Okay, even I squeee'd a little over this one. YMMV.
Die hard Trekkies and folks who don't like change may suffer an aneurysm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBQyjrRgE4c
Very nice.
I saw some stills of sets & actors and I like the mix of "old" and "new" they did.
I definitely like the look of it.
Quote from: Team-Preston;266744Okay, even I squeee'd a little over this one. YMMV.
Die hard Trekkies and folks who don't like change may suffer an aneurysm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBQyjrRgE4c
They're using the original Font/letter style for the Title.
Very cool.
- Ed C.
It comes out in May of next year.
I hope it lives up to the hype that will surround it.
It won't be complete unless they can find a way to put in Leonard Nimoy singing the Ballad of Bilbo Baggins (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=XC73PHdQX04).
Coincidentally my wife and I are headed off shortly to see Quantum of Solace, and as I watched this trailer, it made me think of the Bond reboot. We saw Casino Royale on DVD the other day and between that and the trailers for QoS, I'm very enthusiastic about the way that they appear, to some extent at least, to be converting the Bond story into an epic instead of a series of comic books--however good many of the earlier films may have been. And they're not afraid of violating canon to do so, yet they've done (at least in the first film) a great job of maintaining the spirit.
If they follow the same path with Trek, with skillful execution (that's the real rub, IMO), it could be, well, awesome.
Looks like they decided to get rid of the Holy Trinity and turn it into a Kirk/Spock story.
Quote from: Jackalope;266825Looks like they decided to get rid of the Holy Trinity and turn it into a Kirk/Spock story.
Kirk SLASH Spock?
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;266827Kirk SLASH Spock?
I expect the sequel to be all about Spock's man-pregnancy.
I'm sick to death of opening scenes in movies that explain how an established character got that way by showing how badass the character was as a kid. So, Kirk was badass even before he went to Star Fleet Academy. Ho-hum. You know, I liked the character better when I just met him for the first time, in mid-career, and he's totally badass. I don't need to know that he was a badass teenager in a Corvette to be convinced or understand why he's so badass. Bleah.
Otherwise, yeah, I liked the look of the movie.
So people really sneak video cameras into movie theaters still? Lame.
!i!
I think Eric Bana as a Roumlan baddie is good idea. I'm still not sold on the guy playing Kirk. Kirk was no pretty boy. I mean every time this new chap comes into the picture, it's like a scene from the OC or something.....
Regards,
David R
My wife disagrees, she says young Kirk was a pretty boy. Aside from the pre-combover he had going, I tend to agree. For one thing he was always glistening. Nothing says pretty boy like being damp all the time.
Hey, there's a reason why Tyler Durden wanted to fight William Shatner......
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;266827Kirk SLASH Spock?
And you can just burn in Hell for putting that image in my mind. :D
google image search "kirk/spock".
You know you want to.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;267041google image search "kirk/spock".
You know you want to.
I'm afraid to is closer to the truth.
I'm not afraid:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v154/LonePhantom/Thyla-by-Anki.jpg)
The goggles!!!!
They do nothing!!!!
...Somthing I hoped fandom was starting to drift away from...
Those stories...
- Ed C.
Quote from: Team-Preston;266744Okay, even I squeee'd a little over this one. YMMV.
Die hard Trekkies and folks who don't like change may suffer an aneurysm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBQyjrRgE4c
Raises Spocklike eyebrow.... smiles and shouts "ENGAGE!":D
A slightly better version of that trailer , posted to YouTube:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=v0XsvgPFQrM&feature=related
- Ed C.
I watched the trailer last night and I'm remaining reserved. I thought the "badass young Kirk" was irritating, as has been mentioned, and I'm getting the impression that the film-makers have a different idea of the essence of Star Trek than I do. I think it'll be enjoyable - space battles! - but I'm not sure it's going to satisfy a lot of the desires Star Trek satisfies in me, the greatest of which can best be summed up thusly: "Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations. To go boldly where none have gone before." That spirit of exploration has infused every Trek franchise, with the arguable exception of DS9. The tiny bit of this film I've seen doesn't reflect that spirit, but I've only seen a couple minutes of an hour-and-a-half film, so it seems foolish and premature to judge it harshly. So I remain reserved.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/
For a non-You Tube camcorder viewing, use the above link.
Regarding Nimoy: I read an interview with him last month where he revealed that he'd been in touch with the kid playing Spock, that in fact that the new spock had contacted him to tap his brain on 'playing Spock'.
Now: On the one had I always like to hear that the 'old guys' are not being relegated to the pasture, that an actor actually cares to talk to the predecessor of the role.
On the other hand, however, far too often I've been shown that actors are often, weirdly, the worst people in the world to talk to about what made a character work. Not to mention the fact that quite often the best performances of an old character with a new guy involves a bit of brutal butchery of legacy. Thus it is hardly a garauntee of quality.
Still, and to come full circle: Since Nimoy is, peripherally, involved in the project it does seem possible that we could have him sing the Ballad of Bilbo Baggins...
... if you ask nicely.
...whoa...! Is Star Trek suddenly looking cool again?
Quote from: Ian Absentia;266829I'm sick to death of yadda yadda yadda yaddda Bleah.
Otherwise, yeah, I liked the look of the movie.
So people really sneak video cameras into movie theaters still? Lame.
!i!
Stop whining like a kicked poodle and enjoy life, you fucker.
Live long and prosper:D
Quote from: Dr Rotwang!;267810...whoa...! Is Star Trek suddenly looking cool again?
Yes.
Seanchai
This is weird for me. Normally, I hate both prequels and remakes, but this actually looks legitimately good. Part of the reason I can accept this, is that I see this as a potentially alternate Trek universe. Star Trek has had so many episodes dealing with time travel and parallel universes, that I'm actually okay with this. If this movie is any good, they could tie it into the existing Star Trek, and just treat it as an alternate Trek time line/universe/dimension. Or maybe I'm on crack. But if it's a good movie, maybe it could work. :)
Quote from: Spike;267683Regarding Nimoy: I read an interview with him last month where he revealed that he'd been in touch with the kid playing Spock, that in fact that the new spock had contacted him to tap his brain on 'playing Spock'.
The guy that's playing Spock is Sylar in Heroes- if you've missed it Sylar (until the last eppy) gained powers by examining the brains of others with powers, essentially stealing their abilities and also killing 'em in the process.
The bolded part made me LOL.
I too am not keen on the "badass teen" shtick. I almost expected the robot or whatever to tell teen kirk "come with me if you want to live" :rolleyes:
Looks pretty stupid to me. They've dug up the corpse and have started having sex with it again. The results aren't pretty.
Look! They have yellow, red, and blue shirts! Uhura has a mini-skirt! The kid says he's James T Kirk with the same intensity as Jake Lloyd! The Enterprise is framed by scafolding kinda exactly like in Star Trek: The Motion Picture! Kirk and Spock are rebels meeting for the first time, they're so conflicting with each other!
Blech. This is the most formulamatic thing I've ever seen. And I've seen Mega Man and Advance Wars games.
Here's the problem I have with Badass Teen Kirk. He's clearly a daredevil, a hotshot, a dick who's willing to almost get himself killed for a thrill. That's not the Kirk who belongs at the con of the Enterprise, some dick who's going to get his crew killed on a daredevil stunt. That's the Kirk we meet at the beginning of Star Trek 4: Thar Be Whales! (A Tale of Old San Francisco), a grouchy old duff who's trying to get himself killed.
Okay, this is a Kirk-reborn, a new twist on a classic character. Only it's the same tired preamble we're greeted with for every fucking classic character when they want to show what his childhood was like. Anyone remember the opening scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? Same fucking setup. Right, so let me guess. Kirk is a daredevil dick who learns restraint and the dignity of command as a result of this new, crucial, first adventure. Right, right. Where have I seen that story before?
G'ah.
Anyway, at least it still looks cool. Though, damn it, Gary Sinise should have been a fucking shoe-in for Bones. And Simon Pigott as Scotty? Er...okay. I'll be waiting the month or so extra for it to come out on DVD and rent it on $2-Tuesday.
!i!
Actually the scene at the beginning of Indiana Jones was over 30 years ago, and it wasn't so much a re-imagening as it was a sequel- and it sucked sucked sucked. Anyway, I think the idea here is that Earth is all safe and shit and people have become all sheep like, so much so that they need to harvest adrenaline junkies like Kirk. It might be a shit idea, but there's a certain kind of logic to it. Also, the Kirk in charge of the enterprise is at least 10-15 years older than the kid who, ditches the car, so there's quite a bit of room for maturation there.
You might well be right however. It could suck, but one way or anther, it's dangerous to read too much into a trailer.
I like to give these things a chance. Jackson's King Kong Nearly killed that in me, but the Batman Movies show that it can be done.
I just hope JJ remembers that Kirk himself said he was always lucky....not that he was some kind of ubertacticalmastermind....
Regards,
David R
The series is fairly inconstant in the way in portrays Kirk- for instance, he does come off as some sort of tactical genius in "Balance of Terror." I don't think you can keep to ST cannon without fcuking over ST cannon, really.
Okay how about fucking green skinned alien women. I mean somethings are sacred right ? (besides indulging in the occasional chocolate fantasy....okay that's In Living Color, canon)
Regards,
David R
Sacred is too mild a word for how I feel about green skinned women, David.
Quote from: David R;268965I just hope JJ remembers that Kirk himself said he was always lucky....not that he was some kind of ubertacticalmastermind....
And when he couldn't be lucky, he cheated.
:D
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;268982And when he couldn't be lucky, he cheated.
:D
Speaking of that - a press release and interview with someone who has already seen the scenes that Abrams showed to the press said that the movie DOES refer to Kirk rigging the Kobayashi Maru test ...and becauyse of that he's thought of as a troublemaker.
Oh...and based on what I've seen so far I'm more than willing to give the movie a fair shake. Right now with what little I've seen Abrams and his writers seem to have gotten several things "right" or even VERY right so far .
- Ed C.
Quote from: Koltar;269008Speaking of that - a press release and interview with someone who has already seen the scenes that Abrams showed to the press said that the movie DOES refer to Kirk rigging the Kobayashi Maru test ...and becauyse of that he's thought of as a troublemaker.
Now, see? What fucking genius in his right mind puts a "troublemaker" in the command seat of battle-ready spaceship with a crew of 400? G'ah!
!i!
Quote from: Ian Absentia;269032Now, see? What fucking genius in his right mind puts a "troublemaker" in the command seat of battle-ready spaceship with a crew of 400? G'ah!
!i!
I think his last name was "Roddenberry".
Quote from: Ian Absentia;266829I'm sick to death of opening scenes in movies that explain how an established character got that way by showing how badass the character was as a kid. So, Kirk was badass even before he went to Star Fleet Academy. Ho-hum. You know, I liked the character better when I just met him for the first time, in mid-career, and he's totally badass. I don't need to know that he was a badass teenager in a Corvette to be convinced or understand why he's so badass. Bleah.
Though I agree with you on this point, I am optimistic. We've been having some very very good 'let's make it anew again' experiences these days, like the Batman and 007 movies (or even the new Hulk), so I feel there can be some trend. I will watch it and time will tell.
By the way, Quantum of Solace rocks on toast. I like it even better than Casino Royale, though I'm starting to think about them as just one movie splitted in half for commercial purposes.
Quote from: Ian Absentia;269032Now, see? What fucking genius in his right mind puts a "troublemaker" in the command seat of battle-ready spaceship with a crew of 400?
Mate, the military is famous for its love of wild mavericks who disobey orders and go against regular procedure while endangering the lives of others, everyone knows that!
Didn't you see that documentary
Top Gun?
Ian has the need, the need for speed.
Furthermore, I am sorry to report that asking question that start with "Who in his right mind-" in regards to Star Trek is veering off towards a dark place into which you should not venture.
Someone should re-do the song "Danger Zone" into "Neutral Zone".
As in "...off into the Neu -tral Zone!!"
- Ed C.
Quote from: Ian Absentia;269032Now, see? What fucking genius in his right mind puts a "troublemaker" in the command seat of battle-ready spaceship with a crew of 400? G'ah!
!i!
You are confusing "troublemaker" with "brass balls". When it takes weeks to get responses back from SFC, you need someone who will make the call and then have the balls to use "Phazer Negotiations" as needed. ;)
Bill
Oddly, history has plenty of examples of military leader who were risk takers and who would liberally interpret orders. Good thing Patton wasn't removed from command for being a "troublemaker" or that a certain "Desert Fox" didn't ignore orders, not to launch offensive operations, and nearly took Egypt
Quote from: Imperator;269043By the way, Quantum of Solace rocks on toast. I like it even better than Casino Royale, though I'm starting to think about them as just one movie splitted in half for commercial purposes.
Or as i like to call it - Quantum of Bourne.
Quote from: One Horse Town;269142Or as i like to call it - Quantum of Bourne.
Bourne is a fucking emo pretender if you compare it with 007, man. And I like Bourne series.
Quote from: Imperator;269169Bourne is a fucking emo pretender if you compare it with 007, man. And I like Bourne series.
Cinematography, man. Cinematography.
Quote from: One Horse Town;269171Cinematography, man. Cinematography.
I'm afraid I'm not following you, mate. Care to elaborate? I've got a nasty cold, not understanding really well with my brain flooded with mucus.
Quote from: HinterWelt;269118You are confusing "troublemaker" with "brass balls".
I should hasten to point out that I'm not the one confusing the two. I suspect that the director and producer are. ;)
!i!
What's all this talk of "brass balls". Is Data in the film ?
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Imperator;269186I'm afraid I'm not following you, mate. Care to elaborate? I've got a nasty cold, not understanding really well with my brain flooded with mucus.
He means that the cinematography -- the stylistic and aesthetic choices in camera shots, which includes lens choices, camera choices (fixed versus handheld, etc.), etc. -- of
Quantum of Solace borrows from ideas that originated in the Bourne films.
Your comment ("Bourne is a fucking emo pretender if you compare it with 007, man.") seems to be more about story and characterization. OHT was just talking about the way the movies were shot.
Quote from: Ian Absentia;269032Now, see? What fucking genius in his right mind puts a "troublemaker" in the command seat of battle-ready spaceship with a crew of 400? G'ah!
I wonder how many of today's naval commanders got picked up for reckless driving when they were 16. It's not, like, totally out of the question for someone to have been a troublemaker and to now be a military commander, particularly if at least some of that maverick-ism has been boiled out by training, which is usually the idea.
That said, comparison to today's first-world navies isn't appropriate. At the point the film is set, space is still this great frontier, with little communication back to the talking heads at your government - unless they decide to be a little less freewheeling with subspace, of course. What you're looking at is more in line with the Dutch East India Company, or the British Privateers, but [we must assume] with some streak of modern/post-modern morality. In that context, the Kirk we know, and the Kirk we've seen on screen so far, isn't as ridiculous as it might appear.
Still, I always wondered how many times they could talk about how they would definitely get court-martialed over this thing they'd done, only to have it be ignored because apparently success is more important than regulations.
Quote from: Engine;269436I wonder how many of today's naval commanders got picked up for reckless driving when they were 16. It's not, like, totally out of the question for someone to have been a troublemaker and to now be a military commander, particularly if at least some of that maverick-ism has been boiled out by training, which is usually the idea.
My real feeling on the matter is that I'm genuinely not interested in what a shit-heel Kirk may have been as a teen. And the formula of the "daredevil, maybe-self-destructive boy forged into a man of stature" prologue has been done to fucking death. No, I don't insist that the new-film-Kirk be cut from the same pattern as the old-TV-movie-Kirk, but at least don't cut him from the same pattern as a dozen other so-so movies.
And, of course, that little snippet may be disproportionately represented in the trailer and actually have fuck-all to do with the full length movie. I somewhat eagerly await $2-Tuesday at my local video store in a couple of months to find out.
!i!
Quote from: Jackalope;269290He means that the cinematography -- the stylistic and aesthetic choices in camera shots, which includes lens choices, camera choices (fixed versus handheld, etc.), etc. -- of Quantum of Solace borrows from ideas that originated in the Bourne films.
Your comment ("Bourne is a fucking emo pretender if you compare it with 007, man.") seems to be more about story and characterization. OHT was just talking about the way the movies were shot.
OK, thank you :) You definitely have a point on my position, and now I get OHT idea - and quite agree with him.
Quote from: Ian Absentia;269032Now, see? What fucking genius in his right mind puts a "troublemaker" in the command seat of battle-ready spaceship with a crew of 400? G'ah!
!i!
The same one that put Bush in power of the USA?
I'm glad to see the back o' Bush.
I hope that the film isn't as dreary as the last Trek film was.
How do they fit nimoy into this as spock?
He's like old narrator spock, I think.
Quote from: Ian Absentia;269742My real feeling on the matter is that I'm genuinely not interested in what a shit-heel Kirk may have been as a teen. And the formula of the "daredevil, maybe-self-destructive boy forged into a man of stature" prologue has been done to fucking death. No, I don't insist that the new-film-Kirk be cut from the same pattern as the old-TV-movie-Kirk, but at least don't cut him from the same pattern as a dozen other so-so movies.
It could be worse. They could use the death of his father as motive to compel him.
I fucking hate that shit.
So played out.
I think if would be cool if he went after the guys that destroyed his Trek Chi school. "You destroyed the school and killed sensei. Now you face the pain of the flying body roll!"
Right. I have another complaint.
I saw the trailer again yesterday, but in the theater this time (I was there to see A Quantum of Solace -- RAWK! :emot-rock: ). I missed this in that grotty little clip on YouTube, but Kirk and Spock both have these wispy little boy voices. No, sorry, Kirk and Spock are fully-grown men, thank you. And not only fully-grown, but they are men amongst men.
How did the director not notice that they sound like a couple of weenies?
!i!
Quote from: Ian Absentia;270716How did the director not notice that they sound like a couple of weenies?
Because that is the trend. Over the last decade as the female actors have got skinnier, the male actors in a certain kind of film have got younger and (often) weedier. And both have become more adolescent in their demeanour. There are less stories with men and women in them, and more with boys and girls in them.
Consider
The Italian Job, then and now. Or
Ocean's Eleven. Or
The Omega Man/I Am Legend. Or
Planet of the Apes. Or a zillion others.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;270794Because that is the trend. Over the last decade as the female actors have got skinnier, the male actors in a certain kind of film have got younger and (often) weedier. And both have become more adolescent in their demeanour. There are less stories with men and women in them, and more with boys and girls in them.
Consider The Italian Job, then and now. Or Ocean's Eleven. Or The Omega Man/I Am Legend. Or Planet of the Apes. Or a zillion others.
You've got a point.
Oh for the days when the hero was a washed-up drunken middle aged loser like Walter Mattheau in
The Bad News Bears.
I don't know about that .
The new trailer was cool enough - my date Sunday night almost fainted with delight when she saw it.
She loved seeing the Nimoy Spock at the end of it.
- Ed C.
Quote from: jeff37923;270800Oh for the days when the hero was a washed-up drunken middle aged loser like Walter Mattheau in The Bad News Bears.
Well, I think there's room for heroes of all ages and genders and so on. Variety is good. I don't want to see only middle-aged tough guys, like Lee Marvin. I don't want to see only scrawny chicks implausibly kicking arse. A mixture is fun.
But the general trend in the 1950s through 1980s was of guys in their 30s and older trying very hard to be manly. Now the general trend is guys in their 20s, and even if older their general demeanour is more boyish.
A mix would be nice. We won't get it, of course. When you're spending a hundred million bucks on something you're not going to take any risks with it. So you usually follow trends rather than make them.
From what has been leaked in the trailer and other clip showings - Captain Pike is much older and treated like a hero .
- Ed C.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;270839Well, I think there's room for heroes of all ages and genders and so on. Variety is good. I don't want to see only middle-aged tough guys, like Lee Marvin. I don't want to see only scrawny chicks implausibly kicking arse. A mixture is fun.
But the general trend in the 1950s through 1980s was of guys in their 30s and older trying very hard to be manly. Now the general trend is guys in their 20s, and even if older their general demeanour is more boyish.
A mix would be nice. We won't get it, of course. When you're spending a hundred million bucks on something you're not going to take any risks with it. So you usually follow trends rather than make them.
Unfortunately, you've hit it on the head. The market audience targetting won't let them take the chance either - so we get formula films designed to return an investment.
Which, I think is what is happening with the new Star Trek movie.
Personally, I'd love to see a movie targetted more to another demographic, but it won't be big budget.
Quote from: Koltar;270838I don't know about that .
- Ed C.
See, I think it could be interesting and therefore entertaining and profitable for a movie company.
I hope you don't get offended, but based on your internet presence, we could make an entertaining movie with you as the main character.
You're a dedicated fan who does charity work at local cons and works at a local game store. An ordinary guy most of the time, until you do your own fandom thing, but the fandom thing is OK because it gets used often to help people (you'd be a kind-hearted eccentric to the audience, which comes close to reality as I believe you'd agree). Now, the plot becomes interesting when the money from a fandom charity gets stolen. The police don't want to do a big investigation because the amount was comparitively small to other crimes and the media isn't too interested in the story because of the social stigmata associated with fandom makes it not that newsworthy. So with the standard avenues of recourse unavailable, you then have to either A) Solve the crime and recover the money or B) Do another charity event in a quick turnaround in order to make the money up for the charity. Of course, either approach will succeed because The Hero Must Triumph In The End.
Now, that won't be a big budget movie, but it could be a nice Sci-Fi channel Saturday Night 'B' Movie. When it goes to DVD, it will be popular with fandom (Hell, for no other reason than fandom was treated respectfully for once in a movie).
So, I think there is some potential profit out there for non-Hollywood approach movies.
A low-budget 'indie' movie like that might actually work.
The "Bad Guys" would have to be a Starfleet -type club tho.....or someone connected to one. Historically over the past 15 years they have been the ones to have more issues with embeszzlement and financiual problems. Most of the Klingon-styled clubs tend to give the money directly to the charity invoilved on the same day or within 24 hours.
Closest thing to a movie that sort of showed respect for fandom was GALAXYQUEST - believe it or not. That film made more fun of stuck up actors than the fans. It showed a variety of Sci Fi 'fans' too.
- Ed C.
Quote from: jeff37923;270889Personally, I'd love to see a movie targetted more to another demographic, but it won't be big budget.
I just saw an interview with Woody Allen where he said that he managed to be more or less independent and do his own thing because he kept his movies "low budget". Which means under $20 million, which perhaps does not
seem low budget, but by Hollywood standards...
I'm also thinking of a while back reading that the reason most scifi tv series get canned is that they cost a lot to make. TV shows are made to draw in advertising revenue, which is in proportion to audience share. You make some soap for $100,000 an episode, but the scifi one might cost $1,000,000 an episode. So unless the scifi one gets
ten times the ratings of the soap, you don't think it's worth it. So the 10% rating soap continues while the 50% ratings scifi series gets axed.
Basically, as soon as a heap of money gets involved, you become picky with the details and don't want to take risks.
Me, I'd rather see five "independent" $20 million films, or twenty to fifty
genuienly independent movies, than one "studio" $100 million film. We'd miss out on some films where the $100 million or more was used to great effect, like
Cleopatra,
Titanic or
Gladiator. It would be a shame to lose them, but in their place we'd get five
No Country for Old Men,
I'm Not There, or about twenty
Touching the Void. And we'd miss out on turkeys like the
Star Wars prequels,
Waterworld or
Ishtar.
Just thinking of
Star Trek, there are a lot of crazy fans out there making their own episodes. Now this is not brilliant film-making. But let's be honest, neither was the original
Star Trek, or about two-thirds the episodes or movies. And they are not spending hundreds of millions of dollars doing it. Nor are they being frighteningly original and taking risks with that money :)
Quote from: jeff37923;270889Unfortunately, you've hit it on the head. The market audience targetting won't let them take the chance either - so we get formula films designed to return an investment.
Which, I think is what is happening with the new Star Trek movie.
Personally, I'd love to see a movie targetted more to another demographic, but it won't be big budget.
I don't know, the last three super hero movies I've seen, for instance, don't really fit this trend. The newer Hulk movie had Ed Norton a guy in his thrities playing a guy in his thirties, Christian Bale's Batman doesn't seem boyish to me, Robert Downy's Tony Stark, I guess a case could be made for that one, but I think it fit the character really well- and the newer Bond movies are definitely not part of this trend.
I think they selected young actors for new trek films as simple matter of planning- because they probably want to make a bunch of them and if you start with a cast that's already pushing forty you're going to have to deal with things like when the first Scotty transformed into a walrus- not to mention whatever the fuck it was that age did to Nichelle Nichols- before you get to the third film.
And the first Kirk didn't talk so much like man as he did like a bad stage actor.
Spartacus>Gladiator
Quote from: Aos;271053And the first Kirk didn't talk so much like man as he did like a bad stage actor.
Like I said, this new fella is a pretty boy...purdy boy. Klingons would probably consider him jailbait and you don't even want to know what women (Klingon) will make of this guy.....
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David R;271055Like I said, this new fella is a pretty boy...purdy boy. Klingons would probably consider him jailbait and you don't even want to know what women (Klingon) will make of this guy.....
Regards,
David R
....a before sex appatizer to whet the appetite?
As long as he can do that flying body roll trek chi move, he'll be unstoppable.
If you thought that the slashfic was bad before, wait till this new film opens....
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;271049I just saw an interview with Woody Allen where he said that he managed to be more or less independent and do his own thing because he kept his movies "low budget". Which means under $20 million, which perhaps does not seem low budget, but by Hollywood standards...
Agreed. Woody Allen isn't bad, comparatively - but one of my major gripes about Hollywood style movies is that if the production company had spent even a fraction as much on their screenwriters as they do on their star actor/actresses and special effects then maybe there would be fewer money losing turkeys out there.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;271049I'm also thinking of a while back reading that the reason most scifi tv series get canned is that they cost a lot to make. TV shows are made to draw in advertising revenue, which is in proportion to audience share. You make some soap for $100,000 an episode, but the scifi one might cost $1,000,000 an episode. So unless the scifi one gets ten times the ratings of the soap, you don't think it's worth it. So the 10% rating soap continues while the 50% ratings scifi series gets axed.
Most TV series also require at least a season in order to build up an audience. It seems that if a scifi TV series isn't deemed a hit right at the start, then most channels will refuse to keep it going. Two great examples of this are
Firefly and
Space: Above and Beyond. The former was better than the latter, but both were above average productions for their time.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;271049Basically, as soon as a heap of money gets involved, you become picky with the details and don't want to take risks.
Me, I'd rather see five "independent" $20 million films, or twenty to fifty genuienly independent movies, than one "studio" $100 million film. We'd miss out on some films where the $100 million or more was used to great effect, like Cleopatra, Titanic or Gladiator. It would be a shame to lose them, but in their place we'd get five No Country for Old Men, I'm Not There, or about twenty Touching the Void. And we'd miss out on turkeys like the Star Wars prequels, Waterworld or Ishtar.
See, right now we are actually in a Golden Age for fantasy and scifi productions. Computer animation and computer generated special effects allow production companies the capability to make incredible special effects for a fraction of the cost that those same effects used to. This has been done to great effect with TV series like
newBSG,
the New Outer Limits, and
Stargate. The only hangup remains the writers - but even that can be overcome by mining the vast collection of previous short stories and novels already published (a great example of which was the
New Outer Limits episode
Inconstant Moon based on the Larry Niven story of the same name).
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;271049Just thinking of Star Trek, there are a lot of crazy fans out there making their own episodes. Now this is not brilliant film-making. But let's be honest, neither was the original Star Trek, or about two-thirds the episodes or movies. And they are not spending hundreds of millions of dollars doing it. Nor are they being frighteningly original and taking risks with that money :)
But YouTube does provide a great playground for young moviemakers to learn in. Maybe some will become the next James Cameron or Ridley Scott.
Quote from: Aos;271053I don't know, the last three super hero movies I've seen, for instance, don't really fit this trend. The newer Hulk movie had Ed Norton a guy in his thrities playing a guy in his thirties, Christian Bale's Batman doesn't seem boyish to me, Robert Downy's Tony Stark, I guess a case could be made for that one, but I think it fit the character really well- and the newer Bond movies are definitely not part of this trend.
I can understand that, but unfortunately cannot speak to any of those because I haven't seen the movies.
Quote from: Aos;271053I think they selected young actors for new trek films as simple matter of planning- because they probably want to make a bunch of them and if you start with a cast that's already pushing forty you're going to have to deal with things like when the first Scotty transformed into a walrus- not to mention whatever the fuck it was that age did to Nichelle Nichols- before you get to the third film.
And the first Kirk didn't talk so much like man as he did like a bad stage actor.
Does Paramount really think that they can stretch the franchise out that far into the future? I don't think that the supporting fanbase for
Star Trek is still there anymore.
Quote from: jeff37923;271093Does Paramount really think that they can stretch the franchise out that far into the future? I don't think that the supporting fanbase for Star Trek is still there anymore.
They are in a way - just now they have kids and they WANT 'something' on the big screen thats kind of like what they remember that they can enjoy with their kids.
There are folks walking to into the stpre all the time asking "Why isn't there more STAR TREK stuff that I can buy?" I tell them : "Because there is current TREK on television screens or theaters.
Most of that licensed stuff has dried up.
Escept now a LOT of those fans who were teens in the 80s have kids of their own...and they yearn for something new or current to show their kids that has that 'STAR TREK' name attached to it.
Buying the DVD collections only gets them so far.
- Ed C.
But you have to agree that this isn't the same fanbase that in past times organized a massive write-in campaign to have the space shuttle test vehicle renamed "Enterprise". The times have changed along with the people and I'm not seeing the same kind of enthusiasm to support projects that there once was.
Quote from: jeff37923;271093Does Paramount really think that they can stretch the franchise out that far into the future? I don't think that the supporting fanbase for Star Trek is still there anymore.
Didn't JJA say that he wasn't making a film for the fans more like for folks who like action adventure ? IMO they are hoping to shed the obsessive fan base and attract a mainstream crowd and turn the whole thing into a series of films.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;271049I'm also thinking of a while back reading that the reason most scifi tv series get canned is that they cost a lot to make. TV shows are made to draw in advertising revenue, which is in proportion to audience share. You make some soap for $100,000 an episode, but the scifi one might cost $1,000,000 an episode.
Example:
Firefly cost fifty percent more - $1.5 million per episode - to produce than
The West Wing, but had radically fewer viewers. It was something of a no-brainer for Fox that this wasn't good return on investment; you'll notice the science fiction series -
Terminator and
Fringe - they're running now are using different tactics:
Terminator is low budget, while
Fringe banked on name recognition. It will be interesting to see what
Dollhouse relies on; Whedon couldn't possibly be going back without some sort of assurances.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;271049So unless the scifi one gets ten times the ratings of the soap, you don't think it's worth it. So the 10% rating soap continues while the 50% ratings scifi series gets axed.
Well, and they don't do soaps, because those cost even more than the thing they rely more and more on: reality shows, the lowest-budget of all. My hope is that the American populace will eventually tire of watching these things, and there'll be more quality drama, but I'm not holding my breath.
Quote from: jeff37923;271093I can understand that, but unfortunately cannot speak to any of those because I haven't seen the movies.
Does Paramount really think that they can stretch the franchise out that far into the future? I don't think that the supporting fanbase for Star Trek is still there anymore.
1. See those superhero movies, Jeff- they're all pretty good. Knowing that we share some tastes in comics, I can't imagine you not liking Iron Man.
2. As far as the fan base goes, I haven't liked
anything since TOS and I'm going to see this new one. If it doesn't suck I'll probably see the next one.
Quote from: Aos;2711482. As far as the fan base goes, I haven't liked anything since TOS and I'm going to see this new one. If it doesn't suck I'll probably see the next one.
Aos, somehow I think you might wind up liking this one. It looks like enough has been changed and also retained from the original that fans of TOS will probably enjoy it.
- Ed C.
Quote from: David R;271116Didn't JJA say that he wasn't making a film for the fans more like for folks who like action adventure ? IMO they are hoping to shed the obsessive fan base and attract a mainstream crowd and turn the whole thing into a series of films.
Regards,
David R
I'm not sure if that is the direction JJA is going, but it would be a smart choice in order to keep the franchise popular and profitable.
Quote from: Aos;2711481. See those superhero movies, Jeff- they're all pretty good. Knowing that we share some tastes in comics, I can't imagine you not liking Iron Man.
2. As far as the fan base goes, I haven't liked anything since TOS and I'm going to see this new one. If it doesn't suck I'll probably see the next one.
1> I'll do so. I just have been having Real Life get in my way. But I've got some time off now...
2> That's the Other Thing. After TOS, when individual
Star Trek episodes were good, they were astoundingly good. When post-TOS episodes were bad, they were so incredibly bad that you wanted to jab a screwdriver into your brain to hopefully remove the very memory of that episode.