|
sponges posted:I’ve always loved TMP. It’s the kind of slow burn boring sci fi that I love. It’s such an odd collection of ideas and slow atmospheric scenes. I can’t say it’s not slow, and I can’t say it’s for everyone, but there’s so many odd parts that are unique to the movie that I can’t help but enjoy it. Really love that random person being horrifically mutilated by the transporter, and that’s not even part of any of the conflict — that’s just a random OSHA incident at the start of the movie. Edit: take this, page 2! https://youtu.be/tQ9VIswgcU4
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
^^^ And people laugh at McCoy's hatred of the transporter. Kull the Conqueror posted:Where is there brown face in Wrath of Khan? Ricardo Montalban is Castilian/Mexican and he's playing a Sikh. PeterCat fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Aug 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
I grew up with TNG, DS9 and Voyager, so I didn't care for the original movies much. Watching some episodes of the original series later in life and then going through the film series one by one made me appreciate them so much more for all the character work. Even the lesser films get plenty of that, though I feel like Uhura, Chekov and Scotty routinely get shafted as (bad) comedy sidekicks. TNG made a wonky start in films with Generations, which is like half a really great, cinematic Star Trek film and half poorly conceived TV episode. First Contact should've probably been the first TNG movie, where events bring Ben Sisko onto the Enterprise with Worf, and in the end Sisko and Picard duke out all their problems until Picard agrees to blow up the Enterprise D to stop the Borg and does it, saying goodbye to a ship he actually has a history with instead of the new hotness. The less said about Insurrection and Nemesis, the better. 2009's Star Trek is still a really fun movie, even though watching the behind the scenes stuff now make me notice the plotholes and missing scenes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMQTzYp756o Seeing this on the big screen back in the day must have been so mindblowing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 22:28
|
|
|
Laughing Zealot posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMQTzYp756o I think TMP, and to some extent WOK, are the two that best capture that “holy poo poo, they’re in a movie” feeling. Going from a cheap-ish 60s network show to a very expensive capital-m movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
I also love TMP, despite all it's flaws. The effects and music are legitimately amazing and I really like that it's one of the few Star Trek films where the antagonist is something to be understood rather than defeated. One thing to note about TMP is that the novelisation is infamously crazy. Gene Roddenberry wrote it himself so I think that apart from The Cage it's one of the only times we get unfiltered Roddenberry in Star Trek. As a result it's very, very horny. A good example is the scene where you first see the android version of Ilia. In the film it's a quick scene where she appears in the sonic shower, Kirk presses a button and clothes appear on her and it's no big deal. In the novelisation we get... this: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 22:57
|
|
|
drat Gene
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 22:59
|
|
|
lmao the first thing I thought of was:
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 23:52
|
|
|
Star Trek peaked with Galaxy Quest. It's the best Trek movie not featuring the entire original crew.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 00:38
|
|
|
The original script for Into Darkness that Paramount signed off on was way better and a more interesting movie: it was based partially off "Where No Man Has Gone Before" but instead of Gary Mitchell, Benedict Cumberbatch was supposed to play Robert April, and he would've been tearing rear end through the galaxy yelling about how "everything was wrong". With his godlike powers, he realized that the original timeline was altered and he went insane.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 01:01
|
|
|
That sounds like it could have gone into Superboy Prime punching reality walls territory and I'm all for that. Remember in the lead up to Into Darkness, how they hyped the big return of the Klingons? And when the movie came out, they were there for only one action set piece and pretty much all but one had helmets obscuring their faces? Detective No. 27 fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Aug 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 01:44
|
|
|
VoodooXT posted:The original script for Into Darkness that Paramount signed off on was way better and a more interesting movie: it was based partially off "Where No Man Has Gone Before" but instead of Gary Mitchell, Benedict Cumberbatch was supposed to play Robert April, and he would've been tearing rear end through the galaxy yelling about how "everything was wrong". With his godlike powers, he realized that the original timeline was altered and he went insane. I kinda like the movie we got, but still, that sounds 10,000 times better
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 03:32
|
|
|
It was really pathetic when the fact that Cumberbatch played Khan leaked, and the cast and crew had to go "no it's not!!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 05:57
|
|
|
piratepilates posted:
The funniest thing, to me, about that, is that the character who dies, Xon, was intended to be Spock's replacement when it looked like Nimoy wasn't going to be in the film. Then Nimoy agreed, and they were like, "We have to get rid of this new character!" and instead of simply removing him from the script, they come up with some horrific way to get rid of him, on-screen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 10:30
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:TMP was commissioned by the studios as a response to Star Wars This is essentially half-true. Yes, there was some jealousy at Star Wars, and the famous anecdote of Michael Eisner raising his hands during a screening of Close Encounters and screaming, "Jesus Christ, this could have been us!", but the only reason TMP because a movie was because Charlie Bluhdorn shut down the plans for Paramount to launch a fourth network in mid-1977. The decision to become a theatrical movie didn't happen until either the end of 1977 or very early 1978, at which point Bob Collins was still attached to direct. sean10mm posted:V is a mess but less bad than you probably remember (though it is at least as cheap looking as you remember...) It always amuses me when people call TFF cheap, when it was, by a not-insignificant amount, the most expensive of the TOS movies. It wasn't that they didn't have money, it was that Harve Bennett and Ralph Winter spent it badly. davidspackage posted:It was really pathetic when the fact that Cumberbatch played Khan leaked, and the cast and crew had to go "no it's not!!" The thing is, everyone knew they were going to go with Khan, because it had already been reported in the trades that Benicio del Toro had been in talks, but walked away because they lowballed him on salary. Timby fucked around with this message at 12:54 on Aug 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 12:52
|
|
|
Timby posted:
How much money does it cost to make love to a mountain?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 13:04
|
|
|
Drunkboxer posted:How much money does it cost to make love to a mountain? Basically, the production was extremely rushed, due to a WGA strike, the conclusion of which left David Loughery only about a month to write the script. Then right as they're getting ready to begin their location shooting in late October 1988 (remember, this is an effects-heavy film that had to meet a June 1989 release date), the Teamsters went on strike which further delayed things. Which resulted in a badly accelerated shooting schedule, meaning more time on set, meaning people have to be paid more. To make matters worse, the selected effects firm, Associates & Ferren (which had been hand-picked by Winter and Bennett after ILM and Bennett didn't really get along on The Voyage Home; the story that they didn't have the capacity to do the work has been pretty thoroughly debunked), upon taking delivery of the Enterprise and Bird of Prey models from ILm, promptly lost their poo poo. Why? Because they had a motion-control track that was only half as long as needed in order to actually shoot the models. So that caused a long delay in effects shooting and a lot of hours worked billed at rush rates, especially because the ending had to be re-jiggered after the Rockman prop didn't work out. There were also a handful of re-shoots near the end of post-production, which again adds more cost. Again, they had money--at $35 million, it was the most expensive of the TOS movies. They just spent it really, really poorly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 13:16
|
|
|
That's why I said cheap LOOKING. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 13:28
|
|
|
Timby posted:To make matters worse, the selected effects firm, Associates & Ferren (which had been hand-picked by Winter and Bennett after ILM and Bennett didn't really get along on The Voyage Home; the story that they didn't have the capacity to do the work has been pretty thoroughly debunked), upon taking delivery of the Enterprise and Bird of Prey models from ILm, promptly lost their poo poo. Why? Because they had a motion-control track that was only half as long as needed in order to actually shoot the models. Wasn't the Enterprise model being too big for most of ILM's techniques half the reason for the trouble with ILM, too? It severely restricted what they could do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 13:35
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Wasn't the Enterprise model being too big for most of ILM's techniques half the reason for the trouble with ILM, too? It severely restricted what they could do. I do think there was a degree of "not invented here", though. They went all-in on the Excelsior, which they designed and built, because they thought it was going to become the new main ship.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 14:15
|
|
|
Payndz posted:They went all-in on the Excelsior, which they designed and built, because they thought it was going to become the new main ship. And that was Harve Bennett's original plan. But while Roddenberry had absolutely no control over the movies anymore, he was allowed to read and submit notes on every script draft. When he found out about the plan to whack the Enterprise, he blew a gasket and leaked it to the fanzines (just as he had leaked Spock's death). When he read the draft of IV that had the crew moving to the Exelsior, he practically had a coronary and leaked that, too, and Bennett ultimately bent to the fan uproar and went with the NCC-1701-A concept. I can only imagine Ralston went, "Aw, son of a bitch" when he saw that revision.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 14:21
|
|
|
Payndz posted:The Cinefex article about ST3 opens with the main ILM guy on the film (Ken Ralston, I think) talking about how much he hated the Enterprise and what a pleasure it was to blow it up, even if only by proxy (the main shooting model was unharmed). ILM disliked the model intensely because it was much bigger than they would have made it, had to be rewired to work with their systems, was initially too shiny to use with their bluescreens (so had to be repainted or dulled down) and - they thought - only looked good from a limited number of angles. Yeah. Also, if I recall correctly, another huge pain was that at the time most of ILM's effects moved the model, or the camera and the model both, during rolls or rotating pans. But the combination of the size and the way that the 'self-illuminating floodlights' on the Connie refit worked (being shone on the model and just looking like they were lit from lights on the model itself) meant that the whole thing had to stay completely still and they could only move the camera, which meant they had to change a whole load of their processes as well as having a lot of restrictions on the shots they could do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 16:11
|
|
|
Drunkboxer posted:I mean, it's a pretty weird take to criticize Wrath for brown face and not Into Darkness. The dudes name is loving Benedict Cumberbatch. Both are bad, I'm not really sure which is worse. I've noticed it's rare for it to be brought up when talking about wrath but a common observation when discussing darkness. Just seems a little inconsistent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 17:12
|
|
|
I'd probably say Into Darkness is worse about it since Wrath of Khan was a direct sequel to an episode of the show, so they were locked into using Ricardo Maltobon. There really was no excuse for Into Darkness. They could have righted a wrong made decades ago but they double downed on it long after it was an acceptable practice. They couldn't have cast a whiter actor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 17:26
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:I'd probably say Into Darkness is worse about it since Wrath of Khan was a direct sequel to an episode of the show, so they were locked into using Ricardo Maltobon. There really was no excuse for Into Darkness. They could have righted a wrong made decades ago but they double downed on it long after it was an acceptable practice. They couldn't have cast a whiter actor. Right, Ricardo Montalbán was cast in loving 1967, when anybody who wasn't lily-white getting any acting job in Hollywood was the exception rather than the rule. Into Darkness was made in 2013. Also Montalbán's Khan was way loving better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 19:54
|
|
|
I don't know how Cumberbatch, who is known for his deep voice, managed to sound like a kid trying to sound tough. He was alright at the action scenes, but he seemed lost at chewing scenery.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 20:22
|
|
|
In all "fairness" the character that Cumberbatch was playing changed several time after he was cast. It's not an excuse, but you can see how the filmmakers got there without actively setting out to whitewash the character. But then, you know, don't decide to make it Kahn at some point during shooting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:In all "fairness" the character that Cumberbatch was playing changed several time after he was cast. It's not an excuse, but you can see how the filmmakers got there without actively setting out to whitewash the character. But then, you know, don't decide to make it Kahn at some point during shooting. At the time he was cast, it was Khan. The script was ready to go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
You know, I was going to push back on that saying that I heard it from someone in the position to know, but in retrospect I realize they were probably just lied to during production for secrecy purposes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:You know, I was going to push back on that saying that I heard it from someone in the position to know, but in retrospect I realize they were probably just lied to during production for secrecy purposes. The only change made was that Khan's alias was John Erickson, which would have been a deep cut into the lore. After shooting, it was decided to change it to Harrison, so everyone had to do quite a bit of ADR. But anyway, it was Khan as far back as when they were screen-testing Benicio del Toro until he told them to pound sand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
I must have some bad opinions about Star Trek because I like all the original 6 movies to some degree (Motion Picture being my favourite, but I'll get into that later) and hate all the TNG movies. Not entirely for the RLM reasons although I can't disagree with most of the tiny nitpicking after going back and rewatching TNG. I don't really want to talk about what I hate however so I'm just going to pick three of my favourites and run with thoughts. Star Trek: The Motion Picture It's all the weird science fiction things I loved about the original series packed into a long drawn out movie. I like long drawn out movies if they have an enjoyable pace. I saw it on VHS in high school after watching reruns of the old show for about a year, and everything from the Sonak (not Xon) death to the three middle aged guys getting together after a decade to do everything again plot. I don't know if I want to call it a lot of fun, but the things like that big bright probe beam on the bridge, the wormhole asteroid, and the final spacewalk on the hexagonal things at the end all stick out to me as favourite science fiction moments. I did see 2001 around this time, but being a pretty green teenager when it comes to movies I appreciated many more of the philosophical things that cropped up with a bunch of familiar faces than a weird movie about black rectangles and monkeys at the time. I do love 2001 though now that I've been around the track a few times with both good and bad movies. Star Trek Beyond It's one of my most memorable filmgoing experiences aside from seeing Star Trek 2009 (again as a teenager). We marathoned the first two Kelvin movies in the day because it was summer and I had a university job I could book the day off for. I remember getting a bit loaded and having my more sensible friends drive to see the 50th anniversary movie - it really felt like an event. Weird poo poo went on that day though; the first theatre we went to had a power outage to the dismay of most fans. There was a fat guy dressed as a Klingon who QeH'd out about it. The second theatre on the other side of town had an unrelated power outage, so we had no choice but to see it at the drive-in which proved to be the best option. And what a treat. I was a bit let down by the promise of more philosophical Trek (mainly because Krall just straight up dies at the end instead of a work-together-after-the-Kirk-speech moment) but it really was a tour de force in all other regards. All the characters were pretty useful, the alien lady was awesome, and I liked the way the planet looked. A solid entry. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier It's been a while since I've seen this one but I've always had a fondness for some of the more outlandish ideas. I really liked the Nimbus III/Paradise City planet and its aesthetic. I seem to remember it had some trippy TV commercials or something on the viewscreens in a bar. St. John Talbot is one of my favourite bit characters from the movies because he flies in the face of the more pure world of TNG which I believe was already on TV for a while by the time this came out. Anyways, I liked seeing the rough-and-tumbles of the Star Trek universe like the rear end in a top hat miners on that colony Kirk and the gang visited in early TOS. Other than that the movie has some enjoyable moments, a silly but still worthy plot for the Star Trek storyline, and a few neat insights into the trio. I like it when Spock introduces previously unmentioned relatives because it's so in character for a guy that tried dodging the fact that his dad is a bigshot ambassador to his best friend. The execution is a bit flimsy sometimes but I can't really fault my man Bill for that one, I think the guy really did want something grandiose especially to follow up with Nimoy's hit. Their mistake was trying to recreate the humour of the previous movie when I think they should have gone in more of a black comedy direction. It's certainly not the best one, but it's one of the most memorable. I have to be in the mood for it, mind; it really is the 'Godzilla vs Hedorah' of the Star Treks in my eyes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
The Golden Gael posted:Star Trek Beyond Beyond is a movie that I simultaneously love, while at the same time it really annoys me. The effects are great (the death of the Enterprise is so brutal that I had tears in my eyes in the theater; my then-wife had to squeeze my hand during the whole thing), the story generally makes sense, I like how it ties back to Enterprise ... but did we really need a third straight movie about Kirk's daddy issues? I mean, really? Also, it committed the same sin that Thor 2 did: Cast a world-class actor as the villain, then put him under 20 pounds of foam latex and have 95 percent of his dialogue be alien gibberish.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
Payndz posted:I do think there was a degree of "not invented here", though. They went all-in on the Excelsior, which they designed and built, because they thought it was going to become the new main ship. That bucket of bolts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 22:31
|
|
|
The Golden Gael posted:Star Trek Beyond I rewatched Beyond yesterday and I think this was the most disappointing part to me. Even though I'd already seen the movie before and knew he was gonna die, there was a brief moment where I believed he was about to help Kirk open up lever and save the day. Having watched through Enterprise, I did enjoy the callbacks to it. They should have sprung for a Scott Bakula cameo. Detective No. 27 fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Aug 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 22:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 05:30
|
|
|
So that’s where my dad buys those blue shirts from
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 05:43
|
|
|
Drunkboxer posted:So that’s where my dad buys those blue shirts from I own more polo-style shirts than I care to admit. Never have I ever worn one with a starched collar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 11:10
|
|
|
quote:but did we really need a third straight movie about Kirk's daddy issues? I mean, really? I do think Beyond added some of that in there as a reflection of this being the franchise 50th movie - also kind of a middle finger to JJ by saying "all that old Star Track [TOS] is dead and we're now further into the five year mission than the show got so it's time to do some new things that aren't Khan or the Romulans". Then they did pretty much the same thing anyways, although this revenge plot was better than the Khan one. Maybe on par with the Nero one. Again I like the working class stiffs of the Star Trek universe getting to interact with the crazy advanced technology we take for granted always being on Federation flagships for the shows.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 15:38
|
|
|
Timby posted:I own more polo-style shirts than I care to admit. It's more about the fabric and color of that specific Shatner shirt. I swear my dad has like 4 of those. They're probably from the 70s, he wears a collared shirt like once a decade.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 15:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
Timby posted:but did we really need a third straight movie about Kirk's daddy issues? I mean, really?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2020 15:53
|
|