|
Can we all at least agree the special effects of the WARP PARTICLES left behind when ships jump to warp are totally rad? I really wanted more klingons. The fight on Qo'nos was good. I thought the new klingon design was also really well done. It looked similar to TNG era, but modernised. Also the design of the warp core was great. Overall I liked this more than the first film in 2009. It felt more 'trek' to me. Yes there was plenty of action, but it also felt to me like they tried to capture the more moral and philosophical side of trek. At least the most you are going to see in a 2013 reboot of the series on the big screen. Needs more Bones though. Oh and when Kirk tries to knock out Khan all cool and poo poo, and just fails completely was fun.
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
I find the talk about DS9 interesting, having re-watched the series in its entirety last year. It was undoubtedly the most transgressive Star Trek, but it still stayed so true to some core Star Trek elements that were always hallmarks of the series: Theatricality and genre-malleability. The one core Star Trek element it upended was the utopianism of Genre R. Roddenbery, but I think that was still present in the series in a muted sense. drat good show all around and likely the last great Star Trek we'll ever get. And it hasn't aged much at all in terms of special effects (with the exception of early seasons Odo in goo form.)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
I think the funny thing about genre-malleability as a hallmark of Star Trek is the fact that Gene did this so he could reuse sets on the CBS lot and save lots of money, so you'd have a western episode and a Native American episode and a gangster episode, and the writers made sure to include some flimsy pretense about why a spaceship in the future would encounter a planet full of Nazi's. I have to wonder what kind of show Star Trek would have been if Gene had a much bigger budget. I suppose TNG is that show, but Gene's control of the show was hampered by tons of issues in the early going and culminated with his failing health. If he had lived and stayed healthy, I wonder if we ever would've gotten The Best of Both Worlds, Chain of Command, or any of the other really good TNG episodes.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
Pops Mgee posted:I'm excited for Cummerbatch, but I watch a lot of BBC stuff so I'm probably not the norm. I do too. I just wish Hollywood wouldn't be so concerned with foreign box office numbers. A simple, non-artsy thriller like 1996's "Primal Fear" would be too wordy, too cerebral for foreign box office markets in today's cinematic environment so blockbuster films like that have a significantly less chance of getting made. The new Star Trek films are particularly dumb because of this.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
Could not separate Karl Urban from Judge Dredd. Film took on some weird twists as a result. 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 05:23
|
|
|
forever gold posted:I do too. I just wish Hollywood wouldn't be so concerned with foreign box office numbers. A simple, non-artsy thriller like 1996's "Primal Fear" would be too wordy, too cerebral for foreign box office markets in today's cinematic environment so blockbuster films like that have a significantly less chance of getting made. The new Star Trek films are particularly dumb because of this.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:The script is AGGRESSIVELY dumb, from lazy cribbing from the previous films, without regard to whether it makes sense, through needless non-sequiturs down to mistakes that shouldn't have gotten past a proof reader (Someone makes reference to the Enterprise's "aft nacelle"- if you're not a big Trek fan, the nacelles are the cylindrical engine bits that hang off the back... which is what aft means, rendering the adjective pointless.) It's the same issue the first reboot installment had, in that it hopes by pacing everything at that breakneck speed you won't actually have time to think about how little sense the plot makes, nor how condescending the script is. The whole structure of Starfleet in both films just makes me angry when the dialogue addresses it, because it's done in terms that make it clear the writers see the audience as children who can't comprehend anything more complex than captain = boss, not-captain = bad. Everyone threw up the writers' strike as the reason that the first one was so terribly written, I wonder what they'll glom onto this time.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 05:28
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:The new Star Trek films are significantly less dumb than the four prior to this pair. Star Trek Generations featured genuinely wondrous moments. The stuff about the Nexus is pure Star Trek, fascinating and interesting. The sequence where Picard gets caught up in it is compelling and makes you understand why the villain of that film wants to so desperately return to that place. Yea, the missile reaching the sun in a minute is dumb, but as far as science fiction/storytelling is concerned, that film is leaps and bounds better than Abrams' Star Trek. First Contact is good too, because the Borg and time travel are always fascinating. They did certainly phoned it in with the last two Generation films, I'll grant you that. They were forgettable Star Trek. But forgettable Star Trek > Abrams' Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
Generations is an intelligent (and beautiful!) but ultimately poorly executed film. First Contact is waaaaaay more shallow than 2009 because 2009 at least tries to tell the story with the directing and visual design whereas First Contact is literally flat with a flatter Enterprise, monochrome sets, and generally an amateurish sensibility about how to compose shots. I'd put Abram's Trek over every TNG movie any day, because as films they succeed in telling the story via the sound and visuals.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
forever gold posted:But forgettable Star Trek > Abrams' Star Trek. The design problems with First Contact are summed up well by 1st AD and that doesn't even touch on the uninteresting story and exhausted performances by nearly every cast member. Borgs = Good is what gave us so much bad Trek.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
Time is the fiah in which we burn.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 05:58
|
|
|
Saw this last night and really enjoyed it. More solid than 09 Trek (not having a wonky scenery chewer like Nero as antagonist and a welcome break from FATE OF THE EARTH! helps) and has a really good handle on the characters. If I had to fault it, it's that at times it's a little too clever for it's own good (especially closer to the end) to the point that it tiptoes a really dangerous line between referencing old Trek and putting new spins on things to slipping over the line and being a little on the nose about it. There are some things taken directly from the older movies to the point where it's a little hard to see them and think something other than "That certainly is a word-for-word reference to [scene in old movie]". Newer viewers unfamiliar with old Trek will likely have less of a problem with that, but I imagine in exchange they'll find some scenes unusual since they're extended wink wink references. I think this is minor though and didn't hurt how much I liked the movie. It's very much about Kirk and Spock and the kind of people they are, and the events of the movie maturing Kirk in particular. The new warp effect is also cool. Surlaw posted:The new Star Trek films are significantly less dumb than the four prior to this pair. That's why I never get the "shallow" "lasers going pew-pew" complaint about the new ones. They're action-adventure movies, just like every single Star Trek movie after The Motion Picture. They throw around special effects and are visual spectacles because they have the budget and effects technology to do so, not because they're remarkably different from the past. Star Trek 3's climax is Kirk fist fighting a Klingon on an apocalyptic world moments from destruction, and it probably would have been a giant spectacle if it wasn't a 1984 movie with a budget of 15 million dollars starring a bunch of actors in their 50's.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:Boring, forgettable movies/episodes are way worse than a movie that makes choices you don't like. Even if I thought ST09 was terribly written/directed/conceived (I don't) it still puts in effort and energy that none of the TNG movies even attempted. They're bored, tired films and their good parts fall apart because the rest of the movies are busy falling asleep. Even if I hated ST09 I can't imagine thinking Nemesis/Insurrection was better in any possible way. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy watching First Contact from time to time because it's a bit like a poor man's Die Hard (in spaaaaaaaaaace), but as a film it is utterly shallow and more proof that the production staff who made Star Trek for almost 20 years straight needed to work on other projects because they basically didn't know how to build interesting sets, light scenes cinematically (again, Generations gets a pass here because it looks phenomenal for about half of the movie), design costumes, or move cameras. Actually I'd be shocked if there were even any crane or circular dolly shots in First Contact, because from my recollection of that film the camera is very static throughout the entire thing.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
forever gold posted:But forgettable Star Trek > Abrams' Star Trek. But it wasn't just forgettable, it killed Star Trek. Compared to now, where it's popular with a whole load of demographics who otherwise wouldn't be interested.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 06:17
|
|
|
Seemlar posted:That's why I never get the "shallow" "lasers going pew-pew" complaint about the new ones. They're action-adventure movies, just like every single Star Trek movie after The Motion Picture. They throw around special effects and are visual spectacles because they have the budget and effects technology to do so, not because they're remarkably different from the past. The main break with the past is that (as far as I can tell anyway) in most Star Trek media characters will literally engage in debate with each other. In Abrams' films they mostly forego this in favour of getting an argument across purely through cinematic techniques and symbolism. Let's just take one example from the new film: the torpedoes loaded with Khan's crew. They're a densely layered metaphor for both the in-universe danger of what Khan represents, namely human weapons who cause immense destruction. But they also reflect on what the crew of the Enterprise might be or become, an unconsciously destructive force slotted neatly into a hermetically sealed white spacecraft. These torpedoes have to be thematically crucial, because if you begin to think "Why on earth would Starfleet put Khan's crew in torpedoes in the first place and not just turn off their life support?" you realise they don't make any sense at all. You don't need this explicitly spelled out, but it's obviously there, and if I can pick up on it I'm sure many, many others can.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 08:18
|
|
|
The new series has been focus grouped to appeal to an audience that would be put off by conversations/debates. quote:“We did a lot of focus groups in a lot of countries, and asked what they liked and didn’t like and we listened,” Marcoly said. “Basically, it was more action, more of the adventure elements and less of the real Trekkie stuff.” The stuff, in other words, that turned the 1960s TV show into a cultural phenomenon in America and launched the film franchise. http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/star-trek-darkness-heading-where-no-trek-has-gone-foreign-profitablity-89981 These films are dumb by design. forever gold fucked around with this message at 09:56 on May 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 09:51
|
|
|
1st AD posted:DS9 was gritty because they could get away with it on that show. For years guys like Ira Behr and Ron Moore had ideas shot down by Berman because they didn't meet his narrow vision of what Star Trek should be, so when Berman became occupied with trying to make Voyager the flagship show on a new network the DS9 writers basically were free to do whatever they wanted. Hell they even lied to Berman about the Dominion War lasting only 6 episodes or something and he was obviously too occupied to notice or do anything about it. Berman without any checks and balances was POISON for Star Trek. Pure poison.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 09:53
|
|
|
forever gold posted:The new series has been focus grouped to appeal to an audience that would be put off by conversations/debates. Just because a film is fun and fast-paced does not mean that it's "dumb". A person sitting in a space armchair having cod philosophical debates with people with bits of latex stuck to their forehead on a big television is not necessarily "intelligent" either.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 10:32
|
|
|
ace_beef posted:Can we all at least agree the special effects of the WARP PARTICLES left behind when ships jump to warp are totally rad? The gently caress? Cumberbatch stands tall and still on an exposed platform, firing akimbo automatic-phasers wildly into a group of Klingons below. They return fire like Stormtroopers and hit nothing but air. Cupcake and Redshirt vanish among the confusion, never to be heard from again (after Kirk was so proud of never losing a man). Thus ends the Klingon involvement in this film. We have differing opinions on good.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 10:46
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:Just because a film is fun and fast-paced does not mean that it's "dumb". Some brave posting here.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 10:50
|
|
|
Saw this the other day... it had a lot of flashy effects and the music was nice, but the writing was flat and pathetic. I felt sorry for the actors. If Section 31 has confiscated Scotty's transwarp equation, why did they not just teleport the torpedos to Kronos? Hey, why bother with starships, if you can teleport things a hundred light years? Also, why did Khan bother trying to crush Spock's skull, when you can just throw him off the very high up, fast moving action set piece? Yes, I know Khan was not the brightest super genius in Wrath of Khan (starships can travel in three dimensions now?), but still...
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 11:52
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:Some brave posting here. But accurate. I do get very tired of the cliche "action equals dumb" and "talking equals good" mentality I see floating around. Not just here, and not just about this movie. Smart actions scenes and dumb dialog scenes are totally a thing.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 12:12
|
|
|
Really enjoyed this film, especially like the bit where a literal fascist is killed by a metaphor for fascism, who is then defeated by a bi-racial man and a black woman. I liked that for all Khan's bluster, savagery, and tactical acumen he was nowhere near as smart as he thought he was, and he essentially accomplished the exact opposite of his goals - he saved Kirk's life, restored the peaceful utopian ideals of the Federation, and was returned to the scrap heap of history where he belonged.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 12:24
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Star Trek's fanbase has traditionally been gathered vis-a-vis the television shows which feature extremely budget-constrained costuming, set design, and cinematography, so when Star Trek fans complain that a film is shallow they usually mean that the plot is shallow because they generally look at only plot, characterization, and acting as important hallmarks of good filmmaking. Technically, yes, I mean the plot, but overall, the visual storytelling came off more as obfuscating the plot than illuminating it. There's a few bits, and this discussion has highlighted a couple I didn't catch originally, but I still feel both films rely on spectacle to prevent the audience from engaging too deeply, lest they notice how disjointed and confused the plot and characters are. I also disagree about the set and costume design elements, at least in terms of the core cast/standing sets on most of the shows. The issue is less budget, more that you can't just go to a prop house and grab a sofa like on a contemporary set show, the majority of things have to be scratch-built. jivjov posted:But accurate. I do get very tired of the cliche "action equals dumb" and "talking equals good" mentality I see floating around. Not just here, and not just about this movie. Smart actions scenes and dumb dialog scenes are totally a thing. I agree. But the action in this one didn't strike me as technically innovative or character-driven (bar one beat near the end). Spock either mind-melding and absorbing some of Khan's bestial nature, or just giving into his own rage. Could've been more effective if more than one line had been spent setting it up, though. Mr. Flunchy posted:Just because a film is fun and fast-paced does not mean that it's "dumb". I think both sides of the discussion need to step back from the battle lines, as we're getting dismissive and defensive. I'll leave it at this, I enjoyed the first one well enough, and this one is a more than competently made action vehicle, but I just did not enjoy it that much, nor see many of the themes and elements of the story that seem to have grabbed many of you. I doubt repeat viewings would do much to change my mind, but I'm happy that so many people are engaged with these characters and this world now. I'm just a little disappointed that I'm not able to join you.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 13:15
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:Technically, yes, I mean the plot, but overall, the visual storytelling came off more as obfuscating the plot than illuminating it. There's a few bits, and this discussion has highlighted a couple I didn't catch originally, but I still feel both films rely on spectacle to prevent the audience from engaging too deeply, lest they notice how disjointed and confused the plot and characters are. quote:I think both sides of the discussion need to step back from the battle lines, as we're getting dismissive and defensive. I'll leave it at this, I enjoyed the first one well enough, and this one is a more than competently made action vehicle, but I just did not enjoy it that much, nor see many of the themes and elements of the story that seem to have grabbed many of you. I doubt repeat viewings would do much to change my mind, but I'm happy that so many people are engaged with these characters and this world now. I'm just a little disappointed that I'm not able to join you. Perhaps the problem is trying to engage with a 'world' instead of engaging with the film itself as a work of art.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 13:55
|
|
|
I'm trying to decide whether "mainstream/fast-paced = dumb" or "TV show I haven't seen is inferior" is the worse of the awful arguments here.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 14:13
|
|
|
thatbastardken posted:Really enjoyed this film, especially like the bit where a literal fascist is killed by a metaphor for fascism, who is then defeated by a bi-racial man and a black woman. I liked that for all Khan's bluster, savagery, and tactical acumen he was nowhere near as smart as he thought he was, and he essentially accomplished the exact opposite of his goals - he saved Kirk's life, restored the peaceful utopian ideals of the Federation, and was returned to the scrap heap of history where he belonged. Wouldn't you prefer a situation where he was more of a legitimate supergenius who was capable of out-smarting the Enterprise crew easily?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
Seemlar posted:That's why I never get the "shallow" "lasers going pew-pew" complaint about the new ones. They're action-adventure movies, just like every single Star Trek movie after The Motion Picture. Not six. Six was the best.  But really I'm sure this movie is just fine. I liked 2009, I'm sure I'll like this one.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Wouldn't you prefer a situation where he was more of a legitimate supergenius who was capable of out-smarting the Enterprise crew easily? No, because Kirk has to win at the end.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
Danger posted:What do you mean when you dismiss something as 'relying on spectacle'? Because Trek '09 very consciously, and to it's favor, relied on it's aesthetic over it's rote plot elements and rather carefully criticized the Trek franchise without dismissing it. I disagree that the plot or characters were confusing (do you have specific issues?) but in any case, the film wasn't terribly concerned about it's plot. I really don't know how I can put it any clearer? The action set-pieces, the editing, the lighting, all feel like they're trying to distract me from considering the story, rather than contributing to the telling. Again, it boils down to "I did not like it that much" as a film. That is my opinion, I've given my reasoning why, and yes, part of it comes from having grown up with the TV shows and prior films and disagreeing with this new direction to some extent. You do enjoy this version of the franchise and have either dismissed my complaints or given reasons I disagree with. We're at kind of an impasse. Again, glad you saw a movie you liked, I'm sad I saw one I was looking forward to and ended up not liking. Simple as that.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:I really don't know how I can put it any clearer? The action set-pieces, the editing, the lighting, all feel like they're trying to distract me from considering the story, rather than contributing to the telling. An example, perhaps?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:An example, perhaps? The car chase that's in the trailers. It comes right after an emotional bit of dialogue and seems solely designed to prevent you from processing that dialogue because they get caught anyway rendering the getaway moot. I mean, what else does it do? Show Spock's prudent and logical and Kirk's cocky and reckless? Not to mention the lens-flare. I do like the reading someone gave regarding it earlier, but even allowing for that, it's overdone to the point of, for me, making focusing on characters, framing, dialogue, anything but the effect itself in bridge scenes very difficult. But, I'm done. I feel like a broken record, but I am genuinely pleased that so many people are enjoying this film, and even finding thematic stuff to get dug into. I didn't and didn't, and again, I'm disappointed, but that happens. If we all liked the same stuff, poo poo'd be boring. Gaz-L fucked around with this message at 15:18 on May 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 15:08
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Wouldn't you prefer a situation where he was more of a legitimate supergenius who was capable of out-smarting the Enterprise crew easily? He is a legitimate supergenius - he is multiple steps ahead of Kirk and Marcus the whole time. But he's so arrogant in his superior intelligence that he never even considers Spock would triple-cross him with the torpedoes, so caught up in his own hype about being a savage that he discounts Kirk's willingness to sacrifice himself for his crew, and so focused on beating Spock to death that he's caught off guard by Uhura. He thinks purely in terms of weapons and killing, of being a stronger, "superior" warrior, and he's unable to adapt when those things are no longer an asset.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
ShredsYouSay posted:
Because crushing your opponent's skull is a more satisfying demonstration of your superiority, and demonstrating superiority is what Khan is all about. ComposerGuy posted:Not six. Six was the best. Six was totally an action/adventure movie.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
I think some people are a bit confused about the basic plot of the film: Admiral Robocop's plan is to use Khan to build his fancy ship and missiles, then have him do the attacks on London and Starfleet and transport to Kronos. He then manipulates Kirk into flying the Enterprise to the Klingon neutral zone and firing the missiles at Kronos, starting a war with Kirk taking the blame. Khan's plan is to seem to go along with all of that, but to secretly replace the insides of the missiles with his frozen crew, so that when the Enterprise fires them at Kronos, instead of exploding and killing him, they will simply reunite him with his friends. Both plans backfire when Kirk grows a conscience and decides not to start a massive war out of revenge.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
forever gold posted:Star Trek Generations featured genuinely wondrous moments. The stuff about the Nexus is pure Star Trek, fascinating and interesting. The sequence where Picard gets caught up in it is compelling and makes you understand why the villain of that film wants to so desperately return to that place. Yea, the missile reaching the sun in a minute is dumb, but as far as science fiction/storytelling is concerned, that film is leaps and bounds better than Abrams' Star Trek. The last third of Generations is so intensely bad that it drags the rest of the movie down. In no way is it a better movie in a storytelling sense just because it starts out in a fascinating manner. It's like some gorgeous model that is having a really interesting conversation with you, right up to the point where they have the most prolific case of explosive diarrhea you've ever seen/experienced. Later on, you'll never look back and say "my, what an attractive and interesting model". You'll look back and say "That was tremendously lovely." Star Trek Generations, folks. Tremendously lovely.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:I think some people are a bit confused about the basic plot of the film: Maybe I am misunderstanding the plot then. If Khan's plan is to have the missiles fired at Kronos, then why does he surrender when he hears that the number of missiles corresponds to the number of his crew? Couldn't he just run away and goad them into firing on him? Necrothatcher fucked around with this message at 18:32 on May 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:Maybe I am misunderstanding the plot then. If Khan's plan is to have the missiles fired at Kronos, then why does he surrender when he hears that the number of missiles corresponds to the number of his crew? Couldn't he just run away and goad them into firing on him? You should edit your post, because the spoilers are flying in the wind for all to see. In answering your question Kirk being on Kronos is unexpected, so Khan has to improvise. Now that his crew are on the Enterprise, this means that Robocop has no power over him, so he hatches a new plan to get revenge on him / maybe take control of the Negaprise or something.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:I think some people are a bit confused about the basic plot of the film: I don't think Admiral Robocop planned on Khan bombing London, that was an act of vengeance for double crossing him. It seemed to me that Admiral Robocop took advantage of the situation for his own ends.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
Gaz-L posted:Technically, yes, I mean the plot, but overall, the visual storytelling came off more as obfuscating the plot than illuminating it. There's a few bits, and this discussion has highlighted a couple I didn't catch originally, but I still feel both films rely on spectacle to prevent the audience from engaging too deeply, lest they notice how disjointed and confused the plot and characters are. The function of cinematography, effects, editing, production design, etc. is not solely to enhance the plot. The pure visceral experience of looking at and listening to a film is at least as important as the words that are being said by actors on screen. Gaz-L posted:The issue is less budget, more that you can't just go to a prop house and grab a sofa like on a contemporary set show, the majority of things have to be scratch-built. Building everything from scratch means building and furnishing a set costs more money. Though I will agree that the big issue is not budget but actually a lack of vision from Trek designers in the past - they were really stuck into a particular look for Star Trek and forgot to design things that were aesthetically pleasing and instead just designed things that "fit into the canon."
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 17:52
|
|