Panoramas of Enterprise interior on official site
- Thread starter Chris3123
- Start date
Because I like it?
Because I want to?
Luckily none of this is in question.
There is little evidence of that, even if it is subjective.
I also read that he was a Star Trek fan.
This is simply a new Star Trek design. You've adapted (presumably) many times before. Just adapt again now if nothing else fails.
Oh brother.
And the other movies were done as a public service. Right.
You sound new to Star Trek.
The point is clear, JJ was not the right person to make a trek movie. Are you telling me and everyone here, that its ok for JJ to turn Star Trek into Star Wars?
Because I like it?
Because I want to?
Luckily none of this is in question.
There is little evidence of that, even if it is subjective.
I also read that he was a Star Trek fan.
This is simply a new Star Trek design. You've adapted (presumably) many times before. Just adapt again now if nothing else fails.
Oh brother.
And the other movies were done as a public service. Right.
You sound new to Star Trek.
Dude, I have been a fan of Trek for 28 years. When valid facts are made about this movie, you want to look away and not believe the facts.
Answer me this question. Was Transformers a good movie?
Well if you read the quote, he is not trying to turn Trek into Star Wars. What he is saying is he recognizes the fact that Star Wars is the better medium for a film production. It comes across as more epic and vast on the big screen then Star Trek does, due to its design, the way the story is told, and the way it is film. For this film to grab the general audience, it needs to have that same feeling. It needs to take some of the storytelling ideals of Star Wars, and inject them into a Trek film, in order for it to get that epic scope. Because he recognizes that, Abrams is the perfect guy to make a Trek film, a modern Trek film, that is not bogged down but the films that preceded it.
The difference I see between Trek and Wars, especially in the movies, is that that in Star Wars, the film follows the characters around. They go from planet to planet, and you see a vast amount of the universe they are in. In Trek, when the film follows the characters, it also follows the ship, so most of the story is based around that one thing, and whatever it encounters over the course of the story. What I like about the new film, and from what I have read about it, is this film shows the universe, as well as just the ships story. There are different locations and planets, and times that are completely independent of where the Enterprise is in the story. The Enterprise portion of "Star Trek" is just one part of the movie. The films is going to explore the universe of Trek, not just one ship.
I like what I see from the new movie, the corridors included. You can sit there and just complain about them ripping off Star Wars and various other scifi films (even though saying the new Enterprise is ripped off of Star Wars I don't get at all), but what scifi movie or show is not influenced by another? These corridors don't scream Star Wars to me at all. They scream...starship corridor. When the first trailer came out, everyone bitched about how the film was gonna be so dark and gritty and not Trek. Now we have stuff to analyze, and now the movie is too bright and shiny and not Trek.
I will agree about the crapload of lights in the ceiling though, I would tone those down a lot.
JJ eh? In charge of Star Trek? Hm-m-m, this is not good. I hope Transformers was better than Cloverfield. Because the director of that little tome didn't realize that a 500 lb bomb hit squair to the back effectively kills the creature... ie see also; blows it in half.
I would have loved Paramont to have put this kind of money up for a original cast film... instead of low balling them every chance they got.
I would have loved Paramont to have put this kind of money up for a original cast film... instead of low balling them every chance they got.
The people who run the studio are smarter than that.
Rii
Rear Admiral
Pfft, you wouldn't have a B-2 flying that low anyway.
I have no problem with story construction that take the crew off the ship and different worlds, you saw how well that was done "insurrection"
But to say that we do not see a very large Star Wars influence in this movie, well I am not sure what you are watching.
People can't just dismiss the visuals in a movie. If that is the case, just have JJ Read the movie to us or sell it as a book. The visual element in a movie is very important. From what I have seen, JJ has done very little to respect the style of look of not just TOS Trek, but all the movies and TV Series.
The only respect in which there is a "large Star Wars influence" in this movie is that they have spent some real money on it and it shows.
I do? Why would I want to?
From my personal opinion I enjoyed it.
They way you speak it is the only element in a movie or show, considering how you have implied the notion that if you don't like some of the designs of the original show then you are "not a fan."
But even Insurrection had the problem of "the characters are there, because the Enterprise is there." That and it was not a great movie, it felt like a blown up television episode, but thats another matter.
And Im glad that JJ took the Trek look in another direction. I have seen 5 series and ten movies of the Trek look. It was time for something a bit different. He has taken the basic ideas, and changed them in order to fit into a modern movie setting and budget. I can see a Star Wars influence on some things, as much as I see an old Trek influence and a 2001 influence. Im sorry, but black shiney floors and bright hallways do not automatically scream Star Wars in my view.
I guess I could see someone commenting on the VFX style being similar to the Star Wars films, since ILM is doing Trek, and each VFX House has its own unique style and cues, and even that is pushing it, because from what I have read and heard, the CG and VFX shots in this completely blow away anything seen in the prequels.
No studios are not smart, they just want money. I can't fault them, its a business. But do I have to point out...How many reality shows are on TV. Why do we have soooooo many, because the cost of one reality show season = the craft service of a normal show.
You have studios take shows off, like Firefly, Arrest and Development just to name two. Its all about money!
Well Abrams produced that, and did not direct it. Throw any problems Matt Reeves way.
And any problems with the VFX shots, and the bombs not killing the creature, talk to Double Negative, who did the VFX shots for that film.
So "because the Enterprise is there" Insurrection was bad? True it was not a good movie, but you do know that the "Enterprise" is in this movie!
So we should go see this movie, because the effects will blow away all other effects? Then why have a movie, let just have 60 min effects reel of explosions and ships attacking other ships. Movie today use effects to save a movie. That is why we have shit movies.
Networks didn't take them off just for the simple merit it cost too much money but the fact they weren't really MAKING any money off of them. Firefly was doing late series "Enterprise" ratings on a MAJOR network I believe. Which I don't fault the show necessarily as I found it very good. However, FOX is also notorious for running through shows like they are nothing.You have studios take shows off, like Firefly, Arrest and Development just to name two. Its all about money!
Most people want money.
People who run studios and are not smart do not last very long.
Generally speaking, studios do not "take shows off" - nor, for that matter, do they "put shows on." Do you know what a studio is?
Rii
Rear Admiral
It's a monster movie. What fun would it be if bombs actually killed the thing? No fun if you can't see the aircraft dropping the bombs either. Realism be damned.
Yes, you do have to drop bombs on it.
That sequence, followed by the helicopter crash, was probably my favourite part of the film.
Similar threads
