|
I just want to say TMP's Director's Cut is amazing. They took the original production work they couldn't do because of money and time constraints and put it into the movie.
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
Riso posted:I just want to say TMP's Director's Cut is amazing. They took the original production work they couldn't do because of money and time constraints and put it into the movie. I generally like most of the changes in the Director's Edition but the new sound mix is absolutely unforgivable, as is removing Kirk's second "Viewer off!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
The version of The Motion Picture I had on VHS was the "Special Longer Version" with 12 minutes of extra footage compared to the theatrical cut. I wish it was available in Blu-Ray, but it seems to have been considered obsolete when the Director's Edition was released.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
I like Generations a lot, but my beefs with it are: -The movie probably makes very little sense to anyone who's not seen the series. They take no time to establish who characters like Data are and what the Enterprise-D is actually doing in space. I mean, I understand most people expected to see the movie know what Star Trek is, but part of the reason I think the old films held up more is because the uninitiated can jump in and kind of work out from context who's who and why we're watching them. Like in TWOK, a stranger could kind of work out, "okay, I get it. They're the old British navy in space, these characters have this colorful history from serving together." Generations just feels like it just throws you into the mix of a big commercial franchise without any reason for existing except outside of putting your TV heroes on the big screen. --Klingons and the bird of prey. Not necessarily the old complaint that the Enterprise got "punked" by a little ship, but when I watch the movies sequentially it's like "These guys and this ship AGAIN?" The last four movies involved Klingons and this little bird-shaped ship. I was like, come on, we're supposed to be introducing the fancy new generation and you're still recycling models and costumes from 1984. I don't mind the desert fistfight or Kirk dying without a lot of fanfare. I actually kind of like that he went out without a big blaze of glory. Made it more grounded for me and a little sadder. The movie kind of bungles this, but I like its theme of characters coming to terms with the fact that there's rarely any actual fairness or dignity in real-life death. Also, on a side-note, the opening shot of the wine bottle in space is one of my favorite things in the series. I always felt that was kind of iconic of a big thing in Star Trek: the juxtaposition of the classical and the futuristic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Drink-Mix Man posted:--Klingons and the bird of prey. Not necessarily the old complaint that the Enterprise got "punked" by a little ship, but when I watch the movies sequentially it's like "These guys and this ship AGAIN?" The last four movies involved Klingons and this little bird-shaped ship. I was like, come on, we're supposed to be introducing the fancy new generation and you're still recycling models and costumes from 1984.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:This is somehow made worse by the fact that the BoP is a very pretty and iconic design. Yeah. Come to think of it, you've got this whole movie full of outstanding iconic ships (BoP, Ent-D, and Excelsior-class), and none are really used to their full potential. They don't really express anything visually in service of the film, they're all just there because they kind of have to be (for various reasons).
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
I thought Bird of Preys punched above their weight because they're a dedicated warship, unlike the Enterprise. Kind of like the Defiant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Mitchicon posted:I thought Bird of Preys punched above their weight because they're a dedicated warship, unlike the Enterprise. Kind of like the Defiant. It really worked for most of them, too. But then, with the Enterprise-D, maybe you finally want somebody else to dance with her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Well it's another symptom of Paramount getting to be real cheapskates with the franchise- it's a Bird of Prey so they can reuse the explosion footage from VI.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
I hope the next ST film has a BoP made of two BoPs
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Well it's another symptom of Paramount getting to be real cheapskates with the franchise- it's a Bird of Prey so they can reuse the explosion footage from VI. They were always cheapskates. Wrath of Khan was literally produced by the television division.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
They spent a lot of money on TMP and then said "never again".
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
I don't know if it's been discussed, but Chaos on the Bridge (a documentary on Netflix about the first season of ST:TNG) is a really interesting documentary. Had no idea the behind the scenes of TNG was so loving nuts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Well it's another symptom of Paramount getting to be real cheapskates with the franchise- it's a Bird of Prey so they can reuse the explosion footage from VI. Also that's basically the only movie-quality enemy model they had. Most of them were TV quality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 10:46
|
|
|
Drink-Mix Man posted:I like Generations a lot, but my beefs with it are: Spot on. I actually think Generations is 2/3 of a great Star Trek movie. It's got a rather poignant theme about aging and dealing with loss, as contrasted in Picard and Soran; it features some genuinely exciting action scenes, even with the reuse of the exploding BoP; and in general the music, cinematography, and direction are all very well done. The director was David Carson, who did Yesterday's Enterprise, one of the best (and most cinematic) episodes of the TV series. Heck, I don't even mind the emotion chip subplot. Unfortunately, once Picard enters the Nexus, the movie starts to falter. The nexus itself is mystical mumbo-jumbo, the meeting of Kirk and Picard is somewhat fun but ultimately anticlimactic, and the final fight with Soran a little too dull. All this causes you to leave the movie a little underwhelmed, but people talk about this film like its Nemesis-bad, or Into Darkness-bad. It's not, but it is flawed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
Into Darkness is like about 10 times better than every TNG movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
The sound design alone in First Contact is better than anything in Into Darkness
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Into Darkness is a bad movie I really wanted to like
egon_beeblebrox fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Dec 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Tighclops posted:The sound design alone in First Contact is better than anything in Into Darkness What? I seriously can't think of any sound in First Contact that sticks in my mind (poo poo, the Enterprise's quantum torpedoes might have been the only original starship sound in the entire thing; the phaser and phaser rifle sounds were re-used from the TV show), but the sound effects when the Vengeance catches up to the Enterprise in warp and blows the poo poo out of it are amazing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Timby posted:What? Probably some "star trek ship cannons make sounds in space" thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
SalTheBard posted:I don't know if it's been discussed, but Chaos on the Bridge (a documentary on Netflix about the first season of ST:TNG) is a really interesting documentary. Had no idea the behind the scenes of TNG was so loving nuts. Is that the one Shatner made? Wasn't quite as on depth as I had hoped, but yeah, what a cluster gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
wyoming posted:Is that the one Shatner made? Wasn't quite as on depth as I had hoped, but yeah, what a cluster gently caress. There's also a poo poo-ton of revisionist history in it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
Man, I was going to go through all the ST films but TNG ones are terrible. I'm assuming the cast is more likable in the show (which I've never seen) but in the movies they're fairly unlikable and I don't see how anyone prefers them to the OC. loving Nemesis. What a shitshow
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
I'm not a fan of the TNG movies but watching them without seeing the show just sounds extremely bizarre to me. I don't know if Picard's vengeance against the Borg really carries much weight unless you've seen Best of Both Worlds, for example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
I suppose you're right. I assumed they would stand up on their own.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
I have to think watching nearly any Star Trek movie out of context must seem kind of weird. All of them are 'reunion' movies. I can only imagine someone who has no idea about Star Trek watching TWOK for the first time wondering why in the world they're treating this supporting character's death like he's Jesus or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:Man, I was going to go through all the ST films but TNG ones are terrible. I'm assuming the cast is more likable in the show (which I've never seen) but in the movies they're fairly unlikable and I don't see how anyone prefers them to the OC. I would legitimately enjoy reading trip reports/reviews/analyses of these movies from your perspective as someone who has never seen the show.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Timby posted:What? I do remember all the weird Borg noises being somewhat memorable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:Man, I was going to go through all the ST films but TNG ones are terrible. I'm assuming the cast is more likable in the show (which I've never seen) but in the movies they're fairly unlikable and I don't see how anyone prefers them to the OC. They're definitely not more likable in the show. The show was ugly and dull.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:Man, I was going to go through all the ST films but TNG ones are terrible. I'm assuming the cast is more likable in the show (which I've never seen) but in the movies they're fairly unlikable and I don't see how anyone prefers them to the OC. wyoming posted:The show was ugly and dull.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
Timby posted:There's also a poo poo-ton of revisionist history in it. O really? That sucks. I thought it was pretty interesting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
SalTheBard posted:O really? That sucks. I thought it was pretty interesting. The biggest issue is that Maurice Hurley's douchebaggery is almost completely whitewashed. His sexual harassment of Gates McFadden, for example, is what made her leave the show after the first season. Instead, he's presented as being one of the people who was herding the cats while Roddenberry drooled on himself. Terrorist Fistbump posted:The TNG movies are in this weird spot where they look and feel like 2-hour episodes of the show, and yet have little in common with the show's basic formula. The show is a small, cheap series exploring the human condition and other intellectual stuff, but the movies are big, expensive attempts at space action-adventure. The cast doesn't make the transition well because the underlying characters don't. For example, Picard transforms from restrained, thoughtful diplomat on the show to action hero in every one of the movies. It's a dumb move because, among other reasons, Patrick Stewart is clearly better at one than the other. The biggest problem with the TNG movies is that they never really had a good director. David Carson came the closest, but Frakes is a television director and it showed in terms of how unimaginative all of his blocking and angles were, and Baird literally got the Nemesis gig as a "thank you" from Paramount.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
The first ten minutes of Into Darkness were a great Trek movie. Pity about the rest.Timby posted:The biggest issue is that Maurice Hurley's douchebaggery is almost completely whitewashed. His sexual harassment of Gates McFadden, for example, is what made her leave the show after the first season. Instead, he's presented as being one of the people who was herding the cats while Roddenberry drooled on himself. Yeah, things were actually worse than presented.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
lizardman posted:I have to think watching nearly any Star Trek movie out of context must seem kind of weird. All of them are 'reunion' movies. I can only imagine someone who has no idea about Star Trek watching TWOK for the first time wondering why in the world they're treating this supporting character's death like he's Jesus or something. The Wrath of Khan was the first Star Trek thing I'd ever seen and it worked just fine because everyone knows who Spock is, jeeze.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
lizardman posted:I have to think watching nearly any Star Trek movie out of context must seem kind of weird. All of them are 'reunion' movies. I can only imagine someone who has no idea about Star Trek watching TWOK for the first time wondering why in the world they're treating this supporting character's death like he's Jesus or something. Spock is a very important character in that movie literally from minute one. Even if you don't know who he is, his death hits hard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Yeah, even if you just came into the movie from a vacuum, it's obvious Spock's relationship to Kirk. He's the archetypal sage adviser and obviously Kirk's best friend for years. I think it would still work even if these were characters we just met for the first time. (It just carries an extra punch for people that have watched the characters for years.) My ex used to say Wrath of Khan was her favorite movie and the only TOS flicks she ever saw were that and IV. She never saw the series, either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Hey, it's great that it sounds like I'm wrong. If it helps, I'm certainly not trying to downplay the impact of Spock's death in the story itself, nor Kirk's reaction to it. Just that the whole bit with Spock's coffin on Genesis along with his disembodied voice reciting the Star Trek mantra might come off like it's pouring the sentiment on a little thick, is all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
lizardman posted:Just that the whole bit with Spock's coffin on Genesis along with his disembodied voice reciting the Star Trek mantra might come off like it's pouring the sentiment on a little thick, is all. In fairness, that stuff was added after the initial test screenings (and without Nick Meyer's consent). When they were writing and producing the film, everyone figured this could be it and they weren't thinking of a sequel. As originally assembled, the movie ends with Spock deader than a doornail and there's no light at the end of the tunnel. But as it came together in the editing room, everyone realized they might have something special on their hands, so Harve Bennett shot the "Remember" insert and the sequence of Spock's torpedo on the Genesis Planet as a way of adding a sequel hook in case the film were a hit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
^Oh yes, as a Star Trek fan I'm glad it was done. I'm just amusing myself trying to imagine it from a different perspective. I've heard Nicholas Meyer express his opinion about the ending and how he felt the audience was going to KNOW they're bringing Spock back by showing his coffin on the planet, and I always thought it was interesting I've never taken the shot that way (of course I watched it already knowing what happens in subsequent movies, so...). I always took it as "look what a beautiful resting place this is".
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
I agree with Meyer on that one. Showing the coffin on a planet that makes dead things come to life as the last shot is pretty foreshadow-y.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 17:47
|
|
