Subject:
|
Re: Monday Morning Diversion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:55:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1757 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> I think it is a matter of perception. You regard it as a deep philsophical
> message
No, I regard it as a failed attempt at a deep philosophical message.
> Whew. I don't have to withdraw the "Uber-Geek" comment. I take it using an
> obscure set of initials for an obscure program is an Uber-Geek identity test,
> kinda like that secret sigh my Grandfather used to detect fellow Shriners?
I think that in this case it has more to do with how long and clumsy the title
is. I've only watched a couple eps myself (not having access to Comedy Central,
or Sci-Fi, or whatever channel its on these days), but I know someone from
college who had his parents tape every episode and send them to him. It's
funny, but the movies (at least the few that I saw...which admittedly included
"Manos, the Hands of Fate", which is quite possibly worse than watching a solid
1000 hours of blank tape in one sitting) can be so mind-bogglingly excruciating
to watch that it feels like smashing your own toe with a hammer just because you
think it's funny to watch people hop around with injured feet.
> Of course, I failed to mention the ultra-cheap revival house I frequented in
> college (you had to bring disposable shoes) where it was standard form to
> yell things at the screen (but you had to be funny, or the audience yelled
> at you).
The closest I've ever heard to that was a theatre that another friend of mine
frequented where they played the Rocky Horror Picture Show every Friday night,
but there you had to yell the same things that everyone else was yelling. If
you didn't, or you yelled different things, you'd get yelled at for being a
"virgin".
> They cleaned it up finally and quadrupled the price and it wasn't fun
> anymore.
Maybe they got busted for a health code violation...
> It was okay. It was a better way to end the original cast than the awful V.
> But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone except a Trekkie. II had a plot that
> addressed the years that had passed, that philosphically loped back on itself
> and tied together extremely well.
> The ending to VI felt forced and artificial.
Oh, parts of every ST movie felt that way. Consider ST II, where Kirk cheated
in a simulator program to win the game, and it was public knowledge, but
Starfleet failed to do anything after how many years to correct that flaw in
their design? It was a cute anecdotal story about Kirk's youth, but it was a
glaring Plot Device when he got to use it again in real life.
> Honestly, Trek makes for better TV than Cinema. It's designed for
> television. Certainly Frakes directed his forays with the pacing and writing
> of an extended TV episode.
The only major problem with restricting it to TV is that they don't have the
budget for doing lots of location shoots or fancy sets. Yeah, Generations felt
like an extra-long TV show, but there's no way we would have ever seen the
saucer-section land on TV. Insurrection, if the self-serving love story were
cut out completely, probably wouldn't require too much more editing to trim down
to a 1-hr episode. Of course, with the way they kept putting up
season-crossover 2-parters, they weren't all that unfamiliar with doing
movie-length stories. I think the biggest problem was that even after ST:TOS
and ST:TNG went to the theatres, they both tried to make sure that every
character got screen time, and that they maintained as much of the precious
Status Quo as possible. Movies are when they should consider killing a main
character or two, just to shake things up, but within a the individual series,
more main characters have died in episodes than during movies (I don't count all
of the TOS characters who met their eventual demise during TNG episodes or
movies). If they ever kill Troi, I'd watch that movie twice.
> > > I'm stunned that you even ask.
> >
> > Really? Granted, it's not Shakespeare,
>
> No matter how much Plummer quoted the Bard. :-)
>
> > but in my experience, those who really
> > feel that the OT dialogue didn't work are those who didn't like the OT movies
> > much at all.
>
> Original Trek? Off-Topic? Odurous Trivializations? Overly-cryptic
> Televison-initials?
Original Trilogy. Anytime someone mentions "OT" (where it's not followed by -D
or some other LUGNET qualifier), or "Episode #/Ep#", they're probably talking
about Star Wars. And we were discussing how you don't like the dialogue from
the original SW trilogy.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Monday Morning Diversion
|
| (...) Sorry, I didn't type "failed attempt" in as I meant to. The point is that I don't agree with your assessment that they were trying to be deeply philosophical, but rather not simply frivolous. (...) 1. "Public Knowledge": The only people who (...) (20 years ago, 27-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Monday Morning Diversion
|
| (...) I think it is a matter of perception. You regard it as a deep philsophical message, and perhaps that is a fair depiction of it, but I regarded it simply as a step back from trivializing it. The movie was uneven all the way through, so this was (...) (20 years ago, 26-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
30 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
