What if Trek franchise was handled by these guys?

[ambelamba]

I am asking a serious question.

After watching the trailer for Hellboy 2, I began to wonder what would happen if Guillermo del Toro handled a trilogy of Trek movies.

See, this guy can handle a beautiful-looking movies for a relatively small budget. HB2 cost only 72 million dollars, and it looks like they spent more than 120 millions.

Many people do not like Trek because the scale is too small. Unfortunately, the brass at Paramount realized that they can milk out the franchise with relatively low budget since Wrath of Khan.

General population (non-trekkies) hate Trek because it doesn't evolve with the changing taste of them. I know a lot of you guys hate SW but look at how the visuals and actions have evolved in SW universe. Probably the most memorable action sequence of SW is the one where Obi Wan crash lands in the hangar of Grievous' ship, blow out the canopy, jump out into the air, ignite the saber and slash a couple of battle droids as he lands on the floor.

See, that kind of action is what the general population expect from a sci-fi movie. Sorry, guys. That's the reality.

When I showed First Contact to my friend whose favorite movies are Resident Evil trilogy and AVP, he was bored to death. To his standard, the movie was painfully sluggish.

GDT handles the directing. What if Donnie Yen handles the fight choreography? And, if Stan Winston left any protege, what would he have done if he handled Trek movies?

What if, seriously, Wayne D Barlowes and Yasui Nirasawa handled the designs of aliens? And what if Ikuto Yamashita and Kio Seiji hnadled the designs of spaceships and props?

It would be great if Terryl Whitlatch was hired to design alien animals, too.

 

[Ptrope]

So, basically, you're saying Trek has too much substance and not enough sizzle?

No thanks. After watching Wall*E with a full theater of kids and adults who 'got it,' I think there's more than enough room for substance. The problem with Trek is that the 'steak' got stale - no one was really bothering with either a compelling story or compelling characters, and no amount of sizzle is going to make up for that in the long run. The stuff you describe in SW is just that, and how well-liked are the prequels? Generally, people tend to see them as pretty underwhelming, no matter how good the FX or how exciting the action scenes.

 

[ambelamba]

So, basically, you're saying Trek has too much substance and not enough sizzle?

No thanks. After watching Wall*E with a full theater of kids and adults who 'got it,' I think there's more than enough room for substance. The problem with Trek is that the 'steak' got stale - no one was really bothering with either a compelling story or compelling characters, and no amount of sizzle is going to make up for that in the long run. The stuff you describe in SW is just that, and how well-liked are the prequels? Generally, people tend to see them as pretty underwhelming, no matter how good the FX or how exciting the action scenes.

You've got to be aware of the people outside the US.

Let's face it. Trek is slow. People like GDT could have made better Trek. Or, they could have make an entirely different kind of approach on Trek universe.

People didn't like Nemesis because...it wanted to be an action flick and it wasn't a good action flick. To make a good action flick, you really have to go all the way. But Berman didn't want to change the scale and grandeur of Trek because he was afraid of it. If you make the Trek films grander, you will have to put the TV show on the similar level, which is practically prohibitive.

I used to love Trek, but now the spell is broken. Now I compare the Trek movies with other sci-fi movies, without giving any break for the "Trek Standard".

I found it kinda amusing that Trekkies (whom I used to be) are generally very pedantic. Yeah, very pedantic.

Doing a TV show with a very limited budget and timeframe takes a very clever approach. But, if you limit yourself with the limited aspect of TV show resource when you are making a feature film...Oh, well.

Lastly, this was what happened a few years ago. I was taking an art history class with hundreds of students. During a break time some guys were chatting about movies and one guy exclaimed "Star Trek sucks ass!!!!".

Then everyone laughed in the auditorium. Everyone.

 

[Ptrope]

You've got to be aware of the people outside the US.

Let's face it. Trek is slow. People like GDT could have made better Trek.

I'm well aware of people outside the U.S., but I don't see what that has to do with making a good movie - are you saying that U.S. filmmakers can't? Or are you simply saying that your idea of a "good" movie is one that moves fast and has a lot of action and special effects? To me, that's not a movie - that's a trailer for a movie.

Guillermo del Toro makes good movies - I liked Hellboy, I'll go see H2, and I heard Pan's Labyrinth was genius. But that doesn't mean those kinds of films are what Star Trek should be, any more than Citizen Kane or 12 Angry Men (although the latter could certainly inspire a damn good Trek story, I'm sure )

"Faster" is not better. Unfortunately, too many people with short attention spans seem to think differently, and I don't mean you - in general, we've become first an MTV generation and then a Playstation generation, where everything has to be active and changing all the damn time just to keep the audience's attention from wandering.

General population (non-trekkies) hate Trek because it doesn't evolve with the changing taste of them.

Proof? Or even any indications this is at all what the 'general population' think of Trek? I think it's more likely that they simply think that all sci-fi is the same, and have decided they don't like sci-fi, in general (just don't tell them they've been watching it every time they turn on Lost!).

I know a lot of you guys hate SW but look at how the visuals and actions have evolved in SW universe. Probably the most memorable action sequence of SW is the one where Obi Wan crash lands in the hangar of Grievous' ship, blow out the canopy, jump out into the air, ignite the saber and slash a couple of battle droids as he lands on the floor.

I wouldn't call this "evolution" - this is more 'least common denominator eye-candy."

See, that kind of action is what the general population expect from a sci-fi movie. Sorry, guys. That's the reality.

I reject your reality and substitute my own (thanks, Mythbusters!! ) And I think that is a major simplification - I just don't agree that 'action' is the main reason people don't like Trek - it's just your reason. ENT had a lot more 'action' and IMHO it sucked big-time, because the stories and characters were so poorly-conceived and -executed. Nemesis was chock-full of SW-type action and, again, it sucked big-time for exactly the same reasons. And believe me, Guillermo del Toro doesn't agree that action and fancy FX are the way to make your movie desirable and memorable, either.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You've got to be aware of the people outside the US.

Let's face it. Trek is slow. People like GDT could have made better Trek.

Let's see what Abrams does.

 

[ambelamba]

Well, a couple more things.

The problem with Trek universe is that it's all about telling, not showing.

If I handled Undiscovered Country and had enough resource, I would show thousands of Klingons swarm to the street, rioting and burning down buildings. And I would show thousands of Klingon ships over the orbit of Quonos, ready for evacuation. I would really show the Klingon homeworld in peril.

Here's one more problem. In DS9, we hear about hundreds of millions of Cardassians slaughtered by Dominion at the end of Dominion War. We hear one character telling about that.

But do we actually see the cities getting bombed and people getting killed?

Yeah, I know. The limit of the TV show. The problem is that those SOBs at Paramount will use the same tricks on Trek films!

One more thing. Some guy at IMDB pointed out that hand-to-hand fights in trek are like two grannies fighting over an umbrella. GR wanted to add many fighting scenes in TOS, being 'the western in space'. Personally, I have a really high-standard when it comes to hand-to-hand fights in films.

Any of you guys saw Ong-Bak and Iron Monkey? I see them as the benchmarks for fighting choreography in films. Heck, even TV dramas in Taiwan use high-octane kung fu! When I use that benchmark on Trek...Oh, need I go on?

 

[Ptrope]

^^

Nope, not really.

Arguably, "show, don't tell" is a sound rule for drama, but what you describe is simply gratuitous, and doesn't make a better film - it simply makes a flashier one. One has to ask oneself, not in the name of a budget, but in the name of storytelling, whether showing a million Cardassians being killed - the time it takes to do this and the pacing that it creates - is more effective, dramatically, than stating it in the course of the main plot. Does showing it develop the characters any more than, say, their responses and reactions to it? Probably not. Where you want to show, rather than tell, is when you show us that the death of a million Cardassians affects one Cardassian - we need to see in his eyes and in his manner that their deaths mean something to him, and not simply be told that this is so. As with ENT, where we were frequently told by other characters how heroic and how capable Archer was, we almost never actually saw him do anything either heroic or capable.

And I don't disagree that hand-to-hand fights throughout Trek are almost universally lame, but then, is Trek a showcase for hand-to-hand combat? Unless it serves a real purpose, given the levels of technology and, supposedly, civilization that humanity has achieved, why are they punching one another like barroom brawlers in the first place? Just stun the bastard and move on! It's like Indiana Jones against the swordsman - just shoot him and get moving!

Given your preferences in filmic entertainment, why are you even watching Star Trek? It seems 180° from what you want to see in pretty much every aspect - it's like eating a steak and bitching that it doesn't have enough leafy greens in it, so it's a pretty poor salad. Well, duh!

 

[Colonel Green]

Probably the most memorable action sequence of SW is the one where Obi Wan crash lands in the hangar of Grievous' ship, blow out the canopy, jump out into the air, ignite the saber and slash a couple of battle droids as he lands on the floor.

I LIKE Star Wars, and I have no idea what you are talking about. If you think that is the most memorable SW action sequence, you must be about 14 yrs old.

Try rewatching the GOOD SW movies man.

 

[ambelamba]

Probably the most memorable action sequence of SW is the one where Obi Wan crash lands in the hangar of Grievous' ship, blow out the canopy, jump out into the air, ignite the saber and slash a couple of battle droids as he lands on the floor.

I LIKE Star Wars, and I have no idea what you are talking about. If you think that is the most memorable SW action sequence, you must be about 14 yrs old.

Try rewatching the GOOD SW movies man.

Episode III. The Act I.

 

[Seven of Five]

Nah. The OT action sequences crap all over the PT ones. And I say that as a fan of the PT!

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I don't mind visual va va voom at all.

I'm more concerned about the script. That is what makes something Star Trek.

I don't get the comment about "evolving tastes." Nobody's tastes are evolving. People like what they've always liked: exciting visuals, gut-wrenching action, characters they can care about, plotlines that are neither predictable nor out of left field, timeless themes that have something to say about the human condition. Put them all together and you've got a kick-ass fun movie that is more than just popcorn for the brain.

The visual/gut stuff, any movie can have that. And should - there's no excuse for incompetence there. But the characters, plot and theme (ie, the script) are more specific - there are specific ways those are handled to be Star Trek, and that's where you get its unique qualities from that distinguish it from all the other perfectly competent summer blockbusters.

The problem with Trek universe is that it's all about telling, not showing.

Telling is always a bad style of fiction, sure. "Show, don't tell" is a staple of Writing Fiction 101 textbooks. But the examples of Star Trek I can think of as worthwhile - namely, TOS, DS9 and S4 of ENT - are perfectly good at showing rather than telling. As for the rest, forget it. (Not that "telling" was their problem, either.)

The example you gave with Cardassians dying en masse is trivial and has to do with TV budget more than anything else. How DS9 excelled at showing even on a TV budget was by depicting several Cardassians - Garak, Dukat, Damar but also others like Tkenny Ghemor and Enebrain Tain - who believably represented the personality types for an entire species. They were unique individuals yet I could see how they were similar in basic ways that made them a convincing single species. That is a wonderful example of "showing" us an entire planet of people that no TV budget could ever afford to depict in all its complexity.

Yeah, I know. The limit of the TV show. The problem is that those SOBs at Paramount will use the same tricks on Trek films!

The expectations for a movie are entirely different! They will have a vastly larger budget. And a much smaller timeframe over which to tell their story, not DS9's seven years of (among many other things) building up the Cardassians as a believable species who seem absolutely real to the audience through nothing more than some deft writing, some incisive acting performances and some fancy prosthetics, so that when we are told of the millions who died, we might actually give a frak about it.

Switching gears to Star Wars:

The OT action sequences crap all over the PT ones.

I have to agree, but I'm no connoisseur of action sequences. All I know is, when I give a frak whether the guy swinging the lightsaber lives or dies, and I'm actually feeling a tightness in my stomach worrying that he won't, that's a successful scene. If I could give a frak - FAIL! As the kids say nowadays.

So again, it all comes down to what the writers and actors were able to establish previous to the SFX people chipping in with their contribution.

 

[ambelamba]

So you guys hate the swordfightings in the Prequels?

If you don't like them, blame them on Rick McCallum and his daughter, who's a martial art enthusiast. McCallum stated that he and his daughter felt that the action choreography in the Original Trilogy is just painful to watch. So they consulted someone who can really create a new type of swordfighting.

While I was watching Episode III, I finally realized something. In ST movies, there's absolutely no aerial/panoramic shots. There's none. And I never saw any bustling cityscapes in Trek universe ala Coruscant. Heck, even Riddick showed some decent cityscape scenes. But not in Trek universe.

I noticed that a lot of Trekkies are no fans of high-octane fighting sequences. I am an Asian and, so naturally, I am drawn to movies like Ong Bak and Iron Monkey. I wonder what you guys will think about the trailer of Ong Bak 2. Go see it on youtube. I dare ya.

I am a visual artist and study illustration in college. Naturally I am drawn to visual spectacle, being an artist. I've been a big fan of Wayne D Barlowes and Terryl Whitlatch. I wonder what would be like if these two artist were given absolute freedom to design creatures and aliens in Trek universe.

I am no Trekkie, but I know some behind-the-scene stuff about ST. In ST:Resurrection, the design of villain ships were not finalized until the end of principla photography. When I read about it, I got shocked and disturbed. And in the TV spot, they sped up the footage of enemy ships approaching the Enterprise-E. When I saw that, I nearly cracked a laughter. Even better, the design of enemy commanding ship is an actually a squeezed form of other boomerang looking ships. I just shook my head while reading it. I went to see Insurrection on the first night, and the theater was half empty. It was a multiplex in Pasadena. I overheard people talking about which movie to choose, and the only reason for them to choose Insurrection was time schedule...

When I heard that Sherry Lansing hated Trek, I couldn't understand why because I loved Star Trek so much. But as a person who tries to work in film industry, now I understand why.

I don't mind visual va va voom at all.

I'm more concerned about the script. That is what makes something Star Trek.

I don't get the comment about "evolving tastes." Nobody's tastes are evolving. People like what they've always liked: exciting visuals, gut-wrenching action, characters they can care about, plotlines that are neither predictable nor out of left field, timeless themes that have something to say about the human condition. Put them all together and you've got a kick-ass fun movie that is more than just popcorn for the brain.

The visual/gut stuff, any movie can have that. And should - there's no excuse for incompetence there. But the characters, plot and theme (ie, the script) are more specific - there are specific ways those are handled to be Star Trek, and that's where you get its unique qualities from that distinguish it from all the other perfectly competent summer blockbusters.

The problem with Trek universe is that it's all about telling, not showing.

Telling is always a bad style of fiction, sure. "Show, don't tell" is a staple of Writing Fiction 101 textbooks. But the examples of Star Trek I can think of as worthwhile - namely, TOS, DS9 and S4 of ENT - are perfectly good at showing rather than telling. As for the rest, forget it. (Not that "telling" was their problem, either.)

The example you gave with Cardassians dying en masse is trivial and has to do with TV budget more than anything else. How DS9 excelled at showing even on a TV budget was by depicting several Cardassians - Garak, Dukat, Damar but also others like Tkenny Ghemor and Enebrain Tain - who believably represented the personality types for an entire species. They were unique individuals yet I could see how they were similar in basic ways that made them a convincing single species. That is a wonderful example of "showing" us an entire planet of people that no TV budget could ever afford to depict in all its complexity.

Yeah, I know. The limit of the TV show. The problem is that those SOBs at Paramount will use the same tricks on Trek films!

The expectations for a movie are entirely different! They will have a vastly larger budget. And a much smaller timeframe over which to tell their story, not DS9's seven years of (among many other things) building up the Cardassians as a believable species who seem absolutely real to the audience through nothing more than some deft writing, some incisive acting performances and some fancy prosthetics, so that when we are told of the millions who died, we might actually give a frak about it.

Switching gears to Star Wars:

The OT action sequences crap all over the PT ones.

I have to agree, but I'm no connoisseur of action sequences. All I know is, when I give a frak whether the guy swinging the lightsaber lives or dies, and I'm actually feeling a tightness in my stomach worrying that he won't, that's a successful scene. If I could give a frak - FAIL! As the kids say nowadays.

So again, it all comes down to what the writers and actors were able to establish previous to the SFX people chipping in with their contribution.

 

[Luke Lightsaber]

Del Toro is one lucky ass. He did some cheap ass movies, and now gets to do the LOTR prequel.

 

[Ptrope]

So you guys hate the swordfightings in the Prequels?

?? This is the problem with so many Internet denizens: no communication or comprehension skills - who here said they hate the swordfighting, or even implied it? Saying it isn't the be-all, end-all of storytelling isn't in any way the same as saying we dislike it, only that it isn't the thing that will 'save' Star Trek from mediocrity on film. Sorry, but even a language barrier is no excuse for a leap like that!

While I was watching Episode III, I finally realized something. In ST movies, there's absolutely no aerial/panoramic shots. There's none. And I never saw any bustling cityscapes in Trek universe ala Coruscant. Heck, even Riddick showed some decent cityscape scenes. But not in Trek universe.

Hey, can you warn us the next time you intend to take a right turn? That came out of frakking nowhere, and then you went right back into fight sequences:

I noticed that a lot of Trekkies are no fans of high-octane fighting sequences. I am an Asian and, so naturally (Ptrope's emphasis), I am drawn to movies like Ong Bak and Iron Monkey. I wonder what you guys will think about the trailer of Ong Bak 2. Go see it on youtube. I dare ya.

Can we accuse someone of racial profiling if they are, by their own words, of that particular race? "Naturally drawn?" And I need to talk to my Trekkie friends, but I wouldn't say I'm not a fan of high-octane fighting sequences, by any means - only of bad or pointless ones (and, sorry, call this racial profiling if you wish, but I don't especially care for the hokey wire-work that seems far more prevalent in Asian cinema - if you want to show me someone kicking ass, make it look like they do so with at least some respect to physics! I'll take River Tam beating down a barroom of lowlives any day over fern-walking in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon; yes, I know there was some wire-work there, but it wasn't so comically obvious!)

I am a visual artist and study illustration in college. Naturally I am drawn to visual spectacle, being an artist. I've been a big fan of Wayne D Barlowes and Terryl Whitlatch. I wonder what would be like if these two artist were given absolute freedom to design creatures and aliens in Trek universe.

I suspect I've probably been a fan of Wayne Barlowe's far longer than you - since the first publication of his Guide to Extraterrestrials; as for Terryl Whitlach, she's a talented illustrator, yes, and I'd be a fan of her, personally, given the photos I've seen , but I have to say I've seen much better alien design from several other artists over the years. Don't forget, though (or, perhaps, you should learn ... ) that aliens in ST aren't generally designed to be 'alien,' but to be avatars for human behaviors and foibles, and making them humanoid makes them also more comprehensible analogs for ourselves. I love stories like Dragon's Egg with the cheela, and in books, their personalities and similarities to human motives and actions can be explored in depth, but on film, for two hours, it's considerably more difficult to make a sesame seed with multiple eyespots around its circumference convey that sort of depth and emotion. As much as I love aliens in art, on film I'll accept a certain amount of humanoid similarity in order to keep the story flowing smoothly forward. Just don't give me Jar-Jar Binks!!

 

[smeos]

I didn't like the action sequences in the SW prequels because A) I could give less than a damn about any of the characters, who were so badly written as to be a crime against humanity, and B) Too much. It was a cartoon. George Lucas apparently forgot his maxim of "a special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing". It's hard to get convincing acting out of people who are standing by themselves in front of a green screen all day.

Star Trek may make more money going that route, but not from me.

 

[shatastrophic]

Del Toro is one lucky ass. He did some cheap ass movies, and now gets to do the LOTR prequel.

Amen buddy.