Subject:
|
Re: Monday Morning Diversion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:37:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1624 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, David Laswell wrote:
> 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.
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.
> > 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.
1. "Public Knowledge": The only people who seemed to know were close friends of
Kirk. Maybe it was public knowledge, but that is an unsupported assumption.
2. "Starfleet failed...to correct that flaw in their design": That's not
addressed in the film, either. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. The computer
code thing to defeat Khan was something else, if that's what you are refering
to...which also leads to...
3. "glaring Plot Device when he got to use it again in real life" A. He didn't
reuse it (there was no Star Fleet test that he took in the film) and B. He
revealed that AFTER he did the code trick on Khan. The point of the reference
to the test was to show that he hadn't really faced death until his friend,
Spock was dieing (and of course, the poignancy of such was ruined by ST III).
>
> > 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.
You are confusing budget and length with something that was approached as a
movie and something that was approached as a television episode. Band of
Brothers was done for television, but was approached as a series of movies
(direction, writing, pacing), and the ST: TNG movies were really nothing but
higher budget television episodes without commercials. The direction was very
pedestrian (in a word, TV-style).
>
> > > > 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.
No, we were just discussing Star Trek. You switched to Star Wars and confused
me with initials that are not part of the movie titles. I was guessing above
that "TOS" meant "the original series" by context, for example. Please assume
that I have no clue as to Uber-Geek abbreviations and spell them out at least
once for me. :-)
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Monday Morning Diversion
|
| (...) No, I regard it as a failed attempt at a deep philosophical message. (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
