|
Okay, that's fair, but it only matters because they time-traveled back to the 20th century where people cared that he was Russian.
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
I liked Star Trek best when it was about exploring in the final frontier and coming across crazy, baffling things. I like to call it, alliteratively, arbitrarily advanced ancient alien artifacts. Even when it got goofy like the giant space amoeba, it was at least different from anything else on TV. I'd rather they next take a risk and make a movie more in the vein of TMP than infinite variations on Wrath of Khan or re-exploring Alpha Quadrant politics as in Undiscovered Country. If there's one sentence that sums up what I think the spirit of Trek ought to be, it's Q's challenge to Picard: "If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires, both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Snak posted:Okay, that's fair, but it only matters because they time-traveled back to the 20th century where people cared that he was Russian. There's a running gag where Chekhov will make some boastful claim about Russia or Russians and the rest of the bridge crew will roll their eyes and condescend him. It's never a major plot point, but it is kinda what you correctly say should be avoided with a Muslim character.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:There's a running gag where Chekhov will make some boastful claim about Russia or Russians and the rest of the bridge crew will roll their eyes and condescend him. It's never a major plot point, but it is kinda what you correctly say should be avoided with a Muslim character. "You have to read Shakespeare in the original Klingon" 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:"You have to read Shakespeare in the original Klingon" Yeah, that's also a regular bit, but with Chekhov it's a little different. He isn't making the joke, he's the butt of the joke.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
I know this is sort of fanficky of me, but after the destruction of Vulcan in Trek '09, I was sort of ready for the film series to have the first three films of the reboot deal with immediate and long-term repercussions of that. Starfleet and Klingons (according to radio chatter) have both experienced major fleet losses. The Vulcans have been reduced to near nothingness and are without an established homeworld and have lost much of the core of their existing culture. The Federation has lost a major political and technological ally. It seems like there was room to tell a story around those sort of things that fit in a bit with the Trek tone.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:There's a running gag where Chekhov will make some boastful claim about Russia or Russians and the rest of the bridge crew will roll their eyes and condescend him. It's never a major plot point, but it is kinda what you correctly say should be avoided with a Muslim character. yeah, that's specifically what I was referring to. The thing about wanting to emulate the progressiveness of TOS is that TOS was progressive for the time, but we don't actually want to mimic it. Holy poo poo. The garden of eden... "It was just outside Moscow!" so funny. edit: JediTalentAgent posted:I know this is sort of fanficky of me, but after the destruction of Vulcan in Trek '09, I was sort of ready for the film series to have the first three films of the reboot deal with immediate and long-term repercussions of that. Snak fucked around with this message at 20:54 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Man, picking Nemesis as my first non JJ Star Trek film was probably a bad choice. I hope the others are better.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
What gave you the bad idea to start with Nemesis?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Yaws posted:Man, picking Nemesis as my first non JJ Star Trek film was probably a bad choice. I hope the others are better. This might be an unpopular opinion, but if you're familiar with trek in general, start from the beginning. A lot of people hate the first movie, but despite it being slow and trying to crib from 2001 way too hard, it's bizarre in a way that to me feels uniquely Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Tequila Bob posted:What gave you the bad idea to start with Nemesis? A little thing called Mary Jane
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Yaws posted:A little thing called Mary Jane Mary Jane is also the lady to talk to when you watch Star Trek The Motion Picture.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
TMP is rad. It's a long TOS episode with really great effects. So they show off the model. You'd want to show that model off too. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
TMP is bad, boring and stilted but probably pretty great on some nice weed. A good editor could take an axe to that film and get 30 minutes out of it, probably.EX-GAIJIN AT LAST posted:I liked Star Trek best when it was about exploring in the final frontier and coming across crazy, baffling things. I like to call it, alliteratively, arbitrarily advanced ancient alien artifacts. Even when it got goofy like the giant space amoeba, it was at least different from anything else on TV. I'd rather they next take a risk and make a movie more in the vein of TMP than infinite variations on Wrath of Khan or re-exploring Alpha Quadrant politics as in Undiscovered Country. I've always loved those episodes too, but then again I love pretty much any premise as long as it's executed well. I don't, however, love the "they're action movies now" premise. I can get that elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
cat doter posted:TMP is bad, boring and stilted but probably pretty great on some nice weed. When I watch the wormhole scene I feel like I'm on weed anyway, wonder what it would be like if I was actually smoking.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
The long effects shots feel like exactly the right amount and also you get to giggle at all the little clues that the whole drat movie is a sex metaphor
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
cat doter posted:TMP is bad, boring and stilted but probably pretty great on some nice weed. A good editor could take an axe to that film and get 30 minutes out of it, probably. The Director's cut (out on DVD only) adds five scenes back in but is the same length as the original because they trimmed up the editing in the rest of the movie. It's overall much better paced. Unfortunately it's dependent on the new FX that were done for the re-edit and they were only done at DVD resolution, not HD. Screw resolution, grab the Director's cut on DVD. MikeJF fucked around with this message at 02:32 on May 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:The Director's cut (out on DVD only) adds five scenes back in but is the same length as the original because they trimmed up the editing in the rest of the movie. It's overall much better paced. Unfortunately it's dependent on the new FX that were done for the re-edit and they were only done at DVD resolution, not HD. The sound mix is totally hosed on the Director's Edition, though.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
A Steampunk Gent posted:Anyways to bring this back to the new film, while I doubt they're going to go full self-criticism and try and rebuild the world as a logically coherent leftist utopia it'd be interesting if they continued to acknowledge Starfleet's dual and often contradictory role as a nominally pacifist exploration and aid organisation and a hierarchically organised military body and what that actually entails for the crew if they want to be part of that organisation. Into Darkness was pretty on the nose with the whole in presenting them unambiguously as the armed forces but it was pretty pessimistic in tone and didn't really have anything to add past 'well we stopped this one crazy Admiral AGAIN' Broadly speaking, what would a story where they "try to resolve the issue on a structural level" look like in a two hour format? What would it have to say (about the Feds/Star Trek/us), how would it end, and how would it affect the next Star Trek story (whether it was a movie, or a series, or...)? (I'll admit that this probably speaks to a failure of imagination on my part.) Timby posted:The sound mix is totally hosed on the Director's Edition, though. I wish I could say it baffles me why they replaced some of the sound effects, but I'm pretty sure (albeit out of cynical speculation) that it was out of a perverse desire to harmonize older Trek material to the TNG+ "standard'. Or are you talking about the actual audio mixing? It's been a long time since I've seen the Director's Edition. Which reminds me, why the hell didn't they do Director's Edition blu-rays for Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country? There wasn't any CGI done for those... and Undiscovered Country could really have done without those hideous flashbacks they inserted for the DVD.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I wish I could say it baffles me why they replaced some of the sound effects, but I'm pretty sure (albeit out of cynical speculation) that it was out of a perverse desire to harmonize older Trek material to the TNG+ "standard'. Also the Theatrical version's alert was really loving annoying.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I wish I could say it baffles me why they replaced some of the sound effects, but I'm pretty sure (albeit out of cynical speculation) that it was out of a perverse desire to harmonize older Trek material to the TNG+ "standard'. A little from column A and a little from column B. Dubbing Majel Barrett over the computer is the worst, because you can still hear the original cold, robotic voice underneath her dub. quote:Which reminds me, why the hell didn't they do Director's Edition blu-rays for Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country? There wasn't any CGI done for those... and Undiscovered Country could really have done without those hideous flashbacks they inserted for the DVD. Broadly speaking, Star Trek has never been a huge moneymaker for Paramount on home video outside of the DVD craze around 2002-03, and they just don't care that much about it (hell, they only put the original six films on Blu-ray to cash in on the 2009 movie) -- that's why you get goofy poo poo like the movies being DNRed to hell and Wrath of Khan having a hideous blue tone out of nowhere: DVD  Blu-ray 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
I wonder if they might rethink a high-quality remastered Blu-Ray after the success of the TNG Blu-Ray project.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:I wonder if they might rethink a high-quality remastered Blu-Ray after the success of the TNG Blu-Ray project. Given that Paramount had nothing to do with that project I doubt it has even been a blip on their radar.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
I know they're not involved but it does demonstrate the Trek home video market can be revved up.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:I know they're not involved but it does demonstrate the Trek home video market can be revved up. Not necessarily. The TNG Blu-ray sales started soft and went down from there, and I'm pretty sure CBS wound up losing money on the project as a whole. And generally speaking, studios are reducing their commitment to physical media, not increasing their spends. Timby fucked around with this message at 21:22 on May 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Which reminds me, why the hell didn't they do Director's Edition blu-rays for Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country? There wasn't any CGI done for those... and Undiscovered Country could really have done without those hideous flashbacks they inserted for the DVD. Couldn't say why they didn't on WOK as the additions were fine, but thank loving god we got the theatrical cut back for Undiscovered Country blu ray. The DVD version directors cut cropped the picture from 2.35:1 to 2.00:1 and added those terrible "HEY REMEMBER THESE PEOPLE!?!?!" flashes during Spock's mind meld interrogation with Valeris. Timby posted:Not necessarily. The TNG Blu-ray sales started soft and went down from there, and I'm pretty sure CBS wound up losing money on the project as a hole. And generally speaking, studios are reducing their commitment to physical media, not increasing their spends. I have to think CBS did the restore not only for the blu rays but so TNG would be set to go for syndication in HD. They have to be looking at the bigger picture otherwise it makes no sense to me why they did the blu rays in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Snak posted:It's actually really loving ridiculous and shows how little anyone involved in these movies cares about Trek fans. HOLY poo poo THIS AINT YOUR DADDY'S TREK WE BLEW UP VULCAN! Which then has no repercussion and isn't explored at all. Like they just did it for shock value in that movie and didn't follow it up at all in STID. Like if there was a Red Dawn 2, and it was a sequel with the same characters who were in regular highschool again, but this time, MEXICO WAS INVADING! Holy poo poo, it's the same movie again, and magically there was no carryover from the events of the first film. Everything starfleet does in Into Darkness is a reaction to the loss of Vulcan and the majority of the fleet. Like JediTalentAgent pointed out, Nero and his crazy-future ship completely changed the balance of power in the galaxy: The Enterprise is the only surviving original fleet ship, and the Klingons lost a fleet as well and are pissed. Spock talks about the loss of Vulcan when arguing with Uhura, the loss of his mother/planet a big aspect of his character, and he is one of the main characters. All the tech is way more aggressive and powerful than before (torpedoes, communicators, teleports, warp, etc) and the Vengeance is clearly based off of the Narada. In this timeline, Starfleet creates Section whatever and makes deals with devils (Khan, Robocop) because of their fear of what occurred in the previous movie. It's all carryover! cat doter posted:TMP is bad, boring and stilted but probably pretty great on some nice weed. A good editor could take an axe to that film and get 30 minutes out of it, probably. Surprising no one familiar with nerds, Star Trek fans don't really like Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Timby posted:Broadly speaking, Star Trek has never been a huge moneymaker for Paramount on home video outside of the DVD craze around 2002-03, and they just don't care that much about it (hell, they only put the original six films on Blu-ray to cash in on the 2009 movie) -- that's why you get goofy poo poo like the movies being DNRed to hell and Wrath of Khan having a hideous blue tone out of nowhere: And mind you, this is the one that they touted as being a restoration personally supervised by the director of the film. Of all the releases, TUC was probably the best off, mainly because it was the theatrical cut, in addition to finally having a 2:39:1 aspect ratio instead of the cropped 16:9 image present in the DVD cut.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Also the Theatrical version's alert was really loving annoying. Really? Because I actually prefer it, that's actually THE replacement that instantly comes to mind whenever I think "man, I wish they hadn't hosed with the sound effects from TMP." Cross-Section posted:And mind you, this is the one that they touted as being a restoration personally supervised by the director of the film. Of all the releases, TUC was probably the best off, mainly because it was the theatrical cut, in addition to finally having a 2:39:1 aspect ratio instead of the cropped 16:9 image present in the DVD cut. Did they really tout the Bluray as being overseen by Nick Meyer? This interview with him makes it sound like he wasn't really involved: quote:TrekMovie: Do you know if there is there is a possibility of a Blu-ray release of the director’s cut of Wrath of Khan?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:The Director's cut (out on DVD only) adds five scenes back in but is the same length as the original because they trimmed up the editing in the rest of the movie. It's overall much better paced. Unfortunately it's dependent on the new FX that were done for the re-edit and they were only done at DVD resolution, not HD. I'm not sure if my DVD copy is the director's cut, I'll have to check, but I'm not sure just better pacing will make me like it. It's just kind of a flat movie in a lot of spots. Black Bones posted:Surprising no one familiar with nerds, Star Trek fans don't really like Star Trek. Is this some weird "if you don't like TMP you don't like star trek" crap or something?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Timby posted:Not necessarily. The TNG Blu-ray sales started soft and went down from there, and I'm pretty sure CBS wound up losing money on the project as a whole. And generally speaking, studios are reducing their commitment to physical media, not increasing their spends. To think, if AAtrek wasn't banned their sales may have benefited from his constant whoring of remaster content, no matter how marginal.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
For the record, Star Trek: The Motion Picture is great, one of the all-time best pieces of Trek media.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
cat doter posted:Is this some weird "if you don't like TMP you don't like star trek" crap or something? He's dragging SMG's "star wars fans don't actually like star wars" bullshit over from the SW thread into here. Apparently a person having personal preferences about specific parts of a thing actually means they don't like any part of a thing. Who knew. ApexAftermath fucked around with this message at 22:59 on May 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
cat doter posted:I'm not sure if my DVD copy is the director's cut, I'll have to check If memory serves, The Director's Edition is the only cut of The Motion Picture that made it to DVD. (Just as, thus far, the theatrical cut is the only one to make it to Blu-ray.)
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Did they really tout the Bluray as being overseen by Nick Meyer? This interview with him makes it sound like he wasn't really involved: A half-assed Google search reveals little, just a bunch of forum posts and site comments talking about the "restoration"; only a few reference Nick Meyer's involvement. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:He's dragging SMG's "star wars fans don't actually like star wars" bullshit over from the SW thread into here. I definitely don't love everything Star Trek, I think the movies are real hit or miss and I think I'm probably a bit too young to get anything out of the original series, but considering I've seen literally every episode of TNG, DS9, Enterprise and Voyager and love huge swathes of all of those I'd say I probably actually like Star Trek. Well, my opinion of Voyager is a lot less charitable now but when I was a teenager that poo poo was my jam. I've never really considered myself a fan though, I grew up around people who called themselves "trekkies" and they were loving nuts and I'll never be that deep into it. But I've seen a hell of a lot of Star Trek and I like the vast majority of it so maybe I'll just accept the fan label.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Teenage-you had good taste, Voyager is dope.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
A dozen or so quality hours of television out of 7 years of roughly 20 episodes each shouldn't qualify something as good.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
The Motion Picture is great, it's very slow paced in a refreshing sort of way. It's about exploration of this thing that they can't comprehend and it's so serious in tone compared to almost all other Trek media. I do not like the Director's Cut. There are some edits that baffle me (although I can understand taking out a couple Kirk-is-an-rear end in a top hat moments). They messed with the sound effects, and although some of the updated effects look nice, the old ones were fine just the way they were (although I'll confess updated Vulcan is much better). The biggest crime is actually showing the entirety of the enemy on screen (I'm being vague on purpose). It looks goofy, and I much preferred leaving that to my imagination. All of the strange buildup and long panning shots are ruined by seeing too much later on. Also, the soundtrack is epic and amazing. They even created a new instrument for it, which is essentially a giant metal saw to be hit with mallets- it's a unique sound and adds so much character. Edit: no forgiving the wardrobe choices though. Holy poo poo those uniforms are terrible. NarkyBark fucked around with this message at 01:40 on May 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Broadly speaking, what would a story where they "try to resolve the issue on a structural level" look like in a two hour format? Elysium. But people are being a bit hard on Into Darkness - it may not end with the federation being totally fixed, but it does end with the good guys adopting a revolutionary mindset. They team up with the exploited Khan against their own side, then set out on their own in a way that represents a total rejection of what the federation previously stood for. The point of the bungled mission in the opening scene, after all, is that the original Star Trek was kinda racist. Kirk is chastised for 'playing God', but the implicit point is that the federation actually does see itself as God to 'lower people'. The question raised by the prime directive is this: what is so toxic that contact with other people must be so carefully avoided? Why are the Star Trekkers trying desperately to preserve some paganist 'harmony with nature' nonsense? The opposition between pure harmony and catastrophic disruption forecloses a third possibility: beneficial disruption. Why not approach those people as brothers, instead of as children? The prime directive is simply a variation on that old trope where the government covers up the existence of aliens because 'the people couldn't handle the truth', causing society to break down or whatever. Those in power need to lie to maintain order. In contrast, the message we should read at the end of Into Darkness is that the truth will set you free.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 04:03
|
|
