|
1st AD posted: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. That is an alien view to most film goers and even most ardent cinephiles. Ultimately the function of a film is to relate a narrative, and while the film can be exceptionally artful in the technical means it uses to relate a narrative, if it doesn't impress or engage in that regard then it's a failure. And at the end of the day J.J Abrams is no Terrence Malick but an exceptionally pedestrian director who is no more technically impressive than hundreds of other directors in Hollywood, so I'm not sure why this Film Comment type argument is pulled to defend him, of all directors!
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
As someone who's not familiar with Star Trek, I really enjoyed this movie. My favorite part was the climactic fight. I didn't realize Vulcans were stronger and faster than humans, so it puzzled me when Spock teleported to the surface alone. I was thinking "You should've brought backup; Khan's gonna snap your skinny rear end in half." Then Spock started doing his thing  . Apparently, Vulcans turn into Super Saiyans if you make them angry enough.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
forever gold posted:That is an alien view to most film goers and even most ardent cinephiles. Ultimately the function of a film is to relate a narrative, and while the film can be exceptionally artful in the technical means it uses to relate a narrative, if it doesn't impress or engage in that regard then it's a failure. And at the end of the day J.J Abrams is no Terrence Malick but an exceptionally pedestrian director who is no more technically impressive than hundreds of other directors in Hollywood.  Tell us more about how wrong you are.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
Reading that last spoiler is wrong I'd want Leonard Nimoy Spock to go chase Khan down and beat the crap out of him, dragging him back to the Enterprise to save Jim?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
Fishmonkey posted:As someone who's not familiar with Star Trek, I really enjoyed this movie. My favorite part was the climactic fight. I didn't realize Vulcans were stronger and faster than humans, so it puzzled me when Spock teleported to the surface alone. I was thinking "You should've brought backup; Khan's gonna snap your skinny rear end in half." I think Vulcan is supposed to be a slightly higher gravity world (I wanna say 1.4 earth g) but I don't have memory alpha on hand to fact-check that. That explains Vulcan strength being a bit higher than human norm.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
forever gold posted:That is an alien view to most film goers and even most ardent cinephiles. Ultimately the function of a film is to relate a narrative, and while the film can be exceptionally artful in the technical means it uses to relate a narrative, if it doesn't impress or engage in that regard then it's a failure. What a load of bollocks.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
forever gold posted:Ultimately the function of a film is to relate a narrative, and while the film can be exceptionally artful in the technical means it uses to relate a narrative, if it doesn't impress or engage in that regard then it's a failure. No, no, you're thinking of books. Books.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
forever gold posted:That is an alien view to most film goers and even most ardent cinephiles. Ultimately the function of a film is to relate a narrative, and while the film can be exceptionally artful in the technical means it uses to relate a narrative, if it doesn't impress or engage in that regard then it's a failure. And at the end of the day J.J Abrams is no Terrence Malick but an exceptionally pedestrian director who is no more technically impressive than hundreds of other directors in Hollywood, so I'm not sure why this Film Comment type argument is pulled to defend him, of all directors! Beaten but you are so full of poo poo here. Please go away.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
I went to see this lunchtime today: if you liked the '09 one (like me), you'll like this one. It is however, a film for people that know hardly anything about Star Trek. I know a very great deal about Star Trek, but don't care about it in any way, so when [redacted] says [redacted] to [redacted], I can hear the true Trek fans gasp in horror, while I just let the whole thing wash over me. Really, it's fine.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
forever gold posted:That is an alien view to most film goers and even most ardent cinephiles. Ultimately the function of a film is to relate a narrative, and while the film can be exceptionally artful in the technical means it uses to relate a narrative, if it doesn't impress or engage in that regard then it's a failure. You are so, SO wrong about this. The Art of Flight is a snowboarding film that basically has no plot. Yes, it has people talking and planning their escapades but it's all superfluous to the action. People watched this poo poo in droves. People paid $20 to see it in theatres even when a $10 digital download was available. People paid to watch it again in 3D. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh29_SERH0Y At the onset of cinema, people went to theatres to see anything on the big screen. Narrative wasn't as important as the experience. Just because we have the ability to record sound and present narrative doesn't mean that the other aspects of filmmaking don't matter or don't stand on their own.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I think Vulcan is supposed to be a slightly higher gravity world (I wanna say 1.4 earth g) but I don't have memory alpha on hand to fact-check that. That explains Vulcan strength being a bit higher than human norm. That, and part of the story of race we're discussing is that the rest of the galaxy should be thanking their lucky stars that they adopted a philosophy that curtailed their violent impulses.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
forever gold posted:That is an alien view to most film goers and even most ardent cinephiles. Ultimately the function of a film is to relate a narrative, and while the film can be exceptionally artful in the technical means it uses to relate a narrative, if it doesn't impress or engage in that regard then it's a failure. And at the end of the day J.J Abrams is no Terrence Malick but an exceptionally pedestrian director who is no more technically impressive than hundreds of other directors in Hollywood, so I'm not sure why this Film Comment type argument is pulled to defend him, of all directors! Films aren't plot injection devices. You are thinking of Wikipedia. Cinematography, effects, editing, production design, etc. are all part of the narrative (often more so than the plot). This is just more high/low art or steak hamburger false dichotomy bullshit. There is no reason you can't or shouldn't examine a J.J. Abrams film the same way you would a Malick film.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
The weirdest thing about 'forever gold''s comment is that he assumes most moviegoers are there for the narrative, when I'd be willing to wager the vast majority of moviegoers watch movies because they 'look cool'. On the movie itself, if you'll let me indulge my inner geek/ fanboy, I'm becoming increasingly irritated that it appears that the Khan of this movie doesn't at all resemble the one I'm familiar with, whether in appearance or demeanor. I know, "waaah they changed things", but Khan's been one of my favorite villains since childhood and while I would have preffered they left him alone, seeing him back in action in would have been a real treat. I keep looking for something, anything with what I've seen of his presentation that makes me go, "Wow, that's Khan!" but so far I just see some guy who looks nothing like Khan, sounds nothing like Khan, and doesn't seem to act much like Khan and I'm just supposed to accept that he's the same character. It's just a shame because it sounds like this is going to be really good otherwise but may end up being a movie I dislike for my own personal bullshit reasons, and may make me be unable to fully appreciate what sounds like a great performance from Cumbercatch. My problem and not the movie's, I guess, but I felt like just a *little* bit of consistency with the villain's portrayal would have went a long way.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
Just like Jackass the Movie was just a way for people to follow the story of Steve O's career. And every horror movie is there to answer the question: just what's going to happen to those teenagers?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
1st AD posted:You are so, SO wrong about this. But, from what I gather, that film stylistically presents real athletes engaging in great feats in wondrous, natural surroundings, and that's something that's fascinating in and of itself. It's simple and clear in its purpose, much like pornography, which also, so often, doesn't require plot or narrative. Consider that the serial killer drama The Cell contains far more captivating, artful and exciting imagery than in Silence of the Lambs. Yet the latter is considered one of the greatest films of all time and The Cell is all but forgotten. Great cinematography and direction, if not at the service of decent narrative, are almost entirely superfluous or quickly forgotten, and J.J Abrams is only a mediocre director anyway (is there a memorable sequence from his entry in the Mission Impossible series? There's quite a few memorable sequences in the ones directed De Palma and John Woo.) Anyway, I change my mind. I'm now convinced of your argument. Excuse me while I go partake in the delectable visual artistic experience that is TRANSFORMERS, also written by the scribes who have brought us the new Star Treks.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Transformers is visually brilliant, so good on you I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
forever gold posted:(is there a memorable sequence from his entry in the Mission Impossible series? There's quite a few memorable sequences in the ones directed De Palma and John Woo.) The De Palma MI was totally forgettable and MI2 is a stupid piece of trash with a convoluted plot and really stupid looking motorcycle action scenes.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
forever gold posted:(is there a memorable sequence from his entry in the Mission Impossible series?) The climax of 3 when Hunt is rescuing his wife while the bomb in his head is getting ready to go off is absolutely fantastic and is probably my favorite sequences he's done (with the opening scene of Trek 09 being just about as good). 3 and Ghost Protocol were easily the two best of the MI series, both in plot and appearance.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
Danger posted:Transformers is visually brilliant, so good on you I guess. I know I bowed out of discussion, but... am I missing sarcasm here?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
The first two MI movies are really bad (and the 2nd one had at least one pass of the script written by Ron Moore and Brannon Braga), so I'm not sure what your point is here. I actually do think I enjoy Abrams' MI over Brad Bird's, but I think it's mostly because of good casting choices in Abrams' film. Also Abrams is a better director than Bird. Also, Transformers is a pretty good film experience. If you're going to single it out for being aggressively stupid then I will gladly watch Transformers instead of Star Trek 5, 9, and 10 because those films masquerade themselves in a cloak of "intelligent" sci-fi and have no excuse for having lovely plotting. And at least Transformers looks good, almost every Star Trek movie and TV show looks like poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:I know I bowed out of discussion, but... am I missing sarcasm here? Hewlett posted:For those of you who remember the Terry van Feleday legendary Transformers thread, I went ahead and made a PDF of what was written about the third one (plus her writeup of Duel) since it's now archived. I know Fat Lou made PDFs of the first two, not sure where they are. That'll lend an idea. DFu4ever posted:The climax of 3 when Hunt is rescuing his wife while the bomb in his head is getting ready to go off is absolutely fantastic and is probably my favorite sequences he's done (with the opening scene of Trek 09 being just about as good). It's funny. I had high hopes for that one. I actually thought they'd have the guts to go through with killing his wife. But then, nope, mask, and then I just felt disappointment. I shouldn't have built it up in my head. Ghost Protocol was good though. Gatts fucked around with this message at 21:05 on May 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Gatts posted:That'll lend an idea. OK... I spent four years studying film, I agree that for the most part the high art/low art dichotomy is bullshit. However, that's not the same as good/bad not being applicable. 'Art' films can be poo poo, action films can be great. The reverse can also be true and that is not ghettoisation. To quote the late, great Mr Ebert, "One special effect happens, and the another special effect happens, and we are expected to be grateful that we have seen two special effects." That's about 70% of all 3 Transformers movies.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
The Transformers Derail is becoming the new Prometheus Derail. Let's talk about how all Trek is bad and how it sucks that this movie isn't a remake of The One With the Whales instead. You know what's really bad? Star Trek. I like whales though.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:The Transformers Derail is becoming the new Prometheus Derail. Let's talk about how all Trek is bad and how it sucks that this movie isn't a remake of The One With the Whales instead. Whales suck, Ahab had the right idea. 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:Whales suck, Ahab had the right idea.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:The Transformers Derail is becoming the new Prometheus Derail. Let's talk about how all Trek is bad and how it sucks that this movie isn't a remake of The One With the Whales instead. Noooooo! The line must be drawn hey-ah and no further! I want to say something with regards to the suggestion of discomfort with the Federation using Starfleet, Humanity's/Earth's military department for the purpose of exploration. The notion of having a gun while claiming to come in peace or some such. I'd take it as a suggestion the soldier in the Trek world requires them to think of their own accord and hold higher beliefs or such than rote personnel to achieve a purpose. Take mid TNG Picard. Explorers in the past that were non military sanctioned held weapons as well. Although I suppose messengers not always when declaring to come in Peace. DS9 tested humanity, Starfleet and the Federation, and they faltered. Section 31 shows humanity always had a flaw and that Utopia wasn't. Even in Deep Space 9, Bashir (an engineered man) helps to bring it down if I recall and it is rejected. I dunno, I had a train of thought here that got derailed. Gatts fucked around with this message at 21:44 on May 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Noooooo! The line must be drawn hey-ah and no further!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:I liked when Quark made fun of that scene in the comedy parody of it in 90's Grimdark Comic Book TV series Deep Space 9. They tried so hard to be different. And ended up being the best series behind TOS.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:And ended up being the best series behind TOS. Does this movie have anything as meaningful as the Dark For Dark's Sake episode of DS9 where they play baseball? Doubtful. I loved how that one fundamentally ruined the Exploration of Man theme and was super pro-militant. I hope in Into Darkness they take that scene down a peg but I know they won't because lensflares.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:Sorry but this discussion has proven objectively that Star Trek is Bad, even the good ones. Especially the good ones. It was not as dark as TOS series episode in which they go on Shore Leave and creatures from their imagination and past attacked them.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:It was not as dark as TOS series episode in which they go on Shore Leave and creatures from their imagination and past attacked them.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
This instantly climbs to #3 or maybe even #2 on the list of Star Trek movies for me. Not only was it a super exciting action movie but also a genuine Trek experience and I couldn't be happier. Fantastic. PS gently caress Star Wars, stay here JJ!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:No, no, you're thinking of books. Books. It's not even an accurate description of books or even novels in particular. At best it is the primary goal of many books.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
I saw this last night and loved it The only thing I didn't like was the "KHAAAN" scene, they went a bit far with the almost word for word "callback" or whatever. People are whining that khan didn't act anything like the original khan, but in WoK he'd been marooned on a lifeless planet, his wife and his family were all dead/dying and he'd gone insane. Also, I don't care what anyone says, the warp core is badass.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
I was getting vaguely annoyed about people saying Into Darkness is a rejection of Old Trek, and I think I've figured out why it was bugging me: It's the other way round, a celebration of the influences of the older works, and this can be clearly seen by comparing the villains from the '09 film and ID. I really like the analysis that keeps getting posted about Nero representing the hardcore fan who is so obsessed with canon that he'd rather kill the new series (Kirk) in it's allegorical cradle than allow it to flourish and become great on its own. Compare this with Khan, who despite being a callback himself to the earlier series is the embodiment of every complaint leveled at the '09 film: More action oriented (shooting two guns at once, jumping around like a grasshopper), wearing all black, being employed by an unscrupulous authority to remake Starfleet with bigger ships, more weapons, and completely devoid of optimism or a spirit of scientific inquiry. Khan represents a demonized version of Abrams, who coldly claims these new methods are better "at everything" and tries to use his bigger, faster ship to destroy the Enterprise (an idealized memory of Star Trek), and when that fails rams Earth in an attempt to destroy the Federation (Star Trek fans). He is at least partially defeated by Spock paying homage and seeking advice from a literal relic of the old series, and his plans are foiled in ways that mirror the past. The message is that Abrams respects the source material while not being afraid to change things or put his own stamp on it, and I like the result.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
thatbastardken posted:I was getting vaguely annoyed about people saying Into Darkness is a rejection of Old Trek, and I think I've figured out why it was bugging me: It's the other way round, a celebration of the influences of the older works, and this can be clearly seen by comparing the villains from the '09 film and ID. That's pretty great! Honestly, Into Darkness is as real a Star Trek story as they come. It has the spirit of Star Trek, the characters, the philosophy - what's missing? It's a fantastic movie.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 10:03
|
|
|
This was a god drat enjoyable movie. I haven't been so excited or tense while watching a blockbuster in years. It struck a perfect balance between the good old Trek mentality and JJ's new take on things.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 10:56
|
|
|
Random thoughts, neither useful nor meaningful: When Dr Carol Marcus got teleported off the bridge against her will, someone could have grabbed onto her and gone for a ride (while armed), right? I don't think the Enterprise actually fired a single weapon of any kind in that entire movie. They got shot at a few times, but didn't get anything away.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 10:58
|
|
|
Stonefish posted:Random thoughts, neither useful nor meaningful: I don't think transporting works like that, worst case you could end up as a mess of atomic goo. Steve2911 posted:This was a god drat enjoyable movie. I haven't been so excited or tense while watching a blockbuster in years. It struck a perfect balance between the good old Trek mentality and JJ's new take on things. gently caress yes. Man I am positively euphoric that this movie turned out so good. My favourite Trek story since TNG ended.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 11:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
forever gold posted:J.J Abrams is only a mediocre director anyway (is there a memorable sequence from his entry in the Mission Impossible series? There's quite a few memorable sequences in the ones directed De Palma and John Woo.) The gunfight with Keri Russell and Cruise, helicopter chase, the bridge scene, the shanghai heist, just off the top of my head.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2013 11:51
|
|
