Slashdot Mirror
Crusher Crushed from Nemesis
Ant sent in a link to Wil Wheaton's weblog where he writes a surprisingly heartfelt piece on being cut from ST:Nemesis. Its a strangely bittersweet little entry that really speaks volumes, especially considering Wil's fairly public disagreements with
Rick Berman. Apparently Wil's bit was cut along with 48 whole minutes of the flick- its just the nature of filmaking. But
I guess if nothing else, they've got tons of stuff for the DVD now!
they've got tons of stuff for the DVD now!
Yeah because if Paramount has shown anything, it just loves to pack extras into their Star Trek DVDs.
If you're the kind of person to make an angry distinction between "Trekkies" and "Trekkers", I'm honestly surprised you don't have a Wesley Crusher action figure.
I moderate "-1, Fool"
"The night features world-class electronic music artists and a special treat: celebrity boxing with Wil Wheaton and Barney! Wil Wheaton, of Star Trek: The Next Generation and Stand By Me fame, will take on Barney in a celebrity boxing matchup for the history books. Watch and see if Wil with his backing from EFF can protect free speech and parody on the Internet and defeat Barney and his team of corporate lawyers."
http://www.eff.org/cafe/2002/
Give that vomitous terrycloth reptile hell, Will!
Stefan Jones
No way. I've got two words for you, buddy. Well, actually it's one word, but it's so annoying that you actually have to say it twice:
Dang. I could only bring myself to type it once, and my fingers are already blistering, like I dipped them in acid or something.Stop talking on your mobile phone while you're driving through residential neighbourhoods!
Oh fuck, I feel old. This is all I needed after finding my first grey hair last week.
Overall, I suppose anything that makes the end film better is a Good Thing. Still, it sucks that it had to happen -- I can't imagine the weirdness of putting, what, 7 years of my life in as a particular character and then having my last chance to play him yanked out.
At least Wil seems very grounded about it. Unless, of course, he just omitted some drinking-drug-and-wife-beatin' binge he went on after the end of the blog.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Get a grip. I see plenty of people driving with children right there in the car with them, not muzzled or anything.
What the hell is wrong with people? Wesley wasn't a bad character. He had his annoying moments (largely in the earlier years,) and I'm not entirely certain I ever believed he was as brilliant as the scripts made him out to be, but he was a reasonable part of the show.
And Wil Wheaton isn't Wesley Crusher. He's a seemingly levelheaded, decent guy. I wish people could get past their hangups and insecurities and be nice people.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Trekkies.
Nobody else cares.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
That's pretty bold, given that I have only seen the trailer, but here's why I think it'll be bad.
First, the trailer makes it out to have wanna-be horror elements. It's too dark for StarTrek; even First Contact and other encounters with the Borg (by far, the most powerful enemy the Federation knows) are nowhere near as intense. If it hadn't been for familiar characters, I would have said that the trailer was for a budget-hyped Babylon5 episode from the Shadows series.
Second, it seems too action oriented. Yes, we all love the StarTrek blow-up-the-other-ship action. If done well, battles are good and add a lot to the story (DS9 had a few episodes with epic battle scenes with Cards - incredibly cool). This movie just seems to have lots of fighting action without meaningful substance. There's also this ATV with guns driving around on rough terrain, then later jumping into another vehicle much better suited for transportation. That makes little sense to me (I can see arguments, but why?)
My third reason will get me flamed by all the horny geeks out there. The movie appears to have an explicit sex scene. While sex between two characters had been implied frequently in the past, it was never explicitly shown. This destroys an element of the StarTrek universe that I've always found charming: it's always had a childish innocence. A fun element. This kind of subject matter seems to turn ST into a different animal. (This reason is purely subjective.)
Fourth and last, all this spooky, "don't fear..." nonsense that just seems way to ominous to be believable (and quite cheesy - I laught when that bald guy says that in the trailer). This sort of ties into part of reason one. Again, the movie is trying to be something StarTrek isn't.
Overall, I get the strong impression that Rick Berman is not targeting geeks, but rather, the mainstream gun/sex/action oriented entertainment. "Blow stuff up and fuck the girl!" That seems great in a lot of ways, but I've always turned to ST for entertainment of a more intellectual sort.
Rick Berman is pulling a Lucas and not staying loyal to the fans.
Why bother.
When did it happen? Or is it just the usual array of socially inept geeks, snickering behind the cuffs on their black trenchcoats that make it seem that way? This guy poured his guts into this essay of his. He was obviously stunned by the news, disappointed, hurt even, though he denied it in his story. He had to know it was coming, but it sounds like that knowing didn't help. I was sincerely touched by this.
I was just as annoyed as anybody at Wesley Crusher, but I think Wil Wheaton did the best he could when he was handed what were, frankly, pretty insipid lines. I grew more and more fond of the character as the show and character matured, most particularly the last show he was in regularly.."Final Mission" I think it was. And his character grew even more intriguing with his guest appearances, like the fascinating "The First Duty." At any rate, I looked forward to seeing him in Nemesis. I wish he could have been more a part of it. I wish him the best in finding a successful adult career, and I hope that he puts the unfortunate image that Wesley Crusher has given him through no fault of his own, behind him.
Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.
Much of the shape of the final story is worked out in the editing process. Directors typically shoot not only extra scenes that may or may not make it into the final cut, but they might also shoot a half-dozen or so versions of each scene, each acted a bit differently. (Or lit, or with different angles, etc.) With so much raw material to work from, the editor and director can take the film in almost any direction they choose long after shooting is completed and without having to drag the actors back in front of the cameras.
For a good example of what I'm talking about, go get the Big Trouble in Little China DVD. (As a /. reader you should own a copy of this film anyway, so if you don't have it you should buy it immediately or risk the loss of your nerd credentials.) Check out the deleted scenes, which include a number of alternate versions of scenes that actually appeared in the final cut. The director, John Carpenter, chose to make BTiLC a very fast-paced action-oriented film that almost never gives you a chance to take a breath. However, with the material at his disposal, he could have created a slower more dramatic film that was much more character-oriented.
Part of the reason for this is because very often even an experienced director can't tell how a particular script is going to work until he actually sees it on film. All this extra material allows him to pick and choose among entire scenes and subtle re-interpretations of scenes until the film conveys exactly the effect he's aiming for. Other times, I think it's because the director honestly doesn't know what will work better or what final product he's going for, and all the extra footage allows him to defer that decision until he's in the editing booth.
And the brethren went away edified.
Ahhh, you kids don't know nuthin! How do you young whippersnappers think us old folks who grew up with ST:TOS felt, huh? Waitin' ten gol-dang years from the time the series was cancelled to the release of the first movie. And what did we get? ST:TMP. A pastel-colored bridge! Everyone wearing dental assistant's uniforms! Kirk with an obvious girdle holding his gut in and an alien hairpiece of some kind! Now that's pain! BUT WE WERE THANKFUL FOR IT!!!
And the brethren went away edified.
http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/1 0/29/173252&mode=thread&tid=129
He's actually a pretty cool guy. It's a shame to hear that he got cut, but it happens.
I have a feeling that was his last chance to be part of Star Trek and I'm sure he'll miss it.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Most directors don't do it that way, though. They film lots and lots of extra footage, even some scenes that have overlapping dialogue and plot exposition. That way, when they get to post-production, they can chose to the clips that came out the best, and dump scenes where the director doesn't like the final product without losing the narrative.
If you watch the deleted scenes in a lot of DVD's, this process becomes a little more obvious.
The Jabba scene that Lucas put back into Star Wars for the "special edition" is a classic example. The conversation is almost word-for-word the same as the one that Han had with Greedo. When it was originally filmed, Jabba was played by a fat guy in a fir coat, and Lucas didn't care for it, so he chose the Greedo showdown instead to reveal the Han Solo subplot (owes money to gangsters for dumping his contraband on a recent job). Personally, I think Lucas never should have put it back in; but having done so, he should have cut the Greedo scene. Instead, he kept both scenes, which slowed down the movie, and ruined the Greedo scene by adding a first shot by Greedo before Han killed him, convincing Star Wars fans everywhere that George Lucas's mind has finally broken.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
If you were a true geek, you wouldn't have to ask who Will Wheaten is. You would Just Know.
But, fool, you are only a nerd. The truly productive members of our technological society who runs his GCC and puts strange Paul Graham quotes in his slashdot signiture. Yet you ask who Will Wheaten is.
Posting here on Slashdot is only a sign of True Geekiness. But I must ask you, do you have a Geek Code? If you are over 16, do still own any action figures? models?
Do you watch cartoons?
These too are only signs of True Geekiness. But your True Nerd may kill the Geek within. You may spend the rest of your miserable life learning about the workings of the Universe, building vast technological systems, and watching reruns of Gilligan's Island.
But one day you become old and gray, and you suddenly discover what you believe to be the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything; and you bring forth this information to the Council of True Geekdom. And they laugh. And Geeks throughout the world learn of your pitiful endeaver and they, too, laugh.
To reconcile, you will be forced to stand on your knees and beg: "Thou art geekier than I."
And then, for the first time, you may learn what we already Just Know.
There is no Spoon.
And we had to walk seven parsecs to school and back! In the freezing vacuum of space! Uphill BOTH ways!
deus does not exist but if he does
Is cock-boy hyphenated?
I don't know. Is anal-retentive?
In mathematics, one does not understand things, one merely gets used to them.
--VonNeumann
Beyond Wil Wheaton being axed from Nemesis, it's really a tragety for anybody looking for a real story when they go to the theaters, not the chopped and boxed two hour edit. So many movies out there could have been great if the man with the axe had only shown a bit more restraint and a bit more faith in his fanbase. They're basically saying we as an audiance can't handle a deep plot and don't have the attention span to sit through three hours of movie. It annoys the crap out of me.
A good example and everybodies favorite here on Slash-- Lord of the Rings. Damn near 3 half hours and I loved every single minute of it . I didn't get bored. I didn't wince at the complex plot. I was thrilled that a director actually broke from the pack and lengthened the movie, ultimately making it a par excellent experience. I can't imagine how a two hour Cambells condensed soup version would have added up. Makes you wonder what how the extended edit will fair if the movie is this good now...
Back to the point, I've been waiting for a decent Trek series/movie for years. TNG? Booorrrring... They were the UN of outer space. DS9? Better. It depicted the edgier side of the Trek universe, but it was still pretty damn sanitized. Personnally, it only got good when large quantities of ships began blowing up... Anyway, Voyager? It had it's moments. Too bad they were far and few between. The movies? Wrath of Kahn. Hands down. Undiscovered Country? It was OK filler until the next great movie... Which was... Umm... Sorry, but I wasn't inspired by any of the TNG movies, though First Contact and Insurrection were OK. It wasn't anything that you hadn't seen in the series before. It comes down to this- I'd be willing to bet an extra hour would do the new movie a world of good. The Trek universe is rich and full of plot and the fans want to see it. It's the reason it's been kept going all these years. For once, I wish they'd take break the mold and create an experience, not just a movie.
On Wil Wheaton, it is kinda too bad. Just a hunch, but I'm betting he'd actually be good in something other than that "annoying naive teen" roll he was cast in for 90% of the series. It's a misjustice all the way around....
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Actually there is a DIRECT and MEASURABLE comparison between brain activity on the road and cell phone usage. A study was done where people would wear a piece of headgear that would not only measure the placement of one's eyes but also brain activity while driving. Turns out that people talking on cellphones spend less time looking at the road and the parts of the brain which are active while concentrating only on the road are less active while the operator is talking on the phone. Similarly, while intoxicated, and they used this exact comparison, the brain is less concerned with the road and more concerned with other thoughts.
This doesn't even take into account the reality that most people still hold their cell phones with their hands, rather than using the headset.
Your racecar analogy is bogus for reasons that any reasonably intelligent person can see. However, since we're posting on Slashnerd I'll elaborate. A racecar driver has certain commands and phrases that he says to his pit crew that he has said hundreds of times before. There is no conversation and there is no intensive cognitive thought involved. Therefore the portions of the brain which are focused on the road remain focused on the road when these pre-programmed phrases are uttered. Clearly arguing with your girlfriend is more demanding on the brain than "I need gas."