Sign In

Gregatron

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
27-May-2004
Last activity
16-Dec-2018
Posts
72

Post History

Post
#1244800
Topic
SW Archive Homebrew ISO audio
Time

Still working on this. Burned another disc at a slower write speed, so as to minimize the possibility of a burn error. Played the finished disc on my computer via my BD burner. Worked fine.

Popped it into the BD player connected to my TV…and no audio. My player’s pretty old. Could that be a factor? Why will this disc play fine in the computer, but not in a Blu-Ray player? Makes no sense.

Help!

Post
#1243291
Topic
SW Archive Homebrew ISO audio
Time

So, I recently downloaded user cldavi’s “STAR WARS Archive 3-disc Homebrew” set from the ‘spleen. But, burning the ISO files to BD-R with ImgBurn results in functional discs with picture but no audio. The videos play fine on my computer, but not when burned to disc. Looking at the comments regarding this torrent on the ‘spleen, it seems this is not an isolated incident.

Any suggestions from the more tech-savvy members? Thanks!

Post
#1241342
Topic
4K77 MKV to ISO conversion problem
Time

Greetings! I’m most definitely a novice when it comes to this sort of thing, so please treat me gently. I’ve previously downloaded and successfully burned the AVCHD versions of Harmy’s DeEds to dual-layer DVD-R, but now I’m looking to step things up. To that end, I purchased a Pioneer BDR-XD05S Blu-Ray burner and a pack of Verbatim 50 GB BD-R DL discs.

I downloaded the 1080p DNR version of 4K77, and am working on converting it to ISO so as to burn onto the BD-R DL. I also downloaded both tsMuxeR and MultiAVCHD to attempt to convert the files.

The first attempt (with tsMuxeR) was successful, but the burned disc (using imgBurn) did not play in my good ‘ol Sony BDP-S550. It read as “unknown disc”. I’d previously mounted the ISO file in a virtual drive on my PC, and it played (…but not in English, oddly enough).

The second attempt (with MultiAVCHD) never even finished. Some sort of error in transcoding popped up in the log. I did note that the “fit all” option for transcoding only has a BD-25 option, not BD-50, although I don’t know if that’s a factor.

Troubleshooting assistance would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Post
#625241
Topic
Star Wars: Episode VII to be directed by J.J. Abrams **NON SPOILER THREAD**
Time

Bingowings said:

Gregatron said:

Yep. Aside from the fact that it was, well, a campy parody, the show very much reflected the comics of the time.

Parody...?

I don't think so and camp as it is it's pretty sober compared to some of the strips back then.

It was a straight adaptation of the books of the day.

None of the other adaptations have been.

 

Producer (and narrator!) William Dozier was openly dismissive of the character.

So, the show was a campy parody, yes. From the sight gags to the double-entendres, it was deliberately over-the-top and tongue-in-cheek. So much so that it did incalculable damage to the public perception of Batman and comics in general.

The show captured the details of the comics perfectly, but it was still a mocking, campy parody, and its ability to work on two levels is what made it popular with kids AND adults.

 

Compare that to THE GREEN HORNET, a show which was played straight (because Dozier actually liked and respected the character), but bombed after only one season.

 

When has a comic-themed article not began with "BIFF! BAM! POW!"since that series?

 

The comics of the era may have been outlandish, yes, but they were played straight for their intended audience, despite the presence of those outlandish elements. The creative teams of the era were doing their jobs like professionals, and were adhering to the conceits of the genre.

Unlike many of today's comic "professionals".

 

Nolan's Batman--sorry--"Dark Knight"-- is a swing in the opposite direction when compared to the TV series. It's uber-serious, but gets many of the core ideas wrong, mostly in the latter two films. As with Abrams and TREK, it feels very much like the cult of personality surrounding the director, and the fans' eagerness to embrace a version that distances itself from previous, campy (allegedly campy, in TREK's case) iterations, are large factors in the films' success.

 

BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM is still the best Batman movie ever made, for me.

Post
#625209
Topic
Star Wars: Episode VII to be directed by J.J. Abrams **NON SPOILER THREAD**
Time

Bingowings said:

The 60's show captured the spirit of the comic at the time like no other adaptation.

Pick up a book of around the same time and you will see the telly show looking right back at you.

 

Yep. Aside from the fact that it was, well, a campy parody, the show very much reflected the comics of the time.

 

Now, if only Hollywood would be brave enough to do something like that without the campy, mocking tone, or making "realistic" changes (like Movie Captain America's straps, pouches, and guns, or TV's "Arrow" instead of, y'know, "GREEN Arrow"...

 

Post
#625204
Topic
Star Wars: Episode VII to be directed by J.J. Abrams **NON SPOILER THREAD**
Time

SilverWook said:

Batman has been at both ends of the spectrum in his long history. There were doubts in some corners the public would even accept a dark and gritty version in 1989, because most people thought of the 60's tv show more than the comic at the time. (Non comic fans were mostly oblivious to then recent gritty Miller version.) There's room for a "serious" dark knight and a lighthearted one.

Old school Mission Impossible fans were dismayed by the Tom Cruise film, but were not as visible to the media as Trek fans. There was a clueless MTV reporter at the premiere who incurred the wrath of Martin Landau.

If you're unhappy with the current iteration of a old tv show or character, the old versions are still around to be enjoyed.

Exactly. For me, the single best balance of the extremes is BATMAN: THE ANIMATED series, which kept the tone just right, and, more importantly, got the character himself right--world's greatest detective, not crazy, mysterious, grim-but-not-brooding, a sense of humor, etc.

The 60s TV show got the details right, but the tone wrong.

For me, just about every incarnation from 1939 up through the late 80s-early 90s or so kept the basic core of Batman intact, despite wild variations in tone. Ever since the 90s, however, it seems like we've been force-fed a "psycho-ninja" Batman.

BATMAN BEGINS got a lot right, but it's been retroactively ruined for me by the sequels and their excesses. All of the little things I didn't like about BB made up the entirety of the sequels.

 

I'm content with what I have, though. The thing that hurts is that my beloved properties are being misrepresented to the public, and that future generations may not know any better.

After all, people I know have told me that the Fantastic Four are "stupid", solely on the basis of those lousy film adaptations. These people will never know how awesome and important the first 100 issues of that series was. Because of the movies.

 

Now, a generation will grow up thinking that Batman is a violent maniac who has throat cancer, and couldn't solve a mystery to save his life, and James Kirk is an arrogant fratboy with numbtongue. 

 

The prequels have already detracted from the uniqueness of the OT, for many people, by showing us Vader as a child, and Yoda with a lightsaber. An entire generation only knows STAR WARS from THE CLONE WARS. 

I've read of one fan whose children loved Anakin in the first two films and TCW, and refuse to even try to watch the original films at all, since they know that their hero is now the evil Vader.

 

So, now, it's possible to be a STAR WARS fan without ever having seen STAR WARS! And a STAR TREK fan without ever having seen STAR TREK!

Post
#625109
Topic
Star Wars: Episode VII to be directed by J.J. Abrams **NON SPOILER THREAD**
Time

Tyrphanax said:

Gregatron said:

I think a big reason that the Nolan Batman films (which, in my opinion, are largely terrible BATMAN films--pretentious, dark, violent, and embarrassed by the source material) have been so successful is because of the public's name-brand recognition of Batman, and because self-loathing fans were all too eager to forget the campy Schumacher films, and wanted to see Batman be "dark" and "cool" so that they would look "cool" for liking it. "See? See? We're cool! We don't like those stupid, campy comics! We like this dark and violent Batman! See how cool we are?"

Same with TREK. "See? See how cool we are? We don't like that goofy, cheesy old TV show! TREK is finally cool now, because it's dark and fast and sexy and funny and big-budget!"

I genuinely hate this argument whenever anyone uses it. I can never roll my eyes hard enough.

Roll your eyes until the blood comes, but that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

 

I'm convinced that Nu-TREK wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful if it was released as Generic Summer Sci-Fi Film X. Same with Batman. And maybe even the same with the SW prequels.

 

I've grown very weary of Hollywood hotshots coming along and twisting intellectual properties that I love into brainless action-fests that could not be more different than the source material.

 

But self-loathing fans--and general audiences who don't care--keep voting with their wallets. I guess fans are willing to accept even the most ridiculous perversions of various IP, because they're just happy to be getting it on the big screen to begin with.

 

As bashed as it was by fans and critics, STAR TREK- THE MOTION PICTURE was an honest attempt to make a TREK film. And I think it's a much better TREK film than Abrams' ode to STAR WARS.

 

And, God help me, I think that freaking BATMAN AND ROBIN is a better Batman film than THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. 

Batman is not a quitter!

Post
#620784
Topic
Star Wars: Episode VII to be directed by J.J. Abrams **NON SPOILER THREAD**
Time

With a character like Superman, I can see the need to do the origin, since you kind of need to explain how such a fantastic person with superpowers would end up on our world.

...at least for his first major motion picture. From then on, future films really should just get down to business, rather than telling the origin again and again ( a la THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN).

 

With STAR TREK, the series began in media res. The premise is simple enough that an origin story wasn't needed--the Enterprise is on a mission of exploration. It's a ship with a long history, and multiple Captains/crews. We never saw the ship being launched, or the crew coming together. Every episode was complete and accessible to a first-time viewer.

 And yet, each one of the spin-off shows began with an "origin"--showing the launch of a ship and/or the assembling of the cast. And it all became part of an interwoven, complex continuty.

I think part of the reason that the general public knows TOS the best is because it was the least "hardcore fans only" series, with self-contained episodes, and no real "continuity" to speak of that people needed to keep track of.

 

With STAR WARS, part of the charm was the fact that the audience was thrown into the deep end of a totally new Galaxy, with all sorts of alien cultures and technologies that would take multiple viewings to soak in. The story was structured so that the backstory was there to flesh the story out, but wasn't essential, and wasn't the focus. It was just backstory. And, again, I don't think anyone walked out of the theater confused by the backstory. The film was complete and accessible to a first-time viewer.

All of the key pieces are there--the Empire came to power, Vader killed Father Skywalker, and, as the film starts, Leia is trying to recruit the retired Kenobi into the Rebellion, while also bringing the stolen plans to the Rebels. Pretty simple.

Of course, now that things are so convoluted, SW has lost a good chunk of its universality--general audiences would need a scorecard to comprehend the dynamics of all six films, of which the original is now only a small part.

After seeing PHANTOM MENACE, my own mother (who serves me well as an excellent barometer of the general public's perception of this stuff) was confused by the whole "prequel" structure. When I asked her if she knew who Anakin would eventually become, she said, "Luke?".

 

This all also raises the question--will the new films continue in the vein of the originals (by tying into the already-complex continuty), or will they be more stand-alone, general-audience-friendly films?

Worst-case scenario (for me): they'll play like fanfic-wankery retreads in the style of PROMETHEUS and NuTREK.

Post
#620749
Topic
Star Wars: Episode VII to be directed by J.J. Abrams **NON SPOILER THREAD**
Time

SilverWook said:

I thought it was a missed opportunity not to do a movie or series about the Enterprise under Captain Pike. There was a short lived comic (thanks to fickle Paramount licensing) that was pretty darn good.

 

Star Wars was locked into having "origin" stories the minute "Episode IV" was added to the crawl.

 

When ENTERPRISE (the prequel TV series, that is) was announced, that's what I was hoping it would be!

The "In a Mirror, Darkly" episodes of that afformentioned series proved that the original Matt Jefferies designs from TOS could be done with modern production techniques. Those designs are still brilliant and elegantly simple--the 60s show was just limited by materials (plywood sets, etc.).

 

On the flipside, STAR WARS worked brilliantly as a self-contained movie. It told us everything we needed to know. I don't think anyone walked out of the theater with a burning desire to see the backstory fleshed out.

 

And, not to start any arguments, but, speaking as objectively as possible (in spite of my deep love for both franchises) I think that STAR TREK is fundamentally better that STAR WARS, structurally-speaking.

With TREK, you can go anywhere and do anything. Alien planets, time-travel, morality plays, etc.

STAR WARS was and is much more about a very specific set of circumstances and characters. The original film was about Luke's journey, and the Galactic Civil War. The two sequels continued in that vein.

The prequels then showed us the beginning of the war, while shifting the focus of the series to the whole (absurd!) TRAGEDY OF DARTH VADER thing.

 

In its single-film, three-film, and six-film flavors, the STAR WARS story has provided a beginning, middle, and end.

 

Where can you go from there?

THE CLONE WARS is set in-between AOTC and ROTS. The aborted (?) TV series was to be set between ROTS and ANH. The appeal of STAR WARS largely comes down to specific characters and specific events set during a specific time. Would audiences go for a "Tales of the Jedi" series set centuries before the six films we know? Or a series where none of the familiar characters appear (except maybe in cameos)?

Most of the post-JEDI EU stuff has featured the New Republic battling either remnants of the Empire, or all-new invaders. If these new films go down one or both of those routes, it might feel tired to hardcore fans.

 

Abrams may be excited to play in the SW universe, but which toys will he get to play with?

Post
#620665
Topic
Star Wars: Episode VII to be directed by J.J. Abrams **NON SPOILER THREAD**
Time

Darth Hade said:


What Star Trek fans wanted was a real series of prequel fims showing us how the original crew met and came together since this was never done with the original series.

 

Hollywood is obsessed with "origin" stories and prequels, it seems.

 

Let's be honest, here--as compelling as the notion of the SW prequels may have been, a good chunk of the drama and suspense was sucked out of them because we already knew a whole of what had to happen, and what was going to happen.

Prequels and origin stories invite all sorts of distracting winks, nods, and references to future events.

It's "Superboy Syndrome"--we know that in any given Superboy story, he'll never die or have some major life change occur, because he has to grow up to become Superman.

 

And, STAR TREK certainly didn't need an "origin". The Enterprise was built. Various Captains and officers simply came and went--by way of promotions, transfers, and deaths--until the cast we know came together. Like...in a real Navy!

 

A big adventure that brings Kirk and company together (despite differing ages and career paths) all at the same time, and all during the Enterprise's maiden voyage smacks of bad fanfic, more than anything else.

It's much the same with SW--the prequels made the Galaxy much, much smaller, and jammed in one ridiculous contrivance after another (Anakin building Threepio, etc.).

 

All that said, I don't think it would be a good thing for future SW films to go back and make pre-prequels!

Post
#620533
Topic
Star Wars: Episode VII to be directed by J.J. Abrams **NON SPOILER THREAD**
Time

NeverarGreat said:

Yeah, the thing about Star Trek that made it different than Star Wars was that Trek was actually a utopian (or dystopian) future, a look at a possible destiny of mankind. The travel to alien worlds was often used to be a mirror for the virtues and vices of humanity, and almost every episode tried to tell us something about human nature through this lens.

Star Trek the Motion Picture did this in spades, but there is a balance to be had. The Wrath of Khan swung a little in the opposite direction to compensate for this heady cerebral installment, and ended up being the most popular entry in the franchise. The writer of Wrath of Khan didn't actually care that much for Star Trek, and so stripped out some of the utopian elements of Trek in favor of a more military aesthetic, something which remained for the rest of the original crew movies. Plot points such as the Genesis Device felt very much like TOS, however, so it was a hybrid of old Trek and a new more mainstream aesthetic.

Trek 09 went far beyond this, and stripped out almost every hint of human reflection and utopia, depriving the universe of its first best destiny: a commentary on human nature. Is it fun? Sure. Accessible? Absolutely. Thought provoking? Nope.

JJ's writers don't seem to understand Star Trek, and Abrams seems not to have cared. I only hope that he cares for both the style and the substance of Star Wars, that mythic story set in a well worn universe populated with archetypal characters.

 

Here's the thing, though--what happened to Roddenberry is essentially the same as what happened to Lucas--Roddenberry became typecast as "Mr. STAR TREK", and eventually began to believe the fan-hype being thrown at him about TREK featuring a "perfect future".

People really assume a lot about the original series, based largely on what came after. TREK is not really about a "perfect future". It's essentially a show about 20th-century people living in a future setting. Things may have improved ("We can admit that we're killers, but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes." ), but the characters still wrestle with moral and personal problems.

James Kirk is one of the great heroes of sci-fi; the perfect Captain, who is brave, loyal, dignified, introspective, romantic, funny, and inspiring. Yet, he's plagued by loneliness and a strong sense of duty--he really feels the burden and responsibilties of command, and the lives in his charge. He was "a stack of books with legs" at the Academy, and clearly something of a Wunderkind who worked his way up through the ranks.

He was not a smartass, bar-fighting womanizer who went from Cadet to Captain in a matter of days.

And we laugh with him, not at him.

 

For me, the fundamental difference between NuKirk and Real Kirk comes down to this:

 

NUKIRK: "Nuh-tung!"

 

vs.

 

(from "Court Martial")

KIRK: Firstly, I am at a loss to explain the errors in the extract from the computer log. We were in an ion storm. Everyone here in this court knows the dangers involved. I was in command. The decisions were mine, no one else's. Charges of malice have been raised. There was no malice. Lieutenant Commander Finney was a member of my crew, and that's exactly the way he was treated. It has been suggested that I panicked on the Bridge and jettisoned the ion pod prematurely. That is not so. You've heard some of the details of my record. This was not my first crisis. It was one of many. During it, I did what my experience and training required me to do. I took the proper steps in the proper order. I did exactly what had to be done, exactly when it should have been done.


COGLEY: You did the right thing, but would you do it again?


KIRK: Given the same circumstances I would do the same thing without hesitation, because the steps I took in the order I took them were absolutely necessary if I were to save my ship. And nothing is more important than my ship.

 

 

 

Anyway, STAR TREK is essentially the Navy In Space. It's all about drama and character, not razzle-dazzle effects and heavy-handed metaphors.

Unfortunately, much of the public's (and, clearly, Abrams') perception of TREK comes from the third and final season, which is largely a campy, ill-conceived mess--almost a parody of the brilliant first two seasons.

 

By the 70s, Roddenberry started to take in what the fandom was feeding him, and decided that TREK was IMPORTANT--a show about a perfect future. STAR TREK- THE MOTION PICTURE was the result of that; a story about the perfectability of humanity, with little of the acton, fun, or characterization that made TOS so great. And, the creative failure of that film got Roddenberry kicked upstairs to a toothless Executive Producer position.

Nick Meyer and Harve Bennett, charged with making the sequel (with a very low budget, and under the wing of Paramount's TV--not feature--department), didn't really know TREK all that well.

But, because they weren't fans of the show, and didn't have the myopic view that Roddeenberry had developed, they studied it objectively, and saw straight through to the core of TREK. Meyer, in particular, totally got it: the intelligence, the fun, the humor, the characters, the action, the whole "Navy In Space" vibe. And, as a result, they crafted THE WRATH OF KHAN, which is rightly hailed as an all-time-great TREK story.

 

Roddenberry, meanwhile, upset that TREK had essentially been taken away from him, went and made THE NEXT GENERATION for TV, which was essentially THE MOTION PICTURE, Version 2.0. No conflicts between the characters, and a lot of pretentious talk about the nature of humanity and how perfect the future will be for us. Many of the cast and crew on the show felt hamstrung by this.

A good comparison between the original series and TNG's approaches would be this:

 

For Jim Kirk, the Prime Directive of non-interference was something that needed to be overcome to solve a story's problem in a dramatic and satisfying fashion. Because Kirk is a hero who always tries to do the right thing, the moral thing.

For Picard, the Prime Directive was a reason to say, "There's nothing we can do. On to our next heading. Engage!", and end the episode.

 

So, as with Lucas, Roddenberry got caught up in his own press about how IMPORTANT his creaton was, and, as a result, lost sight of what made it work.

It is no coincidence, I'm sure, that both TREK and WARS began to decline right when their creators had their respective "epiphanies". TREK became boring and pretentious, and WARS became an increasingly-convoluted "SAGA" that made the first film a square peg in a series of six round holes.

 

Post
#620506
Topic
Star Wars: Episode VII to be directed by J.J. Abrams **NON SPOILER THREAD**
Time

Iron Pheonix said:

My issues with TREK '09 are legion.  However, admittedly, the vast majority of them stem from a script that is unfit to even be used as toilet paper.  The writers, thoroughly incapable of coming up with an exciting, fun, fresh story which would have fit in with 40 YEARS' WORTH OF ESTABLISHED CANON, and instead decided to outright lie to fans (How many interviews did I read where they insisted vehemently, "Oh, we're TOTALLY respecting what's happened before, we promise we won't trash the universe that so many people love!") and then proceeded to put together a story which shat on and kicked out pretty much EVERYTHING which had been established before that with cheap plot gimmicks (Time travel?  AGAIN?  Really?  And a villain from the past bent on revenge?  AGAIN?).  The characterization of Kirk and Spock were horrendous - they were NOT the characters I had known and loved since I was 11 years old.  The production design veered from brilliant to bizarre (Engine room that looks like a brewery instead of a nuclear power plant, plastic meat locker curtains in the shuttles...?) and more plot holes and outright strange developments placed in solely because they wanted to give the visual FX team stuff to cream their shorts over trying to do.  It was a bland, brainless, soulless, generic action film for a generation of people ("This is not  your father's STAR TREK!" crowed the ads.  Yeah, you got that right.  I liked my dad's STAR TREK just fine, thank you.) who don't care about things like, oh, I don't know...  Stupid stuff like coherent plot, consistency with established franchise history and established characterization, and trying to stay true to the spirit of the original.

In other words, it was a perfect script for someone like Abrams to film.

With REAL writers at the helm of EPISODE VII, I have hope against rational hope that at least the story will be good, and not dumbed-down like TREK '09 was.  Besides, considering that TREK '09 was a wannabe SW film dressed in TREK's clothing, perhaps we can consider it Abrams' trial run before tackling the franchise he REALLY wants to do (...but just lied explicitly about it to the press to throw them off.  Sneaky, sneaky little man!). 

Look, I'm under no illusions here.  STAR WARS ain't CITIZEN KANE.  It's not some great literary work.  It's melodramatic space opera.  It's popcorn-munching fun.  But it was based upon great mythic underpinnings - the Hero's Journey.  EMPIRE STRIKES BACK especially honed the performances and story and a solid film was crafted around that.  I just hope that Abrams is capable of swallowing his ego and thinking about the story first.

But I won't hold my breath 'til it happens.

 

As a huge, huge fan of the original STAR TREK (the real TREK, as far as I'm concerned), Abrams' film is a colossal failure for me. While it works as an entertaining,  well-made, brainless popcorn movie, it bears only the scarcest, most superficial resemblance to the characters and concepts of the original series.

It was not a good sign that Abrams came out right at the start and said he wasn't a fan of TREK. His coming off like a pretentious, arrogant jerk in interviews didn't help, either.

I get the impression that Abrams and company feel that they've finally made TREK "cool" for the masses...by taking it away from its loyal fanbase, and severely dumbening it.

 

Trying to have it both ways--a reboot that still spins out of existing continuity-- just makes it worse. Abrams treats time-travel as a "Get Out of Jail Free" card, which allows him to justify anything he wants.

Better, I think, to have started from scratch and do "Ultimate STAR TREK", as it were; a new film in a new canon that does its own thing, and just riffs on the original series.

But, then, we wouldn't have gotten Leonard Nimoy's presence in the film to help legitimize the whole thing, now would we?

 

NuTREK plays like Abrams and his screenwriting pals' "research" consisted of two things:

1. Briefly studying the broadest, most inaccurate pop culture cliches and misconceptions about TREK (Kirk is a womanizing rulebreaker! Sulu fences! Chekov has a goofy accent! Cheesy aliens! Kirk and Spock fight!).

2. Watching the fan-favorite WRATH OF KHAN about a hundred times, and then inserting tons of "clever" winks and references to that film to make the fans think they actually "get it".

 

It saddens me that much of the fandom would so readily embrace NuTREK as being such a "faithful" adaptation/reboot of the old series. For me, it feels much closer to a parody that secretly wants to be a STAR WARS movie. There's just no understanding of--or respect for--TOS in Abrams' film. The characters are wrong, the tone is wrong, the science (fiction) is laughable, etc., etc., etc.

 

The greatest crime of NuTREK is that Abrams essentially turned TREK into WARS. And, now that he's actually doing WARS, the two will perhaps become indistinguishable. Which is sad. Both franchises are two sides of the same coin, and scratch different itches for me. TREK is sci-fi/drama/action, WARS is space-fantasy/action.

 

The original STAR TREK is my single favorite TV series of all time, and I cannot forgive Abrams for sucking its brains out and misrepresenting it to the public as cheesy pap, while simultaneously supplanting it with a "cool", new version. And it pains me to see even self-proclaimed fans of TOS now call the old show "cheesy" and "corny".

 

As with most reboots/remakes/sequels in today's Hollywood, it comes down to the easy money of name-brand recognition. Instead of coming up with a new ship and a new crew and a new TREK for a new generation, Abrams and Paramount went back to TOS, and banked on the public's recognition of Kirk, Spock, and company.

 

I think a big reason that the Nolan Batman films (which, in my opinion, are largely terrible BATMAN films--pretentious, dark, violent, and embarrassed by the source material) have been so successful is because of the public's name-brand recognition of Batman, and because self-loathing fans were all too eager to forget the campy Schumacher films, and wanted to see Batman be "dark" and "cool" so that they would look "cool" for liking it. "See? See? We're cool! We don't like those stupid, campy comics! We like this dark and violent Batman! See how cool we are?"

Same with TREK. "See? See how cool we are? We don't like that goofy, cheesy old TV show! TREK is finally cool now, because it's dark and fast and sexy and funny and big-budget!"

And the masses don't know any better, nor do they care. Big, loud, and shiny= box office gold.

 

Now, not to say that Abrams might not make a good STAR WARS movie--indeed, I think he's much better suited to it than to TREK. But, based on what he did to TREK, I can't quite bring myself to support or be enthusiastic about this. Abrams seems to me like one of those "cult of personality" filmmakers; all style, no substance.

He may be able to ape the style of the previous SW films, but I get the feeling that he'll miss the undercurrent of ideas and themes from the earlier films, which all stem from Lucas' particular sense of history, religion, and morality.

 

For good or ill, Lucas completed the story he'd set out to tell (...well, the story he'd started to tell after he'd already started telling another story in the original film, at least...). Anything else will feel like a cash-grab addendum, I think. But, at least we might get some entertaining popcorn movies out of it.

It'll probably go down one of two ways:

1. An all-new, all-different STAR WARS, which completely reinvents the wheel, and maybe not in a good way.

2. The "safe" route, which leads to endless winks, nod, and retreads of previous material.

Post
#584482
Topic
To prove a point. Please give me as many reasons and character comparisons as to why Star Wars is better than Star Trek.
Time

It's not so much that there was an Enterprise before Kirk's (after all, the TMP rec room scene featured an earlier iteration--the "ringship"/starliner version), it's the concept--one of Earth's most important and famous ships was called Enterprise. Before Kirk's. And Archer is said to be one of the greatest explorers of his time, later becoming Federation President.

Because ENTERPRISE--the show and the ship-- are IMPORTANT, don't ya see?!?!

A long-lost notion of TREK was that Kirk's Enterprise was just another ship which eventually became distinguished, but was not at all the "flagship of the fleet". Famous and historic? Sure. But not the end-all, be-all of the fleet. Throwing in a prior Enterprise which did all of these great and important things retroactively makes Kirk's the only one in the franchise that wasn't IMPORTANT from the start.

The deification of the Enterprise and her crew is a classic example of fan-think creeping into the writing, and writers having the characters know or believe things that only viewers should be privy to.

 Just like fans asking why people don't figure out Superman's secret identity. Except...why would Superman even LET ON that he has another identity? Sure, WE know he has one, but why would anyone else in the DC universe know that?

 

 

Anyhoo, the NX-01 stole a number of "firsts" from TOS, and other iterations, too--a katra transfer with a human, first meetings with the Organians, Borg, Ferengi, genetically-engineered supermen from the 20th century, etc. To say nothing of goofy retcons, like female Vulcans going through Pon Farr.

 

All in all, ENTERPRISE suffers from massive doses of "prequelitis", and does everything in its power to overwrite or sidestep TOS. The look and feel of the show brings to mind a TNG-era prequel, more than TOS.

We also see "phase pistols", the first real starship (NX-01, which can be taken as the very first "NCC"-type ship), the first use of a transporter aboard a ship, first contact with Romulans, Klingons, etc. All of these historical and technological events are conveniently centered around one ship called Enterprise, which was incredibly famous and important long before Jim Kirk's ship. And, of course, Kirk's ship would now have a legacy to uphold, as the second starship in the series, rather than being just another ship which eventually stood out on its own merits, thanks to the events of TOS.

 

Granted, this level of coincidence isn't anywhere close to Abrams' film, but...

 

Really, a casual viewer might very well watch ENTERPRISE and then move on to TNG, without even realizing that TOS is supposed to fit in-between.

And, now, we have Abrams' TREK to replace TOS. In fact, that film does a halfway decent job of filling the gap between ENT and TNG (aside from certain elements, like the destruction of Vulcan).

Post
#584469
Topic
To prove a point. Please give me as many reasons and character comparisons as to why Star Wars is better than Star Trek.
Time

Star Wars Purist said:

Star Trek never went into unadulterated, infant-focused products such as Episode I, II, and The Clone Wars.  Yeah, there was TAS which was a Saturday morning cartoon, and the boring Motion Picture and elements of TNG and its successors that were also a bit boorish, and the new reboot was crap...but Trek has never had a "Jar-Jar" moment.  In that sense, the franchise is "better".  

However, as is acknowledged here, there really is NO COMPARISON of the franchises beyond their similar sounding "Star" titles, space-themed settings, and use of spaceships and high technology. etc.  Star Wars is "Space-Fantasy" and Star Trek is Science-Fiction, yet both are, in their own ways, equally enjoyable and similarly faltering.  

Personally, I think the Trek franchise is, in total, better, but nothing is as enjoyable, "fun", and influential (to my own daily life) as "Old" Star Wars. 

 

To its eternal credit, TAS, despite being a Saturday morning cartoon, still did much to retain the intelligence and seriousness of TOS. It didn't have cute sidekicks added into the show, and the characters were all in-character.

 

Anyway, there really is no comparison. WARS is whiz-bang fun, TREK is intellectual drama, with a healthy dose of action and fun. Two sides of the same coin, which are perfectly capable of coexisting.

 

I'll try to compare them, though. It's more than a little unfair, because TOS had three seasons, a cartoon, and six movies to develop the characters and concepts.

 

Concept:

TREK: The Enterprise explores the vast reaches of the galaxy, encountering anything you could imagine.

WARS: A farmboy is swept up into a battle between the Rebels and Empire, and saves the day.

Winner: TREK, simply because the concept allows for limitless possibilities and stories, whereas WARS, in its original form, was a one-shot story with an ending.

 

Characters/actors:

TREK: Three fantastic and well-developed main characters, played by three great actors (and, yes, Shatner is great in TOS--this was before he became the Shatner we know today, after all). The secondary characters are mostly just bit players.

WARS: The characters are archetypal, and don't have a whole lot of depth, but that's not really the point. The performances are solid, for the most part.

 

Winner: TREK. You can't get more iconic than Kirk-Spock-McCoy. They're much easier characters to get a feel for, because we got to know them so well in so many episodes. TREK is more about the characters than WARS is.

 

Visual effects:

TREK: Cutting-edge for their time--movie-quality effects on a weekly TV budget. They only look bad now because better compositing techniques and motion control came along years after the show ended, and because TOS was never meant to be seen in HD on giant TV screens.

WARS: The films' effects revolutionized the industry. 'Nuff said!

Winner: WARS.

 

 

Production design:

TREK: The Enterprise, its interiors, the uniforms, props, etc. are all iconic, and very logical and futuristic. Setting aside the limits of 1960s materials, the designs themselves are timeless and unsurpassed by any other iteration.

WARS: Dazzling visual eye-candy, with designs drawing inspiration from many disparate sources, in such a way as to make the audience feel at home in an unfamiliar universe.

Winner: Draw!

 

Music:

TREK: Many TOS episodes have fantastic, powerful, and highly memorable scores created by great composers ("The Cage", "The Naked Time", "Amok Time", "The Doomsday Machine", etc.).

WARS: Williams' score reignited the popularity of orchestral scores in film, and the original movie's score has often been considered the best movie score of all time.

Winner: WARS

 

Impact:

TREK: Created the idea of modern sci-fi fandom as we know it. It's had more conventions, fanzines, and parodies than one could ever count. It launched the first movie series ever made because of fan demand. It's had a massive influence on real-world science, and has influenced countless artists and scientists.

WARS: Revolutionized the film industry, and cemented the idea of the blockbuster. A merchandizing empire unmatched in film history. A pop-culture juggernaut with a massive, cult-like fanbase which has led to "Jedi" becoming an official religion in some countries!

Winner: Draw!

 

 

Post
#584446
Topic
To prove a point. Please give me as many reasons and character comparisons as to why Star Wars is better than Star Trek.
Time

There's an interesting parallel between Lucas and Roddenberry.

Both were "typecast" as "Mr. STAR WARS" and "Mr. STAR TREK".

Both receive most of the credit for being the genius visionaries behind their respective franchises.

Both were/are lousy writers. Of the few TREK episodes Roddenberry actually wrote, only the original pilot was an out-of-the-ballpark-good script. His other scripts ranged from so-so ("Mudd's Women") to utterly lousy ("The Omega Glory", "Turnabout Intruder").

 

 

The original SW trilogy was very collaborative, with the first film, in particular, being saved in post-production by editing and window-dressing (music, FX, etc.). EMPIRE's creative success was largely due to Kernsher and Kasdan.

And Roddenberry, being a notorious credit-stealer, was more of a guiding influence than anything else. Gene Coon was perhaps the person most responsible for the feel of TOS as we know it, having served as producer after the first dozen or so episodes, penning many great episodes, and rewriting others.

 

Both Roddenberry and Lucas later came back to their respective franchises, with mixed results.

Lucas made the prequels, without a system of checks and balances.

Roddenberry came to believe the hype being repeated to him over and over again by fandom, with the result that STAR TREK-THE MOTION PICTURE depicted a boring, bland, "perfect" future--which was not at all what TOS was about.

The critical failure of that film led to his removal as creative controller, and it took two outsiders (Harve Bennett and Nick Meyer) to get back to the heart of TOS with THE WRATH OF KHAN.

And then Roddenberry went off and created TNG, which, at first, was in the vein of ST-TMP: bland, with no conflicts between the main characters. That first season is just horrible.

 

Both Lucas and Roddenberry, after being hailed as visionaries, decided that their franchises needed to be IMPORTANT, to the detriment of said franchises.

STAR WARS went from the ultimate popcorn movie to a "deep", mythic, multipart "Saga", which resulted in the 6-film patchwork quilt we know today. The original film is the only one that doesn't fit within that framework.

STAR TREK went from a fun action-adventure-drama series to a talky, bland, preachy series about how perfect man will be in the future. The original series is the only one that doesn't fit within the framework of the spin-offs. And ENTERPRISE went out of its way to erase TOS and steal many of that show's "firsts" (by showing an Enterprise before Kirk's, having first contact with many races that were originally first contacted in TOS, etc.).

 

Far and away, for me, TOS (third season aside) and the original SW film are the best incarnations of those franchises. Almost everything that has come after has served to undermine and/or erase/supplant those original, iconic versions.

 

Talk about biting the hand that feeds!

Post
#584367
Topic
To prove a point. Please give me as many reasons and character comparisons as to why Star Wars is better than Star Trek.
Time

Anyhoo, it's apples and oranges.

 

I will say that I think TREK (and by TREK, I mean TOS, which, for me, is the "real" TREK) is much better-constructed in terms of the overall concept.

With TREK, you can tell any sort of story imaginable, and can go anywhere. WARS worked best with the story of the Rebels vs. the Empire, and the core group of OT characters. Sure, it's a big galaxy in SW, with lots of room for creativity, but the Enterprise and her crew served as an anchoring point for exploring the human condition. There's much more story potential and room for creativity, there. There's also no problem in terms of getting bogged down by continuity (in TOS, at least).

 

TREK is a Rolls Royce. WARS is a racecar.

TREK is sci-fi. WARS is sci-fantasy.

TREK is character and plot-driven. WARS is action and pace-driven.

TREK is theatrical-style space opera. WARS is (or was, at least) whiz-bang fun.

TREK has well-defined and relatable characters (in terms of the main trio of Kirk-Spock-McCoy, at least). WARS has character archetypes made fresh by the actors' charm.

 

Love 'em both dearly, but they really are different beasts.

 

And all Abrams did was turn TREK into WARS. I was quite appalled by the "reboot". The inteligence and dignity was sucked out of TREK, and replaced by sophomoric humor, plot/logic holes galore, a complete misunderstanding of what makes TREK TREK, and lots of pointless action setpieces.

Abrams' TREK is essentially a STAR WARS movie with every last well-know TREK bit from pop-culture's collective memory thrown in for the identifiability/branding factor (Kirk banging green women, "I've givin' it all she's got, Captain!", etc.).

The film, unlike TOS, was clearly made by people who had no understanding of the military whatsoever. And, of course, it's another pointless origin story that didn't need to be told.

What's the origin story of TOS? The Enterprise was built. It had several Captains, and crew members came and went over the decades, as in any military organization. The crew of TOS came together in exactly that way--promotions, transfers, retirements and deaths led to that particularly group of people coming together on that ship.

It's laughable that Abrams' Enterprise was built at exactly the same time that all of these cadets (who, despite wildly varying ages and career histories in TOS, somehow mostly went to the Academy at the same time in this version) came together to serve aboard her.

 

One of my very favorite elements of TOS is the believability factor that went into the creation of that world and its backstory. A lot of thought went into the concepts and the technology, even if it wasn't always explicitly shown on-screen. The Enterprise was sleek and simple (unlike the hideous Abramsprise) because that made sense, from a futuristic point of view. The Enterprise had a long history, with different Captains and crewmen coming and going. The world and backstory of TREK were believable.

And, timeline change, "get out of continuity jail free", reboot nonsense aside, James Kirk was a stack of books with legs, and a serious commander with wit and nobility. He was not womanizing pub-brawler who got promoted from cadet to Captain by Madea within a period of several days.

 

 

 

An entertaining popcorn movie? Sure! STAR TREK? Not a chance.

Post
#573758
Topic
Hopefully the last 70mm vs. 35mm ESB audio differences thread
Time

When Luke finally collapses in the snow, he lets out a grunt as he lands on his face.  No grunt in 70mm; No grunt in 85PS; No grunt in 93; grunt is in SE

 

Yoda makes a frightened "Ehhhhh!" sound just before Luke says "Like we're being watched" and points his blaster at him.  No frightened "Ehhhh!" in 70mm: not in 85PS; not in 93; "Ehhhh!" is in SE

 

 

 

I can faintly hear the face-fall grunt in the pre-SE mixes.

 

There's also the grunting as he tries to free his feet from the ice in the Wampa cave and the lightsaber deactivation sound effect, which are mixed much lower in the pre-SE mixes.

The grunting as he falls down the carbon-freezing steps may have been added for the SE,  however, since I don't hear it in the earlier mixes (although I haven't heard the 70mm).

 

Also, Yoda's "Ehhhh!" was there at some point before the SE. I have an old VHS tape with a recorded 1980 tv review of the movie, and a clip from that scene shown during the review features the "Ehhhh!"

Post
#571859
Topic
70mm 6-Track Dolby Stereo mix differences
Time

Yeah, I really like that realistic soundfield in the original mixes.

For example, "Now, remember, Chewbacca, you have a responsibility to me, so don't do anything foolish." is partially drowned out by the giant retrieval claw in the carbon-freezing chamber, which is nice and realistic.

For the SE, the line is now clear and easy to hear, yes, but that realistic effect is lost.

 

Same as Yoda's "Yes, run! Yes! A Jedi's strength flows from the Force. But beware the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression...the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow.", etc.

All of that dialogue was always there in the early mixes (but, thanks to the realism of the soundfield, it wasn't all easy to hear), but the SE made it all much clearer, and even elminated some of Artoo's beeping, which was stepping on some of that dialogue.