THE COLLISION: Episode 45 – Franchise Directors and STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

by     Posted 1 year, 212 days ago

collision-podcast-slice

This week on The Collision, we talk about franchises, auteur directors, journeyman directors, studio prerogatives, faithfulness to the franchise, and much more.  We also hope that Adam hasn’t been swept away in a tornado.  As always, we finish up with our recommendations.

Click here to listen to the new episode of The Collision, click here for the previous episode (“Marvel Phase Two, Shane Black, and Iron Man 3), click here to add the podcast to your RSS, and click here to find us on iTunes. To keep up to date with The Collision, you can follow us on Twitter at @MattGoldberg, @AdamChitwood, and @DrClawMD (Dave Trumbore). Hit the jump to check out the trailers for this week’s recommendations.

Adam’s Recommendation: Galaxy Quest

Dave’s Recommendation: Star Trek: First Contact


Matt’s Recommendation: Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

star-trek-6-undiscovered-country-poster




Like Us


Comments:

FB Comments

  • bidi

    though i disagree with Matt and Dave’s overall opinion of the movie, i will agree with the points made about the Kahn reveal and the KAAAAAAAAAHHHHN line. both fell flat. everyone saw them coming. i too was like, “why the hell is Spock yelling this? they haven’t shown Kahn in like ten min.” despite both of those things, i really enjoyed the movie. still very fun. still gives that sense of wonder that i wanna see when i catch a flick in theaters

  • Saltonstall

    This is the Prometheus/DKR podcasts all over again, where they don’t really give the movie a fair shake, and pick things apart by taking individual scenes out of context. Why wouldn’t Kirk know that that was their escape plan? Because their plan changed mid-mission, as they went from “observe planet” to “stop planet blowing up from volcano”. And that’s just one example.

  • OhDawg

    I was listening in the car and wasn’t completely paying attention the whole time, but I think you didn’t really bring up Bryan Singer. I’ve heard him called both journeyman and auteur, and whether you believe one or the other might depend on the perspective.
    He does have a pretty distinct vision for his X-Men films, and I don’t think we would have gotten Batman Begins without that first one. Now that he’s back for Days of Future Past it would have been interesting to hear your take on him.

    • Kale

      They did mention him, but briefly!

      • OhDawg

        Ah. Yeah, missed it. Well, I suspected as much.

  • http://thenonessentials.blogspot.com/ Sean Chandler

    Why doesn’t Frosty ever join these discussions? He loved this movie and we don’t get his defense of the film.

  • Kale

    Overall I felt like the movie was a disappointment, but I felt like the movie was better than the first one. I agree with you on the whole khan thing, and opening did have fake emotional stakes (like the rest of the dramatic scenes in the movie) , but they had to create those stakes, so we will know the lesson that Kirk has to learn throughout the movie. Another thing was Kirk sacrifices himself, only to be come back from the dead from taking a dose of Khan’s blood, making it not a sacrifice. Now the things I liked in the movie, were the character arcs (even though it barely goes anywhere), but the approach to the character moments is better than the first one. The lens flares were not as distracting as the first one. I also enjoyed the action scenes, cinematography, Michael Giacchino’s score, and the visual effects. I also enjoyed how Abrams made the enterprise a character in some way, because it’s battling the military ship, and it’s injured, but it’s still fighting. I felt like they could have had Khan be a good guy that relates to Kirk, but we had to have the death scene stolen from the wrath of khan, and the KHAN moment. I do enjoy the movie, but I have a lot of reservations about the movie, and I really hope that Star Wars 7 is going to take its time to develop the characters and story.. Sorry for the spoilers, but I had to bring up the points, that Matt and Dave didn’t bring up.

    • Kale

      Oh I forgot to mention, for all of those people, who are confused by my comment, I forgot to point out that I wasn’t a fan of the first one, and that’s why I like this movie more, because it took more time to have more emotional stakes (even though they were mostly fake).

  • Kale

    Don’t mind me asking, but where were you last week when the Great Gatsby came out? Did I miss the podcast for that one?

    • Adam Chitwood

      Dave was out of town and Matt was still recovering from surgery, so unfortunately we didn’t record a Gatsby podcast. Would’ve liked to discuss it, though.

      • Kale

        Oh ok, great episode last time with the discussion of Shane Black and Iron man 3. Keep doing them as much as you can. Thanks for the reply, and you were right on Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. What a great movie!

  • http://thenonessentials.blogspot.com/ Sean Chandler

    Stopped listening when at 41:24 when Dave starts insulting the readers of the blog. Has it occurred to you that maybe some of Matt’s nitpicks aren’t valid and there are good response from both your readers and in the film itself? Matt’s list of nitpicks, in particular as stated in the review, are not good points.

    It’s one thing to write for a movie blog which covers movies you categorically don’t like. It’s another thing entirely to insult your readers. I’ve been reading for years and you’re about to run me off.

    Seriously, why do you write for this particular blog?

    You spend your time covering all the updates on movies you’re not going to like. You watch the movies you’re not going to like. You then write a review which rarely matches what the majority of critics and audience think. Then you record a podcast where you directly or indirectly (through your condescending tones) insult your readers and fans of the movies you write about.

    Don’t you think your snark could best be used covering things you actually enjoy or on a website dedicated to trashing blockbusters?

  • Kale

    The differences between Prometheus, TDKR, and STID is that Prometheus had two different visions colliding into one, TDKR felt like the rough assembly cut, instead of the final cut, and STID’s problem was that the writers didn’t have the guts to do something original.

  • OhDawg

    On the subject of the new Star Trek films, this might be

    SPOILER (maybe for some, but not really unless you are overly sensitive)

    One of the things Abrams/Orci/Kurzman have ignored about the original series is the dynamic between Kirk, Spock and Bones. Oh, yeah, it’s gone into the friendship between Kirk and Spock plenty, but there were always three of them in the series. It was the doer, the thinker and the emotional one. If you wanna get all “Freud” up in this bitch, they represented the Ego, the Superego and the Id. That in and of itself made for an interesting dynamic between the three, allowing thought processes about command decisions play out as conflict between the three perspectives. Now, I realize that’s nothing new or uncommon or original, but it’s one of things that made Star trek what it is. By sidelining Bones the way they have done, they messed with that and made the whole experience a little more shallow. Also, it misses the opportunity to showcase how good Karl Urban is as Dr. McCoy.That is actually a complaint I leveled at the 2009 film at the time, but at the time it seemed to me like Abrams et al. really GOT Star Trek and would rectify in the sequel. Not so.

    (Edited for format and grammar)

Click Here