Quote:
Originally Posted by evil_genius_180
I just watched STIII again last week. I don't know why people criticize the "odd numbered" Trek movies, that's a great flick. (so are the other odd numbers, even Generations) Plus, gotta love Christopher Lloyd as a Klingon.
|
I gotta say, ST:I and V were terrible, IMO. IX was passable. So of all the odd numbered movies, only III and VII were any good. And Christopher Lloyd in ANYTHING = awesome
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taranis
A dairy milk-based food product.. what it has to do with films .....
I can only think that its means based on other other shows
Hair Styles of period
Sets perhaps of cardboard construct
Visual Effects of the time
Script and dialogue.
|
not quite. I think the definition would be where something tries to take itself seriously, but cant move beyond the constraints of the show - i.e. Star Trek was truly classic and groundbreaking, but the cheap sets, cheap effects and ultimately (again, in my opinion) saddled with unrealistic dialog. Corny speech, unbelievable characterizations, and a tendency to trope. Any movie can be dated; its whether the production brings us past it - like in Star Wars IV and V - or hampers it - like in TOS and TNG's early seasons. Yes, TOS outgrew its cheesiness on some level, on another it helped make it extremely popular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrowhead42
I think that cheesy, as I understand it relating to movies, songs, etc, etc, is when something is just so corny, and or silly. I suppose that Back to the Future doesn't really fit that definition, because while it was silly fun, it wasn't so blatantly over the top with it's goofiness. Sure the whole time travel thing was hard to believe, but it was meant to be silly... that's what made the whole thing fun. When a movie is just so dang goofy, but it's not meant to be - it wants to be serious - then I think that's a good definition of cheesiness.
|
yup. or anything with william shatner!
