|
I think I'd be more enthusiastic if the last two Trek films hadn't also had Khan-esque villains- one guy driven by vengeance over the death of his homeworld, another guy driven by anger about... something, I dunno, I've blocked out most of Nemesis. I dunno, it'd be nice to see if they could do something with a sense of wonder and exploration to it. God knows Abrams can evoke those emotions- Super 8 was terrific.
|
#
¿
May 2, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
Pioneer42 posted:But anyone who was raised by the originals will never be happy with it turned into--no better off than it was when Nemesis came out. Look, the new Trek has its flaws but them's fightin' words.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2012 07:45
|
|
|
I honestly suspect that Abrams really didn't identify the character as being non-white. It's like Nolan casting Tom Hardy as Bane- he didn't really look close enough to see "Oh, wait, this guy's from South America."
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:This isn't that bad, it's just like <other prominent example of recent whitewashing> I'm not saying that makes it okay. Just theorizing as to how it happened.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2012 01:27
|
|
|
I'd like the Klingons to act more like they did in the old series. The "we are HONORABLE WARRIORS" stuff got played out quickly enough, it'd be interesting to see a throwback to them as Cold War stand-ins.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:A lot of people seem to think that whitewashing means the perpetrators are racist. This is an over-simplification. I very much doubt that Abrams is a racist. Was it? This is where I'm a little unclear, because eve on the Trek wiki- where you know they obsess on the tiniest detail- they say his background is unclear.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
Well, more people know him from The Wrath of Khan, ironically enough, and there they don't talk about his background at all, plus he's light-skinned.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2012 08:29
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:I'm going to guess you are white. You may not understand this, but for many non-white people, it can be frustrating to never see anyone of your own race in decent roles. For people to write off changing a character who is of an ethnic minority to a white character as 'not a big deal' and raise a bunch of little excuses like you are can be maddening, because the opposite very rarely if ever happens. I AM NOT SAYING IT'S OKAY. Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2012 16:09
|
|
|
Abrams did say he thought they went a little far on the first one, so MAYBE they'll dial back the flare for this.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
wolfman101 posted:JJ Abrams should have picked a minority, even if said minority isn't as good at acting. This I can't agree with. I don't doubt that there are actors of the right ethnicity for Khan who are as good or better than Cumberbatch- there's no reason to "settle" unless they're all unavailable or something.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2012 06:46
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:One thing I haven't thought about is whether or no they're going to kill off Spock like they do in the original. I doubt it would have the same impact as it did in the original, since we simply haven't spent as much time with this new character. I doubt it. They did that because the actor wanted to leave and they thought II would be the last movie anyway since how far can they keep this going (since shooting the first movie had been such a pain for everyone).
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
Hell, Search for Spock is pretty solid. Nimoy's a good director. First Contact was good too. I'll say this for the franchise, it managed to go 5-5.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 06:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Voyage Home is a Back To the Future ripoff without the added implications of "what if going back in time changes the future substantially" and is mostly used as an excuse for "well what if Star Trek...was in the present [of 1986]?" But Back to the Future didn't have any jokes about Harold Robbins. Or, "What does it mean, exact change?" First Contact may not maintain continuity with the series that well, but it's a good story in and of itself.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 15:34
|
|
|
I think Trek09 is Nemesis done right. Both are grabs for mainstream attention with a more action-heavy, blockbustery approach, but in Nemesis it's an insanely awkward fit done by people who don't know how to make it work and just reeks of desperation- it's like a 49 year old guy slathering on Axe and going to a frat party to pick up chicks. (This also applies to much of Enterprise.) Trek 09 starts with a clean slate and makes the approach work.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2012 15:47
|
|
|
I like the "not just another disgruntled alien" comment. It'll be interesting to see which direction they go.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:Here's hoping it's the underdeveloped villain Harcourt Fenton Mudd. Oh God. Okay, I don't want Mudd to be the main villain for a movie because that... no, but I would like a modern day take on him. Less cartoonish but still hilarious.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2012 06:20
|
|
|
Random idea I had... it might be neat if Cumberbatch's character were someone like Charlie X or the characters in "Where No Man Has Gone Before"- i.e. someone who gets "touched" by cosmic forces and becomes really powerful and dangerous, and also insane. It'd be a nice twist on a familiar story concept, and one none of the movies have really done.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
It really is a relative thing- in a lot of sci-fi movies of the time you'd have the Woman Archaeologist give up her career to marry the hero and be a housewife. They had Majel Barrett as No. 1 in the pilot but focus groups complained about that bossy woman.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:This whole idea of odd numbered Star Trek films being bad, cited as a hard and fast rule is ridiculous. It's produced as some inarguable scientific fact as a substitute for having an opinion. I've never seen a satisfactory explanation for why Star Trek V is supposedly so bad. Everyone always lists stuff like "Rocket boots". So, let's start there. Well, I got no complaints as to the boots. One problem with the film is that the whole "Let's go to the center of the universe and meet God" thing pays off with standing in the middle of the desert talking to a floaty guy with a beard who of course isn't really God because you can't do that in a mainstream sci-fi/action movie- and even then, there's the nub of a good idea, some strange malevolent force lurking for millions of years and sending out impressions of Paradise to lure people there to break it free from its prison, but the execution is just not there. There were also some conflicting priorities, one was Shatner wanting to make a big action movie, and the other was "Star Trek IV was the biggest movie yet so we need more comedy", and those two collide a lot. The comedy is most about the ship not working, which gets silly quickly. It also looks cheaper and faker than the other movies, partly due to the director's inexperience, partly due to a lot of foul-ups with a new FX company (Cinefex had a good article on this, with the firm in question explaining all the problems they had.) The action doesn't work as well as it should either. It's not the worst of the Trek movies (Nemesis wins that decisively), but it feels cheap and rushed.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:I'm pretty sure I could run to my local hardware store and build a perfect replica of the gun used in that clip. That has got to be one of the laziest props ever. In fairness, that's deliberate. It's homemade- David Warner's character says of the natives, "We forbade them weapons, they soon began to fashion their own."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2012 17:50
|
|
|
Honestly, I do get sick of the teal and orange thing when it's used so thoroughly to the exclusion of other colors. You end up flattening natural variance in skin tones and losing a lot of texture. If it's a product of the lighting that's one thing, but if you've gone to great lengths to exclude any other shades you're overdoing it. It's similar to the "realism is brown" problem video games had the last couple of generations. Now, having said that, the actual film may not look quite so saturated. I've usually noticed that trailers feature different grading than the movies proper- the first trailers for Fellowship of the Ring, I recall, had a kind of desaturated look that I didn't think made sense, but the movie proper featured a wider range of tones and looks according to the mood of the scene. The final grading probably has not been done yet.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 06:23
|
|
|
It feels the most like an "engine room" of all the Star Trek engine places- all the machinery is out there and theoretically directly accessible, whereas in the shows and movies before there's always a comfortable suite of consoles and workstations overlooking the engines/core/etc. One reason I'm not too worried about the color grading is that Abrams didn't overdo that in ST 2009 or for that matter Super 8- lighting created quite a few blue-yellow scenes but it wasn't universal. I think it's okay so long as it doesn't look like every goddamn shot was hit with the Magic Bullet filter. And those films were really when the "just filter all of it" trend was at its height- I feel like we've pulled back a little in the last couple of years.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
CPFortest posted:something something lens flare something something YOU DONT BUILD STARSHIPS IN IOWA The President of Earth oversaw the bailout precisely so that Iowa's valuable ship-building industry wouldn't collapse. It's how she got re-elected.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Jesse Eisenberg as Luke Skywalker? If you guys came up with the idea for blowing up the Death Star, you'd have blown up the Death Star.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:It was supposed to be shiny, though. They had coated it in some pearlescent varnish which was apparently gorgeous beyond all belief but photographed horribly, so they emptied a few dozen cans of dullcote onto the model and welp They likely had trouble with it reflecting the blue screen. This is why other movie spaceships tended to be bumpy and rough with lots of model ship parts glued onto the surface- it not only added detail but made photography easier.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:There's a very real argument to make about the Firefly characters and every other one you mentioned there is from the 90s or earlier. There's a very real argument to make about any female character in anything. As long as there's disagreement as to how to best portray a traditionally underrepresented or poorly represented group there will be arguments. But on the main topic, female Mudd is a good idea. There's definitely a lack of good female sleazebag con artists in the genre, as opposed to femme fatale types.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
Hasters posted:I hope so, it's about time the franchise made good on it's faux progressivism. It's interesting that Doctor Who ended up beating it to the punch on LBGT inclusion.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
"Say hi to your mother for me."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
It's worth having for the artifacts of the original release, like the opening credits which were clearly done at the last minute and are just sort of plopped on like in a Woody Allen movie.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I'm going with 'climactic battle between Enterprise and Evil-enterprise over Earth climaxes in both ships crashing out of orbit. Maybe the Enterprise survives, maybe it doesn't'. Actually I'm thinking a big fight between Enterprise and not-Enterprise happens, the Enterprise crashes, Scotty is all "the ship's dead, cap'n!", and Kirk is like NO loving WAY and they find a way to raise it out of the sea. If the ship does get blowed up it seems like they're at least making that part of some major theme as opposed to just being tacked on in Generations because they needed to make a new CG model.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Cellophane S posted:Nemesis didn't just break Picard, it drat near broke Star Trek. I think it's the absolute pits. Worse maybe, even, than The Final Frontier. The difference is, I can see myself watching Final Frontier once in a while- it's not a good movie but it's bright and goofy and dumb in the way that some movies of that era were and there are some funny moments and so on. Nemesis is just not fun to watch. It looks dreary, it moves slowly (but not like in TMP where there at least seems to be a reason for things to move slowly), there's no energy to any of it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
The big thing that killed Nemesis for me is this: There's a scene where it's implied Shinzon's heading for Earth to kill everyone, and so Starfleet is mobilizing ships to head him off at the pass, and it looks like we're headed to an awesome final confrontation with lots of spaceships flying around and the fate of a planet at stake. Cool! But the plot dictates that Shinzon needs another hit of Picard DNA, so he stops the Enterprise halfway and we get a different climax with fewer ships and less stuff happening and no planets in peril or anything.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2013 08:04
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Good god, that is one of my top two favorite line deliveries in that movie. The other being "SPOOOOOOOOOOCHHHH!!!! SPOOOOOOOOOCHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!" Though I'm personally fond of FIRE EVERYTHING!!!!!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
Star Trek: Redacted
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
Enterprise was caught between the various forces that were making ST as a whole stagnate. On the one hand it had a lot of plays for mainstream audiences- it was promoted as having more action and more sex than previous Trek series, with phase pistols that were more like pew-pew lasers and so better for gunfights, and things like the decon spray rubdowns and theoretical sexual tension between Archer and T'Pol. On the other, it was still very much a Trek series from the same people who had been making Trek for over a decade and were getting burned out on it. It still followed the same formulas and stylistic leads, had similar incidental music, it wasn't really different enough to really appeal to a whole new audience. Similarly, it pissed off a lot of fans by creating all sorts of little problems with the continuity, but at the same time often used Trek's history to market itself- I remember a promo for an episode promising "First contact with the Andorians!" even though casual viewers wouldn't know or care who the Andorians were. That said I watched Broken Bow on Netflix not too long ago and found it held up pretty well- it wasn't a horrible show, it just wasn't good enough.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
Ensign_Ricky posted:That one might be a little too obscure. Although I really wish Noel had a larger part other than Section 31 flunky blackmailed into a suicide bomber. I dunno, it seemed appropriate- all through his scenes, Mickey the Idiot seemed an appropriate way to describe him. Overall I think this was better than the spoilers had me fearing- the WoK-rehash stuff was weirdly redundant but it wasn't as big a part of the movie as I thought it would be. Had the right vibe- darker but still a fun space romp. Parts of it made me wonder if Abrams used a rough print as his "audition tape" for Star Wars VII, and if so, good idea.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
Ash1138 posted:I hope not, because the movie felt bloated to me much like The Hobbit did. So if Abrams is now Peter Jackson 2.0... Really, what seemed too drawn-out for you? The action sequences were pretty extensive but that's basically the franchise bread-and-butter.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 06:24
|
|
|
pentyne posted:As a Star Trek fan to the extent of watching TNG, DS9, and VOY reruns pretty consistently over the course of my younger years, I have to say I did not like all the references, call backs, and "homages" to the classic movies and shows. Section 31 obviously gave them a great plot point to work with but everything else was unnecessary. You didn't even need Khan to be in the movie, Benedict could've just been S:31's pet project genetically engineered using samples from Khan's recovered body to make a new superhuman if they wanted a reference to WoK without basing the entire plot around it. That makes the concept that much more complicated, though. He's not just a genetically engineered superhuman from the past, but a clone of a genetically engineered superhuman? Why the cloning? Why add a step? And why would a clone be concerned about the fate of people he never knew, i.e. Khan's shipmates?
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
Gio posted:I read literally nothing coming into the movie so I was surprised, but not "oh god that's so cool" kind of surprised. You hate one of the basic models of story conflict from the beginning of storytelling?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
I think the obscure marketing may have hurt the film's opening some but hopefully word of mouth will be solid enough. In any case a slightly lower budget for a sequel wouldn't mean doom. Honestly, isn't the rule for sequels still that they make less than their predecessors? I know that there have been more and more exceptions as of late, but diminishing returns are a thing.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 17:10
|
|