|
Subyng posted:I've made posts about this before, but this gist of it is that the new Enterprise is actually an objectively good design. Tell me about this because I think it's a spindly wannabe sportscar designed by committee whose sight lines conflict with each other and lead the eye to go gently caress itself Friendly reminder: I am not mad that it "changed" I genuinely think the thing is usually unpleasant to look at unless they do a forced perspective angle
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
The new Enterprise is poorly balanced and oversizing the engines whilst undersizing the engineering hull made the entire thing off-kilter. At the same time, curving the nacelle pylons makes robs them of any appearance of strength and make it look like they're wobbly jelly that's going to fall over. The worst part is the massive underbite caused by putting the neck/engineering hull connection too far back, turning what should be a flow-through on the design into an awkward protrusion.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:The new Enterprise is poorly balanced and oversizing the engines whilst undersizing the engineering hull made the entire thing off-kilter. At the same time, curving the nacelle pylons makes robs them of any appearance of strength and make it look like they're wobbly jelly that's going to fall over. The worst part is the massive underbite caused by putting the neck/engineering hull connection too far back, turning what should be a flow-through on the design into an awkward protrusion. This is pretty much wrong on every point. The original design features a spindly neck that connects the saucer and neck in an entirely unbalanced way. The saucer looks like it's moments away from snapping off the hull. The placement of the neck on the new design further back along the hull creates a stronger impressions of strength. Its larger at the base than at the top, and the centres of mass of the saucer-hull are closer together. Also, of you look at its silhouette you will find many similar shapes that echo each other. It's cohesive. Subyng fucked around with this message at 15:28 on May 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Subyng posted:This is pretty much right on every point. Hey, I noticed your post needed fixing so I touched it up. You're welcome.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Subyng posted:This is pretty much wrong on every point. I love how the secondary hull echoes the shape of the nacelles so that it looks like it's constantly going MUNAAWWWWWW or BLEEEEEHHHH at you (I don't love it) I would also agree with the other guy that the bowed pylons look more spindly and weak than even the originals especially attached to that weird little cat butt looking hangar deck. The mushed together proportions don't really do anything to balance the design when it looks like it's melting forward and down. Just about the only new part that works is the neck, just not anything it's attached to
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Tighclops posted:I love how the secondary hull echoes the shape of the nacelles so that it looks like it's constantly going MUNAAWWWWWW or BLEEEEEHHHH at you (I don't love it) Yeah, this doesn't mean anything. Sorry. The old design goes AAHHEUHEUHUHE, so I guess I win that point? quote:I would also agree with the other guy that the bowed pylons look more spindly and weak than even the originals especially attached to that weird little cat butt looking hangar deck. The mushed together proportions don't really do anything to balance the design when it looks like it's melting forward and down. Just about the only new part that works is the neck, just not anything it's attached to Again, it's weird to focus on the apparent balance/strength of the new design when the old one had the same problems. On the A, the nacelle pylons again are very narrow at the base and wide at the top - the opposite of something that is supposed to look sturdy. And and both original designs, see how it connects to the main hull? At a 90 degree angle to the surface. Now look at the JJ design. It's wide at the base, and has a much smoother transition to the main hull. The pylons flow more naturally from the stardrive section as one continuous unit, instead of having these sharp corners that make it look like they were attached (and thus, weaker). As for the "mushed together" ness, it is more compact than the old design (again, in general more compact = stronger, more balanced, sturdier) but there's nothing about it that looks crowded. Nor does it look like it's melting...have you even seen what something that is melting looks like? The shape of the new design doesn't evoke melting in any way, shape, or form. In conclusion, both designs are good and have their own strengths and weaknesses. Obviously you're allowed to dislike the new design compared to the old just like you're allowed to dislike a perfectly marbled, perfectly cooked piece of AA kobe beef steak compared to a day old McDonald's burger patty (the new design is the steak in this analogy). Subyng fucked around with this message at 20:54 on May 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:The worst part is the massive underbite caused by putting the neck/engineering hull connection too far back, turning what should be a flow-through on the design into an awkward protrusion. This is literally my only complaint with the Abrams Enterprise, which is a design I otherwise love (especially the giant gently caress-off nacelles). I think I've posted this quick and dirty Photoshop in the TV IV thread, but seriously, move the neck forward and you have a near-perfect design. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Subyng posted:Yeah, this doesn't mean anything. Sorry. The old design goes AAHHEUHEUHUHE, so I guess I win that point? Thank you for your thoughtful reply but every time I look at pictures of this thing to see what you're talking about it just looks like it's the refit had a curdled zika baby, I don't feel that all those curves imply strength or even flow naturally as the pylons almost seem like they came off another ship and the elongated tail they turned the aft section just doesn't seem like it's enough somehow to support it all. I'm sure personal taste is the deciding factor because most of the art design in these films reminds me of the 1998 Lost In Space movie, which was ugly as all hell and did that "curved organic flowing machinery" poo poo too. They should have just hired Syd Mead.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I mean in fairness I can definitely see the marketing campaign being focused around TDK's success. The thing though is that the marketing campaign is often independent of the actual production of the film. That's how you get stuff like this: Haha, oh what a nasty trailer. You're right that the filmmakers usually have little or nothing to do with the marketing campaign, but if we expand 'production' to mean going from the film's conception to release and beyond, the studio and producers have to approve of the marketing, and especially when we're talking about big franchise movies, they'll often go in with a pretty specific concept of what movie they want to sell - even if the movie that winds up being made doesn't quite fit. It's not a coincidence that Casino Royale seems to take inspiration from the Bourne movies, or that Halloween H2O looks like Scream. Within the Star Trek franchise, Rick Berman was very upfront that the concept for Star Trek Nemesis was "Star Trek II with the Next Gen cast". Star Trek Insurrection (at least started out as) "Star Trek IV for the Next Gen crew". With Star Trek Beyond Simon Pegg has gone on record his frustrations with the studio, and murmurings are that they want the movie to basically be "Guardians of the Galaxy". So, cynical as it sounds, I can absolutely see studio/producers going into Star Trek Into Darkness with the idea of "The Dark Knight for Star Trek". It's possible they used those exact words or if it was more like "hey could you make this one a little darker and bring back Khan and make him a little Joker-ish," but it wouldn't surprise me either way.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
lizardman posted:Haha, oh what a nasty trailer. From the articles around the time, Abrams was a big advocate of following TDK scheme and wasn't really shy about it. One convincing comparison he made is that Khan is the classic foil to Kirk and not involving Khan would be akin to ignoring the Joker as Batman's foil. Having said that, it sounds like Orci was adamantly against using Khan but Lindelof wanted to use Khan. Orci said he and Kurtzman tried to write a movie without first Khan and if it worked with Khan they'd rewrite it later. Having said that that, rumors were swirling that they were chasing Javier Bardem and Benecio Del Toro to play the big bad. If they'd successfully landed one of them (or if the studio hadn't pushes Cumberbatch) I doubt they'd have played coy with the villain. Fun game, watch or read Into Darkness and imagine all of Cumberbatch's lines in Ricardo Maltibon's voice and cadence. They work perfectly.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
They wanted Benicio Del Toro and went into advanced contract negotiations with him, but they completely lowballed him on the offer so he dropped out. The weirdest thing about Into Darkness is that after lowballing Del Toro, the villain's name was originally John Erickson, and it was filmed that way, so they had to pay a poo poo-ton of money to pay the cast to dub their dialogue to say "Harrison."
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Timby posted:They wanted Benicio Del Toro and went into advanced contract negotiations with him, but they completely lowballed him on the offer so he dropped out. IIRC, Khan's original name was Erickson and he was a typical Nordic Aryan before they decided to change it up. Do you have any sources on the dialog replacement or the low balling? I'd be really interested in reading about it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:Having said that that, rumors were swirling that they were chasing Javier Bardem and Benecio Del Toro to play the big bad. If they'd successfully landed one of them (or if the studio hadn't pushes Cumberbatch) I doubt they'd have played coy with the villain. Re: Bardem, there was a joke circulating message boards in 2013 that we were living in the alternate universe where the actors for the villains of the recent Bond and Star Trek films were switched around. As stated above, Del Toro wasn't just rumored - the production considered him such a sure thing they let the press informally announce it (http://collider.com/star-trek-2-villain-benecio-del-toro/ - check out those comments, ha). It was over a month later that word came out that he'd turned down the role - I always got the impression Cumberbatch was a last-minute replacement, which is the one reason I give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt concerning the politically incorrect casting (not trying to bring that debate up again; the character himself was basically conceived of 60s-era "all brown people are alike" social attitudes, but the movie's casting has some undeniably terrible optics at the least). I also agree they wouldn't have taken the whole "mystery villain" bit nearly as far as they did if they'd manage to get Del Toro or another actor of color (by US standards). The entire reason that whole game worked to the extent that it did was that you couldn't just look at the character and tell who he was. Great_Gerbil posted:Fun game, watch or read Into Darkness and imagine all of Cumberbatch's lines in Ricardo Maltibon's voice and cadence. They work perfectly. You can tell they didn't have Cumberbatch's performacne in mind when they wrote the script. One moment in particular, when Spock and Khan are negotiating through the viewscreen and Khan's doing his "look this is what's going to happen" schtick, he has a line that starts "If yours holds..." and even on my first watch I could just hear Montalban saying it, emphasizing "holds." I can definitely understand Cumberbatch taking a look at Montalban's performance and thinking, "Yeah, I'm just going to look ridiculous if I try to emulate that." But I would've liked to have seen him try a little bit more in that direction, since I think he has the range to pull it off. Khan's signature characteristic, to me, is his passion - I simply don't see Cumberbatch's Khan having ever been able to become a tyrant with a cult of personality. And while it's his prerogative to try a new take on a character (I'll admit he is a more believable genius mastermind than Montalban's portrayal), some of the character's actions ring false under Cumberbatch's performance; namely the spitefulness (crashing his ship into a metropolis) and love for his people. You know what the weirdest thing is, though? I recently caught up with "The Hunted" with Benicio Del Toro and Tommy Lee Jones (under recommendation from way earlier in this thread, I believe), and Del Toro's perfromance reminded me of Cumberbatch's Khan - almost as if, not wanting to look like a silly Montalban impersonation, Cumberbatch studied "The Hunted" in an attempt to base his performance off his best guess of how Del Toro would've played the part!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I don't think it's any more speculative to discuss the film as a business enterprise rather than an a piece of art (and even that is a bit of a false dichotomy). Really I'm just arguing for a slightly change in perspective. We may not have as much information as would be ideal to discuss marketing instincts but quite often people discuss script and direction in these films without even acknowledging the commercial aspect of film making. Ideally there would be at least some acknowledgement of the fact that the film's artistic vision is specifically sculpted and tailored to appeal to a mass audience, and when discussing why certain artistic decisions were made it's necessary to at least speculate or discuss what the commercial instincts of the creators were. Your example is a good one for how limited this type of discussion often is in practice. Like, there's a million ways to incorporate a titty shot, and they went with a particular one. The next step is to examine how that particular one works in the context of the movie. I don't think anyone denies that attractive people in revealing clothing are included to drive up ticket sales. What people aren't willing to do, that you implicitly seem to be asking for, is to just stop there. Think about your 9/11 comment in reverse. Sure, addressing contemporary issues may have been a studio mandate, leading to Roberto Orci addressing the contemporary issue he's particularly devoted to. But if we accept that, you have to accept that a desire for a titty shot, even if it's a top-down mandate, was then processed by artists into a work of art. The studio may have mandated contemporary issues be addressed, but they probably didn't mandate a dramatization of 9/11 trutherism. You're presenting these as a contrast – "supposed to somehow be about empowering her character, as opposed to, you know, providing a titty shot that can be put into the trailer" – rather than things that work in combination. You ask for people to "entertain other ways of thinking about or analysing film." Well, if you think that's a compelling way to think about things, I think lots of people here would be happy to be entertained by you providing us with an interesting reading that incorporated that. Where you will be poorly received is if you try to use it to shut down discussion. Because this sort of analysis does already happen in this forum. It's happening right now in the Star Wars thread regarding possibly Disney-mandated reshoots for Rogue One to bring the tone more in line with The Force Awakens. It happens in regards to how studios mandates influences the Marvel and DC films. It's not like we ignore the commercial aspects, we just don't stop there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/star-trek-actor-anton-yelchin-dies-car-crash-39972793 Well, gently caress. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Well that sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Chekov dun chek'dout e: Always set the parking break, kids http://m.tmz.com/#article/2016/06/19/star-trek-anton-yelchin-dead/comments/
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Yeah this is a hella bummer for a lot of reasons but I also liked him so this is terrible. 2016 has not been kind to famous folk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
I saw the headline 'Star Trek actor dies' and was expecting to be sad about somebody elderly-ish from an older series checking out. Wasn't expecting this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Pinned by your car in neutral. Ugh, lovely way to go. I liked his Chekov
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, what a horrible thing to happen. 27 years old, in his own driveway and minding his own business and suddenly dead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
What a tragedy, to be killed so young by your own wessel. Not even at the helm.
Gnome de plume fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Jun 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
I must be in the minority of internet people who really enjoyed STID (though the masses certainly thought it was alright too). I think outside of the superficial things that make it similar to TWoK it was a good bridge between Kirk and pal's first romp and actually getting out to go do that thing they're supposed to do, while at the same time washing their hands of any expectation to redo old episodes in movie format going forward. It'll be interesting to see the trilogy as a whole and what threads are picked up from the first two in this new one. I think it's safe to say that the "new" or "refit" Enterprise they're obviously going to get at the end will look more like the one from the show - not exact like the retro Constitution class seen in STID, but somewhere midway. I actually recall Burger King putting out a series of collectible glasses with the Enterprise featuring red ramscoops around the time of the first movie. That would be alright in my book.  (apologies for the blurry photo, turns out poo poo from 7 years ago can be hard to find good pictures of online) As an aside, I got a shiver rewatching STID when Kirk says to Chekov "go put on a redshirt" and he has that look of resignation. Stupid Trekkie jokes aside what a terrible irony. RIP Anton Yelchin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm ignoring the marketing because I legitimately can't remember it. As for the other two, you're welcome to explain how the themes are similar but there's very little "grimdark" in the atmosphere. It a film about how the government is secretly maneuvering itself into a major war with a rival enemy power, the inciting incident of the plot is a rogue government agent committing multiple acts of terrorism, the primary motivation for both the protagonists and the antagonist is to get revenge, and the film's climax is a recreation of September 11th. The fact that you'd even dispute that this is a dark film only emphasizes how hilariously over the top grimdark the average blockbuster has become since the early 2000s. I'd even go so far as to say that the final messages of the films are more similar than you let one here. When Kirk tells us at the end of the film that "There will always be those who mean to do us harm. To stop them, we risk awakening the same evil within ourselves" he's not that far off from the themes of The Dark Knight, or the recent Captain America films, or a million other similar films. That fascination with the thin line dividing heroes from villains, and that persistent fear that our desire for vengeance is somehow generating further acts of terror, seems to be one of the most common and resonant themes within modern Hollywood. Sir Kodiak posted:Your example is a good one for how limited this type of discussion often is in practice. Like, there's a million ways to incorporate a titty shot, and they went with a particular one. The next step is to examine how that particular one works in the context of the movie. I don't think anyone denies that attractive people in revealing clothing are included to drive up ticket sales. What people aren't willing to do, that you implicitly seem to be asking for, is to just stop there. Think about your 9/11 comment in reverse. Sure, addressing contemporary issues may have been a studio mandate, leading to Roberto Orci addressing the contemporary issue he's particularly devoted to. But if we accept that, you have to accept that a desire for a titty shot, even if it's a top-down mandate, was then processed by artists into a work of art. The studio may have mandated contemporary issues be addressed, but they probably didn't mandate a dramatization of 9/11 trutherism. Actually this is part of what I find so interesting. From interviews it's clear that there was a desire to create a Star Trek film that somehow addressed contemporary concerns and anxieties. I believe the creators are fairly explicit about this: they intentionally set out to make a Star Trek film about the War on Terror. We also know that these scripts aren't written before hand -- they are constantly being worked and reworked based on what the director and producers and even the actors want. So in fact the decision to make a Star Trek film about 9/11 being an inside job isn't something we can just chalk up to the particular quirks of the script writer. Even if he injected that particular message, he was only able to do so because that's exactly the kind of message the film's producers and director were interested in. quote:You're presenting these as a contrast – "supposed to somehow be about empowering her character, as opposed to, you know, providing a titty shot that can be put into the trailer" – rather than things that work in combination. If you want to make an argument that her disrobing was about more than just fulfilling a quota of "stuff our trailer needs" then go ahead. I don't find it very plausible or compelling to argue that this was equally a commercial and artistic decision. quote:You ask for people to "entertain other ways of thinking about or analysing film." Well, if you think that's a compelling way to think about things, I think lots of people here would be happy to be entertained by you providing us with an interesting reading that incorporated that. Where you will be poorly received is if you try to use it to shut down discussion. Because this sort of analysis does already happen in this forum. It's happening right now in the Star Wars thread regarding possibly Disney-mandated reshoots for Rogue One to bring the tone more in line with The Force Awakens. It happens in regards to how studios mandates influences the Marvel and DC films. It's not like we ignore the commercial aspects, we just don't stop there. Well, it's inevitable people are going to argue about what the motivations behind a particular decision were or (to use a less author centered frame-work) why it is that particular themes or characters or plots seem to be used again and again by film makers. I don't think that arguing for one interpretation over another is the same thing as trying to "shut down discussion". I also think that not all interpretations are equal and that it's inevitable that people are going to call each other out on what seem to be particularly poor arguments, such as the example I've already given of goons who think that a woman undressing for the audience should be seen first and foremost as an example of her "empowerment".
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
I was the guy who started this thread three years ago (!) so I feel kind of obligated to start a new one ahead of Star Trek Beyond's release. Might be a day or two, though. Stay tuned!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Timby posted:This is literally my only complaint with the Abrams Enterprise, which is a design I otherwise love (especially the giant gently caress-off nacelles). I think I've posted this quick and dirty Photoshop in the TV IV thread, but seriously, move the neck forward and you have a near-perfect design. Hey that does look better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
N: Sulu is officially gay. V: this put a huge smile on my face.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Good
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Oh my.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Okay?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
I'm pretty happy about this. Representation is already hard to come by. Positive or no, so having it not be a huge deal and just a part of the future is pretty sweet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
korusan posted:I must be in the minority of internet people who really enjoyed STID (though the masses certainly thought it was alright too). IMDB is internet people
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:IMDB is internet people I mean angry Star Trek nerd internet people. Like, old school internet people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:N: Sulu is officially gay. And apparently, George Takei is not a fan. The interesting thing is, I totally get where he's coming from. He states flat out that he's happy that there's gay representation in the series (something he asked for even during the creation of TOS), but because of the weird way the Star Trek movies handled their timeline, it basically goes back and says that the Sulu that Takei played was a closeted gay man for his entire life, even after having a wife and kid. For Takei, who was a closeted gay man for a good portion of his life, including the time he spent on Star Trek, coding the character that way could be seen as saying "well now that we know that you're gay, it stands to reason we should make your character gay too" as if he couldn't have just been a gay man playing a straight man. It's a lot more complicated than something like having the Human Torch be black in the most recent FF movie, because it's a retelling of the story instead of a sequel or whatever, where the proper response is "that's cool, suck it racists". It's probably a lot more like how they made time-traveling Iceman from the original X-Men show up in the present and be gay, inadvertently outing present Iceman (thus adding a different shade to any stories of his that involved his relationships), but even then, Iceman wasn't a happily married man with a kid who all of a sudden has been gay the whole time. It's really weird and I don't think there's a clear right side to this debate. (Though as always, there are plenty of wrong sides still, like "ugh I wish gay people would just go away and not make us have to think about how gay they are," which will never stop being a wrong side of any debate involving representation and sexuality)
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
Was it confirmed Sulu had a wife? I mean, he had a daughter, but especially in the far future that doesn't necessarily mean wife.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 10:51
|
|
|
Nope, the closest Sulu came to sexuality at all was flirting with Uhura a bit. (mirror Sulu excepted). Said daughter will also be in Beyond as a baby that he and his husband have had.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 11:35
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:It's really weird and I don't think there's a clear right side to this debate. That Takei told Pegg and Lin not to do it and they did so anyway really shows how truly sensitive they are to the LGBT community. It takes all the meaning away except, "George Takei is gay so the character he played must be too! Get it! GET IT?!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
I think it's a weird and unnecessary fourth-wall break that adds nothing to the film or the character and demonstrates callous insensitivity towards real LGBT people, such as George and Brad Takei.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:I think it's a weird and unnecessary fourth-wall break that adds nothing to the film or the character and demonstrates callous insensitivity towards real LGBT people, such as George and Brad Takei. They could have made Scotty gay. Or Chekov. And only chose Sulu because his old actor was gay. Their reasoning is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
Codependent Poster posted:They could have made Scotty gay. Or Chekov. And only chose Sulu because his old actor was gay. Their reasoning is dumb. Scotty and Chekov both had several female love interests. Sulu noticeably never did. I mean they could still be bi but
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 16:40
|
|