Let me be more explicit then. The budget wouldn't have changed the script an iota. And the script is what really stinks.
Which Next Generation Movie was the Best?
- Thread starter indycar
- Start date
Let me be more explicit then. The budget wouldn't have changed the script an iota. And the script is what really stinks.
That's exactly how I feel about First Contact. Why did the Borg come to the Alpha Quadrant before using the time travel device? Why not stay in the Delta Quadrant and go back to the Renaissance era before travelling to Earth?
Why did they choose to take the Enterprise? Why not just beam down to the planet and go undercover there against no serious defence where the Enterprise crew has little chance of finding you or doing much damage?
Why not just travel back to the beginning of time and form the universe in your own image? Why is Earth and the Enterprise so damn important!?
I agree that those are serious plot holes. Time travel is filled with paradoxes, no matter how carefully it is used. Probably because it's impossible, at least the way we conceive it.
Maybe it's possible to travel back in time but only by creating an alternate reality and leaving your own, in which case the initial reality is not affected at all no matter what you do in the past.
Really? That is what you understood?
That I'm arguing that big budget equals good director? Oh no, quite the opposite. In fact I am 100% in agreement with you.
All the money in the world couldn't make Michael Bay or J.J. Abrams better directors than Akira Kurosawa or Stanley Kubrick or Alfred Hitchcock.I find it hilarious that you've chosen Michael Bay as an example of a bad director because JJ Abrams' style of direction is often compared to Bay's!
"There are times when it feels as if the director has pulled a page out of the Michael Bay playbook, taking some of the action to exhaustive extremes." writes Betsy Sharkey in The Los Angeles Times Star Trek review.
"After increasingly noisy and bloated starship battles, “Into Darkness” reaches a climax with the smashing of a North American city followed by a long fistfight on a flying metal platform. It’s uninspired hackwork, and the frequent appearance of blue lens flares does not make this movie any more of a personal statement. Mr. Abrams will never be Michael Bay, who can make kinetic poetry out of huge pieces of machinery smashing together." So says A. O. Scott, International New York Times film critic.
But they are just film critics. I don't think they know what direction means.
Give me TNG's 4 "made-for-TV-movies" over JJ's 2 big budgeted Star Wrecks any day of the week!
If we're going to play that game I can EASILY cherry pick hundred other reviews that talk about how he's a great director. Or how, not only film critics, but fellow directors have raved about his work.Really? That is what you understood?
That I'm arguing that big budget equals good director? Oh no, quite the opposite. In fact I am 100% in agreement with you.
I find it hilarious that you've chosen Michael Bay as an example of a bad director because JJ Abrams' style of direction is often compared to Bay's!
"There are times when it feels as if the director has pulled a page out of the Michael Bay playbook, taking some of the action to exhaustive extremes." writes Betsy Sharkey in The Los Angeles Times Star Trek review.
"After increasingly noisy and bloated starship battles, “Into Darkness” reaches a climax with the smashing of a North American city followed by a long fistfight on a flying metal platform. It’s uninspired hackwork, and the frequent appearance of blue lens flares does not make this movie any more of a personal statement. Mr. Abrams will never be Michael Bay, who can make kinetic poetry out of huge pieces of machinery smashing together." So says A. O. Scott, International New York Times film critic.
But they are just film critics. I don't think they know what direction means.
Give me TNG's 4 "made-for-TV-movies" over JJ's 2 big budgeted Star Wrecks any day of the week!
You're looking for the wrong thing to complain about. Abrams' direction was never the problem with the reboots, it was the writing for the first two films that sank them a bit.
Comparing Bay to Abrams is wildly ignorant. One uses film and as many practical effects as possible, the other uses digital and as many computer effects as possible. One directs well-paced action that ties in with the story, the other does explosions for the sake of explosions. One knows how to direct his actors and get good performances out of them, the other has actors play characters like generic stone-faced meathead or generic airhead Barbie doll.
EDIT: Forgot this:
Last edited:
I think we're all missing the point here; somehow it went from talking about budget to the quality of direction.
I think the original point was that with a bigger budget, First Contact could've looked more theatrical what with bigger sets and more effects shots. Jonathan Frakes was fine, to me at least, he was directing as far as the small sets would allow.
I think the original point was that with a bigger budget, First Contact could've looked more theatrical what with bigger sets and more effects shots. Jonathan Frakes was fine, to me at least, he was directing as far as the small sets would allow.
Oh, thank you! At least there is someone who understands that there is a correlation between budget and direction. And at least Frakes with his limited resources used an engineering set and not a friggin brewery… in a 150 MILLION DOLLAR MOVIE!
Visually, Nemesis was already one of the best looking films there was. The story was just crap, plain and simple.
Your feelings aside, the same complaints can be made about most of the films. As far as that goes, it really just comes down to the question of which films you personally enjoyed enough to overlook those issues. First Contact is close to the top of that list for me, along with the Voyage Home and the Undiscovered Country.
The budget does limit the amount of time available to do a lot of different set-ups, and light and photograph them at the highest level. Budget is also a limitation on quality of equipment used, quality of sets and CGI.
I disagree. IMHO I find NEM's script not only very epic and ambitious but very engaging in a personal level. (John Logan who wrote the script also wrote the scripts for Martin Scorsese's The Aviator and Hugo, Sam Mendes' Skyfall and Spectre, Ridley Scott's Gladiator, Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd, The Last Samurai, Any Given Sunday, Penny Dreadful and many others.) Whatever plot threads remain they would for sure had been addressed in the sequel like TSFS with TWOK. (And they have been addressed effectively in the novels). So the story wasn't the problem. And if you think Nemesis was visually already one of the best looking films there was with a $60 million budget, imagine how much more spectacular it would have been with an $160 million budget! Or how successful it would have been if it had even half of nuTrek's marketing.
Exactly my point. But be careful! Shalashaska will reply that you don't know what direction means!
Meyer had a much much smaller budget than either and did better work than both. Yes, there's a correlation between budget and direction, no, the budget does not decide the quality of a film.
TWOK on a $11 million budget > FC on a $45 million budget.
Well you haven't provided anything of worth to this discussion. Just a load of stupid laughing smileysExactly my point. But be careful! Shalashaska will reply that you don't know what direction means!
Your problem is you're linking every problem with the films as budget problems, if they had more money they'd suddenly learn how to make good movies, and if Abrams' budget was cut in half, he wouldn't be any good.
Meyer had a much much smaller budget than either and did better work than both. Yes, there's a correlation between budget and direction, no, the budget does not decide the quality of a film.
TWOK on a $11 million budget > FC on a $45 million budget.
Well you haven't provided anything of worth to this discussion. Just a load of stupid laughing smileys
Your problem is you're linking every problem with the films as budget problems, if they had more money they'd suddenly learn how to make good movies, and if Abrams' budget was cut in half, he wouldn't be any good.
I apologize for the overuse of emoticons. But I will continue to use them then resort to personal attacks like you do. By the way that's the third time you've insulted me. First you said that I "don't know what direction means", then you called my opinion "ignorant" and now that I "haven't provided anything of worth to this discussion".
Of course you have to resort to ad hominem and straw man arguments just like you had to reverse your initial position. Your first rebuttal to me was that "budget doesn't change how a shot is framed, how the characters are written or how the action is directed". Now, after Hey Missy and eyeresist agreed with me and explained to you that "with a bigger budget, FC could've looked more theatrical what with bigger sets and more effects shots" and that "budget does limit the amount of time available to do a lot of different set-ups, and light and photograph them at the highest level. Budget is also a limitation on quality of equipment used, quality of sets and CGI" you had to backtrack and agree with my original point that of course "there is a correlation between budget and direction". So, have you decided yet which of the two is it? Admit you were wrong initially and let us carry on.
And you're always implying that I equal budget with directing skills! I've never once said that budget decides the quality of a film! But of course it can affect it. Just ask Meyer or Nimoy or Shatner or Frakes if it affected their filmmaking. Again let me be 100% clear. Budget does not make up for lack of talent. Like I said earlier, all the money in the world cannot make J.J. Abrams or Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich or Paul W. S. Anderson better directors than Akira Kurosawa or Stanley Kubrick or Alfred Hitchcock or Sergio Leone or Martin Scorsese or Francis Ford Coppola or… etc. If JJ Abrams had triple the budget of his current films he still wouldn't be any good in my humble opinion. His awkward and numb direction in Kirk's death scene in STID and Han Solo's "final" scene proves (to me) that he couldn't direct an emotional scene even if his life depended on it. Again, my opinion.
I eagerly await your next insult towards me.
(Wow, such a long post without a single stupid smiley! I made it!
…Oh, DARN IT!
)
Last edited:
