Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:16 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 199 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS 
Author Message
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3605
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
thered47 wrote:
Ken wrote:
It is my opinion that Star Trek doesn't need an action director. It needs an adventure director. Find someone who cares more about the journey across the stars and its implications rather than staging flashy space dogfights and you've got a fighting chance at legitimacy. The stellar cast is in place. The backstory is out of the way. I'm ready for some real Star Trek.


I think Star Trek: Nemesis is the best argument to support what you just said. The producers repeatedly talk about on the DVD special features how the reason they hired Stuart Baird was because of his background directing action movies.

Well I for one thought Nemesis was one of the best Trek films and I think Baird did a great job with the material.


Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:27 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 415
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
This story is quite funny with Into Darkness writer Robert Orci going onto a Star Trek forum and start dropping f bombs on his Trekkie critics. You think he would have a thicker skin after writing so many bad scripts like Transformers and Cowboys and Aliens.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/07/star_trek_writer_abuses_fans_tells_them_to_fck_off_partner/


Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:56 pm
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:40 pm
Posts: 556
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
oakenshield32 wrote:
This story is quite funny with Into Darkness writer Robert Orci going onto a Star Trek forum and start dropping f bombs on his Trekkie critics. You think he would have a thicker skin after writing so many bad scripts like Transformers and Cowboys and Aliens.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/07/star_trek_writer_abuses_fans_tells_them_to_fck_off_partner/

He's been a hit-and-miss kind of writer in terms of his scripts as far as I'm concerned. It's still bad form for him to get into a flame war with dissatisfied fans. Too bad.

_________________
"Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain."


Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:22 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3605
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Ragnarok73 wrote:
oakenshield32 wrote:
This story is quite funny with Into Darkness writer Robert Orci going onto a Star Trek forum and start dropping f bombs on his Trekkie critics. You think he would have a thicker skin after writing so many bad scripts like Transformers and Cowboys and Aliens.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/07/star_trek_writer_abuses_fans_tells_them_to_fck_off_partner/

He's been a hit-and-miss kind of writer in terms of his scripts as far as I'm concerned. It's still bad form for him to get into a flame war with dissatisfied fans. Too bad.

I liked Transformers but Cowboys and Alien was pretty lousy, still it isn't smart of him to attack fans like that(at the very least he should've used a pseudonym so people wouldn't have known it was him), some people just aren't going to like your film and you have to accept that.


Mon Sep 09, 2013 8:06 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1563
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
oakenshield32 wrote:
This story is quite funny with Into Darkness writer Robert Orci going onto a Star Trek forum and start dropping f bombs on his Trekkie critics. You think he would have a thicker skin after writing so many bad scripts like Transformers and Cowboys and Aliens.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/07/star_trek_writer_abuses_fans_tells_them_to_fck_off_partner/


One of the primary points raised in the "Trek is broken" article is relevant. That being that STID while enjoyable lacked the depth of the original series or any of the TV incarnations for that matter. And when you look at it that way and realize that a long cancelled 60s TV show had more depth than a 2013 theatrically released movie, well then it should be obvious.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:14 pm
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:40 pm
Posts: 556
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Jeff Wilder wrote:
One of the primary points raised in the "Trek is broken" article is relevant. That being that STID while enjoyable lacked the depth of the original series or any of the TV incarnations for that matter. And when you look at it that way and realize that a long cancelled 60s TV show had more depth than a 2013 theatrically released movie, well then it should be obvious.

It seems like Orci took offense to the notion that he helped dumb down the franchise with the 2 latest films. He really shouldn't be flaming people who say so, since they're right.

_________________
"Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain."


Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:33 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3605
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Ragnarok73 wrote:
Jeff Wilder wrote:
One of the primary points raised in the "Trek is broken" article is relevant. That being that STID while enjoyable lacked the depth of the original series or any of the TV incarnations for that matter. And when you look at it that way and realize that a long cancelled 60s TV show had more depth than a 2013 theatrically released movie, well then it should be obvious.

It seems like Orci took offense to the notion that he helped dumb down the franchise with the 2 latest films. He really shouldn't be flaming people who say so, since they're right.

Personally I disagree with the notion that he "dumbed down" the franchise, my mother is an avid fan of the original series and enjoyed both Abrams films on their own merits.


Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:43 am
Profile
Online
Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 am
Posts: 2191
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
His movie work has been hit or miss, but I LOVE his television work. Alias, Fringe, Lost. Amazing shows IMO.

And Cowboys & Aliens remains one of the most underrated movies of the past several years. Loved it.


Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:05 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3605
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
ilovemovies wrote:
His movie work has been hit or miss, but I LOVE his television work. Alias, Fringe, Lost. Amazing shows IMO.

And Cowboys & Aliens remains one of the most underrated movies of the past several years. Loved it.

It's the other way around for me, I love his films but found his shows to be hit and miss, Alias was OK but I found Lost to be a confusing and overrated mess of a show with not a single character worth giving a damn about.


Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:10 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
I wouldn't say Abrams dumbed down Star Trek, only because Star Trek at its dumbest has been a hell of a lot dumber than this.

It still doesn't hold a candle to Star Trek at its smartest, which is what a lot of people are probably hoping for with each new installment.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:27 am
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:40 pm
Posts: 556
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Ken wrote:
I wouldn't say Abrams dumbed down Star Trek, only because Star Trek at its dumbest has been a hell of a lot dumber than this.

It still doesn't hold a candle to Star Trek at its smartest, which is what a lot of people are probably hoping for with each new installment.

It's been dumbed down- less thinking, more action. That doesn't mean that as a whole it made it necessarily worse or less entertaining, but that article nailed it on the head when it mentioned the fact that Star Trek is now less about the science and much more about the fiction.

_________________
"Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain."


Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:45 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 415
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
This writer kinds of sums it up best when he says fans miss the geeky science or psuedoscience of the older shows. JJ Abrams version can't be called science fiction but should be space fantasy like Star Wars. I would also add the utopian enlightenment philosophy has also been trashed for a harsh nihilistic militarized future more in keeping with violent resolutions in a straight first person shooter video game action movie.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/05/16/star_trek_into_darkness_review_j_j_abrams_gets_star_trek_wrong.html?wpisrc=obinsite


Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:10 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3605
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
oakenshield32 wrote:
This writer kinds of sums it up best when he says fans miss the geeky science or psuedoscience of the older shows. JJ Abrams version can't be called science fiction but should be space fantasy like Star Wars. I would also add the utopian enlightenment philosophy has also been trashed for a harsh nihilistic militarized future more in keeping with violent resolutions in a straight first person shooter video game action movie.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/05/16/star_trek_into_darkness_review_j_j_abrams_gets_star_trek_wrong.html?wpisrc=obinsite

Well I enjoy first person shooters so I don't consider that a bad thing.


Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:49 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Guys... Star Trek has always been space fantasy. Or space opera, if you will. It's traditionally less flashy and more thoughtful than Star Wars, and, yeah, it's a little more scientific compared to freakin' Star Wars. But it's still very soft sci-fi at best.

Star Trek has always been at its best when it's mixing high seas adventure with Important Life Lessons. Scientific rigor need not apply. When put to the sci-fi test, the fi is often excellent, and the sci is almost invariably total B.S. "Science" in Star Trek is a magic wand that allows stories to happen, and that's about it.

If we're keeping score, the "science" in Star Wars is basically wallpaper.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Tue Sep 10, 2013 4:29 pm
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:40 pm
Posts: 556
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Ken wrote:
Star Trek has always been at its best when it's mixing high seas adventure with Important Life Lessons. Scientific rigor need not apply. When put to the sci-fi test, the fi is often excellent, and the sci is almost invariably total B.S. "Science" in Star Trek is a magic wand that allows stories to happen, and that's about it.

If we're keeping score, the "science" in Star Wars is basically wallpaper.

Yes, and this regard, the current Star Trek films are still considered as dumbed down from previous efforts, since they don't really focus on teaching anything more important than "bad guys need to be punched".

_________________
"Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain."


Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:23 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 415
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Ken wrote:
Guys... Star Trek has always been space fantasy. Or space opera, if you will. It's traditionally less flashy and more thoughtful than Star Wars, and, yeah, it's a little more scientific compared to freakin' Star Wars. But it's still very soft sci-fi at best.

Star Trek has always been at its best when it's mixing high seas adventure with Important Life Lessons. Scientific rigor need not apply. When put to the sci-fi test, the fi is often excellent, and the sci is almost invariably total B.S. "Science" in Star Trek is a magic wand that allows stories to happen, and that's about it.

If we're keeping score, the "science" in Star Wars is basically wallpaper.


I was curious to know what examples of movies that would be "hard core" sci-fi. Sure would not be Planet of the Apes,Blade Runner,District 9,Looper,Dark City,Inception,Robocop or Close Encounters of the Third Kind which are all based on b.s. science. The only one that comes to mind is the somnolent Solaris and 2001 which also had it's own version of magic wand.


Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:42 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
There are precious few actual hard sci-fi movies, mainly because they're expensive to make and appeal to a fairly niche audience.

As for the magic wand in 2001, the monolith is something of a story conceit, but every other scientific element in the film is as researched and accurately portrayed as the filmmakers could manage, to the point where the science is essential to the appeal of the story.

I once argued here that Apollo 13 slots well into the sci-fi genre, given that it's a scientific issue driving the story and the scientific elements are both faithfully portrayed and integral to the storytelling in their portrayal. I was then informed that Apollo 13 is nonfiction, which, as far as I'm concerned, is earth-shatteringly incorrect... but I bring it up to head off the argument, rather than rehash it.

Incidentally, there is a long-in-the-making adaptation of Rendezvous With Rama. If made, it would likely be an excellent example of hard sci-fi. If made. It's been in development hell for a while.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:59 am
Profile
Online
Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 am
Posts: 2191
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Contact?

It's my personal favorite scifi flick.


Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:25 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1419
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
ilovemovies wrote:
Contact?

It's my personal favorite scifi flick.


Mine is Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but following closely is Contact, which I really love too. I watched it as a young teen and it boggled my mind, the kind of film that, in my opinion, can inspire kids to want to be scientists or astronauts.


Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:19 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 415
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Ken wrote:
There are precious few actual hard sci-fi movies, mainly because they're expensive to make and appeal to a fairly niche audience.

As for the magic wand in 2001, the monolith is something of a story conceit, but every other scientific element in the film is as researched and accurately portrayed as the filmmakers could manage, to the point where the science is essential to the appeal of the story.

I once argued here that Apollo 13 slots well into the sci-fi genre, given that it's a scientific issue driving the story and the scientific elements are both faithfully portrayed and integral to the storytelling in their portrayal. I was then informed that Apollo 13 is nonfiction, which, as far as I'm concerned, is earth-shatteringly incorrect... but I bring it up to head off the argument, rather than rehash it.

Incidentally, there is a long-in-the-making adaptation of Rendezvous With Rama. If made, it would likely be an excellent example of hard sci-fi. If made. It's been in development hell for a while.



That is true that hard science fiction doesn't pop up very much. In 2001 the space travel is filmed quite well but saying energy beings with massive monoliths controlling evolution is a conceit is a bit of an understatement. When they turn Bowman into one them and then in the sequel 2010 turn Jupiter into a sun giving rise to a sentient species on the moon Europa is wildly imaginative as anything a Trekkie writer could come up with. I think the power of science fiction is not in being super realistic but to create worlds,beings and technology that could exist in the human future,somewhere in our universe or a completely imagined authorverse.

Saying Apollo 13 is science fiction is an interesting thought. I would agree with you if the movie had come out before 1969 but now it is historical fact. In fact there is a 1969 movie called Marooned with
Gregory Peck,Richard Crenna and Gene Hackman about stranded astronauts in earth orbit and a joint Soviet and US rescue accurately predicting Apollo 13. Another 60's movie is 1967's Countdown with James Caan which show a race to the moon with the Russians. The moon scenes are quite good for the time. The most interesting is Fritz Lang's silent German movie called Woman on the Moon from 1929. They show a chemical rocket for their spacecraft way ahead of the Russian and American space programs. Those directors were looking forward into the future before landmark events while Ron Howard was looking at something 25 years in the past. On an irrelevant side note I can remember being in Catholic School and the nuns and teachers leading the class in prayer everyday for the Apollo 13 astronauts.

If I was waiting for a science fiction movie it would be Ringworld which maybe happening at the Syfy network which may or may not be a good thing. Still like all the engineering guys in college trying to figure how a Ringworld could be built.


Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:41 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 199 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 3 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