Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:36 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Star Trek into darkness (2013) 
Author Message
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 724
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
A full trailer (1.55 minutes) of Star Trek into darkness came out a few days ago. I starting to like it and definitely better than the teaser with a bunch of people screaming, still not totally convinced due the dark tone (hope from some humor), messing with Kirk's character (Is any hero safe after the Dark Knight?), and seems too much earthbound (I like more the Enterprise in deep space myself) that I will like the movie at this point but I will go to see it because I have watched all in the franchise even the mediocre ones. Who knows, maybe I am nicely surprised after seeing the final result, particularly in 3D

Trailer of 1.55 minutes plus a review of Grace Randolph

Cheers

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:08 pm
Profile WWW
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:35 am
Posts: 423
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
thered47 wrote:
Awf Hand wrote:
Awkward Beard Man wrote:
But I found it way too safe.


What do you mean "way too safe"?

-Not disagreeing, just unsure what you mean here.


[Reveal] Spoiler:
Because blowing up Vulcan
and establishing a completely new timeline was a totally safe move on the part of the filmmakers...?
-Jeremy


I just found that to be such a typically overblown way of raising the stakes. Need to make this personal? Let's blow up the dude's whole freakin' planet! Besides the obvious shades of Star Wars, I'd prefer just a little more nuance. However I could have accepted it if they had of developed the villain to have sufficient motivations. Instead we had him acting like a petulant child "My whole planet was destroyed by a supernova (a natural phenomenon), and even though Spock tried to help, my planet got destroyed anyways. Well WAAAAHH! THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH!! Death to fucking everyone!". It half feels like they're trying to make him a tragic character, but also make him balls-to-the-walls destructive evil. Instead I was left feeling nothing, neither sympathy nor hate, and I think it's due to the lazy writing of the character.

As for rewriting the timeline, I agree it's the biggest risk they made in the movie. But when you think about it, it's also very calculated, like having your cake and eating it too. This way they can retread all of the existing Star Trek story lines, but don't have to stick to canon given that they're living a 'new timeline'. Also gives a chance for some fan service in bringing back Nemoy as Spock Prime, but also allowing for the young sexy new cast to appeal to the new audience. You can think of it as a risk but I saw it more as "how can we rework the series so that we can do whatever we want to it and not piss of the fans?"

But by "safe", I guess I meant that so much of the films is entirely dedicated to characters running around between action scens in an almost farcical manner. All about keeping the energy flowing. We can't slow down to think because somebody might lose interest. And so we just run along from one set piece to the next, throw in some in-jokes for the fans, kill of a few redshirts, and then take down the villain. I guess I found that besides all the Star Trek window dressing, it just followed the Summer movie blueprint a little too closely. I had fun, but I just wanted something more. As I said, Star Trek to me has always been about the big lofty ideas, whilst this is a typical sci-fi action movie. And that's what I meant by "safe".


Tue Dec 18, 2012 5:43 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:17 am
Posts: 228
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
Hello ABM
Awkward Beard Man wrote:

I just found that to be such a typically overblown way of raising the stakes. Need to make this personal? Let's blow up the dude's whole freakin' planet! Besides the obvious shades of Star Wars, I'd prefer just a little more nuance. However I could have accepted it if they had of developed the villain to have sufficient motivations. Instead we had him acting like a petulant child "My whole planet was destroyed by a supernova (a natural phenomenon), and even though Spock tried to help, my planet got destroyed anyways. Well WAAAAHH! THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH!! Death to fucking everyone!". It half feels like they're trying to make him a tragic character, but also make him balls-to-the-walls destructive evil. Instead I was left feeling nothing, neither sympathy nor hate, and I think it's due to the lazy writing of the character.

How about spending more time with the villain and the ship. Find out how the villain managed to convince the crew to stay quietly in the universe for 25 years. I don't know about you, but if i was on that ship I might be inclined to mutiny.
Awkward Beard Man wrote:
As for rewriting the timeline, I agree it's the biggest risk they made in the movie. But when you think about it, it's also very calculated, like having your cake and eating it too. This way they can retread all of the existing Star Trek story lines, but don't have to stick to canon given that they're living a 'new timeline'. Also gives a chance for some fan service in bringing back Nemoy as Spock Prime, but also allowing for the young sexy new cast to appeal to the new audience. You can think of it as a risk but I saw it more as "how can we rework the series so that we can do whatever we want to it and not piss of the fans?"

Can I ask the questions? What's wrong with being calculated.
Is it not a good thing that the Star Trek can pretty much do what ever it wants even though it is a prequel?
If it is a bad thing then why so?
Awkward Beard Man wrote:
But by "safe", I guess I meant that so much of the films is entirely dedicated to characters running around between action scens in an almost farcical manner. All about keeping the energy flowing. We can't slow down to think because somebody might lose interest. And so we just run along from one set piece to the next, throw in some in-jokes for the fans, kill of a few redshirts, and then take down the villain. I guess I found that besides all the Star Trek window dressing, it just followed the Summer movie blueprint a little too closely. I had fun, but I just wanted something more. As I said, Star Trek to me has always been about the big lofty ideas, whilst this is a typical sci-fi action movie. And that's what I meant by "safe".

I believe that the primary purpose of any film is to entertain or cause you to have fun. It must do this before anything else.
If a film only causes me to have fun but nothing else it is still successful.
I do however believe that Star Trek did have some lofty ideas,
It explained why Spock's father married Spock's mother.
It also highlighted how important the Federation was to Spock's development as an individual.
It also showed Spock's relationship with the other crew members ( not only Kirk and Bones).
Actually when I think about it, Star Trek was more about Spock's story than anything else.


Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:34 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:35 am
Posts: 423
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
p604 wrote:
Hello ABM

Awkward Beard Man wrote:
As for rewriting the timeline, I agree it's the biggest risk they made in the movie. But when you think about it, it's also very calculated, like having your cake and eating it too. This way they can retread all of the existing Star Trek story lines, but don't have to stick to canon given that they're living a 'new timeline'. Also gives a chance for some fan service in bringing back Nemoy as Spock Prime, but also allowing for the young sexy new cast to appeal to the new audience. You can think of it as a risk but I saw it more as "how can we rework the series so that we can do whatever we want to it and not piss of the fans?"

Can I ask the questions? What's wrong with being calculated.
Is it not a good thing that the Star Trek can pretty much do what ever it wants even though it is a prequel?
If it is a bad thing then why so?

I wasn't saying that it's a bad thing at all. It was in response to thered47 saying that it wasn't a safe decision. By saying it seemed very calculated, I didn't find it as much of a risk as it initially seemed. Now there's nothing wrong with that, I just would have preferred some extra depth on top of that.

p604 wrote:
Awkward Beard Man wrote:
But by "safe", I guess I meant that so much of the films is entirely dedicated to characters running around between action scens in an almost farcical manner. All about keeping the energy flowing. We can't slow down to think because somebody might lose interest. And so we just run along from one set piece to the next, throw in some in-jokes for the fans, kill of a few redshirts, and then take down the villain. I guess I found that besides all the Star Trek window dressing, it just followed the Summer movie blueprint a little too closely. I had fun, but I just wanted something more. As I said, Star Trek to me has always been about the big lofty ideas, whilst this is a typical sci-fi action movie. And that's what I meant by "safe".

I believe that the primary purpose of any film is to entertain or cause you to have fun. It must do this before anything else.
If a film only causes me to have fun but nothing else it is still successful.


This is where I disagree. To me, the primary purpose of any film is to cause you to feel, to provoke some reaction from you. That feeling can be one of elation, excitement, laughter and happiness, but it can also provoke sadness, fear, anger or introspection. I've watched movies that were in no way fun, but I found profoundly moving and changed the way I look at the world around me. Do these films fail because they're not fun? Not at all. To put it in other words, I believe the primary purpose of any film is to be compelling. And this is where Star Trek didn't work for me. Maybe I need to watch it again to get a fresh perspective of it, but it left me satisfied on the basest of levels ("well that was an alright way to spend a few hours I suppose"), but it didn't resonate with me. In fact before they started to push the marketing on the sequel, I'd pretty much forgotten this film existed.


Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:42 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1584
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
Quote:
I believe that the primary purpose of any film is to entertain or cause you to have fun. It must do this before anything else.
If a film only causes me to have fun but nothing else it is still successful.

This is where I disagree. To me, the primary purpose of any film is to cause you to feel, to provoke some reaction from you. That feeling can be one of elation, excitement, laughter and happiness, but it can also provoke sadness, fear, anger or introspection. I've watched movies that were in no way fun, but I found profoundly moving and changed the way I look at the world around me. Do these films fail because they're not fun? Not at all. To put it in other words, I believe the primary purpose of any film is to be compelling. And this is where Star Trek didn't work for me. Maybe I need to watch it again to get a fresh perspective of it, but it left me satisfied on the basest of levels ("well that was an alright way to spend a few hours I suppose"), but it didn't resonate with me. In fact before they started to push the marketing on the sequel, I'd pretty much forgotten this film existed.


Nice. Couldn't have said it better myself. I think the best movies produce feelings on both ends of the spectrum. Anything in life can be fun or diverting. Movies have to be more than that, or else there's nothing unique about them. However, I believe pure fun can be warranted if the concept is unique and creative enough. A unique and creative concept makes you think, regardless of the tone. Abram's Star Trek just feels like corporate programming; an easy fix.


Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:03 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:17 am
Posts: 228
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
Awkward Beard Man wrote:

This is where I disagree. To me, the primary purpose of any film is to cause you to feel, to provoke some reaction from you. That feeling can be one of elation, excitement, laughter and happiness, but it can also provoke sadness, fear, anger or introspection. I've watched movies that were in no way fun, but I found profoundly moving and changed the way I look at the world around me. Do these films fail because they're not fun? Not at all. To put it in other words, I believe the primary purpose of any film is to be compelling. And this is where Star Trek didn't work for me. Maybe I need to watch it again to get a fresh perspective of it, but it left me satisfied on the basest of levels ("well that was an alright way to spend a few hours I suppose"), but it didn't resonate with me. In fact before they started to push the marketing on the sequel, I'd pretty much forgotten this film existed.


Hello ABM
Can you give me an example of film that has moved you.
I might put forward Shawshank Redemption. This film is very moving and has a great message of hope.
How and everr my favourite aspect is the narration from Morgan Freeman, If the film had not entertained me I don't think that I would put it at such a high esteem.
The only film that I could consider that moved me without entertaining me would be "Passion of the Christ".
The film had great depth but i would be of the opinion that I endured it as opposed to watched it.


Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:00 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1584
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
Quote:
endured it as opposed to watched it.


Endurance is something to describe some of the more extended action sequences of Star Trek. Honestly, it's too much cacaphony. Too much BOOM, BANG, WOWZER! Gunfire, explosions, miscellaneous loud noises, and just endless spectacle without any...counter-spectacle, if you will. The small moments feel too obligatory, so there's no sense of balance, discipline, or restraint. In fact, many of the intimate moments are just as loud as the action. It's an endless assault on the senses, and it becomes more tiresome than fun.


Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:54 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:26 am
Posts: 226
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
ABM, I think I have a better feel for what you didn't like about Star Trek and what you meant by "safe".

When the first Mission Impossible movie came out, it was "safe" in that it attempted to appeal to audiences of the time, but not fans of the series. As a fan of the TV series, I'd looked forward to MI in a big way, but Oceans 11 contained a better MI plot than MI did. The action seemed so absurdly out of place in what should have been a cerebral plot.

Although I enjoyed Star Trek, I understand what you mean.

_________________
______________________________
Specializing in rodent behavior modification.
-Watch me pull a habit out of rat.


Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:55 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1325
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57561907-1/j.j-abrams-grants-movie-wish-to-dying-trekkie/

Really lovely story. Made me think of when J.K. Rowling read the yet-unfinished Goblet of Fire to a kid with cancer before she died.


Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:21 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1325
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
http://trekweb.com/articles/2013/01/05/Critically-Ill-Star-Trek-Fan-Shown-RoughCut-of-Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-Passes-Away-.shtml

:(

Quote:
He'd been a bit loopy for a few days as his liver failed and toxins built up in his blood, and on Thursday his wife asked him if he needed to go to the bathroom.

'I'm going,' he proclaimed, 'into the future.'


:cry:


Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:30 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1439
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
Quote:
Benedict Cumberbatch is going to be really fine in this. if he is as intense in this as he is in Sherlock then this is the finest villain of 2013. In terms of Khan i think that if they ever bring this character back then why not have Javier Bardem play him.
I feel that it ill be impossible to bring back Khan in just one film, after all Khan appeared in the old star trek universe twice. he would have to do so again. I speculate that khan will never appear again.


looking more & more likely he's back. ugh.

http://social.entertainment.msn.com/mov ... 90ac9612f4


Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:59 pm
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 724
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
calvero wrote:
Quote:
Benedict Cumberbatch is going to be really fine in this. if he is as intense in this as he is in Sherlock then this is the finest villain of 2013. In terms of Khan i think that if they ever bring this character back then why not have Javier Bardem play him.
I feel that it ill be impossible to bring back Khan in just one film, after all Khan appeared in the old star trek universe twice. he would have to do so again. I speculate that khan will never appear again.


looking more & more likely he's back. ugh.

http://social.entertainment.msn.com/mov ... 90ac9612f4


Cumberbatch is playing Khan or a Khan-like character? it seems in that direction lately .

I guess it might be banking of being The Wrath of Khan such a good film for Trekkies :-)

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Sat Feb 09, 2013 7:15 pm
Profile WWW
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1439
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
Quote:
LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) - Ditch Spock's ears. Lose the wacky costumes. Don't have characters spend so much time yakking on the bridge of the Enterprise.

That's the sort of advice Paramount is heeding as it prepares to open its sci-fi epic "Star Trek Into Darkness" on Thursday in the U.K., Australia and five other countries. Determined to make its sci-fi epic sequel a global hit -- unlike any of the preceding "Star Trek" movies -- the studio has gone to great lengths to make it more appealing to foreign audiences.

"I guess less Trekkie, more action might be the short story," Paramount's head of international distribution Anthony Marcoly told TheWrap Tuesday. "But since I arrived here 18 months ago, a primary part of my mission has been to make sure this movie succeeds at the overseas box office the way it will domestically, and our team has done a great deal to make sure that happens."

Extensive research, marketing tailored to individual markets, casting designed to resonate with international audiences and extensive ground campaigns by the movie's creators and talent like Chris Pine have all preceded the international debut. Over the past couple of months, director J.J. Abrams and producer Bryan Burk have barnstormed through Asia, Europe and Latin America, screening extensive clips.

"We did a lot of focus groups in a lot of countries, and asked what they liked and didn't like and we listened," Marcoly said. "Basically, it was more action, more of the adventure elements and less of the real Trekkie stuff." The stuff, in other words, that turned the 1960s TV show into a cultural phenomenon in America and launched the film franchise.

Paramount didn't have much choice. With a $195 million production budget, Abrams' follow-up to his 2009 "Star Trek" reboot will have to score big overseas to be a success. And that's a feat none of the previous films - including the last one - have been able to achieve.

Since "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" launched the film franchise back in 1979, the 11 movies in the series have taken in more than $1.8 billion, but just $312 million from abroad. Indeed, the franchise's appeal and cast of characters was seen as so U.S.-centric, that Paramount didn't bother to release several of the earlier films abroad.

The 2009 "Star Trek" easily became the franchise's biggest box office hit by taking in $387 million worldwide, but didn't make much of a dent in the overseas market with just $128 million. That's not terrible, but it meant foreign accounted for less than a third of the total grosses. That won't cut it in today's box office world, where pricey tent poles often double their domestic hauls overseas.


http://movies.yahoo.com/news/star-trek- ... 31663.html


Wed May 08, 2013 7:56 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
^ That sounds less than promising.

But, you know, that Steven Soderbergh guy has no idea what he's talking about.


Thu May 09, 2013 9:01 am
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:21 pm
Posts: 566
Location: Milwaukee, WI (USA)
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
This seems as good a place as any to post this very funny Audi commercial featuring Leonard Nimoy and Zachary Quinto. Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... Wp7HMbfMWA


Thu May 09, 2013 9:04 am
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 724
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
I just saw the movie, the darkest in the franchise but with still humour in it. It also made homage to a previous Star Trek film. The 3D for a conversion was decent. I enjoyed my time in the Cinema :-)

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Thu May 09, 2013 9:48 am
Profile WWW
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3361
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
I don't care what kind of focus testing was done as long as the film itself is actually good.


Thu May 09, 2013 12:04 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 1439
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
Quote:
"I guess less Trekkie, more action might be the short story," Paramount's head of international distribution Anthony Marcoly told TheWrap Tuesday. "But since I arrived here 18 months ago, a primary part of my mission has been to make sure this movie succeeds at the overseas box office the way it will domestically, and our team has done a great deal to make sure that happens."

Extensive research, marketing tailored to individual markets, casting designed to resonate with international audiences and extensive ground campaigns by the movie's creators and talent like Chris Pine have all preceded the international debut. Over the past couple of months, director J.J. Abrams and producer Bryan Burk have barnstormed through Asia, Europe and Latin America, screening extensive clips.


I know that 'blockbusters' have always to some degree just been crafted with the goal of appealing to the most possible people, but reading it put this way (and then seeing the end result) is sort of depressing. so who's the actual filmmaker in this case? JJ Abrams or 'head of international distribution Anthony Marcoly?'

Maybe I'm just too old for these types of movies anymore (30s) to really enjoy them(or have seen too many movies), but yet I keep getting suckered into seeing them. can't ever recapture the feeling of seeing The Voyage Home or T2 as a child.
Hope I can avoid this cycle in 2015 with Star Wars 7.

I wonder if blockbusters have gotten even more simplistic & loud since the international market got to be more important than the domestic(roughly around the time of Titanic)

maybe they can have cameos for famous Chinese actors in all future blockbusters.


Thu May 23, 2013 2:01 pm
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 724
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
calvero wrote:


I wonder if blockbusters have gotten even more simplistic & loud since the international market got to be more important than the domestic(roughly around the time of Titanic)

maybe they can have cameos for famous Chinese actors in all future blockbusters.


Well Titanic is No 2 Domestic (US) and Avatar No 1 according:

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm

but you might have a point in relation to "maybe they can have cameos for famous Chinese actors in all future blockbusters" lol

As Iron Man 3 is No 24 but No 9 worldwide (mainly because the International revenue)

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

What JJ wanted with Star Trek into Darkness (STID) with marketing but with a lame story (although a lot of action) Iron Man 3 achieved with a lot of marketing but also a clever story with a real clever twist (no like STID ;-))

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Fri May 24, 2013 3:42 am
Profile WWW
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:35 am
Posts: 2014
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
I'm happy with the movie. One nice touch, at the very end, is that the five-year voyage hasn't even begun yet. Although Zachary Quinto doesn't want to come back.

I'm glad that "Heroes" has receded into the background. I no longer expect Spock to start eating people's brains.

_________________
Evil does not wear a bonnet!--Mr. Tinkles


Sat May 25, 2013 10:51 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr