|
The only way it could be more foreshadowy is if earlier in the movie, the genesis device brought a tribble back to life.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:33 |
|
|
FrensaGeran posted:Considering they were busy writing the perfect series finale to TNG at the same time, I tend to excuse Generationns story flaws. Ron Moore is a talented writer but he he has to sleep like us ordinary people. Every plot point in Generations feels like it was written at 4 in the morning. Star Trek has always had a problem with finding good writers and getting a shootable script in on time, going all the way back to the first year of TOS, but in retrospect it almost feels like they didn't even try to get writers for the TNG movies. Generations is especially bizarre in that after none of the other series writers wanted to take it on, they instead decide to give it to the guys who are already up to their elbows with the big complicated series finale, which itself doesn't even tie in with the movie at all. Insurrection got handed to a reluctant Michael Piller, who then proved just how completely stagnant and formulaic he had become with the setting. Nemesis was written by a guy whose body of work does not recommend him to writing an episode of General Hospital, let alone a major motion picture. I mean, we're probably due for a "Berman and Piller saved Trek, guys" post from MikeJF in a few pages, but if true they sure didn't know what the hell to do with it after they saved it. (I say this with love, Mike. I'm not trying to bust your balls here... maybe just tweak 'em a bit.  )MikeJF posted:Also that's basically the only movie-quality enemy model they had. Most of them were TV quality. Generations could have paid for any studio model they wanted with the money they blew on Stellar Cartography. Or the new costumes that didn't get used and left them sticking poor Jonathon Frakes in an ill-fitting costume. Or the holodeck boat scene.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Hunch: Star Trek movies are usually worse than their premise. Star Wars is the reverse: a stupid idea, executed really well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
The more badass the premise on paper, the worse the Star Trek movie. The Enterprise journeys to the center of the galaxy and battles God? Captain Picard meets Kirk, revolts against the Federation, battles an evil version of himself at Romulus? Meanwhile, 4/5 of the best Treks are about whales/Moby Dick allusions, the remaining 5th is about politics and Shakespeare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Nemesis was written by a guy whose body of work does not recommend him to writing an episode of General Hospital, let alone a major motion picture. Nemesis is all you need to point to whenever someone says, "Why don't they get a Real Fan to write the next movie?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure I'd already come up with the entirety of the plot of Nemesis when I was a kid playing Star Trek with my legos.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
It's pretty bad, but I feel like competent direction and editing would have made Nemesis' script a lot more palatable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Drink-Mix Man posted:It's pretty bad, but I feel like competent direction and editing would have made Nemesis' script a lot more palatable. I disagree, the entire script is hot dogshit that doesn't make any drat sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Drink-Mix Man posted:The more badass the premise on paper, the worse the Star Trek movie. A space station larger than the solar system is on a direct course for Earth, destroying everything in its path. Kirk and crew must journey into the heart of this ancient entity and discover its secrets. [3 hours later] ZzZzZzZzZzZzZ...
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I disagree, the entire script is hot dogshit that doesn't make any drat sense. You seriously can't salvage a script that begins with horseshit like Picard's terrible wedding toast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Ever since a friend said Nemesis is best looked at as "Picard is having a weird crisis of character since everyone is leaving and the entire movie is him losing his mind" I find Nemesis hilarious and fun to watch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I mean, we're probably due for a "Berman and Piller saved Trek, guys" post from MikeJF in a few pages, but if true they sure didn't know what the hell to do with it after they saved it. Oh agreed 100% on Berman, the man should never have been let near creative input. Pillar did know what he was doing for a while, but he burned out. And Insurrection had so many things go wrong with the writing process.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Oh agreed 100% on Berman, the man should never have been let near creative input. Pillar did know what he was doing for a while, but he burned out. And Insurrection had so many things go wrong with the writing process. I think that's why, with at least the movies, it's so important to bring in people who haven't been working on the property forever and ever. Bob Wise didn't know poo poo about Star Trek when he was hired to do The Motion Picture; Harve Bennett had never seen the original series, and Meyer's only recollection was watching a few episodes here and there while his roommate dropped acid. Abrams wasn't a fan at all and only agreed to do the '09 movie after being impressed by Orci and Kurtzman's alternate-reality pitch. Granted, that can occasionally backfire, like with Stuart Baird (although he never wanted the job and it was just given to him by Paramount as their way of saying thanks), but Baird was a shitlord anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
But again, Abrams didn't make a star trek movie. He made an audition for star wars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Snak posted:But again, Abrams didn't make a star trek movie. He made an audition for star wars. He made two perfectly fine Star Trek movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Timby posted:He made two perfectly fine Star Trek movies. I mean, I enjoyed both of them, but they were neither fine movies nor star trek movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
The number of "non-Star Trek" films with the Trek label outnumbers the ones that do, even excluding the JJ films. Star Trek 4 especially is just a wacky film set in 1986.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The number of "non-Star Trek" films with the Trek label outnumbers the ones that do, even excluding the JJ films. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The number of "non-Star Trek" films with the Trek label outnumbers the ones that do, even excluding the JJ films. Its the best startrek movie ever made
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Star Trek 4 especially is just a wacky film set in 1986. I can't agree. TOS did fish-out-of-water on past-Earth multiple times. And I'm not even talking about ~hodgkins law of parallel planetary development~ or "highly imitative aliens" finding a book on mobsters or whatever, the TOS cast literally went to 20th century Earth three times in the course of the series.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Snak posted:I mean, I enjoyed both of them, but they were neither fine movies nor star trek movies. This is such a lame, cop out thing to say.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
It was a movie with Kirk and Spock and McCoy in it, ergo a Trek movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
I mean, yeah sure it's technically a licensed trek thing. Where Spock recognizes the foolishness of following logic and embraces his emotions and only gets things done when he's punching people. JJTrek is a Star Trek film like The Phantom Menace is a Star Wars film. I don't really hate either movie, they are reasonable entertaining, fun movies. I would much rather watch them than, say, Transformers. But as someone who's watched every episode of Trek except the last half of ENT and every Trek film multiple times, I don't really feel the need to defend my lame, cop-out opinion to anyone. And I'm not a blind fanboy, I regularly get yelled at in the Trek thread for being to critical of Trek's faults. I guess if you want to cast my opinion as a "No true Scotsman" fallacy, then I can only say that JJTrek has more in common with the worst of Trek than the best of Trek. There's plenty of Trek that sucks, and JJTrek belongs to that part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
The last half of ENT is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Snak posted:I regularly get yelled at in the Trek thread for being to critical of Trek's faults. No, you get yelled at for doubling down on ridiculous statements like saying the Borg turned Picard into a eunuch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Timby posted:No, you get yelled at for doubling down on ridiculous statements like saying the Borg turned Picard into a eunuch. Thanks so much for bringing that up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:This is such a lame, cop out thing to say. Word. Besides, the crew outsmarting a space deity is pretty much the most Star Trek plot you can have. Into Darkness was a fine film and Star Trek story. It kinda picked up the season three undercurrent of Kirk getting sick of the Federation's poo poo as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Snak posted:I mean, yeah sure it's technically a licensed trek thing. Where Spock recognizes the foolishness of following logic and embraces his emotions and only gets things done when he's punching people. Is this not the case in at least a few Trek episodes? Spock's pure logicalness is always a flaw.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Is this not the case in at least a few Trek episodes? Spock's pure logicalness is always a flaw. Basically no. But let me clarify: All the way up until late DS9, Vulcans represent pure utilitarianism, and it's rarely presented as a bad thing. However, it does have it's flaws. Spock is laready the happy medium between emotional humanity and Vulcan logic. Spock's logic is almost always a strength that he brings to the team, because he remains more objective. He specifically contrasts with McCoy, who is much more emotionally driven. It's one of the more intelligent commentarries that Trek has ever made. Up until Enterprise (and that baseball episode of DS9). At this point, Vulcans stopping being an example of a type of ideology, and turned into a bunch of snobby idiots to be mocked. This is how ENT and JJTrek portray them. As ignorant fools who aren't even unemotional, just huge superior dicks. In Both JJTreks, Spock is essentially taught by the other characters that logic is dumb an he should just do whatever he feels like, and the story supports this point. Spock's logic is portrayed as utterly useless and stupid, while whenever he decides to punch poo poo it both advances the plot and teaches him something about himself, which in this case is that "he should do it more". I think that's disgusting. We live in a age where violence is glorified at every turn, and while Trek may not in general be about thinking before you act, one of it's characters is, and the newest incarnation of that is basically saying "no, loving doing what's smart, be a loving badass." We have transformers and call of duty for that. We live in an age where peoples inability to think about what's going on is a systemic problem. In the age of "my ignorance is as good as your education", we turned the Vulcans into something to be mocked in favor of punching and shooting. That's just loving sad. We could have explored the flaws in their ideology, but that would be intellectual, and the tone of these movies is blatantly anti-intellectual.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Vulcans are space elves, and are treated as such (i.e., major assholes even if they are literally holier than thou).
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Vulcans are space elves, and are treated as such (i.e., major assholes even if they are literally holier than thou). They are treated that way by the human characters, but they aren't treated that way by the text, really. Until later, which I pointed out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Snak posted:They are treated that way by the human characters, but they aren't treated that way by the text, really. Until later, which I pointed out. The text is primarily from a human (i.e., Star Trek Federation) perspective.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The text is primarily from a human (i.e., Star Trek Federation) perspective. Many, many, many episodes of Trek are about how humans are flawed and do hosed-up things, in part because they let their emotions control them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Snak posted:Many, many, many episodes of Trek are about how humans are flawed and do hosed-up things, in part because they let their emotions control them. To be fair, they're kind of using Spock in the new movies to play that roll. In the first one, his emotional outburst gets him relieved of command. In the second, he saves the day by chasing down Khan but nearly blows the chance to save Kirk because he wants to punch Khan's to death. I mean the big chase at the end of "Darkness" is kind of overblown and not the best use of the character, but I don't really see the argument that they're making Spock some sort of advocate of emotion and violence. Drink-Mix Man fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Spock's logic is always portrayed as wrong. I don't know how else to interpret that. All of Spock's best scenes are of him losing it and becoming violent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Snak posted:Spock's logic is always portrayed as wrong. I don't know how else to interpret that. All of Spock's best scenes are of him losing it and becoming violent. In the new movies, you mean? In TOS/ST1-6 the above quote would be correct if you replaced 'becoming violent' with 'accepting his human half'. Quinto Spock seems shallow because 'losing your poo poo to rage' is kind of petty when the template character was all about tempering pure logic with humanity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Snak posted:Spock's logic is always portrayed as wrong. I don't know how else to interpret that. All of Spock's best scenes are of him losing it and becoming violent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:In the new movies, you mean? Yes, that comment was referring to JJTrek. Spock's character pre-JJTrek was about finding the balance between logic and emotion, but not rejecting logic at all. Cingulate posted:Same, of course, goes for Whorf. Strangely though, not for Data - Data's peculiarities are at worst funny, at best saving the day. I'm not sure why you're bringing Worf into this, since logic versus emotion isn't part of his character at all. Data is a similar character to Spock, and never really rages out and rejects logic (and there's no JJTrek version of him), so I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Snak posted:All of Spock's best scenes are of him losing it and becoming violent. Spock's best scenes in the JJ movies are when he tells the Vulcan elders to go gently caress themselves about his application to Starfleet; when he goes down to Vulcan to try to rescue his family and is completely broken at the loss of his mother; when he negotiates with Khan; and when he prepares to sacrifice himself for the sake of the Prime Directive in the volcano. In none of those does he "lose it."
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:33 |
|
|
Timby posted:Spock's best scenes in the JJ movies are when he tells the Vulcan elders to go gently caress themselves about his application to Starfleet; when he goes down to Vulcan to try to rescue his family and is completely broken at the loss of his mother; when he negotiates with Khan; and when he prepares to sacrifice himself for the sake of the Prime Directive in the volcano. All of these are legit good scenes, yeah. For all I poo poo on JJSpock, the way Quinto spit out that "Live long and
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 21:49
|
|