Slashdot Mirror
ST:TMP Fixer Upper
herdingcats writes "so, bigtime director Robert Wise is
exorcising his demons of disappointment in the original version (cost: $45 million; revenue: $160 million, eventually) by cutting, splicing, evolving, and devolving the original production....which he felt lacked humanity, mostly because the studio rushed it to holiday theaters on the heals of "Star Wars" and "Close Encounters" successes." Its apparently going to be a video release (well, DVD for me) that tries to remain true to the original storyboards, not Lucas Style "I meant to do that- greedo really fired first" sorta lame
changes. Oh, and a CG enterprise.
This is good news. A generalization made about Star Trek movies is that the odd numbered ones all suck; this trend was started by TMP. TMP was big and shiny, but it lacked a gripping plot or character development. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was a much better movie overall. So, to this day, the even numbered movies are perceived as being better.
;)
Kudos to Robert Wise for trying to fix this. There are many people to place the blame for the original failure on, but I'd rather focus on appluading Robert Wise for still wanting to scratch that itch, in the spirit of open source.
At the same time, is there really much here to save? One of the biggest criticisms of the film was not so much the mind-numbing dullness, the self-congratulatory character introductions, or the ambiguous special effects, but the total lack of any real creativity. It was a re-telling of an old TV plot, padded out into a 2-and-a-half-hour orgy of blueish-white light and slow tracking shots of the Enterprise.
I recall my local paper's review headline was "Where NOMAD Has Gone Before".
I will probably rent it and watch it once, just as I watched the re-cut of "The Abyss" once, but I'm not going to go out of my way for it.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Or, maybe, "ST:TMP ME"
--
Clear, Dark Skies
Huh?
Okay, I am not a Star Trek fan. At all. But I recognize most of the references that you often hear these days. What's this one?
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I thought a virgin could capture a unicorn.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Well, there's the disagreement on the notion between the various people responsible for the film (Ridley Scott was not solely responsible for the film) - the fact that, after all, it WAS a film, not reality, so Deckard could not REALLY have been a replicant.
So, ONE person on the crew indended for the audience to believe Deckard was a replicant - but was that in the ORIGINAL story? Yes, no, it moved around so much, who knows? I think the replicant theory is just a matter of opinion. Just because Ridley Scott says so, doesn't make it so. He's ONLY the director.
Now, if the movie were say, like Yentl, where it was basically all done by one person (Written, produced, directed, starring, blah blah blah), then I could say maybe Barbara Striesand WAS INDEED a replicant. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
---
Ironically enough, IIRC Marina Sirtis is Greek.
Yes I'm a geek.
--------------------------------------
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
"I'm fully functional, and programmed in multiple techniques. . ."
:)
It'd be hilarious to hear Data say that to Seven's face upon their very first meeting
What does TMP stand for? I always thought it was a file extension for DOS. Since it's a movie I'd guess The Menacing Phantom since there was references to Star Wars in there... :oD
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
Nimoy says in his autobio I Am Spock that those were Ricardo Montalban's real pecs.
III was worth seeing, for the final scenes on Vulcan if nothing else.
STIII is probably the most underrated Trek film. All of the actors put in excellent performances, and Nimoy deserves extra credit for the performance he pulled out of Shatner.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
If you actually read the article that was linked to, they specifically mention NOT adding that scene. Nothing is being added to the movie that shouldn't have been there to begin with.
The Motion Picture
sig's not here
It's simple, really. Science fiction is the branch of speculative fiction that retains the laws and theories of science as we know them, and projects them. The branch of speculative fiction that rejects the known laws of science is called Fantasy.
The problems with Star Trek's science of the future are almost indenumerable.
1. Noises in space
2. Starships that make banking turns
3. A billion humanoid races
4. Teleportation devices that don't use a receiver
And that's just off the top of my head.
Yes, I'm aware that there's an excuse for 3. I'm also aware that excuse is there because Larry Niven stole it from his own writings in desperation. Besides, it's contradicted in the ST:TNG series finale.
Speaking of that series finale, they had a "making of" special before it, and the host (Jonathan Frakes) NEVER called it a science fiction series. He repeatedly called it an adventure series. Perhaps it's because some of those people know what real science fiction is.
Look, we KNOW already that they write the stories first, and make the science up afterward. It's not like you're getting people like Asimov (who wrote endless science articles) or Heinlein (who wrote about antimatter in the Encyclopaedia Britannica) to write Star Trek episodes. You're getting people who don't know a lot about science to write about the science of the future. How could you possibly expect the science to be valid?
None of the examples you gave of the "seriousness" of Star Trek are proof that it's science fiction. It is what it is, space fantasy. Enjoy it for that.
"The Abyss" - When Cameron was told to cut the film for time, he was so angry that he chopped out 20 minutes from the CLIMAX of the movie, which not only removed the most expensive footage from the whole film, but wiped out the explanation as to why the aliens were there in the first place.
:)
Actually, I don't think "angry" describes Cameron's intent at all. By all accounts, including his own on the liner notes of the laserdisc Special Edition, Cameron was happier was with the longer version but agreed with Fox that it needed to be trimmed -- the argument being that this was before Dances With Wolves and an action/adventure film shouldn't be longer than 2:15 or so. Cameron has always said he doesn't like calling the Special Edition a "director's cut" because he felt the theatrical version was the director's cut as well, and he in no way bitched about the studio ruining the movie.
Also, since the FX for the climax hadn't even been done yet, it was hardly the most expensive footage.
That doesn't sound like what it will be.
Though I like to pop the tape in every once in a while just to look at the Enterprise, as I think this refit version is the most beautiful of all of the versions.
Gordon.
He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.
-- J.R.R. Tolkien
Something that provokes curiousity entreats (begs) inquiry (a question). It is completely appropriate in the literal sense of every word in the phrase. It also conveys the exact intention of the sentence to those that read it, so it is successful in that respect as well. Even those that think it can only be used as a phrase know what is meant by it.
No. Even if the poster wasn't misusing an existing phrase with a specific meaning, "beg" still does not work here. This particular fact's children are not going to go hungry if we don't ask the question; you really can't anthropomorphize that far. "Raises" is a much better word for this context.
My biggest problem with people misusing "beg the question" is that makes them look stupid. When I'm reading, serious grammatical and usage errors distract and annoy me. I then stop taking the author seriously. If he doesn't know what words mean or where apostrophes go (hint: never between an ending vowel and a pluralizing "s"), why should I take his word on more complicated matters?
Sure, language constantly changes and words mean what people want them to. Does that mean that "subliminable" and "strategery"[1] are words? If you're speaking the rare Texas Oilman Standardified English dialect, yes; if you're speaking American Standard English, it means the President of the USA is an idiot. When I watch the new reality shows and see people mixing metaphors and mangling phrases, I think they're dumb. We'll all be dead before simple facts can beg questions and ppl watch movie's on there television's. And when I see a word with quotation marks around it, I read it as sarcasm or a direct quote, not bold or highlighted text.
So, people, either learn what stuff means or get an editor. If you find yourself using a word or stock phrase and you don't know the exact meaning and etymology, look it up.
[1] Fake, but funny.
In France, for example, someone other than the director's immediate family remaining in the theater for the entire length of the movie is unheard of.
Besides, if you were to make a copy of the text (without the annotations) from that book, there's no way to prove that your copy of the text came from that book.
--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
The film was released to begin with because Paramount wanted to make money. Money money money money money. Money. Bob Wise had no control over its release schedule. No director ever does.
As to the second half: where *should* it end? Or more precisely: should it end at all? Why shouldn't the original creator have the right to go back and revise his creation. It still belongs to *them*, not to us. We have no particular right to access the 'original' for all time. If Bob Wise has managed to convince the people with the bucks that he can make ST:TMP better (read: watchable) and thus, make them more bucks while at the same time finally feeling proud of the work, why shouldn't he?
"Hey...you've got weasels on your face" -- Weird Al
I sincerely hope the director's cut works out as well as it sounds ... I, for one, can't remember the last time I watched ST:TMP. If nothing else, I remember getting bored with all those long, seemingly extended shots of the exterior of the Enterprise (I think they were shuttling in?) ... so I hope those get a snip or two here or there as well.
Also, will that "memory walk" be part of the outtakes? Seems only fitting...
Star Trek: The Mantom Phenace?
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Did anyone else read that wrong? I saw (in my head anyway) ST:TPM and thought Star Trek: The Phantom Menace. What would that be? Jar-jar meets tribbles?
Photos of bits of the past hiding in the present: afiler.com
I said "essentially uncapturable" - also, in literature the virgin usually doesn't want to capture the unicorn. It sometimes dies upon capture. Basically they are meant to be free.
I thought DVD=Bad anyways? Slashdot said so, and Slashdot is never wrong.
Hopefully we get to see this some day! :)
There's always the Alan Smithee option.
Yeah. And probably on a Sony VAIO running windows...
Hey, you may not have heard of this, but didja know that you can watch DVDs as a Linux user? Yeah, you have to buy a $100 DVD hardware decoder though... Apex makes mine, but Pioneer, Panasonic and JVC make some too. Click here for a starting point.
Oh, and at least in the past, Taco's girlfriend uses Windows, so he's familiar with what Windows looks like; he's just chosen Linux.
--
Evan (in a twistedly sarcastic mood today fer some reason).
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
I have to conquer on the lame "2001" rip-off of flying through the clouds around V'Ger. I was young enough at the time to buy just about anything, and I was bored to tears. The other Kubrick rip-off was Spock flying his space-suit through the gallery of V'Ger's collected worlds, complete with reflections on the face shield, etc. Way too long and way too boring.
This was my first experience with a movie that had a great trailer but didn't live up to it's own advertizing. The ad used the scene where the klingons get blasted (amazingly cool effect for the time), so you think there's going to be lot's of fighting with Klingons. Yeah! Perfect movie, right? Nah, they were just teasing... you get to watch about a half an hour of clouds flying by, followed by 15 minutes of Spock in a space suit drifting slowly into the bowels of a big space museum.
Sadly you won't see Patrick Stewart in this. But if you want interactive Star Trek, Voyager Elite Force is pretty fun. Yes It's voyager, but you actually *can* kill most of the crew... And you get to spend some time in a pre-TNG era Federation starship... Purely as an action game it stands alone as well. A bit short though :(
Filmed on his credit card, yes... but it takes a lot of money to DISTRIBUTE a film, and for that he needed backing from money people. If he didn't get that kind of backing, you never would have seen the movie.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
The "renegade" version is not true to the director's original vision, either.
In the theatrical release of Highlander, the immortals are revealed to have come from a distant planet. Fans of the first movie universally agreed that this was a stupid idea.
The director, reacting to the criticism, looped new dialogue into the scenes on the other planet to imply that they immortals come from "the past". Never mind that it totally fucks up the chronology of the story, or that it makes even less sense than the "alien" explanation of the immortals and their special abilities.
The entire conflict in Highlander II (either version) was inspired by the writers' foggy understanding of the ozone-layer problems that scientists were beginning to discover.
As if that wasn't bad enough, Sean Connery was brought back, since he was a major element in marketing the first movie, even though his character was already dead! He agreed (for a huge ammount of money) to only a few days of shooting, so there are only a handful of scenes (none of which add anything to the plot) stitched clumsilly onto the movie.
It was one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
When H3 was made, they proved that they had no idea why H2 was so bad, by assuming that all the franchise really needed to be saved was another punk-rocker villian with a gravelly voice.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
What I am curius about and what probably many of you out there also want to know is if there will be a collectors box of all 1-6 dvd movies. (Just like the box set for the VHS) As each movie was released 6..5..4..3..2.. and now 1 I kept putting off buying them simply because they might make a box and I don't want to buy them twice. I know about the next gen box set that is out there, but there will be more next gen. :) So does anyone know if I didn't wait in vain and a box set will be released?
While we are at it does anyone know if there will be DVD box sets of the seasons of Original and Next gen when they are done being put out?
Do you changes clothes while making the "chee-chee-cha-cha-choh" transformation sound?
It helped give the show its nautical feel, but it also removed any real plausibility.
A few particularly amusing elements that resulted:
-- The classic "two dimensional thinking" scene in Wrath of Khan, where Spock and Kirk fool Khan by flying "under" his ship... still flying with the same side "up" at all times.
-- The wreckage from the Borg attack on earth at "Wolf 359", or whatever. We knew the ships were destroyed because the were not upright.
-- Klingon Bird-of-prey ships seem to slope forward slightly to make them look more aggressive.
Very fun and entertaining, but not science fiction, really.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Thing happens, because it's MAGIC! And quit asking questions! (not knocking on Fantasy here, I love it)
A fair definition, but what separates really good science fiction from space opera and action films is that good science fiction follows its own rules. Once the speculative science is explained, you should not see something happen that contradicts it. This is why ST, Star Wars, and The Matrix are not really well-thought-out as science fiction, even though they are a lot of fun to watch.
Most people who really love Star Trek enjoy what it has to say about society more than as a work of speculative imagination. The Next Gen episode "The Quality of Life" is an example: Data is confronted with the belief that a small group of robots are sentient beings, even though the evidence is ambiguous at best. Finding no option but to act according to his beliefs, he endangers his friends to protect them... a risky and brave episode that actually made a case to justify people who block the entrances to abortion clinics... all disguised as a simple story about robots in space. Other issues, like race relations, gay rights, and religion are broached.
Once in a while, an episode gets in the hands of less-skilled writers, and instead of simply confronting difficult issues, the show becomes preachy and heavy-handed... but more often than not, it is done fairly well.
So yes, it can be a fairly serious show... but when you call it "serious science fiction", I am going to laugh at you. Sorry.
P.S. As an author, you should do yourself a favor and read some sci fi works from better writers (starting with Asimov). If you write a story, and then just hang some random psuedo-science off it as window-dressing, you end up with a story that has a lot that it does not need. Too many writers do this, becuase they thing space or robots or time-travel might help their work sell better than it would if it rested on just their talents. If you are not interested in the science, do us all a favor and don't write sci-fi.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Oh, is that going to be the one where Captain Picard[tm] is the leader of a squad of crime-fighting mutants?
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
There *were* no money people. He filmed it on a student loan. It was done in black and white because he couldn't afford a colour camera.
Think about it, that doesn't even make sense.
In fact, the original release had footage from The Shining added to the very end (the mountains), and the director's cut had a unicorn scene made for Legend, another Ridley Scott movie full of fantasy creatures.
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
[Highlander II re-edit is] TONS better than the unintelligable and bad theatrical release.
You can't shine shit.
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
Thank you. That's the only reason I read the comments on this 'un...
(Apparently I'm insufficiently nerdy.)
Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
Explain to me wtf the unicorn dream had to do with Deckard's true nature. . .
We know he's a replicant because Gaff makes an origami unicorn and leaves it for Deckard to find. This means that Gaff knows Deckard dreams about unicorns frequently, because it was an implanted memory.
Course, some disagree with this explanation.
Check out the BladeRunner FAQ for other interpretations..
Now now, I can't believe nobody mentioned that the Dallas Observer did the article about Ion Storm those many moons ago... I remember all the beautiful letters that came in the weeks after that from clueless net.kids who couldn't stand that beautiful John Romero got trashed in a newspaper. "I've never heard of the Dallas Observer, so it must suck." was among my favorite comments.
Made for a nice change from the people bitching about the music reviews.
cd's killed records tapes are different
What, you need a movie to SEE THINGS to disable disbelief for an hour and a half? What about ... oh I dont know ... books? And heck, why would you even need *words* to disable disbelief for an hour and a half? You have an imagination, think up your own content! Why do you even need StarTrek?
Please acknowledge that different people need different levels of stimulation to create the awe and disbelief that form their true "StarTrek" experience, and that those levels of stimuli are not neccessarily the same as those you require. Just because you find the original Enterprise conceptually astounding (and by no means am I saying *I* dont) doesnt mean that other people do require an extra level of eye candy to make it all seem just that little bit more real to them.
It would be sad if that in all of your vision of startrek it turned out that you are too short sighted to acknowledge other peoples different needs.
---
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
They apparently made 9 different endings for Sliver, and the film still sucked.
Without the climax (and the various tidal wave shots), the story pretty much ammounts to:
Aliens arrive, trashing a sub on their way to the sea floor.
Oil rig crew and Navy Seals check it out.
Navy Seal goes crazy, almost blows everything up.
Hero is brought into alien ship... aliens say "hello"
Spaceship suddenly rises to the surface, and everybody is happy.
End credits.
It makes no damned sense at all. Why were the aliens there? Why were they haning out on the sea floor? Why is the weather so severe that huge navy destroyers are nervous about being there? Why did they suddenly surface? etc. etc. etc.
Obviously, Cameron is playing nice, staying friendly with the people responsible for ruining The Abyss made it easier for him to get backing for his next two big-budget projects, Terminator 2 and Titanic.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I don't think you'll have to worry about a new version of Princess Mononoke because Hayao Miyazaki partly owns Studio Ghibli (which animates his films). As far as I know he also has complete editorial discretion.
Which episode was that?
The summary was incomprehensible.
cpeterso
Sure, this is Slashdot. But that article wasn't written for Slashdot, and I doubt the writer and editer even suspected it would wind up here. I thought the article made perfect sense. Better sense than a few (but not all) of the lame efforts at explaining it.
I look forward to this. It isn't every day that one has the opertunity to go back and change an error this profound. I look forward to what he is going to do with the film to make it complete. Maybe he will show some of the scenes that help develop the characters. That would be welcome.
I meant serious as in it has a serious topic. This is not fluff like Lost in Space. I did not mean to imply that its science is air-tight.
;) Roddenberry et al called in dozens of real life scientists from NASA and elsewhere to consult with them on authenticity... they knew the sound in space thing was dumb, but it was left in for dramatic reasons. (Notice that it is still in there in modern ST, which many claim is more "scientific" just because it has better special fx and "tachyons") Hell, even today they haven't mastered the concept of the zero-gravity explosion - though George Lucas almost has. Yes, there were corners cut, and this is all based on science as it was understood in 1966.
;)
They really put in a lot of effort on it, and yes, the science was slipshod at times. They tried, at least, they tried in fact QUITE hard. You know what the stardates were? They were a solution to time differentials between solar systems. Warp drive and the transporter were just dramatic necessities, nothing more. (You can't have a shuttle landing- and takeoff-sequences every time you send down an Away Team!)
The humanoid races were of course a constraint of reality, this was before CGI (gasp!) and monster suits were much cheaper than Hortas. And since we don't have a working transporter yet, we can hardly say we know how one *can't* work.
You're right, ST does not have the hardest of science in it. However, I meant "serious" as in the subject matter, which was quite serious. The post I was replying to seemed to me to insinuate that the subject matter of ST was worthless, and I felt the desire to correct this.
I guess our definitions of serious science fiction differ. Of Asimov's stories, (which I respect highly and rank among my favorite works), I would characterize only the Foundation series and a few others as "serious", due to subject matter rather than science. =P Clarke, of course, is a highly capable scientist and it shows in his writings. But science and storytelling are sometimes not both present in the same people - many people I know find Clarke wholly unpalatable as an author, and even I find him dull at times.
Given the time period and the funds they had to work with, I still hold to the opinion that ST did a remarkably good job on science as well as plot. =) Perhaps Space Fantasy would be a more fitting term for it, but I don't see how all Sci Fi would avoid being lumped into this, because there are no black and white lines here that I see, except a line between SF and pure fantasy.
The demarcation between SF and fantasy, it seems to me, is:
Thing happens, and here's a logical explanation of WHY and HOW it happened.
Thing happens, because it's MAGIC! And quit asking questions! (not knocking on Fantasy here, I love it)
-Kasreyn
P.S. A tip for you, from an author: Of COURSE we write the stories first. =) Sci Fi that focuses solely on the science and puts plot in the back seat is about as interesting and dramatic as a technical manual (in fact, I can think of little difference).
P.P.S. Wow, you made it through this huge post. Wish I had a prize to put at the bottom of the post for you. =)
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
Hopefully they'll cut out that big 30 minutes of just flying through V'Ger's cloud. I remember falling asleep during that, waking up and not missing a thing.
I am !amused.
The article makes a comment, which is meant to be negative, but which is, in my opinion the single greatest thing to be said about any science fiction movie that triest to be more than just another special-effects ladden no-plot waster of my time and money. They say that it reminded them of 2001: A Spacy Oddyssey.
Both ST:TMP and 2001 are wonderful wonderful films,
sadly misunderstood by most people.
--
Films purly make it based on when they are released.
We put the IT in sh**
Putting the IT in Sh**
Don't misunderstand me; I am very much for the director's original version being seen, as opposed to what a studio executive thinks will sell the most tickets. But its almost a crime against art that an executive can cut films down as is.
In France for example, someone other than the director approving the final cut is unheard of.
Wouldn't have it been much better if the good cut had been seen on the big screen years ago instead of being released as a DVD? Even better, wouldn't it have been great if we didn't have to buy the DVD AGAIN to get the director's cut?
Because the directors cut is almost always significantly better (Blade Runner) or only marginally worse (The Exorcist) I see no reason to even put up with the studio's crap.
I encourage you to do the same thing I have and boycott any new movie that wasn't released the way the director intended it to be (the reason I didn't see Almost Famous). With any luck, by the time the LotR movies come out, we won't have to wait 20 years to see them.
By the way, is it just me or has the dallas observer just been severely /.ed?
Given a reasonably level playing field, who would win a fight between a bear and a shark?
Not in the context I used it. You can take creative licence with the English language every once in a while, not everything has to be perfect.
Instead of correcting grammar how about adding something usefull to the discussion?
Its apparently going to be a video release (well, DVD for me) that tries to remain true to the original storyboards, not Lucas Style "I meant to do that- greedo really fired first" sorta lame changes. Oh, and a CG enterprise.
This sounds like it might be interesting but unfortunately I don't speak 4-in-the-afternoon-downtimenospellcheckese. Maybe you and JonKatz should take a cruise or put your brains in a vat for a couple weeks. Something to ease the pressure of constantly having to find stories to repeat and subjects to repeat to repeat to repeat ad nauseum. What was this story? Who or what is how? Where am I? This place needs a janitorial crew pronto.got filth?
great comedy company.
Of all the things that went wrong with the original motion picture, this is the one change that would give the movie the most credibility.
Or maybe not.
"to them it would be like The Matrix is to us." Actually, to many of us it was like the Star Trek TV episode about Nomad, only the TV show was better.
So it's pronounced Star Trek 10, eh?
Paramount might want to watch out... Apple might be after them for likeness to OS X!
I don't know, the whole using Roman Numerals can lead to interesting concepts. Star Trek X? Hmm, remember Super Bowl XXX ?
--- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
Thank you!! Now I can stop reading this thread and move on :)
Read my sig if you like, but I'll never see yours, thanks to Discussions, Viewing, Disable sigs...
While I felt ST: TMP was an insanely boring film (I honestly fell asleep the first time watching it), I still don't think they should "revamp" and re-release it. What's the point? It's done and over with. Instead, why not focus their energies on a good new ST TV series, as well as another new feature film. The last few ST: TNG films were okay, but nothing great. We need another "Wrath of Khan"!
I haven't seen this movie for a while, but for the most part, Unicorns are usually used as a symbol to show that someone can't exactly find what they are looking for. Unicorns are essentially uncapturable - beyond the grasp. Deckard keeps at his job, apparently seeking something, but not finding it (it, I think, is that he's a replicant, but I suppose that's debateable).
For those who are interested:
IGN Filmforce posted some pictures a few months ago of the work being done by Foundation Imaging for the TMP special edition:
The new CGI Enterprise model.
And another article featuring the CGI fixes done to the scene on planet Vulcan.
Overall this looks like it will be pretty interesting...I can't wait to see it.
-Julius X
-Julius X
remove "-whatkindofspamdoyoutakemefor-" from email to send
Jeff
Uh oh...I've said too much.
Blar.
1. In the original pilot, Roddenberry tried making the space shots silent. They were boring. But add a little "whoosh!" as a starship goes by and it suddenly feels right. J.M. Strazynski (sp?) had the same realization for Babylon 5. Some dramatic license should be taken, at the producer's discretion, if the show is improved. 2. The original series never showed a banking turn. This became standard with Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn when the director wanted everything to reflect a nautical theme. Even after that, The Next Generation series usually showed the Enterprise only traveling in straight lines and sometimes had it pivoting in place to change direction. Hmmm. Does that make it science fiction to you? 3. A billion humanoid races. Well, more like a hundred or so shown. And a few dozen non-humanoid races, too. The Melkotians, Horta, Denevan Parasites, Dikirunium Cloud Creature, Tholians, Excalbians, Day of the Dove Entity, Gorn, Lights of Zetar, V'Ger, Species 8472, Conspiracy Parasites, Home Soil Lifeforms, Nanites, Edoans, Caitians, Sheliak, and Armus spring to mind. Not bad for the budget constraints of television and the lack of non-humanoid SAG members. How about entities that can disguise themselves as humanoids? Organians, Metrons, and Q add to the list. 4. I see, so because you can't conceive of a way to design a transporter without receiver, Trek can't be considered science fiction. You know, I can't think of how a civilization can build a transparent hull that can withstand any physical force, so I guess that rules Larry Niven's Known Space stories out too! (General Products' Hulls?) The point is that SF often has underlying technology that can seem like magic. Our inability to reverse-engineer the concept shouldn't invalidate examples from the genre. I just can't agree with your reasoning. They're arguments against the veneer. Look at the stories. Look at some of the writers, too. Theodore Sturgeon, David Gerrold, Harlan Ellison, Larry Niven. Admittedly, what goes on in Voyager is pretty damned weak, but the rest of the franchise has a solid foundation of SF on which to tell engaging tales of human drama.
Worst summary ever.
That comment reminds me of the old man in the bank in "Raising Arizona":
"Well which is it, sonny? You want we should freeze or you want we should get down on the ground?"
A little news flash: Star Trek was never serious science fiction. It was Wagon Train in space.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
So I'm assuming the ships will all be translucent and do some twirly Genie effect when they go to warp, and the Trekkies will bitch mercilessly about it...
Kasreyn, don't be too worried about the new effects shots. I've been following this project for months, and they look fantastic. Go here for an example:
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
My paragraphs.
While that is a good idea, a friend of mine has a theory that if a movie has midgets in it, it's an immediate classic. I am getting close to agreeing....
Ah, another Babylon 5 fan, I see.
...
Oh, sorry about your couch. Yes, I agree completely. I'm not a Trekk[er || ie] but I've always wanted to take Troi (like the Romans did, although with less screaming and death).
Preferably in an "accident" involving razor blades, beetles, and an enraged Q wearing leather pants.--
I like to watch.
Robert Wise directed "The Day The Earth Stood Still" (great '50's flick, if a little slow) and "Andromeda Strain" (an OK book, not a great movie, very slow) ... so is it any wonder STTMP is a bit tedious?
... the cloud scenes are cool, bald chicks are cool, and the Jerry Goldsmith score is the best of any Trek film. Nicholas Meyer just does a better job with the characters.
<nerd type="trekkie">
In spite of this I kinda like STTMP
</nerd>
Last November, 'Mojo' Leibowitz of Foundation Imaging showed off some of the work that went into the upcomming re-release (on DVD and tape) of "Star Trek: The Montion Picture" at LOSCON 27. The clean up job was fantastic, and 'Mojo' showed pictures of the physical model (from ST3/ST4) that was used by the 3-D modelers. 'Mojo' wanted to have the DVD released on January 7, 2001 but Paramount wanted to wait. (If you don't get the joke, shame on you!)
Funny, I've seen something like this before...can't quite remember where, though...
Oh, yes, that's right. Microsoft.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
I know there aren't all that many DS9 fans, but I always wondered about Odo's love life (e.g., him and Major Kira). I would think that being a shapeshifter would carry certain lovemaking, umm, advantages ;)
Nice to see that they're posting something about the ST:TMP re-release five months after I submitted a story about it!
Way to go, Slashdot! Yay, team!
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Wasn't it the movie ice pirates that had the space herpes, those were great.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Give Riker the balls to nail every babe on the show.
And, according to a STTNG episode, every boy as well.
Leading the partnership for a Slashdot-Free Slashdot, Son of Dog
I saw the premier in Washington D.C. Cast and crew were there. I was horribly disappointed as were many of the other filmgoers that day.
It's not atypical of the film industry to rush when they think they've got some sort of time frame within which they can maximize their profits. In this case, they *@&#!& the pooch.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the remake, despite the fact that as I learned more about Shatner, the less I can stand the original series and the films with the original crew.
Give me any of the latest ones any day. At least the casts of these are decent human beings.
Pete Davis
Um, am I alone in the opinion (among die-hard Trekkies, of sourse) that that movie was really, I mean, REALLY bad anyway?? Flying through V'ger's cloud is about as exciting as the movie gets. Now don't get me wrong, I like most of the others, (especially IV), including the '67- '69 series, but, why remake a REALLY bad movie? That'd be like remaking Battlefield: Earth or Starship Troopers or something. Just my opinion.
Gene Simmons will consume your soul...
Something that provokes curiousity entreats (begs) inquiry (a question). It is completely appropriate in the literal sense of every word in the phrase. It also conveys the exact intention of the sentence to those that read it, so it is successful in that respect as well. Even those that think it can only be used as a phrase know what is meant by it.
t
As for the extra footage they added to the movie from the cutting room floor: Oh boy! more passes around the Enterprise.
Another thing to keep in mind, this movie was the ultimate laserdisk player demo as The Matrix is to DVD. Just make sure you have 2.5 free hours and a lot of caffeine.
----------------------
ITYM a student loan and the sale of his entire (very impressive) comic collection. This explains themes from his later movies as well.
--
Only the theatrical release was shit. And you know, shit's worth some serious cash (fertilizer is a billion dollar industry) some foor for thought, bitch B-)
"Dancing is the vertical expression of a horizontal desire" --Robert Frost
I always thought the theatrical version made no sense..
cpeterso
Actually, it was the Greeks who took Troi, and I wonder if she likes it that way...
The irony contained in the word 'licence' just breaks down your whole argument, you fucknut
Hmmmmmm.
To the rest of us in the human race, CGI really stands for "Common Gateway Interface."
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
sometimes I think DivX was a plot hatched by the MPAA to distract geeks while they sneaked "Open" DVD past us. now that DVD is an established format, with even first-tier geeks like Taco promoting it despite all his articles about the evil DMCA and company, bullshit like hard drive encryption will go down so much smoother.
GET SOME CONVICTION
Everyone knows that only the "even" ST movies were worth seeing. Maybe the untold plan is to go back and fix all the "odd" ST's to make them watchable.
I think it is great, if a film was truly mangled, for the director to be able to go back and restore it. Other times, producers force changes for the sake of what they think mass audiences will like. Other times, it is just a matter of minor changes that the director really objected to.
Some examples:
"The Natural" - The shlocky, happy ending to this otherwise interesting film was not in the original novel, not in the screenplay, but was the result of audience focus groups not liking the tragic version. It wrecked the movie for me, but the Home Run Knocking The Lights Out scene is, for some reason, often the only clip used when critics discuss what a great movie it was. To the best of my knowledge, no "Director's Cut" of this movie has ever been done.
"The Abyss" - When Cameron was told to cut the film for time, he was so angry that he chopped out 20 minutes from the CLIMAX of the movie, which not only removed the most expensive footage from the whole film, but wiped out the explanation as to why the aliens were there in the first place. The Director's Cut makes more sense, but the tired "we are troubled by seeing humanity hurt itself" theme, done much better more than half a Century earlier in "The Day The Earth Stood Still", convinced me that ruining this story was really not that big of a tragedy.
"Brazil" - One of the most famous fueds in Hollywood history, the producers insisted on screwing up the ending, Gilliam refused, the release was stalled, and even when it was finally released properly (to massive critical acclaim), the chopped-up version was still used for a TV broadcast of the movie. The Criterion Collection disks offer both versions, complete with Gilliam's bitching.
The Empire Strikes Back - Lucas desperately wanted you to see the monster that attacked Luke on Hoth, but the money was not there to make it look good, so he settled for an off-camera beast, which made the blocking of the scene kind of confusing to follow. Of all the "Special Edition" changes made, putting the monster back into the shot was probably the only one that was actually a good idea. (Don't even talk to me about the Jabba & Han scene from Star Wars.)
"Blade Runner" - Released with overdubs that Ridley Scott did not really want, and with an up-beat ending that was made using left-over helicopter footage from The Shining. Defenders of the theatrical version insist that the overdubs really added to the classic Noir feel, but others insist that the over-explanation of everything wrecked it. The Director's Cut does not really have a alternate ending, but instead chops to cheap white-on-black credits right before the escape scene. Also, a "unicorn dream' (probably using leftover footage from "Legend" is added to cram down your throat the true nature of Ford's character). Personally, I think most people should see the overdubbed version first, but having done so, repeat viewers will probably enjoy the Director's Cut more.
The Exorcist - Nearly perfect in its original form. The added footage was a marketing ploy, and nothing more. See the original, if you can get your hands on it.
As for your first question, ST:TMP ended up being released for two reasons... 1) It cost a fortune to make, and they needed to get something back off the investment. and 2) Trekkie hype was becoming a cultural fixture, and "I Grok Spock" t-shirt were becoming more ubiquitous than Greatful Dead bumper stickers. Hard-core fans had been clamouring for a new Star Trek project for years. The pressure to release something, just to throw the trekkies a bone, was overwhelming.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Besides he's usually too busy downloading manporn
I'm sure this title is MOST DEFINITELY NOT part of RIAA as well ;)
That's the video that some guy stitched together from old ST:TNG episodes. In one scene, they put Wesley in a runabout and blow it up with phasers. Wharf (sp?) tells Picard "the boy has been destroyed".
It's a classic.
If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.
Nah...the real reason the rating changed was that the MPAA at the time actually forgot or didn't notice that Kirk and McCoy actually say "Damn" in the film.
After years of watching it in video, this has caused them to lose much sleep...now they can finally rest easy, knowing that they've restored the rating to fit their convictions : "Damn" is still a dirty word, and too dangerous for a 'G' audience.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Yes, and before you correct me on my correction of the correction, I know there's a typo.
That will be my absolutely last comment. Heh.
Here... Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner are already signed to Star Trek X (2002)
Brant
Brant
Brant
Argle. Bargle.
> well, DVD for me
Yeah. And probably on a Sony VAIO running windows...
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Thanks for the link, that may stop me reading /. for quite a while :-)
----
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
this movie. I was a sarcastic teenager; he was a legendary filmaker. At the lecture after a small showing of Westside Story, came his only reply: "Shit." True story. I thought this was the last I had seen of his involvement with this picture.
When I go to best buy, there are still a few aisles (how the hell do you spell that?) of tapes, and CD's have been around for more than a decade. While I agree that DVD's in, VHS out, I think it'll be a while before VHS is phased out.
I have always felt that they cut out all but the introduction to some much longer and more interesting gridbugs scene. She says "they look like trouble." But no trouble ever comes of them, and they vanish immediately after their intro.
Lets face it, ST:TMP wasn't that good, neither were many of the sequels - although I paid money in a theatre to see each.
Let those old movies rest in piece. Too much time has elaspsed to dig that one out and put it onto the editing desk again.
See my journal, I write things there
To those of you who didn't get it, ST:TMP was two things: the final gasp of the aborted Star Trek Phase 2 TV series (in which Cmdr. Will Decker was supposed to play a major part) and a blatant rehash of the plot of "the changeling" with Vger substituted for Nomad. There was a lot of stuff in Gene Roddenberry's original vision that never made it on screen as well; read the novelization (penned by Gene himself) and you'll probably understand why.
My thought on the matter is that what it's really owed is a proper title like Star Wars: A New Hope had (but never really publicized) as well as a recut.
/Brian
*seriously thinks of getting a tivo now*
That certainly is a compelling reason to get one.
I think that DS9 has been my favourite Trek series to date. It has everything that keeps people hooked, but unfortunately, it ended up the bastard child of Paramount. Voyager is treated with more care, since it's on their baby UPN..
Just checked TVGuide's webpage. No DS9. darnit.
Lowmag.net
Except that it's "I am", not "I'm"....
The Blade Runner unicorn footage was from "The Shining", not "Legend".
Thankyou.
"You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
RIGHT???
True to the original :-)
There is a description of the scene here. Apparently this scene takes place right after Spock leaves the enterprise to go inside V'ger. Kirk follows, and they find this wall of crystals that contain V'gers "memories" or patterns of things V'ger has assimilated or something. Then Spock goes on to explore V'ger and Kirk goes back to the enterprise.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
go out and rent the director's cut of blade runner. i had no idea it was better...
mas cerveza, por favor politically incorrect stu
STeyr : Tactical Machine Pistol.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
You'd probably be bitter too if every word you posted was critisized, contradicted, or flamed in some way by trolls and AC's.
This begs the question, "So why was it released to begin with?"
This movie was released 22 years ago. Let's say copyright expires in N years. Now, without anyone noticing, you can't find the old version anymore. This version's copyright expires in N+22 years. Ooops. Maybe they're taking precautions against not being able to extend copyright to more than 5,000 years.
It dawned on me when I bought a copy of Don Quixote in a bookstore in Madrid. It was the original, centuries-old text by Cervantes... but it was annotated by some Spanish academic. Guess what? Yes, (C) 19XX Some Spanish Publishing Company.
On the subject of which, seen todays Onion? -'Special 'Framers' Cut' Of Constitution To Feature Five Deleted Amendments'
Well, since Douglas Trumbull worked on the special effects for both "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and "2001: A Space Odyessy", I'd say he's entitled to rip off his own ideas (it was he who came up with the process that allowed for the flying-through-a-space-warp shots at the end of "2001").
BTW, I think you meant "concur", not "conquer".
Free Hans!
The cast and crew didn't have many problems with ST:TMP. Wise never would agree with Gene on anything, so far as I read, and didn't agree with his vision of the ST universe. We certainly don't need him remaking it now that Gene's gone and there's no one left to make sure it's real Trek. Gene = Real Trek. Wise = try again.
And I don't see what problem so many people had with the movie. Yeah, it's not Star Wars, there are not space dogfights, B movie dialog, and Princess Leia in a gold lame bikini. So what? This is STAR TREK, this is serious Science Fiction, if you want visceral entertainment just wait a year for George Lucas to offer you another installment.
I expect it to suck horribly, and it was only in the earlier rerelease version that they finally included some of the most important scenes that were stupidly cut, such as the one where Spock grabs Kirk's hand as he tries to explain this "simple feeling" he has discovered. There is not a single more important scene anywhere in all of Star Trek. This time through they'll probably concentrate on giving half an hour to the destruction of the Klingon ships at the start, in full gory detail.
And why a CG enterprise? It was fully convincing before, why fiddle with it and risk ruining it / alienating fans? (Trust me, long time ST fans like myself are their only real market) OOOOH, a CG Enterprise! In this day, everyone's imaginations are so stunted that they actually need such devices to help them suspend disbelief for a measly 2 hours, and that's sad. Letting the imagination atrophy is like letting any other part of your mind go to waste.
My quick take on this:
ST = stories delving into what makes us human, what friendship means, stories about diversity and unity, fellowship and peace. A hopeful look ahead, an optimistic story looking to the future and predicting peace, not more endless wars. Heh! look at that corny animated phaser. =)
SW = Luke looks like a puppy dog. Qui-Gonn kicks butt. Obi-Wan kicks more butt. God, we hate Jar-Jar. Damn, Leia/Padme's hot. (others' opinion, not mine - she's a bit young) Oooh! Big flashy explosion. =O And the Emperor is pure Grade A liquid Evil in a can.
Get it straight.
-Kasreyn
PS, the writeup wasn't horrible; this is a discussion for ST fans, we have no need of people who don't know what "ST" is and can't connect "ST" to "Enterprise" in this discussion.
Please note this is not a flame. =) (I hope)
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
I want to see something besides the stupid ST: voyager cast, even if 7 of 9 is hot.
Give me Patrick Stewart or give me death!
Tell me how it's a theory?
Slashdot | It's Official: Deckard Was A Replicant
Lowmag.net
They also thought the "Torture of Geordi" scene was too rough for a PG movie. Thus Soran's stupid line "his heart wasn't into it" -- which is completely out of context.
If they left some scenes in the startrek films, perhaps the newer ones like Insurrection wouldn't seem so short. 1:40 just isn't enough for some of us fans :)
Lowmag.net
A two-hour version of the In Living Color sketch "The Wrath of Farrakhan", directed by Spike Lee?
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
So just what exactly are we seeing?
This begs the question, "So why was it released to begin with?"
Sure, it's great that the director gets to go back and see his vision fulfilled 20yrs later, but this marks a disturbing trend in Hollywood films. Not only do we get a different Star Trek:TMP, but we get a new and improved The Exorcist, a brand spanking new Star Wars, where does it end?
Post here if you're still interested, and I'll try to dig it up.
If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.
and what about: "*NO*body expects the spanish inquisition?" I think that captures it a little better. just a suggestion...
IIRC, Data's inability to use contractions was a bit shaky at first. He very well may have said "I'm."
-jon
Remember Amalek.
...SMTP Fixer Upper. Dyslexia is fun. :)
Of course, when they release the new version, we'll hear "Oh my god, Spock...it's full of Tribbles."
You know, this kind of shit floors me. Oops, sorry about the punishment.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Maybe. It's been so long all I can remember is the eunuch machine. Brrrr.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
For you non-trekkies:
Star Trek : The Motionless Picture -- Nice shots, but hardly any action.
---
They still come with tape decks standard ... if you're lucky and didn't just get a radio. That's why the infamous Compact Cassette is still in existence.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I love DS9. It's on syndication at 4AM here.. my TiVo lovingly records it for me and I watch it every morning.
I've watched the entire series about 3 times now.
The best thing about DS9 was that it got better and better as the series went on, thanks to the growing conflicts with the dominion.
Check out the scene when they exit the Enterprise to go hike out to talk to Vger. The set was too small, so they had to basically squeeze the ship to fit it in. Its really one of those scenes that should have ended up on the cutting room floor.
I find it ironic that Robert Wise, a second rate talent at best (he is probably best known for the THE SOUND OF MUSIC), sees fit to express his auctorial prerogative to remake STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE. Ironic, because Wise presided over the butchering of what might have been one of the best films ever made, Orson Welles's THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS. While Welles was in South America at RKO's behest, Wise supervised the deletion of fifty minutes of footage from Welles's rough cut; the cut footage was destroyed, and so we've got nothing left of THE MAGNFICENT AMBERSONS but a fragment.
I suppose Wise can do what he likes to "his" film--although, with the possible exception of Stanley Kubrick and a small number of other control-freak directors, I don't think any director of a major Hollywood production can claim auctorial privileges over the films they direct. But, to my mind, if he dislikes STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE that much, he should make another film. Using the George Lucas excuse, that the film isn't "finished" and needed to be "completed" by patching in new footage and new special effects, is the coward's way out. Has anyone come up with a convincing defence of Lucas's alterations to the Star Wars films?
But this sort of revision has become rampant. Old films are subjected to radical "restorations", e.g. the recutting of Orson Welles's TOUCH OF EVIL, the use of still photographs to "restore" GREED and A STAR IS BORN. Mediocre directors, enamored of every second of footage whether it adds to the film or not, assemble "director's cuts" to be sold for premium prices on DVD "special edition" releases. Remember the "director's cut" of Ridley Scott's BLADE RUNNER? What made that good wasn't what Scott added back, but what he removed--the stupid voice-over, the tacked-on ending. And, thanks to Lucas's precedent, it's possible that these botched-up "restorations" will be distributed to the exclusion of the original films.
By the way, The STAR TREK picture is not a great movie, or even a very good one, but I'll say this for it--at least the movie is its own creation, and not just a puffed-out episode of the TV series, as was THE WRATH OF KHAN and just about every other subsequent Star Trek movie.
hyacinthus.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Now that's a special edition I'd PAY to see.
"Intriguing, Lieutenant. So this is how humans "make love."
"Shut up and fuck me already, Data."
good, it's an even number, therefore it won't suck :D
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
For every one like you (and me, for that matter), there are three that buy every edition available for their favourite movies. That's why the video industry does as it does.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I think that some ST films in the series prove something though, movies that cater to fans, suck.
Insurrection = sucked ($15 joystick, plot)
First Contact = sucked (it had the least believable EVA EVER!)
V = sucked (it should have been good)
Of course these are just my humble observations as a DVD-addict
-----
No the game never ends when your whole world depends
crazy dynamite monkey
You left out Capt. Kirk's visit to the VD clinic on Starbase 52 to clear up his little "tribble" problem.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Ah yes, if only the anonymous masses would take some time a use a dictionary...
l ic ence
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=
That my friends will be the last comment I make on usage and grammar in this thread. I find it lamentable that so many folks would rather correct, scold, and criticize than take an active role in the discussion.
After reading the article. I've got to say that they will hit it on the head. the "longest preview" comment is what got me.
Proper editing always makes or breaks a film. I can't wait for the release
spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop music news
please help me make it better
if you see me, smile and say hello.
Je t'aime Stéphanie
Warpdrive-a-licious
I loved the movie. However, it could definately use f/x improvement. Especially where Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the Vger probe (whatever you want to call her) are standing on the top of misshapen hull of the Enterprise. I guess they couldn't afford a bigger set back then.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Even by trimming all of the overdone and overblown effects, the story was just LAME -- just rehashes of 'The Immunity Syndrome', 'The Doomsday Machine' and the one about Nomad (forget the title of the episode). Why bother? Didn't they do a 'special edition' that added an extra 25 minutes of boring effects?
I beg to differ, in this day and age the X would stand for Xtreme!!! What the hell does that mean? I can say ANYTHING is extreme and all of a sudden it's better? What's next? What will be the next big adjective used to funnel the pathetic masses isto the theatres. It's sad, really.
"When half of your head is metal, having a few screws loose takes on a greater meaning". - Jack
Or does Taco really seem more bitter/snobby than normal lately? It's apparently going to be a video release (well, DVD for me)
Gee Taco, Got l33t?
And I think we all remember his snide comments a few weeks ago when he incredulously asked if any of "us" (whoever "we" are) actually go to the microsoft website.
Hey Taco, if you need any help climbing off that high horse, gimme a shout!
Remember it, write it down, take a picture, I dont give a fsck!
I for one look forward to it.
Ben Schumin :-)
Ah! Okay, I see what you're saying. It made perfect sense to me, but then I'm used to "Trek Jargon" and I never even had to try to parse it. I retract my witless comment!
I was really little, and seeing that movie made me go out and learn about the Voyager probes, and the little recorded math and culture messages to aliens that are borne in them.
I can see how they wanted it to be a weighty, high faluting 2001 style space opera, considering the issues they were dealing with.. a group of beings who worshiop a supercomputer as a god! Think about the people seeing this when it came out.. to them it would be like The Matrix is to us.. a film full of mysteries, exploring technologies whose beginnings are contemporary to the film.
Goat sex free since 2001
Give Riker the balls to nail every babe on the show.
Give Beverly Crusher a hot nude lesbian scene in the holo-deck with Deanna Troi and a tub of strawberry Jello.
Give Wesley Crusher the screaming agonizing death he so richly deserved.
Now, put that on DVD and I'll pay for it.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
J
Who moderates the meta-moderators?
>ST:TMP = Star Trek: The Motion Picture
you mean "star trek: the motionless picture" of course.
When I was young (and before I saw ST:TMP), I always knew that William Shatner and the gang wouldn't stoop down to the lows of the late 70's. Boy, was I proven wrong when I first saw Star Trek 1. Those pantsuit uniforms with bell bottoms, Shatner with sideburns, Uhura with a 'fro, and a totally bald woman. And I thought the style in Star Trek 2 was bad (though that one introduced the standard red uniforms, which I liked).
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
I think that the fact that TMP was the dying twitch of the pilot for Phase II is significant to the quality of the movie. Things must have been kinda confused.
A couple years ago, in the midst of a hardcore trek phase, I got this book... "Star Trek Phase II." It talks all about the hypothetical series. Some of the concept art is really quite cool... and you can see where a lot of it got absorbed into FC and, significantly, Voyager. Also, they designed some sweet (and I rarely use that word) ships for the show. I understand some of the models showed up in the Wolf 359 "graveyard."
The book also has some synopses of initial episodes, and a script. Some of these were assimilated (excuse me) for TNG episodes.
Of course, there's some stuff I'm glad they ended up not using. Some pretty silly ideas. Bu the book is still mighty interesting.
Titles... "The Return?" "Voyager," maybe, though that would have given it away and would have been kinda ironic these decades later.
Random idea I just had: Phase II as a new series. Not entirely, of course, given the cirucsmtances, but... they still might be able to do something with it. On the other hand, it seems they've already used the best aspects of Phase II in the series and movies since.
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
Maybe in a few years we will get "Star Trek V: The Version That Doesn't Suck".
...and I agree it's valid. I didn't mean to rant or be so obnoxious about it, I guess... me, I enjoy reading a good novel as much or more than a good movie - others might not. I just think it's a shame nowadays that more and more people tend to accept whatever the new crap Hollywood is feeding them, and be totally unwilling to actually pay attention and *think* for a couple hours. The long shots of V'ger were meant to impress on you how frickin' HUGE the thing was, and how insignificant the Enterprise and her crew are, thus setting you up for the denouoement (sic?) where we learn it is actually, originally, man-made!
Yes, they probably could have cut about half an hour of the V'ger shots, I'm not disputing that the movie has its problems. But too many people think the movie's worthless just because there's slow pacing. Rereleasing it now seems like they're just asking for it - people won't go to see it unless they use "CGI" to make Ilia do a striptease and have sex with Kirk.
It just seems like a mistake to try to remarket such serious stuff, especially when it didn't have mass-market appeal the LAST time - I think Wise & co. are going to get their asses kicked, AGAIN, and blame it on everyone but themselves, AGAIN. The only sane way for them to try to remake this, is to add phaser battles and Neo jumping off buildings and Vger turning into the Borg Queen (shades of PvP) and all that sh!t, and I fully expect them to pull a stunt like that - if they don't, it will flop again, and for the same reasons (it lacks those things).
Oh well.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
Is there such a thing as a "(C) on Mickey"? AFAIK Mickey is a trademark. What there is is a copyright on Steamboat Willie, another copyright on Fantasia etc., which have different expiration dates. If (C) on Snowboat Willie ever expires, Disney is still able to create a new cartoon starring only Mickey and it will still be copyrighted. More, if you create a Mickey cartoon yourself, even with an original plot, you're subject to a trademark (not copyright) lawsuit.
I hear this one will finally include preemptive multitasking.
-- Of course I'm paranoid. I'm a sysadmin.
Are you saying Lucas isn't a genius to introduce scenes like these:
Don't even get me started on Empire Strikes Back, where Lucas added footage of Darth Vader stumbling down a shuttle ramp. I guess I'm pretty offtopic now...
That's "Wagon Train to the Stars", FYI
That was the spiel Gene used to sell the concept to the anal retentive studio execs back in 1966. Give the man a break!! He couldn't outright tell them, "Hey, I'm Gene Roddenberry and I want to make a massively expensive sci fi show with tons of special effects and really highbrow plots and I want you to fund me." They'd have laughed him out of town. So he went in and played down the seriousness of the series, so as to get it approved. And it worked. This is called savvy.
The first episode, "The Cage", was about Captain Pike (not Kirk) being trapped by aliens who have astounding technology but have lost their will to innovate, to try new things, to deal with the world. He finally explains to them what it means to be free, and to make their own way in life without enslaving others.
The second pilot, "Where No Man Has Gone Before", has the 2nd in command of the Enterprise gaining god-like powers from an unknown phenomenon, and the story involves how he slowly goes nuts and is corrupted by power. Not a true Sci-Fi storyline - and that was the one that sold the series!
The network was always against the show, always trying to get Gene and the rest to dumb it down, to throw in more fanged, drooling monsters. Basically, to turn it into another Lost In Space. But Gene and his gang simply refused to lower the quality to that standard.
Take the episode, "Devil in the Dark". The workers on a mining planet are being killed in the subterranean tunnels by some unknown monster. Kirk & co arrive to find that the monster has sabotaged the place's reactor and they have to find the part it stole before the whole place goes KABLOOEY. So they search through the tunnels, some redshirts get offed, the tension rises, and they find it. Kirk, et. al., are about to blast it, when Spock manages to stop them. He uses the mind meld to communicate with the creature, which calls itself the Horta. And we learn that the Horta, that disgusting evil monster, is a mother defending her young. The miners, all unknowing, have been killing her eggs. So she fights back. When the two sides learn that it's all been a misunderstanding, they make peace, and they then work TOGETHER in cooperation, as the Horta has the ability to devour stone and dig tunnels with great speed. A happy ending (except for the redshirts).
There are countless other examples. Nearly every episode spoke out against slavery, against racism, against war, every episode retained hope that mankind will somehow muddle through. Sure, there were some corny episodes, many of them in the 3rd season after Gene stopped being directly involved, but come on!
See what I mean? If this isn't serious science fiction, I'd like you to tell me what qualifies. Peace, harmony, understanding... ST had network TV's first interracial kiss, do you know that? The suits tried to stop them but Gene and Shatner and Nichols refused to kowtow to racism, and they did it.
Please don't go along saying ST is not serious SF unless you give me an idea what YOU mean by that term.
-Kasreyn
(I would say "It is You who are mistaken, about a Great Many Things", but that's rather overused)
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
Tell us how you really feel.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
TMP? I'm lost, are we talking about The Manhatten Project? Man I can't wait to get that on DVD. I hear there are all these crazy outtakes where Einstein bets that he can eat anything in the room for cash.
------
Let me give you the lowdown
Is it just me, or (with the exception of The Matrix), does everyone else think that SF flicks have been crap recently?
---- Just another spud server.
Aparently some of us aren't die hard trekies. It took me forever to figure out what this goofy post was about... How about a little help from our dear friendly authors who post these stories!
t ic les/111700.html
ST:TMP = Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Eureka!
By the way, Star Trek X is in production. That's "Star Trek Ten", as in the tenth in a series of movies.
http://www.startrek.com/production/startrekx/ar
Man I wish I had that CGI Enterprise model! I'd make myself all kinds of neato scenes and desktop backgrounds. Some people didn't like the scene where Scotty flies Kirk to the new Enterprise and we get a good look at the redesign, but I loved that. Being able to position the Big E any way I wanted it and see any detail would be totally awesome.
Constitutionally Correct