Star Trek's "Cinematic" Problem

[Cryogenator]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

"When everything is intense, nothing is intense. While nineties Trek often felt stilted and lacked excitement, modern Trek can sometimes have too much excitement."

Ironically, the sets are now more expensive than ever before yet also more out of focus than ever before.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

Modern movies tend to leave a lot more blood on the lens. That may or may not include the recent TREKs. I find it too fourth-wall for my liking.

 

[at Quark's]

It may be similar to tasting too many sweet treats after one another. Without the contrast of other flavours, the sweetness itself is not tasted as well anymore after a few of those. I have the same experience nowadays with some movies that are too focused on action sequences (and too little on the story and dialog). When larges swathes of the movie almost seamlessly go from a fighting scene into a crashing-down-scene into a pursuit scene, I find they become boring after a while, without the contrast of quieter interludes (without too much camera movement, too).

Then again, I'm gradually becoming an old fart.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

It may be similar to tasting too many sweet treats after one another. Without the contrast of other flavours, the sweetness itself is not tasted as well anymore after a few of those. I have the same experience nowadays with some movies that are too focused on action sequences (and too little on the story and dialog). When larges swathes of the movie almost seamlessly go from a fighting scene into a crashing-down-scene into a pursuit scene, I find they become boring after a while, without the contrast of quieter interludes (without too much camera movement, too).

When the first STAR WARS movie was released, Pauline Kael accurately compared it to a stuffed Cracker Jack box full of prizes. Personally, I'd never seen such sustained action during the 40 minutes on the Death Star alone.

Despite that, both A NEW HOPE and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK have comparative lulls after the first 15 minutes of their openings AND give the audience another 10-minute breather before their final action sequences. That's not so common today.

 

[drt]

It may be similar to tasting too many sweet treats after one another. Without the contrast of other flavours, the sweetness itself is not tasted as well anymore after a few of those. I have the same experience nowadays with some movies that are too focused on action sequences (and too little on the story and dialog). When larges swathes of the movie almost seamlessly go from a fighting scene into a crashing-down-scene into a pursuit scene, I find they become boring after a while, without the contrast of quieter interludes (without too much camera movement, too).

Blame the pursuit of international box office, constant action translates the same in every language.

 

[Lord Garth]

Star Trek's "cinematic problem" is that they don't make mid-budget movies anymore. Mid-budget movies guaranteed they could keep making Trek movies and that they'd have some variety to them. Until mid-budget movies become a thing again, Cinematic Trek is going to be stuck with Marvel/SW-wannabe movies that only go so far and are only sustainable for so long.

From 1979 to 2002 (23 years) there were 10 Star Trek movies. From 2002 to 2025 (also 23 years), only three within the same time-span. Maybe four if the Prequel Trek movie gets made, but still not even half as many as before. "But the first JJ Abrams Trek movie came out in 2009!" Okay, fine, if you only want to count 15 years, Star Trek came out with its seventh movie in 1994. So it doesn't make that much of a difference.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Streaming could be the home for future Trek movies. The budgets for big theatrical movies have long since been out of control, and Trek really can't compete in that arena, IMO.

 

[Farscape One]

I have to agree about too much flash and bang and not enough substance, overall.

Perfect illustration is the DISCO season 2 finale. It was just too much and it was too busy. Makes it difficult to really feel the emotion of anything.

It's also why it takes so damn long between seasons. Just scale back a bit on this, and not only can you get more episodes a season but also not be nearly as long a wait between seasons.

 

[James Cole]

From 1979 to 2002 (23 years) there were 10 Star Trek movies. From 2002 to 2025 (also 23 years), only three within the same time-span. Maybe four if the Prequel Trek movie gets made, but still not even half as many as before. "But the first JJ Abrams Trek movie came out in 2009!" Okay, fine, if you only want to count 15 years, Star Trek came out with its seventh movie in 1994. So it doesn't make that much of a difference.

Now that's a mind fuck of a chronology...

Perfect illustration is the DISCO season 2 finale. It was just too much and it was too busy. Makes it difficult to really feel the emotion of anything.

Ah I remember watching it in Argentina on a very bad internet connection that kept dropping the video down to 240p or something. At the same time wasn't in a rush to rewatch that mess either.

 

[Citiprime]

Perfect illustration is the DISCO season 2 finale. It was just too much and it was too busy. Makes it difficult to really feel the emotion of anything.

I remember being hyped and excited to watch it because we were getting to see the re-imagined version of the Enterprise as part of this. But almost from the beginning shit goes off the rails.

It just felt like no one, on any level, whether story-level or the visual artists involved, when they were developing the episode ever sat down and wondered about whether:

• Can the audience understand what's going on?
• Does this make sense?

And when things don't make sense, all the attempts to manufacture emotion feel forced.

Perfect example of how nothing is thought through. While the battle with hundreds of shuttles and blinking lights is going on outside, there's a huge dramatic scene where Admiral Cornwell sacrifices herself after a torpedo gets lodged in the hull of the Enterprise. Pike watches the sacrifice behind a blast door.

But that raises a question ... If a *door* can stop the force of an exploding photon torpedo, why isn't the hull made out of the same stuff as the door? (Also, why aren't the transporters working either?)

And that's even before the ultimate stupidity of logic for the episode: they destroy Control before going through the Red Angel vortex. So why do they have to go to the future?

 

[Lord Garth]

And that's even before the ultimate stupidity of logic for the episode: they destroy Control before going through the Red Angel vortex. So why do they have to go to the future?

They were fearful that Control would recreate itself or someone would create another version of Control.

I'm not going to argue with it much, personally, because I didn't want Discovery to be a prequel in the first place. So, I was willing to go along with anything to get it out of the TOS Era.

Ah I remember watching it in Argentina on a very bad internet connection that kept dropping the video down to 240p or something.

Watching something in 240p would drive me nuts. I don't even like 360p, but I'll deal with it if I have to. 240p? No way.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Watching something in 240p would drive me nuts. I don't even like 360p, but I'll deal with it if I have to. 240p? No way.

1K, AKA 720P really should be the new modern minimum standard.

 

[fireproof78]

I watch 240p regularly.

 

[Lord Garth]

I watch 240p regularly.

I'm guessing YouTube Videos?

The only 240p I've ever come across is someone uploading digitized VHS that was compressed. I think cell phones record at 360p by default.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm guessing YouTube Videos?

Primarily. Not sure what my VHS is at

I usually am turning video quality down.

ETA: out of sheer morbid curiosity (it's been a long day): I looked it up: VHS is at 240 P, and DVDs at 480p.

That's pretty much what I work with. Aside from whatever I'm streaming.

 

[Lord Garth]

ETA: out of sheer morbid curiosity (it's been a long day): I looked it up: VHS is at 240 P, and DVDs at 480p.

I looked it up too and found the same thing. VHS is 240p. That makes sense then. For some reason I thought VHS was higher than 240, but it's also been a LONG time since I've looked at a VHS Tape.

Now that I think about it, I do remember in 1999 buying a TOS DVD, this was before season sets when they only had two episodes per disc, and I remember being blown away by the image quality. I thought 480p looked amazing. So I had to have been normally watching things at a much less resolution at the time.

 

[James Cole]

1K, AKA 720P really should be the new modern minimum standard.

&

Watching something in 240p would drive me nuts. I don't even like 360p, but I'll deal with it if I have to. 240p? No way.

It was on my laptop... and Argentine Netflix was only $2-3 a month with the 2019 exchange rate. At least it didn't say stop watching, wait until you have a better signal.

I looked it up too and found the same thing. VHS is 240p. That makes sense then. For some reason I thought VHS was higher than 240, but it's also been a LONG time since I've looked at a VHS Tape.

That makes sense as standard VHS would send out a 480i signal. Now I'm guessing professional Betacam and whatever format used when TV shows like TNG were mastered on video had a bit more resolution.

 

[Lord Garth]

That makes sense as standard VHS would send out a 480i signal. Now I'm guessing professional Betacam and whatever format used when TV shows like TNG were mastered on video had a bit more resolution.

According to IMDB, TNG was originally mastered to Betacam SP 480/60i. The film source was/is Super 35.

 

[James Cole]

According to IMDB, TNG was originally mastered to Betacam SP 480/60i. The film source was/is Super 35.

And DS9 and VGR could look far more cinematic if Paramount would get off its ass and finally do an HD or 4K OAR (original aspect ratio) remaster...

 

[ananta]

When larges swathes of the movie almost seamlessly go from a fighting scene into a crashing-down-scene into a pursuit scene, I find they become boring after a while, without the contrast of quieter interludes (without too much camera movement, too).

Then again, I'm gradually becoming an old fart.

I’ve always found action scenes tedious and boring, even as a kid. I must have been born an old fart. If an action scene drag on too long I just end up tuning it out.