why do i get the impression that the next movie is going to be shitty?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
...because the fanboy-driven mess that passes as "the online media" wants you to believe that?
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
That's what you always say, Frost - you always got a bad feeling about this drop.
Mark
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
Okay, okay. When we get back without you, I'll call your folks
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
quote:Originally posted by EdipisReks: why do i get the impression that the next movie is going to be shitty?
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
Hmm on one hand we have this new director guy, who could be good, or who could suck at this role. He has Executive Decision and US Martials behind him, which doesnt really add or take away from his name IMO. He say's he 'doesnt care' what a character acted like, or the Trek history.
Then we have Logan, who is brilliant. Gladiator, The Time Machine (which I loved), and plus a strong fan of the franchise. We know a lot of the history of Trek is gonna be written into the story.
Together, we have a fresh new apporach to a story that has strong ties in the trek-timeline. A bad thing? Of course theres a possibility. I think it all depends on the story. Insurrection was a tad weak in that department, but then of course, that was 9... this is 10.
Posted by The New CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I'm just getting a real 'Batman and Robin' feel from both the script and the pictures i've seen.. the difference in cheesiness expected of the Trek franchise and those bullshit schumacher movies is large.. i hope they dont throw their credibility out the window wih cheesy design and writing tricks.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, personally, I'm not impressed with Baird or Logan, in the sense that either are favorites of mine. U.S. Marshals was, well, ok. I've never understood the appeal of Gladiator other than a movie where Romans fight things, which is itself more than enough justification for a film. But "Wow, this movie displays cracking dialogue and plotting so tight you couldn't squeeze a razor through it." never crossed my mind.
But, what does that matter? Jonathan Frakes is not exactly the most talented member of the director's guild. And yet First Contact was good. Heck, Leonard Nimoy is just some guy who wore pointed ears for awhile and released a few books of poems. But good films there too. Well, one really good one.
My point is that "knowledge" of a backstory is no guarantee of quality, as any dip into alt.startrek.creative will show. Or, hell, the Star Wars prequels.
At the same time, it's not like they've brought in the Coen brothers or Alex Proyas, so I'm not exactly burning with eager anticipation of a fresh new take on Star Trek. It will be what it will be.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I don't think a fresh take on the thing is bad in itself... but I do think an "I don't care" attitude is a bad sign. If he doesn't care about Star Trek history, then he's probably not going to be going out of his way to make a Star Trek film... it's going to be his film.
That's just the vibe I get from comments like "I don't care about the history". Now... it was coming second hand, so who knows if that was actually ever said...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, perhaps, but Trek films aren't exactly a director's medium, if you get my drift. We've got nine so far, with seven different directors, and they all have a "feel" in common, even if they vary wildly in quality. Now, considering that I couldn't tell a Baird film from a McTiernan film, I'm not worried about a distinctive directorial vision that conflicts with Star Trek.
Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
The words you use to describe "the online media" strike me as a fitting description for what many of us have so far heard about "Star Trek: Nemesis." We already have a poorly-conceived, second-rate plot, a script written for fanboys, by a fanboy, and a budget cut. Now we learn the director does not "really care about the history." I am all for a "fresh" take on Star Trek, at least to a certain degree, but "The Next Generation" movies have already been distinctly different from the series. Any further moves away from what that series was, and who it's characters were, would probably produce a movie with little resemblance to the show it is based on, and, thus, contain little of what I watch Star Trek (The Next Generation) for. The movies have already tried to turn Captain Picard into some sort of action hero (albeit with a big vocabulary); what is "Nemesis" going to do with/to him? Is Picard going to be running around in a dirty tank-top, firing rifles, "Die Hard" style? (Oh, wait, he already did that.) What happened to the tea-sipping, tunic-pulling, brains-before-brawn captain I knew and loved in the series?
Mind you, most of my aforementioned gripes with the movie are rumor, thus, I will hold final judgement until I see "Star Trek: Nemesis," but I sincerely hope the finished product bears little resemblance the the film I have heard about.
[ June 19, 2002, 17:49: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Is Picard going to be running around in a dirty tank-top, firing rifles, 'Die Hard' style?"
Well, he recklessly drives a pseudoJeep w/ a gigantic gun on the back. Does that count?
Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"Is Picard going to be running around in a dirty tank-top, firing rifles, 'Die Hard' style?"
Well, he recklessly drives a pseudoJeep w/ a gigantic gun on the back. Does that count?
Yes, what you describe sounds like it counts as more Picard, intellectual action hero. Does the jeep by any chance break down, causing Picard to cry "a horse, a horse: my starship for a horse?" What happened to sending Riker on recklessly driven jeep type missions while the good captain employed brain power?
[ June 20, 2002, 20:43: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"Is Picard going to be running around in a dirty tank-top, firing rifles, 'Die Hard' style?"
Well, he recklessly drives a pseudoJeep w/ a gigantic gun on the back. Does that count?
Maybe he'll have one of those really amazing rotary machine guns like Blaine had in Predator!
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:What happened to the tea-sipping, tunic-pulling, brains-before- brawn captain I knew and loved in the series?
he disappeared after paramount decided that he wouldn't sell tickets to mildly retarded, 17 year old, ADD afflicted males.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
It's a tradition, or an old charter, or something.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Thank god I am not 17... Otherwise I might have been offended by that remark.
Nevertheless, you are correct. Intellectal movies really don't sell movies especially if it's a intellectual sci-fi movie. People nowadays expect big sci-fi movies with big explosions, with blood, gore, space battles, naked women everywhere, fights, sex, blood, gore, space battles, naked women everwhere, fights and then more sex. But not a movie where you have to think.
I remember when Matrix came out, alot of people hated it because it involved too much thinking.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
"Thank god I am not 17"
You're 18, right? Big difference, there!
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:because it involved too much thinking.
Erm. Eh? Thinking? When?
"Oh, gee, everything tastes like chicken -- we MUST be in the Matrix!"
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
even my mom understood the matrix (well, mostly).
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Hey... I'm 17. Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I say people should look at the fact that Paramount devoted $80 million or so to the movie with the full knowlege that a Trek movie will never bring the Batman & Robin crowd to the box office to recoup that investment like, erm, Batman & Robin could. That strongly implies to me anyway that they're confident that this project will appeal to the hordes of reasonable and friendly and pleasant-smelling non-fanboys who watched TNG and went to First Contact.
Then again, Hollywood suits make mistakes, too. But generally speaking, it's well understood that the sci-fi hardcore fanboy geek demographic isn't lucrative enough to spend dozens of millions of dollars at luring. That's the reason Starship Troopers was turned into a satire rather than a straight regurgitation of Heinlein. It's also the reason Enterprise isn't a series about a modified Galaxxy-callss drednaught blwoing pu the Jemhaddar in teh Gamma Quadrant wiht 19-episode arcs devotid to explaning how Trill look different. It's also the reason, among others, that JMS is a cold and bitter man.
Anyway understanding the business side of Hollywood has never come too easily to the fanboy-sympathetic media. TrekWeb would probably have you believe that Enterprise's lower ratings than TNG stem from people abandoning the show en masse when they saw a D7-class Klingon battlecruiser 120 years too early. (And they'd then proceed to plug The Dead Zone at every opportunity while the USA Network lined their pockets with banner ad payments. But that's another matter.)
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Your babies are mine, Thomas. Your babies are mine.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Thank god I am not 17... Otherwise I might have been offended by that remark.
quote:Hey... I'm 17.
well, unless you fit the other characteristics (mild retardation and attention deficit disorder), you have no reason to take offence just because you are 17.
Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
quote:Originally posted by EdipisReks:
quote:What happened to the tea-sipping, tunic-pulling, brains-before- brawn captain I knew and loved in the series?
he disappeared after paramount decided that he wouldn't sell tickets to mildly retarded, 17 year old, ADD afflicted males.
I am really trying to resist mentioning a certain few of my fellow Flare members (not that I am, by any means, God's gift to science fiction forums. However, I can usually write in complete and correctly spelled sentences).
I also agree with a lot of what The_Tom says, though I do think Paramount counts on Star Trek fans, in general, and not just hard-core fanboys, to see any Star Trek movie at least once. That number of people would probably payback a good portion of a Star Trek movie's budget, so Paramount might be figuring they can try to make the movie more appealing to the general public, knowing that the fan base will see it anyway (and, again, cover a good portion of their costs, which is helpful if the general public chooses not to see the movie). Now, that does not mean Paramount decided to make a movie fanboys will be jerking off to in the front row, but even making a Star Trek movie more "Star Wars-ish" could cost some of the essential elements of Star Trek, and its movies, which tend to be, in my humble opinion, a bit deeper and more intellectual than its Saturday serial inspired cousin.*
Also, I believe I have read Rick Berman saying "Star Trek: Nemesis" was only budgeted $65,000,000 instead of the $75,000,000-$80,000,000 the last two movies received. Did it end up getting more?
*I realize some people, like Joseph Cambell (sp?), believe Star Wars to be the "new myth," filled with deep philisophical meaning, but the general public seems to view it as light-hearted fluff, which is why I implied making a Star Trek movie more "Star Wars-ish" would make it seem less intellectual to that public.
[ June 21, 2002, 23:08: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Always keep in mind, the late, great Hugo Gernsback once said "90% of everything is crap."
My corollary of which is: "90% of pre-release movie opinions are crap. But 99.999999999% of online pre-release movie opinions are crap."
Remember, EVERY new incarnation of Star Trek, be it series or movie or book, has had its raving detractors. Just tune them out, like the buzzing of a mentally-impared globfly, and you'll be fine. It's called "reserving judgement." It's also a good way to inoculate yourself against other forms of prejudice.
[ June 22, 2002, 08:02: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I prefer to apply O'Rourke's Circumcision Principle - you can take 10% off the top of anything.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Whatever the principle, the fact remains that movies in general now show a tendency to overly rely on SFX. Not just in the SciFi genre, but everywhere. Ever since Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, Forrest Gump etc. showed us what CGI could do, moviemakers seemed to be getting ever more crazy to include "THE LATEST IN DIGITAL IMAGERY" everywhere. The more CGI the better.
Now I don't think that SFX and CGI are bad, I just feel that we are getting an overdose. Think of Episode 2 for example. Almost everything there is CGI, even Yoda (ok, I know - for obvious reasons in this case).
And with that seems to come the "bigger-is-better" theory. The bigger the budget, the more explosions, the higher the stakes in the plot (yes, there used to be something called a plot in the old days!!!), the more violence, sex, action... the better.
THAT is what I find sad. That "normal" low or standard budget films with an interesting plot, good actors and the right amount of the aforementioned ingredients don't seem to sell as well as they used to.
We are all getting too spoiled. Even in Trek. Think back, when did they show a space battle during TNG? Now look at DS9 etc. Just because you CAN show big dogfight spacebattles doesn't mean you HAVE TO. Sure, they tend to look "cool", but I sometimes get the feeling "Hey, this isn't really Star Trek any more".
[ July 11, 2002, 05:48: Message edited by: Austin Powers ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Big Dumb Epics have been with Hollywood since the beginning. It's arguable that the very first feature films were BDEs, and that the supposed "higher" stuff owes its existence to them.
Posted by darkwing_duck1 (Member # 790) on :
I am simply amazed at the snobbery on display here. Would you rather have the movie written by a non-fan, or worse, someone who HATED Trek? People are throwing the "fanboy" term (and several other unkind remarks) entirely too freely.
OK, so the newer Trek films have upped the action quotient. Well, if TNG had a big problem, it was that it was TOO talky and intellectual. Too many stories focused around staff conferences and sitting at panels poking Okudagrams.
DS9 went a LONG way towards correcting that, which was what made it a much better show in the long run. It brought back a touch of TOS in that Sisko and Co. had no problems grabbing phaser rifles and setting out to kick bad guy butt when needed, while at the same time keeping in mind the more progressive ideals of Trek. Look at "Way of the Warrior" for a good example of what I mean.
I've enjoyed all the TNG Trek films. Some I like more than others, but none have been as bad as some here would have everyone believe.
As for Nemesis, I've read the script that's been on line, and I've seen the trailer. I have one or two problems with it, but so far I think I'll enjoy this Trek film too.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
As for my earlier remarks, they were not aimed at Trek films, but movies in general.
Also I don't intend to critisize Nemesis until I have seen it.
But what's wrong with TNG being "talky and intellectual"? That's one aspect why so many people think that TNG is the best Trek series.
DS9 has a totally different premise to start with. And yes, it has also done very well in what it tried to portray. That's why I find it equally entertaining as TNG - or TOS for that matter.
I can't say anything about Enterprise as we won't get to see that here in Germany until at least autumn.
And as for VOY or TAS, well, I won't comment on those. Whoever chooses to like these series has every right to do so. It's just that I am not one of these people.
Posted by darkwing_duck1 (Member # 790) on :
I'm not blanket-bashing talk and intellect. But there's such a thing as too much. Kirk would ask his officers for opinions when he needed them, but made most of his decisions "on the fly" and by himself. Sometimes it seemed that Picard couldn't take a leak w/o calling a staff conference on the subject.
Intellectuality has always been a part of Trek, and an important one, but TNG just took it too far, especially in the early seasons. Too many times Picard would pursue his "diplomacy" while the bad guys ran amok. As Scotty once said, sometimes "the best diplomat I know is a fully armed phaser bank". There are just some threats that are self-evident, and should not be overly analyzed.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm going to regret this, but, such as?
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
"Hmm...lets open a dialogue and see if we can reach a mutually acceptable compromise"
"YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED"
"Yes, well that's certainly a possibility, but why don't we discuss this over some tea and maybe a few biscuits?"
"RESISTANCE IS FUTILE"
You may recall that this discussion never took place, TNG knew when to use Type-X diplomacy
[ July 14, 2002, 09:21: Message edited by: Reverend ]
Posted by darkwing_duck1 (Member # 790) on :
That's a good point, Reverend, but it's the exception that proves the rule, as it were...
A good example of too much negotiating would be the Cardassians in TNG. They broke their treaty with the Federation in "The Wounded" and all the Federation did was say "We'll be watching". From that point on, all the Federation did with the Cardassians was sit and watch and hold diplomatic conferences while the situation in and around the DMZ went to hell in a handbasket. Something Cmdr. Eddington said much later during DS9 shows the attitude: "Right now, you're grooming the Cardassians to take their 'rightful place' in the Federation."
That is SOOO true. The 24th century Federation in TNG was WAY too willing to "turn the other cheek", and that attitude led to the Dominion War.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Surely the Founders being insane old xenophobes with a lust for totalitarianism played some small part in the matter?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Besides which, what exactly are you trying to say? You start by making a sort of meta-argument. That TNG episodes were bad because they addressed situations in "talky" ways. But then you start talking about things within the show itself. Surely you aren't claiming that Star Trek can only be good to watch when good things happen in it? Are episodes where characters make mistakes rendered dull or boring? Of course not.
It seems to me, and I think there are some who agree, that the Dominion War made for good TV. So doesn't that mean that those writers responsible for setting it up were doing good things? I'm having a hard time getting a handle on just what sort of television you wish you were watching.
Posted by Thoughtchopper (Member # 480) on :
I'd hate to live in a world where diplomacy wasn't given every possible chance before war.
I'd hate to watch television like that too.
Ultima ratio regum should always come after all other means are exhausted. Not before.
The Borg don't negotiate. That's what's so scary about them. The Federation taking appropriate measures to defend themselves against such an enemy is not only an interesting plot device, but it's also highly logical. I would have been disappointed with TNG if Starfleet didn't at least have something in the works to defend themselves...They were outgunned and technologically inferior by a large degree, and the enemy could be counted on to come and kick some ass with no preamble.
The Cardassians were different, though...You might well say that though they were a developing "superpower" the overall dynamic still favored the Federation heavily--at least from all appearances. In such a position, it would have gone against deep-seated Federation philosophy to up and invade Cardassia, even after several infractions.
In my mind, the whole scenario played out pretty much the way it should have. In hindsight, the Cardassians should have been stopped sooner, but then again, the Federation had never been in a conflict of that magnitude. They didn't know what was coming... (and correct me if I'm wrong, but the wars with the Klingons and the Romulans were more akin to border skirmishes than actual invasion schemes...)
Similar things have happened here on good 'ol Terra several times, you know.
Anyway.
Posted by Thoughtchopper (Member # 480) on :
Adding to above: I doubt the Federation will make those mistakes again.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Similar things have happened here on good 'ol Terra several times, you know."
Treaty of Versailles, anyone?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm not sure I see the parallel.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Well basically, the conditions of that treaty which Germany had been forced to accept ultimately led to WW2. (Now that's what I call simplifying events.)
But why that would be similar to the events leading up to the Dominion war, I don't see that connection either.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
i myself was pondering a parallel where the Cardassian War would be parallel to World War I.. besically the Federation got involved too late, and laid down a lot of shit they shouldnt have.. the 2367 Treaty wasa failed attempt at appeasement and then the Breen and Dominion kinda joined up with the Cardies to become the Axis for the Dominion War, the second Cardassian/Federation conflict. I only hope that they dont follow suit and start a long cold war era.. (did the Romulans and the Federation divide Cardassia Prime in half????...)
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: I'm not sure I see the parallel.
Maybe because after the treaty was signed, the basic feeling about Germany was; "They won't try that again."
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Er, yes, I'm as reasonably familiar with WWI history as the next guy. It's the connection to Star Trek I don't see. I really don't see the Cardassian War as anything like WWI. Unless you're suggesting that the UFP treaty with the Cardassian Union was as punishing, but that hardly seems like a supportable claim.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The parallel is that, in both cases, the "good guys" won, made the "bad guys" sign a treaty, then sat back and felt good about themselves. The "bad guys" just got more and more pissed off, then eventually came back w/ even more power than they'd had before and started a new war.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I get the parallel, though it seems a little tenuous. There's little evidence that the Cardassian Peace Treaty of 2367 was imposed by the victors and seen by the Cardassians as punishing and humiliating in the same way the the Treaty of Versailles was. I mean, the implication was given fairly frequently that the Cardassians fared worse than the Federation in the conflict, and the Cardassian Union lost some star systems, yes, but then again, the Feds evidently gave up some, too. That seems to imply that the final deal (which must have been negotiated after years of some kind of cease-fire considering the wars were likely wrapped up before TNG began) was a fairly-negotiated deal rather than imposed winner's justice.
If anything, Cardassia was a bit more like Mussolini's Italy. There was the delusion in the eyes of the Cardassian citizenry that they were a quadrant power the equal of the Federation or the Klingons or Romulans when the cold hard truth was that they weren't. Dukat cozied up with the Dominion as a possible means to achieve the end of great power status that Cardassia's public believed was rightfully deserved. It, of course, proved to be something less than a equal partnership.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'm with Tom. I don't believe we ever heard anything about Cardassia being forced to cut back its production of war material (though I imagine there was some minor language of the sort included). And it certainly appeared that the UFP gave up more space along the Demilitarized Zone than the Union did. (Perhaps this was to make up for the withdrawl from Bajor, which seemed to be a fairly large concession on the part of the Cardassians. Though it did appear that the Bajoran resistance was making the occupation increasingly expensive anyway.)
Of course, I'm sure it must have seemed like a larger blow to your average Elim Q. Sixpack.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
i dont think the 2367 treaty was like versailles.. we know that the actual Cardassian fighting ended in the 2350s or early 2360s and it was basically just a disputed border by the time that treaty came out.. i think that giving the Cardies the demilitarized zone was a failed attempt at appeasement of their new growing military might.. an old mistake, in light of the earlier conflict we are comparing it to..
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
So you're gonna add a tiny little moustache to Dukat's face?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
He could use something to twirl in his last two or three appearences. Alas.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
At least everyone agrees that all analogies must necessarily be black and white, eh?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I don't mean to drag you in front of the People's Analogy Review Board, Tim. I just didn't think it was really all that close.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
It wasn't supposed to be close. It was just the first comparison that came to mind, for the reasons I already stated.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
Cool, a history comparison discussion. At least I'm good at that. But I don't have the time right now to respond with a long reply.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
I hate my computer... Double post.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
I agree with TSN. The real and the fictional histories aren't exactly parallel, but there are several subtle similarities. For one, when Cardassia allied itself with the Dominion it was because, as Dukat said, it had become a third rate power. A beaten people if you will, what with the Klingon invasion, Marquis raids and the overthrow of the Military government. Much like Germany was after WWI and like Germany, Cardassia turned their leadership over to an apparently superior body; which of course was the Dominion (for Germany, the Nazi Party) to rebuild the nation to the glory of the Empire that once was and beyond. There are several other WWII similarities that I need not go into; among which are an alliance with an alien force (Breen/Japan), last minute side switching, the US (Romulans) being forced into the war on the British (Federation) side.
Like I said, not exact parallels, just familiar patterns.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I think joining up with an exterior power is way different from voting in a mad paper-hanger, though.
Posted by Ultra Magnus Pym (Member # 239) on :
Strenuous connectorialism:
Medal of Honor: Allied Assault uses the Quake III engine.
Medal of Honor: Allied Assault takes place in the World War Two.
RavenSoft obtained the rights to use the Quake III engine.
RavenSoft developed Star Trek: Voyager - Elite Force.
Star Trek: Voyager - Elite Force takes place in the Star Trek worldy thing.
Therefore, is Martok actually Stalin?
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Sure, just shave off the beard and note the similarity...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I sometimes come dangerously close to growing a ginger beard. That is fear.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)