|
mind the walrus posted:I'd argue even greater than Spock. Javid posted:Benedict is literally playing a jedi and he's merging the franchises. The entire internet would explode. please nerd jesus make this happen
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
I don't get which of the two threads to choose for what discussions now. This thread is currently discussing Voyager, the TV/IV thread's Nemesis ... Does anybody else also find that the TOS movies seem a lot more real than the TNG movies, JJTrek or any of the series? They seem so ... believable. It starts with TMP having a certain 2001 vibe throughout (and I'm talking about the subtle details on the D7 cruiser and how real Starfleet headquarters at San Fran seem, not about the trippy alien), and if you look at Undiscovered Country, the whole thing, it's just so very ... grounded. The first scene looks as if you can touch the bridge. Every other Trek suffers from comparatively lacking special effects and/or cartoon space monsters. v works with me, I guess. Only, my own question was, without me noticing, about both the movies and the series ... At least we can keep Star Wars talk out of here 
Cingulate fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Feb 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Is it lighting? I think maybe the later movies suffer more from 'movie lighting' and less trying to replicate the look of something functional. I think you've hit on something though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
What cartoon aliens do you mean? I don't see how my idea is "dumb" because of ifs and fantasies. All Trek movies have Hollywood dudes with make-up, but the TOS movies feel real, and Nemesis looks like a bunch of CGI and dudes with make-up. It's the same thing as Alien vs. Aliens. Both great movies, but Alien has aged a lot more gracefully, because it used the 2001 approach to the future. Mother seems to be a modded C64, but still, the movie feels real. I love JJTrek, it's a really fun movie, it's a better movie than TMP by far. And yet, when I'm watching JJTrek, I'm thinking, "wow, nice special effects, and the actor is doing a good Kirk", but when I'm watching TMP, I'm thinking, "poo poo, it's a dude, in space! The future is amazing!". Two more recent movies doing space realism nicely would be Sunshine and Moon.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Let's not forget that this is the Star Trek thread. I'm sorry for kinda causing the derail, but my main point was that the TOS movies use the practical effects, 2001-style scifi look and feel more real than most space opera science fiction.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2013 11:17
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Given in a lot of ways our tech has surpassed what people thought the future would be like even 25 years ago it makes sense that things will look fancier and of course the general problem of everything has to be CGI will affect prequels too but that did not necessarily mean these prequels would need to focus on vessels and people much higher up the in-universe hierarchy. I wonder if it is a coincidence that in Lucas and Scott's case they are much higher up the film making hierarchy nowadays too. Because, it didn't work. It looks good, but it looks shiny and CGI. Even the brewery looks shiny and CGI. loving blues. Firefly and BSG did the aged and used thing, too, especially Firefly. Firefly is al lot of CGI, too, but I think it works great. CGI shakey-cam! But, the TOS movies do necessarily not rely on the aged and used look. In TMP, we got the just-refit Enterprise that WAS a top of the line ship, and it looks real. They somehow make shiny WORK. Just like the stuff in 2001 is top of the line, and it works. I'm not sure where I'd put Prometheus on this spectrum. It's a good movie, and it too tries hard to look real, what with the fire axe and all. But it still has some plastic, shiny quality. It's a bit like Enterprise in that regard.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2013 13:58
|
|
|
We all agree both Alien and Aliens look great, we all know computers aren't like Mother and people in the 70's had weird mustaches. Now, let's talk about Star Trek?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
I think the TMP Enterprise is the best, and most ... what's the word, real? The most real-looking ship in all of ST. There's probably a more technical word. Naturalistic? I don't know. And it's brand new and shiny, and looks like it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Why the hell does the flagship of an major organization look decrepit and militaristic
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
der juicen posted:I was comparing the TOS-era movies design to JJTrek. JJTrek looks sleek, new, futuristic. It comes from our time, rather than the 60's.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 13:29
|
|
|
In fact, I think all of the NCC-1701 Enterprises look fairly fragile and not at all war-like, but futuristic and majestic. Which is why I'm asking what he's calling decrepit or mean.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 14:06
|
|
|
I don't mean "shiny" as in, it reflects light or whatever, I mean, it's not decrepit at all (in TMP), it's tidy and new. I'm not good with words about how stuff looks in films. It's not just a pretty ship, it's a pretty ship.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
I'm very much anti-brewery, in large part because the scene in the brewery room is probably the worst part of the movie. It's way too long for a slapstick scene that's never ever funny.penismightier posted:Ohhh, I follow ya. Yeah the exterior of it is grand as hell, the nacelles are practically art deco. I don't like the exterior of the JJ Enterprise, it feels pointlessly complicated, but you don't think the interiors looks pretty and new? I love the smoothness of everything, and I even love the totally illogical concrete of the engine room, it feels like when you see the kitchen of a fancy restaurant and it's just as utilitarian as any other kitchen. The TMP enterprise indeed blurs the lines between architecture and design. I think she also conveys her magnitude a lot better than all other ships. The thing they're flying in First Contact and Nemesis, I forgot the name, it's probably supposed to be twice as large as the Refit, but she doesn't look HUGE. She looks like the product of a billion bucks graphics department - which is some form of aesthetic; but, she doesn't look like she has actual, physical size. The Refit looks huge. Sadly, the JJTrek Enterprise doesn't quite live up to that standard. Though it might be the next one's gonna give her more mass.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
ComposerGuy posted:I think the refit from TMP looks huge because they spend 10 goddamn minutes doing flybys of it at the start of the film.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
penismightier posted:I love a lot of what he did (I will straight up marry The Haunting), but TMP and The Andromeda Strain in particular have this gorgeous vastness to them. I love the idea of going so wide with split diopters and deep focus on fairly constrained sets.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
DocHorror posted:The tl:dr of it is that Wise used special cameras to have the guy in the foreground & the guy in the background in focus at the same time. On a lot of the bridge shots. This leads to a foreshortening & blurring of the space in between these characters. Any movie experts, feel free to go into it, post some Star Trek movie screenshots and explain what's happening, cinematography wise, at least I find it fascinating. e:f,b
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:This is the coolest poo poo ever. Where can I learn more about this stuff?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
Is that including 2009's Star Trek?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
I love that scene. It's one of the better angles of the new ship. I keep describing any Enterprise as a woman, and here, she's rising from a foam bath. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Feb 16, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
I know this might not be much more than a "Lens Flare!" joke, but ... from just the thumbnail, could you even tell this was not from JJTrek, but from TMP?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
I wouldn't say it's a bad script, even though I think at times it was way too blunt, or just silly (CGI alien sidekick ... "Kirk = troubled youth" car chase ... I don't need these in my action/adventure films even), but, similar to TMP, I'd say the pictures clearly outshine the script. The script is OKAY, but the visuals are GREAT. TMP is a sluggish movie, but what's slugging along is beautiful.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
Baron von Eevl posted:Wasn't that just Deep Roy in a costume?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:It's a bad script. It's maybe a passible "generic action movie" story, but it really completely fails to have any sort of depth that you'd expect from science fiction, or at least I expect it personally. Each of the TOS movies(maybe excepting IV) had a lot more going on as subtext(even if people argue about the subtlety) and fantastic character arcs at times. 2009 had none of that whatsoever unless maybe you want to count that hamfisted Spock nonsense. No worthwhile character arcs, no Big Questions, etc. It's carrying zero depth, it's just bad. And, would you say it is actually these questions that makes the respective movie good? Cingulate fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Feb 16, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:Hopefully the bad guy in Into Darkness is much better. New Kirk's character is something similar to e.g. Indiana Jones. (Once he gets in command of the Enterprise, or at least once he gets into Starfleet,) He doesn't really change much. But he doesn't need to. He's a constant. He's a pulp hero. What's growing are his relationships. He's making friends, he's getting defeated, he's getting laid, he saves the world (notches and notches and notches). He only has character moments in TOS movies because he gets old. That's literally everything about Kirk's character in all of the TOS movies: the contrast between being a constant, and getting old. It's obvious why JJTrek can't do that. TOS the series didn't really have character growth either; it had character MOMENTS, relationship stuff (Bones/Kirk/Spock). Which is just what we get in JJTrek, too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
MrMo posted:Bones is tired old doctor, Spocks is vulcan/human, Kirk is Kirk Because, they're only stereotypes because the very Star Trek this movie is a part of has established them. And them being anything else would have been a major gently caress-off to the series. It's not that they're easily labelled and that makes them flat. They still react to stuff. For example, you say, Spock is easily filled under "Vulcan/Human", but that, while true, is two words where many more would not have been wasted either. For example, he is, if I recon correctly, primarily driven by pride, especially pride in fulfilling his duty, making him at times inflexible, but not too arrogant to notice when he's dangerously wrong, he's open to new ideas, he has a kickass BLACK GIRLFRIEND, ... I don't see how he's any less deep than Nimoy Spock.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
I wonder, why does Nero feel kind of lame? I don't see where his acting is lacking; granted, his ship is a bit silly and he has the universal mark of people nobody will ever take serious, the face tattoo, but Bana is playing him fine, and he doesn't really have bad lines or anything. Yet, he doesn't really leave a mark. Why? Professor Clumsy posted:I think the only real flaw in Star Trek '09 is that the introduction of Nimoy as Spock really ruins what Quinto is doing with that character and Quinto is off screen the entire time that Kirk is with old Spock, so when he is reintroduced he has to rebuild that entire thing again, but it's the third act. It's like a massive crater in the film and it never really recovers. Right after we say goodbye to Nimoy on the ice planet, Quinto Spock has his second huge emotional outburst, easily subduing, and then choking, Kirk. Then, he himself realizes what he is doing, and first, steps back to make room for Kirk, and then, forward again to give him the support as a first officer. Quinto plays a barely controlled psychopath that could, any second, kill everyone around and is, while overtly human, emotionally actually totally alien to us hu-mans; he does have emotions, but they're so intense that he has to play a psychopath robot thing ... with a tiny hint of nerd ... That's Quinto's thing, of course, he's been doing that in Heroes, and American Horror Story, that's what he was hired for. And he shows us that Spock is still, like back in his childhood, a monster within, but that his brain is able to get back in charge ... by reminding himself of protocol. He's all about protocol, kneeling down before being transported, always citing regulations, and it's protocol that makes him give up captainhood. But he's following protocol to keep him from choking everybody the gently caress out when somebody implies he does not love his mother. Dude needs therapy. And he's doing this huge scene, making this point, that he's still a monster who'll bloody an inferior, right after we say goodbye to Nimoy Spock. So, I don't really see what you mean? Also, I wonder what Uhura is thinking while Spock is choking Kirk. She gives him the nicest goodbye the next second. E: here's the Trekcore gallery with screencaps of Spock beating up Kirk. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Feb 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Yes okay, that makes sense to me. Seems there was quite some wasted potential of actually making him another Ahab. He didn't seem convincingly insane, just really angry for no good reason.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:You might have noticed a recurrent motif in the film that when someone sees their planet explode taking everyone they loved with it, it unhinges them emotionally. Yes, but how does that translate into "kill the guy who evidently tried to save you, also, kill all humans"? E: wait must reply to Clumsy Professor Clumsy posted:You're talking about the characterisation of Spock and Quinto's performance, but I do feel that Nimoy's presence detracts from it entirely. When we are reintroduced to Quinto as Spock, it is the start of the third act and these two characters are supposed to have bonded. but Kirk has been bonding with Nimoy so it feels a little off. It's like if you were watching Rory Kinnear do Hamlet and after the intermission he was replaced with Kenneth Branagh, only to be swapped back for the climactic scene. Kinnear's Hamlet and Branagh's Hamlet aren't the same thing. I don't think Quinto and Nimoy can play each other at different stages of their lives, but they're both great Spocks in their own right, putting them together detracts from the performance we should be watching, which is Quinto's. However, you said the movie nose-dives and never recovers. But, Quinto's Spock basically just started there! Before, we see him as a child, and then as a problem for Kirk, as a foil or whatever the proper term is. Spock's making the wrong decisions, what with sticking to protocol instead of doing what's RIGHT (following Kirk). Then, he makes the worst error, exiling Kirk ... and when Kirk returns, we learn that Spock's only following protocol in order to keep down his inner alien psychopath, and that we should be glad that he's being all protocol and poo poo, it's just that his proper role is that of a #1, not a captain ... And the bonding happens when Kirk realizes Spock out-males him by 1. beating him up, 2. getting the girl, so Spock can in good confidence play #2 (#1). All of their moments as two protagonists, not as protagonist and foil, happen after Nimoy. And isn't it rather that having seen Nimoy makes you more involved in Quinto, trying to see the connection, trying to see what's going on in Quinto-Spock's head that's similar and that's different to Nimoy-Spock? I see that pacing wise, the bonding might have come a bit late in the movie, but that's less a problem of having Nimoy on screen, and more a problem of anything that's not Kirk and Spock bonding happening there, right? I'd rather they cut the lame CGI monster chase (god that one was so BORING) and give us some more Kirk/Spock slash instead. Maybe some hint of mutual respect in face of being in violent disagreement even before the exiling. Or am I still missing what you're saying? Cingulate fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Feb 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
That's explicitly in the movie already though?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
Actually, Bana's getting a few good lines. "Hello." "I'm Captain Christopher Pike. To whom am I speaking?" "Hi Christopher, I'm Nero." Professor Clumsy posted:I think we're not quite talking about the same thing. You're talking about Quinto becoming "Spock" like a superhero origin story, I'm talking about an actor being off screen for what should be his most important scenes and replaced with someone who has walked that road a thousand times. I think it's boring because I want to be watching Quinto and Pine bond, not Pine and Nimoy, it doesn't mean anything. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Feb 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Good style trumps everything. Lame style's just lame. But, I'm not even sure I personally dislike the brewery, I just found the Guybrush Threepwood scene there way too boring.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Hewlett posted:I don't know what this means, and I've played a Monkey Island game before.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
Clumsy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chase_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation) It's similar to Prometheus, only not good.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
effectual posted:But you're an out of shape goon, Scotty isn't, also the imminent threat of death is a great motivator. Which it does, and shouldn't, because it's boring.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 11:43
|
|
|
Some minutes have more than 60 seconds. Maybe related to time dilation at superluminal speeds? E: it has this weird comic book feel. It seriously kills my suspense of disbelief (in the context of a movie with time traveling, angry elves). Not even getting into the "air" thing, Scotty is bent around all these tubes as if his body had no joints, no physicality. Kirk runs around like a confused chicken. The valve blows open, Scotty falls to the ground flat on his chest from a height of at least 3, 4 meters, dead and limp. He gets up as if nothing had happened - again, as if he had no bones at all, as if he were a comic figure. He gets up from that, and he doesn't even breathe too heavy after being submerged in un-purified "active reactant" (malt?) for a minute. It's cartoon slapstick. Which totally isn't the humor I usually enjoy in the series, which is the different characters clashing. I like the new Scotty, he's a character with quite some humor, his overenthusiasm ("I never beamed three targets from two ships onto one platform!") is great. Most of the humor in Star Trek tends to be verbal, or in subtle gestures. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 12:24 on Feb 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 12:14
|
|
|
I don't find people standing around talking boring by itself, especially since the next scene is Spock choking out Kirk after a shouting match and the next scene is Kirk taking the helm and the next scene is the Enterprise rising like Venus from the sea foam of Saturn. People standing around talking in the face of bad special effects is what defines Star Trek! That, and slow shots of approaching the Enterprise from behind. Alchenar posted:e: also "can I have a towel please" is a fantastic line perfectly delivered, so it's worth it for that
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 12:28
|
|
|
Kazy posted:Let's not also forget this:  Maybe my point should have been, the GOOD humor in Star Trek tends to be verbal. Though the equivalent scene in JJTrek, where Kirk hurts his head in the shuttle, is a bit less bad. E: Though I'm really not on good terms with Scotty's Funny Brewery Tube Adventure, I'd actually rather talk about the parts of the movie I enjoy (most), or other Round Spaceships movies. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Feb 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
I for one don't have "a problem" with JJTrek, I've never considered if it is or isn't True Trek, and if I had come to the conclusion that it isn't, so what. It's a greatly enjoyable movie, that's what it is. Besides for some scenes I could do without (young Kirk thrashing the car while listening to music my father would try to annoy his father with, Elastic Scotty in the brewery, lame red monster chasing Kirk ... I think that's it?), its main problem is that the villain is a bit on the forgettable side. Cumberbatch leaves more of an impression in the 30 seconds and 2 lines he's given in the trailer, so I'd be surprised if Into Darkness turns out to be anything but fantastic. computer parts posted:TOS Trek is basically Doctor Who but with a larger ship (on the outside), if anything ST09 dumping the reliance on 'canon' was basically the best way to get back to that. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Feb 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
I'd let the whole brewery scene thing rest because it's been going on for too long now, but it seems to be implied that the only reason somebody would not like it is because it's "not real Star Trek". Which isn't my problem at all. I don't have a problem with it potentially not being in the true spirit of the series, whatever that might have been, because, who cares. I just think it's bad. The movie's fantastically enjoyable still.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 10:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
The irony is that throughout their run, they kept going for TNG action movies. In contrast to TOS movies, all of the TNG movies are trying to be good action movies.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 10:53
|
|