posted
...because the fanboy-driven mess that passes as "the online media" wants you to believe that?
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
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.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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 ]
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
"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 ]
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
"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!
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
