You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Star Trek Trailer... with a bonus!

Posted: Wed, 26th Nov 2008, 3:57am

Post 1 of 42

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Yeah, so you must already have seen the trailer showing before Quantum of Solace, but here's one with a really really cool extra clip in it. Totally worth it.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39238
Posted: Wed, 26th Nov 2008, 6:54pm

Post 2 of 42

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

That clip makes the trailer so much better. Seeing a real connection to the old series is really encouraging.
Posted: Wed, 26th Nov 2008, 7:21pm

Post 3 of 42

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

whoa that was awesome! tard
Posted: Wed, 26th Nov 2008, 11:47pm

Post 4 of 42

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Movie looks awesome, but that extra clip didn't really add anything to the trailer. I personally think it works better without it.
Posted: Thu, 27th Nov 2008, 12:16am

Post 5 of 42

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Still not sure I'm sold on this. Why oh Why o Why must we start trying to understand these Characters when they are like 8 years old? It adds NOTHING of interest to me. What a hunk of steaming CGI crap this is looking to be- The RAPE of my childhood continues.
Posted: Thu, 27th Nov 2008, 12:51am

Post 6 of 42

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Bryan M Block wrote:

Still not sure I'm sold on this. Why oh Why o Why must we start trying to understand these Characters when they are like 8 years old? It adds NOTHING of interest to me. What a hunk of steaming CGI crap this is looking to be- The RAPE of my childhood continues.
Here we go again. Is everything with CGI bad? If used correctly, and realistically (like in Star Wars, Pirates, Iron Man) I don't see the problem.

I do think there will be a problem: that there will be no suspense. We all know the fate of the characters. The only person I'll care about is Leonard Nimoy's Spock.
Posted: Thu, 27th Nov 2008, 12:57am

Post 7 of 42

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Bryan M Block wrote:

What a hunk of steaming CGI crap this is looking to be- The RAPE of my childhood continues.
Exactly! Speed Racer, Transformers-- HORRIBLE movies! GOD, I just can't STAND it when people try to be creative!
Posted: Thu, 27th Nov 2008, 1:52am

Post 8 of 42

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

SuperUser

jawajohnny wrote:

[Is everything with CGI bad? If used correctly, and realistically (like in Star Wars) I don't see the problem.
Many people would argue that the hugely excessive use of CG was the downfall of the newer Star Wars trilogy. Not necessarily the quality, but the quantity, and the fact that it was clearly not just there to serve the needs of the story, but to dazzle.

Fill wrote:

Speed Racer, Transformers-- HORRIBLE movies! GOD, I just can't STAND it when people try to be creative!
If people were trying to be creative, wouldn't they be coming up with new ideas of their own, rather than recycling ideas that were already strong in their first incarnation? Don't get me wrong, I can enjoy a good remake or sequel as much as the next guy, but nine times out of ten its obvious that these films are made because of a lack of creativity and a glut of technical ability. Then again, maybe I'm confusing creativity with originality.
Posted: Thu, 27th Nov 2008, 2:07am

Post 9 of 42

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Moviemaking is a business... the guys on top who are accepting mostly remakes are quite intelligent in business terms: these movies already have a fan base who are guaranteed to see it at least once. You can't escape it, it's one of the best and easiest investment one can make.

Eventually they'll run out, though, and I think that'll be quite an interesting time to see. Either they run dry and have no ideas, or it'll end up being an explosion of originality.

I like remakes, personally. Nothing like a good bit of nostalgia.
Posted: Thu, 27th Nov 2008, 2:13am

Post 10 of 42

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Fill wrote:

Exactly! Speed Racer, Transformers-- HORRIBLE movies! GOD, I just can't STAND it when people try to be creative!
To be creative would be to make a movie that has a creative, original story and/or creative narrative/filmmaking techniques rather than making a CGI overloaded movie with effects that are done creatively (not to say that an overall creative movie couldn't feature them). There are few movies that I've seen that were made recently that were truly creative. As for Transformers, I haven't seen it so I couldn't say for sure but it doesn't look very creative to me, and as for Speed Racer, I really don't have any interest in seeing it, so I'll just not comment.


-Jabooza
Posted: Thu, 27th Nov 2008, 4:01am

Post 11 of 42

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Jabooza wrote:

To be creative would be to make a movie that has a creative, original story and/or creative narrative/filmmaking techniques rather than making a CGI overloaded movie with effects that are done creatively (not to say that an overall creative movie couldn't feature them).
You're right. I never said effects, only mocking Bryan's "my childhood is being raped" comments. Star Trek looks creative, and I think it's a bit early to judge. The other examples were childhood remakes, not heavily CGI-ed movies.

There are few movies that I've seen that were made recently that were truly creative.
Exactly when was the last time you went to the theater?

...and as for Speed Racer, I really don't have any interest in seeing it, so I'll just not comment.
What?! See it. Now.


Axeman, you're absolutely right, but if someone can make their own version of an already used idea-- as long as the people want it-- the movie has a potential of being extremely successful. I mean, wasn't Nolan being creative with his Batman movies? If nobody bothered to remake stuff, there are a lot of good (and bad) movies that wouldn't exist. It's a love hate thing for me with CGI and remakes. At some points I drool over it, and others I get tired of it.
Posted: Thu, 27th Nov 2008, 4:52am

Post 12 of 42

nyubiggy291

Force: 0 | Joined: 14th Jun 2003 | Posts: 1

Member

Axeman wrote:

jawajohnny wrote:

[Is everything with CGI bad? If used correctly, and realistically (like in Star Wars) I don't see the problem.
Many people would argue that the hugely excessive use of CG was the downfall of the newer Star Wars trilogy. Not necessarily the quality, but the quantity, and the fact that it was clearly not just there to serve the needs of the story, but to dazzle.
What story? CGI didn't kill Star Wars. That was just a go-to excuse for the horrible scripts/directing/acting.
Posted: Thu, 27th Nov 2008, 5:32am

Post 13 of 42

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

CGI is fine...but it's the over reliance on CGI to provide "wow factor" without the supporting story that sucks. I watched Speed Racer when I was a kid...you know, the original ones aired in the late 60's and early 70's and I liked it. I didn't bother with the film because I have no interest in an "update" of something that was fine the way it was- the pitiful, stupid, and ridiculous Tim Burton remake of "Planet of the Apes" comes to mind (Tim Burton is one of the WORST filmmakers to bore us in the past 20 years when he is left on his own..(His Ed Wood and Big Fish, as well as Pee Wee's big Adventure being the only decent films he has ever made)- raping my childhood by turning willy wonka into a guy with a complex because his father was a dentist! but I'm always interested in seeing something new, and don't want to judge without seeing the final product...but PLEASE. All the Pirates movies SUCKED after the first one and Transformers...and Iron Man? Not even on the same level- Iron Man was GREAT- but realize there is a MIX of practical effects (Dear God THANK you for sending us a genius like Stan Winston GOD REST HIS SOUL) and CGI and it was great because it had great acting, great directing (THank You John for being a real fan of the comic book character!) and a properly paced and revealed story in the screenplay, not because it had "gee-whiz golly BANG!" CGI special effects sequences. Just watch Raiders of the Lost Ark against the latest Lucas abortion and notice the differences. CGI is an AMAZING tool, but when filmmakers rely too much on it because they are enamoured with the visual and not with the story, they loose audiences of anyone over 18 years old pretty quickly. frown There is nothing I can do about it- the rape of my childhood will continue. Jedi Knights are no longer mystics in touch with the spiritual fabric that binds the universe together, they are folks with a bloodborne pathogen/condition that rely on floppy eared camel-lipped sidekicks to defeat their enemies. Indiana Jones is no longer a human scientist in search of a greater truth- he's just a super hero that lives in a cartoon world of animated animals, goofy jungle "friends", can use magic gunpowder, and can find protection from an atomic blast in a refrigerator because he has super powers. So why not Captain James T. Kirk no longer being a human being wrestling with the nature of his humanity with Mr. Spock and trying to make the right "moral choice" when his value systems are challenged on a 5 year mission- why not him being some rebelious child that just steals cars?

Sigh...
Posted: Thu, 27th Nov 2008, 5:46am

Post 14 of 42

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +1



Ya know... It isn't necessarily rape if it's consensual. To prevent yourself from being "raped" is as easy as not seeing the movie. You can only blame yourself, sir.

On a side note. I showed my Dad (who grew up with Star Trek and is a pretty big Treky himself) the trailer last night and he was absolutely ecstatic, claiming this looked amazing and that it was great seeing another spin on his love for Star Trek. No rape kit needed for Pops.
Posted: Thu, 27th Nov 2008, 6:06am

Post 15 of 42

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

My Dad as well, who I've got a lot of my movie tastes from over the years, seemed really ecstatic too; saying this movie looks incredible and like a fun spin on the original. I'd have to agree. Get off your high nerd/fanboy horse, Bryan. You say the same thing about any movie.

And for those of you who haven't or don't want to see Speed Racer, you don't know what you're missing. Watch

this

now and get back to me. Like, right now. wink
Posted: Thu, 27th Nov 2008, 6:33am

Post 16 of 42

SilverDragon7

Force: 2265 | Joined: 29th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1990

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:



this

Hot.
Posted: Thu, 27th Nov 2008, 7:23am

Post 17 of 42

The Strider

Force: 493 | Joined: 27th Jan 2008 | Posts: 230

EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Speed Racer is underrated. It's amazingly executed.

As for the new Star Trek trailer, I'm happy to see Nimoy back in action, at least for one last time. I hope Mr. Abrams has great success with the film, for the franchise's sake.
Posted: Thu, 27th Nov 2008, 9:16am

Post 18 of 42

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I kinda agree with what Bryon is saying, most flicks are all about getting that 9 bucks or whatever tickets are sold for now a days, sorry Bryan I thought that's what you meant but I could be wrong. i dig your opinion but you don't have to make a big deal about it if you don't like the movie. "don't watch it" is the simplest thing i can offer to you. most folks are gonna make up their own mind anyway. don't get me wrong cause I totally or at least somewhat get where you're coming from but when you dog a movie that you haven't even seen yet or you're basing your opinion on trailers you've seen, which is cool by the way cause your opinion matters to me but that makes me wanna ask, did you see the flick already and do you know something the rest of us don't? . biggrin you can tell me the whole story if you like, I don't mind just like I don't mind remakes cause they're not always what you want them to be but its okay cause its just someone Else's take on an old favorite and that's all movies are, is someones take on something else. if you don't like a book then don't read it. if you don't like a song then don't listen to it. if you don't like what you're looking at, then don't look and something I recently learned was "if you don't like your president then vote for someone else". ha! I dig your opinion cause I do believe that you grew up with Star Trek the way I did and you don't want to see it made into some guys "make me money now cause I know all these geeks are gonna pay to see it" type of flick. I'm a geek by the way. but that's fine and great cause in the end all of us that grew up with this show are gonna have some great memories and I hope everyone young and old has fun watching this flick whether its good or bad. I hope its good but if its not oh freaking well cause no one made me spend money to go watch it. have fun guys that's the main thing right. tard
Posted: Thu, 27th Nov 2008, 2:32pm

Post 19 of 42

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Fill wrote:

There are few movies that I've seen that were made recently that were truly creative.
Exactly when was the last time you went to the theater?
I suppose you're right, some recent movies have been creative, but they rarely tend to be as creative as a lot of older ones, and it somehow seems to be a different kind of creative too...


Atom wrote:

this
Well... it was colorful. smile

The scene didn't really have much of an affect since I watched in extreme YouTube Blur-o-Vision. biggrin
Posted: Thu, 27th Nov 2008, 3:19pm

Post 20 of 42

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

CX3 wrote:



Ya know... It isn't necessarily rape if it's consensual. To prevent yourself from being "raped" is as easy as not seeing the movie. You can only blame yourself, sir.

On a side note. I showed my Dad (who grew up with Star Trek and is a pretty big Treky himself) the trailer last night and he was absolutely ecstatic, claiming this looked amazing and that it was great seeing another spin on his love for Star Trek. No rape kit needed for Pops.
Ha- well, it isn't really like that now is it? George Lucas is like a trusted uncle, and you think "He won't hurt me" - but then...

So it isn't exactly consensual- You have a certain expectation of quality based on what has come before, and then- BAM you paid your $9 and you are sitting in the Phantom Menace for two hours of the "Jar Jar Binks show" - SURPRISE!

But yes, I probably won't go see this film based on the trailers, which really just disappoints me because I was looking forward to it- and yes, I don't go see all of these movies, I usually catch them second hand on TV or maybe on some rainy night at the $1 cheap theater. It would be like going to see "The Dark Knight" and then SURPRISE having Adam West reprise his role from the 60's camp TV show complete with Satin cape- I guess that would disappoint me, but maybe you guys would like that- espeically if it started with Adam West as a two year old that defeats the Riddler with his superior intellect and then went into a completely CGI environment with TONS of explosions and cartoon groundhogs, followed by swinging through the jungle on a vine and a completely CGI alien companion that bumbles his way toward defeating the badguys- But that's not my cup of tea, it would tend to undermine the weight/gravitas of the Batman story- but that's just me. sleep Just ignore my posts, I'll just post this from now on "WOW, Golly gee! I can't wait for that- it looks AWESOME, especially all them special E-Fex!"
Posted: Thu, 27th Nov 2008, 4:34pm

Post 21 of 42

No Respite Productions

Force: 985 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 482

EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Wow,

I had written off Speed Racer as a silly kids movie but you've converted me with that video, it looks *really* good.

As for Star Trek - just give it a chance. You never know.

Personally I think Chris Pine is going to arse up the role of James T Kirk... but then again I was one of the many idiots who refused to believe that Daniel Craig could play Bond. As I've just been schooled on Speed Racer I think it's probably best to give a film more than two minutes before passing judgement... Uwe Boll films being the exception.

NR
Posted: Thu, 27th Nov 2008, 6:24pm

Post 22 of 42

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

And for those of you who haven't or don't want to see Speed Racer, you don't know what you're missing. Watch

this

now and get back to me. Like, right now. wink
That is one of my most memorial scenes I've seen in a film. Ever. I want to get a Blu Ray player just to watch Speed Racer on it.

As for the trailer. I have never had any interest in Star Trek, and when I heard Abrams was making a new film about it, I still didn't care. After watching the trailer I am now extremely stoked on seeing it this May. The film looks really accessible.
Posted: Thu, 27th Nov 2008, 8:38pm

Post 23 of 42

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

No Respite Productions wrote:

the many idiots who refused to believe that Daniel Craig could play Bond.
I didn't not believe in Daniel Craig, I think most people just saw Clive Owen as the clear choice for Bond. Sure, Craig is great. But I still would like to see Owen, who has always seemed made for the role, as 007.

As I've just been schooled on Speed Racer I think it's probably best to give a film more than two minutes before passing judgement...
See, if only people didn't have the Iron Man craze/fever when Speed Racer came out and ads made it look more widely-accessible it wouldn't be considered one of the biggest flops of all time.

Oh, and it's one of the top 10 best movies of the year. Just sayin'. smile
Posted: Fri, 28th Nov 2008, 4:08am

Post 24 of 42

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

No Respite Productions wrote:

the many idiots who refused to believe that Daniel Craig could play Bond.
I didn't not believe in Daniel Craig, I think most people just saw Clive Owen as the clear choice for Bond. Sure, Craig is great. But I still would like to see Owen, who has always seemed made for the role, as 007.
I highly doubt Owen could top Craig's performance in Casino Royale. He has no range of emotions, he's always just neutral or mad, whereas Craig has the whole package (you can see it rather well in the torturing scene, no pun intended). Besides, Owen has a rough drawl of a voice and rugged style whereas Craig has a smooth, cool, classy style, which works WAY better. The fact that they didn't take advantage of the cool classy factor and only focused on the ruggedness is what made Quantum so crappy.
Posted: Fri, 28th Nov 2008, 5:43am

Post 25 of 42

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Just as many people would be pissed off if they made this movie the same way they made the original series. Of course, that was what? 30 years ago? 35? Things change, get over it.
Posted: Fri, 28th Nov 2008, 7:12am

Post 26 of 42

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

42 if you go all the way back. Yeah, I went there. Get over it, it's not raping your childhood, Bryan. You're as close in age/years to the original Star Trek series as I am to the latter original Star Wars movies.
Posted: Fri, 28th Nov 2008, 7:51am

Post 27 of 42

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I know next to nothing about Star Trek, and I think this movie is looking awesome. This version of the trailer didn't add anything but Leonard Nemoy, and I definitely think the trailer was better off without him.

They're remaking it, it looks pretty cool. Get over it.

Oh and, second on the whole Speed Racer being one of the best films of this year thing. I can't believe how underrated that movie was.
Posted: Fri, 28th Nov 2008, 8:18am

Post 28 of 42

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

As of now, I'd have to stick with In Bruges or The Fall as top movie of the year, with The Dark Knight and W. somewhere in the top 5- perhaps either right above or right below Speed Racer and Iron Man.
Posted: Fri, 28th Nov 2008, 4:18pm

Post 29 of 42

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

42 if you go all the way back. Yeah, I went there. Get over it, it's not raping your childhood, Bryan. You're as close in age/years to the original Star Trek series as I am to the latter original Star Wars movies.
I guess it's hard to explain- Things get created and they have a certain meaning to you, like Raiders or Star Wars or Star Trek etc... and you have great memories and emotional attachment to them. IMO, and the experiences of many, nay I say MOST people my age feel like Lucas betrayed the original values and purpose of the story world he established in the original Star Wars films, that applies to the Indiana Jones world as well with the last film, and now I look at this Star Trek film and I think "here we go again"- Taking something that once had depth and meaning and turning into a cartoon. sad
Posted: Fri, 28th Nov 2008, 5:20pm

Post 30 of 42

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Bryan, I don't agree with you about Star Wars or Indiana Jones... the original ideas are still there. But I see what you mean about Star Trek. They're clearly reshaping it into something more like Star Wars, and I really don't like that. For me, Star Trek will lose it's distinction if they make any major changes, ie removing the deep meaning from the series and replacing it with action.
Posted: Wed, 3rd Dec 2008, 7:45am

Post 31 of 42

Avenger111

Force: 1800 | Joined: 31st Jul 2004 | Posts: 57

VisionLab User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Fill wrote:

Bryan M Block wrote:

What a hunk of steaming CGI crap this is looking to be- The RAPE of my childhood continues.
Exactly! Speed Racer, Transformers-- HORRIBLE movies! GOD, I just can't STAND it when people try to be creative!
Actually they were horrible pieces of crap. Especially Michael Bay. He should be an "action" director like they had in the golden era of Hollywood. Not a normal director and while I did not see Speed Racer, from the critics and my friends who did I'm kind of glade I avoided it like the plague it apparently was. But mind you I can't really say it was bad, because I didn't see it. But if you are the type of person who liked Crystal Skulls then I have dubbed thee a Michael and wish you luck at life. It's a term me and my friends coined for people who like movies because they have pretty explosions and will completely turn off their brain and never come to grips with the concept that it didn't make since the female equivalent would be someone who liked the movie "The Lake House"... The smart girl will go, wait a minute that doesn't make a damn bit of since. But the female "Michael" will go oh look! He lived! They got together! Ohhh, it's so perfect! Let's go make babies RIGHT NOW! The male Michael will then finish his Blue Ribbon special beer, that he carries with himself at all times further suppressing the chance that his brain might actually fire a neuron in the right direction and proceeds to have unprotected coatis in the parking lot... Wait... That suggests passion... MMmm... Well I'm not writing a screenplay here so whatever, they deserve each other.

On a side note: I will be seeing the new Star Trek movie... I will be hoping that it won't suck as hard as the new trilogy of Star Wars, or be the abortion that was Clone Wars.

PS - Generally I'm very forgiving with films, but not so much when they had money poured on them and an entire army of people to produce it.
Posted: Wed, 3rd Dec 2008, 8:07am

Post 32 of 42

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Avenger111 wrote:

Actually they were horrible pieces of crap.
(in reference to Speed Racer and Transformers)

Avenger111 wrote:

I did not see Speed Racer
Pretty much spells out your opinion.

from the critics and my friends who did I'm kind of glade I avoided it like the plague it apparently was.
You apparently just completely missed the overwhelming praise it has gotten, at least here on FXHome, from people who gave it a chance. If you have no interest in it at least watch the clip I posted a few pages back.

But mind you I can't really say it was bad, because I didn't see it.
You just did. biggrin

It's a term me and my friends coined for people who like movies because they have pretty explosions and will completely turn off their brain and never come to grips with the concept...blahblahblah
You know what's worse than a mindless audience? Those people who are so unassumingly condescending and mocking of others who can enjoy things for what they're worth, what their intent is, that they themselves become something far worse-an arrogant, mindlessly ignorant and narrow-viewed audience.

PS - Generally I'm very forgiving with films, but not so much when they had money poured on them and an entire army of people to produce it.
Right, because money and people working hard makes terrible movies. Oh wait.....

Here's to a pointless post!
Posted: Wed, 3rd Dec 2008, 8:38am

Post 33 of 42

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

[quote="Atom"]

Avenger111 wrote:

Actually they were horrible pieces of crap.
You apparently just completely missed the overwhelming praise it has gotten, at least here on FXHome, from people who gave it a chance. If you have no interest in it at least watch the clip I posted a few pages back.

Um...Crystal Skull got "overwhelming praise" here as well. NOt a very good track record to stand on. unsure In fact, I was sent notes asking me to cease and desist talking about the flaws, technical or otherwise or the Crystal Skull with a basic "if you can't say something nice..." type of attitude.

I haven't seen speed racer yet because it isn't at my local library where I can pick it up for FREE and watch it. I did watch the clip you posted before and quite honestly it merely re-enforced my negative image of the film. It LOOKS cool, but it appears to have no real substance at all. It was like watching NASCAR on acid. sleep But I will watch Speed Racer because of my curiosity, transformers I never watched either- and might pick up some day at the library as well- I watched part of it in a store one day...and it seemed like a Michael Bay movie...all style and instantly forgettable. You will have to forgive my cynicism, between the last three star wars movies and Crystal Skull, and the goofy as all get-out trailer for the Watchmen, I'm not very optimistic about the state of adapting cartoons, comics, and beloved series for a second go-round. sad
Posted: Wed, 3rd Dec 2008, 1:50pm

Post 34 of 42

Avenger111

Force: 1800 | Joined: 31st Jul 2004 | Posts: 57

VisionLab User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Avenger111 wrote:

I did not see Speed Racer
Started out with a broad generalization then refined it throughout the paragraph. I then made references to why I believe it to be a piece of crap, but admitted in my comment that I was not basing my opinion of Speed Racer on a 1st person experience, but rather those of 20 of my friends (both male and female) and those given by the critics. But Skulls and Transformers did suck and I did see them in the theater. As Mr. Burns once said, "We demanded our nickels back." Or as South Park aptly put it, "They're raping him! Oh my god! It's terrible! Look away! Look away! WHY?! WHY?!" and there you were Butters, "Hey, actually I thought it was kind of good." Seriously though I have a list of issues with Skulls. But don't have time to get into it now.


You apparently just completely missed the overwhelming praise it has gotten, at least here on FXHome, from people who gave it a chance. If you have no interest in it at least watch the clip I posted a few pages back.
I watched the clip... It reminded me of the Mario Bros. movie. Yes, I just said that. But in any case, I'll rent it. Considering I work at home, I have the time.


You know what's worse than a mindless audience? Those people who are so unassumingly condescending and mocking of others who can enjoy things for what they're worth, what their intent is, that they themselves become something far worse-an arrogant, mindlessly ignorant and narrow-viewed audience.
Ignorant and mindless, eh? I'm sorry if we can recognize huge gapping plot holes, bad character logic, identify lifted material (Slither was a copy of Night of the Creeps, which the director denied till it was out of the theatre then claimed it was a homage. But that was in turn a remake of Shivers, one of David Cronenberg's finest works IMO.) Or action/events that violate that world's own laws.

Right, because money and people working hard makes terrible movies. Oh wait.....
My point was that THEY HAVE THE RESOURCES TO MAKE IT GREAT. When they fail and do so "epic-ly" as in Skulls I have nothing to consider. They had opportunity, more than I or any other no budget film maker has had and they still failed in a big way. They do this in a variety of ways, Skulls didn't make since had a lot of stuff happening without purpose, rhyme of reason. Sky Captain started as a indie film, got monies and even the director admitted "It wasn't my film anymore." It was a victim of trying to please everyone and thusly removing itself from its niche market.

Here's to a pointless post![/quote]
Posted: Wed, 3rd Dec 2008, 5:37pm

Post 35 of 42

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

That's so funny that you mention "Sky Captain" because I just got that from the library this weekend! There were some things to like in there, but overall it just falls flat for the same reasons that the other movies discussed here have fallen flat. The film has a great look...most of the time. At it's best it looks like the old Max Fleischer Superman Cartoons- absolutely stunning, and conveys that pulp- sci-fi world of the old "Amazing Tales" magazines and the old 1930's Flash Gordon serials very, very well. At first I was enjoying the film on those merits alone, but then sometimes the overwhelming CGI didn't mesh with the live action very well and it took me out of the film, and the aesthetic shifted to where it appeared that our heroes had somehow wandered into a Hallmark store and got sucked into a Thomas Kincaid painting- Oy Vey! and then, the plot which sets up nicely in the begining is tied up in 10 minutes at the end with unbelievable plot twists and ridiculous situations, recalling every pulp cliche from Star Wars to King Kong. The dialogue in "Sky Captain" is BAD. Really, it does NOTHING, and the characters are really just cardboard cut outs, and that is why overall Sky Captain fails for me- it's flat. There are a couple of things called "The Hero's ghost and the Hero's inner journey" that salvages these types of "wham-bam-look at the CGI and explosions" movies that either screenwriters, producers, or studios just DON'T GET. They think the audience likes the movies because of the special effects, and well, a bunch of 12 year olds might agree with them, but the reason the original Raiders, the original Star Wars, and the higher quality fantasy/hero films like the new Batman movies and Iron Man work is because you CARE about the hero! Why? They have an internal need, an internal journey to go on, and some kind of ghost that burdens them. And unfortunately,someone out there is missing that point and we will continue to get pretty pictures that have no substance.

frown
Posted: Wed, 3rd Dec 2008, 6:02pm

Post 36 of 42

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Brian wrote:

(Tim Burton is one of the WORST filmmakers to bore us in the past 20 years when he is left on his own..(His Ed Wood and Big Fish, as well as Pee Wee's big Adventure being the only decent films he has ever made)
Considering Tim Burton my favorite filmmaker and best director, I obviously had to laugh about that statement. For once, it shows a lack of knowledge:
Planet of the Apes was a studio film where Burton was just hired to provide his name. He had a terrible time and has, even before the premiere, openly said that this is the studios film and not his, he didn't like it at all, but had no say. Welcome to Hollywood.

Oh, and his Sleepy Hollow is the best film ever made to me. So obviously, I'd add that to the list. Didn't care much for Pee Wee myself. wink

Anyways, since you're so into rambling on points you've said a dozen times before, I'll leave you to it. Just felt like adding that.
Posted: Wed, 3rd Dec 2008, 6:40pm

Post 37 of 42

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Pee Wee was also his first studio foray into his actual style, so he can't be blamed for any misconceptions there. I'd say Burton's best films are by far Big Fish and Sleepy Hollow, with the former only slightly outclassing the latter.

His work as-of-late is more commercial and, as antithetical as this sounds, even more niche (Sweeney Todd a prime example) and I just haven't found it that great on-the-whole. That being said, when he steps away from the chiascuro lighting setups and the whole mimicry of German expressionism, as he did in Big Fish, Burton excels.
Posted: Wed, 3rd Dec 2008, 8:12pm

Post 38 of 42

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

Brian wrote:

(Tim Burton is one of the WORST filmmakers to bore us in the past 20 years when he is left on his own..(His Ed Wood and Big Fish, as well as Pee Wee's big Adventure being the only decent films he has ever made)
Considering Tim Burton my favorite filmmaker and best director, I obviously had to laugh about that statement. For once, it shows a lack of knowledge:
Planet of the Apes was a studio film where Burton was just hired to provide his name. He had a terrible time and has, even before the premiere, openly said that this is the studios film and not his, he didn't like it at all, but had no say. Welcome to Hollywood.

Oh, and his Sleepy Hollow is the best film ever made to me. So obviously, I'd add that to the list. Didn't care much for Pee Wee myself. wink

Anyways, since you're so into rambling on points you've said a dozen times before, I'll leave you to it. Just felt like adding that.
I hate Sleepy Hollow:

1. Casper Van Dein
2. The big villian monologue at the end to explain everything (dear GOD)
3. Bad pacing
4. "The Hessian" is stylized more as a medieval warlord than a hired German soldier from the American Revolution, which tends to undermine the "American Fairy Tale" aspect the Washington Irving was originally going for.
5. Tim Burton's obsessive need to demonstrate everybody's childhood as having a trauma that informs EVERYTHING...(Batman 2, Willy Wonka, ETC... ad nauseum)

It looked cool though!

I still stand by Ed Wood and Big Fish. The rest is trash, ESPECIALLY the Batman films and Planet of the Apes- regardless of who did what, it's his name on the piece. sleep
Posted: Wed, 3rd Dec 2008, 9:14pm

Post 39 of 42

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Bryan M Block wrote:

Um...Crystal Skull got "overwhelming praise" here as well. NOt a very good track record to stand on. unsure
I don't think we read the same thread, then. unsure
Posted: Wed, 3rd Dec 2008, 9:23pm

Post 40 of 42

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Crystal Skull definitely didn't get "overwhelming praise" here. There was a pretty broad range of opinions, if I remember, both positive and negative. And in general, it was fairly well received by both critics and fans.
Posted: Wed, 3rd Dec 2008, 10:20pm

Post 41 of 42

Garrison

Force: 5404 | Joined: 9th Mar 2006 | Posts: 1530

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I remember (from my childhood) there were these things called paragraphs... razz
Posted: Wed, 3rd Dec 2008, 10:35pm

Post 42 of 42

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Bryan M Block wrote:

Um...Crystal Skull got "overwhelming praise" here as well. NOt a very good track record to stand on. unsure
I don't think we read the same thread, then. unsure
Well jawa johnny seemed to think it was "well received by critics and fans" but I don't know one person that actually liked it beyond "It was fun to see Harrison Ford in the costume again" - It's kind of a joke IMO.