|
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
Originally Posted by Jumpman
(Post 9797148)
For me, this film is very much in the same vain as Iron Man. The performances and slick directing mask the script problems. Differences between the two is that Abrams doesn't drop the ball in the third act the way Favreau did with Iron Man.
Originally Posted by Jumpman
(Post 9797148)
You could easily rip into this script and into this movie almost as much as Revenge of the Fallen. (a film I know is completely horrendous at the script level, but like Abrams, Bay's direction and the fact that I like the cast save it. My guilty pleasure of 2009).
|
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
(Post 9797829)
No, you can't. Star Trek isn't a perfect script, but it's so far beyond Revenge of the Fallen that it's not even funny. And Bay's direction ruined what few good elements of ROTF there were.
|
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
I'm guessing they just cared way more about Star Trek than they did about Transformers.
|
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
Or maybe Michael Bay messed with the script for TF2? What does the commentary with the writers say about the film?
|
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
They subtly go at Bay in the commentary, yet contradict themselves in the "making of" documentary.
Honestly, they have the perfect excuse for the writing troubles on Revenge...the writer's strike. But, for some reason, they don't. They got at Bay a little bit. Although, one of the writers(can't remember which one) defends Bay's use of the humor in the film. Go figure. |
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
Everything I have read about TF2 points at the production being rushed from day one. The creative team behind Star Trek certainly cared more for it than Michael Bay cares about Transformers. Looks like part 3 is being rushed for 2011 now instead of 2012.
The sad thing is that most of us had written off Trek as a dead franchise, while Transformers was seen as fairly easy material to translate into new cgi films. |
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
Trek has so much more going for it, even if script flaws were equal to TF2 (I dont think they are by a long shot). I loved the characters, I enjoyed watching them act and interact regardless of the backdrop or context. The soundtrack was awesome and it was able to recall for me many of my favorite moments in Trek without copying them and without ruining a legacy.
TF2 was pretty much the opposite. The awful characters were thrown into my face (as well as ass, balls) repulsing and distracting me over and over again throughout the movie. The robots fighting robots was awesome but the bad characters got in the way and took me out of the film. This would remind me the plot was making no sense. |
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
I didn't get bored during Trek, while I did during TF2. That alone makes it a better movie, to me.
|
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
Originally Posted by slop101
(Post 9797902)
So maybe their actual scripts lay somewhere between clever and retarded, and it's the directors that push it in one direction or the other.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" |
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
Well i for one am glad they did not just reboot it.
The way i look at this movie is that it is a sequal to the prior 10 star trek films, and thats one the things i love about it. I might not have liked the movie as much if they had just said screw the 40 years of history this tv and film frachise has and lets make our own. Star Trek is not BSG, it has to great and rich of history that when you decide to try and get a wider audience, you cant just stick it to the fans who have stayed loyal to the series for over 4 decades. Star Trek did a great job of paying respect to the fans and bringing something new to the table to get the average public on board. by having the story occur cause Nero and Spock get sent back intime, its given the diehard fans away to be more willing to embrace changes to these characters be it how they are acted how they are written etc... take kirk for example, one of reasons kirk is the man he is in the original series is cause he had his father there with him as he grew, where as the differences that chris pine brings(whom i thought was excellent by the way) are acceptable to us diehards because due to the events at the start of the film pine's kirk doesnt grow up with his father there, and from the looks of it has a jerk of a stepfather, so in many ways its a different character. if it had been done as a straight reboot you might have gotten additional fans but it would have been a big slap in the face for those of us who have been loyal trek fans either from the time we were born or when the show first began.
Originally Posted by Jumpman
(Post 9797148)
The writers should've just gone with a straight reboot. Having this film in continuity with the overall series created some lazy writing on their part. It's the script that almost kills the direction of JJ Abrams and the wonderful cast he assembled.
For me, this film is very much in the same vain as Iron Man. The performances and slick directing mask the script problems. Differences between the two is that Abrams doesn't drop the ball in the third act the way Favreau did with Iron Man. I'm still baffled by the "red matter" science. Hell, with Nero's drill, why not use that instead of imploring this "red matter." You could easily rip into this script and into this movie almost as much as Revenge of the Fallen. (a film I know is completely horrendous at the script level, but like Abrams, Bay's direction and the fact that I like the cast save it. My guilty pleasure of 2009). |
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
Originally Posted by DthRdrX
(Post 9798198)
Everything I have read about TF2 points at the production being rushed from day one.
Most of the juvenile humor in the film was added by Bay during production. He can be seen in the supplements instructing the VFX artists to give Devastator testicles, and proudly takes credit in the commentary for the little robot humping Megan Fox's leg. However, he does claim that it was John Turturro's own idea to bare his hairy ass on camera. |
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
Originally Posted by AmityBoatTours
(Post 9798982)
*snip* by having the story occur cause Nero and Spock get sent back intime, its given the diehard fans away to be more willing to embrace changes to these characters be it how they are acted how they are written etc... take kirk for example, one of reasons kirk is the man he is in the original series is cause he had his father there with him as he grew, where as the differences that chris pine brings(whom i thought was excellent by the way) are acceptable to us diehards because due to the events at the start of the film pine's kirk doesnt grow up with his father there, and from the looks of it has a jerk of a stepfather, so in many ways its a different character. *snip* |
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
There's no technically about it, that's exactly what happened. Things have changed, and the storyline actually allowed it. I was pretty impressed.
|
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
yes i know its alternate universe. there is dialogue in the film that even states this. geesh
i would have thought the fact that i said i consider the film a sequal was one of the reasons why i love it would have indicated that. plus the fact that i even said its appreciated that they choose to not simply ignore 4 decades of star trek history and came up with a story that is not a remake. see highlighted portions from my post below
Originally Posted by AmityBoatTours
(Post 9798982)
Well i for one am glad they did not just reboot it.
The way i look at this movie is that it is a sequal to the prior 10 star trek films, and thats one the things i love about it. I might not have liked the movie as much if they had just said screw the 40 years of history this tv and film frachise has and lets make our own. Star Trek is not BSG, it has to great and rich of history that when you decide to try and get a wider audience, you cant just stick it to the fans who have stayed loyal to the series for over 4 decades. Star Trek did a great job of paying respect to the fans and bringing something new to the table to get the average public on board. by having the story occur cause Nero and Spock get sent back intime, its given the diehard fans away to be more willing to embrace changes to these characters be it how they are acted how they are written etc... .
Originally Posted by tronmaster
(Post 9800538)
Technically, it's an alternate universe, no changes were made with the Original Series, everything that has happen in the past 40 years is still canon. The MMO Star Trek Online actually has a timeline chart between the series and the movie, let me see if I can get to that link... http://www.startrekonline.com/startrek_xi
|
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
Originally Posted by Wolf359
(Post 9797040)
The only thing I could never get was what Nero and his crew did? Were they just sitting there in the ship for twenty odd years?
Originally Posted by WMAangel
(Post 9797059)
There was a whole deleted subplot where Nero was imprisoned by Klingons, which will supposedly show up in the deleted scenes on the upcoming BD/DVD release....
http://www.spike.com/video/star-trek-dvd-bonus/3278137 I like the helmets the Klingons are wearing, it let's you know who they are without them needing to go the full prosthetic makeup route.... |
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
Originally Posted by WMAangel
(Post 9807282)
I like the helmets the Klingons are wearing, it let's you know who they are without them needing to go the full prosthetic makeup route....
Maybe Abrams could explore that in the next movie. |
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
Originally Posted by Jason
(Post 9807313)
And leaves you wondering if they're really crab heads, or if they're from that period that is "not discussed".
Maybe Abrams could explore that in the next movie. |
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
So wait...if that whole subplot scene is there (which I've know seen)...I'm assuming there's much more to that than just that scene. I mean...if anything..as much as I loved the film I still wanted to know wtf Nero was doing during all that time.
|
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
I believe that scene with the klingons above is just part of whats on the BD/DVD. Still not sure if i dig the new look or not yet.
|
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
If you want to see more backstory for Nero and Spock before the film, you can check out a prequel comic book (though I don't think it counts as canon). It takes place in the old timeline with Nero interacting with the Federation members we know from TNG(Riker and Picard) . It also has a neat scene where Old Spock talks to the rebooted Data about resurrection. However,
Spoiler:
|
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
Originally Posted by Save Ferris
(Post 9798229)
TF2 was pretty much the opposite. The awful characters were thrown into my face (as well as ass, balls) repulsing and distracting me over and over again throughout the movie. The robots fighting robots was awesome but the bad characters got in the way and took me out of the film. This would remind me the plot was making no sense.
|
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
Originally Posted by Dr. DVD
(Post 9809132)
If you want to see more backstory for Nero and Spock before the film, you can check out a prequel comic book (though I don't think it counts as canon). It takes place in the old timeline with Nero interacting with the Federation members we know from TNG(Riker and Picard) . It also has a neat scene where Old Spock talks to the rebooted Data about resurrection. However,
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
|
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
Originally Posted by Cartload
(Post 9809428)
Well actually
Spoiler:
|
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
I think prequel comics are just a bad way to further develop the story for a film that takes place afterwards. If it's not in the film or the main series it doesn't count.
|
Re: Star Trek: Nov 17
Does anyone know of a rundown on all the different editions that will be out on the 17th?
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:40 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.