|
Astroman posted:But that was edited out in June. Wiki, I know, but still it makes you wonder what the backstage stuff is. It's tough to take the companies at their word and believe the press releases. For example, think about how the official line was Fuller stepped down or they parted ways due to him "being too busy" and now it's really coming out hard that they fired him because they didn't want what he wanted creatively. And all that bullshit about him staying on peripherally to contribute story ideas was just that--bullshit. Nah, we knew as far back as November that Fuller had been fired and that he had no further involvement in the series. He gave a rather lengthy interview to Newsweek about American Gods, and the Discovery stuff came up in the periphery; he said that it wasn't his decision to leave, that it had been his dream job and that he had no idea if anything he had worked on was going to be used anymore. Anyway, that M-A bit about Bad Robot sounds like someone overreacted because of Kurtzman's involvement -- some people (like the Axanar jackwagons) tend to get very upset about JJ the Usurper or whatever. Timby fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Jul 30, 2017 |
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I liked 2009 when I saw it in the theater with a bunch of friends, but I think the problem is that it doesn't hold up to even a single repeat viewing or even the lightest of critical analysis. There's just absolutely nothing there. They're big generic shlocky action blockbusters based loosely on what people who watched a few episodes of TOS thought Star Trek was, Beyond had a Trek geek writing it so that's why it turned out better than the other two but it was still two hours of people shouting at blurry teal and orange CG stuff just like most of these kinds of movies are these days
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I think the problem is that it doesn't hold up... even the lightest of critical analysis. Since when is this a problem for a movie, though?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Since when is this a problem for a movie, though? Some movies are good Those movies are usually not star trek movies though
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
notice I said pair of jj movies. Beyond wasn't a wannabe Spielberg joint.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
The JJ movies have a Sterling cast and it's a shame they were written so poorly. Cast is great, of the whole cast only Zach Quinto turns in a questionable performance and he's given the impossible task of replacing one of the most memorable actor/role pairs of the 20th century. Nemoy owns Spock like T'Pauna owns Suram or Kempe owns Dogberry. Props to Keaton for his Dogberry though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Have you ever wished that Earth's theater industry would stop focusing on reboots of works with alien market appeal and take a chance on original human fiction? I swear Hollywood and Mumbai only ever produce something backed by an established franchise from before the founding. If I have to watch another adaptation of a Risan farce bowdlerized for mass market appeal or a 900 hour Andorian operatta series crammed into four episodes I'm going to cancel my holonet. I already have to transport to Luna to get an open holosuite half the time and as a basic citizen I don't have unlimited transporter credits like some twerp running the automops on Spacedock.
Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Jul 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The JJ movies have a Sterling cast and it's a shame they were written so poorly. Cast is great, of the whole cast only Zach Quinto turns in a questionable performance and he's given the impossible task of replacing one of the most memorable actor/role pairs of the 20th century. Nemoy owns Spock like T'Pauna owns Suram or Kempe owns Dogberry. I see what you did there...
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Since when is this a problem for a movie, though? You know it's the reason people eat food as a cooked finished product instead of just consuming the component pieces raw.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
You'd think in the early 25th century Federation there'd be a thriving black market in holorecordings of original theatre runs of famous works from before recorded media. Can you imagine the outcry if the time cops tried to destroy the original performance of Hamlet, D'Rogza or Cardenio?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:The first one and Beyond are both good fun action movies with some nice character moments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Since when is this a problem for a movie, though? THE DUMBEST BOY ALIVE
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:THE DUMBEST BOY ALIVE He's like a Bizarro Fishmech
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Clearly, the only way to make things right is to send JJ Abrams to space on one of Richard Branson's privately owned rocket monstrosities, and then flush him out of an airlock.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Yeah, that video's pretty dumb. The licencing stuff that he's making up makes no sense. It seems stupidly unlikely that there were terms for television in the existing license for the new films. They would have had to negotiate a new licence for TV... just so they could sublicence it back? Even if there were, and CBS decided to heavily complicate their own lives by sublicencing a thing they own the original licence to, they could just decide to drop in their own licenced material themselves. They own it. What would they be saving it for? If they aren't willing to use Star Trek TV show IP in a Star Trek TV show...? edit: They'd also have to pay for the sublicence, which seems ridiculous. Plus if it were a success, they'd be forcing themselves to work with another corporate entity if they wanted to develop derivative ip later. T.C. fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Jul 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
T.C. posted:The licencing stuff that he's making up makes no sense. It seems stupidly unlikely that there were terms for television in the existing license for the new films. They would have had to negotiate a new licence for TV... just so they could sublicence it back? Even if there were, and CBS decided to heavily complicate their own lives by sublicencing a thing they own the original licence to, they could just decide to drop in their own licenced material themselves. They own it. What would they be saving it for? If they aren't willing to use Star Trek TV show IP in a Star Trek TV show...? Right, like I said earlier, I think there are people who completely overreacted when the news of Kurtzman's involvement came about (and I was one of them, considering that second Transformers movie is one of the worst things I've ever seen) -- there are people who get very, very militant over "true Star Trek" or whatever, so assumptions were made. I mean, it's not like the development of Discovery hasn't been a complete and utter shitshow, there have been plenty of reasons to look at it and think, "Wait, what" -- it's not like people need to just make poo poo up on top of that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Gonz posted:Clearly, the only way to make things right is to send JJ Abrams to space on one of Richard Branson's privately owned rocket monstrosities, and then flush him out of an airlock. Suborbital hoppers don't have airlocks because docking with one would be suicidal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
You don't have to open the door to get killed by a Richard Branson spacecraft.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
They gave up trying to get home because it was 20 years in the past. This show is so dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Red Ryder posted:They gave up trying to get home because it was 20 years in the past. This show is so dumb. They could have quietly contacted an admiral and asked to be put on ice for 20 years. Or pressed a button and magically fly to the future like at the end of First Contact. Or signed up with the federation's undoubtedly extensive temporally-displaced refugee program.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:The franchise has been chasing the high of a mainstream success since TNG ended, and the reality of modern entertainment means it will never be able to reach it again. Marshal Radisic fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Jul 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Ho boy, my DS9 watch has clicked onto Valiant. I see they're following the JJTrek rules of how a command structure works. I'm a cadet who made myself Captain, that's that, and now I outrank an actual officer. Uh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
I was thinking maybe that Beyond made a bunch of money but didn't have enough margin compared to their other movies. But no, Beyond made the most money for them in 2016. They are just stupid then. They don't have a Star Wars or a Marvel, big deal, they still put out a few good movies and made money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:I was thinking maybe that Beyond made a bunch of money but didn't have enough margin compared to their other movies. But no, Beyond made the most money for them in 2016. They are just stupid then. They don't have a Star Wars or a Marvel, big deal, they still put out a few good movies and made money. If they spent $185 million making it, they likely spent $185 million marketing it, which means it lost them money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Ohhhh the cadets have all gone insane, right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Marshal Radisic posted:But no, Paramount wanted to make that sweet Avengers money, so we eventually got JJTrek. (Mind you, it's not the first time they've done this. The whole reason that terrible The Last Airbender movie exists is that some executive thought they could turn the Avatar series into their own Lord of the Rings trilogy.) Sure, Orci and Kurtzman's latest big project was the Tom Cruise Mummy movie, which was the same principle. I believe Orci is still the "showrunner" for that entire "Dark Universe" (what a blah name) franchise project. PostNouveau posted:If they spent $185 million making it, they likely spent $185 million marketing it, which means it lost them money. Even factoring in marketing costs, movies can turn a profit but still fail to meet expectations. Like Dick Tracy - they spent $40 million to make it and $60 million to market it. It made about $170 million, which was decent enough that Warren Beatty is still convinced he can make a sequel which he'll star in 27 years later, but it didn't make Batman '89 money and turn into a big merchandise franchise, which was what Disney wanted. Wheat Loaf fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Jul 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:If they spent $185 million making it, they likely spent $185 million marketing it, which means it lost them money. Then that is their fault. It's a Star Trek movie. People who like Star Trek will go see it. Don't spend Pixar money to market a Dreamworks movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:Ho boy, my DS9 watch has clicked onto Valiant. I see they're following the JJTrek rules of how a command structure works. I'm a cadet who made myself Captain, that's that, and now I outrank an actual officer. Uh. Nah, this was "You're the most responsible kid and I'm the last adult and am dying: Take the car home" and the dipshit turns around and goes "Dad said I'm in charge!" Marshal Radisic posted:Yeah. I mean, even Ron Moore figured that out in the mid-1990s. In that old interview from 2002 about his time on Voyager, Moore said that sometime around late 1994, he saw picture of Shatner and Stewart on the cover of Time magazine and realized that there was nowhere further up to go. But no, Paramount wanted to make that sweet Avengers money, so we eventually got JJTrek. (Mind you, it's not the first time they've done this. The whole reason that terrible The Last Airbender movie exists is that some executive thought they could turn the Avatar series into their own Lord of the Rings trilogy.) Honestly, they probably could've done so, but Shyamalan doesn't do well with big budgets. I also weirdly think one of the big issues with that film is trying to be TOO faithful to the source material, because it ends up feeling very episodic, and because it's shorter than a season of the cartoon, no episode gets much time so it feels rushed. (The other big issues being the whitewashing, the bad dialogue, bad acting, bad greenscreen effects and the infamous "change a prison for Earthbenders from being on the ocean to being in a loving QUARRY!" thing)
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Then that is their fault. It's a Star Trek movie. People who like Star Trek will go see it. Don't spend Pixar money to market a Dreamworks movie. I dunno why it is that "the entire budget" is the correct amount to spend on marketing, but apparently that's how Hollywood works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
This is some Lord of the Flies poo poo, and they all need a slap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Sure, Orci and Kurtzman's latest big project was the Tom Cruise Mummy movie, which was the same principle. I believe Orci is still the "showrunner" for that entire "Dark Universe" (what a blah name) franchise project. Orci and Kurtzman had a professional falling-out back in 2013ish and decided to stop working together outside of occasional television projects. Kurtzman is still in charge of the Dark Universe stuff but Orci had literally nothing to do with The Mummy outside of an initial pitch back in 2012: His star really fell after he was fired from what eventually became Beyond. Much like his producer credit on Beyond, his producer credit on Mummy was purely contractual. PostNouveau posted:If they spent $185 million making it, they likely spent $185 million marketing it, which means it lost them money. The big thing driving the cost up on Beyond was that the entire project--from day one of Pegg and Jung being hired to write it to when it was released--was made in a year, which is insane for an effects-heavy movie, especially one that featured a poo poo-ton of location shooting like Beyond did. Kelvin Optical and Double Negative were originally signed to produce all the effects on the film, and they wound up having to offload significant amounts of work to like a half-dozen other studios because otherwise it would have been impossible to finish on time. Timby fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Jul 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:This is some Lord of the Flies poo poo, and they all need a slap. Valiant is the episode where Jake Middle-Name Sisko is the smart one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Man that is some terrible CGI on that Dominion ship. Like, barely rendered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:Nah, this was "You're the most responsible kid and I'm the last adult and am dying: Take the car home" and the dipshit turns around and goes "Dad said I'm in charge!" I do kind of like "Captain" Tim Watters' character, if only for the idea of someone who's desperately trying to be Jim Kirk but without Kirk's instincts or wisdom. Gaz-L posted:Honestly, they probably could've done so, but Shyamalan doesn't do well with big budgets. I also weirdly think one of the big issues with that film is trying to be TOO faithful to the source material, because it ends up feeling very episodic, and because it's shorter than a season of the cartoon, no episode gets much time so it feels rushed. (The other big issues being the whitewashing, the bad dialogue, bad acting, bad greenscreen effects and the infamous "change a prison for Earthbenders from being on the ocean to being in a loving QUARRY!" thing) It all kinda reminds of how David Lynch was totally out of his element on Dune, though I feel Lynch is the more talented filmmaker.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
It cost $185 million to make, I thought it would cost $185 million to advertise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
They're all talking about 'Watters was a great man' at the end.  That's some serious Stockholm syndrome going on there. Dude was a cult of personality megalomaniac who wanted to fly before he could barely stand, and shouldn't have been anywhere near a workbee, let alone a starship. And what was with that first officer? She'd have been booted out of Starfleet on day 2 with that sort of bitchy attitude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:If they spent $185 million making it, they likely spent $185 million marketing it, which means it lost them money. I thought I remember hearing that Paramount did really inadequate marketing for Beyond.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
Timby posted:Orci and Kurtzman had a professional falling-out back in 2013ish and decided to stop working together outside of occasional television projects. Kurtzman is still in charge of the Dark Universe stuff but Orci had literally nothing to do with The Mummy outside of an initial pitch back in 2012: His star really fell after he was fired from what eventually became Beyond. Much like his producer credit on Beyond, his producer credit on Mummy was purely contractual. Oh, I see. I thought Orci was in charge of the connections between the movies and making it into a big shared universe. The_Doctor posted:They're all talking about 'Watters was a great man' at the end. Sure, Nog gets the line in at the end that maybe he was a great man but it doesn't matter because he was a bad captain who got his crew killed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I thought I remember hearing that Paramount did really inadequate marketing for Beyond. The marketing push in proper didn't start until maybe three or four weeks prior to the release of the movie. The studio's had several rough years in terms of movie performance, the proposed reunion with CBS that fell through was an incredibly expensive process and it's being speculated more and more widely that the studio is likely to be sold sooner rather than later. Edit: Wheat Loaf posted:Oh, I see. I thought Orci was in charge of the connections between the movies and making it into a big shared universe. Nah, that's Kurtzman's gig; he directed The Mummy and he's supervising all the scripts for the Dark Universe stuff. It was expected he'd direct Van Helsing or Invisible Man, but that's up in the air now after Mummy completely faceplanted. I'm not sure Orci's actively involved in anything at this point, nowadays. Timby fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Jul 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
I seem to remember a throwaway line earlier in the series about the Dominion seeing the Defiant behind enemy lines which turns out to be Valiant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 23:26
|
|
