reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
Agree totally. As I say, without giving anything away for those yet to see it, the more I thought about it when I first saw the preview DVD, even
before I saw it on the big screen, it all kinda made sense to me. Of course, going back over the previous movies and TV series of the original.....
there were certain episodes where there seemed to be a kinship between the pair in discussion. Nothing outright flagrant, mind you, but subtle. I wish
Gene were still alive. I would love to interview him and see if there was ever any hypothetical conception in the TV or movie scripts.
Dave
Star Trek - Dave Rabbit At The Movies - NO SPOILERS, page 2
privacy
reply posted on 11-5-2009 @ 01:42 AM by Dave Rabbit
reply to post by Ian McLean
Hey Ian....
I know zippity Do Dah about DLP, but my friend swears by it. I will let you know. We are going to the noon showing Monday 05/11/2009.
Dave
Hey Ian....
I know zippity Do Dah about DLP, but my friend swears by it. I will let you know. We are going to the noon showing Monday 05/11/2009.
Dave
reply posted on 11-5-2009 @ 01:59 AM by Ian McLean
reply to post by Dave Rabbit
Hey Dave! Yep, you don't need to know Zippity Doo Dah about DLP! It's just a matter of what you see. I'm glad to know this 'reinvention' of the franchise isn't crud - and in fact may have some hope! - because that's all the criteria I need. I'll be with you, in my local theatre, Monday.
With regard to the film media and projection and all that, like we at ATS certainly know, the more that one is aware of the framework underlying the presentation of a story, the more that knowledge can interfere and detract from the currents of the story itself. C'est la vie.
Here's to hoping, to the beginning of another ongoing Trek saga! And, this time, please let the showrunner know what "end of the arc" means. Consult Ronald Moore (BSG creator and Trek alum) if necessary!
Hey Dave! Yep, you don't need to know Zippity Doo Dah about DLP! It's just a matter of what you see. I'm glad to know this 'reinvention' of the franchise isn't crud - and in fact may have some hope! - because that's all the criteria I need. I'll be with you, in my local theatre, Monday.
With regard to the film media and projection and all that, like we at ATS certainly know, the more that one is aware of the framework underlying the presentation of a story, the more that knowledge can interfere and detract from the currents of the story itself. C'est la vie.
Here's to hoping, to the beginning of another ongoing Trek saga! And, this time, please let the showrunner know what "end of the arc" means. Consult Ronald Moore (BSG creator and Trek alum) if necessary!
reply posted on 11-5-2009 @ 09:56 AM by Dave Rabbit
reply to post by badgerprints
Actually.... the time travel thing revolved around "Old Spock" and "Nero" because that is the premise of "Kirk" surviving and upholding the family name. The actual young Star Trek crew did no time traveling at all. Maybe you guys saw a different movie than I did.
You hit the nail on the head about stories because that will be the ultimate test about whether this newest franchise can weather the storm of change. So far, every franchise has created it's own niche. I'm hoping that this crew realizes how special it was and is that they were picked for one of the most recognizable ensembles in movie making history.
As the technology continually improves and upgrades.... I can't wait to see what the future of film making brings all of us,
Dave
Actually.... the time travel thing revolved around "Old Spock" and "Nero" because that is the premise of "Kirk" surviving and upholding the family name. The actual young Star Trek crew did no time traveling at all. Maybe you guys saw a different movie than I did.
You hit the nail on the head about stories because that will be the ultimate test about whether this newest franchise can weather the storm of change. So far, every franchise has created it's own niche. I'm hoping that this crew realizes how special it was and is that they were picked for one of the most recognizable ensembles in movie making history.
As the technology continually improves and upgrades.... I can't wait to see what the future of film making brings all of us,
Dave
reply posted on 11-5-2009 @ 05:08 PM by Dave Rabbit
Well, I just returned from watching Star Trek for the third time with my best friend, but this time, at a theater that has
DLP technology and projectors. As promised, here is my
review of that technology, having not seen it before today.
Awesome! It is the same leap for me personally as seeing HD TV for the very first time. It is that much of an improvement. Not only are the colors and contrast more vivid and alive, it also takes on a dimensional persona.
From the beginning of the coming attractions, which were also in DLP, I knew it was going to be something very special.... and I was not disappointed. I am hooked. Just as I will never watch regular TV again or TV Movies without the benefit of my HD LCD TV, so too will I go and see a blockbuster movie in anything but DLP if it is available from now on.
I normally use Moviefone when checking out show times for my local theaters.... but they do not show if a theater is DLP capable or if a certain movie is in DLP. My friend told me Fandago does. I went there, and sure enough, it shows if a theater has DLP and if certain features are available with this technology.
I got to talking to the theater manager about it and found out that everything on their DLP is downloaded directly via satellite. It is stored on hard drive of some sort (it obviously didn't have a technical knowledge) and whether it is the 1st showing of it with the DLP projector or the 1,000th, it will always be pristine and in HD just like the first viewing.
He wasn't sure, but said he thought the projection system was somewhere in the neighborhood of $500,000.00 to One Million Dollars per projector. The screen was also concave, similar to IMAX, just not to the same degree.
Anyway.... being in Dallas.... obviously as large of a metropolitan area that it is, I am going to have a hell of a lot more options than some of you. BUT, if you check it out, have a theater near you that offers DIGITAL DLP, I strongly encourage you to go and check it out and then give the members and I your input of what you think.
Dave
[edit on 5/11/2009 by Dave Rabbit]
Awesome! It is the same leap for me personally as seeing HD TV for the very first time. It is that much of an improvement. Not only are the colors and contrast more vivid and alive, it also takes on a dimensional persona.
From the beginning of the coming attractions, which were also in DLP, I knew it was going to be something very special.... and I was not disappointed. I am hooked. Just as I will never watch regular TV again or TV Movies without the benefit of my HD LCD TV, so too will I go and see a blockbuster movie in anything but DLP if it is available from now on.
I normally use Moviefone when checking out show times for my local theaters.... but they do not show if a theater is DLP capable or if a certain movie is in DLP. My friend told me Fandago does. I went there, and sure enough, it shows if a theater has DLP and if certain features are available with this technology.
I got to talking to the theater manager about it and found out that everything on their DLP is downloaded directly via satellite. It is stored on hard drive of some sort (it obviously didn't have a technical knowledge) and whether it is the 1st showing of it with the DLP projector or the 1,000th, it will always be pristine and in HD just like the first viewing.
He wasn't sure, but said he thought the projection system was somewhere in the neighborhood of $500,000.00 to One Million Dollars per projector. The screen was also concave, similar to IMAX, just not to the same degree.
Anyway.... being in Dallas.... obviously as large of a metropolitan area that it is, I am going to have a hell of a lot more options than some of you. BUT, if you check it out, have a theater near you that offers DIGITAL DLP, I strongly encourage you to go and check it out and then give the members and I your input of what you think.
Dave
[edit on 5/11/2009 by Dave Rabbit]
Well I got my ticket and sat through all kinds of garbage waiting for the
movie it took forever like hours then it started and it only seemed like 5 or 10 minutes later and the movie ended. I was that into it. reply posted on 20-5-2009 @ 03:49 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by RCarter
Am I going to be the only one who was somewhat disappointed??
Not going to be crass and drop some spoilers, but perhaps those who've already seen it will share some of my concerns.
Whilst the casting was well done (for the most part) I have great reservations about the script and art direction. I see the 'canon' of ST that I have come to love and expect was slightly lacking. And, the ending was unsatisfying for me.
Trek had a great tradition of, while staying firmly in science fiction, at least trying to make it seem at faintly plausible.
Oh, well. Am happy it did well, though. New life, and all that jazz....
Am I going to be the only one who was somewhat disappointed??
Not going to be crass and drop some spoilers, but perhaps those who've already seen it will share some of my concerns.
Whilst the casting was well done (for the most part) I have great reservations about the script and art direction. I see the 'canon' of ST that I have come to love and expect was slightly lacking. And, the ending was unsatisfying for me.
Trek had a great tradition of, while staying firmly in science fiction, at least trying to make it seem at faintly plausible.
Oh, well. Am happy it did well, though. New life, and all that jazz....
reply posted on 21-5-2009 @ 01:03 AM by Dave Rabbit
reply to post by weedwhacker
I know what you are referring.... but I think it will be fun to see where this road goes. Having been a fan since the inception of the franchise.... J. J. stayed with the conceptual idea of Roddenberry.... I don't think it would flourish like I believe it will. This version has already picked up a whole new generation that didn't get the original or STNG. That's the beauty of the script writing for me..... something old, something new, something different. 96% of those polled on Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 4 tomato (like a 4 rabbits up) rating. The average age of their die hard fan base is 26.... this retooled version will do extremely well as long as the actors cast will leave their egos at the door and ride this as far as it goes.
Dave
I know what you are referring.... but I think it will be fun to see where this road goes. Having been a fan since the inception of the franchise.... J. J. stayed with the conceptual idea of Roddenberry.... I don't think it would flourish like I believe it will. This version has already picked up a whole new generation that didn't get the original or STNG. That's the beauty of the script writing for me..... something old, something new, something different. 96% of those polled on Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 4 tomato (like a 4 rabbits up) rating. The average age of their die hard fan base is 26.... this retooled version will do extremely well as long as the actors cast will leave their egos at the door and ride this as far as it goes.
Dave
reply posted on 23-5-2009 @ 03:05 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by Dave Rabbit
Dave,
I'm a huge fan too....heck, I was the first one on my block to buy a VCR (the old RCA VHS unit....an incredible $800 back in 1978!!!) just so I could record the 'stripped' episodes that were being aired, back then, on KCOP Channel 13, in LA. Shoot! I still have those old tapes@!
Who could predict, back then, that today we'd have re-mastered full episodes of TOS available on DVD?
My concern, you may think it petty, was simply the 'imagining' of the art and set decorators...for a technology that is now, per canon, definately set in a specific century (unlike Roddenberry's vagueness, in TOS). I just did not like the hydro-mechanical, faintly reminescent of 20th-century-retro look of the technology, when it is supposed to be set in the year (circa) 2245!
The producers had a great deal of Trek lore to work from...(I know, I know, won't mention the twists...) still, true fans will know to what I'm referring.
In order to soften my rantings, I was intrigued by a nurse featured early on, aboard the USS Kelvin. I took a note, because of her apparently human-alien hybrid features....anyone else catch that???
So, not spoiling anything, since A) The trailers have already shown the USS Kelvin, B) The trailers showed the USS Enterprise being constructed on Earth (when it should have been in spacedock) and, C) What I saw as an incredibly pointless sequence (also shown in Trailers) of a teenaged Kirk ruining his (Uncle's?? Well, somebody's..) vintage Corvette....
Both 'B)' and 'C)' bothered me, and soured the film, in my opinion.
I'll stop now...but, comments/disagreements are welcomed!
Dave,
I'm a huge fan too....heck, I was the first one on my block to buy a VCR (the old RCA VHS unit....an incredible $800 back in 1978!!!) just so I could record the 'stripped' episodes that were being aired, back then, on KCOP Channel 13, in LA. Shoot! I still have those old tapes@!
Who could predict, back then, that today we'd have re-mastered full episodes of TOS available on DVD?
My concern, you may think it petty, was simply the 'imagining' of the art and set decorators...for a technology that is now, per canon, definately set in a specific century (unlike Roddenberry's vagueness, in TOS). I just did not like the hydro-mechanical, faintly reminescent of 20th-century-retro look of the technology, when it is supposed to be set in the year (circa) 2245!
The producers had a great deal of Trek lore to work from...(I know, I know, won't mention the twists...) still, true fans will know to what I'm referring.
In order to soften my rantings, I was intrigued by a nurse featured early on, aboard the USS Kelvin. I took a note, because of her apparently human-alien hybrid features....anyone else catch that???
So, not spoiling anything, since A) The trailers have already shown the USS Kelvin, B) The trailers showed the USS Enterprise being constructed on Earth (when it should have been in spacedock) and, C) What I saw as an incredibly pointless sequence (also shown in Trailers) of a teenaged Kirk ruining his (Uncle's?? Well, somebody's..) vintage Corvette....
Both 'B)' and 'C)' bothered me, and soured the film, in my opinion.
I'll stop now...but, comments/disagreements are welcomed!
reply posted on 23-5-2009 @ 04:44 PM by Dave Rabbit
reply to post by weedwhacker
The old RCA Video Machine, knew it well. In fact, when I first got Cable for the first time in 1980.... I became so obsessed that I could actually make a copy of a movie I loved, that was the day I started my collection. Of course, when DVD hit the world with the impact it did, I was screwed. From that point, I decided that I was going to change my criteria of "keepers" to:
1. Everything Science Fiction
2. Movies That I Would Watch Over & Over And Never Get Bored With It
Obviously, at that stage... my collection slimmed down to about 300 current. I don't intend to add another one until Gran Torino comes out and am definitely going to add that one.
Now, back to Star Trek, I understand, for the purists, that there are things in the movie that "rocks your Star Trek World". I get it. But here's the thing...... and will try to do it in such a way to not spoil it for others and would encourage you to do the same path...... but the very nature of Nero and how he fits into the picture that makes changes, to me, completely wipes the timeline clean and opens up a whole new scenario with infinite possibilities. IF you follow that logic, then, of course, the new things that transpire are not only logical, fresh and unique.... but gives the potential franchise a very bright future which, for those of us Trekkies, is something I so am looking forward to.
STNG did all they could, and masterfully I might add, at carrying the "Sacred Flame" as far as it could go. And our beloved original crew, simply got too old to make it plausible. You and I both know that Spock would have never gone the path as this one. That said, Leonard Nimoy, by his own admission said publicly that he "Loved It". That coming from the person who created our beloved Vulcan character.
And I don't care to get into a debate about this with it still in the movies and kicking box office records off the charts.... and spoiling anything about it.... let me end by simply saying I think this crew literally is at the precipice of greatness and can think of no better mix of personalities to Go Where No Star Trek Has Gone Before. The new technologies, Extreme Digital theaters, 40,000 watt surround sound systems.... this is going to be a great and fun ride.
Dave
The old RCA Video Machine, knew it well. In fact, when I first got Cable for the first time in 1980.... I became so obsessed that I could actually make a copy of a movie I loved, that was the day I started my collection. Of course, when DVD hit the world with the impact it did, I was screwed. From that point, I decided that I was going to change my criteria of "keepers" to:
1. Everything Science Fiction
2. Movies That I Would Watch Over & Over And Never Get Bored With It
Obviously, at that stage... my collection slimmed down to about 300 current. I don't intend to add another one until Gran Torino comes out and am definitely going to add that one.
Now, back to Star Trek, I understand, for the purists, that there are things in the movie that "rocks your Star Trek World". I get it. But here's the thing...... and will try to do it in such a way to not spoil it for others and would encourage you to do the same path...... but the very nature of Nero and how he fits into the picture that makes changes, to me, completely wipes the timeline clean and opens up a whole new scenario with infinite possibilities. IF you follow that logic, then, of course, the new things that transpire are not only logical, fresh and unique.... but gives the potential franchise a very bright future which, for those of us Trekkies, is something I so am looking forward to.
STNG did all they could, and masterfully I might add, at carrying the "Sacred Flame" as far as it could go. And our beloved original crew, simply got too old to make it plausible. You and I both know that Spock would have never gone the path as this one. That said, Leonard Nimoy, by his own admission said publicly that he "Loved It". That coming from the person who created our beloved Vulcan character.
And I don't care to get into a debate about this with it still in the movies and kicking box office records off the charts.... and spoiling anything about it.... let me end by simply saying I think this crew literally is at the precipice of greatness and can think of no better mix of personalities to Go Where No Star Trek Has Gone Before. The new technologies, Extreme Digital theaters, 40,000 watt surround sound systems.... this is going to be a great and fun ride.
Dave
reply posted on 30-5-2009 @ 10:12 PM by eightonefive
reply to post by Dave Rabbit
The movie was GREAT! I don't consider myself a trekkie/trekker by any means. I loved the old TV series, I'm a huge Shatner fan, never was big on all the spin-offs of the series, or anything like that. I have watched a lot of episodes of Star Trek, so I know what to compare this version of the movie to, and I have to say that this film was AMAZING. The story was good, the choice of actors was top notch, my favorite being their pick for McCoy.
The Movie was action packed, and would make someone who had never watched Star Trek before, and immediate fan. I can't wait for a sequel. Everything JJ Abrams touches turns to gold. He is our Spielberg/Lucas of this century, and I'm glad we have him!
The movie was GREAT! I don't consider myself a trekkie/trekker by any means. I loved the old TV series, I'm a huge Shatner fan, never was big on all the spin-offs of the series, or anything like that. I have watched a lot of episodes of Star Trek, so I know what to compare this version of the movie to, and I have to say that this film was AMAZING. The story was good, the choice of actors was top notch, my favorite being their pick for McCoy.
The Movie was action packed, and would make someone who had never watched Star Trek before, and immediate fan. I can't wait for a sequel. Everything JJ Abrams touches turns to gold. He is our Spielberg/Lucas of this century, and I'm glad we have him!
reply posted on 3-6-2009 @ 12:25 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by intrepid
hrrmmmm...well, I think I am beginning to understand yours, and Dave's thoughts on that. Still....I continual to be slightly bothered by certain aspects of what I found contrived bits in the script; which I obviously can't discuss without spoiling. I just thought some sequences were superfluous, and illogical, and didn't really contribute to the story.
Maybe I'm picky -- or administering 'tough love' here. (Or both).
I remember a parody I saw of ST some years ago...that suggested there should have been an automated computer voice announcing "Warning: Plot Complication Ahead!" every so often...I thought it hilarious!! Like I said, I can love it, and still see the flaws....
If you haven't seen the movie yet keep this in mind. It took me half the movie to get this through my head.
hrrmmmm...well, I think I am beginning to understand yours, and Dave's thoughts on that. Still....I continual to be slightly bothered by certain aspects of what I found contrived bits in the script; which I obviously can't discuss without spoiling. I just thought some sequences were superfluous, and illogical, and didn't really contribute to the story.
Maybe I'm picky -- or administering 'tough love' here. (Or both).
I remember a parody I saw of ST some years ago...that suggested there should have been an automated computer voice announcing "Warning: Plot Complication Ahead!" every so often...I thought it hilarious!! Like I said, I can love it, and still see the flaws....
