|
Hbomberguy posted:Picard disobeys orders in every one of the movies because in order to have Action Movie Bullshit happen he basically has to. Action Movie Bullshit the thing show-Picard is usually above, so to 'please the crowd' they have to snap his character in half. The point is the crowd-pleasing element. What if, in the future of man, people cared less about putting on a spectacle and being like an action movie would be, and gave a poo poo about the 'boring' thing - figuring out how to get proper egalitarianism? You can't have your cake and eat it. I like TNG a lot because it comes pretty close to this in a lot of respects. I'm pretty sure Picard doesn't disobey any orders in Generations although it's been a long time since I've seen it. Generations and First Contact were at least willing to explore Picard's character (Nemesis I guess was but it failed hilariously) so that's a plus mark on their report card. First Contact actually does show Picard disobey Starfleet's orders to stay out of the fight because they're worried he might lose it and go apeshit. He disobeys orders, shows up and saves the day and promptly loses it and goes apeshit. I actually really like First Contact because despite being a Star Trek zombie action comedy it actually has some believable character moments for Picard that we've never seen before. It takes a lot to push Picard into Captain Ahab revenge mode but being stuck on his ship fighting hand-to-hand with the Borg for a few days might just do it. Actually I take that back, I like First Contact being a Star Trek zombie action comedy unreservedly. It's just a shame that they handed Frakes the franchise after that and he wanted to just keep making action movies and only action movies. The most popular Star Trek movie (before the advent of international spectacles) was a comedy and the most critically acclaimed was a submarine drama. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Jul 14, 2014 |
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:01 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I'm pretty sure Picard doesn't disobey any orders in Generations although it's been a long time since I've seen it. Generations and First Contact were at least willing to explore Picard's character (Nemesis I guess was but it failed hilariously) so that's a plus mark on their report card. First Contact actually does show Picard disobey Starfleet's orders to stay out of the fight because they're worried he might lose it and go apeshit. He disobeys orders, shows up and saves the day and promptly loses it and goes apeshit. I actually really like First Contact because despite being a Star Trek zombie action comedy it actually has some believable character moments for Picard that we've never seen before. It takes a lot to push Picard into Captain Ahab revenge mode but being stuck on his ship fighting hand-to-hand with the Borg for a few days might just do it. Well, it's a bit of a shame that they rehashed all the Borg stuff for Picard because they'd already explored a lot of that in the episodes 'Family' and 'I, Borg'. It seemed like a step back for the character if you'd watched TNG. e: I do want to make it clear that Patrick Stewart did incredible stuff with the material, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I'm pretty sure Picard doesn't disobey any orders in Generations although it's been a long time since I've seen it. Generations and First Contact were at least willing to explore Picard's character (Nemesis I guess was but it failed hilariously) so that's a plus mark on their report card. First Contact actually does show Picard disobey Starfleet's orders to stay out of the fight because they're worried he might lose it and go apeshit. He disobeys orders, shows up and saves the day and promptly loses it and goes apeshit. I actually really like First Contact because despite being a Star Trek zombie action comedy it actually has some believable character moments for Picard that we've never seen before. It takes a lot to push Picard into Captain Ahab revenge mode but being stuck on his ship fighting hand-to-hand with the Borg for a few days might just do it. Also, First Contact doesn't seem quite as out of character if you remember that he's already gone all "Die Hard" on his ship before, in "Starship Mine".
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Does anyone know a good resource chronicling (with screencaps) the enhancments and changes done to the Blu-rays?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:Does anyone know a good resource chronicling (with screencaps) the enhancments and changes done to the Blu-rays? Aatrek? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:Does anyone know a good resource chronicling (with screencaps) the enhancments and changes done to the Blu-rays? It is........... tainted
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Shat's back? http://badassdigest.com/2014/10/06/star-trek-3-shatner-update-hell-share-the-screen-with-chris-pine/
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
What was the first music piece used in the initial 9-minute preview of Into Darkness?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I actually really like First Contact because despite being a Star Trek zombie action comedy it actually has some believable character moments for Picard that we've never seen before. It takes a lot to push Picard into Captain Ahab revenge mode but being stuck on his ship fighting hand-to-hand with the Borg for a few days might just do it. Yep, First Contact is basically Picard nearly becoming a typical vengeance-fueled madman Star Trek villain and realizing it just before he fully commits to jumping over the deep end. It's significant that it's Lily (the Alfre Woodard character) who confronts him about it and gets him to see the light - as a woman from the primitive 21st century, she's able to truly appreciate both Picard's emotional state and lust for revenge as well as recognize what he'll lose if he succumbs to it: for everyone else on the Enterprise, 24th century ideals are the norm, but for Lily it represents a hope for the future she never had before. One thing that I didn't really appreciate until recently was the whole bit about the Borg wanting someone to give themselves 'freely' to them, which before was an idea that always kind of fell a little flat with me (and I admit they probably could have presented it in a more compelling way). But all these years later having thought about it a bit, I like the idea: the concept that the Borg collective had gotten so large and intricate that it formed another layer of consciousness that the single drone might not be fully aware of. While the drone 'Hugh' spoke about the feeling of connectedness hearing all the 'voices' in the collective, the Borg as a single collective entity if utterly alone, like a massive organism simply floating in the blackness of space... it makes sense that at some point it would want a 'counterpart'. It also makes me wonder if the Borg 'queen' we see is an avatar the Borg feel best suited for 'seducing' their prospective counterpart; maybe if the other party was a woman they would present a Borg 'king', for instance, and likewise put on their best face according to whatever form their desired partner would respond to. I never thought about making the sex connection with the Borg Queen so seriously before--it always just seemed to begin and end with "the Borg Queen looks like a dominatrix and she bangs Data" to me--but I'm starting to see it. Picard's exchange with the Borg in which he 'figures out' the whole counterpart thing even sounds appropriately relationship-y in this context; almost like he's saying "I wasn't just a random gently caress for you, was I? You had feelings for me," which sheds light on the Borg's defensive response, which reads like "You flatter yourself! I boned countless men, you were no different," and Picard calls their bluff with a response akin to "You're lying, I rocked your world." I mean, I realize the whole thing sounds hilarious when you put it that way but that's basically what's happening there. I give the screenwriters props because while it could've been handled a little better, it also could've been wwwwaaaaaaayyyyyy worse. I know a lot of fans hated the development of the Borg Queen and I can definitely understand why, but I think she's kept precisely ambiguous enough (in First Contact, at least, I can't really speak to whether they spoiled the whole thing in Voyager) to make the Borg seem more mysterious and complex, like we can almost understand them but they're so advanced they exist just outside of our understanding of the universe, and we can't always read their intentions (obviously Picard discovers the Borg's need for companionship, but we really don't know what they have planned for Earth and their attempted altering of history). I mean, she's never even referred to as a 'Queen' in the film. Arglebargle III posted:It's just a shame that they handed Frakes the franchise after that and he wanted to just keep making action movies and only action movies. The most popular Star Trek movie (before the advent of international spectacles) was a comedy and the most critically acclaimed was a submarine drama. The late Michael Piller had planned to release a book about his experience writing Star Trek Insurrection and the manuscript leaked a few years back and it was very interesting and revealing. The most illuminating thing for me was that the concept for the movie (on a very high level) was that they wanted to create a Star Trek IV for the Next Generation cast. It's a little sad that very early on in the development process they assumed that times had changed and that they couldn't make a movie without some action and laser blasting (the book doesn't make it sound like there was any controversy among the staff over this decision; it was just taken as a given). Insurrection's execution makes quite a bit more sense to me after learning that (I'd never considered that before largely because I'd already figured the Next Gen case already had their "Star Trek IV" moment of sorts with First Contact). Thing is, by trying to make such a light-hearted movie within a war-like context, they pretty much made a movie that was a lot more like the other time Star Trek tried to recreate the "Star Trek IV" magic-- Star Trek V.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Do people actually think Insurrection was terribly bad? I don't think it's a particularly exciting movie, but I never saw any massive flaws. It's just ... a bit bland.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Do people actually think Insurrection was terribly bad? I don't think it's a particularly exciting movie, but I never saw any massive flaws. It's just ... a bit bland. Some people consider boredom to be a major flaw in the moviegoing experience
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
You see, Insurrection is like a nice massage. It's not exciting, but a lot of things shouldn't be exciting, like massages, breakfast, going to the loo, and the Enterprise crew just shooting the poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Do people actually think Insurrection was terribly bad? I don't think it's a particularly exciting movie, but I never saw any massive flaws. It's just ... a bit bland. It's just all a bit lovely and doesn't make sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlV3bsafkq0 twoot fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:You see, Insurrection is like a nice massage. It's not exciting, but a lot of things shouldn't be exciting, like massages, breakfast, going to the loo, and the Enterprise crew just shooting the poo poo. Insurrection isn't aggressively terrible or anything (honestly I don't think any of the Trek flicks are all that bad, it seems to be this weird fan thing - and this goes for any media property - to have certain movies you LOVE and other you HATE.), but I don't think it really works on any of the levels it's going for. The drama comes off preachy (and somebody should have told the producers that of the many qualities of the TV show people were fond of, its tendency toward pontification was not one of them) and gets neutered by the jokey tone of the whole thing, and the comedy is entirely based on the crew acting out of character (it's nice at least, that they have an explanation for the gang acting a little silly whereas Star Trek V had the crew acting like buffoons for no apparent reason), and the action feels forced and unearned (I don't buy the Enterprise would have that much trouble with those enemy ships, for instance). I can throw in Nemesis if I'm in a lowbrow goofy action TNG-crew-shooting-the-poo poo Star Trek mood, but I never feel like that with Insurrection. The movie just never really 'gels' and I feel like I'm wasting my time watching it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
The RedLetterMedia review of Insurrection points out some of the most amusingly un-Trek things about it. My favorite is that action movie ending where they beam out Picard as the array is exploding and leave the other guy to die. Like, just because. They could have just beamed him out too, and it's not even clear the knew who was there with Picard. But nope, just beam out Picard. Starfleet doesn't believe in taking bad guys to trial, kill 'em all and let
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
This is terrible. I hate to know this even exists.lizardman posted:I can throw in Nemesis if I'm in a lowbrow goofy action TNG-crew-shooting-the-poo poo Star Trek mood, but I never feel like that with Insurrection. The movie just never really 'gels' and I feel like I'm wasting my time watching it. I agree with your characterization of Insurrection though, especially about the Exciting Space Battles feeling annoyingly forced. I wonder if there is any kind of pattern behind what Trek movies somebody likes and hates, and what series they favor. Like, if you like TNG, you're also more likely to like TMP, and if you like JJTrek, you're more likely to also like First Contact. Or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
This is why noone takes Worf's advice seriously.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
I don't have the energy to hate Nemesis, I just skip to the battle scene, watch that, and then shut it off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I wonder if there is any kind of pattern behind what Trek movies somebody likes and hates, and what series they favor. Like, if you like TNG, you're also more likely to like TMP, and if you like JJTrek, you're more likely to also like First Contact. Or whatever. Here's a data point to start you off. I like TOS the best and I think 3 and 5 are underrated. I also think 4 and 6 are good but overrated. I liked the director's cut of TMP and even for the theatrical I appreciate its ambition. And I pretty much think the TNG movies descend in quality in chronological order, from Generations down to Nemesis at the bottom. I liked Trek '09 a lot and Into Darkness a lot, but less than '09.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I wonder if there is any kind of pattern behind what Trek movies somebody likes and hates, and what series they favor. Like, if you like TNG, you're also more likely to like TMP, and if you like JJTrek, you're more likely to also like First Contact. Or whatever. The definitive episode of TNG is called 'Schisms'. It's about life on the Enterprise being so banal and awful that the characters start going insane. Naturally, there's a literal plot explanation: the insanity is 'actually' being caused by nightmare aliens attracted to scanner radiation. But really, the point of the episode is that listening to technobabble all day is making Riker mentally and physically unwell. The idea that, despite the appearance of freedom, you are 'actually' strapped to a vivisection table is straight-up Matrix imagery. There's something imperceptible in the atmosphere - this malaise. The Next Generation is, in other words, dystopian fiction. Aliens in TNG, from the ones in Schisms up to the Borg, reflect the crew's unspoken anxieties about being scanned, objectified, and stripped of agency. Maybe being periodically ripped apart and reassembled messes with your head? Maybe we're no better than the loving robot? In Star Trek 2009, this is all mostly played for laughs. The bad guy has space madness and the heroes, understanding that they are just as susceptible, consciously avoid it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
DS9 addresses that with the root beer analogy and more generally with Section 31. DS9 shows a clear hindsight that TNG tech and attitudes could at any moment slide into dystopian oppression and how menacing that makes the federation's upbeat decency. Heck, episodes like The Drumhead display an awareness of this during the original run of TNG, maybe even Conspiracy in season 1 suggests that the federation could shift from utopia to dystopia very easily or may even already be dystopic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
Section 31 is implying that underlying the superficially utopian world is a hidden threat to turn it despotically totalitarian. I think SMG is saying that the world isn't even superficially utopian, it's a dystopia filled with forced smiles.EX-GAIJIN AT LAST posted:Here's a data point to start you off. I like TOS the best and I think 3 and 5 are underrated. I also think 4 and 6 are good but overrated. I liked the director's cut of TMP and even for the theatrical I appreciate its ambition. And I pretty much think the TNG movies descend in quality in chronological order, from Generations down to Nemesis at the bottom. I liked Trek '09 a lot and Into Darkness a lot, but less than '09.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
It all rests on what you consider a utopia to be and if utopia can exist. A perfect society runs the risk of being boring, an exciting dangerous galaxy requires Star Fleet Admirals to have at least the potential to become, or already be, dictators. Section 31 could be the heroic thin blue line making the utopia possible or the secret police forcing everyone's smiles. (I really dislike section 31 as a plot device and a concept in the Federation because it is such an unsubtle way to raise doubts about the nature of the Federation. It's akin to having a caste of secret therapists in the Klingon Empire to raise doubts about whether an ardently militarist society could function.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:(I really dislike section 31 as a plot device and a concept in the Federation because it is such an unsubtle way to raise doubts about the nature of the Federation. It's akin to having a caste of secret therapists in the Klingon Empire to raise doubts about whether an ardently militarist society could function.) Agree on Section 31 though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
On the one hand, I don't like section 31 because it undermines one of the basic premises of Trek: That in the future when we have a near-utopian post-scarcity society, we will still have human problems. Section 31 having been around for a long time changes that premise to "In the future, things will still be the same". On the other hand, Section 31 and the revelation of it's existence to people like Sisko is a pretty strong mirror of what happens when people study American history and politics. The way that Starfleet and the Federation talks about itself is not unlike how Fox News talks about America and freedom. The real truth is that things are never as good as the claims made by the people who benefit most from that illusion. Which doesn't mean that you should stop striving to uphold your ideals, but rather that current problems aren't the result of a breakdown of traditional values, and are instead the failure of the PR illusion to continue obscuring systemic problems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
I do love the concept of Section 31, but I can see how it would be a bit disheartening. The great thing about it is that all of the characters are in disbelief about its existence, that such a thing could possibly exist. Only sneaky jerks like the Romulans and Cardassians should have secret police. The Federation should be above such things... only it's not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Roberto Orci has stepped down from directing ST3. Apparently Jonathan Frakes is now pushing to get the job, waiting for response from Paramount. "I'm all over it. I would love that job. I'm trying to keep the lid on how excited I am about the possibility, knowing it's such a long shot. But there's nothing I would like better."
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
NarkyBark posted:Roberto Orci has stepped down from directing ST3. I'm totally on board, as long as the director's chair is low enough for him to do that weird straddle thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Personally I feel like Frakes peaked with Clockstoppers (2002).
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Riker is high off his rear end if he thinks he has a chance of getting that gig.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
I think Frakes would be high to get any Hollywood franchise these days. Even the really crappy but low-key ones, like the Boondock Saints.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
NarkyBark posted:Roberto Orci has stepped down from directing ST3. Yaaaaassssssssssssssssss (I know it will never happen, shut up)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:Riker is high off his rear end if he thinks he has a chance of getting that gig. A Star Trek movie made with this cast and a high off his rear end Jonathan Frakes would be right up my alley.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
His borg movie was p good but his other trek film was flaming garbage and I havent seen a single other thing hes directed. His ghost show was cool though he should just go back to that
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
zVxTeflon posted:His borg movie was p good but his other trek film was flaming garbage and I havent seen a single other thing hes directed. Even if you think Insurrection is a total turd (I think it just suffers from a lack of ambition) it's worth watching solely for the commentary by Frakes and Marinna Sirtis. "Did we shoot this? Was I there? I don't remember this..." "You're there! You're right on camera!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
I'll join a letter writing campaign so long as he promises to put a scene at the end where he shows up in a too-small uniform and it's revealed that the whole thing was on the holodeck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Con: Frakes is a poo poo director Pro: He knows he's poo poo and has a ton of fun being poo poo Con: He once said that Star Trek fans want a ton of action in their Trek films Pro(?): He said that in promotional material for Nemesis so he may have been forced Pro: He's completely chill and assuming the writing is okay he's gonna let the actors shine Pro: Probable rad commentary track
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Honestly Trek is just about the only franchise Frakes has a prayer of getting, just because he did First Contact and that made a bunch of money and is generally well-liked.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:01 |
|
|
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/12/22/justin-lin-star-trek-3-director-roberto-orci/ Justin Lin directing Star Trek 2016. Sorry Jonathan Frakes, but color me stoked!
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 04:37
|
|