Things someone else just wanted to say......

Page 5 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Fri May 20, 2016 7:01 am


pinhedz wrote:
So where do people get the idea that by googling up some canned talking points they suddenly become experts on everything under the sun?


i cannot deny that this is a defining characteristic of the age.  tho it's probably been a facet of life among literate humans since pamphleteering began

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Fri May 20, 2016 7:10 am


to get a more accurate understanding of Hamilton, we should look not to his idealogical opposites, but to the centrists of the day ...

so what did a moderate like John Adams think of Hamilton?


Although I read with tranquility and suffered to pass without adversion in silent contempt the base insinuations of vanity and a hundred lies besides published in a pamphlet against me by an insolent coxcomb who rarely dined in good company, where there was good wine, without getting silly and vaporing about his administration like a young girl about her brilliants and trinkets, yet I lose all patience when I think of a bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar daring to threaten to undeceive the world in their judgment of Washington by writing an history of his battles and campaigns. This creature was in a delirium of ambition; he had been blown up with vanity by the tories, had fixed his eyes on the highest station in America, and he hated every man, young or old, who stood in his way or could in any manner eclipse his laurels or rival his pretensions. . . .

Hamilton’s Ambition, intrigues and Caucuses have ruined the cause of rational federalism by encumbering and entangling it with men and measures that ought never to have been brought forward.

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  pinhedz on Fri May 20, 2016 7:34 am

Of course Adams had no way of knowing that by saying "bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar" he was playing right into the hands of Lin-Manuel Miranda and the Broadway stage.  Razz  

I mean, who's the elitist now?

Also, I can't help thinking that the "moderate" John Adams must have been more than a little worked-up to have vented so much immoderation all at once.Shocked

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  pinhedz on Fri May 20, 2016 9:06 am

pinhedz wrote:"bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar"
... and what name would Adams have called him if Ham had been at all brownish? affraid

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Fri May 20, 2016 10:49 am


tee hee, that was Adams venting in a letter to Doc Rush.  He left out the "Scotch bastard" bits when making public addresses, tee hee

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Fri May 20, 2016 12:44 pm



Adams is difficult to pin down, sometimes he sounds like the most elitist of Federalists, other times he talks in the language of Jeffersonian radicalism

i take it he was a moody guy








Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Fri May 20, 2016 1:02 pm



there surely are lots of phony Founding Father jpeg-quotes in the googelbing image results, to support either conservo or liberal positions

who bloody makes these things? some of the creators must known they are publishing falsehoods to be passed around virally on the facebooks, the fetid curs


Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Fri May 20, 2016 1:07 pm


he really did say this:



eVerified



Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Fri May 20, 2016 11:23 pm





Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Mon May 23, 2016 11:43 am



It’s hard to find much by way of coherent themes or meanings in Star Trek Into Darkness, one of the most ineptly written blockbusters of an era when ‘inept’ is seemingly the goal. Little in the movie makes logical sense, either taken as a whole or taken scene to scene (Kirk making Chekov the chief engineer, Khan hiding his friends in torpedoes he knows will be used, Admiral Marcus assuming Kirk will shoot 72 torpedoes at one guy, etc). But under it all lurks a movie - perhaps a half-realized one - that is a metaphor for the Truther views of 9/11.

Those views didn’t get there by themselves; co-writer Bob Orci is a huge conspiracy theorist. So huge, in fact, that on his (now deleted) Twitter he calls rational people “coincidence theorists.” As in, “Oh, so you think it’s a coincidence that the fire department commander said they were going to ‘pull it’ just before World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed, despite it having never been hit by a plane?” Orci has in the past taken to his Twitter account to ‘ask questions’ about the official story of the attacks on 9/11, as he fancies himself some sort of free-thinker - free of an understanding of physics, politics or reality, one assumes. Those Truther views - that the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center were inside jobs perpetrated by those in power in order to attack unsuspecting countries - have made their way into the film.

First, a look at the facts of the case, or what happens in Star Trek Into Darkness:

Admiral Marcus’ secret deep space exploration program finds the SS Botany Bay. He thaws out Khan. Marcus, in the aftermath of the destruction of Vulcan, is feeling very security-minded, and he thinks war with the Klingons is inevitable. He enlists the thawed out, centuries-old dictator Khan - for reasons that cannot be explained by the film or logic - to build advanced torpedoes and space ships so that the Federation can have an edge on the Klingon Empire.

His bargaining chip is the Botany Bay’s full complement, the 72 men and women still frozen. Khan, the superman, is in Marcus’ thrall while the Admiral has them. Khan’s plan is to build the advanced torpedoes and then hide his people in them, a plot that makes so little rational sense as to perhaps be brilliant. Anyway, it doesn’t work and Khan thinks his crew has been killed, so he starts a vengeance campaign that makes almost as little sense as his torpedo brainstorm.

He convinces a Starfleet officer to suicide bomb what seems to be just a records depot, but what is actually a secret base for Section 31, Starfleet’s black ops division. That attack triggers an automatic meeting of all local ship captains (and their first officers, so that the Kirk and Spock characters can be there), which was Khan’s plan all along. He wanted to get all these folks in one place and then kill them, which he tries to do by emulating the helicopter attack scene from The Godfather Part III (which he could have seen in theaters, going by the original timeline that has the Eugenics Wars starting in 1992). When he fails to kill anybody except for Christopher Pike, who he doesn’t even know, Khan transports himself to the Klingon homeworld.

Which is an extraordinarily dumb move, as he knows that Admiral Marcus is dying to start a war with the Klingons. Tracing the beaming route of a known terrorist (he was identified after the first attack, possibly in a message sent directly to the Admiral by the reluctant bomber) to the Klingon homeworld would certainly give Marcus plenty of ammunition to launch a pre-emptive attack, one which would be focused on hunting said terrorist down. In fact, the only reason someone of Khan’s superior intellect would ever do something like that is… if it was the plan all along.

Truthers say that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were false flag incidents; a false flag attack is a secret military operation executed under another nation or group’s flag, to make it seem like someone else was responsible for it. The theory that Truthers have is that the US government actually attacked the United States and pretended to be Al Qaeda to do so. The murder of 3000 Americans was to give the US an excuse to invade oil-rich countries in the Middle East.

As poorly explained onscreen in Star Trek Into Darkness the terrorist attacks aren’t false flags, rather they’re what is known as blowback - where a nation undertaking a covert op suffers some consequence as a result of that op's success. It could be argued that 9/11 was actually a case of blowback, as CIA funding and training of anti-Soviet Afghan mujahideen may have laid the groundwork for Al Qaeda and their abilities to strike the United States. In the movie Khan’s attacks are blowback from Marcus’ secret preparations for war (and Khan's final act, crashing the Vengeance into San Francisco and killing likely hundreds of thousands of people, is direct blowback from Spock tricking him into thinking the 72 detonated torpedoes carried his crew).

But none of this makes any sense in the context of the film. Why would Khan attack Section 31, which requires him to go through the effort of recruiting an officer to act as a suicide bomber? He could have caused the same fleet meeting to be convened by hitting an easier target. And why would he possibly beam himself to Qo’nos, the one place in the galaxy the guy he hates most wants to attack?

Things look different if we put on our Bob Orci conspiracy hats and stop acting like sheeple. After all, the bomber sending a message to Marcus - what’s that all about? Perhaps that’s part of the plan, a notice to the true ringmaster, giving him a heads up. Destroying Section 31 allows Marcus to cover his tracks; the Vengeance, his supership, is pretty much already built, so it makes sense to clean up the evidence of what Khan was doing. In fact, if Khan wanted vengeance on Marcus the last thing he would want to do would be to blow up the place that proves Marcus’ involvement in potentially criminal plots.

By the way, Section 31 is hidden in what appears to be a regular office building that also contains a very boring governmental facility, an archive in this case. World Trade Center 7, the building that Truthers believe was ‘pulled,’ housed an administrative CIA office on the 25th floor. Truthers claim that WTC 7 was destroyed in order to cover the tracks of those who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, tracks that could have started in that CIA office, just as Khan's tracks would have started at Section 31.

Khan’s attack on the Starfleet meeting also makes little sense. He’s hovering in a jumpship, firing hundreds of rounds into a small conference room and seems unable to actually kill just about anybody. It’s plausible that Khan could have taken out the fleet’s top captains in seconds; instead Pike seems to be the only notable casualty. But what if Khan didn’t want to kill anyone? What if the attack was intended just to put Starfleet on a war footing? What if most of those captains were meant to survive so they could wage war on the Klingons?

Such an attack doing so very little damage reflects the most extreme Truther claims about the attack on the Pentagon, namely that it was a missile that hit the seat of military power, as a passenger plane would have caused much more damage to the structure. The argument here would be that the attack on the Pentagon was never intended to really destroy the building, but rather to punch the military in the nose just hard enough to whip it into a fighting frenzy. Which would be exactly what Admiral Marcus wanted to do.

Finally Khan transports to Qo’nos, leaving behind the transporter device - which actually has his destination coordinates on display. It’s a direct line to the Klingons, allowing Marcus to show the Federation who was truly behind the attacks. After all, why else would a human escape to the Klingon homeworld? This reflects the fact that the passport of hijacker Satam Al Suqami was recovered immediately after his plane slammed into the World Trade Center; for Truthers this ‘miraculously intact’ passport is evidence that the government was framing Middle Easterners in order to launch a war effort.

Later in the movie it’s revealed that Marcus actually IS using Khan’s attacks as a way to start a war, but in the dumbest way possible. Rather than use Khan’s travel to Klingon as a pretense to attack, he sends the Enterprise on a dopey assassination mission and then sabotages their warp core so they’ll be stuck near Klingon space. He assumes that Kirk will rain 72 missiles onto Qo’nos, killing Khan and erasing his crew, and then be trapped when the Klingons show up to investigate - basically it’s Star Trek’s version of the Gulf of Tonkin, the incident which gave the US an excuse to go to war in Viet Nam. As presented in the movie it’s mostly a spur of the moment thing, like Marcus is taking advantage of Khan’s ‘defection’ in order to jumpstart his war. Like so much else in the film that makes no sense, especially when you take into account that all of this occurs on the day when he happens to be launching his new super-secret supership (which is the movie's stand-in for drone warfare, but that’s part of the overarching stupidity. Why you’d build a ship that big if you didn’t need to have a lot of people on it is beyond me).

Khan himself maps to Osama bin Laden. He’s a fierce warrior and leader who works for Starfleet (or with the CIA in the 80s) before he becomes a patsy/rebels against his masters (whichever version of the 9/11 conspiracy stories you believe). He’s a man out of time because there’s a popular Western notion that Al Qaeda is made up of people living one step out of the Stone Age, that the mujahideen are essentially regressive savages. It’s that savage quality that Khan says makes him valuable to Marcus.

Oh, and by the way: there are 72 torpedoes holding 72 of Khan’s crew. If that number is familiar to you it’s because that’s the number of virgins we’re told jihadists will get in heaven after they martyr themselves for Allah. Bob Orci didn’t arrive on that number on his own - in the original series episode Space Seed the SS Botany Bay’s crew of 84 has been reduced to Khan and 72 others by the time the penal ship is found - but it is something of a gift to him.

Orci didn’t write the film alone; regular co-writer Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof also get credits. And the film doesn’t hide its political bent - it is dedicated to vets, and not just any veterans. The dedication is:

THIS FILM IS DEDICATED TO OUR POST-9/11 VETERANS
WITH GRATITUDE FOR THEIR INSPIRED SERVICE ABROAD
AND CONTINUED LEADERSHIP AT HOME.

There are even some real-life Iraq/Afghanistan vets in the movie, playing background roles. Clearly the film is saying that these brave vets fought in wars that were started without the best interests of Americans at heart - there is simply no other way to read the politics of the film. But the finished movie stops just shy of endorsing the idea that the terrorist attacks that got us into these two wars were, in fact, perpetrated by our own government as part of a terrifying and complex scheme.

Still, it’s there. Just under the surface. And it’s so cynical that it seems to spit in the face of everything Gene Roddenberry wanted Star Trek to be. There have been iterations of Star Trek - most notably Deep Space 9 - that explored the grey areas of what it means to be a non-militarized peacekeeping group, but that exploration happens at arm’s length from the original series that carries Roddenberry’s stamp. Roddenberry’s future had imperfect humans striving to be better and to fulfill lofty goals like working together, finding commonality with all sentient life, and bringing peace and happiness to every corner of the galaxy. That galaxy reflected the then-modern political climate, with the Federation/Klingon tensions mirroring the Cold War, but it was always seen through Roddenberry’s essential optimism. It was also always seen through Roddenberry’s essential humanism - every side of every conflict had a reason for their actions.

Star Trek Into Darkness has a more venal view of humanity. At best Admiral Marcus is willing to put one of history’s worst tyrants to work in order to facilitate a war he plans to start (by killing everyone on the Enterprise); at worst Marcus uses that tyrant to murder innocent people in order to start that war (and he also wants to kill everyone on the Enterprise). While there have been Starfleet officials who have been bad guys in the previous Trek continuity, Marcus is special because he’s the very head of Starfleet. In the reboot universe Starfleet isn’t dealing with occasional bad apples, it’s rotten from the very top. It is an organization run by criminals, something that would not have fit in Roddenberry’s vision.

I find Truther beliefs to be among the most distasteful possible, and to have even a whiff of them in Star Trek troubles me deeply. The fact that, like every other part of the script, they’re botched and barely work doesn’t make it any better.

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Mon May 23, 2016 1:54 pm


If you know anything about alternative metal artist Corey Taylor then you know this: he doesn’t care what you think. So, he likes what he likes, regardless of who else likes (or hates) it.

Case in point: the first (December) trailer for the upcoming Star Trek Beyond film that has been derided by hardcore Trekkies (to the point that both co-star Simon Pegg and director Justin Lin had to address the criticisms) - Taylor liked it, and tells the haters to calm down.

Taylor told the Radio.com, “I loved the trailer, I thought it was great! Here’s the thing: I’ve gotten to the point where I hate calling myself a geek, because geeks are the biggest dicks on the f—in’ internet! They’re gonna look for anything and everything to bitch about.”

He blames the internet and social media for the ion storm of hate that the trailer has gotten: “They get themselves worked up to the point that they can’t enjoy themselves. Before, they didn’t have that. We would get in little groups of friends, and we we would bitch, and we would fuss, and we’d go to the movie and say, ‘You know what? That was actually good.’ Now they work each other up to the point that, even if the movie is great, they’re gonna hate it.”

“So, what’s the point man?” he asks. “If you’re gonna pick this thing apart, you’re gonna need to go back to your mom’s basement and take a f—in’ nap! ‘Cause I’m over it! They’ve made it to the point where I can’t go to a movie without hearing that shit in my head!”

His forecast for the film itself: “It’s gonna be great. The one thing that we can all agree on is: the cast is awesome. For as many plot holes as Star Trek Into Darkness had, I still love that movie, I really enjoyed that movie. And anybody who doesn’t, takes this shit way too f—in’ seriously in the first place! It’s a movie. This isn’t Shakespeare! And even Shakespeare, you shouldn’t take that seriously! So for me: the casting is great, you’re gonna enjoy it, it looks like a lot of fun, it looks like one of the first [Star Trek] movies where it has the feel of an episode. We’re not worried about trying to do an origin story. This is its own self-contained adventure, and it’ll be great.”

Another film that’s gotten a lot of geek hate recently is Batman v Superman: The Dawn of Justice. Taylor, once again, bucks geek peer pressure: “Honestly, it wasn’t bad, for what it was. I mean, it was a mess! I thought the casting was good. As long as you could suspend a lot of your comic book knowledge, the movie itself wasn’t bad. I enjoyed it more than Man of Steel [the 2013 Superman film that set the stage for Batman v Superman], which I thought was a huge piece of shit.”

A much less controversial but possibly surprising passion of Taylor’s is a certain former member of the Commodores, who went on to become a pop culture icon as a solo act. “Dude, I just went to see Lionel Richie the other night. he was f—ing amazing, his band was a motherf—er! They played everything! They were doing ‘Dancing on the Ceiling,’ and out of nowhere, they went into Van Halen’s ‘Jump!’ I was like, ‘You gotta be kidding!’ He was so good, he was funny, he was an entertainer. He’s a rare breed, man.”

Speaking of rare breeds, Taylor and Slipknot will be on tour this summer with Marilyn Manson.  The two bands have history together: they were both on the bill at Ozzfest in 2001.

“There were a lot of crazy, crazy nights that I don’t honestly remember… but I have weird recurring nightmares about it.”


Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Wed May 25, 2016 7:06 am

Last Friday night saw the much buzzed-about debut of the second Star Trek Beyond trailer. And thus, we began the final swing of the marketing campaign for the Paramount/Viacom VIAB +3.28% Inc. franchise installment. From here on out, we will see television spots, cast interviews, clues about where a would-be sequel might go, online clips, viral videos, and maybe (speculation alert) one more trailer for Independence Day: Resurgence. And if history follows suit, we will see a lot of retroactive apologizing for Star Trek into Darkness.

It has been almost customary for the marketing campaign for a new installment to retroactively apologize for the last one, to the point where I applaud when they don’t (Cars 2, The Hangover part II). The odd thing is that while Star Trek into Darkness wasn’t terribly beloved by the hardcore fans (and was viewed as an attempt to militarize the franchise), it was still something of a well-received hit.

The film earned an 87% on Rotten Tomatoes (average score: 7.6/10) and an A from Cinemascore over opening weekend. The film now has a 90% viewer rating Rotten Tomatoes and a 7.8/10 on IMDB. I may like this movie more than most hardcore Trek fans (save for the last reel), and you’re absolutely within your rights to dislike it, but the idea that it was a franchise-imperiling installment is not backed up by the actual “at the time of release” reaction.

Despite the handwringing three summers ago (handwringing that I somewhat participated in at the time regarding “hide the Khan” marketing), the film was not only one of the biggest live-action grossers of the season, but it was also, in America, one of the leggier live-action summer blockbusters. The film opened with $83 million over its Thurs-Sun debut and ended up with $228m domestic. That’s a 2.75x weekend-to-final multiplier, which was bigger than Iron Man 3, Man of Steel, Fast & Furious 6, and The Wolverine.

That’s a lower multiplier than Star Trek (3.25x), but it still played like a mid-level Marvel Cinematic Universe installment.  And it earned around 2.4x its alleged $190 million budget worldwide (with 3D), not far off from the 2.5x that Star Trek earned in 2009 ($385m on an alleged $150m budget and in 2D) Point being, general audiences checked it out, mostly liked what they saw, and told their friends that it was worth their time in those early summer months.

The idea that the franchise needs to be “saved” by Star Trek Beyond is arguably a case of geek-centric media reactions becoming mainstream opinion. Yes, Star Trek into Darkness earned 11% less in America than Star Trek and only a bit over worldwide ($457 million vs. $385m), but it made 83% more overseas than the first film. Yes, some of that is related to the 3D bump, but that’s also a matter of overseas expansion and a better run outside of America than the first reboot.

Star Trek was a big domestic hit, while Star Trek into Darkness was a solid worldwide hit. You can make the case that Paramount/Viacom Inc. wanted more, especially three years ago (I was among many expecting a Dark Knight-type sequel breakout), but the film was no flop. Like some high profile sequels of late (Avengers: Age of Ultron, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, etc.), Star Trek into Darkness dipped a bit in America but made up for it overseas. And if this third installment is cheaper than the $190 million Star Trek into Darkness, then a total worldwide comparative to $457m should be okay.

Paramount wants that $500 million+ milestone, but that’s not the bar for success, especially if the movie is good and continues to maintain interest in this newfangled Star Trek. Point being, while there are fans who voted it the worst Star Trek movie ever (Nemesis, Insurrection, The Final Frontier?), the blockbuster-hungry fans who made the first reboot entry into a hit had a little problem, relatively speaking, showing up for this one too. And if they didn’t necessarily love the “old Trek versus new Trek” battle of philosophies (where it should be noted, old Trek wins out), they enjoyed it well enough in a “fun Saturday night at the movies” way.

Fair or not, that’s the demographic that turned Star Trek into a top-tier blockbuster franchise back in 2009. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong if you dislike the last installment and thus shouldn’t take comfort in assurances that this time will be different. But Star Trek into Darkness was not a “Can this franchise be saved?” miss any more than Quantum of Solace put the 007 franchise in mortal peril. If Star Trek Beyond is good/entertaining/crowd-pleasing/etc., then Star Trek will be fine.

Speaking of third installments of “rebooted” franchises opening after a disappointing second entry and in the 50th anniversary of the property (that’s a future post), the only real peril for  Star Trek Beyond is that it opens in the middle of a brutal summer binge session. Star Trek in 2009 was a summer event film. Star Trek into the Darkness was a potential event movie in summer 2013. Star Trek Beyond threatens to be one of many “big” summer movies in 2016 opening in a blur of big summer movies before Suicide Squad and Pete’s Dragon close out the bar.

Like a lot of franchises roaring back this summer, it returns not as a god among insects but as a god among gods. We shall see.


Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:27 am






Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:53 pm




Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sun Jun 19, 2016 1:13 pm






Ron D. Moore on trying to introduce new fans to the ever expanding Trek franchise:

With Star Wars, if you’re a new fan and you wanted to watch The Force Awakens, your homework is watch six movies, with Star Trek, your homework is hundreds of hours [of TV and films]. It was an impossible task to bring new people into it without them feeling like, Well, god, I have to read the Encyclopedia Britannica just to understand who the fuck the Klingons are.

Damon Lindelof on the STID Harrison/Khan not-so-well-kept-secret:

The audience went into the theater already feeling like they were being played for fools, and then their suspicions were validated, I think probably many of the core fans never overcame that feeling of, like, “How dumb do you think I am?”

William Shatner on J.J. Abrams revitalizing the franchise:

The Star Trek movies I was a part of never made more than $100 million, J.J. Abrams comes along and makes $1 billion or something — he broke the bank. He discovered why people will go and see Star Trek. He gives them this great ride… But the thing I admired most about Star Trek were the intricate stories that worked on several levels. Maybe those movies will become that, maybe they’ll just be the ride — in either case, J.J. has solved the problem of keeping the franchise alive.

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sun Jun 19, 2016 2:58 pm

Shatner wrote:
The Star Trek movies I was a part of never made more than $100 million, J.J. Abrams comes along and makes $1 billion or something — he broke the bank. He discovered why people will go and see Star Trek. He gives them this great ride… But the thing I admired most about Star Trek were the intricate stories that worked on several levels. Maybe those movies will become that, maybe they’ll just be the ride — in either case, J.J. has solved the problem of keeping the franchise alive.

Bill!  Don't be so tuff on yourself.  You forgot to adjust for inflation.



Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sun Jun 19, 2016 5:39 pm

Yakima Canutt wrote:
Shatner wrote:
The Star Trek movies I was a part of never made more than $100 million, J.J. Abrams comes along and makes $1 billion or something — he broke the bank. He discovered why people will go and see Star Trek. He gives them this great ride… But the thing I admired most about Star Trek were the intricate stories that worked on several levels. Maybe those movies will become that, maybe they’ll just be the ride — in either case, J.J. has solved the problem of keeping the franchise alive.

Bill!  Don't be so tuff on yourself.  You forgot to adjust for inflation.




I was about to korrect and type that the propper title is Star Trek Generations, not Star Trek: Generations - so I looked it up - and ver ver surprised 2 learn that Star Trek Nemesis also does not have a colon

wow did not realize ... confusing because even though officially Star Trek: First Contact has a colon, there is no colon on the poster ... (same deal for Insurrection)

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  pinhedz on Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:00 am

Someone in the WashPost just said that the farmers' markets are starting to hurt bad, because millennials don't cook. Shocked

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:55 am



meanwhile boutique foodinista food trucks are booming


Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:56 am



Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Wed Jun 29, 2016 12:11 pm



Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Thu Jun 30, 2016 9:37 am


ATTN: GRINGAS - STOP POKING EXOTIC HAIR




Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:19 am




Perhaps the greatest “what if” in the history of the franchise is auteur Philip Kaufman’s (The Right Stuff, Invasion of the Body Snatchers) proposed Star Trek feature film, Planet of the Titans, which featured a script from British screenwriters Chris Bryant and Allan Scott (whose credits included the acclaimed Nicholas Roeg film, Don’t Look Now), later rewritten by Kaufman himself. While the British screenwriters came to America, Gene Roddenberry was about to leave the country for Britain to shoot his supernatural Spectre pilot.

Despite not even having completed a script, the writing team was already being asked to attend Star Trek conventions, prompting the two writers to ask Roddenberry what to do. His response: “Forget it! Trekkie teeny-boppers lurk outside your room at night yearning to meet you and talk about science. If you must go to one of these, our main concern is that you keep your fly zipped up while on platform.”

Star Trek was viewed as a priority at Paramount, particularly after the first space shuttle, originally called the Constitution, was re-named the Enterprise. This prompted Paramount to take out a full page ad in the New York Times proclaiming, “Starship Enterprise will be joining the Space Shuttle Enterprise in its space travels very soon. Early next year, Paramount Pictures begins filming an extraordinary motion picture adventure—Star Trek. Now we can look forward to two great space adventures.” Ironically, neither would ever take off.

DAVID V. PICKER (President of Motion Pictures at Paramount Pictures)
Of all the films I developed, acquired or greenlit while I was at Paramount, there was just one project that I was simply not interested in: Charlie Bludhorn’s favorite—a movie based on Star Trek. Obviously, character and story are the main ingredients, and in this show the futuristic but accessible world that was portrayed played an important role. But I disliked sci-fi. I didn’t like sci-fi books, movies, comic strips… none of it. Had George Lucas done American Graffiti for us at UA, I believe I would have passed on Star Wars. Jeffrey [Katzenberg] became Barry Diller’s assistant after my departure, and I told Barry that as my parting gift to him, Jeffrey would get Star Trek made. Of course, he did.

GERALD ISENBERG
I was brought into Paramount because I made a deal with Barry Diller and that deal said that if a movie of Star Trek is made, I’m going to be the producer. David Picker, who was the head of the studio at the time, and I hired Phil Kaufman to direct and write. Phil was very taken with the Spock character and Leonard [Nimoy], and thought that a lot of the other characters were past their usefulness. We began to develop a script that was a time travel script that was really influenced by First And Last Men by Olaf Stapledon, which was a history of human evolution for a billion years going forward.

ALLAN SCOTT (Writer, Don’t Look Now)
Jerry Isenberg, who was the producer at that time, brought us in. We came out and met with him and Gene. We talked about the project and I think the only thing we agreed on at the time was that if we were going to make Star Trek as a motion picture, we should try and go forward, as it were, from the television series. Take it into another realm, if you like. Another dimension. To that end we were talking quite excitedly about a distinguished film director and Phil Kaufman’s name came up. We all thought that was a wonderful idea, and we met with him. Phil is a great enthusiast and very knowledgeable about science fiction.

PHILIP KAUFMAN (Director, The Right Stuff)
I had done White Dawn for Paramount and it wasn’t a big hit, but it was well regarded, so I got the call from my agent who thought I wouldn’t be interested in doing it. But the minute I heard what it was, that they wanted to make a $3 million movie of an old television series they thought would be worth reviving and there was a certain fan base, I knew I was interested. It wouldn’t have ordinarily been something that would interest me if it didn’t have all of these interesting situations, which I didn’t feel were that well executed on the TV show, by necessity.

ALLAN SCOTT
We did a huge amount of reading. We must have read 30 science fiction books of various kinds. At that time we also had that guy from NASA who was one of the advisors to the project, Jesco Von Puttkamer. He was at some of the meetings, and Gene was at all of the meetings.

PHILIP KAUFMAN
I met with Gene and I looked at episodes with him and we talked about all sorts of things. Somehow through the whole process I must say Gene always wanted to go back to his script, that he always wanted to really just do another episode with a little more money. Paramount wasn’t interested in that, because they’d already turned it down. But in the process of working with Jerry and Gene, we got them to commit to a $10 million movie, which was a good amount of money in those days.

GERALD ISENBERG
Phil was thinking 2001. He wanted to make another great movie, like the way 2001 explored the future and an alternate realities. That’s where he was going.

PHILIP KAUFMAN
Whatever the requirements of Sixties television were, they were really lacking in a visual quality and in all those things that a feature film in science fiction needed to have. I felt that those elements were in there, if properly thought out and expanded, and could be a fantastic event. We knew what the feature films in science fiction had been prior to this: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Planet of the Apes, a few of these things that were wondrous adventures.

GERALD ISENBERG
David [Picker] believed Phil was a talented filmmaker and he is. He’s made a couple of great movies and won Academy Awards. And a real thinker. We sat in a room and he basically talked to us about the Star Trek audience and who the characters are, who the most important characters are, and who is the center of Star Trek and it’s Spock. You can take any other character out of that series and the series is the same. Even Kirk. You just replace him with another captain. But Spock is the center of that series. That character represents the essence of what that show is about.

PHILIP KAUFMAN
It was an adventure through a black hole into the future and the past and all; there were more relationships really developed beyond just the crew relationships. Kirk was to have an important role but not the center; the center was Spock, a Klingon, a woman parapsychologist who was trying to treat Spock’s insanity [he had gotten caught in his pon farr cycles] and there was going to be sex, which the 60’s series never had, but we were here at the end of the 70’s and we’re in a world where great movies were being made and the times were really ripe for expanding your mind.

GERALD ISENBERG
Leonard’s basic feeling was until he sees a finished script that he wants to do, whatever you want to do is fine. By that time in his life, Star Trek was a source of money for him through the appearances and everything else, but he was refusing to have that be his career and his image and his life. He was into writing. Leonard is a true Renaissance Man, he’s a writer and a photographer, a poet, he’s an amazing human being. So with the Spock character, of course, he represents the great conflict between reason and emotion, inherent in that person, so the whole Star Trek cast was a nice add-on, but the central conflict existed completely within Spock.

PHILIP KAUFMAN
Don’t forget, both Nimoy and Shatner were not going to participate in the feature when it first happened. There were some contractual problems they were having. I think I met Shatner briefly, but Leonard Nimoy and I got along great. I thought he was brilliant and after it was cancelled, I cast him in Invasion of the Body Snatchers and took some elements of Spock for the film. In the beginning, he is the shrink Dr. Kibner who is warm and trying to heal people, the human side, and then he turns into a pod which is the Vulcan side. Instead of pointy ears, I gave him Birkenstock sandals.

ALLAN SCOTT
Once we started working on the project with Phil, we were told that they had no deal with William Shatner, so in fact the first story draft we did eliminate Captain Kirk. It was only a month or six weeks in that we were called and told that Kirk was now aboard and should be one of the leading characters. So all of that work was wasted. At that time Chris and I would sit in a room and talk about story ideas and notions, and talk them through with either Phil or Gene.

GERALD ISENBERG
We sent Gene the first draft and he was not happy at all, but neither were we. He thought we were making a mistake in dropping Kirk. He basically took the position that we were not helping this franchise.

ALLAN SCOTT
Without any ill feeling on any part, it became clear to us that there was a divergence of view of how the movie should be made between Gene and Phil. I think Gene was quite right in sticking by not so much the specifics of Star Trek, but the general ethics of it. I think Phil was more interested in exploring a wider range of science fiction stories, and yet nonetheless staying faithful to Star Trek. The was definitely a tugging on the two sides between them.

PHILIP KAUFMAN
Gene was a great guy, but it was a little bit of the Alec Guinness syndrome in Bridge Over the River Kwai. He built a bridge and he didn’t want to be rescued and he couldn’t see anything other than what he wanted it to be. I thought science fiction should go forward and I thought that the order was to go boldly where no man has gone before, but Roddenberry wanted to go back.

ALLAN SCOTT
The difficulty was trying to make, as it were, an exploded episode of Star Trek that had its own justification in terms of the new scale that was available for it, because much of Star Trek‘s charm was the fact that it dealt with big and bold ideas on a small budget. Of course the first thing that a movie would do, potentially, was match the budget and the scale of the production to the boldness and vigor of the ideas. We spent weeks looking at every single episode of Star Trek and I would guess that pretty much every cast member came by and met us.

Among those involved with pre-production on the film were visionary James Bond production designer Ken Adam and Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica conceptual guru, Ralph McQuarrie. Star Trek continued to remain an obsession for Gulf & Western’s chairman, the legendary Charles Bludhorn, whose daughter, Dominique, was a devoted fan of the series.

PHILIP KAUFMAN
Ken Adam and I became good friends and we had that sense of making Star Trek a big event with this sense of wonder and visuals. I got to know Ralph McQuarrie through George Lucas and Ralph came aboard and starting designing things. London was cheap at the time and Ralph and Ken were in London. I’d been reading a lot of Olaf Stapleton.

This was all before Star Wars when I went to London scouting with Ken Adam, looking for locations. They had pulled the plug on Star Wars. Fox and all the people in London were laughing at what a disaster it was. George and his producer, Gary Kurtz, had gone on with the last couple of days with cameras to hastily try and piece together what they knew they needed to finish the movie.

So there was this mood out there that Star Wars was going to be a disaster. I knew otherwise; I had seen what George was doing and had been to what became ILM in the Valley and had spoken to George about that when we were working on the story for the first Raiders of the Lost Ark together. It was a sense of storytelling of what science fiction could be that George was into. That was brilliant and excited me.

I’d been in touch with him while he was shooting Star Wars, and I think George possibly had tried to get the rights to Star Trek prior to his doing Star Wars. I knew there was something great there. The times were crying out for good science fiction. Spielberg was also developing Close Encounters at that time, but Paramount didn’t really know what they had. It was to Rodenberry’s credit that he and the fan base had convinced them that a movie could be made, albeit on the cheap, and I didn’t want to do that, nor did Jerry.

Bryant and Scott turned in their first draft on March 1, 1977. It was Kaufman’s hope to cast legendary Japanese actor Toshiro Mifune as the Enterprise’s Klingon adversary, which could have been the greatest Star Trek villain in the franchise’s history, exceeding even Khan. But it was not to be.

PHILIP KAUFMAN
I had loved the power of those Kurosawa movies and The Seven Samaurai. If any other country other than America had a sense of science fiction, it was Japan. Toshiro Mifune up against Spock would have been a great piece of casting. There would have been a couple of scenes between the two of them, emotion versus Spock’s logic mind shield, trying to close things off, and having humor play between them. Leonard is a funny guy and the idea was not to break the mold of Star Trek, but to introduce it to a bigger audience around the world.

GERALD ISENBERG
We weren’t thinking this is a franchise and we’re going to do eight movies, we were thinking we would make one good movie. Star Wars launched as a franchise and nowadays you look back and think that everything is a franchise. What we would have ended up doing is a version that was essentially Star Trek, but not the Star Trek that was the series because we would have focused on Spock and his conflict and being human and what being human is. And that’s really what 80% of the Star Trek episodes are dealing with: being human. We were not trying to perpetuate the Star Trek franchise at that time. No one was.

In the script, the crew searches for Kirk and discover him stranded on a planet where they must face off with both the Klingons and an alien race called the Cygnans, eventually being thrust back in time through a black hole to the dawn of humanity on Earth where the crew themselves are revealed as the Titans of Greek mythology.

ALLAN SCOTT
I truly don’t remember anything about the script, except the ending. The ending involved primitive man on Earth, and I guess Spock or the crew of the Enterprise inadvertently introduced primitive man to the concept of fire. As they accelerated away, we realize that they were therefore giving birth to civilization as we know it.

I also know that eventually we got to a stage where we more or less didn’t have a story that everybody could agree on and we were in very short time of our delivery date. Chris and I decided that the best thing we could do was take all the information we had absorbed from everybody, sit down and hammer something out. In fact, we first did a fifteen or twenty page story in a three-day time period. I guess amendments were made to that in light of Gene and Phil’s recommendations, but already we were at a stage by then that the situation was desperate if we were going to make the movie according to the schedule that was given to us. We made various amendments, wrote the script, went to the studio with it and they turned it down.

PHILIP KAUFMAN
I still remember the night when it was getting very close. I was then writing and I stayed up all night, but I knew I had a great story. I remember how shaky I was trying to stand up from my writing table and I called Rose, my wife, and I said “I’ve got it, I really know this story,” and right then the phone rang. It was Jerry Isenberg saying the project’s been cancelled. And I said, “What do you mean?” and he said, “They said there’s no future in science fiction,” which is the greatest line: there is no future in science fiction.

Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Wed Jul 06, 2016 11:07 am



Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Yakima Canutt on Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:55 am






Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Things someone else just wanted to say......

Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:07 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum