|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On May 06 2013 23:13 Perscienter wrote:Sounds to me like it was Abrams' job to supervise the ship design.
you wikipedia'd the definition of director.. I don't know if you know this but directors have a big say in the movie sure but they don't actually design/write/create everything. That is why there are about a million other names at the end of movies. So bashing Abrams and going off about him being a "hack" because the ship is too large and black (lol) makes me think this thread might have a few of those guys that are a bit over-the-top with their cynicism and anger at anything outside of throwback ST
|
Directors get screwed all the time by the people holding the money. The whole, blame the director for everything, just gives other people involved in a movie a free pass for being bad or get credit for something good.
|
If you want to point the finger at someone point it at Paramount Pictures. They have the money, and they make the rules.
|
Below are spoilers, and I'm 99% certain this is how it is going to go down. My chief contention is that the overwhelming majority of details about the movie are contained within the trailers or other, exceptionally short leaked clips. + Show Spoiler +If you take a look at the third English trailer, around the 0:40 second mark, you will see two figures walking out of a room which seems to be littered with coffins. This, I believe, is intentional on the part of whoever designed the trailer, but highly misleading. You will note prior to this scene, we saw Cumberbatch's character attack a number of what seems to be Starfleet officials in what looks like a meeting room. The train of thought is supposed to take us from attack -> coffins (and with one individual being buried with a starfleet flag on top, at the beginning of the trailer, this suggestion seems all the more likely). However, I want to argue that this is an incorrect interpretation. There are three big things which give that these tubes are not coffins. 1) There is no starfleet insignia, no starfleet emblem, and no starfleet flag on these "coffins." Instead, they are perfeclty non-descript-- something which seems highly unlikely, if we believe that the people killed were starfleet officials, and they were on Earth (no shortage of materials to make such a coffin). 2) These tubes have glass on top of them, such that you could see the people inside. We HAVE seen designs similar to this (I'm thinking of the TNG episode in which the crew goes into stasis to get around the lack of REM sleep in a given section of space). I would suggest these are similar to those sorts of instruments instead, such that we have a large quantity of people in cryogenic storage. 3)To back this up further, the glass seems frosted. Short and sweet. I hope it becomes obvious where this is going. In addition to the movie having an entire crew locked in cryogenic stasis, there are several other compelling facts which make the plot of this story very obvious. The next comes from from a more recent clip on youtube, no more than 1 minute in length. Cumberbatch's character says that there are "72" reasons why Kirk should look in his hold, or that Cumberbatch is right. Regardless of whatever inane dialogue these two are exchanging, the 72 is key here. After the Eugenics Wars in Star Trek, a number of augments were exiled into space on sleeper ships. One of these ships, the SS Botany Bay, was sent out with Khan and 84 other people aboard. After 12 of these capsules failed, he was left with 72 augments. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/SS_Botany_BayBasically, it is gonna be Khan. Several other compelling points, and some other details which will be very interesting, but are more speculative: The first post links a JP video, which has a short clip, which reenacted the radiation scene from Wrath of Khan. It isn't clear whose hands these are, but I will suggest something about this later. I think it would be wildly amiss from Abram's stated goals to include a scene like this without it being Khan as the villian. Instead, he's repeatedly said he wants these ST movies to appeal to new fans and old. Several of the trailers show the Enterprise eating massive quantities of shit, with massive chunks ripped out of her engineering and saucer sections. Coupled with a short, 2 second clip which shows several crewmen getting sucked out of a breach at light speed, we know the Enterprise is gonna get wrecked. Furthermore, we have a good shot from above ofthe Enterprise, in which it has many hull breaches as well, hurtling towards a planet. Coupled with a large, federation sort of ship slamming into SanFran harbor (Home of Starfleet) (and taking out Alcatraz as well), I suspect that the Enterprise is going to get massively, completely owned. If you've watched the third and final trailer, it should be obvious who's going to do this-- a dreadnaught which looks oddly Federation in design (it has the classic saucer/engineering/nacelle set up that we see in almost every Federation vessel), firing on the Enterprise. My prediction is as follows: Khan has the dreadnaught, makes the Enterprise grab its ankles, and sends it hurtling towards Earth. Now, since a warp core breach on the surface of the planet, near SanFran would obliterate the city (not to mention the continent as a whole), I suspect that there will be a reenactment of the radiation scene from the end of the Wrath of Khan, in an attempt to make sure the antimatter doesn't detonate as the Enterprise is crashing. Somebody's gonna die, for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if Abrams reverses Spock dying, and instead lets Kirk, given that a theme of these trailers has been Kirk's arrogance in not having any of his crew die. Further predictions: either this person, or maybe Captain Pike will actually be the one in the coffin that we see at the start of the movie. I'd be shocked if they killed off one of the bridge crew, but we do see a funeral happening as the beginning-- a further prediction is that Pike dies in the attack. I have very little evidence beyond my Star Trek movie intuition, but Pike has been a surrogate father figure in both ST11 and from the trailers you've seen.
Thoughts?
|
On May 07 2013 04:36 iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2013 23:13 Perscienter wrote:A film director is a person who directs the making of a film. Generally, a film director controls a film's artistic and dramatic aspects, and visualizes the script while guiding the technical crew and actors in the fulfillment of that vision. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_directorSounds to me like it was Abrams' job to supervise the ship design. you wikipedia'd the definition of director.. I don't know if you know this but directors have a big say in the movie sure but they don't actually design/write/create everything. That is why there are about a million other names at the end of movies. So bashing Abrams and going off about him being a "hack" because the ship is too large and black (lol) makes me think this thread might have a few of those guys that are a bit over-the-top with their cynicism and anger at anything outside of throwback ST When a guy like Abrams is listed as both Director and Producer, there is a good chance he's been involved with just about everything significant in the movie. Obviously he didn't design the ship himself, but he's certainly okay'd it at some point before it got in the movie.
I do agree with last part of your post though.
|
On May 07 2013 01:33 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 01:37 bode927 wrote: As you said before, Abrams is an able director, and if he doesn't use a similar way to develop themes in his scripts as films such as Wrath of Khan, that's fine by me, it doesn't bother me. Maybe I won't ever be accepted into the old school Trekkie community, but I don't care. I'm standing by my opinion that the 2009 film is good, even if it isn't made in the same way that the old films were. You're not really understanding the issue. It's not that he's not developing themes in "a similar way" to Wrath of Khan. It's that he's not developing themes at all. It's just fast-paced action. Minimal character growth, etc. It doesn't have to do what Wrath of Khan does specifically. But it should what every good action movie does, from The Dark Knight trilogy back to Terminator 2 and everything in between: provide character, theme, and other solid material beyond simply having well-shot action. I agree on that, though someone could argue it showed the crew-uniting and Kirk seizing the captain's chair and that is not even done subtly. He didn't have a theme. Either because he and the writers just wanted to re-boot or they'll generally don't have them.
On May 07 2013 01:33 NicolBolas wrote:The odd thing is, I'm perfectly fine with a more warlike StarFleet. I'm willing to believe that the Kelvin incident at the start of ST2009 served as a 9/11 moment for the Federation, pushing them down a more military path. If that's the story he wants to tell, I'll have a go with it. As much as I like old-school Trek, I'm not wed to continuity. What I don't accept is that this ship design is so crude and obvious. It's like what a 5th grader would draw if you told him to draw a villainous version of the Enterprise. I'm willing to meet Abrams on the story design and where he wants to go in the ST universe. I'm not willing to meet him on his unsubtle and childish ship design. How in the hell was Abrams involved in Fringe of all things, yet still approves of this kind of design. He must have just been a big-shot name they put on the title of that series. Show nested quote +On May 06 2013 23:13 Perscienter wrote:A film director is a person who directs the making of a film. Generally, a film director controls a film's artistic and dramatic aspects, and visualizes the script while guiding the technical crew and actors in the fulfillment of that vision. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_directorSounds to me like it was Abrams' job to supervise the ship design. Exactly. It may not be Abrams' job to draw the design himself, but it's certainly his job to provide the vision that informs that design, as well as to approve the final product. Go watch the "Appendices" to the three Lord of the Rings films. They offer an incredibly candid look into how a film is made. And Peter Jackson was everywhere, involved in every aspect of the making those films. He approved of every element that went in front of the camera, whether a physical prop or CG design. So either Abrams approved of the design for the main antagonist's ship, or he's an absentee director (and therefore negligent and bad by default). In film, unless you have reason to believe otherwise, you should assume that any artistic features of a film are ultimately the product of the director. They happened under his watch and with his approval. That's why the choosing of a director for a film is so important; a director will color every element of production. Well, I see. Dark, same structure and twice the size. I think it's still adequate. They couldn't copy a Miranda. A Defiant would have been too advanced. Go ahead and show me your design.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
I just want to say NicolBolas' use of italics is stunning.
|
The problem with Star Trek is the same problem that Star Wars has. People have glorified old films such as Wrath of Khan, First Contact, and the Voyage home to the point where they can never be touched in the minds of the fans that have loved them for the past few decades. Let's face it. To old Star Trek fans, Star Wars fans, or fans of any older franchise with a dedicated fanbase, the new content can never touch the old stuff. We tend to forget how bad some of the old Star Trek films really were.
|
Yeah, that is true. Star Trek 1 for example was a pompous monstrosity. It took itself far too seriously and delivered a movie that disappeared up the backside of its own self-importance. Other ST movies thankfully did not make a similar mistake, at least not to the same extent. Star Trek 5 tried and failed. The same point may even hold for the good ST movies. Star Trek 4, for instance, is quite camp and is really only loved by ST fans. Only Star Trek 6 (and maybe Star Trek 8) holds as a movie that can be shown to any non Trek fan in the confidence that they will appreciate it for the wonderful and fun movie that it is.
|
I dunno aZealot.
I think you are over analyzing each film and the series. I find I enjoy each of the films individually for what they are, from the original cast, to TNG cast, and I really do enjoy the newest series, almost even more.
|
On May 07 2013 06:36 Grimmyman123 wrote: I dunno aZealot.
I think you are over analyzing each film and the series. I find I enjoy each of the films individually for what they are, from the original cast, to TNG cast, and I really do enjoy the newest series, almost even more.
Hmmm, I can't agree with that. I did not like ST: 1. ST: 3 was alright. ST: 5 was terrible. ST: 7 was average. ST: 9 was awful. ST: 10 was alright but in no way memorable. I loved the OS, though. I watched it as a boy and the repeats. TNG is just fantastic. However, I did not get into Voyager, and while I appreciated DS9 (especially the later series) found it difficult to get past Sisko. But, I did like the rebooted Star Trek a lot. And am looking forward to Into Darkness when I watch it this weekend.
Edit/ This is not to say that I did not enjoy these movies. I enjoyed most of them. I've loved Star Trek ever since I was a boy. The ones I did not enjoy, however, were Star Trek 1 and Star Trek: 9 (Insurrection). I think ST: 9 was the worst though, as it was a timid movie. Even when the ST series of movies has fallen short, its still tried to tell big stories. (Even if, when it tried to do so in ST: 1, it sucked all the fun out of Star Trek.) ST: 9 was timid and boring.
|
Nothing wrong with the director. I have no idea why anyone with any real sense would bash the film(s). I mean look at the last TV series of 'Enterprise' going back in time to fight the Nazi.... No wonder it got can'd. Bout time we got a movie to be proud of.
The last film was well done, and I have no doubt this one will live up to expectations.
|
On May 07 2013 16:55 SayGen wrote: Nothing wrong with the director. I have no idea why anyone with any real sense would bash the film(s). I mean look at the last TV series of 'Enterprise' going back in time to fight the Nazi.... No wonder it got can'd. Bout time we got a movie to be proud of.
The last film was well done, and I have no doubt this one will live up to expectations. Only because post-Roddenberry-Trek was going down the toilet doesn't mean a re-boot is good. The writing is awful and it has already been proven.
edit: The 3D was probably the reason for a bigger ship design.
|
A successful and likeable first film----and yet you say 'it has already been proven' well sorry the money doesn't agree. And as a lifelong fan I am understanding that each film should be taken on it's own merit.
PS: Never watch any film in 3D if you have respect for it.
|
Money can't agree with me, because it can't express its opinion. Because it doesn't have any. Your former warmongering president also has had millions of people behind him. Does that make him a good president? Furthermore, the most cash is earned with crimes, not good jobs.
Wait, just found another one aside from all the things known from all other reviews. I won't talk about sudden promotions or red matter here.
'Leonard 'Bones' McCoy: Yeah. Well, I got nowhere else to go. The ex-wife took the whole damn planet in the divorce. All I got left is my bones.'
What kind of stupid comment is that, from all the different body-parts picking out one arbitrarily? That's the explanation of the writers to come up with, why his name is Bones? What are the writers being paid for? For not thinking? Something about feeling to the bones would have been more sensible.
Before that they made the test, which was made to let you experience fear. At first the dialog was well written, then they come with that. How is someone to experience fear in a test?
|
On May 08 2013 11:17 Perscienter wrote: Money can't agree with me, because it can't express its opinion. Because it doesn't have any. Your former warmongering president also has had millions of people behind him. Does that make him a good president? Furthermore, the most cash is earned with crimes, not good jobs.
Wait, just found another one aside from all the things known from all other reviews. I won't talk about sudden promotions or red matter here.
'Leonard 'Bones' McCoy: Yeah. Well, I got nowhere else to go. The ex-wife took the whole damn planet in the divorce. All I got left is my bones.'
What kind of stupid comment is that, from all the different body-parts picking out one arbitrarily? That's the explanation of the writers to come up with, why his name is Bones? What are the writers being paid for? For not thinking? Something about feeling to the bones would have been more sensible.
Before that they made the test, which was made to let you experience fear. At first the dialog was well written, then they come with that. How is someone to experience fear in a test?
Sigh, where's a mod to ban someone when you need one.
|
On May 07 2013 06:18 bode927 wrote: The problem with Star Trek is the same problem that Star Wars has. People have glorified old films such as Wrath of Khan, First Contact, and the Voyage home to the point where they can never be touched in the minds of the fans that have loved them for the past few decades. Let's face it. To old Star Trek fans, Star Wars fans, or fans of any older franchise with a dedicated fanbase, the new content can never touch the old stuff. We tend to forget how bad some of the old Star Trek films really were.
This is the attitude that pisses me off. This notion that, if someone doesn't like the reboot, then it's only because they're pining for nostalgia.
People aren't hating on ST2009 or the SW prequels because they're new or because of nostalgia. There are things about those films that are not good.
Consider the franchises that have been rebooted in the last little while. Batman has a very storied history. Admittedly, the last two films of the first set of movies were crap, but the first two were very well regarded. And yet, there was no backlash due to nostalgia when Batman Begins came out. Why? Because it was a good movie.
Similarly, Casino Royale was very different from the Bond movies that came before it. And, while there were certainly some who rejected it, the vast majority of people see it as one of the best Bond films ever. Many of the people singing Casino Royale's praises were life-long Bond fans. Why? Because it was a good movie.
It seems to me that people are generally willing to accept change if the movie is good. So it seems more likely that ST2009 and the SW prequels have earned the scorn that they have by being sub-standard, rather than getting it purely because of nostalgia.
On May 07 2013 06:30 aZealot wrote: Star Trek 4, for instance, is quite camp and is really only loved by ST fans.
What? Star Trek 4 had a higher box office than Star Trek 2. It produced a number of well-known lines even among people who don't know much about Star Trek. It was one of the most watched Star Trek films in the first 6.
So I don't really know where you're getting this from. It seems to me that plenty of non-Star Trek fans could watch that movie and enjoy it.
On May 07 2013 06:30 aZealot wrote: Only Star Trek 6 (and maybe Star Trek 8) holds as a movie that can be shown to any non Trek fan in the confidence that they will appreciate it for the wonderful and fun movie that it is.
And why is that? Because those were good movies that happen to be about Star Trek. The other were not good movies, whether they had Star Trek in them or not.
ST2009 is not a good movie. It's popcorn; it's candy. It's kinda tasty, but it's empty of anything remotely like substance or nutrition. It's not as bad as Bayformers; it had basic competence. But little more than that.
On May 08 2013 07:25 SayGen wrote: A successful and likeable first film----and yet you say 'it has already been proven' well sorry the money doesn't agree.
So I guess that means that the Bayformers trilogy was one of the best written series of movies in the last decade, right?
Money does not mean quality. And you seem to understand that, since you poo-poo seeing films in 3D.
|
On May 08 2013 07:25 SayGen wrote: A successful and likeable first film----and yet you say 'it has already been proven' well sorry the money doesn't agree. And as a lifelong fan I am understanding that each film should be taken on it's own merit.
PS: Never watch any film in 3D if you have respect for it. I would normally agree with you but I went to see Dredd 3d and that movie did deserve the 3d in name.
|
NicolBolas pretty much hit it right on the head. People who try to act like we're only clinging to a nostalgic feeling that has outgrown the potential for the movie producers to appease honestly sadden me because they're not able to analyze things correctly.
I'll see the new movie but I won't expect Cumberbatch to hold a candle to Montalban's performance. I have a feeling Khan is going to be more of a kitten than a ruthless warlord with a vast intellect this time around. If they kill Khan's core emotions, Star Trek (reboot) will be dead to me.
|
Oh yes, it is going to be hated by the most conservative trekkies. We get that, But you know what ? I will enjoy it like i enjoyed the last one. And making a comparison between that and the last Star wars trilogy is a crime that should be punished by re-watching them.
Most of the people who play the critic have no clue about how cinema works anyways so why would you listen to them ?
|
|
|
|