Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

All about being “a first”.

The first Star Trek movie.

The first attempt with any sort of budget to revive the franchise.

The first look at the new, refitted and updated USS Enterprise NCC-1701.

The first proper onscreen gozz at the decks and lights and doohickys and gubbins and gizmos and wotsits and that.

To our eyes sure, it’s nowt new, and feels indulgent. But for the audience of the time? It must’ve been breathtaking.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
All about being “a first”.

The first Star Trek movie.

The first attempt with any sort of budget to revive the franchise.

The first look at the new, refitted and updated USS Enterprise NCC-1701.

The first proper onscreen gozz at the decks and lights and doohickys and gubbins and gizmos and wotsits and that.

To our eyes sure, it’s nowt new, and feels indulgent. But for the audience of the time? It must’ve been breathtaking.

Right.

You could have done all those things. And furthered the plot at the same time.

You got a lot of nice shots of the ship while moving. There could've been more.

I'm not hating on your nostalgia.

I think of it like the first time you really see a dinosaur in Jurassic Park. In that scene they really don't do much, you've a herd of longnecks walking across the scene. The most intense action they do is one arching up to eat from the top of a tree. Otherwise no running; chasing even the motions are pretty slow.

It's a slow scene but its the first ever time you see a dinosaur in film that isn't

a) An iguana enlarged with cinema tricks and a few plastic horns stuck on it (with non-harming glue)

b) Stop Motion

c) Guy in a suit who is very clearly guy-in-a-suit


I'm almost not going to include puppets/muppets in that cause they do make extensive use of them in the film; only they've evolved the system even more into what would become animatronics.

It is furthering the plot. It’s showing that this isn’t your Father’s USS Enterprise NCC-1701. It’s the upgraded model. And leads into the shakedown cruise and the unsure new Captain thrown into a near impossible situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Consider it against the opening of A New Hope.

The reveal of the Star Destroyer, whilst not the same length, takes a while as the ship just keeps coming, and coming, and coming. No dialogue, just visuals and the sound of turbolasers.

Visual storytelling counts for a lot.

 Quixote wrote:
I'm not hating on your nostalgia.

Ah yes, nostalgia can be the only reason that scene is beloved. Good call.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Star Trek: The Motion Picture .

It wasn't as bad as I remember. I think I understood what they were going for, but the whole film felt like a 30 minute long Trek episode unnecessary padded into a 2 hour film.

Yes. The Enterprise was a pretty model... but we didn't need to see an extended reveal with orchestral score.

Heretic!
We most certainly did. And it's one of the best things in the movie.

This feels like those social media posts complaining about the sex scenes in Sinners.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
All about being “a first”.

The first Star Trek movie.

The first attempt with any sort of budget to revive the franchise.

The first look at the new, refitted and updated USS Enterprise NCC-1701.

The first proper onscreen gozz at the decks and lights and doohickys and gubbins and gizmos and wotsits and that.

To our eyes sure, it’s nowt new, and feels indulgent. But for the audience of the time? It must’ve been breathtaking.

Indeed. Keeping in mind as well that the audience of the day was a little more used to movies just taking a breather, and weren't exposed to the sort of all-VFX-all-the-time blockbusters of today. Even speaking as someone who would have preferred they didn't change the design so much, that look at the new Enterprise was breathtaking, at its time.

I remember being somewhat frustrated that they didn't do something similar with the Enterprise-E... We never really get a good look at it at all in First Contact.

Sadly by the time the Enterprise E came onto the scene Hollywood was well into the mindset that "modern day audiences need constant action" in their films. So we lost a lot of the more steady pacing the earlier films were full of.

But yeah the E was never - I mean it was a freaking cool looking Enterprise and it did great but it was never as iconic as the others cause it lacked that series history.

The effect of Picard Season 3 ending episode wouldn't have been half as impactful if it was the E instead of the D

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Consider it against the opening of A New Hope.

The reveal of the Star Destroyer, whilst not the same length, takes a while as the ship just keeps coming, and coming, and coming. No dialogue, just visuals and the sound of turbolasers.

Visual storytelling counts for a lot.

Thank you for summing up my point to a tee.

Imagine if Star Wars began with an 5 minute static shot of an unmoving star Destroyer.

No dialog, no action, nothing.

I don't believe that would've worked for the film George Lucas was attempting to make.

Motion pictures require movement. Unless you are using stillness to build suspense (Ala Steven Spielberg's calm seas in Jaws or better yet, watch Sergio Leione's final 8 minutes of the Mexican Standoff in The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly where stillness (except for darting eyes, twitchy fingers, and facial tics) is intercut with establishing long shots that cut closer and closer, as Ennio Morricone's masterful score builds and builds the suspense of three gunfighters waiting to draw down on each other.

I believe that if the exterior shots of the ship had been better incorporated into the film, you would have a better film, not just a cool scene.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Thank you for summing up my point to a tee.

Imagine if Star Wars began with an 5 minute static shot of an unmoving star Destroyer.

No dialog, no action, nothing.

I don't believe that would've worked for the film George Lucas was attempting to make.

It wouldn't have, because the audience would have had no reason to care about that unmoving Star Destroyer.

Ignoring for a moment that ST:TMP didn't open with that Enterprise flyaround, imagine instead that Star Wars had started out as a low-budget TV show that ran for several seasons and established a massive cult following, was cancelled, and then 10 years later came back as a movie in which an audience (that up until that point had seen very little big-budget scifi at the cinema) got to see a movie-quality model of the Millenium Falcon on the big screen for the first time.

Yes, by the standards of today's blockbuster, for an audience that's used to a more frantic pace, it's an overly long sequence. And yes, absolutely, that sequence would not have worked in a movie that lacked that emotional connection for the audience. But in 1979, for those who grew up with the original series? It was pure magic.

Ghost Ship

It's that film that everyone says is a complete waste of time after the first 10 minutes.
I would have to disagree, the opening is a highlight, but the rest is a fairly decent example of those effects-heavy horror movies that Hollywood were putting out in the late 90's to early 00's.

I watched Ghost Ship sometime last year. I can't say what it offers to connoisseurs but to somewhat like me who isn't into ghost movies, it was a pretty boring experience.

 insaniak wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Thank you for summing up my point to a tee.

Imagine if Star Wars began with an 5 minute static shot of an unmoving star Destroyer.

No dialog, no action, nothing.

I don't believe that would've worked for the film George Lucas was attempting to make.

It wouldn't have, because the audience would have had no reason to care about that unmoving Star Destroyer.

Ignoring for a moment that ST:TMP didn't open with that Enterprise flyaround, imagine instead that Star Wars had started out as a low-budget TV show that ran for several seasons and established a massive cult following, was cancelled, and then 10 years later came back as a movie in which an audience (that up until that point had seen very little big-budget scifi at the cinema) got to see a movie-quality model of the Millenium Falcon on the big screen for the first time.

Yes, by the standards of today's blockbuster, for an audience that's used to a more frantic pace, it's an overly long sequence. And yes, absolutely, that sequence would not have worked in a movie that lacked that emotional connection for the audience. But in 1979, for those who grew up with the original series? It was pure magic.

Star Wars and Star Trek are also different settings that come with different expectations. Imagine if George Lucas had made a Star Wars movie about the taxation of trade routes and senate committees. Much umbrage would have been taken, I imagine.

In a way I find that the Star Trek movies err too much on the side of solving conflict with guns. That's not the ideal that Star Trek is about and makes it look more dystopian than it's supposed to be. Star Trek 1 does pretty well in that regard. It revels in the wonder of exploration and non-violent conflict solution. The introduction of the Enterprise fits right in there in my opinion.

You could 100% do a slow-motion video intro to Starwars right now. You'd just have to pick something REALLY iconic.

A slow run past a Star Destroyer; a slow run through the channels of a Death Star and then slowly moving back to reveal it and thus giving a huge sense of its vast scale.


Also lets not forget Sergio Leone made slow scenes a MASSIVE part of his films and the only connection in them for most of the audience was that Westerns were popular back then. Otherwise he was more than happy to start a film with almost nothing happening; he was a master of slow burn scenes where its all about tiny moments

 aku-chan wrote:
Ghost Ship

It's that film that everyone says is a complete waste of time after the first 10 minutes.
I would have to disagree, the opening is a highlight, but the rest is a fairly decent example of those effects-heavy horror movies that Hollywood were putting out in the late 90's to early 00's.

I really like Ghost Ship. It's a movie I've watched a few times and never don't enjoy it. It was one of the better examples of horror movies from it's time.

Yup. Dark Castle did some cracking ghost based horror films. They’ve not aged especially well as such, but for the right reasons - as in, they scream early 00’s mid-budget horror.

Tron: Legacy

This is so close to being really good, but it can't quite make the leap.

I have to say, after watching the O.G. Tron recently that really helped with the experience. It reduced the WTF barriers a bit.

So, what would have helped this thing make the jump from solid if unremarkable content to something memorable and great? If I knew that, I would be the richest man in Hollywood.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to a few things:

1. Sometimes it felt like Tron: The Greatest Hits and did not establish its own thing to late in the film.

2. The lead was not as compelling as they should have been, and once Flynn shows up is a bit over-shadowed by the DM NPC. They were a bit too angsty or not angsty enough. There was no doubt that they were established as being competent though.

3. The de-aging does not hold-up too well. Some scenes (especially with Clu) really look like video game cut-scenes more than anything else.

4. It had to fit into the tent-pole, Blockbuster movie template and therefore was never able to really tell its own story.

I have probably spent more time on this Daft Punk music video than it deserves. However, it is a masterpiece in set and custom design. There is no way you could make it using the techniques that they did in the OG, but it still looks pretty great.

Top Tip for Movie Makers.

If you’re going to cast Michael Sheen? Give him a proper leading role. He can and will overshadow any lesser performer, no matter how small his own role is.

He can’t help it. He’s Michael Sheen, and he’s stealing the scene.

And if you must give him only a supporting role? Don’t let him channel his inner Bowie!

Cillian Murphy also has an uncredited role that they really could have expanded on too.....

I mean….

Just….




Come on.

Marvellous acting from Michael Sheen. The main character? A Wet Hen entirely. Just barely there, carrying nothing.

If this was a boxing match? It’d be that wee kid that hung around with the bullies vs Mike Tyson at his absolute peak. Just absolutely no contest whatsoever.

If it was food? It’s a dropped hotdog that’s landed on a Dog Egg vs a slap up Steak Dinner with all the trimmings in the sort of top end restaurant where you can taste where your money is going.

It’s some sad little twerp “rapping” loudly on the bus vs a full orchestra playing the 1812 in a room designed using cutting edge science for perfect acoustics.

And that’s before he’s even really trying.

To be fair to the main actor...... his job is to be a blank slate everyman that 18-45 year old white men can project themselves onto. Therefore, he has to be a bit bland.

The guy playing Caster is basically asked to be the 1960's Batman Riddler, and delivers on it.

 Overread wrote:

Also lets not forget Sergio Leone made slow scenes a MASSIVE part of his films and the only connection in them for most of the audience was that Westerns were popular back then. Otherwise he was more than happy to start a film with almost nothing happening; he was a master of slow burn scenes where its all about tiny moments

Yep. Turned "men wait 10 minutes for a train" into absolutely riveting viewing.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Overread wrote:

Also lets not forget Sergio Leone made slow scenes a MASSIVE part of his films and the only connection in them for most of the audience was that Westerns were popular back then. Otherwise he was more than happy to start a film with almost nothing happening; he was a master of slow burn scenes where its all about tiny moments

Yep. Turned "men wait 10 minutes for a train" into absolutely riveting viewing.

There's a lot of films you can enjoy as a background distraction whilst doing other things and you can dip in and out of them and still enjoy the film

I find you can't do that with Sergio's films. You HAVE to watch them; pay attention to them and get drawn right in.
I like to say that he didn't make films he made cinema and its honestly a rarer talent than one might think within directors and film studios.

 Overread wrote:
There's a lot of films you can enjoy as a background distraction whilst doing other things and you can dip in and out of them and still enjoy the film

Reminds me of Netflix's edict to their productions that characters need to say what they are doing so that people can follow the show/movie while actually not actually them because the default position is that people use films/shows as background noise.

 Hulksmash wrote:

 aku-chan wrote:
Ghost Ship

It's that film that everyone says is a complete waste of time after the first 10 minutes.
I would have to disagree, the opening is a highlight, but the rest is a fairly decent example of those effects-heavy horror movies that Hollywood were putting out in the late 90's to early 00's.

I really like Ghost Ship. It's a movie I've watched a few times and never don't enjoy it. It was one of the better examples of horror movies from it's time.

Ghost Ship is one of those movies where sure, it's not winning any greatest of all time or even goodest of any time awards, but you're channel flipping, you see it's there, and you just stop channel flipping a let it roll because it's enjoyable enough and you've got the time to kill.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:

 aku-chan wrote:
Ghost Ship

It's that film that everyone says is a complete waste of time after the first 10 minutes.
I would have to disagree, the opening is a highlight, but the rest is a fairly decent example of those effects-heavy horror movies that Hollywood were putting out in the late 90's to early 00's.

I really like Ghost Ship. It's a movie I've watched a few times and never don't enjoy it. It was one of the better examples of horror movies from it's time.

Ghost Ship is one of those movies where sure, it's not winning any greatest of all time or even goodest of any time awards, but you're channel flipping, you see it's there, and you just stop channel flipping a let it roll because it's enjoyable enough and you've got the time to kill.

The initial scene with the dance on the deck makes a lot of lists of best horror movie openings, so it has that going for it.

A Working Man

Straight to Streaming Statham.

Straight to Streaming Statham!

Straight to Streaming STATHAM!

Out on Prime today, in which Jason Statham is ex-special forces black ops now working a building site, who finds reason to track down his bosses daughter when she’s taken by human traffic lights traffickers. And whilst I’m mere minutes into it, one presumes he’ll do so by going Crazy Ape Bonkers Cuckoo on them.

Like a McDonalds when you’re a bit down in the dumps or just peckish whilst out in town? I don’t expect this to be great, but I’ll be surprised if I’m not left with a feeling of satisfaction by the end.

Such is the power of Straight To Streaming Statham, Blessed of Algorithmo.

It had a limited theatrical release before streaming.

Straight.

To.

Streaming,

STATHAM!

And yeah, it’s perfunctory. You know what to expect with Statham, and he delivers his reliable mediocrity as usual.

Apparently this and the Beekeeper were all done in effectively one shoot.