BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Star Trek (spoilers

SolarSystem · April 22, 2015 10:54 am

Kittyhawk wrote:
Most of the movies with the old crew are a waste of time, excepting no. II and IV (unfortunately, IV doesn't make sense without having a least read a summary of III), I'd skip then directly to the first Abrams film.

I tend to disagree here, I think that Star Trek VI - The Undiscovered Country is at least as good as II, if not even better. But that probably is a matter of taste.

Schmiezi · April 23, 2015 4:27 am

SolarSystem wrote:
Kittyhawk wrote:
Most of the movies with the old crew are a waste of time, excepting no. II and IV (unfortunately, IV doesn't make sense without having a least read a summary of III), I'd skip then directly to the first Abrams film.
I tend to disagree here, I think that Star Trek VI - The Undiscovered Country is at least as good as II, if not even better. But that probably is a matter of taste.

Same here. ST VI is a great film.

mrshouse · April 23, 2015 7:13 am

Somehow I like the old Star Trek movies. Except maybe the first one, which is pretty boring. I like that especially William Shatner does not take himself too seriously anymore and it's just some fun. I like especially V for some reason, the beginning with Kirk, Spock and McCoy going on holidays together is just hilarious.

Kittyhawk · April 23, 2015 12:13 pm

I had to look up "The Undiscovered Country", but now I remember: It's the one where the supposedly Vulcan crew member proposes sabotage ("which comes from French workers throwing their "sabots" into machinery" - I rember that bit) - an idea which I found so completely preposterous that the movie died for me right there.
In "The Final Frontier" I quite like the scene when Kirk is faced with "God": "No, you can't have my ship. Btw, if you really are God, why would you need it?" (again the only bit that stuck in my memory.)
Actually, in the case of II and IV I don't remember the actual movies, but the tie-in novels by Vonda N. McIntyre. II contains such haunting scenes that the movie looks like a summary (for rating reasons, I suppose). And IV is just absolutely hilarious. And of course, in a book the actors' age doesn't matter

SolarSystem · April 23, 2015 1:59 pm

Kittyhawk wrote:
I had to look up "The Undiscovered Country", but now I remember: It's the one where the supposedly Vulcan crew member proposes sabotage ("which comes from French workers throwing their "sabots" into machinery" - I rember that bit) - an idea which I found so completely preposterous that the movie died for me right there.

Too bad. I loved it (and still love it) and sat there weeping at the cinema when the credits began to roll.

mrshouse · April 23, 2015 2:03 pm

Kitty, don't want to be nitpicking here, but this seems to be the correct origin of the word and not made up.

tonnaree · April 23, 2015 2:06 pm

I have loved all the Star Trek movies and TV shows with different levels of affection.

Rarely is a piece of entertainment perfect, but when compared to the great masses of drek many works do rise above.

For example, I'd rather see a mediocre episode of something like Game of Thrones than the best episode of any Law and Order series.

Kittyhawk · April 24, 2015 11:12 am

mrshouse wrote:
Kitty, don't want to be nitpicking here, but this seems to be the correct origin of the word and not made up.

That's not the part I have a problem with - I just put it in quotation marks because I remember it as having been said by whatshername. I have a problem with a VULCAN proposing sabotage!

SolarSystem · April 24, 2015 12:57 pm

Kittyhawk wrote:
mrshouse wrote:
Kitty, don't want to be nitpicking here, but this seems to be the correct origin of the word and not made up.
That's not the part I have a problem with - I just put it in quotation marks because I remember it as having been said by whatshername. I have a problem with a VULCAN proposing sabotage!

But SHE was the guilty one anyway, she didn't behave like you would have expected her to. So I think it makes total sense for her to propose something like this.

Schmiezi · April 24, 2015 1:13 pm

Kittyhawk wrote:
mrshouse wrote:
Kitty, don't want to be nitpicking here, but this seems to be the correct origin of the word and not made up.
That's not the part I have a problem with - I just put it in quotation marks because I remember it as having been said by whatshername. I have a problem with a VULCAN proposing sabotage!

Why?

Harriet · April 24, 2015 1:17 pm

Sabotage can be a very logical decision.

SolarSystem · April 24, 2015 1:33 pm

Harriet wrote:
Sabotage can be a very logical decision.

Wow. And you're not even a Trekkie, are you?

Kittyhawk · April 24, 2015 3:17 pm

SolarSystem wrote:
Kittyhawk wrote:
mrshouse wrote:
Kitty, don't want to be nitpicking here, but this seems to be the correct origin of the word and not made up.
That's not the part I have a problem with - I just put it in quotation marks because I remember it as having been said by whatshername. I have a problem with a VULCAN proposing sabotage!
But SHE was the guilty one anyway, she didn't behave like you would have expected her to. So I think it makes total sense for her to propose something like this.

Yes, and she wasn't even Vulcan, was she? And this sabotage proposal gave it away for me.

Yes, sabotage - or other illegal behaviour - can be a logical decision (Spock hijacked the Enterprise, a long time ago), but when I watched the film I did not feel that to be the case. As I general rule I'd expect Vulcan crew members to be the last to mutiny! I've forgotten the details of the film, and I've no desire to see it again, I only remember that I thought "Wrong!" when I watched the movie ;)

Last edited by Kittyhawk (April 24, 2015 3:33 pm)

Kittyhawk · May 23, 2015 2:56 pm

I'm re-watching Star Trek Into Darkness, this time with an eye out for Benedict's (too brief) appearances. The plot is still absolute crap (it might be getting worse every time I watch the film). But at least now I can spend the time marveling about how different Khan looks from Sherlock. How does Benedict do it? Absolutely awesome!

And seeing what the man is capable of - I think it's a real pity that Moftiss have decided to not use the canon-typical disguises in Sherlock. For as far as I remember ACD stressed that Sherlock became the new person on a much deeper level than just a change of clothes, and I'm sure Benedict Cumberbatch could do some wonderful transformations for us. Sniff...

Yitzock · May 24, 2015 2:49 pm

Well, the series isn't over yet so maybe one day we will get to see some even better disguises in the future!

I've only seen Into Darkness once, when it came out in cinemas, so I'll admit that I don't remember a ton about it, but I do remember thinking that Khan was a better villain than the previous movie had, and I thought in some ways the plot was better than the previous movie as well, especially since we didn't have to introduce all the characters and could just go. Of course, it's an action movie plot, though, so it's going to leave something to be desired more likely than not. I'm sure it still has more plot than some other action movies do.
But I would agree that he did a good job as Khan, even if he wasn't in a ton of scenes.

Last edited by Yitzock (May 24, 2015 2:49 pm)

Kittyhawk · May 24, 2015 5:24 pm

Yitzock wrote:
... Of course, it's an action movie plot, though, so it's going to leave something to be desired more likely than not. I'm sure it still has more plot than some other action movies do.
But I would agree that he did a good job as Khan, even if he wasn't in a ton of scenes.

Having just watched Fast and Furious 6 I agree with you about the "more plot" part. Unfortunately, "more plot" means that there's more opportunity to mess it up. But the first big problem with the movie is that Star Trek didn't use to be about the action. The second - no, I've already said it above...

SusiGo · May 24, 2015 9:23 pm

Tbh, I am quite happy without the disguises. In other adaptations they always seemd quite overdone and theatrical to me. I prefer the little things, faking tears, a piece of paper as dog collar, etc.

Ah-chie · May 24, 2015 10:39 pm

Totally agree with you SusiGo.

I want to see more of Ben's face, not less (or hidden under layers of disguise) damn it!

Anything, and I mean ANYTHING that gives us less than a full view of those cheek bones is a disservice to the show!

But seriously, I like the subtle approach that the BBC Sherlock takes and wouldn't want it to take anything close to "The Man of a Thousand Faces" path. That, I think, would just be a distraction from the essence of the show - the friendship between John and Sherlock. I fear it would morph into something along the lines of "Oh, I wonder what wonderful, weird person Sherlock will become this week!" or "Hey, is that Sherlock?!?!"...

-Val

Yitzock · May 25, 2015 12:34 am

No, I don't think we will go in that direction, either. It wouldn't fit with what we've already gotten. But, we haven't gotten any disguise in a while so it would be fun to see more. That doesn't mean we can't get more great acting from Benedict. Khan had some intense moments, and we've gotten that from Sherlock too.

SolarSystem · May 25, 2015 9:50 am

Yitzock wrote:
But, we haven't gotten any disguise in a while so it would be fun to see more.

Oh, but what about his junkie disguise in HLV...? That was very subtle, but still a disguise.