Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Luis Dias on March 10, 2013, 05:29:10 am
-
Official Thread.
New Trailer is AWSUM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RxZcxkFZZP0
-
looks promising.
loving "not sure if that qualifies"
edit:
wtf crashing the ent so quickly?
-
hopefully they will get the enterprise e before kirk gets fat.
-
Needs more Cardassians
-
/me considers if a baseball bat or a sledgehammer would be most appropriate to be used on the HLP resident Cardassian's head
-
Needs more Cardassians
kirk is really good at whooping lizzard ass
-
I am assuming that this continuity has no Cardassians.
-
Despite having recently rewatched the entirety of my favorite Trek, DS9 (we had a field day with doing a shot-by-shot of the Battle of Courscant from Episode 3 and "Descent of Angels", spoiler alert: DS9 was better shot), I have to say I'm really more pumped for Pacific Rim.
I feel as though I've somehow failed.
-
I am assuming that this continuity has no Cardassians.
Sorry but Cardassians were namechecked in the same JJTrek scene as Bud Classic
-
Despite having recently rewatched the entirety of my favorite Trek, DS9 (we had a field day with doing a shot-by-shot of the Battle of Courscant from Episode 3 and "Descent of Angels", spoiler alert: DS9 was better shot), I have to say I'm really more pumped for Pacific Rim.
I feel as though I've somehow failed.
Best post ITT
-
... DS9 (... "Descent of Angels", spoiler alert: DS9 was better shot)...
If you're referring to the DS9 episode, I believe you mean "Sacrifice of Angels".
-
If you're referring to the DS9 episode, I believe you mean "Sacrifice of Angels".
Probably. I'm terrible at remembering episode names for some reason.
-
Well, in the past, I had been pretty strong in my position that I absolutely hated what JJ had made out of Star Trek. I had walked out of his first movie, and when I saw it later I really didn't like it, the product placement, the space-mariney academy - stuff like that.
But in the past few weeks, I took a different approach. While I think TNG has never been reached in quality since then, I also think Star Trek was in steady decline since quite some time, (actually since DS9 IMO, but that is a highly subjective position). At least JJ made an overall enjoyable action flick, and as the movies were always completely different in philosophy and style from the series, maybe the resurrection of the franchise will lead to a new and actually good series, that carries all the humanist thought and awe of exploration that TNG had. Maybe... I hope...
But until then... Yeah, you have all the permission to like it, but I still hate the new movie, and from the trailer, this one will also probably not sit well with me.
*prepares for virtual murder by angry posts* :nervous:
-
ds9 trek is best trek tho
-
@Nyalatothep
That's perfectly fine. I couldn't disagree more with you but I see perfectly where you come from. From my POV, the TNG movies were the ones which utterly failed to bring the very humanistic vision of the series to the screen. They were all horrible movies, and I never understood the "love" First Contact had (to me it's a horrible flick).
JJ movies were at least honest about the "butchering" of the TNG aura, and went on to make a damn good action movie out of it. The pace, the acting were all perfect, and while the plot was filled with holes and there was zero "hard sci fi" material in there, there was hardly ever one in ST tradition anyway. If you place your expectations correctly, you couldn't be disappointed with it.
While I really wished for it, my hopes of someone making a really hard sci fi flick that challenges everything just like 2001 did are next to nil. So I get by with the fanciest ST footages... and hopefully SW as well.
-
@Nyalatothep
That's perfectly fine. I couldn't disagree more with you but I see perfectly where you come from. From my POV, the TNG movies were the ones which utterly failed to bring the very humanistic vision of the series to the screen. They were all horrible movies, and I never understood the "love" First Contact had (to me it's a horrible flick).
Oh, don't remind me... The more I think about it, the more I realise I always disliked the movies. At least the ones I witnessed coming out in my own lifetime. So in a way, JJ changed nothing about my opinion there.
I think the idea of that God-damn Borg queen actually made me rage more than the product placement in the new flick. Ants don't have queens to rule them, they just have birthing machines for the hive, and oh God, what the **** do they want to accomplish by giving her a huge raging ladyboner for Data? The borg had already stated that he was completely outdated from their point of view.
It's always the same **** with writers trying to portray hive minds, some day one of them always falls back to some stupid "overmind" or "queen" bull****, and instead of reminding them of how hiveminds actually work the producers all chant: "Brilliant, with this the completely braindead will totally connect more to our product!" That's insulting towards their audience as well, IMO.
But there I go again, I think I could rant on for hours concerning certain things in Star Trek in general.
EDIT: Just some typos I happened to catch too late
-
The borg queen was a complete mistake. Before here the Borg were genuinely scary enemies who viewed the federation as being of little importance, just another collection of races to assimilate.
-
The queen was a mistake only so far as they made her a distinct individual, the Idea that there was a drone or collective of drones who's function was to lead and direct the borg as an entity but not separate from it could have fleshed them out nicely.
But then the last half of Voyager would have been without an antagonist so mixed feelings.
-
Most movie makers are in it for a quick, short-term income, whereas if you look at successful sci-fi, it tends to start out with a small, almost elitist audience, and over the course of years, gains a cult status amongst a much larger audience. This doesn't chime well with the quick-buck mentality, so they are constantly tinkering with perfectly good sci-fi in order to make it 'more accessible', and usually ruining it in the process.
Oddly enough, the audience the Studios demand the screenwriters write for doesn't actually exist, and it tends to alter films in precisely the way that would piss off the actual audience the most.
Edit : For example, the remake/relaunch was a good popcorn movie, but, dear god, the science....
-
Is that benedict Cumberlain or whatever that guy who plays sherlock these days is called as the antagonist?
I am in.
-
Is that benedict Cumberlain or whatever that guy who plays sherlock these days is called as the antagonist?
I am in.
yes it is
-
CUMBERBATCH. He's so awsum.
Edit : For example, the remake/relaunch was a good popcorn movie, but, dear god, the science....
RED MATTER SAVES THE GALAXY FROM THE UBBER-DANGEROUS SUPERNOVA!! :lol:
-
CUMBERBATCH. He's so awsum.
Edit : For example, the remake/relaunch was a good popcorn movie, but, dear god, the science....
RED MATTER SAVES THE GALAXY FROM THE UBBER-DANGEROUS SUPERNOVA!! :lol:
Hehe, exactly, though I shouldn't shout too much considering the Excelsior got hit by a shockwave from an exploding moon that it must have been lightyears away from in Undiscovered Country ;)
The Borg Queen was one of the Executive decisions that the audience needed 'a focus to relate to' with the Borg, which served to do little more than display their complete ignorance as to what made the Borg so terrifying in the first place, they had no 'handles', they were not greedy or selfish or even hierarchical, nothing to be exploited.
And yes, Benedict Cumberbatch does increase my hopes for the movie, I think he could make a very intimidating bad-guy ;)
-
He can be a very intimidating good-guy already :). He also plays Smaug, apperently.
-
Regarding the science, I didn't mind the total ****fest that the ST remake was, but I'd appreciate some more consideration towards it.
-
Star Trek wasn't a bad movie if you considered it a film that just happened to share names with the TV Series by Gene Rodenberry...
To my mind it wasn't a bad movie, it was just a bad Star Trek, it seems the main reason for seeking out new life and new civilizations is now to waste the special effects budgets on them.
-
I liked the first movie. And to be honest, I don't really understand where all of you are coming from when you claim that it was bad Star Trek because of its bad science? Are you seriously trying to say that TOS, TNG, etc had good science? They were all ridiculous as far as science was/is concerned. If there hadn't been red matter to swallow up supernovas, they would have reversed polarity of something or other.
-
It's not just about the science, technobabble has been a humorous part of ST since the early years, as you say, anyone with more than cursory knowledge of science would laugh at comments from the next gen outwards.
The real problem is the ethos behind the movies, and it's not just the new movies that suffer from it, it's just that they are making the least attempt to hide it. When Star Trek was a series, it was about a vast collection of worlds with different races, customs, technologies and beliefs, and it dealt quite frequently with how those races interacted. It's now got to the point where the only memorable 'alien' looking alien in the entire recent movie is comic relief to the comic relief...
I think that's why things like the motion picture and the voyage home are dear to some Trekkies hearts, not because they are good movies, but because at least they remind them of Star Trek. Wrath of Khan was a good movie because not only did it deal with an old Star Trek episode, but it was really well made, however, it might have wrongly convinced some directors that the content of the film was the winner, rather than the production of it.
-
Fury, where did I say that ST remake was bad? I only said that I wish the next installment doesn't make red matter-like stupidities.
Because even while I appreciated the movie, I'd have appreciated it way more if the central tension of the last part of the movie had any point to it. It's somewhat hard to feel the "ticking clock"-like pressure of the drilling into the Earth's core, when you are constantly being trolled by your own rational mind telling you "Why dafuq don't they just red-matter-bomb the surface of the Earth, FFS, wtf is this drilling plot point DOING HERE??"
And I agree with Flipside, TMP is a guilty pleasure of mine as well.
-
The queen was a mistake only so far as they made her a distinct individual, the Idea that there was a drone or collective of drones who's function was to lead and direct the borg as an entity but not separate from it could have fleshed them out nicely.
Possibly, but to my mind it was the fact that the borg actually lacked one of these that made them so scary. Any borg was basically a complete unit of the borg in miniature. Any borg could rapidly assimilate an entire collective around itself without any contact from the rest.
But then the last half of Voyager would have been without an antagonist so mixed feelings.
If the last half of Voyager had been without a last half of Voyager, it would have been worth the sacrifice. :p
-
yea, voyager broke everything.
-
It's now got to the point where the only memorable 'alien' looking alien in the entire recent movie is comic relief to the comic relief...
I don't think Star Trek can honestly make a claim to being full of "alien" looking aliens anyway. Most of TOS and early TNG had aliens that looked exactly human. Even when makeup and such improved in later eras, almost everything the crew interacted with in any kind of significant way was pretty much a bumpy-forehead alien, and those that weren't were generally still pretty much humanoid. If you exclude the energy lifeforms and random stuff like that, and just think about aliens with bodies as we have, then the Mos Eisley bar scene in a New Hope probably has more diversity of body types than the entire run of TNG (although that's still pretty much humanoid dominated IIRC).
Personally, I find that I can enjoy JJ Abrams movies well enough as modern day Sci Fi. I like sci fi movies where spaceships blow each other up. They're fun. And if it didn't have the Star Trek name attached, it probably wouldn't have been made. So from that perspective, I'm willing - even a little excited - to go see the new one. But I'd give both of them up in a second to see a new ST TV series.
-
The problem with trek aliens is that they are all just humans under make up. In fact, Roddenberry said himself that the show was a "Wagon Train to the Stars"
The show is about exploring ourselves as humans... while talking to humans dressed as "aliens."
There have been VERY little attempts at showing an alien culture, cognition or anything that would actually be alien. Hence why trek is another one of those cheap Sci-Fi shows.
-
When Star Trek was a series, it was about a vast collection of worlds with different races, customs, technologies and beliefs, and it dealt quite frequently with how those races interacted.
While Enterprise kind of addressed those things, Voyager did not, and if you want to find a series that really wanted to work with this, you'd have to go back to DS9 and the Bajorans (and Cardassians/Klingons to a lesser extent). TNG flirted with it via the Klingons but didn't make nearly as long-running an issue of it the way pretty much every other DS9 episode did something to highlight the Bajorans.
Honestly if you want to talk about a franchise that does this sort of stuff, you'd be better off pointing to Bablyon 5.
-
when you think about it the crews on star trek were mostly normal with a couple oddballs thrown in for diversity. the thing in tos was that the cast was diverse but mostly human. having a russian an asian and a black woman on the bridge crew was just unheard of back then. they kept the subtext more or less in later series, but replace the humans with aliens. ds9 really stepped it up though. more political critique of the human condition (space lizzard nazis and space jews). but b5 did the same thing in a totally awesome way, without all the baggage associated with the previous series that trek had to deal with.
-
Yeah I think we can pretty much agree B5 was amazing.
-
When Star Trek was a series, it was about a vast collection of worlds with different races, customs, technologies and beliefs, and it dealt quite frequently with how those races interacted.
While Enterprise kind of addressed those things, Voyager did not, and if you want to find a series that really wanted to work with this, you'd have to go back to DS9 and the Bajorans (and Cardassians/Klingons to a lesser extent). TNG flirted with it via the Klingons but didn't make nearly as long-running an issue of it the way pretty much every other DS9 episode did something to highlight the Bajorans.
Honestly if you want to talk about a franchise that does this sort of stuff, you'd be better off pointing to Bablyon 5.
If the thread were called 'Babylon 5 - Into Darkness', I would ;)
I didn't say that Star Trek was the only, best user of that standard, simply that it did do it various forms, whether that was Medusans from the original series, a race that harmed without knowing it, or the race from the wormhole who were pretty much apathetic to our reality to the shapes in the sand from one Next Gen epsiode, where it was humans unwittingly harming them. Some of the best concepts in Star Trek (and even Babylon 5) came from the cerebral side of it, but, movie producers are convinced that cerebral doesn't sell, it's been a motto of the movie industry for years and simply shows how little regard many companies hold the general public in.
As for voyager, well, that's a perfect example of what happens when you try to take a show in a different direction and don't pay any attention to the previous series'.
-
If the thread were called 'Babylon 5 - Into Darkness', I would ;)
But that would require the world to be even slightly fair. :p
-
I think the companies hold the exact "regard" for the masses that they deserve. Correct, mindblowing and superb brainy stuff matters to 0.1% of pop. Porn and pew pew matters to 100% of pop. Maths ain' hard.
-
ds9 really stepped it up though. more political critique of the human condition (space lizzard nazis and space jews). but b5 did the same thing in a totally awesome way, without all the baggage associated with the previous series that trek had to deal with.
Being a Bablyon 5 fan really made me see DS9 with a much more hostile mindset than it deserves, which is why I have a rather negative opinion of it, even though I have to admit it stands rather well on its own. One thing though I personally didn't like as much, is that the main focus went from exploration to war and diplomacy in a more static setting. Not that they didn't have other elements in it, or that this is necessarily a bad development, but I really didn't quite like it in the context of Star Trek.
Also the Babylon 5 "they stole our concept and took our money"-drama that surrounded it. I really have to admit that I treat many works of fiction unfairly like that, when something in the context '"ruins" it for me.
There have been VERY little attempts at showing an alien culture, cognition or anything that would actually be alien. Hence why trek is another one of those cheap Sci-Fi shows.
Are you talking just about the original series or about TNG as well? Because, hey man, crystalline entity, borg, Q continuum, that thing that thought the Enterprise was its mother, several energy beings, that race in the center of the galaxy exploring by pulling other races towards it, the list goes on.
If you exclude the energy lifeforms and random stuff like that, and just think about aliens with bodies as we have
Oh, OK... fair enough...
But even then, I guess while most of them looked human, mostly because that cost less, they were really there to either reflect some aspects of us or to introduce a new and alien concept that was still similiar to us. Like when those one aliens abduct Picard and replace him with a lookalike to learn about hierarchy and command structure. Sure, they looked human-like enough, but they served the role of exploring something about the human condition anyway, and they were sufficiently alien in their ways to make the thing interesting.
The problem with trek aliens is that they are all just humans under make up. In fact, Roddenberry said himself that the show was a "Wagon Train to the Stars"
The show is about exploring ourselves as humans... while talking to humans dressed as "aliens."
Exactly like that. While I love the dramatic tension and especially that diplomatic insight that a setting like B5 provides for example, and I technically love a setting where huge starships fight each other with stellar explosions, I'd really love to see a humanist masterpiece like TNG again as well. And Star Trek had been the franchise you'd expect to go exactly there, and the franchise that was basically created with that purpose in mind.
-
If you exclude the energy lifeforms and random stuff like that, and just think about aliens with bodies as we have
Oh, OK... fair enough...
But even then, I guess while most of them looked human, mostly because that cost less, they were really there to either reflect some aspects of us or to introduce a new and alien concept that was still similiar to us. Like when those one aliens abduct Picard and replace him with a lookalike to learn about hierarchy and command structure. Sure, they looked human-like enough, but they served the role of exploring something about the human condition anyway, and they were sufficiently alien in their ways to make the thing interesting.
They went as far as hand waving that one with an episode with the Federation represented by the Ent-D, the Klingons and the Romulans following down clues to a secret, each beliving it's something different, the Romulans think it will be a new amazing power source, the Klingons a powerful weapons and I am not sure about the Federation.
any way they follow their clues down and after a stand off beam down to a planet and are confronted by an artifact which turns out to be a holo recording of a humanoid figure which explains that they were the first sentient race and all they found was a barren universe and as they decided to spread their DNA over many life capable worlds which encouraged the life that developed to follow their basic DNA structure and thus most sentient life in the galaxy is humanoid.
-
The science aside - it was truly atrocious and the whole plot backstory of how Romulus got wiped out was abysmal - I really did enjoy the reboot. Mostly because the character writing was reasonably clever and entertaining and it kept moving along - unlike, say, every TNG movie they made (hilarious, because TNG was my favorite series yet had pretty awful movies). So I'll go see this. JJ Abrams also did Fringe, so I <3 him anyway.
-
If the thread were called 'Babylon 5 - Into Darkness', I would ;)
But that would require the world to be even slightly fair. :p
Must admit, I would be a lot more excited to hear of a new JMS-Produced B5 movie than a Star Trek one. JMS has actually stated that he'd only consider picking up the story again if it was treated to a decent budget and directorial freedom. I would love for that to happen, but to be honest I don't see it happening :(
I suppose my final line on the new Star Trek movie is, "Will I see it?" Yes, most likely, and I'll most likely enjoy it, but I'll approach it with much the same attitude as I will Star Wars VII, expecting fun, and taking whatever else canon that comes along as a bonus nod to my generation.