[horatio]

Originally Posted by omegaman

Interesting idea Horatio… they could undoubtedly make work and sprinkle in a few british actors maybe…

Well, the Brits are the only ones who produce superb TV at the moment. Then again Trek has something specifically American about it, the great dynamism and optimism, expanding the frontier and so on. About the actors, with Cumberbatch they have again a great actor for the villain and despite extremely disliking the work of O&K I am sure that he will get far better lines than Bana.

[Saquist]

Terra Nova was an incredible idea but it was mediocre in execution of the story line...too flat and no where near creative to captivate an audience. The old V would have done a better job to day then the last V and this show and Terra Nova have something in common as Late versions of an old idea. Too much reliance on special effects and not enough acting chops...

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. The audience will watch great sci fi if the WRITING EXCELLS. Raise your expectation as Trek Fans an star wars fans and stop being satisfied by the most mundane load of cliche and slap stick we're being bombarded with. Dark Knight is recognized by most as excelling in writing...well if you want Sci Fi to survive you're going to have to speak up because Abrams is the absolute opposite direction from that goal as of now and it seems pretty clear he like Cliche and mediocre an massive heaping helpings.

Remember where Sci Fi came from...Issac Asimove , Author C Clarke, James Blish, Orson Scott Card. Writing used to drive TV and movies to some degree....More than a little bit at least. IT HAS BEEN PROVEN...that we are all rather easily entertained...However it's also proven that as a culture our attention spans our extremely lacking and while cerebral productions can just do just as poorly as the mundane and mediocre it is the complete lacking of substance in the average modern entertainment speaks more to the down fall of Sci on TV.

[kevin]

The Dark Knight is not as good as it's made out to be.

[samwiseb]

It's still a good movie as movies go, if more than a little self-important.

I's also not seeing what Abrams has to do with any of this.

[kevin]

It's not a bad film either, I don't mean to imply that - but I think it's put on too high a pedestal at times as well (as is Nolan). It's sloppily done in a couple of places itself and I just find it less impressive every time I see it again. I tend to prefer 'Batman Begins' of the two so far.

I think the Abrams implication is more to do with trying to say that Nolan should get into Trek. You know in that way that if internet fanboys had their way just now NO genre film would go without being touched at some point by the Holy Nolan. It's getting pretty boring.

[horatio]

Gotta agree with Saq here. Abrams is better at directing while Nolan is better at writing. That's why the early work of Nolan is better than his later big-budget work. For example Memento is a flawlessly executed movie whereas Inception feels quite mechanic.
I enjoy movies like Twelve Angry Men or A Man from Earth, i.e. I am more into scripts than visuals so I prefer Nolan vastly over Abrams.
The one big theme in Nolan's oeuvre is perception and it is basically unexplored by cinema. Abrams on the other hand does this funky esoteric mystery stuff which feels like a nineties overhang.

[kevin]

I think the problem for me is I just don't feel anything for most of the characters in his films. I think the closest he got was 'The Prestige'. I sometimes can't decide if it is his writing or his direction but I find his films very cold. I mean he can choreograph action just fine but I just need to sometimes feel more than apathy for the characters it's all happening to. I can't say I would ever watch Dark Knight for pure 'enjoyment'. It's too bombastic and over the top.

I think that's why I don't think I would actually want him near Trek in the first place and why I think in that respect Abrams is better suited for it.

The colour palette he seems to use in his films doesn't help either. Everything is very dark and overbearing. Again, I don't see that meshing with Trek entirely. That said there still exists some issues with his Batman scripts as well. But no film is flawless so it just depends if I'm in the frame of mind to ignore it on a given day or not.

Or to put it another way, I they are both suited for the areas and genres they inhabit in making films and TV but I don't think it would be wise for them to swap places

[horatio]

True, Nolan seems to approach his scripts from a conceptual angle so his characters are weak. As you pointed out, Abrams works with warmer colours, warmer characters and his cinematography is in my opinion more fluid and far superior to Nolan's.
I don't think that Nolan's excursion into the superhero genre will end well whereas Abrams is totally at home in sci-fi and mystery. I also think that Abrams is more flexible. Hard to picture Nolan doing TV and my guess is that he will only start so shine again once he moves back to doing more artsy, experimental movies like Memento.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by horatio

Gotta agree with Saq here. Abrams is better at directing while Nolan is better at writing. That's why the early work of Nolan is better than his later big-budget work. For example Memento is a flawlessly executed movie whereas Inception feels quite mechanic.
I enjoy movies like Twelve Angry Men or A Man from Earth, i.e. I am more into scripts than visuals so I prefer Nolan vastly over Abrams.
The one big theme in Nolan's oeuvre is perception and it is basically unexplored by cinema. Abrams on the other hand does this funky esoteric mystery stuff which feels like a nineties overhang.

How about "Twelve Angry Men From Earth"?

[kevin]

Wasn't that Battlestar?