Has star trek changed

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by starbuck, Mar 27, 2013.

  1. yousirname

    yousirname Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    Because it cost more. Even if you knock $70 million off the $270 million budget estimate, it still cost $50 million more. And I think it's generous to do that. How much can you spend not making a film? $120 million?

    I kind of feel like if it was really the case that SR was significantly cheaper than reported, the studio would have greenlit a sequel. Hollywood Accounting only goes so far, they're not going to leave money on the table for the sake of it.

    The list that was linked to is interesting, but it annoys me that they mention inflation in the Hulk vs Incredible Hulk listing and ignore it in the Die Another Day vs Casino Royale one. There's about the same gap in time between the two films.
     
  2. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Superman Returns was a financial success for Warners - they made money on it. That doesn't mean they weren't disappointed with its performance; to spend an enormous amount of money to make a good deal less than you expected isn't a formula that inspires a lot of confidence in sequels.
     
  3. thumbtack

    thumbtack Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Ankh-Morpork
    True, and with today's 400th confirmation that Harrison is Khan it will soon be impossible to pretend that this new universe will someday be erased or squeezed back into the old one.

    Prequels they are not.
     
  4. cbspock

    cbspock Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2001
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX

    I agree, the movies are more like episodes of The Doomsday Machine, Space Seed, Immunity Syndrome, The Ultimate Computer. They all lean toward the big action adventure element of the original series.


    -Chris
     
  5. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Who's pretending that? :confused:
     
  6. thumbtack

    thumbtack Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Ankh-Morpork


    I think he's still calling himself "the true fans".
     
  7. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Ah. He gets around - must be CG.
     
  8. Therin of Andor

    Therin of Andor Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Location:
    New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
    Count me in as another fan of "Superman Returns". Loved the cast, great effects, the opening credits, Noel Neill and Jack Larson cameos, and so many familiar (Sydney, Australia) locations!
     
  9. marksound

    marksound Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Location:
    Planet Carcazed
    SR was OK. Not great, but not terrible. Casting Routh as CK/Supes was a good move because of his physical resemblance to Reeve, but his acting chops are ... limited.

    Chuck even played on the resemblance in one episode that mirrors a scene from a Reeve movie.

    The thing that killed the Routh portrayal for me is the eyes. He has dark, black, dead looking eyes. There's no smile in there.
     
  10. The Wormhole

    The Wormhole Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Regardless my opinion on Superman Returns, I've never been one to criticize Routh, simply because he didn't really have anything to do. Aside from a few strut and pose in the costume he hardly has any memorable material in the movie, which is rather pathetic given he is the titular main character. Hell, I think Ebert even mentioned in his review that despite being the lead, Superman probably had the least amount of dialogue.

    Routh may be a good actor, or he could be a horrible one. But I'm not going to base my opinion of him on Superman Returns.
     
  11. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Superman Returns is what you get when you follow that "it must be an origin story" idiocy. Oh yeah, it was not an origin story, it was a "returns story". Same difference. All the movie did was trying to set up everything for a sequel, and everyone one of the involved always said "yeah, the sequel will be the shiznit, the sequel is going to be the balls to the walls Superman you always wanted to see".

    Just make the fucking balls to the walls Superman film to begin with, will ya, and stop wasting time with the other one.
     
  12. The Wormhole

    The Wormhole Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Personally, I though the problem with Superman Returns was that it was one of those "director's passion projects" movies. Bryan Singer is a huge Superman fan and always wanted to do a Superman fan, and what we end up with is two and a half hours of fanboy gushing. We had the same problem with Peter Jackson's King Kong. These are fine examples of why it's a bad ide having a fan calling the shots, eve if said fan is a professional filmmaker.

    Although, while Abrams might in principle be the best choice direct Trek, I still don't think he specifically is the right choice, based on my own opinions of him as a filmmaker. And really, starting every interview off with "I'm more a Star Wars fan than a Star Trek" borders on being quite an asshole.
     
  13. Ovation

    Ovation Vice Admiral Admiral

    Although I think a fan who is a filmmaker can overcome such issues, this is a reasonably fair point.

    First of all, he doesn't do that at every interview. He's probably not done it very much at all. However, many of these "interviews" are from press junkets--a lot like post-game scrum "interviews" with players in pro sports--and multiple media outlets carry the same quotation. This makes it seem far more frequent than it actually is.

    Second, since your concern is about fanboys making films, doesn't the logic of your argument suggest Abrams is a strong choice to direct Trek (leading zeroes notwithstanding ;) )?
     
  14. Franklin

    Franklin Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Location:
    On the Grand Tour
    And by that same concern, that he's a pretty bad choice to direct "Star Wars".
     
  15. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    It's not even fanboy gushing. Fanboy gushing would result in Superman throwing a lot of punches.
     
  16. Set Harth

    Set Harth Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    Morrowind
    The new movie is an origin story.
     
  17. The Wormhole

    The Wormhole Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Even if it wasn't every interview, he did mention it more times than was necessary. How many times while doing the X-Men movies did Bryan Singer say "I've always been more of a Superman fan than X-Men"? Did he even say that at all while working on X-Men?

    That's why I said he was the best choice in principal, and yes, by the same coin he's a horrible choice for Star Wars. Hell, even he thought directing Star Wars was a bad idea, but apparentally Disney wants him that bad.

    That said, while he is the best choice for Trek in principal, being a non-fan, as a filmmaker and producer I find a lot of his work leave much to be desired.
     
  18. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    I love all the butthurt over Abrams comment about Star Wars. :guffaw:
     
  19. Danger Ace

    Danger Ace Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2013
    Location:
    California
    Has "Star Trek" changed since JJ's reboot? Yes, but it is too soon to say whether the change is for the better or worse overall (IMO). The last film, "Star Trek," was a good, head-on, thrill-a-minute action flick. This new film, "Star Trek Into Darkness," looks to be more of the same. I'm sure we, the audience, will be given a feast of CGI enhanced stimuli to fill our eyes and ears. And since that's all we ever really wanted, all's good ... right?

    No psuedo-philosophies or metaphysical ponderances. No examinations of things bigger than ourselves or what are responsibilities (moral or otherwise) may be. I mean:

    If I'm going to get a headache then I want it to be because Abram's trademark lens flares and quick cuts over-powered me and absolutely not because I had to think about anything beyond my soda-to-popcorn ratio (which is every bit as important as the Enterprise's mix of matter and anti-matter).

    In term's of Eugene Roddenberry's "vision?" Yes. As Legion-san and others have said, there was always a gulf between what GR claimed TOS to be and the reality of what it was.

    I am one of those who believe TOS was a product of great timing. It was an optimistic picture of the future in a tumultuous time that was embraced by a nervous generation hungry for reassurance (none of the Trek's that followed ever got to enjoy any similar confluence).

    The original "Star Trek" gave us action and adventure. It also gave us little things to wonder about. All the stories it told were through the prism of us striving to be better. It held a mirror up by which we could evaluate ourselves (thank you, Mr. Spock!)

    One of the many differences between The Original Series and The Next Generation revolved around that. Somewhere between the two eras starship captain's got evangelical. Where Kirk had been an explorer open to introspection - Picard was a crusader upon a high horse. Kirk may have given overly emotive speeches but Picard gave sermons on the mount.

    In general, TOS was hawkish and bi-lateral while TNG was dovish and unilateral. DS9 went back to being hawkish (<-- there's a joke in there). Voyager was more neutral as a result of it taking place outside the AQ. And I don't want to get into trouble pontificating on what "Enterprise" was (*joke removed for reasons of peace, love and understanding*).

    Anyway, my opinion and your mileage may very.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2013
  20. Danger Ace

    Danger Ace Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2013
    Location:
    California
    Firstly, not the "same difference."

    Secondly, the problem with "Superman Returns" was it was literally an imitation of the Chris Reeve era films. None of the actors hired were allowed to do their own thing. I mean God ... er ... Zod, it was painful to watch Kevin Spacey forced to imitate Gene Hackman! And Brandon Routh just didn't have the "it" factor of Mr. Reeve.

    The whole thing was just a mess and a clear example of a studio patheticly attempting to play it safe and really taking audience intelligence for granted. I really think WB felt that if all the actors pretended to be the people from 20 years before the audience would believe they were 'cuz we be jus' dat stoopid.

    Thirdly, in any event, I agree that our pals at the WB should have allowed the cast & crew to blaze their own path rather than try and photocopy someone elses from a couple of decades earlier.