Announcement Trailer for Star Trek: Into Darkness

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12 December 2012   #61
Originally Posted by Lunatique: I was just having a conversation via FB with Steven Stahlberg about this. He was complaining about how this whole reboot by JJ just isn't Star Trek at all, because it does not contain the most essential elements of the original vision of Star Trek, which is an optimistic look at our future, and how humanity learns about love, peace, and harmony in its interaction with alien species, or the excitement of new discoveries at the edge of the unknown. The reboot is basically just another high-octane action flick, and it could have been called by another name instead of Star Trek.



and he would be 90% right...

Star Trek the Tv shows especially where about all those things mentioned, occasionally (Deep Space 9) it dedicated too much of its time on populace action, but they still found time for very good Scifi and character work.

Now looking at the films - the film that I felt most embodied all things "Star Trek" was the 1st one, the Motion Picture. Now I love that film to death, it has action, very solid SciFi, and a genuine message and wonderment about it (lacks humor though) , unfortunately most people found it pretty boring. So from then on out all the films kinda dumbed down a little and where made with more action less brains in mind.

Not that that's a bad thing...While the films where pretty easy to get along with the TV shows (due to budget I suspect) continued with there more character based, ideas based story's while the films where just more popcorny.

No that leads us the JJs new film. And I think the best way to describe it is Star Trek set to a Star Wars theme. The SciFi element has been dumbed down, the action has gone from the traditional 7 all the way up to 10. But...I still really really love it. I do think its a very solid action flick and iv watched it many times, I genuinely love it and I cannot wait till the next film.

My hope is though, that with this film we could see another Tv show, one that would fill in the gaps left by the film. Fingers crossed!
__________________
Monsters! Monsters from the id!

Flickr

MDI Digital
 
Old 12 December 2012   #62
Originally Posted by Als: Many people watch day in - day out: explosions, violence, killing.
Almost all the video games today, even for children, are all about death and destruction again.
Then you can't believe why someone would take real gun and start shooting?
It's in our nature to mimic what we see, and learn based on all the programming you are getting in daily doses from TV and film and games which is violence, mistrust, killing, destruction.
That is NOT Star Trek.
(And quit quoting Wrath of Khan, because that's the one which Gene made compromise about, and had nothing to do with, because First ST film was not that big box office.)

ST should be about SOMETHING. About HOW we should build society without wars and killing and greed. World without hunger. Without TERROR over anyone.
If you say it's always been like that, then go and live in the cave.
There are so many serious themes to be examined by film makers.
Very few of them do so. What is the use of brilliant SFX when the plot is flat, when the script is shallow and doesn't say anything about anything. To me it's an insult to hundreds of artists who put very long hours, sweat and tears. Yes, maybe they make something cool, but wouldn't you like to be part of something more important then that. To make some change to better?
ST is about what makes us human? How can we better ourselves.
It's trying to examine all these questions and maybe try to give some answers too.
Relationship and reactions with Aliens are just example of what your reaction is to anything alien, different from you.
ST need to make you think, not just feel the adrenaline from explosions and buildings crashing down.
ST should be darker with more killing and explosions? Really?
Still not enough FEAR or Circus for the masses?


Al


QFA.
I will definitely pass this Abrams installment, I will propbably go and watch Voyager again
__________________
www.inbitwin.com

Last edited by LuckyBug : 12 December 2012 at 10:24 AM.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #63
Wrath of Khan was never my favorite. I like The Motion Picture better. I even like Star Trek V better. Someone said it earlier.

Originally Posted by trevanian: KHAN is my fave (along with the first movie and the fifth - yeah, I think Shatner has a real director's eye and got the main 3 characters done so very right I didn't care how they messed over the rest of them, even if he was not well served in the FX dept, and the story is the most TV feel of them all, even with a pre title teaser) because it IS trek like.


The movies were too far divorced from the CHARACTERS I knew and loved from the series. Star Trek V is the only one that GOT IT RIGHT. In spite of its problems, it felt like real Trek.

Then again, I am far from major Trek fan. I like the Abrams version just fine. I look forward to this new one, be it Gary Mitchell or Khan or anything else. While I agree with what was said earlier about Star Trek should NOT be dark and explosion ridden, but should be ABOUT something, it is just a movie, and if its fun, like the first Abrams film, then that's good enough.

If someone wants to see more like The Motion Picture, I think indies could get together and do something like that pretty cheap these days.
__________________
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
Learn How to Make Your Own Animated Projects!
You don't need millions of dollars or major studio backing!!
 
Old 12 December 2012   #64
Originally Posted by Als: Many people watch day in - day out: explosions, violence, killing.
Almost all the video games today, even for children, are all about death and destruction again.
Then you can't believe why someone would take real gun and start shooting?
It's in our nature to mimic what we see, and learn based on all the programming you are getting in daily doses from TV and film and games which is violence, mistrust, killing, destruction.
That is NOT Star Trek.
(And quit quoting Wrath of Khan, because that's the one which Gene made compromise about, and had nothing to do with, because First ST film was not that big box office.)

ST should be about SOMETHING. About HOW we should build society without wars and killing and greed. World without hunger. Without TERROR over anyone.
If you say it's always been like that, then go and live in the cave.
There are so many serious themes to be examined by film makers.
Very few of them do so. What is the use of brilliant SFX when the plot is flat, when the script is shallow and doesn't say anything about anything. To me it's an insult to hundreds of artists who put very long hours, sweat and tears. Yes, maybe they make something cool, but wouldn't you like to be part of something more important then that. To make some change to better?
ST is about what makes us human? How can we better ourselves.
It's trying to examine all these questions and maybe try to give some answers too.
Relationship and reactions with Aliens are just example of what your reaction is to anything alien, different from you.
ST need to make you think, not just feel the adrenaline from explosions and buildings crashing down.
ST should be darker with more killing and explosions? Really?
Still not enough FEAR or Circus for the masses?


Al
Wow. I never watched a Star Trek series and it might be too late for that... However, you make me want to. I agree with everything you said. I think it's times for movies to show how humanity could evolve in the right direction. How can we possibly build an utopic world for ourselves?

It's something I think a lot about.

''Peace is evolution for mankind.'' - Dub FX
 
Old 12 December 2012   #65
I also liked a lot of aspects of Star Trek V.
Too bad that rock creature scene wasnt filmed. I remember seeing the storyboards for it.
A lot more exciting than a few laser blasts against a cliff!
 
Old 12 December 2012   #66
A new trailer already.

http://youtu.be/j9-oT9kzbG8
 
Old 12 December 2012   #67
nice. but they need to stop using this in every trailer that comes out these days

http://ryanpitts.com/projects/inceptionator/
__________________
nm4358050
 
Old 12 December 2012   #68
Need to stop watching those trailers... I know I'll go see it, don't need to know more of the story ATM.
__________________
"Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced" - F. Herbert
Photoblog
10 CGChallenge entry
 
Old 12 December 2012   #69
The new trailer is already starting to look like its falling into the "giving away too much" category. If the coolest stuff is in the trailer, and these movies tend not to have stuff like story or character, why are we going to see it?
__________________
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
Learn How to Make Your Own Animated Projects!
You don't need millions of dollars or major studio backing!!
 
Old 12 December 2012   #70
Originally Posted by Kzin: als,
people like you are the one i am talking about. i had alot of discussion on this topic in the last 10 years and my conclusion is that st will never be the same for you like it was with tng (tv show of course). you are not able to accept that st has to evolve, has to change to get more people back into cinemas.


People like me? The ones who defend ST legacy, I guess.
They shouldn't be the same. They should be MUCH better.
CGI has evolved, now we can do anything, so why death and destruction, when we can create worlds anyway we like. Give us a good story! Something NEW, ORIGINAL.
Explore things which never existed. Create new worlds like those in Star Wars.
New type of creatures, with their own moral, ethics, size, way of communicating, etc.
How very imaginative to create again a human villain with British accent? Never seen before?
With identical poster to other 5 films. With main character looking like Assasing creed?
Common... that was some tough time spent thinking. Maybe we give him a cat, or golden finger?

Watch Cloud Atlas. It has action and it's not dumb. That's far more ST then new ST movie.

ST needs to evolve.
Evolve yes, Disolve no.
If we let dumbing down to continue this will be the result:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

Originally Posted by Kzin: movies changed alot over the last 30 years and today its easier to get people in with simple stories and alot of action. you have to accept this.


No, I do not have to accept that. Nor I will accept that.

Originally Posted by Kzin: sure, you can cry that all the people out there dont get what st is, but this will not change how people decide to watch a movie.
this has nothing todo if i like the direction everything is going, but the point is you cant change peoples mind on this topic. but i know one for sure, alot of people going into cinemas to watch a st movie now which never watched a classic st movie in cinemas, because of the nerd factor.


That didn't happen 1000000 years ago. If someone wants to find out what ST is, that's really easy. Rent few episodes, I can even recommend few.
But it's irrelevant. This is not only about ST, but Science Fiction in general.
You should learn what SF is in school.
But this is all about dumbing down, because people who are not educated don't make problems, and are easy to rule over. They don't ask any questions and are glad to be programmed by media and manipulated without personal opinion.
They eat whatever crap is served to them. Not always true. Education or not, it's not ultimate wisdom that they could use knowledge to make their lives better.

Nerd? Is that how dumb people call people with education as a revenge?
Nerd? Like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Some of the richest people in the world?


Als
__________________
"No Bucks, NO Buck Rogers!"

VFX rule no. 387
# Just redo it!

 
Old 12 December 2012   #71
Originally Posted by Shletten: Wow. I never watched a Star Trek series and it might be too late for that... However, you make me want to. I agree with everything you said. I think it's times for movies to show how humanity could evolve in the right direction. How can we possibly build an utopic world for ourselves?

It's something I think a lot about.

''Peace is evolution for mankind.'' - Dub FX


It's never too late. It's quite easy. You can rent it or just ask. I'm sure there is at least one friend who's mom or dad has all the episodes. If not, there is youtube, internet, and after all, ST site.

This is why I don't like ST poster. It's already seen and it's obviously not original at all.
http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-cont.../ZZ5A8DACE8.jpg
It is well done, but it's a very very very wrong message for ST movie, including tittle.


Als
__________________
"No Bucks, NO Buck Rogers!"

VFX rule no. 387
# Just redo it!

 
Old 12 December 2012   #72
Let's face it.

This really isn't about dumbing sci-fi down for the masses. It's about DOLLARS.

You won't get a really intelligently-written great sci-fi movie until someone has the guts to make one that "the masses" can understand and enjoy - and will PAY to see. The Matrix was like that - but they are so few and so far in between that it's far easier - and more of a sure thing - to just create action and half-decent characters and throw them on the screen. I'm quite sure studios don't want "intelligent sci-fi" but rather something that is far closer to a sure-thing money-maker.

I like the first JJ Abrams Star Trek. It was filled with plot holes and really bad science, but it was fun and I enjoyed the characters. They weren't quite the characters that I've grown up with, but they were still "the same" Star Trek characters. I'm sure I'll go see this new one as well, but I'm also betting that it will also be filled with lots of plot holes and bad science.

I'm hoping for Childhoods End and Rendezvous with Rama as being the great sci-fi movies to see - when they get made that is.

Just my opinion of course. I have been known to be wrong now and then.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #73
Originally Posted by DSW: Let's face it.
This really isn't about dumbing sci-fi down for the masses. It's about DOLLARS.
You won't get a really intelligently-written great sci-fi movie until someone has the guts to make one that "the masses" can understand and enjoy - and will PAY to see. The Matrix was like that - but they are so few and so far in between that it's far easier - and more of a sure thing - to just create action and half-decent characters and throw them on the screen. I'm quite sure studios don't want "intelligent sci-fi" but rather something that is far closer to a sure-thing money-maker.
I like the first JJ Abrams Star Trek. It was filled with plot holes and really bad science, but it was fun and I enjoyed the characters. They weren't quite the characters that I've grown up with, but they were still "the same" Star Trek characters. I'm sure I'll go see this new one as well, but I'm also betting that it will also be filled with lots of plot holes and bad science.
I'm hoping for Childhoods End and Rendezvous with Rama as being the great sci-fi movies to see - when they get made that is.


Well, this is fine, but you missed my point.
It's not only action I'm on about. Look at the IDENTICAL posters for other movies, including Batman, which are obviously all about same: DEATH, FEAR, DESTRUCTION, explosions, WAR.
Star Trek action movie? Fine. Stupid, pointless but ok. But INTO THE DARKNESS?
Death, Destruction, Disaster movie? What is THAT all about?


Al
__________________
"No Bucks, NO Buck Rogers!"

VFX rule no. 387
# Just redo it!

 
Old 12 December 2012   #74
Quote: I'm hoping for Childhoods End and Rendezvous with Rama as being the great sci-fi movies to see - when they get made that is.


Yeah, these are the two movies I am waiting for. However the Morgan Freemann project seems pretty dead, and I only heard very few rumors about an adaption of Childhoods End. I am just re-reading the Rama-Quadrology. Rama would make a great movie (and the following 3 volumes would be great for a TV-show), but let's face it, there is no chance they would do a faithfull adaption. To few explosions, no action.

I am also sad that Trek is basically gone. I enjoyed JJs reboot, but it was really silly. I think they captured the charakters and the chemistry pretty well, but it was one of the silliest stories ever written. Really. I start to tghink that's the Lindelof effect. I hope there will be some SF-movies without him, but this seems almost impossible in Hollywood right now.

So, Trek2 looks like fun, but not the SF-Movie I'd like to see. But, it is possible that there is much more to the movie then what's in the trailers. Maybe Harrison wants to start a war with the klingons (I think Weller is the main klingon charakter), but the feds and the ridgeheads work it out somehow - similar to Undiscovered Country, which I really love. So let's wait and see.
 
Old 12 December 2012   #75
The Lindelof Effect - sounds like a Ludlum novel title, but it is probably something like the uncanny valley, that people will be writing papers about in years to come over its sheer awfulness and impact (am reading the pre-Lindelof PROMETHEUS script and am amazed at how well it works ... it seems like Lindelof and/or Scott just cut connective tissue away, thus turning story and character arcs to happenstance incidents without relation.)

On the RAMA notion ... I met Freeman's producer about the idea of a 'making of' book late in 2000, and at that point they were having the se7en screenwriter doing a rewrite, trying to beef up the part of Jimmy (the guy with the flycyle) so he'd be a strong character in conflict with the Commander (presumably to entice somebody like Pitt, though I don't imagine they really had a chance.) I remember mentioning that the religious character (Boris?) might have made for a better in-conflict-with guy, but I don't recall if they said whether he was even in the script. Never seen any of the drafts online anywhere, unfortunately.

I don't think there has been any serious play with CHILDHOOD'S END in decades, ever since CBS decided not to go ahead with it around 1979 or 80. More recently SyFyChannel said they were going to do it, but I sure hope they never succeed, but I'm sure it will suck Suck SUCK. That novel seriously needs a master filmmaker, maybe somebody like Cuaron, to make it work on screen. Often wonder about when Kubrick embarked on what turned out to be 2001 ... if the rights to END were available, would he have adapted that instead.

Funny how Clarke still comes up in threads about TREK throughout the net ... I remember him passing comment (maybe in STARLOG?) on ST 3 about the crew being able to operate a klingon spaceship being even less likely than a US crew flying a Soviet craft successfully, and being surprised he wasn't going on about a million other things in that movie which were more improbable and stupid (beam down to an exploding planet instead of to the other ship, makes SO much sense), but then again, he was friendly with Roddenberry, so he couldn't harpoon TREK too painfully, even on the ones GR wasn't involved in. I thought it was strange that he made mention of NextGeneration in his really bad 3001 novel, especially given that you have the reincarnated Poole character recalling his making a set visit, which is making the fourth wall into transparent aluminum, given that Gary Lockwood appeared on the original series in the 2nd pilot.
__________________
"achievement is its own reward -- pride obscures it."

- Major Garland Briggs
TWIN PEAKS
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.