Star Trek

ChipG said:
Honestly, if your a Trekkie they will never get better (Trekkies knows this), the flaws will be squared to the 11th power. For the market they are going after it'll be bigger than ever.

Why don't all the "smart" Trekkies who complain like little girls go out and make thier own movie? I'd love to see it!
Click to expand...

I have hung out on some of the Trekkie boards to see how they like it and honestly the best one is here because the few Trekkies here have a sense of movie making and story structure, much better ideas.

You guys wouldn't believe some of the stuff thats said on the other boards, it's quite ammusing.
 
Capt Quirk said:
I would rather see Uwe Boll direct Star Trek than Singer. At least it won't be one gay metaphor after another, and Kirk would spend the whole movie stalking an ex and pining over her and his Bastard kid.
Click to expand...

I think the least of Superman Returns problems is that it's a gay metaphor. One of the greatest films of all time is a big gay metaphor (Lawrence of Arabia)..I thought SR was boring, devoid of charm and humor, and Brandon, while an acceptable Superman, was a lame Clark Kent. He just stood around grinning stupidly most scenes. And who wants to watch 2 hours of Superman getting c*ckblocked. Superman is the most decent superhero of them all so we know he isn't going to do anything underhanded to get Lois back. An inert conflict if there ever was one. Also, it's become clear to me after several films that Bryan isn't the world's greatest action director. He has other talents but that is not one of them. He isn't terrible, just okay. I thought Brett Ratner did a better job with the action in X3 believe it or not (the entire film is another matter). In his favor for directing Star Trek is that he's great with ensembles, and a big fan (I think he has a cameo in one of them, doesn't he?). Yep, he did, in Nemesis--

TacticalOfficer2379.JPG
 
Last edited:
This probably isn't the thread for it, but I would love to see more about Lawrence of Arabia being a big gay metaphor...
 
ChipG said:
Why don't all the "smart" Trekkies who complain like little girls go out and make thier own movie? I'd love to see it!
Click to expand...


In fact there are Trekkie-made fanfilms of varying degrees of quality out there. It's basically free-to-do-it-if-you-promise-not-to-make-a-profit enterprise. One recent project featured appearances by Walter Koenig, Nichelle Nichols and some actors from other Trek-franchise media.
 
You know Battuta, you are right. I didn't really pick up on any of the gay metaphors, until I read somebody else pointing it out. And it wasn't really so much the action, rather than the lack of it. You have the world's mightiest hero... and he is a wuss, getting pushed around by a bald guy with an idiot sidekick. ***** slap Luthor and be done with him, and move on to the big bad guy that is knocking down Metropolis. Let him actually flex his muscles in a real fight that is worthy of Superman, like Doomesday, or even Bizarro. Hell, even Myxl... Myz.. the little interdimensional Imp guy.
 
Sad Max said:
This probably isn't the thread for it, but I would love to see more about Lawrence of Arabia being a big gay metaphor...
Click to expand...

My favorite review came from a Malaysian guy in film school with broken english--

"It's very gay movie...The eye contacts is very gay."
 
Wow, let's stop using the word 'gay' the way it's being used, please.

Okay, so I saw it recently. Honestly, I loved it.

Now a few parts got me a bit annoyed. For example the whole throwing Kirk out in an escape pod, and just HAPPENS to be chased by a creature, who's eaten by a bigger creature, and just so happens to enter the same cave where the older Spock from the future is staying.

Then the teleportation of scotty into the water cooling pipes. While funny, it felt like it went on for too long and was trying to keep you on the edge of your seat... for no reason but to do that. It didn't do anything for the story.

But aside from that, I loved it. And yes, I enjoyed the lens flares, so sue me. I think it's just film makers that hate the lens flares. Never heard anyone else complain about that (correct me if I'm wrong).

What I really enjoyed was that it was fun and funny. From the trailers I thought they we're going to take a more dark space opera (Battlestar Glaactica) approach to it. While I thought that would be cool, I enjoyed it even more because it was jut plain fun. I mean my favorite moments are when Kirk and Bones arrive onto the enterprise for the first time, and bones keeps saying "I can fix that" and stabs kirk with a needle, kirk responding "stop that!"
 
Jon Starr said:
Wow, let's stop using the word 'gay' the way it's being used, please.
Click to expand...

What way?...I don't think anyone was putting a negative connotation on it, just stating fact. Truth is, Bryan Singer is a gay filmmaker, and you can see a lot of gay subtext in his films, especially X-Men and to a certain degree Superman Returns. And the real Lawrence was thought widely to be a gay man, a fact David Lean had to artfully dodge around because of the time period he made the film, so he resorted to implication and metaphor.
 
*I* was using the word to describe a carefree, light-hearted enthusiastically happy feeling.

I can't account for how anyone *else* may have been using it.
 
Well, I'm not as picky when it comes to Superman and superheroes in general. Again, maybe I'm being too harsh expecting so much from Trek?

As for Bryan Singer, I don't think that Superman Returns is his best work. I'd say Usual Suspects and Valkyrie are. And as I originally mentioned Darren Aronofsky as well. I'm not saying they should've done the new Trek. Overall I liked Abram's style. Just had major problems with the script, in my opinion. Still though, I'm optimistic about any future Trek films with JJ at the helm. As for a big budget Voyager remake, it will never happen, and if it did too many people would probably complain no matter how good a cast they got. As far as I've heard, a large percentage of Trekkies/Trekkers universally despise or at least dislike Voyager. Maybe not as much as Enterprise, but they seem pretty averse to it nonetheless.

Sad Max said:
In fact there are Trekkie-made fanfilms of varying degrees of quality out there. It's basically free-to-do-it-if-you-promise-not-to-make-a-profit enterprise. One recent project featured appearances by Walter Koenig, Nichelle Nichols and some actors from other Trek-franchise media.
Click to expand...

Several years ago I thought it would be fun to make a Star Trek fan film where a Star Fleet away team beams down to a dark storm wracked planet and encounter HR Giger's Aliens. Obviously, the first victims would be red shirts. If I made it I would've called it Star Trek: Xenomorph. Yeah, a pretty stupid idea but it could've been a fun short film to make.

I'm sure someone will come in and say I should stay as far from Star Trek as possible.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, if it was just crappy, I'd say crappy. And there are plenty of times I brought that up in association with Singer. I'm not trying to slam any lifestyle, just the way it is being forced into mainstream stuff. I know it is all a matter of tastes, but when a Director seems to have an agenda, I point that out. Michael Moore is another person with an agenda, and the list goes on. For all I know, Abrahms does too, I can't say, I just haven't really wanted to watch his stuff. What I have seen, was just ok (Editorial opinion), but nothing I really liked. We'll see how I feel about Trek when I get to see it (Trying to segue back on topic).
 
Egads! Quirk uttered the moniker of "he who must not be named!" This thread will self destruct in 5...4...3...2...
 
Batutta said:
What way?...I don't think anyone was putting a negative connotation on it, just stating fact. Truth is, Bryan Singer is a gay filmmaker, and you can see a lot of gay subtext in his films, especially X-Men and to a certain degree Superman Returns. And the real Lawrence was thought widely to be a gay man, a fact David Lean had to artfully dodge around because of the time period he made the film, so he resorted to implication and metaphor.
Click to expand...

Jack Daniel Stanley said:
They're using it appropriately. They literally mean homosexual metaphor. Not crappy or goofy.
Click to expand...

Oops

I guess I misread it. My mistake.
 
No 'widely though' about it, for TE Lawrence. He makes that clear in The Seven Pillars of Wisdom.

I don't know; can't one find plenty of 'gay subtext' if one wants to find it, in any movie wherein buffed-out actors run about in skintight costumes...?
 
Sad Max said:
No 'widely though' about it, for TE Lawrence. He makes that clear in The Seven Pillars of Wisdom.

I don't know; can't one find plenty of 'gay subtext' if one wants to find it, in any movie wherein buffed-out actors run about in skintight costumes...?
Click to expand...

Well there was rampant suspicion...and it is hinted at in the movie with certain dialogue (You are not fat?...No, I'm different), and in the capture and torture scene (where he was raped in real life). And let's not forget the rather flamboyant way he practically skips up to his superiors in one scene. Sure you can find unintended gay subtext in a lot of films. Top Gun abounds with stuff that can be read as gay subtext but I doubt it was the intent of the filmmakers. In Lawrence's case, it was deliberate on the part of the filmmakers to deal with an issue many scholars had debated about. There are only a few hints the real Lawrence had gay relations, but there is none of him having female relations so you can see why people speculated...

What this has to do with Star Trek I have no idea anymore.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top