I guess what I'm asking is, why was a total overhaul of the continuity necessary for that, and in what ways was the continuity changed which accomplished the broader appeal?
Star Trek
- Thread starter Batutta
- Start date
I think that the primary 'appeal multiplier' was the choice to include a lot more action and VFX than has been characteristic of previous Trek films.
So far as continuity overhaul, that's primarily ego. There's immense gratification (well, self-gratification, really) in pissing all over something and making it your own. There is a great deal of that to be found, in a great many people around town.
Star Trek: The Next Generation took a sharp turn after Gene Roddenberry's control passed to Rick Berman; whether or not one thinks it was an improvement, Berman was all about setting his seal over Roddenberry's wherever possible.
And, there's the commercial value of new and improved. "Well, it's new! Maybe now I'll be interested in checking it out!" Or, "Hey, if JJ Abrams is improving upon it, it's something I want to see!" Don't forget that at its most fundamental level Trek is a property and the primary interest of the people controlling that property is how to most effectively exploit it...
After some reflection I'm beginning to think they should have titled this film JJ Abrams' Star Trek, in the same way that colloquially there's Tim Burton's Batman and Dino De Laurentiis' King Kong.
I chat with other Trek alums and really no one has much good to say about the new film as a whole. It's cool where it's cool in a disjointed way, but so much of it doesn't particularly work. And it's not a case of whose is better because I think everybody really honestly wanted to dig the new movie and would have been delighted had it approached expectations.
So far as continuity overhaul, that's primarily ego. There's immense gratification (well, self-gratification, really) in pissing all over something and making it your own. There is a great deal of that to be found, in a great many people around town.
Star Trek: The Next Generation took a sharp turn after Gene Roddenberry's control passed to Rick Berman; whether or not one thinks it was an improvement, Berman was all about setting his seal over Roddenberry's wherever possible.
And, there's the commercial value of new and improved. "Well, it's new! Maybe now I'll be interested in checking it out!" Or, "Hey, if JJ Abrams is improving upon it, it's something I want to see!" Don't forget that at its most fundamental level Trek is a property and the primary interest of the people controlling that property is how to most effectively exploit it...
After some reflection I'm beginning to think they should have titled this film JJ Abrams' Star Trek, in the same way that colloquially there's Tim Burton's Batman and Dino De Laurentiis' King Kong.
I chat with other Trek alums and really no one has much good to say about the new film as a whole. It's cool where it's cool in a disjointed way, but so much of it doesn't particularly work. And it's not a case of whose is better because I think everybody really honestly wanted to dig the new movie and would have been delighted had it approached expectations.
All the killer FX almost didn't happen, atleast not to the level you see now, the release date for Trek was "Stardate 12-25-08". Paramount (production prez) delayed it and threw another $20+ million at ILM, they also reshot several scenes.
Not sure if it would have been a disaster if these changes weren't made but I think it's a really good thing they did make them!
Nektonic
Veteran
Drunk Warp? No one knows where in space or time they'll end up. I won't matter though, because all the alien women will look good with beer goggles on.
One of the things that I've always liked about Trek, although it can be a disadvantage as well, is that it is not always under the control of the same people (although I liked TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise... the post Roddenberry crew had control of it for a really long time there). It is not always the same characters/cast. That's why I think a new film with an all new cast could've worked and been successful as well. Of course, I like the characters of Kirk and Spock and the rest of the original crew.
Right now Abrams is the head of the Trek's new trajectory. Whether he or someone else gets the chance, maybe there will be another Trek TV series in the coming years? I would love for that to happen.
Wow. Its a good thing they got the extra 20 mil considering they used the brewery because they didn't have enough money to build an engine room set from scratch ( I wasn't that bothered by the engine room being a brewery.) I wonder if the DVD/Blu-ray will have a before and after comparison on the original effects?
Last edited:
You have to draw the line somewhere, it's a good thng they didn't spend the money on the engine room because it was spent in a better place.
No before and after comparisson will be on the dvd because they didn't exist.
The engine room never bothered me and i have not heard about it bothering anyone else until I posted that pic and made a comment about it lookng like a brewery. It was a joke
99.999% of the audience didn't care or even notice.
No before and after comparisson will be on the dvd because they didn't exist.
The engine room never bothered me and i have not heard about it bothering anyone else until I posted that pic and made a comment about it lookng like a brewery. It was a joke
99.999% of the audience didn't care or even notice.This is the sort of thing that's so interesting about different viewers' experience of the same content. I found the brewery/basementy engine rooms not just distracting, but just about painful. I mean, there was once a Mystery Science Theater treatment of some horrid South African zero-budget science-fiction dud in which the bulk of the ship's interior settings were, yes, a giant pipe-filled industrial basement. And Tom Servo marvels, wow, this spaceship has a gigantic basement!
So I never would have seriously entertained the prospect that one day the makers of the newest installment in one of the most generally successful and beloved science-fiction franchises going, would confront me with an f'ing gigantic basement.*
And the more I think about it, the more I think that the results weren't just consequences of a particular location pick, because frankly there was enough interesting texture and division of space in that place that it could have been shot to good effect. For some reason all of the closeups were of huge plumbing fixtures (the Enterprise runs off a steam plant?!) and the modular structure of the place covered in huge wide shots. When money and VFX $$ were devoted to dressing the place, it was for odd choices like the weird Augustus Gloop ride connected to a Cuisinart. I mean, was that gag really worth the trouble...?
But I can't fault the Production Designer, whose reputation is good and whose references - so far as I'm concerned, anyway - are pretty great. Without any insight into how that show came together, all I can do is wonder what went that wrong.
Wow. That must have bothered me a lot more than I realized. Well, at least it's not stuck somewhere in my head, any more.
* yes, brewery, but shot and lit sufficiently like a basement as to make the effect pretty well indistinguishable, one from the other...
Last edited:
Critiquing sets comes with the job i guess, I have yet to meet a DP who didn't have something to ad to how a scene was shot to improve it, or a director etc. I do think it is a healthy thing to do to improve your skills but wonder if it ruins people from enjoyng the movie? Guess you gotta work with what you have at the time and do your best with it, they did an amazing job for what they had.
Hey, people will get to see your Dance Flick set this weekend. :thumbup:
Austinv
Well-known member
Just saw the movie last night and it was pretty epic, I have never seen a full episode of star trek in my life so I was going in with the little knowledge I have gained from flipping it on every once and awhile.
The whole movie I wondered if the lens flares were done in post because they looked so damn good. To much of them maybe did it take away from the film obviously not.
The VFX were very well done, enough said.
Did I notice it was a brewery or something similar to yes, did it matter? Not one bit, who knows what the engine room would look like on the ship anyways.
My only complaint is that the movie was to short! Abrams is onto something good.
The whole movie I wondered if the lens flares were done in post because they looked so damn good. To much of them maybe did it take away from the film obviously not.
The VFX were very well done, enough said.
Did I notice it was a brewery or something similar to yes, did it matter? Not one bit, who knows what the engine room would look like on the ship anyways.
My only complaint is that the movie was to short! Abrams is onto something good.
Scott F
Pug Life
I don't want to get into a whole thing with you cuz as I pointed out a few pages back, I'm not going to win any arguments (especially Re: set design), but let me throw this out for you to mull over:
Maybe you and your peers AREN'T supposed to like this film.
The same way my parents didn't dig the hardcore and punk rock I blasted in my room as a teenager. Maybe this is a film for the younger generation. (although granted, Abrams took an old franchise and had his way with it instead of coming up with something entirely new)
I mean, I don't see the appeal of a film like Donnie Darko, but I'll be the last one to take a dump on it. I'll give it respect and move on cuz obviously people dig it.
Maybe if they're (Star Trek) doing something that evokes complaints, critiques, and intense scrutiny like I see in this thread.....maybe they're doing something RIGHT.
Or I could be wrong. :huh:
Batutta
Major Contributor
Well one thing's for sure. You are not going to find ANY other franchise with fans who are more passionate, invested, opinionated, and with more preconceived notions about what it should be than Star Trek.
It's an interesting notion: purposely making films designed not to appeal to people within the films' core audience.
Can't diss the suggestion that's what they were after; wouldn't be the strangest idea a studio has ever implemented.
My point is not that there is some objective standard by which to measure the extra-technical qualities of a given film (being argued on another thread, in fact) but that here you have a group of people with a predisposition to go out and see and want to like and hope to praise a film...and wind up with very little positive to say.
I dunno. I have seen films where the wall texture was actually McDonalds' to-go boxes stapled to the walls and spraypainted gray, where overhead panels in a nuclear submarine were obvious sections of freezer spacer, and where the futuristic ray guns were recognizably 1920s machine pistols with a couple stuck-on shiny parts, and it didn't matter. Not one iota, when it came to enjoying the films involved. Maybe because it was clear that at least the film makers had been trying...
I suppose expectations have something to do with it, too.
Can't diss the suggestion that's what they were after; wouldn't be the strangest idea a studio has ever implemented.
My point is not that there is some objective standard by which to measure the extra-technical qualities of a given film (being argued on another thread, in fact) but that here you have a group of people with a predisposition to go out and see and want to like and hope to praise a film...and wind up with very little positive to say.
I dunno. I have seen films where the wall texture was actually McDonalds' to-go boxes stapled to the walls and spraypainted gray, where overhead panels in a nuclear submarine were obvious sections of freezer spacer, and where the futuristic ray guns were recognizably 1920s machine pistols with a couple stuck-on shiny parts, and it didn't matter. Not one iota, when it came to enjoying the films involved. Maybe because it was clear that at least the film makers had been trying...
I suppose expectations have something to do with it, too.
Last edited:
Scott F
Pug Life
Agreed.
Michael Anthony Horrigan
More Cowbell Pictures
I think it's working. I know so many non Trek fans that LOVE the new movie. Most of them wouldn't have checked it out if it wasn't for the great word of mouth and trailers. Reviews are mixed coming from the Trekkie fans that I know. Most of them actually enjoyed it and only nitpicked here and there.
That tells me (along with the numbers) that they may be on the right track.
I believe that this movie will gain far more new fans than what it will lose from the existing base.
Just my 2 cents.
PS- If THESE numbers are accurate it is kicking butt! Of course it has to considering its budget.
MAH
Michael Anthony Horrigan
More Cowbell Pictures
No problem. Not saying you did, just throwing that comment out to the masses.
I do think the studio wanted to reboot the franchise for multiple reasons. One of them being to create a new fan base.
And I think it's working.
MAH
I guess that depends on what you mean by a "new fan base."
I thought the film was a fun ride, too, but I also think that about a lot of Michael Bay films. But I don't criticize Bay films much because they are what they are. With Star Trek, though, they knew what they were getting into.
I thought the film was a fun ride, too, but I also think that about a lot of Michael Bay films. But I don't criticize Bay films much because they are what they are. With Star Trek, though, they knew what they were getting into.
Michael Anthony Horrigan
More Cowbell Pictures
What I mean by that is I know so many people who have never seen a single Star Trek film that ran out to see this one.
Especially the younger crowd. Lots of teens who knew nothing about ST got a real kick out of this film and will probably run out to see the next one.
I actually made some of them watch Wrath of Khan on Blu ray just to give them a little history lesson.
Lots of new fans are being created here and Im sure the studio loves it.
I actually made some of them watch Wrath of Khan on Blu ray just to give them a little history lesson.
Did you use the padded restraints and spring-loaded eyelid-holders...?
Stop it! James Horner never did anything to anyone! AAIIIIGGGGHHH!
What I mean is, fine, they went out and saw it, but does it actually make them "fans"?
Paramount never made this movie to go after the old core audience, they just tried to be sensitive to them by not pissing them off to much.