Would you rather they did? Imagine the movie we'd get if that ever happened.
Seriously...why?
- Thread starter Bry_Sinclair
- Start date
Would you rather they did? Imagine the movie we'd get if that ever happened.
number6
Vice Admiral
The film came out two years ago and we're still bitching about Lens Flares?? Seriously??
I'm expressing an opinion just as you are. You have no right to insist that my opinion is wrong and yours is the only one to have. You're the one making a big deal out of a fairly straight ahead sentiment.
You seem to be claiming the right to arbitrate the parameters of this discussion. You tell me.
Of F*cking COURSE you are!! It's fairly obvious as you react to anyone who happens to be either defending the position or pointing out its curious and frequent overstatement by the usual suspects.
The condescending tone of this quote is proof positive you have no interest in such a discussion.
To him, it seemed YOU were, because you implied people shouldn't be "bitching" since it's "not a big deal".
Calm down.
Well, I wish I could go back in time and not have spent money supporting any of the TNG films because Trek needed to die awhile ago.
I'm enjoying this new thing, so as long as we get a decent product I'll be there to support it; otherwise to paraphrase Captain Kirk "Let it die!"
Which of course, really wasn't the moral behind The Undiscovered Country.
Last edited:
number6
Vice Admiral
Pretty much my take on it.. Can we get back to discussing the brewery in engineering?? That's always insightful.
number6
Vice Admiral
Or as Spock said: Is it possible that we...have grown so old and so inflexible that we have outlived our usefulness?
Did Trek ever really die? Enterprise was cancelled in '05, it changed hands, we got the reboot in '09... they never stopped publishing Trek novels, or making Trek videogames in that time. And 4 years is the wait we've got until XII.
And Harve Bennett wanted to reboot TOS in 1992 or thereaouts with Star Trek: The Academy Years which would have ended with first-year cadets Kirk and Spock, along with Scotty and McCoy, saving the Enterprise.
I hate the lens flares. It actually takes me OUT of the film because I notice them flashing in my eyes. They were overdone. It was the same in Super 8 where there are lens flares for no frickin reason than to blind the viewer and hide the stuff going on behind them. They piss me off. LOL
What gets me is that these are incredibly stupid shots that would've gotten your ass fired if they got into a film not that many years ago. Now making hideously ugly shots that take you out of a film are good if done *intentionally*, apparently.
I also don't get the realism bit. I mean, I don't think that they add even a tiny twinge of realism since most film I've seen that was something like a documentary or otherwise very grounded in reality actually had equipment to PREVENT things like lensflares. But even if it did accomplish that (and I REALLY don't think it does), why would this be needed or called for in a movie with spaceships, energy weapons, transporters, aliens, and so forth? We're obviously not going for hyper-realism here.
There was a really bad lens flare in Super 8 where the kids are starting their movie at the train platflom. The camera is panning down and one frickin street light creates this ridiculous lens flare that is way too bright and lasts way too long. It wasn't just one of those quick flash ones but rather one where I actually thought in my mind during that scene - "Okay, J.J. that's more than enough now. You can turn that off!"
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
I've long since recognized that this board is populated (in large part though not everyone) by people who actively go out of their way to find things to not like. Oh well. 
^ YA RLY
That's hardly unique to this board, though, nor is it to Star trek fandom generally or to the internet-at-large. Once there were more than two humans on the planet, it pretty much became impossible for one of them to do anything without the possibility of someone else coming along and saying "Uh-uh, I don't like it."I've long since recognized that this board is populated (in large part though not everyone) by people who actively go out of their way to find things to not like. Oh well.
If you mean ENT, fans didn't kill it. I personally thought it didn't get good till S4, but I have enough perspective to understand that what really killed it was much bigger than just fans watching or not watching (why couldn't the much larger population of not-previously-fans more than taken up the slack?) or whether or not it was "good" (since when does quality correlate to ratings?)
When ENT was cancelled, UPN was transitioning to the CW, which had already set up its strategy of chasing a young female audience and appealing to advertisers by offering that targetted and lucrative market in one easy-to-reach place. Even if ENT had been a huge success, it still would not have fit that strategy, since space opera as a genre skews male. I remember the save-ENT campaigns that sprouted up around that time and thought, "everyone save your money, you're missing the point."
Look at CW's track record since - heavy on the female-skewing supernatural-fantasy shows, and what forays they've made into (arguably) sci fi (Smallville) have been heavy on teen angst romance dramatics. Nary a space opera in the bunch. There have been some indications of interest in the genre, but the CW's approach is bound to be Melrose Space so nobody get your hopes up.
The TV biz is toxic to space opera as a genre. It's expensive, and appeals to a relatively small number of viewers. Broadcast TV is going ever more mainstream/mass market*. They don't do niche genres - they can't afford to. (CW is more niche friendly as long as it's a young-female-appealing niche, but I don't see them as a "real" network.)
Cable can do niche genres, since cable gets subscription as well as ad revenues, and each viewer is therefore more valuable and consequently more likely to have their tastes catered to. (Want to be listened to? Fork over more money.)
But even on cable, space opera is too nichey of a genre. Where have all the space operas gone? It's not just Star Trek that's vanished. The whole genre has gone bye-bye. Sci fi is a niche genre, making space opera a niche of a niche. I still have hopes of it being resurrected someday (if not Star Trek then in other forms) but the whole business model of TV is working against it.
You've got it completely backwards. The Abrams movie was calculated to appeal to non-fans. Otherwise, why make it about Kirk and Spock? Fans know about more characters than just those guys. But to non-fans, Star Trek = Kirk/Spock/Enterprise. The minute I heard what the movie would be about, I knew that 1) they were going after a mass audience and 2) Star Trek was in the hands of intelligent folks who knew exactly what needed to be done to resurrect it, hurray!
Movies are the opposite of TV in that the niche strategy is incompatible with financial viability, unless you're some talky intellectual type movie, but Star Trek doesn't fit that model. It fits the summer-popcorn-blockbuster model, which requires that the widest possible net be thrown to capture the largest audience possible.
The similarities to Star Wars are intentional, not because Abrams is an evil traitor to Trekkism, but because Star Wars invented the summer-popcorn-blockbuster model, at least where space epics are concerned (Jaws actually beat it in a more general sense). Any successful summer blockbuster space epic movie will have to have some Star Wars in its DNA.
*Some of the networks have gotten themselves honchos from the cable world and this fall, there are a number of shows launching that look like experiments in bucking this trend. That makes sense since the trend will eventually lead the entire broadcast industry off a cliff. But until we see the fall ratings, there's no way to tell if this is just rearranging chairs on the Titanic.
Similar threads
