That's a pretty slick trick you just tried to pull. The argument for the change isn't about the shape. Here you're talking about arguments against it.
Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter NewHeavensNewEarth
- Start date
That's a pretty slick trick you just tried to pull. The argument for the change isn't about the shape. Here you're talking about arguments against it.
Why don't you restate what you are trying to argue because I'm completely lost.
I just did. The argument supporting the change ISN'T about the shape of the ship but the details and textures. NCC's retort pretends that I was talking about those saying they don't like the change their THEIR argument.
Trained military officers are not automatons. They joke, kid and goof with each other.
Pike's very different from Kirk. He has a great natural ease and confidence, and Mount can play quiet moments a great deal more naturally and appealingly than Shatner is capable of.
It's pretty natural that reviewers would remark on the contrast between the two.
Gooding really captures the essence of Nichols-Uhura.
It's pretty natural that reviewers would remark on the contrast between the two.
Gooding really captures the essence of Nichols-Uhura.
Yup.
All my military family members tell stories that would seem more appropriate in a comedy film than real life.
If Dennis likes this show then I have a lot of hope. Good to hear.
I don't like it. I'm over the Moon. I can't quite believe it.
It's probably not right to say that this is as big a deal to Trek as the beginning of TNG, only because Trek was a much bigger deal and growing in pop culture in 1886-87. There's no reason to think that SNW is going to transform smallish streaming audiences into a mass-culture phenom again. Trek is just a small and somewhat passed facet of the entertainment landscape. But for the creative direction of Trek, this is a Big Fucking Deal.
It upends the entire approach the studio has taken for forty-odd years to elaborating and continuing Trek. It creates it, again.
Last edited:
My dad served 25 years in the Air Force. My uncle just as long in the Marines. Not choirboys or robots.
I can well imagine. My uncle served in the Marines, and the Army. In one branch he ended up head first in to a convertible while on gate duty. In another he threatened to file charges against the command brigadier General over a clerical error.
To call him colorful is an understatement.
I can tell you first hand. I was in the line-up for the first showing of TMP. When I came out, I was interviewed by CBC Radio and asked what I thought. I said it was "all right" but really just a retelling of The Changeling episode.
Now, decades later, after numerous viewings, I think it was brilliant. Having heard the TNG theme so many times, when I hear it in this film I get shivers, where on first viewing I was "WTF? What happened to the Star Trek theme?" The opening shots of the Enterprise leaving the station equally give me shivers. The interactions between Kirk, McCoy, and Spock mean a lot to me. The story was, yes, basically The Changeling, but so much deeper, with a resolution that wasn't the end of the story, but the beginning of a new one (that unfortunately never got followed up.)
Now, my reaction would be that it's vastly underrated, true to the source, and a pleasure to watch.
Personally when it comes to recasting:
I think Ewan McGregor is a great Obi-Wan and the cartoons have done what they can to transition from him to Alec Guiness in a believable way. Overall Star Wars has been great with continuity I reckon, a definite example to follow.
I think the Bond movies are one of the worst examples you could choose for recasting done right, as Roger Moore is nothing like Sean Connery and so on. They do try to hint that it's all one continuity in the earlier movies, but they only recast some of the actors so Q gets older while Bond gets younger! I like the Bond films but I have to take them pretty much one Bond at a time because I don't buy that they're the same person, and I don't buy that they're different people with the same codename either. I struggle to take the films seriously at all really, they're a mess.
I just watched Iron Man 2 and Avengers this week, and Rhodey and Banner feel like different people to me. Fortunately the recasting happened really early in the MCU so there's barely anything of Rhodey and Banner 1.0. Otherwise the MCU has fantastic continuity, giving Trek a serious run for its money.
But nothing can recast its main character as well as Doctor Who... and even that series has the sense to keep its iconic spaceship looking the same!
I think Ewan McGregor is a great Obi-Wan and the cartoons have done what they can to transition from him to Alec Guiness in a believable way. Overall Star Wars has been great with continuity I reckon, a definite example to follow.
I think the Bond movies are one of the worst examples you could choose for recasting done right, as Roger Moore is nothing like Sean Connery and so on. They do try to hint that it's all one continuity in the earlier movies, but they only recast some of the actors so Q gets older while Bond gets younger! I like the Bond films but I have to take them pretty much one Bond at a time because I don't buy that they're the same person, and I don't buy that they're different people with the same codename either. I struggle to take the films seriously at all really, they're a mess.
I just watched Iron Man 2 and Avengers this week, and Rhodey and Banner feel like different people to me. Fortunately the recasting happened really early in the MCU so there's barely anything of Rhodey and Banner 1.0. Otherwise the MCU has fantastic continuity, giving Trek a serious run for its money.
But nothing can recast its main character as well as Doctor Who... and even that series has the sense to keep its iconic spaceship looking the same!
I never saw a good connection. ROTS tried.
*ahem*
http://www.themindrobber.co.uk/tardis-police-box-mobile.php
And while the exterior hasn't changed in the modern era, the interior changes with each new Doctor.
It was the first new live-action Trek we'd had in a decade.
I was floating in the stars when I came out.
The only person I could get to go with me was my oldest brother's GF at the time.
She liked it as well but could tell I was in 7th Heaven when we came out and kidded me about it.
I still consider that Friday evening as one of the best movie experiences of my life.
I saw it a month or so after my fifth birthday. I liked it more than my parents did and it became my favorite Trek film growing up with TWOK second. I devoured it on VHS in my teens.
Heh .. I had just turned 21 a little over a month before TMP premiered.
Yeah, I walked into that. The TARDIS does change appearance over time, as does the Millennium Falcon actually now that I think about it, but those changes are in-universe. Whenever we see a previous Doctor's version of the TARDIS make another appearance it looks like it did at the time, and we've even had three different looks parked next to each other.
I would strongly recommend never comparing a film's practice to that of a television show, even an expensive one.
First there are a ton of historical characters in film who bare literally no real resemblance to the actual real person they are playing. But those that do, have three significant options.
1. Casting someone who has a strong resemblance to the characters.
2. Using makeup and hairstyling effects to bridge the gap.
3. An actor going to the extreme of major weight gain or loss or muscle development or loss to make them more fit the part.
And in quality productions any of three can use physical mannerisms of the real life person (if wide based visual footage remains), and vocal inflections to help match the vocal mannerisms of that person.
1. Is obviously the easiest , but its also the hardest to cast. There are many actors but some aren't going to want to relocates one aren't going to work in the format you are using, some don't want to be in the type of production you are making. Some don't want to work as a series regular. Some will work a miniseries, but not a series that is going to produce year after year. Then you availability, you have talent level, you have if the fee is agreeable.
2 and 3 are definitely factors that are far, far, far harder to manage on a tv production schedule.
Actors who physically change their own body take months to do so and its a significant strain on them, To do so for a film some are absolutely willing to, but to do it for a longer production, is far, far, far less common to see done in practice. You must also cast with significant lead time to allow this to occur, something also not typically arranged for a tv production.
That leaves option 3, option three can work but its far easier to manage on a film production schedule. Films typically produce 2 to 5 minutes (some far less) of usable footage a day (unless you are working some lower budget or indy productions). The level of detail for makeup to really make a character for standard tv is almost impossible, because normal television has to produce for more usable material every single day (thus the actor needs to be available on set, versus getting made up in the chair). Take Trek (pretty much all of it, films and TV) they make aliens based on working with a person. They aren't doing the reverse, using a specific person and turning that actor into them. It's much more time consuming. So even characters like Worf, Saru, Nellix, Quark, ect have their makeup made for them and they create the character around what works for their face and the amount of screen time that person is going to be in.
Now premium tv (which Trek is) has a production schedule more generous then standard tv, but its still far more strict them quality produced films. They could handle it if they had to, for characters that aren't going to be used much, but doing it for bridge crew, people who need to be on set a majority of the time. Not going to be practical. Not to mention even the development of the appliances is going to be far longer for a film then for a tv show.
I mean look at The JJverse, the majority of the cast bear no physical resemblance or even facial structure of the character they are based upon. People sang the praise of Urban and Pegg and they don't have the physical shape or the facial structure of the original actors. Quinto had some of Nimoy facial structure but not his physical shape and not even close to his voice. Yelchin has no facial similarity. Saldana didn't have the right facial structure, and a different physical shape. Yet most complaints about the films had little to do with the actors in it.
"fictional legendary/iconic character", and then you mention M'Benga a character who at best was on screen maybe 12 minutes.....Sorry but in no way shape or form does his character even come close to being in that class. In fact the only character that absolutely makes that cut in SNW would be Spock. I wouldn't even put Uhura in that group, and certainly not Chapel, M'Benga, Number One or Pike. As for the casting of Kirk (for next year) yes he does. But without knowing the role of the character its way, way to early to be worried about it.
You use Tom Hanks for one role, but Hanks has played over 10 real life people in major films, and most of them he doesn't look like the person he's playing. Either wrong body type, or wrong facial structure, and in most of them outside of costumes and an adjustment of hairstyle (sometimes) he doesn't match the character. And I can look at these people and see other actors. But there is a reason they cast Tom Hanks. Streep will rarely do prosthetics, but her ability to match voice and mannerism is outstanding so producers couldn't care less if she looks different then the real person. And those are for quality film productions. You get to tv, and the vast majority aren't going to look too similar to the real person.
Last edited:
Most of the complaints about the changes that happened between Turnabout Intruder and Star Trek the Motion Picture are about the Universe wide changes that were evident in all aspect of production. Admittedly it wasn't much as most fans truly appreciated the higher level of production that the film had, even if they didn't like certain design aspects (probably the most common complaint design wise I heard was the costume, as those were very heavily influenced by the sci-fi of the 70's and tonally were a significant color palette then TOS).look at the commonly stated criticism of the discoprise and find out that it's mostly about pylons, secondary hull shape, and compressed neck. find posts that don't criticize those parts, but hull texture instead. one is the vast majority, the other is not.
what exactly is wrong about the fact that the refit, which is explicitly mentioned and part of the story, happens after TOS?
Ah, so that's why Urban doesn't play Kirk, Pine doesn't play Spock, and Quinto doesn't play Scotty? Good to know!
Certain changes (like to the design of the ship) seem rational with the believed amount of time in universe that occurred. But every Prop, every costume, hairstyles, makeup, every alien, every planet, changed as well as things like how they lensed it. Those are things that rationally aren't typical to see change EVERYWHERE in the span of like 5 years.
But again the vast majority of fans didn't mind. They understood why those changes were made. To reflect the different medium and time it was made in, and the change expected by the audience of that day.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
