Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:56 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 196 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS 
Author Message
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2009
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Bad move, then. "Pay for separately" = "acquire by other means".

_________________
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.


Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:25 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 259
Location: NJ
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Ken wrote:
Bad move, then. "Pay for separately" = "acquire by other means".


I am def not one to advocate stealing, esp when it comes to paying for someone's performance.

I'm good with previewing, and also finding the best price possible, without wasting resources to do it (eg. driving 20 miles out of your way to pay $0.10 less per gallon for gas), but I also try not to "steal" something I will use regularly.


Mon Sep 16, 2013 1:58 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 259
Location: NJ
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
I must also say, having rewatched these annoying Abrams reboots several times now, while I think they show a serious lack of integrity with respect to TOS, they do one thing real well, and that is show the development of the relationships between the main crew members. It's quite endearing to watch.

I'll always be curious to know Gene Roddenbury's insight regarding these movies. It's too bad his son is such a doosh.


Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:04 pm
Profile
Cinematographer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:42 pm
Posts: 590
Location: New Zealand
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
mrguinness wrote:
I'll always be curious to know Gene Roddenbury's insight regarding these movies. It's too bad his son is such a doosh.

Roddenberry is spinning in his grave. The reboots are EXACTLY nothing like his original vision. They should be mostly abhorrent for followers of Roddenberry's sanctioned universe. I'm not actually that huge a fan of Star Trek (even if it seems like it), but these films imo have nothing to do with "Roddenberry's Star Trek".


Mon Sep 23, 2013 2:26 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2009
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Meh, I would take Roddenberry's opinion on such matters with a grain of salt. He may have created and presided over the original series, but the leap forward in quality for both the movies and TNG coincided with the end of his creative involvement.

_________________
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.


Mon Sep 23, 2013 3:36 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 2923
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
nitrium wrote:
mrguinness wrote:
I'll always be curious to know Gene Roddenbury's insight regarding these movies. It's too bad his son is such a doosh.

Roddenberry is spinning in his grave. The reboots are EXACTLY nothing like his original vision. They should be mostly abhorrent for followers of Roddenberry's sanctioned universe. I'm not actually that huge a fan of Star Trek (even if it seems like it), but these films imo have nothing to do with "Roddenberry's Star Trek".

Roddenbury was "kicked upstairs" after the first Trek film because nobody liked his idea for the second film, which if he had his way, would've involved the crew going back in time to try and stop the JFK assassination and ultimately they have to ensure that it does happen, so I definitely don't take his word as god.


Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:23 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 259
Location: NJ
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Ken wrote:
Meh, I would take Roddenberry's opinion on such matters with a grain of salt. He may have created and presided over the original series, but the leap forward in quality for both the movies and TNG coincided with the end of his creative involvement.


TNG was a leap forward? Wesley Crusher is the Jar Jar Binks of Star Trek. The first years of TNG were awful, so, um.....


Mon Sep 23, 2013 6:41 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2009
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
I'm saying that both the movies and TNG both took a leap forward when Roddenberry left. I'm saying his ideas were bad and that his helpful contributions to Star Trek were long over.

So yes. TNG started poorly, and improved a great deal starting within a year or so.

_________________
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.


Mon Sep 23, 2013 7:09 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 348
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Ken wrote:
I'm saying that both the movies and TNG both took a leap forward when Roddenberry left. I'm saying his ideas were bad and that his helpful contributions to Star Trek were long over.

So yes. TNG started poorly, and improved a great deal starting within a year or so.



Not really. Nearly all of the TNG movies are pretty bad with the exception of First Contact while the TOS movies bat .500. The TNG tv series took 3 years to become any kind of watchable with the introduction of the classic villians;The Borg in Season 4. They saved the series from being cancelled in my opinion and gave TNG their only good movie.The same strategy was used again to prop up the limping series Voyager in coincidentally Season 4. I won't even bring up the completely terrible Enterprise series where nothing worked even Jolene Blalock's weird Vulcan stripper/sex object thing. So there was a lot of good and bad with Roddenberry's successors but it got worse when they were eventually turfed for the hipster who never liked Star Trek at all JJ Abrams who just plunders the hard worked intellectual property of others to make slick superficial baubles for the mass audience without any subtext,content or deeper meaning. Even if Gene Roddenberry's ideas are bad at least they are ideas and ideals.


Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:03 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 259
Location: NJ
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
oakenshield32 wrote:
Not really. Nearly all of the TNG movies are pretty bad with the exception of First Contact while the TOS movies bat .500. The TNG tv series took 3 years to become any kind of watchable with the introduction of the classic villians;The Borg in Season 4. They saved the series from being cancelled in my opinion and gave TNG their only good movie.The same strategy was used again to prop up the limping series Voyager in coincidentally Season 4. I won't even bring up the completely terrible Enterprise series where nothing worked even Jolene Blalock's weird Vulcan stripper/sex object thing. So there was a lot of good and bad with Roddenberry's successors but it got worse when they were eventually turfed for the hipster who never liked Star Trek at all JJ Abrams who just plunders the hard worked intellectual property of others to make slick superficial baubles for the mass audience without any subtext,content or deeper meaning. Even if Gene Roddenberry's ideas are bad at least they are ideas and ideals.


This is a dead on description of Star Trek after TOS.

Species 8472 rules! :)


Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:15 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:45 pm
Posts: 338
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Frankly, I think that a lot of fellow Trekkies/Trekkers/fans are overstating Gene Roddenberry's "vision". I appreciate that Star Trek (the original series as well as its sucessors) is based on humanist values and that quite a few episodes are intelligent and thoughtful, but let's not forget that, first and foremost, Star Trek is and always was a space adventure meant to provide entertainment for a large audience. They didn't make TV for niche audiences in the 1960ies. ( believe the pitch for Star Trek was "'Wagon Train' in Space".)

I've just rewatched 'Star Trek Into Darkness' and it gets one important thing right: The relationship and interaction between Kirk, Spock and McCoy. The actors playing these characters interpret their roles very well and are always believable as younger versions of the characters played by Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley. I don't mind that the movie is an unapologetic action adventure with little to no deeper thought behind it - 'The Wrath of Khan' isn't exactly idea-based science-fiction either.

I do mind that the plot is extremely stupid and doesn't bear the slightest scrutiny, though. That's the big problem with 'Star Trek Into Darkness' (and 2009's 'Star Trek' as well). Also, as nice as it is to spot all the references to earlier Trek, sometimes they invite comparison with much better material from earlier movies, which isn't a good thing. Finally, Benedict Cumberbatch's overacting is pretty awful (particularly in comparison to the earlier incarnation of his character) and so is Simon Pegg's faux-Scottish.


Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:24 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1366
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Quote:
Frankly, I think that a lot of fellow Trekkies/Trekkers/fans are overstating Gene Roddenberry's "vision". I appreciate that Star Trek (the original series as well as its sucessors) is based on humanist values and that quite a few episodes are intelligent and thoughtful, but let's not forget that, first and foremost, Star Trek is and always was a space adventure meant to provide entertainment for a large audience. They didn't make TV for niche audiences in the 1960ies. ( believe the pitch for Star Trek was "'Wagon Train' in Space".)


Agreed, good point. Also more generally we can't forget that Star Trek is essentially a TV thing, not a film thing. Even Wrath of Khan is basically just a TV movie, but being one of the better TV movies ever made isn't too shabby. That movie earns its reputation.


Tue Sep 24, 2013 11:19 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2009
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
MGamesCook wrote:
Agreed, good point. Also more generally we can't forget that Star Trek is essentially a TV thing, not a film thing. Even Wrath of Khan is basically just a TV movie, but being one of the better TV movies ever made isn't too shabby. That movie earns its reputation.

A big part of that was getting a very practical director who was young, accustomed to working on a shoestring, and didn't know enough about Star Trek to give a crap about preserving the sacred cows or whatever. He's one of my favorite storytellers on that basis alone.

-

Abrams apologizes for the excessive lens flares.

_________________
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 Oct 01, 2013 11:00 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3059
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Ken wrote:
MGamesCook wrote:
Agreed, good point. Also more generally we can't forget that Star Trek is essentially a TV thing, not a film thing. Even Wrath of Khan is basically just a TV movie, but being one of the better TV movies ever made isn't too shabby. That movie earns its reputation.

A big part of that was getting a very practical director who was young, accustomed to working on a shoestring, and didn't know enough about Star Trek to give a crap about preserving the sacred cows or whatever. He's one of my favorite storytellers on that basis alone.


Jack Sowards doesn't get enough credit for TWOK. He was a soap opera writer. According to an interview he did back in the early '80s, he knew nothing about STAR TREK going into the project. He prepped by watching four STAR TREK episodes ("Space Seed" obviously being one of them. I can't recall what the other three were, although I believe "Amok Time" may have been one). While Harve Bennett and Nick Meyer mapped out the story and polished the final draft, most of the screenplay is Sowards. It's the only STAR TREK movie he was involved in; I wonder why he wasn't asked to contribute to THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK...


Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:46 am
Profile WWW
Gaffer

Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:48 pm
Posts: 29
Post Average Summer Movie - 2 1/2 stars
This reminded me a lot of Abrams work from Mission Impossible. Very loud, busy and well made, but not a very effective movie. There is a lot of artistic license when it comes to putting your heroes in danger in action movies, but there is a limit. The writing is not up to par, there is no attention to detail nor any witty dialogue. A few examples of bad writing; characters can't duck spears thrown at them as if they have eyes in the back of their heads. The audience already knows terrible things can happen to them if they are captured, so there's no need for such cartoony action. Three Klingon birds of prey, along with dozens of troops can't hit a human or super human target standing in the open is just pushing plausibility to breaking point. A spaceship with artificial gravity spinning, doesn't mean the people inside will spin, and if they lose gravity they won't fall (there's no up or down in space). It's very pretty, but not as good as the first movie. I'm glad I didn't watch it in the theater. After watching this, I'm afraid for the future of Star Wars. This movie lacked confidence, instead of spending more time on building suspense and crafting good dialogue, it constantly bombards the viewer with movement and noise. Case in point, it seems that there's a lens flare every 3 seconds.


Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:14 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 am
Posts: 1909
Post Re: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
Mission Impossible III is a much better IMO. Although I will admit I'm biased. MI3 felt like a movie version of Abrams' television series ALIAS and I LOVE that show! So if you love ALIAS like I do, Mission: Impossible III should be right up your alley.


Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:00 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 196 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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