RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,584
Posts: 5,515,255
Members: 25,156
Currently online: 520
Newest member: jerrlaro

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 21 2012, 05:56 PM   #91
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Rename The Motion Picture

Christopher wrote: View Post
And as for those other examples, I have yet to speak with any classic film fan who complains about the pacing of TMP, who also complains about the pacing of those other films you cite - especially 2001!
I think the pacing of TMP is fine, whereas 2001 is a crashing bore. Although that's probably because the slow parts of TMP have great music to listen to, while a lot of 2001 is just tedious silence. I've never liked the way Kubrick dealt with music.
I'm the opposite. 2001 is a masterpiece, my second favorite movie. The space scenes in the film come both with music and without, and the choice of which way to go, and then how to handle it, depends upon the tone of the scene. There's an incredible amount of tension in the scenes that are the quietest; one example that immediately comes to mind is reorienting the pod for the emergency space walk. The scenes making use of the Blue Danube are pure pleasure, and the Ligeti pieces are astonishing. But, 2001 provokes all kinds of reactions.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 21 2012, 07:07 PM   #92
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Rename The Motion Picture

KingDaniel wrote: View Post
RandyS wrote: View Post
KingDaniel wrote: View Post
BEST CREDITS EVER.

EV-FUCKING-ER. NO ONE WILL EVER HAVE BETTER CREDITS THAN SUPERMAN. NEVER TRY.
From your reaction, I'm guessing that's the first time you've ever seen that?

But I agree, I've loved that sequence since 1978.
Nooo, it just brought back a flood of memories. I loved that they remade it for Superman Returns.
And the theme was just a touch better there than the original.
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 21 2012, 07:20 PM   #93
beamMe
Fleet Captain
 
beamMe's Avatar
 
Location: Europa
Re: Rename The Motion Picture

Christopher wrote: View Post
I think the pacing of TMP is fine, whereas 2001 is a crashing bore. Although that's probably because the slow parts of TMP have great music to listen to, while a lot of 2001 is just tedious silence. I've never liked the way Kubrick dealt with music.
While I think the pacing of TMP leaves much to be desired I can agree with you on 2001. This is one of the most over-rated movie in existence.
beamMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2012, 01:39 AM   #94
Captaindemotion
Vice Admiral
 
Captaindemotion's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland
Re: Rename The Motion Picture

^I've always said that 2001 is a sci-fi movie for people who hate sci-fi.
__________________
Hodor!!!!!!!
Captaindemotion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2012, 01:44 AM   #95
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Rename The Motion Picture

I think 2001 is more a movie for people who want an immersive sensory and perceptual experience more than they want a narrative.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2012, 02:15 AM   #96
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Rename The Motion Picture

Christopher wrote: View Post
I think 2001 is more a movie for people who want an immersive sensory and perceptual experience more than they want a narrative.
The narrative is there, it's just presented nonverbally. I believe that much of the film concerns itself with relations among archetypes, rather than characters per se.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2012, 02:44 AM   #97
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Rename The Motion Picture

I liked the reviewers' suggestions

The Motionless Picture

The Motion Sickness

Then again,

Where Nomad Has Gone Before,
however, has to win it all.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2012, 03:01 AM   #98
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Rename The Motion Picture

Okay, maybe "narrative" was the wrong choice of words. Maybe "more than they want explanations." Kubrick went out of his way to avoid explaining anything that happened in the movie -- which is what makes him such an odd pairing with Arthur C. Clarke, who explained everything in the novel version. (I remember people complaining about the film 2010 explaining why HAL went crazy, calling it an unnecessary retcon on the movie's part -- but that explanation was already there in the novel of 2001, written simultaneously with the original film. And of course in the novel 2010 that was then made into the movie.)
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2012, 03:34 AM   #99
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Rename The Motion Picture

Christopher wrote: View Post
Okay, maybe "narrative" was the wrong choice of words. Maybe "more than they want explanations." Kubrick went out of his way to avoid explaining anything that happened in the movie -- which is what makes him such an odd pairing with Arthur C. Clarke, who explained everything in the novel version. (I remember people complaining about the film 2010 explaining why HAL went crazy, calling it an unnecessary retcon on the movie's part -- but that explanation was already there in the novel of 2001, written simultaneously with the original film. And of course in the novel 2010 that was then made into the movie.)
The shattered wine glass was all we needed to know about why HAL broke down. He broke because he was made by human hands, because humans have accidents. While I didn't mind the explanation given in 2010 (I'm not going to look it up in the text, but I seriously doubt it was called a Hofstadter-Möbius loop or a "Hofstadter" anything in the book, since Gödel, Escher, Bach was published in 1979), in and of itself it was ultimately yackety technobabble of no consequence, except possibly to help establish that HAL was "cured". Furthermore, like most technobabble, it raised more questions than it answered, and on close inspection wasn't really convincing.

I think it's unfair to criticize 2010 too much for any of those reasons, though (and also it'd be unfair because of the reasons you give), because ultimately 2010 was a different kind of film than 2001, for a different audience. I enjoyed 2010 much less, but I was still entertained by it. And they got enough of the band back together.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2012, 03:52 AM   #100
MauriceNavidad
Vice Admiral
 
MauriceNavidad's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
View MauriceNavidad's Twitter Profile
Re: Rename The Motion Picture

2001 is brilliant. And, fond of it as I am, TMP is badly paced with a weak script.

I don't think it's fair to blame the distributors. Paramount block booked the film for that date and what were the theaters supposed to do if Paramount delayed it?

The TMP producers and Wise are both to blame for not getting the film done to their satisfaction by the contracted date. As a producer myself, I know that when you see a looming deadline and potential problems meeting it, you reassess. There's no reason Wise couldn't have tightened up the edit of the live action stuff while waiting for the effects shots to come in. And re the effects, the responsible thing to have done would have been to trim down the number of shots and concentrate on a few really memorable images as opposed to a whole lot of shots that aren't necessary even if you want them. For instance, we don't need four minutes of flying over V'ger, we just need a handful of OMG THAT THING IS MONSTROUS shots to sell the hopelessness of the Enterprise's mission.
__________________
* * *
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.”
― Winston S. Churchill
MauriceNavidad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2012, 04:38 AM   #101
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Rename The Motion Picture

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
The shattered wine glass was all we needed to know about why HAL broke down. He broke because he was made by human hands, because humans have accidents. While I didn't mind the explanation given in 2010 (I'm not going to look it up in the text, but I seriously doubt it was called a Hofstadter-Möbius loop or a "Hofstadter" anything in the book, since Gödel, Escher, Bach was published in 1979), in and of itself it was ultimately yackety technobabble of no consequence, except possibly to help establish that HAL was "cured". Furthermore, like most technobabble, it raised more questions than it answered, and on close inspection wasn't really convincing.
Oh, good grief, you couldn't be more wrong. The explanation had nothing to do with technobabble and everything to do with who HAL was as a character and the unfair and impossible situation he was placed in by his uncaring superiors. He was made to relay accurate information -- in other words, to be truthful. Yet the bureaucrats who sent him on the Jupiter mission programmed him to keep secrets from his crew -- to lie to them. They didn't realize how that would traumatize him, because lying and coverups came easily to them. To HAL, it meant being forced to go against his most fundamental instincts. And the severe cognitive dissonance that caused him, his inability to cope with the situation, led to a psychotic break.

So while the movie gives the impression that "He's just evil because he's inhuman," the book -- and the movie sequel -- reveals exactly the opposite, that it was the decisions of humans that caused HAL's breakdown. Essentially, humanity created a being without original sin and then forced him to become a sinner like themselves, and it broke him. That's much deeper than technobabble.



Maurice wrote: View Post
I don't think it's fair to blame the distributors.
And I don't think it's constructive to define every problem in terms of who to blame. A fixation on blame is not a healthy way to cope with problems. It's more important to understand how they came about and how they could be/could have been fixed or avoided, rather than wasting effort on some petty scapegoat hunt. Responsibility is a worthwhile concept; blame is just vindictive.


Paramount block booked the film for that date and what were the theaters supposed to do if Paramount delayed it?
But they didn't have to lock down the production date so far in advance. They could've waited to settle on a date until they had a realistic assessment of how long it would take to make the film, but instead they locked it down prematurely, which was hardly fair to the filmmakers once it turned out that the schedule they'd been trapped into was too tight.

Besides, films change release date all the time. Remember, the most recent Trek film was originally going to come out in the winter of 2008, but was then postponed to summer 2009 because the writers' strike left that season a bit empty and they wanted something strong to fill the gap.


There's no reason Wise couldn't have tightened up the edit of the live action stuff while waiting for the effects shots to come in.
You're forgetting, they had the FX shots in, more than they needed, which was the problem. They put all the FX shots they had into the rough cut, and the intention was then to go through that cut and refine and trim it, see what the best pacing and the best ratio of different scenes and shots would be. They started with more material than they needed so they'd have the option to trim it down in a variety of ways -- so they'd have coverage, as they say. I do the same thing when I write, as do lots of other writers -- start out with more than I need and then decide what's expendable. That's how editing works.

If you're going to second-guess the editorial judgment of the man who edited Citizen Kane, at the very least you should get your facts straight first.


And re the effects, the responsible thing to have done would have been to trim down the number of shots and concentrate on a few really memorable images as opposed to a whole lot of shots that aren't necessary even if you want them. For instance, we don't need four minutes of flying over V'ger, we just need a handful of OMG THAT THING IS MONSTROUS shots to sell the hopelessness of the Enterprise's mission.
In your opinion based on a modern way of thinking about cinema, one conditioned by our modern generation when everything is so much faster-paced and people are so much more impatient. Personally I'm disappointed that so many modern films buy into that same rush-rush-rush mentality and devote so little time to moments of grandeur that deserve a more stately, contemplative presentation. I think those four minutes of flying over V'Ger are some of the most beautiful, awe-inspiring images in cinema history, and the best evocation of true alienness that Star Trek has ever managed to produce. They don't just give us a glimpse and a superficial impression; they let us really examine V'Ger and take the time to absorb it, as did the Enterprise flyby before. I, for one, appreciate that. They're also beautiful works of art by Trumbull, Dykstra, and their teams, and I appreciate the chance to really examine that artistry and soak in its details rather than just having it race by.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2012, 04:55 AM   #102
MauriceNavidad
Vice Admiral
 
MauriceNavidad's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
View MauriceNavidad's Twitter Profile
Re: Rename The Motion Picture

You're mischaracterizing much of what I said.

It was common practice to block book films into theaters. TMP had about a year after principle photography to be completed, and that's normally enough time. The politics around the firing of ASTRA (Able) and Trumbull's taking over made this deadline tighter. But this kind of thing happens all the time, and a good producer deals with it.

And I'm sorry, but TMP's effects mess contributed to the editorial problems. Had they trimmed back the number of shots when they realized they had a problem they could have had a more normal final edit process. I'm not saying they had too few effects shots, but they had too many and waiting for those to be delivered injured the film's post production process.

I said nothing about a rush-rush mentality, merely that it was bad producing to not limit the risks by trimming unnecessary shots (as Trumbull did when he convinced Wise to scrap the existing spacewalk in favor of something achievable). I'd appreciate it if you'd not put words in my mouth, and to read what I write instead of fabricating argument I've not made.
__________________
* * *
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.”
― Winston S. Churchill
MauriceNavidad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2012, 05:47 AM   #103
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Rename The Motion Picture

Christopher wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
The shattered wine glass was all we needed to know about why HAL broke down. He broke because he was made by human hands, because humans have accidents. While I didn't mind the explanation given in 2010 (I'm not going to look it up in the text, but I seriously doubt it was called a Hofstadter-Möbius loop or a "Hofstadter" anything in the book, since Gödel, Escher, Bach was published in 1979), in and of itself it was ultimately yackety technobabble of no consequence, except possibly to help establish that HAL was "cured". Furthermore, like most technobabble, it raised more questions than it answered, and on close inspection wasn't really convincing.
Oh, good grief, you couldn't be more wrong. The explanation had nothing to do with technobabble and everything to do with who HAL was as a character and the unfair and impossible situation he was placed in by his uncaring superiors. He was made to relay accurate information -- in other words, to be truthful. Yet the bwho sent him on the Jupiter mission programmed him to keep secrets from his crew -- to lie to them. They didn't realize how that would traumatize him, because lying and coverups came easily to them. To HAL, it meant being forced to go against his most fundamental instincts. And the severe cognitive dissonance that caused him, his inability to cope with the situation, led to a psychotic break.

So while the movie gives the impression that "He's just evil because he's inhuman," the book -- and the movie sequel -- reveals exactly the opposite, that it was the decisions of humans that caused HAL's breakdown. Essentially, humanity created a being without original sin and then forced him to become a sinner like themselves, and it broke him. That's much deeper than technobabble.
OK, well, I think you're wrong. So, how about that?

2001, the film, most certainly does not give the impression that HAL is evil because he's inhuman. I don't know where you get that from. If anything, the problems come because HAL is too human.

If you're going to bring Abrahamic religion into it: HAL is made in Man's image. The problem is that God didn't make HAL; Man did. In that sense, Man is trying to act like God, except that Man is not infallible. Furthermore, Man's is a flawed image in which to create something in the first place.

Humans are responsible for HAL's failures. You said that. I said that. We agree. Even HAL said that in the first film. So, I don't even know what the hoopla is all about, anyway.

However, the idea that evil bureaucrats did an end run around the noble scientists is not something that I would call deep. Maybe in 1968 that was cutting edge, but by 1984 it was a cliché. By pointing in another direction, it actually undercuts the idea presented in the first film, that mankind must take a fundamentally new step to further his cosmic evolution, not one to shed himself of the evil bureaucrats mucking up the works, but rather one to overcome his innate flaws arising out of his own mortality.

The idea that HAL is some naïve truth-teller, and that we should show him sympathy as if he were a human character, while interesting, and alluring, is unfortunately fundamentally implausible, because it paradoxically requires HAL to have an irrational core, in order to be susceptible to psychosis. The explanation itself is therefore self-contradictory, as it requires that HAL be intrinsically endowed with irrational traits, besides just the rational trait of being a truth-teller, and be so endowed before he's mucked up by the bureaucrats. This is why I said, in my post, that the explanation as given does not stand up to close inspection. To be plausible, at some level you have to accept that the scientists failed in their job, too. Their failure may not have been ethical, but rather intellectual, but it was still failure nevertheless. They certified that HAL was, in all practical senses, foolproof, but he was not. They did not anticipate all the kinds of bugs that HAL could have. They made one of the classic blunders in computer science, in not anticipating that the user would not follow the instructions given in the manual. It's just politics at that point who gets blamed, and 2010 was certainly heavy-handed and shallow in its politics.

Dragging good and evil into it is barking up the wrong tree, I think, because most everything that happens in 2001 is a double-edged sword. So-called good and evil are hand-in-hand throughout the whole film. Unless of course that is the point of bringing up good and evil in the first place, to observe that they go hand-in-hand throughout mankind's cosmic evolution.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2012, 06:07 AM   #104
Jimi_James
Lieutenant Commander
 
Jimi_James's Avatar
 
Location: Gettin' Lucky in Kentucky
View Jimi_James's Twitter Profile
Re: Rename The Motion Picture

I think TMP is the one Trek film that could and should stand with the lone Star Trek title. It doesn't need anything else.
__________________
“I was here,” says Man. “Prove it,” says the Universe.” Method of Life, a post apocalyptic sci-fi ebook available on Amazon.

My YouTube Gaming Channel
Jimi_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22 2012, 12:43 PM   #105
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Rename The Motion Picture

Captaindemotion wrote: View Post
^I've always said that 2001 is a sci-fi movie for people who hate sci-fi.
Christopher wrote: View Post
I think 2001 is more a movie for people who want an immersive sensory and perceptual experience more than they want a narrative.
I always thought 2001 was a sci-fi movie for people who are having trouble sleeping.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.