Jump to content


Photo

Star Trek: Discovery


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#21 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,156 posts

Posted 31 August 2018 - 10:21 PM

Is that her doing all those stunts?? 


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#22 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,156 posts

Posted 31 August 2018 - 11:32 PM

A generous interpretation, I think it’s more likely that they were mostly rotten actors.

 

Aren't you being a little hard on the Beaver? Unknown, secondary cast members on television shows pretty much have to do what the producers tell them to do. Wouldn't it be a bit of a coincidence for most of the cast to suck especially after what must have been an extensive casting process? Could the actors have brought a little more inner life to their acting? Sure. But they also may have been hamstrung by underwritten characters, perfunctory dialogue and over-direction. Even Whoopi Goldberg delivered her lines in an understated, almost boring way.
 
Roddenberry's overall vision for TNG seemed mainly to revolve around Picard's contemplative, philosophical approach to crisis solving with the crew providing assistance and advice but not much in the way of disagreement. Kirk, in contrast, had a lot more push-back from Spock and Bones, the two of which, by the way, were infinitely more interesting characters than any of those on TNG, excepting Picard.
 
I also got the sense that Picard ran a tight ship and expected his impeccable conduct to be reflected in his crew. The show was kind of formal in that way. I couldn't imagine a lunatic like Bones or a boisterous stereotype like Scotty under Picard's command. (Well I could but that would be a different show). But those two characters were perfect on a ship captained by the instinctual, wily Kirk who perhaps spent a little too much time off from vanquishing foes to play tonsil hockey with any pointy-boobed nurse and sexy blue alien he could get his hands on.  :all hail  blue:
 
So in short, I'm just saying TNG was more formal and TOS was more swashbuckling and the written characters reflected those contrasting tones.
 
What were we talking about again? lol.

Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#23 chemistry1973

chemistry1973

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,797 posts

Posted 31 August 2018 - 11:33 PM

Is that her doing all those stunts?? 

Yeah. That's her eating shit in the blooper reel too.



#24 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,156 posts

Posted 31 August 2018 - 11:49 PM

Yeah. That's her eating shit in the blooper reel too.

 

Respect. And respect to the producers who had to pay the insurance. lol.


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#25 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,156 posts

Posted 01 September 2018 - 12:49 AM

star-trek.jpg


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#26 SJS

SJS

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,310 posts
  • LocationJust east of Lyra

Posted 01 September 2018 - 01:21 AM

I thought the TNG (and Voyager, and Enterprise)* actors were fine. Nothing to make Meryl Streep or Gary Oldman sit up and pay attention, but for sci-fi TV, fine. Maybe it's me but, at least from the first Discovery, I found Michelle Yeoh's acting to be in a whole new category of terrible. I thought she was OK in Tomorrow Never Dies, don't think I ever saw anything else she did.



* for some reason I never watched DS9.

I agree with you. Brent Spiner I thought was exceptional, as was Stewart. Dorn really grew into the Worf role, and both Sirtis and Frakes were solid. And Majel Barrett, who was a bit wooden in TOS, had some outstanding moments in TNG. I rather like Kate Mulgrew, though I can see why she’s not to everyone’s taste. The actors for Kim, Paris, Chakotay, and Torres were so so, but Neelix and the holographic doctor were fantastic. And I thought the three principles in Enterprise were all great. (In DS9, I wasn’t a big fan of the acting by Sisko or Kira, but Odo and Quark were very good.)

LYqbjSn.jpg


#27 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,156 posts

Posted 01 September 2018 - 07:55 AM

News: Chris Pine and Chris Hemsworth have walked away from the negotiating table and Star Trek 4 might not even get made because Paramount is in dire financial straits. But there is talk of an R-rated Tarantino Trek down the line which may or may not use the reboot cast.


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#28 grep

grep

    Advanced Member

  • Hat Award Winner
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,849 posts
  • LocationNYC USA

Posted 01 September 2018 - 04:05 PM

They can do Trek without Kirk. Find someone to play a Decker who's barely survived the Doomsday Machine. There's the story too.

There's a lot they can reimagine in the JJverse, without a Kirk. Just find a way to introduce a new captain... or no captain. Spock as acting.


falconext.png


#29 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,156 posts

Posted 01 September 2018 - 06:04 PM

If Disney buys Paramount, they can stick Hand Solo in there as captain.


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#30 SJS

SJS

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,310 posts
  • LocationJust east of Lyra

Posted 01 September 2018 - 06:30 PM

News: Chris Pine and Chris Hemsworth have walked away from the negotiating table and Star Trek 4 might not even get made because Paramount is in dire financial straits. But there is talk of an R-rated Tarantino Trek down the line which may or may not use the reboot cast.

 

Tarantino.  R-rated.  Might use the JJ cast.

 

I already hate this pretty hard.


LYqbjSn.jpg


#31 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,156 posts

Posted 01 September 2018 - 07:16 PM

Tarantino.  R-rated.  Might use the JJ cast.

 

I already hate this pretty hard.

 

Oh I would see that. I don't see it happening though.


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#32 chemistry1973

chemistry1973

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,797 posts

Posted 02 September 2018 - 04:09 AM

Tarantino would use Shatner. No question.

#33 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,156 posts

Posted 02 September 2018 - 06:34 AM

^^^ Godammit you're right! Of course he would. He'll probably have him make-out with Sulu to a John Denver song. And you gotta get Harvey Keitel in there somewhere. But Shatner's 87 now and who knows when this Tarantino thing will happen, if at all.


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#34 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,156 posts

Posted 02 September 2018 - 06:44 AM

landscape-1473348645-star-trek-christian

 

Starred in the Tarantino written True Romance.


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#35 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,156 posts

Posted 02 September 2018 - 06:56 AM

This from an article on Tarantino's Trek

 

Patrick Stewart has always wanted to be in a Tarantino film, so there's a chance he could reprise his iconic role as Jean-Luc Picard.

 

In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter after the news of Tarantino's "Star Trek" voyage broke, Stewart said he'd love to return to the franchise if Tarantino were directing:
 
"One of my dreams is to work with Tarantino. I admire his work so much, and to be in a Tarantino film would give me so much satisfaction. So, if he is going to direct something to do with 'Star Trek' and there was the possibility of dear old Jean-Luc showing up again and doing that for Mr. Tarantino, I would embrace it.
 
Stewart himself is already 78!

Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#36 SJS

SJS

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,310 posts
  • LocationJust east of Lyra

Posted 02 September 2018 - 03:44 PM

I loved Pulp Fiction. But other than that, and maybe the first ten minutes of Reservoir Dogs, I just don’t find much enjoyment in Tarantino movies.

My main problem though is that Tarantino movies have a style. You can recognize a Tarantino movie. This is different from say a Spielberg movie - there is no Spielberg style like there is a Tarantino style.

When I watch a Star Tek movie, I want it to be in Star Trek style. For me, that style was really created by the team behind TNG and the original cast movies. JJ didn’t mange to capture that feel, and neither did the team behind Discovery.

As much as Tarantino might be a fan of the show, and as much as it would be refreshing to see a new team embrace the old characters (Shatner, Stewart), I just feel like Tarantino is capable of only making Tarantino films. I don’t think he can make a Star Trek film. Spielberg maybe could. Hitchcock couldn’t. This is no comment on who is or is not a good director, it just reflects on my preference for the type of Star Trek movie I want to see.

By the way, although I think JJ whiffed on making a Star Trek film, I think he succeeded in making a Star Wars film. Force Awakens had its faults, but among them was NOT failing to capture the feel of a Star Wars film. That he did, and he did it in superior fashion to three of Lucas’s own films.

LYqbjSn.jpg


#37 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,156 posts

Posted 02 September 2018 - 05:34 PM

I'm a fan of hybrids, and while I like Trek a lot, I'm not a devotee, so I would love to see what this Frankenstein's monster would look like. But if he really does love the franchise I have a feeling he'll be more reverent than what people might expect. And while there definitely is a Tarantino stamp, he's also demonstrated skill across multiple genres and periods: the contempo crime noir, the western, antebellum south, WW2, and martial arts. He's currently working on a movie about the Manson era murders.


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.


#38 chemistry1973

chemistry1973

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,797 posts

Posted 02 September 2018 - 08:54 PM

If they can give Shatner and Nimoy (and Frakes!!!) a film to helm, they can give one to Quentin.

#39 SJS

SJS

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,310 posts
  • LocationJust east of Lyra

Posted 02 September 2018 - 09:26 PM

If they can give Shatner and Nimoy (and Frakes!!!) a film to helm, they can give one to Quentin.

 

The Star Trek films are not my favorite movies, but other than the first one, I didn't think any were badly directed.  (Other than JJ's.)


LYqbjSn.jpg


#40 Three Eyes

Three Eyes

    Advanced Member

  • Peeps*
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,156 posts

Posted 03 September 2018 - 01:30 AM

It just occurred to me that a Tarantino Trek might be similar to Kingsman: The Secret Service. A funny, violent send-up of the Bond franchise but possessing a cool plot and an elan its own. If you haven't seen it, check it out for a good time.


Hey there goes Alex. He's loaded with money. Wow he's really set himself up great.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users