173
What HATED or highly disliked movie you ACTUALLY really enjoyed?
(lemmings.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
173 points (92.2% liked)
Ask Lemmy
27372 readers
2273 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Wow, I don't think I've ever seen someone with this confusing of an opinion. And I've met Trump supporters that love Star Trek.
The new movies are more credible and feel more real for a sci fi movie, is that hard to understand?
You... You are aware just how much tech and effects have progressed in the last sixty years... Right? What they were doing was groundbreaking for the time, pretty much every time.
It was not great even for it's time. It was passable and I'm also talking about the movie version of those old series with Kirk and Picard. Star wars came like what... A couple of years after? And looked much better, the next gen movies came after the old trilogy and still couldn't look better...
The final results are what matter. With sci-fi, the special effects are a primordial part. Also I'm not just talking about effects. Old material was acted like a radio play or theatre... Not a fan. That slowly changed with next generation but still wasn't enough.
JJ Abrams movies are "ST if it was actually on our world". And the actors are EXCELLENT, even the haters admit all of them did excellent evocations of the old actors, some of them actually felt like the same actor but younger, which wasn't necessary since that could alienate the viewer but whatever, it worked.
I don’t have any strong feelings about Star Trek. But I know enough to treat it as a piece of philosophy. It was never about the most advanced visual effects possible (although some of the effects and makeup are quite impressive imo). Star Trek was an investigation into what it means to be human, and the morality behind that. If there was cool tech stuff, that was bonus.
Dude Kirk karate chopping a guy in a lizard costume kills any type of defense towards the original shows for me.
To each their own! You don’t have to like it if you don’t want to :)
Thank you. We cool then?
It's hard to compare the two (original series vs. JJ Abrams), being across such vast differences in time (relative to the progress of technology and style in filmmaking) but its impossible if you're just going to outright denounce all the qualities the original had for its time.
Star Trek (1966-1969)
Star Wars (1977)
You do the math.
What are you comparing it to? The progress in filmmaking during that time was ridiculous. The steadicam hadn't even been invented yet so shots were much more static. For the time, people were blown away by the sets and effects.
All the acting and direction in every show and movie at that time was stilted and stiff and yes, very akin to a play. That was the time of Adam West Batman. You don't have to be a fan. But your statements about it not being good for its time are... Ignorant? At best.
You're delusional is you think "actually in our world" is measured by the visual effects technology and the progress of film/TV acting and direction of the time. Connection with the real world is quite literally what set Star Trek apart and made it change the course of sci fi film and television. It took real world politics and social issues and made them part of a sci fi story.
But if epic CGI space battles and intrusive lens flare from non-existent lights is your definition of reality, there's not much else we can say.
I'm talking about the movies in that part not the series. The movies came close to SW.
And it is bad, the acting is bad for me because it doesn't fit sci-fi. Kubrick's space Odyssey looked AMAZING and the acting isn't anywhere near as wooden.