Is it just me, or is Star Trek going the wrong way?

[Mudd]

Snyder's films, whatever you think of them, are chock full of themes like "There is good and there is evil, and individuals finding meaning in experience and purpose in action change the world for better or worse." Underneath his quirks is pretty much Positive Pop Narrative boilerplate.

 

[cooleddie74]

The Snyder Cut proved his vision is actually pretty damn good when you don't dilute and edit it to a ridiculous degree.

 

[Gov Kodos]

I just treat it all as a multiverse. TOS looks like TOS, Strange New Worlds looks like Strange New Worlds. Broad strokes are relatively the same, the details are different. The only thing I really worry about is whether or not the show is entertaining. Mount is an entertaining actor, especially as Cullen Bohannon in Hell on Wheels. So I'm interested in where him and the writers take this version of Pike. Same with Romijn and Peck. Slightly different versions of old favorites.

Mount was terrific in Hell on Wheels but what I would give to have a show centered on Colm Meaney as Thomas Durant. He was magnificent in that part.

 

[Mudd]

The Snyder Cut proved his vision is actually pretty damn good when you don't dilute and edit it to a ridiculous degree.

Nah. Awful movie.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Nah. Awful movie.

You misspelled amazing movie

 

[Mudd]

You misspelled amazing movie

No, but thanks for playing. You get a copy of the home game.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Snyder is like a watered-down Bay. Sure, he doesn't have the chauvinism and misogyny, but he also doesn't have Bay's unrivaled talent with a camera. However, he's still all about blowing shit up in a fantasy setting and having a good time. That's hardly nihilistic.

Also, I still haven't seen the Snyder Cut and haven't exactly been champing at the bit to, either.

 

[cooleddie74]

It's about the only Snyder film I've liked so...take that for what you will.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I've seen nearly the first hour of the Snyder cut. By that point in a movie, I expect it to be coming together into something coherent. It hadn't, it wasn't even fun, and I had to move on to more profitable enterprises that night.

 

[Mudd]

I've seen nearly the first hour of the Snyder cut. By that point in a movie, I expect it to be coming together into something coherent. It hadn't, it wasn't even fun, and I had to move on to more profitable enterprises that night.

Well, nothing happens in the first two hours. Okay, about ten minutes of actual stuff happens in the first two hours. There's some shit about stealing the motherboxes in the first two hours. There are scenes you saw in the Whedon version - Batman stalking Aquaman, Wonder Woman breaking up a generic terrorist/hostage situation - but they're a little longer in the Snyder version. The only interesting scene that you haven't seen is Barry Allen and the Iris rescue. The entire story is in the second half.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Well, nothing happens in the first two hours. Okay, about ten minutes of actual stuff happens in the first two hours. The entire story is in the second half.

Oh, I guess I didn't movie correctly that night.

 

[Mudd]

Snyder is like a watered-down Bay.

No, Snyder's a real talent.

If they announced another Snyder Superman movie (not happening, for so many reasons) I'd buy a ticket the moment I could.

Oh, I guess I didn't movie correctly that night.

Snyder doesn't movie correctly in the first hour. Or two.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I'll watch SNW, and I'll probably like it, but the last thing I want to do is come on here and talk about it with someone like you. Get bent.

Setting a bad example for the youngsters, but under the circumstances, I'll just give a friendly.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

Snyder is like a watered-down Bay. Sure, he doesn't have the chauvinism and misogyny, but he also doesn't have Bay's unrivaled talent with a camera.

Bay is only worthy when an asteroid is involved.

 

[SalyutBuran]

You're right. You do.

Everything else, though, is complete and utter nonsense. I mean if even a tenth of what you suggest is possible actually was, then Hollywood (And the music industry and fashion and food and political parties) would have already thrown every resource at their disposal into your diode research to crack the formula.

Or more radically they take these things for granted and spend far less money on research and more on practical work. If art was entirely subjective these companies wouldn't spend 100s of millions on advertising and production. Which entirely leg sweeps your entire argument.

You're also completely denying the actual training and work that it takes to be a convincing actor. One of the reason method acting in so incredibly common among top actors like daniel day lewis is directly because it's far easier to convince something emotionally speaking as true. So again you're way way out there on this one.

Lighting and framing done by directors is again something that is done from a technical perspective. Framing is more or less objectively used to create a narrative.

Just because you don't understand the work that goes into producing a major project doesn't mean people who do it aren't aware of it.

The only thing your brain drain whatever can tell you is trends. But trends are never 100% true 100% of the time.

And this is a strawman argument. With any prediction there's an error rate, obviously the whole thing is incredibly complex, that doesn't change anything. The point is there's objective truths found in subjective experiences. And someone who is actually skilled at something is aware of those quantities.

And how your diodes predict someone brain will react to Van Halen in 1955 is not the same as how it would predict someone's brain would react to Van Halen in 1985.

Sure but that doesn't circumvent my statement in the least. The most obvious measurable example of this is how blues scales and modes became mainstays in rock music during the mid 1960s. In the early 1950s the Ionian mode was a staple of music and by the late 60s the aeolian mode became the gold standard.

Because people are constantly being influenced by a potentially infinite number of outside sources that affect their current mental and emotional states as well as their thought process. Which is why art will always be subjective.

That only goes further to prove the point, both shows are opperating with premises that don't jive with today majority.

 

[cooleddie74]

No.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Sure but that doesn't circumvent my statement in the least. The most obvious measurable example of this is how blues scales and modes became mainstays in rock music during the mid 1960s. In the early 1950s the Ionian mode was a staple of music and by the late 60s the aeolian mode became the gold standard.

Do you even think this shit through?

 

[Mudd]

If art was entirely subjective these companies wouldn't spend 100s of millions on advertising and production. Which entirely leg sweeps your entire argument.

If art wasn't essentially subjective, they wouldn't have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising and promotion and then see their movie fail in the marketplace.

Which entirely leg sweeps your argument.

(See, it's not necessary to use the word "entirely" three times in two sentences.)

 

[GNDN18]

See, it's not necessary to use the word "entirely" three times in two sentences.

That shows no sense of fair-play, you being a writer and all that.

 

[cooleddie74]

Do you even think this shit through?

You're new here, aren't ya?