[Hidden link. Register to see links.]
Click the button for a Dreamy Party
Also, I just noticed that IZBOT hasn't posted anything on this site since the first of May, 2012.
I hope he's okay, and will be coming back soon.
We need a new a new composer for the next Trek film. Call me crazy, but in my opinion, Michael Giacchino's score to Star Trek leaves me a little cold. Maybe it's the fault of the producer's who kept telling him to make it different, but his style seems a bit bland to me. I listen to the soundtrack every once in a while, but I don't seek it out like I do with other Trek scores. Maybe it will be a little different for the next film, but I wouldn't bet on it. Unfortunately, J.J. Abrams and Michael Giacchino are buddies, so having him choose a different composer for even the third film is extremely unlikely. Any thoughts?
Risk... Risk is our business!
Captain James T. Kirk, "Return to Tomorrow"
Out of dislike of that movie I have not once listened to it out of the film. I have the 2cd, for completion's sake. I guess I really ought to at least once.
"It's wild, Steve, WILD!"
So, feel the need to bitch? Upset about the direction your life has gone? The multitude of various morons, both here and in general getting you down? Well, then, this is the place to let it out. Rant, rave flame, whatever.
[Hidden link. Register to see links.]
While I don't completely dislike the last Trek film, as a Trekkie, I do have quite a few issues with it. There's no need to go into detail, suffice it to say I was not pleased with the total and utter disregard for established canon. There is also something missing in the film. It feels like the emphasis was placed on eye-candy and not story. There was a lot of form over functionality. The Enterprise bridge looks like the Apple store which I personally don't believe is a good thing. But more to the point, the way these characters were written, they just didn't feel like the characters we have come to know and love over the past several decades.
I'm tired of hearing how they are just getting to know one another and all that BS, people's characters and personality generally don't change because of a new acquaintance. It just felt like Star Trek Lite to me; As if the writers were pandering to the reality TV generation. It's something I have a great deal of difficulty articulating, but it is what it is. I sincerely hope that the music and writing in the second film begin to come somewhat closer to what made people fall in love with the franchise to begin with.
Hollywood needs to stop completely re-inventing things and tampering with what does work. Star Trek had its issues, but in my opinion, they were rooted in the studio treating it like a bastard step-child and milking it for every penny it was worth without giving it a decent budget. Now we have the budget, let's treat it like Star Trek. Let's get back to actually exploring and discovering something new. A villain does not need to be a physical person. I wish the writers understood this.
Well, it was really obvious to me that the 2009 trek movie was just a reworked version of Star Trek:Nemesis. I mean, in Nemesis, you had a man who hated Picard, who had a planet killing device, who was going to destroy Earth, and Picard had to kill him before that happened!
In the 2009 movie, you had a man who hated Spock, who had a planet killing device, who was going to destroy Vulcan and Earth, and Kirk and Spock had to kill him before that happened! See anything similar?
On a side note, I just got a PM from GWENT! He said that he's taking the summer off, because his computer is down, and apparently, sending his little notes via his phone or some other device for a couple of months, and he's just not up to using that to spare with me, the way that he can. He then turned around and totally denied that he had admitted to be Mr. Owens, as he had done on the old 1999 thread, which I had reported at the time, and then ended the PM by trying to refer to me as "George"!!! I have no idea who he thinks I am, but he did say that he KNOWS that I don't work in the entertainment business! Exactly where I work, or where he thinks I work, I have no idea, totally! I asked him if he was off his meds, or just having a bad reaction to them.
Well, anyway, the good news is that we may all have a little vacation from vapid comments for a short while, none the less.
Somehow, I doubt we're all that lucky.
it bothers me that they are trying to make it a star wars clone. abrams even said (i'm paraphrasing) that when they were writing it, they said "what can we learn from star wars?"
don't get me wrong, i love star wars, but star trek is an entirely different entity. roddenberry certainly had adventure and excitement in mind when he created trek, but he also created it as a platform to discuss topical/controversial issues in the guise of a sci-fi adventure. i don't think abrams gives a damn about continuing that tradition.
the new trek is a soulless eye candy extravaganza that has become little more than self-parody. paramount doesn't care as long as it's making them tons of cash. they couldn't give a shite if the original core fans are upset with the direction trek is going. that's the most frustrating thing. we can whine and moan about the new trek all we want, but we have to accept that abrams is probably going to continue the trends he started in '09 with the next film
---------- Post added at 07:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 PM ----------
i blame the recent trend of lame, one dimensional villains in trek on lazy writers. i can picture abrams and orci and company coming up with the idea for a villain "we gotta make him mean and scary. and he hates the federation and spock" "why?" "who cares? just make him really scary and stuff!"
and the worst thing is they're gonna take a classic character (khan) who was complex and multi-faceted and transform him into another nero or shinzon for the next film.
scratch a cynic and you will find a disappointed idealist
I think The concept as a whole is ok, but i can't help but wonder, with the ability to go forward and backward in time, they could eventially get things right. I know there's a temperal directive which begs the question, could someone go back and Bitch Slap J.J. Abrams, Roberto Orci, and Alex Kurtzman before the Deal had gotten started and maybe locked them in the basement till some else, anybody else did Star Trek.
Problem was they did it that way to piss with the Fans anyway. And were said to hate Star Trek. In fact I think they do what they do to screw with the public.
---------- Post added at 07:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:51 PM ----------
By The Way You can't jump back and forth through Time. You can suspend Yourself and delay aging, which I think i've witnessed myself, Like not drinking so much coffee!
Well if it wasn't the JJ Abrams movie, the franchise would be gathering dust at the moment, and there wouldn't be any interest to release any of the Star Trek scores.
[Hidden link. Register to see links.]
My music & soundtrack collection....still updating!!
"Music is both the cause and the effect of universal harmony" - Confucius
This isn't a question of did they re-invigorate the franchise? They obviosuly did. That doesn't mean that the story was well written or that it was good science fiction. Paramount for the first time put an A-list director, a huge budget, and A-list star's into the mix. In my opinion, it would have been difficult to have not succeeded given the resources they had at their disposal. And by the way, the same people who are currently interested in Trek scores would still be interested today whether they had created that film or not.
Super Karate Monkey Death Signature.
I really think that this trend to "Un-invent" canon Star Trek started really with Rick Berman, and Brannon Braga, the "B&B" boys. They loved throwing all sorts of things like that. Spock was supposed to be the first Vulcan to join Starfleet, which was mentioned in TOS, and then T'Pol comes along, 78 years before Spock, and now SHE's joined Starfleet! W T F????
Then "Zefrane Cochran" isn't from "Alpha Centauri" like was mentioned in TOS, he's from EARTH!!! W T F???
This was set in motion by the B&B Boys, and the snowball keeps getting bigger. What next? Kirk was born on Rigel?
Oddly enough, I can't find the CLUB47 music in my own STO rip.
I can't find it in the archives!!!
Btw, does anyone know if the "Year of Hell" score was ever leaked?
I think its Dennis McCarthy's finest work on Star Trek!
What we need is originality in plot and no more time-travel BS. Stop making the characters act like teenagers. I think what the issue is is that Star Trek was always a little more cerebral which I found lacking in the last film. Even though Nero's motivatins are explroed in the Countdown comic companion which serves as a prequel to the event sof the film, his motivation is illogical; Nothing more than the misguided agenda of a madman. Star Trek deserves more than that. There should be some new threat not jsut to the Federation, but to the galaxy itself. The threat should be somewhat mystrious and literally just scare the hell out of people. The Unknown!!! That is what Star Trek is suposed to be. Exploring the unknown. Sometimes the Unknown can be wondrous, and sometimes it can be frightening and haunting. Bring the franchise back to that. This concept I beleive would really work and could lay the framework for a multi-film story arc. Im not advocating for a "To be continued", however, there should be a partial resolution which doesn't answer all of the questions and can be addressed later. And for the love of G-d, please do not re-hash the Spock/Uhura relationship. It made absolutely no sense.
If we're nitpicking canon, then let's get our canon correct. It was never stated that Spock was the "first" Vulcan in Starfleet -- that was fan lore invented in the 70s for unofficial publications. In fact, in the TOS episode "The Immunity Syndrome," there is reference to the starship Intrepid being "entirely manned by Vulcans." It makes no sense that there would be 430 OTHER Vulcans in Starfleet, several of whom would outrank Spock, if he had been the very first.
Additionally, when we first see Zephram Cochrane in "Metamorphosis," he's referred to as being "of" Alpha Centauri -- not "from." There's a difference. We have no idea what happened to him after his warp test. The implication is that he must have settled on Alpha Centauri some time after that.
Mind you, I have no great love of "B&B." They aren't the greatest dramatists out there, nor are they the best TV showrunners. But they rarely, if ever, flat-out contradicted canon. If anything, they were experts at finding the grey/undeveloped areas and using those as springboards.
Well, Spock's mother had told Kirk about him being the first Vulcan to join Starfleet against his father's wishes! And the Vulcan crew of the Intrepid happened YEARS after Spock's academy days. Spock was on the Enterprise for it's first five year mission, with Captain Pike, plus we don't know when the Intrepid came about. It could have been it's maiden voyage when it was destroyed. No info one way or the other.
Why would you refer to a person as "of" a place if they are not from there? Would you say "Arnold Swartzenegger" of California, or from Austria? It's just a matter of perception, or opinion.
And speaking of perception, how is it that you joined here in January of 2010, over two years ago, and this is your first post? And on this subject, to rebuff my statement? Seems almost as if you have an agenda, and decided to use one of your old sockpuppet accounts!
But that is just my perception.
A first post is a first post. I chose to post about this because I know more about Star Trek than general soundtracks, that's all. I've heard/read my share of Trek criticisms in which people use incorrect "canon" to defend their opinion that canon was violated. I just wanted to set the record straight on this one.
To address your two points, Spock's mother did not refer to him as the first Vulcan in Starfleet -- only that he joined against his father's wishes. And yes, I would generally say refer to Schwarzenegger as "of" California, since that's where he has spent most of his life. However, as you said, that one's a matter of perception, which proves the point that B&B weren't exactly violating canon by using the reference. They were merely filling in an existing gap in detail.
Notice the oddity of the TOS Enterprise mission plan?
Pike? Oh, he can just have that for eleven years. Kirk? Who the fuck is he? No, no -- he can only have a five-year mission.
Which will involve NO APPARENT MISSION, and flying around randomly and doing things with no apparent five-year mission relation, and somehow manage to always save planets and the universe by being hte only ship in the area. Then, give him a half-assed refit that later needs improvements, only the second time around done my a pack of monkeys who can't even get the doors to open rights, and just as things are dying down and he might be able to have a peaceful run, tell him you're he's ordered to surrender the ship so it can be de-commissioned.
Oh, and later on have him show up for the inaugural flight of the Enterprise B, with a quick trip to Pluto and back, and somehow be the ONLY FREAKIN' SHIP in the area of Earth's solar system -- never mind they have other ships and transmission arrays that could have picked that distress signal up and had other ships in reach arrive about the same time, no -- only the Enterprise B is in the immediate and adjacent solar systems.
Oh, my -- this has turned into a rant.
"Star Trekkin across the universe.... On the starship Enterprise under Captain Kirk. Star Trekkin across the universe.... Always going forward because they can't find reverse."