XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek
From: elvisgump@NOhotmailSPAM.com
in article c4hkh4$euf$1@sparta.btinternet.com, graham at
grahame9@btinternet.com wrote on 04/01/2004 11:46 AM:
>
> "Elvis Gump" wrote in message
> news:BC905C1E.227D7%elvisgump@NOhotmailSPAM.com...
>> Well, it worse than that. Why and how did Logan or (what was the directors
>> name of that POS Nemesis again?) even get the job of working on the movie in
>> the first place? The whole franchise has become an increasingly smaller
>> clique as the more talented people who were clearly responsible for whatever
>> success TNG or DS9 enjoyed have left and not been replaced with anyone equal
>> to them.
>>
>> I don't think the actors really have that great a feel for what made good
>> Trek stories, even Frakes who's direction was technically okay lacked a
total
>> sense of what had gone before successfully story-wise, hence movies like
>> "Insurrection" which indulged the actors getting to sing or act silly and
not
>> take the story very seriously; as though seeing them having a lark and a
romp
>> would satisfy the fans who expected an engaging story.
>>
>> I don't think it's necessarily ever been the only option to call it a day
for
>> Trek, but the whole idea of it has drifted badly and I have little hope that
>> their story telling by committee will ever find someone to enter the present
>> clique with a singular vision of what was right about the concept to begin
>> with and make an audience care about watching it.
>>
>> As it is Trek is a suffering a slow, painful death with things like
>> "Enterprise" as it borders on self-parody and eating itself alive by
>> cannibalizing old story ideas without a wit of why what they are rehashing
>> was worthwhile in the first place.
> Lots of good points here. I was annoyed that Frakes and everyone else did
> not recognise that STN was basically plotless. Most of the cast have taken
> the directors seat at one time or another, so it wouldn't take a huge about
> of ability to recognise a load of crap from anything else. I saw an
> interview with Pat Stewart who believed the poor response for STN was due to
> the ST franchise having run its course. IMHO, it wasn't. It was basically
> crap - that's why it failed. If the film was "good", people would have gone
> to see it. But watching it, I got the sense of "so what?" from the film.
I couldn't imagine what they saw on the script pages that made them say "hey
this is a good idea!" I suspect there was a big incentive to milk it one
more time for their retirement funds, perhaps a sense of not wanting to be
seen as being a spoilsport and have the fans hate them for not donning the
spacesuits one more time or even that they were contractually obligated to
do it no matter how bad it was.
The various stories of how Nemesis became a train wreck of multiple people
being asleep at the switch and going through the motions would be more
entertaining than the actual film I suspect.
I thought the most interesting thing was Tom Hardy's thankless performance
trying to eek something out of his nonsense part which couldn't do anything
but dribble off at the end as written. The problem was the movie had no real
third act which is the problem with most films because the premise was
'wouldn't it be great' gets them started and then they can't work out where
to go from there for a pay-off so they start blowing stuff up hoping no one
will notice.
The final space battle was the best FX work of an Trek movie and oh so
boring at the same time because who could care because the story was so bad.
> They (Paramount) have allowed Star Trek to slowly degenerate by lack of
> investment and research into good scriptwriters. As for Enterprise, I have
> seen up to the end of Season 2 and have yet to see anything worth the price
> of electric to power the telly. It really is a poor series and it seems to
> try to draw its inspiration from stuff which has been done before and does
> not fit the Star Trek timeline/history. Personally, I would like to see
> Enterprise pulled and replaced when someone comes up with some decent
> stories to warrent either the series or something better.
>
> If ST ultimatly fails and gets pulled/put to sleep, Paramount have only
> themselves to blame for it.
>
> Graham.
"Enterprise" as an idea excited me when I knew nothing about it. There are
so many ways, many posted in ongoing discussions in the various Trek NGs
that would have made it so much better.
Among many things I think there should have been more than one starship in
service when the series started, all embarking in different directions which
they could have easily been depicted with the same interior sets of NX and
had them interact a bit. It's insane that with no help a ship would just go
blazing off into the unknown like NX-01 has to me when it would represent
such a huge investment for Earth.
And they should have dialed back even further on the level of technological
advancement shown on the show so far. Early on there were some nods to the
TOS era such as meeting the Andorians and such but that went out the window
pretty quick. Most days the ship and technology seems exactly like TOS or
TNG with different naming conventions. I want to see them bridge the real
science we know to the science of the future and extrapolate 'getting from
here to there'.
And for crissakes tell a good story once in a while! The best thing for me
in "Enterprise" so far was probably "Carbon Creek" because it actually told
an interesting story that didn't depend on wild FX or yet another species
with bumpy foreheads.
--
"I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it."
-- "Deep Thoughts" by Jack Handey
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
