That is definitely a bonus in the production's favor. The appliances used in the pilot were serviceable, but Mr. Westmore will definitely add an extra level of spit-n-polish to future work, I'm sure. Well done! 
Star Trek: Renegades
- Thread starter Danlav05
- Start date
^^^ Agreed. Her eyebrows in particular were at a very distractingly acute and unrealistic angle.
that is unfair, sure make up is only so important compared to story, but in a sci-fi show like Star Trek, its worth having good make up.
Thing is, Renegades had decent makeup. You want to excite me, tell me you have quality professionals from the writing and directing disciplines working with you.
Make-up, no matter how outstanding, isn't going to make up for the short falls in those areas. Plus, bringing someone like Westmore in, can't be cheap.
All the shiny/pretty in the world cannot make up for what lies beneath.
Some major motion pictures flopped because they relied too much on the visual factor (VFX, make up, set design, hot chicks, etc.), and not enough on the story factor. Eye candy only goes so far.
Some major motion pictures flopped because they relied too much on the visual factor (VFX, make up, set design, hot chicks, etc.), and not enough on the story factor. Eye candy only goes so far.
There's the question of the day!
I guess, on that matter, it's a question of who would be more well known among your viewers?
Sometimes the writer might be more well known than any of the actors, and vice versa. Accentuate your potential strengths first. Just don't over hype it.... imho, a common error even in professional productions.
Not necessarily. But there seems to be some rather large issues that plagued Renegades, I'd prefer for them to sort those out first before fixing something that wasn't really an issue to begin with.
Speaking of issues that plagued Renegades, here's a review that tries collate them all together (even if it is a bit sloppy in its writing.)
http://thegridscififrontier.com/star-trek-renegades-review
http://thegridscififrontier.com/star-trek-renegades-review
Last edited:
Yeah, it sounds to me like he just simply hated Avatar. Uwe Boll movies are almost universally panned. Don't know if he's ever actually watched a Boll movie. (I know I never have...and I'm honestly not really inclined to either.) His comparison was likely based on a thought that might read something like this:
"Uwe Boll movies are freaking horrible, likely the worst films in existence, and it's probably safe to say that the majority of movie goers agree on this point. James Cameron used to be considered a master film maker, and yet I found Avatar's flaws enough to actually be compared to the quality (or lack thereof) of an Uwe Boll film. That's how much I hate Avatar. The writing was so sloppy that it almost comes across as a fan film written by a twelve year old, shot and acted by professionals, and served up on a rusty platter."
That's the impression I'm given on the guy's thoughts.
Well, Transformers had some kick-ass effects and a shit story, and boy did that fail!
Not even close to being the same ship. Equinox was a Nova-class starship.
http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/USS_Equinox
Reading the Williamson review at more leisure now.
And how.
The comments on acting are over the top, to the point of being kind of misleading. This is a surprising miscue given the rich vein of bad acting there just waiting to be mined for reviewer snark -- it's certainly not that Renegades was replete with thespian magnificence or anything -- but Nemec and Intiraymi were better than he gives them credit for (the latter's character was clumsily written but the actor's chops have not deserted him), and Gary Graham and the Syphon guys, some of the more entertaining of the extended cast, don't get a mention. A lot of the rest are noticeably amateur (Wilkinson), or diminished (Furlong), but that's not the same thing as being bad to the extent of just flatly reading lines.
The production design and special effects section talks mostly about ship designs and the bad motion tracking on Icheb's arm. The latter of which made me wonder if this is a pseudonym for the "Blunty" guy on YouTube (he fixates on the arm in almost exactly the same way; Blunty went on about this enough that I actually looked for it when watching the movie -- but it seemed far from being as big a deal as he made it sound). You would probably not actually know that the film contained some legitimately impressive space battle sequences by reading his review.
The editing section... well, he's right that the editing was patchy, but close-ups were the only example he could think of? Confusing choice.
Characterization... a wall of text peppered with more gratuitous superlatives. I was able to interest myself enough to read his views on Lt. Masaru and Lexxa Singh, where again he confronts rich, glistening veins of silliness waiting to be mined but seems to somehow strike entirely the wrong part of the rock face.
The storyline section... well yes, he's right as far as he goes, it's a mess. But he could have found something more interesting to say about why.
By the time we're getting to his takes on "The Budget Argument" et cetera I find I'm not really interested. A review of Renegades that's even more flawed than the film it's reviewing is kind of a fascinating artifact in a way, I guess, but yeah. 2/10, would not seek snark from this source again.
Tosk said:
And how.The comments on acting are over the top, to the point of being kind of misleading. This is a surprising miscue given the rich vein of bad acting there just waiting to be mined for reviewer snark -- it's certainly not that Renegades was replete with thespian magnificence or anything -- but Nemec and Intiraymi were better than he gives them credit for (the latter's character was clumsily written but the actor's chops have not deserted him), and Gary Graham and the Syphon guys, some of the more entertaining of the extended cast, don't get a mention. A lot of the rest are noticeably amateur (Wilkinson), or diminished (Furlong), but that's not the same thing as being bad to the extent of just flatly reading lines.
The production design and special effects section talks mostly about ship designs and the bad motion tracking on Icheb's arm. The latter of which made me wonder if this is a pseudonym for the "Blunty" guy on YouTube (he fixates on the arm in almost exactly the same way; Blunty went on about this enough that I actually looked for it when watching the movie -- but it seemed far from being as big a deal as he made it sound). You would probably not actually know that the film contained some legitimately impressive space battle sequences by reading his review.
The editing section... well, he's right that the editing was patchy, but close-ups were the only example he could think of? Confusing choice.
Characterization... a wall of text peppered with more gratuitous superlatives. I was able to interest myself enough to read his views on Lt. Masaru and Lexxa Singh, where again he confronts rich, glistening veins of silliness waiting to be mined but seems to somehow strike entirely the wrong part of the rock face.
The storyline section... well yes, he's right as far as he goes, it's a mess. But he could have found something more interesting to say about why.
By the time we're getting to his takes on "The Budget Argument" et cetera I find I'm not really interested. A review of Renegades that's even more flawed than the film it's reviewing is kind of a fascinating artifact in a way, I guess, but yeah. 2/10, would not seek snark from this source again.
Similar threads
- Poll
