplate as he's plummeting toward the drilling platform in the
> sky. The shape of the reflected light is the same as the shape of the
> reflected light in Dave's helmet just as he's being drawn into the black
> monolith at the end of 2001: ASO. The camera even jiggles the same in
> both movies.
So by copying 2001 it's more Star Trek than Star Wars because the
directors of both ST:TMP & ST:FC admitted to copying 2001.
> Well, we thought the similarities were interesting. And curious.
You forgot the "Bigger Fish" on "Hoth" and some of the reused sound
FXs.
As I see it you have one good point and a whole lot of "they're both
films" points.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Hollyweird apparently reached it's creative peak in the
> late 1970s and 1980s, since then it's been slowly going down the toilet with
> only occasional flashes of brilliance. :-(
Hollyweird was only established as a company in 1990... so I have no
idea what you're talking about.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> How about starting over with the same
> young characters engaged in the same general mission but using
> different actors in a similar but different universe where entirely
> different story episodes can unfold? Plausible?
And something that JMS suggested... how many years ago?
===
= DUG.
===
Jawa Lunk
liked the NG series, but lost interest after that.
I saw the preview of the new Star trek movie, and thought, hmm, might
be cool.
On a whim, my wife (who is NOT a sci fi fan in the least) and I were
out of town looking for something to do, and saw the movie was opening
in a small theater and decided to watch it.
We loved it!
Even she did, and she doesn't like sci fi...
I recommend it to everyone, its worth the watch...
Bill Anderson
> As I see it you have one good point and a whole lot of "they're both
> films" points.
>
Paul Dug Duggy Duggan is an old poop.
Duggy
> Duggy wrote:
> > As I see it you have one good point and a whole lot of "they're both
> > films" points.
>
> Paul Dug Duggy Duggan is an old poop.
Well, yes, that is true.
===
= DUG.
===