Star Trek

innerSpaceman · 05-22-2009, 11:28 AM

I agree with the underlying sentiment, but "good" is just as subjective as "I liked it."

There is no inherent quality. It's all in the eye of the beholder and judgmentalist.

And while I'll agree that big explosions are not what makes good science fiction, I think better explosions make that same science fiction better.

If I were displaying Star Trek as an historical artifact, I'd want the cheesy effects left in. For my own pleasure, I enjoy the cutaways to much cooler effects with the same cheesy set direction, acting, and production design.

You might be surprised to learn I don't object to all the special effects changes in the original Star Wars. I happen to think the Battle of Yavin effects are not only cooler looking, but more importantly make the sometimes confusing action more clear to an audience.

I don't watch Star Wars often. But sometimes I'll watch it as a 1977 piece of history with as close as I can come to that (the original sound mix is long gone from any home vid release), but other times I will switch discs right at the end and watch the much improved Battle of Yavin.

mousepod · 05-22-2009, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

There is no inherent quality.

Really? Wow.

BarTopDancer · 05-22-2009, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

And while I'll agree that big explosions are not what makes good science fiction, I think better explosions make that same science fiction better.

I don't think explosions make a movie good. I think they make a movie fun. But I like explosions and laser beams. I also don't think that the explosions are the only thing that made the movie fun.

But, on the same lines, the Land of the Lost previews look stupid. I don't think any amount of explosions will make that movie good, or fun.

It bugs me when people post things like I still don't get why anyone found this tedious and porly written movie to be fun because it devalues* their opinion.

*that's not the exact word, I can't think of the word. But I think it conveys what I am trying to say.

05-22-2009, 11:28 AM	#1
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I agree with the underlying sentiment, but "good" is just as subjective as "I liked it." There is no inherent quality. It's all in the eye of the beholder and judgmentalist. And while I'll agree that big explosions are not what makes good science fiction, I think better explosions make that same science fiction better. If I were displaying Star Trek as an historical artifact, I'd want the cheesy effects left in. For my own pleasure, I enjoy the cutaways to much cooler effects with the same cheesy set direction, acting, and production design. You might be surprised to learn I don't object to all the special effects changes in the original Star Wars. I happen to think the Battle of Yavin effects are not only cooler looking, but more importantly make the sometimes confusing action more clear to an audience. I don't watch Star Wars often. But sometimes I'll watch it as a 1977 piece of history with as close as I can come to that (the original sound mix is long gone from any home vid release), but other times I will switch discs right at the end and watch the much improved Battle of Yavin.
	Submit to Quotes