Thoughts on new Star Trek movie (*spoilers!*)

Could you be a little bit more precise about that last statement? In the past, you pointed out how bad/incorrect the literary quotations in ST movies are. How could they be bad *and* relevant?
Click to expand...

The 'literary' stuff in the movies is all very obvious -- they're the books we all read in High School (and, more importantly, the quotations and references we all know).

Star Trek II builds a nice structure from that limitation. Khan and Kirk each have a book that describes their character, motivations and their narrative - Moby-Dick and A Tale of Two Cities, respectively. The books are diegetic; they show up at the start of the movie: Moby-Dick is the one book you can see on Khan's shelf, AToTC is what Spock gives Kirk for his birthday. Then they both end the movie quoting the last line of dialogue of their book -- hate's sake versus far far better thing.

And that's all... pretty cool, for a Star Trek movie.

Star Trek VI draws from the literature-we-know well, but without the structure or the restraint. The director loves Shakespeare... so everyone quotes Hamlet, outside the bounds of reason! The awkward co-opting for the title is where I can't forgive it -- that idiotic speech about how the undiscovered country is *really* peace in their cold war analogue is like watching geeks explaining that the Tiger's Claw looks different in the movie because it had a secret unmentioned refit (knowing that Meyer wanted it as the subtitle for Star Trek II, which actually dealt with death, makes it even more egregious.)
 
ELTEE said:
Really?
Click to expand...

Nah.

That's just Frosty having some fun.

Refer to :
Frosty said:
Also, a preset signature is a feature of the message board. Maybe I'll go find everyone who does this and edit their posts to say something that amuses me.
Click to expand...

He could just edit *any* post and make it amuse him (such as adding a funny in-post sig anywhere), but he prefers to limit himself to posts that are signed manually.

Although, with my colon... it's pretty accurate.

-butts butts butts butts butts
 
Doesn't mean that at least part of "All Good Things" came true? Romulus' destruction could very easily mean the end of the Star Empire, and I wonder who would love to take over in the case... the Klingons?

Although Earth did fall at the end of the Dominion War and yet the Federation still fought. But the Star Empire seems a bit more centralized on Romulus.
 
I don't think anyone has claimed... or could possibly claim... that the problem with All Good Things is that *nothing* from that future happened; the issue is that Generations immediately rendered the future non-existent a matter of months after the episode aired (which is to say, the dramatic thrust of the ending - not knowing if it was the real future or Q's fantasy - is crushed when you know that it definitely *isn't* the real future).
 
Bandit LOAF said:
the issue is that Generations immediately rendered the future non-existent a matter of months after the episode aired.
Click to expand...

I think this was brought up in the Generations commentary. Moore seems rather disappointed in how the film turned out and acknowledged something along the lines of the inherent weakness in closing the series with time travel - and then having the crew's first big screen outing with the same plot device.
 
That's not what I'm saying, though. The kick at the end of All Good Things is that you don't /know/ if it's the real future. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

Generations then immediately breaks that idea by specifically telling us (by blowing up the Enterprise, among other things) that the future in All Good Things *wasn't* real and that the whole thing must therefore have been Q's imagination.

Generations degrades AGT by negating its story, not by using a similar device.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
That's not what I'm saying, though. The kick at the end of All Good Things is that you don't /know/ if it's the real future. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

Generations then immediately breaks that idea by specifically telling us (by blowing up the Enterprise, among other things) that the future in All Good Things *wasn't* real and that the whole thing must therefore have been Q's imagination.

Generations degrades AGT by negating its story, not by using a similar device.
Click to expand...

Maybe I missed something but I thought this was actually explained at the end of AGT. At the poker table, they're all talking about what the Captain said had happened, and then I believe that Laforge says something to the effect of, "But won't letting us know about this alter the future?"

It seemed Riker believed that Picard told them about this in order to prevent future mistakes like the animosity between Riker and Worf.

Now I'm no quantum theorist... but in essence, by telling everyone of what to come, Picard became the rock that shattered the time line and created a new one in its place. So while that future time line may now no longer exist, I do not think it was a simple Q creation.
 
No, it was the same Enterprise-D (with an extra warp nacelle). Riker explains that he stopped them from decomissioning her so she could be his flagship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top