|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 11, 2013 17:51:22 GMT
In Treks case I think the problem was that they got too stuck in their ways - as I think I noted elsewhere they had been continually making Trek series for almost 20 years with practically the same producers and writers involved on the shows in that time. It isn't that the producers in question were or are incapable of changing, but when you are producing shows over that length of time with maybe two weeks off per year it becomes increasingly difficult to take a step back and look at the show with a critical eye - and certainly very easy to dismiss criticism when you can think 'well, they said that about The Next Generation ten years ago and we're still going'. The nature of TV shows and films changes over time, with viewers wanting different things at different times, and a franchise has to adapt itself to the new expectations or be left behind. In many ways this is why the Star War's Prequels proved to be unpopular with many people - the story telling was basically dated. A rest for Trek was needed, so that a newer generation of producers could come in and take over with new and more modern ideas. The risk however is that they can get a little too 'modern' and end up changing things too much - which just puts the existing fan base off and effectively means you are starting the franchise from scratch with all the risks that entails. On the other hand studios don't want their franchises to be rested too much, lest people forget about them and loose interest. Star War's kept interest going through other media, books and games mainly. Trek went in the other direction by making films - which is what they are doing now. It seems that the 'ideal' period for revitalizing a franchise is around 10-15 years, long enough for fans of the original to have progressed to a point they will become producers while not being so long everyone has forgotten about it. This would mean that a new Trek series should appear somewhere between 2015-2020 - which is in keeping with the idea of there being at least one more of the 'reboot' films. There is, however, another underlying problem in the industry - the studios are becoming more and more disinterested in taking chances. This is why we have been treated to a deluge of superhero films in the last decade and why the cost of films continues to rise to frightening levels. Several movie experts have been warning that Hollywood is on the verge of another implosion, similar to what happened in the late 70's and early 80's, because studios are sticking to formulas that have worked in the past rather than taking chances and trying to find a formula that will work in the future. TV is heading in the same direction, with networks showing themselves to be wary of taking chances on new formulas especially if they cost money. In this context a new Trek series is probably seem as too great a risk right now, and even if Paramount decided to risk making a new series chances are they would be unwilling to try and tinker with what they think worked before - Voyager The Next Generation would be a disaster and I think they know that. But I suspect that they are struggling to come up with a formula that comprises the new without short changing the old (ie creating something that just happens to have 'Star Trek' in the title) and which they could afford to produce. and I see from doing a"status check" on Star Wars ep VII that Abrams did not grow up as a trek fan - and so he didn't have the immersion in the trek universe which would have let him know what a departure he was making from the FEEL of the trek universe. the fact is that every show has a feel to it - and Enterprise and the reboots, to me, do not have the feel of star trek. the other issue I have with both Trek and Wars is that the prequels came out more slick and glossy than the originals. Lucas had something of an excuse in that they had to go into a wartime production mode - which necessarily meant less refinement and polish. Trek has a much more significant handicap in that it is facing the 70s styling, as well as their budgetary restrictions, which left them in a position that our tech for TODAY is more slick and refined than their tech - so they need an excuse for the regression. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 11, 2013 17:56:59 GMT
I do completely agree about the studios doing cookie cutter rehashes of what worked last time, though. there are literally millions of stories out there that could be made into movies - but hollywood seems particularly reluctant to take on anything new that is not almost a guaranteed success, lately - defined as something that there is so much public call for a movie that there is likely to be backlash from NOT doing it.
of course, and this is likely to raise some hackles, there is also a point at which a given story is finished, and should be put to bed, as far as trying to stretch it in either direction is concerned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Sept 11, 2013 18:01:57 GMT
The book entitled "Save The Cat! The Last Book on Screenwriting You'll Ever Need" by Blake Snyder is generally considered to blame (at least in many minds). It's the most popular screenwriting text on Amazon, I understand. It's a book by a successful screenwriter that shows how to write a hit movie. It breaks the story down into 15 specific "beat points" that must occur at specific times in order to keep the audience happy. Although the writer supposedly didn't intend it to be used as such, it's a pure formula for film writing. He even included "beat sheets" to make the job easier. Here's a recent article on the book: www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/07/hollywood_and_blake_snyder_s_screenwriting_book_save_the_cat.htmlTo be honest, I liked the new Trek films, but in the most recent one, I kind of got tired of seeing ST:TWOK elements being rewritten and shoehorned into the plot. I get it; it was an attempt to let the longtime fans feel part of the story, but it just seemed a bit awkward and took me out of the film at odd moments. Better to start with a completely fresh story and get on with it. We don't always have to bring back a beloved element of TOS/TNG/whatever to tell a good story. The real reason to keep going back to the well (sticking with a franchise) is that in today's market, the consumer has lots of choices in film. If you're spending a major chunk of a billion dollars, you'd best try to at least stand out from the crowd. Slap the label "Star Trek" on a film, and you'll get a certain amount of guaranteed attendance, plus you'll have non-fans say "Yeah, I heard of that". This is considered safer than throwing something out there than no one's ever heard of, and needs to build an audience (or at least a good buzz). That's why you see so many remakes, old TV shows, and novels made into movies. Name recognition. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 11, 2013 18:10:09 GMT
The book entitled "Save The Cat! The Last Book on Screenwriting You'll Ever Need" by Blake Snyder is generally considered to blame (at least in many minds). It's the most popular screenwriting text on Amazon, I understand. It's a book by a successful screenwriter that shows how to write a hit movie. It breaks the story down into 15 specific "beat points" that must occur at specific times in order to keep the audience happy. Although the writer supposedly didn't intend it to be used as such, it's a pure formula for film writing. He even included "beat sheets" to make the job easier. Here's a recent article on the book: www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/07/hollywood_and_blake_snyder_s_screenwriting_book_save_the_cat.htmlTo be honest, I liked the new Trek films, but in the most recent one, I kind of got tired of seeing ST:TWOK elements being rewritten and shoehorned into the plot. I get it; it was an attempt to let the longtime fans feel part of the story, but it just seemed a bit awkward and took me out of the film at odd moments. Better to start with a completely fresh story and get on with it. We don't always have to bring back a beloved element of TOS/TNG/whatever to tell a good story. The real reason to keep going back to the well (sticking with a franchise) is that in today's market, the consumer has lots of choices in film. If you're spending a major chunk of a billion dollars, you'd best try to at least stand out from the crowd. Slap the label "Star Trek" on a film, and you'll get a certain amount of guaranteed attendance, plus you'll have non-fans say "Yeah, I heard of that". This is considered safer than throwing something out there than no one's ever heard of, and needs to build an audience (or at least a good buzz). That's why you see so many remakes, old TV shows, and novels made into movies. Name recognition. as films I liked them. as Star Trek, hate is too strong a word, but I have a distaste for them. - a thought just occurred to me that perhaps this is the mirror universe that they visited periodically in the TV shows - but that doesn't quite align, either. it still feels more like trying to dress up a cash cow like a horse. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Sept 11, 2013 18:19:01 GMT
I remember someone saying about a bad version of a film (I think it was "Starship Troopers") that "At least you'll have the chance to enjoy the remake they'll be doing in 20 years..." I try and keep that in mind when I see a truly abysmal film version of a classic. Battlestar Galactica was pretty good (at least the first few seasons), proving that all remakes aren't bad. Of course, that kind of fell apart when I found out about David Soul's portrayal of Rick in the remake of "Casablanca".  As for a good prequel, can anyone name 5? The closest I can come is "Back to the Future 3". |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 11, 2013 18:34:20 GMT
I remember someone saying about a bad version of a film (I think it was "Starship Troopers") that "At least you'll have the chance to enjoy the remake they'll be doing in 20 years..." I try and keep that in mind when I see a truly abysmal film version of a classic. Battlestar Galactica was pretty good (at least the first few seasons), proving that all remakes aren't bad. Of course, that kind of fell apart when I found out about David Soul's portrayal of Rick in the remake of "Casablanca". As for a good prequel, can anyone name 5? The closest I can come is "Back to the Future 3". BTTF3 is hardly a prequel - it's a time travel show. taking "prequel" to mean a story written after the original release of a story, but set in an earlier time period, including some or all of the same characters; I will have to think a bit for 5; and I expect they will mostly be books. I have heard that monsters university is good, but I have not seen it. X-men first class was good. despite the aforementioned artistic decisions, I liked Star Wars ep. I-III. really, as I said, the key element is that the storyline must be so compelling that you WANT to know what led to it - rather than, as Disney does with their direct to DVD prequels and sequels of their blockbusters, just trying to squeeze some more profit out of something that worked. addendum: I do not know if it was planned from the beginning, but the author Terry Brooks has tied what appeared to be two completely separate series into each other so that we find out that one is the prequel of the other. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Sept 11, 2013 18:43:31 GMT
Agree with you on story. But that goes for every film. You can have the best cast, director, budget, sets/locations, and special effects, but if the story's a dog, it's a waste of time. I can't honestly say I liked SW 1-3; it was more a case of enduring them. I wanted to see what George came up with, and was disappointed. Again, effects and budget couldn't save a bad story. I kind of disagree with the idea that stories are always set in the era they are made. I've seen silent films that are still moving (despite stylistic choices) and I've already mentioned one timeless classic (Casablanca). Just about any John Ford western stands up. As for SF, Forbidden Planet is still a great film, as was the original Day The Earth Stood Still. And, I will say that the first (fourth) Star Wars film is still an amazing piece of filmmaking (although I still kinda prefer the not-so-special edition (Han Shot First!). It's a pity kids of the future will have to suffer through SW 1-3 in order to get to the good stuff. EDIT: Yeah, you're right about BTTF3. I honestly couldn't think of a good/great prequel. First Class wasn't bad, but I looked at it as more of a simple retelling of the origin story, with little new insight, rather than a ground breaking prequel. Maybe it's because, as I said, I'm a casual fan of the X-Men universe, rather than a rabid devotee (not that there's anything wrong with that).  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 11, 2013 18:48:19 GMT
Agree with you on story. But that goes for every film. You can have the best cast, director, budget, sets/locations, and special effects, but if the story's a dog, it's a waste of time. I can't honestly say I liked SW 1-3; it was more a case of enduring them. I wanted to see what George came up with, and was disappointed. Again, effects and budget couldn't save a bad story. I kind of disagree with the idea that stories are always set in the era they are made. I've seen silent films that are still moving (despite stylistic choices) and I've already mentioned one timeless classic (Casablanca). Just about any John Ford western stands up. As for SF, Forbidden Planet is still a great film, as was the original Day The Earth Stood Still. And, I will say that the first (fourth) Star Wars film is still an amazing piece of filmmaking (although I still kinda prefer the not-so-special edition (Han Shot First!). It's a pity kids of the future will have to suffer through SW 1-3 in order to get to the good stuff. EDIT: Yeah, you're right about BTTF3. I honestly couldn't think of a good/great prequel. First Class wasn't bad, but I looked at it as more of a simple retelling of the origin story, with little new insight, rather than a ground breaking prequel. Maybe it's because, as I said, I'm a casual fan of the X-Men universe, rather than a rabid devotee (not that there's anything wrong with that). I am opposed to Lucas' twiddling with the movies, for the most part. improving things that he couldn't get right in the SFX department is one thing, but making plot changes and tampering with iconic moments is another. I liked the prequels, because despite the artistic choices that were made, they told the story of how Darth Vader came to be, and I left the theater after ROTS with a completely new understanding and sympathy for Vader. certainly, Anakin was whiny and annoying, but as I have said before, so was Luke. Certainly the battle droids were buffoonish, but the stormtroopers in the original trilogy was also buffoonish. I think the biggest disappointment for most people is that the original trilogy has come to be viewed win an almost religious awe; rather than as the formulaic space opera it actually is; so the problems with the prequel trilogy are a combination of audiences expecting more epicness; and Lucas overloading it with fluff. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 11, 2013 19:19:53 GMT
The era at which a film or TV show is made affects more than just the story, but the way that story is told filmed and acted. The result is that while an older film may be outdated in terms of story, cast, special effects or even pacing on their own. The overall film still works very well - For example Superman The Movie is clearly dated in every respect, slow paced, almost laughable special effects by modern standards and lead actors who (with the exception of Christopher Reeve) probably would not have been cast in those roles today. But the film works, and works very well - its very much a classic film.
Now consider Superman Returns, which tried to update the film (it was intended to be a follow on from Superman II in terms of plot) with better special effects but which simply didn't work as it was too slow paced amongst other things.
The same can hold for TV shows too, in that the context of the period in which they were made creates the internal context of that show in the way things were shown. So while Superman Returns shows us a close up of a bullet hitting Superman in the eye - because effects allowed such a shot, Superman the Movie had to settle for Superman apparently grabbing the bullet out of the air and showing him opening his hand and throwing the bullet away afterwards.
Effects today allow us to show just about anything the director or writer can think of, the only limitation being how much money is available. However this ironically reduces the amount of creativity that is expected from directors, because sometimes it is better NOT to show things - think how scary Alien was when they never show you the full creature because the effects and suit were laughable when you could see them. Compared to the later Alien films which do show you the alien using better technology.
TV often has the other problem, in not being able to show what is going on - a frequent complaint about DS9 was their habit of talking about the exciting battles rather than showing them. Modern CGI technology is changing this, as it is becoming cheaper to use effects shots. Trek however never really found a balance between spending a fortune on effects to show us what was going on, and simply talking about what was going on. Enterprise used a lot of flashy effects when they didn't need to, which raised costs to an unsustainable level, while the earlier shows tended to show us too little. The irony here is that with fairly cheap modern technology Trek could dispense with a lot of the effects shots, instead using practical effects on set - such as touch sensitive screens on the set the actors could directly manipulate rather than having to add such things in post production.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Sept 11, 2013 19:20:02 GMT
I think my issue is that I believe that if we took the story and moved it to a non-Star Wars universe, it wouldn't have gotten past the first prequel. It was that big of a mess and I couldn't get interested in any of the characters if I didn't know the history. And I'm still p.o.'ed about the mitichlorian bit. But yeah, they're kid's films, and always have been. And you're right--the hype was such that I doubt anyone could satisfy the crowd. Especially when the auteur was the same as the guy who did "Howard the Duck" and "Willow". Truth be told, I liked both Willow and HTD, but I also realize they weren't great movies. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 11, 2013 19:27:25 GMT
The era at which a film or TV show is made affects more than just the story, but the way that story is told filmed and acted. The result is that while an older film may be outdated in terms of story, cast, special effects or even pacing on their own. The overall film still works very well - For example Superman The Movie is clearly dated in every respect, slow paced, almost laughable special effects by modern standards and lead actors who (with the exception of Christopher Reeve) probably would not have been cast in those roles today. But the film works, and works very well - its very much a classic film. Now consider Superman Returns, which tried to update the film (it was intended to be a follow on from Superman II in terms of plot) with better special effects but which simply didn't work as it was too slow paced amongst other things. The same can hold for TV shows too, in that the context of the period in which they were made creates the internal context of that show in the way things were shown. So while Superman Returns shows us a close up of a bullet hitting Superman in the eye - because effects allowed such a shot, Superman the Movie had to settle for Superman apparently grabbing the bullet out of the air and showing him opening his hand and throwing the bullet away afterwards. Effects today allow us to show just about anything the director or writer can think of, the only limitation being how much money is available. However this ironically reduces the amount of creativity that is expected from directors, because sometimes it is better NOT to show things - think how scary Alien was when they never show you the full creature because the effects and suit were laughable when you could see them. Compared to the later Alien films which do show you the alien using better technology. TV often has the other problem, in not being able to show what is going on - a frequent complaint about DS9 was their habit of talking about the exciting battles rather than showing them. Modern CGI technology is changing this, as it is becoming cheaper to use effects shots. Trek however never really found a balance between spending a fortune on effects to show us what was going on, and simply talking about what was going on. Enterprise used a lot of flashy effects when they didn't need to, which raised costs to an unsustainable level, while the earlier shows tended to show us too little. The irony here is that with fairly cheap modern technology Trek could dispense with a lot of the effects shots, instead using practical effects on set - such as touch sensitive screens on the set the actors could directly manipulate rather than having to add such things in post production. the other tech specific issue is that writers are getting lazy and sloppy and trying to replace storytelling with lots of gee-whiz special effects. it hasn't quite gotten to the point where I consider a sci fi movie a fireworks show with a plot, but it is getting closer. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 11, 2013 19:37:58 GMT
I think my issue is that I believe that if we took the story and moved it to a non-Star Wars universe, it wouldn't have gotten past the first prequel. It was that big of a mess and I couldn't get interested in any of the characters if I didn't know the history. And I'm still p.o.'ed about the mitichlorian bit. But yeah, they're kid's films, and always have been. And you're right--the hype was such that I doubt anyone could satisfy the crowd. Especially when the auteur was the same as the guy who did "Howard the Duck" and "Willow". Truth be told, I liked both Willow and HTD, but I also realize they weren't great movies. have you read Shadow Moon, Shadow Dawn and Shadow Star, yet? they are basically Lucas' effort to make a LOTR to Willow. (by which I mean if Willow compares to the hobbit, the trilogy shares about the same relationship as LOTR.) yeah, his continuity cop should have slapped his hand every time he mentioned mitichlorians. also when he made Jabba a full grown Hutt after making him a juvenile in his rerelease of ep IV, and every other time he forgot that the prequel trilogy was happening a full generation before the originl trilogy. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Sept 11, 2013 19:38:53 GMT
The Superman case is a good example. Better effects but a not so good story do not a blockbuster make.
Man Of Steel had a similar problem. It wasn't a bad film, but got so caught up in some of the effect sequences that it started to get boring. I was literally looking at my watch during the last battle when they were flying through buildings. I'll bet they could have cut 20 minutes out of the film and no one would notice.
They're showing a James Bond marathon. Some of the Connery effects are crude, but the stories are so good you overlook them. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for some of the later Bonds.
Again, in my opinion, it always comes down to story. I remember some of the Tom Baker Doctor Whos that had good stories but terrible effects. Later, the management changed and the budgets went up, and effects improved immensely. Unfortunately, the stories went downhill to the point that by the end of the series, it was more of a mercy killing to end it.
To this day, I still remember the Baker stories, but can't remember any of the Sylvester stories.
Star Trek is a victim of its own success. It's got so much history that you're doomed to irritate someone no matter what you do with the franchise (like Bond).
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 11, 2013 19:43:27 GMT
one of the gauges I use to determine the quality of a film is whether I thought it was longer or shorter than it actually was.
now the biggest gauge is whether I bother pausing it when I go to the bathroom.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Sept 11, 2013 19:48:30 GMT
Never read the Shadow or SW novels (except for the novelizations of 4-6 and the Alan Dean Foster book a LONG time ago).
Maybe that was part of the problem--I liked the original 3 films but not enough to buy into the whole multimedia thing--I didn't read the books. Therefore, the mitichlorian thing came like having a bucket of ice water being dumped over me at that moment. I remember thinking "Wait a minute--the mystical Force is all about a bunch of Lilliputian critters you can see in a blood test? What the Heck?!?!?!"
Star Trek was notorious for having [TECH] inserted by the writer in the middle of the script for whenever he wanted the technical adviser to come up with some technobabble to be a deus ex machina and fix the plot. Plus, the powers that be always wanted a "reset" button to bring the ship and crew back to exactly where they were at the end of the episode. Only in the later series did they allow for story arcs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Sept 11, 2013 19:49:23 GMT
one of the gauges I use to determine the quality of a film is whether I thought it was longer or shorter than it actually was. now the biggest gauge is whether I bother pausing it when I go to the bathroom. So I'm not the only one, then? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 11, 2013 19:52:38 GMT
one of the gauges I use to determine the quality of a film is whether I thought it was longer or shorter than it actually was. now the biggest gauge is whether I bother pausing it when I go to the bathroom. So I'm not the only one, then? actually, I have been known to take a slow paced movie or TV show and watch it on an accelerated setting so I can watch it faster. it works better when the actors drawl, though - otherwise it's hard to make out what they are saying, sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 11, 2013 19:56:47 GMT
Never read the Shadow or SW novels (except for the novelizations of 4-6 and the Alan Dean Foster book a LONG time ago). Maybe that was part of the problem--I liked the original 3 films but not enough to buy into the whole multimedia thing--I didn't read the books. Therefore, the mitichlorian thing came like having a bucket of ice water being dumped over me at that moment. I remember thinking "Wait a minute--the mystical Force is all about a bunch of Lilliputian critters you can see in a blood test? What the Heck?!?!?!" Star Trek was notorious for having [TECH] inserted by the writer in the middle of the script for whenever he wanted the technical adviser to come up with some technobabble to be a deus ex machina and fix the plot. Plus, the powers that be always wanted a "reset" button to bring the ship and crew back to exactly where they were at the end of the episode. Only in the later series did they allow for story arcs. I have read the SW novelizations, and several of the outside story arcs and mitichlorians were still something new to me. TOS was intended to go into syndication - so they couldn't very well have the story arc being chopped up willy-nilly. of course, in that era, I think most TV shows were written that way. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 12, 2013 12:38:56 GMT
Stories are not created by the writers.
Seriously.
Most stories are created by the Producers, with writers being brought in to write the script and develop the outline they were given.
Of course the line between Producer, Writer and even Director can be blurred on both TV and Film. The Avengers was written, produced and directed by Joss Wheaton (and lets face it he did a hell of a job on that film). While on shows like CSI and Trek the producers also write episodes. Trek is or was unusual in that it was one of the few shows I can think of where writers could and did submit stories that ended up being used.
Of course outside writers can't write story arcs because they don't know what the overall story is.
In my case turning the film off before I get to the end is a bad sign. I have Inception on DVD and turned it off after after an hour or so. I'm not planning on trying to finish the film, indeed I'm seriously considering getting rid of the DVD.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 12, 2013 13:28:58 GMT
Battlestar Galactica was pretty good (at least the first few seasons), proving that all remakes aren't bad. It should be noted that the re-imagined BSG was less of a remake and more what Glen Larson wanted to do the first time around. I have, somewhere, the novelization of the original BSG's pilot episode and you'd be surprised at how 'adult' it is in places - Apollo's love interest was a prostitute. But the studio, and TV at that time, wasn't up to having serious 'adult' Sci-Fi so everything got toned down. It didn't help that the effects of the period were really not up to showing space combat on a TV budget - which is why they ended up using the same stock footage of battles over and over. It says a lot about how far the effects industry and TV has come that the newer BSG show could not only have a more serious tone and scripts, but was able to show some spectacular space battles on what was a tiny budget. But then they used a lot of logic and practical thinking to make sure that they didn't need to pepper episodes with special effects shots unless they wanted or needed to. In Trek, for example, even a bottle show set on the standing sets would require a lot of effects shots for the view out of the windows if the ship was at warp, and/or for computer displays. BSG simply made sure there were no windows on the ship* - logical since the Galactica was a pure warship - and used paper and TV monitors when the crew needed to see or read something. So on BSG fairly few episodes needed any new effects shots. (*Well, not exactly true. The Galactica did have a window located in the ships bow. This was a room specifically set aside for crewmen to sit and relax while looking at the stars - rather like a small movie theatre but with a window rather than a screen. Apparently this was a popular place to take a date....) |
|
