The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Terra Nova Cancelled – What Does This Say For Future Of Sci-Fi & Star Trek TV?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 03-14-2012, 05:50 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Abrams and Nolan represent the two opposite ends of quality of sci fi's current state. Fluff and Substance, Plot Holes and Continuity. However Abrams has a remarkable hand at creativity of the vision's interpretation. Like John Woo, Abrams clearly has style. But even having the same faces from Alias around from Alias he rather daringly undercut Trek's stature in a similar genre.

For those reading this...just LOOK at the difference between Batman and Star Trek. Both of these are WELL established franchises. Both have huge fan bases...Both have endured Flop Movies after Flop Movies and both Nolan and Abrams were recruited to resurrect those franchises movie presence. They take completely different directions to success. While Dark Night blew the Box Office away Trek went main stream and appealed to the moderate number. The way I see their approaches...Nolan clearly was shooting for the stars. And while some don't believe he quite got there the moon is still a good goal to reach. Abrams clearly had the objective target of getting Trek safely and securely off the ground much like an early Apollo 8 mission. Abrams definitely got Trek off the ground and out of Earth orbit which is something to be thankful for it was also a bit of miss as the story did not truly follow Trek's well established foundations of philosophical, cultural and scientific concepts....not even a little bit. Infact much like Batman and Robin and Batman Forever who reached into the Bag of YE OLE TRICKS Abrams pulled out of Trek's bag a rather cliche conglomerate of story bloopers.

Look at the difference in dedication to those foundations. Batman was a DETECTIVE and crime fighter...smart as he was strong, intelligent as he was well equipped. Trek was not so lucky. We got plenty of cliche lines but we didn't even get an IDIC...

-----------------------------

This is the standard problem with Sci Fi now...
There have been good recent movies and perhaps the 2000's were a bad time for sci fi but at least X men, Ironman and others were at least a combination of good writing and fun with adventure which is always nice.

But to answer the unspoken question...I would love to see what Nolan would do to a Star Trek Movie. I would love to see a true Trek Villian emerge from the pages and challenge a stalwart crew...much like how Mass Effect as a franchise has done. Sci Fi has such higher horizons than other genres. It can truely but creative with out bounds..perhaps saying the same message or broadcasting a new one. I for one hope Trek sees that day whether it's at the had of Nolan or JJ Abrams.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-14-2012, 11:26 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

The way I see it is Nolan wants to align himself more with the likes of Kubrick. He also needs to work on his characters a bit. And his movies are nowhere near free of logic issues or possible plot holes. Substance is a relative perception, I guess. But at any rate Kubrickian sci-fi is not the same area of sci-fi that Trek inhabits.

I think both are good directors, but that doesn't mean Abrams can do 'Inception' (he couldn't) or that Nolan could do 'Star Trek' (IMO he couldn't because 'Why SO serious?' could almost serve as his surname really). However, they both made good movies and they both made movies that worked for their respective areas of sci-fi. And ironically, both films have about the same critical consensus as well and their box office is not an apples to apples comparison since Batman isn't Sci-fi anyway.

Yes, 'Star Trek' did a lot worse at the box office on paper using the raw figures than 'The Dark Knight' (almost all other films by default have done since it became a billion dollar flick, although it's about the same as 'Batman Begins' performed) but that 'worse' still remains the best a Star Trek film has ever done at said box office.

Though these are at times side issues.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist

Last edited by kevin : 03-15-2012 at 01:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-15-2012, 08:06 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
The way I see it is Nolan wants to align himself more with the likes of Kubrick. He also needs to work on his characters a bit. And his movies are nowhere near free of logic issues or possible plot holes. Substance is a relative perception, I guess. But at any rate Kubrickian sci-fi is not the same area of sci-fi that Trek inhabits.

I think both are good directors, but that doesn't mean Abrams can do 'Inception' (he couldn't) or that Nolan could do 'Star Trek' (IMO he couldn't because 'Why SO serious?' could almost serve as his surname really). However, they both made good movies and they both made movies that worked for their respective areas of sci-fi. And ironically, both films have about the same critical consensus as well and their box office is not an apples to apples comparison since Batman isn't Sci-fi anyway.

Yes, 'Star Trek' did a lot worse at the box office on paper using the raw figures than 'The Dark Knight' (almost all other films by default have done since it became a billion dollar flick, although it's about the same as 'Batman Begins' performed) but that 'worse' still remains the best a Star Trek film has ever done at said box office.

Though these are at times side issues.
Subjectivity is a term under a qualifier of substance. The qualifier of which was more faithful to it's Franchise is actually quite comparable.

I'm one of the few people that think that Begins wasn't partiular fantastic. I didn't find it compelling of significant. But it was a good film. I had the same problem with it that was the problem with all the other characters in Dark Knight aside from Harvey Dent and the Joker.

It's clear from movies like Prestige and Dark Knight that Nolan is probably a bit of a demented individual. He writes evil and the dark side of human nature exceedingly well . Batman himself in either film wasn't particularly compelling but the idea surrounding him in Dark Knight was EPIC. The same as the IDEA in Inception...as well as the Idea in Prestige as well as the idea in Memento. HIS ideas are consistently creative and outstanding and frankly it's a miracle that studios are willing to invest in them especially Warner Brothers who thought Joel Schulmacher was good enough to return twice. He has a flare for shock as well.

This isn't the same as comparing Dark Knight to Avatar which also blew doors down. Star Trek had more in common with Avatar but Avatar was still a creative original idea on several different fronts while it's story was incrediblly standard yet competently told despite some errors.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-16-2012, 10:56 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
The way I see it is Nolan wants to align himself more with the likes of Kubrick. He also needs to work on his characters a bit. And his movies are nowhere near free of logic issues or possible plot holes. Substance is a relative perception, I guess. But at any rate Kubrickian sci-fi is not the same area of sci-fi that Trek inhabits.
I don't know, Kubrick was more of a visual artist than Nolan whose cinematography is unimpressive. Nolan is more of an ideas kind of guy and that's why the echo of his movies, thinking about how Leonard got it all mixed up or how the Joker played his games, is stronger and more fun than the movies in and of themselves.
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 07:04 PM.


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.