Topic: Star Trek (Read 28974 times)

Friday · « **Reply #300 on:** September 16, 2013, 02:40:03 AM »

The problem with the bad Trek movies is that some fucking idiot(s) decided that what people wanted out of Trek was shitty space action.

Like, it'd be one thing if they made them and it was experimental and it sucked.

But no. They were intentionally making them shit. Because Hollywood.

Brentai · « **Reply #301 on:** September 16, 2013, 02:45:56 AM »

Insurrection was probably the worse movie thematically, but it didn't commit Final Frontier's grave sin of being just deathly boring. It's one of those bad movies that are so gray and drab that you can't even have fun mocking it.

Also given the popularity of the current Trek series it's hard to say that action Trek was the wrong idea. The real mistake was trying to halfass it with a bunch of aging out-of-shape TV actors, twice.

Bal · « **Reply #302 on:** September 16, 2013, 03:01:50 AM »

Both Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country have heavy action elements AND out of shape TV actors, and they're excellent films. The problems with things like Insurrection and Nemesis is that they're just plain bad. Lazy writing, poor direction (in the case of Nemesis the director was phoning it in so bad that he literally called Lavarr Burton "Lamar" for the duration of the shoot), and, in particular, a total lack of interest in what makes Trek good beyond the brand guaranteeing a certain number of people would go see it.

Brentai · « **Reply #303 on:** September 16, 2013, 03:06:15 AM »

Well, after I posted that, I thought about it a bit more and realized that action in the vein of Starship Mine would have worked pretty damn well. Picard is a perfectly cromulent clever-trickster sort of hero, the real problem is they kept trying to make him a two-fisted brawler sort of hero and Kirk the philosophical warrior sort of hero.

Movie Kirk tried too hard to be TV Picard and Movie Picard tried too hard to be TV Kirk.

Mothra · « **Reply #304 on:** September 16, 2013, 03:18:22 AM »

Remember that part of Nemesis when Picard was straight dual-wielding phaser rifles in the hallway of the Romulan doomship, mowing down endless waves of zombie aliens

Friday · « **Reply #305 on:** September 16, 2013, 03:19:35 AM »

Trek is good precisely because it's the opposite of shitty space action. It's good space action. When I said they were making shitty space action, I meant it.

Space action is ships/people shooting each other and having significant impact on the tactical situation. (Khan, Country.)

Shitty space action is lasers, lasers everywhere, constant lasers, fucking LASERS, and none of them have any fucking impact on the plot.

The new Trek movies are sort of in between Shitty and Good, I guess, because they don't really take themselves 100% serious, so all the lasers (seriously, the enterprise shoots like a million lasers per second now, in comparison to like, the one phaser shot per minute of old trek) are sort of just window dressing. Everything is so over the top and hypercharged that they don't seem particularly out of place.

Friday · « **Reply #306 on:** September 16, 2013, 03:21:21 AM »

Quote

Remember that part of Nemesis when Picard was straight dual-wielding phaser rifles in the hallway of the Romulan doomship, mowing down endless waves of zombie aliens

yes this is perfect thank you

tl;dr: The more your movie looks like a Kongregate zombie defense game, the shittier it is

Bal · « **Reply #307 on:** September 16, 2013, 03:59:18 AM »

Old Trek had a very deliberate age of sail styling to their ship battles. Look at a shot from Wrath of Khan where you see the phaser banks open up, and then the next shot lingers on bits of hull scorching and getting blow of into space, and then just look at any, say, episode of Horatio Hornblower where a cannon is fired at wood, and the parallels are obvious. New Trek seems to just think that lasers are cool, and you end up with this:

Instead of this:

Brentai · « **Reply #308 on:** September 16, 2013, 06:44:10 AM »

I think what we all really want is a 90-minute, big-budget remake of Balance of Terror.

Mongrel · « **Reply #309 on:** September 16, 2013, 07:00:36 AM »

So, The Enemy Below (or alternately, Run Silent, Run Deep).

Smiler · « **Reply #310 on:** September 16, 2013, 07:20:55 AM »

Buge didn't post the other thing I linked which was a poll for best character in X position which had Janeway as best captain and the best helmsman being Dax the science officer of a fucking space station.

Cthulhu-chan · « **Reply #311 on:** September 16, 2013, 03:51:15 PM »

Didn't they promote Janeway to desk admiral just to get her out of a starship, roaming the galaxy committing crimes against sapient beings wherever she went?

McDohl · « **Reply #312 on:** September 17, 2013, 12:27:37 AM »

The Psycho Janeway Theory is absolute.

SF Debris' Nemesis review is worth watching just for his parody Janeway being an evil mastermind.

Brentai · « **Reply #313 on:** September 17, 2013, 01:42:28 AM »

Voyager gets a lot better when you realize that the titular ship was never meant to be very important, so it's not staffed with the uber-best Captain and crew like the flagship and politically vital outpost are. It's a look at how predictably dysfunctional the lesser levels of Federation hierarchy tend to be.

Cthulhu-chan · « **Reply #314 on:** September 17, 2013, 01:55:09 AM »

" Hey we had this great idea for biopack based tech and we made a brand new ship all around it, 'cause a ship that can catch a cold is obviously the best idea ever, and guess who we volunteered for captain's duty!" Turns out Janeway was considered entirely expendable, and when the whole crew disappeared down a time-space sinkhole, the psych eval department breathed a sigh of relief for all the future paperwork they were just saved.

Janeway then goes on to ruin Federation relations in 2-3 different quadrants of the galaxy, none of which the Federation can even observe, much less contact.

Smiler · « **Reply #315 on:** September 17, 2013, 02:10:54 AM »

Voyager never gets good enough to warrant the phrase "Voyager gets a lot better."

I like this trailer because it has both inscrutable executive decisions, wooden acting, and an attempt to make things interesting with explosions.

Star Trek Voyager Trailer Think Tank

HE MAY LOOK FAMILIAR BUT THERE'S NOTHING FUNNY ABOUT HIM

Thad · « **Reply #316 on:** September 17, 2013, 12:12:54 PM »

Quote from: Friday on September 16, 2013, 01:36:20 AM

blah blah blah Spock > Data

R Daneel Olivaw FTW.

...but I assumed we were all just supposed to look at the graphic for a minute, notice what's in the middle of it, and laugh.

Royal☭ · « **Reply #317 on:** September 21, 2013, 05:39:49 AM »

Finally got around to seeing Into Darkness.

The surprise twist is that I actually really enjoyed it. Much more than the 2009 reboot. There's an actual character arc for Kirk! Khan has kind of the same motivations as Nero, but it's played much more plausibly. Plus, Cumberbatch is much more charismatic and convincing as a villain than Eric Bana. And the whole film wraps it up in a nice little "The War on Terror is horrible" bow.

The biggest problems, though, are that Abrams seems to be shooting his first draft of the script, and the entire thing has the rhythm and pacing of Icelandic Speed Metal. Also, the characters all seemed like really amped up versions of themselves. Especially Spock, where they take "Cold, emotionless Vulcan" to mean "autistic."

McDohl · « **Reply #318 on:** September 25, 2013, 07:47:56 AM »

http://youtu.be/IN5Hwvw50SM?t=5m9s

DAT LOOK

Büge · « **Reply #319 on:** December 30, 2013, 02:14:47 AM »

News:

Author Topic: Star Trek (Read 28974 times)