Jump to content
Norma's Corpse

Star Trek is better than everything

Recommended Posts

Moreover, I also think Jerry Goldsmith is overrated in film music circles (especially FSM) and hate complete & chronological releases.

I also think Hans Zimmer is one of the best film composers who ever lived.

There, that should just about cover it. :D

I agree. I find that Hans Zimmer has a much more informed knowledge and command of every orchestral element, resulting in vastly more varied and versatile music that makes for magificent film scores and sensational album presentations.

Jerry Goldsmith on the other hand, lacked a lot of knowledge and skill, and mostly got ahead in Hollywood by composing memorable melodies and complex harmonies that are far too inappropriate to call music, let alone film scoring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the Abrams flicks too. The second is fun and enjoyable but is really just a retread patchwork of material from earlier movies and full of Damon Vieweroff's incomprehensible plot twists and devices.

It was the first Trek flick where I had no clue what it was trying to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I define "franchise" as more than one entry or adaptation. Muddle Earth has had books, movies and even more than one writer (Chris Tolkan and the movie writers)

Ah . . . I see. You replaced "Middle" with "Muddle," subtly but cleverly intimating your contempt for all things "Tolkan." Brilliant.

*Sigh*

It seems you may be utterly ignorant of the irreproducibility and volatility of the act of authorship.

So because you and I don't see eye-to-eye on this, you assume I don't know anything about craft of writing and revision? I could just as easily say the same to someone who looks down their nose at a lifetime of authorship and editing and sniffs, "It isn't canon."

Silmarillion is the closest approximation of what Tolkien intended this collection of the stories of the pre-history of Middle Earth to be, filtered of course through Christopher Tolkien with whom Tolkien had discussed the work extensively prior to his death and intended to have him publish it if he did not have the chance to do it himself. Tolkien's own work on finalizing the book was terribly slow either for the lack of energy (he was depressed by his relatively "dull and grey" retirement), for other duties (answering tons of fan mail was one) or difficulties he had written himself into (he really was an absent minded professor, misplacing drafts and manuscripts and versions all the time) but also because of the enormous pressure of getting the myths of Silmarillion in line with Lord of the Rings down to the tiniest detail to avoid the inevitable flood of criticism (and fan mail) pointing these things out. Even then not everything in Silmarillion lines up 100% accurately but you could theorize (like Christopher Tolkien in his foreword) that this is much the nature of myths derived from different sources in different times, the creation of the work reflecting Tolkien's love for great tales and indeed the way they are passed to us. One can scoff and say this is a neat posthumous explanation or accept it and think of these myths as the most complete and final form of these stories that was arranged and committed to print.

Bingo. It's a much better reflection of actual myth than a tightly-written and polished account would be. In this light, Tolkien could be seen as much as observer and scholar as author. If a man considered the foremost authority of an ancient civilization died before he could submit his last findings, he wouldn't be dismissed as a hack on the subject simply because he hadn't published a perfectly honed version of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's never been a Star Trek as good as an Indiana Jones, or Jaws.

I've watched dogs fucking that were more enjoyable than the fourth Indiana Jones, which is still canonically part of the Indiana Jones series, and I've seen some Star Treks that were better than dogs fucking. So...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's never been a Star Trek as good as an Indiana Jones, or Jaws.

I've watched dogs fucking that were more enjoyable than the fourth Indiana Jones, which is still canonically part of the Indiana Jones series, and I've seen some Star Treks that were better than dogs fucking. So...

Must have been a dream, because there is no 4th Indiana Jones movie. Also, I don't buy into the "it's a series" logic of the thread.

Raiders > all of Star Trek. It's as simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's never been a Star Trek as good as an Indiana Jones, or Jaws.

I've watched dogs fucking that were more enjoyable than the fourth Indiana Jones, which is still canonically part of the Indiana Jones series, and I've seen some Star Treks that were better than dogs fucking. So...
Must have been a dream, because there is no 4th Indiana Jones movie. Also, I don't buy into the "it's a series" logic of the thread.

Logic, logic, logic. Logic... is the beginning of wisdom, Mr Quint. Not the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apples and Oranges

No. Star Trek is not in the same echelons of quality as the early Spielberg film. Star Trek has never been revered or admired for its craft. There is no 'classic' Trek entry.

Wrath of Kahn got closest, as you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which you do with increasing frequency.

I'm merely challenging the thread author's nonsensical claim. Something to do isn't it. I'm sure there are those who would argue Harry Potter movies are more consistently good than Star Trek movies, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really cant judge Star Trek by its movies.

They are amusing distractions, but often fail to highlight what Star Trek is in its core. It would be like judging Star Wars just from watching the Clone Wars cartoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then you would agree with me that Abrams Star Trek is better than The Motion Picture?

It seems to me that the Trekkers in this thread are basing their entire argument on the notion that Trek is best just because of its sheer quantity. Which is brilliant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×