Abrams: ST Movie is Not a Traditional Prequel
- Thread starter ralph
- Start date
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I don't have much use for theatre, just because you're stuck there with an unvarying camera angle for hours. (I know folks say there is the equivalent of a closeup by having a spotlight on a hand or something like that, but face it, the impact of that is not the same as the cutting in PSYCHO or the last reel of GOODBAR.)
But as far as that goes, my best -- though limited -- experiences with theatre relate to original cast, like Kiley in LA MANCHA (and yeah, I have the original recording of that on vinyl and CD ... it is the only broadway show I even own.)
And for theatre I WANTED to see but wasn't around for, there's Welles' MOBY DICK REHEARSED, which I doubt anybody'd have the balls to try to redo. Or the version of THE ANDERSONVILLE TRIAL that had George C. Scott acting instead of directing ... I'd love to see that, cuz for me, Shatner lames up the version I have, almost undoing all of Jack Cassidy's brilliance and even the one time I've ever seen Cameron Mitchell on his game.
Theatre and music are separate animals from film. Age, for one thing. I mean, with film only around for a century, you haven't had the test of time for how these things speak to all that many generations. Could be at some point in the future, political paranoia films are considered quaint instead of cautionary(sure as hell hope not!), but that depends on the climate of the times and the people who inhabit those times.
Remaking badly executed films with good premises is fine, though rare. Occasionally you could redo a good film, if you could bring something that really emboldened it to the table. My example is usually THE MAN WITH THE X-RAY EYES. It is a good little movie, but I have a feeling the Tim Burton/Johnny Depp version (which was shelved in favor of SLEEPY HOLLOW) would have been magnificent. I am almost never in favor of this trendy redo the fx thing, but MAN WITH THE X could benefit from a bit o' the old production value.
Remaking something good? Well, depends on how good it was. I could never get into the Rathbone Holmes films, so when I think of Holmes & Watson, it is Christopher Plummer and James Mason in MURDER BY DECREE. Maybe that is what the younger fans will do with Trek, though I don't know that this Pine guy is even remotely as good as Plummer.
Maybe the ultimate issue with remaking TOS TREK is this: WHY they are choosing TOS. If it is character chemistry, then theoretically you can the view that different actors will bring complementary shadings to the characters, and so folks can debate Olivier's HENRY V and Branaugh's, along with Shat and Pine's Kirk (sorry for invoking them that way, but it was a quick example and my lunch break is almost over.)
But if TOS is more about actor chemistry than character chemistry -- which is my down-in-the-bones belief -- then this can be at best a diversion or interesting failure, or otherwise just piss on what went before (sort of like the MATRIX sequels killing folks interest in even rewatching the original.)
The camera angle moves around, actually, with your attention being called to different areas of the stage. But what really matters in theatre are basically the performances; good ones can keep me riveted. Of course, set design can also be critical. To segue into the realm of opera for a moment, there was an excellent performances of Die Zauberflote in the NY Met a few years back that had astonishing costuming and set design. That stuff can be luscious in the flesh as much as it is with a camera.
Your "camera angles" are your eyes. No one forces you to look at only one thing. It requires a more active focus from the audience than film, but I've NEVER felt I was "locked" into one angle (unless the set is deliberately designed that way--and I've seen more than one film that does the same thing). You are, of course, free to dislike theatre, but I find your "single camera angle" criticism a weak one.
I, for one, look forward to a time when political paranoia DOES seem quaint (rather than a default position vis a vis the political process) but it seems unlikely to happen in my lifetime. As for performances that I would have liked to have seen, you've listed a couple and I can think of others--but that doesn't stop me from enjoying different takes on the same stories. Different strokes for different folks.
I can see your point about the two kinds of chemistry. I don't share your belief regarding actor chemistry in this case, though, as I've read some novels that present the character chemistry rather well (I've not read any in a long time and a good number of the Trek novels I have read are mediocre by tie-in standards, never mind overall literary standards, but a few do "get it right"). Moreover, if it is really about actor chemistry rather than character chemistry, then the overall premise of TOS is a lot weaker than I (and, it would seem, a lot of people--including Abrams and co.) think. I guess we'll see with the film (though a single failure, to me, would not constitute a refutation of the strength of the premise--though it may well, from a commercial standpoint, preclude further exploration in the near term).
This is the difference between enjoying dramatic entertainment and needing stimulation. It ain't just "kids these days."
That's right. No kidding. Not even meant as a sarcastic response. "Devoted fans", as I've already said, should NOT be the final arbiter about anything. Any filmmaker (or other artist/performer/composer/etc.) should do what HE wants and put it out for public consumption. The public is then free to decide for itself if it likes it or not. Deliberately trying to please the "devoted fan" is a sure-fire path to mediocrity. I much prefer to see a "spectacular failure" that shows an attempt at creativity rather than witness "competent mediocrity" that plays it too safe (there are enough examples of the latter in the Trek franchise already). There's no need to egregiously spit in the face of the "devoted fan" (though, for some, the impression of having that done to them will appear inevitable), but there is also no need to bend over backwards to please "the devoted fan" either. Chances are, just by attempting this project, to some "devoted fans", it's already too late.
Wasn't Nemesis supposed to be a fan pleaser? As I recall cast members were pretty vocal about how much the fans would love that movie. The same cast members seemed very disappointed in the overall weak fan reaction and were somewhat shocked that what was delivered with "fans" in mind – essentially a TNG-era parody of TWOK – wasn't embraced like an Orion stripper.
Yeah, I'm done pleasing "fans," too. It's about time Paramount called a do-over.
Yeah, I'm done pleasing "fans," too. It's about time Paramount called a do-over.
Holytomato said:
"I say kill Sulu. Sulu has always bugged me anyway."
...I'm not touching this.
You're inferring something I wasn't implying. I never liked the character.
"Chekov dies in the movie."
Mmm...naw this already happened on New Voyages.
how about...The Enterprise!
Naw. we already saw this twice... and that just in movies.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Starship Polaris said:
This is the difference between enjoying dramatic entertainment and needing stimulation. It ain't just "kids these days."
Wait a sec, you think YOU have the faculties to evaluate MY notion of entertainment? Whether mods think so or not, that is trolling, Bailey you asshole, since your shipes have been going on for years, while you sit behind this trekbbs forcefield that keeps you screened from the serious reality check you are so direly in need of.
Go whack off with a Scott Bakula doll or whatever it is that serves YOUR concept of 'needing stimulation.' You'll be doing this board a favor that is long overdue.
Signing off.
If they have deep enough pockets they can make whatever they want to, and good for them. Most filmmakers have to make films that somebody thinks will make money.
Probably, but when one is making films for one's own pleasure they're not likely to be sequels or remakes anyway.
I'd much prefer to see something enjoyable, whether mediocre or spectacular. Of course, spectacular is vastly preferred.
Quite right.
I wasn't initially talking about pleasing 'fans' specifically anyway, I was talking about making sequels/remakes that are as good as, or better than the originals. Of course that's all subjective, but with sequels (specifically), it might be presumed that some consideration is being given to pleasing the fans of its precursor. Remakes, on the other hand, are usually made to capitalize on good films of years past that younger, modern audiences won't usually take the time to watch, but might enjoy if they thought it was something new. These are often made with little regard for fans of the originals.
I think this new Star Trek film is going to be more along the lines of a remake than a prequel, and that may be OK. We'll have to wait and see.
---------------
This is true. Though even making money is elastic; an idiosyncratic low budget film that is successful in arthouse theatres is definitely something that makes a profit. Be ye Jerry Bruckheimer or Ingmar Bergman, you can be a success financially.
Peter Jackson wanted to remake King Kong from childhood. But even barring that, many idiosyncratic directors have approached assignment projects with a their stylistic approach. Francis Ford Coppola on The Godfather, for example.
I'd much prefer to see something enjoyable, whether mediocre or spectacular. Of course, spectacular is vastly preferred.
I'm with Ovation on this one. I'm fond of David Lynch's Dune for precisely this reason. It's not a good movie, but it really tries. This makes it far more entertaining than many more mediocre or conservative sci-fi films.
That's often but perhaps not always the case. I once read a review which made an interesting point about Kaufmann's Invasion of the Body Snatchers more or less expects familiarity with the original film.
And then there are films like Gus Van Sant's Psycho...
I consider it like Superman Returns as far as that question goes, personally.
Franklin said:
No, fans should not be the final arbiters. It should be left to the focus groups.
Exactly. The fans are part of the audience. Part. They are pretty much a guaranteed part, at least for one seating. And if they are taken wholly for granted, and a good story still results, who will complain? It will not be TOS. But a story well told is going to fill seats.
My preference is for a story well told, that still hews to the artistic vision established by the original Trek. And the attention to interesting scientific concepts and details that permeated the original stories. And... characters that are there to to advance the fascinating plot, rather than to themselves be the focus. Characters that are all the more fascinating for the blank spaces in their characters, rather than their elaborately wrought backstories.
But alas, I know that since the model to follow is ST2, 3, 4, and 6, it will most definitely not be anything like this.
Agreed. Chemistry is definitely important, but I don't think the new movie will live or die based on it. Besides, if the new actors don't quite have the same spark as the originals, there's always the excuse that it's still early in their friendship.
I doubt these characters were all buddy-buddy from the very start.
You first. That green shit gets into everything and is impossible to get out.
trevanian said:
Starship Polaris said:
This is the difference between enjoying dramatic entertainment and needing stimulation. It ain't just "kids these days."
Wait a sec, you think YOU have the faculties to evaluate MY notion of entertainment? Whether mods think so or not, that is trolling, Bailey you asshole, since your shipes have been going on for years, while you sit behind this trekbbs forcefield that keeps you screened from the serious reality check you are so direly in need of.
Go whack off with a Scott Bakula doll or whatever it is that serves YOUR concept of 'needing stimulation.' You'll be doing this board a favor that is long overdue.
Signing off.
That was totally unnecessary. Warned. Comments to PM.
Quote:
"Chekov dies in the movie."
Mmm...naw this already happened on New Voyages.
how about...The Enterprise!
Naw. we already saw this twice... and that just in movies."
Quote:
So, The Enterprise can't die again but Chekov can?
"Chekov dies in the movie."
Mmm...naw this already happened on New Voyages.
how about...The Enterprise!
Naw. we already saw this twice... and that just in movies."
Quote:
So, The Enterprise can't die again but Chekov can?
I think this pretty much stirs the pot for Old Spock to die. How weird would it be if Young Spock watched as his elder self passed away? That could make for an interesting scene...
Abrams doesn't do anything without putting his own touch on things. Look at his script for his planned Superman revival. I think he plans to stay a lot more faithful to the mythology with his approach to Star Trek than he had planned with Superman, but I do expect some inventiveness and creativity in making this not just another Star Trek movie or prequel.
Which I look forward to. Should be fun.
Abrams doesn't do anything without putting his own touch on things. Look at his script for his planned Superman revival. I think he plans to stay a lot more faithful to the mythology with his approach to Star Trek than he had planned with Superman, but I do expect some inventiveness and creativity in making this not just another Star Trek movie or prequel.
Which I look forward to. Should be fun.
Maybe Young Spock knows when and how he dies?
Spock knew about giving McCoy his Katra in TWOK years before.
Cool! :thumbsup:
Spock knew about giving McCoy his Katra in TWOK years before.
Cool! :thumbsup:
Never mind.
Similar threads
