Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:

Total Found: 49 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 2
Set Bookmark
Eduardo
Mon, Sep 5, 2016, 11:43am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

That cast photo is actually from Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. You can tell by Uhura's hair and the fact that Sulu is in it.
Set Bookmark
Eduardo
Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 12:52am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

3 stars seems about right.

The one thing that still bothers me to this day is having the writers backpedal on Kirk's death. it's not even the matter of the magic blood as a plot device. I can buy that.

It's that they brought him back at all.

Kirk's death is a beauifully handled scene. It made a direct statement to viewers: don't expect anyone to be safe in this timeline. Kirk didn't feel he had a place in this ship or being in command. He made the choice of self-sacrifice and ended it in his terms, facing the fear of death head-on. This was Kirk at his most vulnerable. Probably the character's most naked scene since losing his son in ST3.

It also defined the Kirk/Spock relationship in a whole different light. Back in Wrath of Khan, they've had decades of fulfilling friendship and trust to fall back as they parted ways. In this film, we get to see Spock losing control of his emotions as he realizes the depth of a potential new friendship that would never ever be truly fulfilled.




Then McCoy brought him back, all in the interest of a hollywood "happy ending" and the need to maintain the franchise. Honestly, I can't even blame the writers. Hollywood executives and marketing "specialists" are to blame here. You want your franchise to remain interesting? Take risks.




My only other problem, as pointed out, is named Admiral Marcus. Like Section 31, it's too easy to put all of Starfleet's problems in a single basket. Weller managed to give us a character way less interesting than the one seen on Enterprise's fourth season. I'll take the Enterprise story arcs created by Manny Coto and Brannon Braga any day over Abrams and Orci's tentpole blockbuster sensibility. These films have their place in the franchise. And they work on a visceral level. But needless to say, I'm definitely more interested in Bryan Fuller's take on the new Star Trek: Discovery.
Set Bookmark
Eduardo Jencarelli
Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 8:29am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Wars: Episode VII — The Force Awakens

"I realize Palpatine / Sidius engineered it so that Naboo would be targeted to garner sympathy for his home planet so he could be made Chancellor. But what does Naboo have to do with the taxation of trade routes? Surely the Trade Federation chose to invade that specific planet for some ostensible purpose other than just throwing darts at a star-map. They must have explained their invasion in some terms connected specifically to that planet."

@JasonR: Naboo was a peaceful world. It didn't have an army. It wasn't even really close to the galactic core. And the Trade Federation needed to somehow bully the Republic into dropping the taxes. They probably debated over several worlds of choice, but any other planet would likely defend itself. Naboo had no chance against a massive droid army. If you want to bully someone, you pick what appears to be the weakest target. It's not that different from terrorist tactics. Threaten the innocent to bargain with the powerful.

At the same time, having Naboo be the blocked world forced the Republic to show some strength in a crisis. If they couldn't promise a member world its own freedom, it would reflect badly on the Republican leadership, which is exactly what happened.

Palpatine orchestrated this well, and the Federation went along with it because they were confident the Naboo would bend over and sign the treaty, which would also weaken the Republic's leadership and essentially jumpstart a Separatist movement with Naboo being the instigator instead being a Republic ally.

Since that didn't happen, Palpatine seduced Dooku to the dark side and had him convince the Federation to be a part of the Separatist movement instead. Divide and conquer, however you put it.
Set Bookmark
Eduardo Jencarelli
Wed, Jan 27, 2016, 9:04am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Wars: Episode VII — The Force Awakens

There is one other thing that somewhat bugs me on this film: lack of innovative starship design.

When you advance from Episode I to Episode III, you see a clear evolution from sleek, aerodynamic craft like the Naboo ships to the more industrial design utilized for Republic ships during the Clone Wars. You even get to see predecessors to both the X-Wing and the TIE Fighter.

From A New Hope to Return of the Jedi, you also see some significant evolution. The first film only has X-Wings, Y-Wings and TIE Fighters. Empire introduces TIE Bombers and Snowspeeders, while Jedi introduces TIE Interceptors, A-Wings and B-Wings.

Force Awakens has zero new models and designs. Am I to assume they would still be using X-Wings 30 years later? The only difference is the Engine's S-Foil. Coloring a TIE Fighter's solar panel isn't an upgrade either, and adding an extra man on the cockpit just to handle blaster controls seems counterproductive. Ideally, when technology evolves, you want to use less people and more automation.
Set Bookmark
Eduardo Jencarelli
Tue, Jan 26, 2016, 1:09pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Wars: Episode VII — The Force Awakens

And while I adore the scene where Starkiller destroys Hosnian Prime, I agree it lacked context. Hux's speech, well acted as it was, felt hollow since the film never properly explains what is the Republic and what's their relation in this conflict. Hell, for that matter, we don't know what's the purpose of the First Order other than nihilism. The Empire had a clear goal.

I feel Abrams may have cut a lot of important details. The reason the Old Republic didn't have an army prior to the Clone Wars was because the Jedi kept the peace. I assume Luke was forming a new order to serve the same purpose prior to the Knights of Ren mucking it all up, hence why the Republic barely registers during the film.
Set Bookmark
Eduardo Jencarelli
Tue, Jan 26, 2016, 1:06pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Wars: Episode VII — The Force Awakens

@JasonR.: I understood the trade embargo plot device just fine. The Neimoidians held Naboo (a non-threatening peaceful world) hostage as leverage to get the senate to drop taxes over their trade routes (think libertarians angry with big government). They thought Sidious was their senate ally, looking for their best interests, without realizing he was just using them for his own purposes.

Since the senate was fraught with corruption, the Trade Federation felt they had the upper hand. Nute Gunray never thought a weak chancellor like Valorum would have had the courage to deploy Jedi to settle the embargo. And then Sidious forced them to take drastic measures, which worked to his advantage.

It's really not that different from the Ukraine/Russia/US situation, which involves territorial oil pipeline disputes. And of course, taxes are always reason for discord and protest in any situation, especially when involving venture capitalists, for which the Feds qualify.
Set Bookmark
Eduardo Jencarelli
Tue, Jan 26, 2016, 10:25am (UTC -6)
Re: Star Wars: Episode VII — The Force Awakens

"I think where Lucas went wrong in the prequels was precise when he started to make Star Wars something it wasn't (Political Intrigue)."

@Chrome: Yeah, let's pretend that the civil war fought throughout the original trilogy had no political motivations whatsoever. It was just a Rebellion fighting for freedom in a galaxy ruled by an Empire who promised peace and justice in an attempt to rectify the Republic's corruption. Yeah, none of that happened.

I hate people who call themselves Star Wars fans and don't even realize that politics is at the core of the Star Wars universe.
Set Bookmark
Eduardo Jencarelli
Mon, Dec 14, 2015, 11:15am (UTC -6)
Re: Trailer: Star Trek Beyond

The trailer for Star Trek Beyond just came out.

All I can say is, 'I have a bad feeling about this'.
Set Bookmark
Eduardo
Fri, Sep 27, 2013, 4:17pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

"Perhaps we should fault modern society for voting for this kind of movie with their wallets over many years."

Now that's something I agree completely. The dumbing down of society and multiplex cinema are directly related. Society allowed itself to drop to low standards.
Set Bookmark
Eduardo
Thu, Aug 22, 2013, 4:19pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

"Deep plots and inward thinking is not something they are looking for after working a hard job all day. They are looking to relax and check their brain at the door."

I'm sorry. Working what hard job?

The people you've mentioned never worked a hard job in their life. Making fast food for 10$ an hour doesn't require a lot of brain power, nor does driving cabs or selling stuff.

Writers have hard jobs. Directors have hard jobs. Editors have brutal jobs. Producers have life-consuming jobs. And they still find the time to watch thought-provoking stories.

To quote Star Trek's Ron Moore (technically a TV rant, but it still applies to movies):

"You just quickly get the audience up to speed, because the audience is not stupid. The audience has watched television for a long time. They understand that they have missed some things, that perhaps this is a reference to a show that they didn’t see. They aren’t just going to throw up their hands and move on. If you are pre-supposing that, you are aiming towards the person that is grabbing a beer, and isn’t really paying attention, and is walking out of the room every ten minutes and coming back and sitting down; all you are going to do is dumb down the show. You are reducing it to its lowest common denominator, and what’s the point of that? What do you get out of that?"
Set Bookmark
Eduardo
Sat, Aug 10, 2013, 12:48pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I'll give a fourth possibility:

The audience's concern has to be whether Spock is able to avenge Kirk's death, not the crash itself. Everything else is collateral.

Consider the Vengeance's crash to be a visual depiction of Khan's level of madness.
Set Bookmark
Eduardo
Thu, Aug 1, 2013, 1:24pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S2: The Royale

"this episode mostly just has the life sapped out of it. For the first twenty minutes or so, before the episode numbed me totally, I didn’t even think it was going to be all that bad -- but then the dullness became more and more toxic. So 1 star sounds about right."

@William B

The reason this episode comes across as numbing is probably because it went through some extensive rewrites thanks to Maurice Hurley, who ended up diluting a lot of the comedy, surrealism and satire present in Tracy Tormé's original draft.

One of the reasons Hurley rewrote it is because he felt it was too similar to A Piece in the Action.

It was so altered, it came to the point of Tormé actually disowning the script and using a pseudonym, Keith Mills. Even director Cliff Bole preferred the original story outline.

More info on the link below:

en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Royale_(episode)
Set Bookmark
Eduardo
Fri, Jul 19, 2013, 6:05pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

"But this hardly applies in this case since Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof stuck to the most basic rules. Unfortunately there weren't able or - more likely - willing to translate their vision properly, opting instead to rely on lazy shortcuts and hoping that the audience would take everything they were fed at face value."

The only plot device I could even classify as a shortcut is Harrison's unprovoked attack on the Klingons.

Every other development is pretty organic and true to character.

Throughout the film, Kirk struggles with how to respond to the crisis at hand (Harrison's terrorism, and Pike's death). Throughout the second act, he tries to follow through on his mission, only to see it being thwarted by his own realization that he's not at all suited for command, and ends up with a high body count and a crippled ship.

His decision to sacrifice himself to restart the ship kicks off the film's resolution, and allows him to finally overcome his shortcomings and become the leader he was born to be, the leader Pike expected him to be, and in the process also live up to Spock Prime's expectations regarding the Kirk/Spock friendship.
Set Bookmark
Eduardo
Fri, Jul 19, 2013, 5:50pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

"The problem is, the approach STID chose didn't work."

Didn't work for you. Worked just fine for me, and many others.

"The screenwriters didn't accomplish what they set out to - which, by the way, is as basic as it gets in terms of drama - thus resulting in an unengaging film with poorly realized character arcs and shoddy, put-on conflicts."

Hollow argument, at best. Hyperbole with little actual content to back it up. The audience was cheering during my screening, therefore I wouldn't call it 'unengaging'. Plenty of people responded to it.

They wanted to tell an adventurous story in which Kirk is struggling to find himself and his place in this ever-changing world, learning to deal with the pressures of responsibility and duty. And also the story about a developing friendship and camaraderie between this rash young human and this misplaced Vulcan.

"And funnily enough there was a huge disconnect between the visual language and the emotional resonance the filmmakers were aiming for."

If by that you mean it was a visual rollercoaster ride, then it definitely achieved what it was going for.
Set Bookmark
Eduardo
Fri, Jul 19, 2013, 4:13pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Also, the whole theoretical knowledge of film argument by Digedag is complete BS.

I studied film all my life. A movie has one goal: to tell a story. How you tell the story is subjective, as long as you can translate that to an audience on a visual and emotional level.

Into Darkness accomplishes that simple requirement. Most people can embrace Kirk's plight. The cocky young officer eager to rush into action, who suddenly finds himself to be an inadequate leader, and chooses a suicidal path.

In the end, what matters is getting the audience to respond to these characters.
Set Bookmark
Eduardo
Fri, Jul 19, 2013, 4:09pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I think it was Nick Meyer himself who once said that "Art will always be a product of the times it was made in".

To me, this implies that Star Trek into Darkness is simply reflective of the times we live in, and it managed to hit the right notes with the current audiences.

Whether traditional Trek purists embrace them or not, the fact is these two films enabled the franchise to achieve a wider appeal beyond the standard fans.

Nemesis tanked in the box-office because it felt like it was being left behind by both the competition and the audience.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a lifelong fan of TNG, DS9, classic Trek, and their stories, but I don't see them returning to a slower-paced Trek anytime soon.
Set Bookmark
Eduardo
Tue, Jul 16, 2013, 2:20pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

@CadetNorris

Oh, I'm sorry. Are the above posters supposed to be having a good time?
Set Bookmark
Eduardo
Sat, Jul 6, 2013, 1:24pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I posted this on the DS9 comments, figured it'd get more exposure here.

I really liked Into Darkness, especially in terms of living up to the dramatic potential of the Kirk/Spock relationship. Probably my 3rd or 4th favorite of the Trek films.

Having said that, tt's impressive how DS9's Duet aired exactly 20 years ago, was a very bottle-conscious effort, designed to save money, and it still pack a hell of a dramatic punch without making much effort.

Meanwhile, we have Star Trek into Darkness, while being a decent and entertaining movie, it has a 200 million dollar budget and doesn't even come close to matching this episode.

This is a case of the Trek movies are usually being pretty good, but some of the episodes of the shows still being miles ahead, no matter how good the films can be.
Set Bookmark
Eduardo
Sat, Jul 6, 2013, 12:38pm (UTC -6)
Re: DS9 S1: Duet

It's impressive how this aired 20 years ago, was a very bottle-conscious effort, designed to save money, and it still pack a hell of a dramatic punch without making much effort.

Meanwhile, we have Star Trek into Darkness, while being a decent and entertaining movie, it has a 200 million dollar budget and doesn't even come close to matching this episode.
Set Bookmark
Eduardo
Thu, Jul 4, 2013, 12:13pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

@RW Q established pretty well in the TNG finale that exploration isn't about new or old territory. Sometimes, it's about humanity itself.

Tim Lynch put it the best way, in his All Good Things review:

"exploration is *not* merely external, but can be internal as well, just as "good SF" is not synonymous with "hard science extrapolations that can lead to lots of gadgets going BING!""
Set Bookmark
Eduardo
Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 7:26pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

More and more I'm convinced Into Darkness would have been the perfect Star Trek film, if the studio had had the guts to kill off Kirk permanently, instead of having to rely on a contrived Deus Ex-Machina to bring back.

Think about it, the stakes would have been WAY higher, and Spock could have filled the main role, which Quinto is more than capable of handling.

Even if they had to keep Kirk, at least wait until the next film, to keep the stakes high in the meantime.

I tweeted Roberto Orci that very idea. He gave a joke reply, telling I should paused the Blu-Ray at the death scene, and leave it at that.
Set Bookmark
Eduardo
Wed, Jun 19, 2013, 10:03pm (UTC -6)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

@Demosthenes

I thought the Indiana Jones films were personally financed by Lucas. The way I see it, aside from distribution costs, Paramount didn't spend a dime.
Set Bookmark
Eduardo
Sat, May 11, 2013, 6:10pm (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S1: Angel One

Angel One's definitely not one of season 1's better hours, but it does have a couple of scenes that I've always admired.

One is the scene where Geordi finally sits on the Captain's Chair for the first time. There's this little private moment, beautifully brought to life by LeVar and his genuine reverence for the chair.

The other is the scene in which Riker decides he can't live with the guilt of leaving Ramsey's men to die, and promptly decides to beam them against their will, violating every Starfleet reg there is. Jonathan had quite a few memorable moments in that first season. To me, this was one of them, in terms of conveying Riker's guilt.

If TNG had a more gutsy attitude in its storytelling, it could have had Riker actually do it, and then face the consequences of his actions. It would have really added to the show's weight, especially considering Remmick's grilling of the crew, four episodes later.
Set Bookmark
Eduardo
Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 11:54am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S6: Aquiel

I can see what the producers were going for, in terms of developing flawed characters as single lonely people. But the mystery plot really botched the premise.

It certainly doesn't help that Berman, Jeri Taylor and Cliff Bole ended up casting a sub-par soap opera actress for the role of Aquiel.

No self-respecting casting director should use Days of our Lives as resume content for selecting an actor.
Set Bookmark
Eduardo
Mon, Mar 11, 2013, 10:17am (UTC -6)
Re: TNG S7: Preemptive Strike

Curiously, Michelle chose not to get bogged down on TV, hoping to break into movies instead.

End result, she never broke into movies but remained a TV regular (24, Homicide, Lost, The Killing), without ever returning to Trek.

Preemptive Strike is definitely one of Trek's better hours. Patrick nailed this episode, both wearing the uniform and sitting on the director's chair.
Next ►Page 1 of 2
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2017 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.