Knock it off.
Restoring what made Star Trek great
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
This thread gave Troi a migraine.
Or Elaine from Seinfeld!
Deanna's got 'Shiksappeal'.
We will got more of the talky talky if there will be a tv series.
... Indeed! It does sound like it.
I don't think the plot lines are a problem with the new films. The only issue I have with the new films is cinematic pacing.
I enjoy action adventure films as much as the next guy, but these films should allow the audience's brains to mull over one dramatic event that just transpired on screen before getting slapped in the face with the next dramatic event.
In other words: I do like breathtaking action, but I like breathing, too.
I enjoy action adventure films as much as the next guy, but these films should allow the audience's brains to mull over one dramatic event that just transpired on screen before getting slapped in the face with the next dramatic event.
In other words: I do like breathtaking action, but I like breathing, too.
Much agreed about breathing, but pacing is overrated. Following a "beat" and making decisions based upon pacing is what often seems to degrade films by introducing what has been called "MTV fast-cut editing." It becomes such that shots and scenes change so fast that there is no time to absorb the meaning. This is as you say. But I object to the soulless mantra or formula of "pacing" as if that is the main engine of the film, religiously following the "Save the Cat!" screenwriting guide. I have no problem with so-called "uneven" films. If it's interesting, I'd rather linger in the scene and spend more time right there in the story. Complaints about pacing seem to echo today's lack of attention span and need for instant gratification. Consequently, I don't believe lingering makes it a bad film, and the industry has historically underestimated the ability - and the desire - of an audience to watch longer movies.
I agree about the pacing, but there is also an element of enjoyment in rewatching a scene, and seeing different emotions being presented in the film. I enjoy rewatching Abrams Trek films (among others-I did similar things with Generations) and catching the different nuances from each characters.
The pacing still is my least favorite aspect of the new films, but hardly a deal breaker.
The pacing still is my least favorite aspect of the new films, but hardly a deal breaker.
Pacing is a problem in every modern movie, whether it's an action movie or not. Fast editing, quick pans, it's the order of the day. Cinematography isn't what it used to be (or, if it is, it's not being respected by the guys in the editing room).
It seems silly, but it wasn't until a recent rewatch that I realized Scotty ejects the warp core in the 2009 film. Not necessarily because I wasn't paying attention all those other times, but simply because the fast pace of the scene meant the event passed me by. So this time I was like, "Oh, so that's how they escaped from the gravity well..."
It seems silly, but it wasn't until a recent rewatch that I realized Scotty ejects the warp core in the 2009 film. Not necessarily because I wasn't paying attention all those other times, but simply because the fast pace of the scene meant the event passed me by. So this time I was like, "Oh, so that's how they escaped from the gravity well..."
Quickly-cut action isn't exactly a "new thing." It's only called "MTV 
fast-cut editing" by people who don't know any better.
fast-cut editing" by people who don't know any better.I still think when the time is right ST will return to the small screen, not sure what form it'll take but it'll return. In some respects the longer it is off air the better, to draw an anology using the worlds longest running Sci-Fi show DW. It went off the air in 1989 (the fans of the show didn't want it go obviously), there was an attempt several years later with US investment to try and bring it back, before it returned after an abscense of 16 years.
DW's quality had started to decline in the last few years, though there was a slight improvement towards the end of the Seventh's Doctor run, fast forward 16 years later the show is refreshed updated and becomes one of the BBC's flagship shows.
As they say abscence makes the heart grow fonder.
DW's quality had started to decline in the last few years, though there was a slight improvement towards the end of the Seventh's Doctor run, fast forward 16 years later the show is refreshed updated and becomes one of the BBC's flagship shows.
As they say abscence makes the heart grow fonder.
It also encourages divorce.
"Conscious uncoupling", surely?
And I agree with MacLeod, a certain distance from the last produced TV shows means it will come back refreshed. I know there are some around here who fear a TV series just because they worry about the bad vibes of the Berman!Trek era rubbing off on it, or simply feel oversatured on TV Trek. But enough time has passed now for a fresh take on the franchise, and a new show would be targeted at an audience who probably weren't even born yet when ENT went off the air. So on both counts I'd argue they should go for it.
"Conscious uncoupling", surely?
And I agree with MacLeod, a certain distance from the last produced TV shows means it will come back refreshed. I know there are some around here who fear a TV series just because they worry about the bad vibes of the Berman!Trek era rubbing off on it, or simply feel oversatured on TV Trek. But enough time has passed now for a fresh take on the franchise, and a new show would be targeted at an audience who probably weren't even born yet when ENT went off the air. So on both counts I'd argue they should go for it.
I'd like to think the target audience would be a little older than 10, though.
I think we can all agree I'm pretty great.
This thread gave Troi a migraine.
Or Elaine from Seinfeld!
Or Fran Dresher from The Nanny!
Pacing is a problem in every modern movie, whether it's an action movie or not. Fast editing, quick pans, it's the order of the day. Cinematography isn't what it used to be (or, if it is, it's not being respected by the guys in the editing room).
It seems silly, but it wasn't until a recent rewatch that I realized Scotty ejects the warp core in the 2009 film. Not necessarily because I wasn't paying attention all those other times, but simply because the fast pace of the scene meant the event passed me by. So this time I was like, "Oh, so that's how they escaped from the gravity well..."
I'm a middle-aged man of 40-something years, and even I got that Scott had ejected the warp core to stop being swallowed up by the black hole-how you missed it, I have no idea. Editing's just a silly (to me) excuse.
This
Personally, Star Trek was always fun for me, as well as made me think. It is an aspect of the show that seems to sometimes be lost in the extremes, either towards the "message show" or the completely goofy.
I think Star Trek is great when it doesn't take itself too seriously. I think that sometimes Trek writers should read things like Heinlein's "Space Cadet" and "Hornblower" to see where Trek came from and what inspired it.
The sense of adventure and positivity are always what stood out to me. Star Trek was something unique, and used technology in creative and fun ways. It doesn't have to be a strict commentary on social issues. Sometimes, you just have to present a different view on a society to start a dialog.
^^^^^^^^^^
This, 100%.
This, 100%.
Similar threads
- Poll
