Recent Viewing Part IV

I tried watching the 2009 STAR TREK last night. I loved it when I first saw it in 2009, but now... Well, the first hour is entertaining, but the plot is NONSENSICAL. Nero watches the destruction of his planet, gets sent back 25 years, and instead of saving his planet, he decides to destroy the homeplanet of the guy who tried to help?

I started watching Doctor Who at Season 5 (Matt Smith's first season). I adored Season 5, liked Season 6 a lot, and just gave up halfway through Season 7 because the writing got so bad.

Is it worth forging through to get to Capaldi? Are his seasons any good?

I would have to say, "No" and "No".

There's not really been a consistent improvement in the writing. As with the Matt Smith era, Capaldi's stint at being the Doctor has been ruined by poor writing. Only occasionally has there been any sort of decent writing and we only see occasionally how good a Capaldi Who could have been. This current season does have the odd good episode but overall it's still pretty poor.

I completelydisagree!

Not on the previous seasons. mind. Those were poor to abysmal, which is a crying shame as Capaldi is an excellent Doctor incarnation (he's pretty much the only reason I kept watching. At some point I just switched off Matt Smith entirely), but this season has been an absolute highlight (in no small way thanks to Pearl Mackie, who I think is one of the very best companions ever). I am greatly enjoying each and every episode, with last Saturday's 'World Enough and Time' indeed being a huge standout.

I am a bit worried that they've upped the stakes so much now that only a ridicuous Deus Ex Machinea can save the day, which would be a shame. But we'll see. I am looking very much forward to next week!

Martijn I believe aidabaida was responding to a post I made about star trek 2009 because I quoted a post of his. But I guess it's relevant for your post too.

The trailer for next week's episode does look a bit rushed and action-packed and I am hoping that, because of the refreshingly slow pace of last week's they do not have to rush things to pack in what they need to do in the story. I am interested to see how they manage to end up 'outside' (from what I remember of the trailer). Have they moved off the ship somehow, or is there an 'environmental space' on board that simulates the outside?

Sorry about the spoiler Martijn. [spoiler]I'd missed the view of the nature landscape through one of the windows - by the time I realised that we were being shown views inside the craft I was at the last window.[/spoiler]

My comment about the contrivances was about the 2009 Star Trek, not Doctor Who

Anyway, I think I might try getting through Capaldi's seasons, Martjin has good points, and DreamTheater, trying to convince me NOT to, said "As with the Matt Smith era, Capaldi's stint at being the Doctor has been ruined by poor writing," Aside for a few episodes, I adored the Matt Smith seasons, so we might have a different definition of "poor writing."

I checked, and Steven Moffat stayed on, and (I know this is unpopular statement), but Steven Moffat is one my favorite screenwriters. Now, that doesn't mean everything he writes is good, but it does mean that when he IS good (Sherlock, "The Big Bang", "A Good Man Goes to War"), there's very little better.

So....yeah! I think I'll try it out.

I liked Moffat's episodes under Davies' tenure so, so much more than I have his work as showrunner. It's weird. The series format just doesn't suit him IMO.

Yeah, it'll be a matter of taste. Part of what I personally love about Moffat is that he has absolutely zero cynicism. His characters wholeheartedly embrace the beauty of the universe, and their emotions are genuine. He has a way of tying together lots of threads in a clever way. And his pacing: He'll stop at moments you wouldn't expect. Most of all, I just really appreciate that Moffat's writing always feels intensely personal, like he really, truly cares about his characters and enjoys writing about them.

There have been statements that Abrams essentially "Starwarsified" Star Trek. The slower pace, especially of The Motion Picture (saw the director's cut and loved it) is not just a change in pace between the decades. I think the original Star Trek idea is trying to bring a more cerebral, harder SF, to mainstream audiences. The heart is there (maybe except TMP, but there the coldness comes from a somewhat metaphysical approach to its subject matter), but it's actually about discussing some issues.

Abrams doesn't really explore that. He has a good understanding of storytelling and, especially, The Hero's Journey (I think of this generation of filmmakers he's the best at it), but the depths aren't there. Still, a much better film than the maligned Nemesis.

loved it too, intense!

Hmmmm, I think none of the Star Trek films (with the exception of The Motion Picture) is really particularly cerebral. In fact, from Khan onwards they seem to be taking more lessons from Return Of The Jedi than anything else. At the very least they never even come close to the powerfully high cerebral tone of much of any of the TV series.

That said, it's no secret that Abrams prefered the Star Wars way of approaching stories and visual spectacle (he literally said so in an interview on the first Star Trek reboot, although I can't for the life of me remember where I read that).

I hope so! I love the LEGO movie. Phil Lord and Chris Miller are brilliant. I was really sorry to hear that they were off the Han Solo movie.

I hated THE LEGO MOVIE (I got the satire and pop cultural references alright, but I have no connection to Lego and allergic to noisefests of this kind [unless it's someone like Michael Bay or Zack Snyder]...I turned it off after about 45 minutes), but I absolutely adore Lord & Miller's TV series THE LAST MAN ON EARTH. So they've clearly got something.