|
Riptor posted:Wait really? Yup 
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
7thBatallion posted:Or Finnegan. He was in Starfleet as well. Haha, I don't think Finnegan would work in a modern movie. Not only is he a douche for no reason (or, at least Kirk's projection of him is), but he talks like a loving leprechaun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRvEM6zE-X8
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
Astroman posted:Ah, of course, the classic character triumvirate of Kirk, Spock, and...Uhura. Well it makes sense, Karl Urban isn't a leading movie star or anyth... Did you not watch the first movie? McCoy is clearly not a main character in this incarnation of Star Trek, but Uhura is.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:No, no. The guy from Trouble with Tribbles is a Jew. Did you not see Trials and Tribbleations? He's no goy. I loved him in that episode but he is the Jewiest Klingon ever.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:They're not more extreme, Kirk only slept with one alien chick in the whole movie. I'm pretty sure that Spock and McCoy both get more chicks than Kirk does in all of TOS.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
You guys are sure spending a lot of time writing about a fake travel system that the writers don't even portray consistently. All you need to know is that warp speed is as fast or as slow as the plot demands.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
The design of the JJ Enterprise is pretty cool, I even like the refinery/engineering section, the only thing that looks dumb is that communications room that's just literally a bunch of beer brewing tanks with computers at the bottom. Overall though I wish we had gotten something that looked more like the Kelvin, the look of the bridge just matched the industrial feel of the rest of that ship.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
edit: ^^^^^Goddammit  Supercar Gautier posted:Yeah, that could be planetary gravity. Or the artificial gravity calibration could be going wonky. The point is, you get to watch guys running on walls without any of that parkour poo poo. Inception did it better 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
Perhaps running off exploding platforms will be this film's hanging off the edge of a precipice.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
Jesus christ thats depressing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
Oh I forgot that he was in a couple episodes of Homeland this season, so I suppose it's not all terrible shows.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
Honestly Cumberbatch's character seems more like Javier Bardem's character in Skyfall than he does Khan or anything related to Khan. Former elite Starfleet operative out looking for revenge because of [macguffin], our plucky hero struggles to beat someone who is better/more seasoned/ahead at every step? Much more plausible than trying to tie in some Augments poo poo that nobody cares about. I'm really not sure that the shot of the "cryo pods" in the trailers is even that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
TNG (and DS9 to an extent) came out in a different era of TV, the quality of TV writing was lower and there was less programming overall so audiences were a lot more forgiving. Also even though they started out weak, both shows were still better than Voyager and Enterprise.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:Enterprise actually took some pretty drastic steps in the way the traditional Star Trek story was told. Voyager had some consistent arcs early on and DS9 naturally lent itself to the story arc formula. Enterprise took that and ran with it really quickly. Haha what? Enterprise is directed, shot, edited, and written in the exact same ways as Voyager and DS9 and TNG were. You always have the way overlit interior ship sets with the medium shot of the ship captain that dolly's in as they're about to say "engage", then cut to the generic effects shot of the ship going to warp and making the flashy thing. Music will swell up into a loud but bland horn sting. There's a lot of other things I could point out but basically "story arcs" is not a thing that is substantially different between Enterprise and the other Star Trek shows.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Didn't TNG start out as a syndicated show instead of a network show as well? I'd imagine that would change it's needs in the suck vs great department so long as enough stations were ordering episodes. Both TNG and DS9 had their entire runs in syndication, though IIRC many UPN stations bought DS9 episodes and ran them on nights where there wasn't first-run UPN programming.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2013 07:44
|
|
|
And The Voyage Home 
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
Danger posted:I don't understand what is "all-sizzle" or "shallow", but I think those are really meaningless ways to discuss a work of art in any medium. I assume you mean that the film is very distinct visually in some way? Feels somehow kinetic? I can only comment on Trek '09 at the moment, but the visual storytelling was a primary aspect of the story (it's a film, of course) and much of it's meaning is conveyed visually (the flares of light as halo, the overdesigned interiors, the sharp gritty design of Nero's ship...) Star Trek's fanbase has traditionally been gathered vis-a-vis the television shows which feature extremely budget-constrained costuming, set design, and cinematography, so when Star Trek fans complain that a film is shallow they usually mean that the plot is shallow because they generally look at only plot, characterization, and acting as important hallmarks of good filmmaking. edit: and the Star Trek films have typically shared the same kind of cheapness in production design. I believe starting with Star Trek II the TV division of Paramount handled the production of the movies? Somebody like Aatrek is gonna know more about this. 1st AD fucked around with this message at 04:02 on May 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
DS9 was gritty because they could get away with it on that show. For years guys like Ira Behr and Ron Moore had ideas shot down by Berman because they didn't meet his narrow vision of what Star Trek should be, so when Berman became occupied with trying to make Voyager the flagship show on a new network the DS9 writers basically were free to do whatever they wanted. Hell they even lied to Berman about the Dominion War lasting only 6 episodes or something and he was obviously too occupied to notice or do anything about it.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
I think the funny thing about genre-malleability as a hallmark of Star Trek is the fact that Gene did this so he could reuse sets on the CBS lot and save lots of money, so you'd have a western episode and a Native American episode and a gangster episode, and the writers made sure to include some flimsy pretense about why a spaceship in the future would encounter a planet full of Nazi's. I have to wonder what kind of show Star Trek would have been if Gene had a much bigger budget. I suppose TNG is that show, but Gene's control of the show was hampered by tons of issues in the early going and culminated with his failing health. If he had lived and stayed healthy, I wonder if we ever would've gotten The Best of Both Worlds, Chain of Command, or any of the other really good TNG episodes.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
Generations is an intelligent (and beautiful!) but ultimately poorly executed film. First Contact is waaaaaay more shallow than 2009 because 2009 at least tries to tell the story with the directing and visual design whereas First Contact is literally flat with a flatter Enterprise, monochrome sets, and generally an amateurish sensibility about how to compose shots. I'd put Abram's Trek over every TNG movie any day, because as films they succeed in telling the story via the sound and visuals.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:Boring, forgettable movies/episodes are way worse than a movie that makes choices you don't like. Even if I thought ST09 was terribly written/directed/conceived (I don't) it still puts in effort and energy that none of the TNG movies even attempted. They're bored, tired films and their good parts fall apart because the rest of the movies are busy falling asleep. Even if I hated ST09 I can't imagine thinking Nemesis/Insurrection was better in any possible way. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy watching First Contact from time to time because it's a bit like a poor man's Die Hard (in spaaaaaaaaaace), but as a film it is utterly shallow and more proof that the production staff who made Star Trek for almost 20 years straight needed to work on other projects because they basically didn't know how to build interesting sets, light scenes cinematically (again, Generations gets a pass here because it looks phenomenal for about half of the movie), design costumes, or move cameras. Actually I'd be shocked if there were even any crane or circular dolly shots in First Contact, because from my recollection of that film the camera is very static throughout the entire thing.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:Technically, yes, I mean the plot, but overall, the visual storytelling came off more as obfuscating the plot than illuminating it. There's a few bits, and this discussion has highlighted a couple I didn't catch originally, but I still feel both films rely on spectacle to prevent the audience from engaging too deeply, lest they notice how disjointed and confused the plot and characters are. The function of cinematography, effects, editing, production design, etc. is not solely to enhance the plot. The pure visceral experience of looking at and listening to a film is at least as important as the words that are being said by actors on screen. Gaz-L posted:The issue is less budget, more that you can't just go to a prop house and grab a sofa like on a contemporary set show, the majority of things have to be scratch-built. Building everything from scratch means building and furnishing a set costs more money. Though I will agree that the big issue is not budget but actually a lack of vision from Trek designers in the past - they were really stuck into a particular look for Star Trek and forgot to design things that were aesthetically pleasing and instead just designed things that "fit into the canon."
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
forever gold posted:That is an alien view to most film goers and even most ardent cinephiles. Ultimately the function of a film is to relate a narrative, and while the film can be exceptionally artful in the technical means it uses to relate a narrative, if it doesn't impress or engage in that regard then it's a failure. You are so, SO wrong about this. The Art of Flight is a snowboarding film that basically has no plot. Yes, it has people talking and planning their escapades but it's all superfluous to the action. People watched this poo poo in droves. People paid $20 to see it in theatres even when a $10 digital download was available. People paid to watch it again in 3D. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh29_SERH0Y At the onset of cinema, people went to theatres to see anything on the big screen. Narrative wasn't as important as the experience. Just because we have the ability to record sound and present narrative doesn't mean that the other aspects of filmmaking don't matter or don't stand on their own.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
The first two MI movies are really bad (and the 2nd one had at least one pass of the script written by Ron Moore and Brannon Braga), so I'm not sure what your point is here. I actually do think I enjoy Abrams' MI over Brad Bird's, but I think it's mostly because of good casting choices in Abrams' film. Also Abrams is a better director than Bird. Also, Transformers is a pretty good film experience. If you're going to single it out for being aggressively stupid then I will gladly watch Transformers instead of Star Trek 5, 9, and 10 because those films masquerade themselves in a cloak of "intelligent" sci-fi and have no excuse for having lovely plotting. And at least Transformers looks good, almost every Star Trek movie and TV show looks like poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Danger posted:Gosh, so tactically unreal. An that lens flair! it's almost as if its an obvious artistic embellishment to portray some visual metaphor and not an accurate depiction of a virtually consistent universe parallel to our own! jesus jabrams... This is a thread about a Star Trek movie, so you're going to see a lot more spergin' about the plot and a rote dismissal of every other element of filmmaking.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
der juicen posted:One more thing to add, the music is phenomenal. The main theme is just I like how the Star Trek fanfare plays right as Kirk is giving the ending monologue, I think it's the first time we've heard it in the Abrams movie. I loved this film, it encapsulates my favorite things about Star Trek. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are very good at this acting thing and Peter Weller and Benedict Cumberbatch are great antagonists. One of my favorite things is how they decided to use color to convey tone in the film. The Nibiru planet at the start is full of RICH color because it's supposed to be an untouched planet, wild and untainted by the Federation. There's a lot of bright reds, yellows, blues, and whites in the film that promptly disappear once we get to the film proper and spend the rest of our time on Earth or on a Federation starship which are largely gray and muted. To me it suggests a kind of complacency in how people deal with living in a militarized society. I think it's interesting that they chose to clad the Starfleet Admirals in a kind of monochrome scheme and the death of Pike and Marcus represent a kind of death of the militarized Starfleet (and yes I do realize those costumes are basically rehashed TMP ones). Even Marcus' ship is just a blacker and grayer version of the Enterprise, and with the demise of both it allows Kirk and party to pave their way towards a more colorful and peaceful future, one that's as bright and as colorful (and hopeful/not cynical) like TOS itself.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 09:24
|
|
. I enjoyed the credit music too.
|
Space Hamlet posted:A good thing: the opening sequence was in five or ten minutes a better prime directive episode than anything TNG ever managed to do with that theme, with really meaningful use of special effects and powerful image-driven storytelling. If that's the kind of thing we can expect from a new series based in this universe, sign me up. Yeah honestly I enjoyed the fact that Kirk willfully broke the rules to save his friend AND he still faced consequences over them (even if they were short-lived). Also it's not contemporary music you heard, but classic dub
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
This conversation, along with the casting conversation, are kind of difficult to have solely in the context of this film because those are problems with Hollywood in general and until you get a lot more women and minority directors and producers out there I don't know how you fix it. Also, just 2 Star Trek movies ago we had a character whose only purpose in the narrative was to get mind raped by Tom Hardy, so...yay for improvements I guess? 
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Just saw the movie. it was nice but nothing super special or anything. Admiral Marcus, not Scotty.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
The funny thing is that in the context of The Wrath of Khan, there is absolutely no reason for Kirk to deliver the KHAAAAAN line with such gusto other than him being a ham, because 2 scenes later it turns out he and Spock were in on a little joke that the Enterprise was up and running sooner than Khan expected. He knew he wasn't going to be marooned inside the Genesis planet. Meanwhile in Into Darkness Spock has PLENTY of reason to just lose his grip on his emotional control - the pain and utter sadness he feels at Kirk's death washes over him and then he's just filled with an all-consuming rage at the man he feels is responsible. In that context the JJ Abrams scene is much, MUCH better and more impactful than the Nick Meyer scene.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I too always thought that was Shatner acting as Kirk being bad at acting mad, not Shatner being bad at acting like a mad Kirk! It's pretty silly to point out the new film for moments that "take you out of the story because they're ridiculous" (something lots of people have said about this film) when all of the previous Star Trek movies are chock full of moments that are much much worse. Especially the ones that are universally loved by the hardcore fans.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
I was in an audience of mostly non fans (I could tell because it was mostly couples on a Friday night and they didn't look very ugly) and though some things flew over their head they appreciated the Khan reveal and I heard some audible gasps at the Kirk death and Spock scream. Generally non-fans know about TOS because it's an iconic show. They might miss poo poo like the NX-01 model or the section 31 callback, but they know what a Tribble is.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
Vanderdeath posted:I just saw this last night and while I was not a huge fan of it, I can't help but notice that Abrams seriously loving loves shots of the Enterprise rising from various mediums. They're gorgeous as hell, mind you, but there were at least three which was getting to the point of overindulgence. I'm actually beginning to appreciate TMP a lot more because it has the same mentality about showing off how gorgeous the Enterprise looks. I just want to see the Enterprise go to warp and rise into the camera frame all day err' day.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
On the other hand, I would not want to watch a rehash of The Search fo Kirk because the original movie was so bland/forgettable.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:This may seem like a silly question, but am I the only person who was kind of annoyed that the name of the evil ship was USS Vengeance? I know this is a nitpick tier gripe but it really bothers me. 1)There is a Star Trek episode where a dude with black face on the left and white face on the right is mad at a guy with white face on the left and black face on the right. That is quintessential Star Trek, ham-fisting morality up the viewers' asses. 2)I don't think it was supposed to be a front line ship. It looks like it was built in secret and was staffed with private contractors. 3)This is a dumb complaint and you should shut up about it.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
fenix down posted:They are calling it that because the majority of the film is pointless action sequences. When half the audience is laughing hysterically at the emotional scene you describe, it's more akin to a youtube parody of star trek.  this did not happen during any of the screenings I went to. Went once on Friday night with a late-20's to 30-something crowd, then went this morning with old people and kids.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
Films have to go beyond being well-written, and while I don't think STID is poorly written I do think the cinematography, effects, sound, styling, etc. rise far above the writing.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
bullet3 posted:Edit: I come down harsh because I expect better of Star Trek. This ended up being a merely average movie when it could've been great. I guess you haven't seen too much Star Trek then because a lot of it plain stinks. Especially the films. The series finale to DS9 is literally one giant deux ex machina, and that show is beloved by hardcore Trek fans. Actually the pilot is the exact same way too. To criticize STID for this is pretty laughable.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
If it's the end (and I half-assumed it would end anyways since Abrams will be making Star Wars for the next decade) then look forward to the future of Star Trek: NOTHING
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
I really can't agree that 5/6 of the original Star Trek films are good to great. I feel like the only film that even tries to be groundbreaking is TMP and that one is marred by really bad editing. (I love the cinematography and styling of that film, but very few people agree with me ).The other films have a really cheap look to them because they were produced by the Paramount TV division on lower budgets and feature really rote/boring cinematography (the effects are good though). They should've found a way to keep Richard Kline on for at least TWOK because he had one hell of an eye for shooting Star Trek - if his visual style carried over to that film, I could easily that that TWOK was an excellent piece of film and not just a good Star Trek story. I said come in! posted:The ending felt like a setup to a t.v. series to me. Please let there be a t.v. series! There for sure isn't going to be another Abrams movie. I don't want to see a TV series because the best parts about Abrams Star Trek would get utterly lost in translation - the sweeping camera movements and the larger than life sets would all get replaced with tiny and cheap looking sets adorned with too many LCD screens and uninspired lighting. I think Battlestar Galactica proved that there are plenty of ways to tell compelling sci-fi stories without being trapped into being Star Trek and all the tropes that writers get suffocated by. 1st AD fucked around with this message at 05:00 on May 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2013 04:58
|
|