Variety: 'Star Trek' moved from Christmas '08 to May '09

[Trekplusart]

My wife will demand MORE Sodomy (oral and anal sex)!

Oh nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

...

Oh wait...

Trekplusart Class of '72.

Bring it on! :thumbsup:

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Cary L. Brown said:

darkwing_duck1 said:Berman? No! Not in a million years! Many Coto, the Reeves-Stevenses, Rick S., Mike and Denise O, and Mike Westmore (to name a few) DEFINITELY! THEY were the heart of the "brain trust" I was speaking about. Those who KNEW the "nuts and bolts" of Trek like the back of their hands.

Well, that's what I want to lose. The "look" and "feel" of Star Trek, over the past... well, two DECADES... has become a cliche. All the sets look and feel the same. All the makeups feel the same. All the dialog feels the same.

Any REAL universe would have a whole hellova lot more VARIATION than what we've seen in Trek recently. I don't want someone who "knows the nuts and bolts." There's an old saying... "if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." That's the pitfall that Trek fell into over the past few decades. We have a small group... a "braintrust" if you will... who had their own little toolset, and every problem was solved by using that small, limited toolset.

The single WORST examples of that would be the use of the Ferengi on "Enterprise," or the "rubber foreheads" alien designs. But there are plenty of others.

Each of those can be justified at some level, sure. But by replacing that "Braintrust" with some fresh perspectives (PROVIDED THAT THEY RESPECT WHAT'S COME BEFORE!), you can get some actual EXCITEMENT. You can get a "new feel" that's still sufficiently consistent with what's come before that it won't toss you out of your suspension of disbelief.

You can bring in a new "show runner" (Adams) for fresh perspective and use the "brain trust" to realize that perspective while keeping consistency...the "best of both worlds" (to coin the phrase).

Using the Ferengi was a bad choice, no doubt about it...but Many came to the show AFTER that, so he shouldn't get blamed for B&B's idiocy. The "forehead alien" issue is all about budget, as you should well know. How is it Westmore's fault that he had the makeup budget he had?

I'm sorry if this is turning into a "I want things perZACTLY the same" rant...it isn't intnended to be. But to blame the people I mentioned (esp Coto, who was turing Enterprise AROUND, and would have made it great if he'd had another season), for the Killer Bs' burnout is not fair, and an insult to their hard work and ingenuity.

 

[Akiraprise]

Cary L. Brown said:

saul said:

Starship Polaris said:You have to look at the kinds of things that have been said about these people. Most of it was and is underinformed, unrealistic and mean. I didn't think and still don't think that one fannish dig at the Trek producers in one thousand had much merit,

Funny because the same thing could be said for any of your posts where you constantly had a dig at Star Trek fans, the fan community and anyone who had the slightest criticism of anything Berman Trek.

For the people you don't know and have never met you sure love to categorise all star trek fans as sad losers, the same kind of mentality as ignorant people who say all muslims as terroists.

You have held a holier than thou attitude to anyone who had an opinion on Star Trek that didn't agree with your view.

All of that may be fair and true (and I've said similar things in the past). But in THIS THREAD, I think Dennis's statements have been reasonable and level.

It's always a bad thing to drag up past behavior if the behavior isn't being shown at the time, I think. If you do that, you just guarantee FUTURE and ONGOING conflict.

In this thread, Dennis's comments have been fair, level, and reasonable, and it's pretty wrongheaded to "reward good behavior" by dredging up prior bad behavior just to make a point.

Imagine a different situation (and Dennis, I'm not calling you a child, I'm just giving a more clearly illustrative example, K? ). You're a parent. Your kid midbehaved for an entire week... and you grounded him. He got the idea, though, and for the next month totally changed his ways... mowed the lawn without being asked, cleaned his room, did his homework.

Then, he asks if he can have a privilege. And you deny it because of the week of bad behavior a month before, disregarding the more recent good behavior.

The kid will NEVER want to behave himself from that point forward, will he?

"Grudges" are always counterproductive. In this thread, and in particular on this topic, Dennis's comments have been entirely reasonable and fair (moreso than a couple of others he's responded to). I, personally, am GLAD of that. And I'm a bit annoyed at seeing the attacks on stuff he's done in the past. If he tosses a comment like that out in this discussion... sure, respond. But he hasn't... has he? Who's to say he WILL? Maybe he's had a total change of heart and no longer even feels that way. (Unlikely? Sure... but possible nevertheless, right?)

I mean... dude... that's what my EX used to do... and DAMN it annoyed me!

I agree with everything you just said Cary. Except the stuff about your ex, cuz I don't know her.

Now, I would like all of us to get back to discussing the topic at hand. Remember the old adage: Discuss the topic not the poster. If more of us in here did that we'd have a hell of a lot less trouble.

 

[Kegek]

Re: "Star Trek" in the big leagues with "Wars", "Transformers"

Brutal Strudel said:
The three or four delays in the release of A Scanner Darkly? That bugged me, so much so that when I found out that Philadelphia, the "metropolis" I live closest to, wasn't going to get the film until a week after the long-delayed "selected cities" release, I wanted to seriously hurt someone. Thank god for runaways...

I didn't pay much attention. I read one article about this PKD release which seemed mildly interesting, then pretty much forgot about it until it opened. It was showing at the local arthouse theatre, which was a clear sign to me that, even if it wasn't good, at least it was pretentious, so I bought my ticket, wandered in and loved it.

Which I guess is how I approach most movies I love. It's funny. You get fed a hype machine for months and then leave the cineplex with an unsatisfied 'meh'; you read about a film on Friday, check it out on the weekend, and declare it one of the best of the year.

Colour me nonplussed either way about this schedule shift, I'll have plenty of things to tide me over that I may doubtless like a lot more in retrospect. Blueberry Nights is opening on the 22nd, and I don't care if the reviews are decidedly mixed, I want my Wong Kar-wai fix.

Captain Craig said:

"'Star Trek' is in fantastic shape," said Paramount spokesman Michael Vollman. "This is all about box-office potential. Summer is where you see the 'Star Wars' and the 'Spider-Mans' and the 'Shreks' and the Transformers.' 'Star Trek' is in that league."

I love Trek like all of you and would have agreed that at one point TREK did hold a position to be considered A-league. I'm not convinced that TREK is, as of now, in that league.

Neither was Transformers, before Bay's movie. It was a toy franchise from the 1980s with a number of cartoons and one cartoon movie. It became a mega hit. Star Trek has more of a premise and more name recognition than Transformers, and the guys who scripted that movie are scripting this. I'd say it has a very respectable chance of being a hit as well.

 

[DWF]

I can't see this as anything other than a mistake for one thing no movie is worth waiting another six months for and I really think that another six months of speculation isn't going to help the movie's performance at the box office.

 

[Kinnison]

DWF said:
I can't see this as anything other than a mistake for one thing no movie is worth waiting another six months for

Here's a tip: Don't wait outside the theater for six months. Get a job or something!

 

[DWF]

Kinnison said:

DWF said:
I can't see this as anything other than a mistake for one thing no movie is worth waiting another six months for

Here's a tip: Don't wait outside the theater for six months. Get a job or something!

I've NEVER camped out in front of a theater for any movie but this wait is still a waste of time, unless you like the thought of another six months of pretty much useless threads about the movie around here.

 

[Kinnison]

DWF said:

Kinnison said:

DWF said:
I can't see this as anything other than a mistake for one thing no movie is worth waiting another six months for

Here's a tip: Don't wait outside the theater for six months. Get a job or something!

I've NEVER camped out in front of a theater for any movie but this wait is still a waste of time, unless you like the thought of another six months of pretty much useless threads about the movie around here.

And yet, here you are.

 

[DWF]

^^^Well it's not the theater.

 

[Plum]

I thank the Great Bird of the Galaxy Star Trek is, once again, a top production. A-List, as was said. How exciting is that? Pretty damn exciting.

 

[Tulin]

DWF said:
I can't see this as anything other than a mistake for one thing no movie is worth waiting another six months for and I really think that another six months of speculation isn't going to help the movie's performance at the box office.

So you're saying because it has been delayed by five months you will now no longer see it?

Sorry.

Don't believe it for a second.

 

[Devon]

ancient said:
I wonder if Abrams has said anything about this whole bussiness. Or did I miss it?

uberbush said:
Looking 4ward to seeing enterprise in action,is the ship going to be completly cg,or is there a filming model as well?

ILM doesn't do models, the ENT will be entirely CGI, if I recall correctly.

From J.J.

The Enterprise will be a combo of the physical and the virtual.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/01/25/jj-abrams-trek-team-fan-chat-transcript-pictures-from-the-set/

 

[StarMan]

^I always took that to mean: mainly virtual for exterior shots and some set pieces constructed for potential spacesuit scenes, while interior shots mainly physical, with green screens employed here and there to convey parts of the interior ship that would be unfeasible to construct in the real world.

That's what first came to mind when reading his comment.

Given ILM's continuing advances as leaders in the field of CGI, I really don't think we need a physical model of The Enterprise to shoot.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

StarMan said:
^I always took that to mean: mainly virtual for exterior shots and some set pieces constructed for potential spacesuit scenes, while interior shots mainly physical, with green screens employed here and there to convey parts of the interior ship that would be unfeasible to construct in the real world.

That's what first came to mind when reading his comment.

Given ILM's continuing advances as leaders in the field of CGI, I really don't think we need a physical model of The Enterprise to shoot.

I strongly suspect that if we see a starship Engineering set, it'll be largely CGI. In a 2-hour movie, set in all variety of timeframes and situations, both shipboard and planetside, a physical engineering set is unnecessary unless the story REQUIRES a large portion of the story to take place there. In "First Contact," they justified building a new Engineering set by setting up the "Borg Command Center" in there. But if you really think about it... that's a fairly contrived thing to do, isn't it? I mean... why would you put your C&C in the single most DANGEROUS location in the ship??? Why not have it in the computer core... or a cargo bay... or the hangar deck?

Simple... because they were working from the perspective of wanting to build that set, and had to justify it.

In this film, however, with CGI as well-developed as it's become, we can see MANY more sets for just a short scene or two without requiring them to be physically constructed (or requiring more than a small portion of them to be constructed in any case).

I expect they have "real" corridors, a "real" bridge set, a "real" captain's cabin, a "real" transporter room, and possibly PART of a "real" Sickbay. But with CGI and greenscreen, they can give us a HUGE variety of shipboard situations which were, honestly, outside of the realm of possibility until recently. In other words... we won't keep seeing the same basic sets redressed!

I, personally, think that's a GOOD thing. And honestly, a partly CGI Engineering set can be MUCH more impressive than anything which could be practically physically built (without breaking the budget at least!)

 

[StarMan]

^Agreed. I was always jarred by the neon lights slowly descending down the warp core in TNG, First Contact etc given the obvious nature of the FX (but forgivable, given the strained budget of the TV series). It'd be great to give the hub of an immense ship capable of traversing the galaxy a real sense of power.

The merging of real world sets with virtual ones to achieve this effect is not exactly a groundbreaking prospect.

 

[DWF]

Tulin said:

DWF said:
I can't see this as anything other than a mistake for one thing no movie is worth waiting another six months for and I really think that another six months of speculation isn't going to help the movie's performance at the box office.

So you're saying because it has been delayed by five months you will now no longer see it?

Sorry.

Don't believe it for a second.

I said the wait is a waste of time the movie should out sooner rather than later there's no proof that waiting another six months will bring them more money at the box office, waiting another six months isn't going make that much of a difference IMO. Six more months of hype isn't going to make the movie itself better and beinging it out against the summer blockbusters could hurt the movie more than by bringing it out at Christmas.

 

[StarMan]

^Well, the idea behind delaying the film is that it will *be* the summer blockbuster. The confidence the studio have in this movie should be encouraging, not the opposite. I think the dismay comes down to the simple fact we all want to see this film sooner rather than later.

Then again, we don't have hundreds of millions of dollars on the line.

 

[Kegek]

StarMan said:
The merging of real world sets with virtual ones to achieve this effect is not exactly a groundbreaking prospect.

Nor is it original; the Engineering set in TMP included matte paintings and one forced perspective shot to make it appear bigger than it actually was. We've just advanced in what kinds of trickery we can use.

I like the idea of a largely CGI Engineering; it could look very impressive.

 

[Saul]

Cary L. Brown said:

saul said:

Starship Polaris said:You have to look at the kinds of things that have been said about these people. Most of it was and is underinformed, unrealistic and mean. I didn't think and still don't think that one fannish dig at the Trek producers in one thousand had much merit,

Funny because the same thing could be said for any of your posts where you constantly had a dig at Star Trek fans, the fan community and anyone who had the slightest criticism of anything Berman Trek.

For the people you don't know and have never met you sure love to categorise all star trek fans as sad losers, the same kind of mentality as ignorant people who say all muslims as terroists.

You have held a holier than thou attitude to anyone who had an opinion on Star Trek that didn't agree with your view.

All of that may be fair and true (and I've said similar things in the past). But in THIS THREAD, I think Dennis's statements have been reasonable and level.

It's always a bad thing to drag up past behavior if the behavior isn't being shown at the time, I think. If you do that, you just guarantee FUTURE and ONGOING conflict.

In this thread, Dennis's comments have been fair, level, and reasonable, and it's pretty wrongheaded to "reward good behavior" by dredging up prior bad behavior just to make a point.

Imagine a different situation (and Dennis, I'm not calling you a child, I'm just giving a more clearly illustrative example, K? ). You're a parent. Your kid midbehaved for an entire week... and you grounded him. He got the idea, though, and for the next month totally changed his ways... mowed the lawn without being asked, cleaned his room, did his homework.

Then, he asks if he can have a privilege. And you deny it because of the week of bad behavior a month before, disregarding the more recent good behavior.

The kid will NEVER want to behave himself from that point forward, will he?

"Grudges" are always counterproductive. In this thread, and in particular on this topic, Dennis's comments have been entirely reasonable and fair (moreso than a couple of others he's responded to). I, personally, am GLAD of that. And I'm a bit annoyed at seeing the attacks on stuff he's done in the past. If he tosses a comment like that out in this discussion... sure, respond. But he hasn't... has he? Who's to say he WILL? Maybe he's had a total change of heart and no longer even feels that way. (Unlikely? Sure... but possible nevertheless, right?)

I mean... dude... that's what my EX used to do... and DAMN it annoyed me!

You have a fair point of course but I still think that it's a bit too hypocritical to complain about people's past comments and views when they themselves have done exactly the same thing.

 

[scotthm]

DWF said:
I said the wait is a waste of time the movie should [be] out sooner rather than later...
`
...waiting another six months isn't going [to] make that much of a difference IMO.

No, you're not contradicting yourself. Oh, wait, yes you are.

---------------