Seth Macfarlane Should Helm the Next Trek Series

Why do you crave the "acknowledgement" of something that's already perfectly obvious? The amount of reassurance some people seem to need on this point is really bizarre to me.

My opinion has nothing to do with others not finding merit in it, people find merit in all sorts of things and that's their right; what I said is don't try to cite RT scores and box office as if you think they're going to silence all dispute or prove the other person's opinion is wrong, because for very obvious reasons that isn't going to happen. Any more than sheer weight of numbers is going to silence all dispute.

 

It turned out pretty decent IMHO.

But, obviouslly that's not what you meant. Lindeloff is the one who insisted on John Harrison being Khan, over Orci's objections. Matter of fact, many of the biggest complaints about NuTrek that people lay at Orci's door were decisions Lindeloff (Higher placed Writer than Orci), Kurtzman or JJAbrams (Director/Producer, who had the last word)

If Orci is Director, he would be able to make many of the final decisions, that he was over-ridden on in the first two movies (Though Paramount still may insist on some stuff, and JJ may as well, but, Orci would be much freer to make decisions). So, the script, is likely to be much truer to what Orci wants than the first two movies (That may be a good thing or a bad thing, but, he agreed with many fans on a lot of those decisions Fans thought were wrong). If he can handle the camera angles, lighting decisions, and Directing of the Actors, etc, the third movie could very well be the best one yet (And yes, it could also be the worst and fall flat on it's face)

 

Well said. Are you a writer, by chance?

 

I saw the future yesterday and it included the first review of Seth McFarlane's Trek:

"That went south so fast!"

 

Agree--using box office is the last, desperate move of the fan who cannot use the merits of the film as a defense / selling point.

Titanic enjoyed large box office numbers, but was it a work of quality? Hardly. Truth be told, it was inflated, fangirl pap from a director thinking a loud attempt to outperform 1970s disaster epics mixed with the editorial page of 16 Magazine was art on the big screen.

 

No.

On the other hand, it's entirely accurate to say that asserting one's own taste as congruent with merit and quality to a greater degree than the tastes of the public at large is a way of evading the truth that one is not arguing issues of fact but simply offering a personal opinion and nothing more.

Yes. Sorry it doesn't satisfy your personal criteria, but your tastes aren't the measure of all things.

Please don't misuse "objective" like that.

Yeah, in my opinion Avatar is a better film than any Star Trek movie made to date - and certainly vastly better as a science fiction film. If a Trek film were made with the care, imagination and technical skill* of Avatar it's possible that enough folks would actually like it for it to sell tickets on a similar scale.

No Star Trek film has approached Avatar's success because they all offer less in every area - this despite having about forty years head start on public awareness. People who see Star Trek don't persuasively encourage others to watch it to anything like the extent that the audience of Avatar did. Like the original Star Wars - which almost no one knew much about on opening night - it earned every single ticket sale based on what was on the screen. Yep, Fox promoted Avatar a good deal more extensively than they did the first Star Wars movie, but every season heavily promoted, big-budget films by well-known directors open big on Friday and tank by Sunday afternoon.

*(and budget)

 

...And yet you keep droning on and on about how much you dislike them.

Star Trek Into Darkness was a fine film. Bob Orci will be a fine director of the next one.

 

It is a common tactic from those who feel they cannot defend the film on its merits. I witnessed this with The Phantom Menace: as soon as criticism rolled in, the Star Wars diehards always fired back with, "it grossed ______at the box office!"


If the film is a work of quality, box office does not need to be a part of the conversation, otherwise it calls certain fans' motives into question. Are they watching it to be entertained by something (hopefully) of some quality, or would they defend the film so much if it flopped at the box office?

Dennis, you do realize that the same can be said of your "yes" regarding Titanic. Quality is not about dollars. If that is the case, then I wonder why the world is not hailing Transformers: Dark of the Moon (#7 on the all-time top grossing films list) as one of the greatest works of filmed art in history?

It is not because...quality is not about dollars.

 

Like what?

We agree.

However:

Not that simple, it would seem to me. It would be very nice to see a Trek film made along those lines, obviously, but The Phantom Menace really ticks none of those boxes by almost any estimation [nor do its successors, arguably a big reason why the big screen SW franchise ran out of steam after the prequels ended] but also out-grossed any single Star Trek film. Because there are many more factors to box office than the innate quality of the film.

(I mean, obviously any film that makes money has a quality in the short term at least that people are willing to shell out for. That just doesn't necessarily make it a work of impressive "quality" in any larger sense.)

 

I still don't get why the writer of Family Guy, Ted, A Million Ways To Die In The West, and a host of Comedy Central Roast would be a good choice as helm of a Star Trek series?

There is nothing in his resume that makes me go "oooh, I wanna see that in Trek".

 

Well, first - I said "it's possible."

Second, I don't think the argument is commutative - to say that a much better Trek movie would stand a chance of appealing to many more people is not the same as saying that every movie that does better than Trek is as good or nearly as good as Avatar; there's quite a gulf there. I don't care for most of the Star Wars movies*, but that doesn't mean that the level of craft LucasFilm brings to bear on these things isn't substantially greater than Paramount puts into the Trek franchise. It's only the last two Star Trek movies, for example, that even begin to compete in terms of visual effects; Bennett's folks used to complain that they always got the "B team" at whatever effects facility they contracted with. If someone thinks that ST:TUC was better written than SW:TPM that's fine but it's not an objective statement; it's a matter of opinion.

*(I like the original movie and the first sequel)

 

Fair enough.

Also fair. (I wonder: did this article get discussed on TrekBBS? I go back and forth on thinking there's some truth to it and... not.)

 

Originally I didn't like STID as much when I first saw it. It kind of grew on me when I watched it a few more times (holiday viewing and marathons).

Still, STID comes off as too hyperactive and gimmicky for me. It's a typical formula, big budget summer movie.

There's too many cliches and gimmicks.

Kirk 'dying' when everyone knows he's going to come back-- it's only the second movie. The brief underwear scene, Spock yelling Khan!! Spock constantly being emotional.


I think all the gimmicks are intentional--designed to get people to watch. The franchise was in a slump and they wanted to pull out all the stops.

I seriously think they meant for it to appeal to people not as familiar with Trek and the summer movie crowds, who buy tickets on hype and impulse.

It made a ton of money, but some insiders were still worried that it didn't do as well as they thought it should.

 

That's pretty interesting... it parallels a thought I had a while back, but I think it goes beyond special effects. Someone was saying something about how STID wouldn't be remembered the same way TWOK was. But I think that's going to be the case with most of the films of the current era, which all seem to be rather quickly forgotten. Even stuff that is widely well regarded be it large (Avengers) or small (Gravity) just doesn't seem to enter the public concsious the way movies did a generation ago.

I don't know if it's because we've become so saturated with entertainment choices that once somethings been consumed/viewed, it's time to move onto anticipating the next thing, and there just isn't the same desire to review and reflect on what's past - or it's a symptom of the blockbuster mentality that everything is done by committee to be as broadly appealing as possible, and in doing so, some spark is lost.

 

The fact that most VFX companies go bankrupt after they finished a film determines that to be a lie. It's only cheap for the studios.

 

Does it surpass the quality of L.A. CONFIDENTIAL?

 

Perhaps we agree. We occasionally do.

 

I still haven't quite figured out how they did Spock's beam down to crumbling Vulcan with a moving camera shot in ST09, but a lot of CGI I see doesn't wow me that much. Once you've done any kind of CGI yourself in a program at home (even if it's bad CGI), you start to understand the principles of how something is achieved.

There was an effect in one of the fan films I liked, where there was some sort of shifting warp effect and a space station suddenly zooms off into the distance. First thing I did was try to replicate it in my own software, and it was numbingly easy. My version was cruder, but the effect was still impressive.

I still prefer the old fashioned method of miniatures.

 

Seth MacFarlane heading Star Trek is a great idea if you hate Star Trek.

 

Though CAUSE AND EFFECT shares McFarlane's FAMILY GUY-style repetition in a coincidental way....