Rename The Motion Picture

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by King Daniel Beyond, Sep 8, 2012.

  1. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Okay, since your reply is the only one at the moment, I'll respond to it, but then I'm gone.


    Yeah, a lot of this has been talking past each other about which version we were discussing. I've always come at the Space Odyssey universe from the books first, since I was a Clarke reader long before I saw either movie. And for decades now I've seen plenty of people mistaking the explanation in the film 2010 for something that the film made up, not realizing that it was basically the original explanation from the beginning. So I'm big on the idea that people should read the books in order to know what the original ideas really were. And since I prefer the Clarkean approach of clarity and detail -- as readers of my own fiction are surely aware -- I'm frankly not too sympathetic toward Kubrick's decision to leave everything all weird and mysterious.


    Okay, if you're just criticizing the way the movie handled it, that's fair (though I don't recall the movie's explanation being that different from what the 1982 novel 2010: Odyssey Two had to say; aside from the added Cold War stuff and the removal of a number of subplots, I recall the film being fairly close to the book). But I think of the explanation in terms of what Clarke wrote in the original novel, and in the second novel which was basically an elaboration on the same principle. And since that was all about HAL's character and situation, I really didn't understand your description of it as "technobabble." I guess we were talking about two different things -- you in terms of the movie's explanation in particular, me in terms of all three iterations of the explanation (both books and the second movie) as being basically a singular whole.


    Well, I didn't see it as absolving the human scientists so much as absolving HAL himself. I don't see HAL simply as a product of human technology, but as a person in his own right, and I feel sympathy toward his plight -- an innocent being created only to gather and present knowledge and to take care of his crew, but then forced to lie to them and unable to cope with the conflict between that imposed behavior and his fundamental nature. Which group of humans is or isn't to blame is beside the point to me; I'm approaching it more from HAL's own perspective. To me, the key takeaway is that HAL was more victim than villain, that he wasn't a stereotypical "evil computer" but, like most machines that go wrong, a victim of human error or human misuse.

    I guess it's because I was always an outsider growing up and thus tended to sympathize with nonhuman characters in fiction. I've always had an affinity for AI characters, and I prefer it when fiction portrays AIs as sympathetic characters who deserve understanding rather than evil monsters. I like HAL, and I want him to be innocent. And the explanation Clarke gave in the original book, the explanation Chandra gave in the sequel book and movie, absolves HAL. And that's important to me.
     
  2. Maurice

    Maurice Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Location:
    Walking distance from Starfleet HQ
    I want to apologize for being involved in this thread wandering so far off-topic. However, since Christopher has made several remarks that I think are incorrect and unfair, I am going to address those, BUT, for those not interested, I am going to Spoiler Code it so you don't need to read it if you're not so inclined.

    The sentence not-so-subtly paints anyone who disagrees as "unhealthy" and therefore easier to dismiss. It's this kind of tone that colors your posts throughout this thread and elsewhere.

    Tone, again. At root, sir, I submit that this is why we get into these arguments. You frequently take very authoritative stances on subjects but are bluntly dismissive of contrary arguments and facts, and you utilize language games to dismiss that which you disagree with. You utilize phrases with pejorative intonations to impugn the reliability of others. You frequently talk about how you use precise language, but then use words in an baldly incorrect fashion (i.e. "abusive" to describe something that doesn't come close to the broadest definition of same). You persist at this until enough people fight back, then you take your toys and go home. Sir, those are trademarks of a bully.

    In the specific example above I submit that it is you who stated as fact that which is incorrect. I'm no Walter Murch, but I have some humble experience editing films and videos and have studied the subject a great deal. I personally know people who worked on the film in question and am friends with people who work in the visual effects industry. I do not post on these matters from a position of uninformed opinion. Disagree with me as you like, but do not dismiss me as if I am some ignorant rube.


    This implies that we can't express opinions when we believe other board members are being unreasonable. If third parties ever see me being rude or dismissive or factually incorrect, I would prefer that that say so. I'm interested in being factually correct than in having my opinions proven right.


    The above statement was presuming and assuming something that wasn't at all indicated by what I wrote, nor was it fair or accurate. It is that which I initially objected too. I politely stated displeasure with such mischaracterization and in reply have been described as "unreasonable" and "oversensitive" and then it's implied that I am "taking it personally", and, more insultingly, my very gentlemanly replies are depicted as "abusive." If anyone here is being those things, it isn't me.



    And, now, back to the OT, how about:

    STAR TREK: The Movie That Sparks Endless Arguments
    ;)
     
  3. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    That's fair. I remember being blown away (if a trifle bewildered) when I first saw it in Cinerama back in '68 or so. And I really got into it when I caught it on the big screen again during my college years. But I've never seen the point of watching it on TV. It's not that kind of movie.

    2001 is indeed an experience, like attending a concert or something. If you're in the right frame of mind, you can get caught up in the awesome cosmic sweep of the thing, But, yeah, if you're expecting a gripping narrative with sympathetic characters to root for or whatever . . . well, that's like expecting clever lyrics in a piece of classical music.

    Meanwhile, while discussing those long SFX shots, it may be that that real influence was not 2001, but Close Encounters of the Third Kind, which had been a huge hit just a year before. That movie's entire climax is basically one long SFX light show, not unlike the V'Ger scenes, so that may have encouraged the filmmakers or the studio or whomever to include similar "Whoa! Look at the pretty SFX" shots into TMP . . . .
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2012
  4. Irishman

    Irishman Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    Um, Middy, it was I who brought up fault, not Christopher. I said that Wise and Trumbull should share the blame for the pacing of TMP. Wise alone should bear the blame for the pacing of the Director's Edition.
     
  5. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    Gene's office
    The climax of CE3K (original version), from when Roy is put in a red jumpsuit straight on through the end credits, is one my favorite pieces of film to watch, and listen to. There's really nothing important said in dialog there either. It's a moving nonverbal experience, set to glorious music.

    It's true it's a light show, but it's one in the hands of a master, and the climax of Roy's story on Earth is occurring within that light show. We see character interaction between Roy and Jillian, and Barry, and Claude and the Lead Alien, telling a story of hellos and goodbyes, of journeys completed and just beginning, so there's really a lot going on besides just the light show.
     
  6. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    Oh, I agree. I wasn't intending to diss CE3K, which I saw at least three times in the theater. I was just pointing out that the success of CE3K may have influenced the way the SFX were handled in TMP . . . .
     
  7. Ryan Thomas Riddle

    Ryan Thomas Riddle Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Location:
    The Bay Area
    Sorry about that. Should've read that a bit more carefully. My apologies to both you and Christopher on that point. Christopher continued the discussion on who was at "fault" or blame to which Maurice responded to, which is what I was responding to. Yet I screwed the pooch on who first brought up fault.

    I appreciate you correcting me. Hate to misattribute statements to the wrong folks. :)
     
  8. CorporalCaptain

    CorporalCaptain Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Location:
    Gene's office
    No, no, I didn't take you to be dissing CE3K in the slightest. Just the opposite actually. I was just throwing in my two cents on CE3K. :)

    I think you might be right about its influence.

    I was about to point out also that Trumbull was involved in all three films: 2001, CE3K, and ST:TMP, but the timeline of his involvement in TMP was different than the other two. I don't really know to what degree Trumbull had an influence on which shots were included in TMP. Also, CE3K could have easily influenced TMP independently of Trumbull's involvement.
     
  9. Xhiandra

    Xhiandra Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2012
    Star Shrek. And recolor Kirk's skin green. No other changes.
     
  10. Captaindemotion

    Captaindemotion Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Location:
    Ireland
    ^Well, maybe make Spock a donkey. He already has the ears...
     
  11. CaptainStoner

    CaptainStoner Knuckle-dragging TNZ Denizen Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Location:
    Hill dweller
    Star Trek: Spacedock

    Star Trek: To Baldly Go

    Star Trek: Ppphhhoooooton Tooorpeeeeeedoes
     
  12. Ryan Thomas Riddle

    Ryan Thomas Riddle Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Location:
    The Bay Area
    STAR TREK: MORE EFFECTS SHOTS THAN EVER BEFORE!
     
  13. CaptainStoner

    CaptainStoner Knuckle-dragging TNZ Denizen Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Location:
    Hill dweller
    Star Trek: That 70's Film

    Star Trek: The Money Puller

    Star Trek: Bald Chicks Aren't Easy