Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    rec.arts.startrek.current    |    New Star Trek shows, movies and books    |    77,414 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 76,614 of 77,414    |
|    Jim G. to All    |
|    Re: Star Trek: Discovery star replies to    |
|    27 Jun 17 15:09:02    |
      XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, rec.arts.tv       XPost: rec.arts.sf.tv       From: jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid              Obveeus sent the following on 06/27/2017 at 06:58 AM:       >       >       > On 6/26/2017 11:26 PM, Jim G. wrote:       >> Obveeus sent the following on 06/26/2017 at 09:52 PM:>       >>> On 6/26/2017 10:43 PM, Jim G. wrote:       >>>>       >>>> I'm still not getting the girlfriend/THE FLY reference...       >>>       >>> The woman who got melded in the transporter was the love of Kirk's life.       >>       >> Seriously? I never knew that, and I've seen the movie many times.       >       > For whatever reason, the plot point never made it into the film.              Weird. If I had to guess, I'd guess that there was a problem with the       admiral actor or the admiral actress or both. I mean, if it was a time       issue, it's not as if they couldn't have shaved a bit of the pretty CGI       overkill (and pace-killing) stuff that bogged down the whole movie.              >>> In this case, she wasn't melded with a fly, but rather with the person       >>> in the adjacent transporter spot.       >>       >> I knew that the young Vulcan destined to never take Spock's place was       >> one of the victims (since Decker had to pull double-duty until Spock       >> showed up), but when did they tell us that the other victim was the love       >> of Kirk's life? And why didn't he react more strongly if that was the       >> case?       >       > The extended scene of Kirk walking around the ship in a daze after the       > transporter accident was supposed to be all about him processing the       > loss of his love.              So the movie would have dealt with two of Kirk's conquests? Shatner must       have loved that. :)              > Maybe the director decided that it still had that       > dramatic effect (showing that Kirk felt intense loss at the death of a       > crew member) without identifying the loss as something personal to Kirk       > (which could diminish the idea that he feels for every member of the       > crew or could make him look callous for recovering in just a few minutes       > and getting back to work after the loss of his significant other)?              All I know is that I was very disappointed with that first effort. Very       disappointed. Lots of things and people to point fingers at, including a       rusty cast that was years removed from working together as actors. And       it showed. In the end, it's why I've always been such a fan of Nicholas       Meyer for his work as director and uncredited screenwriter on II. For my       money, and despite II's own flaws, he saved Trek.              >> All this time I've just assumed that it was some generic person       >> who was also destined to never serve on the Enterprise...       >       > The final cut of the film dropped the ball in that regard.              Interesting stuff.              --       Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre       “It smells like bad beer and worse choices. I'll make it work.” – Rosita       Bustillos, WYNONNA EARP              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca