|
I liked the preview. Even though the Prime Directive probably won't play a big role in the story anyway, I like their interpretation. Of course Starfleet won't doom a pre-warp civilization to die. They'll discreetly save them. gently caress that TNG episode with Worf's brother.
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 09:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I liked the preview. That always made more sense to me. I think the writers in TNG were just sticking to it religiously without actually thinking through the morality issues it was meant to cover and what the intention of the directive was. I mean, in TOS they saved primitive people; The Enterprise was sent to deflect an asteroid from smacking into a planet of primitives. They just couldn't tell them about it. I always just figured that that kind of intervention just needed extra review and, like, Federation Council go-ahead as a matter of course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 10:34
|
|
|
FrensaGeran 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. Nah, it's cool, I was actually responding more to the quote from the angry ranting guy. I wouldn't go as far as saying people are interested in this movie because of the secrecy, but they're definitely still interested in the villain and the movie and not frothing at the mouth furious about it. I actually think it would be refreshing going into a movie not knowing most of the major details for once (even though I loved the Robert April theory), so here's hoping JJ successfully keeps a lid on it till May.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
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.) And 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 03:33
|
|
|
That preview was pretty cool, not gonna lie. Definitely made me more excited for the movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
ComposerGuy posted:That preview was pretty cool, not gonna lie. Definitely made me more excited for the movie. The Hobbit turned out okay, but by the time the Trek preview finished I was pretty sucked in and was wishing I was watching that already.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
Need a new Trek series comprised entirely of the first 10 minutes of JJ films.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 10:23
|
|
|
This whole idea of odd numbered Star Trek films being bad, cited as a hard and fast rule is ridiculous. It's produced as some inarguable scientific fact as a substitute for having an opinion. I've never seen a satisfactory explanation for why Star Trek V is supposedly so bad. Everyone always lists stuff like "Rocket boots". So, let's start there. What's wrong with rocket boots?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 17:01
|
|
|
The rocket boots are fine. I don't like the lovely visual effects, I think the villain is super uninteresting, and the ending is baffling and anti-climactic. Even as a teenager when I was getting into these movies and I REALLY wanted to love each and every one of them, Star Trek V was the only one out of the lot that I really didn't like very much. Despite some nice character moments. That said, totally agree about the even-odd "rule", surely nobody believes that anymore? The Motion Picture, Search for Spock, and Star Trek 2009 are all odd numbered ones and they're all pretty good. Conversely Star Trek Nemesis is a pile of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 17:05
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:What's wrong with rocket boots? Absolutely Nothing. The 10 minute teaser in front of the Hobbit was fantastic and reminded me of what made the original Star Trek great in the first place. It definitely made me want to re-watch the first movie now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
Cellophane S posted:That said, totally agree about the even-odd "rule", surely nobody believes that anymore? The Motion Picture, Search for Spock, and Star Trek 2009 are all odd numbered ones and they're all pretty good. Conversely Star Trek Nemesis is a pile of poo poo. That rule only was widely said pre-Nemesis, really. No one goes by it any more, it's just referenced due to its former popularity (and since 2/4/6 are generally known as the best in the original series and First Contact is the best received NG movie).
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
The rule works very well for the TOS movies. It's not that the odd numbered ones are bad, I actually like all of them, but the even numbered ones are just really great movies and the odd numbered are at best flawed, but interesting movies. TMP is probably the best of the odd numbered ones and maybe the one that best captures the spirit of the series, but it's too slow moving. III is also a bit slow, and it doesn't have an interesting villain or hook to keep you interested, except for the titular search for Spock, but we already know where he is and that he's alive, so it's kinda pointless. IV is my guilty pleasure. I haven't seen it in a while, but supposedly the interaction between Kirk/Spock/Bones is great. On the other hand it ruins some of the other characters, like Scotty who is turned into a bumbling comic relief. TNG movies are all bad except maybe the first one which is even numbered, and ST09 doesn't count, because it's a new timeline. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
First contact would be an ok movie in a bubble - but completely ignoring characterization just to purposely craft an amalgam film with elements that have been proven to work elsewhere is completely transparent in it, and drops it down a great deal in context.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 17:54
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:This whole idea of odd numbered Star Trek films being bad, cited as a hard and fast rule is ridiculous. It's produced as some inarguable scientific fact as a substitute for having an opinion. I've never seen a satisfactory explanation for why Star Trek V is supposedly so bad. Everyone always lists stuff like "Rocket boots". So, let's start there. I only really got into Star Trek as a concept after Mass Effect and Star Trek, the J.J. Abrams joint, but I think Star Trek 5 is a close favourite after actual Star Trek, the J.J. Abrams joint. It wierds me out, because there's a significant component of the fanbase, as far as I can tell, and I may be way off base, who think that Star Trek, the J.J. Abrams joint, is 'not Star Trek' because it's action packed and deals with big ideas very succinctly, whereas Star Trek Five, the same people seem to say, is 'bad Star Trek' because it eschews action and thrills for dealing with big ideas in an expansive and slow manner and approaching such, often absurd, ideas with a very endearing sense of sincerity. Which, to me, a new Star Trek watcher, was always at the core of the experience and one of the most impressive facets of the franchise. Again, maybe I'm way off base and it's just a bad film on it's own merits, but Star Trek is really confusing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
If you accept Galaxy Quest as the tenth Star Trek film - between Insurrection and Nemesis - the even/odd theory works a lot better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
Darko posted:First contact would be an ok movie in a bubble - but completely ignoring characterization just to purposely craft an amalgam film with elements that have been proven to work elsewhere is completely transparent in it, and drops it down a great deal in context. First Contact's problem is the script, yeah. But I always thought Frakes did a drat good job directing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
ComposerGuy posted:First Contact's problem is the script, yeah. But I always thought Frakes did a drat good job directing it. I like the score, too, which always bumps up a film for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
Darko posted:I like the score, too, which always bumps up a film for me. Fantastic work by Jerry Goldsmith.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
Did any of the writers/producers in Generations explain why they decided to just kill Picard's nephew and brother in a fire offscreen? That always seemed pretty awful to me considering that the episode that comes from is very strong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:I only really got into Star Trek as a concept after Mass Effect and Star Trek, the J.J. Abrams joint, but I think Star Trek 5 is a close favourite after actual Star Trek, the J.J. Abrams joint. I came to it in a similar way. Abrams' Star Trek intrigued me about the franchise, so I watched all the films. Star Trek 5 stood out as the best and when I finally visited the TV show, I found that Star Trek 5 is the film that best encapsulates the essence of the show. I think where a lot of the more died-in-the-wool Trek fans differ is that they're approaching Star Trek as an all-ecompassing franchise from Shatner all the way to Bakula, when really anything post-Shatner is a very different animal. That colours expectations of these newer films. Even when Star Trek 5 came out, The Next Generation was a couple of years old and that film probably stood out as being somewhat antithetical to what Star Trek was to the fans at that point. Just remember the sheer amount of face-punching that went on in the original series. Like when Spock savagely beat a woman in front of Bones to convince him that she was a salt vampire. Or the classic line "Captain, doesn't that hurt your hand?" when Spock watches Kirk punch some guards. I think these Abrams films are more in line with that kind of thing than what most fans think of as Star Trek at its best.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Did any of the writers/producers in Generations explain why they decided to just kill Picard's nephew and brother in a fire offscreen? That always seemed pretty awful to me considering that the episode that comes from is very strong. They needed to dip Picard in tragedy so he could have an emotional epiphany later in the film. And also so Malcom Mcdowel could have awesome lines about flames. "They say time is the fire in which we burn..."
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:This whole idea of odd numbered Star Trek films being bad, cited as a hard and fast rule is ridiculous. It's produced as some inarguable scientific fact as a substitute for having an opinion. I've never seen a satisfactory explanation for why Star Trek V is supposedly so bad. Everyone always lists stuff like "Rocket boots". So, let's start there. Well, I got no complaints as to the boots. One problem with the film is that the whole "Let's go to the center of the universe and meet God" thing pays off with standing in the middle of the desert talking to a floaty guy with a beard who of course isn't really God because you can't do that in a mainstream sci-fi/action movie- and even then, there's the nub of a good idea, some strange malevolent force lurking for millions of years and sending out impressions of Paradise to lure people there to break it free from its prison, but the execution is just not there. There were also some conflicting priorities, one was Shatner wanting to make a big action movie, and the other was "Star Trek IV was the biggest movie yet so we need more comedy", and those two collide a lot. The comedy is most about the ship not working, which gets silly quickly. It also looks cheaper and faker than the other movies, partly due to the director's inexperience, partly due to a lot of foul-ups with a new FX company (Cinefex had a good article on this, with the firm in question explaining all the problems they had.) The action doesn't work as well as it should either. It's not the worst of the Trek movies (Nemesis wins that decisively), but it feels cheap and rushed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
So.....was there a new 2 min or so trailer for this movie at the Hobbit(not to be confused with the 9 minute IMAX one)? I swear that was all I had been reading about but since the Hobbit has come out...nothing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:So.....was there a new 2 min or so trailer for this movie at the Hobbit(not to be confused with the 9 minute IMAX one)? I swear that was all I had been reading about but since the Hobbit has come out...nothing. Same trailer as we already saw.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:There were also some conflicting priorities, one was Shatner wanting to make a big action movie, and the other was "Star Trek IV was the biggest movie yet so we need more comedy", and those two collide a lot. The comedy is most about the ship not working, which gets silly quickly. Unfortunately, the comedy elements were a mandate from the studio. quote:It also looks cheaper and faker than the other movies, partly due to the director's inexperience, partly due to a lot of foul-ups with a new FX company (Cinefex had a good article on this, with the firm in question explaining all the problems they had.) The action doesn't work as well as it should either. See, I don't get this. Show me one camera setup that Nimoy did on III or IV that beats the amazing dolly shot that moves from everyone on the bridge of the Enterprise agape at the appearance of "God," only to show that no one has seen that the Bird of Prey is moving in to attack (with an excellent little Goldsmith cue to go with it). Star Trek V's problems are due to its script (Harve Bennett managing David "Dreamscape" Loughery was a mistake) and its rushed schedule. The writers guild strike ended in August 1988, and filming needed to begin no later than October to meet Paramount's summer release date. The schedule was nothing short of insane. Yeah, the effects blow, but they were really between a rock and a hard place, there -- ILM was tied up with Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Ghostbusters II, and there weren't many other options. Douglas Trumbull had bailed from Hollywood work and John Dykstra didn't have the bandwidth to take on the project; there weren't really many agencies around with experience doing high-quality motion control work for science fiction films, especially since Robert Abel & Associates (which did the work on The Motion Picture) had folded a year or two earlier. But Shatner did an amazing job directing that movie -- I would have loved to see what he could do with a better script. Timby fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Dec 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Same trailer as we already saw. Trailer I saw at The Hobbit was different from anything I have seen online. Lots of static lingering shots on things like the deck of the enterprise and the captains chair. Absent of the "BWAAAH" music. Led up to that shot of Benedict's character standing behind the glass. All voiced over by Benedict. Also when the film title came on screen, Giacchino's Star Trek theme played. Trying to find it online, no luck so far. VVV Ah there we go. iSheep fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Dec 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
iSheep posted:Trailer I saw at The Hobbit was different from anything I have seen online. Lots of static lingering shots on things like the deck of the enterprise and the captains chair. Absent of the "BWAAAH" music. Led up to that shot of Benedict's character standing behind the glass. All voiced over by Benedict. It goes up on the 17th.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
Timby posted:Unfortunately, the comedy elements were a mandate from the studio. The music cue you're referring to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na76Mrl89Rs The little Klingon theme quote appears at 3:40 But the whole track is incredible. Jerry Goldsmith MAGIC. Honestly his score is the best thing about the whole production.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
Cellophane S posted:Honestly his score is the best thing about the whole production. Goldsmith's score, Shatner's direction, Andy Laszlo's cinematography. That is a beautiful movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
Timby posted:See, I don't get this. Show me one camera setup that Nimoy did on III or IV that beats the amazing dolly shot that moves from everyone on the bridge of the Enterprise agape at the appearance of "God," only to show that no one has seen that the Bird of Prey is moving in to attack (with an excellent little Goldsmith cue to go with it).  
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 02:33
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
Was rewatching Star Trek 2009. An interesting thing I was thinking while watching was that Spock ultimately repaid the gift of rebirth to Kirk - not by going after and reviving his ancient body like in TSOS, but by having their friendship define them so clearly that Spock going back in time would somehow end up changing the character of Kirk's life - he now has another go at the rear end-kicking life he had while serving on the Enterprise's 5 year mission. It's certainly better than bringing the Kirk that died in Generations back to life. Poetry, it rhymes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 03:08
|
|
|
That's a very good point, Korusan. Also, Aatrek, what are those two shots? Why are they different? What are they from?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 08:00
|
|
|
They're both from ST5. A VIDEO OF THE 9-MINUTE TREK PREVIEW HAS LEAKED ONLINE Don't be a dummy and post a link to it, okay?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 13:24
|
|
|
Oh man. This just shot to my most anticipated film after seeing that. Wow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 14:04
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Did any of the writers/producers in Generations explain why they decided to just kill Picard's nephew and brother in a fire offscreen? That always seemed pretty awful to me considering that the episode that comes from is very strong. I have very mixed feelings about Generations, but I liked (well, appreciated), how that made it feel like a soldier far from home getting bad news by letter. It was an awful, stupid accident that killed them, and he's out in space and can't do anything. And much as you'll only get to see Picard in such an emotional state in one of the movies, it felt pretty perfect when he just wants to brush it off and get on with his job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 14:20
|
|
|
Timby posted:But Shatner did an amazing job directing that movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL1WqN1XKK0 I honestly don't know how you can direct that scene worse (in a major film). edit: Also the dialogue is directed weirdly with a bunch of odd...pauses...that aren't natural at all (and emotion that pops up out of nowhere): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvi62S5Ou_E Darko fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Dec 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 16:11
|
|
|
Darko posted:edit: Also the dialogue is directed weirdly with a bunch of odd...pauses...that aren't natural at all (and emotion that pops up out of nowhere): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvi62S5Ou_E I'm pretty sure I could run to my local hardware store and build a perfect replica of the gun used in that clip. That has got to be one of the laziest props ever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 16:23
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:I'm pretty sure I could run to my local hardware store and build a perfect replica of the gun used in that clip. That has got to be one of the laziest props ever. When I was a kid, I used to make "movies" using PVC pipe taped to extensions as guns. I honestly see no difference at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
A paid professional should at least attempt to conceal the fact that their 'gun' is clearly built from galvanized pipe fittings and CO2 cartridges. Using the fittings and parts to make the prop isn't the problem, as a lot of props are made from everyday stuff. The difference is that most of the time some extra effort is used to conceal the fact that they are just everyday items. EDIT: Just watched the 9 minute preview and drat I can't wait for this movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 16:58
|
|