|
ApexAftermath posted:Only if the theater you see it at is lovely and doesn't have their brightness up high enough. A properly bright 3D presentation is fine. Knoxville has one of the flagship Regal theaters for some reason, so I assume theirs is properly calibrated. Excited for the prescreening on the 15th!
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that they're just super-nerds. But it does deteriorate the brand and kills franchises when the fans become like this. Enterprise, for instance, limped along for awhile but started to show its true promise in Season 4 but was killed. Partly because Les Moonves hated Star Trek. But, mostly because the fans turned on it and refused to enjoy it for what it was. Most fans that "turned" on Enterprise did so because it was a needlessly boring retread of Voyager for the most part, which was itself a boring retread of TNG. When the characters are flat and the stories suck and the otherwise awesome setting is wasted (again, the same as Voyager) there's not much else to talk about. Now, years later we're getting some interesting behind the scenes info about what caused ENT to suck so badly as to get canceled from the blu-rays, but it wasn't because all the fans turned on it for not being a televised adaptation of whatever pre-TOS fanon they half remembered from the 70's. There are always going to be fans that completely miss the truly important things and focus on the minutiae of their obsession to an absurd degree, but outside of horrible internet places where they tend to gather and scream loudly like TrekBBS, I don't think they exist in great enough numbers to actually hurt a franchise.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 10:07
|
|
|
Tighclops posted:Most fans that "turned" on Enterprise did so because it was a needlessly boring retread of Voyager for the most part, which was itself a boring retread of TNG. When the characters are flat and the stories suck and the otherwise awesome setting is wasted (again, the same as Voyager) there's not much else to talk about. Now, years later we're getting some interesting behind the scenes info about what caused ENT to suck so badly as to get canceled from the blu-rays, but it wasn't because all the fans turned on it for not being a televised adaptation of whatever pre-TOS fanon they half remembered from the 70's. There are always going to be fans that completely miss the truly important things and focus on the minutiae of their obsession to an absurd degree, but outside of horrible internet places where they tend to gather and scream loudly like TrekBBS, I don't think they exist in great enough numbers to actually hurt a franchise. It depends who you're talking about. I was about 9 when TNG ended. So, even though I was familiar with all the episodes by the time Voyager and Enterprise aired, they didn't feel like retreads to me. I'm sure there are a lot of people who felt similarly. And, lest we forget, TNG reused the plot from "The Naked Now" in the first season. The problem with a massive fan base is that who's going to watch if even the fans don't like it? They needed to make stories that got people excited about Andorians or whatever on their own merits and not just through recognition. Whether they did that is definitely debatable. The consensus at time, though, was that Enterprise was slight to fans and continuity. Enterprise had some great early episodes like "Silent Enemy" or "Cogenitor." By the fourth season they were really starting to hit it out of the park. Obviously there a lot of reasons Enterprise went off the air--UPN's ponderous line-up not least among them--but fan enthusiasm definitely played a part.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 13:52
|
|
|
Tighclops posted:Most fans that "turned" on Enterprise did so because it was a needlessly boring retread of Voyager for the most part, which was itself a boring retread of TNG. When the characters are flat and the stories suck and the otherwise awesome setting is wasted (again, the same as Voyager) there's not much else to talk about. Now, years later we're getting some interesting behind the scenes info about what caused ENT to suck so badly as to get canceled from the blu-rays, but it wasn't because all the fans turned on it for not being a televised adaptation of whatever pre-TOS fanon they half remembered from the 70's. There are always going to be fans that completely miss the truly important things and focus on the minutiae of their obsession to an absurd degree, but outside of horrible internet places where they tend to gather and scream loudly like TrekBBS, I don't think they exist in great enough numbers to actually hurt a franchise. Anyone who thinks Enterprise was as bad as (or worse than) Voyager must not have seen the 3rd and 4th season of ENT (or the legit good eps in S1 and S2 like the Andorian eps).
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 14:52
|
|
|
If a show sucks for the first two seasons, it's hardly the audience's fault if they don't stick around and see it blossom into a beautiful TV butterfly in season 3 or 4 or whatever season Enterprise suddenly didn't suck.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
Gyges posted:If a show sucks for the first two seasons, it's hardly the audience's fault if they don't stick around and see it blossom into a beautiful TV butterfly in season 3 or 4 or whatever season Enterprise suddenly didn't suck. I don't think TNG really got good until season 3 either though and the fact that Voyager got 7 full seasons makes me sad.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Gyges posted:If a show sucks for the first two seasons, it's hardly the audience's fault if they don't stick around and see it blossom into a beautiful TV butterfly in season 3 or 4 or whatever season Enterprise suddenly didn't suck. I wouldn't say Enterprise sucked for the first two seasons any more than The Next Generation or DS9 did. Particularly as the Andorian/Vulcan arc starts to take shape.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
TNG (and DS9 to an extent) came out in a different era of TV, the quality of TV writing was lower and there was less programming overall so audiences were a lot more forgiving. Also even though they started out weak, both shows were still better than Voyager and Enterprise.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:It depends who you're talking about. I was about 9 when TNG ended. So, even though I was familiar with all the episodes by the time Voyager and Enterprise aired, they didn't feel like retreads to me. I'm sure there are a lot of people who felt similarly. And, lest we forget, TNG reused the plot from "The Naked Now" in the first season. I'm not saying TNG's early seasons were perfect, I think doing a straight up rehash of The Naked Time so early in the show before we really got to know the characters was one of many missteps. But, it's one they made and should have learned from instead of doing two whole shows of mostly mediocre sci fi. I was 7 when TNG ended and even as a kid after awhile Voyager got to be "the boring one" because I'd already seen that TNG episode, or something interesting was happening on DS9. Don't get me wrong, once in a while they'd hit a great episode out of the park, and once they got Manny Coto on board ENT definitely started turning around in it's last season. Problem was by that point, I think they'd pretty much pissed away most of the goodwill left with the fans by keeping Star Trek in neutral for almost a decade. I mean, it's not that a show shouldn't get some leeway to find it's legs but by the time ENT premiered a lot of the people involved had been making Star Trek since the mid 90's or earlier. Of course, now we know that Braga of all people wanted to do something as radical as setting the entire first season of ENT on Earth, or that Berman practically begged Paramount for a year's break between shows after Voyager because everybody was burnt out. At the time though, it just looked like they were spinning their wheels while throwing the fans a bone once in awhile with bad wink wink "Some day we'll draft a... Directive..." speeches and the admittedly always cool Jeffrey Combs. There were just as legitimate reasons for fans to check out of TNG early on too, but like 1stAD pointed out that show had the benefit of a simpler TV landscape.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
Tighclops posted:I'm not saying TNG's early seasons were perfect, I think doing a straight up rehash of The Naked Time so early in the show before we really got to know the characters was one of many missteps. But, it's one they made and should have learned from instead of doing two whole shows of mostly mediocre sci fi. I was 7 when TNG ended and even as a kid after awhile Voyager got to be "the boring one" because I'd already seen that TNG episode, or something interesting was happening on DS9. Don't get me wrong, once in a while they'd hit a great episode out of the park, and once they got Manny Coto on board ENT definitely started turning around in it's last season. Problem was by that point, I think they'd pretty much pissed away most of the goodwill left with the fans by keeping Star Trek in neutral for almost a decade. Oh, god, the antelope speech.  To me, the ironic thing about Enterprise vis a vis the TV landscape and Star Trek in general is why it's viewed as "spinning its wheels." Enterprise actually took some pretty drastic steps in the way the traditional Star Trek story was told. Voyager had some consistent arcs early on and DS9 naturally lent itself to the story arc formula. Enterprise took that and ran with it really quickly. Maybe it's just from my point of view at the time but people gave Enterprise very little slack. There was outrage over the "Akiraprise" design, outrage over the Vulcan mind meld plot, outrage over "Minefield" because of the Romulans, outrage over the temporal cold war*. It just never seemed to get any slack from the the core audience and they walked away. At the time, I don't remember people saying it was boring. I remember people very vocally trying to shut the whole thing down because they viewed it as illegitimate. *The temporal cold war had some neat implications but good god why all the time travel?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
If the show was dependent on vocal internet Trekkies to survive, then it was already a lost cause. I do remember not really being interested in it at the time though. Takei was doing a campaign to get an Excelsior series made after Voyager and I would much rather have had that. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:Oh, god, the antelope speech. Enterprise was a pretty awful show though. I mean the Vulcan Mind-Meld plot was just sort of pathetic and awful and T'Pol set the bar for female Trek characters lower than it had already been and that is saying something. It just wasn't a good show.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Enterprise was caught between the various forces that were making ST as a whole stagnate. On the one hand it had a lot of plays for mainstream audiences- it was promoted as having more action and more sex than previous Trek series, with phase pistols that were more like pew-pew lasers and so better for gunfights, and things like the decon spray rubdowns and theoretical sexual tension between Archer and T'Pol. On the other, it was still very much a Trek series from the same people who had been making Trek for over a decade and were getting burned out on it. It still followed the same formulas and stylistic leads, had similar incidental music, it wasn't really different enough to really appeal to a whole new audience. Similarly, it pissed off a lot of fans by creating all sorts of little problems with the continuity, but at the same time often used Trek's history to market itself- I remember a promo for an episode promising "First contact with the Andorians!" even though casual viewers wouldn't know or care who the Andorians were. That said I watched Broken Bow on Netflix not too long ago and found it held up pretty well- it wasn't a horrible show, it just wasn't good enough.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:Oh, god, the antelope speech. Wasn't it a gazelle? Oh god I want to re forget that whole thing it was so dumb argh But Enterprise didn't really change anything up until it's last season, and by then I think was probably already too late. It's too bad because I think the 3 or 4 episode mini-arc format was a fantastic idea. Sure, they had the Xindi arc in season 3 but DS9 had already covered that ground, and it was introduced so hastily in the last episode of the previous season that the whole thing just wreaked of desperation. The first two seasons of the show are when I remember the big canon arguments being the loudest at TrekBBS, and like I said I think that's basically because Enterprise didn't give you much else to talk about. Nobody would have really cared about the Akiraprise had the ship not sheepishly gone where others have been repeatedly before. nobody would have bitched about "Minefield" had the episode not instead focused on the british guy getting stapled to the hull or something and begging everybody to just let him die to the point where the audience agrees with him. The temporal cold war was a big pile of nonsense that never went anywhere ("How do we wrap this up? Um... uh... alien time nazis or something! It's an homage! That's the ticket!") and after 7 years of Voyager everyone knew it as it was happening. The whole "trying to shut the whole thing down" stuff is just silly though, there were certainly vocal detractors of the show and they ranged from people with legitimate criticisms of the show to the spergy nutjobs we all love to hate. There were never any letter writing campaigns to Paramount to get the show pulled off the air that I can recall, while I believe the "Save Enterprise" guys were still going for quite a while after the show ended. A big contributor to the outrage I'm sure stems from the PR front put up by the producers at the time, I remember "we are all very pleased" being a hilarious Berman quote that caused much consternation.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Enterprise was a pretty awful show though. I mean the Vulcan Mind-Meld plot was just sort of pathetic and awful and T'Pol set the bar for female Trek characters lower than it had already been and that is saying something. It just wasn't a good show. I don't think that's fair at all. I watched through the series a few months ago on Netflix and enjoyed it quite a bit. Maxwell Lord posted:Similarly, it pissed off a lot of fans by creating all sorts of little problems with the continuity, but at the same time often used Trek's history to market itself- I remember a promo for an episode promising "First contact with the Andorians!" even though casual viewers wouldn't know or care who the Andorians were. The problem with the "continuity" in Enterprise is a lot of the "violations" were based on throwaway lines or just didn't match fans' expectations. People took a line Picard had about the "disastrous" first contact with Klingons and complained that the events in "Broken Bow" and subsequent episodes didn't fit the bill. Many of the other perceived canon violations weren't actually based in canon at all. Instead, they were drawn from noncanon sources like Chronology or Encyclopedia or basic conjecture. People were upset about the Romulan episodes despite the fact that none of the characters met a Romulan or laid eyes on a Romulan. They spoke via radio only. And we have no idea how contact with the Romulans played out in the Trekverse. To bring this full circle to the Abramsverse and "The Fan Problem," a lot of fans were upset that Kirk, Uhura, Spock, and Pike knew about Romulans and the Romulan language. It doesn't take much of a stretch at all to infer that interaction with the Narada moved Earth-Romulan relations forward a few decades. These are the worst sort of complaints, IMO. They're based not in canon, but in a sort of anti-canon. "It wasn't explicitly stated on screen, therefore we can't draw any conclusions based on it." That's what Schneider's largest problem is. It's completely unimaginative and contributed to a fandom that's completely enslaved to what appears on screen. To me, this has implications reaching far beyond the actual box office or ratings. I'm taking issue with the psychology and eventual attitudes that are going to appear in this thread come May 17. tl;dr 'Spergin bout 'spergin.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:On the one hand it had a lot of plays for mainstream audiences- it was promoted as having more action and more sex than previous Trek series, with phase pistols that were more like pew-pew lasers and so better for gunfights, and things like the decon spray rubdowns and theoretical sexual tension between Archer and T'Pol. That's the problem though. It had "more gunfights" and "more sex" but in this horrible creepy way. The Decon Spray Rubdowns were so amazingly blatant in a nerdy fetishistic "see, it's completely justified that they're nearly naked" way and the guns were more focused on minutia than interesting choreography. It's like exactly what you would expect to get if you told the worst kind of Star Trek fan to add More Sex and More Guns. JJ Abrams managed to do both better. I still have problems with how he handled some things but even the amazingly blatant "Look, tits" scenes in Trek '09 were less bizarrely weird than the ones in Enterprise.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:Enterprise actually took some pretty drastic steps in the way the traditional Star Trek story was told. Voyager had some consistent arcs early on and DS9 naturally lent itself to the story arc formula. Enterprise took that and ran with it really quickly. Haha what? Enterprise is directed, shot, edited, and written in the exact same ways as Voyager and DS9 and TNG were. You always have the way overlit interior ship sets with the medium shot of the ship captain that dolly's in as they're about to say "engage", then cut to the generic effects shot of the ship going to warp and making the flashy thing. Music will swell up into a loud but bland horn sting. There's a lot of other things I could point out but basically "story arcs" is not a thing that is substantially different between Enterprise and the other Star Trek shows.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Not to mention Enterprise was supposed to be the "past" of the Star Trek world, back when they had primitive warp drive, no phasers, no photon torpedos, no shields, no instant translation technology for all languages and no transporters. ...except then they had "phase cannons", "photonic torpedos", "magnetic hull plating" (which conveniently degraded in percentages just like shields, despite being physical armour), translation became a non-issue instantly and the no transporters thing lasted what, one season? None of these complaints are about continuity either, it's about the fact that given a completely new and different setting which by it's definition should demand change from the old formula, the writers of the show couldn't come up with anything except the same tired old thing they'd been doing for the better part of the last twenty years. Wink wink episodes where holodecks, Ferengi and Borg show up aren't bad because the Star Trek wiki says they're not supposed to be encountered until the year XXXX, it's because they had so little new to say that they needed those elements in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
1st AD posted:TNG (and DS9 to an extent) came out in a different era of TV, the quality of TV writing was lower and there was less programming overall so audiences were a lot more forgiving. Also even though they started out weak, both shows were still better than Voyager and Enterprise. Didn't TNG start out as a syndicated show instead of a network show as well? I'd imagine that would change it's needs in the suck vs great department so long as enough stations were ordering episodes. Perhaps I'm an atypical Trek fan in that the only series I actually liked were TOS and DS9. TNG I grew to sort of like a quarter the time. There's rare moments of Voyager I liked in what I've seen, and I just disliked the entire crew of Enterprise. I did go back to give Enterprise a second chance, but it was the episode with time travel Nazi aliens. So the only other time I remember sitting down to watch it was the last episode, which was also absolutely idiotic.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
If Enterprise didn't suck so much, we would have had a Star Trek /Doctor Who crossover.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
If Enterprise didn't suck so much, we wouldn't have had that gap in Star Trek media for Doctor Who to take advantage of. Just one more reason to hate Enterprise's failure.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Didn't TNG start out as a syndicated show instead of a network show as well? I'd imagine that would change it's needs in the suck vs great department so long as enough stations were ordering episodes. Both TNG and DS9 had their entire runs in syndication, though IIRC many UPN stations bought DS9 episodes and ran them on nights where there wasn't first-run UPN programming.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 07:44
|
|
|
EDIT: Nevermind, saw that somebody posted spoilers a few pages back.
Gonz fucked around with this message at 07:54 on May 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 07:52
|
|
|
Seemlar posted:Not to mention Enterprise was supposed to be the "past" of the Star Trek world, back when they had primitive warp drive, no phasers, no photon torpedos, no shields, no instant translation technology for all languages and no transporters. The "photonic torpedoes" didn't show up until the third season. The crew used shuttles for almost the entire series run. I'll give you the phase cannons, but they were clearly completely top-of-the-line and their installation was a major plot point in an early episode. The polarized hull plating and lack of repair supplies was an explicit issue early in season 2 with an effective 2 part episode dedicated to it. The entirety of season 3 showed an Enterprise that was slowly becoming more and more damaged throughout the season to the point where Archer makes the decision to strand an alien crew and steal their warp drive. The Ferengi and Borg episodes were hardly "wink, wink." The Borg episode was well-done and did have a nice nod to the fans in the last scene. Similarly, the Ferengi episode was a fairly well-done if mediocre episode. Neither needed trickery and contrivances to work. quote:None of these complaints are about continuity either, it's about the fact that given a completely new and different setting which by it's definition should demand change from the old formula, the writers of the show couldn't come up with anything except the same tired old thing they'd been doing for the better part of the last twenty years. Wink wink episodes where holodecks, Ferengi and Borg show up aren't bad because the Star Trek wiki says they're not supposed to be encountered until the year XXXX, it's because they had so little new to say that they needed those elements in the first place. I'm not arguing that Enterprise was the pinnacle of Star Trek or completely reinvented the wheel. It wasn't supposed to. It was supposed to be Star Trek set in an earlier time with different challenges and, despite their stumbles, it succeeded. The producers and crew had definitely become used to the formats but Enterprise did push the Voyager/TNG formula with continuing arcs and miniarcs. The themes they outright sought to establish were established. Some of them didn't work, but that doesn't mean they weren't there. My point is that few of the diehard fans at the time were talking about formulas and production. Most of the complaints were about deviations from trek lore. Great_Gerbil fucked around with this message at 16:33 on May 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
This is some pretty decent Star Trek music! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHdZZGNs6IE
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 08:48
|
|
|
Cellophane S posted:This is some pretty decent Star Trek music! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCI0I28HqfQ Main Theme gets me pumped up for next Friday.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
Anyone else going to see it next Wednesday in IMAX?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:Anyone else going to see it next Wednesday in IMAX? Is it indeed going to be shown Wednesday? If it comes out Friday, wouldn't logic dictate that there'd be 9 PM and/or 12 AM showings Thursday night?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
Gonz posted:Is it indeed going to be shown Wednesday? Yep. Heading to Omaha as that is the closest IMAX to me. Got the tickets through fandango so yeah it's for sure. EDIT: I think it started as a "if you use our Star Trek phone app you can buy early tickets" thing, but my brother decided to go last week and he was able to buy tickets just through fandango like normal so they must have opened it up to everyone now.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
der juicen posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCI0I28HqfQ Main Theme gets me pumped up for next Friday. That Youtube video picture, that warship just smacks of the Sovereign Enterprise E.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Saw this tonight. Thought it was outstanding, especially in that it tackled head on what I find a bit creepy about the Star Trek universe (namely militarisation under the guise of a humanitarian missions). The only negative thing were the slightly over-done nods to Star Trek lore and classic scenes. They felt thrown in for the sake of old school fans, and at least one is detrimental to the narrative.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
What I assume is the Klingon theme ("Kronos Wartet") is probably the strangest music the franchise has ever associated with the species/race/etc. Maybe I'm just an old man too used to derivations of Goldsmith, but it feels too... orcy for Klingons :\
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
B-roll from the movie: http://youtu.be/EQutDk1yecI Spoilers in there of course.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
I like Michael Giacchino's flippant approach to track titles. This film's score will include such sweeping themes as "Earthbound and Down" and "The San Fran Hustle".
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
http://www.accesshollywood.com/star-trek-into-darkness-release-date-moved-up_article_79112 This makes me so happy. I was going to be stuck at Fort Knox for a long weekend.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
Whtat's the consensus on 3D for this movie? Was it shot in 3D or is it gonna be post-produced nonsense.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
der juicen posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCI0I28HqfQ Main Theme gets me pumped up for next Friday. Best Star Trek theme, hands down. Suck it TWOK.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:Best Star Trek theme, hands down. Suck it TWOK. Ha. Fffwwtt, it doesn't even hold to the TV show music. Yes I am an old cranky bastard.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 06:53
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Ha. Fffwwtt, it doesn't even hold to the TV show music. He's right though, Horner is a hack.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 07:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
Judge Ito Boxing posted:He's right though, Horner is a hack. This is the point where I give up I think
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 11:00
|
|