Re: Badass Digest says new writers for Trek 3; studio aiming for the 5
You just trying to kill the die-hards?
You just trying to kill the die-hards?
Last edited:
Badass Digest says new writers for Trek 3; studio aiming for the 50th.
- Thread starter Gepard
- Start date
Re: Badass Digest says new writers for Trek 3; studio aiming for the 5
Yes, a cull that will become legend across the stars.
Yes, a cull that will become legend across the stars.
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Badass Digest says new writers for Trek 3; studio aiming for the 5
Yes 2016 is the 50th year since Star Trek debuted, but the 'first anniversary' of something is one year after the initial occurrence, so the first anniversary of Star Trek would have been one year after its debut, which would have been in 1967. Counting up 50 anniversaries from the first one in 1967 gives us 2017. This means that 2016 is the 50th year of Star Trek's existence, but only the 49th anniversary.
Yes 2016 is the 50th year since Star Trek debuted, but the 'first anniversary' of something is one year after the initial occurrence, so the first anniversary of Star Trek would have been one year after its debut, which would have been in 1967. Counting up 50 anniversaries from the first one in 1967 gives us 2017. This means that 2016 is the 50th year of Star Trek's existence, but only the 49th anniversary.
Re: Badass Digest says new writers for Trek 3; studio aiming for the 5
I do dispute that. They did good dialogue, but can't plot worth a damn. They need at least one collaborator who has the ability to construct a plot.
Re: Badass Digest says new writers for Trek 3; studio aiming for the 5
Think of it as birthdays. Say you were born on September 8, 1966. You turn one year old on September 8, 1967, or the "first anniversary" of your birth. When you turn 50 on September 8, 1966, it will also mark the "50th anniversary" of your birth. Counting from 1967 to 2016 is 50, not 49 (jot it down or make a quick spreadsheet).
If the 2260s Prime Universe does appear in STIII, then let's not have any CGI hocus pocus or enhanced TOS clips. Let's have replica TOS sets and let Pine, Quinto, and the others play the characters in both universes. Talk about heads exploding.
Think of it as birthdays. Say you were born on September 8, 1966. You turn one year old on September 8, 1967, or the "first anniversary" of your birth. When you turn 50 on September 8, 1966, it will also mark the "50th anniversary" of your birth. Counting from 1967 to 2016 is 50, not 49 (jot it down or make a quick spreadsheet).
If the 2260s Prime Universe does appear in STIII, then let's not have any CGI hocus pocus or enhanced TOS clips. Let's have replica TOS sets and let Pine, Quinto, and the others play the characters in both universes. Talk about heads exploding.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Re: Badass Digest says new writers for Trek 3; studio aiming for the 5
The idea is to link to Sandra Bullock tumbling and hollering in space from the new GRAVITY trailer if you really want to visualize the cliche reaction.
Honestly though, as bad as TOS-R looks, I'm not over the moon about the current ILM work either. The gauziness of some shots is as obnoxious as the lens flares on the live-action, and especially out of place in space (just look at ANY of the GRAVITY trailers to see how to do all of this stuff AMAZINGLY RIGHT.)
The idea is to link to Sandra Bullock tumbling and hollering in space from the new GRAVITY trailer if you really want to visualize the cliche reaction.
Honestly though, as bad as TOS-R looks, I'm not over the moon about the current ILM work either. The gauziness of some shots is as obnoxious as the lens flares on the live-action, and especially out of place in space (just look at ANY of the GRAVITY trailers to see how to do all of this stuff AMAZINGLY RIGHT.)
Re: Badass Digest says new writers for Trek 3; studio aiming for the 5
THAT is absolutely brilliant. New cast in old sets. The WTF factor! TOS could cameo as "spirit guides" or whatever to guide this bunch toward set goal. GD I LOVE THIS!!!
Think of it as birthdays. Say you were born on September 8, 1966. You turn one year old on September 8, 1967, or the "first anniversary" of your birth. When you turn 50 on September 8, 1966, it will also mark the "50th anniversary" of your birth. Counting from 1967 to 2016 is 50, not 49 (jot it down or make a quick spreadsheet).
If the 2260s Prime Universe does appear in STIII, then let's not have any CGI hocus pocus or enhanced TOS clips. Let's have replica TOS sets and let Pine, Quinto, and the others play the characters in both universes. Talk about heads exploding.
THAT is absolutely brilliant. New cast in old sets. The WTF factor! TOS could cameo as "spirit guides" or whatever to guide this bunch toward set goal. GD I LOVE THIS!!!
Re: Badass Digest says new writers for Trek 3; studio aiming for the 5
And may I remind you since you have not heard it in a while...
YOU MFers are the best on the Trek Net. I enjoy each and everyone of your contributions...even if I don't agree.
And may I remind you since you have not heard it in a while...
YOU MFers are the best on the Trek Net. I enjoy each and everyone of your contributions...even if I don't agree.
Re: Badass Digest says new writers for Trek 3; studio aiming for the 5
Ya, but despite the fact that they are both space based films, they are stylistically completely different. I don't think it's fair to compare the two at all. There really is no right or wrong way to do it, within the context of a stylistic decision.
The idea is to link to Sandra Bullock tumbling and hollering in space from the new GRAVITY trailer if you really want to visualize the cliche reaction.
Honestly though, as bad as TOS-R looks, I'm not over the moon about the current ILM work either. The gauziness of some shots is as obnoxious as the lens flares on the live-action, and especially out of place in space (just look at ANY of the GRAVITY trailers to see how to do all of this stuff AMAZINGLY RIGHT.)
Ya, but despite the fact that they are both space based films, they are stylistically completely different. I don't think it's fair to compare the two at all. There really is no right or wrong way to do it, within the context of a stylistic decision.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Re: Badass Digest says new writers for Trek 3; studio aiming for the 5
And I disagree. Giving a Trek film the photorealistic look of SPACE COWBOYS even, let alone GRAVITY, with seriously hard light/unfilled shadow areas, would create more of an aura of credibility.
Take a look at some of the long shots in FC when they're walking on the dish. The very distant shot that opens the sequence is pretty darn good, but then when you get into Patrick Stewart PeterPanPinwheeling over the dish, it might as well be 1955 and THE CONQUEST OF SPACE when Ross Martin gets run over by a space rock.
And I disagree. Giving a Trek film the photorealistic look of SPACE COWBOYS even, let alone GRAVITY, with seriously hard light/unfilled shadow areas, would create more of an aura of credibility.
Take a look at some of the long shots in FC when they're walking on the dish. The very distant shot that opens the sequence is pretty darn good, but then when you get into Patrick Stewart PeterPanPinwheeling over the dish, it might as well be 1955 and THE CONQUEST OF SPACE when Ross Martin gets run over by a space rock.
Re: Badass Digest says new writers for Trek 3; studio aiming for the 5
Exactly, and Paramount celebrated the 20th anniversary in a big way, in 1986, with a similar marketing push for the 25th in 1991.
Exactly, and Paramount celebrated the 20th anniversary in a big way, in 1986, with a similar marketing push for the 25th in 1991.
Re: Badass Digest says new writers for Trek 3; studio aiming for the 5
If you look at actual space photos, you will see plenty of lens flares. But I do agree a that a completely realistic space look would be nice. On the other hand, to complete that feel you might as well have no sound in space which wouldn't work that well.
If you look at actual space photos, you will see plenty of lens flares. But I do agree a that a completely realistic space look would be nice. On the other hand, to complete that feel you might as well have no sound in space which wouldn't work that well.
Re: Badass Digest says new writers for Trek 3; studio aiming for the 5
Uhm......Firefly??
Uhm......Firefly??
Re: Badass Digest says new writers for Trek 3; studio aiming for the 5
A canceled TV show. So, no it didn't work out too well.
Re: Badass Digest says new writers for Trek 3; studio aiming for the 5
Dead and buried in less than 20 episodes, brought back as a flop of a movie that the fans dragged out of the studio and immediately regreted.
So...yeah.
Dead and buried in less than 20 episodes, brought back as a flop of a movie that the fans dragged out of the studio and immediately regreted.
So...yeah.
Re: Badass Digest says new writers for Trek 3; studio aiming for the 5
I did. Loved the show, but haven't revisited it since the film. The film killed all the positive feelings I had for the show.
I did. Loved the show, but haven't revisited it since the film. The film killed all the positive feelings I had for the show.
Re: Badass Digest says new writers for Trek 3; studio aiming for the 5
I enjoyed Firefly a lot, but I absolutely LOVED Serenity.
But back to the point a few posts up, I thought Firelfly's space shots seemed unfinished with the lack of sound. Even BSG added in some deep thrrrump! noises when shit blew up or crashed or whatever.
I enjoyed Firefly a lot, but I absolutely LOVED Serenity.
But back to the point a few posts up, I thought Firelfly's space shots seemed unfinished with the lack of sound. Even BSG added in some deep thrrrump! noises when shit blew up or crashed or whatever.
Similar threads
