Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by King Daniel Beyond, Mar 6, 2013.
Agreed. Loved the pencil-sketch quality to his art.
I've seen all of the first one, and it's typical of fans who grew up on TNG attempting to do TOS, and delivering TOS-disguised TNG. The only way it hearkens back to The 60's is in the shape of the Aurora's nacelles. It's main characters, however, evoke the 80's (TMNT cartoon) and aughts (ENT). You want to compare them to Harry Mudd? Then they should at least be as orginal and intriguing as Mudd was when he first appeared.
Anyone who thinks that is no one whose taste or opinion I would respect.
You don't have to respect them (I sure as frack don't) but you do have to acknowledge and tolerate them, just as I have to. That said, although I don't agree with them about the 2009 movie, I do share their love (if they know about it) of Star Trek: Aurora, and hope that its style becomes the style of a future Star Trek show, rather than just slavishly imitating Star Wars: The Clone Wars or Green Lantern: The Animated Series.
BTW, there are realistic style CGI cartoons with the art of Star Trek: Aurora that have aired already, and were somewhat successful:
After looking at all of that, can you all then tell me that a Star Trek cartoon animated like that wouldn't be successful?
Most of those examples are dreadful. The final one at least doesn't look like cheap department store mannequins. Other than that, there's a ton of 3D porn on the Internet made by amateurs using Poser that's better on a technical level.
CBS/Paramount can easily go on without "success" on the scale that these examples represent, although it's easy to imagine them hankering after the Clone Wars audience instead.
Let me spell it out: if a studio is going to do 3D animation they ought to do it well. The examples you keep throwing out as "gotchas!" are poor examples of 3D animation and utterly fail to make your point.
Yeah. You don't diss the work that comes from the writers of the first two Transformers movies (I'm directly below the enemy scrotum!) and the guy who rewrote Prometheus (I'm a scientist and all my conclusions are based on blind faith). As a writer you've got to have major thinking power to retell Top Gun in a Star Trek story, and pretty much retell the same story again in it's sequel.
I say we take a step back and cut Shaka Zulu a little slack. Ultimately it is the story which counts, a great new Trek could be made on a flip-book or with macaroni-art and still be moving and exciting.
Lol, I see what you did there
Other people's success makes you this bitter? Guess you better get comfortable with that.
No. If they don't draw an audience sufficient to justify their investment then it's another failure and another reason never to try again. All elements of the production matter, and the story will not overcome serious deficiencies of execution.
Legion, we are talking about two different things. You are speaking of the commercial viability, while I am addressing the success of story as told through various art forms.
Many art forms that you would not perceive as commercially viable have received awards and are hung in museums, praised throughout the world, perhaps not here on the esteemed TrekBBS by critics such as yourself.
If one wanted to tell a Star Trek story, it really doesn't matter what it looks like, or if you like the computer animation used to tell it.
I understand that Shaka is simply a proponent for a more photo-realistic Trek Animated series, and that you are not. That's pretty much it.
I would if that was actually what he was saying. All he keeps saying is "photo-real cgi, that will make Trek a success." And then provide countless examples of drastically less than photo-real cgi.
The movies were a success, but their writing sure wasn't. And I'd hardly call the last Star Trek movie a success if the director declares it to be unimportant.
Yeah, but, commercial success is the point. CBS will not buy it or produce it if they don't have reasonable assurance of some financial success. It doesn't matter how successfully the medium tells the story if nobody is willing to sponsor it. With money.
You're going to tell me that Reboot-which was on for FOUR seasons-sucked? That Roughnecks: Starship Troopers Chronicles was crap? The first ones mentioned by me were quite successful and have a big fan base to boot, as does Iron Man: Armoured Adventures. I can't believe that you think that the Pixar style or the Clone Wars style would be better for Star Trek over these (although I'm warming up somewhat to the style of animation used in Rise Of The Guardians for a Star Trek show based on how well Jack Frost was drawn.)
Those last two seasons did...
All the adaptations of Troopers are crap because they're all made by people who didn't friggin read the book.
It's easy to believe, because in every case Pixar and Clone wars characters are capable of doing one thing the others Can't: Show genuine emotion.
What's wrong with multiple interpretations of the source material? Batman has survived multiple interpretations. Heck, Star Trek seems to be doing fine by a director who doesn't even give a crap about the franchise.
Star Trek is commercial entertainment. It's pointless to discuss the future of the Franchise if you pretend that the studio would for one moment consider a project that isn't developed primarily as a means of generating revenue. They've never, ever done that before.
I mean, while we're at it I may as well propose that in three years CBS ought to make Trek available as a holographic choose-your-own-adventure program written by Ernest Hemingway, who they'll retrieve using a time machine that they should fund and develop.
Or, instead, we can talk about future Star Trek projects that might actually have a chance of happening.
Neither of which choices, however, have much to do with Shaka Zulu's proposals. Based on the examples he points to he's not really interested in photo realism so much as in seeing animated examples of 3D puppets that happen to be proportioned like human beings - because none of the examples he points to are good examples of photo realism; most of them are either low-budget or outdated crap that most people with any discrimination won't sit through.
Um..wrong...name me the only ST movie to get a Writer's Guild Award nom....yup ST09.
Also a Nebula nom...scifi pros.
I actually agree with you..but the examples on TV so far have not been great. Some of those are way out of date. Some better examples are shows that use computers to model traditional animation with environments and motion with a realistic fashion without having to be actually real. A good example currently showing in theaters and bluray in Japan is Yamato:2199, possibly the best animated space scenes and battles ever. Ghost in the Shell has used this in the past and of course some other animated shows use it to some degree. Another good space show is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroic_Age_%28anime%29. Much of the hardware is CGI.
Tron:Uprising had the best animation I've ever seen on US TV, stylized though it was.
If they did some animated TV or bluray movies, the style used in the last Starship Troopers movie, or Vexhille, TO:Elliptical Orbit, Planzet, Negadon works because a bigger budget lends itself to full CGI.
Because it doesn't look good?
Separate names with a comma.