The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > JJ: "He's in"
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 09-23-2011, 09:58 AM
BlackBox's Avatar
BlackBox BlackBox is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 176
Default

I'm not trying to flame anyone here, but some of you guys really need to improve your understanding of the art of acting.

Those who are saying Shat can't act have precisely as much credibility as those who say that Michael Jordan can't play basketball. Observe: is Michael Jordan a great basketball player? Of course. Therefore, Shat is the greatest actor of all time. QED. It's logic.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-23-2011, 11:53 AM
NCC-73515's Avatar
NCC-73515 NCC-73515 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 7,207
Default

I have to say, there are so many other whose acting is worse. I wouldn't mind seeing him because of his acting. I only have problems with him who played Kirk playing anyone else within the franchise. And since Kirk is already taken by Pine, he would have to play someone else. The only other solution would again involve time travel which so many people dislike...
__________________


"English! I thought I dreamed hearing it!"?
Khan, Space Seed (TOS)

Brought to you in living color by NCC.
-= first fan member =-

Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-23-2011, 11:59 AM
BlackBox's Avatar
BlackBox BlackBox is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCC-73515 View Post
I have to say, there are so many other whose acting is worse. I wouldn't mind seeing him because of his acting. I only have problems with him who played Kirk playing anyone else within the franchise. And since Kirk is already taken by Pine, he would have to play someone else. The only other solution would again involve time travel which so many people dislike...
1) Pine can be fired and bought out; Paramount would more than recoup their losses by casting Shat, due to his awe-inspiring star power.

2) CGI can do amazing things now; have you seen Black Swan?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-23-2011, 12:26 PM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,603
Default

Shatner, while a fine actor, is no longer a drawcard for Trek.

If they were go the CGI route, like Final Fantasy, then I wouldn't mind seeing those that have passed, Doohan, Kelly and Majel brought back to life, so to speak, to go on one more final mission …or two.
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-23-2011, 01:21 PM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,458
Default

The example as seen in TRON LEGACY, de-aging Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner by 30 years could probably be used in Der Shat as well.

And I've had no problems with William Shatner's acting. Occasional hiccup here and there, but I think he did just fine for Kirk in his day.

I think Chris Pine does just fine for today's Kirk, and will mature into an even better Kirk.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-23-2011, 05:41 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackBox View Post
I'm not trying to flame anyone here, but some of you guys really need to improve your understanding of the art of acting.

Those who are saying Shat can't act have precisely as much credibility as those who say that Michael Jordan can't play basketball. Observe: is Michael Jordan a great basketball player? Of course. Therefore, Shat is the greatest actor of all time. QED. It's logic.
I just can't follow that analogy...
Jordan blew records away....
The height of Shatner was...Trek....
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-23-2011, 07:54 PM
BlackBox's Avatar
BlackBox BlackBox is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
I just can't follow that analogy...
Jordan blew records away....
The height of Shatner was...Trek....
Dare you accuse me of non sequitur, sir????
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-23-2011, 11:11 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

well...
(shrug)
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-24-2011, 12:47 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

CGI is an amazing tool.................but it's not a miracle worker.

De-aging CGI still seems to me to be very variable (and costly). To date, I think the de-aging work done on Stewart and McKellen on X-Men: The Last Stand was better than the de-aging work on Bridges in Tron: Legacy, which I have to say for me was (on it's own, not the whole film) one of the more terribly unconvincing visual effects I had seen in a major movie in a long time.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-24-2011, 03:55 AM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,458
Default

I think, during the sequences where we saw Clu (as the de-aged Bridges), it's understandable that there's some level of deresolution that takes away from the validity of the imagery....call it: in story computer rendering.

But I think the scenes where we see the Younger Flynn with his 7 year old son, Sam, the effect is quite convincing...especially when Flynn leaves and turns off the porch light. The light sourcing and reflection are really quite good.

Besides, think on it, in X3, the de-aging for Stewart and McKellen was on the order of 20 years...and given their actual ages at the time (easily from their mid-60's), that didn't seem to be too much of a demand.

But with Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner, taking them back 30 years from their current ages (late 50's early 60's) called for a bit more de-aging...and for the effort, I thought it was pretty considerable.
__________________


Last edited by martok2112 : 09-24-2011 at 03:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

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
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:40 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.