Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by oddsigve, Sep 26, 2013.
Well, they can at least recolor the nacelles as they see fit.
I'm going to color Kirk's tunic green.
^ I don't think he expected the Tru-Trek Inquisition.
If we are to ignore STiD's flaws on grounds that old Trek had many of the same flaws are we also expected to ignore what STiD gets right given that much of old Trek got it right too?
Are we allowed to have any opinion of the movie at all?
Any opinion at all?! Of course not - don't be silly. You may have your own opinions, but I don't want to see you trying to make off with anybody else's.
Cardinal Biggles, break out the comfy captain's chair!
Cardinal Fang - Bring us the Pointy Spock Ears...
I keep wondering about this argument. What makes a film not a mediocre single episode spread over two hours?
It wasn't an argument. It was hardly substantial enough even to be called an opinion - just offering an impression, really, but wonder away.
Film and television are written differently, filmed differently, lighted differently, staged differently, acted differently, scored differently, and a long list of other stuff.
Generations didn't do all those things like a film normally would, but did them like a TV show with a lot more cash on hand--the dialog beats, the score, and the lighting specifically.
For example, people praise the Ten Forward lighting. However, the DP really didn't approach it like one would expect in film but the same way the did on the show--he just threw more money at it.
Sometimes, a show comes along where the acting is "movie quality". Then it tends to get, like, all kinds of acclaim and stuff.
No one expects the Tru-Trek Inquisition.
John A. Alonzo certainly did NOT light Generations the same way they did the TV show, as the Ten Forward scene illustrates. I'm sure there were some holdovers from the set lighting for TV since all the catwalks and rigging were already in place, but the movie looks nothing like the TV show in terms of lighting design.
But what makes a film just a mediocre two-part episode, and what elevates it to something higher?
True, it's a lot darker for some reason. Like at an office when half the fluorescent lights are off. It looks decent enough on film, but can be distracting since we've seen the same set fully lit for nearly a decade at that point.
A hypocrite should always be exposed.
It's not entirely clear at whom that might have been directed, but it's closer to taking a swipe at other posters than I really like to see here. Don't do that, please.
For Star Trek films, I'd say it comes down to the story quality. In terms of the productions, First Contact and Insurrection are nearly identical in every aspect (so Clegg's aforementioned "film stuff" is pretty much the same) - yet it's the latter gets tagged with the dreaded "it felt like a two-part TV episode".
Separate names with a comma.