|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 4, 2015 16:38:39 GMT
Star Trek was a TV show, and at that time the movie industry looked down on or just ignored TV shows.
Trek saw considerable success in syndication after its initial run, managing to find a somewhat wider and more dedicated fan base in a fairly short period; Mainly due to it being aired later at nights when students were tuning in. When Paramount started to consider creating their own network they needed a lead show and Star Trek was the best TV property they owned. So they started to work on developing a new TV series, Star Trek Phase Two.
Three factors resulted in that series being shelved and the pilot episode being re-written as a big budget film.
First was, naturally, Star Wars. The second was Paramount deciding not to go ahead with their own network (they would do this twenty years later, with Star Trek Voyager as the lead series). The last was the Original Battlestar Galactica series. Which proved to be an expensive flop and showed that it wasn't practical to produce high quality effects on TV.
The Motion Picture was, as we know, not a wild success; I think off the top of my head that it did make a small profit. This resulted in Gene Roddenberry being removed from direct production duties and becoming a 'creative producer' rather than a writer or director. It had, however, shown that there was a market for Trek if they could produce a film that cost less than TMP. The result was Wrath of Khan, easily the best of any of the Star Trek films and (off the top of my head, again) the most successful in terms of money taken verses costs.
Star Trek The Next Generation entered production for several reasons, and I'm guessing at least part of that was that they could (and did) reuse props and models made for the films (Rikers Crew quarters on TNG were the same set used for Admiral Kirks quarters in TMP). Of course this did eventually backfire to some extent because they were using movie quality sets and models and had to continue producing sets and models of the same quality for the various series. However TNG was actually based heavily on the plans for Phase Two, and even reused several scripts that had been written for that series prior to it being cancelled.
As I've noted before comparing Star Wars to Star Trek is actually difficult, because the two franchises were developed for different medium and hence have a different tone and pacing.
Star Wars has always predominantly been a Movie franchise while Trek has been a TV franchise. Both have used the other media to keep interest alive, as well as using books and comics. Although we are used to the idea of War's being responsible for 'expanded universe' material, it was in fact Trek that started this as they were making Trek Comics and books several years before War's came out. (It would be interesting to know if this was something Lucas was aware of at the time)
These days it isn't unusual for TV and Film to blend together more. Often this is in tone (Arrow is influenced by the Dark Knight films in a hell of a lot of ways) but we also have direct blends (Agents of Shield) as well as TV shows turning into films (Firefly) or films turning into TV shows (Stargate). The principal reason for this is that a few decades ago it was rare for the production/creative side of one media to pass into the other. Then things changed, with directors such as Quentin Tarantino directing episodes of TV shows (he did an episode of ER) and TV directors doing films (Johnathan Frakes).
This is actually a logical progression. TV directors/producers are used to having to work quickly and with limited budgets and produce far more footage than any film. (The entire Lord of the rings and Hobbit trilogies in their extended form are about 15-16 hours long. A full TV series is around 20-22 hours long)
|
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Apr 4, 2015 17:16:07 GMT
The irony of The Last Star Fighter is that they had the technology to do MUCH better CGI than what they ended up with.
The company who did it actually started developing the tech in 1979 and did a demo of some very primitive x-wings for ILM to show what they could do with computer. On one had ILM was impressed that they did camera moves around the computer models that was impossible to do with a real camera. like the camera flying though the open s-foil wings of the fighter. HOwever,t he tech was just too primitive at the time to meet ILM's quality.
With The Last Starfighter, they decided to go all out and go fully CGI for the ship shots. At the time it was a massive undertaking. They started with 2 Cray X-MP super computers and added a third in the middle of making the shots. If you look though the extra on the DVD & Bluray at some of the test shot they did, they were FAR ahead of their time. Those shots are on par for photorealism as Babylon 5 would be a decade later. They problem is those highly detailed shots took a LOOOOONG time to render, even on the super computers. So to meet deadlines, they had to scale back the detail and resolution to get the rendering time down to something reasonable. The result is the obvious CGI shots that were in the final film.
It does make you wonder how the movie industry would have changed if they were able to get the effects they wanted.
Trvia: Will Weaton (aka Westley Crusher from ST:TNG) had a small roll in the film, but it was ultimately cut.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Apr 4, 2015 17:25:50 GMT
I actually heard someone was planning a remake/special edition of "Last Starfighter". I'd watch it. I've always enjoyed the movie, good effects or not.  It's really jarring to watch the 70's Doctor Who and realize what they did with essentially just Chromakey.  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 4, 2015 21:32:56 GMT
The irony of The Last Star Fighter is that they had the technology to do MUCH better CGI than what they ended up with. The company who did it actually started developing the tech in 1979 and did a demo of some very primitive x-wings for ILM to show what they could do with computer. On one had ILM was impressed that they did camera moves around the computer models that was impossible to do with a real camera. like the camera flying though the open s-foil wings of the fighter. HOwever,t he tech was just too primitive at the time to meet ILM's quality. With The Last Starfighter, they decided to go all out and go fully CGI for the ship shots. At the time it was a massive undertaking. They started with 2 Cray X-MP super computers and added a third in the middle of making the shots. If you look though the extra on the DVD & Bluray at some of the test shot they did, they were FAR ahead of their time. Those shots are on par for photorealism as Babylon 5 would be a decade later. They problem is those highly detailed shots took a LOOOOONG time to render, even on the super computers. So to meet deadlines, they had to scale back the detail and resolution to get the rendering time down to something reasonable. The result is the obvious CGI shots that were in the final film. It does make you wonder how the movie industry would have changed if they were able to get the effects they wanted. Trvia: Will Weaton (aka Westley Crusher from ST:TNG) had a small roll in the film, but it was ultimately cut. he actually is still on screen - momentarily. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Apr 5, 2015 13:05:35 GMT
Don't forget the film the Spielberg and Lucas both considered a major influence on their careers. 2001: A Space Odyssey was made in 1968 and showed the world what good effects could do. Costing $10 million and making $15 million domestically during its initial release made it profitable but not a blockbuster. Even its critics granted the technical brilliance of the effects (for the most part). Lucas and Spielberg saw Trumbull's effects and realized what could be done with a lighter, more accessible script. It's no surprise that Spielberg hired Trumbull to do Close Encounters of the Third Kind, while Lucas got Dykstra (whose work with Trumbull on Silent Running led to a recommendation by Trumbull) for ILM. As for the dystopian views in films--yes and no. There was positive sci-fi being made at the time; Star Trek comes to mind. It projected a positive view of the future of humanity, a welcome change from Logan's Run, Soylent Green, and other darker fare. Time has made Star Trek into a massively successful franchise, while the others are footnotes. And yes, the only reason we got the Star Trek movies was because of Star Wars. After the success of Star Wars, the other studios wanted to cash in as well, leading to Paramount dusting off the Star Trek property and throwing way too much money at Roddenberry. His second series was scrapped in favor of ST:TMP, and a poor script. It's lucky ST:TWOK was primarily Nicolas Meyer's work; I don't think it could have survived another flop. Of course, the reason ST became popular could also be attributed to the cheap afternoon syndication packages available that were a cash cow for Paramount. Best summation of ST's life cycle: "It's the TV show that died and went to heaven". Scifi goes in and out of style. To this day, Georges Melies's "A Trip To The Moon" is still shown and studied today. Side note: Ever see the Logan's Run TV show? Or the Planet of the Apes ones (including the Saturday morning cartoon)? Yes, they made them. Yes I remeber those shows. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Apr 6, 2015 0:16:19 GMT
And yes, the only reason we got the Star Trek movies was because of Star Wars. After the success of Star Wars, the other studios wanted to cash in as well, leading to Paramount dusting off the Star Trek property and throwing way too much money at Roddenberry. His second series was scrapped in favor of ST:TMP, and a poor script. It's lucky ST:TWOK was primarily Nicolas Meyer's work; I don't think it could have survived another flop. Not quite. Paperwork was in place and they had started working on a new Star Trek TV series Called Phase II in late '76. They announced the TV show on March 17, 1977, 3 weeks after Star Wars was release and before it was hugely popular. It wasn't until March 28, 1978 that they announced that they were canceling Phase II in favor of a movie. This was after the popularity of Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. So Star Wars is responsible for the movies. If it wasn't the blockbuster it was, we would have gotten the TV series. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Apr 6, 2015 0:39:46 GMT
Agreed. Star Wars being a success drove the decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 6, 2015 0:48:48 GMT
It is actually debatable as to if Star Trek Phase Two would have ever have been made, or at least made it to a full series. As I noted above one of the principle factors in it being developed was Paramount intending to create their own TV network, and needing a flagship program for that network*. However this idea was ditched, and didn't come to pass for twenty years (ironically the flagship program they ended up with was another Trek show, Voyager)
Even if they hadn't dropped the network idea it is questionable as to if they could have been able to afford a full season of a new Trek show at that time. The original Battlestar Galactica cost the studio a fortune with the effects costs of the time, one of the factors that resulted in that show being cancelled. Best guess would be that they would have done the pilot, which would have basically been a somewhat shorter running TMP, and then decided that the series would have cost too much and had too little in the way of ratings to justify a full on series. Keep in mind here that TMP was basically an extended version of the Phase two pilot, a film which managed to take all the things people really liked about Trek and ditch them; Things like 'fun' and even colour. Hell, you only have to look at the first season of TNG which reused many of the scripts intended for Phase Two to realise that even back in the 70's the series would have been a monumental disaster.
TNG had a couple of advantages when it started. As I noted, they were able to reuse many of the sets built for the films**. That lowered costs as one of the largest expenses in producing a new TV series is the cost of building the standing sets, which is also why they tend to build as much as possible for the pilot episode because they know full well if they don't they will probably not get the money to build more for several years***.
(*There were only two 'big' TV series Paramount had on its books at the time, Star Trek and Mission Impossible. Both had originated at Desulu Studios and started at the same time. Mission however had only finished its run a few years earlier and would have been harder to reboot)
(**In one of those nice twists TNG started by reusing several of the sets that had been built for the Origial series films. By the end of the Original era films they were reusing many of TNG sets for the films.)
(***There are two scenes in Encounter at Farpoint that take place on the Enterprise D's engineering set, one at the start with Picard touring the ship and a slightly later one where Worf goes down to tell the engineering crews to prepare for full power. These scenes were not in the original draft, but added slightly later in production so they had the excuse to build the warp core and engineering set. The producers knew full well that if they didn't build that set for the pilot episode they probably wouldn't be given the money to build it at all****)
(****A successful TV series will see its budget cut in its second year. This is to try and recover the costs of producing all of the other pilot shows that were made; In a given year a network might order 15 pilots, take four or five to a season and if they are lucky one will get a second season. The CW, for example, went some four years before they renewed one of their new series for a second season; That series being Arrow. Other Networks have fared even worse, with at least one not renewing shows for a second season for some five years.)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 6, 2015 1:07:48 GMT
not sure if interstellar is on the dud list. I just saw it and it was derivative and somewhat predictable. the trailers overplayed the action and underplayed the farfetched science.
Overall I would characterize the feel of it as more 2001 than The Right Stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Apr 6, 2015 17:08:59 GMT
not sure if interstellar is on the dud list. I just saw it and it was derivative and somewhat predictable. the trailers overplayed the action and underplayed the farfetched science. Overall I would characterize the feel of it as more 2001 than The Right Stuff. No it is not on this list, it has more than tripled its budget and was made and released in 2014. It looked brilliant in IMAX 3d when I watched it, I don't know about the US marketing but here it always seemed like it was 2001 rather than the Right Stuff, although that is possibly because Chritopher Nolan was giving interviews to certain Critics on the BBC that made that clear. Strangley enough it is the same critic I think as Silverdragon,complains about on TV, but on his radio slot, the choices he makes are wider as he has a longer program and is able to look at more films. Some of the Arthouse movie choices on TV are made by the channel controller I think, the critic is actually a fan of good SciFi, Action movies like those made by Jason Statham etc, holds a Doctorate specialising in Horror movies, and likes a good gory fest, his favourite film is the Exorcist for example. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 10, 2015 7:48:21 GMT
My Generic "critic" is a ASP (All spare parts) type build of all the generic twaddle (I am struggling to stay polite here) I hear from many of the TV Critics you get.... if it actually represents one in real life, one actual person, that was unintentional, but, my criticism of that person, real or made-up imaginary, stands, and so do the insults directed in their direction....
Just how do they even have the mindset to presume they can represent people who think they are a right twit?...
I do not kno0w one person who would take their criticisms with less than a pinch of salt, and would make their own mind up from several reviews or from what other people who have seen the film would say.
Perhaps its just I am surrounded by intelligent beings who do not believe in the flock of sheep who follow such twaddle...
TV Critics around these parts are in as much regard as Horoscope "astrologers".
I have a letter from "Disgruntled" of cholmond-weasily in the parish of Drudgery on the outskirts of london...
He is upset that the main character of Downtrodden House, an 18th century reproduction costume drama, was seen on set wearing modern socks...
"It totally spoilt the program for me, how are we supposed to believe in an 18th century character who wears modern socks..."
Look twit, how can you believe in ANY character that is being filmed by a modern DSLR type Video camera in full HDMI high definition 21st century technology everywhere he goes including the overhead scenes filmed by a modern DRONE flying machine?...
So you saw his socks.
So what?...
Next you will notice the tyre tracks from a very modern Tractor in that field over yonder, when most farm machinery in those days was horse drawn....
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 10, 2015 11:46:06 GMT
The best reviewers will make it clear that they are giving their opinion on a film, the poorer ones tend to (in most cases probably unintentionally) don't. There is a reviewer of sorts that runs the YouTube channel 'AMC Movie News' www.youtube.com/user/amctheatres called John Campea (sp?). I respect his comments on films because he frequently makes it clear that he is giving his opinion, and that he doesn't expect or think anyone else should agree with him*. Of course he is helped in using a different type of structure to TV, radio and written reviews. While the traditional review is one person giving their opinion there they almost always have a panel of three people discussing the topic at hand. Plus they are less limited in terms of time or space. On TV they have maybe five minutes to actually review a film (a little more time is spent showing clips from the film). On YouTube they could, if they wanted to, spend an hour just talking about one film. (*Except for Transformers 4. If you like that film something is wrong with you) |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Apr 10, 2015 14:32:12 GMT
I thoroughly enjoyed Interstellar, and was glad I saw it on the big screen. I liked the attempt to deal with 4-dimensional creatures, just like "Flatland" dealt with 2 dimensional creatures. I have to give kudos to anyone who tries to depict a tesseract in real life. Eh, it worked for me. The handwaves and plot holes didn't distract too much from the imagery. And the water world tide sequence reminded me of something out of Larry Niven. My standard for reviewers is usually based on their 1-4 star system. Four star movies are usually bad; they are usually esoteric melodramas that bore me. Three star movies are usually okay; they appeal to most folks. Two star movies are questionable; wait for someone you trust to see it. One star movies are extreme; they are either truly horrible (and the reviewer is right) or often very good (and the reviewer missed the point). It depends on the film. Modern biopics are usually the worst films made (to me), because the nihilistic cynics that make them always want to highlight the main character's flaws and suffering, making the films way too depressing for me. Actors seem to love them as it gives them a chance to chew the scenery, but it gets boring when the end is always "See how they suffer horribly then die miserably!" Admittedly, if you're showing someone's entire life, their death is part of it. I just hate the final overdramatic focus on it, to the point that it makes you leave the theater under a black cloud. It's like watching reality TV when they gin up "conflict". |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 10, 2015 14:41:18 GMT
I thoroughly enjoyed Interstellar, and was glad I saw it on the big screen. I liked the attempt to deal with 4-dimensional creatures, just like "Flatland" dealt with 2 dimensional creatures. I have to give kudos to anyone who tries to depict a tesseract in real life. Eh, it worked for me. The handwaves and plot holes didn't distract too much from the imagery. And the water world tide sequence reminded me of something out of Larry Niven. My standard for reviewers is usually based on their 1-4 star system. Four star movies are usually bad; they are usually esoteric melodramas that bore me. Three star movies are usually okay; they appeal to most folks. Two star movies are questionable; wait for someone you trust to see it. One star movies are extreme; they are either truly horrible (and the reviewer is right) or often very good (and the reviewer missed the point). It depends on the film. Modern biopics are usually the worst films made (to me), because the nihilistic cynics that make them always want to highlight the main character's flaws and suffering, making the films way too depressing for me. Actors seem to love them as it gives them a chance to chew the scenery, but it gets boring when the end is always "See how they suffer horribly then die miserably!" Admittedly, if you're showing someone's entire life, their death is part of it. I just hate the final overdramatic focus on it, to the point that it makes you leave the theater under a black cloud. It's like watching reality TV when they gin up "conflict". the water world tide sequence was one of the things that I couldn't overlook their ignorance of basic hydrodynamics. but then I live at the beach and I understand how waves work. the wave breaks when the depth becomes shallower than the height of the wave - so a wave that tall can't exist in waist deep water. it would have broken and been a rush of turbulent water. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Apr 10, 2015 15:21:11 GMT
I don't have the math to prove it, but this is the kind of thing I was thinking of as "Nivenesque":
A bit of hand waving, I think.
Apparently, those weren't tidal waves but tidal bores. Smaller versions occur here on Earth, on long flat rivers. You can even go surfing on them:
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 10, 2015 15:28:30 GMT
I don't have the math to prove it, but this is the kind of thing I was thinking of as "Nivenesque": A bit of hand waving, I think. Apparently, those weren't tidal waves but tidal bores. Smaller versions occur here on Earth, on long flat rivers. You can even go surfing on them: yes, but look at the condition of the water in the video clip, and you will see what I am talking about. it couldn't be a nice clean crest like in the movie. (which the humans could have survived by just floating with the wave) |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Apr 10, 2015 15:54:21 GMT
Given that those waves were 3 kilometers high, and they approached them at tremendous speed, floating might not have been much of an option.
Water is noncompressable, after all.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 11, 2015 0:44:55 GMT
Given that those waves were 3 kilometers high, and they approached them at tremendous speed, floating might not have been much of an option. Water is noncompressable, after all. you can float over a tsunami if you're far enough out to sea that it isn't breaking. it's only when it crests and starts breaking that you get stuffed. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Apr 11, 2015 19:03:45 GMT
"The Longest Ride" debuted at #35 for the year with a measly $5.5 million in sales.
Either "Furious 7" is still getting all the love, or we've got another possible dud.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 11, 2015 19:21:32 GMT
"The Longest Ride" debuted at #35 for the year with a measly $5.5 million in sales. Either "Furious 7" is still getting all the love, or we've got another possible dud. I'm sure furious 7 will do good. it's a popcorn movie, and those always do well. (popcorn movie: a movie where you go to eat popcorn and watch the entertainment without expecting any depth to it) |
|
