Yeah, my understanding that higher resolution, text was actually smaller. It certainly was back in the day when I switched from 600x800 to 768x1024. You should see more of a page at once though, at a higher res, like you said. You can see more of the vertical screen at one time, and the text should go further to the right before starting a new line.

And "Amok Time" is one of my Top 5 TOS episodes. How could it not be?

APLETHORAOFPINATAS wrote:

if you didn't like this movie for canon reasons get a life

You know that's not actually an argument, right? Rather than an address what you feel the movie did right, you just instead got hyper-defensive about it launched into some completely classless and emotionally charged diatribe.

You keep droning on about canon this and canon that, so I'd like to take some time to address the concept of canon. You keep saying that canon is unimportant. This is sometimes true. Look at Batman, for instance. How many times has he been reinvented on the big screen and in the comics? A whole fucking lot. And you know what? Sometimes it's for the best. Christopher Nolan's reboot of the Batman movie franchise was nothing short of brilliant, and The Dark Knight stands as the only big budget Hollywood film since Return of the King to actually be worth watching. With Batman, it's easy to accept canon changes. The writers and artists have changed so many times that you don't have a singular vision of what Batman should be. You can't, becasuse Batman has been many things.

Now let's look at Battlestar Galactica. The original series is a long forgotten campfest that very few people actually care about and that Sci-Fi only ever ran when it was hyping the new BSG. When Eick and Moore reinvented the series, it was irrelevant. Outside a few fat sweaty guys in their mid-40s, no one cared.

Now let's look at Star Trek. It has spawned five television series, ten movies, a shitload of useless memorablia, and countless books and video games. It is a franchise that has not always done well, but it is a franchise that is still intensely beloved by many hardcore fans.

In theory, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a Star Trek reboot. Paramount ran Star Trek into the ground, and if was to be revived, something brash and innovative had to be done.

I do not feel, however, that what they did was necessary. What makes Nolan's Batman work so well is that, at its core, it is unquestionably Batman. Does it follow canon to the letter? Absolutely not. But that doesn't matter. While Nolan's vision of Batman sometimes takes liberty with character origins and backstory, it gets the characters themselves completely right. And since the Batman stories are character-driven, the stuff they changed is insignificant.

This is the fundamental problem with Star Trek, it does not do the characters themselves justice. Bones is handled very well and both Spocks are cool, but Kirk, Scotty, and Uhura are not handled well AT ALL. Neither is Chekov. Could they have made his accent any more annoying? I hope not. The problem with the movie isn't that reinvents famous scenarios like the Kobayashi Maru test; that is to be expected in a reboot. But it fundamentally changes who these people are and why they do what they do. And that is unacceptable.

SoldierHawk wrote:

Speaking of high horses. Even if it was just to illustrate a point, was this comparison REALLY necessary?

Comparing people to Hitler/Nazis is always classy and credible.

Cattivo, maybe you're right. I honestly have a very hard time getting past the casting. Casting known actors like Quinto and especially Pegg is distracting because you recognize them and they're not disguised in any significant way. So you look at them, and you can't help but see Sylar and Shaun of the Dead. On top of that, it's hard for me to accept anyone other than original cast as those characters. Shatner et al didn't just play those characters on TV and in some movies, their likenesses were used in countless comic books, video games, novels, and a cartoon series. Shatner IS Captain Kirk. You can't think Kirk and not see Shatner any more than you can think Luke Skywalker and not see Mark Hamill. With something like Batman, it mostly doesn't matter who you cast. Batman has been drawn by many different people in many different styles, so pretty much any muscular photogenic guy can play Bruce Wayne/Batman. So there's not the same attachment.

The current direction of Bond franchise of failed casting. Daniel Craig doesn't fit the iconic look of previous Bonds, and people don't like it. Casino Royale did well due to Hollywood hype and paid-off critics, but Quantum of Solace fucking bombed. Theaters dropped it after three weeks. You know why? Because Craig isn't the Bond most people want. And once the toy was a little less shiny and a little less new, the pink shirt fans went home and the old school fans went back to the classic movies. And I could see that happening with Trek.