Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Jun 3, 2013 - 3:40 PM   
 By:   Warunsun   (Member)

I wish I got money every time I heard the "engineering looked like a brewery"...

LOL. My father said it looked like a sewage treatment plant. He may have been referring also to all those water pipes prominently shown in the 2009 film. I have to admit I didn't care for the look of the Enterprise internally. I am still not a big fan of it. The other thing that bothered me was the tremendous "Star Wars" size. The Enterprise is absolutely gigundous. Having the Enterprise being so huge inside and out just bothered me. I am not sure why. Maybe it feels counter to the "submarine" feel of the original show. Updating the bridge was an absolute must however. It had to look more modern. I am fine with the way they chose to do it. And the exterior is fine and grows on me every movie.

Sub Prime Directive is probably my favorite track and really I do like the 45 minute album presentation he gave us.

 
 Posted:   Jun 3, 2013 - 4:00 PM   
 By:   SchiffyM   (Member)

I think you are clinging to the idea that the previous Trek films are a sacred text which must not be alluded to by the new films.

Not at all. I was disappointed to learn that Harrison was, in fact, Khan, because I'd thought the point of this reboot in the first place was to start fresh, without all the baggage of the seven hundred or so entries that came before it weighing them down. I thought this was a smart approach, even though my feelings about the 2009 film were basically a shrug. So when the villain announces he's Khan, my thought was "How is it possible they've rebooted this whole franchise only to produce a retread their second go-round?" I found that dispiriting.

Of course, they haven't ruined anything that exists. "Star Trek II" is readily available, and there for me to enjoy. But I found the strange mirror of events from "II" peculiar -- it didn't work for me -- because the context that made the original so great was completely absent. The 1982 version resonates because it's about Kirk realizing he's not invincible. His past has come back to haunt him -- in the form of a nemesis he's somewhat responsible for creating and a son he never knew he had -- and he finally has to reckon with his age. (He needs reading glasses!) He's always been able to cheat death, but this time, he can't, and it comes at a terrible price. This is why that film revitalized the franchise. It's about who these characters are, and how they face an adversary not imagined but real: mortality.

None of this figures into "Darkness." They go through the same motions, but they're just motions. The screenwriters try to inject some meaning with talk of friendship, but for me, it's not felt. This is a bit of an unfair comparison; in 1982, Meyer could exploit the audience's real-life history with these characters, who had aged into the roles over a decade and a half. That camaraderie was already there for him. Still, if the makers of the new film don't have that opportunity, why try?

I don't believe that the original should be a sacred text. (I'm not a huge Trek fan, actually.) But I feel about this the same way I feel any time I see a film derived from material I like: the new one should be as good or better, or else it's a disappointment. It's really that simple.

The Freudian trio of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy no longer seems to represent id, ego, and superego; rather, they seem like three hotheads. And this being an action film in 2013, all the characters seem to be impervious to death. So Kirk can hang above a chasm holding on with just four fingers, and catch a falling man with the other hand while never losing his grip. To me, this just isn't exciting. (This is hardly a problem unique to this movie, mind you.) In the final action sequence, Spock and Khan fight high above the city, and yet they never for a moment play the danger of heights. Action sequences today are all about adrenaline, and seem to ignore the idea of danger. Again, this is a general complaint (I saw the trailer for the new "Fast and Furious" movie, where a car tugs a cargo plane to the ground!), and maybe I'm just a cranky old man. But if we never believe there's real jeopardy, where's the excitement?

Important:
In case it's not obvious, let me point out that my opinion is mine and mine alone. It comes from my reaction from seeing the film. I'm not telling anybody else they should agree with me (though naturally, I think the world would be a better place if everybody saw the wisdom of my every thought), just offering my own take, which anybody may take or leave.

And Jeff Bond, if you ever figure out a way to monetize the repetitive complaints about the sets, I'd like a cut, please.

 
 Posted:   Jun 3, 2013 - 5:48 PM   
 By:   Shaun Rutherford   (Member)

And this being an action film in 2013, all the characters seem to be impervious to death. So Kirk can hang above a chasm holding on with just four fingers, and catch a falling man with the other hand while never losing his grip. To me, this just isn't exciting. (This is hardly a problem unique to this movie, mind you.) In the final action sequence, Spock and Khan fight high above the city, and yet they never for a moment play the danger of heights. Action sequences today are all about adrenaline, and seem to ignore the idea of danger. Again, this is a general complaint (I saw the trailer for the new "Fast and Furious" movie, where a car tugs a cargo plane to the ground!), and maybe I'm just a cranky old man. But if we never believe there's real jeopardy, where's the excitement?


As usual, you knock it out of the park with this one. I guess I'm just getting too old for this kind of movie, as I had the exact same problem with Iron Man 3. There's no believable danger in action films these days (I keep going back to Mission: Impossible: Ghost: Protocol: where we know Tom Cruise will not die, but he is REALLY on that building and leads to actual suspense).

 
 Posted:   Jun 3, 2013 - 6:51 PM   
 By:   Sigerson Holmes   (Member)

. . . as did David Gerrold, who was very critical of the first film.


Were there any tribbles in the first film?

 
 Posted:   Jun 3, 2013 - 10:20 PM   
 By:   WillGoldNewtonBarryGrusin   (Member)


The Freudian trio of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy no longer seems to represent id, ego, and superego; rather, they seem like three hotheads. And this being an action film in 2013, all the characters seem to be impervious to death. So Kirk can hang above a chasm holding on with just four fingers, and catch a falling man with the other hand while never losing his grip. To me, this just isn't exciting. (This is hardly a problem unique to this movie, mind you.) In the final action sequence, Spock and Khan fight high above the city, and yet they never for a moment play the danger of heights. Action sequences today are all about adrenaline, and seem to ignore the idea of danger. Again, this is a general complaint (I saw the trailer for the new "Fast and Furious" movie, where a car tugs a cargo plane to the ground!), and maybe I'm just a cranky old man. But if we never believe there's real jeopardy, where's the excitement?


First of all: I enjoy arguing with you very much because you do it in a calm, reasonable and intelligent way. That´s what a message board should offer, IMO.

I also understand and respect your position.

I just disagree about this point: the "Freudian trio" is still there, with "gut feeling"-Kirk, "logical" Spock and "constant worrier" McCoy. And I suspect that if there is a third film they will be even closer to the characters of TOS because that phase is beginning after the second film ends - the five-year voyage of exploration is about to start right now.

I also agree with you on the strange, video game-y attitude of contemporary action cinema. People keep hitting each other for ages, jump from extreme heights and never really get hurt. That is cheapening the impact of those scenes, IMO. And STID also falls victim to that. (But not in every scene. I love how Kirk tries to hit Khan into submission on their first encounter and really gets exhausted while Khan endures that with patient amusement.)

However, I think that the characters (and the whole film itself) is very concious of death. Especially Kirk who is saving Spock at the beginning, losing his substitute father, still going forward only by his gut feeling, risking extreme danger for everyone. When he clings to the railing and decides to hold on to Scotty, it is a characterization of his need for protecting his family. Yet, he cannot do it all alone. His hand indeed LOSES the grip - and it´s only when another part of his family catches him (and thereby Scotty, too) that the rescue is possible.

In the "Spock chases Khan"-sequence I also think that the danger of heights is played out very openly. Khan, however, is fearless because he is rather invincible. And Spock risks his own life because he is full of hatred and in "revenge"-mode. However, the beating goes on much to long for my taste - although I like the fact that Spock actually shows green blood here.

 
 Posted:   Jun 4, 2013 - 5:43 AM   
 By:   Other Tallguy   (Member)

. . . as did David Gerrold, who was very critical of the first film.


Were there any tribbles in the first film?


Actually, yes. There was a tribble.

Interestingly a LOT of people who detested the first film are at least ambivalent about this one. Some are even won over. And a lot of people like me who really enjoyed the first one are somewhat cooler on the second.

 
 
 Posted:   Jun 4, 2013 - 5:58 AM   
 By:   Adam S   (Member)

I think the very self-referential approach of touching on characters and ideas from previous films, which means nothing to me as a non-Trek fan, could partly be a way, at the risk of sounding overly cynical, to keep selling the entire franchise. You get new people hooked and they start delving into the older Trek and so forth. Even I was thinking maybe I should actually watch the second Star Trek which I've never had any desire to do. And I didn't even really like Into Darkness that much. Just the sense that you missed out on what the big deal was.

I can also relate to the comments about being bored by action. I also had the same reaction with something hugely successful like The Avengers. This suggests I've probably just passed by that stage and the action needs to be particularly thoughtful and compelling or I'm just not interested.

- Adam


 
 Posted:   Jun 4, 2013 - 6:06 AM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

I think the very self-referential approach of touching on characters and ideas from previous films, which means nothing to me as a non-Trek fan, could partly be a way, at the risk of sounding overly cynical, to keep selling the entire franchise.

I wouldn't call it cynicism per se (this coming from an active cynic) but given that Abrams has basically left Trek because he couldn't control the tie-ins and put the income to his own pocket says everything you need to know about the guy.

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/how-web-star-trek-rights-killed-jj-abrams-grand-ambitions-91766

 
 Posted:   Jun 4, 2013 - 6:11 AM   
 By:   WillGoldNewtonBarryGrusin   (Member)

I think the very self-referential approach of touching on characters and ideas from previous films, which means nothing to me as a non-Trek fan, could partly be a way, at the risk of sounding overly cynical, to keep selling the entire franchise.

I wouldn't call it cynicism per se (this coming from an active cynic) but given that Abrams has basically left Trek because he couldn't control the tie-ins and put the income to his own pocket says everything you need to know about the guy.

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/how-web-star-trek-rights-killed-jj-abrams-grand-ambitions-91766


Did he leave STAR TREK? And does not every producer wants to control the tie-ins?

 
 Posted:   Jun 4, 2013 - 6:18 AM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

Did he leave STAR TREK? And does not every producer wants to control the tie-ins?

Is it official? No. But given the pre and post production on a Star Wars, chances are high he'll fall back into a producing role and leave the chair to someone else ala Mission Impossible - though given his pretty adamant dislike for Trek and his inability to quash its previous incarnations to justify his own (and thus funnel all Trek money into his hands alone), I wouldn't be surprised if he pulled a Michael Moriarty and just ups-and-leaves either. (But not the part where he gets the crap kicked out of him outside a Comfort Inn in Canada.)

 
 Posted:   Jun 4, 2013 - 6:33 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)


http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/how-web-star-trek-rights-killed-jj-abrams-grand-ambitions-91766


This explains why the TOS moratorium didn't take place after November of last year.

 
 Posted:   Jun 4, 2013 - 6:57 AM   
 By:   Shaun Rutherford   (Member)

Did he leave STAR TREK? And does not every producer wants to control the tie-ins?

Is it official? No. But given the pre and post production on a Star Wars, chances are high he'll fall back into a producing role and leave the chair to someone else ala Mission Impossible - though given his pretty adamant dislike for Trek and his inability to quash its previous incarnations to justify his own (and thus funnel all Trek money into his hands alone), I wouldn't be surprised if he pulled a Michael Moriarty and just ups-and-leaves either. (But not the part where he gets the crap kicked out of him outside a Comfort Inn in Canada.)


Well, we both know a guy in Canada...

 
 Posted:   Jun 4, 2013 - 7:11 AM   
 By:   Other Tallguy   (Member)

I wonder what this meant musically. Last film we heard over and over about how the movie had to "earn" the old music. And of course the whole thing end with the big grand Courage theme. You kind of expected that next go round there might be more musical nods to classic Trek.

Except this time out I think he used the TOS music even less. Last time out the Courage theme felt like "at last!" This time it felt like "OK dammit, here's your old clunky thing."

I've rarely gotten the impression from composers that they really LIKE to use existing themes. (David Arnold was a notable exception for Tomorrow Never Dies, but he got over it.) I haven't seen any Giacchino interviews since the film came out, where he didn't have to dance around spoilers. I'm curious if he would have used more classic themes but Abrams didn't want to? Or was it pretty much both of them? (I'm mostly guessing Giacchino did exactly what he wanted to, but you never know.)

I am nervous now what Abrams will do with existing Star Wars in the name of "avoiding brand confusion". "Han shot WHEN? I'm not letting you see those old things AT ALL anymore!!!"

 
 Posted:   Jun 4, 2013 - 7:17 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)


I am nervous now what Abrams will do with existing Star Wars in the name of "avoiding brand confusion". "Han shot WHEN? I'm not letting you see those old things AT ALL anymore!!!"


As much as I dislike Abram's work, he can't make Star Wars any worse than what Lucas did himself.

Regarding the TOS theme, I think both Jerry and James were not in favor of a musical cross-over and did so only reluctantly.

 
 Posted:   Jun 4, 2013 - 7:17 AM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

I am nervous now what Abrams will do with existing Star Wars in the name of "avoiding brand confusion".

You don't have to worry about that. Disney owns Star Wars. Abrams is a director for hire. They dictate to him, not the other way around.

 
 Posted:   Jun 4, 2013 - 7:48 AM   
 By:   SchiffyM   (Member)

Other Tallguy, I think you're overanalyzing here. I honestly don't see where the old "Trek" theme could really have fit in the new movie. As far as "Star Wars" goes, that's a whole different creative beast; the new movies will be part of the ongoing saga, not an alternate version of the existing one.

 
 Posted:   Jun 4, 2013 - 7:48 AM   
 By:   Other Tallguy   (Member)

Star Wars: I'm not worried about what he does to his own films, I'm worried about what he does to his own movies, but what he does to the availability of the old stuff.

We'll see if Disney would play ball. LeHah is probably right.

Ironically Paramount had pretty much the same attitude marketing TMP. Several products were halted and altered because they had TOS photos in them. Wild, huh?

Regarding the TOS theme, I think both Jerry and James were not in favor of a musical cross-over and did so only reluctantly.

I know that's true of Goldsmith, but I think that speaks against the evidence in the case of Horner. Not only did he use the Courage theme pretty liberally (more than anyone else so far, I think, yes?) and effectively but there is a middle section of Khan that borrows pretty heavily from Charlie X. By III he pretty much used Courage as one of his own themes.

How much does money come into this? Does it cut into a composer's take if he plays the Star Trek theme 6 times instead of 3?

 
 Posted:   Jun 4, 2013 - 8:32 AM   
 By:   SchiffyM   (Member)

How much does money come into this? Does it cut into a composer's take if he plays the Star Trek theme 6 times instead of 3?

It would not affect his upfront fee, but royalties are indeed broken down by authorship. Therefore, the greater percentage of music that comes from other composers, the smaller the part of the royalty pie goes to the main composer. Even so, in this case certainly, it would be a rather small percentage that would be going to the Courage estate. I doubt that was a motivator.

 
 Posted:   Jun 4, 2013 - 9:03 AM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

Even so, in this case certainly, it would be a rather small percentage that would be going to the Courage estate.

And part of that percentage goes to Roddenberry's as well.

 
 Posted:   Jun 4, 2013 - 9:18 AM   
 By:   SchiffyM   (Member)

Even so, in this case certainly, it would be a rather small percentage that would be going to the Courage estate.

And part of that percentage goes to Roddenberry's as well.


Quite right!

(Does Roddenberry get half of the fanfare? Or only the long line main title melody?)

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.