I'm not following this conversation. What from the new movie is being compared to muffin holders?
New image and Total Film Magazine collector covers
- Thread starter M'Sharak
- Start date
- Status
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Go back a page or two, or search for my reference to DARK STAR. I'm talking about how when you don't have money to sell a look, you quick cut it. OVercutting when you HAVE money is a pretty good sign in many but not all casdes that you can't afford to let audiences dwell on your content.
Rii
Rear Admiral
It is rather amusing that a single still of no apparent significance has generated more discussion than a detailed description of the upcoming trailer.
Muffin tins were part of the costuming in a low-budget movie of the 1970s called "Dark Star." It wasn't any good, but did feature the work of people who went on to work in the professional film industry - John Carpenter directed it, Greg Jein built models and that guy who's always exaggerating his contributions to "Alien" - O'Bannon - wrote it, I think.
The muffin tins on the suits looked like muffin tins, BTW. You couldn't miss 'em. Some other things about the movie were clever.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Wasn't any good? Geez, guess you didn't read the ADF novelization. His passage about Boiler punching buttons is deathless prose. And the 'coming out of hyperdrive' in the movie is probably at least as funny as anything in HARDWARE WARS.
Hell, if a trek movie dealt with phenomenology in an up-front way, even comically as DS does, there'd be all these folks saying it is going way over everybody's head.
Hell, if a trek movie dealt with phenomenology in an up-front way, even comically as DS does, there'd be all these folks saying it is going way over everybody's head.
number6
Vice Admiral
I think you are confusing style with substance as if they are interchangable. Cutting scenes into a trailer is certainly different than cutting scenes for a major motion picture. Even with that there has been an evolution of style and technique with each passing decade and we can't assume that this new film is going to be any different in that regard.
I don't know what that comment about M. Night-ing everthing even means.. If you mean over inflated with a sense of self importance, I don't think that will happen. But then I think Shyamalan is extemely overrated and The Happening sucked hampster balls. I would hope no sane filmmaker would ever want to be intentionally influenced by Shyamalan.
I also find it amusing that comparisons to Transformers always seems to enter this equation.
Transformers was aimed at a different age demographic than this new film will be. Period. Let's leave it as that. I saw Transformers and I think it is what it is: An action-adventure effects film aimed at kids. The style of writing is reflected in that. I have said time and again, if you want to compare writing in terms of what we can expect from K&O, you're better off looking at M:I 3. The demographic for that vs. Star Trek is far more realistic (Much like one could think of the TV shows--even though ratings weren't as yet measured that way.). If Star Trek has writing as stongs as what we saw in M:I 3, we're in for a fun film. Assuming that Star Trek is going to be written in the same way Transformers was is just plain silly on its face, good or bad.
I'm not going to make a decision on this film based on the trailer and a few random shots in a magazine. The purpose for that is crystal clear: to get people interested in checking out the film. To that end, they have succeeded. Two months and counting.
May 9 this BBS will implode!!
I don't know what that comment about M. Night-ing everthing even means.. If you mean over inflated with a sense of self importance, I don't think that will happen. But then I think Shyamalan is extemely overrated and The Happening sucked hampster balls. I would hope no sane filmmaker would ever want to be intentionally influenced by Shyamalan.
I also find it amusing that comparisons to Transformers always seems to enter this equation.
Transformers was aimed at a different age demographic than this new film will be. Period. Let's leave it as that. I saw Transformers and I think it is what it is: An action-adventure effects film aimed at kids. The style of writing is reflected in that. I have said time and again, if you want to compare writing in terms of what we can expect from K&O, you're better off looking at M:I 3. The demographic for that vs. Star Trek is far more realistic (Much like one could think of the TV shows--even though ratings weren't as yet measured that way.). If Star Trek has writing as stongs as what we saw in M:I 3, we're in for a fun film. Assuming that Star Trek is going to be written in the same way Transformers was is just plain silly on its face, good or bad.
I'm not going to make a decision on this film based on the trailer and a few random shots in a magazine. The purpose for that is crystal clear: to get people interested in checking out the film. To that end, they have succeeded. Two months and counting.
May 9 this BBS will implode!!
Alright, got ya.
The quick cutting is something tough to judge from trailers since that's exactly what a trailers are. Maybe someone who's seen the clips from Abrams promo tour could answer that question better.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Night has got what seems like a fixation on telling stories in the most old-fashioned way possible, with his traditional use of film grammar. I thought it was a little affected at first, but everybody else yelled, "hitchcock" which I guess meant he was doing good (for me, UNBREAKABLE is a terrific movie with a badly-altered ending, but the rest that I've gotten through are not really special to me.)
His storytelling style is pretty much entirely at odds with the MTV/eyeballs thing that permeates most current work, but it shows that you can go too far in the other direction as well. But if you do, you'd better have a really terrific looking environment to keep the eye interested while you tell your story in a more leisurely way. TMP is done in a very old-fashioned way, but it doesn't have the visual splendor one would associate with old Hollywood, so it fails in both ways (despite its other successes in certain categories.)
trevanian
Rear Admiral
The beauty is, no matter HOW they actually implement it in the finished film it will be woefully backward and outdated within 10 to 15 years and we'll look back and wonder how anyone could be so naive.
Not necessarily. TOUCH OF EVIL could be a contemporary film with its camera use and cutting, but it was made over 50 years back. Lots of pics don't date because they are good stories well told and they use the camera and pacing in ways that do not date.
number6
Vice Admiral
I'm glad you like his stuff. I find his style to be overblown, pompous and derivative.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Perhaps you'd care to reread my post, and pay attention.
Except for UNBREAKABLE, I'm not a fan of his stuff (haven't even seen the last couple.) Maybe you need to start liking his stuff in order to keep disagreeing with me.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Just because you don't like (or can't keep up with) the faster paced cutting that is employed in todays movies doesn't mean that the movie is bad or 'suffering from something massive'.
But you (and I) don't even know how the film is cut, 'cause, you know, you haven't seen it.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
The 70s produced some pretty good movies though (however old-fashioned they may seem today).
number6
Vice Admiral
Why? You seem to think this film is going to suck without having seen it.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Yeah, but he has hard evidence to support his opinion: lens flares, reflections in a glass window, a fast-paced cut trailer, a set-design he doesn't like...
This movie could very well suck and then these things would only be part of it's problem.
But to state this movie will suck just because of these things, without having seen the actual directorial approach and the actors' performence is... yeah, what?... Stupid? Dishonest?
number6
Vice Admiral
Both.. I am sure a condescending lecture about filming techniques is sure to follow. After all, none of us have any practical idea of how any of this this is done, except for 16mm guy and the shareholder.
To the rest of us it's all *Hollywood Magic* and fairy dust.
Never forget that!
I heard that JJ pointed a finger at a thing and it went BOOOM!! after he said a magic word. They pointed a magic box at it so we could see it later. Apparently it's called "speshull effecks".To the rest of us it's all *Hollywood Magic* and fairy dust.
Never forget that!
He is scary warlock.
number6
Vice Admiral
I heard that JJ pointed a finger at a thing and it went BOOOM!! after he said a magic word. They pointed a magic box at it so we could see it later. Apparently it's called "speshull effecks".To the rest of us it's all *Hollywood Magic* and fairy dust.
Never forget that!
He is scary warlock.
Once he cast Captain Robau, it all happened spontaneously. He's that badass!!
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Both.. I am sure a condescending lecture about filming techniques is sure to follow. After all, none of us have any practical idea of how any of this this is done, except for 16mm guy and the shareholder.
To the rest of us it's all *Hollywood Magic* and fairy dust.
Never forget that!
16mm guy - I like that
trevanian, as a reporter and fan-filmer, is a bit like a eunuch; he knows how a major motion picture is made.
- Status
Similar threads
