You're constantly telling me that I'm incapable of critical thinking or independent thought. Part of critical thinking is posing a hypothesis, if you will, and providing evidence to prove your conclusion. Alex Kurtzman is a lazy writer...and here's why I came to that conclusion. I don't understand why that's a bad thing. You wouldn't accept that from Dayton in some sort of religious debate.
You really don't get how things work in business, let alone show business at all. First, if you pay attention to the movie credits for probably just about every (if not every) major motion picture made in the past 10 years or so, you'll find that they list Shutterstock in the credits. Why? Because it makes no sense to pay someone to take new pictures or video of something that isn't terribly important. You want to show the passage of time using a time-lapse sequence? It's faster and cheaper to buy stock footage than to do it yourself. The same is true of using generic CGI. Why spend the time and the money on designing the CGI when you can use something generic and save tons of money and time? Oh? It doesn't look similar to the computer UI used in the series 20+ years ago? So what? When TNG premiered the computer UI in the real world at the time looked like this: It's a helluvalot different than what we have today. With far less passage of time. Let's say that creating a holographic UI for the show that looks like an updated system of what we saw in TNG (say something similar to the differences between Window 3.11 and Win10) costs $100K, while use of the stock footage costs $10K. That $90K can go towards set construction, the salary for a guest star, or props used in a scene (to name but a few things). Why is it better to create a new UI (that may only be in a couple of scenes) than hiring a guest star (or anything else that could potentially show up in multiple scenes/episodes)? Oh, and what about the music cues used in the series? Not only did TOS use the same music cues in every episode, but they were all recycled from the older TV series 12 O'Clock High (and others also used it). They did that because it enabled them to do more things that were actually important, like building sets, hiring actors, etc. Most shows today don't recycle music cues the way TV shows did during the TOS-era of TV, but have someone score each episode (or they buy the rights to use music written by someone else) because the economics of doing that kind of thing have changed. A big budget doesn't mean an unlimited one, and the entertainment industry is a business like any other. They have to weigh the costs of doing one thing versus doing something else, versus the return on their investment. What do they gain by shelling out the money for a unique holographic control system that will only be on-screen for a few seconds? The approval of a couple guys on YouTube? Is that out-weighed by having Seven of Nine in more scenes? The answer is no.
Oh, and I just checked the listing on IMDb. Nearly 1,500 productions are listed as having used Shutterstock. That's only one of the entries for Shutterstock, so the final total is probably higher. And if you'll notice, there's a number of the MCU movies listed on the first page (I didn't bother going any farther than that, so I'm sure there's more). Given that the MCU movies have practically a blank check from Disney when it comes to production costs, the fact that they opted for things from Shutterstock should tell you just how common the practice of using stock footage within the industry is.
No I get it, the majority of the budget went to Patrick Stewart. I just find it pathetic that some fans can create better effects and better stories with smaller budgets and less resources than CBS. Just like that one guy who corrected Henry Cavil's mustache for next to nothing and made it look better than what WB did with millions of dollars. Oh and having Seven in more scenes, big whoop, they didn't do much with her and ruined her character. Oh, you made her a lesbian with no set up previously and in the past she's always been portrayed as being attracted to men, but I guess you satisfied the woke crowd.Congratulations.
The existence of God isn't a matter of subjective opinion. Either he exists, or he doesn't. Like a coin, it's heads or tails. "Alex Kurtzman is a lazy writer", is subjective opinion. And as Night Funky has shown, if he indeed he is, all writers are, and singling out Kurtzman is grinding some other agenda.
Conjecture. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Banal observation sprinkled with emotion driven incredulity. Conjecture stated as fact. Sarcastic expression of imaginary victory on the assumption a point has been proven.
And those fans didn't have to pay Stewart's salary and weren't working on a deadline. Seven was merely an example. Other examples would be having to shoot on a stage, instead of going to a location or not being able to do a re-shoot because there wasn't money in the budget to do another take.
Actually, they don't try to cover it at all, it's just that you're not checking out the places where people talk about such things. Lots of people have endless fun pointing out where stock material is used. Here's just one of the videos out there that has compiled some of the movies and TV shows that have used the same sound effect.
That's one thing. It's been used a lot and I'm pretty sure a lot of people, including Lucas use it as a running gag. In Picard they use the footage of the robot and don't try and dress it up at all. The only change they make is putting the Starfleet delta on it. Come on. If you're going to use stock footage at least doctor a little more than that.
FFS I said it was derivative of it, not "exactly like it" and went on to make a real world contrast to 25 years of a design's evolution. talk about purposely obtuse.
And? Those sets aren't free. What's the budget for Mando compared to Picard? What similarities do the stories have to one another? Did fans expect Mando to be "hopping galaxies" as they do with Picard? Or do they have few pre-conceived notions about the character? Should Picard spent the extra money to fly the cast and crew to France and shoot on a vineyard there? Instead of shooting on a vineyard in California? Oh, and Mando used more locations than Picard did.
This video proves my argument forever. I'm the smartest and strongest man in the world now, and I'll never die.
Yeah, they do. You know the opening sequence to Netflix's House of Cards? Stock footage from Shutterstock. Nobody cares though, because it's not integral to the plot. It's just there to establish the location and give people something to stare at while the credits roll by. Why? What is gained by spending the extra money to do that? How long was the robot on screen? What did it do? I know in a lot of movies they've had instances where they thought a scene was fine until they got to the editing process and then realized that it needed something. In the old days, they'd have to reshoot the scene (which is expensive), but today, they can dump something in via CGI (or erase it, if need be), rather than go to the expense of doing a reshoot (assuming all the actors are still available for the reshoot). Perhaps in the original version of the scene, they used an extra instead of a robot, and before the episode was released they realized there was a problem with the extra that they hadn't noticed before, so they had to fix the problem by replacing him with a robot and didn't have a lot of time. We don't know. Look, I get how recycling something can be annoying as fuck. One of my beefs with Peter Jackson's King Kong is that there's a street scene and it's screamingly obvious that not only are all the cars CGI, but that they're the same car. All they did was do a cut & paste of an image of a Model T about a dozen times and then change the color, rather than putting in a more diverse selection of cars (which would have been extremely cheap and easy to do). But I don't hang my whole argument about why I hate that film on the scene, or even spend a long time bitching about it when I bitch about that film. I also don't obsessively re-watch the film (or even any parts of it) when I mention the film. In fact, this is the most I've complained about the film since I saw it in the theater. I've got more important things to do with my life, and I know that none of my complaining is going to change anyone's mind or get Jackson to go back and fix the problem. (Which would still leave about 8 billion other problems with that movie.) I also don't poke my head into discussions about King Kong and other Peter Jackson movies to complain about them, unless other folks are doing the same thing. Because it doesn't do any good. I'm not going to change their minds and they're not going to change mine. So why bother? It's not like I need validation for my opinions on such things or need to try and invalidate the opinions of others. It's their thing, they like it, I don't. Ain't nobody gonna die over it, so why stress out about it? Why waste time doing something like finding examples of things I don't like about a movie/TV series/director when I could be spending my time enjoying things I do like? Ain't none of us going to be watching anything after we're dead.
it seems the only source of your image is fan art on pintrest... the only NCC 1865 is in beta canon and is a Miranda class. (notably, not the USS Plymouth) You've gone well beyond the 25 ish years of design lineage and are comparing Win 10 to an Intellivision.
Because it deserves better. Star Wars deserved better too. Because there's stuff out there that gets better treatment by their show runners. Because the fans deserve better. Because the writers clearly don't give a fuck and CBS only gives a shit about money. Because it would be a little more forgivable if the quality was better. Because the character of Picard deserved better. Because Seven deserved better. Because Icheb deserved better. Because Maddox deserved better. Because there's no excuse for it. Because I enjoy the debate. Because that's not the only lazy shit they pulled (copy and paste fleet at the end). Because I hope they improve next season. Because maybe someone somewhere out there might come across this that's involved in the show and suggests changes.
Does it? How would a custom robot make the series significantly better? Did it? (And I say this as someone who as only seen one film in the NT and didn't care for it.) Would I have liked it to be better? Sure. Do I think that the universe of Star Wars has the potential to tell some really incredible stories unlike any we've seen in that universe? Absolutely. But I have no way to make those happen, and I have no proof that they could turn the billions of profits that the stuff we're getting does. And when you get right down to it, that's what Hollywood is: A business. And if you can't show that you can do better, then there's no way anyone will ever listen to you. Examples. Why? They're clearly happy to shell out the money to get what they're getting now. They give a fuck about something, because they show up for work and crank stuff out. Yeah, because they're a business and that's what businesses do. It's a free market, so if you don't like what CBS is doing, you don't have to give them your money. Would it? Or would people just find something else to complain about the series? Define "better." What do you think they should have done with the character that they didn't do? Did she? I never saw the appeal of the character to begin with. Yeah, sure, she looked good in the catsuit, but so what? Show what they could have done better. Again, show what they could have done better. Yeah there is: Money. That's the bottom line to how businesses work. Now, I'm perfectly willing to agree with you that money shouldn't be the sole determining factor of what a business does and how it does whatever it does. But I'm also willing to recognize that the world isn't set-up that way and that if you want businesses to do things differently, then you have to get them to realize that money isn't everything. Clearly. And what would they have gained, in terms of money, if they had done something different? Why should they? They've apparently made oodles of money doing things this way, so what incentive is there for them to change unless people stop watching?
Money, money, money. That's all you bring up. I guess quality and artistry means nothing to you. How is it that DS9 was able to show a diverse fleet with a lot of different types of ships and this show couldn't? They had a bigger budget. I guess you don't care if they don't take pride in their work because hey, they made money and that's all that matters.
You must be really fucked off that Star Wars cheaped out and just used an old Graflex flash for a lightsaber. I mean, they could've custom-milled that hilt out of aluminium. And don't get me started on using a broom-handle Mauser for Han's blaster... it detracts from the whole experience!!
None of that holds any weight, because it's not in video form, and narrated with a sexy British accent.
Anybody else find it amusing that the Libertarian is complaining because the lefty is saying that companies are only focused on money? And that they really don't give a shit about anything else? Why is okay for companies to not give a shit when things like human lives are involved, but not okay when it comes to churning out episodes of your favorite franchise? Without knowing the specifics of the situation, I can only guess, but this guess is informed from years of reading, listening, and talking to people who've actually worked in the effects industry. DS9 was built in the era when they made models, rather doing everything digitally, as they do now. This meant that they had longer lead times. So the guys were working on building things months or even years before they ever hit the air. They also accumulated a lot of models and other things they had built over the years that wound up not being used or were stuck in a background shot. (Remember, a lot of the behind-the-scenes folks from TNG transitioned over to DS9, so they had stuff they had made years ago to draw from.) With everything being CGI now, and it taking less time to render an image than build a physical model, they bring those guys in later on in the process. So instead of having a lead-time of a whole season, they've got just a few weeks to come up with something. And as several of the effects guys at the Oscars have bitched about in recent years, the studios are stiffing them when it comes to money. So the effects guys are having to crank out more and more product just to try and stay afloat (spoiler alert, it isn't working and most of them are on very shaky financial ground). All of which means they have less time to think about what they're doing, as they have to just get it out the door as quick as they can so they can move on to the next job in hopes that they can make payroll. What I care about doesn't matter. The studio's goal is, as with every business out there, money. If they turn out a Picard/My Little Pony crossover that makes as much money as one of the Avengers movies, they don't give a flying fuck what the real fans of either franchise want. Because they're just in business to make money. If they thought that they could make more money by showing 2 hours of Picard wiping his ass than they could by doing the series, they'd do that. And the same is true of every other industry. Because that's how we decided things in this country: Whoever's got the biggest pile of money wins. I can point out to all the various ways cars built by Packard, Studebaker, Tucker, and other extinct makes were superior to the cars churned out by the Big Three at the time, but it doesn't mean anything because the Big Three had all the money, so they survived while the others didn't. You want to make the case that companies should worry about things like artistry, creativity, and quality, I'll agree with you. I can even point out how there's evidence showing that companies who do those things make more money in the long-haul, but it doesn't matter because the world we live in is one in which companies only care about the next quarterly earnings report. So, they'll happily fire their entire design staff to increase their profits, then act surprised when sales start to plummet a year later.
Before I found out that's what they did, I saw part of some Hong Kong martial arts movie, and when a bunch of characters came running out with those Mauser's I switched the movie off, laughing hysterically. No way could I take such a film even half-seriously when they so clearly grabbed a bunch of Star Wars toys and repurposed them for guns in even a cheesy martial arts movie!
I was just going to ask the very same thing. Does anyone remember where FF was on the intellectual property issue when we had threads about that?
I'll go one simpler and in universe. How many role specific airplane types did the US military field in 1980-1990 vs how many now? Frankly, it makes little sense to have multiple configurations and sizes when a single type is able to adequately perform all of those roles. You want interchangeable flux capacitors from ship to ship.
