|
Cingulate posted:I know this might not be much more than a "Lens Flare!" joke, but ... from just the thumbnail, could you even tell this was not from JJTrek, but from TMP? That's not really a lens flare joke, so you're in the clear, but I want to make it very, very clear to those in this thread who haven't seen the rules thread - lens flare jokes are probatable.
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 08:31 |
|
|
DocHorror posted:I disagree. Okay it looked nice. But with modern special effects I'd expect nothing less. I just feel that they dont make films like they used to & that it too easy to be hyper kinetic rather than restrained. The problem with the 2009 movie isn't JJ's direction which, aside from some of his lighting choices, is great: but it's the writers. Seriously Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci have yet to write a script that I have enjoyed it seems like they got really lucky in paring up with two talented directors over the course of their careers who could shoot the hell out of movies so their writing almost never gets called into question. JJ Abrams can shoot really exciting emotionally investing scenes the real reason its never very engaging is because you don't actually ever care about the characters your just sucked into good visuals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
MrMo posted:The problem with the 2009 movie isn't JJ's direction which, aside from some of his lighting choices, is great: but it's the writers. Seriously Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci have yet to write a script that I have enjoyed it seems like they got really lucky in paring up with two talented directors over the course of their careers who could shoot the hell out of movies so their writing almost never gets called into question. JJ Abrams can shoot really exciting emotionally investing scenes the real reason its never very engaging is because you don't actually ever care about the characters your just sucked into good visuals. Nah it was a really good script and I got way invested in those characters. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
What didn't you like about the new Spock for example? I though he was done well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
It's a brilliant script, really. Star Trek '09 is probably a perfect action/adventure film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
I think the only real flaw in Star Trek '09 is that the introduction of Nimoy as Spock really ruins what Quinto is doing with that character and Quinto is off screen the entire time that Kirk is with old Spock, so when he is reintroduced he has to rebuild that entire thing again, but it's the third act. It's like a massive crater in the film and it never really recovers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
I wouldn't say it's a bad script, even though I think at times it was way too blunt, or just silly (CGI alien sidekick ... "Kirk = troubled youth" car chase ... I don't need these in my action/adventure films even), but, similar to TMP, I'd say the pictures clearly outshine the script. The script is OKAY, but the visuals are GREAT. TMP is a sluggish movie, but what's slugging along is beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:CGI alien sidekick That guy wasn't CGI, that was makeup.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
I like JJTrek a lot, but it isn't without its problems. The entire moral of the story is that if a future version of one of your enemies says to be friends, then I guess you maybe should be or something? Kirk doesn't really have an arc after he joins starfleet. Deciding to join was kind of the culmination of his character shift and then that's it. He's just awesome for the rest of the flick. It also really bothers me that the title cards for Kirk and Spock's location read "Iowa" and "Vulcan" respectively, because I'm a huge pedant and it seems like it should either be "Earth" and Vulcan, or "Iowa" and some province within Vulcan. That last one is a reason why my opinion really doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:CGI alien sidekick Wasn't that just Deep Roy in a costume? Edit: oh hey.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
Baron von Eevl posted:Wasn't that just Deep Roy in a costume?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Well, I never knew. Goes to show it's not practical effects vs CGI that's the problem. JJTrek had a lot of bad science, this included. But this shot (and the warp-in too) was just so incredible that I let it slide.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
epitasis posted:It's a brilliant script, really. Star Trek '09 is probably a perfect action/adventure film. I hated it a lot (except the actors) and I don't understand that. I think I was told there were some script issues due to a strike or something so I remember last time saying hopefully they'll do better for the sequel. We'll see.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
Gatts posted:I think I was told there were some script issues due to a strike or something Kurtzman and Orci turned in their script a few weeks before the strike, and Lindelof and Abrams worked on it up until the day the strike began. Abrams said he was frustrated during filming, however, because he wanted to change lines and add new scenes, but because he's a WGA member, he was prohibited from actually changing the scrpt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Timby posted:Kurtzman and Orci turned in their script a few weeks before the strike, and Lindelof and Abrams worked on it up until the day the strike began. Abrams said he was frustrated during filming, however, because he wanted to change lines and add new scenes, but because he's a WGA member, he was prohibited from actually changing the scrpt. Yeah I'm hoping this time around it's a lot better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:
Funny you say he's awesome the rest of the flick, but if you think about it he actually gets his rear end kicked pretty much constantly the entire movie. He loses a bar fight, almost dies on the mining rig and almost gets straight murdered in the finale. It's like he's still Shatner-fighting in 2009, while everyone else improved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 08:00
|
|
|
well why not posted:Funny you say he's awesome the rest of the flick, but if you think about it he actually gets his rear end kicked pretty much constantly the entire movie. He loses a bar fight, almost dies on the mining rig and almost gets straight murdered in the finale. I maintain that the alternate timeline meant that his father never taught him the two-fisted punch, which would have made him win all those fistfights. That's why he gets beat up so often.  NERO!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 09:10
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:I like JJTrek a lot, but it isn't without its problems. The entire moral of the story is that if a future version of one of your enemies says to be friends, then I guess you maybe should be or something? That's not the moral; that's the plot. The basic moral was to move on with your life, by building upon the good things that happened and letting go of the bad. That's why the villain is the personification of canonicity ("I saw it happen! Don't tell me it didn't happen!"). It's about not dwelling on poo poo. (At the same time, it's also about not getting so caught up in progress that you lose sight of your values.) SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Feb 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 09:41
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Looks like this: You just answered a question I've had that literally none of my professors could properly answer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 09:57
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:That's why the villain is the personification of canonicity ("I saw it happen! Don't tell me it didn't happen!"). Oh my god
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 10:52
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Oh my god That's why if Abrams is really involved with Star Wars, it's a good thing. Further proof: his version of E.T., the superior Super 8. edit: to be clear, it's superior because I prefer aliens that are scary, rather than endearing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 11:13
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:superior because I prefer aliens that are scary, rather than endearing. No dis on Abrams, but E.T. is way the gently caress scarier than the Super 8. He's downright repulsive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 11:34
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:No dis on Abrams, but E.T. is way the gently caress scarier than the Super 8. He's downright repulsive. Yeah but repulsive and frightening are two different things. ET may be a disgusting creature, but he's as nonthreatening as the toys he hides next to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 11:38
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:That's why the villain is the personification of canonicity ("I saw it happen! Don't tell me it didn't happen!"). This is why I love reading your posts. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't, and sometimes my mind gets blown by how I could have missed something that's so obvious once you see it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 11:41
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:No dis on Abrams, but E.T. is way the gently caress scarier than the Super 8. He's downright repulsive. I didn't really want to disrespect ET so much as praise Super 8. I remember being frightened by parts of the former, but the latter is fresher in my mind. Super 8 eats people and with the exception of sharing face and motivation, seems more alien than ET. Although I guess "spite" is fairly human, hmm. Anyways, I'm so pumped for the new Trek - going by the trailer alone it looks like the good guys are confronting an evil combo of Kirk/Spock. Transporter malfunction! Why anyone uses those things is beyond me, just take the shuttle!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 12:11
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Anyways, I'm so pumped for the new Trek - going by the trailer alone it looks like the good guys are confronting an evil combo of Kirk/Spock. Transporter malfunction! Why anyone uses those things is beyond me, just take the shuttle! Transporters are always seemed cooler when I was younger. Now I just imagine that every time someone is transported that they're being killed, an exact clone is generated somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I wouldn't say it's a bad script, even though I think at times it was way too blunt, or just silly (CGI alien sidekick ... "Kirk = troubled youth" car chase ... I don't need these in my action/adventure films even), but, similar to TMP, I'd say the pictures clearly outshine the script. The script is OKAY, but the visuals are GREAT. It's a bad script. It's maybe a passible "generic action movie" story, but it really completely fails to have any sort of depth that you'd expect from science fiction, or at least I expect it personally. Each of the TOS movies(maybe excepting IV) had a lot more going on as subtext(even if people argue about the subtlety) and fantastic character arcs at times. 2009 had none of that whatsoever unless maybe you want to count that hamfisted Spock nonsense. No worthwhile character arcs, no Big Questions, etc. It's carrying zero depth, it's just bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
ghostwritingduck posted:Now I just imagine that every time someone is transported that they're being killed, an exact clone is generated somewhere else. This is exactly what's happening, just ask Thomas Riker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:It's a bad script. It's maybe a passible "generic action movie" story, but it really completely fails to have any sort of depth that you'd expect from science fiction, or at least I expect it personally. Each of the TOS movies(maybe excepting IV) had a lot more going on as subtext(even if people argue about the subtlety) and fantastic character arcs at times. 2009 had none of that whatsoever unless maybe you want to count that hamfisted Spock nonsense. No worthwhile character arcs, no Big Questions, etc. It's carrying zero depth, it's just bad. And, would you say it is actually these questions that makes the respective movie good? Cingulate fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Feb 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:That's why the villain is the personification of canonicity ("I saw it happen! Don't tell me it didn't happen!"). "James T. Kirk was considered to be a great man. He went on to captain the USS Enterprise ... but that was another life."
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Timby posted:"James T. Kirk was considered to be a great man. He went on to captain the USS Enterprise ... but that was another life." Nero isn't canonicity, he's fandom. That line is his self-insert fanfiction. The Narada is a lumbering embodiment of fanfic- it's a super duper huge ship from the future with Borg tech and a planet destroying weapon and a crew of badass dudes with badass tattoos, captained by an uber-badass with an uncreative name that would be deep and meaningful to a poorly read person, which is the kind of thing a thirteen year old writing his own story about Star Trek comes up with. He's represents obsession with canon (I saw it happen) coupled with the idea that he can do it "better" and understands what "should" happen and what is cool and entertaining in a kind of cognitive dissonance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Can you give an example of these character arcs, Big Questions and depth from the old movies (preferably not the series) that you find JJTrek is missing? Of the five ST movies I have so can comment on: TMP: More of a spectacle than a deep movie. Straight-up face-the-unknown scifi. II: Deals with aging, and having your past come back to haunt you. Kirk learns decisions have consequences, and you can't always cheat your way out of them VI: Deals with xenophobia, fear of other cultures, cold war. Kirk overcomes his hatred of another race that he's always been enemies with. FC: More of an action movie, has a thread of Picard's revenge in it. ST09: Action movie. Has a thread of spock not being ashamed of who he is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Nah it was a really good script and I got way invested in those characters. Alright I don't really have the time to watch the whole movie again and go through point by point but here is a basic example of the things I remember, and what is probably the most memorable sequence in the movie: the opening. The films opening sequence is an extremely convenient bit of visual and character short hand it tells you through the actions of the father who the son will be; that is bullshit for the movies main character mostly because it gives the movie an excuse to not have a character grow. They took the easy way out of building a character instead of making Kirk a xenophobe who is out for revenge for the loss of his father, who could have learned aliens are ok too and revenge is a lovely life plan. Instead he's just a cool dude who needs to join starfleet so he can be exactly the same ornery and horny rear end in a top hat he was before joining starfleet. The movie relies to much on using elements that already exist in other trek stuff to build their characters and to, on occasion, try to surprise you by doing something kind of different. The movie's story is just one convenient thing after another to get you your character moments and in one pretty extreme case, spock ejecting kirk onto the ice planet, a plot point. Kirk is rebellious and has issues with authority figures, he is also good with the ladies, as well as being a tactical genius he is pretty much adult TV show Kirk because its easy to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
Battleship has a better arc for the main dude, sadly. Taylor Kitsch is a gigantic loser with no job, facing criminal charges, and he's generally a piece of poo poo who never thinks about what he's doing. Then he joins the Navy, and he's still kind of an rear end in a top hat who's loving around making a mockery of the uniform, but when things get real he turns out to be a solid hero. Kirk didn't even get that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
MrMo posted:Kirk is rebellious and has issues with authority figures, he is also good with the ladies, as well as being a tactical genius he is pretty much adult TV show Kirk because its easy to do. He's really not though, well he is, but he is a younger version. He is not as mature yet. In fact there's been implications that Kirk continues to grow as a character in Into Darkness, and we'll see him become more like Kirk in TOS. I like that Abrams is going this route, personally. Kirk is seriously the least of the films problems in my opinion, I don't even think he is a problem. If any of the characters in Trek'09 sucked, it was the villain, who thankfully won't be coming back. Hopefully the bad guy in Into Darkness is much better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:Hopefully the bad guy in Into Darkness is much better. New Kirk's character is something similar to e.g. Indiana Jones. (Once he gets in command of the Enterprise, or at least once he gets into Starfleet,) He doesn't really change much. But he doesn't need to. He's a constant. He's a pulp hero. What's growing are his relationships. He's making friends, he's getting defeated, he's getting laid, he saves the world (notches and notches and notches). He only has character moments in TOS movies because he gets old. That's literally everything about Kirk's character in all of the TOS movies: the contrast between being a constant, and getting old. It's obvious why JJTrek can't do that. TOS the series didn't really have character growth either; it had character MOMENTS, relationship stuff (Bones/Kirk/Spock). Which is just what we get in JJTrek, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:TOS the series didn't really have character growth either; it had character MOMENTS, relationship stuff (Bones/Kirk/Spock). Which is just what we get in JJTrek, too. That was typical for TV up through the late 60s/early 70s. The shows were purely situational. It wasn't until shows like All in the Family that writers decided that people wanted to see the characters grow and change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:He's really not though, well he is, but he is a younger version. He is not as mature yet. In fact there's been implications that Kirk continues to grow as a character in Into Darkness, and we'll see him become more like Kirk in TOS. I like that Abrams is going this route, personally. Kirk is seriously the least of the films problems in my opinion, I don't even think he is a problem. If any of the characters in Trek'09 sucked, it was the villain, who thankfully won't be coming back. Hopefully the bad guy in Into Darkness is much better. To be clear the reason I single out the Kirk stuff is because it's easy to call him the films main character but no one in the movie actually feels like a person; Bones is tired old doctor, Spocks is vulcan/human, Kirk is Kirk. They have labels which make them easy to identify but no real complexity that helps me really get into a movie. Edit: also Nero is angry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
MrMo posted:To be clear the reason I single out the Kirk stuff is because it's easy to call him the films main character but no one in the movie actually feels like a person; Bones is tired old doctor, Spocks is vulcan/human, Kirk is Kirk. They have labels which make them easy to identify but no real complexity that helps me really get into a movie. That's so reductive and easy to do with any movie. "Clint Eastwood's good, Eli Wallach's ugly, Lee Van Cleef's bad"
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 08:31 |
|
|
MrMo posted:Bones is tired old doctor, Spocks is vulcan/human, Kirk is Kirk Because, they're only stereotypes because the very Star Trek this movie is a part of has established them. And them being anything else would have been a major gently caress-off to the series. It's not that they're easily labelled and that makes them flat. They still react to stuff. For example, you say, Spock is easily filled under "Vulcan/Human", but that, while true, is two words where many more would not have been wasted either. For example, he is, if I recon correctly, primarily driven by pride, especially pride in fulfilling his duty, making him at times inflexible, but not too arrogant to notice when he's dangerously wrong, he's open to new ideas, he has a kickass BLACK GIRLFRIEND, ... I don't see how he's any less deep than Nimoy Spock.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 21:44
|
|