Bearserk wrote:The movies doesn't even come close to the series if you ask me.
Actually, I probably should have clarified. I prefer the movies starring the
original cast. I was never much of a fan of the original 60s series, but my dad was, and he watched the re-runs quite a lot when I was little, so any night when I had nothing else to do, I'd watch them with him. He saw them first-run before I was born, so he was basically watching them for the second, third, fourth time by then, and thanks to that, I'm pretty sure I've seen all three seasons at least once. While I appreciate the show's importance to both television and sci-fi history, I think it's appeal to me is largely sentimental rather than "trekkie".
By the time the movies started coming out, the characters were somewhat mythic, which made them ideally suited to the big screen with all the advances that special effects could afford them in scope. By contrast, I found all of the TNG movies to feel like two-part TV episodes. The only one I own is GENERATIONS, and there again, it's largely because of the presence of the original cast. My dad was also a huge fan of TNG, but as I was older by then, I didn't see as many of those with him. He vehemently resisted watching the recent STAR TREK movie reboot for
months. When he first saw the trailer, he seemed like he might give it a chance, but as time wore on, he just didn't want to see his precious memories ruined. When I
finally coaxed him into watching it on DVD, he
loved it and admitted that it was much better than he thought it would be. And that's coming from a 73-year-old man who's just tolerant of all the flashy FX spectacles that come out these days.
I had already seen it on the big screen and thought it was fantastic
and faithful to mythology of the original show while kicking the entire franchise's ass into the 21st century, which is where it desperately needed to be if it was going to survive. And look what happened, it was one of the top box-office hits last year and the most successful STAR TREK movie ever, in part because it attracted
more than just Trek nerds. You might want to give it a chance.
I think STAR TREK has always been about action as much as exploration and wonders, otherwise there would never have been any conflict to make all the TV shows and movies interesting. All of the TV shows were able to find a better balance simply because they didn't have movie-style budgets, so many episodes had to be talky and philosophical rather than action-packed (especially the original series). Plus they had less than an hour to tell their stories. On the big screen, these movies HAVE to have some spectacle, and that means (or should mean) big-scale action to buttress the big-scale ideas. All J.J. Abrams did was kick up the pace several notches, but the exploration and wonder is definitely still there, and I think it will continue to be there now that they've laid down the basics so well in the first movie.
Fantastic! When I looked the movie up at IMDB, I was stunned to see was released just last year. It looks like something Hollywood would have done 10 or 15 years ago. Then again, that often seems typical of Indian cinema. The scope of that scene alone (and the director's vision) obviously comes up just shy of the budget and technical capabilities of the crew. Even Hong Kong filmmakers could pull off something like that much better these days, but it's still great fun! IMDB also states the film is 166 minutes long. Some things never change . . .
Bearserk wrote:The Pulpit Rock - Not that glad in walking up there during the summer these days, way to many tourists, but I usually take a couple of trips up there when most of the tourists have disappeared.
Kjerag bolten - I haven't been here myself just yet, still have a bit of a problem finding someone willing to go out on the rock for me
It is not far away so I really have to go there one day.
Breathtaking sights. I can't imagine
anyone taking a bad picture up there.