
I thought I better turn in my "I saw the new Star Trek movie report. This is generally spoiler-free.
First off, I can't imagine how difficult it is for an actor to play another actor's character. while there's a little bit of room for doing your own thing, it's the moments when you nail it that it really works. Zachary Quinto was phenomenal as a different kind of Spock (though I confess: at first I had a hard time seeing him as anyone but Sylar from Heroes). Chris Pine was okay as Kirk. The final scene was the only real moment of recognition for me, though there were other moments where he was really trying. McCoy was dead-on in some moments, less so in others. Scotty was also excellent. I feel more ambivalent about Chekov (the voice was spot-on, but the hair was distracting), Sulu (generally good, but nothing particularly amazing), and Uhura (I think they felt the need to "empower" the character; she looked great, but I didn't feel a connection; also, there's some plot stuff with her that's maybe too weird).
The plot is good, but gives lots of room to complain. Some of it is a little facile and silly (but then so was the TV show). I think the writers wanted to create something new without violating the canon). I think they succeeded (and what a monumental task, considering!). There were a few things here and there that I snerfed at, but overall it was a rollicking good ride, lots of stuff blew up, there was plenty of good humor, and it was an opportunity for a new adventure with characters I love. A lot of it is origin stuff, so I'd like to see a sequel, though this is the last Star Trek that will ever feature Majel Barrett (she's in every incarnation of the show ever made). And who knows how long Leonard Nimoy will last. His role in this was just right and exactly needed to make the passing of the baton work.
Die-hards will likely call foul on many a detail, but I've always been an easy fan (which is why I never liked Next Generation: it was too snobby for my goofy "space western" tastes).
It's worth a watch whether you're an old fan or never even saw an episode in all your life. That's a pretty major accomplishment, so overall I give it the thumbs up.
: D
Tags:
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
: D
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
i was just wandering about dreamwidth looking for new groups to join and crossed paths with your holliday blog. aren't you glad that now you will always know someone with a subject interest of "19th century dentistry"? and what kind of 19th century dentistry geek could i be without at least a little passing fancy for doc holliday?
i hope you don't mind me following along. i don't eat much and i do my own laundry, though i have been known to mooch pie.
i am really curious, however, at this whole Razi-el thing! how bizarre is that? tell me more!
: D
From:
no subject
Tell me more about the dentistry? I've read (and remembered) Harris' Principles and Practices of Dentistry. It was thorough and excellent. I also have read (and remembered) Fox's The Natural History of the Human Teeth and The History and Treatments of the Diseases of the Teeth the Gums and the Alveolar Process, which John must have surely used for his thesis (on Diseases of the Teeth as you almost certainly know.) Other books I have read were about 18th century dentistry, rather than being texts of the time themselves.
From:
no subject
i've read a handful of "modern" books reflective of 19th century dentistry, but i generally keep close to the contemporary sources as well: Litch's American System of Dentistry is fabulous. i have volumes ii. and iii.; haven't been able to get my hands on vol. i. (they cost so dear). i studied holliday's schooling as a model for one of my own characters (they would have missed each other by a class, it turns out). i also an am avid reader of Dental Cosmos, which is a great 19th century dental association journal, which you can find online.
i have added you back ~ looking forward to seeing your projects develop!
: D