Mostly sketches. Occasionally a painting. Nothing political other than caricatures reinforcing the truism "Politics is Show Business for Ugly People".
SOE took us to the film this very morning. Liked it. Quite a bit. I see the resurrection of the franchise. Joe Shoopack said his daughters wouldn't be caught anywhere near the old Star Trek, but once they caught a look at Chris Pine as the new Kirk, they said they were going to see it. Gay female friend declared Chris Pine "her new boyfriend".
Wow ... it's everything to everyone ... Gene Roddenberry would be mui proud ... Is it okay to take a newly minted 8 year old to?
...Or 7 year old?I have my concerns, but I am one of the folks the Onion is riffing on, so I guess it's my problem.
BTW: the TAG viewer is only showing 1/2 the frame .... here is a link to the whole shebang ...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umN2x2t7i5s
It's like being on a rollercoaster. Plot needs more brains behind it and continuity (that which remains intact.)too.Should have been called Star Trek: Camera Lense Flare 101 and how not to use it ever again in anything J.J. Abrams.And it had it's share of collateral death and violence unlike any previous film.JJ likes to kill people in his movies and TV shows.Pike and McCoy for me were the only worthy roles.Roddenberry's vision is nowhere to be found. More like Star Wars or New Battlestar Galactica.Fast, Bash, Crash, Flash, Voom...it's over. Sequel required.
I just saw an AOTS segment about the BluRay of the original series. That might be a lot of un seeing those old shows, designed for primitive TVs on your new large flat screen pumping out Blu Ray beauty.http://tinyurl.com/qs6aushaven't seen the new one yet. Krayonzilla has curdled all enthusiasm for going. But I'll go because I'm a joiner.
I'm not sure if it's appropriate for 7 or 8 year olds. Seems kind of strong to me with all the violent action, but I'm not around that age group enough to judge. There's some bra-and-panties stuff, but nothing too sexual. You do need to go Ellis. It's probably best if your expectations aren't too high. Mine weren't, so maybe that's why I was pleasantly surprised.I have to agree with Krayonzilla about a lot of things. As we know, the original Star Trek was thought "too cerebral" for television. It was such a product of its time. There were all those important "issues" that needed thinking about during the '60's.The new Trek is re-conceived in the Lucas-Spielberg non-stop action tradition. So I think there will be some older Trek fans that dislike it. But I'm ready for a change. I'm just glad that the success of this movie shows that the characters and concepts, like Batman or James Bond, are larger than any one actor or decade can contain. And so they will live on through many interpretations.
Krayonzilla's Romulan blood has clouded his objectivity. I'm with Tom Moon. This is new life. An alternate Universe blooms anew with the Roddenberry characters.
Saw it with the SOE Seattle folks Friday. It's a lot of fun, but falls apart when you apply the tiniest bit of brain power to some of the coincidences and deus ex machina needed to hurl from one scene to the next, not that it really matters. My wife really didn't go for Eric Bana's villain, Nero. She didn't find him compelling one way or another.
Post a Comment