|
thrawn527 posted:The villain is Spock's half brother, whom he've never heard of before. To be fair, Spock had a different random Vulcan psychic power each week on TOS. And Sybok was full-Vulcan, so him being a mind-melding Dr. Phil is more in line.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
Star Trek V is bad because it was implemented badly by people who didn't have the budget or talent to match their ambitions but its heart is in the right place. Nemesis is bad because it's a boring cash-in on a dying franchise with contempt for its fanbase. It has no heart and no right place to put it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
Tars Tarkas posted:And Sybok was full-Vulcan, so him being a mind-melding Dr. Phil is more in line. Well, this I did not know. But considering he looked more human than any vulcan I've ever seen, including the half-Vulcan Spock, I don't think I was too far off base assuming he was, at most, half.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
Monkeyseesaw posted:Star Trek V is bad because it was implemented badly by people who didn't have the budget or talent to match their ambitions but its heart is in the right place. Nemesis is bad because it's a boring cash-in on a dying franchise with contempt for its fanbase. It has no heart and no right place to put it. What is this Nemesis? Everyone knows that Galaxy Quest was a great send-off to the franchise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
Monkeyseesaw posted:Star Trek V is bad because it was implemented badly by people who didn't have the budget or talent to match their ambitions but its heart is in the right place. Nemesis is bad because it's a boring cash-in on a dying franchise with contempt for its fanbase. It has no heart and no right place to put it. This guy knows what's up. Say what you want about how lovely early TNG and Star Trek V were, they were clearly made by people who wanted to keep the franchise alive and respected the people who paid their sponsors. Around the time of Generations it was almost like the people managing the franchise had a backlash at all the success and were trying to see how much poo poo they could pass off as chocolate. DFu4ever posted:Insurrection's only real fault is that it had an astoundingly boring premise and was completely forgettable in every way. Insurrection becomes much more loathsome the more you watch it and think about the premise, and becomes even more loathsome when you hear about the original pitch and how the story was neutered into a terrible and lovely romantic idea of "rural simplicity." It was originally going to be more of a Heart of Darkness story with Picard finding his Kurtz on the planet with healing properties, then looked like it was going to be more of a "split the crew against each other" thing with the relocation plot, then somehow turned into a bland pile of horrible when all of those elements were stripped out. A shame too, either or both those movies sound awesome. To top it off the Baku are selfish, unlikable shitheads with no redeeming qualities yet we're supposed to root for them. This becomes even more detestable when you realize that the Baku aren't even native to the planet and want to hog the healing properties for themselves. As if that weren't enough, all the Baku are white people and inadvertently play into the racism Star Trek stumbles into in the name of "progressiveness" when you consider that there was a notable TNG episode with a similar plot (including SPACE INDIANS) that ended with the natives (who were all SPACE INDIANS) being forced to leave. mind the walrus fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:I'd say the best odd Star Trek film is The Search for Spock. It mainly suffers from a somewhat lackluster villain after having just gotten away from Khan, and has some strange moments. But it's fun when it needs to be, and has Kirk experiencing real loss, which is rare. (Yes, he had just lost Spock, but since he gets him back in this movie, losing David is one of the few instances of real loss that sticks with the character.) Search for Spock also benefits greatly from being the bridge between Khan and Voyage Home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Insurrection becomes much more loathsome the more you watch it and think about the premise, and becomes even more loathsome when you hear about the original pitch and how the story was neutered into a terrible and lovely romantic idea of "rural simplicity." I agree with your criticisms of Insurrection (though it's way too boring to be "loathsome") but having read Fade In my main takeaway was they never had a very good premise to start with and Michael Piller wasn't really up to writing a feature film. The Heart of Darkness aspect was hokey from the start and he was way too attached to a literal fountain of youth as the central set piece. The essay did illustrate how much bullshit you have to wade through to get a script written for a major studio film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
If you didn't like Insurrection, you really should watch the version with the full commentary by Frakes and Sirtis. It is hilarious, revealing, informative, and also really, really sweet because Frakes knows the name of almost every supporting actor in every scene, and has nothing but nice stuff to say about them and the crew.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The only good even numbered Treks are II and VI, which surprise are both directed by the same guy. I think you forgot Voyage Home. If you didn't forget it then you're quite wrong
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
Darko posted:I at least like watching Nemesis now to figure out how Tom Hardy survived it. There's nothing at all watchable in 5 because it's so terrible from the cinematic angle. Like Insurrection, which I've seen once. I'm sure he started doing weights like Joe Piscipo, but instead, it actually led him to more work with Bronson instead of languishing in anonymity. thrawn527 posted:I'd say the best odd Star Trek film is The Search for Spock. It mainly suffers from a somewhat lackluster villain after having just gotten away from Khan, and has some strange moments. But it's fun when it needs to be, and has Kirk experiencing real loss, which is rare. (Yes, he had just lost Spock, but since he gets him back in this movie, losing David is one of the few instances of real loss that sticks with the character.) Not just losing his son, but losing the Enterprise as well (which has it's own poignant "death" scene) and risking his career. It's only until the end of the fourth film that he's reinstated and the Enterprise rebuilt. Also, it's got Doc Brown and Dan Fielding as Klingons. Seriously, Christopher Lloyd is the lead Klingon and John Laroquette is the surviving Klingon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:losing the Enterprise as well (which has it's own poignant "death" scene) How could the writers have looked at the destruction of the D in Generations, then looked back at how awesome the destruction of the original was handled in 3, and not thrown their script into the nearest fire? I won't even bring up Kirk's death. poo poo, I just did. God, I hate Generations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:If you didn't like Insurrection, you really should watch the version with the full commentary by Frakes and Sirtis. It is hilarious, revealing, informative, and also really, really sweet because Frakes knows the name of almost every supporting actor in every scene, and has nothing but nice stuff to say about them and the crew. The Frakes and Sirtis commentary singlehandedly justified the movie. It's now a hilarious comedy duo piece. Also, the Ba'ku are just Swedish.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 00:23
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:I won't even bring up Kirk's death. poo poo, I just did. God, I hate Generations. The problem I always had with Kirk's death was how laughably offhanded, indirect and throwaway it all was. I literally said "wait, he's dead?!" when all was said and done. I wasn't expecting a giant, epic, massive sendoff to Kirk or anything but if they were going to write in a speech or eulogy that Picard had time to give to Kirk you'd think they would put more weight behind it. What a terrible film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:If you didn't like Insurrection, you really should watch the version with the full commentary by Frakes and Sirtis. It is hilarious, revealing, informative, and also really, really sweet because Frakes knows the name of almost every supporting actor in every scene, and has nothing but nice stuff to say about them and the crew. Yep, Frakes seems so astonishingly down to earth and grateful for everyone involved. Everyone should watch this shitpile again with this commentary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:How could the writers have looked at the destruction of the D in Generations, then looked back at how awesome the destruction of the original was handled in 3, and not thrown their script into the nearest fire? The crashing of the saucer was amazing and I'll hear no words to the contrary. The battle itself was so lame because ILM had no money whatsoever to spend outside of the crash. The film was budgeted at $35 million, only $5 million more than The Undiscovered Country, yet they had to afford the entire cast of TNG (all of whom were making pretty nice money after seven years on the show) plus the paychecks for Shatner, Koenig and Doohan (it was a studio mandate that the movie "bridge the gap" between the generations). Plus the location shooting and the rushed schedule -- the TNG cast started shooting the movie something like a week after they wrapped on All Good Things... in April, when the movie had to make its November release date -- something had to give in the budget, and it wound up being the script. It didn't help that Moore and Braga were outright exhausted after working on TNG for years, and then after writing such an amazing series finale they then had to find a way to unite Kirk and Picard. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 01:03
|
|
|
What you think happened: What really happened: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:The villain is Spock's half brother, whom he've never heard of before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:I think you forgot Voyage Home. If you didn't forget it then you're quite wrong Voyage Home felt like -and was- a bad Back to the Future ripoff. It was also horribly jarring going from Wrath of Khan to that to Undiscovered Country. I'm actually struggling to remember any moments that would seem interesting to someone who hadn't first seen it when they were 8 years old.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
The Voyage Home is schlocky junk food cinema but it's supported and carried almost entirely by the novelty of the TOS actors pretending to be their characters in then-contemporary San Fransisco. The fact that they didn't revisit that well in any other movie helps strengthen it as there's no other film in the series quite like it. It's definitely a case of tonal whiplash after II and III, but it holds up on its own unless you go in expecting II and III.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Voyage Home felt like -and was- a bad Back to the Future ripoff. It was also horribly jarring going from Wrath of Khan to that to Undiscovered Country. It's well directed, still humorous, paced well, and has good performances from the cast. Why wouldn't you like it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
Aatrek posted:What you think happened: Practical model effects 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm actually struggling to remember any moments that would seem interesting to someone who hadn't first seen it when they were 8 years old. And yet in my experience The Voyage Home seems to be, by far, the most popular of the Star Trek films with people who aren't into Star Trek. It's 'the whale one' and even non-nerds can quote some of the memorable moments from it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 01:51
|
|
|
FrensaGeran posted:So if I'm parsing this correctly, non-trekkers won't care, and trekkers won't care. So no one cares. Except...this guy.  I dunno, looks like people are caring to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
Monkeyseesaw posted:Star Trek V is bad because it was implemented badly by people who didn't have the budget or talent to match their ambitions but its heart is in the right place. Nemesis is bad because it's a boring cash-in on a dying franchise with contempt for its fanbase. It has no heart and no right place to put it. and to think Nicholas Meyer was almost going to direct Nemesis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
Darko posted:It's well directed, still humorous, paced well, and has good performances from the cast. Why wouldn't you like it? The entire premise seems a bit silly, even for space pulp. It has an environmental theme which seems horribly dated today, and really a lot of it seemed to just bring the typical Trek status quo back instead of what Khan had given us. Plus like I said, I didn't see it until about a year or so ago and I had seen it (mostly) before seeing TOS itself. e: DFu4ever posted:And yet in my experience The Voyage Home seems to be, by far, the most popular of the Star Trek films with people who aren't into Star Trek. It's 'the whale one' and even non-nerds can quote some of the memorable moments from it. That might be true in the 80's/90's but now I doubt you'd get the same reaction. It's a new ball game. computer parts fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
Rather then zooming around the sun, they should have just done what the Borg did in First Contact "time travel made easy"
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
Zoe posted:
People on Bing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
So the trailer is 9 minutes at certain places? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
Acid Jerk posted:and to think Nicholas Meyer was almost going to direct Nemesis. Not quite "almost." Berman went to him and asked if he'd be willing to direct; Meyer said that he'd love to consider it, but the script needed a major rewrite. Berman had already told Logan that he wouldn't be rewritten, so Meyer walked away. Similar thing happened on Generations. Once the script called for Kirk, Spock and McCoy on the Enterprise-B, Berman approached Nimoy about starring and directing. Nimoy took a look at the script and said he would need to have significant changes made to it, and Berman told him that he'd be directing the script as written, so Nimoy walked. Honestly, that was probably for the better; Generations' problems were with its script, but David Carson and John Alonzo did their best to make that movie look great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
Since we're just arguing about Trek movies, I'll weigh in with V being the worst of the TOS movies. Frankly, I thought TMP was brilliantly crafted despite its slow pacing and 2001-wannabe story and III was underrated as well. I thought V was still watchable and held together by the Kirk-Spock-Bones chemistry, and if someone plans to watch the other five TOS films, they might as well watch V anyway. Although general opinion of First Contact has gotten a bit worse over the years, it's still the only good TNG movie and is still a pretty fun sci-fi action/adventure. Generations is just as lovely as V, but it would have been "forgivably" bad like V if all the other TNG movies were good... which they weren't. Insurrection was an awful movie that professed the awful politics of the time (much worse than being an "average two-parter" that some defenders claim it is). Nemesis in unredeemable in almost every way, particularly how it's the sendoff for the TNG crew. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 03:14
|
|
|
Aatrek posted:What really happened: For a second, I thought there was a person running under the saucer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
Zoe posted:
I guess I should replace "not care" with "not so up in arms about it they'll write a lengthy article about how angry they are about not knowing a certain thing about a film that's half a year away". Except that guy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
PaganGoatPants posted:So the trailer is 9 minutes at certain places? No, 9 minutes are being shown before some screenings of The Hobbit (which is the only reason I'm going to see that movie tomorrow).
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:For a second, I thought there was a person running under the saucer. So did I on the first couple of passes. I'm guessing it's motorized unicycle or motorcycle, or it's on a concealed track.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:So did I on the first couple of passes. I'm guessing it's motorized unicycle or motorcycle, or it's on a concealed track. Pretty sure that's the saucer off the six-footer model, so it's only a couple feet across. It'd be on a track.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 05:19
|
|
|
A 12-foot saucer was built for the crash.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 05:50
|
|
|
Dammit, this IMAX doesn't have the Trek preview. Le sigh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 05:53
|
|
|
Aatrek posted:Dammit, this IMAX doesn't have the Trek preview. Le sigh. That sucks. May as well go home then?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
List of theaters showing it is here: http://www.startrekmovie.com/imax/ Early word is that it's a great sequence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 08:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:Practical model effects I always loved those shots, really well done in my opinion
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 09:44
|
|
