|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Mar 31, 2023 5:38:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Mar 31, 2023 5:42:28 GMT
I touched on something like this a long time ago.: imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/262102/problem-having-star-trek-screenThis is a quote from Star Trek screenwriter and TV producer Ronald D. Moore and it does say a lot about the problem with having Star Trek on the big screen: trekmovie.com/2021/02/18/interview-ron-moore-on-section-31-series-and-what-he-would-do-with-star-trek-on-the-big-screen/?fbclid=IwAR3hMR6dZDIWz3FmLoQ6mxJnpnj3gw229aTsvlqnbMrwkKvt9l5XnSy1d6E"Trek is, in some ways, an uncomfortable fit to the big screen I’ve kind of come to feel, even though I did two of them. I thought First Contact was a really good film, Generations not so much. And Wrath of Khan is an outstanding film. The Voyage Home works really well, and so on. It’s not that they’re not good movies, but it feels like the movies have to be spectacle. The movies have to be gigantic, action-adventure, lots of shooting, lots of things at stake – except for Voyage Home. And that’s not really Star Trek to me. To me, Trek is a morality play. It’s a show about ethical dilemmas. It’s a science fiction show about “What if?” And it’s a character piece. The best parts of Trek don’t necessarily lend themselves towards the big screen. For instance, you couldn’t do “Data’s Day” as a movie, right? It was one of my favorite episodes. “The Conscience of the King” from The Original Series is one of my favorite episodes. That’s not a movie. So, the movie version always has to be hyped up and overdamped and they’re big giant roller coasters. And I don’t know that the roller coaster aspect is what attracts me to Star Trek the most. So, if they asked me what to do with the movies, I don’t know. I’d want to reboot and start over and do something very different. And try a different flavor of Star Trek for the big screen. And not just make ‘Who’s going to be the “Khan” in this version? What’s the big, giant weapon that’s going to threaten the universe? Or anything like that. I think you’d have to find some sci-fi angle that made it more about: what are the roots of Trek? Why did people come to fall in love with it in the first place? And that’s a tall order." |
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Mar 31, 2023 6:58:43 GMT
I touched on something like this a long time ago.: imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/262102/problem-having-star-trek-screenThis is a quote from Star Trek screenwriter and TV producer Ronald D. Moore and it does say a lot about the problem with having Star Trek on the big screen: trekmovie.com/2021/02/18/interview-ron-moore-on-section-31-series-and-what-he-would-do-with-star-trek-on-the-big-screen/?fbclid=IwAR3hMR6dZDIWz3FmLoQ6mxJnpnj3gw229aTsvlqnbMrwkKvt9l5XnSy1d6E"Trek is, in some ways, an uncomfortable fit to the big screen I’ve kind of come to feel, even though I did two of them. I thought First Contact was a really good film, Generations not so much. And Wrath of Khan is an outstanding film. The Voyage Home works really well, and so on. It’s not that they’re not good movies, but it feels like the movies have to be spectacle. The movies have to be gigantic, action-adventure, lots of shooting, lots of things at stake – except for Voyage Home. And that’s not really Star Trek to me. To me, Trek is a morality play. It’s a show about ethical dilemmas. It’s a science fiction show about “What if?” And it’s a character piece. The best parts of Trek don’t necessarily lend themselves towards the big screen. For instance, you couldn’t do “Data’s Day” as a movie, right? It was one of my favorite episodes. “The Conscience of the King” from The Original Series is one of my favorite episodes. That’s not a movie. So, the movie version always has to be hyped up and overdamped and they’re big giant roller coasters. And I don’t know that the roller coaster aspect is what attracts me to Star Trek the most. So, if they asked me what to do with the movies, I don’t know. I’d want to reboot and start over and do something very different. And try a different flavor of Star Trek for the big screen. And not just make ‘Who’s going to be the “Khan” in this version? What’s the big, giant weapon that’s going to threaten the universe? Or anything like that. I think you’d have to find some sci-fi angle that made it more about: what are the roots of Trek? Why did people come to fall in love with it in the first place? And that’s a tall order." The Voyage movie he mentioned had a spaceship threaten to destroy Earth unless it communicated with whales. He's having a Scorsese moment. |
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Apr 1, 2023 1:35:39 GMT
Ron Moore has somewhat of a point, but he's also saying that because the Next Generation movies as a whole were not as successful as the Original Series movies.
Next Generation had one really good movie, one okay movie, and two stinkers.
Original Series had one or two really good movies, four good movies overall, and two not-so-great movies.
And Next Generation ended after only four movies, with the last one being the first actual flop of the series, losing out in its first week to Maid in Manhattan starring Jennifer Lopez.
Even Star Trek V: The Final Frontier made a profit.
But overall, whether good or bad, the first 10 Star Trek movies had something the reboot movies don't -- heart and soul as well as familiar actors that fans had warmed up to over all those years on television.
None of the movies tried to be Star Wars or the biggest blockbuster. They had the same general spirit of their preceding TV series, just with better effects and production design.
The increase in quality between the first TV series and its six movie sequels was greater because of the decade-long gap in between. The Next Generation movies started right after the show ended, which was to their disadvantage in looking too much like the show.
But even the average/bad Original Series/Next Generation movies have their memorable moments, none of which the recast films have.
Look how much trouble they've been having trying to get a fourth film off the ground, after seven years now.
The Original Series cast made a movie every two or three years for 12 years without fail.
Because, for better or worse, they believed in what they were doing and knew what they were about.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Apr 1, 2023 3:37:42 GMT
Ron Moore has somewhat of a point, but he's also saying that because the Next Generation movies as a whole were not as successful as the Original Series movies. Next Generation had one really good movie, one okay movie, and two stinkers. Original Series had one or two really good movies, four good movies overall, and two not-so-great movies. And Next Generation ended after only four movies, with the last one being the first actual flop of the series, losing out in its first week to Maid in Manhattan starring Jennifer Lopez. Even Star Trek V: The Final Frontier made a profit. But overall, whether good or bad, the first 10 Star Trek movies had something the reboot movies don't -- heart and soul as well as familiar actors that fans had warmed up to over all those years on television. None of the movies tried to be Star Wars or the biggest blockbuster. They had the same general spirit of their preceding TV series, just with better effects and production design.The increase in quality between the first TV series and its six movie sequels was greater because of the decade-long gap in between. The Next Generation movies started right after the show ended, which was to their disadvantage in looking too much like the show. But even the average/bad Original Series/Next Generation movies have their memorable moments, none of which the recast films have. Look how much trouble they've been having trying to get a fourth film off the ground, after seven years now. The Original Series cast made a movie every two or three years for 12 years without fail. Because, for better or worse, they believed in what they were doing and knew what they were about. I think TMP definitely tried to be something more. I know it’s often regarded as “the boring one,” but it does feel like it has a surprising amount of ambition for something based on a low budget sci-show. |
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Apr 1, 2023 3:40:03 GMT
The past Star Trek shows/movies generally dealt with things like social commentary, philosophy, ethics, space exploration, etc. Now they're all about explosions, fist fights, shootouts, foul language use, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL: Padawan of Yoda on Apr 1, 2023 3:45:26 GMT
Ron Moore has somewhat of a point, but he's also saying that because the Next Generation movies as a whole were not as successful as the Original Series movies. Next Generation had one really good movie, one okay movie, and two stinkers. Original Series had one or two really good movies, four good movies overall, and two not-so-great movies. And Next Generation ended after only four movies, with the last one being the first actual flop of the series, losing out in its first week to Maid in Manhattan starring Jennifer Lopez. Even Star Trek V: The Final Frontier made a profit. But overall, whether good or bad, the first 10 Star Trek movies had something the reboot movies don't -- heart and soul as well as familiar actors that fans had warmed up to over all those years on television. None of the movies tried to be Star Wars or the biggest blockbuster. They had the same general spirit of their preceding TV series, just with better effects and production design.The increase in quality between the first TV series and its six movie sequels was greater because of the decade-long gap in between. The Next Generation movies started right after the show ended, which was to their disadvantage in looking too much like the show. But even the average/bad Original Series/Next Generation movies have their memorable moments, none of which the recast films have. Look how much trouble they've been having trying to get a fourth film off the ground, after seven years now. The Original Series cast made a movie every two or three years for 12 years without fail. Because, for better or worse, they believed in what they were doing and knew what they were about. I think TMP definitely tried to be something more. I know it’s often regarded as “the boring one,” but it does feel like it has a surprising amount of ambition for something based on a low budget sci-show. Despite what I'd read, I never considered it "the boring one." But I agree, I would consider it "the ambitious one." |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Apr 1, 2023 11:43:41 GMT
The past Star Trek shows/movies generally dealt with things like social commentary, philosophy, ethics, space exploration, etc. Now they're all about explosions, fist fights, shootouts, foul language use, etc. You forgot the sexy green women. |
|
