Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!! - Page 13

bullethead · November 28 2012, 08:55 PM

Kruezerman wrote:

The Wormhole wrote:

Take a look at all the box office number ones from the last decade. They have usually been:

-Big ass action movies.
-Family-aimed cartoons.

That's where studios see the money, and in a world where studios are more considered with making a quick dollar than taking risks on anything new, that's what's going to continue to get the go ahead. Artsy movies will be sidelined as a niche thing unless you're James Cameron and can persuade billions to go to a theatre to look at a blank blue screen for three hours through name recognition alone.

That's a very cynical view. But what I'm saying is that the audience is there for "artsy" movies, especially sci-fi which are very visual. Besides, how difficult was TMP to follow? Wasn't very complicated.

The problem with TMP wasn't that it was hard to follow, the problem was that it was boring. It just didn't have enough substance to make the film compelling viewing to most people.

Hartzilla2007 · November 28 2012, 08:57 PM

SeerSGB wrote:

~whistles nonchalantly ~ This is why I tell people that TMP is the most TOS of the Star Trek movies.

Not it wasn't TOS was way more of an action adventure sci-fi series.

Admiral Buzzkill · November 28 2012, 09:39 PM

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

SeerSGB wrote:

~whistles nonchalantly ~ This is why I tell people that TMP is the most TOS of the Star Trek movies.

Not it wasn't TOS was way more of an action adventure sci-fi series.

Absolutely Right(TM).

Very few TOS episodes were as lifeless as TMP, and none were as plodding.

Matt S · November 28 2012, 09:55 PM

Stating to wonder if Charlie X is the badguy

Drago-Kazov · November 28 2012, 10:05 PM

Come on...
No way.

King Daniel · November 28 2012, 10:24 PM

teacake wrote:

DETONATION.

Fleets. Worlds. Friendships. Love.

All will be detonated!

*see avatar*

throwback · November 28 2012, 10:32 PM

Another thing about modern movies that, I believe, went against the kind of story telling that I saw in earlier films and in the episodes was the structure of the films. In the past decade, mainstream films have evolved to becoming more like video games. Play Call of Duty: Black Ops II or Halo 4, and you might understand what I am saying.

Games are divided into levels. Exposition for these levels was kept at a minimum. Character motivation and background are ancillary to the storytelling which emphasized large scale threats and action set-pieces which move the plot forward. There weren't many games produced nowadays that will delve into philosophical or metaphysical themes for these require time to develop throughout the game. The last game I played that delved into a philosophy - Ayn Rand's Objectivism - was Bioshock, a game from 2007.

So, for next year, there will be a video game for the New Star Trek which will connect the first film with the second. Then, there will be a film which will probably run like a live-action video game.

Personally, I like some of the films from the past, but then again, I grew up in another time when there wasn't the type of synergy that wasn't prevalent today where video games act as promotions for the films. I interpret what Hollywood was doing with this film was that the people involved believe that fans who will buy a video game will expect to see a film that was like a video game.

There won't be another Star Trek IV or Insurrection, which delved into philosophical questions or took the time to develop the stories in between action set-pieces.

I think what was happening in the past decade, and will accelerate in the future, was that films were competing against video games for the attention of the coveted teen and young adult demographic. This happened before, in the 1950's, when films were competing against TV, and had to adapt.

Sindatur · November 28 2012, 10:54 PM

Kruezerman wrote:

The Wormhole wrote:

Take a look at all the box office number ones from the last decade. They have usually been:

-Big ass action movies.
-Family-aimed cartoons.

That's where studios see the money, and in a world where studios are more considered with making a quick dollar than taking risks on anything new, that's what's going to continue to get the go ahead. Artsy movies will be sidelined as a niche thing unless you're James Cameron and can persuade billions to go to a theatre to look at a blank blue screen for three hours through name recognition alone.

That's a very cynical view. But what I'm saying is that the audience is there for "artsy" movies, especially sci-fi which are very visual. Besides, how difficult was TMP to follow? Wasn't very complicated.

Sure, there's an audience for "artsy SciFi", however, it's small, so, the budget would have to also be.

Hythlodeus · November 28 2012, 11:29 PM

Kruezerman wrote:

The Wormhole wrote:

Take a look at all the box office number ones from the last decade. They have usually been:

-Big ass action movies.
-Family-aimed cartoons.

That's where studios see the money, and in a world where studios are more considered with making a quick dollar than taking risks on anything new, that's what's going to continue to get the go ahead. Artsy movies will be sidelined as a niche thing unless you're James Cameron and can persuade billions to go to a theatre to look at a blank blue screen for three hours through name recognition alone.

That's a very cynical view. But what I'm saying is that the audience is there for "artsy" movies, especially sci-fi which are very visual. Besides, how difficult was TMP to follow? Wasn't very complicated.

If JJ quits after XII, maybe Duncan Jones can take over. Enjoyable but high concept sci fi is what he does best.
But despite a cult following and a definite critical success, Zowie Bowies movies weren't exactly box office hits.
A shame, but a sad truth.

RAMA · November 29 2012, 12:17 AM

Lazarus, now there's an interesting idea...would look great on the big screen and he could destroy universes. Still problems though, he wasn't in Starfleet...

RAMA

RAMA · November 29 2012, 12:19 AM

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

SeerSGB wrote:

~whistles nonchalantly ~ This is why I tell people that TMP is the most TOS of the Star Trek movies.

Not it wasn't TOS was way more of an action adventure sci-fi series.

STTMP treated AI seriously, TOS did not, another huge difference. Fundamental view change.

RAMA

The Wormhole · November 29 2012, 01:13 AM

Kruezerman wrote:

The Wormhole wrote:

Take a look at all the box office number ones from the last decade. They have usually been:

-Big ass action movies.
-Family-aimed cartoons.

That's where studios see the money, and in a world where studios are more considered with making a quick dollar than taking risks on anything new, that's what's going to continue to get the go ahead. Artsy movies will be sidelined as a niche thing unless you're James Cameron and can persuade billions to go to a theatre to look at a blank blue screen for three hours through name recognition alone.

That's a very cynical view. But what I'm saying is that the audience is there for "artsy" movies, especially sci-fi which are very visual. Besides, how difficult was TMP to follow? Wasn't very complicated.

Sure, there's an audience, but it's not as big as the audience for Transformers, which despite having a reputation for being total crap still manages to rule the box office.

Honestly, when it comes to TMP it's too long and boring. I'm not saying I need constant action to stay entertained, but how long can one really be entertained by constant reaction shots to funky colours and "BWONG" noises?

teacake · November 29 2012, 01:16 AM

I've only managed to watch TMP twice. Paint drying.

Ovation · November 29 2012, 02:09 AM

Stinky would have torn you a new one, back in the day, for such blasphemy.

I like TMP well enough--but when it comes to Trek and Bond, nostalgia for how they were introduced to me in childhood ("in the before time"--AKA the early 70s) trumps my more critical approach to viewing TV and movies, so my fondness for TMP should not be read as a blanket endorsement of the film as classic cinema.

CoveTom · November 29 2012, 02:40 AM

I'm not saying TMP is a perfect film. I agree its pacing is too slow. It needs a heck of a lot better editing than even the Director's Edition provided, for a start. But TMP was a film that at least tried to be about "high concept" science fiction ideas. Even if it failed, or only partially succeeded, it did try. And many of the other Trek films tried, to one degree or another, even while improving the pacing and adding more action/adventure elements.

My point, though, is that a major studio wouldn't make such a film today. Those that do get made are the rare exception, not the rule. Heck, TWOK, which is considered the classic of the Trek films, would be considered too slow by today's standards. Sure, there are a couple of great battles, but those are separated by lots of character development and some very talky scenes.

Even pure action movies have changed. I think back to James Cameron's Aliens. An action movie through and through, but what happens for the first 60 minutes action-wise? Absolutely nothing. The film takes the time to gradually build the tension, ratcheting it up bit by bit by bit. Which makes it all the more effective when the action takes off and the last half of the film is nonstop. But today, we need a big 'splosion within the first five minutes, or the film is plodding.

November 28 2012, 09:55 PM	#184
Matt S Lieutenant	Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!! Stating to wonder if Charlie X is the badguy __________________ Balok knows all!!!!!

November 28 2012, 10:05 PM	#185
Drago-Kazov Fleet Captain	Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!! Come on... No way.

November 28 2012, 10:32 PM	#187
throwback Captain	Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!! Another thing about modern movies that, I believe, went against the kind of story telling that I saw in earlier films and in the episodes was the structure of the films. In the past decade, mainstream films have evolved to becoming more like video games. Play Call of Duty: Black Ops II or Halo 4, and you might understand what I am saying. Games are divided into levels. Exposition for these levels was kept at a minimum. Character motivation and background are ancillary to the storytelling which emphasized large scale threats and action set-pieces which move the plot forward. There weren't many games produced nowadays that will delve into philosophical or metaphysical themes for these require time to develop throughout the game. The last game I played that delved into a philosophy - Ayn Rand's Objectivism - was Bioshock, a game from 2007. So, for next year, there will be a video game for the New Star Trek which will connect the first film with the second. Then, there will be a film which will probably run like a live-action video game. Personally, I like some of the films from the past, but then again, I grew up in another time when there wasn't the type of synergy that wasn't prevalent today where video games act as promotions for the films. I interpret what Hollywood was doing with this film was that the people involved believe that fans who will buy a video game will expect to see a film that was like a video game. There won't be another Star Trek IV or Insurrection, which delved into philosophical questions or took the time to develop the stories in between action set-pieces. I think what was happening in the past decade, and will accelerate in the future, was that films were competing against video games for the attention of the coveted teen and young adult demographic. This happened before, in the 1950's, when films were competing against TV, and had to adapt.

November 29 2012, 12:17 AM	#190
RAMA Vice Admiral Location: NJ, USA	Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!! Lazarus, now there's an interesting idea...would look great on the big screen and he could destroy universes. Still problems though, he wasn't in Starfleet... RAMA __________________ “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”—Stephen R. Covey

November 29 2012, 01:16 AM	#193
teacake Admiral Location: Militant Janeway True Path Devotees Compound. With Sehlats.	Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!! I've only managed to watch TMP twice. Paint drying. __________________ Rider: I can't believe you'd kill me for a field of empty holes. J'onn: It's all I have. ■ ■ ■ Janeway does Melbourne

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

November 29 2012, 02:09 AM	#194
Ovation Vice Admiral Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)	Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!! Stinky would have torn you a new one, back in the day, for such blasphemy. I like TMP well enough--but when it comes to Trek and Bond, nostalgia for how they were introduced to me in childhood ("in the before time"--AKA the early 70s) trumps my more critical approach to viewing TV and movies, so my fondness for TMP should not be read as a blanket endorsement of the film as classic cinema.

November 29 2012, 02:40 AM	#195
CoveTom Rear Admiral Location: CoveTom	Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Synopsis Revealed!! I'm not saying TMP is a perfect film. I agree its pacing is too slow. It needs a heck of a lot better editing than even the Director's Edition provided, for a start. But TMP was a film that at least tried to be about "high concept" science fiction ideas. Even if it failed, or only partially succeeded, it did try. And many of the other Trek films tried, to one degree or another, even while improving the pacing and adding more action/adventure elements. My point, though, is that a major studio wouldn't make such a film today. Those that do get made are the rare exception, not the rule. Heck, TWOK, which is considered the classic of the Trek films, would be considered too slow by today's standards. Sure, there are a couple of great battles, but those are separated by lots of character development and some very talky scenes. Even pure action movies have changed. I think back to James Cameron's Aliens. An action movie through and through, but what happens for the first 60 minutes action-wise? Absolutely nothing. The film takes the time to gradually build the tension, ratcheting it up bit by bit by bit. Which makes it all the more effective when the action takes off and the last half of the film is nonstop. But today, we need a big 'splosion within the first five minutes, or the film is plodding.