Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by HaplessCrewman, Apr 22, 2014.
I don't hate him; I just don't give a fuck about him or most of the stiffs who've played Bond since Connery. Moore was particularly wooden and long in the tooth, though.
Parenthetically (and obviously), a writer coming up with the idea of Bond screwing someone in zero G doesn't confer awesomeness on the actor who happened to be playing him that time out.
My favourite Bond between Connery and Craig was actually Timothy Dalton, who never really got his due. License to Kill is the stylistic predecessor to the Craig era, I still dig the heck out of that movie.
I consider The Living Daylights one of the best, if not the best, Bond film. It has everything, and Dalton is a fantastic Bond.
^ Yeah, it was pretty excellent.
Yeah, Timothy Dalton was a fantastic Bond.
Dalton was probably the best, post-Connery, until Craig.
I'd agree with that assessment. I was a big Brosnan fan when he was around but none of his movies (save for Goldeneye) have really held up. He was a sort of 'greatest hits' Bond whereas all the others brought their own unique identity to the role. Heh, in fact, ignoring Craig for the time being, you can track all Bonds like albums:
Connery - Awesome debut
Lazenby - Difficult second album
Connery - Back to the well
Moore - Concept album
Dalton - Mature sound
Brosnan - Greatest hits
In regards to Orci directing.
So, you're saying that some dork running a fictional office in a tv series, whose main characteristic is that he can't find his ass with both hands, doesn't think Orci should direct?
Persuasive. Very persuasive.
Nah, you're taking it too seriously. I wasn't trying to persuade anyone.
Just kidding around.
Having said that, I would prefer an experienced director.
I'd have more faith in a tv sitcom director taking over than Orci. I'm not kidding, the Russo brothers killed it with CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER. It has similar themes STID had but handled them sooooo much better and tastefully.
I don't understand the reasoning behind assuming Orci would be a bad director. Even if you don't care for his writing or producing, directing is a different discipline, so he might be much better at it. There have been cases of first-time directors knocking it out of the park. In fact, 23 Best Director Oscar nominations have been for first-time film directors.
Of course, plenty of first-time directors are bad at it too, but that's just it: If he's never directed a movie before, we have no legitimate basis for forming an opinion about his directing skills either way. The only way we'll know whether he's a good director or not is if he actually directs something.
I'm not doubting Orci for his non-existent skills as a director, I'm doubting him based on his resume in Trek and beyond. As a director he'll have say over the screenplay, and that's where my main concern is because I don't think he has the talent to tell a good story.
You mean untested skills. See above about all the first-time directors who've done excellent work. Just because someone's skills haven't been publicly demonstrated yet, that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Whereas I think just the opposite. The problems I had with the two movies to date came more from Abrams and Lindelof, while Orci's ideas seemed better to me. For instance, from what I know of the original script to the first movie, the science was much less inane than what ended up in the final version; and in the second film, it was Lindelof who insisted on using Khan while Orci didn't want to.
That clip is never not funny.
He could use the camera better than Abrams for all I know, which would be fine, but as I said earlier it's his skills as a writer that makes me question whether he's suitable or not. I don't think he is, especially when he's daring fans to write better scripts than his. I'd only be truly intrigued if he were to direct this without ever having control over the script, or as they call them "directors for hire" like Marvel's approach. With Bad Robot backing him up, I doubt he'll settle for that.
Abrams, Lindelof, Kurtzman, Orci, they're all guilty as far as I'm concerned. Orci didn't want to use Khan? Great, but he still went for his 9/11 truther parable. Until Bad Robot as a whole is excised from the Trek franchise, I'm very cynical over it's future.
And what exactly did the Winter Soldier do so well that STID did not? Because from what I saw, the plot in that film, and I say this as someone that enjoyed it, was absolutely ridiculous and had plot holes you could drive the Enterprise or a helicarrier through.
I won't deny there's still craziness to both flicks, but THE WINTER SOLDIER works things out much better. It handles the balance between humor and seriousness much better by not going too broad either way, the characters are more believable and inspirational, the story and action go well together without ever having that feeling that someone wrote it thinking "we need a action beat, it's been five minutes long". And, this is just my own opinion, where Trek hits low and automatically makes it an inferior film is when it gets into that 9/11 truther parable that to me personally feels like an insult to everyone that had to go through that horrible moment. I'll be watching CA again soon a second time, so I might be able to elaborate more on these points. For now, that's the gist of it.
I'll give you my Trek variation.
Connery - TOS
Lazenby - TAS
Moore - TNG
Dalton - DS9
Brosnan - VOY
Craig - ENT
Of course, none of this makes any real sense.
Separate names with a comma.