doctorow at September 12th, 2013 19:01 — #1
mattmanning at September 12th, 2013 19:08 — #2
edgore at September 12th, 2013 19:13 — #3
+8 internets for "Local Hero" mention.
johnnywhiplash at September 12th, 2013 19:15 — #4
gtmac at September 12th, 2013 19:27 — #5
An under-appreciated film to be sure.
bcsizemo at September 12th, 2013 19:28 — #6
Whenever someone mentions JJ Abrams now the first words that come to mind:
MOAR LENS FLARE.
hughstimson at September 12th, 2013 20:22 — #7
Didja see the new Star Trek? I swear to god in certain scenes the lens flare had lens flare.
professor59 at September 12th, 2013 20:59 — #8
Galaxy Quest can be made to appear different, but it cannot be improved.
ratel at September 12th, 2013 21:08 — #9
It's an interesting and entertaining exercise in form, and makes me
wonder if you couldn't apply the treatment to practically any footage
-- Local Hero? The Outsiders? A Day at the Races?
bcsizemo at September 12th, 2013 21:13 — #10
Oh I think these are very apt.
donald_petersen at September 12th, 2013 22:25 — #11
You are absolutely correct. I'd totally go see the movie in this trailer, and I'd even expect to enjoy it, but I'd never expect it to be as good as Galaxy Quest.
petervonnacken at September 13th, 2013 00:09 — #12
Yep, I was looking forward to superimposed lens flares!
And Star Wars like this would be cool!
(and yes, Honest Trailers are pretty dead on! )
Galaxy Quest was for a long time the best new Star Trek movie out there
shane_simmons at September 13th, 2013 00:21 — #13
This wouldn't earn me any friends among Trekkies or fans of Galaxy Quest (I'm one) but I at least partially blame Galaxy Quest for the look of these new movies. Galaxy Quest and First Contact had roughly the same budget, but I swear Quest looks, I don't know, slicker in a way.
Oh, and apparently Star Trek Online has an Omega 13.
kazaroth at September 13th, 2013 05:00 — #14
This Monty Python trailer has the same idea but pulls it off with considerably more aplomb:
fantasygoat at September 13th, 2013 08:24 — #15
If you're going to do JJ, you need to do his fancy titles as well.
That means 3D, incorporated into the scene and reflecting off stuff.
wearysky at September 13th, 2013 09:08 — #16
shane_simmons at September 13th, 2013 12:20 — #17
If it's an Abrams trailer, it also needs some Two Steps From Hell
halloween_jack_ at September 13th, 2013 15:33 — #18
The whole "lens flare" meme is shorthand for the unfortunate tendency of many Trekkies to hate Abrams simply for doing things differently, visually or otherwise, than it was done in a TV show with a relatively modest special effects budget in 1967, or 1987 for that matter. All of a sudden, everyone's Enterprise blueprints and technical manuals and compendiums and concordia belong to the old continuity, and they have to come to grips with the reality that Shatner and Stewart really aren't going to come back to the franchise, and how dare JJ tamper with The Way Things Ought To Be, skree skree skreeeeeeeeeeeee. Nobody wants to remember how bad any incarnation of Trek could be when it was off its game, even DS9.
So, we get people who think that, since Abrams won't be directing the third reboot-Trek movie, that it's high time to return to the old continuity, neatly ignoring the fact that the highest grossing films of the franchise, by a long shot, are Star Trek (#2) and Star Trek Into Darkness (#1). As someone who is old enough to remember watching TOS when it was originally broadcast, I'll ask nicely that y'all just, you know, deal with it. Don't make me link to a certain SNL sketch starring William Shatner, you know the one, I'm sure.
ghostly1 at September 13th, 2013 16:14 — #19
Some of us just hate it because it's crap, though. From a writing perspective, I mean. Utter crap.
I like the look, generally (don't care about lens flairs, frankly... it's fun to poke fun at, but I barely notice it when I'm watching). I like the actors, generally (Chris Pine does nothing for me, but everybody else is actually pretty damn good). I even like the alternate timeline idea (and would have been happy if they'd gone even further if they just straight up rebooted it, ala BSG).
But the writing is just so terrible. The science is terrible even by the standards of the worst of Star Trek, and the plotting is OMG-stupid, with plot holes you can drive a truck through.
And TV Star Trek? They had an excuse that they were putting out 20ish hours of TV a year. They can be forgiven the occasional stinker or ill-thought-out plotline. Abrams and crew take several years to produce two hours worth of crap (Abrams might actually be a good director aside from his reliance on and employment of crap writers, it's too hard to judge that sort of thing and how much direct input he had on the horrible writing). I don't care if they restore the original universe, just get these hacks off the franchise.
BTW, adjust for inflation and the new reboot's numbers aren't quite so impressive. Sure, the first of the new ones is ahead of all the Trek movies, but ST: TMP is second (First in some accountings), and when you take into account the adjusted production budget, several of the other movies actually look more profitable.
halloween_jack_ at September 14th, 2013 11:21 — #20
I wasn't really defending the quality of the Abrams movies, particularly with regard to the writing; basically, nobody has written a better Star Trek movie (or had a hand in the writing) than Nicholas Meyer. I was addressing the people who do want the original continuity restored. FFS, someone from Rolling Stone wants to revive TNG.
next page →